Jinny Sims

[Senate Reform Act, December 8th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on such an important bill before the House. There can be nothing more important to us as Canadians than our democratic institutions. I believe that a Senate that is appointed or pseudo-elected, which is what the bill would have us do, is actually anti-democratic. We have a democratic House of Commons. We are elected by our constituents. We come to this House, and we actually try to debate the issues and bring the concerns of our constituents into this House. However, that has been very difficult during the last few months because, as we know, time allocation has been moved and our voices have been silenced many times.

However, we still believe and would encourage our colleagues across the way to allow the democratic process to play out. In this democratic process, we do not need to have a Senate. The Senate is appointed. Senators do not really represent any constituents. They come from regions. They do not have any kind of feeling of reporting back to anybody.

As we know, this is not the first time that my Conservative colleagues have tried to make changes to the Senate, but each time the changes they propose do not go far enough.

On the other hand, the NDP is constant. Since the 1930s, we have been constant in saying that it is time for the Senate to go. Our party keeps reaffirming that position over and over again, not because we are just looking for something to be opposed to, by the way, but because when we talk with our constituents, to Canadians across this country, they actually see very little value, if any, to the Senate.

Both sides of the House have to acknowledge that we are going through hard economic times, unemployment is rising, poverty levels are rising, our child poverty has increased, actually, the gap between the rich and the poor in Canada has increased, our health care system is under stress, our students in post-secondary education are burdened with a growing debt load, and many of them do not even have access to post-secondary education because they do not have the financial wherewithal to do so. I would argue that as we go through these hard economic times, this is the time that we should really all be standing to say it is time to abolish an archaic institution called the Senate.

When we look at our history, we have a group of people who are appointed by the Prime Minister. Under the new proposals, as we all know, the provinces may have elections at their own expense, and how many of them have money these days? Even when they elect and recommend somebody, the appointment is still at the discretion of the Prime Minister. What we have seen since May 2 have been appointments of either key workers, supporters, or failed candidates, to the Senate. Obviously, patronage is truly alive on the Hill.

When we look at all that, Canadians out there are asking, what is the role of the Senate? In my riding of Newton—North Delta most of them would rather take the millions of dollars we spend on the Senate and have it spent on education. They would like to have it spent on transit infrastructure. They would like to have it spent on health care. They would like to have it spent on raising seniors out of poverty. Shame on us. They would really like to see that kind of debate.

If the government feels it has to move to make some changes, let us take it to the public. Let us take it to Canadians right across the country, and let us engage in a healthy debate. I know that healthy debate is hard for my colleagues across the aisle, but let us take this out into our communities, engage in a healthy debate, and let our constituents tell us if they are for, against, or do not care. I will bet that they will care because they care how their tax dollars are spent and they would like to have them utilized to do some public good.

I have yet to be convinced of the public good that is achieved through a Senate. I was looking at it historically. As members know, I am new to the House. I looked at the number of times that an elected House of Commons has passed legislation and it was blocked by appointed, partisan senators that owe their loyalty to no one except the people who appoint them.

It is a very telling comment when a senator can write a letter to other senators stating:

Those of us who came to the red chamber were there to get a majority vote for reform. Those in the Senate before [the Prime Minister came to power] need to realize that, had he not made appointments, the Conservatives appointed by Mulroney would now be a very small group struggling to do anything! Every senator in this caucus needs to decide where their loyalty should be and must be. The answer is simple:--

As a taxpayer this would actually give me sleepless nights. It continues:

--our loyalty is to the man who brought us here, the man who has wanted Senate reform since he entered politics, the Rt. Hon. [Prime Minister].

I would encourage every parliamentarian, my colleagues across the aisle as well, to really pay attention to that. If after reading that, we believe there is a role for the Senate, then we need to give our heads a shake. There is a need for a referendum because we need to justify that to every Canadian out there.

Every time I read this letter, I must admit I get goosebumps because here we are in a democratic country called Canada, with a parliamentary democracy, where a senator can write a letter to his whole caucus saying that their only loyalty is to the man who brought them to the Senate. That tells us a lot about the Senate, about who appoints the senators, where the power lies, and how the senators, once appointed, do not even see themselves as having any kind of commitment to Canadians. They see their commitment to the man who appointed them, who gave them their jobs.

My commitment is to the constituents who voted, whether they voted for me or whether they voted for another candidate. Once I became an MP, I am an MP for every constituent in my riding. That is my role.

