House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • Her favourite word was federal.

Last in Parliament October 2019, as NDP MP for Edmonton Strathcona (Alberta)

Won her last election, in 2015, with 44% of the vote.

Statements in the House

March 16th, 2010

Madam Speaker, I put a question on March 5 to the government. The Minister of the Environment popped up immediately to respond to it. I would like to repeat my question, which is to the Government of Canada. Why do I say that?

It is the entirety of the Government of Canada that issued the budget which took a blow to Canada's environment. While we would expect a lot of resources in the budget to go to the Minister of the Environment, and I would love to see much more resources go to the minister and his department, in fact, the vast majority of any resources that could potentially be used for environmentally munificent purposes, such as furthering what the government calls its clean energy strategy, would go to the Minister of the Environment because he and his officials would know best where we can find the savings in reducing harmful gases and pollutants, and where best those savings could be deployed.

In its wisdom, the government has decided to give that entire basket of resources to the Minister of Natural Resources. Regrettably, in this budget, it did not shortchange the Minister of Natural Resources.

The reason I put the question to the Government of Canada is because, in its wisdom, in the throne speech it said that nowhere is the commitment to principled policy, backed by action, needed more than addressing climate change. Then it moved to table a budget that did exactly the opposite.

The government chose to kill, at the end of this year, an extremely popular program for homeowners to energy retrofit their homes, which is incredibly oversubscribed.

Did the government choose to put any money into a program to retrofit small businesses? No. In fact, in my riding small businesses are crying for support and we are trying to organize them so they can do it cost effectively.

Did the government, as per its U.S.-Canada clean energy dialogue, agree to follow, and it repeatedly said it was following the lead of Obama by working in sync, President Obama's lead and agree, over two years, to retrofit 75% of federally owned buildings? No. I discovered in a search that it has moved on retrofitting approximately 6 out of over 20,000 buildings.

Where is the principled policy, backed by action, to address climate change in the government's policies or in its budget? It cannot be found.

Then the government moved to actually claw back the environmental regulation that is there that might call into question projects coming forward that could be further curtailing or mitigating the environmental impacts. No. In its wisdom it decides it is going to take that power away from the very agency established by previous governments, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, and assign, transfer that power to the National Energy Board and the nuclear agency, both agencies well known for touting fossil fuels and nuclear power, respectively.

In the budget, we see not a dollar pledged for foreign aid on climate change. This is puzzling since the minister, even today, before our committee, asked why the other parties were not stepping up and commending him for signing the Copenhagen accord? What does that Copenhagen accord do? It compels the government to commit specified dollars for foreign aid. Well, if the government is following President Obama, who has already committed $1 billion, where is the estimated over $400 million that the government has committed?

So, my question remains: where is the action, where are the dollars for a green economy for Canadians?

Business of Supply March 15th, 2010

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his comments. One thing that troubles me, though, is he speaks broadly about investing in democracy. It is really a stretch of the imagination to suggest that the millions upon millions of dollars that the government wasted advertising its action plan can be described as investing in democracy. It is sheer promotion of the Conservative Party. The giving out of cheques with the big Conservative logo on them, is that investing in democracy?

I say investing in democracy is spending some of the taxpayers' money to actually give people a voice in what our renewable energy future will be, about what our climate future will be for Canada.

I say investing in democracy is giving to all those communities out there that applied for funding under these various programs and were denied because the government chose instead to divert millions of dollars to promoting its party. That is not investing in democracy.

The Environment March 15th, 2010

Mr. Speaker, the government has replaced its climate scientists by appointing deniers to its scientific councils, has severely cut funds to climate research, and now we learn it is muzzling its own climate scientists.

Are these regressive moves because the government does not want its climate actions based on science, or because the government does not like what the scientists are telling it?

Business of Supply March 15th, 2010

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments, but it occurs to me that there are two different issues.

There is the waste of money by the Government of Canada on advertising its programs, with its logo all over them, when those millions of dollars could actually be spent on real programs, including energy retrofitting, providing affordable housing and child care. I am 100% in favour of stopping the wastage in the spending on partisan advertising, but in the matter of the ten percenters, surely the member recognizes that it is possible to actually use that budget in a positive way, which I have endeavoured to do since I was elected.

Surely the member agrees that, at least in the case of the leaders of the parties, particularly the opposition, when they want to reach out to a much broader public than those in their constituencies on major policy issues, including the budget, it should be possible for the leaders to be using ten percenters to communicate to the broader public.

Resumption of debate on Address in Reply March 11th, 2010

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition indeed describes his party as the government in waiting and yet, when Liberal members are in government, we wait for action on climate and the environment.

