Deborah Grey

[Supply, March 17th, 1998]

They can snort and say whatever they like but no one in the House can challenge or dare me and say, “Isn't she cute, doesn't she play stunts, doesn't she play gimmicks”. These people who are sneering say they deserve freedom of speech. I would ask for the same respect.

It is so deep, the symbolism of the flag. It is not just the flag. It is the symbolism of my flag. I am speaking here for myself and that is all. When I say it is important to me, you bet it is. Maybe it is a first, that someone else would sneer and snort, but I am here to say to him and to everybody else, ain't nobody who can tell me that my Canadian flag is not important to me.

It is not just the flag on my desk but deep within myself. I was 13 years old in 1965 when the first flag debate took place. I was proud to see the end of that flag flap. I was a teenager and I loved the maple leaf. I have travelled in Europe. That maple leaf was sewn on my knapsack. I was proud to be a Canadian, not just for the flag but for everything it represented.

One of the highlights of my elected life was on October 1, 1996, right after the Atlanta games when the Speaker of the House invited all the Olympian athletes here on the floor of the Chamber. Mr. Speaker, you were here and I know you shared my excitement.

I want to look for a few moments at Hansard from that day because we have heard today that the rules in this place cannot be changed. The Speaker made his ruling yesterday and it cannot be changed, do not mess with it.

Here is what he said in Hansard on October 1, 1996: “We are going to do a few things differently in the next few minutes”. Then he went on to say: “For the first time in the history of our country, we are going to bring on to the floor our Olympic athletes”.

What a day that was. I sat farther down toward the door. Silken Laumann, Donovan Bailey and Curt Harnet, and all the others with the special Olympics, when they wheeled in and walked in, that was a rush. People on all sides of the House had goose bumps because for the first time ever they stood on the floor of the House of Commons. Let me say I was proud. The Speaker said: “We do not usually have guests here on the floor of the House of Commons but this is an extraordinary day and we wanted to bend the rules just a little because we here in this Chamber and we 30 million Canadians want to pay tribute to you and to congratulate you”.

That was a wonderful day. We celebrated those Olympian athletes. What a job they did in Atlanta. I was so proud of them. The Speaker unilaterally made new rules to celebrate, allowing those Olympic athletes to come to the floor of the House.

The editor's note reads: “After the singing of the national anthem, Canada's 1996 Paralympic and Olympic athletes left the Chamber”. It was a spontaneous, exciting and passionate rendition of O Canada . And today we are saying that maybe that will not happen again.

What about the Olympic athletes in Nagano? What about the athletes who did such a superb job for Canada? They love our flag, as do I. They serve it, as do I. They celebrate it, as do I.

What about Sandra Schmirler? With the time zone change I would love to ask who got up at 3.30 in the morning to watch a live curling draw.

What about those of us who watched Pierre Lueders from Edmonton sailing down the run in the bobsled with the Canadian flag on the front? He won the gold.

What about Catriona Lemay-Doan? I hope she is in this Chamber with that grin from ear to ear celebrating what it is to be a Canadian.

What about Annie Perreault with her speed skating? What a day that was.

Are they going to be coming to the floor of the House of Commons? Knowing the Speaker as I do, I would bet a dollar that he would want them to come. He has opened up this place. I appreciate that. They are going to be here on the floor of the House of Commons. And I bet a dollar they will be in their red and white Roots Canada jackets. I bet they will. But we will not be allowed to, judging from what has happened here today.

They can go into any building, any parking lot, any mall, any radio station anywhere in this country and they are allowed to show the flag. However if they come here to the floor of the House of Commons and if this motion is not supported today, there will be no little Canadian flags to celebrate them. Will we be allowed to have a spontaneous rendition of O Canada ? I am not sure. Apparently not. It does not sound like it.

This will be the only building in Canada where the Olympic athletes will not be able to be spontaneous. Why in the name of common sense, why in the name of freedom of expression are we not allowed to jump out of our seats, wave the flag and sing O Canada at the top of our lungs to celebrate the Olympic athletes? They have come home from Nagano. They love the flag. They serve it and they celebrate it. I want to be there to celebrate with them. I want to show my patriotism in any way I can when they are here in the House of Commons.

[Supply, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it was mentioned earlier that this was not about the flag. It is mostly about the flag but I would say it certainly goes deeper than it. It is about everything the flag represents. It is about the symbolism, the pride and patriotism of being a Canadian and I want to talk about that for a few minutes in the 10 minutes I have allotted to me.

It was mentioned earlier by the government House leader that I was the one who brought forward the motion to sing O Canada. It was I at the beginning of the 35th Parliament in 1994. I was proud to do that. It had never been done. The members said they were not sure we could do that. They denied unanimous consent and of course it went to committee.

The whip across knows that it went to committee and then they said today that we were playing political games because we knew it was in committee.

