Scott Simms

[September 28th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me these few moments to discuss an issue that I brought up in the House some time ago. In general, it is an issue of grave importance for Newfoundland and Labrador. It is an issue that certainly deals with the safety factor of Newfoundland and Labrador, and certainly deals with the entire east coast, because we are talking about two entities here.

Let me just recap. Because of the last budget we had a closure of a sub-centre, what we call a maritime rescue sub-centre, in St. John's, Newfoundland, and one also in Quebec. What these two centres provided was an extra amount of assistance to the larger centres, which are described as the JRCC, or the joint rescue coordination centres. These centres handle incoming calls from people in distress, primarily in the offshore area.

Two departments come together, Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of National Defence, to handle these situations. One is primarily the vertical lift, or lift from the air, which is a part of search and rescue through the Department of National Defence. My question answered by the fisheries minister on that day obviously dealt with the Coast Guard. Of course, the Coast Guard, even though it is its own special operating agency, is still part of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

What brings on this closure? What provides the available evidence that the closure of this centre can be absorbed, not just from a financial aspect, but also from a safety aspect?

It is an incredibly busy site. It is busy in the sense that a lot of the local calls come into this one particular centre because the people who work in the centres certainly know the geography and certainly know their jobs extremely well.

What is happening is that these positions are being absorbed at the JRCC, which is in Halifax. I wish no ill will toward this particular centre in Halifax, which does a wonderful job as well, but there are aspects of the MRSC that was in St. John's in Newfoundland and Labrador that will be closed, yet are desperately needed in this area.

I will provide one quick example: ice survey. Ice surveys are done across the country. They are headquartered here in Ottawa. It is a national ice service. It does some work in the MRSC, and the reason for doing some of it there is because of the local aspect. It is a local investigation that they must undertake; therefore, they leave Ottawa, go to St. John's, Newfoundland, and monitor the ice situation. The vast majority of ice observations take place across the eastern part of the island.

This is a good example of why this centre exists in the first place.

Therefore, I humbly ask the parliamentary secretary what constitutes the decision to say that we can close this centre down and safety will not be compromised. The evidence proves otherwise.

[Safe Streets and Communities Act, September 27th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, one of the fundamental elements of this omnibus bill obviously deals with the issue of mandatory minimums as a deterrent. Would my hon. colleague justify how this is to be a deterrent when it comes to mandatory minimums?

We have examples where in certain jurisdictions around North America the death penalty exists, yet their capital offence rates are much higher than jurisdictions that do not have the death penalty in place. When we see situations like that, we have to wonder whether mandatory minimums do serve as that deterrent? Perhaps my colleague can convince me that this is the case.

[Safe Streets and Communities Act, September 27th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would like to respond to a quote from the Canadian Bar Association with respect to the legislation:

The Bill’s approach is contrary to what is known to lead to a safer society.

The CBA believes that the Bill will make already serious criminal justice system problems much worse, with huge resource implications.

Perhaps the hon. member could comment on why that is so wrong.

[Petitions, September 26th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition regarding the state of the fisheries.

For the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, in many cases examples of mismanagement were in play, perhaps due to the lack of resources in the department itself, among other reasons. This petition specifically calls upon the government to initiate a public inquiry into all aspects of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, with an emphasis on fisheries management and to dismantle the current structure of DFO and put in place a model that takes into account fisheries science, with an emphasis on serving the fishermen who make a living from the industry.

I would like to point out that the vast majority of signatures on this particular petition are from Ontario.

[Points of Order, September 26th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, arising from question period, my point of order is about a mission that I went on where I joined the armed forces on a pre-planned search and rescue mission. I know exactly what happened there. It was an exercise off the coast of Fogo Island, as well as inland.

The minister did say, though, in his answer that it cost $160,000 for five hours, which basically comes down to $32,000 per hour. When we said to the former parliamentary secretary that it was $32,000, he said that number was nonsense.

I would like for the minister and the former parliamentary secretary to get together and provide information to the House about what exactly the number is.

[National Defence, September 22nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, we now know, with great regret, that the Minister of National Defence ordered his search and rescue helicopter to pick him up from his vacation on the Gander River. The response, “It was a demonstration of their capabilities”. Even the Conservatives are laughing at that one.

He feels that he is entitled to use vital life-saving equipment for his own personal limousine, and we would like for him to answer to it.

The Prime Minister has suggested that the Chief of the Defence Staff pay back the money for his personal flights. Will the Minister of National Defence do the same, pay back the $16,000 and apologize?

[Safe Streets and Communities Act, September 21st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage mentioned that the member is free to oppose this legislation. I would like to put forward that if we follow democracy to its logical extent, he is in fact mandated to oppose it, as he received the majority of votes in his riding.

Regarding mandatory minimum issues, how does he feel that mandatory minimums in this case will not be able to make the community safe as a stand-alone tool in the toolbox of devices used to help curtail crime and to help victims?

[Safe Streets and Communities Act, September 21st, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I have a different concept of what harm reduction is. To me, harm reduction has less to do with the penalty phase in drug offences and more to do with the abuses that are caused by drugs, trying to rehabilitate and the programs that we have, which is more of an international concept.

I do want to speak to the issue of the mandatory minimum as it serves as a deterrent to crime. Now I ask this honestly. I am not infusing any opinion at this point. I would like to hear the hon. member's opinion. The hon. member says that in order to make the streets safe, we are imposing a mandatory minimum. We have heard from my NDP colleague who spoke passionately about mandatory minimum records around the world and, in many cases, it did not live up to what was expected.

In this particular situation, if a mandatory minimum is imposed, will it actually deter the crime that is being spoken about here? Will it actually make communities that much safer?

I would like the hon. member to explain reducing crime and reducing the number of future victims as a concept of mandatory minimums.

[Petitions, September 21st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I present this petition on behalf of many constituents throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

The petition calls upon the government to dismantle the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for wrongful decisions, certainly when it comes to the management of the current fish stocks off the east coast of Newfoundland and Labrador and all of Atlantic Canada, for that matter. The petitioners request that the Government of Canada initiate a public inquiry into all aspects of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, also requiring that it place a model that takes into account fishery science with an emphasis on serving the fisher people who can make a living from that industry.

I humbly present this to the House on behalf of not only the fisher people of Newfoundland and Labrador but all stakeholders in the province.

[Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act, September 20th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the enthusiasm of my colleagues to get me on my feet. I also want to commend my colleague who sits in front of me for all the work he has done on immigration and certainly in his riding.

In the debate that has been going on here a term that has been bandied about is “queue jumping”, which applies to the immigration system. When it comes to the issue of refugees, it is a concept that is not as tangible. I would like him to comment on that. Could he also make reference to what the Supreme Court decision would impose in this particular situation from this pending legislation?