House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • Her favourite word was heritage.

Last in Parliament April 1997, as Reform MP for Calgary Southeast (Alberta)

Won her last election, in 1993, with 60% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Divorce Act November 8th, 1996

Mr. Speaker, I was surprised as I listened to my colleague who expressed concern for the paternalistic aspect of the bill. Then he went to some length to describe exactly what he believed to be some of that paternalism as his point of view. He then expressed that his party would be supporting the bill.

This piece of legislation goes beyond paternalism. While the concept of guidelines is very good, what we have here is a seriously flawed piece of legislation. For example, there is no consideration for additional financial obligations of either parent. There is no consideration for the needs of a child based on age specific requirements. There is no consideration for servicing the debt of the union by either parent. There is no consideration for the assets division of the matrimonial property settlement. There is no recognition of the costs incurred by the unit to maintain dual households. There is no recognition of the costs involved by the non-custodial parent in maintaining access, including travel, long distance telephone, food, clothing and entertainment. I could go on at some length with the very serious flaws in this legislation.

If this is for children as the hon. member has expressed, I would like my hon. colleague to tell me how he believes a child's needs are satisfied, especially when, in the final analysis, there is no provision for direct spending on the children by the non-custodial parent. This means that a parent who totally ignores the children and spends no time and has no expenses for visitation will be treated in exactly the same way as the caring parent who does spend time with the children, who does provide that emotional support for the children in a household. The process absolutely ignores this individual over someone who has spent no time with the children in the household.

I would like my hon. colleague to indicate how he feels that the needs of the children are given due consideration in light of that.

Privilege November 7th, 1996

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege pursuant to Standing Order 48(1). The privilege in question is one that is both the least questioned and the most fundamental right of any member of Parliament, freedom of speech.

The breach of freedom of speech, as I will state, involves the inability of me as a member of Parliament and others to participate in debate on government legislation or to be an active member of House committees.

I am aware that we as parliamentarians are bound by the rules and orders of the House with respect to participation in debate. However, as we have seen in the past, the status quo regarding parliamentary reform has been challenged. It is my intention today

to stand to challenge the status quo respecting the freedom of speech of individual members of Parliament.

The question I raise asks for the Speaker to give additional recognition to the members of Parliament who do not have party status in matters of debate and committee representation. I would like to point out that when I refer to members who are without party status and currently sitting in the House, I am referring to those members who are not officially recognized by the House of Commons due in part to the 12 member party threshold to which we as parliamentarians are currently bound through the 1963 statute that is embodied in the Parliament of Canada Act.

We are currently sitting in the 35th session of Parliament with a high number of MPs without party status representing constituents all across Canada. It is now time that the House recognize this as a significant deficit in terms of opinion and representation in debate. Without these voices the constituents in 15 ridings are quiet.

There have been a number of important debates in which those members have been unable to participate, and Bill C-41 is one of those in which many of us would very much like to participate.

Under current parliamentary rules and practice the opportunities for members with non-party status are limited in committee work. Political parties dominate the ever increasing role of the House and it is extremely difficult for members who do not belong to a party to have the same influence or to participate as fully as members who are party members.

Freedom of speech is a fundamental parliamentary privilege. Professor W.F. Dawson of the University of Alberta said in a 1959 article:

The privilege of freedom of speech is probably the most important and least questioned of all privileges enjoyed by the House. In its most elementary form this privilege was stated in the Bill of Rights which declared that `the freedom of speech and debates of proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place outside of Parliament'. Today, it is one of the privileges requested by the Speaker at the beginning of every Parliament.

Freedom of speech means that the members have the right to speak freely in the Chamber without fear of intimidation or challenge. What they say is privileged, protected or immune from being questioned outside of Parliament.

Joseph Maingot, former law clerk and parliamentary counsel of the House of Commons, has said:

The privilege of freedom of speech, though of a personal nature, is not so much intended to protect the members against prosecutions for their individual advantage but to support the right of people by enabling their representatives to execute the functions of their office without fear either of civil or criminal prosecution.

Freedom to speak freely is not the sole element of this privilege. Members must also be free to speak. This means that they have to have opportunities to participate in debate and to participate fully in the proceedings of Parliament, including parliamentary committees. Even if members are not inhibited in terms of what they say in the House, they are still inhibited in not being given opportunities to speak. The right to say whatever they want is meaningless if there is no chance to speak in any case.

