House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • Her favourite word was ensure.

Last in Parliament March 2011, as Liberal MP for Brampton—Springdale (Ontario)

Lost her last election, in 2011, with 28% of the vote.

ensurewait timesbrampton springdalechild care spacesput forwardparticularpublic healthchildrenearly learningfamiliesregardconservativeactuallyperhapsseniorsindividualswomenacrossparentsorganizationstermsprovidepovertyprogramsopportunityaboriginalleadershiphopestrategyconstituentsprovidedplanaction

Statements in the House

Violence against Women November 6th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, over the past few weeks the issue of domestic violence against women especially in the Indo-Canadian community has come to light with the tragic deaths of innocent young women in B.C. and in Toronto.

Violence against women is an important issue that impacts all women in Canada. Many gathered at a recent forum in British Columbia to discuss the issue within the South Asian community. Women shared their personal stories of how they were violently beaten in their own homes and treated as property, how they were scared and secluded and felt that they had nowhere to turn.

However, these stories which were told by South Asian women can actually be told by women from all cultures and all socio-economic backgrounds as the story of violence against women really knows no barriers.

It is important that all communities come together to provide local programs and solutions to be able to reach out and to help these women. We as parliamentarians have a responsibility to support programs.

Unfortunately, the recent cuts by the Conservatives to the Status of Women and to other programs is going to close the door to many of the women that need--

As spoken

HIV-AIDS October 30th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, that is well and good, but what about Canadians in Canada who are dying of HIV-AIDS?

Whether it is on wait times, drug coverage, immunization, and now AIDS research funding, the government just has not delivered. Health care remains a missing priority, with no action and no leadership.

Canadians want to know the real reason there has not been an AIDS announcement. Is it because the Conservative government has made the choice to not help those who are dying of HIV-AIDS?

As spoken

HIV-AIDS October 30th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister embarrassed Canadians this summer by snubbing the international AIDS conference held in Toronto. He thought it was “too political”. That is a pretty weak excuse for a politician.

We were told the funding announcement would follow shortly. The summer has come and gone and we are still waiting. The Minister of Health will still not announce Canada's funding commitment for HIV-AIDS. When will the minister get out of semi-retirement, get to work and start delivering results for health care for Canadians?

As spoken

Autism Spectrum Disorder October 27th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague just mentioned, there is tremendous support for the creation of a national autism strategy, not only from members of the House but from many Canadians and families who have been affected by autism. We must all join together in commending the students from Fredericton who actually did a tremendous amount of work in showing that they are activists for a very important cause.

We also must commend the dedication of many other colleagues in the House, including the member for Fredericton, the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore and the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, as well as Senator Trenholme Counsell. We must commend them for their hard work and their commitment to ensuring that we in this country develop a national strategy to address the issue of autism.

We must look at it and make sure that the national strategy is going to ensure that children in this country who are affected by autism receive the type of treatment and therapy they need to ensure they have the highest quality of life possible, because many of us know that autism spectrum disorder is a very complex developmental disability, one that affects brain function.

People with autism typically have an inability to talk and understand or communicate with others. They have an inability to form social relationships, to make eye contact, perhaps to recognize dangerous situations, as my colleague who spoke before me mentioned, an inability to adapt to changes in the environment or their routine, and perhaps an inability to learn skills and language naturally, as typically developing children do.

Autism spectrum disorder is currently reaching epidemic levels. If we look 10 years back, statistics show that almost one in every 10,000 children was diagnosed with autism. However, in 2006 the statistics are quite shocking. One in 166 children is diagnosed with autism.

As the member of Parliament for Brampton—Springdale, I have had the opportunity to meet with a number of parents and families with autistic children who live in my constituency. Hearing their stories is absolutely heart-wrenching. As was described earlier, many families who have autistic children, not only in my riding but across the country in many of the other provinces and territories, are actually having to mortgage their homes, sell their homes or give up their jobs to ensure that their children get the very best in treatment. Treatment costs have been estimated at almost $70,000 per year.

We know there is effective treatment. I think that those of us in this House have a responsibility to ensure that the children who need that treatment actually get it. We must make these investments in their early childhood learning. We must ensure that they have the foundation to enable them to go out there and succeed.

