House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • Her favourite word was provinces.

Last in Parliament May 2004, as Canadian Alliance MP for South Surrey—White Rock—Langley (B.C.)

Won her last election, in 2000, with 60% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Supply February 4th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

It is quite clear how I feel about it, that the federal government, the Prime Minister and the finance minister would even make funding returned to health care conditional is abhorrent to me. I cannot believe the government which has promised a return of funding to health care would use it as tool, would use it as a way of forcing the premiers to agree with a position on the social union talks. I cannot say enough how bothered I am that it would use this tactic.

Supply February 4th, 1999

I will call it a bleeding joke, Mr. Speaker.

This government cut $16.5 billion out of health care and it wants to be in charge. It gives itself a perfect rating. It is laughable.

When we talk about the feds wanting to get into big cheque policies where they will give the provinces more money if they agree to certain conditions, there is another unparliamentary word that covers that. I understand that it is actually a criminal conviction. The Prime Minister is using this threat of not receiving billions of dollars to get the premiers to agree to his conditions. It is disgusting.

It is also interesting that part of the agreement is that the federal government will get credit for spending the money and writing the cheque. Do these people not realize that it is not their money? It is the taxpayers' money, the people who pay the bills. What difference does it make where the money comes from?

I would like to know where they get off saying that money for health care is tied to a social union contract. We had promises for months from the minister sitting on the government side that there would be money for health care in the budget. We heard that commitment from this government. Now we hear “It depends”. The government is now saying that the money will only be there if the premiers agree to the Prime Minister's conditions for a social union contract.

I do not think Canadians want to hear that the Liberals are playing with health care dollars. I do not think Canadians want to hear that the federal government is holding these health care dollars over the heads of the provinces to get its way. Canadians want to hear that this government, as it has been saying for months and months, is committed to restoring funding to health care. However, that is not what we are hearing. What we are hearing is that it is conditional on the provinces bowing down to the Prime Minister of our country. Shame on the government.

The government says that opting out cannot be allowed. I think Canadians should take a really good look at what opting out means. We have the example of a province which opted out of a pension plan. That did not split up the country. It is not an issue on the street that there is a Canada pension plan and a Quebec pension plan. I do not think people really care. What is interesting is that the Canada pension plan has over $150 billion in unfunded liabilities and the Quebec pension plan has a $70 billion cash flow.

I do not think there is anything wrong with opting out of something if the provinces feel they are more able to do it. I do not understand why the other provinces do not see this opportunity to have the same kind of system as the province of Quebec has with its pension plan.

Part of the problem is egos, which politicians in this country have. I do not deny it because I have an ego myself. The government has an ego. It wants to be the biggest, it wants to be in charge, it wants to be seen as being responsible for spending the money, but it is putting our country at risk. It is putting the health of our citizens at risk.

I cannot believe that the Prime Minister and his government are so small minded that they cannot see the bigger picture. The bigger picture is that in this country we had better find a better way of working with our partners. We had better find a more open forum for discussion and debate over jurisdiction, and we had better have a better system of listening to what the issues really are.

As long as we continue the way we are going with the federal government holding the heavy hand of dollars over the heads of the provinces, with the government making provinces do things they would normally not do because they cannot refuse additional sources of funding, we will continue to have the same problems year after year. There will be a lack of trust and a lack of respect for the other partner. The partnership will not work. If this government cannot see that, then there is something terribly wrong.

I will go back to a definition of insanity that I have used over the past few days. It is the government thinking, not only on this issue but on other issues as well, that it can continue to do things the same way again and again and get a different result. It will not look at another way of doing things, nor will it respect the Constitution to which it and four provinces were signators. The Constitution clearly outlines federal and provincial jurisdictions.

Nowhere in that Constitution does it talk about health being a shared responsibility. Nowhere in 1867 was health ever considered to be a shared responsibility. If the federal government wants to get into provincial jurisdiction, then it should do so with their agreement.

