House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • Her favourite word was plan.

Last in Parliament July 2017, as Conservative MP for Sturgeon River—Parkland (Alberta)

Won her last election, in 2015, with 70% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Ottawa Transit Strike January 27th, 2009

Mr. Speaker, I share the frustrations of the hon. member. I know he is from the Ottawa area and I can assure him that I have heard from his constituents as well. This strike has hurt the people of Ottawa, especially those most vulnerable, such as seniors, students and people who use public transit.

I can assure him that we have been working very closely with both of the parties, urging them to show some compromise and flexibility. We will continue to work through our mediators to try and find a negotiated settlement as quickly as possible.

Opposition Coalition Proposal December 2nd, 2008

Mr. Speaker, Premier Stelmach did say yesterday that the opposition parties should put Canada first and stop this nonsense.

When I was elected by the constituents in my riding, I could have been elected to sit on either side of the House, but I can say that I would never be elected to sit with a governing coalition and separatists.

This government will continue to stand up for Canadians and support our economy.

Democratic Reform November 27th, 2007

Mr. Speaker, what I have been doing is working on relationships with the provinces, because this government treats the provinces with respect, as partners in Confederation.

In fact, this country is more united than ever and that is good news for all of us. In fact, the only referendum this country will be facing is a referendum on his failed leadership in the next election.

Democratic Reform November 27th, 2007

Mr. Speaker, I am right here, and on the issue of the first ministers meeting, the Prime Minister has been trying to convene a first ministers meeting since early in June, but unfortunately, the premiers' schedules did not allow for it. We are working right now with the premiers and we hope to convene a meeting in early January.

Intergovernmental Affairs November 21st, 2007

Mr. Speaker, for the first time in a long time, the provinces are treated in a very businesslike fashion. The Prime Minister has a very professional relationship with the premiers and has an open door to them. He has regular meetings with the premiers and is always is accessible, just like all our ministers.

Intergovernmental Affairs November 21st, 2007

Mr. Speaker, that is incorrect. The Prime Minister tried to convene a first ministers meeting as early as last June. Unfortunately due to scheduling constraints of some premiers and provincial elections, we have now been trying to convene a meeting for either later this year, in December, or early in January.

The Prime Minister has already informed the chairman of the Council of the Federation, Premier Shawn Graham, that this is the case, and he looks forward to having the premiers at 24 Sussex for an informal meeting soon.

Business of Supply October 29th, 2007

Mr. Speaker, I believe the Bloc has become more irrelevant as we have seen Quebeckers and the Government of Quebec working with the federal government and other provinces to create a strong province within a united Canada.

Limiting the federal spending power will do exactly that. There is an opt out clause. Quebec, along with other provinces, including Nova Scotia and Alberta, supports limiting the federal spending power. This will be in law for the first time: the Government of Canada will not be able to impose its will on the provinces and territories or on Canadians. There will have to be a real partnership and a real conversation about what the majority of Canadians want if a new national program is to proceed. That is how medicare happened. That is how all new national programs should proceed.

We should make sure that if we ever use the federal spending power it has the support of the majority of the provinces and the support of the majority of Canadians.

Business of Supply October 29th, 2007

Mr. Speaker, of course the concept behind limiting the federal spending power is to do exactly what the member has recognized, which is to create a real partnership with the provinces. Previous Liberal governments spoke about federal-provincial relations and spoke about seeing the provinces as partners, but we know that was not true. Previous Liberal governments imposed their will on the provinces many times without them having any opportunity to fund those programs.

Limiting the federal spending power will make sure that if the federal government wants to create a partnership with the provinces, it will actually have to consult with the provinces. It will be law. The will of the majority of the provinces will be needed to proceed with a national program. That is a good thing for Canada. It is a good thing for Canadians, because all of our provinces represent Canadians from coast to coast to coast, and they will have a say in what matters at the national level. This is exactly what limiting the federal spending power will do.

This is a great thing for the partnership between the federal government and provincial governments and it a great thing for strengthening our federation moving forward.

Business of Supply October 29th, 2007

Mr. Speaker, the real question for my colleagues is this: what is the true rationale for the Bloc Québécois in Ottawa? As I see it, the truth is that our government has delivered for Quebec and will continue to do so.

I wish to advise the House that I will be splitting my time with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, the hon. member for Macleod.

I am pleased to take part in this debate today on the Bloc Québécois motion to have the spending power eliminated. I want to stress the way that the government is proposing to deal with the issue of use of the federal spending power—not by eliminating it, but by passing legislation to limit its use in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

Our government believes that if use of the federal spending power is limited, the provinces will be in a better position to meet the needs and requirements of their citizens. The Canadian population will then benefit from better programs and services. This measure will also strengthen our federation—one of the key themes of throne speech.

Our government will be tabling legislation setting limits on the use of the federal spending power in new, shared cost programs in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

This legislation will allow the provinces and territories to opt out of these new programs, with fair compensation, provided they offer compatible programs.

It was the leader of the Bloc who put the following question to the Prime Minister: “Will the Prime Minister heed this consensus and introduce a bill to limit his spending power to his own areas of jurisdiction?”

The answer is yes.

This is something that has long been a priority for this government. Indeed, it was one of the commitments that Canadians voted for on January 23, 2006, a commitment that our government has now reiterated and a commitment on which we will deliver.

