Murray Rankin

[Business of Supply, February 5th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I agree entirely. People just do not get it about our economy; they do not understand that we are a high tech sector. We are San Francisco north, and it is about time people understood that.

As to the observations on the impact of a low Canadian dollar and low gas prices, if this is not a rock and roll tourism year, there never will be one. Yet, what is the Government of Canada doing? It is spending not one cent to promote tourism. Conservatives have gone out of the business and left it to someone else, which is a shock and another example of the way they have absented themselves from this important market.

As for television and film production, it is thriving in Vancouver and Victoria. These kind of tax incentives would make an enormous difference. The innovation tax credit for the animation sector, for example, will be enormous. It is time to get the government on board and try to be part of our solution rather than part of the problem.

[Business of Supply, February 5th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's excellent question draws attention to the absence of the federal government from our lives in so many areas. I hear about it regarding veterans, the Canada Revenue Agency, and in so many fields, but in this field it is particularly disturbing.

The economy may be working for a few, but for the vast majority of people in my community it does not seem to be working at all. We do not have a large manufacturing sector. We have small business and institutions that are being incubated at the university and college levels, and high tech. They could benefit so dramatically from a decrease in taxation as well as an innovation tax credit.

The Government of Canada has been absent without leave in our community and so many other communities in Canada. It is time to get them back to the table to create real jobs for the middle class.

[Business of Supply, February 5th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to the motion by my colleague, the member for Parkdale—High Park. I will be speaking in strong support of her motion.

The specifics of her motion bear repetition. It is the notion that we would call on the government to take immediate steps to build a balanced economy and to encourage manufacturing and small business job creation by three measures.

I am going to speak to each of these measures. However, I would like to start with some general observations about Canada's economy at the moment. Then I would like to delve into what this means in my community, in a couple of sectors, namely the university research sector and the high-tech sector. Finally, I would like to delve into the specific proposals, time permitting.

To give some indication of just how grim our economic situation has become under the Conservatives' watch, it does not take much more than a cursory examination of today's Globe and Mail articles. I draw the House's attention to four articles that just randomly came out of the paper.

The first one is entitled, “New alarm bells over household debt as Canada faces 'downward spiral'. It talks about the single biggest jump in the household debt-to-income ratio of any country other than Greece between 2007 and 2014.

The second article from today's paper is entitled, “Currency volatility ‘flirting with levels typically reserved for crisis’”. Those are the words of Bank of Nova Scotia’s chief currency strategist.

The third article in today's paper is entitled, “Power to inspect TFW employers without a warrant hasn’t been used”. Although introduced with great fanfare, of course, by the minister responsible for employment, promising that Canadians would always be first in line for jobs and that this would be a very strong power, it has never been used.

Fourth is an article called, “For Ottawa, it is time to invest, not cut”. The article talks about the strange disconnect between fiscal policy and our changing economic circumstances. Balancing the budget seems to remain the key political priority, as if nothing has changed. It goes on to talk about the Toronto Dominion Bank's forecasting slow growth of just 2% this year and about an increase in unemployment being prophesied.

That is the status quo. The Conservatives, as has been pointed out often in this place, still have not deigned to give Canadians a budget. They still appear to have no coherent plan to deal with what, for the middle class, is becoming a problem of crisis proportions.

When I go and walk in the streets of Victoria, people say to me that they are not sure they are going to have enough money to look after their aging parents in a long-term care facility. Others say that they are not sure they have enough money for tuition for college or university. People also say that they cannot seem to save, as their debt level is already overcharged.

Then I hear people tell me that they notice that the gap between the poor and the rich is getting greater. We see it in our community. Seniors feel it and bring it to my attention regularly. Victoria is not immune.

Meanwhile, our national debt, $600 billion, is the largest ever, under the Conservatives. The service cost of that debt is almost approaching $30 billion this year.

In short, people understand that the economy is in dire straits, that we have economic uncertainty, and that the economy may be working for the top 15%, for whom the Conservatives are content to provide income splitting relief, but not for most of the middle-class people.

There are 1.3 million people unemployed. The youth unemployment rate is twice the average. These are not just statistics. I could go on with these statistics, but what is problematic is what it means to real people on the street.

People tell me all the time that they believe that the Conservatives have been putting all of Canada's eggs in a bitumen basket, to use an expression I have heard frequently. That is why the plan that is the subject of this motion, the NDP plan to support manufacturing and to get people back to work, is so timely.

