House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • Her favourite word was tax.

Last in Parliament October 2015, as Conservative MP for Saint Boniface (Manitoba)

Won her last election, in 2011, with 50% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act June 10th, 2013

Mr. Speaker, the member is from Manitoba. She sat on that committee. Why did she not listen to Jennifer Courchene from Manitoba, who said very clearly she was kicked off a reserve? She wants to see that we provide some kind of law that prevents that from happening to other women. Why did she not listen to Jojo Sutherland, a female elder in our aboriginal communities who works with women who are transitioning from jail into their communities again? These women have suffered. Jojo Sutherland said “I was kicked off a reserve. I ended up being sexually exploited and prostituting myself. My children ventured into that world”. They had nothing but one suitcase as she left the reserve.

The member ought to listen to the women who are suffering, many of whom disappeared as missing and murdered aboriginal women and do something for once.

Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act June 10th, 2013

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today in support of Bill S-2.

Everywhere in Canada, there is legal protection when a marriage or common-law relationship breaks down or a spouse or common-law partner dies, except on reserve. Provincial legislation ensures that matrimonial real property assets are distributed equitably and that children and spouses have access to the protection they need when they need it, but there are no similar family laws to speak of in first nation communities.

Aboriginal women have been waiting for this legislation for a very long time. As a woman myself, from a Metis background, I find the fact that this situation still exists in Canada in 2013 absolutely appalling. Aboriginal women deserve to have the same rights as non-aboriginal women in Canada, and this bill would finally eliminate the current legislative gap and allow for matrimonial real interest laws to be applied on reserve.

More than 25 years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that provincial matrimonial real property laws do not apply to on-reserve communities because reserve lands fall under federal jurisdiction. Since the Indian Act is silent on this issue, the result is that a gap exists in the law respecting matrimonial rights and interests for residents on reserves. This gap is harmful for many reasons.

Most damaging is the lack of protection in the event of a family breakdown or the death of a spouse. For instance, I know first-hand of cases of wives and children left homeless and destitute after abusive husbands kicked them out of the family home. Many of them went on to be exploited sexually on the streets of Winnipeg, where I was a police officer for almost 19 years. They were desperate to find help, and this is the help they have been seeking for 25 years.

However, because of the Supreme Court ruling, the legal recourse in the courts available to every other Canadian is not available to those living on reserve. No judge, for example, has the authority to issue an order for emergency protection or temporary exclusive occupation of the family home if it is situated on reserve. That is why our government is acting.

I want to point out that matrimonial real property regimes do exist in a small number of first nation communities that are governed by the First Nations Land Management Act or by a negotiated comprehensive self-government agreement, and I want to commend those communities. However, Bill S-2 would extend matrimonial property rights to all first nations in Canada by creating a legislative alternative under which they could develop their own matrimonial real property laws, and courts would be able to apply these first nation regimes.

The legislation now before us is based on the premise that first nations are best placed to develop their own MRP laws. Those laws could reflect first nation culture and traditions, for instance. They might make use of an elders council or propose a remedial mediation process. As members recognize, people are more likely to respect and abide by laws that they have had a role in creating and that reflect their particular culture and traditions.

Indeed, several first nations are already well advanced in developing their own MRP laws, but without appropriate legislation, such as Bill S-2, the courts are not able to apply these laws, and some first nations, of course, may not be in a position to develop MRP regimes immediately or in the short term.

To ensure that this legislation would extend these basic rights and protections to all Canadians, and not just those living in communities where the governments have enacted legislation, Bill S-2 would also include provisional federal rules. This federal MRP regime, once enforced, would apply to first nations who have not developed their own MRP laws under Bill S-2 or other federal legislation.

These provisions would establish a federal regime based on the principle of equal rights for all Canadians, and these rights should not depend on where they live. All Canadians should have similar protections. Bill S-2 would end this unjust discrimination and help to ensure that all Canadians—men, women and children—living on or off reserve, have access to matrimonial rights and protections.

Opponents of the proposed legislation have made a number of points that I would like to briefly address.

Some critics assert that Bill S-2 fails to properly recognize the inherent rights of first nations to govern themselves respecting MRP. Well, I believe this critique to be false, and it completely misses the point of the legislation.

It ignores the need for federal legislation to fill the gaps, so that first nations can establish their own laws to do exactly that. The fact is that interested groups have unanimously agreed that this legislative gap needs to be resolved on an urgent basis. It should not be stalled because of the fact that some wish to have a broader discussion on the concept of inherent rights. For goodness' sake, 25 years is long enough. Let us get on with it.

There is also criticism concerning the adequacy of the consultation process that informs Bill S-2. This criticism is also misguided. After coming to power in 2006, one of our government's first orders of business was to embark on an extensive consultation process in partnership with national aboriginal organizations. In total, more than 100 consultation sessions were held in 76 sites across the country. Hundreds of people, most of them residents of first nations communities, took part in this process, and their feedback directly influenced the content of this legislation now before us.

