Scott Simms

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to comment on the member's speech where he talked about child care. I spoke to an individual in my riding who has a child who is one year old. She told me in an email she does not need the $100. That is not the issue. It is the daycare space that she needs, and the space is not being created by the government. She fully believes that the universal child care benefit the member speaks of is not going to fix that situation.

My question is on another matter and requires a very simple yes or no, oui ou non, answer. In his description of how the Conservatives have declared that Quebec is a nation within a nation, under those criteria, does he feel or does he not feel that the Franco-Ontarians of this country also represent a nation within a nation? Yes or no? Otherwise he does not. Is it yes or no?

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague and I share very similar ridings, which is quite rare around these parts when most people are becoming urbanized in nature.

I would like to address one issue concerning a program that was very popular in the government, the RInC program, which was to help smaller communities upgrade their recreational infrastructure. The problem was that it was a 50-50 cost-shared program. For communities that are roughly less than 1,000 people, I am sure the hon. member would agree just how hard it can be to come up with their share of the money given the size of the tax base which is diminishing because of the recession and also because of an urbanizing population.

Should we move toward something that provides a little more incentive for the smaller communities to get involved in infrastructure investments?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned the issue of pensions, which I agree is going to be in a grave situation over the next little while. It certainly will be when it comes to our CPP and guaranteed income supplement and OAS, but also from a private point of view and the security of our current pensions, especially those of direct benefit in nature.

I bring that up because he has the same issue that I have. The pensions at AbitibiBowater were devalued last year by 30%. There has been somewhat of a recovery, but nonetheless they are still devalued at this particular juncture. As the company is in bankruptcy proceedings, I would like him to comment on what the federal government can do to get involved in this particular situation and why this Speech from the Throne sheds absolutely no light on the issue of pension security.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague for his experience and what he has brought to this House concerning rural affairs, which is one of the issues that is near and dear to my heart. I would like to get his perspective on it.

The throne speech talks about the digital strategy by which we are going to connect from coast to coast to coast with Canadians. I would like him to comment on how beneficial the arrival of broadband Internet has been, in particular for long-distance education in his riding, which is similar to mine, in that it is very rural, and smaller communities are spaced apart.

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

Mr. Speaker, I can honestly say that if my hon. colleague who just spoke was on the opposite side of me, I would be tremendously scared, but luckily he is my colleague.

However, he does bring up a point about the idea of flip-flops. In the last two weeks we have seen so many flip-flops that they put Cirque du Soleil to shame. Every single day it was flip, it was flop, it was something else.

What it shows, and I want my hon. colleague to address this issue, is the lack of vision. So many of these programs that were so crucial to this country have been given a short-sighted one year infusion of cash for the sake of just keeping them afloat.

I speak specifically about Internet in rural communities as one and several others as well, unless of course we look at changing the national anthem. I am not quite sure where that fits in.

Nonetheless, I would like my hon. colleague to comment on how all of this weaves a tapestry of let us hope that they will forget the missteps.

[Criminal Code, March 22nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I just have a comment, since I only have a short period of time. I will take the time to congratulate my colleague for proposing the bill. As he mentioned, he is new here to the House.

What is particularly impressive about the bill is, obviously, the content of it and what it sets out to do in the sense that it gives discretion. The bill has gone so far as to get consensus of the House about how we use this particular measure to save lives. I compliment the member on that.

One measure in this bill talks about an amendment to the Criminal Code. Could the member talk about how the discretion will be beneficial to those particular minors under the age of 18, as I understand it?

[Canada Labour Code, March 18th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, this is probably an example of a fissure of opinion where it has been sort of described as something that is an intention and something that is far more specific in this particular situation. Obviously this program that the member is putting forward is a tad bit more generous than what we are seeing on the other side.

My first question is this. The Conservatives will say that it cost $400 million. I would like to get the member's estimate on what she believes it will cost.

The second question is this. The member talked about 15 weeks of benefits going to 52 but the qualifying period could be different. For instance, in my riding one needs 420 hours to qualify but for sick benefits one needs 600 hours. So there is a national standard for the hours needed for sick benefits but not a national standard for regular benefits which is based on unemployment numbers in a certain region to qualify for regular EI.

Is the member talking about a national standard or will she link this to the regional rate of unemployment, that and the total cost of the program?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, March 18th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, in the member's last sentence he said that there were industries out there that the government had not protected. In a motion that was put in front of this House by the Bloc Québécois, it talked about aeronautics, and I understand the gravity of the situation in Montreal with Bell Helicopter, Bombardier and others, and it talked about the forestry, which I completely understand, but there was not one mention of the fishery.

It is very important for Quebec's east coast. It is very important for those of us in Newfoundland and Labrador, but it is also important for Quebec. Why not?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, March 18th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, one of the major issues in my colleague's province of Quebec, which has a connection with my province of Newfoundland and Labrador, is the attention given to forestry.

There have been these small snippets of what are called subsidies and breaks, which, if we take them in general, are just a small drop in the bucket compared to other industries. I have always said that the government singles out certain industries to receive that much more attention than the others. I will not accuse it of being crass political but, nonetheless, it is out there.

In the member's case and in my case, the provincial governments have dealt directly with the forestry companies with loan guarantees in the case of Quebec and expropriation for Newfoundland and Labrador, but they have been beneficial in many respects.

I would like the member to comment from her perspective, provincially and perhaps even in her riding, how the forestry industry is not being benefited by the Speech from the Throne or even the budget for that matter.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, March 18th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, my questions have to do with the vision of the throne speech, because so many elements of it seem to be somewhat shortsighted.

One element I speak of is regional development agencies. There is one in southern Ontario and one in my area of Atlantic Canada. For the most part the programs were initiated years ago with a five-year term. There was a long-range outlook. It seems that all these programs do not have that now. Several initiatives are year over year. It is hard for many of the development agencies, and certainly for local economic development groups, to engage in these programs not knowing if they will receive funding in the following year.

The other issue is the rural aspect. I wonder if my colleague could address cost sharing. A lot of smaller communities are unable to put up their share for the programs, which makes it problematic certainly in my riding.