House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • Her favourite word was debate.

Last in Parliament October 2015, as NDP MP for Vancouver East (B.C.)

Won her last election, in 2011, with 63% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Kyoto Protocol November 29th, 2002

Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to respond to that question. I agree with the member that the blue box program, while it has been successful, probably the most important thing is that it has helped changed people's attitude.

My concern and skepticism, like many other people, is why it has taken the Liberal government so long to catch up to what Canadians want, which is aggressive leadership and action on implementing Kyoto.

For example, Greenpeace and the Sierra Legal Defence pointed out in a study in February that we could improve our urban air quality and meet one-third of the Kyoto commitment if we had stronger vehicle emissions legislation for example covering SUVs. If there was any greater example of where people are saying one thing but still carrying out business in a way that is contributing to global warming, surely it is on that issue. I would really query and question the federal government's commitment on this, because SUVs have been spewing out all kinds of noxious emissions.

While we have to change public attitude, we want to see the government implement a clear plan, a framework and legislation that will ensure that those emissions will decrease and that we will not see a greater contribution to global warming.

Kyoto Protocol November 29th, 2002

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Palliser.

It is a great pleasure to speak in strong support of the Kyoto protocol. First I want to say that it is about time. This has taken so long. I heard with interest the comments of the government member and the energy she had to speak in defence of the Kyoto protocol.

I have to question why it has taken the government so many years of foot dragging under the guise of consultation that now after 12 years we are still waiting for the accord to be approved. Finally, this very important debate is happening, to meet our targets of a 6% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from the 1990 levels.

Millions of Canadians suffer daily from the effects of smog. The estimated cost to our health care system is in the billions. Add to that the cost to farmers who are suffering from the effects of unpredictable and often catastrophic weather conditions. All of it is caused by global warming.

We must recognize that as Canadians, we consume more energy per capita than any other country in the world. We use more total energy than the 700 million people on the African continent. We in the NDP understand that this is not just a Canadian issue; this is an issue about global justice.

After 12 years of waffling and inaction by the Liberal government, Canadians have every reason to be very skeptical about what the Liberals are really up to here and whether or not they will deliver on their promises on the environment. Since coming to office in 1993, they have failed to deliver on their environmental commitments. In the Liberal red book, for example, in 1993 there was a promise to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 20% from 1988 levels by 2005. Well, the Prime Minister abandoned that one long ago.

One thing that has been really disturbing about the whole debate around Kyoto is the campaign of fear that has been undertaken by corporations and provinces like Alberta and even my own province of British Columbia. I have seen the full page ads in the Globe and Mail and other publications. I have seen the letters, the advertising campaigns and the TV ads.

I received something in the mail from the Canadian Coalition for Responsible Environmental Solutions. I thought that was interesting because it is easy for everyone to say that they want to reduce pollution and smog and enhance our environment but it is another thing to actually make the changes.

I was very interested to know who was in the coalition because it said, “We are concerned about a rush towards a decision to ratify the Kyoto protocol without due consideration”. I thought that was really strange because we had already had 12 years of debate. When I read further, I saw that the letter was signed by none other than the president of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, the president and CEO of Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, the president and chief executive of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, and the president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.

This was nothing more than propaganda put out by corporations which have tried to create fear among Canadians and among workers that they have something to lose by ratifying Kyoto rather than that we have a tremendous amount to gain.

I was also very disappointed that in my own province of British Columbia the new premier, Gordon Campbell, sent all MPs a letter in which he said:

--the federal Kyoto implementation plan is not the right plan by any stretch. As a result, being opposed to Kyoto is not the same as opposing efforts to prevent climate change. We must have the courage to realize that Kyoto is not the only way to go.

He never spelled out what is the other way to go. What he further did in his letter was to instill fear in people that jobs would be lost, between 11,000 and 37,000 jobs in British Columbia. This obviously would create a lot of fear.

By contrast to these kinds of fear campaigns and the foot-dragging by the Liberal government, we have seen real leadership on this issue come from peoples' organizations and the environmental community. I have had hundreds of e-mails and letters and phone calls from my constituents who believe very strongly that the future of their children and of our communities depends upon adopting Kyoto and being very clear that we are prepared to makes changes. We should be prepared to make drastic changes to improve the health of our children and the health of our environment.

