Jinny Sims

[Canada-Jordan Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, March 1st, 2012]

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to speak to this issue. I will be speaking in favour of sending this legislation to committee where I hope to see amendments welcomed to make this free trade agreement more humanitarian, more environmentally friendly, and definitely more beneficial for Jordan and Canada.

Many people probably are wondering how big Jordan is. Jordan is a small country. It is one of our trading partners but it is not one of our top trading partners. Out of our top 100 trading partners around the world, Jordan is ranked 88th. We do a fair bit of trade with Jordan. Our two-way trade amounts to $85.9 million. We export about $70.1 million and we import $18.7 million, mainly in clothing and textiles. If we compare that to Norway, which is ranked 10th out of all of our trading partners with exports to Norway of $2.5 billion, we can see that Jordan is important but it is not as large a contributor to our imports and exports. This begs the question: Why must there be a free trade agreement with Jordan?

We should be looking at facilitating trade around the world with many different countries. We are living in a global economy and we need to address many of the global issues.

I have been doing some research, although I must admit it has only been a very little amount because of the timing. It seems to make sense to me that this treaty with Jordan would be significant not only because we already have a good relationship with Jordan, but because it is also seen as a gateway to the rest of the Middle East and northern Africa. As such, it may not be significant on its own, but it would give us a foothold and open that gateway into other countries. We cannot ignore that.

I have also noticed that the diaspora from Jordan is very active. According to the last census, about two-thirds of them live in the Toronto area. Part of the diaspora lives in my community of Newton--North Delta as well. They are Canadians who contribute to our society but for very good reasons have kept strong links with their home country.

As we look at what is happening internationally, it is always good to explore markets around the world, big and small. At the same time, we have to look at what that means.

I want to refer to NAFTA. I was not in Parliament when NAFTA was negotiated, but I do know that some of the fallout from NAFTA has not been good for Canadians.

In my province of B.C., logs are being loaded on trucks to be shipped to the United States while towns in B.C. are turning into ghost towns and dormitory towns as the mills close down.

In British Columbia and other provinces, people see well-paying jobs that gave them some security with respect to health care and pensions going over the border. They are wondering what free trade really means. Does it mean that we give away Canadian jobs? That is the question that has to be asked every step of the way.

We always hear that there will be a review panel to review this and that. My experience with review panels has not been all that great.

Let us look, for example, at the administration to the south of Canada. After all, we did sign NAFTA with the Americans. Their government blatantly said in a speech to the nation that companies that bring jobs back into the United States will get greater tax benefits, and it will look favourably on companies that create jobs at home.

Whenever we look at free trade agreements, we often feel that we cannot raise those kinds of issues, or how often do our government negotiators do that. Other countries do not shy away from protecting their jobs at home. The Americans do not shy away from offering extra tax incentives to keep companies at home, growing jobs at home, instead of contracting out to call centres and manufacturing places all over the world.

That is one side of the free trade agreements that we always have to be aware of, the net effect on working people right across this country.

The other side of the coin is we always have to pay attention to what happens in the country that we have signed a bilateral agreement with. We have signed some bilateral agreements with countries to the south of us. In my previous life, as the president of the B.C. Teachers' Federation and then with the Canadian Teachers' Federation, I had the privilege to travel to many countries where I saw the sweatshops and the working conditions. I saw the beautiful roads that bring goods up to the north. However, once one leaves those main arterial routes, what one sees is abject poverty.

Canadians have to ask themselves if that is what they want for their future. Do they really want to see child labour? Do they want to see children in deplorable working conditions? Do they really want to save a few pennies while those kinds of working conditions occur in other countries?

Let us look at the labour situation in Jordan. From all accounts it is not that great. However, to give Jordan credit, it has signed agreements and protocols. Unfortunately, very little enforcement is taking place. As a trading partner, do we really want to finalize this trade agreement if we do not see some teeth given to enforcement?

The United Steelworkers Union supported this free trade agreement in the beginning. Then it began to see what the working conditions were like.

Charles Kernaghan, the U.S. National Labor Committee executive director, testified that after nine years of a U.S. trade agreement, thousands of foreign guest workers in the Middle East kingdom continued to be stripped of their passports, forced into 99-hour--let me stress that, 99-hour--workweeks and were denied their rightful wages while being housed in bedbug-infested dorms.

Even though the USW had supported the U.S.-Jordan trade deal when it was negotiated in the early days, it now says that it was a decision its union has come to deeply regret. It no longer supports it. The U.S.-Jordan trade deal immediately descended into the trafficking of tens of thousands of foreign workers to Jordanian factories.

