Niki Ashton

[Business of Supply, September 29th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke.

I am honoured to rise in the House to speak to our motion calling for transparency from the current government. This motion is rooted in our deep concern and that of many Canadians when it comes to our country's arms exports.

I would like to thank my colleague, the member of Parliament for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, for her work on this front and her broader work on human rights.

We rise in the House every day to speak about issues of great importance. Before us is literally an issue of life and death and our role as a country on this front. While today's motion focuses on the need to strike a committee calling for greater transparency of our arms exports, we in the NDP are proud to stand up against a regressive warmongering agenda that we see continued by the current government.

First, I will provide some background. As it stands today, Canada is now the second-largest arms dealer in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia, Algeria, and China are among the top 10 destinations for Canadian military goods. This is according to the Department of Global Affairs' report from 2015. We are of course aware of the fact that reports over the past year have also indicated that Canadian sales of military-related equipment have increased to countries with poor human rights records.

Saudi Arabia, according to Freedom House, is one of the worst of the worsts when it comes to human rights. We know that Canada agreed to a $15 billion deal for light armoured vehicles between Saudi Arabia and Canada's General Dynamics. This is the largest arms trade deal in Canadian history. We also know that our arms sales to China have soared to $48 million. Reports have also indicated that Canadian-made weaponry has been used in the Saudi Arabian-led war in Yemen, where over 6,000 people have been killed and one of the world's worst humanitarian situations continues to deteriorate.

Cesar Jaramillo from Project Ploughshares told us that Canadians should be worried. He talked about how Canada addressed the UN Security Council and highlighted the importance of protecting civilians in conflict zones. He noted that it is civilians who are most often at risk as a result of arms dealings, in particular with regions engulfed in conflict and notorious for their poor human rights records. Mr. Jaramillo, like many others from the not-for-profit sector and others who are interested in peace, has indicated that Canada's actions simply do not reflect the kind of rhetoric we have heard.

Peggy Mason, who once served as Canada's United Nations ambassador for disarmament, has said “it’s hard to justify Canadian weapons exports to any Mideast country”. She note that “It has been a bedrock principle of Canadian export...policy…that Canadian arms exports would not contravene international law including UN arms embargoes, [and] would not contribute to undermine international peace and security”. Once again, the rhetoric of the current government does not match its actions.

Canadians do not agree with the current government's ramping up of support for arms deals like the ones I have referred to. In fact, polls show that most Canadians disapprove of arms deals with human rights abusers. Now it is true that the deal with Saudi Arabia was signed under the previous government. However, we know that the current government has not changed that approach. So much for the slogan of real change.

As we have seen in the House today, there is no question that the discussion around arms exports involves a very important discussion of jobs. This is a key point because Canadians are facing increasing unemployment. Our unemployment rate has crept up to 7%. Our job growth is essentially flat. Compared to 12 months ago, the economy has added just 77,400 jobs. During this time, 35,700 full-time jobs have been lost. Those 113,000 jobs that have been added are part-time positions. It is clear that the ongoing trend of full-time jobs being replaced by part-time employment is a cause for major concern amongst Canadians.

Now, when we talk about unemployment, I do not have to look past my own home of northern Manitoba to see that grim reality. In addition to the many first nations that experience extremely high rates of unemployment, we know from the experience of this last summer that it has been a difficult time for our region in terms of jobs, with the closure of the port of Churchill, the announcement of the closing of the mill in The Pas, the dismantling of the East Side Road Authority, and the insecurity that surrounds our value-added jobs associated with mining.

The reality of rising unemployment is grim. It is grim where I am. It is increasingly grim across the country. It is particularly grim when you apply a generational lens. My generation, the millennial generation, is facing an increasingly difficult reality when it comes to jobs. In fact, the unemployment rate amongst young workers in Canada is double the national rate, at over 13%. A growing number of young workers are in temporary work. Many are calling this an emerging crisis.

I am proud of our NDP initiative to hear from millennials about the rise of precarious work, the rise of contract work, the rise of temporary work, jobs that have no benefits and no pensions. What I hear time and time again from young people across our country, from Halifax to Vancouver, from Whitehorse to Toronto, is that they want access to good jobs.

Where is the federal government when it comes to the discussion of good jobs? My answer is that I am not really sure. There has been no leadership when it comes to creating a robust, sustainable job creation strategy across our country. Instead, it has been a policy of inaction, misdirection, and, frankly, the threat of future job losses.

In regions like mine, the federal government is sitting by while people in industry after industry lose their jobs. In places like B.C., we saw the federal government approving the Petronas LNG deal, running roughshod over first nations' rights, and failing to invest in the green economy, in sustainable green jobs.

All the while, the government has been looking to ratify the TPP, a trade deal that will further erode good jobs in our country to the tune of at least 35,000 jobs. This is not the sign of a government that is looking out for Canadian workers and their jobs. To say that somehow arms deals and arms exports will save us is simply not the case.