The Leader of the Opposition decries the government for its failure to address climate change, for scrapping the eco-energy program and eviscerating the environment, and yet the member leads his party in voting for the very budget that continues the investment in the old, tired fossil fuel economy. He had the opportunity as the Leader of the Opposition to table an amendment that would at least have taken part of the deeper billion dollar tax cuts for major corporations and invested those in the renewable sector. Did he choose to do that? No, he did not.

When his party was in power, it ratified an international agreement and then for 15 years did nothing. Worse, as the leader of his party in the House, when a bill came forward to take action on climate change before we went to Copenhagen, he led his party in delaying action on that bill.

There is a lot of talk about concern for the environment and climate change, but where is the action?

THE BUDGET March 9th, 2010

Madam Speaker, I know the hon. member shares my concerns about the directions in the budget for the review of major energy projects. We are looking forward to the potential for major developments, not only along the Mackenzie but in the Arctic.

It is critical that we have a government in place that will ensure that all the environmental health and social impacts of that scale of development are considered well in advance and that we follow the precautionary principle.

I heard the answer today by the Minister of the Environment to my query about the cutting back of the federal role in environmental assessments. I have heard this argument now for 30 years. I know exactly where it comes from and it is completely unfounded.

I look forward to greater elaboration being provided by the government in its rationale for emasculating its environmental role. We know the agenda of the government is to get rid of the federal government role in environment but it simply cannot do this.

The Supreme Court of Canada has held that the federal government has a clear responsibility for the protection of the environment, a clear responsibility to protect first nations and their lands and peoples, a clear responsibility over fisheries and a clear responsibility over trans-boundary pollution.

With great regret, we received the budget which looks like the federal government is heading in exactly the opposite direction that it should be heading with the major issues that we are facing into the future of Canada.

THE BUDGET March 9th, 2010

Madam Speaker, more critical is that we in this party share the concern that the party of the questioner is considering supporting in the budget which gives further billions in tax cuts to corporations rather than taking a portion of that money and assigning it to new investments in clean energy, in retrofitting seniors' and affordable housing to bring down their costs and in retrofitting small and medium businesses to bring down their costs.

I concur with the member that it is a tax to raise EI premiums. Many of the small and medium businesses in my riding that are keeping the economy going will suffer this blow. They are getting very few benefits out of the budget.

I would remind the member that he can make a critical decision on the budget by voting against the budget and against the further corporate tax cuts which could benefit Canadians.

THE BUDGET March 9th, 2010

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to advise that I will be sharing my time today with my hon. colleague, the member for Nickel Belt.

Before commenting on the substance of the budget, I feel obliged to share the concerns of my constituents on the budget process. The government has lauded its broad consultation process. Perhaps the budget well represents the views of those invited to the table, however, not everyone was included. I was told by a number of my constituents, who I had encouraged to participate, that they were rebuffed, told that the consultation was by invitation only and the locations secret. That is hardly open, transparent and inclusive. Let us hope that improved opportunities will be available to consider the deregulatory agenda set forth in the budget.

Through its throne speech, the government promises Canada unparalleled economic advantage as a clean energy superpower and leader in green job creation. Disappointingly, its path to a purported clean energy future remains almost singularly fixated on subsidizing, fast-tracking and deregulating the fossil fuel sector. The government has embraced fast-tracking of regulatory reviews of major energy projects as its preferred route to investment opportunities for Canadians. So much for balancing environment with economy.

While references are made to clean energy technologies, the depth of commitment to a green energy economy may be best evidenced in the term the Conservatives use “continue to invest” in the favoured old fossil fuel sector.

The Conservative road map to environmental deregulation is certainly clear in the budget. Compared with hits to the environment in the last budget, this one portents yet deeper erosion of the federal role. Such reforms merit scrutiny of legally mandated legislative and regulatory review tables.

As signatory to the North American agreement on environmental cooperation, the government is duty bound to consult concerned Canadians in advance of any environmental policy reform. How many more regulatory cuts will be made behind closed doors?

In its last budget, the government rescinded federal duties for environmental assessment of infrastructure projects on navigable waters, an action defended as a recessionary measure. Balancing environment and economy was set aside. The action drew a storm of protest from Canadians.

Considering this year's budget, those changes may have been a trial balloon. This budget brings intensive streamlining, in other words cutting, of environmental programs under the guise of eliminating activity not part of a core role, increasing efficiency and eliminating unnecessary programs. Among departments targeted for streamlining, the Department of the Environment falls high on the list.

The budget also singles out environment as the one entity required to balance or recalibrate its legislated mandate to protect the environment with economic interests. A minister's legal mandate is thus revised by budget.

The minister defends this shift in environmental oversight of large energy projects as resolving duplication. What duplication? Based on the controversy and lawsuits surrounding the National Energy Board handling of environmental impacts and public rights in its review of the Alberta export power line, it is unlikely those communities will view these changes favourably. The communities of northern Alberta have equal concerns about devolving environmental duties to the environmental Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to review environmental impacts of new nuclear plants proposed for their backyard.

