House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • Her favourite word was let.

Last in Parliament May 2004, as Canadian Alliance MP for Edmonton North (Alberta)

Won her last election, in 2000, with 51% of the vote.

Statements in the House

National Defence October 7th, 2002

Mr. Speaker, he should be embarrassed. One of the works that is in progress is a blue ribbon panel, a study that says that our military is close to collapse in terms of equipment and manpower. The government should be embarrassed. It is not even ashamed that our military has to rob Peter to pay Paul just to meet the payroll.

Under this government, our forces have been committed to an increasing number of missions with a decreasing number of dollars. Our military does tremendous work, but it is in spite of the government not because of it.

Why does the minister commit our troops but he refuses to commit to our troops?

National Defence October 7th, 2002

Mr. Speaker, speaking about hound dogs, I would like to ask the Minister of National Defence a question.

The government pays lip service to the military but that is just about it. In fact there is so little cash there that the military has had to raid $1.5 billion allocated for equipment simply to pay salaries.

This jester of a minister has continuously dropped the ball by forcing our military to juggle funds. When will he stop the sideshow and increase funding for our military?

Committee Business and Reinstatement of Government Bills October 4th, 2002

Lord knows what we need.

Iraq October 3rd, 2002

Mr. Speaker, I agree with that and I would be thrilled to have the member take that to his caucus and some of the ensuing speeches reflect that. I can only guess that he is having some difficulty with some of the things that he has read in Hansard because that is not the intention or the sense of emotion that has come out in this debate unfortunately for members on his side of the House.

Iraq October 3rd, 2002

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to respond to that. I understand that some of these are tiny amounts so I appreciate what the member says about that. I agree with him. We may never find them but again, if people have a clean conscience they will tell the inspectors to go anywhere they like. That would go a long way to make people feel better.

The Saddam Hussein regime is different than some of the other countries in the area. I think he understands that. Some of the things have been going on year after year. To say that other countries will step up and the amounts would increase rather than diminish, again that may be too, but that is a moot point and we have a particular problem on our hands with the Saddam Hussein regime.

I wish to mention the whole idea about the United Nations as he did. I understand that too, that it is important to have the umbrella group of countries with the United Nations. I do not dispute that at all. He talks about unilateral force of the United States and people have their hearts set on going to war and they are going to war no matter what.

I do not accept that thesis. He was beating his chest a while ago here, I am hoping he is feeling okay. It was self-inflicted. Nonetheless when I think about people who just toss this comment out, that it is unilateral and George Bush is going to war. Members get all hyped up about it. There is a growing coalition of nations that are concerned about this. He knows that just as well as I do.

If we look at countries such as Great Britain and Australia, these are not flakes. There is a growing coalition of responsible countries which are concerned. So again, members take a swipe at George W. Bush and say it is unilateral and the man is a warmonger. I do not think George Bush is perfect and I dare say he would not think the same about me. Nonetheless, we need to look at a coalition of reasonable, responsible people who are increasingly concerned about this and pay attention to that, not thumping one's chest.

Iraq October 3rd, 2002

Talk about cheapening the subject, how important it is to be able to say that our military knows exactly what it is that it needs to do. I stood on the street in Edmonton welcoming our troops home. What an unbelievable job they are doing.

They are hopelessly underfunded. They are hopelessly underequipped. Then I see someone like the Minister of National Defence who said yesterday or the day before that everything is great, that we can send all kinds of people and troops over there. That is not true. Listen to the military experts.

A spokesman for the Department of National Defence said the anti-terrorism operation has cost $191 million already. It is supposed to cost $205 million for the current fiscal year.

We are not capable of putting troops on the ground over there. The government needs to have a plan. The Prime Minister talked about having the people and the plan. He has neither.

I wish to congratulate our military who has fulfilled the government's requests. However when I look ahead, the government needs to have a plan and the people in place to say what our commitments will be. It simply has not done that.

Iraq October 3rd, 2002

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the debate.

I will preface my remarks by saying that there are certainly many of us in the House who were here, you and I included, Mr. Speaker, in 1991 when the gulf war transpired. The member who just spoke said that in fact he was not here, but he was giving expert commentary on it. He said that he was unusually qualified to address this debate. That could be, I suppose. I do not know if any of us ever is unusually qualified to do anything actually, but I appreciate his interpretation and estimation of himself.

Nonetheless, Mr. Speaker, I think back to when you and I and several others were here when that war broke out in 1991. I remember the feeling, and I am sure you do too, Mr. Speaker, of thinking we really were at war. It was a powerful, frightening, unnerving time for all of us for sure, but here we are this many years later.

I understand that war was to liberate Kuwait and the upshot of it possibly was to bring to its knees the tyranny in Iraq and the Saddam Hussein regime. I think about how many years have transpired since then.

Even though the member talked about how these weapons of mass destruction or unconventional weapons have been available for 50 years, there are all kinds of things that have been available for 50 years. We see how things have escalated in the world. We have seen how available things are with the computer age, with the advent of CNN.

Again I am reminded of September 11 where we watched everything live. We seem to watch everything live these days. I think that maybe escalates the emotion of it certainly, but it also escalates the thrill of those who use these kinds of tactics on their own people and on other countries as well.

To say there may be small amounts in a quart jar is one thing, but when he talked about the moral authority of the United Nations and the resolutions that it is coming forward with, I agree with him. There certainly should be moral authority on that.

