Sylvain Chicoine

[Canadian Heritage, February 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to come back to the question I asked the Minister of Canadian Heritage. I wanted to know whether or not an important museum in my riding, Exporail, the Canadian Railway Museum, would be given the status it deserves as a national Canadian museum. In response to my question, the parliamentary secretary gave some vague explanation that the Canadian government supports museums, and so on.

I would like to take this opportunity today to ask the government again if Exporail will be given the status it deserves and recognition as a national Canadian museum.

There are a number of reasons for giving Exporail the status I am asking for today, and there was even a motion to that effect a number of years ago. Exporail focuses on protecting and promoting our railway heritage. It is vital that we recognize Exporail in order to ensure the sustainability of its collection. This museum is responsible for preserving the Canadian Railroad Historical Association's collection of national interest.

It is important to note that Exporail is the largest railway museum in Canada and that, in the opinion of many museum professionals, it is one of the best museums in the world, if not the best. On July 21, 2011, Exporail celebrated its 50th anniversary, which coincided with the 175th anniversary of the advent of Canada's first public railway between Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu and La Prairie 177 years ago now. This was the first public railway in Canada.

In order to ensure the long-term survival of Exporail's collection and the museum's participation in the festivities surrounding the 150th anniversary of Confederation in 2017, it is vital that it be designated a national museum as soon as possible. That way, Exporail can make a significant contribution to this happy event planned for 2017. Such a designation will also show that Canada recognizes the railway's historic contribution to our country in a more official capacity. I would like to remind the government that the construction of a railway from one ocean to the other was one of the conditions on which a number of provinces joined the Canadian federation.

This is not the first time that this issue has been raised in this chamber since, on February 27, 2007, the House voted in favour of a motion to recognize Exporail as a national museum. Unfortunately, the government did not follow through and, in the months that followed, it contacted Exporail's management to say that it did not have the budget required and that it did not want to set a precedent by designating a museum outside the nation's capital as a national museum. However, a few months later, the government designated two other museums—the Canadian Museum for Human Rights in Winnipeg and the Canadian Museum of Immigration in Halifax—as national museums.

I mentioned a few items that we, as parliamentarians, must follow up on, and we must recognize Exporail as a national museum.

[Safer Witnesses Act, February 12th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question and his remarks. This bill will certainly make our communities safer.

Basically, the bill will expand the eligibility criteria and enhance co-operation between provinces. For that to happen, there must be adequate funding.

Organized crime changes constantly. In my community, near Montreal, street gangs do not always work alone anymore. We see increased collaboration between members of organized crime. This makes it harder and harder for police forces to penetrate criminal organizations. Ensuring that witnesses from criminal gangs can now testify under the protection of the law will help police officers bring criminals to justice. This can only make things better.

[Safer Witnesses Act, February 12th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question and for the work he has been doing.

I would like him to know, however, that I did not come up with the amendments that were brought forward in the House to improve witness protection.

With regards to the costs he mentioned, I would add that last year, only 30 witnesses were eligible under the current criteria. One can surmise that, in the short term, a greater number of witnesses will be eligible and that tens of thousands of dollars will have to be spent on their protection.

One can also predict that, in the medium term, the program's uptake will increase as people will come to understand they have a greater chance of being eligible for witness protection.

Given that the cost of the program is sure to increase, it would be appropriate to give more resources to the RCMP and other stakeholders so that they can adapt to the new standards and requirements called for in the bill.

[Safer Witnesses Act, February 12th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River.

Today, I am very pleased to be debating a bill to amend the Witness Protection Program Act. It will be somewhat of a change to debate a public safety bill that, unlike what the government has brought in since the beginning of this Parliament, will not increase sentences. It is good to introduce other types of legislation.

Today, we are debating a bill that will give our public safety officers other tools to fight crime. We have to protect people, but we also have to protect repentant former criminals who want to leave crime behind and who, because of their knowledge of the criminal world, give our peace officers information needed to conduct investigations and, ultimately, prosecute criminals.

Make no mistake: if we do not enhance the witness protection program, we will unfortunately reduce our chances of enlisting important witnesses, which unfortunately has happened in the past.

