House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • Her favourite word was regard.

Last in Parliament October 2019, as NDP MP for London—Fanshawe (Ontario)

Won her last election, in 2015, with 38% of the vote.

Statements in the House

International Trade February 18th, 2016

Mr. Speaker, today, officials confirmed to the trade committee that they have not completed a study of the TPP's impact upon Canadians.

Experts are saying this deal would put thousands of jobs on the line, give foreign companies the power to challenge our environmental laws, and make medicine more expensive.

How can the government expect Canadians to believe that they are being consulted in a truly meaningful way when Liberals have not even studied the impact of this deal upon Canadian families?

Business of Supply February 4th, 2016

Mr. Speaker, I was struck by the fact that my colleague and a number of her caucus mates had talked about the fact that the government is charged with safeguarding the community, growing the economy, and fairness.

However, one of the things that troubles me is exactly what one does when one is in deep deficit. One of the things we have seen in the Province of Ontario is the Kathleen Wynne Liberal government selling off an important asset, that being Ontario Hydro. A government cannot win when it is selling off the assets that are important to sustaining it.

Therefore, my question is, does the member agree with the provincial Liberals and their sale of Ontario Hydro, and what would the federal Liberals do in regard to creating that balanced budget? Would they follow their provincial cousins and sell off assets?

Business of Supply February 2nd, 2016

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his passionate support of the beautiful women in his family.

I would like to ask him about April 17. Does he know that it is the day on which women finally catch up to their male counterparts? Men receive salaries from January to December, but it takes women until the following April to make up for lost wages.

Business of Supply February 2nd, 2016

Madam Speaker, I was quite interested in the remarks from the member opposite. He seems to have been acknowledging the nature of the 2009 Conservative bill, the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act, as very problematic, as unacceptable. Yet, he seems, like others in the Conservative benches, determined to ignore the fact that there is a history behind the lack of pay equity in this legislature.

Also, I must say that we hear on both sides an excuse to not support this motion because section (c) is just not acceptable and they would like to have a unanimous response to it.

My question is, if they truly believe in the social and economic justice of the motion, why are they balking?

Business of Supply February 2nd, 2016

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question and in the process correct the record.

It has been said in the House that there is no pay equity legislation in Manitoba and that is not the case. There is pay equity legislation in Manitoba and Nova Scotia in the public sector. Ontario and Quebec have pay equity in both the public and the private sector.

If we can pass the motion and get action on federal pay equity, would that not be a template or a motivator to bring in those other provinces and territories that do not yet have pay equity legislation?

Business of Supply February 2nd, 2016

Mr. Speaker, I think there are all kinds of blame and it can certainly be shared. Lots of blame to go around. I recall that the member was an MLA in Manitoba. I hope that as an MLA he made representation to that government to act.

While I am glad that the government is supporting this motion, my concern is that these motions can pass the House and then be ignored. I want to see action. Words come easily. Actions are a little more difficult and it is time for action.

Business of Supply February 2nd, 2016

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the membership of committees is determined by the party representation in the House which is determined by the people of Canada. They determine the composition of the House and ultimately of our committees. While I understand her concern, I am absolutely confident that my colleagues from the province of Quebec will do a really remarkable job in terms of this committee work.

I would also like to say that the province of Quebec has been a real leader in regard to pay equity. It is hard work. When I was a member of the Ontario Legislative Assembly, we also did some very good work. It is hard work, but it is important work and I hope that this Parliament will see fit to pursue it.

Business of Supply February 2nd, 2016

Mr. Speaker, it would be a very good first step and I know that previous Liberal and Conservative governments have been aware of GBA. I also know that the report today said that too many departments are not observing GBA. It is still Groundhog Day because members of the NDP caucus and I addressed this over and over again in previous parliaments.

Yes, by all means let us get on with GBA, but I too remember the red book of 1993, 1997, 2000, and 2003, in which there were all kinds of Liberal promises. I am just a little jaded sometimes. I want to see action.

Business of Supply February 2nd, 2016

Mr. Speaker, while I am happy to rise in the House today in support of our motion by the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, it pains me to think that we are in the year 2016 and are still calling for the government to support legislation that ensures equal pay for women.

It is fitting that we are presenting this motion on Groundhog Day, because it is the same old story. Like the movie, small details, like whether it is a Conservative or a Liberal in power, may change, but the fundamental issue remains the same. We are still living in a country where women have not achieved pay equity, where we are still calling for justice, and where we are still waiting.

Equal pay for women is so achievable. It is within our grasp, if only our elected officials in government were to actually put the issue on the table. If only the Liberal governments under Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin had used their 13 years in power to implement all, and not just a small portion, of the Pay Equity Commission's recommendations. If only the member for Vancouver Centre, who was the secretary of state for the status of women in 1997, had not eliminated program funding for women's organizations, starting in the 1998-99 fiscal year, dealing them a crippling blow. If only a previous Liberal government had not cut funding for women's organizations by more than 25% over the 1990s. If only they had not disbanded the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, which conducted research on a wide range of issues affecting women. If only they had not eliminated the Canadian Labour Force Development Board, which gave organizations of women, people of colour, and people living with disabilities a small voice in training policy. If only the Liberals, under Michael Ignatieff, had not held their noses with one hand and in the next breath said to the caucus that they would unanimously support the Public Service Equitable Compensation Act, a poison pill couched in the Conservatives' omnibus Bill C-10, placing restrictions on arbitrating gender-based pay equity complaints in the federal public service.

