House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • Her favourite word was terms.

Last in Parliament September 2021, as Conservative MP for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo (B.C.)

Won her last election, in 2019, with 45% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Journalism February 6th, 2017

Mr. Speaker, last week one of the local journalists in my riding asked in his column, “Do you really think our communities would be better with no newspapers, TV or radio news? Do you really want our only news authority to be click bait?”

I, for one, do not. Frankly, I miss our local Kamloops Daily News. It was one of many long-established small-town newspapers that disappeared overnight after more than 83 years.

Along with the death of the local paper, we have seen the consolidation of major national papers, local TV news vanishing, and respected journalists leaving the profession entirely. The direct correlation between digital technology and the death of quality journalism cannot be understated.

We are at a crossroads. Technology will not be reversed, but the important role journalists play in our society can no longer be diminished. It is time for all of us to spend some time thinking about how government, society, and our democracy will be held accountable in the era of fake news.

Business of Supply February 2nd, 2017

Mr. Speaker, the member makes a good point with respect to the importance of medical and dental benefits, and what this tax grab would cost. However, he also brought something up that is even more important.

In my speech, I talked about creating an environment for businesses to be successful. In our province, the softwood lumber agreement is absolutely essential for the forestry workers. If they did not have those jobs, they would not have medical and dental benefits. That agreement expired a long time ago. The Prime Minister and the former U.S. president said that they would get the deal done. We were very optimistic. Obviously, they failed. I am becoming increasingly concerned about getting a proper softwood lumber deal done, and ultimately about those jobs in the forestry sector in British Columbia.

Business of Supply February 2nd, 2017

Mr. Speaker, I will give the former Liberal government credit for balancing the budget, which it did on the backs of the provinces and not through looking at its own fiscal situation, but the current Liberal government is a very different beast indeed.

It is also important to note that we had a global recession, and that Canada's record was well looked at by the rest of the world.

Most important, this is not the Liberal government of the Martin days, which at least showed some semblance of attempting to balance the budget. We have regularly asked the current government when it will balance the budget, and we have not received an answer. To suggest that perhaps the current government is like the government of old when we cannot get a simple answer to when it will balance the budget I think speaks for itself.

Business of Supply February 2nd, 2017

Mr. Speaker, I would like to note that I am going to be sharing my time with the member for St. Albert—Edmonton.

Certainly the debate we are having today is absolutely critical. The role of the government is to ensure its own fiscal health, deliver important programs and services, while being very cognizant of the burden on families, communities, and taxpayers. There is a growing concern that the government is failing miserably at that very important balance.

I would like to note what Michael Smyth said today in The Province. He noted the problem for our Prime Minister is that, while he promised to eventually balance the budget, he is spending like a drunken sailor and racking up deficits instead.

The reason we have this issue before us today is that my office had an onslaught of emails and phones calls from people who are horribly concerned about the thought that there might be a tax on their dental benefits or health benefits. We did hear very vague responses from the finance minister for a long time, and it was not until yesterday that there was perhaps a slight bit of reassurance that it is not going to happen. However I am thinking that the reassurance only came as Liberals realized the absolute outrage that Canadians had when they thought that someone who made $45,000 a year would be looking at an extra thousand dollars in their tax bill.

It is important to really understand the concerns that are expressed in the motion. We need to reflect on the current fiscal situation, which is really driving the Liberals zest for their tax grab. Most Canadians are not economists, myself included, but most Canadians understand the basic principles of a household budget. It is not really all that different for government. A federal budget adds a whole lot of zeros and has a lot more line items, but the idea of a balanced budget is something that we all have to deal with from households, to municipalities, to provinces. Actually municipalities are limited, at least in British Columbia, in how much they can actually borrow, because they realize that they cannot keep borrowing. Therefore the legislation for municipalities places limits.

We all know that sometimes Canadians borrow for a car or a house, but the proper way to do that is to know they are able to cover the payments as they go. If people live on credit cards for groceries, gas, or electricity—increasingly in places like Ontario—they know they are heading down a path that is absolutely unsustainable. The government has that same kind of responsibility. At times, borrowing for infrastructure is appropriate, but that is infrastructure. That is not borrowing to pay for the gas or food.

I cannot see citizens going to their employers and saying they need more money because they need to spend more money and would really like a raise. I think we could understand what most employers would say to anyone who came to them with that kind of request. However, the government is in a unique position. Liberals are saying they are spending more money, so they are going to take more money from Canadians. They really have a position that they have to treasure and be so careful about what they are doing, and again that very important budget.

