House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • Her favourite word was heard.

Last in Parliament March 2011, as Liberal MP for Winnipeg South Centre (Manitoba)

Lost her last election, in 2011, with 37% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Status of Women January 30th, 2009

Mr. Speaker, that was the wrong answer sheet. I would like the question answered.

The report's observations spoke to the ongoing poverty of women, lack of adequate child care, lack of legal aid, inadequate housing, and the desperate conditions of aboriginal women.

Canada has fallen to 83rd on the UN gender disparity index, near the bottom, all because of a lack of leadership from the Conservative government.

When will the government take this matter seriously? When will it stand up for the rights of Canadian women? The budget again failed Canadian women.

Status of Women January 30th, 2009

Mr. Speaker, in the 2006 election campaign the Prime Minister pledged to uphold the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women. We have another broken promise.

CEDAW recently issued observations on Canada's record for women, which many have described as serious, disturbing and scathing. CEDAW stresses the leadership responsibility of the federal government.

When will the government show leadership, take action, and honour its commitment to uphold this UN convention?

Status of Women January 28th, 2009

Mr. Speaker, listen to the Prime Minister's track record: eliminating the court challenges program, making unacceptable changes to the criteria of the Status of Women guidelines, ignoring a committee's recommendations to implement pay equity legislation. The Prime Minister has no right to play games with women's rights.

Why does the Conservative government continue to undermine equality rights for women and bargain away pay equity?

Points of Order December 3rd, 2008

But he did.

Status of Women December 3rd, 2008

Mr. Speaker, the minister is spinning, and Canadian women deserve better. Instead of introducing measures to help Canadian women who have lost their jobs, the Conservatives choose to attack women's rights.

When women are already at a disadvantage in the workplace, the Conservatives choose to attack instead of protect. Now the minister's main concern is the protection of his own job.

Why do Conservatives care more about saving their own jobs than the jobs of Canadian women?

Status of Women December 3rd, 2008

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives attacked women's equality rights in the economic update because they thought they could get away with it. Their plan to bargain away equal pay for work of equal value was not mentioned during the election, nor was it mentioned in the throne speech.

Given this poor track record, how can Canadian women have any confidence that their equal rights will not be attacked again by the Conservatives?

National Ecosystems Council of Canada Act December 1st, 2008

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-239, An Act respecting the National Ecosystems Council of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to reintroduce my private member’s bill. If passed, it would see the establishment of the national ecosystems council of Canada.

I am introducing this bill once again in this 40th session of Parliament based on my desire to see the health of Lake Winnipeg's watershed and other watersheds across Canada restored. If this council is established, watersheds across Canada would receive the necessary attention to restore their health. In the case of Lake Winnipeg, it would ensure the viability of the economy it supports and ensure that it remains a gathering spot for Manitobans for generations to come.

Lake Winnipeg was recently featured in a national magazine as a forgotten lake. This national treasure must not be forgotten. It is beloved to most Manitobans. A plan for restoration and preservation is imperative.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Holocaust Monument Act December 1st, 2008

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-238, An Act to establish a Holocaust Monument in the National Capital Region.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to introduce in the House today my private member’s bill, an act to establish a Holocaust monument in the national capital region.

This proposed permanent monument here in the nation’s capital would ensure that Canada as a nation will never forget the Holocaust and the millions of people who died at the hands of the Nazi killing machine, including over six million Jews.

This monument would serve to forever remember the victims and survivors, and inspire everyone to be vigilant and take action against acts of hate, anti-semitism and racism. We must not forget that at the time there was a universal belief that a mass genocide could never happen. That was certainly proven wrong in the most heinous and tragic way.

This monument would serve as a memorial to the past and a beacon to the future. I hope all will support it.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Criminal Code December 1st, 2008

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-237, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (motor vehicle theft).

Mr. Speaker, as members should be aware, auto theft has long been a serious concern to the residents of Winnipeg. From January 1 to November 16 there have been 3,290 actual car thefts and 3,118 attempted car thefts in the city.

I introduced this bill in the last session of Parliament and I am reintroducing it in response to the continuing concern for auto theft in the community.

It also comes in response to a meeting that took place between Liberal members and a Manitoba delegation that included the premier, the provincial justice minister, the mayor of Winnipeg, the mayor of Brandon and opposition leaders, as well as Chief Dennis Meeches of the Long Plain First Nation.

With this bill, everyone who commits theft of a motor vehicle for a second or subsequent offence would be guilty of an indictable offence and would be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Privilege November 27th, 2008

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add some comments to the question of privilege put forward by my colleague, the member for Malpeque.

I too have received a copy of the letter from the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands that was sent out to a number of individuals and organizations in western Canada. I too wonder about where the list came from. We have heard about lists that the government has and the abuse of lists in sending communications to members of the community.

After review of the letter, of which I too have a copy, I find it to be in clear violation of members' franking privileges. The member, I should add, is a parliamentary secretary, a member of the government. In the letter in question which has been tabled, the member encourages the recipients to support candidates in the Canadian Wheat Board elections who represent the same views as the government, those who support marketing choice.

The mailing, as you have heard, Mr. Speaker, was sent on members' parliamentary letterhead and was mailed using taxpayers' dollars through the member's franking privileges. This member is clearly using his member's office resources to interfere and influence the Canadian Wheat Board director elections so that his views can be represented at the table.

It is, to my mind, a clear example of political interference. The member has abused his privileges as an MP and, more important, as a parliamentary secretary for the Canadian Wheat Board. Members do not send out endorsements for their provincial colleagues in provincial elections nor for municipal colleagues in municipal elections because it is indeed a violation of our privileges. I would submit that this is no different.

I would also submit that this brings the whole House of Commons into disrepute. Again I ask, where did he get the list? His interference, in my view, is unethical as the member, as I said before, is a parliamentary secretary and has a direct interest in the outcome of the election.

Some members might have noted what was stated in the Winnipeg Free Press this morning, “--so that they can hopefully vote for candidates who will be able to work with the government after the election”.

This is the mindset of the government. Is he saying that the government will not work with members who do not hold the same views as the government on the Wheat Board? The member clearly wants his allies on the board, as he explicitly endorses two candidates, one of whom, as stated in the letter, “--was seen as instrumental in brokering the merger between the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservative parties”. This individual is Sam Magnus.

The Conservative government and the parliamentary secretary are continuing their assault on the Wheat Board, trying to dissuade voters against specific candidates. Recently, a group calling itself Market Choice Alliance complained that two unsuccessful Liberal candidates were running in the election, but made no mention of the fact that two Conservatives were running to be on the board.

This does not sound like non-partisan work. They, along with the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands, will do anything in their power to get their way. The member has blatantly interfered in the democratic process of the Canadian Wheat Board and I believe he has clearly misused his privileges as a member of Parliament.

Like my colleague, I believe the member should be found in contempt. It is incumbent upon you, Mr. Speaker, to censor the abuse of communications that the member has entered into, and I respectfully ask you to do so.