Scott Simms

[Ending The Long-Gun Registry Act, February 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague brought up some points that I think are valid. In the case of criminality comparisons, drivers licences with gun licences and the criminality involved, he has a point. There is some confusion I have, though, about this. This comes from a constituent of mine who agrees with him, that being in a database for gun ownership makes him feel like a criminal.

Here is the catch. He owns two handguns. The government has decided that it will maintain a handgun registry.

My question is very simple. My constituent points out that the handgun registry is ineffective and wasteful. Why would the government continue that, given how wasteful and ineffective it may prove to be?

[Petitions, February 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, today is February 15, and sadly, the 30th anniversary of the sinking of the Ocean Ranger. There will be commemorations this evening throughout Newfoundland and Labrador to mark that tragic occasion.

This petition I present to the House requests that the marine rescue sub-centre be maintained. It is slated to close fairly soon pursuant to a decision made by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The centre is responsible for 900,000 square kilometres of ocean and 28,956 kilometres of coastline. It is a very important centre, and is one of the busiest in Canada.

There have been tragedies such as the Ocean Ranger, the Cougar 491, the Ryan's Commander and the Melina and Keith II. These are just a few of the accidents. These stories tell us what a grave situation many people face making a living in the north Atlantic, whether it be in the oil and gas industry or fishing.

The petition comes from the residents of Dover and Hare Bay in my riding.

[Employment Insurance, February 13th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I never asked a question about automation. I never asked a question about everything that I can read on a website. I am just asking for some direction as to where Service Canada sees itself as far as the employees are concerned. Do these people need to move? Will these people have a job? Will there be enough people to supply the cheques in a time that is reasonable?

The member's answer about automation does not answer, because if something goes out of whack, if there is one slight mistake, it falls out of the automated system and, therefore, they must wait that much longer.

The minister gave me a response of “28 days 80% of the time”. That is not even close. We are not even getting to that point. The government throws out numbers but the problem is that it keeps throwing out these percentages based on so many cases or on a select few, the few it feels are necessary to get its point across.

Will these jobs remain in the sub-centres? Everyone should watch this because she will read a speech that was written for her by the department There is not much debate in that.

[Employment Insurance, February 13th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, this is the exact same issue regarding the processing centres for employment insurance and I had a lot of the statistics brought forward by the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan. I will not repeat them, but she did a great job in referring to them. Everyone tuned into the debate will realize what kind of a contrast we have here and what kind of a message we are giving.

I want to put a human face on this for a moment. Never in my six or seven years of doing this job have I seen the volume of calls that I have seen come into my offices, particularly the one in Gander, the one in Grand Falls--Windsor, regarding how long it takes people to receive their first cheque after their claim has been filed.

The first employment insurance cheque is actually only half of what it should be because that is the way it is set out in the legislation. In essence, there are two things.

First of all, there is the inability for Service Canada to deliver the cheques promptly. We are talking about over two months in some cases. That is two payments: two bill payments, two mortgage payments. That is a lot to shoulder in a period of time when an unemployed person does not receive any money.

The second element is the processing centres themselves, and this gets to the specifics of my question, which is 120 processing centres being shut down to accommodate for 20. One hundred twenty centres are being reduced to 20. Every time we try to question this, every time we make an inquiry, every time the media addresses this, we are greeted with a statement that the opposition is just fearmongering, that it is not that bad. How bad really is it?

In a place like Gander or Grand Falls--Windsor there is so much uncertainty as to where these jobs are going to be. These are not average jobs that pay minimum wage; they are jobs with great benefits, federal jobs. How are these people supposed to plan the rest of their lives with the uncertainty that surrounds them? Will their jobs move or will they be eliminated? When is this going to take place? There is a great deal of uncertainty.

The member for Labrador indicated to the people of Goose Bay that they will not have to leave. What does that do to the other centres in the case of Gander--Grand Falls--Windsor, or Corner Brook?

