- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- NDP
- Port Moody—Coquitlam
- British Columbia
- Voting Attendance: 67%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $129,260.13
- Government Page
- May/21/24 4:54:05 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we know economists have been saying for years that there is going to be a need for more rental housing. The capitalist society realized this very quickly, and corporations started buying up more affordable apartment buildings. I think about REITs and about one specific REIT, Boardwalk, which recently made its profit announcement. It talked about the fact that it is using CMHC funding and is taking advantage of low interest rates through CMHC that average Canadians do not have access to.
My question to the member is this: Why is the Liberal government continuing to put the needs of corporate Canada ahead of people who need a place to rent?
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/24 9:07:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I know there has been a lot of rhetoric in this House from the Conservatives about declining productivity. That is of no surprise when the oil and gas industry in Canada, one of the largest contributors to the economy, is not reinvesting in R and D, is not reinvesting in innovation, but instead is skimming profits and redistributing them to wealthy shareholders.
I am wondering what the member thinks about that.
73 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/15/24 5:11:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as my colleague from Edmonton Strathcona said, this has been important to the NDP. It has been important to our communities for a very long time.
I can only say that it is very unfortunate that the Liberal government and the Conservative government before it never put as high a priority on looking at foreign interference. Fortunately the NDP did. Fortunately New Democrats are the ones who have led the discussion that is happening now on foreign interference, and I am so looking forward to the study that is coming up from the foreign affairs committee, led by the member for Edmonton Strathcona.
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/19/24 3:32:22 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, what is on my mind is persons with disabilities. What is on my mind right now is the fact that persons with disabilities are not receiving the Canada disability benefit yet and that persons with disabilities are experiencing very high levels of housing need, rent and food pricing.
I wonder if the member from the Liberals could share why the government is holding back on the Canada disability benefit and why it refuses to tax outsized profits from those large organizations that are making money hand over fist while persons with disabilities suffer.
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to talk a little bit about my riding of Port Moody—Coquitlam. There was recently a seizure of ghost guns in my riding, 3-D-printed ghost guns that can use real ammunition. The comments from the RCMP about these seizures were that, although these firearms were seized in my riding of Port Moody—Coquitlam, they had the potential to be sold and used to carry out acts of violence in any of our communities. Seizures of this nature directly impact the safety of all of us.
My question for the member is this: Is he worried about the proliferation of these 3-D-printed ghost guns, which can impact all of our communities?
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member very often raises the issue of EI, and I want to thank her for that.
My colleague from Winnipeg Centre, earlier today, raised the point that the supposed feminist government is not really looking after the issues of women. We know that, when EI was first formulated, the participation rate of women in the workforce was less than half of what it is today. The EI system was not built for women.
Can the member share some comments on why it is so important to get this modernized for women after seven years?
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the employment insurance program is antiquated and needs reform. So much has changed in the five decades since EI was imagined. For example, when EI was first brought into this country, it was built to support men as the breadwinner, a discriminatory concept that has perpetuated gender discrimination and the gender wage gap in the workforce since its inception.
Here are the stats. From 1972, when EI was first brought in, to the present, the labour force participation rate for women has almost doubled, rising from only 45% in 1972 to 85% today. This compares to a slight decline for men, from 95% participation rate to 92% now. The EI system is just another example of the systems in this country that were not built for equity and inclusion.
During the recent HUMA testimony around this bill, we heard from Madame Marie-Hélène Dubé, who has been running the “15 weeks is not enough” campaign for years. She battled cancer three times between 2003 and 2008, receiving only 15 weeks of benefits per year. This year, she went through the same nightmare yet again, still receiving only 15 weeks of support in a year when costs have skyrocketed. I raise my hands to Madame Dubé, who has continued to fight for better even during the most difficult of times. As Marie-Hélène testified, setting the benefit period of EI sickness benefit at 26 weeks would let down the people who need it the most.
That is exactly what the government did. It let people down and it needs to be corrected. Extending the benefit period from 26 weeks to 52 weeks would change everything when it comes to treatment and recovery from illness or injury, and the Parliamentary Budget Officer has demonstrated that it is a viable change. We can pay for this, and Canadians agree it is a socially acceptable measure. It is shameful that, despite support from Canadians, the government has failed to extend EI sickness benefits beyond 26 weeks.
Opposition parties, along with the NDP, must continue to advocate for Canadians who suffer from an illness or injury. That should not have to happen. We need to make sure they have access to necessary employment insurance during their time of need. The NDP supports Bill C-215 as it strives toward giving Canadians more protection when accessing these essential benefits. The NDP has tabled similar private member's bills in previous Parliaments, including in February 2020 when my colleague from Elmwood—Transcona tabled Bill C-212.
The NDP is focused on making sure that people can receive much-needed income while they are recovering from an injury or illness, and Bill C-215 provides more protection than what exists today. It allows workers the time they need to recover, something that is absolutely necessary, postpandemic specifically, as labour shortages in health care have delayed and prolonged access, diagnoses and treatments, and as the realities of long COVID are becoming better understood.
