Deborah Grey

[Points Of Order, February 2nd, 1994]

On the same point of order, Madam Speaker. I just want to clarify for the hon. minister that there may be a little problem with his assuming this is a reformer speaking here. He made reference to this person's leader, which I think he may have mistaken with the leader of the Reform Party. Also, as the hon. member at the back is an independent, there could be a little error there about giving an equal amount of time. I would just like him to clarify that.

[Cruise Missile Testing, January 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked for my response. Unfortunately, he took all the time for my response.

Let me just finish this up by saying that if we are going to achieve peace we must be prepared for war. This almost seems like an anachronism sometimes but it is very, very true that we must be prepared. The enemy is world-wide.

As we heard last night in our debate we realize that it is not just conflict from state to state. There are internal rumblings. In fact, my friend is causing internal rumblings within this country. So we see that the enemy perhaps is from within. Let us make sure that we are ready for conflict thereby hoping that we never have to engage in it.

[Cruise Missile Testing, January 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I wish I had a better memory so that I could remember all that the member said, but I did take a few notes.

It is important for us each to realize in this House that Canada is not going to be in the business of firing off the cruise missile. Canada is offering its unique terrain, the ice, bush, and snow-covered lakes, to be able to give assistance to the Americans so that they can test these things.

Yes, there have been a couple of dreadful crashes in the history of the cruise missile. But when we think about that, how much safer is it to happen in a very sparsely populated area in northern Canada than to have it happen in a very densely populated area where there may be risk of life?

The hon. member also mentioned that Canadian personnel are in danger. There is not one person in Canada's military today who does not realize that his life is always in danger. When one is in the military one prepares for that risk. Many of our military members are far too young to remember World War II, but when they got a chance to participate in the gulf war it came home to them very quickly, very soundly that their lives always hung in the balance. Our Canadian military are absolutely prepared and know that there is a risk involved in anything.

I do not think the member's argument holds true that we should just completely negate any relationship we do have with the United States. Canada is not going to be taking a forward or aggressive role in this but we are helping as a member of G-7 with our allied countries so that we can work together on their behalf.

[Cruise Missile Testing, January 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this issue which is certainly one that affects all of us in Canada. More specifically, it affects the constituency which I represent, Beaver River, which includes CFB Cold Lake where the cruise missile lands when it completes its flight.

I have witnessed this first hand from the very beginning in my teaching career when the testing first started in the early eighties.

Let us all realize that an extremely important function of any government is to provide for security for the state and its people. Security for Canadians is determined by several geopolitical factors, the principal one being our close proximity to the United States. The deterrence of future threats, no matter how remote they may now appear, can best be accomplished with the help of allies and Canada must be seen as a reliable, effective team player in such alliances.

In short, our security remains bound up with that of our alliance partners. No matter what anyone may say or think, it is essential that we keep the bond we have with the United States.

While the end of the cold war and of the east-west confrontation may offer us unique opportunities to move toward a more peaceful world, regional conflicts and violent nationalism should cause us to pause and reflect.

Let us talk about the actual cruise itself for a few minutes. This is an unmanned self-guided aerodynamic vehicle, continuously powered by air breathing jet engines. This is a vehicle which can travel all on its own. I had a student who saw it come over the trees and came to me and said: "Miss Grey, you can't imagine what I just saw". It was an incredibly moving experience for him. This was several years ago when he was still in high school.

Flying at low altitude, the cruise missile is difficult for radar to spot in ground clutter. The detection requires expensive systems with sophisticated processing capabilities. This complicates developing an effective defence against the cruise missile, which is one of its greatest strengths.

Conventionally armed cruise missiles are equipped with terminal homing systems to achieve even greater accuracy. It is important that we note that because the cruise can employ radar or laser returns to fix on the target. Terminal homing provides improved guidance where the nature of the target or warhead is delivered very accurately wherever it is aimed. Future versions of the cruise missile can be expected to display higher speeds, greater manoeuvrability, longer range, lower radar and other signatures, and penetration aids such as electronic counter measures.

We see there has been a life and a history to the cruise missile. Even though the cold war is officially over, I think we realize there are still some hot spots, which we touched on yesterday, around the world. We have not achieved peace world wide.

Cruise missiles appeal to the military because they have an incredibly broad range of application. Its possible deployment in large numbers is something that makes it very effective as does its potential to combine quality and quantity in one weapon system and its ability to be modified. So you see it is not just a one-system vehicle, it has all kinds of assets of which military analysts speak highly.

