Deborah Grey

[Government Expenditures, March 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, for four and a half years I sat in the House and watched the Conservative government lose the respect of the Canadian people.

During those years the Liberals promised that when they were in government things would be different.

[Federal Government, March 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we have been in this House since January 17 and Canadians have been watching this government to see what, if anything, would be done differently.

What an incredible disappointment it must be for Canadians to realize that the promises of a new way of governing would guide and shape the activities of this government were not to be kept.

Members opposite are a mirror image of their predecessors. It is simply business as usual. The pork barrel is full. The trough has been topped up. Budget forecasting is still less effective and reliable than weather forecasting.

Junkets are still a pleasant reward and used to keep the backbenchers in line. Questionable handouts to business, business as usual. Laughable handouts to special interest groups and pressure groups continue.

How Canadians must lament when they watch this government day to day and see the evidence mounting that it is simply business as usual.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, March 24th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, we are talking about particulars the commission has come up with. Yes, I make no bones about it. I think there are real weaknesses in that and I think Beaver River deserves a longer life than it has had.

As I mentioned in my remarks the other day, it was a brand new constituency in 1988. Will it just evaporate into thin air? I do have problems with that. We have had negotiations with the government but I have no guarantees. What guarantee do I have that the system the government is talking about will be better? It has not given us any options. It has not said that it wants to move in this direction.

Yes, it makes me nervous. I am not going to sign on to something with my party and say: "Sure, let us come up with something that may be just as politically motivated". Canadians would be really frustrated with that. Even though I am frustrated with the proposals that are in place and I said that I would be going to the hearings, I suspect now I am not going to have a chance when I see the government bringing in time allocation. If it is talking about the process it wants to take part in being so important, why do we need to have it shot through Parliament faster than the speed of light?

I sat in the House and my friend from the riding of Kamloops has sat here too, listening to dozens upon dozens of members who are on the government side now screaming against the Tories last time all the dreadful things about time allocation. I can hardly believe it when I look across the aisle now. Is this the most important thing in Canada right now? Is this what this government is going to be proud of down the road? Will it be saying: "This is what we forced time allocation on. The biggest issue of the day was electoral boundaries"? I hardly think so.

I wanted a guarantee that some better process would be in place. If this is going to take place, as I suspect the government will be ramming it through, I would like a guarantee as a Canadian citizen and as a member of Parliament in the House that whatever changes the government makes it may grandfather them and put them into the life of the next Parliament after this

one so its fingerprints will not be all over it as the author of perhaps what might be its own demise.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, March 24th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his remarks. It is nice to have him as a colleague again in the House of Commons, this time as a fellow member of Parliament.

He has asked me to address the issue of how I feel about Elections Canada. Before I answer the question I might just answer how I felt about some of the remarks that were being hurled across the House. I suppose I was partly amused but also partly saddened by the consistent comments of the member for Vancouver South. He kept saying loudly across the House as I was speaking the other night: "I will lose my riding as well. It is not just Beaver River that is going to be dismantled". The member for Vancouver South was saying that his riding would also be dismantled.

That is all well and fine, but we need to draw the distinction in the House that it could be one reason the government is trying to ram the bill through so quickly, because he stands to lose his seat. I am in the position of standing to lose my constituency as well. In other words I will not have a place to run in the next election if I choose to run again.

That is why I think it is more important for someone in this party who stands to lose a constituency not to be so self-serving as to say: "Yes, let us put the whole process off". Then I would be serving my own interests and saying: "Whew, I am safe. I can carry on". There is a real discrepancy when someone from the other side was hollering: "I will lose my seat". It would be perfectly natural then for him to support his government on railroading the bill through Parliament and putting the whole process on hold. There is a real difference of opinion there. As a

matter of principle I am against it even though I stand to lose as well through this process.

My dealings with Elections Canada have always been very good. I have run in two general federal elections as well as one byelection in the spring of 1989. Even though I was treated as somebody who was almost literally a kook in western Canada because I represented a new political party that nobody had ever heard about and nobody knew anything about it, I must say the people at Elections Canada were most fair with me in the general election of 1988 and in the byelection of 1989 when we surprised Elections Canada and the whole country of Canada from sea to sea when I took 50 per cent of the vote.

