Scott Simms

[The Environment, February 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, in the spring I brought up the issue of a sunken boat that is off the northeast coast of my riding. It is in Notre Dame Bay. It is off Change Islands, and it is called the Manolis L. It is primarily a paper carrier boat, and it went from the Port of Botwood to the open ocean and on to the high seas, and from there into the European markets.

The problem is that it sank around the mid-eighties. It hit a rock just off Change Islands. It was on there for a few days, and then it slowly slipped into the sea. It sits at about a hundred metres or so under the water. That was quite some time ago, as I said it was the mid-eighties. The problem now is that we are seeing oil washing up on the shoreline of Change Islands, Fogo Island, New World Island, and Twillingate Island as well, and that has caused quite a reaction among the local politicians and the citizens of the area.

Recently, the bird hunting season started and many of the hunters noticed that oiled birds were showing up. It was quite prevalent. I had public hearings in the riding in four different places, to ascertain how bad this is.

People said they could smell the oil before they could see it. They could see the sludge washing up on the shoreline; the birds were covered in it. We are just about to get into the sealing season and then the fishing season, which could cause many headaches, as this will get involved in the ecosystem. This is a grave situation.

I have brought up the question, but not in the context of what is now being done. Right now work is being done by the Canadian Coast Guard to provide band-aid solutions for the hull that has split open near the bow. They have created what they call a cofferdam. It is like a funnel that is turned upside down. It is put on the boat, and when the cofferdam fills up with oil it is extracted from that. However, it is not a long-term solution, and that is the sentiment there. The long-term solution that people are looking for goes to the Department of the Environment spearheading this thing. I had a conversation with the former minister of the environment in the spring, who said they were monitoring the situation and that something would happen, hopefully soon, at Treasury Board, to make this long-term solution come to fruition.

What bothers me is that it is has been handled mostly by the Department of Fisheries, which is fine, if I were asking about short-term measures. However, it is the long-term solution that the people of my riding are looking at. I should not say just my riding either; I should say the entire province, if not the entire eastern coastline of this country.

My question is, what is the long-term solution that is being offered beyond what is going on? We have one cofferdam. It was moved because it was damaged. It was put back. A new one was built as a temporary measure. Hopefully, over the next little while we can get a clearer picture.

If we want to permanently take the oil out of the boat, the capacity to do that belongs to several companies. It is a private sector endeavour. By way of example, there was a boat sunken off the British Columbia coastline called the M.G. Zalinski, and recently there was an operation to extract the oil from that boat. It was not like the Irving Whale in Prince Edward Island. They did what is called a hot tap. The oil is heated up within the boat and withdrawn, but it is a big operation. A Dutch company did it, and now tenders have to be issued. We have a short window because of the weather. I am fearful of what is about to happen. Is there a long-term solution?

[Business of Supply, January 30th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I have a specific question to discuss with the parliamentary secretary. It is about the points of service that we are talking about, which are now being converted through the closure of these offices into points of service with Service Canada.

One of the issues of concern that was brought to my attention was that the employees at these points of service might not be ready for the type of service that greets them at the door. I am not putting down the people who work at Service Canada. What I mean to say is that there are people who work in the offices that are being shut down who have gained a certain expertise through the experience of working with people with PTSD, for example.

Even though there are more points of service, it is possible that the level of expertise just may not be there to handle these people at the very beginning. Have the Conservatives discussed that issue? Have they looked into training these people at that level?

[Election of Committee Chairs, January 29th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, with great interest I have been listening to the last couple of speeches which talked about some of the pros and cons of what we are about to vote on, and certainly what we are debating.

I want to sincerely thank the hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt who brought this forward with a great deal of sincerity and compassion. His argument is quite good as to how this works.

I have been here for almost 10 years, and I have seen committees come and go. I have seen the makeup of committees change, but the game always remains the same. The chairs are always appointed by the executive within the House, as was pointed out by our colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills.

Something that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills said which caught my attention was that “you reform this place or reform will be forced upon us.” This is a very good quote. It is pertinent to this debate because that is exactly where we find ourselves, at a crossroads for all sorts of reform in the House.

