Jinny Sims

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

Mr. Speaker, I will reiterate that this is a baby step. There was far more that needed to be addressed in the bill.

It is a fact that there is no compensation for the shippers if their goods are spoiled or delayed. If they miss their port time, there is no compensation for the incredible fees they pay to the ports, or their staff, truck drivers and cranes. None of that is covered in the bill.

The bill does not cover the kind of monopoly that CP and CN have over Canadians. It does not in any way address the gouging that takes place or looks at the pricing.

Remember, we are talking about just one of these railway companies, CP, making a profit of $2.7 billion. A lot of that profit is made at the expense of shippers who are losing out. Also, this company has an 80% failure rate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to answer this question.

We are going to be supporting the legislation, which is not a surprise. As I said earlier, this is a baby step in the right direction and we believe in rewarding good behaviour, which is what we are going to do.

However, those same industries that he said were pleased this baby step was being taken, also advocated through amendments and suggestions that they wanted far more. The bill does not go far enough.

We are willing to work with the Conservative government even after the legislation is agreed to so we can improve it and address the needs of the shippers, growers and miners. We stand with industry.

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

Mr. Speaker, thank you for reminding me. My apologies. No lack of respect was meant by that at all.

Because rail cars arrive late or because of the state they arrive in or because of all the other delays, that costs the economy hundreds of millions of dollars and that ricochets right across communities across Canada and then plays into the price for the goods. Quite honestly, it damages our international reputation as well.

Can members believe that Canada is the largest shipper of legumes to India? I never would have believed it if I had not found that out for myself.

In any event, rotting crops, idle plants and mines, and missed ships are the daily reality for industries across Canada.

The NDP stands with the—

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Bill C-52, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act.

Before I get going, I cannot help but mention that here we are, trying to debate an important piece of legislation, and yet the government has moved time allocation once again. This is the 37th time. What does the government have against parliamentary democracy? Why is it so determined to shut down debate and to prevent members of Parliament from having their say on important pieces of legislation? My colleague said how important this legislation is, and because it is so important, I am very disappointed that the Conservatives had to use these tactics yet again.

When we look at this bill, it actually gives our rail freight customers, or shippers, the right to service agreements with rail companies, especially CN and CP. It also puts into place, as my colleague said, a Canadian Transportation Agency-led arbitration process for failed negotiations, and penalties for violating the arbitration results.

This all sounds good, but I want us to take a look at what this means. By the way, we are speaking in favour of this bill. However, we do not believe this bill is complete. It does not address all the issues that the shippers, farmers and everybody needed it to address, but it does go part of the way.

We call this bill a baby step in the right direction. As good behaviour should always be rewarded, it is a piece of legislation going in the right direction. We have heard that this will not alleviate all the challenges faced by the shippers but it will go a long way in addressing a few of them. It is one of those cases of “better something than nothing”. That is why we are supporting this bill.

At this time I want to acknowledge the work done by the member for Trinity—Spadina on this file. She is an amazing critic for the transportation file. She is dedicated, passionate and has worked incredibly hard with different organizations of shippers, and representatives from the mining companies, the pulse growers, the Canadian Wheat Board, the automotive industry, as well as the mineral and chemical companies.

It is her commitment, compassion and not letting go of this issue that I believe has forced the Conservative government to bring this bill to this House right now. Quite honestly, they have been dilly-dallying over this piece of legislation for a very long time, long after the report was out. They have had lots of time to act.

The member for Trinity—Spadina has a private member's bill, Bill C-441, rail customer protection act. It is her absolute advocacy and outreach, and that kind of work in the House, as well as the pressure from the shipping community, that has put pressure on the Conservatives to table legislation.

I think we should always give credit when members of Parliament put in an incredible amount of work to benefit our farmers, mining companies, automotive companies that have to move cars, and, of course, all the other resource industries as well, including forestry. We are absolutely delighted with the work that the member has done.

I also want to pick up on something that was said just a few minutes ago. CN made a profit of $2.7 billion in 2012, in one year, yet when I look at the penalty they will face, it is $100,000. By the way, that penalty is not paid to the shippers; it will be paid to the government.

