Jinny Sims

[Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, April 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-13, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act, the Competition Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, the protecting Canadians from online crime act.

It will come as no surprise that I will be supporting the bill at second reading. There are elements in the bill that I think we have waited too long to implement. At the same time, we have to be very conscious that when we deal with legislation, it needs to be concise but it also needs clarity.

I wonder what kind of message we send to Canadians when the title of a bill has so many components that it leaves many people wondering what the bill is really about. The fact that there are so many subheadings to the bill shows that it is not just looking at cyberbullying and consequences to update our legislation. This is another example of legislation where the government has cobbled together various pieces of its agenda and thrown in something on which I would say we have unanimous agreement.

We did request unanimous consent that the bill be divided to allow similar provisions from our colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, who, by the way, has done amazing work on this file, that is Bill C-540, and the aspect that relates to the non-consensual distribution of intimate images. We asked that it be adopted rapidly in committee, since it has all-party support.

This is where frustration sometimes sets in this House. This is something we could have done, all-party, everybody in agreement, with that particular component of this legislation. We are all in agreement. We could have separated it and passed it; I believe that component has been debated many times. Then we could have spent our time debating the rest of the bill.

There are some problems with the rest of the bill, but that part of the bill that encompasses Bill C-540, the non-consensual distribution of intimate images, could have been adopted unanimously and it could have gone on to the next stage.

I urge my colleagues across the way to consider doing that. They have a majority and could make it happen. They would certainly get consent from our side to separate it that way. We could get something moving in a very timely manner.

The world has changed since I went to school. The kinds of bullying and activities in school are very different now. Bullying is bullying. However, we have different types of bullying. There was a time that if an individual were bullied by somebody at their school, they had to write them a letter. That would happen very rarely because they did not want to get caught, or they would bully the individual to their face. With cyberbullying now, people can bully an individual 24/7 using social media.

I am often amazed at how many of our youth have cellphones. They are not just phones; all of the social media and the Internet are on there. Our youth are very actively engaged. They carry their phones with them, which brings the bullying right into their homes, 24/7.

By the way, I am not saying that we should ban all cellphones for young people. I can see our young people in the House looking at me, wondering if that is where I am going. Not at all. However, I am saying that because technology has changed how our young people interact with each other, so must our legal system. However, we have seen the shortfalls of our legal system. It was not equipped to deal with some very tragic circumstances. Because of that, we have to update our Criminal Code and law enforcement.

However, more than anything, I think we also have a responsibility to educate. Media literacy is very important. We taught children, long before we had all this technology, how to communicate in a positive way and not to hurt each other's feelings. In a similar way, I think our schools, as well as parents at home, have to work with our young people to teach them ways to manage this new world. Even though we may not live in that world, we have to help to construct a safety net for our students and young people, which is what this legislation is all about.

Months ago, we could quite easily have separated and dealt with cyberbullying in the bill proposed by my colleague, the incredibly hard-working member of Parliament for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour. Instead, here we have a very complex bill, which will now take time. Some of my colleagues will say that it does not have to take time if we agree to everything that is in the new bill. However, I cannot. There are problems with many parts of the bill before us, and I know we will be bringing amendments when it gets to committee stage.

I always want to use the word “student”. Being a teacher all of my life, that is how I think. However, for our young people, we have to do the responsible thing and try to take the politics out of dealing with this safety issue. This is an issue that has been sensitized because of a number of recent tragedies. I have talked to young people who have told me how terrible it is and how alone they feel when they have been bullied through cyberspace.

I would not say that words do not hurt because they do hurt. I can remember being at school when people got yelled at, and I could see the look of hurt on their faces. Sometimes they were beaten up because children can get into fights. However, what we are seeing with cyberbullying right now is that it is 24/7, and there is no escape.

We know the young people who are vulnerable. We know that it is people from, let us say the gay and lesbian community, the students who are not out. Even the students who are out can also become a target, through the use of anonymity and fake IDs that people can create in this world.

However, to quote the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario on Bill C-13, “the federal government is using this pressing social issue as an opportunity to resurrect much of its former surveillance legislation, Bill C-30”.

We remember when a certain minister was told what was thought of that bill. They feel that this proposed legislation is a resurrection of that bill and the government is trying to sugar-coat it by throwing in a much-needed bill to protect our children.

[Questions on the Order Paper, April 28th, 2014]

With regard to Labour Market Opinions (LMO) performed by Employment and Social Development Canada and previously by Human Resources and Skills Development Canada for the purposes of the Temporary Foreign Worker Program, for the period from 2000 to the present: (a) what is the total number of applications, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region or province, (iii) industrial classification according to the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), (iv) program stream; (b) what is the number of applications approved, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region or province, (iii) industrial classification according to the NAICS, (iv) program stream; (c) what is the number of applications denied, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region or province, (iii) industrial classification according to the NAICS, (iv) program stream; (d) what is the average length of time between the receipt of an application and the issuance of a decision, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region or province, (iii) industrial classification according to the NAICS, (iv) program stream; (e) for each year, what was the median length of time that employers reported advertising for Canadian workers before applying for a LMO; (f) how many staff were assigned to process LMO applications in each year; (g) how many staff were assigned to monitor for compliance with LMO in each year; (h) how many staff were assigned to conduct investigations of apparent non-compliance in each year; and (i) how many employers have been sanctioned for cases of non-compliance in each year?

