Deborah Grey

[Member for LaSalle--Émard, February 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, there has been a sighting. The constituents of LaSalle--Émard had their MP surface in the House of Commons just the other day. He walks, he talks, he votes, but not very often. It is a big old country out there and it keeps a guy busy criss-crossing it, don't you know. He hardly has the time to take a stand, for goodness' sake. In fact, we would like to know where he really does stand.

On the gun registry: set your sights on this, Mr. Speaker. He okayed the cash for that billion dollar boondoggle.

On the health care crisis: he said “I will fix it”. No, wait a minute. He signed all the orders to choke the funding so badly, it is on life support.

On democracy: oh yes, he is the great defender. No, wait a minute, that is, he is the great pretender.

On Iraq: Silence is golden.

On defence: he said “I will raise money for defence”. Oops, I am sure it was he who was the one that drove a tank right through their budget. Well, tanks for nothing.

But in the spirit of the season, let me say to him:

Roses are red, Violets are blue. We need a new Prime Minister, But it sure ain't you.

[Foreign Affairs, February 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, we could flip a coin as to whether that is a yes or no.

Of course everyone wants to be ready but Turkey feels that its territory is being threatened. It is the responsibility of NATO countries to respond to Turkey's request for consultations on this issue. Some of the allies seem willing to put NATO's credibility at risk.

Has Canada informed these waffling nations and members of NATO that they have a duty to protect their allies, yes or no?

[Foreign Affairs, February 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, let us just see if the government really is doing its job.

One of Canada's NATO allies, Turkey, has asked for help to protect its borders in light of a possible war in Iraq. It is requesting emergency consultations under NATO's mutual defence treaty.

After a weekend of dithering, our Prime Minister appeared to say this morning that Canada should prepare to help Turkey.

In light of the Prime Minister's statement, is Canada prepared to pre-deploy troops to Turkey?

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, February 5th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I thank the House for the opportunity to speak in the debate. This is a huge issue that has gone on for many years.

I would like to pay tribute to a former colleague, Preston Manning, who stayed in the House longer than he had actually planned so that he could participate in the debate in committee and in the research that was done. The House owes him a debt of gratitude. I would also like to pay tribute to my present colleague from Yellowhead, our senior health critic, who has done an amazing amount of research.

Not one of us in the House of Commons is an expert in this field. I know some members have more training than others and some have done more research than others, but I do not claim to be an expert at all in this field. However as legislators we need to be wary of what it is we are passing and what the long term ramifications will be for families, for children and for research over the next several years.

The debate would not have happened 10 or 15 years ago because we simply did not have the mechanisms and the research available to us. Interestingly enough, I find myself participating in the debate although I am not an expert on the issue and do not make any bones about that.

When I think of technology from when I was first elected in 1989 until the present, it is amazing how, because of science and technology, we are even having this debate. I watched the royal commission on reproductive technologies for some years.

Therefore, as we look at this we need to think about the positive attributes of Bill C-13. We in the Canadian Alliance share some concerns as I am sure members of the government do as well. We need to come up with the best possible legislation that will provide the best possible situation for researchers and for communicators, because this is such a huge field, as well as for adults who want to start a family but are unable to do so. Bill C-13 would affect not only families but all kinds of people right across the spectrum in our society.

When the bill was introduced I was relieved to see that cloning would be completely banned and prohibited. I was a little concerned about it beforehand because I was not sure where it was going. It is easy for people to say that research and technology is available so society might just as well move in that direction but I think that would have been a grave mistake. I believe in the sanctity of life from the moment of conception through to natural death. For some government to say that cloning would be allowed would be a very dangerous move.

Therefore, when the actual legislation came out I was grateful to see that cloning would not be legal. It will be interesting to see what the upshot and the ramifications of that will be on some of the groups that have claimed to have cloned a human being.

I think about what it is that we actually want to accomplish with the bill. In an all candidates forum during an election campaign if one of the voting public asked what it was we were attempting to do with the legislation I would be interested to hear what government members would have to say about that.

By introducing Bill C-13 we are attempting to accommodate what and whom? We are interested in accomplishing what? These are huge questions. When we see legislation like this that will affect real people, I think we need to be able to answer those basic questions. I am not sure I have heard an answer to those questions.

We should be saying that we are not sure what all the bill would accomplish but that some of the positive aspects of the bill are that we would be helping families who are having difficulty bearing children. We would see people with real illnesses, many of whom have been mentioned already, such as people with MS and Parkinson's. I recently met with some people with juvenile diabetes. The bill could contain practical measures that would solve some of these problems.

