Scott Simms

[Petitions, June 18th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present to the House today a petition compiled by a gentleman by the name of Gerry Higgins from Norris Arm, who is a tenacious man, to say the least. He certainly has had a battle.

Several years ago, just around Christmas 2005, Mr. Higgins lost his wife to cancer. She was just 45 years old, and her name was Margaret. Since then he has been on a crusade.

He would like to present this petition, and I would like to do it on his behalf, that the Government of Canada undertake an independent study to determine the negative effects of electromagnetic fields on human health.

There is evidence to suggest that electromagnetic fields emanating from all types of transformers, substations and power lines located near residences can pose significant health risks to individuals and their families. Mr. Higgins is compelling the government, through this House, to complete an independent study.

I salute Mr. Higgins for bringing his petition to the House of Commons of Canada.

[Business of Supply, June 11th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to congratulate my hon. colleague who asked the question, because obviously he has done his homework on this issue. However, I am going to basically reiterate what my colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour said, because I think it is the right answer to give under the context that we are in here.

We made significant investments to GIS. As I mentioned, some of the figures include a $1.2 billion five-year investment. Also, on a specific level, there was a $58 increase per couple and a $36 increase for every individual.

I know he has mentioned that and he has acknowledged that. I just think we should acknowledge it again for the simple reason that it was a substantial investment back in the early part of this decade that I think the government on the other side has yet to acknowledge or yet to build upon itself.

That said, on his issue, what we did back then was make the system more solvent. Despite the increases he mentioned in CPP, what we had to do was overhaul the system to ensure that it remained solvent at that time.

We were the envy of the G8. As a matter of fact, we were considered admirable for what we were doing at the time, under the Chrétien government. We were also considered a model for other countries to follow in order to keep the system in place.

That is the issue here, because essentially down the road, with a burgeoning population, a very large part of the population now approaching senior years, if not already there, or as we call them, the baby boomers, we have to make a system that is solvent for them to take advantage of and to attain that standard of living that they so desire, that they deserve.

Maybe that is the wrong expression to use, “that they desire”. They do deserve it for all those years of work. That is essentially the responsibility we have in this House as elected officials or elected members of Parliament, despite the fact that we come from different ideologies or from different party origins.

The other issue, too, that they bring up, and I want to reiterate this point, is about the re-engagement with the provinces in order to ensure that this is going to be a uniform, orderly way to transition into a more solvent and more generous pension plan for this entire country.

The scope of the federal government action is very limited in that respect. That is why I encourage the government to open that dialogue with the provinces and the provincial jurisdictions, as well as the territories.

[Business of Supply, June 11th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the acknowledgement. I congratulate my hon. colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour.

I would like to add that it certainly is a critical part of the debate to talk about the well-being of our seniors. Being from a riding in central Newfoundland where we have an aging population, I have an above-average amount of seniors living in my riding. Because the area's true nature is certainly rural, we have people living in smaller communities spread out over a large geographic area. That boosts the cost of living for many of these seniors, certainly for travel and receiving primary health care.

First, I want to thank my colleague from the NDP for putting forward the motion we are debating today. In 2005, the Liberal Party brought forward changes to the Canada pension plan to ensure it remains well into the future. The Liberal Party also made positive changes to the guaranteed income supplement in 2005 that benefited single seniors by $36 a month per person and $58 a month per couple.

A lot has changed over the past four years. We have witnessed the price of home heating fuel and gasoline increase to the point where many seniors are currently finding it difficult in the winter months. I have heard many stories and I have personally witnessed seniors having to resort to turning off the heat in their homes on the cold winter days, some of them resorting to travelling to public areas simply because those areas have a far better heating system than what seniors can maintain in their own homes. When we travel to the local mall and hear a group of seniors say they are there because it is much warmer, we know we have a problem in this particular situation.

Canada is one of the richest countries in the world. It is sad when we see many of our seniors having to resort to taking those extreme measures. It really comes down to two choices: staying warm or putting food on the table. Many cannot afford both.