I am very proud of the fact that the Canadian Labour Congress and the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, as a couple of examples, have been very strong on this issue and have made it very clear that they wholeheartedly support the ratification of Kyoto.

In fact in terms of CEP, a major union that represents many workers in the energy field, I was very proud when I read that members of the local in Calgary who work in the oil industry passed a resolution in September calling on the government to ratify Kyoto. They understood that all the propaganda from the corporations in Alberta, the oil and gas interests that were trying to pose that they were interested in the security of jobs for workers, had nothing more to do than their fear about losing profits. That was the bottom line for them.

I want to congratulate the CLC and CEP for having the courage to speak the truth and to stand up and defend our environment.

The same can be said for the Western Canada Wilderness Committee, that just a couple of months ago spoke out and made it very clear that oil and gas drilling near the Queen Charlotte Islands had to be stopped. We have had a moratorium on oil and gas drilling. It has pointed out very clearly that if that moratorium is lifted, as the B.C. government would like to do, it will have a tremendous impact on defeating the whole principle and integrity of Kyoto. I would like to congratulate groups like the Western Canada Wilderness Committee and the Living Oceans Society for speaking out.

We have also seen groups like the David Suzuki Foundation and the Climate Action Network Canada. I have attended forums on Parliament Hill which they have organized to point out again and again that the shift to a low carbon energy efficient economy offers significant opportunities to every region of Canada in terms of industrial innovation, greater energy self reliance, public health benefits, rural economic development and urban renewal.

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities has also pointed out that promoting the idea of well funded public infrastructure in Canadian cities, for example public transit, would go a long way to meeting our commitments under Kyoto. These cities are desperately hurting from pollution and smog. Kids end up in emergency rooms because of asthma.

We in the NDP have consistently stood up for our environment and for the adoption of the accord. We have called on the government to adopt a plan, including a requirement of a 20% green energy in all federal departments in five years, requiring government vehicles to use alternative fuels, creating a dedicated transit infrastructure fund, redirecting tax incentives to sustain and encourage renewable energy and legislating a mandatory blend of ethanol in gasoline.

We have also been very clear that we need a green jobs fund to ensure there is a just transition, as called for by the CLC, so that attention is paid to the security of workers.

Kyoto offers significant opportunities and benefits. It is something that we should be embracing. We should be willing to make change for the future of our planet and for the future of our children. For members who have the gall to stand up and say that they want to deal with climate change but they will not support the accord, I say shame on them. They are playing a very dirty game with the Canadian public and the Canadian public has made it quite clear that it supports the accord.

Petitions November 29th, 2002

Mr. Speaker, the fourth petition is from petitioners who call upon the government to recognize that there is a serious shortage of affordable housing in our country. It calls upon the Canadian government to adopt the 1% solution put forward by the Toronto disaster relief committee to eliminate this national disaster as it relates to homelessness in our country.

Petitions November 29th, 2002

Mr. Speaker, the third petition is from Canadians who are very concerned about the increase of child pornography. It calls upon Parliament to protect children by all necessary steps.

Petitions November 29th, 2002

Mr. Speaker, my second petition is from Canadians who are very concerned that there is an increase in the number of young adults, older men and women who are missing or have been abducted. It calls upon Parliament to establish a national clearinghouse for missing and at risk or endangered adults.

Petitions November 29th, 2002

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to present four petitions. The first one is from people in Vancouver and North Vancouver who draw attention to the fact that the Government of Canada has uncritically offered support for the ongoing bombings of Iraq and Yugoslavia, and has supported the attacks on Afghanistan. The petition calls upon Canada to return to foreign and defence policies that have a full respect for and full compliance with international law and the UN charter.

Canada Customs and Revenue Agency November 29th, 2002

Mr. Speaker, the CCRA is at it again. First it was going after people with disabilities and now it is targeting low income parents who get the child tax benefit.

The questionnaire sent out to thousands of parents is an invasion of privacy and is insulting. The CCRA has no right to ask how a parent has “provided guidance and companionship” or “have you regularly encouraged good health habits with your child”. This is a tax agency for God's sake.