This is one element that brings democracy and legitimacy to the House of Commons. On many occasions we take some of the basic functions of the House and farm them out to the executive and they have more control than we desire. We have a choice. We have the power to change that ourselves through a vote in the House of Commons, or we could just let it go on.

I want to thank the hon. member for bringing this motion forward. It states:

That the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be instructed to consider the election of committee chairs by means of a preferential ballot system by all the Members of the House of Commons, at the beginning of each session....

I am a fan of the preferential balloting system. We have to achieve over half in order to get the position. What basically happens is that if 50% or more is not achieved by the person in the lead, then the last person is dropped and so on, until we get to that chair.

However, is it not refreshing that all 308 members in the House have the chance to put themselves in a place where they are chair of a committee based on their skill of being a member of Parliament and a decent chair? It is not based on what kind of favours are owed to them in a party structure or a reward given for good behaviour. Quite frankly, that is essentially how it works.

This takes that control away from the executive and brings it back to the House of Commons. After being here for 10 years, I can honestly say that it is stuff like this that reassures my faith in the power of the House of Commons. It brings it back to the individual member of Parliament. It is not whether they are a minister or parliamentary secretary, a critic or a party whip, but it is based on the position of being a member of Parliament. It is a measure of equality that brings us here to vote for this.

I would encourage all members to vote for this motion. Then the study would take place and we would be able to debate the issue in a very mature manner. By doing that we are saying we are going to restore power—I hope that is the conclusion the committee comes to—to the individual member of Parliament. The motion also states:

study the practices of other Westminster-style Parliaments in relation to the election of Committee Chairs; propose any necessary modifications to the Standing Orders and practices of the House; and report its findings to the House no later than six months....

My colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills brought up the matter of parliamentary secretaries sitting in the House of Commons. When I first came here I was on the heritage committee, in the fall of 2004. I remember the opposition of the day were perturbed that there were parliamentary secretaries from our party sitting at the committee table. I thought they had a pretty valid point. There is a function within the executive of the House. There are ministers, but there are also parliamentary secretaries as well, and in many cases they function as the minister, whether the minister might be missing for the day or whether it is answering late show questions and so on.

That is perfectly legitimate, given the fact that the minister cannot be here all the time. The parliamentary secretary can fill in, but that parliamentary secretary carries a title and a function that is of the executive. If parliamentary committees are to provide study of legislation that makes it way through the House, then that skews the matter somewhat, because people sitting on the committee could naturally take direction from the parliamentary secretary.

I say this from experience, because when I first came here, I was with the party that was in government, so I was sitting on the side of committee where the parliamentary secretary was next to us. Many times we would go to the parliamentary secretary for direction about how we would vote or how we would debate. It happens.

The thing is, it is still happening, which is the point my hon. colleague is trying to get at. The nub of the issue is that we need to break this pattern by having a vote and empowering the individual member of Parliament to allow that person to become a committee chair. That is part and parcel of the system. Whether a parliamentary secretary sits on the committee or not is an executive decision.

What I like about this motion is that the spirit of it is to ensure that the power of the committee rests right here within this chamber. If we keep farming out the functions of the House to the executive time and time again, it is that much harder to bring them back. There is enough blame to go around, for anyone who has been in government, as to how, in a piecemeal process, the power of the House has been farmed out to the executive. It is so subtle that we do not even notice it sometimes, yet year after year, slowly, some of the power gets drained from this place, to the point where we function simply as voting machines.

We should be engaged in what I consider to be a wholesome debate on every issue that comes to the House, but let us remember that a fundamental extension of the House is the committee and the work it does. We could debate within the confines of the House. I know I only have 10 minutes like everyone else. I certainly would like more, but at least at the committee level I could be engaged in that as well.

