Rathika Sitsabaiesan

[Citizenship and Immigration, November 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the consequences of the Conservatives' reckless decision to cut health care for refugee claimants not only leaves the most vulnerable behind, but downloads the costs onto provinces and communities across the country.

In Scarborough many refugee claimants rely on a volunteer clinic run by the Muslim Welfare Centre for care, but the clinic has become overwhelmed since the changes came into effect.

Why does the minister believe that volunteer run community clinics, like this one, should pay for his misguided decision?

[Nuclear Terrorism Act, November 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Drummond is correct. We signed the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, both in 2005. Yet today we stand at the end of 2012 and still do not have our domestic affairs in order. We cannot ratify the treaty requirements until we have domestic legislation that ensures safety and our meeting of the treaty requirements. For the government to be in power for seven years and not to have done anything until now is sad. It is time that we finally do it.

[Nuclear Terrorism Act, November 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saint-Jean for his wonderful fast-finger research and question.

Absolutely, I do not think any member of the House elected to represent Canadians would do anything to harm them in this regard. If it were brought forward in a manner ensuring that we meet the treaty requirements and the safety of Canadians and global security, we would all support it. Therefore, for the parliamentary secretary to make comments like that is unfair. It is unfair for Conservative members or the parliamentary secretary to make broad-brush claims that the government has tried before but no one was listening, and that now that it has a majority it will push this through.

The New Democrats have stood steadfastly for the safety and security of Canadians and the global environment.

[Nuclear Terrorism Act, November 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her contribution to this debate in general.

The urgency of ratifying these treaties has been noted by people around the world. We are still waiting for many countries to get their domestic legislation in order so they can actually ratify the treaty. Canada is seen throughout the world as a leader in the global security realm. We need to ensure that we maintain that leadership position on the global scene. We need to ensure that our domestic affairs are in order so that this legislation can be studied with proper scrutiny to ensure that we meet all of the requirements of the treaty and ensure the safety of Canadians and the international community.

[Nuclear Terrorism Act, November 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Bill S-9, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the nuclear terrorism act, at second reading, in order to give the bill further study at committee.

It is an honour to speak on a topic that is so important to the safety of Canadians and also our global security. Safety and security are a priority for the constituents of my great riding of Scarborough--Rouge River, and Canadians deserve to feel safe and secure in their own home communities. Residents of Scarborough are still reeling, sadly, following the tragic incident this summer that involved the loss of two young lives and left 23 injured.

I was proud to co-host the leader of the official opposition in Scarborough to share in a discussion about what the community wants and needs to feel safe in the neighbourhood. The outcome of this discussion was that people want to see increased care of the environment, longer term investment in our youth and job creation in Canada, increased witness protection to ensure people who are witness to a crime can feel safe and, of course, a decrease in the number of guns on our streets.

The Conservative government does not properly invest in witness protection. It is slashing public safety staff, which is allowing more guns to flow on to our streets. We are not seeing legislation to prevent gun violence from occurring. People do not feel safe and they feel further terrorized by guns. It is disheartening that the Conservatives ignore the pleas for action from constituents and residents of the GTA.

Today is about Bill S-9. This Senate bill would amend the Criminal Code in order to implement the criminal law requirements of two international counterterrorism treaties, the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, the CPPNM, as amended in 2005, and the 2005 International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, the ICSANT. These two agreements deal with the protection of radioactive material, nuclear material and nuclear facilities, as well as the protection from nuclear or radioactive devices.

The bill would align our laws to these treaties by introducing four new indictable offences into part II of the Criminal Code. First, it will be illegal to possess, use or dispose of nuclear radioactive material or a nuclear or radioactive device, or commit an act against a nuclear facility or its operation with the intent to cause death, serious bodily harm or substantial damage to property or the environment. Second, it will be illegal to use or alter nuclear or radioactive material or a nuclear or radioactive device, or commit an act against a nuclear facility or its operation with the intent to compel a person, government or international organization to do or refrain from doing anything. Third, it will also be illegal to commit an indictable offence under federal law for the purpose of obtaining nuclear or radioactive material, a nuclear or radioactive device or access or control of a nuclear facility. Finally, it will be illegal to threaten to commit any of the other three offences.

