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

Firearms Act April 5th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that from the Speaker and from the member for Kingston and the Islands.

It said that I was in favour of gun registration. Let me get one thing straight. I would like to quote from Hansard , November 6, 1991, page 4687. I had already given my entire speech and was on questions and comments. Remember that I was sitting way back there all by myself and put up with any amount of heckling from members.

The parliamentary secretary, a dino-Tory, said to me, could I please make some comments on this, that and the next thing. I said to him at page 4687:

I would draw the member's attention to the Canadian Police Association and some of the recommendations they brought forward. They said that "over 90 per cent of our respondents believe that guns of all kinds should be registered".

The Canadian Police Association said that 90 per cent of its respondents believed that all guns should be registered. I then said right after that that I agreed with that and I think every Canadian would agree with that. If those are its numbers, that is the survey it did among its members, how can I disagree with that? I am not going to dispute those numbers. If I were in favour of universal gun registration, and here comes the English teacher, I would have said I agree with them. I would agree with them if I were in favour of gun registration. It makes sense.

Looking at this yesterday I thought that if this was such a loud situation that I was in favour of gun registration, why in heaven's name did I not hear about it on November 7, 1991 from such groups in my constituency as the wonderful people who belong to Lac La Biche Shooting Association, responsible firearms owners, and Grand Centre's Cold Lake District Sportsman Fish and Game Association? Do you think that if I had supported gun registration these people would have even let me off the aeroplane to come back home? This is bunk.

If the member for Burnaby-Kingsway is so concerned about the fact that I support universal gun registration, he should have found it in my speech and in my thesis. He did not find it there; he did not find it now. He is in big trouble with his own small, minute caucus here.

If we are going to talk about flip-flops, Mr. Speaker, let us talk about when you and I listened in the last Parliament to Ian Waddell, Margaret Mitchell, and I could list all 43 of them. I am sure I can remember who they were. Audrey as well. They were going on and on talking about how terrible this was. All of a sudden in 1995 it is just amazing how things change. The NDP caucus is not going to be supporting this legislation. I have to admire them for that. The member for Burnaby-Kingsway is not going to be able to. If he can justify that back home that is fine. Things were different in 1991 of course. I did not agree with universal gun registration then, nor do I now.

Let us look at the Canadian Police Association's latest viewpoint on gun registration: "The Canadian Police Association recognizes the clear value of information availability to police officers, which registration of all firearms provides, and supports a full firearms registration system, but cannot support the registration system articulated in Bill C-68 unless there is a guarantee from the federal government that any implementation or administration costs for such a system will not come from existing operational police budgets". I agree with that too.

I do not agree with gun registration, but I have to agree with what the Canadian Police Association says. Whether the police will be able to enforce it on the frontlines or whether that money will actually have to come from some of the operating budgets, if there are fewer policemen in our cities, in our small towns and on our country highways when people are hauling around firearms committing crimes with them, that is where the money should go.

The proposed national firearms registration system will contain data for six million to 20 million guns, which is a lot of guns, and three million to seven million gun owners. We just heard our friend from the maritimes, the parliamentary secretary for justice, saying that we are going to get something like a Visa card and we will just run it through the magnetic strip.

Has anyone here ever had their Visa card stolen? Is it going to be guaranteed that that is safe, that they are not going to be able to break on to the Internet and have absolute access and a shop at home catalogue? Can we have any guarantee that someone is not going to be able to get into the Internet? He promised us it would be safer than safe.

When we talk safe, I want to talk about the fact that someone who is a victim of a crime with a firearm does not give two hoots about whether that gun was registered or not and whether somebody in a criminal gang in downtown cities anywhere across this country is going to be able to break into that system. We hear about it all the time. Why should the gun registration be any safer than anything else?

It is frightening to me that they would be able to know who has guns, where they are, how many they have and have absolute access to them. Those people are not going to register their firearms. We have to be absolutely dreaming if we think such a thing is going to happen.

Do you think that someone coming across the border is going to give up a gun? Who is going to seize these guns?

Firearms Act April 5th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to this debate as well. I am glad to be back in the House. I am particularly pleased to be able to address a subject I have heard about only in the last 24 hours. This is pretty handy.