It is because the Senate is archaic and out of touch, and does not connect with the people across the country, that it needs to be dissolved. Once it is dissolved, let us take those resources and do some real public good that the citizens of Canada can feel proud that their tax dollars are being spent to lift people out of poverty, to help seniors, to help our veterans, to establish a universal child care program, and to help our struggling students get an education, so that they can contribute to our economy and grow our economy.

[Fair Representation Act, December 7th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I want to add my voice to the ironic debate we are having.

At the very time the government is moving to add more parliamentarians, the current parliamentarians are being stopped from having fair and open debate.

Let us talk about democracy. Democracy is not about moving time allocation to ram an agenda through within a very short timeframe. Democracy is not about inviting more MPs into this House so they can sit here at great expense only to be muzzled and not given the opportunity to speak.

I ask the minister, on this legislation which is all about the democratic process, why is the government denigrating the parliamentarian democracy that we have? Why is the government using a time allocation motion to stop debate on such a fundamental issue that will change the nature of this Parliament?

[Air India, December 7th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, it has been 26 years since the devastating Air India tragedy. The victims' families are still waiting for justice and compensation from the Conservative government, but yet another hurdle is in their way. They must now provide more proof that they were related to the victims.

Is that a joke? What more can they do to show they were related? The families and the community just want this nightmare to end. Why is the government determined to extend this drama and humiliation?

[Fair Representation Act, December 6th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, let me make it clear that I am not supporting the Liberals' ideas on this either. I am saying that the NDP has put forward principles and we need to take the time to engage Canadians in a conversation.

There is nothing wrong with putting democracy into practice. There is nothing wrong with engaging Canadians and having that conversation with them. There is nothing wrong with taking the time to come up with a system that works. There is no rush to do this today or in the next few days. Let us stop. Let us take our time. If we are going to make changes to one of the chambers of our Parliament, it should not be done in haste.

[Fair Representation Act, December 6th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I have heard at different meetings that people always care that there is equity. As Canadians, we have understood that equality is not always possible but equity is what we go for.

Once again, I keep hearing this obsession with numbers. What the NDP has put forward in its private member's bill is actually a process. There are some guiding principles. Let us adopt those guiding principles and engage Canadians. After we have heard from Canadians, we can sit down and develop a plan. I am absolutely prepared to go back into my community and have this conversation because my constituents would not want us to pass legislation in haste that did not address their needs and was not balanced in a way that would respect our historical roots and look into the future.

[Fair Representation Act, December 6th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, my colleagues across the aisle have not given the duly elected MPs who sit in opposition, who were elected on May 2 to represent their constituents just as the government members were, the opportunity to have a fulsome debate on critical issues like the budget. Fancy moving closure on the budget. They did not allow us to have a fulsome debate on Bill C-10. That bill, which encompasses nine bills, was railroaded through Parliament with hardly any debate. There were a number of points I wanted to make but I was denied the opportunity to do that. Then those very same colleagues stand here today and say that in order to improve democracy, we must have more MPs. If more MPs are going to be brought here only to be muzzled, why would we waste taxpayers' money? I am opposed to this legislation.

I would urge my colleagues across the aisle to stop railroading legislation through the House. I would urge them to respect parliamentary democracy and respect the voices of members of the opposition who have a role to play.

Unless the opposition is able to use its voice to critique, support or amend legislation put forward by those who hold the majority, our parliamentary democracy is being undermined and we are moving toward an autocracy, in which case we would not need as many MPs as we have right now. In fact, probably far fewer would be needed if all we got to do was to come here and stand up and have, for example, 61 votes in one evening just so things can be rushed through Parliament.

One of my other colleagues today made a good point, that as we look into the future, we have to look at our history. If our foundation is strong, then changes should not be made willy-nilly. That is what I feel about this legislation that is before us today. There have been so many iterations. Now the government is saying it cannot go all the way to rep by pop so it will go a little way and do it in a hurry.

Why would we do that to Canadians when we are going through some of the most difficult economic times? While Canadians are going through these difficult times we are telling them to tighten their belts. We are telling the public sector to trim its budgets. We are doing all of that while saying that we will spend $30 million to $50 million extra so a few more MPs can sit in the House. Those MPs will not have a chance to speak because history has shown us that the government will move time allocation to cut off debate because it does not want to hear voices that disagree with its ideas.

None of us, whether it is my colleagues on this side sitting at the far end, or whether it is my colleagues across the way, should worry about having a process that engages Canadians in this conversation. If I were to ask my constituents what things they want their parliamentarians to deal with, I would bet my very last cent that changes to the House of Commons would not be in the top five. I would argue that this issue may not even make it into the top 20.