Some people wonder why they should testify if their life is in danger and they are not offered any protection. That is a good question. That is why, in November 2012, my colleague from Trinity—Spadina rose in this House to demand more funding for the federal witness protection program.

For a few years now, the NDP has been calling on the government to expand the eligibility criteria for witnesses in protection programs to guarantee safety for all Canadians who bear witness and who are potentially in danger. We are also calling for better coordination between the federal and provincial programs, but most importantly for increased overall funding for the witness protection program.

In May 2010, the RCMP gave the Minister of Public Safety a report calling for the witness protection program to be enhanced. The government unfortunately waited quite a while before taking action. It is unfortunate that the government did not consider the budgetary implications of expanding the witness protection program.

I think it was the RCMP that best explained that sometimes the costs of witness protection may impede investigations, most specifically in the case of small law enforcement agencies. The government should acknowledge these budgetary implications.

In the case of drug-related crimes, for example, the RCMP takes over the case and charges the local police force for the whole thing. The government needs to understand that offloading these problems onto the provinces only impedes their ability to deliver programs such as the witness protection program.

This is not the way to go about protecting our communities or strengthening ties among federal agencies and provincial and municipal police forces.

True to form, the government decided to take action as soon as the issue started blowing up, instead of acting pre-emptively, before any problems came up.

The federal witness protection program has been the subject of criticism for several years as a result of its strict eligibility criteria, poor coordination with federal programs and the small number of witnesses who are accepted to the program.

I would remind members that in 2012, only 30 out of 108 applications that were examined were accepted. So we have to wonder: did the 78 applications that were rejected have a negative impact on the related legal cases? That would be an interesting question to look at. If these witnesses had been protected, would we have had more convictions?

Since the Witness Protection Program Act was passed in 1996, the Liberal and Conservative governments have done very little to address criticisms of the system. The basic issues of admissibility, coordination and funding have never been addressed.

As a number of my colleagues said earlier, we will support this bill. However, we are extremely disappointed that the government has decided not to provide new funding for the program.

Bill C-51 proposes a better process for supporting provincial witness protection programs. The bill would also make the program available to other organizations with national security roles, such as CSIS and the defence department.

We should remember that, during the Air India investigation, attempts were made against the lives of some witnesses. The law did not permit groups of witnesses for national security cases to be admitted to the program. One witness, Tara Singh Hayer, was assassinated in 1998, and the sworn statement he had given the RCMP a few years earlier was ruled inadmissible. Two other witnesses subsequently refused to appear at the Air India inquiry in 2007 because, unfortunately, they feared for their safety.

At the time, Justice Major had already admitted that he was unable to provide the protection needed by these witnesses. This must never happen again. We must be able to guarantee the safety of our witnesses. Otherwise, our sources of information will dry up, and not enough witnesses will have the courage to testify in court. In such cases, it often takes courage to testify at a criminal trial relating to national security. Therefore, we have to provide them with adequate protection.

This bill will expand eligibility criteria for the protection program to include members of street gangs, which are increasingly prevalent in our large cities. Including them in the witness protection program will give our police another tool to eliminate this scourge.

Federal departments and agencies responsible for national security, national defence or public safety will also be able to refer witnesses to the program, which could help avoid problems such as the ones encountered during the Air India inquiry.

Another important point was raised by the RCMP during the Air India inquiry, and Justice O'Connor made a related recommendation in his report. The bill does not include any provisions that would allow an independent body to oversee the program as per the recommendations made in the Air India report.

A transparent program eligibility process that requires more accountability is another important aspect to highlight and implement. Even the governments recognize that this is a serious problem, although they have not tackled it yet.

An independent body would help prevent any conflict of interest within the RCMP, while supporting a transparent process. There could be a conflict of interest within the RCMP given that it would continue to assume responsibility for the program, which could place it in a conflict of interest situation in the future, since it would be both the investigating body and the one to decide who benefits from protection.

In late 2009 and early 2010, the federal government consulted the provinces and territories regarding the witness protection program. Some of the provinces expressed their concerns at that time. Many provinces have their own witness protection programs. However, for budgetary reasons, they can provide only short-term protection.

