House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • Her favourite word was let.

Last in Parliament September 2008, as NDP MP for Halifax (Nova Scotia)

Won her last election, in 2006, with 47% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Supply October 21st, 1997

Mr. Speaker, it is very hard to give a brief reply to a question which asks me to analyse the five year record of the Government of Ontario under the New Democratic Party. Let me say briefly two things.

One is that some of the difficulties which the New Democratic Party encountered in its five years in office in Ontario had to do with the financial chaos and some of the failed policies which it inherited from the Liberal government which preceded it.

Second, it has to be recognized that as a result of the free trade deal into which the government plunged us with the Liberals giving their endorsement having initially said that it should be renegotiated, the province of Ontario suffered the largest job loss of any government in the history of this country in a short period of time. That of course had immense implications for a government trying to deal with that situation in the midst of a recession, at the same time that the federal Conservative government, followed and accelerated by the Liberal government, was offloading and downloading federal responsibilities left, right and centre.

Yes it is true that Ontario was reeling. The tragedy that we see today is the hardship which was created by the current Conservative government. It effectively has been a partner in crime with the federal government in its continued offloading and downloading of costs and services to the municipalities and on to the backs of individuals.

There is no short answer to this question, but I look forward to many weeks and months of debating the real issues which underlie the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the federal and provincial governments in this country.

Supply October 21st, 1997

Mr. Speaker, I find the member's question truly astounding. I have to say that it is precisely that kind of cheap politics that erodes public confidence in politics these days.

It is very tempting to say to the member that it is not his business to know what the personal circumstances are of individual members of Parliament. Let me take the opportunity since that member has had the audacity and frankly the ignorance to stand up in this House to ask that question to make it clear that it is not his business.

It is a matter of public record that when my father died four years ago after a desperate struggle with Alzheimer's I did not inherit one single cent. I did not inherit any money because my father believed in a country that is not based on herited wealth. He believed that we should have a fair tax system in this country that redistributes wealth in a way that would enable, in fact require, the Government of Canada to invest in health care for all, not just for the privileged, to invest in education for all, not just for those who can pay high tuition fees, to invest in jobs for all, not just for those who happen to come into their jobs through nepotism or patronage or through being well connected with the corporate elite.

I make not one single apology for my father's success as a businessman in this country who was absolutely committed to working in effective partnerships between the public and the private sectors. Nor do I make one single apology for the fact that my father struggled and worked throughout his lifetime to try to advance a social democratic Canada and the policies for which we continue to struggle in this Parliament.

I am happy to address any sensible, reasonable question this member or any other member may want to ask, but I hope that this is not an indication of the small mindedness, the petty mindedness of that member or his party and an indication of what we can look forward to in this Parliament.

Supply October 21st, 1997

moved:

That this House comdemns the Government's use of high unemployment to meet targets on the deficit and inflation, its refusal to set targets and timetables for reducing unemployment, its failure to make adequate investments in health care, education, training, culture and the environment, and its pursuit of a monetary policy obsessed with future inflation and blind to the immediate human tragedy of 1.4 million unemployed Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to enter this debate on the first NDP opposition day not just of this parliamentary session but the first NDP opposition day in four years since the New Democratic Party was re-established as an official party in the Parliament of Canada.

The motion has been read into the record. A short version of the motion is simply that this house condemns the government for its failure to make jobs the number one priority, to make jobs the real priority of its economic policy.

The essence of the argument is quite simple. It is quite straightforward. It will not be the first time that members have heard me say this and it will not be the last time they will hear New Democrat members of this Parliament say it.

If the government can set and meet targets to reduce inflation, to reduce the deficit, then the government can set and meet targets to reduce unemployment. It is such a straightforward argument that it is of increasing concern and an increasing puzzle to Canadians why the federal government just does not get it.

For 84 consecutive months unemployment in Canada has been at or above 9%. Yet a couple of weeks ago when inflation reached 1.8% the government decided that this called for decisive action. The government rushed to support the Bank of Canada in its decision to hike interest rates to prevent the boom and bust effect of economic growth.

One Canadian said something to me which I think expressed the sentiment of a lot of Canadians: “Doesn't the federal government get it that for a lot of people in this country the economy has been a bust-bust economy for a good many years?” They do not recognize any signs at all or any threat of a boom and bust economy.

Canadians are asking themselves if the government feels compelled to act decisively when inflation reaches 1.8%, what level would unemployment have to reach before the government would finally act decisively on the unemployment crisis? With inflation at 1.8% and unemployment above 9% it does not take an accountant or a statistician to see which is the bigger problem.

Last week the Minister of Finance took time out from his hectic schedule of meetings with the business community to tell Canadians that the books are in the best financial shape they have been in in 26 years and that Canadians should be grateful. The Halifax Herald , the daily newspaper in my city, said it all in the headlines: “`The books are fine”, says Martin, but the real question is whether the lives of Canadians are fine”. If we look at the Liberal rhetoric and set it aside and look at the actual Liberal record, it is a very different picture.