Sixteen months ago the Liberal government took office, and it has been confirmed by the parliamentary budget officer that they were left with a surplus. In spite of their trying to indicate otherwise, that is very clear and it has been documented.

The election commitment Liberals made was a very tiny $10 billion and they would get back to balanced budgets. That was the commitment they made to Canadians. We know now that it is wrong. They made some very obvious big mistakes. They talked very proudly about middle-class tax cuts, but we know they mis-estimated that by billions of dollars. They talked about the child benefit—and for some families the universal child care benefit was very important—but they did not budget it properly, so it was another one. They changed eligibility for the OAS. Every time they travel they seem to be announcing money for new programs and services, in other countries.

We have been really concerned, at least I have been very concerned as I have been watching what has been happening. The finance department, on December 23, really confirmed what were my worst suspicions. We could sense it. We heard about different things the government was spending money on and thought that we were heading down a bad path.

We were on a trend to actually start paying down the debt, but what we know now, and we have heard many times today, is we are not going to get back to a balanced budget until 2055. We will have an accumulated debt of $1.5 trillion by 2050. That is very frightening to me.

Perhaps the Liberals do not want to listen to what the Conservatives have to say about this, because the Liberals have this idea that they have a better way to deal with things. However, maybe they should listen to a former Liberal finance minister, John Manley. In a written letter to the current finance minister, he warned that the government's acceptance of long-term deficits will hurt the Canadian economy by weakening business and consumer confidence. That is from a former Liberal finance minister. He also described Finance Canada's latest projections as ominous. Again, if the Liberals are not going to listen to us today, they should take heed of their former finance minister.

Clearly, the Liberals have a really big spending problem, and they are desperately looking for revenue sources instead of looking to revenue sources in terms of creating an environment where businesses can grow and thrive.

One of the Liberals' broken promises was actually raising business tax for small businesses. They are saying that they gave them a little money with the middle-class tax cuts, but it was really bizarre because the people who benefited the most were those in the over $150,000 range. The Liberals said they gave them a little money, but they are trying to find a way to pluck it out. If we look at the people who are in that $45,000 to $100,000 range, they are the ones who are going to be suffering the most.

The Liberals, under the guise of tax fairness, have this medical and dental piece. We know that they are out there looking at all these different ways to get money, under the guise of tax fairness.

Going back to the household analogy, this is not the way to do things. The government has to look at what it is doing and create the environment for success for revenue, and not keep picking the taxpayers' pockets.

I also want to note some very scathing comments. They are more general, but they do sort of reflect what the government is doing. This is from Andrew Coyne's article today:

But that is because you are still, even at this late date, investing some literal meaning in the prime minister’s words, as if what he said and what he intended bore any relationship to each other. But if there is anything that you should have learned by now, after the two deficits of $10 billion that turned into 40 years of deficits as high as $30 billion — and the non-combat mission against ISIS that turned into troops on the ground firing and being fired upon; and the open competition to replace the F-35 that turned into another sole source contract; and the Saudi arms deal and the “revenue neutral” tax cut and all the rest — it is that you have no business believing a word that comes out of this prime minister’s mouth....

That is a horrific thing to hear, that the most solemn promises, however unequivocal and however often repeated, are to him and other people around him, mere bait for the gullible. That is an absolutely horrific thing to hear.

I had an email today from a constituent who said that he does not agree with deficit spending right now as our country is not in a recession and only has pockets of economic issues. He has no problem paying taxes, as long as they are not wasted.

Most Canadians feel that when the government wants more money, it just invents another tax. I think that is what we might be seeing here. To summarize, the government needs to get its spending under control as opposed to increasing its revenue through tax grabs from hard-working Canadians.

Business of Supply February 2nd, 2017

Mr. Speaker, I want to note that we have heard the Prime Minister say many things over the course of the election and over the last number of years, whether it be on electoral reform or many other areas. Then, of course, he has done the opposite.

Having a vote would be very comforting for the many Canadians who are concerned about what might be happening with not only this but perhaps some of the other tax grabs they are looking at.

My question is more focused. The member talked a lot about the so-called middle-class tax reduction. I want to know two things. When he was campaigning, did he tell his constituents that it would benefit people who made around $180,000 or $190,000 the most? Did he also reiterate the promise that it would be revenue neutral, when it ended up costing billions of dollars? It was a very bad math mistake.