We know that Jordan is very dependent on migrant domestic workers as well. Some of them are not just hired as domestics to work in people's homes, but to work in textile factories as well. Once migrant domestic workers are hired, there is very little mobility for them. They are at the mercy of their employers. It is not easy for them, even after years of service, to change employers. Therefore, though Jordan has committed in a side agreement to address labour laws, it behooves us to do due diligence and to make sure that we see some action on enforcement.

Human Rights Watch Canada, in October 2011, released a report called “Domestic Plight: How Jordanian Law Officials, Employers, and Recruiters Fail Abused Migrant Domestic Workers”. The report details the absolutely deplorable working conditions for domestic workers. Most of these workers come from countries where people are desperate to go somewhere to make a living. They come from Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Philippines and India. The report shows that very little has changed since these issues were first raised in 2010. That definitely should draw our attention and should push us. I am sure our negotiators will be pushing hard on that. We will be looking for some commitments to that at the committee stage.

When we do free trade with another nation, we have to look at not only what we gain out of that deal but what kind of an impact it has on development within that nation. For example, should foreign investors get a higher level of protection than investors from within Jordan? I would say absolutely not. It is so colonial in many ways to say, “We are coming in, we trade with you and therefore we should get better investment protections. Our companies, individuals from Canada who invest in Jordan, should have better, superior provisions for the protection of their investments than Jordanians themselves”.

I do not know how we could look at ourselves in the mirror if we were to sign such agreements. Certainly, I know that as a Canadian, it is very difficult when foreign corporations have better rights than Canadians. Therefore, why would I want to support something that would give such lack of protection to Jordanian investors? As part of the agreement we should absolutely ensure that no such two-tier system, one for foreign investors and one for native investors, is created.

It is very similar when we look at environmental issues. We live in a global economy. We live in a world that is shrinking every single day it seems. We can watch what is happening in our living rooms. I can turn on my TV and see what is happening in drought-ridden Africa. I can see the abject poverty and the need for humanitarian aid immediately. I can see the violence in Syria and experience it, sitting in my chair in my living room.

In the same way, our environment is not confined within different countries. Whenever we negotiate, it is absolutely imperative, not only for our generation but for the generations to come, that we pay special attention to ensuring that we build in environmental protections. Whatever happens in Jordan, whatever regulations it adopts, has a direct impact not only on Jordan and countries surrounding it but really on the whole globe, just we know that the clearing of the rain forests has a direct impact on our climate here. Therefore, it is imperative for our world's existence that we pay special attention to addressing environmental issues.

It is often easy to say that it can be a sidebar deal, we will deal with it later, or that we cannot really push for environmental issues until after we are a trading partner. One lesson I have learned is that we have a far better chance of getting somewhere when we still hold some chips in our hands. We do, so let us not put that one off.

It is the same with human rights. I have not changed my position in the House over the years. As a nation we have a very proud history not only for advocating for human rights around the world but for being champions of human rights around the world. Over the last few years, we have seen that reputation tarnished a bit. Yesterday in committee I heard about a comment made in South America that Canada no longer really cared about our reputation overseas and that we do not have the kind of reputation we used to have. I can tell the House that Canadians care very deeply about our reputation around the world.

When I was much younger, I travelled around Europe from England. I was always amazed at how many Americans had the Canadian flag attached to their backpacks. Those were the days when I could travel with a backpack. I do not think I could do that today. I often asked these young Americans why they were not wearing their American flag. They said that they got much better treatment when they wore the Canadian flag, that people treated them totally differently. Before leaving the U.S. they would try to acquire a Canadian flag to sew onto their backpacks or wear, to show that they were from Canada. They said they were welcomed and that people would want to speak to them and tell them about the amazing work we were doing on human rights issues, on addressing poverty and on working with developing countries. We were known as peacekeepers, as a nation that brokered peace and because of that they had a great deal of admiration.

However, in my opinion, we no longer have a seat on the United Nations Security Council, thanks to the actions of the government. Canada no longer has that untarnished image as peacekeepers. I would say that it behooves us, and I plead with the government, to make sure that as we are looking at signing free trade agreements, be it with China, Jordan or any country around the world, that we absolutely make human rights a central issue. We have to make sure that we are there not only as advocates but that we make it one of our conditions, and that we put some teeth into those negotiations to enforce human rights in those countries.

We have heard the argument that we can do that after we become a trading partner. We need to be doing that now. As I said at the beginning, I am supporting the bill going to committee, where New Democrats will be raising those concerns.

[Bullying, February 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, every seven seconds in Canada a child is bullied. In fact, far too many people in our workplaces, communities and schools are victims of bullying behaviour.

Tomorrow many in my riding of Newton--North Delta will mark Pink Shirt Day. It is a campaign that began in 2007 when two brave students decided to take action after witnessing a younger student being bullied for wearing a pink shirt to school.