I want to talk about what these concrete measures I listed before mean for a place like Victoria. We are talking about an innovation tax credit, about what is called rapid writeoffs, or accelerated capital cost allowance improvements, and we are talking about a cut in taxes for small business, which is the engine, of course, of the vast majority of jobs in our country.

It is critical to know that Victoria is not what Canadians think. It is a hotbed of innovation and a hotbed of high tech.

I would like to focus on a couple of key drivers in our community. The University of Victoria, as an example, has an innovation centre for entrepreneurs that provides on-campus incubator services designed to help students, faculty and staff, and recent grads take business concepts from idea to industrial reality. What does that mean? It means in practice that the university has spun out over 70 companies, 877 inventions, and 429 patent applications.

We have two things I would like to focus on in the university context: energy systems, and ocean research and technology innovation.

We have an institute for integrated energy systems that has been ranked fifth in the world, beating places like Princeton, Cornell, Yale, and MIT, for what is called citation impact ranking, the number of learned articles that refer to work coming out of it. It is a world-class research institute, and they are contributing to sustainable energy systems that are used across the planet.

What about the university's research on oceans? Ocean Networks Canada has developed and hosts the first regional scale cabled deep ocean observation network, funded by the governments of Canada and British Columbia as well as by the university and corporate partners. That innovation has turned out many applications, again across the planet.

I have a couple of other examples. Working with the Vancouver-based BioMark Technologies, UVic researchers have developed a non-invasive way to detect lung cancer at the molecular level. Working closely with engineers and research teams, they can detect a particular cancer molecule in a simple urine sample from patients. This is groundbreaking technological innovation. We want to support, through innovation grants and the like, and incubate small business with these measures to enhance that level of innovation.

The other thing I am so proud of is what biotech has done in helping create this vibrant high-tech sector in our economy. I doubt that members would have any idea of just how important this sector is in Victoria's economy. There is $3.15 billion in annual revenue derived from this sector. That is right. According to a recent economic impact study, there are 884 local companies that make up greater Victoria's advanced technology sector, generating $3.15 billion in annual sales. It has just an astounding impact on our economy.

Here is another astounding number. The combined revenues of the top 25 firms, according to that study, those headquartered in Victoria, was $1.16 billion last year alone. That is a 20% growth in combined reported revenues since last year.

The plan the NDP has proposed in this motion would cut the small-business tax from 11% to 9% and would drive that economic change that other members, of course, have talked about. Extending the accelerated capital cost allowance is not just for manufacturing, critical as that sector is, particularly in central Canada. It is for these startups in these small industries that can take advantage of the rapid writeoff. A columnist in the Vancouver Sun, Don Cayo said:

His promise to extend for two years an accelerating capital cost allowance for manufacturing machinery and equipment is both a big thing and a good one.

Third, as I said, the manufacturing innovation tax credit to boost investment in machinery and equipment and the like would help drive R and D.

These are practical measures to get Canadians back to work. I have tried to highlight what they mean to at least two sectors, the research sector and the high-tech sector in my community, and I commend this motion to the House for its adoption.

[Public Safety, February 3rd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I guess accountability sounded just fine to the Conservatives until they had to start actually being accountable.

One thing is very clear. Much more needs to be done to stop radicalization on the ground in Canadian communities. Canadians all across the country, in community centres, and yes, in mosques, are doing this work already and are trying to get the federal government to help. These groups are our best allies in ensuring that hatred and violence are rejected in Canada.

Why have the Conservatives failed to reach out and support them?

[Public Safety, February 3rd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, way back in 2005, even the Minister of Justice thought that more oversight of CSIS was a good idea. He said:

...it would also cause a little bit more diligence on the part of the security agents themselves, just knowing that this oversight body was in place.

Oversight helps prevent abuses. It makes sense, but instead of making good on these words, the Conservatives have actually cut CSIS oversight.

It is a simple question. Does the Minister of Justice still believe that more oversight would help prevent these abuses?

[Heart Month, February 2nd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today because February is Heart Month and because Canadians everywhere have been touched by heart disease and stroke.

According to a 2014 report produced by the Heart and Stroke Foundation, nine in ten Canadians have one or more factors for heart disease, such as physical inactivity or high blood pressure. Every 10 minutes, a Canadian suffers a stroke.

