Rathika Sitsabaiesan

[Business of Supply, April 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have tried to frame the general preferential tariff as a foreign aid program. My question to my colleague is whether in his opinion, that is an accurate description or explanation of what will happen with this budget.

[Employment, March 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, young adults in Toronto face an unemployment rate almost three times higher than other adults. Tuition fees are rising, students are drowning in debt and food and housing costs are increasing faster than incomes. Yet Conservatives offer no answers and no help, only repackaged old programs from a government that has run out of ideas.

When will the Conservative government listen to young Canadians, and will it work with New Democrats on finding real solutions for youth unemployment in the GTA?

[Status of Women, March 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, since forming government in 2006, Conservatives have consistently ignored and marginalized women.

They gutted child care programs, cut pay equity and closed Status of Women offices, and now they continue to undermine social supports for women and families.

On Friday, we got a window into their mindset when the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, while defending the budget, said, “Grace, you're a great cook. You're going to make a wonderful wife for somebody.”

Instead of apologizing, the minister tried to claim his words were taken out of context. The only context that could possibly make this acceptable would be if it was still the 1950s or if the minister prefaced them by saying, “It would be incredibly inappropriate for me to say the following”.

Canadian women deserve better. Fortunately, Canadians have the NDP. A New Democrat government would ensure its cabinet actually respects the contributions of women to all aspects of modern Canadian society.

[Nuclear Terrorism Act, March 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, actually I have not heard from any of my municipal counterparts or leaders about their knowledge of the route, their knowledge of where or how this nuclear waste material will be transported.

My home and my constituency community is actually very close to the nuclear reactors we have in Ontario, and I do not know where and how this waste material is going to be transported. It is something of serious concern, especially after the spills, accidental droppings and whatever that we heard happened near Great Bear Lake, and how the community is still feeling the effects of it 60 years later.

I know that members in my community will not want to experience that, especially also because my community has a large chunk of Rouge Park, which is soon to be a national urban park. What a disaster it would be if this nuclear waste were transported through this brand new urban national park, the first of its kind in Canada. What a disaster it would be if material were being transported through Rouge Park, through my community, affecting residents and our environment and our natural history.

[Nuclear Terrorism Act, March 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of Bill S-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (Nuclear Terrorism Act), at third reading.

I believe that ensuring the safety and security of our country is extremely important for all parliamentarians, and the work that has been done in this bill strengthens the ability to protect Canadian citizens. Bill S-9 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, ICSANT.

This bill would fulfill Canada's treaty obligations under the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, the CPPNM, and the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. It would also reinforce Canada's obligations under the United Nations Security Council resolution passed in 2004, resolution 1540, to take and enforce effective measures to prevent the proliferation of nuclear materials as well as chemical and biological weapons.

At this point, Canada has not yet ratified the ICSANT or the CPPNM amendments, as it does not have the legislation in place to criminalize the offences outlined in the ICSANT or some of the offences outlined in the CPPNM amendment. The amendments proposed in Bill S-9 would help to align Canada's domestic legislation with what is required by both of these conventions. Should these amendments become law, Canada would then, presumably, have the ability to ratify both the ICSANT and the CPPNM amendment by the 2014 deadline.

This is a commitment Canada and other countries agreed to work toward at the 2010 Nuclear Security Summit in Washington, D.C. and at the 2012 Nuclear Security Summit in Seoul, Korea. This is good to see, as we have witnessed the government not paying much attention to many of our international agreements and treaties. Let us hope that this bill that was started in the Senate is a sign of renewed commitment to our international obligations and treaties. Maybe we will actually see more respect for our treaties with the first nations and aboriginal peoples in Canada.

I digress, but I will go back to Bill S-9 now. The bill introduces definitions of terms such as “environment”, “nuclear facility”, “nuclear material” and “device”. It also amends the definition of “terrorist activity”, which would certainly work to improve clarity for enforcement agencies in Canada.

New Democrats are committed to multilateral diplomacy and international co-operation, especially in areas of great common concern, like nuclear terrorism. For this reason, we need to work with other leading countries that are moving toward ratifying these conventions. Moreover, Canada has agreed to be legally bound by these conventions. It is important to fulfill our international obligations. Canada is unable to ratify these conventions in an official capacity until our domestic implementation is actually complete.

