Jinny Sims

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, June 1st, 2012]

moved:

Motion No. 55

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 36.

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, June 1st, 2012]

moved:

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 6.

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, June 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, we hear a lot about all these people who are trying to get into Canada illegally, but the Geneva convention does recognize asylum seekers. When we look at people from Hungary, even though there were many applicants, Canada did recognize at least 160 of them last year as asylum seekers under the Geneva convention.

Why is this bill going out of its way to discriminate and punish victims instead of going after the smugglers?

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, June 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about the fact that the NDP was opposing this legislation. He said it was because we wanted to let in terrorists and people who would endanger citizens across Canada.

I would like to know if the member is aware of the Balanced Refugee Act, the current legislation that actually captured the people he talked about, those who came off a boat. The current legislation, the Balanced Refugee Act, does allow for irregular refugees, or people who arrive without identification, to be held until security checks and identification have been done.

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, June 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to sit across the aisle here and listen to some of the things that are being said about how much the government supports immigration and how much it supports refugees, when in fact, in this particular bill, two tiers of refugees are being created.

People are going to be recognized as refugees, but even after our recognition of them with all the criteria we use, we are still going to treat the refugees who arrive as so-called irregulars very differently. We will not be giving them any travel documents or permanent residency for five years after they have been recognized as refugees. They will not have any travel documents and they will not be able to bring their family members here to join them.

For a government that speaks so much about the family being central in Canadian society, why is the government attacking the families of the most vulnerable refugees who will land on our shores?

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, June 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP has been very clear since we started debate on this motion that we are absolutely in support of targeting the smugglers and that we should be working with the international community to ensure that they get the punishment they deserve and all the disincentives.

However, we are not in favour of punishing the victims, which is what this bill would do.

Could my colleague tells us exactly what will happen to children who are under 16 when they arrive on one of these boats?

[Act to Provide for the Continuation and Resumption of Rail Service Operations, May 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, once again I will say that I and my colleagues believe in free collective bargaining. We absolutely believe that in order to find solutions we should get the two parties at the table and give them resources and support.

One thing I have found, and I have had personal experience with this, is that neither the employer nor the government will make any gains when they squeeze workers so hard that they lose the love and passion for the job they do. When workers are feeling used and abused, that their rights are under attack and they are not being treated equitably and fairly, that sucks the life out of them. That cost to society is greater in the long run.

When people go out to work, they do not just get out of bed and do their work. People get passionate about their work. They care about their work no matter what it is they do, and they give it 100%. However, if they are continually being hit on the head with a baseball bat, having their rights taken away by a government that is supporting the employer all the time as it attacks their pensions and salaries, then they will not be able to give 100%, and that is harmful for Canada.

[Act to Provide for the Continuation and Resumption of Rail Service Operations, May 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, we heard it again, talking about the CP workers who are out there saying that all they want to do is negotiate a settlement. I met with them at lunch. Once again, they are not considered Canadians.

Surely in Canada we do not start trampling on some people's rights just to speed things up. Any government that was committed to collective bargaining would allow the bargaining process to work out and it would put pressure on CP to sit down and actually negotiate instead of giving it a get-out-free card, which is what this legislation—

[Act to Provide for the Continuation and Resumption of Rail Service Operations, May 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to stand in the House and speak on behalf of working people across Canada.

Over the last few hours I have had to listen to debate where I have heard members from across the aisle saying that they are taking this action for Canadians. I want us to stop and reflect on that for a second. Working people in Canada are Canadians, except for the temporary foreign workers who come in right now. It is very hard to sit on this side of the House sometimes and listen to the diatribes that have occurred when people talk about Canadians in such a way that working-class people, whether they are professionals or they work in the service industry, it does not matter where they work as long as they are an employee working for someone else, are almost discounted by my colleagues across the way. If a worker should happen to have the audacity to belong to a union and, therefore, believe in collective bargaining, suddenly he or she is a bigger pariah.

I will take us back to the 19th century for a few seconds when the union movement came into existence. It came into existence because of the abuse of young children and workers by employers. Employers had all the power. People were dying on the job and terrible abuses were happening. Out of that industrial revolution, a kind of a balance emerged. It was the birth of the union movement where workers could get together as a collective and deal with their employer on a little more of a balanced playing field.

However, under the current government, the balanced playing field that has existed on and off for well over a century is being tipped in favour of the employer. I will explain why.

I have yet to see the government table legislation to help the workers in bargaining units, whether it was Air Canada, Canada Post or the Air Canada machinists and pilots. Air Canada pilots were legislated back even before they went out on strike. Now we have the CP teamsters. In every case, an employer is trying to take money out of the pockets of the workers and to dismantle their pensions. I know the government is very fond of attacking pensions, after all, it wants all Canadians to work until they are 67, whether they are able to or not. It has attacked the pensions itself. Therefore, why would I be surprised that the same group sides with employers who want to attack pensions?

Here we have an employer, CP, that makes substantial profits every year, millions and millions of dollars. Despite that, what is it asking their workers to do? It wants them to take a huge cut in their pensions. Do we not actually believe that people have earned these pensions and that they need to live a life of dignity? Should we not be bringing up every Canadian so that they have a pension and they can live a life of dignity? Instead, we have employers who are attacking workers' wages and pensions at the same time as they are making huge profits. I say that is such a shame.

