Scott Simms

[Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act, November 22nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the reason why we called it comprehensive in the beginning was the involvement of the provinces as stakeholders in this. So much will be within their jurisdiction that they have been brought on board. I give credit also to the opposition for this. When the Conservatives were in government, they were a big part of bringing in the provinces, which we have continued.

There have been successful examples in the past, such as the Rio conference on environment, not so much with Kyoto, and also some good conversations with NAFTA.

By doing this now, we have created a new way of trade partnership that involves provinces. Going forward that would be essential.

[Canada Pension Plan, November 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it is not better. It is good, but it is not better.

I understand what the member is saying about the tools he is putting forward, such as RRSPs and the investments. However, I go back to the point that these are good measures, but I do not think they are better, and here is why.

In many cases, one has to take on a large element of risk as an investor and that does not always unfold the way it should. Even though it may be low risk, it still is risk at that point. What we are doing today is giving a base for seniors to rely on 100%. This is what I want to enhance in this. It is not just this, as my other hon. colleague pointed out, but it is together with the old age security, and by extension, the guaranteed income supplement.

Again, the tools the member described are good ones. I take advantage of them myself. As an investor, I am a low-risk investor, but I do that with a risk. They are good, but they are just not better.

[Canada Pension Plan, November 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. Young people of today, certainly those under 25, would be the principal beneficiaries of this legislation. To alleviate the situation, I highlighted in my speech several aspects that currently dealt with seniors. However, the member is right. I hope there will be more legislation coming, and even private members' bills, regarding the GIS and other tools by which we can help seniors get out of poverty.

I am focused on this right now. I see us becoming that much more progressive down the line when it comes to a Canadian pension plan system. My father was a principal beneficiary of a hard thought-out progressive pension plan between his union and the company for which he worked. Again, that was not portable. It was for him in that workplace. I would like to see something more generous for the population at large, and this would go a long way toward alleviating that.

[Canada Pension Plan, November 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues for allowing me this opportunity to speak. Quite frankly, since taking office about 12 years ago, I would have to say that this is close to the top, if not at the very top, when it comes to issues brought to my constituency offices. I have two in riding in Newfoundland and Labrador, one in Gander and the other in Grand Falls-Windsor. Formerly I had one in Bonavista, which was part of my old riding. Without a doubt, seniors' poverty is one of the greatest issues I have ever seen. Every year calls come in about how much the increase will be this particular year, how the formula works, what is going to be on their GIS, and how it affects their ability to receive the provincial drug card in order to receive medications, because medication is one of the largest expenses of any senior no matter where they are, as members know.

We engage in this debate and we talk about how we hope to bring seniors to a higher level of income security. To do that, we have talked to the provinces, because in shared jurisdiction we do this. On June 20 of this year, we were able to arrive at a compromise for the entire nation, which allows us to increase that level of support for our seniors. There are three main ways in which Canadians can save through tax measures and the like. One would be through CPP, which we are debating here today. We also have several tools available for tax deductions—for example, tax breaks when it comes to buying a home—and also through RRSPs, or RPPs, we are able to use tax incentives when we voluntarily put money into those. The third would be other tools that we use to save for retirement including home equity, business equity, and the like.

Now we look to what we are dealing with here today, and we are talking about the Canada pension plan and how the contributions will rise, as many people have said in the House. We acknowledge that, but think about the benefits that will ensue because of all this. In many cases, the numbers have been put through the machine, as it were, and it shows that when it comes to retirement, the ideal goal for any senior retiring is that they are able to replace their pre-retirement income at a rate of about 60%. This does not alleviate that for all seniors in this case, but it certainly goes a long way to alleviate the hardships suffered by many.

I mentioned all the calls I get in my office, and this is a big part of it. Many of them have to do with old age security and the guaranteed income supplement that also flows from that. We can save that for another day and another piece of legislation, but in the meantime what excites me about this is that now, over the seven-year period ahead, we would see an increase that I think is substantial for the average Canadian, the average impoverished Canadian, someone making less than $30,000 per year, even less than $20,000 when we take in the other aspects of this legislation. I will get to that in a moment.

Also in this case, it would affect a whole host of young people who are currently not thinking about retirement, and many of them are not at this stage in the game. Many millennials are not thinking about retirement, but they would know now that they would face an enhanced benefit once they retire, after we have the seven-year phase-in. I mentioned the phase-in of the first five years would look at the income replacements, the contribution rate, and it is substantial in the sense that, instead of now one-quarter of income replacement, it would raise it to one-third of income replacement. That is a substantial investment for all of us; for employers, employees, and for the government.

The upper earnings limit on the back end of that seven years, in the final two years, 2023-2025, would increase by about 14% and that too is substantial, especially when it comes to the middle class. That would put the rate up to about $83,000 at that stage, and that is substantial considering that now it is in the lower $50,000 range.

