Deborah Grey

[Iraq, January 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, Saddam Hussein certainly is not hypothetical, and the trouble he has caused is not either. This Liberal government sticks its head in the sand when it should draw a line in the sand regarding Saddam Hussein. He responds only when faced with the threat of grave military consequences.

If we want a peaceful solution, Canada must be proactive and help build international pressure for Saddam to disarm. We are running out of time to take that stand.

Why is the government shirking its responsibility to help our allies prevent war?

[Canadian Human Rights Act, January 28th, 2003]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-345, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to reintroduce this private member's bill. It is very important. The bill would amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to protect the rights of individuals who require assistance dogs for daily living and the rights of the individuals who train these dogs.

This enactment would specify that it is a discriminatory practice to prohibit access of an individual with an assistance dog to goods, services, facilities or accommodation normally acceptable and accessible to the general public. The bill would assure that assistance dogs, other than seeing eye dogs, are recognized under federal law including seizure response and seizure alert dogs.

The owners and trainers of assistance dogs should be given the same rights of access under federal law as those individuals who require seeing eye dogs. As the House know, that has been in place for a very long time.

These exceptional assistance animals are a necessity in the daily lives of many Canadians. They can be trained to pull wheel chairs, carry and pick up things for persons with mobility impairments, alert deaf individuals to sounds, and even dial the telephone in an emergency. I have seen one of these dogs in action. It is high time that we enacted the laws that they would be given the same rights as others.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Queen's Jubilee Medal, December 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I recently had the great honour to award the following constituents of Edmonton North with the Queen's Golden Jubilee medal for their outstanding contributions to our community: Jim Acton, Kirk Bevis, Bill Bonner, Tom Braid, Lisa Clyburn, Martin Garber-Conrad, Marcel Hemery, Louis Ho, Rev. James Holland, Gerald Marshall, Lori Reiter, Shelley Tupper, Harry Vandervelde, Sandy Walsh-Schuurman, Ron Zapisocki, Auxiliary Constables Gloria Sawchuk and Brent Palowy, Lieutenant-Colonel Pat Stogran, and Marc and Marley Léger.

Marc's medal was awarded posthumously for his ultimate sacrifice as one of the four Canadian soldiers killed in Afghanistan. His wife Marley is an example of hope, poise and perseverance in the face of tragedy and loss. She is celebrating her birthday today. Although this will be a difficult day for Marley, I want her to know that there are many of us who are thinking of her.

Congratulations to everyone, and happy birthday, Marley.

[Kyoto Protocol, December 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the political world of the member for Edmonton West is experiencing its own global warming. The greenhouse gases are getting downright hot.

The health minister knows that her vague, indecisive gaseous emissions on Kyoto will simply no longer do. Within the few days, she will have to either vote for or vote against the Kyoto protocol.

The member knows the terrible damage that the national energy program did to the economy of western Canada 20 years ago and that another discriminatory program like that will create a prairie wildfire that will sweep across the Liberal benches. She knows that the feel-good ads her government is running are misleading and delusional because the Kyoto accord only addresses 3% of greenhouse gases. She knows that a made in Canada plan to reduce emissions and grow the economy is far better than the made in Japan plan.

We will add a little heat to her as well. This morning that member said in the House that her first commitment was to Albertans. If she will not vote for the constituents out west, why should they vote for her?

[Age of Consent, November 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, this is just hard to believe. After all, we are in Canada. Surely we could have a made in Canada policy. He talks about getting together with the provinces. This is under the federal Criminal Code. Obviously it falls under federal jurisdiction.

The government is holding up legislation for the protection of our children because of cultural considerations, and he now says that we all have different sexual mores. I can hardly believe that. Even insinuating that this kind of behaviour might be appropriate or acceptable in Canada is unbelievable.

I would like the member to stand up and answer this question. Which culture is it that allows the sexual exploitation of children?

[Age of Consent, November 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, recently when addressing the issue of changing the age of consent, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice told the House that “there are many social and cultural differences that have to be reflected in that law”.

One would ask, what in the world? Could this parliamentary secretary stand up and just tell us exactly which cultural differences he is talking about?

[Supply, November 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the interlude from the parliamentary secretary. I stated earlier something that the defence committee chairman mentioned, and I should have referred to him as the chairman of that committee.

I appreciate that someone from small town Ontario trained at Cold Lake and ended up being the best. That is good news. I congratulate the fellow who won the contest. I spent an hour in a CF-18 in June 1993 with an excellent pilot. There are fabulous people in the military.