The committee chair takes on a function that is given to that individual by the House of Commons. My hon. colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île also brought up issues of gender parity and other issues of committee chairs being representative of the diversity of the House of Commons. I agree with her, but we have two elements at play here: we have that diversity being reflected in committee chairs, but for the committee to be answerable to the House, it has to be elected by the House. I know, by function, we play this scenario whereby people are elected to a particular committee. We play it out, but we know full well who that will be. We all know who we are going to nominate going in and we all know who will get it coming out.

This is why I commend my colleague for doing this. What it will do with the balloting system is allow a fair vote. It also makes it accessible. It is universal to every member of Parliament in the House, whatever one's party. One could be an independent, or with the largest party, or with the smallest party. Members still have the chance to put themselves in front of the House of Commons as an effective, and now legitimate, chair of a standing committee, which is an essential and proper function of the House of Commons of our country.

Therefore, I urge all my colleagues in the House to say yes. Let us send this to committee, have a reasoned debate within the committee, and make a solid recommendation as to how we can restore power to this institution that we respect so much.

[Business of Supply, January 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate some of the things the member talked about.

I have a completely rural riding. It is true that regarding the super-boxes and convenience boxes people speak of, we receive a lot of complaints in the run of a year. A lot deal with obstructions, especially those from seniors, in particular seniors with disabilities. Sometimes they are placed in the wrong area, only slightly, but they are still inaccessible. That is the key: access for people to get to their boxes.

The other issue that has come up recently is Saturday service in many small communities. Just recently, the town of Harbour Breton lost its service. There is Bishop's Falls and other places. It is basically a slow erosion of the services provided to rural areas in addition to the mail delivery the member is talking about.

During the hearings, which I congratulate my colleague for having, what were some of the comments about the services, such as Saturday service, in the rural areas?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 27th, 2014]

With regard to government communications, what were the costs of transmitting each of the following press releases using Marketwire (or Marketwired) or Canada NewsWire: (a) “Harper Government continues to engage industry on the Canadian surface combatant project”, issued by Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) on March 8, 2013; (b) “Harper Government Invests in Canadian entrepreneurial business in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Quebec”, issued by PWGSC on March 15, 2013; (c) “Harper Government kick-starts entrepreneurial and innovative business in Beaconsfield, Quebec”, issued by PWGSC on March 18, 2013; (d) “Harper Government's ship strategy bolstering Canada's economy”, issued by PWGSC on March 7, 2013; (e) “National Fighter Procurement Secretariat awards contract for next independent cost review”, issued by PWGSC on March 11, 2013; (f) “Work progresses on Harper Government's evaluation of options to replace Canada's CF-18s”, issued by PWGSC on March 3, 2013; (g) “Harper Government and Wounded Warriors Canada Continue to Work Together in Support of the Vancouver Homeless Veterans Project”, issued by Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) on March 11, 2013; (h) “Harper Government Commends Queen's University for Offering Priority Hiring to Veterans”, issued by VAC on February 27, 2013; (i) “Harper Government Marks the End of the Italian Campaign”, issued by VAC on February 22, 2013; and (j) “Harper Government Announces Funding to Support Brain Research”, issued by Health Canada on May 3, 2012?

[Questions on the Order Paper, January 27th, 2014]

With regard to the snowmobile protests that took place in Terra Nova National Park between January 2010 and December 2011 and all events and circumstances related to these protests, what are the details of all ministerial correspondence, letters, emails, internal recommendations, internal correspondence, internal action plans, briefing notes, or other written material pertaining to these events, including those relating to any related Access to Information requests?

[Questions on the Order Paper, January 27th, 2014]