The report also warns us of future challenges. Strokes are becoming more common in people under the age of 70, and treatment has become more complex since patients increasingly have other chronic conditions.

Like many Canadians, I have lost a family member to heart disease and stroke. My mother died of a stroke, and the impact of this disease on her and our family was profound.

I have seen first-hand the need for research and advocacy. Advancements in research and health care have helped more Canadians survive. Encouraging children to eat better and have fun with physical activity will make a tremendous difference in years to come.

I ask the House to join me in encouraging Canadians to participate in Heart Month and in applauding the vital work being undertaken by the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada.

[Rail service, February 2nd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I will say at the outset that the official opposition will be speaking strongly in support of the motion entered today by the member for Sydney—Victoria.

The motion talks about the need to identify increased rail capacity, rebalance the system, and make sure all sections of the industry are convened. We take that to mean that the farmers will be sitting at the table and be strongly involved in enforcing service level agreements and ensuring fair access and adequate compensation for farmers.

It is pretty obvious that it is time to get the railways moving. There is not the level of sophistication and coordination that is needed within our system. It is “absolute chaos”, to use the term used by the hon. member, and we really need to get back to it. It is costing our farmers billions of dollars.

It is no secret. We can ask any farmer what needs to be done, and there are five things. One, we have to increase pressure on rail companies, including through implementing and enforcing rail performance standards, which I will be talking about. Two, we have to ensure that export and vessel information is accessible to producers, and that mandatory price reporting is available throughout the grain supply chain. Three, we have to make sure that grain producers have fair access to rail infrastructure in order to move their products wherever they are. Four, there has to be a full costing review of producer rail service in Canada. Five, we have to develop a strategy for future rail service that accounts for the kind of sustained agricultural growth we have seen in the last few years.

I talked about enforcement. We heard the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound talk about the weather as if the cold weather last year was some sort of excuse. He is quoted as saying:

I noticed the cold weather did not stop them from moving thousands of additional carloads of oil.

Obviously that has been fine. He went on to say he does not blame them, stating:

The first duty of any company president is to maximize profit for his shareholders, and that's what the railways are doing. They can make more money hauling oil than grain, and so that will continue to be their priority. ... If I were a railway president, I would probably do that same.

We had a start with an order in council a couple of years ago that talked about administrative monetary penalties of $100,000 a day. How many of those were issued? Zero. Then, in Bill C-30, the law was changed to contemplate administrative penalties of $100,000 a week, but there was still no action.

In the words of my colleague for Welland, the excellent agriculture critic for the New Democratic Party:

You need a big stick to get their attention. But the fines were supposed to be levied by the day, and the government obviously lost its nerve and made the fines weekly. Their big stick is actually a twig.

That, of course, is the point. The government is not serious about enforcing the rules. The Conservatives huff and puff, go from crisis to crisis, lurch here, lurch there, but when it comes to coordinated action, there is not the kind of single-desk action that we used to have when we had the Canada Wheat Board. It is not longer here. It is every farmer for himself or herself, and that seems to be the way the current government believes our precious grain industry should be treated.

I live on the west coast. Every day in Plumper Sound, I see sometimes 40 ships sitting for months waiting and indirectly costing farmers a lot of money. They are waiting for deliveries that never arrive and end up turning around and going back. This is no way to run a railroad, to use the hackneyed phrase, and it is certainly no way to run a sophisticated modern grain delivery service.

We have had record crops, but here is the irony: people cannot sell it. It sits and rots in grain elevators. Individual farmers have to come up with money to store the grain because they cannot get it to market. They are what are called in economic terms “captive shippers”. They really have nowhere to send it. They often have only one of two monopolies, CP or CN, and they are not able to meet the minimum volume requirements under the Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act.

Again, there are no penalties if there is any problem in doing what the minister has said they should do, which is to increase volume. Penalties are lowered, and there is no enforcement. That seems to be the way that the government has dealt with this crisis on our prairies.

The NDP fought for certain amendments, but those amendments were ignored. The hon. member for Sydney—Victoria made the same observation. We fought together, and the amendments were ignored. We fought to have real consideration for farmers' interests included in the emergency legislation, the so-called order in council, such as establishing a system of mandatory reporting for the price of grain throughout the transportation system at specified points along the delivery chain. That was not allowed. We fought for the requirement for all corridors to receive equitable service. That was not allowed.

