Scott Simms

[Business of Supply, June 17th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member checks the record with regard to those issues, he will see that I did vote against it at that time, and with great conviction.

[Business of Supply, June 17th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, excuse me. It is late in the season, and I get a little carried away when it comes to defending the House of Commons.

Anyway, I see that I have created quite a bit of excitement across the way. I would like to point out something else to them.

Speaking about this particular situation, another certain professor, Andrew Heard, had these points about prorogation itself and about how we must be careful that we do not abuse the system. He said:

There is little guidance to be had from historic precedent as no Prime Minister in Canada has asked for prorogation in the face of an almost certain defeat on a confidence vote. Prorogation is normally granted after many months of parliamentary business have elapsed....In 1988, Parliament was prorogued after only 11 sitting days....Prorogation came after only fourteen calendar days and twelve sitting days in the first session after the 1930 federal election. In both 1988 and 1930, however, the government had a solid majority in the House of Commons, and there was no question that prorogation would permit the government to avoid defeat.

Basically, what he is saying is that the precedents that some people cite, and what happened before and quickly thereafter, were not questions of government survival, because the majority was in place. That was not the case this time.

Now we find ourselves in a situation in which we could be abusing the system only for the sake of political survival. In this last particular situation, it was certainly perverse in the way it was used, because the government wanted to avoid one small particular issue: Afghan detainees.

I would caution everyone in the House not to use the methods within the House to defeat the purposes of the supremacy of Parliament. I remember that just a short time ago we brought in a motion to say that we did not agree with reforms to NAFO, the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization. There was a vote in the House that said that we did not agree with what they were doing in NAFO. We did not agree with the agreement that was struck in Europe, with many other countries, regarding the health of fish stocks off our coast, particularly the east coast.

The vote said that we did not agree with it, yet the very next day, the government ratified the agreement, defying the opinion of the House.

We might cite precedents showing when that has happened before. However, let us go back just a few more years and talk about 2006. I say this with the utmost respect. Let us talk about the document called “Stand Up for Canada”.

As a man who is 5 feet 4 inches tall, I certainly appreciate the respect I can get when I stand up in the House. When the government stands up and says that it will bring every international agreement within the confines of the House to debate and vote on, it tells us that the government must respect Parliament. At least, that was the intention.

The government did not even bring that agreement to the House. We had to bring this particular agreement to the House to debate. We voted. We did not like it. The next day, in defiance of that opinion, it was signed, or ratified, which is the term used.

Bradley Miller, assistant professor, University of Western Ontario, made a good point about prorogation. He said:

Prorogation is a regular event in the parliamentary cycle, but until this occasion had always come at the end of a legislative session—that is, when the government decided that its legislative agenda was complete. There is no Canadian precedent establishing that the Governor General has the power to refuse to grant prorogation in these circumstances....It is, however, arguable that the power to refuse dissolution ought to extend to the power to refuse prorogation....It is argued that one of the rationales for the power to refuse to grant a dissolution—to provide that check on the [government]....

That applies in this particular situation. I would say, according to his words, that the Governor General has to take a greater role in the future so that dissolution, or in this case, prorogation, is not abused by the levers of government, because that power is vested within the Crown. Therefore, we must seriously consider that.

Eric Adams is another highly esteemed professor. He said:

The specific power to prorogue Parliament is unmentioned in the Constitution, but it was well understood by the framers to fall within the prerogative of the Crown.

I just mentioned that idea.

Blackstone stated and explained:

A prorogation is the continuance of the parliament from one session to another, as an adjournment is the continuation of the session from day to day.

That is a good point, because we do not stand here and try to interrupt the daily session just because it is not going well. There are times when we are just not performing up to par. I use that term rather lightly, as the House can well understand.

We do not use that power to shut down for a particular day, so why should we shut this down for a particular session? They talked about the fact that we were holding up legislation, yet at the very same time, the government prorogued Parliament, killing 37 bills, the vast majority of which were promises it made in successive campaigns. The government thought that the execution was so silky smooth that it was actually going to work.

The grassroots then decided that they did not think so.

I agree that this committee should be struck. I agree that we should expedite the process by which we get to the bottom of prorogation and deal with it using the recommendations we bring.

[Business of Supply, June 17th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am inspired to stand to debate and discuss the issue of prorogation itself, because I am concerned about the execution of it in the past and am deeply worried about how Parliament should behave.

As a parliamentarian, I think I should defend the supremacy of Parliament. It is my responsibility to defend the institution. We bring laws in here. We certainly feel that given the supremacy of Parliament, it is a place where we should all behave. That way, any divisive issue, any issue that is used as a wedge to gain better poll positions or political points, should not be used through this particular procedure.

Prorogation has certainly become a hot issue over the past two years. The first time it happened, it seemed to slip under the radar somewhat. The second time it occurred, the Conservatives thought the execution of it was so silky smooth that they were going to get away with it and that the general public would actually forget over time.

However, we found ourselves in a grassroots campaign, compliments, for the most part, of social networking on the Internet, which brought this issue to the fore. We finally felt that the government recognized that the people of this country recognize the importance of their democratic institutions, primarily of course, in this particular situation of prorogation.

I am glad that this motion is in the House today and that we are going through this procedure.

In the meantime, we find ourselves at least trying to defend the institutions of Parliament, to the point where sometimes we get bogged down in the minutiae of day-to-day mudslinging, certainly when it comes to question period. I hope that the decorum will come back to the House so that we can show people that we are making a concerted effort to make this a truly democratic institution. My goodness, if we tried that, we would be heroes all.