I am talking only about when we got to power. However, since 2000 there have been special representatives and advisors, there have been special papers written, there have been forums, information sessions, consultations, and the list goes on and on.

Some may claim that there was not enough consultation, but to them I say this issue has been discussed for more than 25 years. Although the NDP is heckling me as I speak about the needs of these women at this present time, I will stand here and I will defend their right to have this law as long as I am alive.

I cannot imagine how much more consultation is needed to do the right thing. It is time to do the right thing. My colleague also stated that this is the fourth time this bill is before Parliament. Since its drafting in 2007, numerous improvements have in fact been made to the bill, many of which respond directly to the concerns voiced by a wide range of stakeholders, which includes first nations peoples. Changes were made to improve the bill before it was introduced again. For instance, there is no verification process in the legislation now before us. Similarly, Bill S-2 features a 12-month transition period and a lower ratification threshold.

I believe these changes further strengthen the bill and better support first nations. The proposed legislation offers a practical and balanced solution to a problem that has harmed women, men, children and families living on reserves for far too long. Each delay of its passage results in the continued denial of protections and rights for individuals living on reserves, particularly for aboriginal women and children.

In conclusion, let me talk about our aboriginal women, something I know just a little bit about. As I think about the aboriginal women, I want to reflect for a moment on what my aboriginal mother taught me. In aboriginal teachings, the moon is known as the grandmother moon. A full moon ceremony is special to us aboriginal women. I remember my mother talked about the moon ceremony. She explained that women's natural rhythms are connected to the changing cycles of the moon.

For this reason, we come together as women when grandmother moon's light is the fullest. In her light, we are able to connect with the brightness of our own inner light, to heal and to celebrate womanhood. The spirit of grandmother moon hears our deepest prayers at that time. The grandmothers teach us that when the moon is full, it is time for women's prayers to be expressed. Prayer is a powerful energy that supports us in manifesting the deep wishes that emerge from within.

Around June 25, many aboriginal women in Canada will be participating in and praying at a moon ceremony. I, too, will pray. I am going to pray that all aboriginal people are protected equally. I will pray especially for our women and children who have suffered far too long without matrimonial property rights, that have left them vulnerable and helpless, and far too often they have been left homeless.

This is long overdue legislation that deserves our full and immediate support. I am very disappointed in other members of this House. This is a no-brainer. This is a bill that all parties should be supporting without reservation, without hesitation, and with pride in what we want to succeed in giving all Canadian women and children and men across this country from coast to coast to coast. I will continue to support it. I will continue to urge members on the other side to do the right thing. I will continue to pray that this bill passes so that we can set this aside. It has been 25 years. Let us get on with it.

Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act June 10th, 2013

Mr. Speaker, I take this bill to heart, and I want to thank my colleague, who just presented a description of what aboriginal women go through in their communities when they do not have these rights available to them.

I have seen myself, many times, women from reserves who are kicked off and who are afraid. When they speak out, they do not want us to tell members of the community that they are speaking to us, because they are afraid. Their children are still on reserve, they have been kicked off the reserve and they are desperately trying to get access.

I listened to the member across the way, from the NDP, talk about leadership and saying they do not want to do this. It has been 25 years that these aboriginal women have suffered in silence. They have asked for our help and, gosh darn it, we are going to do everything in our power to do that.

I want to ask the member for Prince Albert if he could address the 25 years of suffering in silence that we have heard of because there is no law in place to protect these women.

Oral Questions June 10th, 2013

Mr. Speaker, I am going to be very brief. I am going to read from House of Commons Procedure and Practice, which says:

Remarks directed specifically at another Member, which question that Member's integrity, honesty or character are not in order. A Member will be requested to withdraw offensive remarks, allegations or accusations of impropriety directed towards another Member.

Having said that, I was quite shocked during question period when the NDP member for Alfred-Pellan directly attacked the Minister of Public Safety.

I would offer you, Mr. Speaker, the opportunity to follow the rules and ask the member to withdraw her remarks with regard to the mental capacity of the minister.

Privilege June 7th, 2013

Mr. Speaker, I also rise to respond to the question of privilege by the hon. member for Avalon.

Having heard the arguments of the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake, I will simply set out the relevant facts of my own circumstances. I agree with the procedural arguments advanced by my hon. friend. They would also apply to my own circumstances, so I would associate myself with them.

All available information has been provided to Elections Canada by me and by my campaign. Ultimately, the issue in dispute is simply a disagreement between my campaign and Elections Canada as to interpretations applicable to certain expenditures.

In the interest of maintaining my legal position, I too brought an application in the Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba under section 459 of the Canada Elections Act. My application was filed on May 24, 2013.

For the same reasons argued by the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake, it is my view that bringing proceedings under section 459 of the act puts subsection 463(2) into abeyance, pending the court's disposition of my application.