During the discussions on Bill S-9, the committee heard warnings that the dangers of nuclear terrorism are very real. While this is not something that is likely often on the minds of Canadians, they trust that we, as parliamentarian, are working to protect their safety. As such, we must ensure that we are making efforts to fulfill our international obligations to protect Canadians and our international partners.

Safety and security rests not only with these sorts of international protections. I know that in my community of Scarborough, residents are also looking for action to improve the safety of our local communities. There have been far too many occurrences of gun violence in Toronto. The most recent statistics from the Toronto Police Service state that 20 shootings have resulted in five homicides, three of which were young people under the age of 16 in our community. The death of a child or youth is felt throughout a community. It is a tragedy that leaves family, friends and loved ones devastated and also leaves the entire community worried, anxious and on edge.

A week and a half ago, the member for Scarborough Southwest and I met with individuals, community organizations and front-line workers to hear their concerns about how to improve the safety and security of our communities. At this meeting, I heard of the need for a coordinated national youth strategy, dedicated core funding for preventative and productive sustainable youth programming, rather than punitive measures. We also heard of the importance of all levels of government being present at the table and providing the much needed support for the sustainability and increased safety of our communities. Finally, we heard that it was crucial that funders were aware of and in communication with the front-line service providers to truly know how the funding dollars were being spent on the ground. Many of the service providers felt that during their intermittent communications with the funding ministries, the persons responsible did not have a clear grasp of the real situations on the ground.

While the New Democratic Party believes it must seriously address the issue of nuclear security and comply with its international obligations in order to better co-operate with other countries on counterterrorism strategies, this is one area of many that needs to be tackled for Canadians to truly feel safe.

I hope the safety of Canadians in their communities is something that will be reflected in the upcoming budget. I hope to see quality investments in prevention strategies and investments in our youth. Cuts to border services and community programs will not help our communities. Investments in youth gang prevention programs will also help our young people, as some current programs will see their funding expire.

We need to see real action in job creation for our young people. There are nearly 400,000 young people looking for work. It is shocking that in a country such as Canada, youth unemployment is at 13.5%. Helping youth get quality jobs can divert youth away from gang activities and allow them to help build our communities as well as improve their safety. I certainly hope to see some leadership soon from the government on this issue. Our communities truly deserve better.

I digress again. I am very passionate about safety in our communities and when we talk about nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism, I automatically think of safety in my own backyard.

Coming back to Bill S-9, in the committee stage of the bill, one witness, Professor Bunn, shared some thoughts that I believe highlight the necessity of the bill and Canada's role on the international stage. He stated:

—if the United States and Canada are to succeed in convincing other countries to take a responsible approach to reducing the risks of nuclear theft and terrorism at the Nuclear Security Summit in the Netherlands in 2014 and beyond, then our two countries have to take the lead in taking responsible action ourselves.

Canada has always had a reputation as an international leader on the world stage. It is unfortunate that under the Conservative government, this internationally high regard has been depleted in areas such as Canada's environmental policies. However, it is hopeful that through Bill S-9, Canada's international partners will follow its lead in the area of nuclear terrorism protection.

Professor Bunn went on to say:

Should terrorists succeed in detonating a nuclear bomb in a major city, the political, economic, and social effects would reverberate throughout the world. Kofi Annan, when he was secretary-general of the United Nations, warned that the economic effects would drive millions of people into poverty and create a second death toll in the developing world. Fears that terrorists might have another bomb that they might set off somewhere else would be acute. The world would be transformed, and not for the better.

The New Democrats agree that we have an obligation to work with our international partners, as nuclear terrorism will not have an impact in isolation, but it will affect the global community. It seems to me that the sophistication of technology and radioactive devices continues to improve. Therefore, Canada and countries around the world must act in a responsive, proactive and effective manner to ensure the protection of our citizens.

When it comes to terrorism, no country works in isolation. Rather, we require a consistent global response. The New Democratic Party believes we must seriously address the issue of nuclear security and comply with Canada's international obligations in order to better co-operate with other countries on counterterrorism strategies. Canadians and people around the globe deserve to feel safe and secure. It is for these reasons that we will be supporting Bill S-9.

[Democratic Reform, March 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister once said, “I will not name appointed people to the Senate”. That is the promise he made to Canadians in 2004 and broke just a few years later. In fact, since he became Prime Minister, he has made 58 appointments. He has even surpassed Brian Mulroney's patronage record.

What have the Conservatives done to change from the status quo? They have done nothing. The only real action they have taken has been to pass the buck to the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, New Democrats tabled a motion to begin the process of Senate abolition, a move that would save Canadians $92 million a year and end the free ride for failed candidates, fundraisers and party operatives. Sadly, last night, shoulder to shoulder with the Liberal Party, Conservatives voted against our motion. They chose the status quo.

While Conservatives defend their senators, New Democrats will defend taxpayers and never stop fighting to abolish the Senate.

[Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012, March 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the question before us right now, once again, is on muzzling debate in this House of Commons.

We know these technical tax code amendments have been 11 years coming. We know that the general practice within the department is to have comfort letters and move forward. Even though the government does not act, the bureaucrats move forward because the changes need to happen. We know that. However, the question before us today, right now, is that the Conservative government continues to move time allocation or, rather, stop debate. It muzzles parliamentarians who were elected to have debate on behalf of Canadians.

With this motion today, the Conservatives have shut down debate 35 times since the election; 19 times in the last 12 months alone. They have shut down debate on 19 different bills since their election. Of the 35 times they have shut down debate, time allocation was used 30 times, closure was used twice, and three time they used proceedings on a bill under Standing Order 56(1).

My question to the minister is not about what a witness may have said in committee about the need for these technical tax amendments. My question has to do with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance saying she is perplexed as to why we are trying to have this debate. It has to do with the Minister of National Revenue saying it is bizarre that the NDP wants to debate, and “we're having a hundred day delay...”

We have had seven hours of debate on this issue and we would like to be able to do our jobs. We would like to ensure due process and do the necessary due diligence. Our fiduciary responsibility to our constituents is to make sure we are representing their views in this Parliament.

Why will the Conservatives not let us do our jobs? Why do they continue to muzzle parliamentarians?

[Petitions, February 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, today I am presenting petitions on behalf of residents across Ontario near the Great Lakes in Canada.

The petitioners call upon the federal ministers of natural resources, environment, fisheries and transport to increase their efforts significantly to halt and reverse the ongoing loss of water from the Great Lakes Basin.

Since 1999, the water level in Lake Huron has dropped almost a metre and a half, and over the last 13 years is showing no signs of rebounding. We know that will significantly affect the environment in that area, the wetlands and spawning areas. It will have an immeasurable impact on the aquatic and marine life as well as on communities.

[Safer Witnesses Act, February 12th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, my understanding of the proposed changes is that, because human trafficking with an international ring would be a federal issue, it would be something the RCMP would investigate. If someone is seeking protection, my understanding is that the RCMP investigates because it is a federal jurisdiction.

The changes with Bill C-51 would actually improve the eligibility criteria to allow more people who seek protection to see that protection made available to them.

[Safer Witnesses Act, February 12th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his comments on his own experience and for his interest in Toronto's specific needs.

I have been a member of the House for just under two years. From day one, a very sincere concern of my community has been the safety of the community. Speaking with members of the community, with front-line workers, as well as with police officers on the ground and administrators within the Toronto police, time and time again, I heard the concern that if there were a better witness protection program, if people in the community had better protection measures to be witnesses, we would be able to get more people involved.

I thank my hon. colleague for the service he has provided to the southeast region of Ontario. Maybe the needs of southeastern Ontario are different from Toronto's. I have not been a police officer in either one of those regions, so I cannot speak to that. What I can speak of is what community members are saying to me and what police officers and front line-workers are saying directly to me, and that is that we would have more people.

I have spoken with people who have witnessed crimes but are too scared to speak of them because they are scared that the gang member is going to attack their own mother next or that their own sister will be attacked next. A direct quote I can say from many, many people is, “I'm not going to be the snitch, because then it's my family that's next”.

Therefore, if people knew they had better protective measures, they would be coming out to be witnesses in cases.