House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • Her favourite word was opposite.

Last in Parliament May 2004, as Liberal MP for Thornhill (Ontario)

Won her last election, in 2000, with 65% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Supply October 21st, 1997

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the geography lesson by the member opposite. I heard no question. If the member were looking forward as opposed to backward, he would understand the important progress the government has made in securing Canada's future.

Supply October 21st, 1997

Mr. Speaker, I will respond to my colleague in this way. I believe that we must have a strong economy in order to address the important social issues and social programs that we have always valued. I also believe that Canada is a partnership where each of the provinces comes together with the federal government to solve our problems.

In my remarks I was very careful to be clear that the job is not yet done. While the United Nations sees us as the best in the world and while private forecasters say we are doing better than any of the G-7 countries, we know we have problems that must be addressed. Unemployment is still too high. Child poverty is a real issue. There is a need for educational opportunities for research and development and innovation.

The strategy of the government is to provide a balanced approach where we will work together with our partners in the provinces to achieve our goals. We will do it in a responsible way. We will do it with the hand of partnership and in a fiscally responsible and prudent way so that around the world people will know that Canadians are working together.

Supply October 21st, 1997

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in today's debate. I have been listening very carefully to the comments of all members on both sides of this House.

As I looked over the motion that was presented by the fourth party I was struck with the word “condemns”. I believe that if they were being fair and reasonable they would compliment the government on the result of its policies and its fiscal plan.

It is important when we consider this motion to look at the record, to look at where we started, to look at where we are today.

I am not going to say the job is done. It is not. There is more to do. Unemployment is too high. My goal is to see that anyone who wants to work will have the opportunity to fully participate in our society. That is the goal. I think it is the goal of every member who sits on the government side of the House and frankly I think it is the goal of every person who comes here to this wonderful place. We want people to have opportunities to maximize and achieve their potential. We want them to have the dignity of work. We want them to have the skills so that they can prepare for the jobs being created.

To be fair and reasonable as we begin and continue this debate today, we have to look at where this government started from, where we are today and where we are going. Then we can consider this motion before the House today for what it really is.

Where did this government begin? In 1993 the deficit that was inherited was some $42 billion. Where are we today as just announced by the finance minister? The deficit stands at $8.9 billion with an expectation that the budget of the Government of Canada will be fully balanced with a deficit of zero by the next fiscal year.

That is an incredible and enormous achievement. The assessment is not by those of us who sit in this House. It is not just by the Liberals. That assessment is by the international investment community which looked at Canada a few short years ago and said this country is on the verge of bankruptcy, this country is not a good place to invest, this country needs solid, prudent fiscal and economic management. I suggest especially to the people in my wonderful riding of Thornhill that is exactly what Canadians have had under the Liberal government since 1993.

The United Nations has declared that Canada number one in the world as a place to live and work. More recently a study by KPMG determined that Canada, among all those countries surveyed, has a significant competitive advantage. Our cities rank among the best in the world not only as a place to live but as a place to work. The same study suggests that Canada is head and shoulders above our neighbours to the south as a place to invest.

There are certain things that give us that competitive advantage. Those things are relatively new and some have been around for a while. What are those things? We have a government dedicated to balancing the budget, to responsible and prudent fiscal management and which is dedicated to ensuring interest and inflation rates are low. These are the things we need to create a climate for job creation and investment. They go hand in hand.

When government attempts to create jobs directly it has to do so with tax dollars. This does not mean those jobs are not important. It means that government must tax in order to create jobs. It is far more effective to create a climate which encourages the private sector to create those jobs. Since 1993 we have seen over one million jobs created in this country. In this year alone 297,000 jobs have been created across the country. Is that enough? Of course it is not.

In 1993 unemployment was 11%. Today unemployment is 9%. Is that low enough? Of course not. There are two particular segments of our society that concern me. One is youth who have not had their first job or who are finding it difficult to get a job and to use their talents, skills and education. The other is the older workers who have been displaced by restructuring and technology and who need training and retraining to be productive and useful in our society.

The sound and prudent responsible fiscal management that this country has had since 1993 has resulted in interest and mortgage rates, which were so much higher in 1993, now fueling economic growth and job creation that will lead the G-7 nations. Canada will out perform all the G-7 nations. Is it just the members on this side of the House who are saying that? No. Independent forecasters are looking at the rate of growth of the Canadian economy. They are looking at the job creation numbers and they are the ones that are saying that the fiscal plan, the sound economic management as proposed by the finance minister and the government is working. We are not there yet.

