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

Petitions June 12th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise in the House today to present petitions containing the names of 1,086 constituents who wish to halt the early release from prison of Robert Paul Thompson.

The petitioners are concerned about making our streets safer for our citizens. They are opposed to the current practice of early release of violent offenders prior to serving the full extent of their sentences.

I will be attending Robert Paul Thompson's National Parole Board hearing in Renous, New Brunswick, tomorrow, June 13, and I pray that the decision arising from that hearing will support the actions of these petitioners.

Business Of The House June 9th, 1995

If you are going to use a prop, give us the name of it.

Business Of The House June 9th, 1995

How many witnesses were refused to be heard?

Babbar Khalsa June 5th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, I wonder just how much evidence the minister will require before he realizes that the Babbar Khalsa is a terrorist organisation and not a social club.

While I do not expect the minister to listen to members of the opposition, could he explain what rationale his ministry used to ignore a protest from CSIS made over a year ago that the Babbar Khalsa should be denied charitable status?

Babbar Khalsa June 5th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, on May 4 the Minister of National Revenue challenged me to provide him with information that the Babbar Khalsa was a terrorist organization.

On Wednesday, May 31, the RCMP named the late Talwinder Singh Parmar and six colleagues as suspects in the Air-India bombing.

Today I have provided the minister with a copy of a 1989 newspaper photo of Parmar holding a rocket launcher surrounded by dozens of machine guns and rockets. At that time Parmar stated that if anyone wanted to commit suicide he should board an Air-India plane. He also stated that then Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi would not be allowed to live beyond 1990.

I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. Which of the above items does he believe qualifies the Babbar Khalsa society for charitable status?

Petitions June 2nd, 1995

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present three petitions. In total there are 1,290 signatures.

The petitioners are opposed to further gun control legislation and want to go on record as asking the justice minister to deal with the criminal use of firearms rather than registration.

Air-India Disaster June 1st, 1995

Mr. Speaker, everyone in the House wants to see the murderers brought to justice. Yesterday's announcement of a $1 million reward is being viewed as a further delaying tactic to avoid a royal commission.

Will the solicitor general give the House his assurance that a royal commission will be called and a deadline for creating this commission, criminal charges or no criminal charges?

Air-India Disaster June 1st, 1995

Mr. Speaker, two years ago, while Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister promised that the Liberals "will continue to press the government to create a royal commission to look into the Air-India disaster".

Yesterday while the RCMP was announcing a $1 million reward for information about the bombing of Air-India, the solicitor general advised that a royal commission will not be held while a criminal investigation is still under way.

My question for the Prime Minister is was his earlier promise to create a royal commission into the bombing of Air-India solely to garner votes?

Petitions May 19th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, I do not normally read the entire petition, but in this case I will.

I have over 7,706 signatures that I have received from a group in my community called Fair Justice, which came into effect after a very tragic killing in our community.

Their petition reads: In 1990 an average of two Canadian women per week were murdered by their husbands or male partners. Over the period 1974 to 1992 a married woman was nine times more likely to be killed by her spouse than by a stranger. Whereas the domestic killer is treated less harshly than any other by Canadian courts, the crime is usually defined as manslaughter. Killing family is much more likely to involve provocation or the heat of passion than killing acquaintances or killing for money or sex. While almost 60 per cent of those who kill during the commission of another crime are sentenced to life imprisonment, only 20 per cent of family killers receive this penalty.

Therefore, your petitioners pray and request that Parliament amend section 236 of the Criminal Code to include a minimum sentence of 10 years when a person pleads guilty or is found guilty of manslaughter of a spouse or partner.

I will therefore table these signatures that number 7,706, as I mentioned before.

Air-India Disaster May 17th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the member for York South-Weston for bringing this motion to the floor of the House.

The timing is most appropriate. In just over one month's time it will be the 10th anniversary of the bombing of Air-India flight 182. It is with full confidence that I use the word bombing and not accident or incident or any other marginal term. What happened to Air-India flight 182 was an act of terrorism, an act of cold blooded murder and an act of cowardice.

Unfortunately no one has been brought to trial in this case yet. If my hon. colleague is accurate and others are involved, it is only a matter of proof that they have not been brought to court, I would like to stress, yet.

The member for York South-Weston seems to be of the opinion that charges will never be laid in this case so let us move on to a royal commission. If this was the case, I would have no problem in providing my unconditional support to the call for a royal commission.

