Scott Simms

[Business of Supply, May 30th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to go back to what I said earlier about the price people have to pay to express their culture across this country. This is merely a small price to bring to the world what it is we have.

When Bryan Adams was a struggling artist I am sure he would have said that he was completely in favour of all the Canadian content rules. He is a recipient of the Canadian content rules.

We have more than Bryan Adams. We should look beneath what is not as famous. We should look at the groups and the acts that struggle day to day but are able to tour the country because of the rules we have.

The dollar figures that the member mentioned are a small price to pay given the culture we have, the expression we want to bring across the country and the fact that he may be singling out one channel. This channel is one that I support. Over the past 50 or 60 years this channel has become the crossroads of communication that allowed us to be Canadian. It not only brought our message to this country but to the entire world. Bravo CBC, and for what it has done, not merely one channel but a channel that brings us all together.

[Business of Supply, May 30th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the honour to stand here today to talk about culture and Canadian content.

I want to pick up on the question that was asked earlier by the hon. member for Calgary West on Canadian content rules and regulations. As a former broadcaster myself, I remember filling out many forms and going through the motions of doing the 30% Canadian content when it came to radio broadcasting.

It is a very good question because we have to ask ourselves whether it is a question of instilling this in order to put upon the public restrictions as to what they can listen to. The point is to promote our culture. The point is to expose the talent that we have to all three coasts. That is not an easy task to do when we are in the second largest country in the world.

For example, Great Big Sea, a band from my home province of Newfoundland and Labrador, is a very popular band all over North America, but would it have succeeded in the absence of Canadian content rules? That question will probably remain unanswered, but it certainly did give it a start to go across the country. Recently, it has had great concerts in British Columbia and south of the border. Part of its success is due to the Canadian content rules that we have.

I do not think the purpose of it is to put restrictions on citizens, particularly our youth. The point is to promote what it is we have, to promote Irish, Newfoundland and Labrador folk music across the country. It is something that is now being seen in CD sales across North America.

To me, Canadian content rules and regulations are less about the rules and regulations and more about the promotion of the culture that we have, and in particular in this case the culture being Newfoundland and Labrador which I always say is over brimming with culture, one that Canadians certainly do appreciate and enjoy.

I have been on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage for quite some time. Right now the bulk of broadcasting and the bulk of film production is done in the major centres, whether it be Toronto, Montreal, Calgary or Vancouver. However, there are other regions in the country that have a story to tell. We have to achieve the widest audience possible for them to tell that story. It is a good story and it is successful.

My hon. colleague from Churchill is a fine example of a show that she was on called North of 60 which I enjoyed very much. It was a good insight as to the culture of that region of our country, a part of the country with a small part of the population that probably would not have been recognized because the capital was not there to do this in the private markets. So as a government we helped. We helped them tell their story to the world.

Recently, there was a documentary about the seal hunt. It was based at Twillingate which is in my home riding. With the fuss going on and of course the arguments back and forth between the activists in the United States and Europe and we as seal hunters, and I fully support the seal hunt, our story had to be told. It was told from the viewpoint of an area that is rich in culture, rich in heritage, and dependent upon a way of life that we continue today. That story was told and thanks to the investment by the Government of Canada, we have done it.

When it comes to Canadian content, I have a few points to make. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or the CRTC as we know it, is the central body for regulating and overseeing the Canadian broadcasting industry. The Liberal Party remains confident that the CRTC has successfully helped the broadcasting system to achieve its objectives. When I talk about regions, I remember seeing a documentary some time ago about the architecture of churches in the small towns of northern Quebec. I watched it in Newfoundland and Labrador and what a good story it was.

Even though some people may think our Canadian content rules are restrictive, they are not. They are a promotion, a promotion of the French culture in Quebec where churches were the focal points of smaller communities. The architecture of these churches in small communities is unbelievable and a great story it is, and that is the key.

