Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 924
View Jinny Jogindera Sims Profile
NDP (BC)
Mr. Speaker, on June 11, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness said in the House that 20 RCMP officers were in Surrey and “that boots are already on the ground”. The Conservatives even had the gall to repeat that in the House yesterday and today. Unfortunately, it is not true.
The city of Surrey has confirmed that not one of the 100 promised RCMP officers is on the ground in Surrey. Why are the Conservatives misleading the public and saying that new officers have arrived when they have not?
View Jinny Jogindera Sims Profile
NDP (BC)
Mr. Speaker, the minister said that the promised boots are already on the ground to fight gang violence in Surrey, but the truth is there are no new RCMP officers on the ground in Surrey. The current complement of RCMP officers is 703, exactly what it was more than two months ago. The minister misled the public. The people of Surrey deserve better.
Will the Conservatives stop playing games with my community's safety and tell us exactly when the 100 new RCMP officers they promised will actually be deployed?
View Jinny Jogindera Sims Profile
NDP (BC)
Mr. Speaker, included in the report is our dissenting report. We feel that this is an area where there is a great deal that is not known and much further study needs to be done. We are also very concerned about the impact on social programs in our communities.
View Jinny Jogindera Sims Profile
NDP (BC)
Mr. Speaker, in the dying days of the current government, the Conservatives are rolling out photo ops, wasting millions on partisan advertising and still more on opinion polling, all on the taxpayers' dime. Gone are the Conservatives who promised reform. Gone are the Conservatives who wanted to put an end to Liberal corruption. Gone are the Conservatives who rode to Ottawa on the white horse of accountability. They came here to change Ottawa, but Ottawa changed them. Their senators are in court. They have shut down parliamentary debate over 100 times.
The leader of the third party, who broke his promise of open nominations to his own party, is now making 32 new promises.
Thankfully, change is in the air. In October Canadians can finally vote for the progressive change they want and actually get it.
View Jinny Jogindera Sims Profile
NDP (BC)
Mr. Speaker, last I looked, we have laws against domestic violence in Canada. If I remember correctly, someone who wants to come to this country is only allowed to bring one spouse, and someone who is in Canada can only be married to one person at a time. If people want to get married again, they have to go through a divorce and all of the regular things.
Therefore, a specific question for my colleague is this: What issue is the government trying to address that is not already covered by current laws? We have laws against polygamy. We do not condone child marriage. We have laws against domestic violence.
Why do we have a bill with a title “barbaric practices”? Would he indicate to me which particular communities they are trying to target with the bill?
View Jinny Jogindera Sims Profile
NDP (BC)
Mr. Speaker, I stand with pride today to congratulate the graduating classes of Princess Margaret, Tamanawis, Panorama Ridge, Frank Hurt, Delview, North Delta, Seaquam and Burnsview secondary schools in Surrey, Newton and North Delta. As a teacher, I am delighted to know that these young people have worked diligently to achieve their goals. I wish them a lifetime of continued success.
I would encourage all levels of government to invest generously in quality public education. It is a cornerstone of our democracy, and our kids are worth it as they are our future.
I also congratulate and commend the parents, guardians and teachers who have supported these students throughout their journey
I know I speak for everyone in Surrey when I say that our graduating classes have done a great job and we hope they enjoy their well-earned summer. They have made us very proud.
View Jinny Jogindera Sims Profile
NDP (BC)
Mr. Speaker, while the Prime Minister was off at the G7 signing feel-good statements about taking action on poverty at home and abroad, the Minister of International Development is quietly admitting the government has no intention to address poverty here at home.
Despite rising inequality, hundreds of thousands of Canadians turning to food banks every month, growing numbers of working poor and first nations not having access to clean drinking water or safe housing, the Conservatives see no reason to act.
Why are the Conservatives refusing to address poverty in Canada?
View Jinny Jogindera Sims Profile
NDP (BC)
Mr. Speaker, we are here to discuss the budget, Bill C-59. However, like other budget bills. this is more like a telephone directory for many of our towns and cities across the country because it has so much other stuff buried within it that has very little to do with the budget.