The Department of National Defence listed the following objectives for this particular project, and I name some of them.

"They could fly this over a route of realistic length and width with a representative standoff launch distance to the landfall. Also they could fly the cruise over relatively smooth terrain with various types of surface cover to include snow and ice."

My hon. colleague addressed this earlier in questions and comments. They need to be able to look at the terrain and they need to fly the cruise missile in winter over ice-covered and snow-covered lakes. They need to fly the cruise missile and test it in operationally realistic weather conditions.

Let me assure all hon. members in this House that during the period of January 1 to March 31 in northeastern Alberta, Beaver River in fact, they will find realistic weather conditions. I live exactly one hour south of CFB Cold Lake where the cruise lands. I can guarantee that when they evaluate their missile radar altimeter operation over snow, trees, and ice-covered lakes, that is exactly what they get in Beaver River.

The flight path, as was mentioned earlier perhaps, includes a corridor that is 2,600 kilometres long through the Northwest Territories down through the Mackenzie Valley and through the

northeastern corner of B.C., across Alberta and into Saskatchewan over the Cold Lake-Primrose air weapons range.

I have just mentioned the timing of it but I will stipulate between the two. When it is launched from a B-52 and goes into its free flight and is operating strictly on its own, the cruise missile has to operate within that time element of January 1 and March 31. Captive-carries, that cruise missile which flies all the way attached to the B-52 bomber, is not restricted to that timeframe so it can take place at other times without that narrow window of January 1 to March 31.

They are allowed six flights per year. So when people say the cruise missile is always flying over northern Canada that is simply not true. Under this particular agreement of Canada and the U.S. they are only allowed six per year.

Let us take a couple of minutes and talk about the chronology of this. The first flight was in March 1984. To date 23 cruise missile tests have been conducted in Canada. In February 1986, a couple of years after this program got started, a cruise missile crashed immediately after launch from a B-52. The engine did not start. The federal government imposed a temporary halt to the cruise missile testing program.

In January 1990 a test was designed to test the capability of the Canadian F-18 aircraft to intercept cruise missiles, certainly an important part of the test regime. Also the American U.S. F-15s and F-16s were involved in this. Unfortunately as probably most members in this House will recall, in January 1990 upon take off one of the Canadian F-18s exploded causing critics again to renew their calls for an end to cruise testing in Canada. I remember that well because of course that CF-18 had taken off from CFB Cold Lake to do the intercept. It certainly was a tragedy.

As with all things and of course with the debate we had yesterday, do we cancel these projects because one tragedy occurs?

Again, as was mentioned earlier, in January 1991 there were several cruise missiles used and deployed in the gulf war. The Iraqi conflict demonstrated that guided weapons were very precise and damage to civilian structures was much less than in previous conflicts. We need to realize very strongly that just because the cold war has ended does not mean that peace has broken out across the world. I think we need to be preventive in realizing that some of these hot spots do still occur and therefore we need to realize that testing is essential.

We could ask the rhetorical question: Can this cruise missile be used without testing it at all? I think not. I would like to pay tribute to the communities of the tri-towns of Cold Lake, Grand Centre and specifically CFB Cold Lake. They work hand in hand with the Americans regularly. We have a military procedure in the spring called maple flag where any number of Americans come up and participate in a rendezvous or military exercises at CFB Cold Lake. We have experienced good relations with the Americans. It is also good for our area's local economy.

Further as a member of the G-7, Canada is obligated to take part in some of these things. We need to realize that as a member of the G-7 we cannot simply slide in under the arm of the Americans and say we will let them do everything, that we will take no part and no responsibility.

Again may I re-emphasize in closing how important it is for our Canadian pilots to be involved in this testing of the cruise missile and that it is essential for the proficiency of our intercept systems in our F-18s.

Finally I would just like to pay tribute to Colonel Dave Bartram, the base commander, and the members of 4 Wing at CFB Cold Lake for a job they do well. We must understand how important our military is and so we take our hats off to them. I think it would be wise for the government to continue this good relationship which we have with the Americans.

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances, January 24th, 1994]

Well, Mr. Speaker, if we talk about future tense I will make mention again that he said the member should not be worried at all if he does not contribute.