Since then obviously my party has gained a great deal of strength and steam across the country. When I ran as only one of 200 and some candidates in the general election of 1993 we had undergone the process which is very general and very basic. People were appointed as returning officers in their constituencies. We underwent that in Beaver River because the previous returning officer had retired. We were subject to a new returning officer, Mr. Lorne Assheton-Smith from St. Paul. Those are political appointments, as we all know. I will send this comment in Hansard to Mr. Lorne Assheton-Smith, the returning officer from Elections Canada in Beaver River, indicating that he treated me fairly as a candidate and I have absolutely no criticism whatsoever of Elections Canada.

The criticism I would have is not of the whole situation. Maybe it is political to an extent with the Electoral Boundaries Commission, but the question on everybody's lips is: if they think they are replacing Tory hacks with something better, heaven help government members who are ramrodding the legislation through. They will do so at their own peril if they replace them with hacks of another political party who they think might serve their interests better. I think all of us would be ashamed to see that happen.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, March 24th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I finished my speech the other night at 6.42 and I am certainly open to questions and comments.

[Erik John Spicer, March 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of my party today as well and offer congratulations to Mr. Spicer for a long and remarkable career in this place, certainly longer than many have been able to celebrate.

I have known Erik Spicer for five years in my capacity as the member of Parliament for Beaver River. Of course, in my unique position in the last Parliament I must say it was wonderful to have somebody to call on who knew what they were doing in Parliament. The services that were offered to me sitting as an independent member were just terrific.

To know that there was an incredible number of well qualified people in the Library offering their services and help to me was marvellous. As a qualified English teacher who had spent 10 years in the teaching profession to see a library like this at my disposal was marvellous. I want to thank Mr. Spicer so much for being helpful to me and to my staff.

What I will always remember about Mr. Spicer as I look at him now in the gallery is his marvellous smile. He is somebody who has always been cheerful. I do not think there has been a time I have come across him, whether it has been in the elevator, the Library, anywhere in the hallways or in the cafeteria, when he has not been cheerful and very pleasant to work with. Certainly that is much appreciated as well.

In this new Parliament of course the Library was just as astounded as the table and everybody else to see so many new members elected to this Parliament. I am sure that was a huge surprise but also an incredible amount of work.

From the floor of the House of Commons today I would like to say thank you on behalf of all the members here, especially new members, for the orientation sessions that were offered regarding the Library and all the services that have been given.

What a marvellous place to work in, the parliamentary library. I will never forget my first steps through that doorway and just literally having my breath taken away when I looked at that place. What a marvellous place to have worked for several decades now. I know that he will miss it a great deal.

Mr. Spicer is leaving probably one of the most beautiful offices on Parliament Hill, but he is going to see all kinds of beautiful places.

Mr. Speaker, as you and I and the Spicers know, they love to travel. This will be a good jumping off spot for them, going from a beautiful office on Parliament Hill, the finest that Canada has to offer, to many other places.

I would like to pay tribute to Erik and his wife Helen, both of whom are librarians. I was amused when I read in a recent issue of the Hill Times : ``That a major occupation for them while moving from a large home into a smaller condo has been the packing of their books for the move''. That is no small wonder. With two librarians one can imagine the number of books in their private library. I dare say that has been a huge challenge to both of them.

I would like to pay tribute also to their daughter Erika who grew up in a home with I am sure an incredible love and respect for books. I am sure that she passes that on to her three daughters today. They are going from a beautiful place to many visits all around the world. I know they will be stopping in Vancouver regularly to visit their daughter and granddaughters.

One final memory that I have which will remain special with me forever is being on the elevator a couple of weeks ago. There was a group of senior citizens who obviously had been for dinner in the parliamentary restaurant. I just happened to be on the elevator riding down from my fifth floor office and I had a little visit with one of the women there. She said to me: "A group of friends and I have come from the lodge today and we had lunch in the parliamentary restaurant". I said: "Well, that is really nice. Is there a special occasion or what?" She said: "No, not particularly. We were just getting together. Erik Spicer is my son". It was just a treat for her to be able to come and celebrate that. She just beamed when she talked about her son Erik. That was so special because they were out for lunch on Parliament Hill and having a marvellous time at it. I will always remember the gleam in her eye and the smile that she shared with me when

she said: "Erik Spicer is my son". She was proud of him and I would say she has ever reason to be proud of Erik.