As I mentioned, this is a huge expense for the provinces. As we so often hear these days, we have to do more with less. Furthermore, for legal reasons, the provinces need the RCMP in order to obtain new identification documents for the people being protected. Thus, there is a lack of coordination and we really hope to be able to resolve this situation when this bill is examined at committee.

So, one important aspect that this bill will improve is coordination with provincial witness protection programs.

In closing, we are pleased that the government has finally taken a serious look at this problem and that it is responding not only to the RCMP's calls, but also the NDP's calls regarding this matter. We have been calling for these changes since 2007. This bill is not perfect, but it is very good and we will support it so it can be sent to committee for a thorough examination.

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, February 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech and his interest in rail transportation. I imagine that this is an important issue in his riding as well. He asked a question about arbitration, and he only had the time to touch on it briefly at the end of his speech.

I would like him to talk about the disadvantages small businesses experience when dealing with a giant like the rail company. I would like him to explain in greater detail why small companies are at a disadvantage in such a situation.

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, February 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question.

Indeed, rail transportation has a much smaller impact on the environment than trucking.

Someone said that rail freight transportation was not adapted to the reality of remote places in Canada. Since they are often not adequately served by railways, all too often they have to rely on trucking as an alternative. But using that method of transport has a much greater environmental cost.

Rail and train services offer more benefits to businesses and leave a smaller carbon footprint.

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, February 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his excellent question.

Indeed, it is one of our concerns on this side of the House. Small businesses are penalized, because they have to prove that they were adversely affected by the lack of service. That provision needs to be reviewed in committee and improved. My colleague is absolutely right.

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, February 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, before being interrupted by question period, I was talking about elements that destabilize economic activity in certain industries.

Unfortunately for the industries, they are not compensated by the parties responsible for these disturbances. We are talking here about hundreds of millions of dollars every year. Seventy per cent of our goods are shipped by rail. Considering the $2 billion trade deficit and fierce international competition, we cannot afford to opt for the status quo or for a half measure like the one proposed in Bill C-52. This situation, unfortunately, gives a trade advantage to our competitors around the world. They have the capacity to deliver their goods more rapidly and more punctually, despite the fact that our Canadian products often have a shorter distance to cover.

Unfortunately, for too long now, the government has not wanted to act. The Conservatives have been waiting since 2007 to introduce this bill, and when we take a look at their inaction and the cutbacks they have made over the past few years, we may conclude that they do not understand how important our railway system is.

On our side of the House, through the bill introduced by my colleague from Trinity—Spadina, we have conveyed the shippers’ demands in an attempt to restore the balance in their relationship with the railways. Canada needs a national transportation strategy.

Greater use of rail transportation would have a positive impact on the quality of our environment and would help reduce greenhouse gas emissions significantly. Unfortunately, when shippers cannot obtain services from our only two rail service providers, they will rely even more heavily on trucking, which will have a negative effect on our economic activity from an environmental point of view. We sense a lack of commitment by the Conservatives to our railway network, as evidenced by the lack of investment in railway infrastructures.

We must therefore restore the balance between the railway companies and shippers. Our position is a simple one: we are on the side of businesses and exporters, and we are determined that they should receive the railway services they deserve and that they need. As usual, this government is on the side of big businesses that have a near-monopoly and is not interested in protecting SMEs through a bill that would have given them a leg up in international markets. If the government ultimately gives in, it will be attributable primarily to co-operation among the various industrial associations that banded together to advocate for legislative changes to the Canada Transportation Act.

Therefore, I would ask the government to work with us when the bill is being considered in committee. The competitiveness of our companies and our SMEs depends on an efficient rail transportation system. Canada’s economic vitality also depends on it. Our businesses need good services in order to make investments and create jobs. We will therefore support this bill. We ask that the government co-operate with opposition MPs to improve the bill and contribute to Canada’s solid economic growth.

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, February 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today about a bill to improve the rail transportation system.

On this beautiful snowy day, we are getting back to rail transportation. It is probably the means of transportation that is least affected by the bad weather we are having today.