My supplementary question for the Prime Minister is this. Has the Prime Minister informed the comptroller of his decision to allow members to opt out, as he just said, and when will he decide when this decision will be implemented?

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances, January 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on Friday the Prime Minister said that members who do not wish to participate in the MP pension plan could opt out. I refer to Hansard , page 151. The right hon. Prime Minister said:

The member should not be worried at all if he does not contribute.

He mentioned this to my colleague from Kindersley-Lloydminster. However, in the Members' Allowances Manual, chapter F-2, volume II, it clearly states regarding retirement benefits:

Members contribute 11 per cent of their sessional indemnity toward the cost of their retirement benefits.

This contribution is mandatory, Mr. Speaker. When does the Prime Minister intend to allow MPs to genuinely opt out of the MP pension plan by making contributions optional, as he already apparently stated last Friday?

[The Late Hon. Steven Paproski, January 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to pay tribute and also with sadness that I rise on behalf of my party to make mention of the Hon. Steve Paproski and the contribution that he made to this House.

Steve was born in September 1928. We lost him as a friend in this Chamber as well as to people right across Canada on December 3, 1993.

Mention has been made previously of his wife, Betty, and their five children, Patrick, Peter, Anna Marie, Alexandra and Elizabeth. Although many weeks have intervened since Steve's death we need to realize that that pain, although it does dull somewhat, is still very sharp in their memory after the incredible loss of their husband and father.

Looking at the professional career of Steve Paproski, those of us who are proud of our Edmonton Eskimos certainly know that he became a household word when he was a lineman for the Eskimos from 1949 until 1954. What a thrill it must have been for Steve.

I can hear him on the couch on Grey Cup day screaming as loudly as any one of us who were cheering for the Eskimos: "Go Esks, go". They did not let him down. What a wonderful way for him to witness his last Grey Cup.

He was the general sales manager for Alberta Concrete Products and elected to this House, as has been mentioned earlier, in 1968. He celebrated 25 years in this House of Commons.

As everyone knows, he chose not to run in the last election. I am sure that it did his heart proud that he chose to go into retirement rather than going into retirement from this place without choosing it.

I have many memories of the Hon. Steve Paproski, all of them good. I say that unequivocally. His smile was what he was probably most known for. I appreciated that smile as I sat in my place during the last term. How good it was to see someone still with a twinkle in his eye being able to just smile so readily at all the things that go on in this place.

One memory that I have so strongly of Steve Paproski was when he sat in the chair and hollered for the yeas and nays. Then he said: "In my opinion the nays have it". That tone of voice and relaxation that he brought was so good that I will never forget those words ringing in my ear: "In my opinion the nays have it".

Last year Steve Paproski called me from my place to the chair. I thought: "He is going to recognize me". Of course it was a thrill in those days to be recognized by the Chair. He said: "Deborah, is such-and-such a place in your constituency". He named a little place. I said: "Yes, it is, Steve. It is so many miles from my house and has a small area of residences".

"Guess what. I just bought a lot there and you are going to be my new MP. How am I ever going to explain this?" We had a good laugh together about that.

Most recently this fall I received a personal phone call out west from Steve just after the election and he congratulated me on my marriage and my re-election. It was wonderful just to have a few minutes with him. I had no idea it would be my last visit with Steve. Those memories are precious and I appreciate them.

My final memory of Steve was picking up the newspaper after church in Edmonton on Sunday, December 5. I picked it up and before I even grabbed it out of the machine I saw the headline stating that Steve Paproski had died of a heart attack.

It was almost as if my heart just gripped as well. Something had gone dreadfully wrong. Something was happening over which of course not I, his family nor anyone else had any control. He was dead. He is dead but his memory will continue to live on in this place.

On behalf of my caucus and all members here, I would like to pay my respects to his wife Betty and their family and say once again, as any tribute I have given in this House, thank you so much to the Paproski family for sharing Steve with us.

[Speech From The Throne, January 19th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, in the time we have remaining let me thank my friend from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell for his comments and make mention briefly of free votes.

There is a great possibility that would open it up to the lobbyists so let us make sure, as my hon. friend said, that we tighten up some of the regulations. Maybe we should go one step further and not give government funding to lobby groups. We might be surprised how the number falls off if such a thing happened.

The member and I also appeared on a TV show some time last year about the pensions of members of Parliament and we disagreed on that as well. I somehow think my side might win in that regard, being with the Canadian public. Nonetheless I respect his view.