The New Democratic Party believes we must seriously address the issue of nuclear security and comply with our international obligations in order to better co-operate with other countries on counterterrorism strategies. New Democrats are committed to multilateral diplomacy and international co-operation, especially in areas of great common concern such as nuclear terrorism. It is certainly important that we, along with our international partners, do what we can to protect Canadians from all forms of terrorism and protect global security.

It is curious as to why the government waited for so long to implement the necessary changes and ratify these two treaties. As I said, the bill would fulfill Canada's treaty obligations under the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, the CPPNM, and the ICSANT. This includes extending international measures beyond protecting against the proliferation of nuclear materials to now include the protection of nuclear facilities.

Bill S-9 would reinforce Canada's obligation under the 2004 UN Security Council Resolution 1540 to take and enforce effective measures to prevent the proliferation of nuclear materials as well as chemical and biological weapons. To date Canada has not ratified either the ICSANT or the CPPNM amendment because Canada does not yet have legislation in place to criminalize the offences outlined in the ICSANT or some of the offences outlined in the CPPNM amendment.

The amendments in Bill S-9, introduced into the code, are Canada's effort to align its domestic legislation with what is required by both conventions so they can be ratified. If these amendments should become law, one could presume Canada could be in a position to ratify both the ICSANT and CPPNM amendment, something Canada, as well as other countries, committed to working toward at both the 2010 Nuclear Security Summit held in Washington, D.C., and the 2012 Nuclear Security Summit in Seoul, Korea. This is an important step for global security.

Miles Pomper, senior research associate at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at Monterey Institute of International Studies, advised those at the Senate hearing on Bill S-9 as follows:

—I want to point out generally how important it is to global security that Canada ratify these treaties. As you know, Canada and other countries, at the 2010 and 2012 Nuclear Security Summits, committed to ratifying these conventions. At the 2012 Nuclear Security Summit, just held a few months ago in Seoul, states also made a particular commitment to have the 2005 CPPNM amendment enter into force by the time of the next nuclear summit in 2014. For this to happen, two thirds of the 145 parties to the original CPPNM, or 97 states, need to ratify the treaty. To this date only 56 have done so.

In ratifying this treaty, therefore, Canada will not only bring us one step closer to the magic number needed for entry into force. Canada is deeply respected in the international community for its leadership on nuclear issues and its commitment to multilateral diplomacy. Its ratification will encourage other countries to move forward with their own ratifications and improve global security.

We believe that Bill S-9 brings forward necessary measures as part of Canada's international co-operation against threats related to nuclear terrorism. Given the increasingly heightened sophistication of technology and radioactive devices, it seems to me to be imperative to ensure that Canada is co-operating with other parties and in compliance with international treaties. As I said, New Democrats are committed to multilateral diplomacy and international co-operation, especially in areas such as nuclear terrorism.

Canada needs to work with other leading countries that are moving toward ratifying these conventions. It is very important that we fulfill our international obligations, and Canada will only be able to officially ratify these conventions after their domestic implementation is complete. We believe there must be close technical scrutiny of the bill in committee to make sure Bill S-9 is drafted in the best way to fulfill our obligations under these two treaties. Once we ratify, Canada can go on and will not be in non-compliance.

This stage of study is extremely important. As we saw in the Senate hearings, a vital component of the bill was originally missing. Bill S-9, in its original form, did not include the making of a radioactive device as an offence. We appreciate that the Senate amended this major omission in the bill. It is a good thing that the bill arrived with this improvement already in it. Once again, it is a relief that this omission was caught and corrected in the Senate, but it demonstrates the need for greater scrutiny in committee, and assurances that nothing else will be overlooked.

There are a few technical issues that I hope those in committee will undertake during their consideration. It seems that this bill may be broader and more general than the treaties themselves. As my colleagues have noted, some of the new Criminal Code offences are broader in scope than the offences found in individual international agreements. As well, the language used in the bill is more general than the specific treaty articles. For instance, my colleague noted concerns with proposed sections 82.3 and 82.4 in the bill, in that the specific intent formulations of the ICSANT treaty with regard to damage to a nuclear facility are not replicated in Bill S-9. Rather, Bill S-9 assumes a general intent standard. Also, the reference to crimes of threat in Bill S-9 go further than required under the treaty. Ultimately, these concerns highlight the need for scrutiny at committee to ensure the legislation has been drafted to be in compliance and that the issues that have been raised in the Senate and the House chamber are dealt with.