The member mentioned some statistics and automation. I would like her to get away from the automation part of it for a moment and to get away from the talking points, because I can go to the website and read what she just said. Could she drift away from the notes for a moment and talk about whether these jobs will remain or not? If she cannot answer that question, could she at least talk about the issue of where the vision lies with Service Canada as to the processing centres, but specifically just those centres?

[Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, February 10th, 2012]

No, but I do get the benefit of working for six years here in the House of Commons and the benefit of receiving a pension that I believe I worked for. At the same time, it is certainly a lot more generous than what people who worked in the Canadian Forces or as a Mountie all their lives will receive.

Therefore, I would say to those who are casting doubt across the way that at the very least, the responsibility is on them to send this to committee if they feel their argument is a sound one.

Let us talk about the bridge. Today in this debate, how many Conservatives have spoken on this bill? Zero. How many will we see? Probably zero. I would suggest to them that at the very least, if they are not going to engage in an honest debate about this, they could bring this to committee.

It is a piece of legislation that affects 96,000 people across this country, people who gleefully pay into any pension plan they want to receive benefits from. In this particular case, it is the Royal Canadian Mounted Police superannuation, as well as the Forces' superannuation.

In light of what may come in the budget to increase the age requirement from 65 to 67, this is an excellent time to be talking about this piece of legislation. I say this because in committee, we can also find out what the effects of any change in old age security will mean to people in the Forces or the mounted police.

I thank my colleague, the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, and this House and the hundreds if not thousands of people across this country who provided their input.

[Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, February 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, once again, as I did a few years ago, I stand in support of this legislation as it is very important and it is an issue that I get approached about a lot by the people in my riding. I have 195 communities in my riding and not many communities do not mention the issue of seniors, the amendments to be made to the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, as well as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act.

I first heard about this when I was in the Gander Mall. I was called to a meeting at the Country Kitchen. I was with retired RCMP officers. To say that they put the issue to me is a mild understatement. I was sitting in a corner and, quite frankly, I was not quite sure if I would survive because they were very passionate about this issue. When I went into that room I was six-foot-two but when I walked out I was five-foot-four. That gives members an illustration of exactly how seriously they took this issue.

I say that in jest but this is an incredibly serious issue for the entire country, whether it be the people who have served us overseas or those who serve in our communities each and every day, officers in both the military and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I, too, do a public service just like they do, but I can say that each and every day, despite how bad the debate gets here in the House, I do not put my life on the line like they do.

The boys at the Country Kitchen pointed out to me that I have the benefit of not having to go through this like they do. That is right. My pension does not go through this like their pensions do.

I want to thank the many people who have written or phoned me with respect to this debate for bringing this to the fore. What we have here is an essential benefit to allow these people to stack their pensions to the point where they would receive that better benefit. It comes down to the basic illustration of what they told me, which is that the ultimate example of an argument that works in this debate is simply this, “I worked for it. I earned it. Can I at least get it, all of it?” And why not? I get all of mine. The members across the way will get theirs provided they serve six years.

I ask the House to consider this legislation. If at some point members are not sure about this, maybe they think it is too expensive or that we cannot afford this right now in light of the economic situation, at the very least we could send this legislation to committee to be studied and have witnesses appear who can tell us their stories about how they deserve to stack their pensions so that they can receive full benefit. They can tell that better than I can. I would invite the committee to come to the Country Kitchen in Gander where it would get a real illustration of just how this legislation is the right one. That is for the members who are skeptical. I would tell those who are not skeptical to continue with their petitions and their support on this very basic issue.

My colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore has an incredible amount of passion for this. This is where all of the partisanship sort of drifts away because I would like to talk about a member of Parliament who needs to be commended by someone from another party to say good for him for bringing this in. He has been very inspiring with respect to this. He has worked very hard on this since he arrived here. No matter where we sit, what corner, what colour, what stripe or what language we use, we certainly need to give that man his due as a parliamentarian. There are certain countries in the world where he would not get away with the way he speaks about it, but in this country he can. That says a lot about our country. So, good on him but, more important, good on us for what he is doing with this.

I want to talk about some of the facts he raised. He said that this would affect 96,000 people. What this would do is very simple. In light of the conversation we are having now, the national debate is around old age security and raising the age from 65 to 67.

