House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • Her favourite word was jobs.

Last in Parliament October 2019, as NDP MP for Essex (Ontario)

Lost her last election, in 2021, with 32% of the vote.

Statements in the House

International Trade October 17th, 2017

Madam Speaker, I am surprised but happy to hear the member opposite saying that the Liberals will not accept that at the table. At this point, I hope that is being communicated well across our country, and that everyone will be watching tonight and hear the parliamentary secretary say that we will not open supply management.

My question goes back to the member, and it has to do with where we are now in these negotiations. Of course, the U.S. has thrown this on the table. From what I can hear from the member across, he is saying quite clearly then that we will not enter into negotiations around that and that potentially we will leave the table. I am not sure what the option is.

I would like to hear from the member what it is the Liberals have planned at this point to communicate that to the U.S. I have not heard that quite so strongly from the minister. Can the member opposite enlighten us in this House on how the Liberals plan to communicate that to the U.S., and what their plan is now at the negotiating table around this issue?

International Trade October 17th, 2017

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise tonight to address the very serious attacks on Canada's supply managed sectors by the American government and the lack of leadership and strength against this attack from the Liberal government.

The NAFTA renegotiations began in August, but even before that Donald Trump took aim at our dairy farmers, stating, “We can't let Canada or anybody else take advantage and do what they did to our workers and to our farmers.”

Trump has continually been belligerent, accusing Canada of violating global trade obligations, and our Prime Minister simply sits beside him stunned and grinning. Just last Sunday, the U.S. NAFTA negotiating team said that it wanted Canadian access for 400,000 metric tonnes of fluid milk and 17% of our poultry products.

Under the trans-Pacific partnership, Canada granted access to 3.25% of its dairy market and 2.1% of its chicken market. Since the U.S. has withdrawn from TPP, it is looking for even greater concessions under NAFTA. There was never any doubt on this side of the House that supply management would be under attack. The only surprise seems to be from the government.

The former Conservative and the current Liberal governments showed a real lack of forethought when they opened the door and market access to our supply managed sectors under trade deals like TPP and CETA. Because of their poor judgment now, they have created a space for the Americans to demand concessions that the government must not make.

I would like to talk about CETA. The Comprehensive and Economic Trade Agreement is a trade deal that the Conservatives wrote and the Liberals rammed through Parliament. The Liberals did not consult adequately with farmers or producers and they did not provide adequate compensation programs for the losses our dairy farmers have endured.

Instead, the Liberal government only agreed to a controversial investment assistance program. After only a week of it being open, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada announced it would no longer accept any applications from dairy farmers. Without access to the compensation that is owed to them and a lack of funds, several dairy producers are now hitting a wall.

During the 2015 election campaign, the Liberals promised to compensate dairy producers for concessions made during CETA negotiations, but they backtracked on this investment program.

Sadly, it is not the first time the Liberals have harmed dairy producers or other farmers protected by our supply managed system. Since taking office, the Liberal government has been completely inactive in the raw milk sector, and they succumbed to the European Union regarding the allocation of the tariff quotas.

The NDP has repeatedly warned the government that dairy producers would suffer with only the $250 million allocated, but it has pushed through with this bad trade deal anyway. Now we see it letting these same farmers down during the renegotiation of NAFTA.

Canadian farmers have benefited from the supply managed system since the early 1970s. This system sets the price and creates stability for dairy, egg, and poultry producers. Supply management has proven to be an effective model that equalizes the benefits of dairy and poultry production across consumers, farmers, and processors, and stabilizes the industry against price shocks or oversupply.

This attack on supply management cannot continue. Once again, will the Liberal government show real leadership and finally tell the U.S. that supply management and further market access are not on the table?

International Trade October 17th, 2017

Mr. Speaker, supporting supply management means saying “no”. Dairy is officially on the table. The U.S. has called for a definitive end to Canada's supply managed system and is demanding immediate further access to our markets. This is outrageous. Both the Liberals and the Conservatives have no problem putting our supply managed sector up for grabs in trade deals like TPP and CETA, but this time, the Liberals must protect our industry and say “no”.

Will the minister drop the spin and finally tell the U.S. that supply management is not on the table?

International Trade October 16th, 2017

Mr. Speaker, in this fourth round of NAFTA renegotiations, President Trump continues to speak negatively about the deal, even while sitting beside our silent Prime Minister. The Americans are clearly bargaining in bad faith, placing poison pills on the table, such as the requirement that vehicles contain at least 50% U.S. content. The automotive sector has stated that not only will this backfire, companies will simply pay the low 2.5% tariffs instead of ensuring the content is regionally sourced and jobs are secure.

