House of Commons photoWon her last election, in 2000, with 60% of the vote.
Nisga'A Final Agreement Act December 6th, 1999
moved:
Motion No. 156
That Bill C-9 be amended by adding before line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 Every eight years, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development shall table in each House of Parliament a report on the state of the Nisga'a Final Agreement.”
Nisga'A Final Agreement Act December 2nd, 1999
moved:
Motion No. 29
That Bill C-9, in Clause 1, be amended
(a) by replacing line 2 on page 2 with the following:
“Agreement Act”
(b) by deleting the word “Final“ wherever it occurs in the Bill.
Culture November 30th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, as the World Trade Organization meets in Seattle, we once again hear the calls that Canada has to protect our culture.
But precisely what do these people want to protect? Are they upset that last year four of the top ten female singers in the United States were Canadians Céline Dion, Shania Twain, Sarah McLachlan and Alanis Morissette?
Are they upset that last week both Céline Dion and Shania Twain had their specials carried by American television networks in prime time during the U.S. Thanksgiving holiday?
The only thing our talented Canadian performers need to be protected from is the inferiority complex that the government perpetuates. It is an insult to Canadian performers to suggest that the only way they can compete on the world stage is with the government's protection.
If these cultural protectionists are truly interested in the well-being of Canadian performers, they would be out there promoting them, not trying to isolate them.
Canadian Institutes Of Health Research Act November 29th, 1999
Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-13, an act to establish the Canadian institutes of health research and to repeal the Medical Research Council Act.
It is not very often in the House when I compliment the government on its direction, but I must compliment the government in recognizing the need for Canadian medical and science researchers to be supported financially. It is the hope of the official opposition that the new institutes of health research will be accountable to the Canadian taxpayers who will be providing the financial resources in order for the research to take place.
Research and development has had very strange support from governments. I remember the former Conservative government made lots of promises to the people of British Columbia, particularly to the University of British Columbia with the Kaon project but it became very apparent that it was only a vote-getting promise. Other promises have been made across the country by governments maintaining that they recognize the need for research and development, but when the time comes the financial support is never there.
We are very supportive of research and development because that is how Canada will lead the way. That is how the Canadian economy will be able to compete with other nations of the world. So often and for so long we have watched our best and our brightest go elsewhere because the financial support has not been available in our country to develop and fund research projects and to put those research projects into a viable market.
We are very pleased that the government at least is recognizing the need to put financial resources into research and development, but even more so the need to be accountable to the taxpayers for that money, not only with this direction on research and development, but certainly with other government programs. What has happened is that money has gone into an area and the taxpayers have had no idea where it has gone, if the money has been well spent or if there is any benefit from that money being put there. It is quite clear that the government recognizes the need to hold these new institutes accountable to the taxpayer.
The amount of dollars will be divided between the institute development fund, which will get 20% of the earmarked dollars, and the strategic initiative fund, which will get 80% of the total budget. Both will be overseen by a body. Although the director may be appointed by the government, the other members who will be sitting on the committee will be appointed or nominated by their peers.
That is a very important step forward. There will not be more patronage positions for the government to fill. Rather, the people who will be showing leadership and who will be determining which project will be prioritized, that determination will be made by the peers of the scientific community and the medical research community. They understand and will be able to weigh the importance of the projects. They will be able to prioritize them in such a way that the taxpayers' funds will be well spent.
It is also important to note that the government is not interested in creating a new bureaucracy. The government is not interested in long term appointments to government paid salaried positions. The individuals who will serve as an advisory board will not be paid a salary. They will be paid a per diem fee for the amount of time spent in committees or the number of committee meetings they attend. Instead of having somebody on a salary of $80,000 to $125,000, we are talking about a per diem fee with expenses being covered.
I think we will get people who really want to serve the scientific community and the Canadian people. They will not be out for their own personal benefit, they will be out for the good of the whole. That is a very important step for our government to take.