Regarding recall it is easy to say: "My people sent me here. I am doing what I am doing because they gave me a mandate". Let us remember the reason we are here is three-pronged. First of all, is the mandate theory that I am here to do what I think is best. Second, is the delegation model where people would say: "Go do what you like. We put our faith in you and we will see you again at election time". Probably the healthiest of all three would be the idea of trusteeship: "You as constituents put faith in me as your member of Parliament. I will go and do the best job I can do, but I will make sure that I continue from time to time to get a reading in the riding. I would be the trustee". That does not mean I could disappear to Ottawa and say: "They gave me the mandate so I can do as I please".

We need to be very careful in that regard. It is important we put our faith in the common sense of the people who voted for us and say that member of Parliament recall is something. If I lay that open and lay myself open in front of my constituents it seems to ease the tension and they see that at least we are willing.

[Speech From The Throne, January 19th, 1994]

We said at our wedding that one has a greater chance of being struck by lightning after the age of 40 than of getting married for the first time. So we are making Canadian history all the way. It was wonderful.

What I appreciate in a partner is when I can go home at night and just get so much personal support. That one person is certainly important and the most important, but I was told to find some friends. I did my very best and it looks pretty good from my viewpoint. I went from a caucus of one to one of a caucus and I like this a whole lot better. It is pretty exciting.

Thank you again for the support you have shown for us so far in the House. We look forward to working with everyone.

I want to pay tribute right now to the hon. member for Kamloops. It is interesting and life is ironic. I warmed exactly his seat and he warmed exactly mine. For now we have made a

complete switch in seats and I like this a lot too. I hope he appreciates the seat which I kept warm for him for several years as well.

On to the throne speech. Let us look at some of the things that went right in the throne speech and some of the things that have gone wrong. Maybe there are some weaknesses in it. Far be it for me to stand here and be terribly critical.

We are all here, I believe, for one reason regardless of our political affiliation or the way we are trying to come at this. I think we all believe that we want this country to be a better place no matter what we think of it. We are here for that reason only because it is not fun commuting to Ottawa.

From this throne speech we realize that probably the main concern of all Canadians is that of economic insecurity. Certainly that is the real focus of this throne speech. People in this country realize that they are frustrated with high taxes. They fear for social programs or the lack of a real job.

The economic insecurity troubling Canadians certainly results from many factors both national and international. Granted, there is perhaps little we can do at the international level but there are many ways by which we can determine to move this country ahead economically within Canada's borders. The way we exercise that potential influence through our taxing and spending policies is all important.

Unfortunately for Canadians, for the past 20 years we have perhaps had too much government. Governments, both Liberal and Conservative, have spent too much, taxed too much and owed too much.

Let us not bicker. Considering the hon. members on the other side of the House with whom I sat, I remember well the back and forth volleys. The Conservatives said the Liberals left them the debt.

I do not want to see that happen again. Some of my friends over here will talk about those Conservatives. People do not care. What people are concerned about is that we dig ourselves out of this debt hole and they do not want to concern themselves with the fact of whomever it was who got us into it. We want to get out of this debt hole and we will do our best on this side of the House to make sure that we put policies into practice and support this government when it brings in legislation so that we can start digging ourselves out and not worry about who dug us in. Let us dig ourselves out. That is the focus we need to take.

We must break the cycle of spending more, borrowing more and taxing more. What a refreshing change if we would be able to stand here as parliamentarians and say that we believe in spending less and borrowing less so that down the road we will be guaranteed that we will be taxed less. I think the Canadian public would support that wholeheartedly.

We are aware that the annual deficit now exceeds 5 per cent of the GDP. This government has promised to lower it to 3 per cent during the life of this Parliament.

That is noble and we will applaud that, but let us make sure that it is only the first step because 3 per cent of the GDP is still well up, $20 billion or $25 billion of an annual deficit. We will be digging ourselves continuously into that debt hole if we just function at that level.

Let us say for step one for this government it is 3 per cent of GDP but let it only be step one or phase one. Let us move rapidly toward a balanced budget so that we can break even with our arrears payments and then start making the actual payments on the mortgage.

We have spoken long and loud about this debt quagmire and we want to make sure that the Canadian public sees something in us in this 35th Parliament that we would be able to make some suggestions.

