Jinny Sims

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, March 29th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, my colleague made a very thoughtful comment.

Absolutely, this is about a race to the bottom. This is not about what is good for Canada or what is good for the people of Panama right now. This is about what is good for big international corporations. This is about what is good for the very wealthy, who do not need more doors opened for them.

The Conservative government is missing a prime opportunity to ensure that the rights of workers are enshrined.

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, March 29th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, that is exactly the point. Our greatest opportunity to try to ensure some positive changes are put in place is before we sign on the dotted line of a bilateral agreement.

The very best chance to ensure some protection for workers' rights and ensure action is taken so that Panama is not a tax haven for ill-gotten money, as well as legal money, is before Canada signs that agreement. The government could use this opportunity, but it is not going to because it has no interest in protecting workers here in Canada or anywhere else.

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, March 29th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, throwing out deflections that have very little to do with the debate at hand will do very little to convince Canadians. The Conservative government is sending jobs out of the country. We just have to look at what has happened in Ontario, in Montreal and other parts of Quebec, in B.C. and across the country. The government cannot be trusted to protect Canadian jobs and Canadian interests. The Conservative government has one interest, and that is to give billions of tax breaks to rich oil companies and big banks and then sit back and let the working people in the country struggle to make ends meet.

The Conservatives have the opportunity to take care of Canadians. I hope they do so in the budget today.

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, March 29th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to speak today to this bilateral trade agreement between Panama and Canada.

It seems that we have not learned too many lessons from our experiences with NAFTA. As a result of NAFTA, we have seen hundreds of thousands of jobs disappear over the border and into other countries. We have also seen the logs that used to be manufactured right in B.C., where Canadians had a chance to have well-paying jobs, go over the border and Canadians jobs leave with them.

Instead of focusing on multilateral free trade agreement talks that actually focus on agreements that would benefit not only Canada but all the countries involved, that would take environmental factors into consideration, that would take labour laws into consideration and that would take sustainability in the long term into consideration, the government is going down the wrong path in signing bilateral free trade agreement after bilateral free trade agreement.

When we look at Panama's labour laws and the lack of protection for its working people, it absolutely amazes me that the Government of Canada, where we once valued the rights of working people, is so intent on signing an agreement with a country that has so little respect, so little regulation and so little support for working people.

This is no surprise as it is the same Conservative government that has attacked the rights of working people in B.C. It is attacking their pensions and is attacking the rights of workers, rights recognized by the United Nations, to full, free collective bargaining.

First, we must not forget the postal workers where the Conservatives did not allow the bargaining process to play out. We recently had the case of the Air Canada workers where the pilots had not even gone on strike and yet the government intervened with very draconian legislation, once again taking away the rights of working people.

On the other hand, we know the government favours corporations. Now that Air Canada is blindly allowing all the Alveos jobs to leave this country, we suddenly hear this mantra that those are private companies. The same government gives billions in tax giveaways to private corporations and thinks that kind of interference is okay but the kind of interference that keeps jobs in Canada is not okay. That is not okay on this side of the House. We are determined to keep jobs here in Canada for Canadians.

Let us look at another aspect of what is happening in Panama. When we want to start trading with a country, we need look at how that country is viewed. Panama is seen as a tax haven. We will not have a very clear understanding of the reportings of income. Not only are we worried about people and big corporations who will hide their money in a tax haven like Panama, we also need to be concerned about a lot of the drug lords who will hide their ill-gained money in Panama.

How can we enter into a trade agreement where there is so little transparency when it comes to the reporting of income and how the institutions work? Once again we need to relate it to what is happening back here.

The Conservatives talk about their so-called crime agenda, which is really a prison building agenda, and yet they are ready to sign a free trade agreement with a country that has flagrant violations when it comes to being a tax haven and flagrant UN violations of workers' rights, .

I had the pleasure of visiting Panama many years ago, which seems like another lifetime. I am sure many changes have taken place but, from friends I have talked to in Panama, I would say that two realities still exist in Panama. There is the reality of the gated communities, in which many American citizens live. They are huge fenced-in communities with a large amount of military hardware to protect them. Panama has had violations around labour rights and has been criticized internationally.

The French recently criticized Panama saying that it would be very difficult for the international community to trade with it as it was a tax haven. However, once again, no surprise here, our government is going ahead with its ill thought out agenda of signing free trade agreements without building in protections for Canadians. It is also our responsibility to ensure that the free trade agreement is not to the detriment of citizens in Panama. As Canadians, we pride ourselves on our international work and how we look at the rest of the world. We really need to start paying attention.