This year, the City of Surrey, Surrey RCMP and CUPE Local 402 launched a new youth film contest that focuses on ending bullying. I commend them, as well as the Surrey Board of Trade, which is focusing on bullying in the workplace.

To all the young and not so young people in my riding who are victims of bullying, I say that together we will make it better. On Pink Shirt Day I am reminded of the famous quote from Tommy Douglas, “Courage my friends, 'tis not too late to build a better world”.

[Business of Supply, February 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, lifelong learning is the only way to go. That is what we want for ourselves and for everyone. As for jurisdictional issues, the first nations community should be the driver and should have a critical say in it.

I want to talk about portables. In my community in Surrey there are thousands of children sitting in portables. That is not acceptable. However, I have visited portables in first nations communities on the west coast of B.C., and we would not survive for an hour in some of those portables. It is an absolute shame and is unacceptable.

[Business of Supply, February 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely we need to work in partnership. No one level of government has the solution. I would also argue that the time for talking without taking action is over.

Shannen passed away at the age of 15 with a beautiful dream. That dream is one we would want for any of our own children: a decent school that is culturally sensitive. Surely it is time for Canada, one of the wealthiest nations in the world, to ensure that all our children, including our first nations children, have a school that is culturally sensitive.

Sometimes we use working in partnership to prolong taking action. It is time to take action now. Let us not confuse the issue by throwing around numbers and what has been done over a number of years. We see the images on television. The circumstances are dire. Children in Canada, Canadian-born children, do not have a decent school, never mind a decent education.

[Business of Supply, February 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of sadness that I rise to speak to this motion.

From 1984 to 1992 I taught at an inner-city school in Nanaimo. At that inner-city school there was a very high percentage of aboriginal students. I saw the struggles first-hand that those students were going through.

After having taught for a while, I became a counsellor at the school. I soon began to see overall how many of the aboriginal students left school, disappeared from the school I should say, at a very early age. I had to ask myself why that was happening. Why was it that so many secondary school students from the aboriginal community were leaving school? We had no way of knowing what was happening to them.

As I got to know many of the students, I began to realize the struggles they were having. I also began to realize that in order to address those issues we had to talk not about equality but about equity. There were services we needed to provide that were not needed by all students at the school but were absolutely needed by first nations students. I also saw in the school the lack of role models and mentors. I saw the alienation aboriginal young people felt in public schools when they walked onto those hallowed halls.

I left in 1992, but I returned to that school in 2007. During that period, the provincial and federal governments made all kinds of pronouncements about how they had made things better. It was with a great deal of sadness that I realized when I went back to the school that things were actually worse for first nations students. Things were worse 15 years after I had left that inner-city school.

Yes, I saw more first nations workers. I saw more liaison and closer ties with the community. I saw more social interaction. However, I also saw a greater number of students who were disillusioned and not engaged in their learning. There are fundamental reasons the students were not engaged in their learning. We were trying to educate them in an environment that was not culturally sensitive. We were trying, through our own education system and without meaning to, to colonize them. That is what happened. There was very little in the curriculum or the day-to-day teaching about the aboriginal community itself or the language. Maintenance of a language is a very important link to a culture and therefore, it is absolutely imperative to try to preserve many first nations languages.

The point I want to make is when we look at Shannen's dream, she is asking not just for a nice school but also for a culturally sensitive education so that the curriculum actually speaks to who the first nations children are. Who their parents are speaks to their history, dreams and aspirations.

This reminded me a little of my early years in teaching. There was a wonderful program in England called the Ladybird reading scheme. The stories are written in beautiful language. Jane and Peter, both Caucasian, had a dog called Pat. They went on beautiful picnics. They would put out a tablecloth. They would go to the park. Everything was glorious.

That reading program was sent to the Caribbean. This amazing program that was so successful in England failed in the Caribbean because children in the Caribbean could not relate physically to Jane and Peter nor to the activities in which Jane and Peter engaged. They did not have the kind of family structure that Jane and Peter had. Every Sunday in the summer they did not go to the cricket field or on a picnic.

One of the things I have learned from teaching over the years is that if we really want to connect and engage children in their learning, we have to connect with the child. Those of us who teach may enter the profession to teach a subject but I can assure the House that those of us who have a passion for teaching and who stay in teaching do it because we love working with children.

I have argued the point most of my life that the only way to be an effective teacher is to build relationships and know where the students are coming from. The teacher's role is not to make them like everybody else. Today in our multicultural society, we are sensitive to that. I would say that where we lack sensitivity as a nation even today is toward our first nations communities.

Attawapiskat has been in the news a lot recently. I thank my colleague, the member for Timmins—James Bay, not only for his courage but also for his passion for social justice and equity. He has not given up on that story or that community. He has gone there. He has painted us a picture.

