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 April 11th, 2016

Mr. Speaker, my question to the Liberal government back in February centred on the continued lack of an economic impact study regarding the proposed trans-Pacific partnership. Such a study would provide greater clarity for Canadians on how this massive investment trade deal would impact workers, our communities, and our economy as a whole. It would also help guide the work of the Standing Committee on International Trade, which will embark on a trip across western Canada next week to hear from a select few witnesses about the impacts of the TPP.

There are some studies we can look to now for guidance. An independent study from Tufts University estimates that the TPP would cost 58,000 jobs in Canada while increasing inequality. The study finds the deal would make a negligible difference on GDP: just 0.28% after 10 years.

Many have raised concerns over the TPP's impact on key areas of Canadian public interest, including the auto industry, supply-managed agricultural sectors, intellectual property rights, foreign takeovers of Canadian companies, privacy rights and Internet freedoms, and the affordability of prescription medications.

While some sectors may benefit from lowered tariffs and greater access to certain markets, the TPP's negative impacts on Canadian industry are evidenced by the Conservative government offering $5 billion in compensation to the auto and dairy sectors for the losses they are expected to suffer; compensation on which the Liberal government has so far turned its back.

The fact of the matter is that the TPP is a bad deal. Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz went so far as to call it the worst trade deal ever. As I outlined earlier today in question period, Mr. Stiglitz warns that the TPP would erode the rights of workers, kill Canadian jobs, and reverse the principle of polluter pays, making governments pay billions for any attempt to protect the environment.

The Conservatives negotiated the deal under an unprecedented veil of secrecy, and they concluded the deal in the dying days of their government, just two weeks before Canadians voted the Conservatives out of office.

When the Liberals were in opposition, they demanded that the government produce an analysis of the costs and benefits of the agreement on each sector. No such economic impact study has ever been produced, not for the TPP, and I would also point out, not for CETA. The fact that this did not happen before Canada signed onto this deal is ludicrous.

Therefore, I rise in this place tonight to ask this. Will the Liberals live up to their own standards and present an economic impact study of the TPP?

The government must release an analysis of the deal's impacts and come clean with Canadians about the costs of signing onto the Conservatives' TPP.

The Budget April 11th, 2016

Madam Speaker, it is incredibly unfortunate that the member across rises and says that seniors can wait, that people in his riding of Saint John—Rothesay can wait for the palliative care that he himself promised.

I am pleased that he references his five-point plan. It is available on the Internet for all of us to see.

During the election campaign, the member made the following commitment to seniors in his own five-point plan. Number 4, which is seniors, says, “We need to take better care of our seniors”. Point 5 f) says specifically, “We will invest $3 billion in home care, long term, and palliative care”.

The Liberals have abandoned that promise to invest $3 billion over four years for home care, which is deeply needed in our aging population. There is also nothing in the budget for mental health, palliative care, or long-term care. Therefore, could the member for Saint John—Rothesay tell the House how he will explain to seniors, and all those constituents in his riding whom he told he would provide that money for palliative care, that he broke his word to them?

International Trade April 11th, 2016

Mr. Speaker, what on earth will it take for the Liberals to stop backing the TPP? Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz calls it the “worst” trade deal ever. He warns it will erode workers' rights, kill Canadian jobs, and reverse the principle of polluter pays, making governments pay billions for any attempt to protect the environment. Can the minister confirm that Stiglitz explained to her the serious problems with the TPP, and will she tell the House which part she did not understand?

The Budget April 11th, 2016

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his analysis of the budget and what was in it and what was missing.

When we talk about child care, that money is fantastic for families because they need it, but it will do nothing to provide quality, affordable, accessible child care in their communities, particularly for people who work, or who have shift work or who need to cover those long periods of time when they are away from their children.

My colleague spoke eloquently about the things that were completely missing from the budget, such as agriculture, many of the commitments that were made around some of the trade agreements we faced, and the money that was simply not there for the supply managed sectors in our communities.

The other thing my colleague touched on was EI and how there were choices made about Canadians, about which Canadians deserved to be helped when they were at their most vulnerable and which did not. We were sent a clear message by the government about which communities in Canada would receive that money and the rest were left out.

I would like to ask my colleague about health care, which was left out completely from this budget. We talk about seniors and families at their most vulnerable needing access to health care, being able to get to health care, and having it be affordable. Could the member please speak about the absolute lack in this budget of the promises the government made during the campaign with respect to health care?

Agriculture and Agri-Food March 24th, 2016

Mr. Speaker, there they go, a lofty campaign promise on health, another Liberal promise broken.

The budget was also very disappointing for farmers in the agricultural sector. There is nothing for farmers who face significant losses under CETA. Let us compare it to Liberal promises.

The budget slashed research funding, cut new CFIA investments, and dropped any mention of the value added investment fund. The agricultural sector is a pillar of the economy in many regions of our country, including southwestern Ontario.

Why did Liberals break their promise to our nation's farmers?

