Scott Simms

[Citizen Voting Act, April 30th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, back to the substance of the bill once more, one of the issues brought up by the Chief Electoral Officer was the fact that time is not on Election Canada's side for this. That was several months ago, so we should have a thorough debate about this to realize that the time impact is going to be great. Getting over Bill C-23 was bad enough. Now we have this one.

In addition, there are several questions that need to be asked. For instance, Armed Forces personnel would not be involved, but what about the spouses or partners of these individuals? They would also have to go through this routine. As my colleague pointed out, debate is of the essence, because they would have to register each and every time internationally. Why not maintain the international list of electors?

[The Budget, April 28th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I want to touch on something that Conservatives keep saying, which is promise made, promise kept.

Here is a statement that maybe is shrouded in a promise, but nevertheless it came from the Minister of National Defence. In January 2015, “We won't be using a contingency fund. A contingency fund is there for unforeseen circumstances, like natural disasters”. The budget uses $2 billion of that fund to balance the budget. Why did Conservatives use that fund if they truly believed they should not have?

[The Budget, April 28th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, here are three things.

First, the parliamentary secretary talked about provincial deficits on the Liberal side. Well, the Conservative Party in Newfoundland and Labrador also has a deficit that is approaching $1 billion. Let us take a look at that in perspective.

The second part is about the TFSAs. He mentioned my colleague from Markham—Unionville. The point is that what the Conservatives are doing is promising something that few people can avail themselves of. The vehicle of the TFSA, as he puts it, is used by people in the $60,000 a year range.

Here is the problem with that. Of most of these people, less than 20%, took advantage of the maximum of up to $5,000. Now, the Conservatives would increase it to $10,000, which even fewer people will take advantage of. It is not the vehicle. It is that the amount that can be invested has been increased, which few people will take advantage of.

The problem is that the Conservatives have also raised the age of eligibility of 65 to 67. That is the problem. That is a huge problem. It takes $28,000 from vulnerable individual seniors.

Here is my question. Let us talk about a contingency fund. Here is a quote from the Minister of National Defence, who sits in this House right now.

We won't be using a contingency fund. A contingency fund is there for unforeseen circumstances, like natural disasters.

The Minister of National Defence said that on January 18 of this year. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary would like to comment on that.

[Business of Supply, April 27th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I would accept and agree with many elements that the member just talked about concerning the defence forces and advertising; however, the concept within our motion comes down to having that third party as an arbiter to look at the type of advertising that may be misconstrued as something that is political. By way of example, several years ago the Conservatives painted the words “economic action plan” on a GO train. There was absolutely no information anywhere on that train that told people what programs they could avail themselves of. This is the type of thing that a committee would look at and say it was a bit much. It was just one billboard with three words that taxpayers are paying a lot for.

The motion is for the concept of having that outside body to say that they have crossed the line there.

[The Environment, April 22nd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, in the wake of the oil spill on the west coast, we still have a problem on the east coast regarding the Manolis L sunken freighter. It continues to spill oil and will potentially be a major disaster.

Here is the latest. Kevin Stowbridge, a naval architect and engineer, has said that the oil has to be removed. He says, “By today's standards”, the ship's hull “is paper thin”. He says that cracks are developing and they will spread, leading to “a catastrophic structural failure that could release the oil”.

Finally, once again, will she save our shorelines? Would the minister please clean up this mess as a permanent solution?

[Questions on the Order Paper, April 20th, 2015]

With regard to government communications: for each announcement made by a Minister or Parliamentary Secretary since January 1, 2006, in a location other than the Parliamentary precinct or the National Press Theatre, what were the (i) dates, (ii) venues, (iii) purposes or subject matters, (iv) names and portfolios of the Ministers or Parliamentary Secretaries, (v) amounts and details of all expenses related to making each such announcement?

[Privilege, April 1st, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I think that you, being the master of the House, should extend the privilege to this gentleman. We always preach that, when we want to get up on a point of privilege, we have something to say that is profound.

The gentleman has been here long enough that we should give him that right. I would like to seek consent for him to speak his mind, because I would like to hear it. Whether I agree or not is irrelevant. He does have that right, and we should stand up for it.

[Parliament of Canada Act, March 31st, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to be here to talk about this very important private member's bill. It is one we have looked at before. We are now into our second hour, and the mover of the bill will be up shortly to address some of the questions being raised here.