When will the Liberal government present its plan to protect the future and health of Canadian jobs and our auto sector?

Business of Supply October 5th, 2017

Mr. Speaker, since 1993 the Liberals have stood in the House and talked about the importance of pharmacare. I do not know how much more evidence needs to come forward. The evidence has been mounting, and 91% of Canadians want a national pharmacare program. I do not know how much more evidence the government needs on this.

Canadians keep speaking loudly and clearly, and the Liberals are ignoring them. I cannot believe the member does not support holding one meeting within a year. Is the member standing in the House and telling Canadians and people from his riding that his government will not even hold a meeting on pharmacare with the provinces?

Business of Supply October 5th, 2017

Mr. Speaker, during my speech I referred to one of my constituents with a similar story. This is heartbreaking for Canadians, and it cannot continue. In 2015, an Angus Reid Institute report stated that millions of Canadians feel the pressure of prescription drug costs, and that more than one in five Canadians has said that in the past 12 months they or someone in their household has not taken their medication as prescribed because of the cost. It is time for action.

Business of Supply October 5th, 2017

Mr. Speaker, these things are not exclusive. I hope the member opposite did not say that he thought the minister had not read yet the report from the PBO. I certainly hope that is not the case.

To be honest, it is not just the New Democrats who are calling for action. We are joined by many people, including the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions, the Canadian Doctors for Medicare, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the Canadian Health Coalition, the Council of Canadians, the Canadian Labour Congress, CUPE, and Unifor.

Today, Hassan Yussuff, the president of the Canadian Labour Congress, said that he hopes that all parties will support this motion in the House today.

There are many organizations, and certainly 91% of Canadians, who understand that one meeting within a year is something important to ask for, because we have seen no action from the Liberals on pharmacare since 1993.

Business of Supply October 5th, 2017

Mr. Speaker, this question is quite surprising because of course the NDP has respect for the process of this House. We have a deep respect for that and certainly for our member for Vancouver Kingsway, who has brought this forward.

As the member opposite should know, calling a meeting in one year's time will certainly not prohibit the committee from doing its very good work in the meantime. There is absolutely nothing in this motion that references detaining or derailing the work of the committee. We know that good work will continue, and again we hope it will bring to light more of the evidence on why it is so incredibly important that we have a pharmacare program.

This particular motion today really is asking for a meeting within one year. I am sure the member opposite will agree with me that we can have a full study at the health committee and have a meeting with the provinces within one year. Those things will go hand in hand quite well.

International Trade October 5th, 2017

Mr. Speaker, the fourth round of NAFTA renegotiations starts next week in Washington, and the Americans are expected to bring forward their dairy sector demands. After repeated attacks from President Trump on our supply managed sector, the government has stated that it will protect it, yet it has never stated clearly and without hesitation that it will not open our dairy market to the U.S.

Since the Liberals and Conservatives put our dairy sector on the table in CETA, and it is likely part of the secretive TPP 11, will they finally stand up in the House today for dairy farmers and commit to not sacrificing our supply management system in NAFTA?

Business of Supply October 5th, 2017

Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise today in support of this NDP motion that calls upon the government to have a meeting to start the conversation about implementing a universal pharmacare program. This is something that New Democrats have been fighting for since Tommy Douglas introduced and implemented public medicare in our country.

New Democrats refer to the amazing vision that Tommy Douglas had. His vision of a social system that is accessible to us all still guides us today. It is a fundamental belief that we are all in this world together, and that the only test of our character that matters is how we look after the least fortunate among us—how we look after each other, not how we look after ourselves—and that no matter what, people should get whatever health services they require, irrespective of their individual ability to pay.

Tommy Douglas never intended to create such a gap in Canadian health care coverage. Prescription drugs and other services were always meant to be integrated into a system of comprehensive public coverage along with hospitals and physician services.

Canada is the only developed country in the world with a universal health care program that does not include a universal prescription drug plan. This means that our multi-payer system has resulted in the second-highest prescription drug costs in the world, second only to the United States. Our patchwork prescription drug system is inefficient and expensive. It has left Canadians with wildly varying prescription drug coverage and access. Many people are paying different rates for the same medications.

Currently people are not benefiting from our system, but do we know who is? It is the pharmaceutical and private insurance companies, the same ones that make billions of dollars in profit every year. Did members know that in 2016 Merck Canada made a $35.2 billion profit, while Bristol-Myers Squibb earned $19.2 billion? What about the fact that in 2016 Purdue Pharma reaped profits of $31 billion? Purdue sells oxycontin and other products prescribed for the treatment of pain, and Purdue has been found to have misled doctors about the safety and effectiveness of oxycontin. As we all know too well, Canada is facing a public health crisis in which at least 2,400 Canadians died as a result of opioid overdose in 2016.