Our seniors, through their hard work, determination and self-preservation, built this country, and our generation in particular is in a position to help them live out their remaining years with dignity. What we have done to ensure this happens is of key importance to all of us in the House. Many are struggling at this point because of the higher cost of living. There is less money floating around in the economy. Therefore, it is hurting them in many, many ways.

It has been four years since they have seen any increase in the basic old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. It is about time the government stepped up to the plate and recognized the contribution of our seniors to this country by doing just that. It is one of the key elements of seniors policy and fiscal management that could be rectified in the near future.

Throughout my riding, and I am sure in every riding, there are seniors' homes that are filled with seniors who would much rather be living independently in their own homes. With their currently limited income through old age security and the GIS, they find that living in their homes is not always an option. Yet we as legislators allow the tax dollars of all Canadians to be used to supplement their stay in a seniors' complex. I would suggest that if we had foresight, we would pay our seniors more benefits through our social programs, therefore allowing more of them to stay in the homes of their choosing.

I am convinced that if a thorough study were done today, the findings would be that the taxpayers, and subsequently the government, would save money in the long run, especially in this age when we have such an aging population.

There is another group of Canadians that we really need to take a look at in terms of negative impact on their income: the baby boomers, as we affectionately call them. They are now approaching, if not already into, their retirement years. Now that they are about to retire, or have already retired, when they turn 65 years of age and the old age security kicks in, their private or public pension is slashed, often to the point where their monthly income is substantially reduced. This is another issue that needs to be addressed and certainly needs to be studied over the coming years, if not months.

At this point I would like to provide an example to the House of just what I am talking about. A friend of mine whose name is Joan retired at 55 years of age, after working with the federal government for 32 years, and was in receipt of her superannuation. When she turned 65 years of age and was forced to take the basic old age security, her federal pension was cut by $800 per month. The basic old age security is a little over $500, and she had a net loss of $300 per month.

The example I just gave the House is indeed true, for Joan and many others throughout this country who have experienced that, who have had so many years with the federal government. When an employee of the government or a private company pays into a pension plan for many years, they should be permitted to draw that pension in full until they are dead.

In the example I gave the House, the pensioner would have been $300 per month better off if she could have retained her superannuation pension in full and was permitted to refuse the government's old age security pension. If she refused the OAS pension, her superannuation pension would still be cut by $800 per month.

One sees the situation that we are in. The public system requires more compassion in order for people to have a decent income on which to live out their lives and to be independent if they so choose. We have a situation where we have to make these minor changes, and in some cases, major changes, in order for them to have a decent living.

The other issue, of course, would be from the private sector. I brought up an example two nights ago in the House. I talked about the situation of an individual who is less than the age of 55. He worked for years at the AbitibiBowater mill in Grand Falls-Windsor, which was recently closed. With the help of his union and through work of his own as a representative of the CEP union, he was able to negotiate an early retirement package that would have bridged him straight through to age 65.

However, because the company closed, he was laid off. Therefore, 10 years of his life was pulled away from him. As a result of the situation, he was laid off and he finds himself in an extremely precarious position where, because he is in an area of high unemployment, he has to travel away from his family or has to re-educate. If he is willing to re-educate, if he wants to go into another career and desires to make a living doing something else, that is fine. The current programs do exist, albeit they could be improved.

However, what about those who choose not to do that? They are unable to move. They have larger families and they want to be home with their families. They do not want to be separated from their families. Alternatively, they are in a situation where all they need is for the government to give them assistance for a few years so that they are able to bridge through to their actual pension.

Therein lies a scenario that we have not discussed much in the House: pension bridging. There is a lot of talk going on in my riding now about pension bridging.

One of the topics we do not bring up when it comes to pension bridging is that it is a source of economic development for smaller communities. As my colleague from Newfoundland and Labrador can attest, economic development is a huge issue for the very reason that these are smaller communities attracting perhaps one or two major industries.

