House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was military.

Last in Parliament September 2021, as NDP MP for St. John's East (Newfoundland & Labrador)

Won his last election, in 2019, with 47% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Business of Supply February 25th, 2020

Madam Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to have an opportunity to speak to the motion before the House. The motion calls upon the government to reallocate a portion of the resources that will be spent on a tax cut for what is called the middle class to people who really need it and do not have dental care.

It is my pleasure to do this because this is a historic occasion. It is not very often that members of the House of Commons have the opportunity to pass a resolution that would benefit millions of Canadians now and in future generations. This is the first step in ensuring greater equality in this country, an equality about something that is extremely important to individuals.

Dental care is pretty basic for people who can afford it. Their income allows them to pay for the services of a dentist to get their teeth cleaned, annual inspections, X-rays, if needed, and whatever else goes with that.

Madam Speaker, I am sharing my time with the hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. I am very happy to do that and I look forward to his speech as well.

He, along with me and other members of our caucus, are very much in favour of ensuring that everybody in Canada has access to quality dental care. It should already be a part of our health care system. In fact, in 1964, it was part of the design of medicare to include dental care, but during the negotiations and when it was passed, dental care was left out.

What we have is a gap. When someone breaks his or her wrist, the person can go to a hospital or a doctor and have a cast put on. The person can get the physiotherapy at the hospital that is needed. The person can be looked after. However, when people have a cavity or they break a tooth or they need work done to ensure their oral health, they have to pay for it. Why is that? There was a failure to follow through on the promise and hope of a general health care system that would include dental care. Of course, pharmacare was also part of the original design.

I go back to generations ago to the great leader, the first leader of the national NDP when it was formed, Tommy Douglas. He campaigned for many decades to ensure there was greater equality in obtaining health care for people in this country. That is exactly what this motion is aimed at as well.

We joined the campaign. We put this forward as an idea that we would want to put in place. We campaigned on it. We let it be known. People were very interested for reasons that were fairly obvious to me, knowing as I do, and I am sure hon. members know that when we talk about the middle class in this country, that is a pretty vague notion. I do not think the minister is able to tell us who is included in that.

We do know that the people who do not have and cannot afford dental care know who they are and they do not think they are in the middle class. They know they are not in a position to have what others have and are entitled to. This motion would give all those people the right to dental care just the same as everybody else.

This motion comes about because of the Liberal government's plan, and it promised this, of having a middle-class tax cut. What do the Liberals mean by that? We do not know, but we do know the plan the Liberals put forward is going to cost in excess of $6 billion per year once it is fully in place. That $6 billion is a lot of money. It is essentially taxpayers' money that is now being collected which the government proposes to spend out of general revenues to give a tax cut to certain people.

That tax cut would go to people who earn up to $130,000 per year. The maximum benefit is $347 per year, I believe. That would go to the people who are in the upper income bracket. The lower we go down on the scale, the less the benefit is. When one gets down below $40,000, I think the benefit is about zero.

Who is this benefiting? Is this benefiting people who do not have an income to pay the kind of tax that would benefit from this? Is it going to people who do not need it?

The Liberals can say they are going to have a middle-class tax cut, and they will fulfill their promise, but this is a Parliament that is supposed to work together. We could make a significant improvement to this plan by saying that the Liberals could do their tax cut but we should ask why they are giving it to people who are already making $90,000 or more a year. That $300, or $340 maximum, is not going to change their lives. They might like to have $300; who would not? However, I question whether they need it in the same sense as people who are in a situation where they cannot afford dental care, and do not have access to it. It could change their lives.

I say that because dental care is extremely important to one's health and well-being. Not only is it important to one's health and well-being, but if we think of children growing up who do not have access to dental care, it affects their well-being, their health, their digestion, and their social standing.

Everybody in this House knows there is a big divide in this country. There is a divide between people who have good teeth and people who do not have access to the care that is required to make sure they have proper oral health. That is not fair. It is a great inequality. It is one of the most unequal aspects of health care in Canada, because most dental care is not covered by public health insurance. Some emergency care is. Someone may have an abscess in a tooth, because the person has not had the opportunity to go to a dentist to have proper dental care, or to have cavities filled and the person is forced to wait and endure the pain that comes with that. The person will go to a hospital emergency room and have an emergency extraction which costs the health care system several hundred dollars, but the person no longer has a tooth. Then the person is affected by that for the rest of his or her life.

That is the reality. That is unfair and it is unnecessary. It is an inequality that can be fixed. We, in this House of Commons, have an opportunity today to pass a resolution that would allow that to change. We do not need to give a $300 tax break to someone making $125,000 a year. However, we do need to ensure that everybody has fair access to health care.

During the campaign, we announced our platform and we announced that program in particular. People were coming up to me in the streets. They had heard about this and wanted to know more. They thought it was great. I do not want to try to paint too weird a picture, but people asked me to look at their teeth and asked whether I thought they could get a job with the way their teeth looked. That is the reality. People know they are excluded from employment and certain social activities. It affects their lives in many ways.

I remember an older gentleman in his seventies was almost crying, telling me how he had had cancer and as a result had serious problems with his teeth. He had to get a couple of teeth replaced or refilled. He had some done that he thought were paid for by the province, but they were not. He had to pay for that himself. He said that he had to wait two years to save up enough money to fix his other teeth. That was terrible. He was not interested in voting or in participating. I told him that the way to change things was by voting for something he wants and needs. I hope he did. I did not check with him afterwards.

