House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • Her favourite word was children.

Last in Parliament September 2008, as Conservative MP for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo (B.C.)

Won her last election, in 2006, with 39% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Member for Glengarry--Prescott--Russell May 27th, 2002

Mr. Speaker, let us rewind the tape to last Thursday. The minister of public works was having a very difficult day explaining to the House that he might have made a little mistake in selecting a departmental contractor's home for a family vacation weekend but that it really was not all that bad.

Opposition question after opposition question called for him to do the honourable thing and resign. “No, no, Mr. Speaker”, said the minister, “there is no reason to resign”. “No, no, Mr. Speaker”, said the Prime Minister, “I have confidence in my minister”.

Two days later the world changed. The minister was tossed out of his portfolio and was no longer credible in the role of clean-up guy.

However, in a strange twist he reappears in his old job and Canadians are left to wonder whether he was fired, punished, rewarded or given a get out of jail free card from the Prime Minister.

When it comes to ethics and morals, there is much to wonder about with this government.

Assisted Human Reproduction Act May 21st, 2002

Mr. Speaker, I found the last speaker rather confusing. I have been trying to follow this issue very carefully.

The thrust of the bill in my mind is stem cell research. The question that we are asking on this side of the House is whether that should be embryonic stem cell research or adult stem cell research. I happen to go toward the stem cell research part because at this point in time it is a safer way for us to go.

I would like to ask the speaker to clarify a couple of things that he mentioned. I believe he said that adult stem cell research was not science. I do not understand that and would like him to explain it.

I would also like to ask him a hypothetical question. Suppose that in two or three years time we discover, if we are going to be using embryonic stem cell research, that the actual optimum time to harvest is when that embryo is two years old. Would we still be comfortable with the situation we find today or do we want to go down that road? What we want to do is declare a moratorium for three years so this very sensitive and ethical issue can be discussed thoroughly and that we do not rush into something that we regret later.

If he could address those questions, I would be very grateful.

Assisted Human Reproduction Act May 21st, 2002

Mr. Speaker, I am in full agreement with my colleague from Saskatoon--Rosetown--Biggar and with her statements. I know she has been involved heavily in the research of this bill.

Although I support the adult stem cell side of the issue, if what I have been led to believe is accurate, we could also achieve stem cells from the afterbirth and the umbilical cord. Are those two options open and available and could they be used as research rather than creating life for the purpose of destroying it?

Assisted Human Reproduction Act May 21st, 2002

Mr. Speaker, could the last speaker elaborate on a bit of a quandary I have? I have read the bill and have reservations because there are better methods of producing the results we are hoping for. One of the things I find most disturbing is that background information would not be given to children produced through this method.

One's origins are important for a number of reasons including health reasons. Could the former critic for health please comment on that?

Tax Credit May 10th, 2002

Mr. Speaker, this is a delicate issue and I believe the motion put forward has some valid points. It may not be perfect, as the last member just mentioned, but it is a step forward in my opinion to address what is going on with young people and their ability to pay back student loans.

The best way to do this would be to speak from personal experience. I have two students in my family. They have been very fortunate. Their father and mother is in a position to help them out. In order for them to complete their education student loans have been essential.

In the case of my daughter the student loan would be $3,500 U.S. every three months. That is unaffordable for most children these days. There needs to be a support system in place and I applaud the fact that we do have student loans in Canada. As a parent I understand my daughter's perspective when I ask her when she is coming back home. We want her to come back home as soon as possible. Obviously she will be of benefit to Canada and we want her back here. Her response to me is pretty simple. For every $1.00 Canadian that she owes, she can earn $1.50 U.S. She can pay taxes that are considerably lower and afford to pay the loan back more quickly.

If the proposal that is in front of us today were to be enacted, she might change her mind on that and so might a lot of other Canadian students who are in the United States getting their education. Personally I would like to see that happen. As a member of parliament I believe it is important that we bring back all of the students who are in foreign countries studying to benefit this country. That is what the student loan program is about. It is about helping children to be educated. If we were to find a way to take away that burden of paying back what they owe by doing it through tax incentives, I think it would be something worth exploring.

When I was in New York City in early December some comments were made at the Canada loves New York weekend that had a serious impact on me. Mayor Giuliani at the time said there were 600,000 Canadians living and working in New York City. We can bet our bottom dollar that those 600,000 Canadians working in New York City were not there doing part time jobs. They were there because they had an education that Canadians paid for, one way or another, through their taxes.