I want to point out some of the comments that have been made about the latest round of prorogation. I do not even have to explain it any more, because now everybody knows what prorogation is. Unfortunately, people know about prorogation because of the way we have been abusing it. That, in and of itself, is certainly sad when it comes to the House of Commons, which we hold in such high esteem.

Nelson Wiseman is an esteemed professor whose opinions we rely on quite a bit around here. In an article, he writes:

Responding to public revulsion, the director of communications for the Minister of Finance rhetorically asked in The Hill Times, “where was the outrage toward the previous 104 instances”?

He went on to state:

The answer is simple: no prime minister has so abused the power to prorogue. Harper’s former chief of staff Tom Flanagan understood the obvious: the purpose of prorogation —

[Business of Supply, June 17th, 2010]

It's like dinner theatre.

At least dinner theatre is entertaining unlike the motion which is not even that. It is just a plain waste of time, a waste of this place to talk about a motion to create a committee when we already have the committee doing the work. If Liberals wanted to advance the issue of prorogation and have a legitimate reason to speak, then that is fine. I would question their priorities at this point, but do something creative. Bring in something that actually advances the cause rather than just being so flippant about it. They just take any old motion and not to worry. We will rant away the last day. It all seems like it is more important to think about getting out of here than the business at hand. It is still important just because it is the last day. Therefore, the official opposition undermines the importance of going after the government for its abuse of prorogation by bringing in something that is so flimsy.

[Business of Supply, June 17th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am not necessarily sure about my hon. colleague's comment that other members of the House might not understand or respect Quebec in the way those members do. I lived in Montreal for five years, coming from Newfoundland and Labrador. I found Quebec to be absolutely stunning and its people and I never regret going there.

I will ask him a question about the level of brinkmanship in the House. Because we are in a minority situation, time and time again we find ourselves on a wedge issue where we pull ourselves to the extreme. The art of compromise is something that is a beautiful thing once it is attained. The problem with this House is we try to play to the polls to which we accede. I know other members of the House, including the Conservatives, brought up the polling figures.

In the examples he has given, when it comes to the pardon issue or the Afghan detainee issue, what would he provide as a solution for the House to avoid this brinkmanship? Could he couch his words around the idea of the prorogation as an example of how the power that vests in the government of the day to push us into a corner should not be within its power and that Parliament should be the supreme power in that nature?

[Employment Insurance Act, June 14th, 2010]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-535, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (sickness benefits).

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to stand in the House today to introduce a bill that I feel is necessary and its time has come. It would get rid of an inadequate system right now when it comes to sick benefits by reducing the number of hours of insurable employment required to qualify for benefits because of illness, injury or quarantine to 420 hours and increase the maximum benefit period for illness, injury or quarantine to 30 weeks.

This is something that has come into my riding, like many of the other members' ridings in this House of 308, when people say that they have come into a situation where they can no longer work. They would need less hours to qualify and, as a result, the benefit period would be increased to 30 weeks, which is a sufficient period for people suffering from illnesses, quarantine or injury.

I my hon. colleague from Random—Burin—St. George's who, too, feels that this is an incredible issue that should be settled right now in this House.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Eliminating Pardons for Serious Crimes Act, June 14th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that my colleague was very illustrative in what he was doing. With his years of experience in criminal law practice, I would like to ask him a few questions about this.

He mentioned that his party would vote to put this into committee. I get the feeling that the major opposition they would have to this bill pertains to the idea of the rehabilitation of younger offenders, those around the age of 18 or 19, despite the crime. However, he does go on to say that he is not particularly concerned with the people who are serving 25 year sentences for things like murder, but that his focus lies more or less on 5 year sentences. Once they pass this bill to get it to committee, is it their intention to focus on those younger offenders who may stand a greater chance of being rehabilitated several years down the road?

He mentioned that certain aspects in the bill were against the charter, but if we accept this bill in principle, beyond that, maybe the scope of the changes that he wants will not be possible. Is that a fear of his as well?

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, June 9th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I want to just ask a question of my colleague and I want him to flesh out some of the history behind this and dig deeper into what he was saying. When he talked about the agreement, he talked about growth and economic growth and how this is going to be of great benefit to this country, as far as the economy is concerned, and I am assuming in sectors such as agriculture being one of them. I would like the member to focus just for a moment on the responsibility aspect, and perhaps he can flesh out in his mind or give the basis of why we are creating what we call parallel agreements for the environment, for example.

I particularly paid great interest to the social aspect of it because of things like workers' compensation, which I brought up earlier. I think that is going to be of great benefit to all countries. But in this particular case, what makes this side agreement so special and why is it going to be beneficial to Colombia? Why was it so necessary?

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, June 9th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I want to ask a quick question about the social concerns involved in this free trade debate. One issue I hold dear for my riding and for the entire country is social concerns for workers, such as workers' compensation. The workers' compensation program, despite some of its flaws, is still very good and it is a standard for our nation.

Would the minister please comment on what this will do for the rights of workers, especially in regard to workers' compensation, for the people of Colombia?

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, June 4th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I am glad he raised the issue of employment insurance. He says that Bill C-9 would close the old employment insurance account and would clarify some provisions. It is possible that the government could raise employment insurance premiums over the next while by 35%.

I would like to know what happened to the people who were unable to qualify for EI and the measures by which they could benefit from in an economic downturn. The Conservatives decided to extend the weeks entitlement at the end of the benefit period. The problem with the people who could not qualify. It was as if the government was trying to create EI benefits for the least amount of people possible to qualify. It like starting at ground zero and trying to make our way up, but not too far, as long as there is a cap on it. I do not see how that is becoming generous within the EI system.

We were in a situation where those people could not qualify at that time because the government did not create benefits for them. The problem with that is during the next downturn, that will not happen.