Scott Simms

[Main Estimates, 2014-15, June 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I just have a quick question. The very nub of this issue is to deny the money that goes to fund the activities within the Senate. Does the member realize, too, is that it would also defund people who work for the Senate, and that many of the employees are unionized?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, June 10th, 2014]

With regard to government records on the Manolis L. since its construction in 1980, what are the details of documents, memos, correspondence, reports, or any other forms of information that exist, broken down by (i) department, (ii) date, (iii) file or reference numbers, (iv) type of record, (vi) purpose, (vii) title, (viii) summary, (ix) contents, (x) availability?

[Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, June 9th, 2014]

I am sorry; there was Jordan. The NDP members did not stand to vote for it. We are still not sure where they stand on that one.

Nevertheless, the nub of the issue is this: if they believe that Honduras is as bad as they claim it is—and I do not doubt it, because there are a lot of human rights violations taking place there, and I agree with the member in many respects—what exactly do we do to engage Honduras to improve the situation? Do we shut down dialogue completely?

I firmly believe that opening up trade relations has a benefit in many of these countries, a fundamental benefit that we should consider as compassionate people.

I ask the member, if there is absolutely no free trade deal agreement, where do we go from here to improve the situation in Honduras?

[Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, June 9th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I have some sincere questions to ask my hon. colleague.

He gave a good speech. It was well researched, but I have some concerns. The member first talked about trade deals with countries that are favourable to all the things that he attested we should be in favour of, such as human rights and so on and so forth.

I have been here 10 years, and I have yet to see them agree with any free trade deal agreement.

[Petitions, June 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition on behalf of several constituents from and around the Bonavista north area as well as Change Islands, Fogo Island, and Twillingate Island.

The petitioners are deeply concerned about a freighter that sank off their coast back in 1985. About a year ago, or a little more, the freighter started to leak oil at the bottom of the ocean, which is now affecting seabirds and could eventually be a major disaster to the entire ecosystem.

The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to take immediate action to help clean up this potential disaster.

[Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, May 29th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I just have a quick question.

One of the things we noted missing in Bill C-6 are obligations that are outlined in the convention. Not thoroughly addressed are obligations including stockpile destruction, transparency reports, working to universalize the convention and promote its norms, notifying allies of convention obligations, and discouraging the use of cluster munitions.

I wonder if my hon. colleague would comment on those glaring omissions.

[Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, May 29th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, incongruent with the way we handled the situation with the land mine treaty, I wonder if my colleague could comment on the fact that the loopholes within Bill C-6 are certainly not congruent with the way it used to be. Would he like to comment on that, plus the fact that there are other nations that seem to have closed these loopholes without us taking part in it in order to ratify this treaty?

[Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, May 29th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her earlier speech when she spoke so passionately to this issue.

The witnesses we have seen speak passionately about things that are in the bill that are considered to be loopholes, which I mentioned earlier. They also speak to things not addressed, things that live up to the spirit of the treaty that was originally signed. For example, stockpile destruction, transparency reports, working to universalize the convention and promote its norms, notifying allies of its convention obligations, discouraging the use of cluster munitions.

There is a basic investment in the public realm as to what these bombs can do and how we need to eradicate them, and how we keep our governments in check to always make sure that we propose legislation that eliminates these destructive and unbearable munitions.

[Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, May 29th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, many stakeholders brought up these concerns. Let us face it: a lot of the thoughts and testimony that we have brought to the House today have come from many of those witnesses.

The witnesses that my colleague mentioned, Mines Action Canada and the Mennonite Committee, have certainly been an important part of that. They have been very vocal in their opposition to some of these loopholes.

Other people who have written editorials have brought forward some of the things they talked about, such as removing the word “using” from clause 11(1)(c), not going far enough to eliminate the use of cluster bombs. One of the examples was that other nations that closed those loopholes engage in interoperability missions with other countries that are not signatories. In other words, if they can do it, so can we.

[Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, May 29th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the concept of knowingly doing so is involved here, which is what we discussed at the foreign affairs committee.

Once again I would like to remind that member that it is directing or authorizing an activity that may involve the use, acquisition, possession, import, or export of a cluster munition. We are talking about expressly requesting the use of cluster munitions, which his examples do not include. Acquiring, possessing or moving a cluster munition itself. These are quite explicit.

I certainly believe that allowing this amendment to go through would have explored these issues and would have closed a loophole to address all the questions that the member is asking. That brings up a point. By accepting these amendments I feel that those questions would have been addressed. By asking these questions, I would like to think that he would like to close these loopholes himself.