Jinny Sims

[Citizenship and Immigration, June 17th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, again today Canadians are condemning Conservative cuts to refugee health care. These changes hurt some of society's most vulnerable people. The changes have been confusing, have failed to save money and have downloaded refugee health care costs on to provinces, families and individuals.

Canada was built on the belief that we would welcome strangers in need and take care of one another. When will the minister reverse these mean-spirited and short-sighted cuts?

[Conservative Party of Canada, June 14th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are abusing parliamentary process to pass government legislation under the guise of private member's business.

Ministers should bring forward government bills with all of the checks and balances that affords, including a charter analysis, not try to sneak them in through the back door.

Canadians deserve an open and transparent process, a process that allows proper oversight and proper study, not a shortcut so the minister can hide his plans.

[Student Civic Engagement, June 13th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, as the school year comes to a close, I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the wonderful work being done by students in my constituency.

These bright and promising young minds are discussing and promoting action on a vast array of important issues at both the local and federal levels, issues ranging from traffic congestion in my community to the Conservative government's inaction at the UN on the issue of violence against women, on the environment and all.

I want to personally thank the students of Princess Margaret Secondary, North Delta Secondary, Tamanawis High School, Seaquam Secondary School, Delview Secondary School and many others for their civic engagement.

I believe that our democracy is enriched by their participation and involvement in the political process.

It is my pleasure to be the representative of these wonderful young people in Parliament and to have discussed these prominent issues with the students in my constituency. I want to thank them.

[Citizenship and Immigration, June 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, hospitals are now paying for the Minister of Immigration's heartless decision to cut off health care for refugee claimants.

Already overburdened Toronto hospitals are being forced to spend over $800,000 this year to cover the cost of emergency care for refugee claimants. Other refugees are being forced to pay for things like cancer treatment.

Will the minister listen to hospitals and to the provinces and have compassion for those less fortunate and reverse his reckless decision to cut refugee health care?

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, this is definitely a movement in the right direction. It does expand the criteria. However, it does not set up an independent advisory board, which we will have to look at in the long run. Otherwise, the RCMP will be questioning itself and that puts it in a terrible position.

The member is absolutely right. I live in a riding where it is not unusual to have guns fired every week. People are scared and very concerned about their safety. For us, it is very important to have a robust and well-resourced witness protection program.

My big concern with the legislation is the lack of resources, as well as the independent panel that we hoped would be established.

Notwithstanding all of that, we support this because it does expand the criteria. That expansion of the criteria is enough to get the NDP support. We have been pushing for this for a long time. I am so pleased to see the government has come to that conclusion as well.

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the impact of gangs in our communities is a concern to all of us no matter where we sit in the House. We need a multi-faceted approach. We need education. We need a proactive rehabilitation. Part of that rehabilitation and also trying to insert ourselves into gangs and trying to break up some of them has to be a witness program for young people, although gangs can have people of all ages, who have faith and believe they truly will be protected. If there is any doubt or any question to our ability, then there will be that fear again.

It all goes back to resourcing. It is not enough to remove people from a certain environment, give them new IDs and put them into other locations. It is about the kind of psychological aspects, like looking for a job, education and counselling support we provide for those people to settle into their new lives and live productive lives in different environments.

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree that responsibilities and rights go both ways. This is where the request by the police for additional funding or resources to look at the psychological impact and to provide counselling and support really becomes critical. When we are removing people and putting them into protection, we are protecting their lives and doing it for very good reasons. However, once witnesses are cut off from their support system, it can lead to a huge vacuum and all kinds of psychological problems as well. We absolutely need to educate the witnesses and provide them with support as they adjust to being in the protection program.

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to rise and speak in support of Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act.

Before I get going with my speech today, I want to recognize the stellar work done by my colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, the critic for public safety. He is such an impressive member of Parliament and does incredible hard work out in his riding, but also right here. When it has come to public safety, he has been on the job, working with the government where he can or where they let us, and then being the best advocate he can be to build strong, safe communities right across Canada.