We fought to ensure that all producers in all affected regions were consulted about the regulations, but no. We fought for the requirement that the government work with the provinces to develop and implement a plan for open access running rights to ensure effective competition in the rail service, but no. We fought for the requirement of a moratorium on the closure or delisting of producer car sites and for increasing fines and directing those revenues to compensation programs for producers. That was not allowed.

We also have serious problems with service level agreements. I would like to cite Senator Mercer, from the other place, who talked about the importance of addressing this service level agreement issue head-on in Bill C-30. He said:

Bill C-30 really does not do a lot to establish or enhance existing service-level agreements between shippers and the railways. All it actually does is permit the Canadian Transportation Agency to regulate elements in those negotiated service-level agreements.

Many stakeholders agree that the amendments were needed to clearly define “service”. What do the words “adequate” and “suitable” mean? What does the phrase “service obligation” mean? Obviously, they are too ambiguous to have any meaning. They are too subjective. Therefore, we need language that clearly defines the rights and obligations of all parties. They need to be nailed down. That is something that is clearly needed if we are going to get anywhere in nailing down these service level agreements that are so critical.

As I said in my remarks earlier, in the past the Canadian Wheat Board gave farmers a dependable place, a single desk that was involved in this marketing. Now, it is every farmer for himself or herself. As was pointed out by several of the stakeholders, a lot of farmers just do not have the time or the interest to sit around at night figuring out the market. They used to have someone to do that, but now, of course, the coordination function that was performed by the Canadian Wheat Board has been lost.

This lack of coordination is a problem, as my hon. friend mentioned. It means that we leave ships in dock or sitting out there in Plumper Sound. The port terminals are competing with each other for handling. There is no coordination of the kind that we used to have. That means that they are grabbing rail shipping capacity and having grain delivered without considering the demand.

There have been enormous increases in the amount of oil shipped by train, but the problem is that increased oil shipment creates a lack of capacity for grain producers. It is obvious to everyone, but the lack of coordination is equally obvious, and the need for action is urgent.

When I look at the people who have spoken on this matter, and they are legion all across the prairies. Doug Chorney, the president of Manitoba's Keystone Agricultural Producers, said that the backlogs could be blamed on “abysmal service” by Canada's two major railways. Mr. Paterson points out that those railways are now often controlled by foreign interests. Some 73% of the shares of CP are American-owned. The two men shaping CP's recent history are CEO Hunter Harrison and activist shareholder Bill Ackman. Both are American. CN Rail is roughly half Canadian-owned and half American-owned.

That inadequate service is something we have all seen. It is great to have free trade, but if we cannot get the product to market, it is of no value.

We salute the member for bringing forth this important motion today. We need to get on with it and get our grain moving.

[Rail service, February 2nd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my friend from Sydney—Victoria. I congratulate him on a motion that we will certainly be supporting as the official opposition.

When the member uses words like “disastrous system”, “absolute chaos”, and “real hardship”, we concur entirely. Again, I would thank the member for this important motion.

He mentioned in his remarks that he wished to put shippers and the railways on an equal footing. I would like to ask whether the member would agree that better enforcement of surface level agreements requires a better explanation of terms in Bill C-30, such as adequate and suitable “service obligations”. The terms are too ambiguous in our view. We need language to clarify rights and obligations. Would the member agree?

[Manufacturing Industry, January 30th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, when the NDP asked about 400,000 Canadians losing their jobs because the Conservatives failed the manufacturing sector, the member for Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam rose in his place and denied it was true. He has an entire department to help him, yet the Minister of Industry never even bothered to check his facts. He used an inaccurate media story to mislead people about the number of manufacturing jobs lost under the Conservatives' watch.

After noticing his mistake, the journalist who wrote the story graciously corrected it. He offered an apology. Not so for the Conservative minister: he has yet to apologize for his Twitter tirade based on make-believe numbers.

Canadians deserve better than an industry minister telling 400,000 out-of-work Canadians that they do not exist. They deserve a government led by the leader of the NDP, an honest government ready to take concrete steps to kick-start manufacturing and get Canadians back to work.

[Access to Information, January 29th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, by now Conservatives have become famous for the way they have sabotaged our access to information system, but now we have discovered that instead of using professional, non-partisan public servants to do the job that access to information requests require, Health Canada is paying private consultants over $200 an hour to do the job and the replies that we get are slower, with more information being held back.

It is bad enough to block Canadians from seeing what their own government is doing. Why does the minister waste so much money doing it?