There are other factors which make our competitive advantage something to shout about. As a former provincial minister of health I can say Canadian medicare is a huge competitive advantage. They have tampered with medicare, killed medicare. I say to my friends in the Reform and Conservative parties, whose policies I believe would devastate medicare, that medicare is a significant competitive advantage. If medicare is tampered with it kills jobs.

To those who are sceptical about the government's commitments, I say that the government was very quick to respond to the National Forum on Health which said that the federal government should maintain the transfer payment commitments to the provinces at $12.5 billion. That is the commitment of the government. It will help the provinces to sustain and maintain medicare and ensure that the principles of the Canada Health Act are protected.

There are two reasons. First is our competitive advantage and the second are the values and the soul of this country. I do not think there is a Canadian who is not proud when told by people outside this country that we live in a place where money is not a factor in access to medicare.

Are there problems today? Yes, there are. I challenge everyone in the House to consider what is happening south of the border. Take a look at the 40 million people in the United States who have no access to health care, to the 100 million people in the United States who have inadequate coverage. Try to understand what would happen if the Reform or Conservative parties were successful in their Americanization of Canadian medicare. I shudder to think.

In 1993 jobs were being lost, people were feeling insecure, people had no hope. Today Canadians are confident. Jobs are being created, interest rates are at an all time low, the budget is on the verge of being balanced. Canadians know that we will have new problems and challenges because the demands of a global economy and of those who need the assistance of government will continue to be there. It will be very difficult to respond to all of those demands.

As we talk about the importance of sound fiscal management, it is also important to note that it must continue. We on this side of the House will continue to follow a prudent and responsible course, one that will give opportunities to the young and the old, one that will enhance and ensure that those who need it will have access to education.

Canadians expect medicare to be preserved. That is my goal and the goal of the government. We want to create an opportunity for all in the country to prosper. That is why I will not support the NDP motion which is before the House today. It is misguided and irresponsible and out of touch with the realities of 1997.

Supply October 21st, 1997

Why don't you apologize?

Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act October 8th, 1997

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to rise in this House and speak to an issue that I believe was of concern to all of the residents of Thornhill, the young and the old.

As I begin, I would like to tell this House a little bit about the riding of Thornhill. Thornhill is a newly created riding, created by redistribution. For the very first time since the 1970s, we see Thornhill put back together again. The provincial government had divided Thornhill.

If one visits the riding one will find that old Thornhill straddles both sides of Yonge Street, part of it in the town of Vaughan and part of it in Markham. Now for the very first time with the creation of the new federal riding of Thornhill, Markham, Vaughan, Concord and all of the wonderful communities within those entities have come together under the name of Thornhill.

Thornhill is a vibrant riding with many businesses. I have to say that the businesses are very aware of the need for fixing the Canada pension plan and the problems that have plagued the Canada pension plan for many years. Each one who works in a business or who owns a business understands the importance of the Canada pension plan to Canadians and to Canadian values.

Within Thornhill is a very young community. As I knocked on doors and met people from all over the world, one of the things that was clear was that people in Thornhill are concerned about whether or not we will have in place in the future programs and plans like the Canada pension plan to protect them when they get sick and need disability insurance. Many were aware of the problems that have existed for some time with Canada pension plan. Many were aware of the need for the plan to be fixed.

I approached Bill C-2 from the following perspective. The first question I asked was, is there a problem? The answer to that question is yes, there is a problem. The problem is not a new one. It has existed for a long time. We could stand, we could point fingers and we could say “During the years of the Conservative government it did nothing to fix the plan”. That would not be productive, although it would be true.

The response of the government has been that there is a problem. What did it do about that? It did two things. The first thing it did was consult Canadians to make them aware of the problem. The people of Thornhill are very aware that there are problems with the Canada pension plan. They are aware that if it is left untouched and unchanged, the plan will implode. It will not be there for future generations.

I do not think that many of the young people in Thornhill believed that the Canada pension plan would ever be there for them. The seniors in Thornhill were very concerned because they said “How will changes to this plan impact me?”

It is important that these questions be answered. Not only did the government consult widely with Canadians, it also sat down with the provinces. While the Canada pension plan is a federal pension plan in the eyes of the people, the reality is that it is a federal-provincial plan. Changes can only occur if a majority of the provinces approve and recognize that a significant majority of the people of this country approve the changes. In other words the federal government could not unilaterally make these changes.

To those constituents in Thornhill who, when I knocked on their doors, said “Isn't it possible for governments to work together,” I say to them and to everyone in the House that Bill C-2 is an example of governments working together.