That is our primary aim and our goal. We are committed as a caucus to building strong, safe communities right across this country for everyone. It was for that reason, when time allocation was moved at committee, that our committee members on this bill actually co-operated. To hear them being smacked in the House today was a bit rich. It seems that when we try to co-operate we get smacked around anyway. That is really unfortunate, when we have a parliamentarian who works incredibly hard to build bridges and work together with others to put forward the public safety agenda. Also, I do not know if it is coincidence, but I notice that out of all the times for the witnesses, the NDP witnesses were left to the end, right before the report was written.

Once again, I fail to understand why these games get played in this Parliament. It is to that end that I find it quite astounding that here we are again today, moments before I started to speak, having to vote on another time allocation motion, number 38, and number 5 within a week. We really have to wonder what the Conservatives have to hide. What do they have against parliamentary democracy? What do they have against parliamentarians from right across this country, from every single party? I am talking about all parliamentarians. What do they have against parliamentarians' right to represent their communities and speak to legislation? That is a key concern.

If I were not sitting in these hallowed halls of Parliament, and I were outside trying to teach people about parliamentary democracy, this would be a classic case of a government that is trying to shut down the democratic processes. It gives me great concern. What kind of a model are we setting for our youth? What are we saying to them? That our Parliament is not where people go to parler, not where they go to speak and debate and discuss issues, but that Parliament is now a place where a majority can use a hammer to silence the voices of members of Parliament. That is a shame, and a damning comment on the current government at this time.

However, getting into the piece of legislation before us, once again we are here to talk to a bill that we support. Because we support it, we are still very concerned about MPs I know on this side of the House who want to speak to this issue and raise concerns from their riding. They want to share with other members of Parliament how constituents in their riding feel about this legislation and how this is a step in the right direction, but more needs to be done. Once again, what we have is the hammer being used by a majority government to silence duly elected members of Parliament.

It is no surprise that even on this bill the Conservatives are late to the game. The NDP has been working on this file for years. We have been one of the critics of the eligibility criteria for witness protection, the poor coordination with provincial programs and the low numbers of witnesses admitted into the program. As an example, in 2012, out of 108 applications considered only 30 were accepted. That is what we need to debate, discuss and address.

The witness protection program was passed in 1996. Both the Liberal and Conservative governments have done little to respond to the criticisms of the system and the program. Some bills have been presented in the House of Commons and the NDP has supported them, especially those in 1999 relating to domestic violence. However, the Liberal government helped to defeat them.

Therefore, what has yet to be addressed is the overarching issues of eligibility, coordination and funding. The NDP is on record of repeatedly asking the government to address the three key issues I have identified. I am not making that up.

In November 2012, the NDP member of Parliament for Trinity—Spadina called for more support for the federal witness protection program, pointing to the difficulty the Toronto police faced in convincing witnesses to the shooting that summer at a block party on Danzig Street to come forward, because without protection people are scared. They are scared for themselves and their families. We really need to address these issues.

We are pleased to see that this legislation, Bill C-51, does expand the eligibility criteria for the witness protection program to include witnesses recommended by CSIS and the Department of National Defence. It would also extend the period of emergency protection and clear up some technical problems with respect to coordinating with provincial programs. That coordination does not go far enough. There is far more that could be done.

When we look back on our history, there is a lot we can learn. It pains me every time I bring up the Air India disaster, one of the worst terrorist acts to take place against Canadians. Thousands of families were impacted and are still finding it very difficult to come to terms with the fact that the people responsible for that tragedy and heinous act of terrorism are still out there. I can still remember the artistic portrayal and a poem written about the bodies and body parts that were discovered. Whole families were wiped out. A husband lost not only his wife but both his children. A brother lost his sister and her whole family. There are many such stories and many of those constituents live in my riding. Recently, I had the privilege of meeting one of the victims of that tragedy at a committee meeting. The words he said really haunt me even now. He said that it hurts today as though it were yesterday and that the biggest hurt of all was that the country he lives in has still not been able to mete out justice. Finding and punishing the people who did that heinous crime will not bring back those who have passed away. However, it will give people some peace. That story has a direct link to the witness protection program.

