Scott Simms

[Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, May 3rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure if I got this right from the member. He mentioned British Columbia getting more in transfers from this government than the preceding government. I think that is based on a formula which is called equalization and has been in existence for quite some time.

As a matter of fact, Newfoundland and Labrador, where I come from, is actually getting less money. No, let me correct that, we are actually getting no money from the federal government. That is because of the resources that are off Newfoundland and Labrador's coasts and because of what we have done. I would go back to the fight, what happened between Danny Williams and the Prime Minister.

I want to ask the member about one thing. He keeps talking about skills and development. Small towns across this country just lost the community access program which delivers high-speed Internet for the smallest communities. It is an issue of poverty. People making below the median income of $30,000 cannot afford these large bills for high-speed Internet. The local library decided to provide that service for all citizens, and now it is gone. It is a little disingenuous for a member from rural Canada to be talking about the fact that they are losing this essential service.

[Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, May 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague about some of the comments coming from the government with respect to how in the past the former Liberal government would put a lot of the services down to the provinces when it comes to deficit fighting and cutting down on the deficit, which we did.

However, I would like the member to comment on how raising the age from 65 to 67 for old age security eligibility, as well as the guaranteed income supplement, will be a downloading a lot of responsibilities onto the provinces, certainly when it comes to welfare, housing and a lot of the social services.

[Petitions, May 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, this petition comes from the Canadian Interfaith and it calls for leadership and action on climate change. These are constituents of mine from the town of Bishop's Falls.

The petitioners are calling for concrete action in reducing greenhouse emissions that are affecting the entire planet when it comes to climate change. In particular, they are calling for a constructive role in the design of the green climate fund under United Nations' governance and by contributing public funds to help mitigate climate change in areas and jurisdictions around the world.

I want to thank Sister Mary Ryan and others at Bishop's Falls for putting this together.

[Business of Supply, April 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, I am nothing if not life interrupted. I want to thank the House for allowing me to speak at this time.

I want to address some of the issues brought up by the member for Medicine Hat and the downloading of services, which is rich considering the Conservatives condemned the Liberal government for so many years, saying that we had downloaded services to get rid of a deficit. However, now we hear the same sort of language, but that is okay when it is switched around.

I want to get into public safety and talk about one of the issues on the east coast, and that is both sub-centres for search and rescue. One is in Quebec City and the other St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador. It is such a shame at this point, given the small amount of money and efficiencies created, which was illustrated by a good question from my colleague for Saanich—Gulf Islands, who, for the record, is not an independent. She represents the Green Party.

I would like to talk about the east coast and this measure. The efficiencies created by this do not come near the deficiencies created in the realm of public safety. The government has taken two operations that function extremely well and are vital in a chain of command for search and rescue on the east coast of our country and has moved them to Halifax and Trenton. I am not saying that there is anything wrong with the establishments in Halifax and Trenton, but the problem is with local knowledge that is tapped into it, not to mention the language barriers in Quebec City. Local knowledge, which is vital and has been talked about by bureaucrats, experts, members of the Coast Guard and DND, has been completely ignored.

We had no indication that this was coming. We could not foster a larger debate on this because we never knew this would be cut. However, there was some debate on it this morning in a private member's motion when a lot of these points were brought forward, especially from Newfoundland and Labrador.

In support of the motion, we need to look at the folly of some of these decisions that are made under the guise of efficiencies created and the money that we save. I am alarmed by the idea that putting Canadians at risk is so easily dismissed in this debate.

Let us flashback to 2004-05 when I first arrived here. We talked about creating efficiencies in the department, and I was a backbencher on the government side then. However, the opposition, most notably the Conservatives, were vehement in their defence of public safety.

Yet we have this the debate now. One wonders, if the Conservatives felt that efficiencies would be created, why they would shut down debate. We were at a stage back 2004-05 when the Conservatives wanted to foster the debate. Now, god forbid, if we bring up public safety, whether it be food inspection or search and rescue, all of a sudden we find ourselves in a position where we are not allowed to discuss it.

Just this morning, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence said that response times for search and rescue were not a conversation for this place, but a conversation for the bureaucrats or the people involved in the department. There is no doubt that it is a big conversation they need to have, but why can we not discuss in the House?

We support this motion for the sake of public safety. That is the debate we should have here and that is why I encourage all members to support the motion.