What about the top private insurance companies? Do members know that the top three companies in Canada collectively raked in net profits of over $8 billion in 2016?

Pharmaceutical companies can charge higher prices for drugs because they sell to so many buyers. Private insurance companies benefit by charging employers, unions, and employees to administer these private drug insurance plans.

Why is it acceptable that in Canada a corporation can have profits of $35 billion, but seniors living in my riding cannot afford to both heat their homes and buy their medications?

Seniors represent one of the fastest-growing populations in Canada today. The number of seniors in Canada is projected to reach 9.8 million in 2036, and many more seniors will be retiring in the years to come. Therefore, we need to have a social safety net in place to avoid dramatic increases in the rate of poverty. A universal pharmacare program would significantly help our seniors and would cost our health care system less.

I want to specifically speak today about what I see in my constituency office. I have people who come into my office who are desperate for help. Many seniors, but certainly people of all ages, tell my staff that they cannot afford their medications. Couples will often split one prescription between them, or they will skip taking their medicine so that they can afford a new pair of glasses to allow them to see properly.

A woman who was on ODSP, the Ontario disability support program, came in last week. She cannot work because she has very serious mental health issues. She needs her medication to function. However, not all of her medications are covered by ODSP, and sometimes they are only partially covered. Often she must decide whether to pay her utility bills, buy groceries, or pay for her medicine. She came into my office because she chose to pay for her medication one month, but then she could not afford to cover her utility bills, so her phone was cut off.

This woman relies upon the services of our local mental health crisis phone line. The counsellors provide her with the support she needed to manage her illness, but her phone was cut off. She was devastated. She told my staff that she regularly uses her food money to cover her utilities or medication costs. That simply is not right, yet we see it in all of our constituency offices every day.

Earlier this week, when we debated tax fairness in the House, I spoke about the true unfairness of income inequality. I will repeat some of the shocking, heartbreaking statistics that are a reality in Canada today.

According to the census data in 2015, the richest 1% now make 6.8 times more than a worker making Canada's median wage of $34,204.

In the Windsor-Essex area, the United Way said that about one-quarter of our youth live in poverty, which means that in 2013, 19,900 children under the age of 17 lived in families that had an income of less than $17,000 per year. This is not only unacceptable; it is offensive. When someone earns so little per year, there is no room for paying for medications, and people are making very difficult decisions about their health. It is time to move forward with a universal prescription drug plan that will save money through bulk purchasing power.

In New Zealand, where a public authority negotiates on behalf of the entire country, a year's supply of the cholesterol-busting drug Lipitor costs just over $15 a year, compared to $811 per year in Canada. This is a life-saving drug, and hundreds of thousands of Canadians take it. That is why Canada needs to combine the purchasing power of all Canadians under one plan. An annual investment of $1 billion by the federal government would mean that Canadians would save $7.3 billion a year on the medications they need.

What I wish to emphasize today is that New Democrats are of the fundamental belief that people should not have to worry about whether they can pay their hydro bill or afford their medication.

Today I have some statistics from the Canadian Labour Congress, but before I do that I want to read a quote from its president in a release that was issued today. This is from CLC president Hassan Yussuff. It states:

We are pleased that the NDP under its new leader Jagmeet Singh is continuing to make pharmacare such a priority, and we hope all political parties respond by making this much needed program a reality as soon as possible.

If the Liberals claim to be standing up for labour in this country, if they claim to be standing up for working people, then I hope that they will heed the advice of the Canadian Labour Congress president today and support what the New Democrats have brought forward.

I want to read some of the statistics from the Canadian Labour Congress, which state:

About 8.4 million working Canadians don't have prescription drug coverage.

The less you earn at work, the less likely you are to have prescription drug coverage.

Women and young workers are less likely to have the coverage they need.

Even those with drug plans are paying ever-increasing co-payments and deductibles.

The New Democrats are not alone in our belief in national pharmacare. An overwhelming majority of Canadians, 91%, believe that our public health care system should include a universal prescription drug plan. It is not just the New Democrats who are calling for this desperately needed action; several national health care commissions have recommended the same, along with the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions, Canadian Doctors for Medicare, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the Canadian Health Coalition, the Council of Canadians, CUPE, Unifor, and the Canadian Labour Congress.

If the current government is a true friend to all of those organizations, and labour, it is time for it to stand up. We are calling for a meeting. Surely the Liberals can commit to one meeting to talk about where we are going in this country with respect to pharmacare. All we are asking in this motion is that in one year we have that meeting.

It is time for action. Canadians have waited long enough. It is time to start the conversation.