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

The Late David Orlikow February 4th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the official opposition to pay tribute to a person who has served our country in this Chamber, Mr. David Orlikow, who passed away on January 19.

It has often been said that every generation of Canadians stands on the shoulders of those who have gone on before and built the foundations of our country. I and my colleagues are aware of the valuable contribution Mr. Orlikow made in the second half of this century to public life in Canada. I would like to list a few of his qualities and achievements.

First, his long record of public service. He served his fellow Canadians for a total of 43 continuous years in elected office at four different levels of government. That is truly remarkable. From 1945 to 1951 he was a school trustee in Winnipeg. From 1950 to 1958 he was a Winnipeg city alderman. From 1958 to 1962 he was a member of the Manitoba legislature. As mentioned earlier, from 1962 to 1988 he was the member of Parliament for Winnipeg North. That means he had 18 consecutive wins. That is an achievement hard to match, a pretty good record.

Second, his involvement and advocacy in non-governmental organizations. Mr. Orlikow worked with various NGOs from the John Howard Society to the Elizabeth Fry, the Jewish Labour Committee and the Canadian Labour Congress.

These activities further demonstrated his concern for the many social issues that earmarked his parliamentary career. These issues included poverty, illiteracy, human rights, services for the disabled and workers rights. He fought tirelessly for these issues.

Third, his faithfulness to his political roots. He was faithful to the end to his political roots and the philosophy which he readily acknowledged were in the eastern European political traditions. He found these political expressions in voices in the CCF and the NDP in Canada. He was an active member of his party and sought to advance its cause and influence. He needs to be remembered and to paid tribute to as somebody who fought really hard for what he believed in always.

Fourth, he was a tireless worker on behalf of his constituents. This is one area of all of our parliamentary work that I am sure we would all aspire to. Mr. Orlikow was a great example, apparently dedicating total Saturdays and other days, from sunup to sundown, to have appointments with his constituents. It is no wonder they re-elected him as many times as they did when he offered that kind of service.

Finally, Mr. Orlikow was a husband, a father and a grandfather. Those are the things which last far longer than any parliamentary career.

Mr. Orlikow was predeceased by his wife Velma in 1990. He is survived by his daughter and two grandchildren. It is to those loved ones that we want to pay tribute, for no person is an island. Each of us who serves in public life knows how valuable and how important family and friends are. We would not be able to be here and do the job that we do unless there are many people who love us and support us back home.

I and my colleagues in the official opposition join in extending our sympathy and prayers to the total family and to those people who care about Mr. Orlikow.

Infrastructure February 4th, 1998

Certainly. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to ask the transport minister if he thinks if the shoe fits, wear it. Yesterday he said that he did not want such flip-flops in the future. If it is not okay for the future, why is it okay now?

Infrastructure February 4th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, if done properly, private-public partnerships for infrastructure would be a really good idea.

What is so dangerous about the Doug Young scandal is that it absolutely smears the reputation of these projects. The idea of public-private roads should not be tainted by patronage and corruption.

Yesterday the Minister of Transport expressed nervousness, saying that he does not want—

Infrastructure February 4th, 1998

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that.

Back when he was transport minister Doug Young spent $32 million of taxpayer money to build a road in New Brunswick. Then after he got booted out of Parliament last summer he bought that same highway to use as a toll road for himself and the ethics counsellor says “that's okay with me”.

I want to ask this prime minister why are the ethics of his government based purely on a wink and a handshake so much like Brian Mulroney's ethical questions?

Infrastructure February 4th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, back when he was transport minister, Doug Young gave $32 million to build a road in New Brunswick. When he got booted out of Parliament last summer, he bought that same highway for a toll road for himself.

Helicopters February 3rd, 1998

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about helicopters here, not fruit. This whole thing has been a total mess from the start and the government knows it. The search and rescue helicopter saga from the beginning has been an absolute nightmare. Today the government tells us “Trust us. Now we are going shopping for shipbornes”. Nobody in the country can trust the government.

I want the prime minister to stand right now and explain one of the biggest botch-ups since he took office in 1993.

Helicopters February 3rd, 1998

Mr. Speaker, the minister of defence just said that in 1992 they were looking at an incomplete helicopter and now in 1998 the Liberals have bought a complete helicopter. This may be a case of dumb and dumber, but even the Tories when they signed that contract, I am sure, were not dealing with billions of dollars on an incomplete helicopter.

My question is for the minister of defence. For the incredible expense that was incurred with buying these new helicopters when our Canadian Armed Forces deserve excellent equipment, why the flip-flop and why on earth is this based on politics rather than on good equipment for our armed forces?

Helicopters February 2nd, 1998

Mr. Speaker, what happened in fact was that when the prime minister said they would not buy any the deficit was higher. Look at the debt right now. It is $600 billion and increasing every second. What kind of a deal is that? They are not 40% less and the prime minister knows it. They cost more.

The government and the prime minister are single-handedly responsible for the mishandling of the helicopter hysteria.

I will ask the prime minister one more time how he can defend a decision that is so shamefully based on politics and politics alone.

Helicopters February 2nd, 1998

Mr. Speaker, speaking of a war of words, in 1993 during the campaign the prime minister said “Zero helicopters, period. Zero helicopters”.

Now in 1998 he says “Okay, 15 helicopters. Actually they will be the same kind of helicopters and actually they will cost $200 million more than we thought they would”. What a steal of a deal; a Liberal would think that is good bargaining.

I dare the prime minister to stand in his place to defend the decision to get helicopters now after originally cancelling them based purely on politics and politics alone.

The Environment December 11th, 1997

Mr. Speaker, we will not comment about hair, but we will comment about the Kyoto deal.

The premiers have said the deal is dead and it is going absolutely nowhere. They know that the deal could lead to thousands of job losses and a 35¢ jump at the pumps for gas.

At the end of the day the environment has not been helped and neither has the economy, so we are no further ahead on this.

Let me ask the government, someone who will answer a question finally about Kyoto.

Why did this government let itself get swept away by an environmental Meech Lake sequel?