[Petitions, April 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from Newfoundland and Labrador regarding criminal punishment.

The petitioners point out that crime has decreased over the past while and therefore we should put the emphasis on rehabilitation as opposed to just simply looking at criminal punishment as the only way to deal with crime.

The petitioners come from St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, Conception Bay South, as well as Gander.

[Search and Rescue, April 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I want to address some of the concerns that were just brought up. Actually, I am somewhat bemused by the comment that we should not debate the response time issue here because the member thinks perhaps we are not qualified or that this is not the place to do it.

I first came to this House in 2004 and I remember the debate about the Coast Guard. I am sure my hon. colleague for St. John's East will remember it. The Conservatives complained in the House for days on end about the fact that there was no fuel available for some of the Coast Guard ships in St. John's. The bureaucrats later said that it was not true, yet it was made a point of debate in this House. At some point the Conservatives will start practising what they used to preach.

Here we find ourselves in this debate. Why can we not debate response times? Why can this country not have a discussion about the resources that we have in the Department of National Defence and be informed about how we go about doing this?

I find it ironic on several levels. Another level is the huge announcement about the F-35 and how we are going to deal with this situation with the stealth fighters. While the Conservatives say that they have a Canada first defence policy, the F-35s get the attention but the fixed-wing search and rescue is floundering. Where is it going? What will it be? Who is going to get this contract? Will the Conservative put out a tender for this aircraft? They are flying 50-year-old airplanes on the west coast.

I think this is a good debate. The Conservatives talk about the F-35s and say that they have a Canada first defence policy; I cannot think of a greater Canada first defence policy than what we are talking about here today, which is search and rescue.

The Conservatives have signed international protocols. Just the other day there was an announcement that there was a new initiatives fund for ground search and rescue, which is a fund that was established many years ago. Why can we not debate this?

Perhaps this is a bold statement on my part, but Newfoundlanders and Labradorians now probably know more about the minutiae of search and rescue in this country than any other province and perhaps any other jurisdiction around the world. Why? It is because it is an issue. The Conservatives say in this House that we are not going to debate it. They complain that the NDP vote against defence policies, yet they do not even want to talk about it. It is absolutely ridiculous. Why can this House not be a place of discourse, a place to be informed about how it works?

The member had a point when talked about response times. He said it is just over 60 minutes on the weekend; it is actually less than that, at just over 50 minutes, and on weekdays the response time is just over 20 minutes. That is the result of good people on the ground and in the air. However, we are talking about the policy of 30 minutes, 24/7. That is our debate. To say that we are not allowed to or should not be talking about it is disgraceful to anybody involved in this issue.

We have some of the best search and rescue people in the world. There are just over 100 Cormorant helicopters around the world, and nobody uses these helicopters the way Canadians do. We are flying these things more than any other jurisdiction around the world, and it is because of our people who do this.

When I first got elected in 2004, there was an accident involving the Ryan's Commander. There was one individual, and I will not say his name, but he is currently a search and rescue technician, and this was one of his first missions out. He was lowered down from the wire to get to the ship when all of a sudden the wind came up; he was smacked against the boat and found himself floundering in the water. Can we imagine being lowered in the dark with just one spotlight from a helicopter, waves two or three storeys high, just dangling there, and all of a sudden becoming untethered and landing in the North Atlantic?

I bring that up because, my goodness, this is the perfect place to discuss what these people do. This is a question of resources. If the Conservatives want a Canada first defence policy, then they should make it about this country. They should make it about Canada first.

When we talk about a Canada first defence policy, there is no better example than our own search and rescue. We have the largest coastline in the world, and the biggest areas; there is no doubt about it. We have bases across the country, and now we require assets in the north as well. We require fixed-wing search and rescue. All of this comes down to one thing: to be ready and to be available.

That discussion has to take place right here, at the highest level, in order for us to understand its importance and how it works. We want Canadians to believe in a Canada first defence policy and to believe in better search and rescue for all citizens across this country, whether they live in the mountains, whether they live inland or on the lakes, or whether they live beside the North Atlantic or the North Pacific. If we are going to make this a better system for them, then let us discuss what kind of resources they need. We need to ask Canadians what they believe to be the number one priority in defence.

For the last six years I have argued that I do not think that search and rescue has been the priority, and that is a shame. This fixed-wing search and rescue issue has gone back and forth between departments and cabinet discussion here and there. Unfortunately, it seems to be a political football getting thrown back and forth, a hot potato that nobody wants to deal with.