The people who call in are very passionate, and to say that when I take the phone the person on the other end is very angry is an understatement. It is unbelievable the anger that has been sparked by this conversation and the prospect of increasing that age.

The argument on the other side is that we need to do something to protect the system that we have and cherish so much. Now we have experts who are basically saying that the sky is not falling, that the program is essentially sound and that what we are doing is raising the flag for no apparent reason.

This is about old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. I cannot think of a greater poverty-fighter in this country than the pension system we currently hold dear, which I believe is the best in the world. It is a pension system that we work towards, we earn and we get unless we are a retired Mountie or a retired officer.

Now let us get back to that one. The integration of the systems pulls back the benefits that someone has accrued, the benefits due to them through the Canada pension plan. How about that? People work all these years in a job where they risked their life and are entitled to a defined benefit every month, only to have their Canada pension plan taken away from them despite having contributed to it.

Essentially, with this clawback, we need to work towards stacking these pensions so that people get the full benefit of what they deserve.

Certainly I do believe that the input across the country has been great. Again, I go back to what the member mentioned about EI deductions, because that is one of the ways to get around this. It is one of the ways we can fix this with some positive comment in committee.

I certainly do believe that the people involved here should receive their benefits, because when it comes to the Canada pension plan, they do deserve it. They paid in, just like any other Canadian has done, and in addition have risked their lives.

Regarding the superannuation, unfortunately, because of all these plans they have invested in, the clawback is insulting. Maybe that is a harsh word, but let us face it: it is an insult.

I do not get a clawback. I will not get one at 55.

[Copyright Modernization Act, February 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, my question pertains to the balance the hon. member discussed in his speech. He said there were two things that came out of the hearings, first, that a lot of people had interest in this, but obviously second, that a balance has been achieved.

I want to question that. We need to look at fair use, at fair dealing. He talks about the education exemption, which basically means, for the purpose of education, one can use copyrighted material. However, if the material in question has a digital lock placed upon it, it cannot be used in this exemption.

Perhaps the hon. member would like to work out that balance, because it does not really make a lot of sense to me.

[Copyright Modernization Act, February 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would not want to question the member's sentiment toward getting this passed quickly and getting on with the modernization of copyright laws in light of trade agreements, such as what we are doing with the European Union.

However, the issue is that when the government first made the attempt to bring the legislation into this House it died on the order paper. When it came back, changes were made. I do not think the government is totally against changes that are fundamental, but this time around it is. I am not quite sure why.

The government has heard from many witnesses, and the member just illustrated all the witnesses and all the testimony, but not one change was made.

The government said that it was open to technical amendments, although I am not sure it is, but in order for these to pass, they should have gone to committee before second reading. A lot of these amendments may not qualify because we have already accepted the bill in principle.

Perhaps the member would like to comment on why the government did not put it to committee already?

[Petitions, February 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I want to present this petition on behalf of residents of Newfoundland and Labrador regarding the fishery and their questioning of fisheries management and the issues surrounding the management of Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

They note that the Government has dismantled fisheries management within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The department has made wrongful decisions in managing the fish stocks and the new structure of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans must take into account the culture and heritage of those working in and depending on the industry.

The petitioners go on to say and request that the government dismantle the current structure of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, put in place a model that takes into account fisheries science as a precedent in all decision-making and take into account the historical connection of fisheries management to the east coast especially, Newfoundland and Labrador in particular.

[Copyright Modernization Act, February 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, in regard to copyright and copyright reform, my colleague talks about achieving the perfect balance in this particular situation, or at least the best balance that can be achieved. In many cases, the balance he is looking for does not exist because we have the two extremes on either side. By way of illustration, people are allowed to download a piece of music. They can share it within whatever method they use to listen to music, whether iPod or MP3 and then onto a CD, for example. However at the same time, digitally locked material is not allowed to be tampered with. So even though they have the right to share it, they cannot. Which, in essence, gives the ultimate power over the laws of copyright to the private sector, and large corporations in that particular case. How do we address that? Does the member think that is the perfect balance that he talks about?