Good luck and congratulations to both of them as they retire. They are held in high esteem in this place. God bless them both.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, March 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about details in the way that this is set up versus process. That is what I am trying to draw to the attention of members opposite. I do not particularly like the way this is drawn up. I made that very clear. I have obviously riled some people on the other side of the House.

I disagree with the way it is. I have constituents who are very upset about it. Nonetheless, when we look at a process that is flawed and only becomes more seriously flawed when we all get into it, that is what I am expressing concern about. I think that is probably what we have heard more and more.

Let me address a couple of other issues before I close. Does this further divide rural and urban Canada? I spent my first 25 years living in Vancouver which is about to lose a riding, as I understand from the other side. I grew up practically in downtown Vancouver. I know what it is like to be a city person. I know the concerns of urban Canada.

I live in northeastern rural Alberta by choice. Many people are born in areas and there they are, citizens of that area just because. I chose to leave Vancouver and teach school in northeastern Alberta and so I am a rural Albertan by choice.

To me that says a lot. I realize both sides of the coin. I know what it is like to live in the city and to be able to go to the symphony which is about six or eight minutes from home. I also know what it is like to watch the Edmonton Oilers play hockey or watch the Edmonton Eskimos play football when it is a three hour, one way drive for me. I know what it is like to be a rural Canadian.

I would like to invite the commissioners who sit as the Alberta commissioners, two from Calgary, one from Edmonton, to come and spend a week with me in Beaver River, in my four by four. They would understand what rural Canada is all about. They would understand what it is like to travel 28,000 square kilometres regularly from end to end of our constituency. In terms of square kilometres mine is far smaller than many others. If we look at the map, if we look at the riding which is north of mine, Peace River, Athabasca, those take up physically literally half of Alberta's square kilometres.

Beaver River is small in comparison to that but I would love the commissioners to come with me in my four by four. I appreciate my friend from Broadview-Greenwood. We have known each other well over the years. I always remember his saying he could ride around Broadview-Greenwood on his

bicycle in about an hour and a half. I have given him a standing invitation to come on out to the "Beav" and we would see how far he would get on his bicycle-not very.

I looked up the mileage of the three vehicles that I have gone through since my election in March 1989. There is my basic four by four that I spend most of my time in the riding with. I have also put lots of miles on my truck and camper, a small car and another truck when I have needed to.

On my four by four that I do most of my business travelling with I have put 324,000 kilometres. I am no mathematician but I divided that out. It is basically 8,000 kilometres across Canada. That is 40.5 trips from sea to sea across and around Beaver River. That is an incredible number of miles.

Rural Canada is an exciting place to live but let me tell members that in terms of hours and time and driving and getting around, driving two hours or three hours one way to a one and a half hour meeting and then turning around driving three hours home again is an incredible amount of time chewed up. However, it is peaceful time.

Telephone time, if I need that, is marvellous. Why would we take that away from people? What is wrong with urban Canada's getting to know its country cousins better? Why could we not redraw these boundaries by taking a corner of the population out of a city and moving it into the rural areas? Why do we need to be so firm and obsessed with city boundaries all the time?

Why not take a corner out of some of the population of four or five thousand people in Edmonton and tell them they have something in common with these people? The guidelines that the commissioners were given say that boundary readjustment must take into account human interests and geographic characteristics.

Every one of those people who lives in Edmonton, Toronto or whatever is eating the bread that was grown for them on these farms. They do have something in common with urban and rural Canada. Why do we not celebrate that instead of always moving it off against each other? There are such divisions between the country and the city. We need to celebrate what we share in common rather than saying that person is from the country, that one is from the city and we have nothing more to gain from each other, we have precious little in common.

That is wrong. That is incorrect. We need to look at these things and say that there are problems in the way this commission has gone about doing it. However, that is not the end of the world. One does not make a matter worse by having the government and the Official Opposition jump up and say that we should shelve it, that we should try to come up with something better.

