House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • Her favourite word was post.

Last in Parliament September 2021, as Independent MP for Don Valley East (Ontario)

Won her last election, in 2019, with 60% of the vote.

Statements in the House

The Budget March 4th, 2008

Mr. Speaker, this is where it is very disconcerting to Canadians because the Conservatives can never accept facts. They want to ignore the facts on any issue, such as the fact that Alan Riddell was paid or Jim Hart was paid. Those facts are real.

The Conservatives have to accept the fact that during very good economic times Mr. Mulroney quadrupled the debt. Conservative governments since Borden, since the time of the sinking of the Titanic, have never been able to balance budgets. Now when they have been handed $17 billion on a silver platter, what do they do? They ignore it.

I would like to bring to the attention of the hon. member that at one point during the Mulroney era, the CPP was totally underfunded and now it is funded for 75 years. It requires leadership; it requires vision; and it requires the commitment of government to move forward with the people. The people in 1993 realized that. This is why they booted out the Conservatives, because they were such terrible economic managers.

I cannot understand why, despite having $17 billion in surplus, the Conservatives found it necessary to be mean to people who are poor, who are vulnerable. They cut literacy programs. They cut the Kelowna accord. They cut Kyoto. What is their agenda?

The Budget March 4th, 2008

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents of Don Valley East, I am pleased to rise today to provide my comments on the Conservatives' federal budget introduced last week.

I am an accountant by trade and I like to compare numbers, especially when it comes to tax policy. I was therefore surprised when the finance minister seemed particularly sensitive to the criticism that he and the Conservative Party are “blowing the surplus”.

Usually a budget speech delivered by a federal finance minister is a well crafted and dignified message intended to assure not only Canadians but also financial markets at home and around the world that the Government of Canada is in full control of its finances and confident of its economic future.

The fact that the finance minister found it necessary to fend off critics even before he outlined his budget plan suggests that he is not confident of his numbers and that the prospect of the Conservatives running a deficit is a very real and distinct possibility.

Budget 2008 is the third budget delivered by the Conservatives. After three kicks at the can, one might expect the finance minister to have a better grip on the country's finances and purse strings. Yet, he continues to make some historical gaffes.

For example, I think Canadians will agree that the first disaster was the income trust scandal. Page 32 of the 2006 Conservative election platform entitled “Stand up for Canada” clearly states that a Conservative government would not attack retirement savings by ensuring that it would not impose any more taxes on them.

What is the first thing the finance minister did on October 31, 2006, barely six months after assuming office? He shocked thousands of Canadian investors, many of them seniors who relied on their income trusts for monthly income, by imposing a tax, breaking a campaign promise and wiping out more than $25 billion in savings overnight. Those seniors have not forgotten that, nor have they forgiven the finance minister, and I do not think they ever will.

Another jewel in the Conservative misstep in its platform was to enshrine property rights in the Constitution of Canada, which it has conveniently dropped.

The Conservatives like sound bites, but these sound bites are not intelligent bites and so the Conservatives have had to flip-flop constantly.

On page 16 of the Conservative election platform under the heading, “Real tax relief for Canadians”, it states, “A Conservative government will...eliminate the capital gains tax for individuals on the sale of assets when the proceeds” are delivered.

Canadians have been patiently waiting for years, and while the Conservatives have delivered three budgets, there is absolutely no mention of capital gains relief. Could it be that the Conservatives have broken yet another campaign promise?

Canadians are beginning to literally stand up and take notice. Last year the finance minister made history with his 2007 budget that came along with the curious title of “Aspire”. It was the most inflationary budget and the Minister of Finance was called the “biggest spending finance minister since Confederation”, by whom? By none other than Andrew Coyne, who at the time was with the National Post.

This year budget 2008 is entitled “Responsible Leadership”. Let us see what sort of leadership it is. The Conservative government inherited from the previous Liberal government a $17 billion federal surplus and now, in less than three years, the Conservatives have placed the country dangerously close to a federal deficit.

Let us look back at the economic situation 15 years ago. In 1993 the Liberal government inherited a $42 billion deficit and a massive federal debt from the Conservative government of Brian Mulroney. It took many painful years to turn the situation around and put Canada back on the path of prosperity. Part of the plan included a guarantee that no less than $3 billion a year would be taken from the surplus and used to pay down the federal debt.

Now the finance minister is telling us that he can no longer afford to pay off the debt in a balanced and predictable way. According to his predictions, he can only afford to pay $2.3 billion in 2008-09 and even less, $1.3 billion, in 2009-10. Is this what the Conservatives call responsible leadership?

The reason the Conservatives' debt reduction plan gradually decreased is precisely that the finance minister has in fact blown the surplus. As my distinguished colleague from Markham—Unionville has astutely pointed out, a $1.3 billion margin puts Canada perilously close to deficit financing. It takes a crisis like SARS or an ice storm to blow off this surplus.

How could the finance minister be so negligent? Canadians worked hard to get the country back on solid economic footing, and the finance minister and the Conservative government have spent like drunken sailors with nothing to show for it except a potential deficit.

To illustrate how incompetent the finance minister is, let us look at a practical example. In 2006 the finance minister cut the GST by 1% despite advice from economists all across the country that this was a foolish move. Then, to add insult to injury, he increased the income tax rate from 15% to 15.5% for the lowest income bracket and reduced the personal exemption rate.

For people in low and middle income brackets, the effect of the tax increase that these people lost was anywhere from $122 to $400. For the same people to take advantage of the GST cut, the low and middle income earners would have to spend $12,200 or $40,000. This is bizarre. The only people who could benefit from the GST cut are the wealthy ones.