International Women's Day March 8th, 2016

Mr. Speaker, today we celebrate International Women's Day, a global day recognizing the economic, political, and social achievements of all women.

Since the first International Women's Day in 1911, women have fought to achieve greater equality. However, there is still much work to be done as Canada has fallen to number 30 in the global gender parity rankings.

Women are still not paid equally compared to their male counterparts and are still under-represented in business and politics. Globally, women's education, health, and the violence women face is still worse than that of men.

I am humbled to stand in this place following in the footsteps of all the women parliamentarians who have served our country. They have fought to ensure that the 88 women who serve in this Parliament can accurately reflect women's diverse interests, voices, and experiences.

Women and girls are deeply impacted by poverty, climate change, food insecurity, economic crises, and the lack of affordable child care.

The achievement of full human potential and of sustainable development is not possible if one half of humanity continues to be denied its full human rights and opportunities.

International Trade March 7th, 2016

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised to be open and transparent on trade deals, but his government's approach is anything but open. Canadians are concerned about CETA and the TPP. Investor state provisions will have big implications for Canadians, affecting everything from environmental protection and labour rights to drug costs.

Before the election, Liberals demanded the government consult Canadians and produce a cost-benefit analysis of trade deals. Now that they are in government, where is the TPP analysis and where is the consultation with Canadians?

Employment Insurance February 25th, 2016

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with the member for Windsor West.

I am pleased to speak in support of today's opposition day motion brought forward by the hon. member for Jonquière. The motion calls on this place to acknowledge that Canadians need better access to employment insurance benefits. It also calls on the government to take immediate action. The motion is very relevant to the people I represent in Essex.

Over the past number of years and decades, southwestern Ontario has lost tens of thousands of good paying manufacturing jobs. Manufacturing accounts for 11% of Canada's GDP and employs over 1.7 million Canadians, many of whom live in southwestern Ontario. However, over the past decade, under the Conservatives' watch, 400,000 good paying manufacturing jobs have been lost. Those job losses have impacted communities across my riding, including Amherstburg, Belle River, Essex, Harrow, Kingsville, Lakeshore, and LaSalle.

According to Service Canada, the EI region of Windsor, which includes the riding I represent, has an unemployment rate of 9.6%. This is one of the highest unemployment rates in the country, much higher than the 7.2% national rate. In reality, we know the rate is probably much higher than the 9.6% at which Statistics Canada looks. Statistics Canada has a narrow measure of unemployment that really only looks at those who are actively looking for work.

In a region like the one I represent, which has experienced chronic underemployment over the years, people simply stop looking or they settle for lower paying jobs, or part-time work, sometimes piecing together two or three part-time jobs to make ends meet. They may also seek retraining opportunities as I did in 2008 after being laid off from my auto manufacturing job.

When I started working on the assembly line at Ford, we had 6,700 people and 20 years later we are down to 1,500. People in my riding deserve fair and equitable access to employment insurance. When people lose their job through no fault of their own and there are not many opportunities in the area they can turn to, they need time to make the important decision about their future and the future of their families.

Yesterday, I published an editorial in the Windsor Star that talked about Neil from London. Canadians were introduced to Neil during the Prime Minister's one-on-one interviews on CBC. Neil's interview embodied more than just a generation concerned about their financial retirement. He reminded me of all the people I had worked shoulder to shoulder with during my 19 years at Ford. It reminded me of the conversations I had at the doors of Essex voters. It reminded me why I am now working in Ottawa as the MP for Essex.

Thanks to Neil, the concerns he raised with the Prime Minister were brought to a national audience. His questions reflected the real anxiety that resides in manufacturing towns across southwestern Ontario. He became the face of tens of thousands of families. His questions were real and they were poignant. Sadly, they largely went unanswered by the Prime Minister.

Canadians from all corners of our country face anxiety about mounting job losses. We know the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan are facing an extraordinary period of slow economic growth and falling energy prices. This has led to tens of thousands of workers losing their jobs, which means tens of thousands of families concerned about how they will make ends meet while trying to secure quality jobs in this economic downturn.

When communities face mounting job losses, like Alberta over the past year or so, and southwestern Ontario over the past few decades, workers rely on fair access to the employment insurance benefits they paid into for so many years. The premier of Alberta, the Hon. Rachel Notley, knows EI is an important component supporting families in these tough economic times. She has said that they are looking for a fast-paced adjustment to EI so they can extend eligibility and eligibility for the length of claims, which are shorter in Alberta than in any other part of the country.

While the Liberals talked a lot about improving access to EI during the election campaign, many Canadians will remember that it was a Liberal government that created many of the problems with EI that we now are dealing with today. In fact, successive Liberal and Conservative governments have tightened eligibility criteria and have pillaged $57 billion from the EI fund. They have distorted the purpose of the EI program, which is to provide income to workers who have the misfortune of losing their job.