The point that the parliamentary secretary and the entire government needs to understand is that these people are terrific in spite of the government, not because of it. Think how much better they could be if they were not nervous about flying, sailing or driving in some of this overly elderly equipment.

The member talked about writing up a completely new, watered down version of a self-congratulating motion saying we are wonderful. There are serious problems with that. The motion brought forward today is not a recommendation to give ourselves a pat on the back and see what else we can do. It is a strong condemnation or sense of concern about what in the world the government is doing. To say that someone talked to two military people and everything is tickety-boo is simply not the case. Members on the government side have bases in their ridings and they know what an unbelievable frustration this is for military personnel.

There are 58,000 people in the military right now and it is hopelessly undermanned. The Grey Cup will be held in Edmonton at Commonwealth Stadium on Sunday, November 24. The entire military could fit in Commonwealth Stadium leaving thousands of empty seats. There is seating there for about 63,000 people. With our land mass and our shoreline that needs to be protected, and our sovereignty that we talk about, our military would fit inside Commonwealth Stadium. Using that analogy alone tells me that our military is not big enough.

This member should realize that the government should not be patting itself on the back with this kind of amendment it wants to put forward to replace today's opposition motion. When we are that seriously undermanned, underfunded, overdeployed, and have increasing numbers of missions and decreasing amounts of money, then something is seriously wrong. I recommend that the parliamentary secretary go back to the drawing board and see if he can come up with something that is not quite so self-congratulatory.

[Supply, November 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on the debate today and I would like to thank the PCs for bringing this forward. In some recent polling in Edmonton North an enormous percentage agreed that this was a huge issue. People are very concerned. Post September 11 Canadians are concerned about what goes on with our military and maybe what is not going on with our military. There is an incredible sense of frustration. For those of us who travel a lot there is a real issue of security and maintaining our own sovereignty.

Canada ranks 12th out of 19 NATO countries in its defence spending per capita. With the world's 34th largest population we have the 56th largest regular force and 77th largest reserves. That is unbelievable and I am not sure how a parliamentary secretary would be able to get up and talk about how terrific things are. I do not know that any person would be able to do that.

I would like to go on for quite a little bit about this but I will be splitting my time with the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. He represents a large military base as well out on the west coast. I am looking forward to hearing what he has to say.

The Auditor General, who is an amazing person has all kinds of staff that determine some facts and figures, in her 2001 report stated that the Canadian Forces require a minimum of $1.3 billion added to their budget yearly just to make up for current shortfalls. I am not sure how the minister, the parliamentary secretary, or anyone else can say we need a few of this and a few of that as if they were going to the grocery store.

Some $1.3 million is needed for current shortfalls let alone any planning ahead. We could talk about submarines or Sea King helicopters again. We have been talking about them for years, as was witnessed last week when I asked a couple of questions of the minister who said he hoped everything would go well so that we would be able to get more equipment. That is just not good enough.

The Auditor General also said that to meet equipment replacement requirements over the next five years the capital budget alone would have to be almost doubled in that period from $6.5 billion to $11 billion. This is not cheap equipment we are dealing with. Everyone knows that it costs a phenomenal amount of money for light armoured vehicles, helicopters, frigates, or whatever it is. This is intensive spending that the government needs to do. It cannot hope that we can talk about it for 10 years and then everything will show up on time. It is poor planning that continues to go on with a government that lurches from crisis to crisis.

It is the ninth anniversary of the government saying that it would replace the Sea King helicopters. I asked the Prime Minister the other day and the Minister of National Defence if what we were hearing about a procurement date starting officially on January 3 was true. They are not even able to commit to that. We are going to be at a 10 year anniversary with people flying Sea King helicopters that should simply not be there.

In the December 2001 budget the government claimed that it had invested $5.1 billion in defence since 1999. However we know the true sum. The money was either in tiny sums or committed to specific areas such as specific missions or fixing the Y2K bug. It seems like a few years ago that we had the Y2K scare, but enormous amounts of money went into that to ensure that it did not happen. Funds were also paid back that were advanced to DND, leaving next to nothing for sustaining the military.

It is a frightening thought because if the Liberals are going to get up and say they have spent so much money on the military, I do not know who they are trying to fool. Any of us who have any number of defence people in our areas, folks who are in the military, know that they are talking about quality of life issues, equipment and tours that they are supposed to be on. They are supposed to come home after a tour and be home for x amount of time, but before they know it they are deployed again because we do not even have enough manpower.