Innovative research has shown us some effective treatment, such as intensive behavioural intervention, and there is also applied behaviour analysis, which actually breaks down into much more manageable steps many of the tasks these children face. Each newly achieved or mastered task then serves as a building block for these children to build on for future skills. These children are actually assisted or prompted, as some suggest, through this extremely positive therapeutic process.

Right now in most provinces, intensive behavioural intervention and applied behaviour analysis are actually funded for preschool children. However, treatment depends on where one lives in the country. In some provinces, the treatment is funded until the age of six. As was mentioned earlier, in Alberta it is funded until the age of 18.

We must make sure that regardless of where one lives in Canada, whether it is on the west coast, the east coast or in the Northwest Territories, all children who are affected by autism actually have the opportunity to receive the treatment they need throughout their lives until the age of 18.

I am sure this national strategy is going to ensure that we have the proper investment to do further research into whether there are other treatment options available and into how this type of condition can be prevented. We must invest in a comprehensive strategy to address this very complex disorder.

As I have mentioned, we know the cost is upwards of $70,000 per year, but we have to ensure we give the opportunity to these families so their children can obtain treatment and provide them with the quality of life they need. These families should be able to do this without having to mortgage their homes, or sell their cars, or go through those financial hardships. Many families that have been affected by autism simply cannot afford this treatment.

In April 2005 Justice Frances Kiteley of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled that the absence of treatment for ABA meant that children with autism were excluded from the opportunity to access learning with the consequential deprivation of skills. The likelihood of this type of isolation from our society would result in the loss of the ability for these young children to exercise their rights and freedoms to which Canadians are entitled.

Over the past 30 years, thousands of research documents have been published and have been peer-reviewed. These studies show that if these children receive the treatment they so much deserve, they will have a chance for purposeful and productive lives.

Many other constituents have come forward and have even sent out emails. I received another email just a few weeks back from a women in Manitoba. She talked about the fact that both of her sons were autistic. She described the hardship of having to sell her home to ensure that her children would get the type of care and treatment they needed. Today, her children are at the mercy of the school system because there is no legislation in Manitoba to ensure that these children receive the applied behaviour analysis treatment or the intensive behaviour intervention.

We all know that these children deserve better. They deserve the opportunity to go out there and learn. They deserve the opportunity to go out, become productive citizens and contribute to our social, economic and political fabric within our country.

As a health care provider, I know the types of treatments these children receive have a very positive effect, not only for the families but also for those vulnerable children.

All members and all parties of the House have the opportunity to really make a difference for these families and these children. We have an opportunity to support a national autism strategy, which would make a tremendous difference in the lives of thousands of Canadians.

On behalf of our party, as the critic for health, we wholeheartedly support a national autism strategy. We commend the member of Parliament for Fredericton who has brought it forward. As was said earlier, this is a non-partisan issue that impacts thousands of families across the country. We need to have a strategy that will ensure we can further study this disorder, that we can have other effective treatment options come forward and that ensure those who require the care receive it.

On behalf of many members in my caucus of the Liberal Party, we fully and wholeheartedly support a creation of a national autism strategy for those thousands of young Canadians who are affected with autism. I hope we will have unanimous support in the House of Commons to adopt a national strategy on autism.

As spoken

Government Programs October 19th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, the only thing the Conservatives are focusing on is attacking the most vulnerable in the country.

The facts are clear. The budget cuts by the Conservative government have gutted funding for adult literacy and training programs across the country. The axe has fallen, without any consultation, without any consideration and without any compassion. The Prime Minister has indicated, not only to his entire caucus but to Canadians across the country, that it is his way or the highway.

Why is the government so determined to muzzle, to gag and to silence the most vulnerable?

As spoken

Government Programs October 19th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, the human resources minister and the Prime Minister seem to always speak with one mind when it comes to muzzling voices of those who are in dissent.

They have written off the youth. They have given up on older workers. They have cancelled Canada's volunteerism initiative, which impacts thousands of volunteer organizations across the country. They have even abandoned adults who want to be able to learn to read and write.

The Conservatives continue to attack the most vulnerable in our society. Does the minister not realize that her cuts are forcing thousands of literacy organizations to close their doors?

As spoken

Hazardous Materials Information Review Act October 16th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to express the support of our party, the official opposition in the House, for Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act. It is very similar to Bill S-40 which was introduced in the previous Parliament by the Liberal government. The bill seeks to change the process whereby manufacturers of hazardous materials can become exempt from providing full disclosure of the nature of their products where that disclosure would force them to reveal trade secrets.