I would be in favour of that if I had a list of possibilities of what might be better. I really would. Let us make sure that we have some options on the table rather than saying that we will put a committee together. I get nervous when I see things like that and when I hear things like that.

As rural Canada and rural MPs are called upon to represent larger and larger areas, we need to be very careful that we do not get into the situation in which MPs feel absolutely worthless because they simply cannot cover the physical distance.

I think of my friend to the north of me from Athabasca, an incredibly large area. There is my friend from the western Arctic and my friend from Churchill. How do they get around? Why would we in Beaver River say that we are totally happy with being able to say take the north end of the riding and move it up to Athabasca, it can use a few thousand square kilometres extra, what the world? When one has 200,000 what is another 10,000 or 15,000?

Those are people who live there. Those are real people who live in Lac-la-Biche and they want to see their MP. They want to talk to their MP and know what their MP looks like and thinks. What about the people who live in St. Paul and Bonnyville and Cold Lake? They are going to become part of the Vegreville-St. Paul riding then, no problem. We will just throw a few thousand square kilometres on to that riding.

There have been rapports built up with members of Parliament. I suspect that is why there is nervousness built up on the government benches to a great extent. They have built up rapports with their constituents, absolutely. I have built up a rapport with mine. I have a fine group of people I represent and I am proud to say that I am the representative of Beaver River.

What about the people in bedroom communities of Edmonton, Namao, Gibbons, Bon Accord, Redwater? Those people are going to become part of Elk Island. Sorry, folks, we will just add a few thousand square kilometres on to Elk Island. My friend from Elk Island will represent any number of other towns. As I have heard so often today, the split or the general movement or flow of those people probably would not be to that area but to the west of them, over to St. Albert.

This is flawed. I have serious problems with it but the reason we are so concerned about this, let me reiterate very firmly, is that the process for this is dreadfully flawed. The process in my neighbour's province of Saskatchewan is the same thing.

Under this particular format it may lose a seat. We look at constitutional limitations on it. That is one thing. Do we toss it aside and say we are going to try and come up with something better? I hardly think so.

What about my neighbours in my home province of British Columbia where the population is growing at an incredibly rapid rate? They have some serious considerations about the flaws in this as well, where things were drawn up, where there are so many people.

Look at discrepancies in constituency numbers. These people need a chance to be able to say they will go to those hearings and we as Canadians or as members of Parliament will go to those public hearings because that is the system, that is the way it was set up and that is exactly what we need to do, not sit here in Parliament and cook up some deal in which we will shelve the thing for 24 months.

In closing, I hope that the Canadian public has learned something here today in terms of process about this whole review. Let us make sure that Parliament does not have its fingerprints all over this process. Let us open it up. Let us consult the people first and then make decisions.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, March 21st, 1994]

Nonetheless, how much will it cost to redo this completely? How much does it cost for lost time when the government is trying so desperately to get some other bills through vis-à-vis money and the borrowing authority?

We look at things that it wants to put through Parliament and then all of a sudden now we have a crisis that we need royal assent just as quickly as possible.

Why is it that people are so frustrated with this? There are problems but could it be that they would be losing out politically? That is the one thing that this commission was set up originally to do, to try to keep politicians' hands out of the works of this. If ever we have seen politicians' hands and dirty finger marks all over everything we see it today in this Chamber on March 21, 1994. That is a sad day in Canada as far as I am concerned.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, March 21st, 1994]

Certain people have talked about it on the government side but basically only in questions and comments. I think that would be the general consensus in the House. They have probably been asked not to speak because they wanted the debate to die out, as we saw when they requested extra time. Let us not be foolish. There are people who have all kinds of concerns. We will continue to talk about this matter until something is done about democracy in the country. We would not see politicians getting in the way of electoral boundaries commissions that have been set up. We can talk about reasons: why they are set up and whether they are politically motivated. I will talk about that for a couple of minutes also.

As soon as politicians get their hands into the tub we know there is something going wrong in the Chamber that is filtering out across the country. We are saying it must stop. We are not trying to be sanctimonious. I am not standing here trying to be self-righteous because I stand to lose. My constituency of Beaver River was brand new in 1988. It lived through the 1988 election and the 1993 election, and under this proposal it stands to die.