How can my colleague justify putting in the budget bill legislation that would retroactively change an existing law and justify the shredding of the long gun registry data?
View Jinny Jogindera Sims Profile
NDP (BC)
Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that I heard my colleague across the way make such a personal comment about my colleague on this side. I am really quite disturbed that a parliamentarian would make that kind of comment. It was not only demeaning, but very condescending.
View Jinny Jogindera Sims Profile
NDP (BC)
Mr. Speaker, I am just reminded about what we are here to debate. We are not here to debate the bill. The minister is responding to what we are here to debate, which is yet another time allocation motion moved by the House leader. I also notice that the House leader is not here to respond to--
View Jinny Jogindera Sims Profile
NDP (BC)
I apologize, Mr. Speaker.
I want to focus a little more on the time allocation part and get a response from the minister on that.
This is the 99th time that time allocation has been moved. We are close to 100, as we are only one away, in cricket language. It is disconcerting that in a parliamentary democracy where debate should be welcomed and robust that it is being limited and cut off once again.
The bill being time allocated has been referenced many times by the minister. However, I am taken by the fact that in this country, it is my understanding that we already have laws against polygamy. Polygamy is not allowed in the Canada I have lived in over the last number of years. I also believe that there can be no such thing as honour in any killing. If some people claim it is an honour killing, I think we have laws to address that. If there is domestic violence and abuse, we have laws for that as well.
I would urge the minister to focus on fixing a very broken immigration system, which keeps families apart, instead of introducing a bill, and now limiting debate, where I would say most of the items are already covered under the current legal provisions that we have in this country.
In light of the huge investment that the Conservative government could make in addressing domestic violence, in light of the fact that the government has absolutely refused, despite the fact that first nations communities and it seems like all Canadians from coast to coast are joining the call for an inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women, why is the minister not addressing these issues but instead is electioneering today?
View Jinny Jogindera Sims Profile
NDP (BC)
Mr. Speaker, this is about the safety of my community, not about partisan political gains. Standing up for Surrey means providing answers and a clear timeline.
Surrey desperately needs help now to make its streets safer. We have been waiting too long, and with each shooting, families are becoming more and more afraid.
Why can the minister not give our community the news it is waiting for? When are the new officers arriving in Surrey?
View Jinny Jogindera Sims Profile
NDP (BC)
Mr. Speaker, it is no surprise that hard-working Canadians who pay taxes are very concerned with what is happening in the other House. While in my riding this weekend, I heard they were strongly questioning what was going on in the Senate.
The Prime Minister said that he wanted to do away with the Senate. Could the member comment on how the Conservatives failed to deliver on a pre-election commitment that the Prime Minister often made?
View Jinny Jogindera Sims Profile
NDP (BC)
Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise and speak to the motion that is before the House.
Let me make it very clear that the motion we are debating is with respect to the government's giving $57 million to the Senate. The average hard-working Canadians, the taxpayers who keep our institutions going, must be really wondering why, in light of the media frenzy, we have a government that is saying that we should give that House $57 million more. I am opposed to that for a number of reasons.
To put it into perspective, we have a Prime Minister who absolutely believed in the abolition of the Senate and failing that, wanted to make it more accountable and all of those things. Yet, the Prime Minister has carried on the Liberal tradition of appointing senators. The Prime Minister has appointed 59 senators.
As we read reports in the media, the reports we get and the information that is before us right now, those appointments are very partisan. Not only that, once they are appointed, the senators are doing partisan party work.
My colleagues at that end of the aisle, the third party, their leader decided that the Liberal senators would no longer be members of their caucus. They can call a thorn any name they want or they can change the name, but unless they change the substance, a thorn is still a thorn. I will argue that the Senate has become a thorn in the side of Canadians.
It was interesting that when the senators met, they named themselves the Liberal senators. They still have a caucus that is very Liberal, and carries the name Liberal. My understanding is they still attend some of the partisan events. They are still running around collecting money. They have learned well from the Conservatives. They have learned well from each other.