What does that have to do with economic development? In the case of pension bridging, people are kept in their own communities. It allows them to live there, with some assistance from the government and work as well, whether it be part time or reduced hours. By doing that, a particular community keeps its tax base. Therefore, that community is able to attract bigger industries to create employment.

If the town is depleted, how can it attract larger companies? Therein lies a situation of economic development when it pertains to the income of retired individuals or those who wish to partake in early retirement. We know the government has not given much lip service in the way of early retirement, but I think it is a frank discussion that the House should be having. We should be having it in all legislatures across this country.

Again, I congratulate my colleague for bringing this to the House as a point of debate. I think it is one that is crucial. I also notice that there is a lot of work that needs to be done on this in conjunction with the provinces. The provinces have chief control over many of the situations regarding pensions, certainly when it comes to bankruptcy, and in the private sector.

Therefore, we need to engage the two levels of government. We should have this conversation, whether it is through a summit or a first ministers conference. We should engage, but solely on this issue. Let us not open it up to every other issue across the board, whether it be equalization or anything of the sort, or God forbid, constitutional amendments.

Nonetheless, we should have this conversation when it comes to our seniors and how they are to bridge themselves from their employment into retirement years and ensure that the basic level of assistance is available for them to survive and to carry on with dignity.

[Search and Rescue, June 10th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour today to rise and speak of the courage, professionalism and honour of the soldiers of our search and rescue personnel.

Newfoundland and Labrador is proud of its own squadron, and that is 103 Search and Rescue in Gander. Its motto is “Seek and Save”.

Recently, I attended the change of command where Major Stephen Reid had this to say about the troops and support staff of search and rescue: “Rarely is it the case that mother nature gives us a break. It must be recognized that we, too, are human. We are deeply affected when a mission proves unsuccessful, but we soldier on knowing that every Canadian is counting on us to bring necessary closure sometimes during the worst imaginable circumstances”.

The nickname for those of 103 Search and Rescue is the “Outcasts”. That may sound negative to most of us, but in our province, the “Outcasts” are truly our heroes.

[Employment Insurance Act, June 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the chance to debate this issue. We are now obviously focusing on second reading and no longer on third reading, as dictated by your recent decision.

Nonetheless, I am glad to have the opportunity to debate this issue because it is a big issue for me personally in my riding of Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, and particularly so for the area of the Exploits Valley in my riding, which had a mill that was owned and operated by AbitibiBowater in the town of Grand Falls-Windsor. It shut its doors last month or two months ago and now many employees are living in poverty. It is not only affecting them but also the people who work externally to the mill, which would be loggers in this particular situation.

I would like to begin my speech by referring to a conversation I had today with a former employee of the mill. He is the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union national representative in the mill. His name is Gary Healey. His situation is one that stands up as an example for all the rest and I would like to share it with the House at this time.

He says that in his situation he is expecting a fairly-negotiated early pension plan. Because of the negotiations that had taken place prior to this moment, he was eligible for an early pension plan. However, because he was laid off with the closure of the mill, he now cannot claim any of these major benefits until he reaches the age of 65, partly because of the legislation but mostly because of the fact that the mill has ceased its operations.

There are also issues pertaining to AbitibiBowater and bankruptcy, but this is a situation where he has now lost 10 years of his life for planning over the next little while, a detrimental situation, only to be taken from him just a few short months ago. That example persists for all of the employees, the vast majority of them certainly for early pensions. Think about those between the ages of 45 and 55 in that area who find themselves in this situation.

The employment opportunities in this particular area are fairly low and the unemployment rate is fairly high. For the most part, a lot of people have to move outside of this area and, indeed, in many cases, outside of the province. I am sure everyone can appreciate the gravity of this situation, as my hon. colleagues from the NDP certainly would because they have put this bill forward.

Here we have it. Bill C-279 hopes to make amendments to the EI Act pertaining to severance, certain pension benefits and also vacation pay.