I look at that and ask which lobby group has been successful. One just has to take a look at this bill. I have talked with shippers in my riding and visited a port where grains and legumes come in. This is when I learned something absolutely amazing, which you will be surprised at as well, Mr. Speaker. Did members know that Canada is the largest provider of pulses to India? In my naiveté, I always thought that lentils, chickpeas and all of those legumes were being brought to Canada from India and other countries. I was quite shocked to find out it was the opposite. It was the Canadian consul in Chandigarh who told me. He presented the figures and asked me if I knew that Canada is the largest exporter of legumes to India. A lot of those legumes go through the port of Vancouver and the port of Delta.

What I have heard from business people in my community, those who receive and ship, is the travesty that exists right now. They actually have to wait, sometimes for days and days, because the promised carriages do not arrive. If they are slow to unload a trolley—I think it is called a trolley—when it arrives, they end up having to pay fines, but there are no consequences for the railway companies if they are late, do not send enough trolleys or if the trolleys that arrive are damaged and, therefore, cannot be used.

I looked at the ledger with one of these business people in great detail, who wanted to show me the impact it was having on his business. Let us say that he does not get the shipment on time, that the shipment of pulses that arrives from the Prairies does not get to his place on time. In the meantime, he not only has trucks and truck drivers waiting but labourers waiting to unload, and he has time booked at the port. Guess what? He has to pay all of them, through no fault of his own, just because the railway company is delayed or because it does not deliver all the trolleys he was expecting on that date.

I thought it must just be a few dollars here and there. I was surprised at how much these shippers pay if they do not empty the trolleys on time. However, I was also shocked at the port fees they still had to pay if they did not take up their spots and how the costs escalated the longer they waited. Really, we are not talking about simple costing. This bill has compensation—no, not compensation, a slight penalty for the railway companies of $100,000 when they make $2.7 billion in profit. Guess who that money goes to? It does not go to offset the real costs incurred by the shippers and receivers, those who grow and ship the goods. That money goes to the government.

I have been shaking my head on that one, thinking this makes very little sense. Does the government really have a vested interest in making sure that this new piece of legislation really works, if it knows that every time CN Rail is late, it is going to get $100,000? That does not seem like a penalty. It seems like the government has built in a bonus for itself. We really have to take a look at that.

Our railway system is the backbone of our country. There is no doubt about it. From some of the early CP and CN stories we have all read about, glorious or not so glorious, we know that 70% of our surface goods are moved by rail. That is a significant amount. When we say that there are shippers who actually suffer the consequence of this, we are not talking about a small number of people.

This is another figure that absolutely astounded me. It is that 80% of service commitments for agricultural rail customers are not met by rail companies. I think 80% would get a big F if I were grading them for service. Let us say, out of 100 times, 80 times they fail to meet their deadlines. We are talking about produce that has to be moved quickly and people are waiting for it. We are also talking about some produce that could get spoiled, but we are also talking about the ricochet or cascading costs that I just mentioned earlier.

There are delays. There are insufficient numbers of rail cars. Some rail cars arrive and they are damaged. Sometimes they order 12 rail cars and guess how many arrive? For one person I was talking to, shippers might only get half the rail cars they ordered. That puts all kinds of stress on the system. Once again, when we look at the losses incurred by the shippers, the bill fails to address that. I would urge my colleagues, even at this late stage because it is in their hands, to really take a look at that.

The rail freight service review said that 80% of shippers are not satisfied. By the way, we are not talking about one industry. Of course agriculture plays a huge role in this area, but we are also talking about forestry, natural resources, manufactured goods, mining, chemicals and as I said earlier, all the agricultural belt. Key stakeholders in agriculture, mining and forestry industries, not just individual people but associations representing these industries, have been calling for freight legislation for years.

Let me give some examples: Pulse Canada, Grain Growers of Canada, Forestry Products Association of Canada and the Mining Association of Canada. Once again I would say that as I have talked with many business people in my community who are involved in the shipping industry they have been so full of praise for the member for Trinity—Spadina who has done such great work on this file.

Canada's shippers deserve fair and reliable rail freight service for the good money they are paying. Right now with the way our country is, CN and CP seem to hold a dual monopoly. The impact of that monopoly has not been addressed by Bill C-52 because the one area that has not been addressed is pricing. That is a critical part as well, and it is not only pricing, but also the fact that there is no compensation for the shippers.