The Government of Canada values an approach to federalism that fully respects provincial jurisdictions and a key element of such an approach involves the limitation, not the elimination, of the federal spending power. In essence, unlike the Bloc, we do not want to eliminate the federal spending power. We want to eliminate the abuse of the federal spending power. Elimination, of course, means separation and we on this side of the House are federalists.

Over the last few decades, many provinces began to feel that the federal government was intruding into exclusive provincial jurisdiction through the use of its spending power distorting the ability of the provinces to provide programs and services that meet the priorities of their own citizens.

Many of these federal spending initiatives in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction meant additional financial pressure on the provincial and territorial governments, which forced them to make changes, and not changes for the better, to their priorities as far as taxation and expenditures were concerned, particularly in the area of 50-50 federal-provincial cost-shared initiatives.

Furthermore, while the federal government was using its spending power to dictate policy direction in areas of provincial responsibility, it was also creating risk with the uncertainty that the provinces would be left funding the total cost of the program if the federal government withdrew funding.

Indeed, the federal government often used the federal spending power to entice the provinces into significant long term financial commitments and then left them facing greater budgetary challenges when the federal government reduced its own contribution.

Increased spending in areas mainly under provincial jurisdiction weakened the links that unified our federation and created tensions between the federal government and the provinces and territories when spending was incurred without consultation or sufficient consensus on priorities.

Increased federal spending in areas under provincial responsibility and the insufficient attention given to areas falling clearly under federal jurisdiction has given rise to concerns about unclear accountability.

This lack of clarity has made it more difficult for Canadians to determine which level of government should be required to be accountable for a specific policy or initiative.

In the Speech from the Throne, the government laid out its position clearly: Our government believes that the jurisdiction of each order of government should be respected. With the government's commitment to introduce legislation to place formal limits on the use of federal spending power for new shared cost programs in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, an important step has been taken in federal-provincial relations in this country.

This legislation would allow provinces and territories to opt out with reasonable compensation if they offer compatible programs. Canadians now have a government that keeps its promises and delivers on its priorities. The government's approach to spending power helps define a clearer and more respectful vision of federalism, one rooted in our Constitution, not in the narrow impulse to centralize.

Our approach strikes a balance between the objectives of clarifying roles and responsibilities and maintaining an appropriate and meaningful federal role.

The objective our government has set by renewing its commitment to limit the scope of the federal spending power is indicative of the type of federalism we are determined to practice: a federalism of openness in keeping with the needs and aspirations of Canadians, while at the same time respecting the jurisdiction of our provincial and territorial partners.

Canadians want their governments to agree and to cooperate. They do not want our federation's development to be marked by discord and confrontation. Limiting the federal spending power will lead to a real partnership between the federal and provincial governments. Because of the accountability created by an opt-out provision, federal departments will have to partner with provinces to implement future cost shared programs in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

This will mean that federal officials will have to work harder and more effectively to achieve national objectives and this will serve as an accountability mechanism within our federal system.

The Right Hon. Prime Minister wants Canada's future to be one of vibrant optimism and renewed confidence. The throne speech mapped out that future in a way that inspires and rallies all Canadians. The direction that we want to take our country in reflects their priorities, their hopes and their expectations.

The legislation on the federal spending power that we will introduce will be faithful to that spirit of cooperation, respect and confidence. The future we foresee for Canadians focuses on a federalism of openness and respect with which all Canadians, no matter what region they live in, can identify and look to with confidence.

Such openness has, of course, not been received with the unanimous support of the House. One of the non-negotiable conditions set out by the leader of the Bloc Québécois in exchange for his support of the throne speech concerned the elimination, pure and simple, of the federal spending power. He claimed he was speaking for all Quebec political parties in opposing this power.

In recent days, however, we have seen that not everyone in Quebec politics shares his opinion. I would point out, first of all, that this is not the first time the Bloc Québécois and its leader have been wrong in claiming to be the only ones speaking for Quebeckers. This is clearly not the case. Other parties may perhaps be opposed to certain aspects of federalism, but not to federalism per se. When it comes down to it, what the leader of the Bloc has in mind is not so much elimination of the federal spending power as elimination of federalism itself. The motion before us shows that clearly.

The fact is that the commitment made in the throne speech and the announced legislative measure represent real progress. While some use nothing but words, we will be enacting legislation. As for the Bloc motion, this is once again an obvious attempt to undermine the very foundations of federation.

Our policy on the federal spending power will reflect our desire to strengthen our federation and make it more effective, while fully respecting the Constitution and creating real partnerships with the provinces. The government committed to addressing this issue and we are moving forward on our commitment.

At the same time, the government has concentrated on its national role by reinvesting in core federal responsibilities such as trade, defence, public safety and security, while pursuing our federalism of openness that respects provincial areas of responsibility and recognizing the strength and contribution of each region of this country.

The government will continue to provide leadership in promoting national interests in conjunction with the provinces and territories. It has absolutely no intention to subscribe to the separatist vision of federation the Bloc Québécois is promoting.

Quebeckers, like other Canadians, want their governments to continue working together. We have every intention of staying the course to build a better country and lead this nation to a great future.

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply October 22nd, 2007

Mr. Speaker, the premier of Newfoundland and Labrador does not seem to have a problem having his voice heard. What I will say is that the offer to Premier Williams has always been on the table, the same offer that has been there since the budget was tabled. We have constructive relationships from the bureaucratic level with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. We will continue to offer the same deal offered to Nova Scotia and to the provinces in Atlantic Canada to Premier Williams at any time should he like to have a cooperative relationship with the federal government.