Freedom of speech does not mean that members have an unlimited or unrestrained right to speak on every issue. The rules of the House impose limits on the participation of members and it is the duty of the Speaker to restrain those who abuse the rules.

It is clear that no member of the House can speak whenever he or she wishes. It is the role of the Speaker to recognize members and to preserve order and decorum. The democratic rights of an elected member are diminished when they do not possess the same opportunities as other members.

The rights of members and through them of their constituents must be respected. I speak from my heart for Calgary Southeast. The Speaker must be assured that the rights of all members of the House are protected. This is an ongoing process and must be reviewed afresh from time to time. The question must be asked whether independent or non-affiliated party members are being allowed to fully participate in the proceedings of the House and its committees. The privileges of these members, their freedom of speech and the fundamental tenants of parliamentary democracy must be satisfied.

Mr. Speaker, if you find that I have a prima facie case of privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion, seconded by the member for Kamloops.

I appreciate the time to speak.

Petitions November 1st, 1996

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36. This course of action is undertaken on behalf of constituents and concerned parents across the country for the safety of their children in an effort to create a national pedophile registry.

The petitioners I represent are concerned about making our streets safer for our children. They are opposed to the current status quo in the screening of pedophiles within the community.

The petitioners pray that a federally implemented pedophile registry be established in order to help better protect our children.

Violence October 8th, 1996

Mr. Speaker, one week ago today Morley Sangwais was convicted of murder in the first degree of his common law spouse Kelly Howe in Calgary.

I could stand here and reflect on the bitterness and the frustration that the victim's family has experienced through this whole traumatic episode, but rather I am standing here to urge women across the country who find themselves in situations of domestic abuse, who find themselves brutalized, terrorized, demoralized and compromised daily, to find a secure, safe haven for themselves and their children.

We can also talk about restraining orders and all the paperwork that abounds in supporting our legal structure, but for Kelly Howe that restraining order had about as much value as this paper airplane.

Petitions October 8th, 1996

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition on behalf of constituents from Ontario with respect to concerned parents across the country who support the effort to create a national pedophile registry.

The petitioners I represent are concerned about making our streets and homes safer for our children. They are opposed to the current status quo in the screening of pedophiles as they enter our communities.

The petitioners pray that a federally implemented pedophile registry will be established in order to better secure the safety of our children.

Cyprus October 7th, 1996

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present this petition on behalf of constituents in New Brunswick who are concerned for our efforts to create a national pedophile registry.

The petitioners whom I represent are concerned about making our streets and homes safer, and in particular for our children. They are opposed to the current status quo in the screening of pedophiles within our communities.

The petitioners pray that a federally implemented pedophile registry be established in order to help better protect our children.

Petitions September 25th, 1996

Madam Speaker, I rise to present another petition on behalf of constituents and concerned parents across the country who support the effort to create a national pedophile registry.

The petitioners I represent are concerned about making our streets and homes safer for our children and they are opposed to the current status quo in the screening of pedophiles within our communities.

The petitioners pray that a federally implemented pedophile registry be established in order to help better protect our children.

Petitions September 24th, 1996

Madam Speaker, I rise to present another set of petitions with well over 100 signatures from concerned parents and constituents across the country who support the effort to create a national pedophile registry.

The petitioners I represent are concerned about making our streets safer for our children and they are opposed to the current status quo in the screening of pedophiles in the community.

The petitioners pray that a federally implemented pedophile registry be established in order to help better protect our children.

Petitions September 17th, 1996

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present this petition on behalf of constituents and concerned parents across the country who support the effort to create a national pedophile registry.

The petitioners I represent are concerned with making our streets and homes safer for our children. They are opposed to the current status quo in the screening of pedophiles within our communities.

The petitioners pray that a federally implemented pedophile registry be established in order to help better protect our children.

Petitions September 16th, 1996

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present this petition on behalf of constituents and concerned parents across the country who support the effort to create a national pedophile registry.

The petitioners I represent are concerned about making our streets and homes safer for our children and they are opposed to the current status quo in the screening of pedophiles within our communities.

The petitioners pray that a federally implemented pedophile registry be established in order to help better protect our children.