Scott Simms

[Business of Supply, November 18th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I have a very short intervention. At least that is my intention.

When the member was talking about the process, he mentioned that a lot has been done up until now. So I am not quite sure where he is coming from when he says that a lot has been done, therefore, it is almost too late, that to back out of it now would be detrimental to the entire industry in this particular country. Maybe I misinterpreted what he said.

But with that in mind, would it not be better, under this motion, to go forward and to say that we are going to have this open competition to guarantee ourselves that dollar for dollar commitment of Public Works, certainly for all the contracts, as required by Industry Canada? Would he not prefer that for his own province of Quebec, considering the fact that it is such a giant around the world in the aerospace sector?

[Business of Supply, November 18th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, it was mentioned earlier that the minister is working hard in his department, and I do not doubt that whatsoever. In the spirit of obtaining information, I would like to drift a little further away from the F-35 for just a few moments.

I would ask if the minister could give the House an update on the issue about the acquisition and procurement of fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft for the airmen and airwomen of the air force.

[Business of Supply, November 18th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his speech. Certainly he outlines, quite rightly, the potential that this could hold under a true competition.

However I would like him to comment on what seemingly, because of this debate, is a very bizarre circumstance when it comes to the fighters themselves. Juxtapose that with the situation with search and rescue, where we have been meandering back and forth from department to department on whether there is a competition or not.

I was wondering if he would like to comment on that. Seemingly there is a lot of confusion there, but when it comes to the fighters, there is no problem. It seems to be very efficient when it comes to that announcement.

[Petitions, November 18th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I am rising once again to present a petition on issues concerning employment insurance. The petition has been put together by the FFAW, the Fish, Food and Allied Workers associated with the CAW.

The petitioners point out that whereas a healthy employment insurance system is the most powerful of all economic stabilizers, they are facing the current economic crisis with a much weaker EI system that provides only half the coverage it did in the last recession. Now only 42% of the unemployed receive EI.

The petitioners call on the government to make permanent the pilot projects worked on in 2005 by colleagues of mine, such as the hon. member for Beauséjour. The program allowed the best 14 weeks to be counted toward benefits which would allow people to increase the amount of their benefit. Without it, there was a disincentive to work. We received a lot of input from owners of fish plants, sawmills and small businesses, who said that without this they would face very troubled fall and spring seasons, or shoulder seasons, as they are called.

These petitioners primarily come from the towns of Musgrave Harbour, Deadman's Bay and Carmanville. They are concerned about plants such as the ones in Twillingate and Valleyfield, owned by Beothic Fish Processors Limited.

I am humbled to bring this petition to the House in the hope that we can achieve the EI reforms that the petitioners are looking for.

[Petitions, November 17th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to present a petition once again about the EI pilot projects started in 2005 for areas of unemployment higher than 10%. There were three pilot projects. One allowed people to earn up to 40% of their income before being clawed back. Another was the extension of five weeks. The third one, which will affect most of the people not just in my area but in all areas of the country affected by areas of high unemployment, is the best 14 weeks option.

In that option people can use their best 14 weeks on which to base their benefits from employment insurance as opposed to using the last 14 weeks. This means that people can now work two or three days a week when asked without being penalized when it comes to their benefits because it actually ruins their average. By using the best 14 weeks it means that over that longer period of the winter, especially for seasonal workers, they get to achieve more benefits and therefore the system can eliminate disincentives for work.

This is for the employees in many areas of Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor as well as the entire province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

[Pope John Paul II Day Act, November 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to stand here next to my colleague who made an incredible speech, one that is very touching about a man who inspired the world, as he pointed out. One of the things, among many, that inspired me about Pope John Paul II was his ability to reach out, to go to all these countries so that people could actually touch, feel and see the pope as an individual. But more than that, he inspired so many people.

He came to Newfoundland and Labrador many years ago and inspired us. He came to this country, as my colleague pointed out, on several occasions. His ability to do that brought the Roman Catholic Church out to the people who are members all over the world, and by doing so he has made the world a much better place as a result of it. It is truly an inspiration, which was shown, as my colleague pointed out, when one of the greatest Christian pilgrimages of all time was to go to Rome to attend his requiem mass.