With regard to (41-2) Q-42, (41-1) Q-1057, and all other Order Paper questions in the 41st Parliament that the government has only partially answered or not answered at all, for the government as a whole and broken down by department: (a) in terms of staff time required to answer a question, does the government consider the following numbers of hours to be higher than the number beyond which it will refuse to answer a question: (i) 1-40 hours, (ii) 41-80 hours, (iii) 81-120 hours, (iv) 121-160 hours, (v) 161-200 hours, (vi) 201-300 hours, (vii) 301-500 hours, (viii) 501-1000 hours, (ix) 1001-2000 hours, (x) 2001-5000 hours, (xi) 5001-10000 hours, (xii) 10001-20000 hours, (xiii) more than 20000 hours; (b) in terms of cost expended to answer a question, does the government consider the following costs to be higher than the number beyond which it will refuse to answer a question: (i) $1-$100, (ii) $101-$500, (iii) $501-$1,000, (iv) $1,001-$1,500, (v) $1,501-$2,000, (vi) $2,001-$2,500, (vii) $2,501-$3,000, (viii) $3,001-$3,500, (ix) $3,501- $4,000, (x) $4,001-$5,000, (xi) $5,001-$7,500, (xii) $7,501-$10,000, (xiii) $10,001-$20,000, (xiv) $20,001-$50,000, (xv) $50,001-$100,000, (xvi) $100,001-$500,000, (xvii) $500,001-$1,000,000, and (xviii) more than $1,000,000; (c) for each Order Paper question that the government has only partially answered or not answered at all, (i) what was the anticipated cost in staff time and money, (ii) by how much did this exceed the tolerance for answering the question in time and money; and (d) for each Order Paper question that the government has only partially answered or not answered at all, (i) how many days did it take for the government to conclude the question could not or could only partially be answered, (ii) how many days prior to the answer being tabled in the House was this conclusion reached?

[Douglas Sheppard, January 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House of Commons to pay tribute and to recognize an outstanding citizen, Newfoundlander and Canadian, Douglas Sheppard of Gander, who passed away on December 25, 2013, at the age of 86.

Doug was a very well known, well respected member of our community, who will be forever remembered for his commitment and dedication to the town of Gander. He was first elected to council in 1969, serving as councillor and deputy mayor. In 1981 he was elected mayor and served until 1993. He served on many boards and committees, including the Gander and Canadian chambers of commerce, the Gander International Airport Authority and Gander Lodge 16.

Doug was presented with a lifetime achievement award from the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador in 2003.

Doug loved playing cards, especially with his grandchildren. He was a loving husband, father, grandfather, brother and dear friend. In a word, he was a gentleman, a kind and giving person who was always there to lend a helping hand to those in need.

Doug Sheppard was a man who will be dearly missed by us all.

[Protecting Taxpayers and Revoking Pensions of Convicted Politicians Act, December 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time to speak to Bill C-518 from my colleague from New Brunswick who brings it to the floor of the House, based on the conviction of members of Parliament as well as members of the Senate who face a sentence up to about two years, but I guess with amendments now we will go for closer to five years.

As my hon. colleague from the NDP pointed out, talk about public trust has come up quite often in the past couple of years and certainly there are ways by which we can set examples for ourselves as opposed to predominantly going around saying “do as I say, not as I do”.

In my opinion, today we are taking a step further as to the public trust and telling the public, showing the public and displaying to it that this measure has to be taken so people who come here set the right example for the rest of the country.

For the record, within our caucus this is a free vote as this is a private member's bill. That being said, I personally will be supporting the bill for many reasons I have just mentioned, when it comes to areas of public trust and the malfeasance that has been practised by several members on the Hill, whether they be members of Parliament or also the Senate.

I did have some concerns, which have been addressed, one of which the member already addressed and said that he would be seeking amendments to raise that to five years. My only hesitation on that though is this opens up a whole array of offences, anything that could serve up to a maximum of five years could be looked at.

I am always the one to say that sometimes when we bring legislation into the House, we make them overly prescriptive which puts people into a large straitjacket by legislation becoming law and then bringing it forward to the country so we can convict people who are wrongdoers.

However, in this situation maybe a list of offences should have been necessary for the sake of providing more sunlight and looking at ways in which some of these offences, as the member mentioned earlier, and I know it carries a maximum of around two years, I am not sure specifically, but certainly when it comes to issues of libel. I think false alarms was another one that he mentioned, blasphemy was another. Maybe providing a list of offences, even if it is just an illustrative list, could certainly go a long way. I do not know if the member is open to an amendment, but a lot of these offences would be taken care of. I appreciate that if we raise that from two years up to five years.