This $5.1 billion is a bail out. The government makes it sound like it is happy times for everyone and the military is going to get everything it needs. This is simply a bail out and not an investment. Some $750 million of the purported $5.1 billion will be added to the DND budget base. So $750 million out of $5.1 billion is a far cry from someone standing up and bragging what amazing amounts of money that is. The rest will be used to pay current bills or be transferred to other government agencies or to the provinces. The Auditor General has stated that a quarter of that $5.1 billion will be spent on non-operational objectives or to service the operations and maintenance deficit.

There is someone over on the Liberal side that talks about the deficit a lot, the democratic deficit. However, when we look at the huge deficit funding there is in the military, it is frightening. The operations and maintenance deficit this year alone is $1.3 billion according to the Auditor General. A cumulative operations and maintenance deficit will be $8.4 billion over the five year period, to which the $5.1 billion will be applied. This is pretty fancy math. The bottom line is it does not add up. There are huge deficits on one side. The government says it is looking after it, then it turns around and we see serious problems here.

I have been listening to the minister over the last couple of weeks and it is a little difficult to figure out what he is actually saying. On October 24 the minister called my colleague's question regarding more defence funding misguided and apocalyptic. That is in Hansard . Mr. Speaker, you were probably here that day to hear the Minister of National Defence answering my colleague saying that we were apocalyptic and insinuating that we were fearmongering about the military. Anyone in the military knows that it is underfunded. For the minister to stand up in the House and say we are misguided or apocalyptic is a bit much.

I do not know what in the world he slept on that night but the very next day, on October 25, the minister gave a speech supporting increased military funding. When asked to clarify his position a couple of days later the minister waffled and said:

--the government at the end of the day will be deciding on the priorities. However, in my humble opinion I submit respectfully that more resources for the military might be one matter the government might consider

Now there is a heavyweight at the cabinet table saying that he hopes everything goes okay and that more money is brought in. That is unbelievable.

In terms of recruitment and retention, the Canadian Forces are not just looking for overall numbers as some Liberals might say, but also the right people for the job. In fact, I would question that the right person for the job is the minister here. I really would. Instead of saying that he hoped things would go okay at the cabinet table, he should be in there fighting. Military personnel would want to know that their cabinet minister was there fighting for them especially when the Auditor General said what unbelievable shortfalls there were. Yet the government refuses to help. It is going to play Russian roulette with the dollars.

The government says it is truly committed to a well funded, well equipped, well maintained and well manned, in terms of manpower and womanpower, military. It says our sovereignty is secure. It can meet our NATO commitments or whatever commitments we have. We could not even send two rounds to Afghanistan. I was there this summer when the troops came home to Edmonton. What a homecoming it was. Those people need rest. They need time off with their families.

Then we see a government that says we are not able to keep up those commitments. That is embarrassing. I would recommend that the government really take note of this.

As the member for Saint John said, it should be happy to change the wording from condemn to strongly recommend. I think there is wisdom in that. A government can only have it one way. It is either going to believe in the military, fund it well, give it good equipment and manpower, ensure that our sovereignty is protected and we are able to meet our deployments and our commitments, or it is not.

I agree with the member for Saint John and strongly recommend this. It is high time that the government gets on with this without talking on the one side about how important it is and on the other side having the cabinet minister say that he hopes things go okay at the cabinet table. We need a stronger representative there for that.

[Supply, October 31st, 2002]

Not that, Bev. Heavenly days, girl.

[Committees of the House, October 31st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, that is the most bizarre defence of something so simple I have ever heard. He has contradicted himself about 12 times on this. He is raising all these questions and is virtually answering them himself.

He talks about standing in here and publicly announcing how he is voting. He said that if he voted in a secret ballot, his constituents would not know how he voted. He just said that he voted for the candidate for Speaker and that guy won. He has just told the public exactly how he voted for the Speaker. That is great, his guy won. Is there anything shameful for him to say he voted for X for Speaker and he won? No, he could do exactly the same thing for the committee chair.

He also talked earlier about secret ballots and how to get elected on that day. That is just fine. In the good old days people were worried about reprisals from the state or the powers that be. That is exactly the answer as to why we should have secret ballot election, because they fear reprisal.

He just talked about the election of the caucus chair, saying that people would say they would support someone, probably like what people said to him during the election because they were trying to be polite to him, then they would have a secret ballot and do whatever they wanted. Then he said exactly the answer to this, that they feared reprisals from the state or “the powers that be”, which is lingo for the Prime Minister's Office.

He says that he will go ahead with this, when these people are feeling whipped and intimidated. It may not be the Prime Minister doing this because he will not waste his time on that. However he has put in place someone to do it. How does the member answer that?