Bill Siksay

[Human Rights, November 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, Uganda's anti-homosexuality bill is reprehensible, vile and hateful. It violates human rights by imposing life in prison on gays and lesbians and a death sentence for those who are gay and have AIDS. It will jail anyone who fails to report people they know to be gay.

At the Commonwealth meeting, will the Prime Minister meet face to face with Uganda's prime minister to help stop this bill, and will he make gay, lesbian and trans rights essential to development and educational work supported by Canadian foreign aid in Uganda and elsewhere?

[Search and Rescue Helicopter, November 20th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate on Motion No. 346 put forward by the hon. member for Random—Burin—St. George's. The motion reads:

That, in the opinion of the House, it is imperative the government move expeditiously to allocate the necessary resources to put in place a full-time dedicated helicopter fully equipped to search and rescue standards at the airport nearest to offshore oil activity and that it be available on a 24-hour basis with a crew trained in all aspects of search and rescue.

I am standing here today to again indicate the support of New Democrats for this important motion. The member for St. John's East has already spoken in the debate and indicated his support and appreciation for the motion, but I want to do so in a bicoastal expression of solidarity, as a west coast member of Parliament. Search and rescue and the imperatives of being a seafaring part of Canada make me want to stand and support this motion.

We on the west coast in British Columbia know the importance of having an excellent search and rescue force. Through DND, the Coast Guard, local search and rescue associations, police, fire and emergency personnel and organizations, we are well served in British Columbia. It is always possible to make the service better, and that is why we in the NDP think this motion about the services available in Newfoundland and Labrador is of such importance.

We always want to thank the people who undertake this important and dangerous work on behalf of all of our communities. We know they are extremely well trained, brave, and very innovative in the kind of work they do and that they are often forced to walk into, fly into or sail into very dangerous and difficult situations. Their professionalism is something we appreciate.

We also want to thank the volunteers who are often associated with some of the search and rescue associations for the voluntary service they offer in this regard.

We already heard in the debate that DND SAR techs have done probably 8,000 missions in the past year. DND estimates that they are responsible for saving an average of 1,200 lives a year, which is incredibly significant. That is a huge number of missions and of lives saved. We all want to express our appreciation for that important work.

I mentioned that the NDP member for St. John's East has already spoken in the debate. He also had a motion on the order paper similar to this, on the same topic, regarding the need for a search and rescue helicopter to be available 24 hours a day near the offshore oil operations off the coast of Newfoundland. I want to read the motion he tabled in the House. It reads:

That, in the opinion of the House, given both the increasing air and marine traffic and increased industrial activity off the east coast of Newfoundland, as well as previous recommendations by independent investigations of Search and Rescue (SAR), the Department of National Defense should upgrade Search and Rescue capabilities in Newfoundland and Labrador by providing for at least one fully equipped and fully staffed SAR helicopter at St. John's in addition to the existing SAR capability at Gander and Goose Bay and further that the Gander SAR crewing should be increased to permit 24-hour per day on-duty coverage and thereby provide improved response times.

The motion that the member for St. John's East tabled is a little more detailed than the one we are debating today. They are essentially in agreement about the importance of 24-hour staffing and availability of a search and rescue helicopter in the St. John's area. The member for St. John's East included a few other issues, a little more detail, in his motion and, as I say, he is supportive of the motion that we are debating today.

We know the oil production industry off the coast of Newfoundland is a significant one. We know that there were issues in the past around safety and the ability to respond to emergencies in that industry.

We all remember the sinking of the Ocean Ranger on February 15, 1982. That platform in the Hibernia oil field sank and 84 people died in that terrible incident. We know of incidents like that and appreciate the importance of having this kind of response.

The inquiry that looked into the sinking of the Ocean Ranger made a specific recommendation in this regard. It said that a full-time search and rescue dedicated helicopter provided by either government or industry, fully equipped to search and rescue standards, should be required to be available at the airport nearest the ongoing offshore drilling operations, and that it be readily available with a trained crew able to perform all aspects of rescue.