Todd Tucker, who is part of the Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, made a compelling case about Panama being one of the world's worst tax havens. He said that the Panamanian government had intentionally allowed the nation to become a tax haven. He went on to say that the tax haven situation in Panama was not improving under the current government and conditions in Panama. He also said that, in addition, a trade agreement with Canada would only worsen the problem and could cause harm to both Panama and Canada. That should be enough to give all of us time to stop and reflect before going ahead in a heedless way.

Teresa Healy of the Canadian Labour Congress spoke to the committee regarding the agreement on labour co-operation. She testified that while the international labour organizations labour standards are invoked, the agreement is still weaker than it should be. As well, the current Panamanian government has been increasingly harsh on labour unions and workers in recent years.

Why am I not surprised that the Conservative government pays too little heed to the normal, average working person in Canada and attacks their rights? Why would we expect the government to enshrine or protect workers' rights in developing countries like Panama? The government has gone out of its way to attack unionized workers and the working people here and it sells our jobs out of Canada. Why would it stand up for the workers in Panama or to keep the jobs here in Canada?

The government is turning a blind eye while, as I speak, thousands of jobs are leaving this country. I do not trust the government to protect the interests of everyday Canadians because it only protects the interests of corporations and big money.

[Petitions, March 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of dozens of my constituents in Newton—North Delta calling upon the Government of Canada to open a high commission in Fiji at the earliest opportunity.

The fact is that Canada has no high commission or regular consular services in Fiji, even though it is a member of the Commonwealth of Nations, just as we are. All immigration business and other matters between Canada and Fiji are handled through the high commission in Sydney, Australia. The petitioners find that unacceptable.

The petitioners believe that this situation causes inordinate delays and inefficient service for tourists, visas, businesses and immigration issues for both Canadian and Fijian citizens.

Our fellow Commonwealth countries, Australia and New Zealand, have high commissions in Fiji and the petitioners believe that it is time Canada did as well.

[Financial System Review Act, March 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to talk about the co-operative banks in my community. I am so impressed by the amazing job they do and the kind of support they give to our youth, to our education system and our seniors.

I actually had the pleasure of visiting the Kennedy Seniors' Recreation Centre last weekend when I was home and saw the amazing things that were happening there. I also talked to a few seniors who were telling me how much they liked going to their co-operative banks and their absolute dislike of high interest rates and the profit-making mantra of the banks.

[Financial System Review Act, March 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I see the comment by my colleague as having very little to do with the legislation before us. The legislation has nothing to do with the question he has asked.

However, I will say that I am opposed to the government not addressing the very high interest rates on credit cards and the consumers who are being gouged by banks. I am against the billions of dollars being given to banks in tax breaks. I am against the lack of job creation in the banking industry and the many jobs that are being lost.

I am absolutely against the processes the government uses to mute democracy and to push legislation through this House. I am against the lack of respect for parliamentary democracy.

[Financial System Review Act, March 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her very insightful comments.

I covered this process in my previous speech and again today. Once again, I am at a loss why a government that has experience in this House, and here I would note that it not as if its members were all parachuted in, has so little respect for parliamentary democracy and the processes of this House and why, every single time, it tries to close debate in this House and not follow the process as it should.

In British Columbia, where I am from, we see truckload after truckload of logs leaving our province and with them go the jobs. When I had the pleasure of visiting most of the communities in B.C. in my previous life, I would see whole towns being shut down. Those are not the only jobs that are leaving B.C. When we look at some of the plans for the oil industry, once again a lot of good-paying jobs will be going overseas and we will be creating a lot of $9 and $10 an hour jobs, which is not enough to survive on.

[Financial System Review Act, March 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, in this House today and previously, we have heard a lot about all of the consultation that went into this process, but let me start by talking about the process.

I believe that the members across the aisle missed a magnificent opportunity when they addressed this bill by focusing only on its technical and very narrow aspects or revisions. This was their opportunity to address the banking legislation and our financial statutes in a significant way.

Be that as it may, they erred very seriously when it came to process. First of all, this legislation has come from the other house, the Senate, which only had three weeks to consider it. Then the legislation came over here with all kinds of time allocations and was then sent off to committee. It is with a great deal of distress that I read that even at the committee stage, there were only three sessions. I know many people at home are going to think that each session lasts a day, but each committee session is only two hours long.