It is imperative that we be able to reap the benefit of putting out that kind of money for education in conjunction with the provinces. For that to happen we must have some sort of system in place that would encourage those people to come back and give back to Canada. The motion is not perfect, but it is a step in the right direction. It is worth looking at and possibly worth amending. We could make this a starting position.

When I go back to my riding, the people I like to talk to most are those kids who are in university. They are probably the toughest audience to stand before, but they give us the most honest answers that we could possibly ask for. Sometimes their questions are a lot harder than the questions we are asked here in the House and they are a lot harder to answer, but they come from the heart. The students are honest in their approach.

The question that keeps coming up is how the government will help the students? They want to get an education but they cannot afford to do it on their own. Tuition fees are high, which of course are the responsibility of the provincial government and not our responsibility. It is hard for students to do this. I listen carefully to what they have to say.

I must say that the proposal in front of us today is the closest thing to a resolution that I have seen so far. It was well thought out. It has the intent to help students in mind. When we help students to receive an education we help Canada. That is what must be kept in the forefront. We must do something that will benefit students and benefit this country. We will be paid back for it. This is all very well and good, and worth looking at even further.

I hear frustration in the classrooms. I hear that same frustration coming from my own children in their studies. They are trying their best to be independent. My daughter has three part time jobs to try to pay her own way. As I said earlier, $3,500 U.S. every three months is a huge burden. That is the tuition. That does not account for the books as my hon. colleague pointed out earlier. One has to eat and have some place to live. All those expenses add up.

The young pages sitting in front of you, Mr. Speaker, can relate to exactly what it is that I am saying. It is not cheap to get an education. It is valuable and worth the struggle. If we were to find some way to help these kids over this hump it would be worth looking at.

I have not quite made up my mind on whether I will support the motion or not. I see some pitfalls and some holes that I would like to see remedied. I believe it is the provincial government's responsibility. It is incumbent upon us at the federal level to speak to provincial governments and work something out so that we have equal opportunity for students who come from homes where it is not affordable and for students who come from homes where it may well be affordable but where the parents have said that if they want a post-secondary education, they should pay for it.

I will listen carefully to the remainder of the debate. I have listened carefully to the beginning of the debate. I will make my decision when the time comes. I appreciate what has been put forward and I applaud my colleague for putting it forward.

Government Contracts May 10th, 2002

Mr. Speaker, in addition to the blame, they throw up smokescreens and keep repeating the same mistakes. They make a few cosmetic changes so they can claim that they have cleaned up their act, but nothing changes.

This Sunday is Mother's Day. I can think of no better time and no better way to acknowledge the role of mothers in teaching right from wrong than a simple apology. Will they do so?

Government Contracts May 10th, 2002

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government will try anything to divert attention from the culture of corruption. The Liberals blame us for raising it, they blame the media for reporting it, they blame the bureaucrats for creating it, and they blame the pollsters for counting the 70% of Canadians who believe it.

Now they are even blaming the auditor general for doing the work that they asked her to do, after plenty of prompting from us, I might add, to bring her in. Instead of blaming, why do they not admit their mistakes and apologize to Canadian taxpayers?

Lumber Industry May 3rd, 2002

Mr. Speaker, I have scar tissue on my tongue from biting it so often. I am trying to co-operate here.

Now that Canada has lost in the lumber lawsuit at the U.S. international trade commission, the minister must be aware that fear will threaten to split the solidarity of the provinces and the industry.

Divide and conquer is what the U.S. used last time with the softwood lumber agreement in 1996 and this could happen again if the different interest groups go off to try to fight this on their own.

What is the minister doing to keep the industry and Canada together?

Lumber Industry May 3rd, 2002

Mr. Speaker, some of the large lumber companies that have interests in the U.S., like Canfor and Weyerhaeuser, are going to sue the U.S. under NAFTA for injuries suffered because of the countervail and anti-dumping lawsuits decided in the U.S. yesterday.

Is the government doing anything to make the smaller Canadian lumber companies, who might have U.S. interests, aware of their legal rights to sue under NAFTA?

Leadership Campaigns May 1st, 2002

Mr. Speaker, there is a pattern of deceit and sleaze in the way that leadership aspirants use government money, tax money, to fund their efforts to replace the Prime Minister.

We know about the heritage minister's cozy relationship with certain individuals and organizations. She gives $1 million dollars to a Toronto organization and, voila, its chairman pledges to raise $7 million for her campaign.

Is it any wonder that so many Canadians think that the government is corrupt?