Scott Simms

[Fisheries, May 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to bring to the attention of all members a very important issue to the people of my riding of Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor which is the food fishery.

This opportunity allows me to pay tribute to the hard work of Beaton Keats and his brother Tony, who started the Dover food fishery committee. They have heard from the entire island of Newfoundland and also Labrador about this very serious issue that concerns the cherished cultural right of fishing for cod to provide for the dinner table.

In fact, the committee has managed to collect 14,395 names for this cause and this cultural right of Newfoundland and Labrador.

[Committees of the House, May 9th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. colleague's comments about the level of transparency we are striving for; one of the main reasons I entered politics was to do this. I always thought that the best way to governance was through efficiencies and transparency and I commend my colleague for his comments.

I want to touch upon recommendations 17 and 18 and the Canada School of Public Service. This intrigues me. The school has developed an orientation and continuous learning program for heads of agencies. I notice that there are three modules and the agency outlines how it plans to do this. I find that this does play into the fact that we are achieving more transparency in this program. I would like my hon. colleague to comment on that, please.

[Fisheries and Oceans, May 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, like all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, I am deeply concerned about the impact of foreign fleets off our shores, and they are doing it illegally. I also share the belief that the time for simply talking about it is over and the time for action is now.

My question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Could he please tell the House what Newfoundlanders can expect coming out of the International Fisheries Governance Conference going on right now in St. John's?

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, April 14th, 2005]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-366, an act to change the name of the electoral district of Bonavista--Gander--Grand Falls--Windsor.

Madam Speaker, based on the advice of my constituents, I would like to introduce this bill in the House to change the name of the electoral district to its original name, Bonavista--Exploits. I would also like to thank the member for Halton for seconding this bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Petitions, March 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present to the House today a petition circulated by Ocean Net, a marine conservation group based in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of Parliament that they are advocating for zero tolerance for marine pollution. They are also calling on the government to strongly enforce its existing environmental legislation protecting marine environments. There are over 450 signatures from across Newfoundland and Labrador.

[2005 Special Olympics, March 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as the member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, I rise today in the House to pay tribute to a young person in my riding, a young person of whom we are extremely proud. She is Sarah Brown of Gander, Newfoundland and Labrador. She participated in the 2005 Special Olympics in Nagano, Japan, February 25 to March 5.

Sarah returned home with a gold medal in the 4x400 metre relay race in snowshoeing and placed fourth in the 400 metre and 800 metre snowshoe race. She was the youngest competitor on the Canadian team, at age 14.

On behalf of all my constituents, we are very proud of Sarah and her accomplishments.

[Foreign Credential Recognition Program, March 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak on the motion by my colleague from Brampton—Springdale. Her compassion on this issue has inspired many here today and hopefully will inspire all as we resume this debate.

The member is well known for her commitment to ensuring that foreign trained professionals and new immigrants can fully participate in the Canadian labour market and more broadly in our society. I want her to know that I too share this commitment.

I too am of the opinion that one of the conditions for Canada's prosperity and future competitiveness is to allow skilled immigrant workers and foreign trained Canadians to contribute to the socio-economic development of Canada.

In my rural riding, one of the prime concerns came from primary health care and the fact that providing health care providers for many of the smaller communities in my riding has become troublesome and very difficult.

This is one of the ways to combat that: by recognizing health care professionals from abroad. By doing that we can provide a better health care service to our smaller communities in rural Canada. This is one of the big reasons why I support this bill.

Despite the fact that more skilled immigrants and foreign trained professionals are coming to Canada, too many cannot get a job in their field and it is taking much longer for them to catch up to Canadians with similar levels of education and expertise, resulting in comparatively low income levels.

It is against this background of common concern for the better integration of immigrants into Canada's labour market that I am pleased to support the member's motion regarding the government's foreign credential recognition program. The policy objective has been clearly set out, and I support this bill and the efforts of my hon. colleague from Brampton—Springdale.

[Canada Elections Act, February 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand today to talk about this serious issue, Bill C-261. I thank my colleague from Ajax--Pickering for bringing it forward because it is an issue that is very important to me.

I will start the debate by talking about a situation that happened to me in central Newfoundland. I am from a very rural riding. A 16 year old girl said that she wanted to talk to me about post-secondary education because she had a concern. I said that was fine and that we should talk about it. She brought forward not just some problems with the system for her and her family financially but she also presented some ideas.

She told me that she would never ever bring to the debate just problems. She said that she wanted to bring solutions as well. I listened to her and she made a very good debate. When the election was over, I saw her again and asked her how she felt. I told her that we would, hopefully, be able to move forward on it. What she asked me was whether it mattered and had I listened. Well I looked at her and admitted that I had not really listened because I knew she could not vote.

That is the problem that comes into this. When someone is 16 or 17 they are making life decisions, decisions about careers and family but we did not listen to them because they could not vote. To me, that was the ultimate crime. I want to give her that chance.

The charter states that every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein. I cannot think of a better person than that young lady who talked to me so intelligently about her situation and who brought forward solutions. That is the type of debate we need to have.

I think engaging our youth is the issue in which our communities need to get involved. We need to engage the entire community, young and old, and the community consists of secondary schools.