In conclusion, Canadians and people around the globe deserve to feel safe and secure. Nuclear weapons are an affront to safety, security and peace in the world. New Democrats are very pleased to support this bill at second reading and to send it to committee for further study.

[Canada National Parks Act, November 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have another opportunity to speak to Bill C-370, an act to amend the Canada National Parks Act (St. Lawrence Islands National Park of Canada).

St. Lawrence Islands National Park is located in the Thousand Islands region of the St. Lawrence River within the Frontenac Arch Biosphere Reserve, as we heard from our colleague, the member for Leeds—Grenville. It is a beautiful region of our country and is known as being one of the areas of highest biodiversity in Canada. It also has historical significance as it was the first national park established in Canada east of the Rocky Mountains.

Furthermore, the park is part of an established UNESCO biosphere reserve. Canadians from across the country, as well as tourists from around the globe come to the park to enjoy its hiking trails, interpretative programs, exhibits and family activities. In committee, we heard from a representative from Parks Canada who I feel provided a beautiful description of this national treasure and its surrounding areas. She said:

Quite simply, the Thousand Islands is a place where nature and culture intermingle. Majestic castles and historic summer homes stand in contrast with rugged islands of granite and pine that are home to lumbering turtles, soaring eagles, and countless other species.

It sounds like a wonderful piece of our Canadian landscape. In Canada we are very fortunate to have our national parks. There is no doubt of their importance to Canadians and that they are an asset to our country.

I know in Scarborough—Rouge River, in my home community, the Rouge Park is certainly a valued treasure among my constituents and the residents of the greater Toronto area. We call it our unknown gem in Toronto. The people in my riding were calling for the creation of Rouge National Park for many years. The announcement in the throne speech that Rouge Park will be designated the first urban national park was a huge victory for the people of this area and a testament to members of our community who worked for over a quarter century to see their dreams for Rouge National Park become a reality.

However, Scarborough residents and residents of the GTA are anxious for a plan to establish this park as part of the national parks system for Canadians and tourists to explore, while preserving and continuing the conservation efforts, as well as respecting the need to maintain the ecological integrity of our local natural gem. Finally, the people involved would like dedicated stable funding to see this dream realized, ensuring the preservation and conservation of the ecosystem to ensure future generations will have the area to enjoy.

When Bill C-370 was first presented, we felt that it needed more dialogue, and it was examined with due diligence. I must mention at this point that this is why we voted against the bill at the earlier stages, because we wanted to ensure that due diligence of every part that needed to be done was done. Our main concern with the bill was fiscal responsibility.

Our support for legislation such as this relies on due diligence in order to protect taxpayer dollars. We had just been delivered a budget where Parks Canada was dealt a funding cut of $29.2 million by 2015. There was a lack of costing information on this matter, which is why we chose to oppose it earlier.

Our other concern was whether or not the community was consulted on this issue. Fortunately, many of our concerns and questions were answered when we were at committee. I thank all of the members of the local community, as well as my hon. colleague from Leeds—Grenville for providing that opportunity to be able to ask and have those questions answered.

In committee we learned that the costs of changing the name are around $138,000, disbursed over a 10-year period. Most of the costs involved are related to redoing the physical signage within the park. There would be an attempt to keep the costs low, as Parks Canada would immediately replace four large signage panels on the park's mainland properties but would then change the island signage over a 10-year plan.

Some of these costs would be incurred with or without the name change due to regular maintenance and upkeep costs. The St. Lawrence Islands National Park already prints its promotional materials and pamphlets on an annual basis, which are updated prior to printing. Changes to the website will simply involve updating the text and will not incur further costs.

We learned more about the economic benefit of this name change. While there is certainly a cost associated with the renaming of the St. Lawrence Islands National Park to the Thousand Islands National Park, there are potential economic gains that changing the name of the park could actually produce for the local community.