Why would an employer like CP think there is any reason to negotiate? Even during the break week the minister made an announcement saying that when Parliament opens she planned to pass legislation. Can members guess what that does to bargaining? It brings it to a halt, especially on the part of employers who have no interest in negotiating because they have their friends holding a majority in this Parliament and they know they will get exactly what they want, which is another attack on working people.

I find it incredulous that people could sit in this room and say that the minister saying last week that she would be taking action did not have a chilling effect on negotiations. I think we need to accept that and the minister needs to take responsibility for prolonging the negotiations.

On this side of the House, we believe in full, free collective bargaining. I am getting so tired of my colleagues across the aisle talking about a free economy, the marketplace, letting things just go out and letting wages drop because, after all, they just facilitated bringing in, in a fast-tracked process, more foreign temporary workers who, they are saying, employers can pay 15% less. This is an abuse of those who come to work in this country. I believe that if they are good enough to work here they are also good enough to live here. Not only is it an abuse of those workers, but those kinds of policies actually lower the wages for other Canadians. Canadians are already struggling to make ends meet and now, with government intervention here and the changes to how we bring in people from overseas, especially the temporary foreign workers program, we are attacking Canadians from being able to make a liveable wage and to have decent security into their retirement years.

I am so proud of this collection of NDP members of Parliament who stand up for working people who are Canadians. We raise issues that are fundamental to a democracy, conventions that are recognized by the United Nations through the ILO and are recognized in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. When we stand up to defend full, free collective bargaining rights, I am tired of hearing comments like, “the NDP are not friends of western Canada.”

I come from western Canada. I am from British Columbia and I am the best friend it has, along with the NDP, right now. It is this party that is speaking out for British Columbians and for building a stronger economy that benefits all and does not lead to our resources being shipped out of this country along with the jobs. We have experienced that in B.C. We watch truckloads of logs leave, the logs get manufactured into two-by-fours and then they come back. How much environmental sense does that make? How much economic sense does that make when good paying jobs are taken out of Canada and moved overseas?

The argument that the NDP members are not friends of western Canada is just meant to detract from the real debate in this House, which is whether the Conservatives believe in free collective bargaining, and, obviously, by their actions, they do not.

I want the Conservatives to show me where they have intervened in a dispute and told employers that they were being unreasonable, that they should get back to the table and that it is not right for them to take away the salaries and pensions from employees. The Conservatives do not come out with statements like that. Instead they say that it is all being done to somehow save Canadians.

Right across the country, hundreds and thousands of workers are finding out how they are being saved. Their pensions are under attack and their wages are going down. The unemployment rate is high. As the they are looking at all of this, they do not see much of a salvation in this. What they see is a government that is going out of its way to take punitive action against employees and putting a chill over the whole bargaining process.

This is not right. This is not good for Canada. It is earning us a bad name both internally and internationally. It certainly is not good for our future generation.

We are looking at attracting more people to come to Canada, and we keep hearing from the minister that we are going to need more immigrants, but they are going to look at this and choose other locations.

[Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act, May 29th, 2012]

I understand, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure today to rise in support of this legislation.

It is interesting how we learn so much. I moved to Canada in 1975. I have taken wine from one province into another without even knowing that I was not supposed to do that. Almost every member in the House whom I have talked to has said they have done the same thing. Every one of us needs to support this bill so that all of us can be made legal. For that reason alone, we need to support the bill.

This is just a hangover from the old Prohibition days. We have accepted that Prohibition is over. Alcohol is sold in every province. It is time to put an end to this archaic piece of legislation that is just sitting there, especially now that it does not serve a purpose and has actually become a barrier.

I am very impressed with the number of wineries right across Canada. When I went through the Niagara area, I saw wonderful wineries. I saw wineries in Quebec. I was even surprised to see wineries way out on the east coast.

B.C. has some of the best wineries anywhere, whether it is Burrowing Owl or Mission Hill. Now I am going to upset people, because I am not going to be able to mention all of them, but we have some amazing wines and wineries.

It just makes common sense that Canadians, as they travel across this beautiful country, should be able not only to imbibe the grape juice while they are visiting those wineries but should also be able to take a bottle or two back home with them for personal consumption.

Wines from some of these wineries—at least, some of my favourite ones—are often not very available in wine stores. They sell out long before it gets out there. Who would not want to buy a case of Mission Hill wine or Burrowing Owl wine, or some of the other wonderful wines we have around the country, and why would we want to stop Canadians from supporting Canadian businesses?

Most of us here understand economics. Economics involves encouraging people to buy Canadian. I have always felt that made common sense.

When people come here from other parts of the world, they are amazed by the quality of wine that Canada is producing. If that is so, then it makes common sense to make it available to Canadians. If colleagues of mine should happen to come to B.C. from Ontario and fall in love with one of the B.C. wines, we do not want to just hold them captive until they just drink themselves silly; we want them to taste the wine and enjoy it. We want them to be able to buy many bottles and take them back to Ontario to share with their friends. That would not only help to support the winery in B.C. but would also help to support Canadian wine all over, because a colleague will serve the wine to a diversity of people--