Was it unanimous? Absolutely not. Did they get a national consensus? Yes, I believe the governments did. A majority of the provinces, including Ontario, representing a significant majority of the population of Canada, have signed an agreement to make changes to the Canada pension plan that will solve the problem. The plan will be fixed and I will be able to say to the next generation, to the young people of Thornhill and to the young people of Canada, that the Canada pension plan will be there for them in future generations.

That is the commitment of the government and that is what Bill C-2 accomplishes. It fixes a problem that has been identified and it ensures that the plan is viable into the future.

The next test and the next question that I asked on behalf of the people of Thornhill was “Is this done fairly? Is it done with accountability to the people who rely on this plan and want to know that it is there?”

Access To Information September 30th, 1997

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board with regard to the concerns raised in the most recent report by the access to information commissioner.

Too often, requests for information are not responded to in a timely manner. Given the government's commitment to openness and transparency, what will the minister do to respond to what the commissioner has called a festering silent scandal?

Speech From The Throne September 29th, 1997

Mr. Speaker, as a new member to this House, my colleague from Markham, my next door neighbour, offers me an example to clearly and loudly say in this House how different our views of the world are.

I listened very carefully as he talked about the tough choices the government had to make. He used as an example of his and his party's policy the Government of Ontario. I would say to him that the deep cuts to health, education and the important programs that people care about are directly a result of the commitment that the Government of Ontario made to cut personal income taxes by some 30% before the budget was balanced.

We know that is a similar policy to the Conservative Party as the member has just outlined. However, it is in stark contrast to the balanced and fiscally responsible approach of the previous Liberal government which made a commitment to first balance the budget, protect important social programs and then in a climate of fiscal prudence look at the balance between enhancement and maintenance of the programs that we value in our society and those which have made us number one in the world and a 50% approach to using surpluses for the purposes of debt and tax relief.

The member should note a study which was just done for the Bank of Nova Scotia, certainly not a partisan institution in this country. The study was done by the Boston Consulting Group. The study states that quality of life issues are extremely important in the greater Toronto area and metropolitan Toronto in particular to attracting jobs and growth.

I would ask the member for the reason that his party is the fifth party in this House. Perhaps it is because the voters of this country have recognized the result of having an irresponsible tax cut before the books are balanced and before the country is in a state where we can then see tax cuts implemented in a way which will still protect those valued programs and the quality of life that we have come to expect in Canada.

As the member sticks to the rhetoric of the campaign, and as my neighbour we share such different views, would he acknowledge that perhaps the reason his party is in fifth position is because Canadians have seen the dramatic results of irresponsible tax cuts that have taken place in Ontario and have resulted in dramatic and drastic cuts to programs which impact on the quality of life.

Speech From The Throne September 25th, 1997

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate both of my colleagues who spoke for the first time in this House. They spoke about the throne speech which was about vision, hope and confidence. They spoke with pride at being elected to this place. Their families are here in the gallery filled with pride as they have listened to their family members speak in a place where so few of us ever have the opportunity to come and in an environment of freedom and free speech speak our minds and say what we believe.

I am struck as a new member by the differences and the similarities. Certainly the difference that I heard from the throne speech has been echoed by my colleagues who stood with pride to speak about a document that was about confidence, vision and hope.

What I have heard in response troubles me. This is an opportunity for us in a non-partisan way to share our thoughts and views. I would ask my colleagues, if they came to this House in a spirit of positive nation building, which I know they did, how they feel today to know that not everyone shares the goals of building together and working for this nation. I feel sad that there are those who would tear this country apart.

I believe that my constituents in the wonderful riding of Thornhill expect all of us to do what we can to solve the problems that we face in a positive and constructive way. I congratulate my colleagues for putting forward their vision and speaking to the throne speech document which I think shares the vision of hope, confidence and nation building that should permeate this place.

War Criminals September 24th, 1997

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House on a very important matter to my constituents of Thornhill, and I believe all Canadians, and that is the prosecution of war criminals.

The people of Thornhill, especially the Jewish community, believe that Canada must be vigilant in prosecuting war criminals. Canada has a moral obligation to deport those who have been found guilty of committing crimes against humanity. We must not be seen as a haven for Nazi war criminals and others who have committed war crimes.

My constituents are aware of the commitment by the Liberal government to move on denaturalization and on deportation of those convicted of war crimes.

Finally Canada is taking action. Canada is doing more now to track Nazi war criminals than almost any country in the world. Since 1995 many deportation cases have been initiated and I am confident we will continue to pursue war criminals to the fullest extent of the law.

While this issue is of special importance to the Jewish—