I know the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health has very eloquently put forward some of the changes that would take place, but perhaps I could also divulge some information in regard to this piece of legislation.

As was mentioned by the member opposite, the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission is an independent quasi-judicial agency of government. It plays a very important role in ensuring that we protect the safety of our workers in Canada. Ultimately that is what this legislation is about; it is about protecting workers, both their safety and their health in Canada.

The commission is part of the Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System which provides workers with information about health and safety. There are product labels which are available to employees and workers who handle hazardous materials, along with material data safety sheets. They provide workers with information that is important for their protection, such as the different types of hazardous ingredients that they perhaps are working with, the specific risks that may be encountered when utilizing those products, and precautions on how to store and transport those products, and also how to ensure the proper disposal of those products. The labelling sheets and the data safety sheets also provide information on first aid measures that one can take if there is any type of accidental exposure.

The commission has played a vital and important role in terms of educating workers and ensuring their safety. The legislation that is before us wants to implement three amendments. The first amendment reduces some of the administrative burden that one requires for documentation. The second amendment deals with the voluntary correction of material safety data sheets and product labels. The third amendment improves the appeals process.

With respect to the first change regarding reducing the amount of administrative burden, when employers put forward information on how to provide for an application for hazardous materials, they must apply for an exemption. One of the difficulties with the exemption is that when they reveal what the chemical compounds are in those hazardous materials, they may end up revealing trade secrets and therefore, they apply to the commission for an exemption. However, the commission has only denied two of the 2,200 applications that have been put forward to the commission. There is an amendment to allow individuals to label their applications as confidential and the commission would only then review those applications if they were challenged on the basis of confidentiality.

The second amendment being put forward is the voluntary correction of material safety and data. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health told the House, if a correction is required to the product labels or the material safety data sheets, it has to appear in the Canada Gazette through a formal order and it is not binding until 75 days after it has been publicized. Thus workers cannot receive the appropriate information until 75 days after it has appeared in the Canada Gazette. This bill would ensure that workers would receive information in a timely manner because instead of having to go through the Canada Gazette, one could make a voluntary undertaking.

The third improvement is in regard to improving the appeals process. Right now the commission cannot have any type of interference. However, if it were able to provide some sort of factual clarification it would actually speed up the whole process.

In conclusion, we support this piece of legislation. It would provide definite improvements to the whole process. It would absolutely ensure that workers in this country had access to safe and effective information that would ensure their health and safety. Also, the information would be made available in a timely manner.

We will be supporting Bill S-2.

As spoken

Hazardous Materials Information Review Act October 16th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for providing some insight into this important legislation, which is an act to amend the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act.

I listened intently to what the member had to say and was quite surprised that a substantive part of his speech, word for word, was actually written and given by a member in the Senate, the hon. James Cowan, during second reading to amend the bill.

I also realized that the senator was not recognized during the member's speech. I do not know if that would be a form of plagiarism taking place in the House but I would be interested in finding out from the member whether he had any new insights into this particular debate on some of the other important issues versus reading a speech, word for word, from Senator James Cowan that took place in the Senate?

As spoken

Justice September 28th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, this minority government takes great pride in portraying itself as a government of law and order. However, its idea of law and order is becoming more and more clear all the time. There is more money for jails, less money and fewer regulations for gun control, taking conditional sentencing away from our experienced judges, and arbitrarily increasing mandatory minimums.

That is certainly not something to applaud because its concept of law and order means three things: more guns, more jails and longer sentences.

This week the government has cut over $14 million from the national crime prevention program, a program which actually endeavoured to reduce crime and victimization. This is yet another example of all its cuts and talking about safe communities but doing absolutely nothing.

Constituents in Brampton—Springdale and Canadians deserve safe communities. The most vulnerable among us, women, minority groups, francophones and families living in poverty, all demand safe communities.

As spoken

Youth September 26th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, I think the minister needs to check her facts because the Conservatives just cut $5 million in funding that was helping youth in this country.

The bottom line is that the Conservatives receive an F because they have abandoned the young people of Canada. The Conservatives could have made a choice to make youth a priority, but instead they chose to cut the very programs that help them. The Minister of Human Resources had a choice to ensure that she invested in young people, but instead she chose to slam the door in their faces.

Why did the minister not stand up to her boss to ensure that she would protect the interests of young Canadians?

As spoken