They are going around doing all of these things. I hear from the party at the end how committed they are to reform and how we should make the Senate more accountable. When it comes to that party, however, I have always looked at their actions rather than the promises they make. They always make these grandiose promises, but once they are in government, and now in opposition, they suddenly do not reflect what they want to reflect when they are outside of the House.
With the media, the televised debates and social media, it is getting more and more difficult for members of that party to hide from the positions they take in this House.
There is a motion that was moved by my colleague, the hard-working member for Toronto—Danforth, on October 22, 2013. This will show that we are not dealing with a new problem. This has been going on and on. I am not going to expand on everything that has happened with Mr. Duffy, because all of that is out there. I just want to focus on what we needed to do.
The NDP is a pragmatic party that knows how to compromise when it has to, and then sticks to something that is good for Canadians and does not compromise on that. Our position on Bill C-51 is one example. Canadians' freedoms and privacy, and the invasion into their privacy, cannot be compromised away just because it is convenient for electoral purposes.
Let me get back to the motion that was voted on in this House on October 22. This is what the motion that was brought forward by the NDP said:
That, in the opinion of this House, urgent steps must be taken to improve accountability in the Senate, and, therefore, this House call for the introduction of immediate measures to end Senators' partisan activities, including participation in Caucus meetings, and to limit Senators' travel allowances to those activities clearly and directly related to parliamentary business.
It can hardly be argued that this was a revolutionary motion. This was a very well thought out motion that was put forward to address some very specific concerns. This is the kind of motion that would pass the nod test. Quite honestly, I think this would even pass the kindergarten or grade one test. If we were to explain to the children that these are the senators, this is what we do not want them to do and this is what we want them to do, kids are smart and they would say, “That's good, isn't it”, but not my colleagues across the way.
What really shocked me after all the public grandstanding was that the third party—and I want to be very clear on this—would not support a motion that would limit senators' partisan activities. The Liberal senators were kicked out of caucus, so to speak, but that is just window dressing. The Liberals were not willing to end senators' partisan activities, so they formed a coalition with the Conservatives to vote this down, just as with Bill C-51, the Liberals formed a coalition with the Conservatives in order for that bill to pass through the House. This makes me wonder what the difference really is between the third party and the party in government. I see very little difference these days.
The New Democrats wanted to limit senators' travel allowances to those activities clearly and directly related to parliamentary business. Surely, nobody in the House would have voted against that. However, the Conservatives did and, guess what, they were supported by the third party, their new-found friends across the way, the new Liberal-Con coalition.
When I look at all of this, nobody can say that the NDP, with the long-standing position of getting rid of the Senate, has not attempted to bring about accountability. I know the government across the way is allergic to accountability, transparency and answering serious questions, but it opposed the pragmatic solutions we put forward. If that motion had carried and the government and the Liberal Party of Canada had supported it, we might not be in this grandiose—I do not know what word to use, but I will say it is a crisis that we are in right now. It is an absolute embarrassment to be in my riding and try to explain to people all that is going on.
The leader of the NDP has been very clear. He is a lawyer. He knows how constitutions are changed. He also knows agreement is required from all the parties. I have not seen Mr. Harper meet with all the premiers that often, never mind consult them. We are prepared to consult them and move forward, but in the meantime, pragmatic solutions are required to fix the grandiose mess that exists in the Senate.
View Jinny Jogindera Sims Profile
NDP (BC)
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague across the way for his question. He has been on a kind of gerbil's cage treadmill, because what I hear is the same preface to almost every question he asks.
Let me make it very clear to him. My kindergarten students and grade 1 students would understand that a kangaroo court is where two parties collude behind closed doors and give nobody a chance to present evidence or to present their case. Let us not go there.
Let me go on to say this. Our leader has been very clear about the process. We have a grandiose mess over there. What we need to do, and our our leader has made it very clear, is consult with Canadians and meet with the premiers of the provinces and territories. At least we are prepared to do something, not like that government and that party and just sit--
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Results: 1 - 15 of 924 | Page: 1 of 62

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data