Grant McNally

[Violent Offenders, May 6th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is not rumour that two convicted criminals walked away from a camp in my riding. That is a fact. It is not rumour that they are now the prime suspects in a double murder.

Why is it that the government says that safety is its number one priority when people only find out about these things when those individuals commit a double murder?

[Violent Offenders, May 6th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question about protecting public safety. There is more bungling by the solicitor general. Two convicted serious criminals walked away from Elbow Lake Camp in my riding two weeks ago. The only reason we know about it is that they are now prime suspects in a double murder case.

If public safety is the government's number one priority, why does it take a double murder before my constituents are even informed about this walkaway?

[Budget Implementation Act, 1999, May 4th, 1999]

Even the Liberal members on the other side are echoing in agreement with me about their high tax policies and how they need to be lowered. In fact, the Minister of Industry just yesterday and last week said that taxes are too high in the country and that taxes need to be lowered to the rate of the American model.

We have the Prime Minister contradicting the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Finance looking both ways, as if at a tennis match, trying to figure out what is going on. The Liberals cannot even figure it out over there. The Minister of Industry has figured it out. Taxes are simply too high and they need to be lowered. There is a debate about that over on that side because they do not want to let go of those dollars. They do not want to provide the tax relief that is necessary to provide the care for families.

I hear the hon. member from Coquitlam chirping away, a man who said he was no yes-man during his byelection campaign yet voted with the government to punish families through high tax policy. He continues to chirp away, as do other members of the Liberal government who are trying to run from the record. Canadians are not going to let them hide any longer, because it is their high tax policy that is putting down a lot of people in the country, keeping them from taking their rightful place by working hard and providing for their families.

It used to be that individuals would work really hard to put some money aside for a second car or for a cottage at the lake. Today, families are working harder and harder to put food on the table and provide clothing and shelter for their families.

In conclusion, I simply say to my Liberal colleagues across the way, who seem to be deaf to the voices of their own constituents and Canadians across the country, that substantial tax relief is necessary to provide relief to Canadian families. We would have hoped to have seen that in Bill C-71, but, alas, the government continues to punish Canadians with high taxes.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1999, May 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, today we are talking about Bill C-71, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget that was tabled by the finance minister in February.

I would like to talk about some of the things that the finance minister has done in his reign of terror, as some would say, his reign of taxation. The minister of high taxes, who sits across the way, has slashed and burned health care spending to the tune of $20 billion from 1993 to the year 2000. Since he took office that is what the minister has done and that is unconscionable. This is also the finance minister who says that he is reinvesting $11.5 billion over five years and wants Canadians to be happy about that.

Let us look at the big picture of what he is asking Canadians to do. He is asking Canadians to accept the fact that he has taken away $20 billion in spending on health care and social services, the CHST, and is putting back $11.5 billion. I do not know very many Canadians who would be happy to hear that they will lose $1 from their pocket but that they may get 50 cents of that back or a little bit more. That does not make sense, but that is exactly what the finance minister has done. He has slashed and burned health care in the country.

The Liberal finance minister, who stands in this place and tells us he is the defender of health care and the creator of everything good in the country, cannot run from his record. He can run, but Canadians are not going to let him hide from his record, nor should they. Members of the official opposition will continue to point out the facts of what the finance minister has done in his slash and burn approach to health care spending.

The minister of the high taxation that we have in the country, and who has been the finance minister for six years, has also implemented or allowed a policy to continue for years concerning the whole issue of family tax fairness. We brought this up not long ago in the House of Commons and had wide agreement on it from the members of the opposition and from members of the government as well.

This is a finance minister who says he cares about the tax rates in the country and the burden of taxation on families, yet he does absolutely nothing for those families who make the decision to have one of the individuals in the home stay home to look after and give care to their children. There is an inequality that has been entrenched in policy by this minister of high taxation and he has not addressed that for six years.

If we look at a person's words and actions, words can be empty after awhile if they are not followed up by action. We must first listen to what somebody says and then look at what they do. If what they do, does not match up with what they say, then we should be questioning what it is they are saying to see whether what they say and what they do are actually the same thing. In this case, they are not.