In essence, in the last 10 years prices have gone up substantially in many sectors. I think of the many sectors in Newfoundland and Labrador where seniors find the hardest struggle, such as energy prices, medications as I spoke about earlier. Travel expenses in rural areas are also a substantial expense. Many seniors live in their homes and the energy bills many of them face are incredible. With a small lowering of energy prices over the past little while, it is still a substantial part of their day-to-day lives. Many of them are forced to abandon their homes, not because they are unable to look after themselves but because they cannot afford it anymore.

Many of these people do not have workplace pensions on which to rely. Many people between the ages of 60 and 65 will have workplace pensions that they have accrued through defined benefit programs, which go a long way toward replacing income, certainly even above the 60% level. However, in this case, let me consider my family.

My father worked over 40 years in one mill. Through the good work of his union, he was able to attain a defined benefit package, which meant he received the government old age security at 65. However, he was able to supplement that with a fairly large and generous defined benefit package from the company he worked for at the time. It was Abitibi-Consolidated, a mill in central Newfoundland. It no longer exists unfortunately. Through the work of his union, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the employees were able to negotiate a generous pension package.

Let us take a look at the workforce today. Not a lot of young people are able to work in one place for more than 40 years. That pool is very small. What is so important here is that means they do not get the benefit from having a defined benefit package because they have moved around from place to place and job to job. In other words, my father's pension package was generous only because he was there for 40 years. If he moved around from job to job, he would not have had that, simply because that pension was not portable. Portability is going to be a major issue over the next 20 or 30 years.

What is key is the fact that the CPP is 100% portable no matter where we go in Canada. That is why we have to increase the benefit for those who need it to get even close to fulfilling their dream of replacing their pre-retirement income of 60%. We hope to get closer to that goal over this seven year period. Yes, contributions will rise for employees and employers, and we have all accepted that. Certainly I have. However, when it comes to the benefits we are talking about here, we are trying to put this in line for those who need it at the time they retire.

Going back to my example, a lot of people will be moving around from job to job and they may have private savings that are portable, such as a myriad of RRSPs, or RPPs or things of that nature, including RRIFs for that matter. However, a lot of people do not and this is a way for us to keep that base level of income for Canadians when they retire, not at 67 but at 65.

I look forward to this going to committee, and looking at amendments as it goes forward. I want to congratulate the provinces in this. They have come a long way in helping us create what we think will help alleviate poverty for seniors. Again, it is the number one issue in my riding and I am not alone in that. There are many people, especially rural ridings, for whom the price they have to pay on just basic goods has become quite crippling.

[National Seal Products Day Act, October 27th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I first want to thank my former employee and colleague. I did not even write the speech for him. With all the technical words in it, I am just not capable of doing it, quite frankly.

I want to thank him for that, because he illustrates a very important point. It is not just a holiday; it is a statement. That is absolutely correct. Here is someone who has no connection to any of the communities that have been mentioned, whether they are in the north, on the coast of British Columbia, or in Atlantic Canada, and he managed to make a connection as a Canadian, to all Canadians, over 30 million of us, to look at seal products day as a necessary thing.

I also want to thank my other colleagues, and I would like to mention some of them. Someone who did not get a chance to speak was the member for Nunavut, but I want to thank him. He has supplied many of the seal ties we see here today. He has truly been an advocate. As a matter of fact, when he greeted the President of the United States, he was wearing a seal tie. I think that is probably the first time that has ever happened with an American president, and hopefully not the last.

I want to thank the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa very much, because he brought forward the argument of wildlife management. I want to share a story with him. One of my predecessors, the member of Parliament for Bonavista—Trinity—Conception, was Captain Morrissey Johnson. He captained a boat himself and then became a politician. He was on Front Page Challenge, a television show on CBC, as a guest about the seal hunt. He was asked what made him so convinced that seals were eating fish. His response was that they were in the ocean and they were certainly not eating turnips, which was a very illustrative point. I thought it was pretty good. I want to thank the member for that, and his vast experience with wildlife management certainly was educational.

I would like to thank the member for Red Deer—Lacombe, who pointed out that seals provide extra money for people with low incomes. That is very true. He compared it to when Europeans say they do not like the seal hunt and the cruelty it represents, and then eat foie gras. I do not have to illustrate how foie gras is made. I probably should not or we would not eat supper, but I do support that industry as well.

I want to thank the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay. He talked about the coast-to-coast connection, his family being from Brigus, Newfoundland, sealers themselves, and then on the west coast with the Inuvialuit.

I want to thank my colleague from Labrador. She hosts seal day here. She has been an extremely passionate advocate for it, and I thank her greatly for all she has done. She is certainly a champion for this, more so than I am, quite frankly.

I also want to thank the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap for his comments. He talked about the EU ban and how unjust and unfair it is, which goes back to the point that was made by my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle about the fact that there are people who look at this as being extremely cruel, but have no problem wearing or eating other animal products without any idea where they come from, how they are slaughtered, or how they are raised.

Of course, I also want to thank my colleagues who questioned me during my first speech. I want to thank them for that, but again I remind them that this day, as my colleague pointed out, is not just a day of celebration. It is a strong statement for our communities. There are exemptions in place in places like the European Union for cultural reasons—aboriginal, first nations, Inuit—but quite frankly, they still do not understand how this works because they have to sell this commercially in order to make things viable, as well as the Atlantic communities.