I want to start by directly answering one of the comments made about the fact that it does not go far enough. It almost seemed that the Conservatives wanted to have a little more proactivity involved in the sense of what we are doing here with the Liberal Party of Canada, when in fact, we were the ones who brought forward far greater measures on proactive disclosure than this House has ever seen. Yet some members, including the one who just spoke, seemed to think that we were in a position of dragging people in, kicking and screaming, on proactive disclosure, which Canadians demanded and now have. We are all doing it now.

The person behind that is the person bringing forward this bill, so the theme continues. We think this is a substantial step in making this House far more accountable and far more transparent than it ever has been.

I want to go back to what happened earlier today, when the report came out from Suzanne Legault, the Information Commissioner. She brought forward the concept, which we recognize, of “open by default”. Canadians watching this, from coast to coast to coast, might assume that it is happening already, but it is not. We have run into problems on committee.

Many journalists I have talked to talk about the redaction of information that is out there that is really unnecessary and how the power of this particular office needs to be restored. Right now, I would even go so far as to say that it has become an empty shell, by way of title only.

Let me bring forward some of the messages the Information Commissioner brought forward today. She talked about recommendations. She had 85 recommendations, which is substantial. She said that the recommendations would address ways to modernize the act “[t]o deal with current realities and the expectations of Canadians”, some not being fulfilled when it comes to transparency, plus we are now in the digital age, which I will talk about in just a moment; “[t]o simplify the administration and the application of the Act by focussing only on the interests that legitimately require protection”, and I mentioned redaction earlier; “[t]o increase timeliness in the processing of access requests”, which is long overdue; “[t]o permanently resolve recurring issues; [t]o align the Act with the most progressive and strongest laws in Canada and abroad; and [t]o maximize disclosure in line with a culture of openness 'by default'”.

In light of the developments, the commissioner recommended modernizing the Access to Information Act. These are some of the major highlights:

extending coverage to all branches of government;

improving procedures for making access requests;

setting tighter timelines;

maximizing disclosure;

strengthening oversight;

disclosing more information proactively;

adding consequences for non-compliance; and,

ensuring periodic review of the Act.

That brings us to where we are now on Bill C-613, brought forward by the hon. member for Papineau. There are several measures we talked about, messages we want to put out there to Canadians about what this bill will provide. Transparency is another goal in what we call open parliament. Obviously, this is a step in the right direction. It is a private member's bill. Beyond this, more legislation will follow so that we can follow through on an open parliament concept.

With its enormous power and responsibility, it is simply not acceptable in modern society for the Board of Internal Economy to meet in secret. Canadians deserve greater accountability. We have been saying this now for the past little while, and we continue to say this. The Board of Internal Economy provides a very specific function and a vital function in the heart of our democracy. It is certainly a vital operation within this House of Commons. We have seen it all over the news lately, for reasons I will not get into.

As secretive as it may be, in some cases we can understand why, when it comes to personal information, but for all the issues it deals with, there is no really grand or true reason it should be secret.

The transparency act would raise the bar on openness and transparency in government by significantly strengthening Canada's access to information laws, as was pointed out earlier. Again, that is open by default.

Canadians deserve a strong access to information regime that ensures true transparency and accountability.

The Access to Information Act has not changed in any significant way since it was passed and now it is time to act. We are proud to say that the member for Papineau, the leader of our party, has decided to act on this with his private member's bill, Bill C-613.

Let me go back to the Board of Internal Economy and the reform that is being proposed with the bill. The transparency act makes the House of Commons Board of Internal Economy open by default. Today MPs are making decisions about the regulations that govern their own spending with insufficient public scrutiny. Public scrutiny is the concept we have been using here for quite some time. It is bandied about within the media, not only the media here on the Hill but media throughout the country. That is why it is very important to make sure that this secretive committee is far more open than it used to be, to have this in the public realm. Discussions there are secret by law. It is time to change that law. By bringing openness to the board's conversations we could better serve Canadians. They have demanded more accountability and they would get more accountability upon passage of the bill.

Earlier speakers talked about it not going far enough, but we think this is a very substantial step.

We just spoke about access to information. The report came out today so let me expand on that and relate it to Bill C-613.

Achieving more open government makes sense for Canada. Governments around the world that embrace this concept have demonstrated new ways to reduce costs, spark entrepreneurial initiatives and help the public and private sectors to better serve citizens. A country's access to information system is the heart of open government.

We were in committee and spoke to the commissioner at that time. She talked about examples around the world and how it was a low-cost mechanism, very open, very accountable and very efficient in many ways. The problem she cited was that the office here was not given the resources to bring it up to an international standard that was acceptable, not just acceptable in the eyes of other countries and what they are doing administratively, but acceptable to all Canadians across the country who expect open government from us. Several of the measures we have taken earlier show that and this particular bill is that substantial step.

