House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • Her favourite word was cbc.

Last in Parliament March 2011, as Liberal MP for Mississauga East—Cooksville (Ontario)

Won her last election, in 2008, with 50% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Veterans February 12th, 2007

Mr. Speaker, in 2005 Canada kept its promise to honour our veterans with the Year of the Veteran and the new veteran's charter.

However, 2006 was a year of broken promises to veterans, a year when the new Conservative government went AWOL on its pre-election commitment to extend VIP services to all widows of second world war veterans, while it also breached the Prime Minister's personal pledge to compensate each and every veteran of Gagetown who could have been exposed to defoliants.

Canada's veterans felt a duty to deliver for their country. They deserve better than a government that sadly deserts its commitments and delivers only broken promises.

Afghanistan September 28th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, Canadians know that the copyright for “Stand up for Canada” ran out during the election.

Earlier this summer, the Prime Minister responded to the death of a Canadian soldier on UN duty by defending those who killed him and questioning why he was even there. Why does the Prime Minister trumpet our military's effort and then fall silent when their courage and competence is challenged?

Afghanistan September 28th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, Canadians who have lost sons and daughters in Afghanistan were themselves wounded by the remarks of Pakistan's President Musharraf who belittled their sacrifice and ridiculed their courage and resolve. Amazingly, our Prime Minister responded with flattery for Mr. Musharraf.

When will the Conservative Prime Minister defend the honour of our troops and, for once, actually stand up for Canada?

Afghanistan September 28th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, the NDP member himself is adept at blowing hot air.

Canadians who lost sons--

Foreign Affairs June 19th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, recent attacks on civilians by the Sri Lankan armed forces have reached a level of atrocity. In Mannar, navy troops lobbed hand grenades into a Catholic church where hundreds of refugees were huddled. Last week the Sri Lankan army raided a Tamil home, leaving the family hacked to death, with their seven and nine year old children hanged and disembowelled in a manner aimed to terrorize the local population.

When will the government protest the latest wave of military atrocities in Sri Lanka?

Municipalities June 5th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, it is a shame that the federal commitment to cities is about to leave town.

There can be no doubt that Canada's cities and communities need the annual transfer of $2 billion, the part of the Liberal new deal.

Will the Prime Minister put forward legislation making this transfer permanent after 2009, or will he simply admit that he is going to force cities to raise property taxes by filling the funding void left by the current government?

Municipalities June 5th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister appears committed to waffling on whether resources are in or out of his fiscal formula. What is absolutely certain is that the cities and communities are not on the map after 2010 and now are being told to fill tax room vacated by the federal government.

I ask the Prime Minister, why has he put the vacancy sign on the federal commitment to Canada's cities?

Commonwealth Youth May 30th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for his statement.

I would like to thank the minister especially for finding the time in his schedule to journey to the Bahamas to participate in the Commonwealth conference on youth and to promote the Halifax bid for the Commonwealth Games. Of course, there could be few better places to engage Commonwealth ministers on the challenges of youth poverty, crime and the devastation of HIV.

The Commonwealth is fortunate to have a leader who has been focused for half a century on finding promise and potential among the perils of youth, a leader who set out on a personal crusade to create a better world by making the world better one young person at a time. That leader, of course, is the Duke of Edinburgh, with his Duke of Edinburgh awards.

Across the globe, the efforts of this leading Commonwealth organization have touched the lives of thousands of young people from every possible background. Projects have given hope to struggling youth across Africa, turned young men away from the path to prison, released the possible, and set their futures free.

This privately funded group, with its august leadership, has achieved where governments have failed and has found hope where others have found despair. The breadth of projects, the scope of innovation and the depth of genuine concern that we find in the Duke of Edinburgh's organization should be an inspiration to NGOs and governments everywhere.

I trust that the minister will continue to connect with his new-found colleagues among the Commonwealth ministers for youth and will agree that the inspiration and success of the Duke of Edinburgh awards needs to be followed by imitation and resources. The Commonwealth needs to match the challenge of youth poverty, crime and disease with its own commitment to reach young people across the ocean with the resources to reach for a better future.

May 8th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, no oil baron could have asked for a more enthusiastic defence than from the member opposite. The people in our country who need defending are not the oil barons, I would argue. They are honest, hard-working immigrants who are tarred with discrimination and mired in an oil spill of collective guilt.

The government tabled a letter of clarification, which did not have a single word of retraction. What we need from the member and government opposite is a commitment that this will be the last time we hear officials from his government undermining the futures of immigrants by unfairly associating their communities with crime and unjustly questioning their fitness to be Canadians. Will the government at least do that much?

May 8th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, tonight we are pursuing the unanswered question of weeks past, the question as to why the government chose to appoint someone to public office immediately after he made statements that were hurtful to Jamaican Canadians, Vietnamese Canadians and refugees.

The problem is not that there is just one man with these views, but that these views might be more widely held in the government and must be challenged.

Here is the view of the appointments commissioner and I quote directly and at some length without any editing lest my hon. friends think it out of context. He said:

Immigration groups blame “poverty” or “police discrimination” or “lack of opportunity”. Once again, these are symptoms, but not the root cause.

Here is the root cause they all know, but don't talk about: the vast majority of violent, lawless immigrants come from countries where the culture is dominated by violence and lawlessness. Jamaica has one of the world's highest crime rates driven mainly by the violence between gangs competing for dominance in the Caribbean drug trade. Why do we expect different behaviour in Toronto, Ontario than in Kingston, Jamaica?

He goes on:

Similarly, a portion of our Indo-Chinese immigrants have lived in situations where violence is necessary to survive. Again, the violent behaviour continues in Canada. It's fair to say that most immigrants who abuse our society have come in as refugee claimants rather than “economic immigrants”.

This not only means they are more likely to have violent tendencies, but also much less likely to have the skills, training and attitude necessary to contribute to our society.

So, we need to remember this when we consider admitting refugee claimants.

This is from the man appointed to review appointments to the Immigration and Refugee Board. What is wrong with this statement? What is wrong is that Canada is not about putting people down. It is about lifting people up.

Canada is a land of great expectations, a nation of pride, not prejudice, where the government must have both sense and sensibility. This is a country where very few immigrants left a better life back home to come here. So we must always challenge those who tell us to lower our expectations of immigrants.

There are those who say that country x has a corrupt government, is plagued with crime, drugs and poverty, so they do not want x people here because they will make our country become like theirs. The many countries that fit that description also have victims of crime and poverty, but mostly these people are victims of indeed a lack of opportunity.

Opportunity changes everything and changes everyone. Canada must always be that land of opportunity where immigrants are not chained by their past, but are free to pursue a future that is free from the chains of prejudice and discrimination.

I would call on the government to never again allow or appoint government officials who dare to diminish our expectations of the future that each and every immigrant is capable of building in Canada.