House of Commons photoWon her last election, in 2006, with 39% of the vote.
Softwood Lumber November 2nd, 2001
Mr. Speaker, the minister keeps insisting that he is under no obligation to call a national stakeholders meeting because the current softwood lumber meetings with the U.S. are talks only. The provinces, industry and the minister himself have called these thinly disguised negotiations what they are: negotiations.
By not calling a stakeholders meeting, the minister is favouring negotiations over litigation. Why will the minister not call a national stakeholders meeting?
Religious Organizations November 1st, 2001
Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister seems to be taking his cue from Henry VIII, Robespierre and Lenin. It does nothing to help the victims of residential schools to make victims out of Canadian churches.
Why should Canadian churches be asked to mortgage their beliefs to pay for the government's past mistakes?
Religious Organizations November 1st, 2001
Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister has demanded that Canada's churches sign over their buildings. The reason is that they want a mortgage on the churches in exchange for financial assistance in paying for the residential school lawsuits.
What will the Deputy Prime Minister do with these church buildings once he forecloses?
Meryl Matthews October 29th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I recognize Meryl Matthews, a friend, a constituent and a gracious lady with a backbone of steel. Meryl was a politician until age 75 when she retired from the school board to make more time for bridge. She served as an outspoken city councillor and a school trustee.
For 30 years Meryl was a member of the editorial department of a Kamloops newspaper and was city editor for 10 years. Along with the responsibility of these full time positions she managed a flower shop with her husband Fred. We should note that this was long before there were gender equity programs.
This is a woman who understands balance. She worked all her life in her chosen career and grew fabulous roses for pleasure. Meryl donated her fabulous rose garden to the city when she moved into an apartment a few years ago. Everyone in Kamloops continues to enjoy them. Named a freeman of the city in 1987, Meryl can still remember every event that shaped Kamloops, the town where she was born 90 years ago, and describe it in accurate, concise words. Meryl is a role model for all women.
I ask my fellow politicians to salute Meryl Matthews as she celebrates her 90th birthday this month.
Anti-Terrorism Act October 17th, 2001
Madam Speaker, there are obvious basic philosophical differences between the Liberal Party and the Canadian Alliance. The Liberals tend to be reactive, not proactive. The legislation in front of us today should not have been handled and developed as emergency legislation.
The Canadian Alliance and the Reform before it have been calling on the government to recognize the shortfalls and the shortsightedness in the funding of military, police and protective services for years.
Having said that, this is a case where we have to pull together for Canada. I will support Bill C-36, but I will point out some of the things that I believe are flawed.
The Canadian Alliance put forward a motion on September 17 which called for the naming of all known international terrorist organizations operating in Canada. We asked for a complete ban on fundraising activities in support of terrorism and provisions for the seizure of assets belonging to terrorists or terrorist organizations. We asked for the immediate ratification of the international convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism and for the creation of specific definitions of crimes for engaging in terrorist training activities in Canada or inciting terrorist activities abroad from Canada.
We asked for the prompt extradition of foreign nationals charged with acts of terrorism even if the charges were capital offences. We asked for the detention and deportation to their country of origin of any people illegally in Canada or failed refugee claimants who were linked to terrorist organizations.
The legislation in front of us, which I will support, addresses some of those issues. I do believe, however, that we have room for improvement. The legislation does nothing to remedy the current extradition situation resulting from the Burns and Rafay decision made by the Supreme Court of Canada. Since this decision Canada has become a safe haven for criminals. That is beyond denying. It has been happening for years.
It allows for consecutive sentences for some terrorist related crimes. Life sentences, however, are exempted. This creates a 5,000 for one price on terrorism. A person is allowed to kill 5,000 people and pay the same penalty as if only one life was taken. That is unjust and unfair, and it needs to be addressed.
The legislation does nothing to guarantee reliable and long term funding for frontline people who are working against the war on terrorism. It will be ineffective unless those frontline people are given guaranteed resources to enforce the provisions. That means it must be addressed through a budget and it must become a priority of the entire House, not just the Canadian Alliance.
The legislation will raise civil liberty concerns. The increased stability of our police and security agencies to pry into the personal lives of Canadians will set off alarms from civil liberty agencies and groups. Preventive arrests in investigative hearings will surely be challenged by the charter.
I agree that it is necessary for us to take these steps at this point in time, but I would like to see us take a very long and sober look at putting in place a measure that would allow us to look at it again in the near future. The minister attempted to give the House her word that things would go well and that this would be reviewed. She said that we should not worry about minor details. These are not minor details; they are very major details.
For members who wonder why I have a lack of trust I will point to a few pieces of legislation. The Income Tax Act was a temporary measure put in place many years ago. It was to fund the war effort and then disappear. Not only has it not disappeared. It has increasingly taken more and more money out of the pockets of everyday Canadians. That is one reason I am not trusting at this point in time and I want to see something stronger.
We also had the very strong election promise from the Liberal government to do away with the GST and it was ignored entirely after the election.
I am concerned that under this piece of legislation one would be forced to testify against oneself. In the case of terrorism I am fully supportive of that. One should be forced to testify and to give answers to questions asked by our personnel. However there is not a case in point where there is a timeline when this would elapse or when we would have an opportunity to bring it back.
I do not want the legislation in front of us, which I will support, to turn into something like the Income Tax Act or any other piece of legislation that has never come back before the House and has lived a long life with no sign of its demise or end.
The amendments to the Access to Information Act are troubling. It would appear that the Liberals are using this critical time as an opportunity to implement restrictions on access to government information by Canadians. I hope that is untrue but that is the way I view it at this time.
As a member of parliament trying to access information through the current channels is next to impossible. It takes forever. I have tried to access information for my constituents. They wonder why as an MP I have to jump more barriers than are necessary to get information. It is something that is very important and that we need to address.
The legislation does not name any specific terrorist groups operating in Canada. This information is readily available from CSIS and the RCMP. When those questions were asked we were told that for reasons of security the information could not be disclosed in the House. That is a very difficult explanation to swallow.
I am disappointed the government has made most of its announcements regarding terrorism at press conferences rather than at meetings with all members of the House. There are 301 members who were elected to the House to represent the people of Canada. We should not leave the decisions to a small handful of 12 who sit in cabinet. It is unfair and undemocratic. It is a practice that must stop.
Written codes of practice on the seizure and retention of property and silent video recordings are required. Interviews of detainees by police must be audio recorded in accordance with the code of practice. Canadian legislation has no such safeguards.
The 170 page document has been a great deal to absorb in a short period of time. It has been very difficult to absorb. It is not what I would recommend as nightly reading. I have relied on my colleague from Provencher for advice, discretion and the ability to answer questions that I am unable to answer.
I want to make certain this is not another case where we do not get an opportunity to openly debate legislation. We must have a say in how this happens. We must listen to the voices of the people whom we represent. The people in my constituency of Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys have e-mailed, written and telephoned me. Their concerns are wide ranging but the biggest concern is the secrecy behind how all this was put together. I have tried to explain parts of the act to them but it is difficult for me to do so.
The government needs to be more open. We need a better understanding of what is in front of us and for once the House needs to act as a team. We are all on the same team. We are looking to protect Canadians, our homeland and our neighbours.
The act limits the power to grant bail to certain higher court judges, thus limiting instances in which bail would be given. Canadian legislation does not close the loophole. American legislation places extensive stress on deportation provisions. We are not doing that.
I will support the legislation. I give the government points for trying its best to put things together, but I urge it to listen carefully to what members on both sides of the House have to say and to put together something that benefits all of Canada.
Softwood Lumber October 5th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, then maybe the hon. minister should find a better way to ask. As the Indonesian plywood deal made very clear, the United States is now making trade and other economic concessions to its coalition partners.
MPs from all parties agree that the duty against softwood lumber is damaging our forestry industry. Will the government listen to Canadians and their representatives and take action to save the nearly 50,000 jobs that are in jeopardy?
Softwood Lumber October 5th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, yesterday my colleague from Vancouver Island North informed the House that Indonesia successfully negotiated the removal of U.S. tariffs on Indonesian plywood. That move was made to bring Indonesia into the coalition against terrorism.
Since Canada is also a member of this coalition, why has the government not asked the United States to remove the countervailing duty against Canadian softwood lumber?
Multiculturalism October 3rd, 2001
Mr. Speaker, the government is using tax dollars to fund special interest groups that undermine Canadian principles. We saw 80,000 of those tax dollars at work at the women's resistance conference.
Would the money funding hate speeches against western civilization not be better spent on the safety and security of Canadians?
Multiculturalism October 3rd, 2001
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister would not apologize for the thousands of dollars spent sponsoring a conference that became a venue for a hate speech. He said the organizations receiving the funding helped abused women and children.
How does the hate filled, anti-American, anti-male rant help abused women and children?
Canada—Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act October 2nd, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I vote in favour.