The information commissioner said:

Real improvement in the access system will only come from modernizing the act—a long-overdue step that is crucial to advancing the cause of transparency and accountability in Canada.

Therefore, it is not just from those of us who are supporting the bill, but it is also from the commissioner herself who is mirroring these comments about why it is so necessary to make these changes so that we can be open by default.

We are open to amendments, suggestions and improvements on the bill. We look forward to that in time.

The other thing the information commissioner spoke about, and she spoke very well, is the efficiency of the system and the cost. She told us that she did not want the cost of the system to rise. That is why we use the $5 fee in the bill, to talk about that and how it is refundable after someone does not get the information in a specific period of time.

When we were in committee, the Conservatives talked about having another tier of fees for private individuals. In the case of businesses where they wanted certain information from the government and it was not coming quickly enough, they said that maybe we should charge them more. If I had a small business, I do not think I would have liked to hear that. I do not know if they thought that through fully, but if we think about it, if we are going to start escalating two-tier costs and also in talking about privacy they want more redaction within this, who is it really serving in this particular case? Now we have legislation, an act that is servicing the government by putting on the false show of saying that we are open by default when in fact that is not the case in practice. There are two things here, the costs are down but if something is going to be redacted, in this particular legislation it should be justified to the hilt. It should be justified to the point that we are open by default. Therefore, it is not up to the government to just say that something is politically insensitive, so it will redact that part of the information and therefore Canadians cannot see it.

This may not come as a big surprise to many people in the House, but I do support this piece of legislation. I urge all members in the House to support it because this is a very significant step toward open government, open by default, as certainly was put forward by the information commissioner today.

[Fisheries and Oceans, March 25th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, this is not a question. I am just going to comment.

The member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission was elected when I was elected, 11 years ago now, and he has been for quite some time the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. There have been several ministers, and he has been steadfast as the parliamentary secretary.

Do not let the title fool anyone. He has been a leader in that particular portfolio, whether it was shrimp, small craft harbours, vessel stability, the new Fisheries Act, and so on and so forth. Through all of that, he has been incredibly respectful, knowledgeable, and good to all members in the House who had questions and concerns about fisheries in this country.

I understand he is not running in the next election. I would like to take this opportunity to say to him in the House, on the record, thank you, sir, for your service. You did it very well. Thanks, Randy, and all the best.

[Fisheries and Oceans, March 25th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, this is a follow-up to a question about a policy that was put in place in northeastern Newfoundland on fisheries management. It is about the northern shrimp issue.

Before I get to that, however, I would like to express my condolences in the House to the people of the town of Cottlesville. They have a plant there that employs 150 to 200 people. This past early Sunday, the plant burned down completely, and it is not to reopen. We now have 150 to 200 people out of work who are trying to find work. It is so difficult within these communities because of the nature of the seasonal work and because of how small they are and how dependent they are on the fishery.

Back to the policy in question, what I had asked about was what is called LIFO, or last in, first out.

When it comes to cuts in the shrimp sector, there are basically two sectors we talk about: the offshore and the inshore. In the offshore, there are much larger boats and factory trawlers. They are well off the shores, so they harvest the shrimp, they process it there, and it goes to market. Yes, they provide employment for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. That is true.

The inshore sector is the one people see if they have watched a show called Cold Water Cowboys. Those are the boats. These boats are certainly less than 65 feet. In this particular sector are the vast majority of people who live in small fishing villages and on the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is where they work. They work either on the boat or in the plants that process the shrimp itself.

With drastic cuts in shrimp because of the fact that the stocks have declined, cuts had to be made on quotas for each sector. The problem is that the government made in excess of a 25% cut for the inshore sector and only a small cut for the offshore sector.

If we face drastic cuts like this, the entire sector and all the individuals and stakeholders within it should share in that pain. It is an uneven and unfair regime. It does not comply with what we call adjacency, with the people living closest to the resource, in this case, the area 6 shrimp fishing area, being top of mind. We are asking the government to review this type of management principle.

The government will contend that we came up with it as the Liberal Party in 1997. It was talked about, but it was never enacted.

The worst part about this is that the government is asking the inshore fleet, nearest the shore, to take the vast majority of the cuts. The problem is that in 2007, they asked them to invest in that fishery by making these licenses permanent.

This is the situation we are in. I hope that the government will reconsider the last in, first out policy, or as the locals like to say, me included, maybe we should have a FISHNL policy, which is “first in, still here, not leaving”.