There were six recommendations from the shipping community at the committee stage, sensible, practical and modest. They were all rejected. This is an all too familiar pattern. I sit at the immigration committee as vice-chair, and it does not seem to matter what amendments we propose. Even amendments that the minister thinks would be really good ones because we take up his wording just get rejected.

However, these were not amendments from the opposition. These were amendments suggested by the shipping community, the business community, the people who are the backbone of this country who pay taxes and who were looking to the government to show them a level playing field. Once again, the government has failed to show a level playing field to all the industries I mentioned, including agriculture. Once again, it has chosen to stand closer to the big corporate friends like the railway lines, CP and CN.

Members know that the NDP is not going to give up. We are not planning to go away. We are planning to work harder than ever. We will continue to work with the shipping community to tackle the issue of gouging through uncompetitive rail freight rates.

Do members know what? This was an opportunity for the government to address that issue, to take a holistic approach, instead of taking a baby step, a very tiny baby step. In here, we can talk about the economy. We can talk about growing jobs. We can talk about all kinds of issues. However, here was a concrete opportunity for the current government to do something that would help to bolster our economy, agriculture, the mining industry, the forestry industry and the automotive industry. Once again, it was very short-sighted and just decided to take a baby step.

One of the key things we have to take a look at is that when we look at the moving of goods and think that 70% of our surface goods are moved by rail, in this huge country—and by the way, as we know, moving goods by rail is much more environmentally sound than it is to move them by road—the government had an opportunity, at this time, to support the pulse growers, the grain growers, the mining industry and the forestry industry.

We know that disruptions to rail freight services and unacceptable service costs cost the Canadian economy hundreds of millions of dollars every year. The businessmen I have talked to when I have taken a look at the losses they incur, when they incur those losses, they impact the community I live in. They impact right across this country. A few of the business people have been telling me that they absolutely—

[Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, May 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to speak in support of Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder).

The NDP supports sending the bill to committee. As a number of people have said before me, there are some serious flaws in the bill that we want to address there. I have heard some welcoming comments from members across the aisle that they are looking forward to our amendments. I hope they really want to work with the opposition to make the legislation work. With that in mind, I am sure that the NDP representatives on the committee will put their hearts and souls into writing those amendments.

However, it will be the first time since I have been in the House.

I do not think there is anybody in this room who would disagree that public safety is paramount. No matter what part of the country one goes to, whether one has children or not, people really care about their communities and making sure they are safe.

I have strong feelings about the very poor job we are doing as a country and in the provinces addressing mental health issues. Recent reports show that depression is on the increase. The economic and health care costs related to that are huge.

For example, in my province of British Columbia, we saw many institutions that used to house people with mental disabilities and disorders shut down. Where did those people go? They ended up on the streets getting into all kinds of trouble, simply because they are ill and not able to manage on their own.

Bill C-54 is not talking about that larger group. We are talking about a very tiny group. It is a very small percentage of those with mental disorders who commit serious violent crimes. That is the crux of the legislation.

As many members are aware, based on a psychiatric report, even those who commit serious violent crimes can be released. We have examples of that. I have an example in my riding. A mother comes to see me quite regularly because she just cannot understand how that can happen.

We are talking about those who commit serious violent crimes. They would go before a review board, and now the victims would have a right to go to the review board and make impact statements. Not everybody can do that. Not every victim would be able to face the person who did them harm directly or indirectly. However, it is a very important part of the healing process and the social justice process for a person to be able to give an account of the impact a crime has had. I think that is a welcome piece of this legislation.

Of course, when the psychiatric review board made a decision, it would be reviewed by the courts before the accused was released. That is an additional element to ensure public safety and keep our communities safe.

It seems reasonable that before we release somebody, we would want to have that review so the medical and psychiatric professions have their input. A review board takes place at that time, impact statements are made and as a measure to ensure that everything is on track, the court will review that before the person is released. All of that sounds really good.

Then we get to the crux of the matter, which is who will pay for this? If this is more downloading of costs to the provinces, then I will have some serious concerns because we have had so much downloading of costs to them. There is so much they have had to pick up. We know where that ends up in each province. In British Columbia it has led to impacting the education and health care systems and many other programs. Therefore, we want to ensure we look at that.

