Jinny Sims

[Business of Supply, November 25th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely. This motion is phrased in such a way that it is neutral. It is non-partisan and will apply to all political parties, no matter which party is in government. It actually gives the authority to the Speaker to make those determinations.

I want to read a quote that will add to this:

Parliament is derived from the French word “parler” which means to speak. It is the place where the representatives of the common people speak to issues that affect the common good.

That was said by the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism. That is all we are asking for, the right to speak for the common good.

[Business of Supply, November 25th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the election was about Canadians sending MPs to represent them in Parliament right here on Parliament Hill. That is exactly what Canadians did. They did not elect every Conservative candidate as an MP. They elected some members of the opposition, and they want the opposition to play a role.

I am getting really fed up with being told that things were debated before and that they are old history. When Canadians vote, they do not vote on specific bills or specific actions. Canadians are not aware of every line and every aspect of the bills that have been presented here. What we are hearing is a lot of rhetoric from the government side.

What I am saying is that elections are about electing MPs and sending them to the House so they can represent the diverse points of view from across this country. That is what elections are about.

[Business of Supply, November 25th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup.

I stand today in support of the motion before the House. It is quite ironic that today I heard a colleague across the floor in the ruling party, admittedly a party that won a majority, say, “everyone has a right to have his or her voice heard in this House”. That is what he said when he was presenting a petition with which he did not agree. I was heartened by that, thinking there must be many Conservative MPs who agree with this motion.

If everyone has a right to have his or her voice heard in Parliament, then surely parliamentarians in the House should also have the same right to have their voices heard. I often hear the argument in the House that this bill was debated last March or this bill was debated last September. I have to remind all colleagues that Parliament dissolved, it is sitting again and this is a new session. Many of us were not in the House when the bills were previously introduced. When the legislation is reintroduced, it is new legislation. That is how it gets moved and spoken to. Because we have over 100 new MPs in the House, not only the newly-elected MPs but also the experienced MPs who have returned to the House should have the same right to discuss and debate the bills before them.

There have been a number of bills moved in the House that I have wanted to speak against, not because I want to hear the sound of my voice but because I want to represent the voices of my constituents. I have not been given that right because closure or time allocation has been moved. Surely, that cannot be right.

As a history teacher for years, I taught all about parliamentary democracy. We argue and we are very proud of the fact that democracy is fundamental. It has many flaws, but despite all its flaws, it is the best that we have. A parliamentary democracy is the best form of democracy we have. MPs are elected and the majority forms government, but then they come to the House to debate the issues. Having a majority does not make government a dictatorship. It does not mean that because it has a majority, the voices of those who oppose its points of view have to be silenced by moving procedural motions to close debate.

Parliamentary democracy, at its fundamental level, absolutely requires informed debate in the House. The government gets to take the time to present its perspective and the opposition gets to present its perspective both in comment and later in amendments, if there are any. However, what I personally have experienced in the House is that more and more I feel my voice has been muzzled, that I am not allowed to represent my constituents or a different point of view. This process is a threat to parliamentary democracy.

We are very proud of the role we play internationally in promoting democracy. In Egypt, we speak out for democracy. In Libya, we helped to overthrow a regime because we believed in democracy.

We talk about the importance of democracy in all these other countries, and this is an appeal to every parliamentarian. Surely we cannot sit in the House and undermine the very parliamentary democracy that we try to promote in other nations. We sound like hypocrites.

When we talk about the Middle East, whether it is Libya or Egypt, we talk about the right to protest, the right to free speech, the right for the opposition to express its point of view. When it comes to Ukraine, we speak out against the treatment of the opposition, and justifiably so. That is our role. Then surely my colleagues across this floor cannot sit silent, while their own colleagues' voices are muzzled in Parliament by the government moving closure time and time again.

I looked at some of the facts and figures, because I wanted to take a look at some of the history behind this. In 53 sitting days, the Conservative government has used time allocation 10 times and 8 times in the last 39 days. What do the Conservatives have to hide? They have legislation. Let us debate it, let us express our points of view and let us hear the debate. The Conservatives have the majority and will be able to pass their legislation without muzzling the voice of the opposition.

Then I think, what is the real agenda here? Is the majority government in a hurry to prorogue Parliament and go off, back to its constituencies? Or has it become so arrogant and out of touch with Canadians that it thinks the majority it received now allows it to behave more like an autocracy than a democracy? We really have to pay attention to those things.