I am so glad to know that we have some economic specialists in my caucus now. I will leave that to them. It is marvellous because I have been able to turn that job over to them. I will let them deal with specifics about numbers and philosophies in terms of economics but let me say that we need to reform the economics of this country. The Minister of Finance is well aware of it and many of the Liberal backbenchers that I know and have spoken with are concerned about it as well.

Second, in terms of economics, what must we do with the pension plan for members of Parliament? I stand before you and before this House as the only member of my entire caucus who qualifies for a member of Parliament pension at this point. I speak wholeheartedly about this as well as with serious conviction that we just do not talk about it and try to make it look good on the outside. We should see substantive reforms in the MP pension plan that are really going to make a difference and not just say that we have made changes in it. Let us make sure that it is brought more in line with the private sector and that it is not such a completely enriched situation where no other Canadian citizen would qualify for such a ridiculously extravagant pension.

This process was introduced in 1952, the year I was born. It has been increasingly enriched far too much and almost in fact corrupted. Could we use that word? People in this situation will get into a program which is not actuarially sound. It is three or four times what every other pension plan is.

Let us work together on that. People do not want their members of Parliament to be poorly paid. We learned that in the campaign. People do not want their members of Parliament to sort of be put out to pasture and not looked after, but let us make sure that it is brought into line actuarially so that we are not doing anything any more extravagant than that for other Canadian citizens. I do believe that the Canadian public would go for that.

I am sure that caucus would agree with my suggestion concerning these changes when they are brought forward and we look at the meat of the legislation. Please let us not tinker with the MP pension system just so it looks good. Let us actually make some substantive changes so that we can say that this was the government and these were the opposition parties-all of them in this House-that said they were going to change this and that will make a difference in the politics of this country.

What about reforming this place? Does Parliament need to be reformed? Yes it does. Of course you and I, Madam Speaker, sat in the last House and watched the use of closure and limiting debate literally dozens of times. Let me again assure my friends with whom I visited in the lobby the last time on this side that I am going to be watching and making suggestions. I know that many people now on the government side are going to be concerned about that and give really good guidance to make sure that closure and time allotment and all these things are not slapped in.

Let us make sure that the behaviour and decorum in this House change. The 34th Parliament and the 35th election issued an incredible warning from the Canadian public to all those who would run as members of Parliament. It was this: "If you people do not behave the way any of us would behave in our boardrooms, if you people do not behave the way we would behave in our classrooms or in our private lives then we will do something about it". They did so.

We should not ever think for a minute, those of us who sit here cosy today, that they will not do it to us too if we do not make sure that we clean up the behaviour and the decorum in this House.

Let me say I appreciate that in the first couple of days we have not had these spats. Let us make sure that whatever it is we feel so passionately about we still treat each other with that dignity and respect that every one of us deserved in our private lives and that we deserve as well in our public lives.

There is a phantom in the Ottawa scene and it lives in this Chamber probably more than it lives anywhere else in this town or across this country and that is that it is so easy to become part of this group where we say: "We are here, we made it, some of us are back again and some of us are new here". There is something that is seeping through Parliament and that is perhaps that ego is number one. Let me remind all of us, myself included, that ego did not get us here, but it can get us out of here faster than anything we know of.

Let us make sure that we realize what our position is here and that is as a servant. We should not just say it so it sounds good, but say it so we believe firmly that we are employees of the people who voted us in and sent us here. I believe that ego set a precedent in this place long, long ago and as my leader mentioned earlier, we will do things in this House to break precedent and I am excited about that.

Let us break the precedent of ego. Let us make sure that when we have new parties here, so many new members here and a new Speaker here that we break that phantom of Ottawa which has permeated this place and chase it out once and for all. Would we make an impression on the Canadian public? You bet we would. What a refreshing change that would be. Beware of the phantom of Ottawa that permeates this Chamber. Let us make sure that we behave in such a way that we are servants. We have an opportunity now like no other Parliament has ever had to have a fresh start and clean it out and make sure that we are going to make a more efficient, democratic and freer Parliament.

Let us make sure that if we talk about free votes in this House of Commons that they are free and not just that they sound free. In the last Parliament we had a few free votes and unfortunately the public saw on TV just a particular member. What I got to see was the whole thing where the whip or somebody would come around and try to convince someone: "Oh, no, you don't want to do that". Let us make sure that if we talk free votes then we really act on free votes. That will free this place up and chase that phantom out faster than anything else. I think the Canadian public would really notice that.