The second point is one of values. The Prime Minister and his government have made it clear that they want to turn a new page when it comes to values. Granted, we had 10 years of a government that practised the worst kind of fear-based politics, a politics of division. Many Canadians sought a positive, progressive vision in the last election. Many believed in the slogan of real change put forward by the government.

Since that election, we have seen the Prime Minister speak of his feminism and the importance of a feminist approach. Sadly, the government's support of such arms deals is neither real change nor a reflection of feminist politics. It is not feminist to sell arms to countries that have appalling human rights records, to states that regularly abuse the rights of women. It is not feminist to sell arms to countries that execute people because they are gay or members of the LGBTQ community. Many women and men across Canada want to see the government live up to the values it espouses.

Ultimately, the government ran on a platform of increased transparency and accountability, and that is exactly what the motion aims to do. In an area as important as manufacturing and the export of arms, this motion is critical. It is about doing what is right. It is about truly standing up for human rights and feminist politics. It is about standing up with a vision for good Canadian jobs. It is about standing up for good Canadian values.

[Port of Churchill, September 20th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, this has been a tough summer for Canadians in terms of job losses, and northern Manitoba has been one of the regions hardest hit.

Let us go back to 1997 when the Liberals privatized the port and the rail line in our region and sold it to a U.S. billionaire. This summer, that billionaire shocked all of us and shut our port down.

Will the government listen to the northerners, the UCTE, PSAC and so many others and bring the port back under Canadian public control? Will the government stand up for good Canadian jobs and save this vital, strategic Canadian asset?

[Food and Drugs Act, September 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her incredible leadership on this issue in standing up for not just us as New Democrats but for Canadians on the issue of the TPP.

I wonder if once again the member could talk about how important it is to have a federal government that defends good Canadian jobs rather than the interests of investors and some of the most wealthy CEOs around the world. Can she speak to the sentiment that she is hearing on the ground from Canadians who are concerned about the lack of leadership from the current government and its willingness to sell us out?

[Indigenous Affairs, June 16th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, what is missing here is federal leadership. The fact is that some progress was made on this file under the previous government, but the Liberals are stalling.

The Sayisi Dene and Northlands Denesuline have worked for 16 years to resolve this land claim, and they are waiting for the federal government to step it up.

This is about reconciliation, and reconciliation includes resolving land claims, like the Denesuline claim. Will the minister instruct her officials to work with the Denesuline to resolve this land claim as soon as possible?

[National Anthem Act, May 31st, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise today in the House to speak to Bill C-210, an act to amend the National Anthem Act, particularly as the bill proposes to reword the anthem so that it finally has inclusive language in terms of gender.

This is an important initiative put forward by the member of Parliament for Ottawa—Vanier. Along with members of my party, I want to acknowledge his tireless efforts over time to achieve this historic change.

This a change that we in the NDP are proud to support. I would like to acknowledge that this change was also proposed, over the years, by NDP members of Parliament such as Libby Davies and Svend Robinson.

Like many efforts to achieve equality, we must also acknowledge the push that came from women outside of this place. Without their tireless campaigning and advocacy to make this change to these lyrics, it would not be possible.

It is important to note that this change is symbolic. It is about making a line in the anthem more reflective of the fact that women and men are Canadians. It is about sending a message that we are not sons, but we are people. This is about adopting gender-neutral language, a practice that has been very important over the last few decades. In essence, it would allow us in the House to alter the language in our anthem and in a way catch up to the kind of changes in language we have seen over time.

In fact, during the 1970s, feminists Casey Miller and Kate Swift created a manual called The Handbook of Nonsexist Writing. It served to reform the existing sexist language that was said to exclude and even dehumanize women.

This conversation led to important changes, like changing the words businessman or businesswoman to business person. It led to changing words like chairman or chairwoman to chair or chairperson. Policeman became police officer, stewardess became flight attendant, and the list goes on.

These changes matter. They send a signal to girls and young women that they can aspire to do anything. By changing our language, by moving from what is known as androcentric language and focus, we send a signal that we all share space in this world.

Feminists have argued that male terms contribute to making women invisible, that they obscure women's importance and distract attention from their or our existence. I also want to point out that changing this part of the anthem also means that the language would be inclusive of trans people, or people who identify as gender fluid. Changing the anthem in this way sends a signal that we can all be just as proud to love our country, and we should celebrate that.

However, we should not stop here. The anthem, as well as many of our national symbols, must be an accurate reflection of who we are. The reality is that there is much work to be done.

We know that so many of our symbols are not reflective of our history of nation building, which is premised truly on colonization and the attack on first nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples; that we continue to live and work on unceded territories; that we continue to perpetuate racist attitudes and implement discriminatory policies.