Canadians are best served by a broadcasting system that offers an ample supply of high quality, distinctively Canadian content that enlightens, entertains and informs citizens. I just gave the example of the interviews of sealers in Twillingate, Newfoundland and Labrador. This is programming that brings us together from coast to coast to coast. It is investments that we make to bring Canadians from places such as northern British Columbia, to the oil fields in northern Alberta, to the salmon rivers of New Brunswick.

We find that in a country this large with a population of only 30 million people, we need a crossroads of communication, one that is essential for a country this size and the culture that we have. That is our responsibility to the people of this country and, to me, that responsibility has to be emboldened within our Canadian content rules.

It is not so much a restriction upon content but it is the promotion of expression from all areas of this country, whether it be a terrible situation on the east side of Vancouver when it comes to homelessness, or whether it is the plight of a small village in Newfoundland and Labrador dependent upon the fishery, which has recently seen a downturn.

Some of the goals that we stress in Canadian strategy are: to put more emphasis on high quality Canadian content that reaches wide audiences and reflects Canada in its diversity, diversity of people and diversity of region; to put emphasis on funding Canadian drama, children's programming, cultural programming and documentaries that reach wide audiences; to provide the CBC, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, with specific funding for the provision of high impact programming consistent with its public service mandate; and to consider a number of measures to simplify funding in order to provide greater economic efficiencies and improved priority setting.

To ensure efficient and effective practices for monitoring Canadian content, the Liberal Party would focus the mandate on the Canadian Audio-Visual Certification Office and task it to conduct Canadian content certification on behalf of the federal agencies and programs.

In a letter dated September 30, 2005, Guy Mayson, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Canadian Film and Television Production Association, or the CFTPA, proposed a new policy framework for Canadian television content. Among other things, the CFTPA requested that structural amendments be made to the Broadcasting Act and that the CRTC's 1999 television policy be revised to reintroduce compulsory expenditure thresholds on programming by conventional broadcasters.

One of the issues we need to get back to is Canadian drama when it comes to the content we have. We contribute a lot to Canadian drama and over the years we have been extremely successful. Many Canadian shows, such as the one my hon. colleague from Churchill was on, North of 60, are prime examples of stories that are seen around the world and have touched many people around the world. Even though they started out as distinctively Canadian stories, the themes were attractive to everyone because of their human content and the perseverance of the human spirit.

If there were any message from my home town that I would like to bring to this House it would be that I believe in the promotion of our regions across the country. I also believe that our Canadian content rules help to promote the expression of our cultures from coast to coast to coast.

[The Budget, May 10th, 2006]

First, Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague on becoming minister. I served with her on the heritage committee. It was a great time and we did some good work.

That being said, the current chair of the heritage committee brought up a point in committee just the other day when he talked about museums, smaller museums, especially those in rural communities. I have quite a few museums in my riding, and the financing and operational costs have become a bigger issue.

I was wondering if the minister could comment on the heritage department's role in these smaller museums and whether or not it will be there for them with the funding they need. I know that the minister talks about stimulating growth and everything else, but the problem is that I do not have all these bigger companies in my own riding, it being as rural as it is, so I was wondering if she could talk about some money and obviously some good support for many of these smaller cultural institutions around the province.

Perhaps I am being a bit of a braggart in a way, but I come from a province that I consider to be brimming over with culture. I was wondering if she would comment on that issue.

[The Budget, May 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, that program I spoke about earlier, the extra weeks at the end, was an initiative brought in by us. It was an essential first step. The other step we brought in at that time was the 14 weeks for qualification. It was another essential first step. Were we going to go further? Yes, and we will. Do I support initiatives that bring seasonal workers to the fore? Absolutely, to the day I die.

It does not matter whether we cross from one party to the next, if we look at one party and say we cannot vote that way because we are from one particular party, because it is essentially the issue itself that brings seasonal workers back into this workforce. I do not believe that the EI system is strictly for people who face unexpected job loss and I will repeat that: unexpected job loss. In the past, the current government has used that term. Seasonal work is not about unexpected job loss. It is about rural survival.