It is important not to create an establishment where the majority of the dollars goes to support the bureaucracy itself. I understand that only 4% to 5% of the total funds will go toward administration. I think Canadians will uphold the government's decision. Hopefully we will see in the long run that taxpayers' dollars do not go toward an increasingly huge bureaucracy or, as we sometimes hear people call them, these little kingdoms that develop, but rather that the money will actually go into research and development.
We are very pleased the government is going in this direction. We hope in the end these appointments will prove that the system is right and that this model of an agency can be used in other areas.
The head of the institution will be appointed by the governor in council and the other members will be appointed by their peers. The names of individuals from the scientific community will be given to the individual who will be appointed to run the institute. He or she will select from the names. It is an interesting direction for the government to be going in.
We understand the agencies will be reporting twice annually. Their spending can be watched by the Canadian people. Over the years we will be able to assess whether or not they are doing the best they can, whether they are using the money wisely through the reporting process that has been put in the act.
It is important to acknowledge that the scientific community has been hard done by in years past. Most of the money which has gone into scientific research has been used for administrative purposes or for supporting bureaucracies. I think the scientists themselves are looking to the new act to free up dollars for actual research projects and that the money will go into research.
Hopefully at the end of the day not only will Canadian taxpayers be pleased with the results, but those in the scientific and medical research community will also be pleased. This will mean more money will go into research than into the bureaucracy. The appointment of members and the overseeing body will be done in an open and democratic manner which will be accountable to the people with a reporting process involved.
Years from now we look forward to seeing a strong scientific and medical research community which will lead the way internationally. Hopefully this will stop the serious brain drain of our best and our brightest.
Witness Protection Program Act November 26th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the government talks about these interesting programs. It is interesting that the Liberals have shown such concern for children in the Speech from the Throne. It is interesting that the government professes to be so concerned about women's issues.
Yet, we heard the government member say “Let the programs do their job. They are working well”. I would suggest that they are not working well because people do not even know these programs exist.
There were three issues that surprised me when I became a member of parliament six years ago which concern the number of individuals who have issues they cannot deal with and who have no idea where to go.
The first issue was that when people are being harassed and threatened by Revenue Canada, they have no idea how to fight the taxman. It is very difficult for most Canadians to use the very expensive court process and legal process to fight their own government.
The second issue was the number of concerned fathers who came to my office because they had lost access to their children. The courts would not recognize that they had any right to continue to be fathers and to have access to their children.
The third issue was the number of women who came into my office with horrific examples of what they had to put up with, and there was no protection for them from spousal abuse. A number of women had tried to use the legal process. A number of women had gone to court to get restraining orders. They found, usually through a violent episode, that restraining orders really do not mean a whole lot. Those restraining orders do not allow anybody to protect them from somebody physically threatening their life or abusing them physically.
The courts are not in a position through restraining orders to deal with this. The police are not in a position through restraining orders to deal with this. There is nothing in legislation that gives the courts or the police a way to offer these women and children a way out.
I am sure that I do not stand alone as a member of parliament in having these women and fathers come into my office. Some of the situations that the women find themselves in are horrific. One woman came in who had been stabbed seven times by her previous spouse. The court would not find that it was attempted murder. He was charged and convicted of assault. She could not even have him incarcerated for a long period of time to give her some freedom from worrying about her life and the lives of her children, because it was becoming threatening to them as well.
I do not know how many members of the House have heard stories of women who are trying to remove themselves from these situations, who are trying to find safe havens. Having gone on a ride along with the RCMP I know they do their best in driving by these safe homes for women, the hostels that are set up so that women have a place to go when they leave their homes. They have to find safe havens for themselves and their children in circumstances of abuse. I know that the police try their best.
However, in Montreal an ex-spouse actually went into a hostel, into a women's shelter, and shot his wife dead, so even those shelters cannot provide a safe haven for women who are afraid for their lives.
We had an incident in Vernon, B.C. where a spouse not only murdered his wife, but her whole family. I believe there were seven or eight people whom he managed to wipe out in that one event.
I have to ask myself why the government cannot see that until we have specific legislation that the courts can refer to, that the police community can refer to, there will not and cannot be a safe haven for women who are trying to remove themselves from this constant threat of violence.