To do a detailed study of a very technical bill, and I am not a very technical person, and to look at its implications and to examine it and make amendments, a total of only four hours was provided. Out of the three days the bill was before committee, one was to hear from witnesses. I really cannot understand how my colleagues sitting across this aisle can see this as truly democratic and transparent. How can they disrespect the parliamentary system so much, not only by calling time allocation over and over again but also by then cutting debate short at the committee stage?

I have heard the argument that the timing of this bill is sensitive and that a clock is ticking. I also know that the government could have tabled this legislation as soon after May 2 as it could, but it choose not to do so because at no time did it want to give either the public or the opposition a chance to study this legislation in any detail.

Not only that but I also heard earlier from a very well-respected speaker from across the aisle, who shares a panel with me every Thursday, about the consultation that had occurred. However, when I looked at the consultation report, most of those inputs by email were anonymous. Since when have we started to take and pay heed to anonymous input on significant pieces of legislation that actually address our banking industry? It is just so bizarre. Plus, this kind of consultation was by invitation only. Let us not pretend that real consultation took place.

Let me recap. Time allocation pushed things through; the legislation went to the Senate first; consultation was practically non-existent; and the committee stage was cut short, with no serious time given.

What are the Conservatives trying to hide in this legislation? I believe what they were trying to hide is what they have not addressed in the legislation, something that concerns Canadians right across this beautiful country. One thing they have not addressed is the regulations around the ever-growing debtload that Canadians are being burdened with because of the economy and the lack of decent paying jobs in Canada. Indeed, we seem to be giving our jobs away to other countries. Where there were jobs that used to pay a decent wage at one time, now there are $9 and $10 an hour jobs. We know it is hard to sustain a family on that kind of an income.

Families are really taking on more and more debt, and we are not paying attention. I have learned from an analysis done of the debt load of Canadians that in some cases family debt is as high as 151% of disposable income. That is disturbing. It surpasses the debt load of Americans before a collapse in their economy. We should be addressing that, and so this is a missed opportunity.

What is also adding to consumers' debt load is not the fact they choose to buy big entertainment systems or super-duper cars. Rather, it is because of the lack of decent paying jobs, which have left this country because of the government's policies, that many people are struggling and trying to make ends meet from paycheque to paycheque and are reliant on their credit cards. The banks, through credit card interest charges, are gouging Canadians. They pay next to nothing in interest to those who are fortunate enough to have money to put in the bank, and they think nothing about charging 18% or more in interest on credit cards. That is a shame and a golden opportunity that the government has once again missed addressing. It has failed Canadians in a significant way.

I want to quote one of the witnesses who came before committee in the two hours allotted to them. Tyler Sommers, a coordinator for the Canadian Community Reinvestment Coalition, questioned why the government had not done more for consumer protection. He said the following:

Canada's big six banks have reported new record first-quarter profits totalling over $7 billion, which is up 5.3% compared to 2011, and have done this while raising bank fees and cutting jobs in this sector....

Shame on us that we have failed to address this issue now. I say that because the government has not given us the opportunity to debate this in the House and to take action on it.

Duff Conacher from the CCRC has explained that past government actions have been ineffective in ensuring that Canada's big banks and other companies are not making excessive profits from gouging customers and cutting services, and they are failing to lend to job-creating Canadian businesses.

I do not know about all members, but most of us now use either Interac or online banking, which would make us think that has led to the loss of many jobs. However, have the related bank charges gone down? Have the credit card charges gone down? Absolutely not. Those costs keep going up. The government had a golden opportunity during the debate on this legislation to address that in a significant way.

Our banking industry has survived because of regulation. While consumer debt is going up and consumers are being penalized by banks because they have no disposable income and are living from paycheque to paycheque and are having to use their credit cards to buy food to put on their table, we know that this government has once again failed to address those high interest rates.

To sum up, there are citizens in my riding who had high hopes that the government would address the key issues facing them. Instead, it has once again turned its back on middle-class, working-class and struggling families and failed to provide them the protection they were looking for in this legislation.

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, March 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have had discussions in my community. I have had a town hall meeting or a forum where we have discussed different aspects of our immigration policies and their concerns with visas, super visas and family reunification, including refugees.

I have also had people in my office. I had one gentleman come to see me who was really surprised that his refugee status had not been accepted. He wanted to know if I could do something to assist him. I looked at the file and I had to tell him no, that he did not meet the criteria.

I am very honest, as the minister knows, with my constituents when they come in to see me. I do not raise their hopes. For me to get this passionate about this business, the minister has to know that there are some really serious concerns in the community.