As I mentioned earlier on, having been a teacher and counsellor in a high school, as well as a counsellor in the community, what hits me hard is that I absolutely believe in our judicial system, which is a rehabilitative system, but I also believe in prevention programs and taking proactive steps. It is high time the federal and provincial parties work together to find ways to address mental health issues as well as the costs associated with that.

Some people would say that we cannot afford to do that. However, the costs of incarceration are eightfold to the cost of quality education. It seems that in many cases we are not willing to spend $8,000 a year on educating a child, but we are willing to spend $60,000 to $100,000 a year to incarcerate people and keep them in prison. If incarceration were a judgment of how safe we are as a society, we just have to look to the south where the U.S. probably has a very high number of people in prisons. It does not make its streets and communities any safer. I would say it is less so.

We are pleased to support this and send it to committee where we will bring in amendments. We are pleased to see that for the very small percentage of people with mental disorders who commit violent crimes there will be an opportunity for victims to make statements. Also, through Bill C-10, there will be a review by the courts for those people to be released.

[Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, May 27th, 2013]

We just want an answer.

[Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, May 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, as has been said, New Democrats are pleased to support this bill at this stage. However, we have lots of questions, and that is why it should go to committee, so we can get the questions clarified, have debate and move amendments; that is, if the Conservatives accept any constructive amendments. On this side, we always live in hope.

My question to the member across the way is, basically, what the difference is between this bill and the current legislation and whether the courts and review boards already take public safety into consideration when they make their decisions.

[Citizenship and Immigration, May 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, defending patronage and appointing Conservative insiders is always wrong.

The Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism went to California to unveil a billboard for more skilled workers to come to Canada. The unemployment rate for new immigrants with university degrees is more than double the rate for the general population. Why did the minister go all the way to California and waste tens of thousands of dollars on a self-promoting photo op instead of helping highly skilled workers already here to find jobs?

[Port State Measures Agreement Implementation Act, May 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of second reading of Bill S-13, an act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, the port state measures agreement implementation act.

Before I get to talking about the substance of what is here, I have to make a couple of comments on the process.

We have a majority government that has a legislative agenda. Obviously the Conservatives are running out of ideas, even though they have asked for and now have debate until midnight from Monday to Thursday until we adjourn the House for the summer.

It seems now that instead of having a legislative agenda of their own to deal with issues that would grow jobs for Canadians, that would address the high unemployment of our youth, that would seriously address the use and abuse of temporary foreign workers, instead of coming forward with legislation that would actually put forward an agenda, they have now been driven to, through lack of imagination, or will to work, to turn to the other House to produce legislation in this House. I am finding that rather interesting.

The other thing I find interesting is that when we look at this particular piece of legislation, it is a bill that is required to be passed so Canada can ratify the UN agreement on port state measures to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing.

That is great. This will go a long way. We absolutely applaud the government for bringing the bill forward, and no matter how it got here, it is here. I think it should have come from the government. We will be submitting some amendments when the bill gets to the committee stage, because we believe we are here to debate, and together, with all sides of the House, to make the legislation more effective for Canadians. We are absolutely committed, as our previous speaker said, and all Canadians are, to our fisheries.

We talk about our country from coast to coast to coast. We have so much of our national identity, our national economy, our cultural practices tied to the coast itself, whether it is east, west or north. Because of that, we in Canada absolutely value the need to protect our pristine coastlines. We also value and recognize the need to preserve and to fish in a sustainable way so that our fish is there for generations to come, thus not only providing a great delight for the palate, but also a huge economic force in Canada as well.

Not one of us would support unregulated fishing, because when we get unregulated fishing, it undermines sustainable practices of legitimate fishing operations in Canada and internationally, and it presents an unfair market competition to sustainable seafood.

We can never underestimate the importance of the ocean to our food chain, and how significant that is. I am not just talking about the taste of seafood, and I am sure we all love our west coast salmon, we all love our lobster from the east coast and we just love our seafood, but unless we are here and looking at the long-term impact of overfishing, unregulated plundering of the ocean and we put an end to the illegal activities of fishing, we will have a serious problem.