In a sense this recommendation has been around for quite some time, at least since that inquiry reported after the 1982 sinking of the Ocean Ranger.

It is not like there is a small number of people involved in the offshore oil industry off of Newfoundland. We know that 1,200 workers work in that industry. There is something like 300 to 600, I think it is 300 workers who work permanently for up to three weeks on the platforms off of Newfoundland.

Also, half of those workers are members of the Communications, Energy & Paperworkers Union, my former union. They are also very interested in the outcome of this debate and the need for a 24-hour search and rescue helicopter based in St. John's. They have been supporting the efforts of both the member for Random—Burin—St. George's and the member for St. John's East on these issues.

We know that full-time availability is absolutely crucial when we are talking about search and rescue. Taking time to refit a helicopter into a search and rescue capacity loses time when lives are in danger or when people are in an emergency situation.

We know that having to call in crew in the evenings or on weekends, when it is not in the normal operating hours, is also a very serious issue and delays the response available to an emergency situation. Emergencies do not happen during office hours, so to speak. We have to ensure that we have that capacity to respond whenever those emergencies take place.

We also know the importance of having appropriately equipped helicopters to do the job. I know that the union has been very explicit about the kind of equipment that is needed on the helicopter that would respond to these emergency search and rescue situations.

That is a very crucial part of all of this, as well. Some of this has come to light because of the Cougar Air helicopter crash back on March 12, 2009, when 17 people unfortunately lost their lives. There was one survivor, Robert Decker.

We know, right now, there is an inquiry underway under the auspices of the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board. That report should be available in March 2010. When this whole issue is being reviewed, it is important that we take a stand here in Parliament that says that there is an important solution that is available to us, if we pursue that.

I am happy to note that the member for St. John's East has standing at that inquiry, and I think he expects to appear before the inquiry next week to offer his perspective on this important issue and on that particular crash, that tragic incident back in March.

I think there is concern in Gander that establishing a 24-hour search and rescue capacity at St. John's may impact what is available in Gander. I think we want to say very clearly that we are not talking about removing the capacity from Gander. In fact, we think that should have 24-hour capacity as well.

This is about establishing that capacity in St. John's, which I believe is one of the closest airports to the offshore oil fields in Newfoundland. That is why it is so important to have this capacity there. Again, I just want to stress that having 24-hour capacity, having crew available 24 hours for emergency response, is absolutely crucial in the circumstances of an emergency.

We cannot wait to reconfigure an aircraft that is used for other purposes. We cannot wait to call in staff from their homes in the night or on weekends. We have to have that capacity there at all times. Given the size of the offshore oil operations off Newfoundland and Labrador, given the offshore shipping, the fishing, the pleasure craft that are used there, all of things indicate that we should have that capacity, and that it should be fully functioning.

In conclusion, that is why New Democrats and this New Democrat from the west coast of Canada support this motion to establish that capacity in St. John's.

[Petitions, November 20th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition signed by over 100 Canadians from British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia, who are very concerned about aviation safety and the need for better government oversight of the airline industry in Canada.

The petitioners are particularly concerned about allowing aviation companies to be responsible for their own safety inspections through safety management systems, or SMS. They point out that this will lead to situations where financial considerations will trump appropriate attention to passenger and worker safety.

The petitioners are seeking a commission of enquiry, headed by a superior court judge, into the state of aviation safety in Canada.

[Human Rights, November 20th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, today around the world Transgender Day of Remembrance is being marked to remember transsexual and transgender people who have died due to transphobic violence.

In Canada transgender people face violence, harassment and discrimination in the workplace, in health care and in housing.

Will the government introduce legislation to add explicit protection for transsexual and transgender Canadians in the Canadian Human Rights Act? If not, will the government support private members' legislation to add gender identity and expression as a prohibited ground of discrimination?

