House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • Her favourite word was seniors.

Last in Parliament September 2021, as Conservative MP for Richmond Centre (B.C.)

Lost her last election, in 2021, with 37% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Committees of the House March 26th, 2009

Mr. Speaker, if we look at the record, American deserters who have applied as refugee claimants have never been granted that. Again and again, I would like to state that American deserters are not legitimate refugees.

Committees of the House March 26th, 2009

Mr. Speaker, the report presented by the committee actually covers everything. I do not understand why we have to address each individual war. Again I say, American deserters are not refugees and that is the position we are taking right now.

Committees of the House March 26th, 2009

Mr. Speaker, there are people who come and say that they need to stay because if they go back to their own countries they will be persecuted. There are also people who come and express the need for help and assistance.

We deal with them individually, case by case, and we deal with them on compassionate grounds as well. For example, I was approached by somebody from Toronto whose wife passed away while giving birth to a child. He was in the process of applying for permanent residence to this country. We really give individual cases individual attention.

In this case, by passing this whole recommendation, we are opening up the floodgates and other genuine refugees will be deferred. This is not the way the system should be fairly treated.

Committees of the House March 26th, 2009

Mr. Speaker, U.S. military deserters are not refugees. They do not fall under internationally accepted definitions of people in need of protection. This position has been upheld by three independent tribunals: the IRB, the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal.

Committees of the House March 26th, 2009

Mr. Speaker, it is our opinion that, as a general rule, military deserters from the United States are not genuine refugees under the internationally accepted meaning of the term. It is on these terms that we understand that the Immigration and Refugee Board makes that decision and it considers each asylum case on a case-by-case basis.

Committees of the House March 26th, 2009

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate and to speak against the motion proposed by the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina.

As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration noted earlier, Canada has a fair, internationally recognized system to provide refuge to those fleeing persecution, risk of torture or risk to life, or of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. We are committed to protecting refugees and those in need of protection. This means that we must ensure the system is there for those who genuinely need it.

All refugee claimants have the right to due process and when they have exhausted legal avenues, we expect them to respect our laws and leave Canada.

Today I intend to address two key issues in this debate: the fair process available to refugee claimants and immigration applications and the potential problems that could arise from adopting this motion.

Canadians want a refugee system that helps to protect genuine refugees. All refugee claimants in Canada have the right to due process, a principle established by the Supreme Court in 1985 for refugee status determination in Canada. This is the basis for how Canada has maintained a fair and internationally recognized system to provide refuge to those fleeing persecution.

Refugee claims made in this country, including those made by U.S. service personnel, are heard by the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board, the IRB, of Canada. The IRB is a quasi-judicial independent body that provides a fair hearing to those who claim to be in need of protection. It assesses each claim on its own merit with regard to risk of persecution, torture, risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.

The board reports that currently fewer than 50 claims have been made by U.S. citizens on the basis of objection to military service. As has been demonstrated in the publicized cases of Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey, the refugee protection process allows ample opportunity for claimants to challenge decisions made concerning their claims. They may do so through seeking leave for judicial review by the Federal Court. In some instances, they have sought leave to appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada.

While waiting for a decision on their claims, refugee claimants who pass medical screening are entitled to a work permit, which allows them to be employed in Canada. Those who cannot find work may apply for social assistance in the province where they reside. These claimants also have access to emergency medical services funded by the Government of Canada.

Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, failed refugee claimants may also request, prior to being removed from Canada, a pre-removal risk assessment. This assessment allows CIC officials to examine any new evidence, any change in country conditions or other circumstances that might arise concerning personalized risk to individuals. This could include evidence such as whether a person would face risk of persecution, torture, risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if an applicant was returned to the country of origin. These are the same elements that are assessed by the Refugee Protection Division of the IRB.

There are also other avenues available to people wishing to move to Canada should they not qualify as refugees. Normally, those seeking permanent residence do so by applying for a visa outside of Canada, but foreign nationals who wish to apply for permanent residence from within Canada may do so on humanitarian and compassionate grounds or, if eligible, as a member of an in-Canada class.

