Scott Simms

[Business of Supply, June 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his great summation of the situation we are faced with regarding the Coast Guard and search and rescue, the two units that work to save those in need along the coast. The 103 Search and Rescue Squadron is in my riding.

My question deals with a visit which the member and I made a few years back. In the last session of Parliament we were on the defence committee together and we did a tour of the marine rescue sub-centre which the member mentioned is being closed down.

My impression of that visit, and Conservative members were with us, was extremely positive and that the service is necessary. They talked about functions of ice surveillance and communications, but the number one issue they spoke of was just how important knowledge of the local geography was.

I wonder if the member would like to add a few comments regarding that visit. Every parliamentarian in that room agreed that it was a vital instrument in saving lives.

[BUSINESS OF SUPPLY, June 5th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, as my uncle used to say, “Hang on there, skipper; there is more to this than meets the eye.”

I would suggest the member look at the program, the NADP, which has provided small and medium-sized grants to these local communities.

I get the feeling that the government is only looking at the act of taking a picture and putting it onto a CD. There is more to it. There is a storytelling element to this that archivists can provide. These small grants that were provided under this cancelled program really provide the expertise for the smallest of communities—church groups, ethnic groups and aboriginal communities—to tell a story.

I would like the hon. member to comment. Does he not agree that this is not just about putting a picture on a CD, but about telling a story? It is the narrative that needs to be done, and that takes a small investment from a program that the Conservatives have just cancelled.

[Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, June 4th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind my colleague across the way that in his speech, basically, he illustrates that all the opposition are against this type of measure, which is not true at all. I certainly do understand why this is in place. The only thing I would say is that it is just a small tool in the shed that we can use. I suggest we should go a little further, given the situation that society finds itself in and the imperative of trying to find stable income in the retirement years.

However, it does not come without some problems. There are other examples around the world; for example, the Australian example. Here is what was written about the program in Australia from 1997. It said:

...total assets in the system have grown substantially through contributions, but net earnings from investments were relatively low. Despite the presumed role of competition, the investment performance of the system continued to be restrained by high fees and costs.

That is from the similar system in Australia. I wonder if my colleague would comment as to how this program would not do that.

[Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, June 4th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know about that last statement. The member's own pension plan, which he just qualified for, is pretty generous and avoids the markets. Perhaps my colleague would like to comment on that.

When he says that all opposition members are against this sort of concept, the member is overstretching it a bit. On this side of the House, we have said many times that we like the idea of pooled pensions. If we understand the concept of it, we get that. However, if we take it to its logical conclusion, we would go to a supplementary CPP system, which would then be the best investment machinery around for this type of thing.

I believe in what my colleague is saying, about the mobility of it, about the pooling and how if people pooled with others for their pension plan, that would make a greater investment. However, the specific program that the member talks of, which I am not totally against, has not worked in jurisdictions like Australia, which had problems with efficiency from 1997, as it was described.

Would the member not take the concept that he speaks of, the majority of which I agree with, into one of the greatest investment vehicles we have, which would be a supplementary CPP?

[Petitions, May 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I proudly bring this petition to the House, in regard to the funding requirements and bolstering of CBC Radio-Canada, our public broadcaster in French and English. This public broadcaster facilitates the great national dialogue that we have had for well over 50 years. The petition talks about the importance of CBC Radio-Canada in both languages.

The petitioners want the Government of Canada to maintain stable, predictable and long-term core funding for the public broadcaster, and that includes its effect on the regions as well as the effect that it has on the national dialogue from coast to coast to coast.

The petitioners primarily come from Grand Falls—Windsor and the city of Calgary.

[Petitions, May 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by constituents who want to eliminate poverty in Canada.

The petitioners point out that individuals living in poverty suffer more health problems and have lower life expectancy as a result, that these rights are guaranteed under international covenants as well as the Canadian Human Rights Act and that it threatens the cohesion and progress of society in general.

Therefore, the petitioners call on the federal government, along with its provincial and territorial counterparts, to come up with a good strategy that reduces poverty. Bill C-233 would require the federal government to develop and implement a strategy. They implore the House to support that.

I thank the constituents in towns such as Grand Falls—Windsor, Bishop's Falls, Gander and Harbour Breton.

[Points of Order, May 17th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, this is on a different point of order. This morning between 10:30 a.m. and 11 a.m., during questions and comments on the pooled pension plan debate, I started off my speech with not a direct insult but an implied one to my colleague, the member for Burlington. Whether I agree with him or not is irrelevant. He did not deserve the implied insult that I put out there.

I would like to apologize to him and to the House for that.

[Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, May 17th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, speaking of tools, I want to talk about RRSPs. The member is right, they are a tool. When we consider the whole package of retirement funds, I agree that this pooled pension plan is one of the tools in the shed that is certainly of good benefit for many, but not really a lot.

If we are talking about doing a lot of heavy lifting with a shovel, what the member is armed with here today is a very large spoon. There is no doubt that it does its work. The problem is, when he talks about pooling the purchasing of paper to bring costs down, not everybody is buying paper. Therefore, I would suggest to him that, in addition to this, maybe he should look at using that CPP investment board that he spoke of as a voluntary option to supplement the current mandatory CPP payments. This would be a vehicle, another tool in the shed.

[Petitions, May 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, last week there was a demonstration in my riding, in the town of Eastport on the Eastport Peninsula.

Several people were protesting for action to be taken with regard to search and rescue by both the provincial and federal governments for fully operational search and rescue assets to be retained in Labrador.

These constituents of mine are from Glovertown, Happy Adventure, Eastport and also Salvage.

[Copyright Modernization Act, May 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat inspired to get up after hearing the hon. member for Edmonton. It almost seems like it is a black and white situation. We have a situation where he says that there will always be people against these sorts of measures. Of course there will be, but they have absolutely zero recourse.

Let us take a look at the education exemption as a fine example. We have a blanket exemption across the board. What if authors feel the education exemption is being exploited so their work is not being sold in the market? It would take away the ability of authors to sell their products. A multi-step test for the courts to decide whether an author has been infringed upon is the way to go. The government would not even entertain it. That person has been written off as far as any concerns the author may have. This is not a way of listening to the people opposed to this.