I want to go back to the failings of only having 26 weeks of sickness benefits for women and diverse genders. The need for greater EI benefits disproportionately affects them, whether it is in their capacity as single parents or the fact that there is a gender wage gap in this country that does not afford them the opportunity to save at the same rates.
In addition, I know personally that it is more difficult for women to get private sickness insurance because of the rates of breast cancer in this country. If there is a history of cancer in one's family, that risk profile is a consideration in the insurance company's assessment of allowing benefits. With one in eight women in this country being attacked by breast cancer, the chances of having no family history of it are decreasing by the day. This leaves women uninsured and unprotected from financial risks of an illness they have no control over, which is just another reason why gender inequities in the EI system need to be fixed. There are so many examples of where women were left out of the initial EI design.
Before I go on, this inspired me to go and take a look at the employment numbers from 1972 to 2022. While data from 1972 was not available on the Statistics Canada's website, data from 1976 was. I can tell members that women have driven the growth of this economy over the last 50 years.
We have had an increase of almost 10 million employees since 1972, the majority of them women, the participation rate going from 44% to 88%. The majority of new workers in our economy are women.
I want to point out, by how we classify workers, that the health care and social science assistance category has increased by 1.8 million, almost two million workers. It is shameful that it is one of the largest-growing areas of our economy and we waited this long for child care.
I will go back to Mouvement Action-Chômage de Montréal, which invited legislators to correct the inequity of the act toward women who had received maternity, or parental benefits or their equivalent from a provincial parental insurance plan, and the current ruling around injustices for six women who lost their jobs while on, or just after, parental leave and had their EI claims rejected because they had not worked the minimum number of hours needed to qualify for benefits.
To add insult to injury, the government continues to fight the Social Security Tribunal ruling that sections of the Employment Insurance Act violated women's constitutional rights to equality under the law. Standing here, I do not know how the government can argue that. Why do women continually have to fight the government for equity injustice?
I asked in committee about gender inequities and if the gender lens was being applied in the current budgeting considerations for the government's movement to expand from 15 weeks. This is what came back, “Regarding the PBO’s $1.9 billion estimated ongoing cost of an extension to EI sickness benefits from 15 to 52 weeks, the PBO’s formula and budgeting did not segment potential beneficiaries by gender.” The discriminatory analysis continues.
In addition, a set of data that came back from the 2021 “Employment Insurance Monitoring and Assessment Report“ showed that a gender difference continued to exist between men and women in relation to EI sickness benefits, yet when analyzing that data for post-claim follow-up, this was the disclaimer on the data that came back, “A breakdown of the findings above by gender is not available.” That is unacceptable. We exist, we are here and we are at work.
The New Democrats acknowledge that the 26 weeks is a step in the right direction, but it does not go far enough. Extending the framework from 26 weeks to 52 weeks is what is needed to accurately capture the needs of all people, allowing them to receive the necessary benefits during the recovery period. The government needs to do the right thing and do better for Canadians.
1214 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I did want to share something similar on the encampments.
In my riding of Port Moody—Coquitlam, there has basically been a gentrification. I met an EA, a woman in her sixties, on the street a couple of weeks ago. She is afraid that she is going to lose her home because she is being lobbied weekly by these large real estate developers. They want to be sold the land. They want her out of her home, and she does not actually own that home. She rents the basement suite.
It is the Wild West of real estate right now. I think that it starts with a moratorium on REITs. We are losing co-op housing and affordable rental housing to REITs. We need to start with that moratorium, and then we need to move on to, yes, more taxes.
143 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I really appreciated the speech from the member today about the uncharted territory. I would ask the member if he could share some thoughts on how he thinks the axing of the affordable housing programs back in the nineties by the Liberal government, and their not being reinstated by successive Conservative governments and Liberal governments, has really impacted affordable housing in the province of Quebec.
67 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/23/22 11:14:18 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have to say that this is such an ableist debate we are having. Even yesterday, some of the ableist language was just gut-wrenching. I wonder what this debate would look like if 338 of us were immunocompromised, had comorbidities or had children or family members who lived with us in our houses and were going through stem cell transplants, chemotherapy or any kind of critical life illness.
I have been in rooms with people I know whose spouse has been going through stem cell transfer. They have been forced to arrive in this place because they are staff people. We are in here in our ableist space expecting those who support us to come here and do this work. The last thing I would want to do as an MP, if I was sick or someone in my family was sick, is to come to this place and make a staff person sick who was dealing with some sort of critical life illness at home.
This has been really disappointing. As the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam, Anmore and Belcarra, I have a number of people in my riding who would die if they caught COVID-19. They deal with this ableist language all the time. I am just so over it. Maybe the member—
221 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/22 1:28:03 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, what about housing for persons with disabilities? We see some small investments in this budget for housing co-ops, but CMHC used to be a leader in building co-operative housing, which is critical to the disability community.
Today I ask this: Will the Liberals commit to immediately restoring CMHC's former role in spearheading social development housing, expanding co-ops and building more co-ops, and protecting current co-ops from being scooped by REITs?
78 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