The other issue is training, as I mentioned earlier. I hope the Bloc supports this as well, but if there is a study to be done in retraining, then I suggest that we invest in the post-secondary skills that are needed in areas such as aeronautics, such as in the town of Gander. We do have the workforce that can attract people, but we have to maintain that workforce. I look forward to supporting more EI reforms.

[The Budget, May 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's comment. Let me go back to the point I made earlier. I do appreciate the fact that there is to be a tax credit to help workers. However, the situation in my riding is grave to the point where the job itself is essential. The government has gone this far, and now it should try to go that much further. It is not going to be as hard as the member thinks.

The thing about the EI reforms and early retirement programs is that they give people that start and allow them to retrain, to get into something else if they choose to do so. Let me describe it for the member this way. The tax credit the member spoke of is similar to candy. It tastes wonderful, but at the end of the day it does not do much for us.

In comparison, let us talk about income tax cuts. Let us talk about EI reforms. And let us talk about an early retirement program and a licensed buyback program to get these people into their communities

. I have no disrespect for any communities of northern Alberta, none whatsoever, and I applaud them in their efforts, but I want to applaud my own communities: those in seasonal work who need that transition. We were on the way and I hope the government does not squander that opportunity. That is why I am voting down this budget.

[The Budget, May 9th, 2006]

My hon. colleague just said they are smart kids. With all due respect to the minister across the way, they are smart kids, and to take them from us simply out of necessity and forget what they are coming from is a shame.

As well, the licence buyback was not addressed in this budget, which is what disappointed me most. Are they smart kids for leaving my province? No, it is out of necessity. It does not make them brilliant, but it makes them energetic and industrious, and we want that in Newfoundland and we want that in Labrador. This government is a national government. It is not set up for one particular province or one particular area; it is set up from coast to coast to coast.

The other industry I talked about is forestry. In central Newfoundland right now it is one of those industries that gets overlooked. There is a forest industry in paper products. It is also having tough times right now. In the last session of Parliament, we put forward some fantastic measures in forestry for implementation in the smaller communities that are faced with an incredibly bad newsprint market, the high dollar and, of course, a depressed market in the newsprint industry. We made some solid gains.

I did not see many of them show up in this particular budget, but I hope that down the road they will. I have one glimmer of hope in that, because I do respect the former minister, with whom I have had several discussions about these forestry initiatives. I thank him for his sincerity.

I also would like to talk about seasonal work. EI reforms are absolutely necessary for the smaller communities to survive. We need the best 12 weeks and 360 hours. This is something we need in order for these communities to survive. We have had pilot projects that have worked. The question was asked in the House if the extra five weeks on a claim is good for seasonal workers. Go forward with that, I say. Now is the time. Time is wasting. The season goes on.

I have one final point and that is the Atlantic accords. Let me read for members something from the budget that is very alarming: “The confidence of Canadians in the overall fairness of federal programs has been undermined....”. As for the chief example used, the February 2005 agreements to provide Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador additional fiscal equalization, it is called a mistake.

I hope that in the negotiations over equalization our dreams and aspirations over the Atlantic accord will not be discarded. I do believe Newfoundland and Labrador is the jewel of the North Atlantic and that we will always prosper.

[The Budget, May 9th, 2006]

See, I told you we could bring the temperature down, Mr. Speaker. How about that?

I want to start by talking about the dynamics of the riding. I also want to talk about rural Canada and in particular, rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

My riding has over 200 communities, an incredibly large number of communities. They are all small and very rural but unique and very special, each and every one of them. When we consider government policy, it is always a balancing act between the urban areas and the rural areas, and sometimes we forget that the rural areas of this country, in particular those in Newfoundland and Labrador, mean a lot. They are engines that provide our food. They provide many of our workers as well. Sometimes we tend to forget that.

I would encourage all members who are rural MPs, whether they are red, blue, yellow, green or whatever, to speak out loudly that rural issues are very important. Because our ridings are not overly represented in this House, and I say that somewhat facetiously, we do have to stand up. I invite all members to do that. In the past little while the debate has brought many of these issues to the forefront and I congratulate all of my hon. colleagues in doing that.

