Scott Simms

[National Defence, March 26th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, what they are mustering is absolute confusion, because it has been four years, and now, each and every time the builders want to do something, Viking Air and Bombardier are both confused. They do not know what is going on because the government is favouring one builder over the other.

Last year the government staged an industry day to allow builders a chance to see what the department had in mind and even to discuss what they could provide to search and rescue. Many observers said it was unorganized and confusing and, eventually, it was closed off to the media, with no answers.

Now the minister says he is going to refurbish the current aircraft to 2014. They will be 40 years old then. Does the government really care about search and rescue?

[National Defence, March 26th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, after four years of confusion, the Minister of National Defence desperately needs to clear the air about purchasing fixed wing search and rescue for our soldiers. Sources say that Industry Canada and the National Research Council are raising flags about the process.

Is it really fair and open, or are the Conservatives favouring one builder before the bidding even begins? Already, two Canadian companies are complaining they feel left out, while one foreign builder is still in the running.

Why is this job being so bungled by the Minister of National Defence?

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, March 25th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the collection of geniuses, otherwise known as the Mensa group over here, I would like to compliment the hon. member on his speech.

I do not want to raise some of the contentious issues that he raised but I do want to raise some of the points that he made about trade. Let us bear down on what is fundamental in a free trade agreement. It is to bring a nation in all aspects of labour and human rights on a course for economic opportunity and wealth.

He proposes that this particular situation does not fare well and, therefore, needs to be called off. However, many people here, and many experts would agree, and some from the country of Colombia are basically stating that this will bring them out of levels of poverty we have not seen before. They are saying that it will help them get above what they were before and will allow them to create a situation whereby the standards in their country will improve.

Is that not an example of fair trade to be pursued by this particular agreement?

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, March 25th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague. I will not make a comment at this point as I believe I covered this earlier.

Some of the complaints being brought up in the House today are obviously about the lack of attention being brought to bear on human rights, but more about labour standards, which some member contend are not as great as they should be.

In the future, let us say with the Canada-Jordan free trade agreement or even the comprehensive free trade agreement we are now negotiating with the European Union, which I am sure my hon. colleague from Bloc would not have too much concern about, how would he propose changing these free trade agreements to allow for stronger labour standards and a stronger record on human rights?

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, March 25th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, in the past, the member and her colleagues have mentioned the labour agreements that have been agreed to here. Just yesterday I noticed that the government tabled a prospective free trade agreement with Jordan that also includes parallel agreements regarding labour.

Some of the things that interest me very much would be workers' compensation and the like. She takes specific aim at these measures, not just the specific measures but also outside of this agreement. Yesterday, one of her colleagues mentioned including this within the text of the free trade agreement.

I am assuming what she means is that it will have a far more beneficial effect, but does she know of a free trade agreement that does that? In essence, how would that be more powerful than the parallel agreements we speak of here?

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, March 25th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question about something that was mentioned earlier and peaked my interest. Dr. Jorge Rojas Rodriguez is a civil society leader in Colombia and president of the Consultancy for Human Rights and Displacement. He says succinctly that “this proposal sends a strong political message to Colombia about Canada's interest in seeing the human rights situation improve in the coming year”.

He also points out on several occasions where a civil society in preparation for this innovative proposal, he calls it innovative, believes the amendments have the potential to set an important precedent for free trade agreements, but he also links that to the improving of human rights in this particular situation.

Dr. Leon Valencia says much the same thing. He says:

This will provide an important yearly forum to discuss the situation in Colombia, and will give Canadian citizens the opportunity to monitor human rights violations in our country.

I sincerely ask what is so wrong about what these people are saying that compels the member to shut down the negotiations and to call off this agreement, which many people feel could be the vanguard toward better relations with Colombia, in much the same way that some people will say that with China we have also improved the record there as well through initiatives around free trade?

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, March 24th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank my colleague from Kings—Hants for the masterful job he did with this file, how he opened up the discussion with Colombian officials and for putting forward the motion that he has today, which, seemingly, has been accepted by the government.

Just a short time ago, I was reading what was tabled earlier concerning another free trade agreement between Canada-Jordan. It talked about the parallel agreement when it comes to labour, a labour co-operation agreement, but instead of dealing with that, I would like for him to talk about it from the Colombia perspective.

Some of the initiatives within this particular free trade agreement do discuss and help enshrine things such as collective bargaining, the elimination of child labour, forced labour and workplace discrimination. Some of these things are enshrined within it. I would like him to talk about that and how this will be, not could be, beneficial to a place such as Columbia.

[Business of Supply, March 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, he made two comments at the very beginning of his debate, which I would like to question him about further.

The first point was opening the abortion debate. I do not quite understand where he is coming from on that one. I would like to get his opinion on this point.

Canada has pledged its commitment to support the millennium development goals, which includes universal access to reproductive health, including family planning, which is goal five, target two. The goal is sometimes referred to as the unmet need to avoid a pregnancy and the number of women having access to modern contraceptives. I would like his opinion on that. I am not quite sure if he agrees or disagrees.

Another was his comment about anti-American. In fact, in the first week President Obama endorsed this. Secretary of State Clinton said:

In...the administration, we are convinced of the value of investing in women and girls, and we understand there is a direct line between a woman’s reproductive health and her ability to lead a productive, fulfilling life.

She was commenting about the policy change from when George Bush was in power.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, March 22nd, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I want to talk about one aspect that received about two lines in the Speech from the Throne, the situation about the fisheries.

British Columbia was very active in the last debate that we had on Bill C-45, the new fisheries act. The current Fisheries Act has been in place now for over 130 years and, like everybody else in this House, I agree that renewal should be coming.

However, renewal needs to take place in a very responsible manner. In the last bill there was a great deal of opposition from her province regarding a new fisheries act. I was wondering if she could provide some information to the House as to when, where and exactly how this new fisheries act will come forward here in the House, as was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, March 22nd, 2010]

Madam Speaker, in the last part of his speech, the member said he will not support this particular throne speech. From his description of himself crawling the walls and the curtains of this place, I gathered that he would not, so I thank him for the closure.

On the other hand, I would like him to comment, because he talks about the Quebec jurisdiction. I was reading that in some cases Quebec was a vanguard, or at the beginning, of some of the national programs we have today. I think of the QPP and the Canada pension plan as an example.

In this particular situation, the current government states unequivocally that providing a cheque of $100 a month, for a family, is its way of providing support for a national daycare program.

I would like him to comment on the Quebec model and how that could be a vanguard of a true national daycare program that provides assistance for early childhood development and also comment on the program itself, for all parents, whether they stay at home or not.