Suddenly the world's eyes are on Attawapiskat. The United Nations is looking at it. The Red Cross is looking at it. Every Canadian is looking at what I would say are some of the worst third world living conditions right here on Canadian soil for Canadian citizens. Canadians are upset. They want action.

Canadians do not want long-term promises anymore. The children cannot wait. I have a very difficult time when people say that this is going to be a 20-year plan. That 20-year plan has to start today. It has to be meaningful and it has to provide services.

Twelve years is a long time. Imagine that from birth to the time a child reaches 12 years old is how long Attawapiskat has been dreaming of a school. In the meantime, Shannen has passed on without having her dream realized.

I would urge all my colleagues on all sides of the House to go to www.shannensdream.ca and to watch the very moving video. I urge all members to make a commitment in this Parliament to work together to make Shannen's dream come true.

All Canadian children, no matter where they are born, north, south, centre, east, west, no matter whether they are from aboriginal or other ethnic groups, deserve a quality education. It makes economic sense to provide that. The savings to the health care system, the increased productivity and the taxes going into the public purse all show that this is not just a humanitarian issue, but it makes economic sense as well. The Conservatives should be able to understand that.

[Financial System Review Act, February 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, when I look at the credit unions I have had experience in dealing with, as well as other credit unions in my riding and province, I am so impressed with the incredible amount of work they do in their communities. I call them the heart and soul of my community because of the way they support not only programs for seniors but also for youth by way of scholarships. They also give their members a real say in the operations of the credit union. I have looked at, for example, the Vancity Credit Union and the many others in my riding that do an amazing job.

We absolutely need to support credit unions right across the country.

[Financial System Review Act, February 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I think if I were not a parliamentarian today and were instead sitting at home in my riding listening to this debate and looking at the significant piece of legislation we are debating, I would be shaking my head and saying, these are the problems I am facing day to day.

We know that the ratio of consumer debt to disposable income is a critical factor in the stability of a nation's well-being, and we can see that is very high now. We can also look at the kinds of practices out there for granting mortgages, which are actually resulting in a play on the housing market, a market that has not slowed down at all. In this regard I would point out that most young people in my community cannot even afford to buy a house because house prices are so high.

When I look at all of these things, I keep thinking, why do my colleagues across the aisle not want to take the time to do a comprehensive and meaningful review but just deal with technicalities instead, and why do we not want to hold the banks more accountable for their actions?

[Financial System Review Act, February 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, we hear a lot from the other side of the House about the need for transparency and accountability. When we look at the online consultation, I know that in this age of technology we think that everyone is online, but I would argue that they are not.

There were 30 submissions and we did not get permission to share them, not even with parliamentarians. That causes me concern. Out of those 30 submissions, 27 are anonymous. As far as I am concerned, these should be set aside, because no one should be able to have that kind of an input and be given that kind of weight when they are not willing to put their names to the submissions they are making. How can we hold people accountable for these?

Once again, this is an example of the lack of accountability and transparency by the government, and a real push by it to rush legislation through with the pretext of it having held consultations already. However, when we look underneath the layers, very little consultation has taken place.

[Financial System Review Act, February 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely understand that this piece of legislation has a sunset clause of April 12. The government has known for five years that this legislation has a sunset clause, and since May 2, when this newly constituted Parliament was put in place, the government has had the opportunity to introduce this bill and discuss it in a thoughtful manner. However, once again the government has used bullying tactics to shut down debate, to push through a piece of legislation using the argument of the sunset clause to do so. I would argue that it is doing this so that we do not have time for a detailed debate.

[Financial System Review Act, February 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am appealing to my colleagues across the way. Not often is there much love in this House, but this is Valentine's Day, so I am pleading with them to let us take the time to fix this legislation in a way that would give Canadians more security and assurances about their financial houses, so they can keep their places straight and so that seniors, for example, who come into my office and are being gouged through credit cards or user fees will not have all of those complaints. Remember the banks involved are the same ones that get incredible tax breaks from us as well.

Mr. Speaker, it is Valentine's Day, so with the indulgence of everyone in the House, I will wish the constituents in my riding a wonderful day with their loved ones, their families, their friends and their neighbours.

I would also like to say that I am thinking a lot about my three wonderful grandchildren, Jacob, Jessica and Emily, and that I wish them a happy Valentine's Day. I wish I were there to eat the cupcakes they have made, because when they phoned me this morning, they told me they had made me a cupcake. It is going in the freezer for when I go home, and I will enjoy it at that time.

As I was saying earlier, there are a number of problems with this piece of legislation, including in the process or way it is being rushed through this House with unseemly haste, and substantively with some problems with it. I believe this is our opportunity as parliamentarians to address issues like the very high interest rates and to have some regulations around those, and to address issues around user fees and issues around foreign takeover of some Canadian assets.

With that in mind, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you.