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

Human Resources Development March 22nd, 2000

Mr. Speaker, I think we are casting aspersions on the programs that are absolutely illegitimate and politically motivated.

The Prime Minister said yesterday “Probably I should offer an apology to the people of Alberta because if we did not have flexibility in the program, not one cent would have gone to that province”. It turns out that it was so flexible that the justice minister got $2.5 million in her riding. The 24 Reform ridings combined got $1 million.

Why is the Prime Minister's flexibility limited to dishing out cash in cliffhanger Liberal seats?

Human Resources Development March 21st, 2000

Mr. Speaker, the minister is not answering a very specific and a pretty simple question.

Mel Cappe said today in committee that there were no explicit guidelines. Now the minister turns around and says that they had all kinds of flexibility with guidelines. There are two different stories here and Canadians deserve an answer. Who should we believe?

Human Resources Development March 21st, 2000

Mr. Speaker, talk about trickle down. When that money goes to Liberals and they give money back to party, that is what is frustrating.

The HRDC minister has been picking pockets of unemployment as her alibi for long enough. Today Mel Cappe blew the lid off her excuses. People say that if we ask the guilty the same question long enough and often enough, the truth is bound to slip out.

We would like to know today who is telling the truth.

Export Development Corporation March 20th, 2000

The Prime Minister talks about values and sharing. He brags that he will protect Canada from Americanization. That is nonsense.

How is it that this Prime Minister values sharing Canadian money so much with American companies?

Export Development Corporation March 20th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, when backing a loan we know, if the loan goes sour, exactly who is on the hook to pay the bill.

While health care in our country has been derailed, this government has pumped a billion dollars into a foreign railway. The Prime Minister blabs on about the fact that he will protect Canada but—

Export Development Corporation March 20th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, that is not encouraging for the minister who came over from HRDC, and I am sure he is familiar with some of the stuff there.

The government subsidized Amtrak, an American train company, to the tune of $1 billion. At the same time it was slashing billions of dollars out of our health care system.

Does the minister really think that Canadians are willing to give their money to subsidize Amtrak?

House Of Commons March 16th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, someone finds it disgusting. Someone finds me disgusting. I guess he is certainly entitled to his opinion. Surely to heaven this thing is bigger than some person's opinion about me.

Regarding the application of rules, we know it has to be to both sides. You were a coach. I just had a kid from Niagara Falls in my office yesterday who was talking about you as a football coach in the glory days. You know also that if kids on your own team mouth off at you or whatever and you do not discipline them, you will have a lousy team and probably a pretty lousy record as well.

Just in terms of personal respect, in my coaching I remember that it is easy to pick on the other side, but the girls on my volleyball team at Dewberry School knew perfectly well that if they did something wrong and Miss Grey said they would go to the showers, they did not mess with it. They knew that was exactly what was going to happen. One cannot favour one side over the other. It does not work.

House Of Commons March 16th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, of course you know also that was just one example that I used.

If I could answer in the clearest shortest way possible, I am a July 1 baby and I happened to care pretty deeply about that so I did disagree with your position, but I did not bring forward a motion of censure on the Speaker. I thought I made that very clear in my speech. There are all kinds of things that you have ruled on that I have disagreed with. Who cares? Some of us agree, some of us disagree. That is fine. The member over there can certainly have his decision and say he agreed with you. That is great. I disagreed with you. I got my say. I did not get my way. That is fine. I respect that.

The actual point I referred to about the flag flap decision was the fact that you equivocated for three weeks about it. You probably went through more pain than any of the rest of us. I am not sure if it was three weeks but it was a long time. Who am I to give you advice but if you asked for it, I would probably say the quickest decision is always the best decision. Maybe not the spur of the moment decision but think it through.

I guess I have to go back to high school, Mr. Speaker. You know that if we had students who were misbehaving we could not tell them to just sit there for a while and we will come back by the Easter holiday. You know that if there is to be punishment or a decision to be made they will respect us as teachers better if we think it through, then come back and be decisive. We know that.

The flag flap was just one example. Maybe it was not the best but it is the one I was thinking of because I happen to be wildly in love with those two Canadian flags hanging beside you. They are gorgeous.

House Of Commons March 16th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and address this today and most specifically to thank you for being in the Chair. I think that is important. The most important part about it is the fact that you are sitting in the Chair and that you, probably more than anyone, realizes that this is not about two specific little rulings. This is something that is huge, as my colleague has just mentioned. I think all of us, and especially yourself, should realize what an enormous issue this is.