Of course the debate rages on about whether stem cell research with adult stem cells would be better, but with the remarkable technology and research we have these days I think we can see that there are some amazing accomplishments happening regarding both. I suspect that the debate will carry on and rage regarding stem cell versus adult stem cell research, but we need to celebrate that it is going on at all because, as I said earlier, we would not even have had this debate when I was first elected here 14 years ago.

When I think about the bill and some of the things it is going to accomplish, I must say I am concerned that the preamble of the bill does not provide an acknowledgement of human dignity or respect for human life. It seems to me that if we are going to build a foundation for all these other things, we need to have a rock solid, firm foundation about what it is that life is all about anyway. I think this would be very beneficial in the preamble of the bill, for everyone, regardless of people's feelings about it. We are not going to go off into the abortion debate about when life actually starts, but it surely starts at some time before birth. Just a general statement about the dignity of human life would be a very smart thing to have in the preamble.

I also mentioned this earlier. It is not a surprise to anyone, or a secret, and I am not ashamed to say it. I do believe in the sanctity of life from the moment of conception through natural death. That stems from my deep regard for life as well as my most deeply held religious beliefs. I think we need to celebrate how important this is, not just for this research to go on, but for families, for instance, for a couple who wants children but is simply not able to bear children. There are not just these kinds of issues in reproductive technologies. There is even the simple option of adoption. My younger brother Shaun is adopted and I cannot imagine what our lives and our family would be like without him.

These are possibilities for people. If we are looking at it from the family aspect, it is important for people to be able to celebrate human life. I am very grateful to somebody somewhere for giving birth to my brother Shaun. I do not know who she was and I am not sure about her mate, but I do know that he is alive and that because that human life was respected before he was born and when he was born, I have a kid brother who is now 46 years old and I am very grateful that he is a part of our family.

These are the real life emotional issues with which we have to deal when we are looking at this particular legislation. The government certainly would do well to acknowledge the dignity of human life in its preamble.

When we look at some of the things that we are grappling with in terms of genome research, in terms of how we actually write up a bill like this, I think we can see that many people have put excellent things on the table. There are many amendments coming from the opposition side. There are many amendments coming from the government side as well. Again I would caution all sides of the House to look at them on their merits and probably not pay too much attention to which political party they come from. People should take them on merit alone and define what it is we are trying to come up with, because when we bring in legislation it is going to be pretty long term. Not only is this historic, but it is leading the way for future generations as well as leading the way in what will happen with technology. We have seen such monumental steps taken in technology in the last few years, and it probably is going to continue at a pretty exponential rate.

When we put these guidelines and this legislation in place, I know how important it will be to make sure that we are on the right track. Celebrating families and human life is surely what has to be the firm and solid basic foundation of this piece of legislation. It seems to me that if we get that right, then everything else flowing out of it also will be solid and firm for future generations as we continue to work with this legislation.

Let us make it the very best we can right now. Let us get it right now so that when people come along after us they will at least say that we did something right when we brought in the legislation.

[Social Insurance Numbers, February 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, we have gone from a six point plan down to a new three point plan and it does not seem to be a terrific success. This system has been abused and the minister cannot reassure Canadians, regardless of what she has attempted, that their identity systems are in fact secure.

Even after two years of departmental investigation into the student loan and tax fraud, the minister has done precious little to improve that security. Her department itself admits that there are loopholes in government programs which allow such fraud and identity theft to continue.

When will she stop talking and start plugging these holes?

[Social Insurance Numbers, February 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, time and time again the government has dropped the ball on securing our social insurance number network and system. HRDC has admitted that a $2.3 million student loan and tax scam involving 68 fraudulent social insurance numbers could potentially be linked to terrorism.

The Auditor General warned us last fall about the existence of five million extra social insurance numbers on cards floating around in Canada. That door is wide open to further abuse.

The department is completely unwieldy and the minister has zero control over it. Why is she jeopardizing our security by allowing identity theft of SIN cards?

[Divorce Act, February 4th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I too am pleased to rise on this debate. I certainly want to express concern that after all these years and all the opportunities the government has had to get it right, it has missed so much of the fundamental importance of what the bill actually could have done for families in the country.

My friend who spoke just a few minutes ago talked about being a child of divorced parents. He seemed to be lecturing the Alliance on what it was like to come from a divorced home. I do not know whether he would find this as a surprise or not but even some of us in the Alliance come from divorced families.