Since the beginning of this decade 320,000 more Canadians are unemployed. The average family income has dropped by $3,000 and 52,000 more Canadians every year are declaring bankruptcy, and child poverty increased by 25%. That is not only a national disgrace, it is a national tragedy.

While the minister's friends at the BCNI applaud his slavish devotion to deinvesting in health care and education, he is not winning applause from Canadians who are battered and bruised by the single minded obsession with inflation, or from Canadians who are enduring the pain of the reduction of health care services, or from Canadians whose access to education is being blocked because of the government's withdrawal of support to education funding.

It is perverse that this government continues to use high unemployment as a deliberate strategy as a specific means to meet its targets on deficit and inflation.

The government's policy of choking off economic growth, which is why the Minister of Finance says we need to hike interest rates, is surely madness and shortsighted.

It is time once again to reinvest in our important health and education programs which after all are the key to a highly productive economy and a healthy workforce. It also is one of the most important, most efficient, most effective ways we can produce jobs.

There is no shortage of ideas on how we can produce jobs in this country. There is a severe absence of the political will to make jobs the number one priority, which Canadians desperately need this government to finally do.

What would be wrong with working together with the managers of worker pension plans to invest in environmental retrofit of both public and private buildings? The energy savings that would be effected would repay the loans from such a pension fund, enjoying a fair return to the fund. The use of fossil fuels would be reduced to protect our environment.

What would be wrong with eliminating the GST from a selection of essentials and increasing the tax credit? Such tax relief of just over $1 billion would result in the creation of 19,000 jobs, a far more effective way to achieve jobs than any proposal that has come from either the Reform Party or the Conservative Party.

What would be wrong with requiring banks to reinvest a reasonable share of their deposits in the communities where they originated? More investment in our communities means more small and medium size businesses and more jobs for unemployed Canadians.

What would be wrong with a community reinvestment act similar to that in the United States which could create as many as 60,000 jobs a year without the government's having to spend one red cent of public money?

What would be wrong with the government's recommitting itself to support social housing, co-op and non-profit housing?

We heard the Minister of Finance say last week in his statement to the finance committee that there are some things the government can and must do. Surely addressing the need for Housing when it is particularly job intensive is one thing the government must and can do.

Mr. Speaker, I want to share my time with my colleague from Qu'Appelle so I will wrap up at this point in this very important debate by referring to a forum that took place in my riding last week. It was sponsored by students at Saint Mary's University in consultation with students from throughout the Halifax metropolitan area. The forum's theme was “you have the power to make the difference, now use it”.

It is extremely gratifying that more and more students, more and more young people and their families, more of the 1.4 million unemployed Canadians, more of those who are underemployed, and there are more underemployed than unemployed, that all of these Canadians increasingly are understanding that they do have the power to make a difference and they are going to use it. We look forward to working in collaboration and in consultation with them to ensure that we make a difference in forcing this government to finally make jobs the number one priority in its economic policies.

The Deficit October 20th, 1997

Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Finance. The government is so busy congratulating itself that its members will not admit they have screwed up. The fact is that Canadians are worse off today than they were at the beginning of the decade. There is more unemployment. There is more poverty. There are more personal bankruptcies. There are more families losing income.

Why does the government persist in its inflation obsession when its higher interest rate policy will cost $70 billion in lost economic growth over the next five years, condemning close to 1.5 million Canadians to continuing unemployment?

The Deficit October 20th, 1997

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance could have reduced the deficit without making massive cuts in the health and education sectors.

According to an independent study, economic growth and low interest rates alone could have eliminate the deficit within the time frame set by the minister.

In this context, why did the minister make useless cuts that hurt Canadians for no reason?

Atlantic Canada October 9th, 1997

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister's Office confirmed this government has no plan to extend, renew or replace the TAGS program. This will condemn thousands of families to continuing poverty and hardship. Even longtime Liberal backbench MP Russell MacLellan admits the Liberal cuts have been excessive and brutal. Will the Prime Minister give his word today that fishing families and others reeling from excessive and brutal Liberal cuts to Atlantic Canada will not continue to get short shrift?

Atlantic Canada October 9th, 1997

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. On his way to today's Atlantic Vision Conference the Minister of Industry had the arrogance and the audacity to tell Atlantic Canadians not to expect a fair hearing from this government because they made a “mistake” when they fired Liberals in the last election.

Will the Prime Minister tell this House whether he has demanded a retraction from his industry minister for his colossal contempt toward Atlantic Canadians? If not, will he do so today?

Canada Pension Plan October 8th, 1997

The government has provided no information on the adequacy of retirement incomes for Canadians as a result of these changes. Yet it is determined to ram the legislation through.

Why will the prime minister not permit more debate before he makes mistakes that Canadians will have to live with for the rest of their lives?

Canada Pension Plan October 8th, 1997

Mr. Speaker, when did the government become afraid of the 301 members elected to represent—

Canada Pension Plan October 8th, 1997

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the prime minister.

Millions and millions of Canadians under the age of 60 will be affected by the government changes to the Canada pension plan and yet, after only a few hours in second reading, the government is choking off parliamentary debate, shutting down on democracy.

Is it the prime minister's intention to govern parliament by closure? What is it he is trying to hide?