We are here now, and we have this opportunity to do this. I am calling on all members. This is a real historic opportunity for members on all sides of the House to say that this is something we could do collaboratively that would change the lives of millions of people in this country.

Business of Supply February 25th, 2020

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member's presentation. He said that he likes apple pie and that this would be very nice, but that, as usual, the NDP did not say how we would pay for it. Well, we have said exactly how we would pay for it.

The government is proposing to spend over $6 billion on a tax cut for what it is calling the middle class, people with up to $150,000 a year. If we take the top part of that, over $90,000 in income, it gives us $1.5 billion, which would be better spent on people who desperately need it for the dental care they do not have now.

Employment February 21st, 2020

Mr. Speaker, the number of temporary workers in Canada is increasing. They are becoming a large part of the workforce, with short-term, temporary and contract work, and it is a disturbing trend. They earn 20% less than those with permanent jobs, have fewer or no benefits and little security. No wonder it has been called precarious work. It affects a lot of young people.

Over two million Canadians are in temporary jobs, more than 13% of those employed. In Atlantic Canada, it is worse: It is 21% in P.E.I., and in Newfoundland and Labrador it is 26%.

Workers at Canada Post in St. John's are fed up. One plant has 90 temporary workers out of a workforce of 200, nearly half, and some have been with Canada Post for five to 10 years. The corporation seems determined to rely more and more on temporary workers by replacing retiring or transferred employees with temps.

The Liberal government and the minister should do what it takes to reverse that trend at Canada Post to ensure permanent full-time employment where possible. Canada Post should be setting an example by providing quality jobs along with quality service.

Petitions February 7th, 2020

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to also present a petition from Canadians who are concerned about climate change and who call on the government to support Motion No. 1, a made-in-Canada green new deal, which calls on Canada to take bold and rapid action to tackle the climate emergency, address the worsening socio-economic and racial inequalities at the same time and to support workers impacted by the transition in the shift to a clean and renewable energy economy.

This crisis is real and it is approaching. We need to have a plan that will work and, at the same time, ensure that people who will be affected by climate change are supported in the transition to a green economy.

Employment Insurance February 7th, 2020

Madam Speaker, the recent snowstorm that hit Newfoundland and Labrador shut down entire communities. Small business owners lost revenue and many workers, especially hourly and low-wage earners, lost a week's pay. The Liberals campaigned on a promise to help with lost income in case of disaster but we have not seen any action yet. Workers in my province need help now. Climate change will lead to more disasters like this.

Will the Liberals deliver on their promise and help those who need it right now?

Federal Disaster Assistance Program February 7th, 2020

Madam Speaker, on January 17 a record-breaking blizzard hit Newfoundland and Labrador. The storm shut down many communities, including in the St. John's area, where the state of emergency lasted eight days. Under state of emergency laws, businesses were legally prevented from opening and streets were closed to traffic, preventing people from working. Many low-income workers lost up to a week's income, leaving people struggling to pay for rent and utilities. Lost revenue also hurt small businesses and restaurants.

The federal disaster assistance program supports provinces dealing with large-scale natural disasters, but specifically excludes loss of income.

We need the government to act now to allocate resources to support the people and businesses suffering the consequences of this storm and to look at establishing a permanent program to address lost income. The effects of climate change could lead to many more disasters of this magnitude and worse in the years to come.

Those who can least afford to endure the loss of income should not be the ones forced to bear it. If there is no existing program—

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act February 7th, 2020

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I get the enthusiasm of the member wanting to talk about matters dealing with the oil industry in Alberta, but I am just wondering what relevance it has to Bill C-3, which is the matter we are debating in the House today.

Business of Supply February 4th, 2020

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the Conservatives for bringing this opposition day motion forward today. It gives us an opportunity to rightfully condemn this decision and to ensure that we take measures to prevent it from happening again.

Would the hon. member care to comment on the fact that this individual was attending a massage parlour that he had been banned from for violence against the women there, and it was impossible for them to report that violence because operating that place was, in fact, a crime brought in by the current government? This individual's parole could have easily been revoked because of this, but that did not happen.

Does he not agree that something needs to be done about that law?

Business of Supply February 4th, 2020

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I listened to the hon. member's response to my colleague's question, and he made a very unparliamentary remark. He seems to be suggesting that the hon. member asked this question because she had a particular interest in a certain line of work. That is insulting and unparliamentary, notwithstanding the fact that the hon. member recognized that sex workers who are in great danger in this country are, in fact, workers.

Business of Supply February 4th, 2020

Mr. Speaker, this is a very disturbing case. I want to outline the fact that the Parole Board was certainly aware that this individual had been given the permission to meet women, “only for the purpose of responding to [his] sexual needs”, since he had been granted parole in March 2019. It continued over this period of time, and in September the board recognized that they did not agree with the appropriateness of the strategy. However, they went ahead and continued this, so it deserves condemnation.

Bill C-5 was tabled this morning by the government to ensure that judges are familiar with, and have proper continuing education on, matters related to sexual assault law and the social context.

Does the parliamentary secretary agree that it is appropriate for the Parole Board members and for the committee on public safety to insist that there be appropriate training for Parole Board members and officials, to ensure that they are aware of the fact that this kind of case is rooted in misogyny and the devaluation of the lives of women in general and, in this case, sex workers in particular?