House of Commons photoWon her last election, in 2011, with 63% of the vote.
Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan April 10th, 2006
Mr. Chair, I rise on a point of order. I would like to point out that the usual practice in the House is to go through a rotation. You recognized a member from the Bloc and now you have recognized another member. There were members from the NDP who were standing. We would ask you respectfully to respect that practice so all members from all parties can be heard.
Resumption of debate on Address in Reply April 5th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, first, let me congratulate the leader of the official opposition on his re-election. I am glad to see him back in the House. I thank him for the scope of his remarks today.
I would like to focus my question on a couple of things with regard to democratic and voter reform.
One of the real disappointments in the last minority Parliament was that when the Leader of the Opposition was a member of the government, his government reneged on the whole process of democratic reform. It was an area that the Liberals allowed to slide. Although it was something the NDP put forward very strongly, and Ed Broadbent did a lot of work on this, it was allowed to slide off the Liberal political agenda, maybe because they knew it was not in their political interest. Do the Liberals now have a renewed interest in ensuring that the House truly represents the way people are voting?
Second, are his members giving serious consideration to the bill, which we know will come forward, on crossing the floor? We know the member for Vancouver Kingsway was a Liberal and then became a Conservative. The people of Vancouver Kingsway are outraged, as are voters across the country. Will his members support a bill to be ethical and accountable to ensure that members cannot do what the member for Vancouver Kingsway did?
Address in Reply April 4th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate you on your election as Speaker. I would also like to congratulate the member who made his inaugural speech and the member who was re-elected.
I note that both of those members made a big point of talking about the first order of business of a new government, the accountability act. I want them to know that in Vancouver on Sunday hundreds of people walked for democracy because they believe in accountability, accountability that, first and foremost, needs to come from their member of Parliament, the member for Vancouver--Kingsway.
I would like the member to answer to the contradiction of a member crossing the floor and betraying his voters when the government says that it believes in accountability for all members of Parliament. How can that be allowed to happen?
New Democratic Party November 28th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, on what is almost certainly the last day of this Parliament, I am proud to rise today as a New Democrat and proud of our record here in this place. As we move to the next election, Canadians can be proud that the NDP members of Parliament got something done, and proud that our leader, the member for Toronto--Danforth, is a leader who puts people first and a leader who got results.
This session saw New Democrats pass the first ever NDP budget. We took $4.6 billion that was destined to end up in the pockets of well-connected friends of Liberals as corporate tax cuts and we turned that money over to affordable housing, reducing tuition, the environment, and foreign aid.
We have been thrust into this election by a Liberal leader who refuses to compromise, so we head to the electorate confident that we did everything we could to get things done in this minority Parliament. We know that more could have been done if it were not for the scandal, the arrogance and the inflexibility of the Liberals and their Prime Minister.
We pay special tribute to the member for Ottawa Centre, who is retiring. He has been an inspiration to all of us.
We intend to return here with more New Democrats to go to bat for Canadians. They can count on that.
Parliament of Canada Act November 23rd, 2005
Mr. Speaker, I would like it to be clear, because it was very confusing at the time, that 100% of the NDP--
First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act November 23rd, 2005
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to represent the position of the NDP in the House today. Our critic and spokesperson for aboriginal affairs, the member for Winnipeg Centre, was not able to be here as he is at the aboriginal conference. I know he has worked very hard on the bill, as he has with all other initiatives, to pursue equality and rights for aboriginal people in Canada.
We support the bill. The fact that it is being given speedy passage through the House is necessary and important. We want to ensure there are no barriers or obstacles to economic and industrial development for aboriginal people on reserve. From that point of view, the bill is important and we certainly want to see it go through.
I would also make a note that from our perspective it is important to provide aboriginal people with the tools and the resources that are necessary. As others have noted, the socio-economic status, the environment in which aboriginal people live is appalling. The government's record of not dealing with the abject poverty that exists is appalling.
We have many issues before us in terms of the aboriginal peoples who have not been dealt with. However today we have an opportunity to at least get this bill through to provide some support, the resources and the necessary tools and regulations. On that basis, the NDP of course is supporting the bill as are other parties.
Petitions November 23rd, 2005
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to present hundreds of petitions from residents of East Vancouver. The petitioners are terribly concerned about the highway 1 expansion project.
They call upon the Government of Canada to ensure that there is no federal funding supporting this proposal until the government of British Columbia has produced evidence that the project meets Canada's climate change commitments and there has been full public consultation.
Industry November 18th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, under Liberal and Conservative governments, more than 11,000 Canadian companies have been lost to foreign ownership, even though 97% of these takeovers have resulted in job losses.
Why did this government sell out Canadians and rubber stamp the takeover of Terasen Gas? Losing control of our natural resources is losing control of our sovereignty. Why are the Liberals allowing this to happen against the wishes of Canadians? Why was Kinder Morgan allowed to take over Terasen Gas?
Supply November 17th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the hon. member that there are many issues. He mentioned softwood lumber which has had a devastating impact on local communities. I am from British Columbia and many of my local communities have been impacted by this issue. People are unemployed as a result of the crisis and as a result of inaction by the government, and the inability of the Prime Minister to stand up to George W. Bush on the softwood lumber tariffs.
I would agree that these issues have absolutely not been resolved by this Liberal government and Liberals will be held to account for this.
In terms of the timing of the election, I would reiterate that the motion put forward by the leader of the NDP was agreed to by that member's leader and the Conservative Party leader. It was an effort to show cooperation and compromise. The timing of the election would allow people to make a choice in terms of looking at the Gomery report. It was also an effort to ensure that an election would not be held over the Christmas period which most of our constituents have told us they do not want to see.
From that point of view, the motion provides the kind of compromise that meets the Bloc member's concerns and also the concerns of other members of the House. It ensures that the timing of the election would not disrupt the Christmas period.
Supply November 17th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, if the member would read the motion, it is very straightforward and very logical.
The motion does not include the word “confidence”. It is not a confidence motion. It simply sets out a date for an election to be called that is based on the situation we are in, to ensure that legislation can be approved and that we do not have a Christmas election.
I would say to the hon. member, no one in their right mind would agree that somehow the Liberals can just keep spinning it out and go out on a pre-election campaign at public expense when the House is not even sitting. There would be no accountability, no question period and no legislation in that period. Why on earth should one party be entitled to do that given this situation?
I would say to the hon. member that yes, the second Gomery report is very important. Based on the timing laid out in this motion, Canadians will have that report. They will be able to make up their own minds. Maybe that is what the Liberals are afraid of. They want to have all of the spinoffs and to manage what they want to say before they get into a campaign. We say let Canadians have that report and let us have an election, then people can make up their own minds.