I can tell just by looking at him that I have a few years on him but when my parents were divorced in Vancouver in the very early 1960s, there were precious few community programs. When he talked about being the child of divorced parents and how there were great community supports, that is terrific too, but in the early 1960s there were precious few community supports.

There are church groups, community groups, Alcoholics Anonymous and Al-Anon which are very important groups. It may be a surprise to him to know that even some of them do not get government funding, yet they do tremendous work. I know that in our family we really appreciated that.

The member talked about both parents working these days. The answer to that is, no wonder because taxes are so high. Many of us know families where it is essential for both parents to work because taxes are so high. It seems there is such a social stigma attached to both parents working that if they do want to try to get by on one income, it makes it very difficult for them because things are expensive and people want to have as many things as possible.

The most frustrating part about the bill is it does not include shared parenting. When the crew travelled around the country, and Madam Speaker, you know about that all too well, they heard any number of presentations from parents who were having their maintenance enforcement enacted but it was tied to access to their kids. I think shared parenting came up a great deal. They saw many men in lots of instances--generally the custodial parent is the woman; that is not always the case but I think in large measure it is--where if they did not do this, they would not have access to their kids and the pain that is attached to that is unbelievable.

We heard real life stories. It is so easy to talk in here about numbers and statistics and all that but we saw the names and faces of real people who came to the hearings across the country. I attended the one in Edmonton. I did not go all over the country on the hearings but I think there were many similarities.

Men often were not allowed to see their kids. When one spouse, the custodial parent, is able to use that as a tool, that seems certainly unhealthy at best and vindictive at worst. It uses the kids as pawns. Surely all of us would agree that is not the best way.

Members of Parliament spoke today saying that they have had access to their kids, that they have been very blessed by that and very grateful. I had some access with my father in the 1960s when my parents split up but my dad is an alcoholic. We have worked on that publicly together. My father Mansell is sober now. We have tried to work hard and make sure that we always talk about drinking and driving and how important it is for people to go after sobriety and to work with Alcoholics Anonymous.

I am really proud of my dad. I am grateful to God for my dad who has been sober for several years now. We are glad to “have him back” because there were too many years when we were growing up and when his grandkids were growing up that he just was not able to see much of it.

We can think about how important it is for kids and the non-custodial parent to spend time together. In our situation many times it was physically dangerous because if my dad was drinking, obviously we did not want to be out in the car with him. We were taught from a very young age that if my dad picked us up and took us to Stanley Park or wherever, although we enjoyed seeing him, we knew that we had 10¢ or 25¢ in our pocket to get on a bus to go home. We were trained to be wise enough that if we were in a dangerous situation, to get the heck out of it.

As I think back on my years as a child of a broken home, I am concerned and somewhat knowledgeable about how painful it is and how difficult it would have been for me not to see my dad even though we had all kinds of problems.

Divorce happens and it happens all too much in our generation. At the same time, I do not know how anyone on the government side could think that parenting ends or, unless of course there is serious alcoholism or abuse issues or whatever, that it is wise that someone cannot see their kids.

There is this glaring omission in these proposed reforms which the minister says are going to be absolutely terrific and will make everybody's family life happy even though it has been very difficult. I know kids are resilient but at the same time there is no provision for a shared parenting role. How is that going to solve the problem?

We are just going to keep the wrangle going and Madam Speaker, you may be unlucky enough to be put on another committee that will traipse all over God's half acre. You would say no way, José, and who could blame you? Surely enough has been done here that we could say we figured out what people had to say and we should reflect that in the legislation.

There are families that break down by divorce and there are parents who have dysfunctional relationships with their kids because the kids do not have opportunities to see their parents. We see dreadful situations all too often when kids or the non-custodial parent take a very difficult way out, some by suicide, some with mental illness, some who just give up on it and say forget it.

Surely we need to do better than that. That is one thing the government could certainly do to make it strong.

[Divorce Act, February 4th, 2003]

Does that make you feel better now?

[Divorce Act, February 4th, 2003]

How does this affect divorce?

[Iraq, January 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, except for those who go on private visits and say how charming they are.

A coalition of nations is already sending troops to the Persian Gulf region to pressure Saddam Hussein to comply with UN resolution 1441. Canada is conspicuous by its absence. Once again the government gets on the fence when it could take concrete action to help reach a peaceful solution.

Again the question is, and we need an answer, when will the government join our allies to pre-deploy forces to prevent a war?