Every parliamentarian needs to support this motion if we believe in a parliamentary democracy. Parliamentary democracy is not about shutting down the voices of the parliamentarians. It is not as if the debate has been a nuisance debate. On a bill that is the size of a phone book for many of our townships, we have had so little debate and many members have not even had the chance to speak. That is the budget bill. Surely, when it comes to the budget, how we spend the money of Canadians, the opposition should have the right to speak out and ask questions. If the government has nothing to hide, why does it keep cutting down debate?

When the Conservatives were in opposition, they had a totally different attitude. I have this wonderful quote. I want to remind members what has happened on the omnibus crime bill as well. That is also being rushed through, nine bills being rushed through in a few days of debate without much time for us to ask questions and for us to digest what is out there. Once again, why?

This is a quote from the Minister of Public Safety, on November 27, 2001. How things change when the Conservatives have a majority. He said:

For the government to bring in closure and time allocation is wrong. It sends out the wrong message to the people of Canada. It tells the people of Canada that the government is afraid of debate, afraid of discussion and afraid of publicly justifying the steps it has taken.

My appeal to all parliamentarians is this. If the government has nothing to hide, let us debate and let us support this motion.

[International Co-operation, November 25th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, these people are trying to help the world's poorest, and all they get from the government is doublespeak and off-base attacks.

CIDA was four months past its own deadline, waiting for a media event, to announce the Muskoka initiative funding. The International Aboriginal Youth Internships were timed so the minister could announce them on a particular day.

Why is the minister more interested in flashy press conferences than actually getting the job done?

[International Co-operation, November 25th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, last year when Canadians heard that CIDA would be streamlining the application process for developing programs, they expected improvement.

It turns out that for Conservatives, streamlining just means delaying. Fifty groups have waited for over three months to hear whether they are getting the funding. Critical programs in developing countries are being cut.

Why is the minister putting these important development projects at risk?

[Copyright Modernization Act, November 24th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of items that this Parliament and previous Parliaments have dealt with. One that comes to my mind is an end to child poverty. We debated that in this country for a long time, but I do not see a bill before us to say we are going to take action on it right now.

Even though some of the concepts in this bill might have been discussed earlier, this is a new bill before a new Parliament. Therefore, how does my colleague see the impact of the bill not only on artists, but also on students?

[National Transit Strategy, November 17th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address an urgent issue in my community of Newton—North Delta and in many cities across this country. The lack of public transit for hard-working Canadian families is abysmal. Challenging economic times make affordable, accessible transit all the more important. My community has grown at an astounding rate for the past two decades, yet investment in infrastructure has lagged.

Our party is calling for a national transit strategy, a permanent investment plan for environmentally-responsible, quality transportation right across the country. Canada should be a leader on this issue. Instead, we are falling behind. Canada is the only country in the G8 without a national transit strategy.

I want to take this opportunity to urge the House to work with all levels of government to establish a national transit strategy that would benefit all hard-working Canadians.

[Business of Supply, November 17th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I do not really want to get into he said, she said and they did, we did. I want to ask a very simple question.

Every one of us in this room knows that water is recognized as a right by the international community.

I have very young children. I have grandchildren, too. Would I want them growing up in communities where there is not clean water? I would say, categorically, no.

It makes very little difference to me that these little steps are being taken because today we still have children living in deplorable conditions without access to safe drinking water.

Is the government ready to commit all the necessary resources to ensure every Canadian child has access to clean drinking water, which is an internationally recognized human right?

[Business of Supply, November 17th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, it is hard for me to believe we are talking about Canada and about children who are using a bucket as a washroom. We are talking about sewage going out into open ditches. We are talking about those who do not have clean drinking water. We are talking about Canada where the gap between the rich and the poor is getting wider. I see that in my own community.

I want to focus today on the aboriginal students and young people. I am absolutely amazed that there is even a need for this debate, that the government is not rushing out saying that it has not known this was happening and that it is going to go out and fix this right now. The government did that for banks. It fixed the problems of banks and oil companies by giving them huge tax breaks and money.

What are some concrete steps the government could take straight away to ensure that no child in Canada lives in these kinds of conditions?

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, November 16th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, every one of us in this room was elected to represent our constituents, and we were elected to be members of Parliament in a parliamentary democracy. A parliamentary democracy does not shut down debate so other points of view are not heard.

I heard from my colleague earlier that this budget was debated last March. Many of us were not in the House last March.

The budget is actually bigger than many telephone books in many of our small towns around the country, and yet the debate is being limited so that we cannot shine light on what is in the budget.

If the debate were allowed to proceed, the government would get to paint a glorious picture of what it thinks it is doing, and we, as the opposition, would get to comment on what is good and what is lacking in that budget.

Surely, parliamentary democracy requires time for parliamentarians to debate. The government cannot start behaving as if we were living in an autocracy.

My question is, will the government allow the opposition to debate this without time constraints?