House of Commons photoLost her last election, in 2015, with 16% of the vote.
Ethics May 23rd, 2013
Mr. Speaker, some 12 senators, the Prime Minister's former counsel and his former chief of staff are involved in a scandal of epic proportions and apparently no one in the PMO knows anything. Really? Nobody believes that Nigel Wright alone dealt with the Senate problems.
Other than Nigel Wright, who else talked to Mike Duffy? Who ordered Carolyn Stewart Olsen to change her report? Who else knew about the dealings between Mike Duffy and Nigel Wright?
Ethics May 23rd, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I do not know how anyone else feels, but when I see the minister pretending he does not understand the question and beating around the bush instead of giving a straight answer, I get the feeling someone is trying to hide something.
The Conservatives are refusing to launch an independent investigation into the Senate's spending scandal. They will not tell us whether they have talked to the RCMP. They will not tell us whether any documents about legal or illegal activities exist at the PMO.
Could they at least tell us whether someone else in the PMO was aware of what was going on between Mike Duffy and Nigel Wright?
Committees of the House May 23rd, 2013
Mr. Speaker, it will not be easy to keep my question short.
I would like to talk about the importance of a strategy. My colleague is not only suggesting practical measures that should be taken, but she is also opening up the debate on the importance of a strategy. The Conservative government often doles out money to score political points, without any overall vision or objectives. I could give plenty of examples in several areas.
I know that my colleague thinks this vision is very important, and I would like to hear her thoughts on that.
Committees of the House May 23rd, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, entitled “Bill S-2, An Act respecting family homes situated on First Nation reserves and matrimonial interests or rights in or to structures and lands situated on those reserves”. The committee has studied the bill and has agreed to report the bill back to the House without amendment.
The Senate May 22nd, 2013
Mr. Speaker, last week, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport said that secretly signing a $90,000 cheque to help a senator save face was “exceptionally honourable”.
For her part, the member for Calgary Centre said that the current wave of resignations demonstrates “the highest ethical standards”.
The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons lauded Senator Duffy's leadership over and over again, saying that he did the right thing and that Mac Harb and Patrick Brazeau should do the same. What, exactly, should they be doing? Should they all sign a secret deal with the Prime Minister's chief of staff? Is that it?
I have not even mentioned Pamela Wallin. Wow, and I thought the others were bad.
Most Canadians think that the Senate is a joke and that it has been around long enough. It is time to abolish this relic of the 19th century. Those words—relic of the 19th century—are not my own; they came straight from the Prime Minister himself.
Canadians deserve better. They deserve a party that will put an end to this abuse, not a party that will stack the Senate with friends, on the taxpayers' dime.
Nuclear Terrorism Act May 10th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I really liked the connection that my colleague made with the situation of aboriginal women. In fact, I too would like to make a connection between their situation and the bill that is before us.
My colleague said that she had concerns and expectations but that she still planned to support the bill. This is a good example that shows that, sometimes, we do not agree with all the measures or provisions of a bill but we are still prepared to support that bill because we think that it does not necessarily cause significant damage or because our concerns may not be so serious.
Bill S-2, which deals with the matrimonial rights of women living on reserves, is currently being examined in committee. This is an example of a bill that we are not necessarily prepared to support. Although its objective is very commendable, the way that it is written and the negative impacts it may have could be enough to stop us from supporting it.
The fact that the purpose of a bill is commendable does not mean that we are necessarily going to support it. We must go much further than that before making a decision. My colleague is very involved in women's issues. I commend her for that, and I commend her for her speech.
Nuclear Terrorism Act May 10th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very interesting speech.
I would like to point out that this is not the first time she has spoken on this matter in the House. She has been monitoring the progress of this bill to some extent.
Does she know whether any amendments were made to the bill when it was being studied in committee or in the House?
Before giving her the floor, I would like to say that I found her reminder of how important it is to walk the talk very interesting. For example, as the critic for seniors, I have seen bills introduced in the House without any resources for prevention and intervention, even though these bills were supposed to help combat elder abuse. This often happens in the House.
That is all I have to say, and I will now give her the opportunity to answer my question.
Government Expenditures May 10th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, he does not need to repeat it. We have heard enough from him already and it is not at all convincing.
The Conservatives claim that they are going to follow the Auditor General’s recommendations and that we need not worry about it. However, oversight problems were identified by the Auditor General in 2004, and nothing has changed.
Worse still, the Conservatives have simply stopped tracking expenditures. A broken promise is precisely what led to the disappearance of the $3.1 billion.
If the Conservatives really want to implement the Auditor General’s recommendations, then they should release all program expenditure records.
The NDP moved a motion to do just that. Will they adopt it?
Government Expenditures May 10th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, how many billions of dollars will they have to lose track of before it becomes a problem?
When the Liberals lost $1 billion, it was a scandal, but when the Conservatives lose $3 billion, it is not a problem. Is that how it works? If the money was not lost, can someone here explain how it was spent? My understanding is that when something is lost, that means nobody knows where it is.
The Auditor General reported that the information required to trace this $3.1 billion is not in the public accounts.
They should stop making excuses and tell us clearly where the money went.
Government Expenditures May 9th, 2013
Give me a break, Mr. Speaker. Do we need to send the UPAC to search the President of the Treasury Board's office to get answers?
He still thinks that quoting the Auditor General out of context is going to convince people. Come on. The President of the Treasury Board lost track of $3.1 billion. It is therefore up to him to answer to Canadians, in his own words.
His department maintains that a new expenditure monitoring system will not be implemented until 2014. That means four full years without proper monitoring.
Can the President of the Treasury Board tell us how much money has been spent on the anti-terrorism initiative since 2010?