By way of introduction I want to say that I appreciate everyone's views on this. This certainly goes beyond partisan politics. I know our caucuses had a lengthy discussion about this. Everyone in the House needs to pay particular attention to this. In fact, my own House leader in his remarks this morning talked about the big issue here of government arrogance. He thinks that because the government has had maybe a little too much free rein with too much closure and too much time allocation, a change in the standing orders may be something that should be addressed. I appreciate that and I respect that.

Mr. Speaker, this motion is about you. You know it, I know it and that is why you have been sitting in the Chair all day.

I will go back several years, Mr. Speaker. You and I have both been in the House for several years. You will remember when I came in 1989 we both sat under a different Speaker, Speaker Fraser, who I appreciated very much. I did not get my way all the time. I was treated as an Independent then, but I do remember John Fraser taking me into his chambers and saying, “You have been elected fairly and squarely, and even though you are sitting as an Independent, I have to respect you and treat you that way”.

When you ran after the 1993 election, Mr. Speaker—and I guess we can be honest with each other—you and I both know exactly how and why it is you are sitting in the Chair. There were discussions, everyone had a vote and we supported you. I am not complaining about everything you have done over the years. Frankly, I cannot imagine anyone even wanting your job. I do not know why you went for it but you did and you have sat through a couple of very awkward parliaments, because of the separatist issue more than anything we might think about. We have had very raucous times in the House since you became the Speaker.

Aside from all that, I think we need to look specifically at some of the decisions that you have made. I will not quote at great length from Hansard because I want to speak from my heart today. I could go back to times—before the flag flap and I was still here as an independent member of parliament and the only representative of my party—when we were not allowed to even question anything that the Speaker did.

You and I, Mr. Speaker, if we go back, will remember the time I did an interview and someone asked me if I thought the Speaker was being ruled or whatever by the Liberals. I remember making the comment that perhaps some decisions do look like the Speaker is in the hip pocket of the government. You will remember all too well that when I got on a plane later that day you tracked me to Alberta and you tracked me all weekend and then the day I came back you will remember what you told me, Mr. Speaker.

Now, not many years later, it seems like it is just free rein and it has become very public. There have been page-long interviews about you and some of the decisions that have been made. I do not think it is fair that we can go around willy-nilly and say that the Speaker ruled against me. Dear knows, you have ruled against me many times and you have had every right to. I respect that, Mr. Speaker. Because I am quick-tongued and I am mischievous you have to do that sometimes. I respect that. You know that and I honour that. However, that does not give me the right to say that it was not fair, that he was hard on me so I will bring forward a motion of censure. That is ridiculous and cannot happen every second Tuesday.

You will also remember, Mr. Speaker, a huge thing. Let me just make reference to the flag flap. I do not want to use props, dress up or do fancy things, but there was something that just cut to the quick of my heart when someone, first of all, equivocated for far too long on that issue and then said “No, you cannot display your flag”. If I am proud of my flag, darn it, I want to stand on the roof top. I do not want someone else who happens to dislike my flag to be able to rule over this place and have you under their influence to tell me that I cannot be proud of it. That was the flap and you remember it. We were all probably glad to get through those days.

Probably the most dangerous or frightening one I see is that our legal counsel people have been muffled. You and I are not lawyers, Mr. Speaker, but we know that when lawyers take an oath of confidentiality they mean it. Now I think that not only have we been compromised with the legislative counsel decisions that you have made, but I think these lawyers themselves, who are proud, passionate people and serve this place to the best of their ability, are probably agonizing about the oath they took as a lawyer. I think that your decisions have compromised them.

Would you, Mr. Speaker, like to tell a doctor in this place “You cannot live by, in your very gut, the Hippocratic oath that you took?” You know they could not do that, Mr. Speaker. We were all here when Shaughnessy Cohen dropped among us. It was devastating for us. How can you say to a doctor, “Oh, no”. How can you say to a lawyer “No, I am sorry, the oath of confidentiality that you took just does not matter any more. Partisanship overrides it”. There is something frightening about that and I think something dangerous as well.

I will finish up because we do not have much time to address this and I want other people to be given a chance. Let me just say, Mr. Speaker, because you realize that this is such a serious issue, and I do too, that I have very serious concerns about the very democratic rights of every member in this House regardless of political stripe and so should you.

Human Resources Development March 16th, 2000

That is great, honey, but they are not arguments.