[Transgender Day of Remembrance, November 20th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, around the world and in Canada, in hundreds of cities and towns, people are gathering today to mark Transgender Day of Remembrance, to remember the members of the transsexual and transgendered communities who have died because of transphobic violence.

In the past year, we know of 121 trans people who have died violently around the world. The actual number is much higher. Trans Canadians face violence and harassment, and also discrimination on the job, in housing and health care.

Given this, explicit human rights protection is needed in law to prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity and expression. Parliament will soon have the opportunity to debate these changes and MPs will be able to speak out and take action.

Recognizing and celebrating the life experiences of trans people today and throughout the year, New Democrats stand in solidarity with the transsexual and transgendered communities and recommit to working to end violence and to establish full human rights for trans Canadians.

[Committees of the House, November 19th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to hear that the government supports in principle the report we are debating.

I want to ask the parliamentary secretary about one of the problems the government has identified with the report, and that is with regard to the granting of immediate permanent residence status to people who come here to work as live-in caregivers.

It strikes me that in every other category of immigrant who comes to Canada and goes through the points system, the person does not have to work in his or her field. For example, a medical doctor who applies to come to Canada gets all of the points for being a medical doctor. That doctor arrives in Canada, but there is no requirement for him or her to actually work as a medical doctor. Moreover, a physicist who applies to come to Canada gets scads of points for being a physicist, but when that person gets to Canada, there is no requirement that he or she work as a physicist. In fact, we know that a lot of these people do not end up working in their fields because of other problems with the system.

Why then is there a problem in the case of live-in caregivers when we know that caregivers are needed in Canada? We know that child care workers are needed. We know that home care workers are needed. Why is this extra requirement made of them that they have to work in their field, and that their status in Canada is dependent upon that?

It seems patently unfair. It seems like discrimination against a group of women workers primarily, a group of workers that we know is needed in Canada, but that does not have the high academic achievement of other groups of people that come here. This group of women workers, nonetheless, is needed here in Canada. So why do we have this extra requirement?

Why does the member believe that this group of potential immigrants is any more likely not to work in its field than any other immigrants who come to Canada?

[Huntingdon Port of Entry, November 18th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Motion No. 391 in the name of the member of Parliament for Abbotsford. You have reminded the House of the motion already, but I am will read it again. It says:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should direct the Canada Border Services Agency to change the name of the Huntingdon Port of Entry to “Abbotsford-Huntingdon Port of Entry”.

I am pleased to say New Democrats also support this. The members of the B.C. caucus of the NDP, of which I am chair, appreciate the importance of this change to the community of Abbotsford. We are strongly supportive of the motion.

Fin Donnelly, the member elect for New Westminster—Coquitlam, has not been sworn in yet, so I think I can still say his name in the House. I am sure he is also on board with this change, which we know is important to the people of the Lower Mainland and Fraser Valley of British Columbia. We look forward to having him join us in the House so he can also be a strong spokesperson, like all new Democrats from British Columbia, for the interests of our province. I understand this will happen next week sometime, so we look forward to that.

The Huntingdon Port of Entry is one of four or five port-of-entry border crossings in the Lower Mainland and Fraser Valley. Huntingdon is one of the 24 hour border crossings. There is also the Douglas or Peace Arch crossing, which is between Surrey and Blaine, the Pacific Highway crossing, also between Surrey and Blaine, the Aldergrove crossing, which connects with Lynden, Washington and the Huntingdon crossing, which connects Huntingdon or Abbotsford and Sumas, Washington. There is also the crossing at Boundary Bay, which connects Tsawwassen and Point Roberts.

These are all very important to British Columbians. They are major access routes to the United States. A huge amount of traffic crosses each of these border crossings. We know they are very important to the local economies and the overall economy of Canada.

Abbotsford is the fifth largest city in British Columbia. As such, it plays a very important role in our province and is a very crucial part of British Columbia. We want to ensure Abbotsford has the advantages that should be brought to a border city.