Mr. Speaker, the Chief Electoral Officer sent you a notice similar to that which he provided you respecting my caucus colleague. The filing of my May 24 application was confirmed by the Chief Electoral Officer in a May 30 letter addressed to you.

Like the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake, I believe that I am in compliance with the Canada Elections Act. I did not break the law. For the House to be called upon to debate and decide upon a motion in this matter, which is what the hon. member for Avalon is seeking through his question of privilege, would undoubtedly prejudice my interest in the currently pending court proceedings.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit that clear grounds to dismiss this question of privilege are before you. First, the impact of section 459 of the Canada Elections Act is very clear, and this is, as we just heard, an interpretation that is apparently shared by the Chief Electoral Officer. Second, the sub judice convention is an equally compelling reason to reach such a decision.

Therefore, I would urge you, Mr. Speaker, to reject the question of privilege put forth by the hon. member for Avalon, and I thank you very much for hearing my argument.

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1 June 3rd, 2013

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the minister for his answers. However, as I sit on the finance committee, it is hypocritical of the other parties to come here and present things that really are not factual. In committee, we heard from a number of witnesses, and the majority supported the measures in Bill C-60.

I also want to reply to some of the comments made by the NDP on how many pieces of legislation are in the bill. This is typical, and I would ask the minister to comment on how typical it is. The minister commented on the Liberals having a longer bill in 2001.

It is hypocritical when the NDP government in Manitoba recently, on May 31, was criticized for its omnibus budget bill, which actually introduces a controversial new subsidy for political parties. As members know, we are eliminating political subsidies. We think it is important that donations come to parties from taxpayers. However, the NDP government in Manitoba is going to provide new political aid through taxpayer funds in its omnibus budget bill. It is also going to reduce penalties for cabinet ministers in that omnibus bill. I do not agree with that. Let us hear from the minister about how typical it is to effect change with a number of legislations. What we will not do is hide things, as we see in Manitoba, in our omnibus bills.

The Economy May 31st, 2013

With pleasure, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member who just spoke for his efforts to help us ensure the long-term prosperity of our country.

Here is the good news. I am pleased to report that Statistics Canada announced that our economy grew by 2.5% in the first quarter of 2013. On a special note, this is the strongest quarterly growth in nearly two years and the seventh straight quarter of positive economic growth. It shows we are on the right track. We are going to continue on this track. Economic action plan 2013 is going to lead us down that low-tax agenda that we have been on for some time. We just need the NDP and the Liberals to get on board.

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1 May 31st, 2013

Mr. Speaker, correcting the record is something that I have not heard the NDP do very often because it does not do it very well. The facts speak for themselves. There has been extensive consultation, as mentioned by a number of members who stood here today to ask questions or to make statements. There are some measures in the budget bill that are closing tax loopholes. Of course, we do not consult with those who attempt to avoid paying taxes when we close those tax loopholes.

I might add that I am very disappointed in the member who just spoke. She was particularly difficult to deal with throughout all of this. She continues to be particularly difficult to deal with and continues to mislead Canadians on this. This is a good budget bill. It is a bill that would help Canadians to progress. It would create jobs. It would maintain our long-term prosperity. I just wish the NDP member would have a change of heart.

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1 May 31st, 2013

Mr. Speaker, he is absolutely right. The members of the House took great lengths to consult in their home ridings and across Canada. They got back some phenomenal support from some of the stakeholders in their own ridings.

I just want to quote a couple of them if I might. The Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters said:

It's 39 years since we updated [the preferential tariffs]. It was meant to help developing countries. I mean, countries like Hong Kong and Singapore, we were giving them preferential tariffs while their per capita GDP is higher than Canada’s. [...] The solution is what the government is doing: try to negotiate free trade agreements with countries around the world so that we not only drop our tariffs, but they drop their tariffs as well.

This is what we were hearing. We do not want to give special breaks to companies that are working in China; we want to give benefits to Canadian companies. We do not want to give benefits to companies whose booming economies outweigh our own; we are going to do what is right for Canadians.

It is unfortunate that the NDP and the other parties disagree with us.

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1 May 31st, 2013

Mr. Speaker, I am not entirely sure where the member opposite has been all of this time, because it was in fact the Minister of Industry who began many consultations on this when we were looking at some takeovers over two years ago.

This is something that has been looked at for years, not only by the Minister of Industry but also by thePrime Minister himself. He has taken great strides to ensure that what is in the best interests of Canadians is done, regardless of opposition from the NDP, the Liberals or others. We will do what is right for Canadians, as we have done since we took power in 2006.

While I am on my feet, I do want to take a moment to also thank the Liberal member for Kings—Hants, who was instrumental in helping us at finance committee. I know we do not always agree, but there are times when we do agree and I do want to take an opportunity to thank him for his co-operation.