There has been a great deal of coverage regarding the cases of Mr. Hinzman and Mr. Hughey, the American soldiers who deserted the United States army, came to Canada and made refugee claims in this country. The Immigration and Refugee Board rejected the applicants' claims for refugee protection. The Federal Court of Canada and, subsequently, the Federal Court of Appeal, dismissed their cases. The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed their application for leave to appeal on November 15, 2007.

As others have said, claimants have access to a fair hearing in Canada with a number of opportunities for review. However, the Immigration and Refugee Board, the Federal Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada have all indicated that these U.S. military deserters have not demonstrated that they are in need of Canada's protection as refugees.

The motion to implement an in-Canada program to allow these individuals to apply to remain and work in Canada and to be eligible for permanent resident status runs counter to having an immigration policy that is both fair and consistent in its application.

As I noted earlier, this government is committed to ensuring that all immigration applicants and refugee claimants have access to the full process outlined by IRPA and that all cases are fully and equitably resolved. By supporting this motion, the House would be calling for a unique benefit for some foreign nationals proposing that they can be allowed to apply for permanent resident status outside of existing immigration channels.

For the reasons I have outlined, I urge my fellow members in the House to vote against this motion.

Warren Kinsella February 9th, 2009

Mr. Speaker, Warren Kinsella's offensive comments to the Chinese people have now gone international. Mainland Chinese media are reporting Mr. Kinsella's hurtful comments and half-hearted apology. The Liberal Party's top strategist's comments are quickly becoming an international embarrassment for Canada.

During these economic times, we cannot afford to needlessly offend a billion potential customers. We do not need to offend the world's most populous country.

We must show that the Liberal Party's top strategist's views are not acceptable to the Canadian people. The Liberal leader should immediately write the Chinese ambassador to apologize and affirm that Canada respects China, and the Leader of the Opposition must finally act and fire his top political strategist, Mr. Warren Kinsella.

[Member spoke in Chinese and provided the following translation:]

The Liberal Party has hurt the feelings of the Chinese people and offended our community.

Warren Kinsella January 30th, 2009

Mr. Speaker, my constituents are asking me why the Liberal leader is refusing to fire his top political aide, Warren Kinsella. Was Mr. Kinsella's comment about tucking into a bowl of barbecued cat at the Yang Sheng restaurant here in Ottawa made in his role as Liberal Party spokesman?

His comments that Chinese restaurants serve cat meat deeply offended the Chinese community in Canada and have already been condemned in the Sing Tao Daily, Ming Pao, the World Journal and across Chinese language talk radio.

As Chinese Canadians and as people who appreciate the freedom and opportunity that Canada provides, my community and I are deeply offended by these racially ignorant comments from an official spokesperson for the Liberal Party. What hurts the most about Kinsella's comments is that he refuses to apologize to the Chinese community.

When will the leader of the Liberal Party realize the seriousness of this and when will we see an apology?

Lunar New Year January 27th, 2009

Mr. Speaker, I will start my first words in the House of Commons by thanking the voters of Richmond for their trust in me. I also wish to thank my campaign team, the volunteers and especially my husband for their unwavering support all these years.

Richmond is home to Canada's Pacific gateway and one of the most multicultural ridings in Canada. In fact, yesterday marked the beginning of the widely celebrated lunar new year.

This year is the year of the ox. The ox traditionally symbolizes prosperity through perseverance and hard work. With economic uncertainty, the year of the ox beckons all of us here to work tirelessly, bringing stability to the economy, maintaining jobs and caring for the most vulnerable.

In 2010, Richmond will showcase to the world the magnificent speed skating oval and a brand new Canada line that connects Richmond with the Vancouver International Airport and downtown Vancouver.

Working with the spirit of the ox, Richmond will prosper. On behalf of Richmond, I wish all Canadians a healthy and prosperous lunar new year. Gong hei fatt choy.