As I said, I am pleased to speak today about a bill to improve our rail transportation system. I will be clear from the outset: we will support this bill in order to send it to committee.

We will also support it because the majority of shippers are mostly or partially satisfied with it. We are going to respect their position and support this bill.

There is something that sets us apart from the other parties recognized in this House: we listen carefully to the opinions and needs of Canadians and our country's businesses.

We consult them because we want to know what their needs are. That way, we can develop good public policies. We are not jamming measures down the throats of Canadians and businesses. At times, the party in power takes steps and imposes measures that no one wants.

However, my colleagues and I strongly believe that this bill must be amended since it does not fully meet its objective. The best that can be said for this bill is that it is only a half measure.

Many of the demands of shippers were not included in the bill. What is more, the wording is very ambiguous. Some provisions must be examined more thoroughly in committee because they could potentially create loopholes.

The scope of Bill C-52 is also limited since it will cover only new agreements and, unfortunately, will not apply to existing agreements. That is a bit ridiculous. The bill is supposed to help shippers but, in reality, it applies to only a small number of them. Those who already have an agreement will be left to fend for themselves and will be at the mercy of the large CP and CN rail companies.

Shippers will have to make do with low quality services until their contract ends.

How can the Minister of Transport believe that this is a good bill that meets the needs of all shippers if it targets only a small fraction of existing agreements?

Certain shippers wanted to tackle the issue of tariffs during the legislative process, but the Conservatives made it clear that they would not address that issue until the next legislative review of the Canada Transportation Act in 2014-15.

In most regions of the country, shippers have no other choice than to use CN and CP. Canada's rail transportation market is basically a quasi-monopoly. Having the dominant position in the market allows the rail companies to charge often exorbitant prices, and shippers are put in a position where they have no choice but to accept the price charged by the rail company. That is what happens when this type of market is not regulated enough.

The goal in committee will be to seek amendments that prevent potential abuse of power by requiring service level agreements between shippers and rail companies.

We also need to establish dispute resolution processes. This bill offers only a limited arbitration process. It is available only for shippers who are in the midst of negotiating new contracts. It will not apply to existing agreements.

Instead of offering fast, reliable dispute resolution for all shippers, as we are asking for, the bill is limited to a small group of shippers. The proposed arbitration process may be too costly for many shippers. The burden of proof may be unfair if they have to prove that they are in need of services from the railway.

We would also like to see tougher penalties included in the agreements in relation to service levels, in order to compensate shippers for service disruptions, damage and loss of productivity.

As it stands now, the bill provides for penalties of up to $100,000, which would be paid to the federal government rather than to shippers. Since shippers must cover their losses, this would obviously impact the price they charge consumers. We lose on two fronts, because it hurts consumer prices, and it makes Canadian businesses less competitive and less productive in international markets. Considering that CN made about $2.7 billion in profit in 2012, penalties need to be higher to really act as a deterrent.

Let us be very clear: 80% of rail freight customers are currently unhappy with the rail service. They are victims of the near monopoly held by railway companies.

That near monopoly impacts sectors like agriculture, mining, forestry and auto manufacturing. Missing rail cars and other disruptive events result in rotting crops, service disruptions and delays. There is no compensation for all the forest, mining and manufacturing products that are wasted this way, many of which are actually intended for export.

A number of factors disrupt economic activity in these sectors and impede Canada's economic prosperity. These resources and products are largely intended for export. Unfortunately for these industries, those who cause disruptions pay no compensation.

I will continue...

[Veterans, February 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the parliamentary secretary's non-answer to my question. She inundated us with figures. I too can throw out numbers: 8, 12, 46, 94 and bonus number 72. These are not winning numbers in Lotto 6/49, and the numbers that the parliamentary secretary gave us are not winning numbers either. There are only losers in this case. The funeral companies lose out because they have to cover the cost of veterans' funerals when necessary.

All that the government is offering to ensure that that our veterans receive a burial is $3,600. That is hardly enough for a dignified burial.

I will ask my question again. Will the government improve the burial fund to cover the entire cost of giving our veterans a dignified burial? That is the question I would like to have answered.