In the particular mill that I spoke of, the situation people are in is this. When the mill was closed, the company declared bankruptcy. Therefore, it was unable to pay these major severance payments, totalling $40 million. The reason was because, of course, being in bankruptcy, it had to get permission from the courts and the judge in this particular matter. Therefore, people were not paid.

People applied for EI and went through the process. Some of them could not get EI because they had not exhausted their vacation time. The money they received for their vacation was apportioned over a period of time based on their average earnings and they were, therefore, unable to claim these benefits. That certainly suppressed their income at that point. Those who did exhaust their vacation time received the benefits.

Recently, however, the province of Newfoundland and Labrador made the decision, which I congratulate it for doing, to pay the severance payments from the province to the union to be disbursed. That included the loggers who were not originally part of this program. That is $40 million from the government of Newfoundland and Labrador. However, that now puts them in a situation where a lot of questions need to be asked and answered in this area. There are a lot of people like Gary Healey in this situation. There are people, like George Macdonald, in that situation right now who find themselves struggling to stay above the poverty line. I will return briefly at the end to the situation with the mill, but I would like to touch on some other aspects in my riding.

The economies of a vast number of rural communities represented in my riding are seasonal in nature. They are seasonal because they rely on things such as the fishery and forestry. As a stark example, it is impossible to fish off the coast of Newfoundland in a 35-foot boat in the winter months. It is also impossible to fish 200 miles off the coast of Newfoundland in a 65-foot boat during the winter months. One sees that the seasonal nature of this particular program is one that is very important. I press upon the government to realize the seasonal aspect, which is why we, and certainly I, support the 360-hour qualification period.

Employment insurance offers nothing more than a meagre income in this particular situation. With only 55% of the income, they certainly struggle through many of these months. That is the part that we have to focus on here. It is a question of poverty and it is now a question of compassion built back into the EI system. That is what the people of Grand Falls-Windsor, the Exploits Valley and the coastal communities want in this EI system: more compassion built into it. That is what we struggle for here in the House. Certainly I and my colleagues from the east coast, particularly from Newfoundland and Labrador, feel the same way.

Relying on EI is not their preferred way of life. All those who rely on EI would much prefer to be working, but there are no other employment opportunities, as I have touched on before. That is the component of this, because that is the compassion. I have heard the government say on many occasions recently that one cannot work 45 days and then expect to make a living beyond that. However, that is the very essence of seasonal employment.

This is where we lack compassion on this issue. There are certain industries that are anchored, including fishing, farming, forestry and tourism. These are the industries that rely on these short seasons, and this is where the compassion has to come in, in this particular system. They are asking for a living. They are asking for compassion.

The sad response from the government is to basically go to where the jobs are. On the surface one might think, is that not the way it has been all along and the way it is supposed to be? It is not particularly easy for someone who has worked in a particular mill or has worked on the coast for so many years. They cannot just turn to the next industry down the street when it is primarily a one-industry town with a higher income.

In many cases, these people are forced to re-educate themselves. They brag about the fact that there are education programs out there, but the education programs also require a payment of 20%, 40% or 50%. A lot of these people have to backtrack and complete the tail end of a high school education to get there. That takes a long time. That is a hard thing to do for someone with little education who is just a shade over 50 years old and ineligible for regular pension benefits such as the CPP.

Recently, in the election of 2008, there was a comment by Mr. Coles, the president of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union, who said that he had a conversation with the current Prime Minister. At that point, the current Prime Minister said maybe they should think about moving to Alberta. That is where the compassion does not come in. That is the problem here. There is no compassion for someone who has just recently been laid off.

That is why we have to fix the EI system. The five weeks at the end is one issue among many. The EI system needs a cocktail of solutions and it needs solutions beyond just the five weeks at the end. It is also a question of eligibility. For people who work in seasonal employment, 360 hours counts a lot. Compassion in the EI system is the big reason we are here today.