All that being said, I want to thank all of my colleagues in the House for allowing me to bring this forward. I want to thank Céline Hervieux-Payette, a former senator, for being the genesis of this particular bill. It was my honour to bring it forward. I also want to thank the former member for Yukon, who also made a go at this and it did not quite work. However, it is now in the House for a vote. Let us hope this happens.

I will stand here to vote for Bill S-208 in the same way and in the same spirit that I voted for Bill C-501, and that is to protect our culture tied to wildlife, how we manage it, and how we champion it as Canadians.

[Standing Orders and Procedure, October 6th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, when the member started his speech, he described himself as geek. I thought it was a bit harsh to call himself that, but after hearing the entire speech, I think I will affectionately call him a geek.

I also had the pleasure of hiring this guy a little while ago. He is part of the reason I am standing here too.

I want to ask about some of the things the member brought forward. One that I think should be seriously looked at is the idea that we are dropped from the list, when we come back here, when it comes to private member's bills. We have heard time and again today about people wanting to put something forward on behalf of their constituents or something they feel strongly about and never being recognized. There are people who are here 20 years who never even get close to that sort of thing. Maybe the member can expand on that.

I will throw in something else, and he will tell me if I am wrong. He is so good at this that I will believe him. Instead of putting all members on the list, should we put on the ones who only have bills introduced?

[Standing Orders and Procedure, October 6th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the member's speech, and I agree with him on some of the issues he brought up.

The member talked about extending question period to allow the supplementary questions, or what we call the adjournment debate. I think his intent is good. He is right on target, but I think he might be a little wide of the mark. I say that because in practice, it would just continue the way it has always been. I have been here 12 years and the member is right about adjournment debate.

One of the things I would suggest is this, and I hope the committee considers it as an idea. Extend question period, yes. Even look at the timing: 35 seconds is a bit tight. But why do we not submit the list of people who want to ask questions to the Speaker, not to the whip? The questions could be provided in advance. I used to do that when I was sitting on that side of the House. I found that the minister was ready for the question and I was able to get answers. This is a good way for MPs to have their local issues addressed, not through the whip but through you, Mr. Speaker, from a list in order to extend QP. So I want to thank the member for his thoughts.

[Standing Orders and Procedure, October 6th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am totally in agreement with the calendar being set well before what we have right now. I think June was the month the member mentioned. Considering that we spend so much time away from our families, being able to plan that much further ahead is essential. I totally agree with the member.

On the shortened work week, we work long hours Monday to Thursday, so there is an argument for a shortened work week, but I am not totally convinced that we should go to that.

The member's travel is worse than mine, because he goes all the way through British Columbia. I go to Newfoundland. Nevertheless, we both spend the same time in airports and airplanes. If we have the attitude that we all knew what we were getting into, nothing would really change.

One thing that should probably change is voting and how many hours we spend here with up-and-down voting. Most international politicians who come here are fascinated and ask why we still vote that way. It was something delivered in the 19th century, and it has not been changed.

I will leave it at that for now, but I would like to get the member's comments on some of the most important things he would change.

[National Seal Products Day Act, October 3rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Durham for his comment about my charming bow tie, as I stand here blushing shamelessly. That is very sweet.

The member is correct. Paul McCartney was the celebrity who did not know where he was. He was in Prince Edward Island but claimed to be in Newfoundland and Labrador.

All that aside, as the member pointed out, the lack of understanding is part of the problem. These celebrities witness the actual harvest but do not witness the cultural aspect that follows the harvest. That is the problem. If they did, they would probably go back with a greater appreciation. I think of a former governor general who took part in the ceremony of eating the seal meat. It was really something at the time. I wish those celebrities would do that.

A lot of people will say that it is easy for politicians from Quebec or Newfoundland and Labrador to be in favour of the seal harvest because it is a popular thing. However, in Europe, it is a popular thing to be on the other side of the argument. At least I can say that the vast majority of politicians from Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador, and across the country, have a better understanding of the seal harvest than the protesters.

[National Seal Products Day Act, October 3rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the member brings up a valid point. I did not get around to the conservation aspect vis-à-vis other species and the crowded ecosystem with respect to both harp seals and grey seals. He is absolutely right and I thank him. Some of the most passionate advocates for the commercial seal hunt have come from the province of Quebec, much like my own province.

Nevertheless, with respect to the recovery of cod, seals play a role in the ecosystem. Obviously, overfishing is a major factor as well. There may come a time when we have to curb the population measures, just like we do with other species, which could create many problems. Some countries do this. They condemn us and part of the seal ban. Sweden is one of them. It does have a cull on seals that affect its shores. Because of that, Scotland and other places with seals are talking about culls. This has to be addressed.

The member is right about the fact that how the 7.4 million harp seals mix with the ecosystem has not been fully addressed yet. We know a lot, but we will need to know more. The seals will play a major factor in the recovery of cod on the east coast, and we have to get to that.