We are talking about search and rescue. It is the very essence of the motion that my hon. colleague has brought to the House today. He and I and many people in the House have talked about this for years, and it is not just we who have been talking about it. I remember former NDP member Catherine Bell, from the Comox area; she was very passionate about search and rescue. The thing about search and rescue was that we all had a learning experience from it, and because we discussed it so much, we are having an informed debate.

Let us look at another element of search and rescue readiness: crew hours. Crews can be out on the job for a maximum of 15 hours, and then it has to come down. They have to be off the job. That element has not been addressed here, but we have to look at it in order to create a 30-minute readiness standard, 24/7.

We should be looking at best practices in other countries. Both of my colleagues brought up several illustrations. Why can we not stand in the House and talk about what those countries do best and how we can become better as a result?

We have talked about the search and rescue system in the Department of National Defence, but what about the Coast Guard as well? The government wants to trim the deficit; it wants to be more cost-efficient, as Conservative members would say. We have proven to them time and time again that closing down the maritime rescue sub-centre in St. John's is not the way to do it. A whole host of experts have told the government that if it wants to create efficiencies, that is not the way to go about it.

I ask my hon. colleague here in the House: was he aware that this was being considered? I certainly was not. I went with Conservative colleagues, NDP colleagues and the Bloc to St. John's to have a look at the sub-centre, and it was wonderful. Everybody loved the sub-centre. It was a great asset and it was doing wonderful work. Then, bang; down came the hammer, and it was gone.

Like many people, I was shocked. Where was the discussion then? Is that what this is about? The government is going to put resources here and will not have a discussion about it. All of a sudden the government is making this decision, even though the experts are telling it that it is probably not such a good idea, given the history of search and rescue on the east coast and given the history of the Coast Guard, DND and ground search and rescue with a team of volunteers.

I am disappointed, but I support the motion. If it furthers the debate, then so be it. If that is all it does, rescue is still going to be needed in this country.

I would tell my Conservative colleagues that if they are serious about a Canada first defence policy, then they should get on board and vote for the motion. Let us go forward and have a decent debate in the House, as we have been doing.

[Search and Rescue, April 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that the parliamentary secretary points out is the voting records. As a matter of fact, the member for Random—Burin—St. George's presented a motion in this House asking for more resources for search and rescue in the Department of National Defence. Members will never guess what the Conservatives did. They voted against it. We can play that game all day.

However, my question for this particular member is, vis-à-vis the ground search and rescue effort across this country, which is primarily a voluntary one, would it not be ideal for the Department of National Defence, along with the Coast Guard, to up its standards so that ground search and rescue across this country, a teamwork of volunteers, could also be increased in its effectiveness?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, April 23rd, 2012]

With regard to government procurement, for each of the following companies or individuals, namely, (a) RackNine; (b) RackNine Inc.; (c) RackNine Canada; (d) 2call; (e) 2call.ca and (f) Matt Meier of Edmonton, Alberta, what are the particulars of all and any government contracts for services provided, including (i) the time period covered by the contract, (ii) the nature or purpose of the service provided, (iii) the amount paid to the company or individual for their services, (iv) whether the contract was awarded through a competitive bidding process or was sole-sourced, (v) which government department or agency contracted with the company or individual, (vi) under which budgetary allocation was the company or individual paid for the service provided, (vii) the associated file or reference numbers for each contract?

[Petitions, April 4th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege and the honour of attending the RADHOC Conference in St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador. A collection of youth from grades 10 to 12, up to 17 years of age, spent three days talking about issues of the day and how public policy affects them. They presented a petition to me on site and asked me to present it to the House of Commons.

They are calling on the federal government to make health transfers to provinces adequate to all ten provinces and three territories. I would like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, and the House, for allowing me to do this. I also thank all those young people from communities such as St. John's, Bishop's Falls and Conception Bay South.

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, April 4th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, after bragging about maintaining or even increasing the level of funding for the CBC, it seems the axe is now out. Even the backbench Conservatives are drooling all over the place just at the concept. The wolves are at the door.

The Conservative cuts will kill plans for new programming, force the CBC off the air in rural and remote communities and 650 jobs will gone. Did he realize that these cuts would be so deep? Why did he not do anything about it?