My hon. colleague from the New Democratic Party talked about the debate that was going on in a school and how informed the students were. If we give them the right to vote, are we going to listen? Of course we will listen and we will take action this time because in the end we need their support.

Imagine sitting at the dinner table with a daughter, like the one I spoke about earlier, who says, “Dad, I don't like your thinking on post-secondary education, I don't like the way you are voting and I think you should vote another way”. The Dad may reply by saying that it was unfortunate she felt that way and then she might reply by saying that she would cancel his vote.

All of a sudden we have empowered our youth. These people are mature enough and engaged enough and we need to recognize that. That is why I am honoured to stand here to talk about Bill C-261.

It is nice to see that we have support from all parties in the House. It is one of those issues that tie us because we have children and we want to engage our children to do this. Voter turnout in my riding was pathetic. It was less than 50%. What a crime. To get 16 and 17 year olds to vote puts excitement into this debate. It allows them to have a say and it elevates them because now they would have an opinion and we as adults would finally listen. They are in grade 11 or grade 12, but when we speak to them, as we have done, we will listen. To me that would be the biggest benefit of this bill because they do believe in these issues. They do have opinions on same sex marriage and on ballistic missile defence. We just do not take the time to get another perspective, but the bill certainly would.

My hon. colleague quoted a fellow Newfoundlander, Rick Mercer. I will quote him again because he was doing one of his typical rants, as he likes to call them. He said, “If I were 16, I would write my member of Parliament, I would complain, except if I were 16 they wouldn't care what I had to say because I don't have the vote and that's the problem”.

My hon. colleague from Newmarket talked about the poll that was done recently of a thousand respondents. One of the questions was: Do you feel a sense of responsibility to inform yourself about public policy issues or is public policy an area that government should deal with on your behalf? Of the young respondents, 27% said that it was their personal responsibility, while 63% said that the government should decide for them. The reason I believe that is so is because we told them that is the way it is.

Now we have to tell them that their opinion does count and that they can take a personal interest in the rest of their lives. Even at 16 and 17 they can make the decisions for the rest of their lives.

Another question was: Would you be very likely, somewhat likely, somewhat unlikely or very unlikely to vote in the next election if allowed? The poll showed that 23% said unlikely, while 76% said likely. They say that no government works on their behalf and that they really do not have much say on the issue, but 73% said that if they were given the chance they would stand up. I think it is time we gave them the chance.

One of my hon. colleagues complained that we would be the first country to do this. Why can we not be the first country? Let us be the first country to tell our young people that they can vote, that they can have a say and have the power. I think that would be the greatest benefit of this particular situation.

The last point I want to make is about my home. I am from a rural riding where out-migration is at a terrible level. I was a victim of that out-migration. I was 17 years old when I left my hometown of Bishop's Falls in central Newfoundland, a town of less than 4,000 people.

The first time I ever voted in my life I was in a foreign land: New Brunswick, which is somewhat foreign, but it is foreign when one is from a small town in Newfoundland.

The thing is that I wanted to vote in my hometown. I wanted to get involved in my hometown. If we do not involve our youth in the little town of Bishop's Falls, then we are in trouble.

Let us imagine answering the door and a young lady is standing there. She says that her name is Jessica, that she is 16 years old, and that she is running for town council and wants our vote. Can anyone imagine a 16 year old candidate? I may not vote for her but I guarantee I will remember her. That young lady will inspire me and she will inspire her friends to vote as well. We are dealing with younger people who have opinions and well thought out ideas and now it is up to us to recognize that they have that voice.

I want to do this for rural Canada. I definitely want to do this for rural Newfoundland and Labrador because I believe in it. I believe that our children, 16 and 17 year olds, should have that voice.

[Human Resources and Skills Development Act, November 22nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my hon. colleague from the great city of Peterborough. I want to talk about a situation that I have run into since being elected back in late June.

In my riding, which is very rural, of course, we have over 100 communities. The largest community in my riding has less than 15,000 people.

In 1992 the cod moratorium in Newfoundland and Labrador resulted in one of the largest layoffs in the province's history. A lot of fishermen aged 40, 50 or 60 years old found themselves without work. At that time, they were described as general labourers. It was difficult to find work as a general labourer in our situation because of these smaller towns, and the choice was not that great. So the emphasis then became retraining. We needed to find work but to do that we needed the skill set to do it. We needed retraining, so it is music to my hears to hear that we now have the Human Resources and Skills Development department, because skills training is essential, especially in our situation with the moratorium. Now people are acquiring skills to get better work.

In this situation with skills development, will the training be commensurate with local job availabilities? In other words, will training also keep in mind the available labour within that market, especially in small rural areas like mine? Will the department look favourably on people who want to obtain certain skills but also be sensitive to the fact that there are certain jobs out there that need to be filled and these people can be retrained?

[Supply, November 4th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague on her speech. She seemed quite sincere. I have a quick question regarding the member's own province. Again I thank her for the sincerity she has shown for my own province, where we have reached this critical time. The member has obviously shown her interest.

Pertaining to the member's own province of Alberta, she alluded to equalization and how Alberta struggled through those years while getting equalization and of course reaping the benefits of royalties as well. I am not trying to be combative, but I would like the member to explain to me how they went from being a have not province to being a have province and how this particular deal differs. Also, how is it that Premier Williams' deal is similar to what Alberta went through?