Rathika Sitsabaiesan

[Ending The Long-Gun Registry Act, February 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, would my colleague comment on what she thinks is going on in the mind of the government because of its conflicting ideologies? First, the Conservatives are saying that they want to abolish the gun registry for privacy reasons. Now they are proposing an online snooping bill. Could she help me understand where their thinking comes from?

[Citizenship and Immigration, February 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the super visas are not known by many people, and not many people are being accepted under them.

Toronto is one of the most ethno-culturally diverse cities in the world. Strong families are a cornerstone of our city and a key Canadian value. That is what family reunification is all about.

Even for spouses and children it can take up to three years, a far cry from the immediate processing they were promised.

When will Conservatives stop failing Canadians and put families first?

[Citizenship and Immigration, February 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, clearly, from any ministry we ask questions of, we do not get a straight answer, so let me try another one.

Across the country, especially in cities like Toronto, the government is making families wait longer and longer before being reunited. Parents and grandparents wait an average of seven years to come to Canada. One family in my riding has waited over 16 years. Instead of solving the problem, the minister has placed a moratorium on new applications.

Why are Conservatives making these Canadian citizens wait so long to be united with their loved ones?

[Government Priorities, February 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, listening to the member for Kitchener Centre one gets the impression that Kitchener does not have a care in the world. In neighbouring London, families are reeling from a jobs crisis caused by the Conservative government. In my hometown of Scarborough, families are struggling to make ends meet because of the Conservative government.

Yet just down the road in Kitchener, the Conservative MP's top priority is reopening the abortion debate. He does not want to talk about Kitchener job losses or old age security. No, his top priority is to take away a woman's right to choose.

These are the priorities of Conservative MPs, not the priorities of Kitchener families. These families deserve a voice that will fight for their jobs, their pensions and their family budget. Well, these families should know even if their MP is asleep at the switch, New Democrats will always have their back.

The Prime Minister says he will not reopen the abortion debate. However, his MPs are doing just that. Either the Prime Minister supports the views of his MPs, or he has lost control of his caucus.

[Pensions, February 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, we voted against it because it did not get the job done. Precarious part-time jobs do not get it done.

The government is failing Toronto's seniors too. Seniors across the city are concerned about the Conservatives' attack on old age security and young Canadians are worried about being forced into two more years of work before they can retire just so rich CEOs can get yet another tax break.

Toronto seniors and families are tired of being ignored by the Prime Minister. Will he finally listen to them, protect Canadian pensions and keep old age security eligibility at 65.

[Post-Secondary Education, February 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, today, students across Canada are taking to the streets calling for action to reduce tuition fees and the ever-rising student debt.

Education is the key to moving our economy forward. The government has done nothing to make university and college more affordable. Every dollar it claims to have been spent has been clawed back by tuition fee hikes.

Instead of pushing its costly prisons agenda, why will the government not work with cash-strapped provinces to make education more affordable?

[Breast Density Awareness Act, December 9th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, as a woman who, like most Canadians, has had friends and family struggle against cancer, I am proud to be given the opportunity to rise today in the House and state without reservation that I will use my mandate to search for practical and effective ways to fight cancer.

Canadians need first rate prevention strategies that include increased access to doctors, increased access to specialists, better screening, earlier screening, first rate equipment, dedicated funding and better access to necessary medications and progressive research. Access, equipment and funding are the silver bullets that make the most difference in the lives of cancer patients.

As I read the bill before us, I was searching for these targets but, I am saddened to say, I found none. It is not that Canada does not need a bill to help fight against breast cancer, it is that we need a better bill. There are real ways that the government can make a difference and Bill C-314 shirks that responsibility.

First, education and awareness are not enough to combat health care problems. I have seen again and again over the past six months how keen the government is to throw huge amounts of money at educational and awareness campaigns while ignoring the tangible systemic problems that need to be addressed.

Awareness is a first step, and I would never degrade the necessity of education, but what is a woman who discovers that she is at risk for breast cancer to do when she does not have access to a family doctor?

I come from Scarborough—Rouge River, an urban riding in the greater Toronto area. One would think that being in an urban centre, people would not have a problem in terms of access to doctors. However, from the day I was elected, I have heard constantly from my constituents that they do not have family doctors and cannot afford the time and money required to travel to a place where they can see a doctor or a specialist. With the state of public transit being what it is for my constituents, I cannot say that I blame them. I takes two hours one way to go downtown. Would hon. members travel hours and hours on public transit to go to the doctor's office? I know I would not.

Unless the government is willing to back this awareness campaign with federal money aimed at providing women with dense breast tissue direct access to doctors and state of the art screening equipment, such as a digital MRI mammogram machine, then all the education and awareness in the world will not really help these women.

I have witnessed this trend again and again. A federal program will take one shallow step toward addressing the real problem and that is where it stops.

This is a game of optics. The Conservatives want to give the appearance that they are taking action on health care issues, without actually doing anything.

The women of Nunavut do not have a breast cancer screening program at all. This is urgent. This is something that we can do that will have real effect on women's lives.