The other question I had was about the idea of the maximum penalty, and I will go back to the original bill as it stands now, which is two years. It is concerning that these people who are convicted and face the maximum penalty, despite the circumstances, will have their pensions revoked, as far as what benefits would be accrued to them. Obviously we are not talking about what they put into the plan themselves, they would get that back, but the benefits would have accrued from the taxpayer.

When I first read the bill, I thought it was a bit onerous for people who would find themselves in a situation where they only would get a small sentence given the circumstances around this conviction. However, dealing with that, the member did say that some people might get small offences, and maybe we do not agree with it. However, in this case I will still be supporting this for that discussion. I assume amendments of that nature will be coming forward depending on the situation.

I am reticent to bring in legislation that forces a judge in the position to carry a sentence where the penalty is overly prescriptive. It puts judges in a position that takes them from why they are there in the first place, which is to exercise judgment, to judge.

I appreciate the fact that the hon. member is elevating the maximum sentence from two to five years. That may cover my concerns, but the overall principle, I believe, is that we must be careful when we look at this situation in the sense of there always being that minimum.

The other thing is that my hon. colleague from the NDP talked about spouses and dependents. I know this is a private member's bill and it is not part of an ongoing dialogue where there are questions and answers after each speech, but I would like to know what the private sector standard is, after someone is convicted and put into a place of incarceration, for dependents or spouses who have no connection to the crime whatsoever and were banking on the fact that they were going to receive this money, the maximum amount available, including what was put into the plan in addition to the benefit received from that plan.

I understand him saying that in most cases, probably all cases according to what he is saying, in the private sector that would not be the case. In other words, the family would have to tough it through. I do not know if that is always the case. I will be interested to discuss that within the committee structure itself and look for a possible amendment. My hon. colleague from the NDP brings up a good point about the idea of how spouses and dependents, who are depending on that, will be hard done by in this situation. I think in other areas it has been available in some cases, but although we may be eager to say that the loophole has been closed, this is one loophole that deserves sober second thought, if I might use that expression these days without being ridiculed.

Subclause 2(2) states:

There shall be paid to a person who ceases to be a member, if he or she has been convicted of an offence under any Act of Parliament that was prosecuted by indictment and for which the maximum punishment is imprisonment for not less than two years...

I addressed that. However, he also talked about while they were serving, which is also very important. In certain scenarios, to take people outside of serving, whether they were in the private sector or doing something else in life in other facets of the public sector, will not be looked at. Personally, the committee should look at that and see what happens outside of the jurisdiction of Parliament, whether it is the House of Commons or the Senate. However, in this case, he confines it to the subject and the people at hand, which would be, using recent examples, the senator he mentioned, along with people who may be facing charges down the road and facing conviction perhaps for certain shenanigans that are happening right now in the Senate. I will not go into the names of the senators as I do not think that is really necessary right now.

In this bill, which is not a particularly long one, there is one principle I personally would accept. I would like to remind the House that within the Liberal caucus it is a free vote. I will be supporting this certainly going to committee because I am interested in all these questions that I have about this situation. I would like to know how the private sector handles this.

The overall narrative of this, which the member has pointed out and it is germane to this conversation and to me makes sense, is that there is an example that we should be setting for the Canadian public as we are entrusted public officials. Whether we are elected in the House or appointed in the Senate, there is a certain behaviour model that surpasses other occupations throughout the country. For those who conduct themselves in a way that is by far below the ethical standards we expect, then they should be punished not just by the actual conviction itself, but the benefits that would accrue by serving in the House should also be considered.

[Protecting Taxpayers and Revoking Pensions of Convicted Politicians Act, December 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I want to point something out to my colleague. He mentioned that for some of the offences with penalties of up to two years, he would not be in favour of revoking pension benefits to any particular member of either House. However, does five years really do that in some cases? Remember, this is just what he says is a maximum sentence. It is not what they have been convicted of necessarily. It runs up to a maximum of five years, which certainly could cover a whole array of charges. I am just trying to test whether he can say definitely that five years gets over that level of comfort that he is talking about.