We know border cities and border crossings are important to the local economies of those communities. They need to function well. They need to be clearly identified with the communities where they are located and the communities they serve.

We know that the amount of trade that crosses the Canada-U.S. border is extremely significant to all of us in the country. We know about the goods that travel back and forth every day. It is a crucial lifeline of our economy and of the U.S. economy. We also know the tourist trade that goes back and forth across the border is essential to our communities and a major industry in our province of British Columbia.

We also know the friendly traffic back and forth to visit family, friends and relatives is very crucial to all the communities along the border. It is crucial to most Canadians who live within proximity of the border to be able to use one of the land crossings between Canada and the United States.

We need to ensure that people are clearly aware of where these border crossings are located. There probably was a time in British Columbia when people knew Huntingdon as a border community. I think that has changed as Abbotsford has grown as a city. As Huntingdon has become part of the city of Abbotsford, I think most people now probably do not know of the community of Huntingdon. That is probably a failure of ours to appreciate our history, but it is still an important neighbourhood and community within the city of Abbotsford.

Most British Columbians would know of Abbotsford. Therefore, it is important this border crossing be identified with that city so people know exactly where this port of entry between Canada and the United States is located and can plan accordingly when they seek to use it. Businesses also need to know, as easily as possible, where this border crossing is located.

It is very important that it be linked by name to the largest community of which it is a part. This would be very helpful in ensuring that this remains an important border crossing between Canada and the United States.

I am glad the member has chosen, in consultation with the city council and chamber of commerce and tourism officials in the city of Abbotsford, to keep the reference to Huntingdon in the title so it would become the Abbotsford-Huntingdon Port of Entry. That historical connection has some value and still has meaning to many people. It is a good idea to include it.

The member has been asked about the cost of making this kind of change. A cost will obviously be involved, but I do not think it should necessarily be the determining factor. There will be changes to stationary, signage, all those kinds of things.

I hope if this change goes forward, which I think it should, that attention is paid to the change in signage. I hope we do not fall into the same trap that the Conservative government has fallen into with the signage around Canada's economic action plan. A huge amount of money has been spent on signs announcing the locations of where the government is spending its money.

We have heard that these signs were made in the state of Washington. Taxpayer dollars have flowed to a company in Washington state to produce these signs. It is an outrageous situation. Canada is supporting a buy American program when that work and those jobs should have gone to Canadians. I hope when the changes are made to the name of the port of entry to Abbotsford-Huntingdon, the work involved to change those signs is done by Canadians, in Canada, even in British Columbia where that kind of job should go. Maybe it should even go to Abbotsford rather than south of the border to a community in Washington state.

I hope the member will follow that issue closely because all British Columbians are concerned about the decision to take government spending south of the border. I hope he insists that the work be done in British Columbia, certainly within Canada.

New Democrats from British Columbia and the New Democrat caucus as a whole will be supporting the motion. It is a little strange that we needed to have this debate in the House of Commons. It could have easily been done by the government. All it would have taken was the stroke of a pen by the minister. It does not require legislation. It does not require a motion in the House of Commons. It could have been very easily accomplished.

The member could have said to the Minister of Public Safety that he thought it was a good idea and he could have asked him to sign off on it. He could have shown the minister the community support he has received for the idea. That could have left this time open in the House of Commons to discuss other issues of importance to our communities.

I am not saying this is not an important issue to the community of Abbotsford, but this could have been done by now. It could have been signed, sealed and delivered and under way a long time ago. A government member should be able to have that kind of influence with a member of cabinet. We could have seen that change already for the Abbotsford-Huntingdon Port of Entry.

I hope the government will proceed without delay. I hope the Minister of Public Safety has his pen warmed up to get this done as soon as we have the vote on the motion. I would not even mind in this case if the minister pre-empted the House of Commons. The importance of the motion is pretty clear. He clearly has the power in the regulations under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to do that.