However, I believe that the member for York South-Weston may be a little premature in his assumption that charges will never be laid. On April 4, when Commissioner Murray of the RCMP appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, I asked him if he was opposed to a judicial inquiry into the Air-India bombing. His response was:

We are not at all opposed to having a judicial inquiry. Our only concern was to undertake the judicial inquiry while the investigation was still active-The

investigation is still active-I have made a commitment to the Solicitor General that when we reach a point where we feel that we are at an impasse, I will at that time come forward and indicate so. But we have not reached that point. The investigation is still optimistically being pursued.

I accept the word of the commissioner. I hope that this commissioner will make an intense effort in the near future to advance the investigation or to accept that the investigation is over and the time has come to move on. But until that time the question is, will a royal commission affect any subsequent criminal proceedings?

Again the member for York South-Weston is impeccable in his timing. Less than two weeks ago the Supreme Court of Canada handed down its decision on the holding of a public inquiry into the Westray coal mine disaster at the same time that criminal proceedings are under way.

The decision in that case was that the court should be most hesitant to interfere with interests of holding a public inquiry. However, the court limited its decision specifically to the Westray case and would not speculate on other cases.

For example, the supreme court pointed out that the Westray criminal case was being tried in front of a judge alone. As well, the court believed that the commissioner of any public inquiry would not compel the accused to testify at the inquiry until the criminal case was concluded. Thus some significant considerations have to be resolved before a royal commission into the Air-India bombing is conducted.

Do we want to sacrifice any subsequent criminal charges for the sake of holding a royal commission today? I think not. This is where a royal commission would create a great many problems.

In the Westray decision the supreme court recognized the protection of the charter to any potentially accused. They could be compelled to testify in front of the royal commission but their testimony could not be used at the trial. That is a given.

What would cause even greater problems in pursuing criminal charges against those responsible for bombing Air-India is the difficulty created by the derivative evidence.

This means that if any new information comes out at the royal commission, at a subsequent criminal proceeding the defence could claim that the crown was only able to proceed with charges with the evidence that was a result of compulsory incriminating testimony and therefore the evidence would not be admissible.

In addition, in the Westray case the court ruled that the testimony of the accused must not be published and the report of the inquiry must remain confidential to ensure that any accused received a fair opportunity at trial.

The whole point of a royal commission should be to bring the truth about Air-India to light, and this could not be done if the evidence could not be published. Our first priority must be to bring those responsible for the Air-India bombing to trial.

I know that my colleague for York South-Weston is concerned about the way both the RCMP and CSIS have handled the investigation of this terrorist act. And there should be a cause for concern. I have no doubt that when the evidence of how these two agencies handled their investigation comes to light, it will be apparent that mistakes were made.

Who will ultimately be held accountable for these mistakes? Most of the senior management who were in place at CSIS and the RCMP have retired. There is concern that the whole truth may never come out. But when it comes to choosing between pointing fingers at those responsible for some of the mistakes at CSIS and the RCMP or bringing the individuals who are responsible for the worst mass murder in Canadian history to justice, I am afraid there is no comparison. Bringing to trial those responsible for the bombing has to take priority.

To get back to the motion before us today, if there is any way a royal commission could be held without jeopardizing the crown's ability to bring those murderers to trial, I would fully support such a call. Let us put the speculation to rest and give everyone involved in the case the opportunity to give their testimony. I am sure that many investigators at both CSIS and the RCMP would love to have the opportunity to provide their versions of the event.

Let us give the families of the victims an opportunity to finally hear what happened to their loved ones. Let us give the Canadian public the truth about what happened with the bombing of Air India. We should be told what the Canadian government was doing in regard to this issue prior to the bombing. Could it have been prevented? We should be told about the subsequent investigation. Did a turf war between the RCMP and CSIS impede a proper investigation?

The member for York South-Weston is absolutely correct: all this information must be made public and a royal commission or a judicial inquiry should occur. The only question is the timing.

The first and foremost concern on this issue must be that those individuals involved in the cowardly bombing of Air-India must be brought to justice. If a royal commission will not interfere or jeopardize a criminal trial, then we should proceed immediately. However, if it is likely that this royal commission would provide these mass murderers with a technicality to escape conviction, I am afraid the commission should wait.

While it is important that we ensure that the bombing of Air-India flight 182 is never forgotten, we owe it to the victims and their families that those responsible are brought to justice.