Can a government that professes to be so concerned about the children of Canada not realize that with these women are usually children, children who may have been abused by their fathers or mothers, and if not abused then they are certainly part of this threat of violence to their mothers, this threat of death to their mothers? These children are being uprooted and moved from community to community. They cannot stay in the same school for any length of time. They cannot keep the same friends. They may not even be allowed to have an association with their extended families. They live in a constant state of fear and mobility. For a government that is so concerned about the welfare of the children of this country, we would think that it would see the need to have some statutory protection, some vehicle by which the courts and the police community could direct women who are in such fear for their lives.
This is not something that women would do or that families would do for a lark. For people to give up their security within a family unit must be very, very hard indeed. They give up the stability of that history. They do not have a background to fall back on. They give up their identity. For people to give up these things for long periods of time cannot be easy. This is not something that would be abused. This is something that would be used as a very last resort by persons who have no other options.
I do not see why it should be so daunting for the government to consider a legislative remedy to protect women and children. Perhaps some men might be in the same position, but I think we all recognize that the majority of people who may find themselves in this position are women and possibly the children with them. I am sure that most members in the House have examples to support why this bill is badly needed by society.
As in most cases, the government is reluctant to take a bold step forward. It says that we cannot use the witness protection program because it is outside the limits and because witness protection is used to further the investigative arm of the police department. Why can that not be changed?
Why can the aspect of protection programs not be expanded to recognize that there are more people in society who may need protection, who may need identity changes and the start of a new life than people who are going to be ratting on someone in a court of law? Why can it not be expanded? The government has expanded other legislation to broaden its dimensions. Why can the legislation not be broadened?
We have heard that the government feels that the program, which is a joint program between the Minister of Finance and, I believe, human resources, is working just fine. I suggest that it is not working just fine. Most women who are afraid for their lives do not know about the program. How are they supposed to find out about it? The police do not even know about it.
I have talked to the prosecutor's office in Surrey. There are working groups that are trying to deal with this issue. I do not recall hearing this program mentioned.
The people who are trying to find an answer for women who are in distress and who are looking for a safe haven do not know about the program and the police departments are not aware of it. Therefore how can they refer families to it? How can the people who are looking for answers and help know about it?
If the government is serious about protecting the children and women who are fearful for their lives, then the government has the responsibility to do something about it. And it should not just study it for another 10 or 15 years.
Airport Safety November 26th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, when the government was transferring ownership of regional airports to the local municipalities, it relaxed the emergency response time so as not to impose excessive burdens on these local communities.
Now that the government has divested these airports, it is tightening up the rules again, requiring local communities to provide a three minute response time. This is a move that will cost dozens of communities millions of dollars each.
Why did the government entice the municipalities with relaxed requirements only to tighten up the requirements after the local governments acquired the airports?
Canada Elections Act November 25th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the government House leader wants to change the elections act to encourage more women to run for politics.
If the minister is truly serious about encouraging women to run for politics, I suggest he should start by eliminating the chauvinistic attitudes of some of his cabinet colleagues.
Perhaps he should tell his colleagues that it is demeaning to women when they rise in the House to be told that they are being silly. Why is it that when a male member asks a question of the minister of Indian affairs he receives the courtesy of a response, but when a female member asks the same question, she is told by him that she is being silly.
This is the problem with the Liberal government. It preaches one thing but practises the opposite. It is another example of the impotence of the Liberal government. It brings a backbencher into cabinet to rise to the occasion, only to reveal his shortcomings.
Supply November 22nd, 1999
Because you cut the debate short.
Supply November 22nd, 1999
That's the most important thing.
Supply November 22nd, 1999
Madam Speaker, I thought I had made it clear that the Government of British Columbia has to assume some of the responsibility. It has denied the people of B.C. a vote.
It is not the federal government that would be imposing a referendum. It is the people of British Columbia who are asking for it to be held. They have asked it of the provincial government which has turned its back on the people of the province. The people of the province ask whomever.
If the province of British Columbia will change its mind and allow a referendum, then so be it. However, if the provincial government still refuses, then the people of British Columbia are asking the federal government to step in and hold a referendum.