Jinny Sims

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, March 24th, 2014]

With regard to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program, what is the total number of entries of temporary foreign workers, and total number of temporary foreign workers present for each of the following areas, (i) Edmonton, (ii) Calgary, (iii) Wood Buffalo, (iv) Lethbridge, (v) Red Deer, (vi) Medicine Hat, (vii) Grande Prairie, (viii) other regions in Alberta?

[Supreme Court of Canada, March 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, the Supreme Court quite rightly checked the power of the PMO and ruled that the Prime Minister cannot ignore the law or unilaterally amend the Canadian Constitution.

Unfortunately, not all Conservative members understood what was going on. One took to social media to say that by interpreting the Constitution, the Supreme Court was undermining our “system of checks and balances in Canada”.

For the benefit of my Conservative colleagues, let me explain. The Supreme Court interprets laws passed by Parliament based on a document called the Constitution, and in particular the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That Conservatives do not understand the role the court plays in protecting provincial jurisdiction and individual rights is, at best, disturbing.

Canadians deserve better.

[Questions on the Order Paper, March 7th, 2014]

With regard to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program, which Alberta employers have been issued a positive Labour Market Opinion, broken down by region and National Occupation Classifications: (a) for Alberta's minimum wage in the following years, (i) September 1, 2005--August 31, 2007: $7.00, (ii) September 1, 2007--March 31, 2008: $8.00, (iii) April 1, 2008--March 31, 2009: $8.40, (iv) April 1, 2009--August 31, 2011: $8.80, (v) September 1, 2011--present: $9.40; and (b) for the following wage rate ranges for the following years, (i) September 1, 2005--August 31, 2007: $7.01-$7.50, (ii) September 1, 2007--March 31, 2008: $8.01-8.50, (iii) April 1, 2008--March 31, 2009: $8.41-$8.90, (iv) April 1, 2009--August 31, 2011: $8.81-$9.30, (v) September 1, 2011--August 31, 2012: $9.41-$9.90, (vi) September 1, 2012--August 31, 2013: $9.76-$10.25, (vii) September 1, 2005--August 31, 2007: $7.51-$8.00, (viii) September 1, 2007--March 31, 2008: $8.51: $9.00, (ix) April 1, 2008--March 31, 2009: $8.91- $9.40, (x) April 1, 2009--August 31, 2011: $9.31-$9.80, (xi) September 1, 2011--August 31, 2012: $9.91-$10.40, (xii) September 1, 2012--August 31, 2013: $10.26-$10.75?

[The Budget, February 12th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, last year's budget unilaterally cut provincial skills training, but the government finally promised to sit down and negotiate these changes.

Yesterday, Conservatives were back to making threats. They will unilaterally kill provincial job-training programs unless provinces agree to the government's demands.

Too many Canadians are out of work. They want the federal government to work with provinces and with municipalities. Why does the minister prefer threats to collaboration?

[Committees of the House, February 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to comment on the tabling of the report on older workers in the workplace. I and my New Democrat colleagues on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities believe that older workers deserve every opportunity to find fulfilling and gainful employment and to retire in dignity, if they so choose.

The report fails to address important challenges facing Canadian workers as they approach retirement, such as financial insecurity, inadequate savings, and discrimination in the workplace due to their ages. It was these shortcomings that led to my submission of a supplementary report to include six recommendations, including that the federal government increase the GIS to eliminate poverty among seniors.

[Fair Elections Act, February 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it illustrates that while the government has said that the bill is about increasing electoral engagement, it is all about voter suppression and keeping the vote out of the hands of the most vulnerable in our Canadian society.

[Fair Elections Act, February 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, that is nothing new with this government. We all know that the Conservatives have an allergy to data, science, and informed advice. In this case, I was not surprised when I heard that the elections officer had not actually seen the legislation or had been given any chance to participate, except for a summary meeting in the summer, without any legislation in front before him.

Once again, the government is showing that this is not about fixing elections and making things more democratic. This is about its own ideological agenda. This is about voter suppression and to cover-up and avoid accountability.

[Fair Elections Act, February 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, every one of us in the House wants to make sure that people who are eligible to vote, vote. However, the system and the changes introduced by the government will actually prevent people from voting.

I hear a lot about 25%, but I also know that there were many technical difficulties that had very little to do with vouching. There are other ways that we can fix the problem where there are errors, maybe with more training for the staff that are hired. They could be looking at the vouching system and putting some protocols in place.

My Conservative colleagues across the way talk about encouraging more people to participate. However, this bill would actually prevent a growing percentage of our citizens from voting.

[Fair Elections Act, February 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I do not really want to say that it is a pleasure, but I am really pleased that I have the privilege to speak out very strongly against the bill that we are debating here today, Bill C-23, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts.

When we take a look at this piece of reform, it is something that the House has been waiting a long time for. Ever since 2011, as long as I have been here as an MP, we have heard over and over again that the government was about to bring forward amendments to the Canada Elections Act in order to improve accountability, transparency, and so on. What a big disappointment, then, when this bill was tabled.