It has to do with a debate that went on years ago. It seems like 40 years, but it was really only four, in 1991. My colleague from Burnaby-Kingsway had said something about the member for Beaver River supporting universal firearm registration. I thought: "This certainly is news to me. I have never spoken in favour of that. Boy, I had better check this out".

I had to chuckle when I saw it in a copy of Hansard , November 6, 1991. My friend from Kingston and the Islands brought it to my attention this afternoon-

Firearms Act April 5th, 1995

Is that the end?

Firearms Act April 5th, 1995

The criminals can break in.

Members Of Parliament Pensions April 3rd, 1995

Mr. Speaker, the government has said it cannot let all MPs opt out because it needs to protect the stability of the pension plan.

The only things the government is trying to protect are the lavish payouts to the Liberal frontbenchers, of whom there are many. Perhaps their noses are firmly planted in the trough. Pay and pension are different things. Let us bring them into line.

Will the government let the Deputy Prime Minister, the immigration minister, the fisheries minister, the finance minister and even the Prime Minister opt out of this lavish pension plan when they have six or more years of service, yes or no?

Members Of Parliament Pensions April 3rd, 1995

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about pensions here, not pay. It is hardly any surprise to the Prime Minister that I have been talking about MP pensions. I have spoken about this for six years.

The ratio is that for every dollar I and other members in the House contribute the government is putting in six to seven dollars. That is the problem people have. We are locked into this pension plan.

I want to opt out, the voters in Beaver River want me to opt out and the Canadian taxpayers probably want all of us to opt out or at least make it fair. It is up to the government to find a way. Like the songwriter, I am saying please release me, let me go.

Why will the government not go beyond what the President of the Treasury Board said and make more than cosmetic changes, real changes to the MP pension plan?

Members Of Parliament Pensions April 3rd, 1995

Mr. Speaker, baseball is back and so am I. We will play some hardball.

On March 13, while I was away, I became a reluctant member of the Liberal's pork pension for life club, a club that will give the Deputy Prime Minister over $2 million, my immigration minister friend over $3 million and the new president of the CBC, Perrin Beatty, over $5 million.

I want to opt out of this ludicrous plan. Yet under government guidelines I am trapped at the trough.

Will the government extend the opting out clause to include MPs with six or more years service, not just new MPs as it says?

Pension Reform February 9th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, I would agree that Canadians are not unreasonable. Nobody is suggesting that MPs do not work hard or that they do not deserve fair compensation for their years of public service. They simply want the MP pension plan brought into line with the realities faced by the private sector and do not violate the Income Tax Act.

If the Liberals are not willing to reform their gold pension plan, then start with mine which does kick in on March 13.

How can he justify a pension plan that is eight times as rich as the people who are paying for it, the taxpayers of Canada?

Pension Reform February 9th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, we heard something to that effect this morning on "Canada AM". What surprises me is that we have heard cabinet ministers, especially the Prime Minister, say that they cannot reveal anything that is going to be in the budget. How things change. He has just revealed, quite likely, that it would be revealed in the budget.

The Prime Minister said: "MP pension reform is in the red book and I am committed to everything that is in the red book". This vacuous document unfortunately has become the Liberal's book of excuses. It is like the fine print on a legal contract, just like the Deputy Prime Minister's promise to resign if the GST were not scrapped in a year. We are waiting for that to come true.

Will the Prime Minister go beyond the bare minimum outlined in the red book which does not address the problem of only six years for people qualifying for pension and paying in, and a contribution ratio of employer to employee of eight to one?

Pension Reform February 9th, 1995

I do not think it was just Reformers at the tax rally.

In the 1993 election we heard the present Prime Minister challenge then Prime Minister Kim Campbell to recall the House of Commons in the middle of August so that pension reform could be dealt with. He promised and told the press that the Liberals would change that plan in a day. Over 600 days have passed since then and Canadians are still waiting.

My question is for the Prime Minister. What changed since the 1993 election campaign? Why is the minister backtracking right now on his election promise? Will he introduce legislation now to reform MPs' pensions?