Supply February 4th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I thought I was immune to the drivel coming from the government side, but I cannot believe what I am listening to today.

What they do not seem to understand is that the problem remains the same. The federal government is using its spending powers to get into provincial jurisdiction.

Yesterday in debate the Minister of Justice said that we should respect our Constitution. Maybe the Liberals should read it. Maybe they would find out that under section 92.7 it is very clear that health is a provincial jurisdiction.

They can talk about quibbling over jurisdiction, but it is quite clear to me that most of the problems we have had in this country were caused by a breakdown in the partnership between the federal government and the provinces.

The member for Mississauga West talked about working with the provinces. I do not know how to say it politely, but that is a pile. There is no indication that this federal government is working with the provinces.

Talking with the provinces was another reference made by the member for Mississauga West. The Prime Minister is not talking with the premiers, he is talking to the premiers. He is giving them an alternative: “Agree with my position or you don't get any money”.

It really ticks me off when it is all over an issue of the federal government wanting to maintain control over health care. It is the problem. Members across the way are blaming the provinces when their government has cut $16.5 billion since 1995. Yet they have the audacity to blame the province of Quebec and the province of Ontario. I do not know how they can possibly think that Canadians are going to believe it is somebody else who cut $16.5 billion from transfer payments to the provinces.

Yes, the Liberals brought in national health care. Yes, they are responsible for it. However, at that time they promised 50% funding. What happened? Now they are funding it at 11%. It is no wonder there is a crisis in this country. To say that they want to be in control of health care is like putting the fox in charge of security in the chicken coop.

They want a report card for the provinces. That is a bloody joke. Here they are—

Justice February 3rd, 1999

Mr. Speaker, 15% of Canada's children live in British Columbia. Why is the justice minister denying them the same protection as every other child in Canada?

Justice February 3rd, 1999

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals will be spending a lot of money this spring to find out why they are so unpopular in western Canada. Let me save them some money. It is because the Liberals continually treat western Canadians as second class citizens.

Justice February 3rd, 1999

Here are the facts. The RCMP can still investigate. Prosecutors can still lay charges, but criminals can elect in which court to be heard in this particular instance and criminals can elect to be heard in the provincial court, not the supreme court.

What is happening is that these charges will be dismissed. That is fact. What will the minister do to ensure that does not happen?

Justice February 3rd, 1999

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice is misleading Canadians.

Child Pornography February 2nd, 1999

Mr. Speaker, yesterday when answering a question about the child pornography case in British Columbia the minister of justice stated that an effort to pre-empt that appellate process is silly and wrong headed.

Outside the House she stated that opposition MPs were stirring up unnecessary fear over the issue because the ruling is only binding on lower court judges in B.C., which has had one case thrown out and forty others put on hold.

As is so often the case with this government it forgets that B.C. is still a part of Canada. I can assure the minister that British Columbians do not appreciate being one of the few jurisdictions in the world which legalizes child pornography.

Does the minister not realize that real children have to be sexually abused to produce child pornography? Does she really believe that efforts to protect these children today are silly and wrong headed? Whose side is she on?

Supply February 2nd, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I believe that when we have a conflict between the rights of Canadians and they come head to head that it is the Parliament of Canada that has to establish very clearly whose rights take precedence.

In this case I suggest parliament has to make it very clear that it is the rights of children, not the rights of pedophiles, that take precedence.

Supply February 2nd, 1999

Mr. Speaker, our job is political and it is to make sure that these debates and discussions take place in an open forum for all Canadians to know that their leaders, the 301 people who sit here, are concerned about the issues and protecting their children.

If that is being political, that I feel it is important that we be having this debate in the public eye, in the House of Commons, then I am guilty of that. I think for far too long Canadian politicians and governments have removed the people from the governance of their country. The day has come when that has to stop. The people in Canada deserve the right to be part of this conversation.