First of all, let us take a look at the process. A bill that is many pages in number and not without insignificant changes is tabled, and before debate has even started, there is already a move from my colleagues across the way to shut down debate.

We suggested that the bill, after its first reading, should go to committee stage so that all parties could work on something this significant in a non-partisan way and come up with something that works for all Canadians. However, the Conservative government shut it down.

We then started the debate in the House. Before two speakers had finished their speeches, we had a motion. What a surprise. We had a motion to shut down the debate.

I am so proud to be a Canadian. I am so proud that I live in a country that has a parliamentary democracy, but right now, I fear that our parliamentary democracy is at risk. We cannot take those kinds of comments lightly. It takes a lot for me to say that.

The reason I say that parliamentary democracy is at risk is that there is a role for parliamentarians. When a bill is produced, parliamentarians representing ridings right across this huge and diverse country get to take part in a debate and put forward their perspectives. These perspectives are the ones they hear from their constituents, as well as those that they have garnered from their own experiences.

However, once again, the Conservative government has a lot to hide. When a government tries to shut down debate, it has something to hide. Once again, the Conservative government has moved time allocation. It seems so ironic that the very bill that purports to address parliamentary democracy and the elections of parliamentarians is where the government chose to use this tactic of shutting down debate. It is just so wrong.

Not only is it wrong, let us also look at the timing of this bill that we have been waiting months and years for. When did the government decide to table it? It decided to table the bill during Olympics week. One would think it would be enough with people preoccupied with watching and supporting our athletes at Sochi. That was not enough of a cover, so the government needed the time allocation, the Olympics, and the budget a few days later, to absolutely suppress debate of critical issues.

It is, as I hear my colleagues saying, very disturbing. More than disturbing, this is a deliberate act by a government that speaks about accountability and transparency. Now that it has a majority, it feels that it does not have to be transparent or accountable. Now, we are seeing the arrogance of the majority, trying to push through legislation without giving parliamentarians the chance they need to debate the issue.

I have many colleagues in my caucus who are very disturbed that they will not get the time to speak, that they will not get to put forward their perspectives on what is absolutely flawed in the bill.

I want to get down to the content of the bill. First, let me say that there are some minor improvements in the bill. We are not saying everything in the bill is bad, but these minor improvements are buried in a fundamentally flawed bill. For example, we are delighted that there would more advance polling days, which could help to increase voter turnout. The bill also helps to modernize the online voter registration system by indirectly allowing e-signatures, which is a good thing, but on the other hand the bill also has a number of flaws, and I want to get to a few of those.

First, I do not know what the government has against the Chief Electoral Officer. Over the last few years I have been impressed by how he has been doing his job in a non-partisan way. However, my colleagues across the way do not like that, so they are removing power from the Chief Electoral Officer instead of increasing the powers of his office, and they are making an unnecessary separation between Elections Canada and the commissioner.

Once again, the Conservatives have absolutely no evidence that the Electoral Officer has been anything but non-partisan. Just because the Electoral Officer found some misdeeds by colleagues across the way and some technical difficulties with things that were being done by members in the House, it does not mean he is not doing his job. He should not be punished personally and his reputation put at stake, but neither should his office have its power limited because my colleagues across the way are too scared about what it could mean for the future if his office retains its powers and who do not want that kind of oversight of their actions.

The other part of the bill I find most disturbing is that it makes voting more complex for our most vulnerable Canadians. This is a form of voter suppression that reminds us of what we have seen south of the border. I never thought I would see it in Canada. We have the kind of policies being put forward in the bill that would absolutely disenfranchise our most vulnerable, including the low income, transients, and our youth. All of this is very disturbing at a time when we should be engaging more people in a debate and the electoral process. We have a government that is absolutely suppressing the voters who might have the most complaints against its policies and who are very disturbed by how they are being marginalized more and more.

The bill also makes it difficult by changing some of the political financing rules in ways that absolutely favour my colleagues across the way. The bill does not actually increase a person's tax rebate. I did not really hear a clamouring anywhere in the country to the effect, “Please allow us to give more to the political process because we want to”. It is a cash grab by the Conservative Party. All of this will benefit that party.

In other parts of the bill the Conservatives are trying to clarify what is already there. The act already states it is wrong to commit fraud, yet now we are having that being spelled out again. I have some concerns about that. Is this a cover up so they can then go out and say that this provision did not really exist? Let me assure the House that it did exist.

This is a travesty and I urge my colleagues to take their time and that we be given the time to be parliamentarians and to debate important bills.

[Public Safety, February 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the murder rate in Surrey is 300% higher than it is in Vancouver; yet, there are half the number of police officers.

Surrey has one of the highest homicide rates in the province but ranks 31st for police per capita.

The Conservative government promised it would put more police on our streets; yet, it is seven years later and it has failed to deliver.

When will the government finally honour its commitment and put more police on Surrey's streets?