Pay equity is a right. Canada ratified the United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in 1976 that makes pay equity a right. Canada also ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women in 1981, which recognizes women's right to equal remuneration, including benefits, and to equal treatment in respect of work of equal value as well as equality of treatment in the evaluation of the quality of work.

Section 11 of the Canadian Human Rights Act states:

It is a discriminatory practice for an employer to establish or maintain differences in wages between male and female employees employed in the same establishment who are performing work of equal value.

That makes pay equity a right. That right, just as the right to personal liberty and freedom of expression, bargained away by the Liberal support of Bill C-51 in the last Parliament, cannot be bargained away in the interests of political expediency.

Even though it is 2016, pay equity has not made it onto the agenda for real change put forward by the government. It has not surfaced as an issue for the government. Even when the opportunity presented itself, the Prime Minister, in an effort to achieve gender balance in his cabinet, assigned women the lower-paid roles of junior ministers. That is not pay equity. The Liberal platform makes no reference to pay equity, and neither does the Prime Minister's mandate letter to the Minister for the Status of Women.

If only we did not have to keep making this argument over and over again. It is Groundhog Day 2016, and I stand here with the only effective opposition in the House calling for fairness, calling for equity, calling for justice, calling for equal pay for women.

Women receive, on average, wages that are 23% lower than men for doing the same work. However, it is not just equal wages for equal work that will create equity. Economic security for women hinges on some key and simple elements, such as access to child care and access to affordable housing as well as the ability to earn a decent living.

Both Liberal and Conservative governments have failed to address the need for affordable housing in Canada. The first step toward economic security for any person is a safe place to live. Despite this, the Liberals ended the federal role in social housing in 1996. Liberal and Conservative governments alike have failed to create universal, accessible, and affordable child care in this country. The combination of these factors creates a crisis of pay inequity for Canadian women, and because pay inequity contributes to poverty, it has devastating health and social consequences for children.

Pay inequity is also related to economic dependence, which can affect a woman's ability to leave an abusive relationship. The choice between abuse and poverty is one no person should ever have to make.

It is also true that women bring home lower paycheques and because of that receive lower retirement incomes. Too often, senior women live hand-to-mouth until the end of their lives. According to the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, the consequences of these pay inequities follow workers throughout their lives, reducing their lifetime earnings and retirement income. In Canada, 42% of elderly women are poor, and the median income of retired women is almost half that of older men.

Canada ranks 30th out of 34 OECD countries for wage equity. Even in predominantly female occupations, such as teaching, nursing, and administration, women earn less than men. The wage gap for women working full time has become worse over the past three years for which there are data. The wage gap actually gets bigger for aboriginal, racialized, and immigrant women with university degrees. Women aged 45 to 54 earn, on average, $23,600 less than men doing the same work.

Female MBA grads fare worse than men from the start. They are not only likely to start out at a lower job level, they are also offered fewer career-accelerating work experiences and fewer international postings.

If an appeal for equity based in the interest of social justice and human rights is not enough of an argument, we in the effective New Democratic opposition can appeal to plain and common fiscal sense. Quite simply put, pay equity makes for a healthier economy.

In Canada, RBC estimates that closing the gap in participation rates over the next two decades would boost GDP by 4% in 2032. The New Democrat proposal in today's motion calls upon the government to:

recognize pay equity as a right; ...implement the recommendations of the 2004 Pay Equity Task Force Report and restore the right to pay equity in the public service which was eliminated by the previous Conservative government in 2009....

Again, that was with the support of the Liberals.

The motion also calls on the government to appoint a special committee to conduct hearings on pay equity and propose proactive legislation.

In the words of Rosemary Brown, and these words ring truer than ever in this instance: “Until all of us have made it, none of us have made it”.

Achieving pay equity for Canadian women once and for all is good for everyone. We cannot afford inequity. Let us get off this Groundhog Day merry-go-round of ignorance and injustice once and for all. Let us do what is right for Canada, for women, for their families, and for the children of the future.

New Democrats want to work with the new government to do precisely that. Let us get started. Let us get started by approving this motion and making sure that this is the last Groundhog Day on which we talk about the inequity that too many women face in this country.

Business of Supply February 2nd, 2016

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has made reference to the fact that she comes from organized labour. As someone who understands what goes on with respect to collective bargaining, I wonder if she would comment on the fact that the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act made pay equity an issue for collective bargaining, rather than deeming it a human right, and imposed a $50,000 fine on any union that supported a member in filing a pay-equity complaint.