Instead of helping the most deserving, the finance minister penalizes them, at a time when the federal treasury had $17 billion in surplus. Why did the finance minister squander away federal reserves without even stimulating the economy? Each 1% cut of the GST costs the federal treasury $6 billion a year, and since the Conservatives came to office, they have cut the GST twice, creating a federal shortfall of $12 billion a year.

Who pays for the shortfall? The Canadian taxpayer does, especially when the same economists have repeatedly told the Prime Minister and the finance minister that personal income tax cuts like the ones introduced by previous Liberal governments do far more for the economy than saving one or two cents on a cup of coffee.

Personal income taxes, especially those aimed at low and middle income taxpayers, do more for the economy because Canadians save money before tax. With more money at their disposal, low and middle income Canadians will likely spend or invest that money on their own behalf, therefore stimulating the economy.

Budget 2008 is a bare-bones budget. Of the $22 billion it projects as expenditures, only $1.4 billion is new money. This is smoke and mirrors. The money for infrastructure, claimed to be $33 billion over seven years, is really less than $4 billion because the other money has been there from the cities and communities agenda and a gas tax rebate introduced in the Liberal budget 2004-05.

The Conservative government lacks economic savvy, lacks vision, lacks leadership. The fact is Old Mother Hubbard has gone to the cupboard and found it bare. The Conservatives have blown the surplus and unfortunately, we the Canadian taxpayers will have to suffer the consequences. History repeats itself. Conservative times are deficit times and Conservative times are sorry times.

Ethics February 29th, 2008

Mr. Speaker, what is pathetic is that this Prime Minister wraps himself in accountability, but yesterday the Prime Minister and the junior public works minister tried to discredit Chuck Cadman's widow.

Why would Dona Cadman make up a story about Conservatives offering her husband a bribe? And Jodi Cadman is also confirming this million dollar bribe.

Have they no shame? Why would members of the Chuck Cadman family lie?

Ethics February 29th, 2008

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister claimed there was absolutely no truth to the story that Mr. Cadman was offered life insurance benefits to change his vote, but Mr. Cadman's daughter Jodi says the offer was indeed made, and her mother Dona confirms the story.

Why is the Conservative government dishonouring the reputation of the Cadman family by suggesting all three family members were liars?

The Budget February 27th, 2008

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague for an excellent presentation and analysis on the budget.

I would like the hon. member to explain to us why it is that the Conservatives have been attacking the Liberals on debt. The fact is that Mulroney was in power in good economic times, but during those good economic times the Conservatives quadrupled the debt and could not balance the budget. Why could they not balance the budget in good economic times?

We have seen history repeat itself with the current finance minister. In 2006 he had a visionless budget and huge spending. Despite the fact that there was a surplus of $17 billion, he saw a necessity to cut social spending by $1 billion. It was a meanspirited and overtly ideological budget. Budget 2007 was an inflationary budget.

As for the NDP, I am sure my colleague's amendment irks the NDP because, as he rightly stated, the NDP members put the Conservatives in power by killing the Kelowna accord, Kyoto, et cetera.

Why do you think the Conservatives are so concerned about blaming us for deficits?

Canadian Forces February 27th, 2008

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents of Don Valley East and the people of Canada, I would like to pay tribute to the courageous men and women who are currently serving in the NATO led mission in Afghanistan.

Today, damaging earthquakes, limited freshwater resources, soil degradation, overgrazing, deforestation and a crumbling infrastructure all conspire to make civil reconstruction a daunting task in the midst of continuous attacks by the Taliban.

We must also pay homage to the families of our Canadian Forces who must endure long periods of time without their loved ones at home and somehow deal with the uncertainty that this mission presents.

I would like to tell our troops that the people of Canada are extremely proud of the work they are doing in Afghanistan.

Some day the guns will fall silent and war will give way to a new era of peace, and Canada's fallen heroes will never be forgotten for the sacrifice they made in the service of their country.

Status of Women February 26th, 2008

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that women's groups doing critical advocacy work to advance equality in this country have been cut off from federal government funding.

The government cut the court challenges program and also shut down the Law Commission in an effort to silence voices of dissent, but there is money for lobby groups that agree with the government. Canadian women would like to know why the government endorses such a shameful double standard.

Status of Women February 26th, 2008

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the government refused to explain why it prohibits funding for women's groups that do advocacy work while it pays the Conference of Defence Associations $500,000 for defence advocacy.

What does the government have against women's groups that advocate for equality? If the Conservatives believe in equality for all women, why not start by eliminating this double standard?

Afghanistan February 25th, 2008

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I would like to ask the hon. member a question based on the statistics he was giving about the 4,000 schools that have been created with the funding. In my riding, I have a very large Afghan community centre and the Afghan Women's Organization. They are decrying the lack of funds and cannot see results, so my question is whether the member can give me specific locations where the schools are located so I can give the right answers to those people.

Committees of the House February 25th, 2008

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth and fifth reports of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women in relation to aboriginal women and aboriginal women's shelters.

Aboriginal communities and aboriginal women in particular face discrimination and a disproportionate amount of violence. Therefore, the committee requests that the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages and Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development increase the current core funding for aboriginal women's shelters and put a stop to the delays in evaluating these shelters.

As well, the committee requests that the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages reinstate the former criteria for women's programs as the removal of advocacy penalizes disproportionately aboriginal women's groups.