The park is located in an area that is properly known within Canada and worldwide as the Thousand Islands region. Tourism and visitor services are an important part of the economic development of the region surrounding the park. Visitor services are increasingly important as the economic mix of the region has changed from manufacturing, and visitors come from around the world to visit the Thousand Islands.

In a region where private tourism providers build their businesses by taking advantage of the recognized and powerful Thousand Islands brand name, the name St. Lawrence Islands National Park is not really helping matters or their pocketbooks. It promotes confusion and can lead to missed economic opportunities for the local businesses in the community. Renaming the park would allow it to be more easily identified by potential tourists and visitors.

As Thousand Islands is a recognized brand, changing the name of the park could open opportunities to further attract and engage local and international visitors as well as furthering business opportunities. As well, improved branding of the park would aid in the continued development of the tourism industry.

It was also extremely encouraging to hear from community members and the local business association and about the local consultations that took place.

Rouge Park is being referred to as the people's park. I have been consulting my constituents, as has Parks Canada, to ensure that this park incorporates their ideas for a park in their neighbourhood, which they would visit and enjoy. Moving forward, we are working hard to make sure the voices of community members are heard in the consultation process. Community consultation is a very important step, and I believe it is imperative for a change like this. I agree it is important that the Thousand Islands community gains the same recognition in promoting its national park's and community's interest.

As far back as 1978, a St. Lawrence Islands National Park advisory committee has been recommending changing the park's name. Parks Canada supports the name change, as do local businesses, business councils and all of the municipalities involved.

The changing of the name to the Thousand Islands National Park was endorsed by many of the local municipalities and they passed resolutions supporting the bill. The majority of Thousand Islanders agree with making this change, as locally the park is already known as the Thousand Islands National Park.

It is for these reasons that we will be supporting the bill at third reading. Our country has some of the most beautiful national parks in the world. Their benefits to our country are absolutely invaluable. As Canadians, we treasure their ecosystems and biodiversity, and we must ensure that our government continues to protect and preserve their beauty and our environment.

We must make this commitment now so that future generations can appreciate and enjoy all that our national parks have to offer.

[First Nations Financial Transparency Act, November 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am intrigued. I sit on the immigration committee and we have had a chance to look at Bill C-45. The creation of electronic travel authority and the details of how the ETA would be created, the criteria for qualifying, et cetera, were not going to be in the legislation. They would be in the regulations, which of course can be changed very easily by a minister.

Why is it that, in Bill C-27, the government seems to feel it needs to put into legislation the details of the disclosure requirements for chiefs? First nations communities and chiefs have audited financial statements. New Democrats believe the audited statements should first be presented to the first nations communities. We do not need legislation to control what they do. It could be a requirement of the funding arrangements that each of the communities signs.

I would ask my hon. colleague to comment on that.

[First Nations Financial Transparency Act, November 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I asked a question previously and I did not really get an answer, so I will try a slightly different question this time.

The answer I got from my hon. colleague was that we want to make sure that people living on reserves know exactly what their chiefs are making and increase transparency there. However, the government is not a government that is being transparent or accountable to the constituents that it represents, which include all Canadians.

Will the member have the decency to ensure that his government, his Prime Minister and all of his ministers are being truly accountable and truly transparent, that they are being the representatives of the state and are accountable to all their constituents, not just the Canadians who are friends and insiders of the Conservative Party but to all Canadians?

[First Nations Financial Transparency Act, November 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned many times that this is a very important measure for the government. I wonder why that is because the Conservatives have invoked time allocation yet again and are saying they do not want to hear all sides of the story. They do not want to hear the voices of members elected to represent aboriginal communities and first nation communities across the country. They are not investing in the things that the first nations or aboriginal communities or urban aboriginal people, such as those living in my community, are looking for. They are looking for things such as affordable housing, an increase in the affordability of food and the affordability of life in general.

Therefore, I ask my hon. colleague, will he start focusing on those issues as well?

[Petitions, November 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition I present today is on the topic of Katimavik.

Because the program provided such great benefits for many youth in our country and since approximately 600 youth who were supposed to participate in the program this year were not able to participate, the petitioners call upon the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister to continue to allocate $14 million per year in funding to the Katimavik program to ensure that our youth have access to both languages and to thrive in those languages.