Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was international.

Last in Parliament May 2004, as NDP MP for Burnaby—Douglas (B.C.)

Lost his last election, in 2019, with 32% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Petitions March 20th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition which is signed by several hundred residents of the province of British Columbia on the issue of rural route mail couriers.

The petition notes that these people often earn less than the minimum wage and have working conditions reminiscent of another era; that they have not been allowed to bargain collectively to improve their wages and working conditions like other workers; that private sector workers who deliver mail in rural areas have collective bargaining rights as do public sector workers who deliver mail for Canada Post in urban areas; that section 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act prohibits these people from having collective bargaining rights; that this denial of basic rights helps Canada Post keep the wages and working conditions at an unfair level and discriminates against rural workers.

The petitioners therefore call on parliament to repeal section 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act, a call that I fully support.

Taiwan March 20th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, on Saturday the people of Taiwan made a historic decision, electing former dissident human rights activist and Taipei mayor Chen Shui-bian as their president. This decisive victory by the leader of the once outlawed Democratic Progressive Party is a milestone in the courageous struggle for democracy of the Taiwanese people. It is a clear rejection of the bullying and threats of the mainland Chinese government. The people of Taiwan must be allowed to freely choose their own future, including independence.

Throughout our country, Canadians of Taiwanese origin applaud the election of the first president truly of Taiwanese origin, and that of Annette Lu, the first woman to become vice-president of that country.

Today, I join democrats of all types and from all over the world in demanding that the Chinese government respect the democratic and peaceful wish expressed by the people of Taiwan during this historic election.

Let us now hope that democracy and respect for human rights will come to mainland China as well.

Apec Inquiry February 28th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is showing absolute contempt for the Hughes commission. The same Prime Minister said in November that the government was willing to help the commission as much as it wants because it had nothing to hide.

If the Prime Minister really has nothing to hide, and if he refuses to appear before the Hughes commission, will he at least agree to appear before the foreign affairs committee of the House to answer questions about his role in the violent assault on the basic charter rights of the students who were protesting peacefully at the APEC summit?

Apec Inquiry February 28th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

In September 1998 the Prime Minister bragged in the House that nobody had asked him to appear before the APEC inquiry. In November he said “I want the commission to ask all the questions of anybody whom it wants to interview”.

Now that Commissioner Hughes has invited him to appear, will the Prime Minister let the inquiry do its work? Will the Prime Minister stop stonewalling and finally come clean with Canadians about his role at the APEC summit and accept the commissioner's invitation to appear before the commission?

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act February 21st, 2000

What about a heterosexual couple?

Ujjal Dosanjh February 21st, 2000

Mr. Speaker, New Democrats celebrate Heritage Day today with a special sense of pride.

Yesterday B.C. New Democrats made history by electing Ujjal Dosanjh as leader of the party and premier of the province. This is a remarkable accomplishment for a poor boy from a dusty village in Punjab, India, who is blazing a trail as the first person of colour to be elected to lead a government in Canada.

There is today a feeling of tremendous pride and honour in the Sikh and Indo-Canadian communities, and indeed among all Canadians, at this historic breakthrough.

Ujjal Dosanjh is a leader of great honesty and integrity, a man who will provide, in his words, “cool leadership in a hot province”.

To Ujjal Dosanjh, his wife Raminder and his three sons, we extend our congratulations and respect for this historic breakthrough, and we look forward to many, many years of strong, progressive leadership of the great province of British Columbia.

International Organizations February 21st, 2000

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to participate in the debate on this important motion. I want to congratulate the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca for proposing this motion to the House.

I welcome the general note that he has struck in his comments in speaking to the motion. I might say, as my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois indicated, that it represents somewhat of a shift from the position that appeared to have been taken by the Reform Party last fall. In October the Reform Party tabled a foreign policy document that in fact would take us in many respects back to the dark ages, a document that in fact in many respects was highly critical of the role of the United Nations, a document that was isolationist and profoundly reactionary in many respects.

I am not sure if the new critic—and I congratulate him on his appointment to that position—is now putting some distance between himself and the policies of the Reform Party as enunciated in that earlier document. I can only say that I certainly hope that is the case.

I was somewhat troubled by the comments that the critic made with respect to an important issue last week. That was with respect to the policy of the Government of Canada to join with the European Union and many other countries in voicing our deep concern as Canadians about the profoundly racist and anti-Semitic policies of Joerg Haider in Austria. It is my understanding that the position of that member was that Canada should not have joined with the European Union in expressing our strong condemnation of those policies and, in particular, joining in the diplomatic isolation of Haider. That signal was again an unfortunate one.

The motion before the House today calls on parliament to urge the government to show leadership with respect to identifying the precursors of conflict and establishing conflict prevention initiatives. It speaks of a number of multilateral organizations: the IMF, the World Bank and the United Nations. To that I would add the World Trade Organization, a very important organization. More and more we see in these international organizations that they are being driven not by human values or respect for human rights, but by global corporate values, the global pursuit of profit. We saw that in the context of the WTO meetings in Seattle.

I was proud that a broad cross-section of people from around the world stood to vigorously reject that agenda. They said that as part of any fair global trade regime we must put human rights, the rights of working men and women and the environment at the forefront. As long as we cannot, for example, take action on the exploitation of child labour within the WTO there is something terribly misguided, wrong and twisted about those priorities.