It is easy for someone to sit on the other side, chuckle about it and say: "Look at her". However, I have no seat in which to run in the next election. I want that very clear and I want that on the record. I stand here and that Beaver River lives, but let us make sure Beaver River has a chance to live in terms of the process of going to the hearings and making representations on April 27 and April 28. That is what we are talking about here.

It is easy to ask whether this was politically motivated. That is not for me to say. This is supposed to be a commission that has worked at arm's length from the government. I cannot quarrel or quibble with that.

Recently I was at a hockey game in Elk Point and player came off the benches to me and asked: "Deborah, could they not have made it any more subtle that they were trying to get rid of you"? Of course the circumstances were such that in the last Parliament I sat here as the only Reform member in all of Canada. My friend from Edmonton-Strathcona just mentioned that the head justice of each province was set up by the chief justice of the province. We have that situation in Alberta and the two members of the commission, one from Calgary and one from Edmonton, were appointed by the Speaker of the House of Commons.

If in Elk Point, Alberta, somebody comes off a hockey bench and says "boy, it sure looks political to me", we need to pay attention. It is not self-righteous to stand here and say that is all they are trying to do. That is not the point.

We are trying to say that something has been set up here whether or not we like it. Whether my friend's riding in Vancouver has been blitzed is not the issue. My friend from Vancouver should be there, absolutely firmly at those public hearings. That is his chance to talk about it. He should not hurl insults and comments across the House of Commons because it gains nothing. It is his party that has brought it in.

It is sad to me that the public is feeling skeptical about the matter. Members of my party from various ridings have said today that they did not think there was much a hue and cry. Maybe in their ridings there has not been, but certainly in Beaver River there has been.

The constituency of Beaver River, although it was a brand new riding in name in 1988, has a marvellous history in north eastern Alberta. The Beaver River itself is an amazing waterway which was a trading route for the fur traders or the voyageurs into the Athabasca region. They came to Lac-la-Biche, up the Beaver River, portaged very few miles across to the Athabasca and were gone all the way north.

It was a really exciting moment in our history when people on the previous commission decided that Beaver River riding would be named. As I have said, why would the constituency have such a short history?

In terms of setting records, if this bill goes through as proposed, yes, they will shelve it for 24 months. That is fine but what will happen after? If it goes through I will have sat as the only member of Parliament for the entire life of the constituency of Beaver River. We feel old and start looking old quickly in this place, but it seems to me that is a pretty short shelf life for a constituency.

I am not arguing all in favour of the proposal because I have some serious reservations about it. I have been in touch with the person with whom we are to get in touch to say that I will be appearing in Lac-la-Biche, Alberta, at McArthur Place on Wednesday, April 17, 1994, at 7.30 p.m. That is where I am to go as a citizen and as a member of Parliament. That is what was set up in terms of stages that we are to go through.

I sent in my notice saying that I would be appearing before this public hearing commission. Why should that be kiboshed? If I have any reservations about it, it would be just to ask one question: why did the commissioners draw up their lines first and consult second?

I have problems with the process. I have problems with the map that has been redrawn because I have serious reservations about totally eliminating a particular constituency that is brand new. I have a method in place to go and voice my concerns and my complaints about that. That is to go and talk to the people at the public hearings.

Five million dollars has been spent on this already and are we going to throw it off on the shelf?

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, March 21st, 1994]

My friend says: "Because they are getting rid of Beaver River". Let us cut to the basics here. That is very true. It would be easy for me to stand today in the House of Commons and say I think that shelving the whole thing is a marvellous idea. We would then see a cocooning of Beaver River and, if it were politically motivated, I would say: "Whew, that makes me safe".

There is something far deeper, far more democratically essential in terms of this debate. Whether I would lose my constituency or whether my neighbour from Kindersley-Lloydminister would, as is the case as well, that is not the issue. People watching the debate need to be aware of exactly what is going here and the things they have heard from just one party in the House. Granted, the government House leader spoke and someone from the Bloc spoke, but basically they have heard from the Reform Party.

Why has the Reform Party been talking about this bill all day long? Why are we concerned about the whole idea? If it were just political we would say: "Let us put the thing off, shelve it for two years, and get back to looking at the details later". That is not the case here.