Will the minister rescind this offensive questionnaire and tell the CCRA to butt out of parenting? It is no good at it.

Hazardous Products Act November 28th, 2002

Mr. Speaker, the government representative has said that history cannot be rewritten, but the fact is that there is nothing to prevent the government from issuing an official apology to the Chinese Canadian community. There is nothing to prevent the government from reviewing and considering the issue of compensation. There is nothing to prevent the government from looking at, for example, a community-driven anti-racism fund or an educational trust that would provide some level of redress for this horrible injustice that was done.

I want to pay tribute to people like Sid Tan and Victor Wong from the Vancouver Association of Chinese-Canadians and the Chinese Canadian National Council. They have continued to advocate to bring this issue forward. I know they believe in it, and they will continue to work until the government not just recognizes but is willing to take some action to ensure that this issue is properly resolved and dealt with.

I introduced a motion in March 2001 and again I called on the government to issue an official apology, to look at the issue of compensation, and I would ask the minister's representative, what is preventing the government from taking that course of action?

Hazardous Products Act November 28th, 2002

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Kuan is a constituent in East Vancouver who is 95 years old. On October 28 of this year he stood up very slowly and, using a thick black brush, he wrote out in calligraphy, “The government has no need to drag its feet in repaying the head tax”.

Mr. Kuan is the only surviving payer of the head tax in Vancouver and he is one of three surviving head tax payers in all of Canada. He could not attend the rally in Ottawa that was held the next day, October 29, because he was too elderly to visit the city, but he did say in an interview, “Why doesn't the government understand?” He said that he wanted an apology but that an apology alone would not do. He wants the government to both apologize and pay compensation, and he wants the compensation to be over $500. He wants it to be over $500 because $500 is what he paid in 1923 in coming to this country. It was the equivalent of two years' wages for him to work in Canada. He went into debt. He had to borrow and he worked very hard to repay that $500.

The head tax of $50 was introduced in 1885 with the passage of the Chinese immigration act. The tax was increased to $100 in 1900 and to $500 in 1903. It was a tax imposed only on Chinese immigrants. It was the equivalent of two years' wages for a Chinese Canadian worker at that time. In 1923, the Chinese exclusion act was also passed. The purpose of that act was to prohibit Chinese migration to Canada. Between 1923 and 1947, when the act was repealed, Canada allowed only seven Chinese people into the country. As a result of the head tax, the government at the time collected approximately $23 million from about 81,000 Chinese immigrants. The present value of that today would be over $1 billion.

The policies at the time were directed at members of one group, were clearly discriminatory and were clearly intended to make entry into Canada difficult if not impossible. The racial discrimination embedded in these statutes was actively practised and its effect on individuals, families and on the Chinese Canadian community has been profound and enduring.

In 1992, the B.C. legislature passed a unanimous resolution calling on the federal government to provide redress for the Chinese exclusion act and the head tax. As I have mentioned, on October 29 there was a demonstration here in Ottawa where I and the leader of the New Democratic Party, and indeed the former member of Parliament for Vancouver East, Margaret Mitchell, who first raised this in the House in 1982, were all in attendance.

I want to ask the government again today why it has not responded to this issue. When I have raised the question in the House and when I have presented petitions we have heard that the government policy with respect to redress does not include financial compensation, yet that did happen in terms of redress for the Japanese Canadian community.

Today I want to say loud and clear to the government that its response to this very important issue in terms of the discrimination that was practised has been completely unsatisfactory. I would ask it to consider again the need to provide an apology and redress to Chinese Canadians.

Housing November 22nd, 2002

Mr. Speaker, I have read every single thing that the government has put out. The failure here is that what is written on paper has not been translated into helping homeless Canadians or building the housing.

This is the one year anniversary of the housing agreement. The government has produced only 200 units outside of Quebec. Half of the provinces have even cut money for spending on housing.

Why has the government failed to enforce the housing agreement for which the minister is allegedly so proud? Why has he failed homeless Canadians? Why has he not produced the housing? Is 200 housing units a record that the minister is proud of?