Scott Simms

[Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, June 18th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I think the passage I heard during the speech was simply to say program spending or social engineering.

The first question is a two-part question. Does the member consider health care or even public broadcasting as two examples of social engineering?

[Privacy, June 18th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, we learned over the weekend about microphones being installed to record conversations at Ottawa airport, as well as others. Canadians are right to be concerned about their own privacy.

My question is for the Minister of Public Safety. Before I ask the question, I would like to remind him that in no way am I on the side of any terrorist cell or child pornographer, so I will continue with it.

According to his statements earlier, the minister only read from his website, but I would like him to answer specifically. Will he refer this issue to the privacy commissioner and to the proper parliamentary committee for scrutiny?

[Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, June 18th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, in the member's speech she mentioned the Toronto Sun and that it had mentioned the antics of the Leader of the Opposition. In its editorial on June 14, the Toronto Star said:

The opposition has rightly argued that given the scope and ambition of the proposed legislation, the bill should have been broken up and its component parts duly debated.

What does the member have to say?

[Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, June 14th, 2012]

My sincere apologies, Mr. Speaker, but during the vote, I was completely awestruck by the presence of my colleague from Cape Breton—Canso and I did not hear whether I was counted in the vote.

[National Public Transit Strategy Act, June 13th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand to talk about this wonderful bill, a bill to establish a national public transit strategy.

My riding has 200 communities and it is about as rural as can be, maybe not as rural as some other members ridings, but certainly the vast majority of ridings.

It is somewhat ironic that I am talking about a national transit strategy when a lot of the big spending would be on subway systems. The nearest subway system to my riding is in Boston, Massachusetts.

I do believe in the importance of the bill. Whether it is in Montreal, Toronto, or the SkyTrain in Vancouver, public transit and mass transit in this situation, like the subway or the SkyTrain, is beneficial to the nation.

There are several aspects of the bill that I appreciate fully. It will help to encourage dialogue about large cities and urban centres. It gives us the opportunity to discuss just how people will be moved around at a time when cities are expanding, like the greater Toronto area, where millions of people are set to arrive by 2020. Vancouver and Montreal are both going to expand. In places such as St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, or even Halifax, the transit system, primarily bus, or in the case of St. John's the metro bus, the infrastructure is there.

Public transit improves the environment because people can be moved into one vehicle. It also helps people who live in poverty and who are unable to find transportation of their own, either a car or motorcycle. Insurance costs are high and fuel costs are rising. Something like this would help alleviate poverty in a major way.

What I see is a bill that has a national dialogue about who we are. It takes stock of what we have thus far when it comes to infrastructure and builds and improves upon that.

I have lived in Montreal, Vancouver and Toronto. In each and every city I took advantage of the transit system. It was an advantage for me because I did not have a vehicle because I could not afford one, especially living in Vancouver. I was able to avail myself of the transit system there namely, the SkyTrain and the bus system to get to work.

Several aspects of the bill will improve the conversation in our country in addition to eventually improving the infrastructure situation.

Municipalities struggle. My hon. colleague mentioned earlier the FCM meeting that was held in Saskatchewan. Right now there is a funding deficit. Many municipalities, small or large, are now in a situation where they want to renew a fiscal framework with the provinces.

As members would know, municipalities are creations of the provinces. The Constitution recognizes two levels of government, federal and provincial. The provincial government, through its own municipal affairs department, looks after municipalities.

Only 8¢ of the average tax dollar winds its way through to municipal coffers. Imagine a city the size of Toronto, or even a mid-size city like Halifax, having to support a transit system primarily through its revenue from 8¢ of the tax dollar. That is not a substantial amount of money. This is what the FCM is talking about.

This bill provides us with the opportunity to have a discussion about transit and the strategies for each and every municipality. It would be a pan-national conversation. We could discuss options such as direct subsidies to individuals through the tax code or direct subsidies to the municipalities themselves.

We talk quite a bit about the gas revenue, which is shared with municipalities through the provinces. This initiative was started in 2005. A portion of the gas tax revenue or the excise tax is given to the municipalities and a lot of that goes to transit. Investing in public transit infrastructure benefits the people of Canada. Better public transit would result in cleaner, more productive cities and communities in which people could access the jobs and services that would be needed for economic growth.

Is it not ironic that in the budget we will vote on tonight, Bill C-38, are employment insurance reforms. One of the issues at play is the government trying to hook up people with full-time work within an hour's drive. That would be highly problematic in rural areas, especially with respect seasonal industries. Some people have said that EI recipients could go from the fish plant and work in tourism to help to expand it. However, according to the philosophy of what the government is putting in place when it comes to EI reforms, they cannot go from one seasonal industry to another unless it is expanded by a couple of weeks. Even still, the government is looking to have people work all year round. It wants to ensure that people do not become repeat users of EI, which is very problematic when it comes to seasonal work.

One of the solutions to employment is that people have to be within an hour's drive. If they are in a situation where they are offered a job that is less than an hour away and they do not have a vehicle in a rural area, forget it, it just will not work. However, in an urban area they have to look at investing in a monthly pass for either the bus or the subway, or perhaps a combination of the two.