I would really like to hear what the member said to his constituents about that.

Indigenous Affairs February 1st, 2017

Madam Speaker, the government is very good with the word consultation but it does not follow through.

Over a year ago, the minister determined she would not enforce the compliance measures in the act. What has happened in that time? She has said that it is important, the government cares about it, and that it will work on it. It has been over a year.

What has happened with the compliance rate? It has dropped and it continues to drop every year. The last I heard is that this year so far only a bit more than 80% of the bands are reporting. They have stopped reporting to their people.

My mailbox is full. My phone rings constantly. Every day I get calls from band members who ask me for help. They want to have access to basic information and they feel they should not have to go to the minister if their chiefs and councils will not provide it. They feel it should be easily accessible.

The Liberal government needs to get on this right now.

Indigenous Affairs February 1st, 2017

Madam Speaker, I am standing to follow up on a question I asked in October, but I think I need to set the stage first in terms of what the actual issue is.

Residents of the city of Kamloops or the city of Kelowna can go online and see what the mayor makes and see the audited reports of the city. Residents of British Columbia or Alberta can do the same thing. That can be done, indeed, across Canada.

Our constituents can go online and see the audited financial statements of the Government of Canada, and they can look at their individual MPs and see how much they make and how much they spend on items such as travel.

Shareholders can actually go online and see a company's information. Companies are responsible for reporting audited statements and have pretty good, robust information available to shareholders.

There was a glaring omission in the transparency rules, and that was that first nations communities did not have the same obligations. When we were the government, we thought that the community members, the band members, deserved the same kind of transparency that all other Canadians expect. That is that the band posts, in a public way, audited financial statements, salaries, and expenses. Again, it is basic transparency.

I want to note that this is not about any part of the government saying that it wants to target specific groups. When this information is posted, they are held accountable. This was truly to allow community band members to hold their councils to account and to have the ability, because I think it is also important, to compare, perhaps, what their chief is making with what some others are making.

We found that we had a very good compliance rate. The measures came in in 2014, and by 2015, we had a compliance rate of over 92%. That is a very solid rate of bands, chiefs, and councils posting their statements and expenses and reporting to their band members.

What was very good about this is that it put aside some of the notions many people had about misuses of the money. Where there were misuses, it became very apparent, because the band members could actually hold their councils to account.

What this minister did was say that it did not matter. Some of the chiefs did not like it, so the government was going to get rid of transparency and not enforce the compliance measures.

It is absolutely appalling that the minister would take such an anti-democratic position and put first nations grassroots communities at such a disadvantage by not providing the transparency that all other Canadians enjoy and expect.

Controlled Drugs and Substances Act February 1st, 2017

Mr. Speaker, everyone in the House wants to do the right thing and recognizes that we have a real issue, especially my colleagues from British Columbia who are really at the coal face of this issue.

We just had a motion that would actually facilitate the vast majority of the bill going right through the system and up to the Senate. We do have some legitimate debate that can happen around community consultations. Perhaps what was in Bill C-2, the Respect for Communities Act, has now been completely gutted.

I know that communities can provide much wisdom. We thought having a methodical process around how communities engaged about a safe consumption was worthy of more debate.

How can the member justify taking the vast majority of the bill, on which we all agree is very important, and delay it? To be quite frank, this will perhaps create a number of weeks of additional delay.

Indigenous Affairs January 31st, 2017

Mr. Speaker, in Winnipeg, the Prime Minister doubled down and repeated the same comments that he made in Saskatoon. Rather than funding community-led initiatives for aboriginal youth, he basically said, “Ottawa knows best, I know best”. What was his solution? Aboriginal youth really only want and need a place to store their canoes and paddles.

I will again ask the Prime Minister to retract these condescending and out-of-touch comments.

Controlled Drugs and Substances Act January 31st, 2017

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about the importance of this legislation, and I will agree with her that there are many important measures in it. There is one area of course that we do have concerns about. More important, and I have to say this again, it was back in April 2016 when B.C. declared a state of emergency. It is now February and the Liberals have finally gotten around to putting some legislation for consideration.

I have to note that yesterday we were busy talking about Stats Canada. Can I ask the member this: How does she feel both about her colleague, the member for Vancouver Centre, who says that the government is moving too slowly and if it were happening in Ontario it would be moving faster; and second, is dealing with the Statistics Act more important than this bill, in her opinion?