I stand here as a New Democrat, as member of a party that has since its founding been committed to strengthening multilateral organizations which work on behalf of the interests of people. Forefront among those is the United Nations. So much of what the UN has done is tremendously important in advancing those global objectives of human and social justice. I think of the work of UNICEF, the World Food Council and many others.

At the same time we have to recognize that the time has come to make significant changes, to reform those organizations. That is why I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate. I congratulate the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca for his leadership in bringing this issue before the House of Commons.

We have to look at the structure of the United Nations itself. We must strengthen that body. We must certainly look at the composition of the security council of the United Nations, which does not reflect present global realities, and we must look at how we can more effectively strengthen the general assembly of the United Nations.

However, we have a more fundamental challenge today, and that is how we can restore confidence and respect in the process of the United Nations itself, because too often the countries of the world and, in particular, the most powerful country of the world, the United States, show contempt for those resolutions.

I will give a few examples and share some of the concerns that we New Democrats feel about that.

The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs is, as my colleague for Mercier has said, in the process of addressing the Kosovo situation. The United Nations has passed a very important resolution, resolution 1244, which is aimed at restoring an environment in Kosovo in which there is respect for all the inhabitants of Kosovo, including the Serb minority.

There have already been some very powerful, very significant reports as to how this resolution is not being respected in Kosovo at all. As well, there are insufficient resources to promote human rights, rebuild the country's infrastructures and establish a fair judiciary sytem. The cost of one or two days of bombing would be sufficient now to create a fair and just country.

The United Nations has failed in Kosovo, not only to protect fundamental human rights, particularly the rights of the Serb minority and other minorities, but at the same time to put in place the resources that are necessary to establish respect for that resolution.

We see that in too many other areas. We see it with respect to the resolutions that have been adopted overwhelmingly by the United Nations on Cuba, condemning the United States embargo or blockade of Cuba, and yet the United States shows total contempt for those resolutions. We see it with respect to the Middle East. Recently many of us voiced deep concern about the Israeli bombing of southern Lebanon. It is in total violation of many United Nations resolutions, not the least of which is resolution 425 which calls on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon, which would help lead to a peaceful solution in that very troubled part of the world. Once again it is selective enforcement of United Nations resolutions.

I want to recognize as well the concern that many have voiced about the failure of the United Nations to respond to a continent that is undergoing profound agony. I know the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca has spoken to this and indeed has travelled that continent, Africa. Too often the United Nations has turned a blind eye to the terrible tragedy, the grinding poverty, the debt burden and the terrible violations of human rights in Africa. I hope, as part of this debate, that we will have an opportunity to address that issue as well.

The last issue I want to touch on is the question of Iraq. The hon. member talked about United Nations policies on sanctions. I had the privilege of participating in a delegation which travelled last month to Iraq, sponsored by a group from Quebec, Objection de conscience. What we have seen in that country are humanitarian, environmental and social disasters as a result of the implementation of United Nations sanctions. Our government has talked about human security as being the cornerstone of our foreign policy, but how can we speak of human security in Iraq when over 500,000 innocent children have died as a direct result of this cruel and inhumane sanctions policy?

We must recognize that the policy must be changed. Indeed, the last two UN humanitarian co-ordinators for Iraq have resigned. Denis Halliday resigned.

As the co-ordinator put it, “We are destroying an entire society. It is as simple and as terrifying as that”.

We learned last week that the current UN humanitarian co-ordinator, Hans Von Sponeck, is also resigning in despair over the failure of this sanctions policy in Iraq. The head of the World Food Programme has also announced her resignation.

I take this opportunity to plead with the Government of Canada to show leadership and to call for the lifting of these inhumane sanctions on the people of Iraq.

I close by once again welcoming this debate. In the remaining hours of the debate I look forward to continuing to discuss how we can strengthen and reform the United Nations.

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act February 15th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, my question will be very brief.

I appreciate the support of the hon. member for this legislation, but I did want to give him the opportunity to set the record straight with respect to one comment that he made. That is with respect to the issue of Bill 167 in Ontario.

I have a copy of that bill. Surely the member will recognize that nowhere in that bill, nowhere, was there any reference to the definition of marriage whatsoever. I have the bill here. The Liberal Party in Ontario did oppose that legislation. It later flip-flopped. It has been back and forth but I think it supports it now.

I challenge the hon. member. Does he not acknowledge that nowhere in that bill, not one line, was there any reference whatsoever to marriage?

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act February 15th, 2000

Has the member ever heard of a common law relationship?

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act February 15th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear about what is going on here. This has nothing to do with a concern of the Reform Party about dependency relationships. Common law heterosexual relationships have been recognized in Canada since 1995 and not once has a Reform Party member stood in the House and said “My God, we are going to have to get the sex police out there because these common law couples will abuse the law”.

What this is all about is not so thinly veiled homophobia. The fact is that this party does not accept equality for gays and lesbians anyway. The fact is that every single member of the Reform Party who was in the House when it came time to vote on the human rights act amendments for basic equality voted no.

They do not believe in equality and it is a phony, dishonest argument to suggest that there are going to be sex police. They do not care about equality. All they care about is denying equality to gay and lesbian partners.