How can we help these people who find themselves impoverished and have this kind of opportunity for work. When it comes to EI reform, it is not normally the situation that they are forced to do this, that they go about getting a job and have to invest in transportation for that. Is there a way we can use the tax code, which the government has done in certain circumstances, to provide a benefit for those who want to buy that monthly pass? At the same time, we should be compelled to look at some kind of system of direct subsidy to make it affordable so people can afford a monthly transit pass.

We are talking about the national public transit strategy act. In this act, the conversation is what is key. There are certain things, like the coordinated approach, that I find very beneficial to this nation.

The Minister of Transport, in consultation with the provincial ministers responsible for public transit, and with representatives of municipalities, transit authorities, and aboriginal communities, must encourage and promote a coordinated approach to the implementation of the national strategy for public transit and advise for the assistance, development and implementation of programs and practices in support of that strategy. How is that for a novel idea, a first ministers conference of some sort, where on the agenda they talk about a strategy for public transit?

Right now it seems as if the conversation between the federal and provincial governments is non-existent. We saw that during the supposed negotiations for the new health accord. There were no negotiations. There was an edict from the Prime Minister's Office. It came down to the provinces, and they were told to accept it.

Prior to this, when the Liberals were in government, negotiation took place between Paul Martin and the rest of the provinces.

Here is a novel idea. On the agenda a first ministers conference is an item in which there is a decent, fair discussion on how to provide affordable, effective and efficient transit for the major metropolitan areas and, by extension, on how to increase transport and infrastructure facilities such as highways in smaller rural areas.

The report to Parliament is also very interesting. The Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities must cause a report on the conference, described in section 6, to be laid before the House. The House gets to debate any future national strategy for public transit. That too is a beneficial idea.

Therefore, I support this because it allows for the best practices from each major metropolitan area and, by extension, from the provinces. Then there can be discussions to determine if the best practices in British Columbia, whether it be the Lower Mainland of B.C., can be exercised in the greater metro Halifax area. We can share best practices with the Prairies, Winnipeg, maybe Saskatoon and Regina, and the cities of Toronto and Montreal. We then can determine the most efficient system that helps cut down on greenhouse gas emissions as well as helps to alleviate poverty, whether it is taxes or direct subsidies. However, the federal government needs to be engaged with the people who provide the services, namely the provinces, but specifically the municipalities.

[Captain John Russell, June 12th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, just recently Captain John Russell of Bonavista in my riding passed away at the age of 105.

“Captain Johnny”, as he was affectionately known, was a seagoing captain, who first commanded sailing schooners long before ships were powered by steam or diesel. He spent a lifetime earning a living from the sea: fishing, sealing and transporting goods all over North and South America, as well as the Caribbean.

Captain Johnny was more than a sailor. He was a war veteran, a businessman, an author, a poet, a mentor and a captivating storyteller. A man of wit and wisdom, he was the subject of many documentaries and newspaper articles. First and foremost, Captain Johnny was a family man. His beloved wife, sons, daughters and grandchildren were always his priority. In 1956, he moved to Bonavista from his birthplace in Red Cliff so his children could get a better education. His friends played a special role in his life. I am proud to say that I was among those friends.

Captain Johnny will be sadly missed by all who knew and loved him so dearly. I say goodbye to my friend.

[Pooled Registered Pension Plans, June 12th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, as a supporter of this particular initiative for all the reasons that were outlined throughout this debate, some of it is pretty good. The idea of pooling pensions and the risk taken is mitigated as a result of this, no problem.

However, would the hon. member say that this is the be-all and end-all? Is there not a second part to this that the government could do, such as a supplementary CPP or something else? Is this really it for the Conservatives' economic action plan when it comes to pensions?

[Business of Supply, June 6th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, since 2007 a government priority has been fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft trying to replace the 50-year-old Buffalos that exist on the west coast. In addition to the ailing Hercules on the east coast, this has been back and forth between departments now for quite some time.

Perhaps this is a golden opportunity in this debate for the parliamentary secretary to bring forward plans about getting an airplane for search and rescue. What type of airplane does the government see as being most beneficial to our coasts?

[Business of Supply, June 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, this may come as no shock, but I want to congratulate my colleague on her wonderful speech, not because we are sitting in the same area, but because she has been a strong advocate for this issue.

Earlier the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans made a few comments, and the logic is really quite puzzling. He mentioned that co-location is such a wonderful thing when it comes to moving St. John's to Halifax. If we take that to its logical conclusion, we would also put Halifax into Trenton given that co-location is such a wonderful thing. Yet that is not done and the reason is for knowledge of local geography.

The other interesting part is that his colleagues went to the centre they closed down and loved it. They thought it was a fantastic asset for search and rescue, but I guess they forgot to give the message that it is a wonderful asset to use.

I would like my colleague to talk about the fact that the government never got any input as to what local expertise can provide, such as individuals like Merv Wiseman in Newfoundland and Labrador, whom the member knows. I wonder if she could comment on that and the conversations she has had with local experts there.

[Business of Supply, June 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the west coast. Being from the east coast, we have a large network of volunteer services, most notably, the Coast Guard auxiliary. Thousands of boats across the area engage in this, and they do regular training.

I am wondering if the hon. member could comment on that, and how much more stressful this will be on the volunteer network of auxiliary coast guard for the west coast?