In the throne speech the government declared “Nowhere is a commitment to principled policy, backed by action, needed more than in addressing climate change”. What does the budget provide for action on climate change? Sadly, few tangible measures.

The government claims its actions to address climate change and promote green energy mirror those of the U.S. under the much touted U.S.-Canada clean energy dialogue.

Consider the actions of the two governments. Canada committed under the Copenhagen accord to contribute this fiscal year to the U.S. $100 billion fund for developing countries. The United States has committed $1 billion. Nowhere in the budget can one find Canada's fair contribution calculated at roughly $420 million.

The U.S. budget committed $56 million to implement the greenhouse gas regulations now being drafted. This budget shows no dollars to implement the long promised Canadian sector caps and emission trading regulations.

The U.S. department of energy budget declares commitment to creating jobs in a clean energy economy, investing in innovation and clean energy to put Americans back to work, save families' money and keep the U.S. competitive. It budgeted $26.7 billion new dollars this year alone for renewable efficiency, renewable power, transit and sustainable communities. Perhaps most significant, the U.S. budget cut close to $38 billion in perverse subsidies to oil, gas and the coal sector.

Last year the Conservative government budgeted a total of $2 billion over five years for its clean energy and green infrastructure funds. Almost half of those dollars have already been gifted to coal-fired power and oil companies to subsidize testing of one technology to address their rising greenhouse gas emissions.

Sadly, the government's recalibrated path to a clean energy future appears to be more about environmental deregulation and continued subsidies for fossil fuels. While support for the renewable fuels program for the forestry sector is welcomed, the lack of significant support for Canada's once burgeoning renewable power sector is a blow to our competitiveness. Additional action may be required to benefit the Alberta forestry sector whose efforts to market cogen power have been hampered by its inability to compete with the subsidized coal-fired power sector on the spot market.

We concur that what the Canadian energy sector needs and deserves is legal certainty. The government's answer is deregulation. Whose interests does this serve?

Only one-tenth of the fund, less than $150 million, is to be divided among renewable power projects. That is hardly a major boost to a promising new Canadian energy sector.

The popular home energy retrofit program has been extended by one year. Why not extend this program to small and medium businesses? Why not commit as Obama did to retrofit 75% of federal buildings by 2011 to save the federal coffers?

No clarity is provided on expediting the long promised regulations to address air pollution and smog.

For the Conservative government, recalibration for a clean environment means deregulation, yet industry and public alike have called for legal clarity. Why? The one proven tool to shift investment to cleaner technology and green energy production is regulation. That brings true legal certainty. Notice of imminent regulations signals investors that technologies are moving from testing to deployment. Competition kicks in for commercialization of the most practicable solution. That was confirmed by the myriad clean tech entrepreneurs I spoke with at the last oil sands technology summit. They are sitting on the sidelines waiting to sell their equipment.

The budget offers accelerated capital cost writeoffs for equipment. Without the regulatory drivers, there will be few buyers.

We can protect our energy and electricity markets. Strong regulatory action and targeted incentives could spur private investment in Canada's green energy sector and create jobs. Will our clean energy sector be left in the dust?

Last week's budget squanders millions of dollars on handouts for banks and oil companies, but does nothing for the real victims of the recession, nothing for seniors living in poverty and nothing for half a million hard-working Canadians set to exhaust their employment insurance benefits with no job to go to. There is little new investment in a green jobs economy.

New Democrats cannot support this budget as written. We look forward to support for our amendment to shelve the next year of corporate tax cuts and use the savings for better priorities, such as creating family-supporting jobs, helping the seniors who built our country and building a clean energy future.

We are calling for a budget that puts Canadian tax dollars to work for Canadians.

The Environment March 9th, 2010

Mr. Speaker, last year the government used its budget to scrap environmental reviews of infrastructure projects under the Navigable Waters Protection Act. This year, the budget hands over even more of its environmental duties to industry-friendly agencies. The National Energy Board, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and Natural Resources Canada will now lead environmental assessments of major energy projects. It is a blatant conflict of interest.

Why is the government putting the foxes in charge of the henhouse?

The Environment March 5th, 2010

Mr. Speaker, the throne speech reads:

Nowhere is a commitment to principled policy, backed by action, needed more than in addressing climate change.

The government pledged to green the economy, lead in clean electricity, finance climate efforts and reduce emissions in parallel with the U.S. Yesterday's budget shows no such commitment.

The budget slashed the environment department, disembowelled environmental assessment, boosted fossil fuel subsidies, pledged no foreign aid and shortchanged renewables. What happened to principle, action and leadership for a green energy future?