This is an important change for our border crossings in the Lower Mainland and the Fraser Valley of British Columbia. We appreciate the importance to the community of Abbotsford. We appreciate the importance of our border crossings. There is a lot more the government could do to ensure our border crossings worked effectively and efficiently. There are many issues relating to border crossing and the traffic that goes across it that need our attention. There are many issues relating to the security of that border, particularly the issue of the importation of handguns into Canada. It is a border issue for our communities and certainly on the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. We appreciate the need for increased measures to ensure that the flow of handguns in particular across the Canada-U.S. border is addressed.

As I said, the NDP supports this change and hope that it goes forward.

[Fairness for the Self-Employed Act, November 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased to have had the opportunity to listen to my colleague's intervention in this debate on Bill C-56 around special EI benefits for the self-employed. One of the things that I found most interesting about her speech was her comments about how this legislation particularly affects women.

We know that women are heavily represented among Canada's 2.6 million self-employed citizens, and that the benefits that are offered by this legislation are often of particular interest to women, certainly the ones regarding maternity benefits and compassionate care benefits. Although we would hope that everybody would share those kinds of responsibilities, we know that women often bear the burden of those kinds of familial responsibilities.

This legislation will directly address the concerns of many self-employed women in Canada and I wonder if she might just expand on that point a little in response to this question. How will this legislation particularly affect Canadian women?

[Income Tax Act, October 23rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-290, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (tax credit for loss of retirement income) that has been put forward by the member for Richmond—Arthabaska. I know the member has tried on a number of occasions to move the bill through the House. In the last Parliament he succeeded in getting it a considerable way through the process, but the early election call short-circuited that effort and unfortunately we have had to start all over again in consideration of this piece of legislation.

I know too that the legislation came out of the member's discussions with workers and retirees in his riding and other ridings in the province of Quebec who faced a loss of income in their retirement pensions. This was one of the solutions that came about as a result of those discussions, those conversations. I commend him for that process and for putting this idea before the House of Commons.

New Democrats believe this is an important idea and that it merits support. New Democrats are supporting the idea although we recognize that it is only a small piece of what needs to be done in terms of ensuring pension security, retirement income security for Canadians. I am sure the member also recognizes that this is only one piece of a much larger puzzle.

What does the bill do? It would grant a refundable tax credit equal to 22% of the reduction in pension benefits experienced by beneficiaries of registered pension plans other than trusts who suffer a loss of pension benefits normally when their pension plans are wound up in whole or in part. It would apply to both defined benefit plans and defined contribution plans.

What exactly does that mean? That is the official description or account of what the bill does. One of the examples of what the bill would actually mean is that if the income of a retiree's pension drops from say $30,000 to $22,000, he or she would receive 22% of the $8,000 loss which would mean a non-taxable amount of $1,760. So it does not go the whole way to recovering the loss someone might experience in their registered pension plan, but it would be of some assistance to the folks who do find themselves in that difficult position. This is a contribution to dealing with the situation of loss in pension income and income security for retirees in Canada.

My colleague, the NDP critic for seniors and pensions, the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, has been working diligently on this issue holding consultations and conversations with retirees and seniors across Canada to find out exactly what would be helpful to them much in the same way that the member for Richmond—Arthabaska has done in coming up with this legislation.

The NDP's pensions critic has come up with a very detailed and broad-based plan to assist Canadians with the security of their retirement income. We know that is very important these days. It was important when the bill was originally introduced, but the change in the economic situation, the recession, has made it even more necessary because more and more people are feeling that pinch and have seen a reduction in their retirement income.

We know there are two facets to retirement income in Canada. There is the private system of workplace pensions, of RRSPs, of private savings. We know those private elements of our retirement income system have taken the biggest hit in this recession with the collapse of financial markets.

The parts of the system that have maintained themselves, that have been rock solid in many people's opinion, are the public elements: the old age security program, the guaranteed income supplement and the Canada and Quebec pension plans. It is very important for us to realize that in planning a public retirement income system we have designed a system that can weather this kind of economic storm where the private system has taken significant hits and retirees who have had significant investment in the private elements of the system have taken a significant hit.

