Robert Chisholm

[Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, June 16th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right that timeliness is extremely important. I know the member understands that because his party has been wanting when it comes to timeliness on some key issues, for instance, the Kyoto protocol, a national daycare plan, Kelowna, and investing in education. These are initiatives that the Liberal Party talked about at various points over the past 20 years but never seemed to be able to bite the bullet and get them done.

That is where we are with the government. It has not been able to squeeze its conviction enough to be able to bring legislation forward in a speedy and correct fashion.

[Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, June 16th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise and speak, for a few moments at least, to Bill C-6.

Let me say how proud I am to be part of a caucus whose members have been prepared to stand up, member after member, and voice their values, their principles, their convictions as they relate to an issue like this which affects people around the world. I am extraordinarily proud to be a member of this caucus.

It has been said before, but let me acknowledge the fact that this is a bill meant to implement or to ratify a treaty called the Convention on Cluster Munitions that was adopted in 2008. Here we are in 2014 and we are just now dealing with a piece of legislation to accomplish that, a piece of legislation, by the way, that was introduced in this House and now has had time allocation restrictions placed upon it.

This is extremely important. It is another treaty in a series of treaties followed along by the international treaty on land mines which is meant to deal with a weapon of war that not only has tremendous impact, death and maiming, at the time of its use, but subsequently as well. We have heard members of this caucus give examples of the problems that arise as a result of not being able to properly clear the fields of these ordnances and the destruction and damage that is caused to civilians, including children. That is what this treaty is all about: to end the use of a weapon like this that has been deemed to be reprehensible.

In fact, as the convention entered into force, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon spoke of “not only the world's collective revulsion at these abhorrent weapons, but also the power of collaboration among governments, civil society and the United Nations to change attitudes and policies on a threat faced by all humankind.”

Subsequently, a spokesman for the International Committee of the Red Cross said, “These weapons are a relic of the Cold War. They are a legacy that has to be eliminated because they increasingly won't work.”

Nobel Peace Prize winner Jody Williams called the convention “the most important disarmament and humanitarian convention in over a decade.”

The point is, this treaty was adopted by 107 nations around the world, and we are now dealing with a piece of legislation that supposedly implements that treaty.

I want to echo what some of my colleagues have talked about in comparing clause 11 of Bill C-6 with article 21 of the treaty itself. I have looked at this and I want to talk about it for a second. Clause 11 in the bill creates so many exceptions that it goes well beyond article 21 of the treaty and basically completely undercuts the intention of the convention itself.

I will read what article 21 says. It is pretty straightforward:

Each State Party shall encourage States not party to this Convention to ratify, accept, approve or accede to this Convention....

Each State Party shall notify the governments of all States not party to this Convention....

It goes on to say:

Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 1 of this Convention and in accordance with international law, States Parties, their military personnel or nationals, may engage in military cooperation and operations with States not party to this Convention that might engage in activities prohibited to a State Party.

In other words, this is the interoperability clause. In other words, the concerns that members opposite have raised, that my goodness if we are at war working with our neighbours to the south, the United States, or other coalition partners, if we do not have the exemptions provided for in clause 11, we might suffer some legal consequences.

What article 21 does is it provides that comfort that, in fact, we commit to the principle and we commit to not allowing domestically the purchase, production or use of these weapons, but that if we are engaged and make our coalition partners aware of our abhorrence to this particular practice, that gives us some safety.

If we go back to the bill, to clause 11, what we will see in subclauses (1), (2) and (3) are the exceptions:

11.(1) Section 6 does not prohibit a person who is subject to the Code of Service Discipline under...in the course of military cooperation or combined military operations involving Canada and a state that is not a party to the Convention, from

(a) directing or authorizing an activity that may involve the use, acquisition, possession, import or export of a cluster munition, explosive submunition or explosive bomblet....

(b) expressly requesting the use of a cluster munition, explosive submunition or explosive bom2t by the armed forces of that state....

(c) acquiring or possessing a cluster munition, explosive submunition or explosive bomblet....

