Scott Simms

[Protecting Children from Online Sexual Exploitation Act, October 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on a comment by my colleague from Elmwood--Transcona. I do not think I got a full and complete answer to his question.

The context of the member's speech talks about the international concept, the international context that this issue is becoming. He puts a great deal of emphasis on that.

However, we also have a couple of examples brought up by my colleague about the blocking of sites, which is really raising the bar when it comes to this sort of prosecution in this particular area.

On the idea of blocking sites with the examples of Sweden and Germany, what has the government done in that regard? Does it feel that this is a possibility once it reaches committee, that it could address that issue, especially through the ISPs?

[Hurricane Igor, September 22nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday's hurricane Igor left a wide path of destruction throughout Newfoundland, destruction to highways, power lines, and personal property. Power is still off for many, even at this very hour.

There is devastation in many communities on the Eastport and Bonavista peninsulas, in Gambo, in Glovertown, and in Bonavista North, just to name a few. In particular, the small community of Terra Nova had its one access road washed out, and the community is completely isolated, with no power and no access to any services, including medical.

Can the minister please update us on what actions the government is taking at this desperate time of need?

[Business of Supply, June 17th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member reminds me of my old profession of being a TV weatherman. I have no doubt that he would stand in the House on a beautiful sunny day and take credit for that, too. I am sure he would and, by goodness, maybe he should.

I have a quick question for him. He emphatically said that they sent him here not to waste their money and time. Why did they shut down the House for so many months when so many people were against it?

I have a better one and it is very specific. When we do this, we can all start a wave in praise of all 308 members of Parliament. He does not want to waste the money. This is a simple question with a yes or no answer. Will you say yes to the Auditor General going into your office on Monday? Yes or no?

[Business of Supply, June 17th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I would like to thank the member for his speech, his passion and on the note he just went out on, I would just like to say congratulations to him.

Yes, he is number one on how they vote, and yes, he is quite well out there. As a matter of fact, I am number two and I am closing in. Well, not really.

He does not get paid by the word, but he certainly does invest a great amount of time in his work. I have yet to see the man stand in this House and off the cuff try to talk about something he knows nothing about. He is always well prepared. I hope he has a wonderful summer.

But he should look out. I am number two and I am going for number one, although I do not know if there is enough time in this session to do that. Nonetheless, I wish him a great summer. I look forward to hearing him again when we come back in the fall.

[Business of Supply, June 17th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, according to the ruling from Madam Speaker, I, too, would like to apologize to the House for the comments that were made. I misjudged the comments.

Nonetheless, my colleague who, as the critic for youth, is well aware of the aspect of social networking and how it encompasses young people in this country today as they communicate in ways that are beyond what we could even imagine when we were that age.

What happened here in the prorogation period was that the Conservatives tried to silence the voices that my other colleague spoke about, but the people protested, through social networking to begin with, and the youth of this country became engaged and circumvented that silencing. Through their own initiatives, through volunteer work, they decided that the supremacy of Parliament was just that: supreme. It was circumvented and runs against the way democracies are run.

I would like my colleague to comment on that aspect and how engaged people were and how upset they were when they felt the government was circumventing the rituals that we cherish so much in this Parliament.

[Business of Supply, June 17th, 2010]

I appreciate the input, Madam Speaker. On the same point of order, yes. What my hon. colleague mentioned was that the quotation was not worthy of the title. In the House we all say that we are not worthy of the title we have. We do it in campaigns. We do it here in the House. It is a function of our jobs. In this particular case, it is the function of the job as Prime Minister that we feel he does not measure up to. I do not believe there is a point of order.

[Business of Supply, June 17th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, my colleague went into great detail about the technical machinations of the separation of powers, the Constitution and all things pertaining to Parliament and our country. However, I want to bring up an issue about prorogation itself and from some of the very same people whom he quoted in his speech.

The majority of them talk about the very spirit of prorogation in the sense that the legislature needs to be refreshed because the agenda has been exhausted. Therefore, the grand master plan that was established by the government to get that mandate has exhausted itself to the point where now it must renew. It had over 35 pieces of legislation, most of which were promised by it under elements of crime fighting and the life that were never enacted, Yet when they were delayed before, the government blamed the Liberal-dominated Senate, which I believe has reversed itself and is now the Conservative-dominated Senate.

First, why did the government feel prorogation was so necessary?

Second, if the committee is so busy, as he explains, would an offshoot, another committee being set up, not ease the pressure of the work involved and get to the crux of the matter, simply to raise the bar?

[Business of Supply, June 17th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague to comment on two things. First, let us take a look at the prorogation in this sense and what has been complained about in the past. Would the member reiterate what he said? It seems somewhat opportunistic on the surface to delay the functioning of Parliament for the sake of the government getting out of a tight squeeze. However, in doing so, 37 pieces of legislation were dropped from the order paper, legislation the Conservatives felt were sacrosanct to their philosophy and their ideology to proceed within the House of Commons.

The Conservatives seemed to have wrapped themselves in a catch-22. They have wrapped themselves in this political pretzel. Could the hon. member comment on that? The element of this separate committee raises the bar by which we can deal with the situation of prorogation, which the majority in the House feels has been abused by the government.

[Business of Supply, June 17th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague may want to check up on the latest amendment because we are talking about November now. However, what bothers me in this House is that for the sake of, I mentioned faked indignation, my goodness, but let us talk about the fact that we should be raising the bar here. This situation requires the expediency of the process and therefore what the motion does is it allows us to get to this faster. We get to the bottom of it. This issue of prorogation is one that is sincere. I am sure members know what I am talking about.

[Business of Supply, June 17th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I just mentioned that I did not vote for them. There was a speech made earlier by one of the member's colleagues. He talked about fake lakes and fake motions. I would add a third: fake indignation. That is exactly the word we are looking for.

Let us cast our memories back to last fall for just one moment. We put a motion in the House. We expressed consent. We asked for consent from the House. We just did not like the way the government direction was going. We asked them to show no faith in this particular government. We asked them to show no confidence in the government, and therefore, the vote was had.

They, of course, supported themselves. We decided that we had no confidence in the government. The Bloc decided that they too had no confidence in the government. Here is the best part. Here is the punchline. At the very end, when the vote was for no confidence, this proverbial tumbleweed ran right through the House of Commons. We were waiting. The new expression became, “There is an APB on the NDP.”

For goodness' sake, where did they go? We looked. We cast across the way, and all of a sudden we could not find them. All of a sudden, the strength and backbone with which they stood against the government collapsed. An entire team of paleontologists stood outside this room looking for this particular species that lost its backbone so quickly they created a whole new class of invertebrates. It was unbelievable. It happened right before our eyes.

There is a fake lake. Maybe this is a fake motion. I do not think so, but there is the fake indignation we always get, and it is about time they were called on it.