House of Commons photoWon her last election, in 2000, with 51% of the vote.
Immigration January 31st, 2001
Mr. Speaker, it is hard to believe there is so much noise on the floor of the House of Commons when lives are potentially in danger.
The report has come out that the substance may possibly be anthrax. What is the immigration minister able to do and what will she do to make sure that she is in control of her department and in control of this crisis that is ongoing now?
Immigration January 31st, 2001
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that there should be some mechanism in place before people open general mail. There are reports that this could potentially be anthrax. That moves it into a completely—
Immigration January 31st, 2001
Mr. Speaker, the country has just received word that government offices both in Ottawa and Toronto have been evacuated. The immigration building here in Ottawa is, and I quote, “closed until further notice”. Will the immigration minister stand and confirm today that it is because of a suspected biological threat?
Information Commissioner's Report October 17th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, it is finally being addressed. They have been in government seven years. I can understand they would get the itch to do it right. The auditor general also said:
We note, however, that HRDC's review of 76 sampled files was not sufficient to determine whether all 17,000 active files fully met program requirements.
That is a heck of a shortfall. How can the minister defend ignoring 99.5% of all those files?
Information Commissioner's Report October 17th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, the government is trying desperately to look good on all kinds of fronts.
The HRD minister has assured Canadians time and time again that there were very few grant overpayments at HRD. The auditor general disagrees with that. Only 76% of the more than 17,000 active files, that is, less than one-half of 1%, were subjected to departmental review. That one-half of 1% generated 11 police probes.
Why did the minister avoid the other 16,900-odd files? Were there not enough RCMP officers to go around for the investigation?
Grants And Contributions October 16th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, let me just say again how highly inappropriate it is of the minister to okay funds of $5 million to go to someone who is already under investigation. Talk about secrecy.
With a nudge and a wink, and may the Groupe Forces be with you, the Prime Minister handed five million more dollars to a suspected fraud artist, and now the minister says that she has to hide behind a cloak of secrecy. She cannot talk about it.
It was okay for her to okay a cheque. Why does residency in the Prime Minister's riding qualify even suspected fraud artists and thieves access to the public purse that she okays?
Grants And Contributions October 16th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, there was already an RCMP investigation under way and it would seem to me pretty highly appropriate not to give them five million more dollars while the investigation was going on.
Do not let the investigations discourage you, Mr. Speaker, if you want to get your hands on the public purse; in fact maybe just move to the Prime Minister's riding.
Mario Pépin and his Groupe Forces were under RCMP investigation already for fraud and theft, but the government thought nothing of handing him five million more dollars of taxpayer money.
I would like to know: Do all fraud suspects qualify for millions of dollars of taxpayer money, or just those who live in the Prime Minister's riding?
Grants And Contributions October 16th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, if you were approached by someone asking for $5 million and you knew that the guy was under investigation for fraud and theft, you would probably be a little hesitant to hand over the cash, but not with this government, not in the Prime Minister's riding. It handed over five million more dollars to Mario Pépin in spite of an ongoing RCMP investigation for fraud and theft.
Why would the government give millions of taxpayer dollars to a suspected fraud artist?
The Liberal Party Of Canada October 16th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, evidently the Prime Minister had to scour the countryside to find new cabinet material.
Is there no one over there whom he already trusts? Or maybe they are already so divided that he cannot build a cabinet out of wood, hay and stubble.
What about this one, Brian Tobin? Mr. Speaker, you know him. He is the guy who promised to serve a full term as the premier of Newfoundland. He said “I intend to put in a full day every day for the full term that I have been given”. That was in the Montreal Gazette on February 10, 1999. What a short term it has been. It is another example I guess of how promises by Liberals at election time mean diddly-squat.
After 93's flip and 97's flop, Canadians will reject the Liberal government campaign of negativity and attacks in the year 2000. We will have no part of it. One strike, two strikes, three strikes, well, the government may be out. It is a new game and a new day in Canada.
Supply October 16th, 2000
In two words, Mr. Speaker, equal opportunity. Regardless of whether it is based on gender or disability it should be equal opportunity for everyone.
The minister stands and says she defends these feminist dozen. I do not know how anyone, even a Liberal, could defend the fact that they say they want full funding access for women with disabilities. That is discriminatory. There are lots of women, lots of men and lots of young people with disabilities who need equal opportunity, period, in the workplace regardless of gender or disability.
That is not one size fits all. That is making sure we do not just separate out women with disabilities but include men with disabilities and say that we will hire on the basis of merit and merit alone. There would not be the discrimination that I see in this document.