If the government is serious about preventing breast cancer, then the bill in our hands today would be, among other things, a comprehensive proposal to work with our provincial governments and territorial governments to create a breast cancer screening program in Nunavut. The women of Nunavut and other rural communities in the north are already at risk. They are farthest away from hospitals and are often some of the poorest in our country, as we have recently learned with the community of Attawapiskat and many others. It is utterly negligent for the government to deny them access to basic health care while providing, through the bill, education that says, rightly, that more women should be tested and more frequently.

I would ask the Minister of Health to explain this hypocrisy to the House today and, if she cannot, then to commit to creating legislation that will ensure that Nunavut has equal access to essential health services, as it is their right to have.

My colleagues and I are not alone in thinking that the bill is weak and ineffective. The Canadian Breast Cancer Network is the national link between all of Canada's breast cancer prevention organizations, including the Canadian Cancer Society, the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation and the Breast Cancer Foundation of Canada, and they do not believe that the bill does enough to enhance screening for women at risk of breast cancer.

I know that the government has a hard time listening to expert advice from those members of civil society who know better than it does, but I beg the government to take note of three major recommendations that the Canadian Breast Cancer Network is saying will make a real difference for Canadian women.

First is new clinical screening machines, MRI digital mammogram machines, that are more routinely used on all women. We must invest in state-of-the-art technology to save cancer patients now. A government that can invest in fighter jets can surely afford the diagnostic machines that have been proven to save the lives of cancer patients.

Second, screening for all women should begin at the age of 40. The government must fund a federal program to establish screening programs for women aged 40 to 49. It is proven that early detection is paramount with breast cancer, and that is why a program that gives women access to doctors and screening before the age of 50 is crucial.

Third, the CBCN has identified that Nunavut must have a breast cancer screening program. We must work with the territorial government to fund this program to reach out to at-risk women instead of demanding that they travel out of territory to receive equal health care.

While the Canadian Cancer Society is, of course, eager for legislation aimed at preventing breast cancer, it has come out and said that this bill will not produce any tangible outcomes for breast cancer patients and their families.

It is also important that we speak to the needs of families when we talk about cancer.

Anyone who has had a family member with cancer, as I have, can tell us how important it is to be supported in the role of an informal caregiver. We do not have enough home care in any of our provinces or territories in Canada; when family members become ill, it almost always falls on their family and community to care for them. This has practical repercussions on people's lives. When I say “support”, I do not mean only emotional and spiritual support for the patient. Although the value of emotional support is unquantifiable in difficult times, Canadians need practical financial support as well.

Alex Jahad, a physician who was the keynote speaker at the CAT conference, said in his address that informal caregivers are the largest invisible majority in health care. They are usually women who are also working and at the same time raising children. Less than one-quarter of these women receive any financial support from the system. In consequence, they themselves will develop chronic conditions and illnesses brought on by overwork and stress.

Dr. Jahad said that the amount of unpaid informal care that takes place in Canada translates to $80 billion to $90 billion of labour. I would therefore like to take this opportunity to remind the House about the NDP's position on increasing access to employment insurance for anybody who must take leave from work in order to take care of a sick relative.

There are real changes that can be made to help fight breast cancer, and we know what they are. The experts have told us what they are. This government is lacking the political will to take serious action. We must fund programs and create the legislation that will have real effects on the lives of Canadians, not just short-term bandage solutions.

[Fair Representation Act, December 9th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I have and many of us have said many times, it is about respecting the history of our country. It is about valuing the vision that our Fathers of Confederation had for the country. The other side does not seem to want to.

If we look at the actual formula, it is about ensuring that the percentage of the population is the same as the percentage of representation rounded up to one. It is about ensuring that there is proper representation in the House. We need to have the percentages or the weight of the voices of the regions in our country represented in the House.

These other two parties seem to be saying that it is okay that some people in the country get a smaller or lesser voice than other people, that some Canadians are valued more than other Canadians.

We are saying that all Canadians are equal, and that is our proposal moving forward.

[Fair Representation Act, December 9th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, the minister's first question was about numbers. We have been talking about numbers. We are saying that we should ensure there is proper representation based on the percentage of Canadians within the areas. That needs to be done in consultation with the provinces. We need to ensure that we maintain the historic representation of parts of the nation.

The second question was about the debate on the bill and the fact that the government wants to hurry this process through. Proper representation is about the elected members to the House having the opportunity to debate bills. Once again the government has moved to stop debate. It is trying to not allow us, as elected representations, me as an elected representative of over 130,000 people, to debate. The government is trying to silence the voices of more than 130,000 people and many more.

Many of our members on this side of the House would like to have an opportunity to debate. However, we will not have that opportunity because the government continues to muzzle us.

[Fair Representation Act, December 9th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise in the House to speak to the bill. The bill is extremely important because it would affect the makeup of the House and, therefore, directly impact the representation of Canadians moving forward.

The way these seats would be distributed must be discussed. Correct seat distribution is essential to our democracy. Ensuring that Canadians are fairly represented is paramount. As members of Parliament, we must do what we can to ensure that representation is protected in the House.