Mr. Speaker, you were on that committee and I think you will remember the dates and the times. Let me just remind you and get it into Hansard . It was almost two years later, at least a year and a half, when I said what happened to this thing. I asked the committee, of which you were the chairman, if I could be a witness in front of that committee and you granted me that opportunity.

It went through committee not by any grand gesture of any government member but because I phoned and asked where is that thing, let us get it going. You granted me that opportunity to come as a witness. It was by no magnanimous gesture of any government member who said we want to get this thing through as fast as we can. I appreciated being allowed to attend the committee as a witness but it was at my request as a result of referendum day 1995.

We are not talking about who is more or less patriotic. That is not the issue. I am not trying to say I am any more patriotic than other members. I am not trying to say I am a better Canadian. That is not the issue. It is about freedom of expression and being able to express patriotism on the particular days when it hits us, when we feel like it. If I want to celebrate Canada, there ain't nobody who can tell me that is not my privilege and experience as a Canadian citizen.

I want to give a few personal thoughts in this debate. Heaven help me if I would ever use a prop as I know that is not appropriate in the House of Commons, but I have my birth certificate here and I want to read something from it. I promise not to throw it. It reads: Name, Deborah Cleland Grey. Birthday, July 1, 1952. Place of Birth, Vancouver, British Columbia. It can be seen that this flag means a little more to me than just something I want to put on my desk, or something I will wear proudly and passionately, the red and white and you bet I will.

I am the fourth child in my family. I was born three and a half weeks late, which is practically unheard of. My mother said to me, and it still rings it true today “You knew exactly the day you were waiting for, Deb”. I had no idea I would ever be a member of Parliament yet the symbolism of that—

[Supply, March 17th, 1998]

Get this in Hansard . I had to ask to get him to come as a witness.

[Supply, March 17th, 1998]

Does the flag mean anything to you in your gut?

[The Senate, March 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister accuses us of not having our facts straight.

Three times last week we asked questions in this House. Three times they said we had our facts wrong. Three times they had their facts wrong. It is a hat trick.

There are two problems here. First, the Prime Minister denied that he got any remuneration. Second, it is perfectly acceptable to ten years later pay back your political buddies and put them in the Senate. It looks like a real sweetheart deal from both angles.

Will the Deputy Prime Minister ask the Prime Minister to stand up as soon as he returns and say he is going to cancel—

[The Senate, March 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I will tell the government member what is sick, a Senate that just condones this kind of behaviour and a Liberal government that thinks it is okay.

Ross Fitzpatrick has a company. The Prime Minister last Monday replied to me in question period that he received no remuneration from working at Viceroy Resources. That is simply not true. Ross Fitzpatrick has absolutely agreed that, oops, maybe he did get $45,000 on this sweetheart deal.

There are two stories here. We want to know what the real story is. Who is telling the truth, the Prime Minister or Ross Fitzpatrick?

[National Defence, March 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is just unbelievable that this minister would stand in his place yesterday and say that the opposition did not even have its facts straight and then about 27 minutes later was out in the scrum saying everything has been taken care of.

It is a responsibility of this minister to make sure that this kind of nonsense is not happening in his department. Simone Olofson deserves an answer to this today.

Why in the world is this minister allowing his officials to personally harass this woman?

[National Defence, March 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, an ordinary maintenance worker named Simone Olofson tried to speak up at a defence committee hearing about problems on her base.

She was threatened by the department's lawyers and they told her to keep her mouth shut, and the minister knows it. These people are bullies.

After denying that there was even a problem yesterday in the House, the minister now claims to have sent a letter of apology. He released it to the press but Simone herself does not even have a copy of this.

This department is always playing catch-up. It is always playing fast and loose with people. My question to the minister is this, and I demand an answer. Why do these people write these letters at all? Why should they—

[The Senate, March 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the people's republic of B.C. probably does not have a whole lot to say on that because the Prime Minister went ahead. The only Canadians who seem to be happy with the Senate the way it is are the Prime Minister and of course the current senators who love it.

Instead of an elected, accountable senator for B.C., British Columbians now have to live under a man whose chief qualification for that job is that he is a Liberal business pal of the Prime Minister.

Let me ask the Prime Minister, if a Senate seat in B.C. is worth 50,000 stock options, just how much would it cost for an Alberta seat in the Senate?

[The Senate, March 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Senator Manning was always in favour of Senate reform and he still would be if he were alive today.

This past Friday the Prime Minister appointed a new senator from B.C. to fill a recent vacancy; another patronage appointment, his friend Ross Fitzpatrick. It just so happens that the Prime Minister was a director on the board of Fitzpatrick's company, Viceroy Resource Corporation, and the Prime Minister was offered up to 50,000 stock options.

Did the Prime Minister consult with the ethics counsellor before appointing a man who had offered him stock options worth potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars?