House of Commons photoWon her last election, in 2000, with 51% of the vote.
National Defence May 7th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, our defence minister knew months ago that Afghanistan would be a tough and dangerous mission. He has had plenty of time to prepare for it yet today he tosses it off again as a “non-issue”. Now he tells our advance troops that they cannot be armed because the “diplomatic paperwork has not yet been signed”. That excuse is paper thin.
If the defence minister will not commit today to stand behind our troops, is he willing to stand in front of them?
Member for LaSalle—Émard April 30th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, it seems that the member for LaSalle—Émard is having super-duper delusions of grandeur once again. He is trying to sell himself as the saviour of the military, promising more funding and better relations with the U.S.
If the truth be told, this superhero's heavy baggage keeps him from flying at all. It is not that he has not had superpowers before. He was the finance minister for eight years and could have used his position to aid the military then. He just did not know how to use his powers for good and not for evil.
He neglected our military and slashed its budgets. Now he is acting appalled that his own government has not yet replaced our aging Sea King helicopters.
Seems this former finance minister has amazing powers of denial and deception. He has had almost 10 years to pony up the cash for chopper replacements and he could not be bothered. Holy hypocrisy, Batman.
Captain Whirlybird across the way should hitch up his tights because he is a fallen superhero.
“Wait, it's a bird, it's a plane. No, it's an abysmal failure”.
Iraq April 7th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, that is a nice try at a definition, but I think he will find that in the dictionary between “baloney” and “claptrap”.
The minister claims that we are in the gulf to help our allies fight a war on terror, but he will not allow our troops to intercept or detain Iraqis, the very terrorists who pose the biggest danger. Surely the minister would admit that Saddam's regime poses a huge terrorist threat.
How could he say that the war on Iraq is not connected with the war on terrorism?
Iraq April 7th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, the defence minister has more definitions for what constitutes a terrorist than a shelfful of Oxford dictionaries.
He says we are in the gulf to seek out terrorists of any citizenship, but then he will not allow Canadian troops to intercept, detain or transfer Iraqi suspects. Our allies are under constant threat by Iraqi terrorists.
I would like to ask the lexicon challenged defence minister what is his definition of an Iraqi terrorist, anyone except Saddam's henchmen?
Iraq April 3rd, 2003
He has that right, Mr. Speaker.
In fact, the minister just does not get it: that the war in Iraq is part of that war on terrorism. He claims we are in the gulf for the war on terrorism only, but he has just announced a huge security loophole. Any ship can now get by our naval patrol simply by flying an Iraqi flag. One wonders if they learned about these flags of convenience from the owner of Canada Steamship Lines.
The minister has said that the Canadian navy would protect allied ships from any potential attack, so why patrol the gulf at all if those very ships that pose the greatest danger and threat can just sail on by?
Iraq April 3rd, 2003
Mr. Speaker, this defence minister recently stated that Canadian ships in the gulf are not authorized to intercept, detain or transfer suspected members of the Iraqi regime. Apparently, our sailors can only inform U.S. headquarters that the bad guys went thataway.
We are obviously already involved in the Iraqi conflict. Why will the government not completely commit to our troops and our allies, full steam ahead?
Canadian Forces April 2nd, 2003
Mr. Speaker, it is amazing he can talk about how tragic war is and then completely ignore it.
The government pretends to care so much about our troops, yet we find it funny because it has abandoned our 31 exchange troops in Iraq by refusing to give them political support here at home. We may need a GPS to determine what the government's position is.
I would appreciate it if the minister could get his reading right now and answer this. If we are not in this conflict, then why are our troops in Iraq? Since our troops are there, and we know it, why will he not give them the support they deserve?
Canadian Forces April 2nd, 2003
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in reply to our questions on Iraq, the Minister of National Defence said, “What is all the fuss?” Let me tell him.
The fuss is about a government that takes cover when it should be taking a stand with our allies. It is about a government that knows full well we have troops on the front lines and that claims that Canada will not support the war. That is what all the fuss is about.
I do have time for a question and I would like to ask it. How could he claim to support our troops here in the House but abandon them on the battlefield?
Iraq April 1st, 2003
Mr. Speaker, what a disgusting display of partisanship from that prince over there.
Let me just ask, regardless of whatever category they under, what about Mike Bullock, a Canadian Forces major presently serving alongside the British army in this conflict? His father, Mel, says, “He's extremely proud but demoralized by the lack of support by this current government”, not the official opposition.
Mike's commitment to Canada and to this war is unconditional. Why will the Prime Minister not stand up and give him the same unconditional support?
Iraq April 1st, 2003
Mr. Speaker, yes, he has said what he has said. The government has an indefensible position on the war in Iraq. It says that it is staying out of the war but it sends Canadian troops over there into combat areas, claiming that “exchange programs” just do not seem to count.
Angie Little from Nova Scotia is a second lieutenant on an exchange mission with Britain's Desert Rats. She is fighting Saddam loyalists in Basra clearing landmines and explosives.
How can the government claim that it is not participating in this war, while troops like Angie's are risking their lives, no matter what category they are under?