I am happy to stand and speak to this today because of the significance of the bill to the correct representation of Canadians. I and my caucus colleagues on this side of the House are supportive of the notion of seat redistribution. That being said, we must ensure that seat redistribution is done properly, as the redistribution of these seats will have a direct impact on our local communities, especially communities such as mine.

My constituency is the most populace in the Scarborough region. I represent over 130,000 constituents. How would this bill affect the people I represent? Would my community be divided and, if so, how would this division happen moving forward?

As MPs, we and our teams work as community builders. We have meetings with our constituents. We attend and organize local events that bring our communities together. We visit schools and have conversations with the children and parents. What we are doing is civically engaging the citizens of Canada, one constituency at a time, in our democracy and in our civic processes. MPs and their teams work to build communities and bring communities together.

Moving forward with this seat redistribution bill, we need to ensure that, when the constituencies are broken up, it is done along community lines and that communities are not divided because we need to ensure that we are helping them thrive rather than causing further division within them.

The process of seat distribution should really be an opportunity and an exercise in nation building. It is essential to ensure that each province has the number of seats it is entitled to based on not only its population but also on the principle of proportionate representation.

It is also essential that Quebec, having been unanimously declared a nation within Canada, maintain its current weight in the House, which is historically accurate to the time that our Constitution was written. Unfortunately, that is another area where the bill falls short. The bill would do nothing to protect Quebec and its weight in the House. In fact, the bill would reduce Quebec's weight. It also has no safeguards to ensure that Quebec's weight does not continue to diminish moving forward. This lack of protection is not unique for Quebec only but for all other provinces and territories at well.

I will use Prince Edward Island as an example. It currently has four seats for an Island with the population of almost 141,000 people. That is just 10,000 more people than in my one constituency alone, which is divided into four seats. We need to ensure that these seats and the type of representation that Prince Edward Island has is protected moving forward. The system was set up by the Fathers of Confederation to ensure that the people of our country are represented adequately and well. If Prince Edward Island is working, then we need to move toward a system that ensures that our members of Parliament have the opportunity to meet with their constituents and ensure that we are able to provide the type of representation and service for our communities that the communities in Prince Edward Island get. We need to ensure that we are able to have those conversations with our constituents.

I will now talk about the other areas in the country that would be diminished. Along with Quebec, Atlantic Canada would see its weight of representation decreased or diminished in the House of Commons. Northern Canada would be facing the same kind of problem.

As I have said, the correct distribution of seats is vital for our democracy, so we need to ensure that we get it right. We need to ensure that we are having conversations with the provinces and territories so that they receive the number of seats they are entitled to. Unfortunately, this bill would still leave the provinces and territories under-represented and would not redistribute seats to the provinces that are most populated. We need to do this in a way that allows for proper consultation with the provinces and territories, which has yet to happen. We need to ensure that the provinces and territories have a buy-in to the plan. At the moment, there has been little commitment to this plan by the premiers of the provinces and territories.

If the government is serious about proper representation in the House of Commons, I will make some suggestions about what it should do. It should sit down and have conversations with the provinces and territories to discuss fair representation. A form of fair representation may be proportional representation and maybe even reforming or eliminating the Senate to allow for more proper representation in the House.

The New Democrats are very supportive of seat redistribution. In fact, we were the first party to introduce a bill on this very topic. The difference is that our bill gave additional seats to the fastest growing provinces and Quebec to ensure that the historic weight was maintained.

At the end of the day, we need to use this process of seat redistribution as a nation building exercise. Sir John A. Macdonald, our former prime minister, who was also a Conservative member, was a nation builder, but the current Conservative government is not even living up to its own party's history and is deteriorating the legacy of our Fathers of Confederation. This process needs to bring us together as Canadians and not rip apart our nation and communities or pit region against region. We must consult with the provinces and Canadians and ask whether this bill would do enough to achieve better representation by population while, at the same time, building a stronger Canada. In my opinion, this bill would not.

At the end of the day, Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta would remain under-represented in the House. I will throw out some numbers with respect to the proposed new seats in this bill. We would see the percentage of representation in the House diminish and be less than the actual percentage of the population in all four provinces. The projected percentage of population for Ontario, for instance, is 38.91%, whereas the percentage in the House would be 36.12%. Quebec would go down from its historic weight in the House.

This really needs to be an exercise in nation building. Nation building is about true fair representation that is inclusive of all in the country. If we are going to do an exercise in nation building, we need to ensure that the House represents all Canadians. That means ensuring there are more women in the House who represent 52% of our population, more aboriginal people, more newer immigrant communities being represented, more youth and more persons with disabilities.

I will end my remarks in saying that our former leader, Jack Layton, a great parliamentarian and member of Parliament, lived to build this nation and unite this country. That is what we all need to be doing, working to bring this country together and strengthen it, not to be pitting region against region and diminishing the quality of representation in the House. We need to ensure that we are doing better to represent all Canadians.