We know that despite how wonderful and diverse our beautiful planet is, we are dependent on the oceans and seas for our food chain as well. We also know that making changes, especially signing onto the UN agreement, will also help fishermen and their communities in the face of unfair competition.

Let me digress for a moment. When I think of the United Nations, there is a bit of irony in this. Here we are debating signing on to a UN agreement. It is the same government that could not even sustain a seat on the United Nations Security Council, and we now sit in the outer room when it comes to making critical decisions about the security of this world. It is the same government that withdrew from a UN convention looking at the impact of drought. We are looking at a government that time and again has been absolutely unprofessional and has provided uncalled for criticism of the rapporteur who looked at the dire condition of the food supply and living quarters of our first nations. When the Conservatives read the report and did not like it, they just ditched all over the report, made personal attacks on the rapporteur and questioned his integrity and ability to do the job.

Nevertheless, when we on this side of the House see good behaviour, we still want to reward it, so we are going to support this bill to the reading stage because we believe it is a step in the right direction.

Our oceans, our fish and our seafood are not confined by man-made boundaries; when it comes to areas like this, we realize how interdependent we all are, and we are dependent on other countries to sign onto this agreement. I worry, and I wonder if my colleagues across the aisle worry as well, about the way they are going to persuade. Is it going to be moral persuasion, saying that it is good for the planet and it is good for us? How are they going to persuade them when we have abandoned so many of the UN agreements ourselves and have even turned our back on things like fighting drought, which will impact the whole planet and not just some parts of the world?

At the same time, I am hoping that the Conservatives will dig deep and maybe go back to some of our past history, when we had unquestionable standing in the international community. Maybe they can turn to that and say that we used to do all these things, that we may not do them now but we used to be leaders in international development, we used to be leaders on environmental protections, we used to be leaders on world security and we used to play a critical role at the Security Council. We can say that because of that, we really urge all of them to sign this new agreement that is so important for the future of our oceans and our seafood and our beautiful salmon.

On the west coast, we are so proud of our wild Pacific salmon, and it is hard for us when we hear of the dangers to that species at times. In the same way, I know the impact of the depletion of the cod supply on the Atlantic coast, and I know the impact it had on me when I was living in England, because suddenly there was no cod available for fish and chips. That was hard, because I really like fish and chips made with cod.

All jokes and personal preferences aside, what we have here in front of us is a piece of legislation that would protect our seafood. I urge members on all sides to support it and remember that this is not the final step. Ratifying the UN measure is one part, and this bill is only the first step to prevent illegal fishing.

Once Canada ratifies the port state measures agreement, we must then take on a leadership role and encourage other nations to do the same. However, we then have to do something else because it is not enough to just pass bills on paper. We have to take action. We have to put our money where our mouth is. We cannot just be satisfied that we debated something in the House and it is on paper somewhere because without implementation this will just be a piece of paper housed in Parliament, in the hands of lawyers, et cetera.

We are not alone. There are others who support the position that we are taking. The PEW environmental group had this to say:

Illegal fishing is a major threat to the sustainability of the world’s fisheries. Some estimates are that illegal and unregulated fishing causes annual financial losses of up to $23.5 billion worldwide and accounts for up to 20 percent of all of the wild marine fish caught globally. In some parts of the world, the situation is even more dire. For example, fisheries scientists estimate that illegal fishing accounts for up to 40 percent of fish caught in West Africa.

It is time to take action.

[Petitions, May 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition with hundreds of signatures concerning the deportation order issued against Jose Figueroa. Mr. Figueroa was a member of the FMLN, a governing party in El Salvador in the mid-eighties. The FMLN is the current ruling party in El Salvador and recognized internationally and by Canada as a democratically elected government.

CBSA and the Minister of Public Safety have ruled that he was engaged in terrorism or subversion, based solely on Mr. Figueroa's affiliation with the FMLN. The current Minister of the Environment represented Canada at the inauguration of the president of FMLN in 2009. The petitioners call upon the Minister of Public Safety to intervene in this case because the charges against Mr. Figueroa are unfounded and contradict Canada's position on the FMLN. They also call upon the government to recognize that the FMLN is a legitimate and representative political party and has been since its inception in 1980.