[Fair Representation Act, December 6th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the bill before us. I listened to a lot of the debate today and if I were back in my riding or any riding in Canada right now, I would really be shaking my head. I would be wondering why my parliamentarians were debating the size of Parliament when they need to be debating the economy or talking about shortening the time period that people were having to wait for their EI cheques. They should be debating critical issues such as the struggle to get doctors, especially in my riding, health care and dealing with horrendous line-ups. They should be debating the international concern about what is happening in the Middle East at this time. Rather than talking about all of those big or small issues that are critical to citizens across Canada, we are in our Parliament discussing its size.

What I have heard over and over again is that we need numbers. I heard one of my colleagues say that unless we had numbers, how could we possibly be ready to govern?

Being ready to govern is not about numbers. It is about engaging Canadians. It is about real democracy. One of the things the NDP has put out is a process that would engage Canadians in having a discussion before we go about making changes. This at a time when the government, no matter how dire the employment rate, which it is in my riding, and I do not use that term lightly, is proceeding with its unwise cuts and is not really investing in a significant way in infrastructure. Instead, its members are here to promote the growing of Parliament quickly. They are not even willing to go out and engage Canadians to hear what they have to say with respect to this matter.

As I look at all of these things and while I listen to the debate, I keep thinking that surely we in the House cannot be that out of touch with the hurt Canadians are feeling today. Our poverty rate has grown. Yesterday the OECD figures showed that the gap between the rich and the poor had widened.

I want someone to tell me how adding to Parliament in haste, without consultation with Canadians and without dealing with their issues, will address issues that are absolutely critical to them.

Also, I feel there is a lot of irony and hypocrisy in this room today. I hearing members say that that this is about democracy and proportional representation. Canada does not exactly have perfect representation by population. We know we are a huge country, with a huge geography and a huge diversity. We do not have equality. What we have is some form of equity. We know some areas have grown and they have to be addressed, but not in a foolish way that is rushed. It has been admitted that this will not take us all the way there. It is just a baby step in the right direction, which will cause a huge amount of pain. Why would we inflict that?

At the same time, I have heard a lot of words about democracy and representing our constituents. I was elected by my constituents on May 2 to come to the House to debate bills and deal with issues. Over and over again the majority across this aisle has muzzled my voice and has not allowed me to take part in debate. Therefore, by having 30 or 38 more voices in here who cannot take part in a debate because in its arrogance the government uses its majority to call for time allocation and time allotments, how can those same government MPs then sit in the House and talk about democracy?

You have given parliamentary democracy in our country a bad name because you have used time allocation and time allotments. You have not—

[Fair Representation Act, December 6th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, one of the reasons, I keep hearing, that we need to make this change right now is because of this need to reflect our communities, the changes, the rotten boroughs, and giving us a historical perspective.

Really, when we look at our geography, we have some ridings that are larger than France, so far more than numbers need to play into it when we look at our ridings.

If we are looking at diversity and trying to see that diversity in Parliament, we just have to look at my NDP caucus. I think we are very diverse and we do not have as many seats held by us as the Conservatives are holding, not only when it comes to gender but also when it comes to ethnicity and all of that.

My colleague mentioned one cost-cutting measure which is that we as MPs could take salary rollbacks in order to pay for this new drama, but what are some of the other suggestions you would have?

[Organ Donations, December 5th, 2011]

Mr. Chair, first of all, I thank the member for that clarification. When I was talking about first come, first served, I meant after all the assessments had been done. If there should happen to be three or four matches, there should be a clear way to determine who gets the organ.

We are all here to talk about what we can do together. This is not about what one person or another has done. For me this is about how we take this forward in a collaborative manner. The lives of people's loved ones are at stake.

[Organ Donations, December 5th, 2011]

Mr. Chair, I want to thank my colleague for taking part in this debate and for the excellent question that she asked.

I absolutely agree there is a role for individuals to play, but there is also a role for government to play. Sometimes we wait until we are almost at a crisis point before we think it is a good time to have that conversation.

When somebody is in the emergency room or the intensive care unit and the family is gathered around to say their final farewells, it is not a good time to be talking about organ donation. If I were in that situation, I would be more concerned about saying my farewell to my loved one lying in the bed. The last thing I would need at that moment, no matter how logical and necessary it is, would be to talk about this. It is why a registry, getting consent and being prepared are so important.

We often hear of ambulance chasers in other countries who are looking for organs. We are not that kind of a country. We do not do that here. Because of that we have an extended duty to encourage the conversation to raise Canadians' awareness. I believe that once Canadians know, they will listen to their heart and give up parts of their bodies to help their loved ones and strangers.