Scott Simms

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, May 6th, 2014]

With regard to Elections Canada, what are the file numbers of all ministerial briefings or departmental correspondence between the government and Elections Canada since January 23, 2006, broken down by (i) minister or department, (ii) relevant file number, (iii) correspondence or file type, (iv) date, (v) purpose, (vi) origin, (vii) intended destination, (viii) other officials copied or involved?

[Petitions, May 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition regarding the reduction of postal services in our smallest communities. I have 193 communities in my riding. Several of those communities are facing reduced hours. This petition is from one of those communities. The community is Bunyan's Cove. They are losing service, and they want a full service maintained by Canada Post, the national provider.

[Fisheries and Oceans, May 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, along the coast of Newfoundland and southern Labrador, crab fishermen are in desperate straits. Ice is jammed into our harbours and ports and the fishermen are unable to steam out to get their catch. Now both fishermen and forecasters believe the ice will not dissipate anytime soon and for many of them they have received no income for quite some time. Based on the programs of 2007 and 2009, will the minister commit today to a new ice compensation program for Newfoundland and Labrador fishermen?

[Petitions, April 30th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, this petition comes from residents living on New World Island, Twillingate Island, Change Islands, and Fogo Island. A paper carrier sank in the area in 1985, and it is now starting to spew oil. In fact, it has been spewing oil for the past year, or perhaps even longer.

The petition is signed by residents of Newfoundland and Labrador who implore the government to come up with a long-term solution, not a short-term solution, to get the oil out of that boat before there is a major environmental catastrophe.

[Democratic Reform, April 30th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives failed to submit an amendment to Bill C-23 to give the Commissioner of Canada Elections the power to compel testimony. Well, I wonder why.

The Conservative Party knew that the commissioner did not have this power, and that is why it ordered other Conservatives not to co-operate in the investigation of election frauds.

Liberals have submitted the amendments.

Will the minister finally do the right thing and support this amendment, or will he continue to protect Conservatives from election fraud investigations?

[Petitions, April 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition containing hundreds of names from around Newfoundland and Labrador itself: on the west coast, from places like Stephenville and Corner Brook; on the east coast, from St. John's; and of course central, from Twillingate, Notre Dame Bay, as well Fogo Island. They are also from as far west as Calgary, Alberta.

The petition deals with the sunken freighter off the coast of Change Islands. It is spewing oil, and has been for the past little while. There has been a temporary solution in place with what they call a “cofferdam” over part of the hull.

However, these constituents are asking for a permanent solution: to permanently take that oil out of the boat so that we can be rid of this potential major environmental disaster.

[Business of Supply, April 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, yes, indeed, perhaps the NDP members could bring it up at their next opposition day. They could do quite a large motion if they so desire. That is the beauty of having these opposition days. We can debate certain motions.

My question for my colleague and friend is this. I want to talk specifically about Bill C-23 here. What I find most egregious here--and I understand there are certain circumstances where time allocation would be used for dilatory movements within the House--is that we have a party and a government, as a result, abusing the system that is supposed to help out the daily functions of Parliament.

The government has decided, after only three speakers, to impose time allocation to cut the number of speakers down.

I agree with the member wholeheartedly that, when we vote for this in a few weeks, we need to say to the backbenchers here that they have the chance, a golden opportunity not given to the vast majority of people in this country, to speak in this House. They should exercise that by ensuring that the laws allowing us to speak in this House are as open and flexible as they can be.

[Business of Supply, April 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding what happened 120 years ago, I was wondering if the hon. member could talk specifically about Bill C-23, in this particular case. He talked about the enfranchisement of voters, or really the disenfranchisement. Obviously, the way this bill has been handled, there is no consensus whatsoever.

I want the member to rely upon a third person, outside of this House and outside the structure of party politics, and to quote from that person as to why Bill C-23 is so good.

[Business of Supply, April 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the overview of the evolution of the two Standing Orders in question by my colleague, but I think his assumptions at the end that nothing would otherwise get passed are certainly over the top.

In this particular case, we have two fundamental acts that need to be fully debated in the House, and there are reasons of convention as well. It is a matter of tradition that we always achieve consensus on something as fundamental as these two acts. I believe that anyone who wants to be heard in the House certainly has a right to be heard. Again, after there were only three speakers on the last bill, given the amount of opposition to it and the discussion about it, I certainly do feel this is important.

There is such a thing as time allocation for dilatory motions by those who nefariously attempt to hold up the business of Canada. However, there is also the abuse of a tool within our Standing Orders, which we should be treating with the utmost respect. This is why I ask the House to pass this motion to codify the protection of these two acts.

[Business of Supply, April 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, that would be the case. Of course, for a lot of people, it is a situation where three things are needed to qualify for their ID or proof of residency. They need to be over 18, a Canadian citizen, and have a residence, which in many cases they cannot prove because they receive their utility bills electronically, so that cannot be used.

I do not how the Conservatives have road tested a lot of this theory they have about eliminating vouching, but here is the problem. They say that to eliminate vouching is to eliminate fraud. Every irregularity that is put forward as something that happened, such as the signature being out of place, the registration certificate having something wrong with it, or the voucher's name not being put down—all of that, to them, becomes “fraud”.

The Conservatives have this pesky mosquito in the House and they are trying to kill it with a sledgehammer. They throw out vouching as a result of that, which is ridiculous. Every system they have needs improvement. We constantly try to improve the ways in which we vote and exercise democracy.

Here we have a situation where it was not about fixing something. To the Conservatives, it was an opportunity to isolate a portion of the population that may not be amenable to the way they are thinking. As a result, they put in these rules by which they say, “Look, we have finally got some proof here. It is some small proof that we can eliminate a fundamental part of our democracy and how we do democracy”.

What I would like to ask my hon. colleague is that, by doing this today with something as fundamental as the Parliament of Canada Act and the Elections Act, is it not required that we have a full debate and consultation within—