I would like my colleague to touch on, once again, and perhaps explore further the idea of just how far he would go, to what great lengths he would go, in order to bring the Roman Catholic Church from the Vatican out to the world.

[Eliminating Entitlements for Prisoners Act, November 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on an excellent job. I also congratulate the work being done through the committee, such as zeroing in on the unintended consequences of something like this.

At the very outset, of course, we do not want to punish those who are receiving the money outside of the individuals themselves. We may have people living in poverty where the consequences were of no fault of their own and yet they are the ones being punished because they are not the ones receiving the public subsidy or receiving money from the government to survive, such as those who are incarcerated. Therefore, I congratulate the member and the committee on their work.

I found it very strange and disingenuous of the parliamentary secretary to raise the issue of 13 long years. It has been four years, for goodness sake. On a three page bill, someone should have flagged at some point that this should have been done. How much time has to elapse before we realize that we are now the author of our own demise and no one else wrote that for us.

It goes back to the debate we had earlier. In the other bill dealing with tough on crime, all of these small items could have been done through the Criminal Code on a larger basis. We could have one piece of legislation that takes care of all of that if there were a vision in place by which the government wants to tackle or fight crime.

However, there does not seem to be a vision because it does not go lockstep with anything else. It is incarceration. However, eliminating that crime before it actually begins is just not a part of the vision.

Could my hon. colleague comment on that please?

[Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders Act, November 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, an issue that was brought up by a colleague of mine goes to what, on the surface of it, is the veneer of all this crime legislation that we are seemingly adopting. It almost leads into the fact that there is some kind of grand vision, but there really is not.

The minister earlier spoke about his frustration with the debate on the title of the bill itself, and in essence that is exactly what is happening. It seems as if all these grand measures have trickled down to smaller measures. My colleague asked why we did not just do one bill and make the changes en masse to the Criminal Code. Perhaps the member would like to comment on that.

The prorogation occurred. There has also been delay after delay. But there does not seem to be one exact vision of what crime control is to become under the government, which has been holding itself out as the champion of crime control for quite some time. Would he comment on the fact that there does not seem to be that vision?

Every time we get some of this legislation, it goes madly off in several directions. For example, the next bill that we will debate will be about people who are incarcerated for longer periods of time receiving money. If that were such an issue, why was it not handled in 2006 when the government was first elected? Now, all of a sudden in 2010, it becomes part of a news item, and it therefore becomes public policy. Perhaps the member could comment on that.

Could he also comment on some of the crime prevention programs that he feels are being ignored?

[Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders Act, November 16th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his speech. It is the first time I have had this discussion with the hon. member, who will not be running in the next election. I want to say to him that he certainly has been a great inspiration on all levels in the House, and for me as a fairly new member of Parliament back in 2004. For that I thank him.

I want to talk to him about this issue that he speaks of so passionately and has done so for as long as I have been here. On the surface, he talks about this piece of legislation and how it deals with the idea of discounts, which on the surface I do not have a problem with.

However, the member brings up many aspects of the core of the problem. One of the issues regarding drugs is that we do not put enough emphasis on harm reduction, which is something that has been debated for quite some time, through Europe especially right now and all over the world.

Harm reduction seems to be thrown aside for the sake of increasing the amount of penalty for individuals involved in crime. Perhaps the member could talk about harm reduction.

Also, over the past few years we have not seen a lot of vision when it comes to the reduction of crime before the crime actually begins, to use the vernacular. So I thank him for his intervention.

[Petitions, November 16th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, my petition concerns EI reform and the pilot projects that exist as of today and which will continue through until June. However, after June it becomes a big mystery as to whether they will be maintained or not, and certainly a mystery for many people in my riding because, if they are maintained, it will mean a lot for local and regional economic development.

We are still dealing with the ravages of hurricane Igor. I recently visited the Port Union and Trinity Bay North area where we discovered that many people are deficient in the number of weeks required to receive EI benefits. Therefore, we are also calling for a program to be put in place by the local agency, ACOA.

In the meantime, this petition does concern the pilot projects, as outlined, that they should be permanently maintained. These names come from the areas of Twillingate, the New World Island area, and working in the plants, such as around Cottles Island, as well as Comfort Cove.