If I had had a chance to ask the member about the number of UN resolutions that seem to be totally ignored by Hussein, we could list off a number of them. Many people have done that in the debate so far. It is one thing to say we are not sure it is a big deal. That is one end of the spectrum. Of course the other end is that we would all go hysterical and think that this is something we need to act on tomorrow afternoon. Somewhere in the middle probably lies the truth and somewhere in the middle lies reasonable concern and assumption.

As we look at that just in terms of an overview, we need to make sure that we are acting wisely, that we are acting responsibly and that we are acting consistently. I am sad to say that I think our Prime Minister has acted inconsistently in terms of comments that he made during the gulf war in 1991. That obviously causes some concern. However, with the things that have happened just even in the last few weeks, I am not sure anyone in the world, let alone George W. Bush, would understand just exactly what Canada's position is.

If we have a plan ahead of time and we follow it through wisely and consistently, it seems to me the world ought to know what it is. If we in Canada, regardless of our political stripe, went to coffee shops and talked to people, who vote for all political parties, we would find people who would support each of the parties. I do not know that any one of them would be able to say what is Canada's stand, those who voted Liberal, Alliance or any other party. I am not sure that any Canadian would be able to articulate what Canada's plan and stance is on this issue.

After listening to the debate carefully and looking at Hansard one would wonder on the government side what in the world it is in terms of the inflammatory remarks that have come forward, and I am not sure that people really would know or articulate the plan. I have watched this.

I have watched the Prime Minister for many years and I am not certain what the plan is over there either, and I spend a whole lot more time paying attention to this than many other people who are busy with their lives and raising kids, et cetera.

Of course we should take safety and appreciation for that umbrella group, but when so many of those UN resolutions have been violated, paid no attention to, ignored, it certainly does cause us some concern. The United States has accused Iraq of the following charges and I would invite anyone to say true or false to them.

Violating the UN Security Council resolutions by refusing to fully disclose its activities regarding the acquisitions. I think we would have to answer true to that. I think Iraq has violated those Security Council resolutions.

Refusing to cooperate with the UN special commission and allow full inspections of sites where materials related to such weapons programs may be held. Again, I would question the member. Even if it is a quart jar it could do a whole pile of damage. If a person were clean and innocent he would not care who came in. If people are not messing around on their income taxes, they should not care when the auditors show up at their door. They should just say, “Come on in, I am clean, I am innocent, I have a clean conscience. Come on in and check it out”.

If Saddam Hussein sent that signal saying to come on over, I think people would breathe a whole lot more easily. Yet we see that there is that hesitation, that someone could come in and say “Sure you can look around, but only here”. I think the answer is true for refusing to cooperate with the UN special commission.

Iraq supports international terrorist groups operating against the United States, Israel and western interests. I think there is some of that so I think the answer to that would have to be true as well.

When we see the UN resolutions and some of the things that Saddam Hussein and his regime are refusing to comply with, obviously we need to be concerned.

As I mentioned earlier about the frustration I had with some of the things that have gone forward in the debate here, it astounds me and has for a long time, for 30 years give or take of Liberal dominance in this country, or 100 years of Liberal dominance throughout the world, that people think it is perfectly safe to just tuck themselves into the government benches and then just bash the daylights out of the Americans. One only needs to study Hansard . Members should not take my word for it but should look at Hansard and see some of the unbelievable comments.

There are extremist, inflammatory comments about George Bush wanting to go to war immediately and that this is going to happen. That just raises the emotion and the lack of logic of this debate. So when government members are thinking it is just fine to poke a great big stick in the eye of our next door neighbours, who will we go to when we need help?

There is a lack of trust on both sides of the border due to softwood lumber, airline tariffs and the list could go on. Yet when we need them, the Americans are our big cousin. It is almost like the Prime Minister would have to go cap in hand to Washington and say, “Never mind, we did not really mean all that”, yet it is easy to turn around. We saw that in the last U.S. election where the nephew of the Prime Minister said, “Well, I do not know who I would vote for”. It is not our responsibility to get into that whole area of bashing the Americans. It just amazes me when I think that this is acceptable behaviour for government members and in fact the Prime Minister himself. Study Hansard .

National Defence October 1st, 2002

Mr. Speaker, they may not be a simple matter, but they are surely old.

In 1994 the former defence minister said, “When we cancelled the EH-101 we did so with the full knowledge that the Sea Kings could last until the year 2000”. But incredibly a May 2001 DND memo said, “there is a strong potential that we will be conducting (Sea King) operations until 2015”.

We need to be concerned about the military. The government was awfully quick to buy executive jets for cabinet. It still has not even asked for bids for helicopter replacements.

Why is it so quick for cabinet and so slow for our troops?

National Defence October 1st, 2002

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and our Sea King helicopters have something in common. They both arrived in 1963 and they both should have been retired long ago.

The Prime Minister said in 1993, “I'll take one piece of paper, I'll take my pen, I will write zero helicopters”. Sadly that is one promise that he has kept for far too long.

Now team Cormorant is saying that it will forgive the $500 million in penalties that the taxpayers of Canada paid when he cancelled the EH-101. Our first class military personnel deserve first class equipment.

When will he take that paper and pen and replace this aging fleet?

Speech from the Throne September 30th, 2002

Mr. Speaker, it is good to see that she takes all kinds of things under advisement, but surely when a member of Parliament has been in this place as long as she has been, it would seem to me she would have certainly formulated some opinions as well as her party platform. It is always safe to stay on platform.

I would like her to make some reference to the red book, which the member for LaSalle--Émard takes great credit in writing, and also ask her for her comments on what she thinks the party policy of the government is and why it is that she is going to take that under advisement. Why can she not just advise us right now what her plan on that is?