The public system has been there to support people through this kind of crisis. I hope we hold that experience close at hand when we are considering how we might approach security and retirement income in the coming months and years. People put a lot into saving for their retirement and they need to depend on that when they are no longer able to work or choose not to work any longer.

The NDP has put forward a very detailed plan. Part of that plan was passed unanimously in the House back in the spring. Hon. members will remember when all parties in the House agreed that significant action was needed on pension reform and to ensure income security in our retirement. That was good news, although the government has yet to act on that unanimous sentiment of the House and has yet to act in any way to shore up, to expand or to make better our pension system in Canada. We are hoping we will see that kind of movement from the government in the not too distant future.

New Democrats continue to put forward other ideas and expand on those we have already made. One of those ideas is to expand the CPP-QPP for the 93% of Canadians who already are members of that plan and who benefit from it. The NDP is proposing that there be a phased-in doubling of benefits in the CPP-QPP from the current maximum of $908.75 a month to $1,817.50 a month. It would take the pressure off both people's savings and private workplace plans and create a more stable savings environment for people on pensions.

We know there is a cost associated with this. It is estimated that this plan to double CPP-QPP benefits would need to see an additional payroll deduction of about 2.5%. That is often less than the annual administration fees of many RRSPs. Therefore, in that sense, it is a very good bargain for people who are trying to find a stable and reliable source of retirement income.

Our proposal goes on to mention that there could be a tax credit to soften the burden of that increased payroll deduction for low income people. This would go a long way to ensuring stable and reasonable retirement income for Canadians. It would also go some way to increasing the benefit of able people. In fact, this plan would see up to 63% replacement of pre-retirement income for Canadians, as opposed to the current 38% under the existing terms of the CPP-QPP.

It is a great idea and it is one that we could accomplish. It is one that we collectively contribute to and that we could actually make happen if we decided to move in that way. I hope the government will consider this very serious idea.

Another great idea would be to increase the old age security. This is the basic bottom line plan that should ensure that no Canadian senior lives in poverty. The NDP is saying that an investment of $700 million in the OAS program would accomplish lifting all Canadian seniors out of poverty. I know that is a significant amount of money but it is not a significant amount of money when we consider some of the other places in which the current government is spending money, including the $60 billion in tax cuts it is giving to large corporations in Canada. That is $60 billion for the large corporations when $700 million would ensure that no Canadian senior would live below the poverty line.

It seems to me that would be an excellent investment, especially during a recession when we know that anybody who is collecting OAS is spending that money in their community. If we can lift all Canadian seniors out of poverty with that kind of investment, we should go about it and do it right away.

The final piece of the NDP plan is to ensure that there is a pension insurance scheme, like the deposit insurance scheme that we have on our bank and credit union deposits. This scheme would be self-funded. It would go some way to ensuring that if there were a problem with the pension, there would be an insurance program that guaranteed some continuation of that pension. We also think there should be some kind of federal government mechanism to ensure that when a pension plan is falling apart, the government has a mechanism for intervening and ensuring that some continuation of that pension is possible.

We have some specific examples on the table for discussion, which we hope the government will look at carefully. We have costed them out and we think they are cost effective. We think they will help Canadians. Like the suggestion in Bill C-290, we think they are all necessary to move forward in ensuring retirement income security for Canadians, something that is particularly important today during the economic crisis that we are experiencing.

[Petitions, October 23rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition signed by approximately 150 Canadians who are calling upon the Government of Canada to use every means at its disposal to advocate for the unconditional release of Ethiopian opposition leader, Birtukan Mideksa, and for her return to full political participation in Ethiopia.

Ms. Mideksa is the leader of the Unity for Justice and Democracy Party of Ethiopia and she has been detained without charge since December 2008. She has been denied full access to a lawyer and due process, contact with her family and access to international human rights organizations.