After that tragedy, people were very unwilling to come forward and be witnesses. Even those who gave testimony then withdrew it. As a result, we have very little resolution, despite a very intense inquiry with pages and pages of recommendations.

One of the most hurtful things for those surviving members, and for us as Canadians, is that many of the recommendations from that inquiry, which I have heard both the government and others parties say were laudable, are not part of this report. We are very sorry that they are not here, but in order to expedite this particular piece of legislation and to get this part through where we have at least some expansion of the criteria, we co-operated. However, it was with a heavy heart that we did so.

I look back at Mr. Tara Hayer, a distinguished gentleman who lived in my riding and who was shot. He was shot because he gave an affidavit and was willing to be a witness in the Air India trial. We can imagine that after his tragic murder, there was an even further reluctance for anybody in the community to speak up. It is because of this that we have to have this expansion of criteria and a way to extend emergency protection, even if it is not everything we were looking for.

The key thing here is that it is easy for us to pass bills that look good on paper. We get moved by emotions at times and we can pass bills for those reasons as well, but one of the things that I have learned is that unless we provide the resources, it is very difficult to see how the already stretched authorities will be able to fulfill this new mandate.

We have an amazing RCMP and it will do whatever it is asked to do with the resources it is given. This is not a criticism of our RCMP. It is a criticism of us as parliamentarians, who have not built additional resources into the bill or the budget because we are expanding the criteria and we are expanding a certain level of co-operation with the provinces. We have to make sure that we do not download more of these costs onto the provinces, which I would say are already stretched.

We as a party are very committed to building safer communities. One way to do that is through an improved witness protection program and improving its criteria. The other way is to give the police additional tools to fight street gangs and organized crime. This is a huge issue in my riding and many ridings across the country. One of the key things we need if we want to get into prevention and proactive programs is to ensure that our front-line service providers have the tools they need. If they do not have the tools they need, we know that there are some serious struggles to be had.

There have been validators of our position and the RCMP. In late 2009 and early 2010, the federal government actually consulted the provinces and territories on the program and a number of provinces expressed concerns. Several provinces have their own witness protection program, but they often only provide short-term assistance. There is a need out there. Allowing street gang witnesses into the protection program has been a long-standing recommendation of those working to combat street gangs, in addition to a recent RCMP request to the government. The RCMP has also advocated for intensive psychological examination of potential protectees.

To finish off, we are going to support this bill. We are very strong supporters of strong, safe communities. To that end, we are expediting this piece of legislation through the House.

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, May 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate that the legume and grain growers associations, all the different organizations I mentioned earlier, came up with some very reasonable amendments that would have made the playing field in the shipping industry of goods across the country by rail a bit more level. Unfortunately, the government failed to grab that opportunity. However, I am glad that all parties in the House will support this.

I really need to mention this. It is the privatization of CN in 1995, under the Liberal watch, without any safeguard for shippers, that has led to our current virtual monopoly. That is one of our problems. Back then, if we had fought to keep the track system in the public hands, that would have made life so much easier, even for VIA Rail, et cetera.

I am glad the Liberals are on board, but when I look at this, a lot of the problems that have been created were created during their watch because they allowed this to happen.

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, May 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, this legislation would only apply to new agreements negotiated. In fact, it does not apply at all to all the current agreements. For the potash, grain and legume shippers, all that will cause them some concern.

As I said, we will support the bill because it would go part way and that is better than nothing. However, it is very unfortunate that it this will not address all the issues for our farmers and for our resource industries when it comes to moving goods across our country.