[Employment, April 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, time and time again the Conservative government promises to fix the temporary foreign worker program, but time and time again it fails to get the job done.

Canadian employees are having shifts taken away. They are being fired or they are not hired altogether. At the same time, we hear of shocking abuse of the temporary foreign workers brought in.

When will the Conservatives admit they have mismanaged this program, and agree to an independent audit?

[Vaisakhi, April 10th, 2014]

[Member spoke in Punjabi]

[English]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I wish everyone a happy Vaisakhi, the traditional Punjabi harvest and the 315th year of the Khalsa Panth.

I have tremendous respect for the tenets of Kirt Karna, Vand Chhakna, Nam japna, and Seva: working hard, sharing with others, conviction, and community service. These are the values that all Canadians can proudly stand behind and share.

For over 100 years, the Canadian mosaic has been enriched by Sikh communities and others of Indian origin. This is a wonderful time of year to reflect on the significant contributions of these brothers and sisters who have made our wonderful culture.

From coast to coast, Canadians are celebrating this joyous time of renewal by visiting beautifully decorated gurdwaras, joining colourful parades, big and small, and reflecting upon the diversity that makes our wonderful country so strong.

Happy Vaisakhi.

[Member spoke in Punjabi]

[Business of Supply, April 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his words on this motion that we are debating today.

To be clear, I am going to support the motion, even though it is limited. I wish it covered far more than the two bills it does cover. However, I am delighted that my colleagues at that end of the House of Commons are better late than never, because they also had a propensity to use time allocation and closure motions.

I want to remind my colleague who just finished his speech that 55 time allocation motions and 6 closure motions were moved during this sitting of Parliament. When time allocation is moved even before there are speakers on a motion or notice being given, it really does limit debate.

I will use the budget bill as an example. I did not get an opportunity to speak on that motion because so little time was allocated, and it is a critical bill. However, it is like a telephone book with many issues in it.

Does my colleague not believe there should be a fair amount of time allocated to debate, and that we not have the truncated process we are being bullied through?

[Petitions, April 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, my second petition, if I can lift it, is from thousands upon thousands of Canadians across this beautiful land who are very concerned with the so-called unfair elections act.

The petitioners are calling on the government to launch a public inquiry and to table electoral reform legislation that incorporates the recommendations of Elections Canada.

I urge the government to take action and take heed of this voluminous petition.

[Petitions, April 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. It is a great pleasure to present this first petition on behalf of constituents in my riding of Newton—North Delta and surrounding areas.

The proposal to transfer coal through the Fraser Surrey Docks has raised concern for many people living in Surrey and Delta.

The petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to carry out a comprehensive health impact assessment of the proposed expansion of coal transfers at the Fraser Surrey Docks.

Like my constituents, I look forward to the government's response to their request for a third-party assessment of the health impacts of this project.

[Employment, April 9th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the minister keeps citing a hotline number and email address for Canadians to tell on employers who abuse the temporary foreign workers program. This kind of damage control does not work or fix the problem.

Canadians are being overlooked for jobs, and the best the minister can do is slap those employers on the wrists for breaking the rules. When will the minister take granting of LMOs seriously and stop letting employers give away Canadian jobs?

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, April 8th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from B.C. for his well-presented speech.

I have a question for my colleague across the way. We keep hearing about what the NDP voted against. The government presents the opposition with a budget bill that is thicker than a phone book for many municipalities and it buries in that phone book many bills that have nothing to do with the budget, but need to be debated on their own, and then on top of that, let us get to this bill, where close to 400 pages impacting hundreds of statutes are tabled, and even before the first speaker gets up to make a speech, a member on the government side stands up to say they will be giving notice of motion for time-limited debate.

How can I, as a parliamentarian, vote on a bill—or a telephone book of a bill—when I have not had the opportunity to debate it? Could the hon. member vote for something he has not had the opportunity to debate or listen to open debate on?

[Request for Emergency Debate, April 8th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to request an emergency debate on the huge problems we are having with the temporary foreign worker program. As we know, this is not a new issue, but it has become an emergency since time after time we have had the HD Mining scandal, the RBC scandal, the oil sands, and now McDonald's in Victoria, and other fast food outlets. It is an absolute abuse of this program, where Canadians are being displaced.

As we have no opposition day motions left before Friday is upon us, I am requesting an emergency debate so that we, as parliamentarians, can address the major flaws in this program. Canadians right across this country, whether I speak to them in my riding, or in Toronto or Edmonton, are very worried. In Victoria, there is an example of Canadians being denied jobs while temporary foreign workers are being brought in.

Parliamentarians need a detailed debate because when the media reports on something, there is a tiny tinkering with the program and then we carry on. Tinkering will not fix this program. The key question is why LMOs were granted. I would suggest it is because the proper data, proper enforcement, and procedures required to make sure that Canadians are not being denied the jobs are not in place.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, New Democrats are not opposed to the temporary foreign worker program, but it has to be used only when employers are training people for the skill shortages that exist or when there are no Canadians available. It does not mean displacing Canadians from the jobs that they can do. Youth unemployment is in the double digits. This is an emergency right across this country.