In my riding and in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, fishing is a major occupation. Many of the people in my riding call it the backbone of Newfoundland and Labrador and I agree. It has been for over 500 years. We are the oldest colony in North America and we have a tremendous, rich history in fishing.

When it comes to the budget, I heard one hon. member from Nova Scotia talk about reciprocity and giving accolades. I will start this by saying that I give accolades to the government on the issue of the $500,000 capital gains tax exemption. It is something that has been fought for for an incredibly long time. I would like to personally congratulate the member for Cardigan in Prince Edward Island for his tremendous work on a private member's bill to make this happen. Now the government has included it and I congratulate some of the members opposite who worked with me on the fisheries committee.

However, what bothers me about this particular budget is not so much what was said, but what was not said.

Currently in Newfoundland and Labrador fish processing is going through probably one of the toughest times ever. There is a company called FPI, Fishery Products International. The primary processing group is facing incredibly tough times and is now about to make some very tough, detrimental decisions. The government needs to be there for the workers. This is essential for Newfoundland and Labrador. It is essential for the people who work in the fishing industry. Generation after generation it comes down to this in our industry.

What was not mentioned in the budget was the fact that what is needed for hundreds of plant workers in Newfoundland and Labrador is an early retirement program. I hope members are listening. They do not seem to be but I would like to repeat that one more time. We need an early retirement program in the fishing industry, licensed buy-back. We need to rationalize the industry itself. What this early retirement program would do is it would save our communities. It would not take much for the government to look to the people in the outports of Newfoundland and say, “We believe in you and we believe in your communities, and if you want to transition into something else, we will let you do that”.

There are incredible opportunities in the oil and gas industry. We have a talented workforce, young, bright, energetic, but they are leaving. They are leaving in droves. At Gander airport I am tired of walking over the puddles of tears shed by mothers and fathers who are crying because their children are leaving, not because they want to but because they have to. It is one of the most pathetic sights to see in my riding.

An early retirement program allows workers aged 50 to 55 to leave the industry with grace. It gives them the exit strategy to allow young people into this industry and it allows those young people to stay home. It allows them to build futures in their homes from Buchans to Bishop's Falls and from Twillingate to Bonavista and all points in between.

These people who have young children watch them and educate them, and they believe in them, but they also believe in their communities. Several years ago now, the FFAW, the union in Newfoundland and Labrador, put forward a good formula for early retirement. The average age of a worker in a plant is now above 50. We walk into a plant and see so many people above the age of 55 that, as we say in Newfoundland, it is a sin to watch. It is a shame. They want to get out. They need this. And we want their young people to stay.

I would implore the people across the way in government: when they do their study, when they look at this, I implore them to look at the people of the community who want to stay in the community and build. What they mentioned in the budget was retraining. That goes a certain way, but first things first. Somebody who is 54 or 55 years of age does not want to go back to be an aeronautical engineer. That person wants his or her children to do it, but the children are in Alberta or Ontario. No offence to said provinces, but I need to--

[The Budget, May 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I watched with interest the exchange that took place. I propose that we take the temperature down just a little so I can talk about my wonderful riding.

As this is my first speech in this Parliament, I would like to thank the voters of Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor for giving me this honour once again.

[Atlantic Accord, May 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, in Newfoundland and Labrador it is the skipper that we want but it is Gilligan that we got.

When the Atlantic accord came into the House that party did not even vote on it. Those members sat on their hands.

I will try this one more time. Will the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Fisheries stand in this House and answer to these accusations of unfairness in the Atlantic accord?

[Atlantic Accord, May 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday there was a conflicting message here in the House over budget documents. The Minister of Finance states that, the Atlantic accords undermine principles on which the equalization program is based and undermine the overall fairness of the federal programs. Yesterday the Minister of Fisheries stood in the House and said that was simply wrong.

The Minister of Finance or the Minister of Fisheries, who is the skipper of this good ship Lollipop?