The minister of high taxation has told us that he cares about families and about lowering tax rates for average Canadians. However, that is not what I am hearing from constituents. That is not what I heard from the individuals I talked to in Hamilton last night or in Stoney Creek, Ontario a few weeks ago.

I have talked to individuals in Dewdney—Alouette and to many young families this past weekend at an event in Maple Ridge. They asked me how a government could be in place that says it cares about families yet has a discriminatory tax policy in place that favours one situation of care giving over another. They said to me, “It looks like the government does not see the value in the commitment we are making to have one of the individuals on our family stay home and look after our children.” That is a shame, because there are many families who are making that sacrifice and commitment to their families for the good of the country.

The Liberal government and members of the government say such things, as the hon. member from Vancouver—Kingsway did, that mothers or families who would make the decision to stay home are taking the easy way out. That is the response we hear from the government.

The member for St. Paul's referred to the individuals who came before the all party finance committee to plead their case as elite white women.

These are members of the Liberal government saying these kinds of things. They can run and they are trying to run, but they cannot hide from their record and what they have done. Canadians are waking up to the fact that the policies that are being put in place—

[Kosovo, April 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, this seems to be the first real admission that Milosevic is backing down. We must seize this opportunity to negotiate a UN settlement.

Is the Canadian government talking with our allies today to negotiate a UN force and its involvement in Kosovo?

[Kosovo, April 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we have a responsibility to investigate all possibilities for peace. This appears to be an admission by Milosevic that the NATO bombardment is working.

Is the government prepared to negotiate with Milosevic to bring a UN force into Kosovo?

[Kosovo, April 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we have just received news that the Yugoslavian government is now saying it would consider allowing an international military force into Kosovo if the United Nations Security Council wishes to send one.

This could be the first serious olive branch put forth by Milosevic. What specific diplomatic actions is Canada taking to ensure that this latest offer is being taken seriously?

[Fraser River, April 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in my riding and in other ridings in B.C., local emergency officials are warning residents to be well prepared and ready for a flood or high water. If the area gets a long hot spell, a record snow fall or heavy rains, it could cause a major flood on the Fraser River.

Not to worry, some say, because the municipal dikes are built to withstand a flood equal to the devastating floods of 1894 and 1948. However, local officials have told me that due to cutbacks in funding more than 100 kilometres of dike in the valley have been poorly maintained and do not meet that standard. Much of that 100 kilometres is in my riding.

If a flood should occur, how can I assure my constituents that they will receive the emergency assistance that the military can provide so well, when the Liberal government has closed CFB Chilliwack? Will men and equipment be flown in from Alberta to Abbotsford airport which might be under water?

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Surely the government can assure British Columbians that it has done all it can to prepare for the possibility of flooding and that it is ready to provide immediate effective assistance if a flood should occur.

[Criminal Code, April 20th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of debate today in the House on this topic. There has been a lot of debate on a particular question, as well as many others, which has been made raised a number of times. I am referring to the definition of victim as set out in Bill C-79.

Would my colleague indicate whether or not he agrees with the definition spelled out in Bill C-79? Or, does he think it is too restrictive and does not include enough people in the category of victim?

[Criminal Code, April 20th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, before I got into politics I was somewhat cynical about the whole process of politics.

The member for Langley—Abbotsford lives in a community neighbouring mine. I saw a number of articles in the newspapers having to do with issues he was raising. It made a lot of sense, particularly in the area of victims rights. I know there were a number of incidents in my own community where victims were created by acts of criminal negligence.

There was a young gal whose sister was killed by a drunk driver just a few blocks from my home. I know the member was involved in that situation. His involvement in the lives of those victims is ongoing, as well as others he mentioned in his speech. I want to thank him for taking a stand on that. That is one of the reasons I got involved in this process, to make some positive changes.

It may be difficult in a short period of time, but I would like my colleague to give a few personal reflections of his involvement in this issue and how it has impacted on him and motivated him to seek these changes in such a positive way as he has.