Looking back into the 1990s, the Liberal government of the day embarked on a devastating austerity program, reducing transfers to the provinces and cities and slashing services on which Canadians relied. Under the Liberals, employment insurance was radically overhauled to restrict eligibility requirements. In 1990, eight out of ten Canadians qualified for EI benefits, but after the Liberal government's changes, EI coverage fell to less than 50% of the unemployed.

Let us talk about what the Liberal government did to the EI account.

To provide a little background, when employers and workers pay into EI, the money goes into a consolidated specific purposes account. These specific purposes are very straightforward. EI premiums are intended to provide relief for workers who have lost their job. They are not meant for any other purpose, like funding reductions in the corporate tax rate, or giving subsidies to the fossil fuel industry. EI premiums are meant for unemployed workers.

What the Liberals did to the EI account was unconscionable. They raided the fund of about $50 billion. Rather than reducing premiums for small business owners and workers, the government took the money for its own purposes. Rather than increase access to EI for the unemployed, the government took the money for itself. Rather than provide greater retraining opportunities for unemployed workers, or address the serious skilled labour shortage that existed across Canada, the Liberal government took $50 billion out of the EI account and away from Canadian workers.

It is all well and good for the Liberals today to be talking about fixing some of the Conservatives' mess, but let us not forget the governing party's sordid history on this file.

Fast forwarding to the 2000s, let us take a look at what the Conservatives did with EI.

Faced with deepening recession in 2012, the Conservatives failed to address the economy and instead focused on attacking Canadian workers. They undertook a large series of reforms to EI that were designed to further restrict eligibility, especially for seasonal and lower-wage workers. The number of people qualifying for EI hit an all-time low. Let us remember, in 1990, eight of ten Canadians qualified for EI benefits. After the Liberals were done with their changes, this number dropped to about five in ten. After the Conservatives, just four out of ten Canadians qualified for the benefits they had paid into.

The Conservatives introduced new rules forcing workers to accept lower wage jobs that paid up to 30% less than their previous jobs, or accept jobs that were up to an hour's drive from home. Refusing such jobs meant workers risked losing their benefits.

The Conservatives also changed rules for the working while on claim pilot project, which penalized lower income earners, and they killed the extended EI benefits pilot program, which granted five extra weeks of benefits for workers in regions of high unemployment.

Stealing a page from the Liberal playbook, the Conservative government diverted another $3 billion from the EI account to cover budget holes left by its multi-billion dollars in corporate tax giveaways.

Hassan Yussuff, president of the Canadian Labour Congress, put it well, “How is it acceptable to be accumulating annual surpluses in the EI account, when 63% of unemployed workers aren't receiving any benefits?”

It is time the for the federal government to stop raiding the EI account. Enough is enough. This money can never be recovered, and it is a grievous theft from Canadians who are at their most vulnerable.

Today's motion proposes a clear way forward.

First, it proposes to create a universal qualifying threshold of 360 hours, regardless of the regional rate of unemployment. Currently, the required hours range from 420 to 700 hours, which restricts EI eligibility for many Canadian workers. Levelling the playing field with a standard number of hours is good for workers. It is a proposal that has been endorsed by 80 Canadian groups, including anti-poverty, women's groups, labour unions, and students groups.

Second, the motion proposes to repeal some of the Conservative government's harmful EI reforms. Forcing workers to accept low-paying jobs far from their homes puts an undue strain on families and prevents workers from securing the right job for their future. Let us get rid of these unnecessary measures and restore the pilot program to help seasonal workers.

Third, the motion calls on Parliament to protect the EI account, to ensure that funds are only spent on benefits for Canadians, including training, and never again used to boost the government's bottom line. This is such a critical part of the motion.

I encourage my colleagues to acknowledge the wrongs of the past and support today's motion as a positive way forward that restores the EI program to its intended purpose.

I thank my hon. colleague from Jonquière for bringing this motion before us today.

On behalf of the people I represent in Essex, I will be voting yes to this motion.

International Trade February 17th, 2016

Mr. Speaker, I have had lots of Canadians telling me they are worried about the TPP. They are worried about their jobs, about impacts on environmental regulations, and about rising drug costs. The CEO of Ford Canada said “...there will be no positive outcome for Canadian manufacturing”.

However, the Liberals do not seem to be listening to these serious concerns. They signed the deal without studying it and still have not told Canadians what the impacts will be. How can the minister keep pushing such a dangerous deal with no study to back it up?

Canada Labour Code February 16th, 2016

Mr. Speaker, I think it is interesting that my colleague mentioned the trades of members of his riding. I would like to draw attention to something that Canada's Building Trades Unions put forward around this piece of legislation. It stated:

Canada's Building Trades Unions are very pleased with the introduction of repeal legislation for Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. [They] are pleased this is one of the first pieces of Government legislation introduced in the 42nd Parliament.

Therefore, I would ask the member this. Will he stand with unionized workers in his riding in the building trades, repeal this regressive legislation, and help grow the Canadian economy?