I have only a minute left, but I do wish to conclude that over the past little while I have seen poverty face to face in many industries, particularly so with the AbitibiBowater situation in Grand Falls-Windsor. That is why, in principle, I would like to congratulate my colleague for bringing this to the House. I also want to say that I will be supporting this, because we do need compassion back in the system. This bill goes a long way in doing that. I hope that we will have a fruitful debate. Despite the fact that it did not receive the royal recommendation, I hope that the House will give this a lot of consideration before just writing it off.

[Tobacco Act, June 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague on her fine speech. It was certainly informative. I appreciate her point about the existing packaging. To be honest, I have never really seen these products before. I have read so much about them and have heard all the protestations about them. When it was presented to us in the House, I could not believe that what I was reading was actually true, that this package looked so appealing to a younger age. I was absolutely flabbergasted. I appreciated the member's comments.

On the heels of that, there was something she mentioned in her speech. She said that thanks to the youth movement around this issue, it had now come to the fore. Certainly it has come to the floor of the House of Commons.

Could the member shed more light on that. I am always very interested in the youth movements that make a difference? They make a difference for the simple reason of who are the proponents and that would be our children. In this case could the member cite some examples and talk in particular about the young groups that spearheaded movements to bring this legislation to the House? Also, could she comment on her private member's bill?

I assume she meant her private member's bill took care of all loopholes, not just the cigarillos but also the smokeless products, such as the chew.

[Petitions, May 29th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition concerning an ongoing issue in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador and also in parts of Quebec regarding a tax issue that was unresolved from some years ago.

In 1998, a lot of people were given misinformation by DFO regarding the Atlantic groundfish licence retirement program. The government settled with 150 of those, but 850 fishermen, some now deceased, have been left out of that calculation, totalling, in some cases, up to $20,000.

The signatories come primarily from the area of Bonavista, including the mayor of Bonavista, Betty Fitzgerald, as well as Martha Lane, who has worked tirelessly on this campaign. I would also like to thank Elizabeth Harvey and her efforts on the southwest coast of Newfoundland.

[Business of Supply, May 28th, 2009]

Madam Chair, I would like to move very quickly to the seal hunt, once again, and the ban on the importation of seal products by the European Union. I will end up closing on this, as I believe my time is getting short.

Recently The Economist published an article condemning European politicians, basically stating, and I am paraphrasing, that in essence it has created a dangerous precedent by which other animals being harvested throughout Europe are unregulated or not as regulated as what the seal hunt would be. Therefore, it has shone a bad light on its own practices.

Would the minister say in the House now that it has created a dangerous precedent? Would she tell the Europeans that their unregulated hunts will be subject to criticism by the Conservative government?

[Business of Supply, May 28th, 2009]

Madam Chair, the opinion of Mr. Hearn in the years prior to the election was far different than what was just described. It really was a commitment to regulatory management of the 200 nautical miles by the Government of Canada. In essence, that was the promise.

I would like to go to the issue of access to financial capital. Fish harvesters have little means to access financing from banks or other financial institutions. In these difficult times, fishermen need to access capital in order to improve vessel efficiency, combining licences, or purchasing new equipment.

What steps does the government plan to take to help fish harvesters access capital in order to improve their individual enterprises? Could the minister outline what specific steps the government plans to take, and has taken, regarding the access to capital?

[Business of Supply, May 28th, 2009]

Madam Chair, I would like to return to the second part of my question from an hour ago. Just to refresh the minister, I asked about the quota increase in a NAFO regulatory zone for the bycatch, which went from 5% to 13%.

The core issue here is about the idea of the commitment to custodial management. During the years 2003 to 2005, when former minister Hearn openly discussed the idea of custodial management, in his view custodial management pertained to the Government of Canada making the primary decisions in areas such as the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks. Therefore, if a decision were made through the NAFO mechanism to increase quotas, how can NAFO claim that it has effectively achieved custodial management when that decision should have been made by the Government of Canada? Is that really custodial management? I do not think it is.