We also know that, in many cases, our national symbols fail to reflect the racial and ethnic diversity of our country, or the fact that many people immigrated to Canada from around the world to help build the country of which we are so proud. We fail to recognize that, while many have come as immigrants and have made Canada their home, others have only been able to come as migrant workers, without access to the rights any citizen would have.

Therefore, much work remains to be done to make sure our national symbols—and symbols they are—are reflective of the kind of reality we all live in this country.

These are important conversations that people are already having on a day-to-day basis. I want to acknowledge the work of many who have taken part in the discussion around reconciliation and what reconciliation ought to mean. Those discussions also involved reforming and reshaping our national symbols.

I want to acknowledge that many activists have been critical of the concept of reconciliation, and recognize that in many cases the narrative around reconciliation, as it is used by some, is used to pacify, in their particular case, indigenous activists who are truly challenging the foundations of our country.

I also want to acknowledge the many who have called for a very critical lens when it comes to discussions around our national symbols, as well as concepts of fairness and justice, and what that might mean for racialized Canadians in particular.

Going back to the notion that today is about symbols, I also want to acknowledge that we in the NDP have made it clear that this is an important step, and changing that one sentence in our anthem is critical. However, it certainly is not enough when we are talking about achieving gender equality in our country.

We are at a historic time. We have a Prime Minister who has identified as being a feminist. We have seen a government appoint a gender-equal cabinet. We have seen some very positive pronouncements when it comes to the recognition that injustices faced by women are injustices that require federal leadership. In particular, I am thinking of the commitment to a national inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women.

The reality is that in order to make a difference in the lives of women, to make a difference in the daily lives of Canadian women, we need to go far beyond symbolism. We need to move to action. There are many ways in which we need the federal government to act and to take leadership to truly make a difference in the lives of Canadian women.

First and foremost is the area of violence against women. We know that while other kinds of violence have dropped over the last number of years, domestic violence continues to remain stagnant. We know that over the last number of years, in fact, statistics show that women continue to face intimate partner violence at the same rate, consistently, year after year.

We know that violence targeted against women also impacts women differently according to their identity. Sixty-six per cent of all female victims of sexual assault are young women under the age of 24. We know that indigenous women are four times more likely to be targeted in terms of violence than non-indigenous women. We know that 60% of women with a disability experience some form of violence in their lifetimes.

The statistics go on. We know that in order to act on violence against women, there needs to be action at the federal level. I am proud to have worked with our party to propose a comprehensive national action plan to end violence against women, a comprehensive national action plan that we put forward in a motion in the last Parliament. We certainly hope that the Liberal government will not just talk about the need for a comprehensive national action plan, as we have heard, but more importantly, will implement that national action plan to end violence against women.

Another area that demands federal leadership is the area of economic injustice still faced by women. We know that on average Canadian women still only make 72 cents to the male dollar, but when we apply a racialized lens or even an immigrant lens to that reality, the numbers are even more stark. Racialized women who are also immigrants only earn 48.7 cents for every dollar a non-racialized man earns in Canada today.

In terms of violence or economic injustice or the ongoing discrimination that women face on a daily basis, whether it is on our streets, in our schools, in our institutions, we know that the reality is that there needs to be concrete action so that women can truly see a change in their daily reality.

I also want to acknowledge the work that needs to be done in terms of child care and the work that needs to be done in terms of strengthening our social safety net to support women, whether it is in terms of employment insurance, health care, or acknowledging the importance of how a strong social safety net contributes to women's equality.

I will conclude by saying that, yes, while we are proud to support Bill C-210, an act to amend the National Anthem Act, we also ask that the government show leadership in that same vein and commit to concrete actions and concrete support in terms of funding to truly achieve equality for women in our country.

[Business of Supply, May 30th, 2016]

Madam Chair, speaking to the issue of the middle-class tax cut, could the minister explain why someone earning the average or the median income in Canada would not qualify for the so-called middle-class tax cut?

[Business of Supply, May 30th, 2016]

Madam Chair, does the minister still plan to create a consumer price index specifically for seniors?

[Business of Supply, May 30th, 2016]

Madam Chair, the minister said earlier that transferring shares in small business or farms to a dependent qualifies as a capital gain and would be eligible. In fact, it is taxed as a dividend. Could the minister explain how he came to this conclusion?

[Business of Supply, May 30th, 2016]

Madam Chair, what we would say to that is that we expect the government to be able to provide some figures in terms of growing inequality in this country. We know that, according to Oxfam, the wealthiest 100 Canadians now hold as much as the bottom 10 million Canadians. That number is wholly unacceptable.

I wonder if the minister could tell us if any of the bottom 10 million income earners in Canada benefit from the Liberal tax plan.

[Business of Supply, May 30th, 2016]

Madam Chair, the answer is that there are up to 300,000 unpaid internships across Canada. We know that many of these are performed by young people. It is young people who cannot access gainful employment, which is an issue that we hope the current government will take seriously.

Moving on to the issue of inequality, does the minister know how much wealth the richest 100 Canadians now hold?