What about members of Parliament who get here and are safe for the whole term with a majority government? May we trust the people who put us here to be our board of directors so that they would be able to call us home as shareholders if we are not doing our job? I introduced and I am reintroducing my private member's bill on MP recall. Let us make sure that this Parliament is opened up. The phantom of job security here is so tight that nobody could chase us out. No executive director of a company would be allowed to be completely safe. Let us make sure that we open ourselves up.

I am glad to second our subamendment which will be voted on tomorrow. We cannot afford to not support a subamendment which caps the finances. We cannot afford to let parliamentary reform just slip out of our hands and talk about it so nicely and yet it did not really happen. What a sad legacy at the very beginning of this 35th Parliament if we were to just give up by default right at the beginning.

I want to finish now and conclude my remarks by just giving us all a word of encouragement, regardless of what party we are with and what our political philosophies. I have a tribute to the late Senator Stan Waters who knew many people in this House and who was certainly a good friend of mine. He was my only political ally here in 1990. Stan always said that whenever one is going ahead some place one must keep on marching no matter what deters one from that.

It is not just for my party here in the House, but for every party, regardless of political stripe. Let us all get one sight in our mind and that is to make this a better Canada and make it a place where we are proud to go back on the streets or back to our constituencies and say: "I am a member of Parliament and I am proud of that". What a change that would be. Keep on marching.

[Speech From The Throne, January 19th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I would like to first of all in my remarks congratulate you on your appointment. I wish you well. Having served in the House with you for one term, you can be assured of my personal support and my party's support. We will do all that we can to assist you in the chair.

I would also like to congratulate the other Speakers and the Speaker of the House who won the election the other day. I think it is indicative that this Parliament will be different from any other we have seen in Canadian history. Who would have thought when there were only two names left on the ballot, even those of us who are not mathematicians and who thought it was all over on the fifth ballot, that we would come back for another vote.

I discovered in the newspaper yesterday that I had single handedly delivered the speakership to Mr. Gilbert Parent. I was interested and surprised to read that. I was asked if I in fact had done that by coercing my caucus into making sure he was voted for and whether my persuasive tactics and characteristics were put into play.

I would like to put on the record right now that had I gone into the persuasion mode it would have been over in three ballots. We would not have had to stay here for six ballots. Congratulations. You have a certainly exciting but large job ahead of you. Please be assured of our support for you and all other Speakers.

Second, I would like to express my sincere thanks to the constituents of Beaver River. As you know I served in this House as the member of Parliament for Beaver River since March 1989. I spent almost all of the last term here. Our campaign slogan for 1993 was "Let's do it again Beaver River". Of course we had a unique chance to make Canadian history again by re-electing a Reform member of Parliament.

I would just like like to say that my job as the member of Parliament for Beaver River is that of one of servant. The constituents there saw fit to elect me again as their member of Parliament. I am proud and I am humbled to be their MP again. I was certainly pleased to see that my mandate went from 50 per cent in 1989 to just a shade under 60 per cent in 1993. We should all be aware that all we had was one vote on ballot day and it is not by our merit certainly that any one of us is here tonight. Those people put their faith in us. We know for sure they want to see things done differently.

Let me just say again thank you to the people of Beaver River, a wonderful microcosm of Canada, albeit chilly tonight there, a marvellous farming, oil and natural resources community. Agriculture and oil are the two biggest industries in Beaver River. Unfortunately neither word appears once in the throne speech under my scrutiny.

Something is lacking. We will work together to make sure that these things are addressed very specifically because they are huge industries and resources in my constituency as well as in many others across the country.

I would also like to congratulate the Prime Minister and many other members of this House on their re-election. It is pretty exciting to have been re-elected to this House of Commons. As we know, there were some pretty big changes. There are some new faces here, but I welcome back those of you who were re-elected. I would also like to congratulate those who have been elected for the first time. It is pretty exciting to see this many new faces here. I am pleased.

When I left here when the House disbanded in June many people whom I served with in the last Parliament were very friendly to me and I appreciated that. They said: "Deborah, see what you can do when you leave this place, now that we are recessing at the end of June, to find yourself some friends".

Madam Speaker, I stand before you again tonight to tell you that I have found some friends, both personal and professional. I would like to tell you that I got married this summer. I married Lewis Larson on August 7.