(2) Section 6 does not prohibit a person, in the course of military cooperation or combined military operations involving Canada and a state that is not a party to the Convention, from transporting or engaging in an activity related to the transport of a cluster munition....

(3) Section 6 does not prohibit a person, in the course of military cooperation or combined military operations involving Canada and a state that is not a party to the Convention, from

(a) aiding, abetting or counselling another person to commit any act referred to....

My point is it is here in black and white what has been said by my colleagues and what has been said by experts who appeared at the foreign affairs committee, that in fact, clause 11 completely undercuts the tenets of the treaty itself.

If the government is going to get on its high horse and it is going to beat its chest about its adherence to the principles of the treaty, then it has to do that. It cannot expect to pass legislation that is contrary to that. That is the point we have been trying to make.

The production and use of these weapons is abhorrent. It has to be stopped. As a country, as a nation, as a participant in this world, we need to take strong action. We need to show leadership. This bill does not do that. That is the point we are trying to make.

Why I would even bother to explain that to a government that has been passing pieces of legislation one after the other that are being challenged and thrown out by the courts, I do not know. I guess I am just a bit naive. I think that if we take the time and if we point out the obvious nature of the flaws, the government will see it.

It is important that this House uphold the tenets of the treaty, the Convention on Cluster Munitions. We need to make sure that the legislation that ratifies it does that very thing. Bill C-6 does not do that, and that is why we are opposed.

[Service Canada Mandate Expansion Act, June 12th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise for a few moments to speak about Bill C-247. I want to thank the member for Guelph for introducing it. I think it has incredible value.

In fact, just a couple of days ago, I spent some time talking on the phone with a woman from Dartmouth whose husband died recently. She was in the midst of going through some of the problems other members have talked about. She was trying to clarify with the Canada pension plan what was going to happen in terms of her pension and whether there were any spousal benefits. It was a serious problem. She told me that she had some family who were working with her. I did what I am sure any member here would do. I told her that if there was anything my office could do, we would certainly help her.

There is no question that it is far too complicated. There is not enough sharing of information. I understand the privacy issues that have been raised, but surely we can overcome those. We could ensure that there is designated staff to provide this kind of information.

It was cited by others that funeral homes are very good at dealing with some of these issues. The funeral home I have had the unfortunate, yet fortunate, opportunity to work with on far too many occasions, White Family Funeral Home, in Kentville, Nova Scotia, is very helpful in terms of helping families who have lost loved ones work through some of these issues.

The bill, as I say, deals with finalizing all outstanding matters between a deceased person and the Government of Canada. The individual acting on behalf of the deceased person may be required to connect with several different departments. We think, of course, of the Canada Revenue Agency, where a final return must be filed for all deceased Canadian residents and citizens. There are several optional returns.

Employment and Social Development Canada is another place where somebody might need to go for termination of the Canada pension plan and old age security benefits.

If the deceased was a veteran or a member of the Canadian Forces, then Veterans Affairs and the Department of National Defence would need to be dealt with. It could be the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Each one of these different areas, depending on a person's circumstances, is a government department a person would have to deal with to clear up the affairs of a deceased person.

I recognize how important the bill is, and I recognize the value of the intent. However, I am concerned about the services that Service Canada personnel are already required to provide and the challenges they have in meeting those responsibilities, whether it is EI or dealing with Veterans Affairs files, or whatever it is. The staff in that department have been reduced. I am finding that people trying to reach Service Canada offices by phone, because we are not able to walk into Service Canada centres anymore and have to reach them by phone or through the Internet, are waiting days, often, to get a reply from a person.

In terms of providing service for people who have filed EI claims, the department says that it will get back to them and resolve the claim in 28 days. That is just a fantasy. That does not happen anymore. It does not happen, because there are not enough people working on these files to deal with the great demand. Waiting times for EI now, for example, are upwards of 40 days.

In Nova Scotia, the Veterans Affairs office in Sydney was recently shut down, one of the eight or nine offices across the country that were shut down, and all the files from that office were sent to the Halifax-Dartmouth area. That is more work put on an already stressed staff, an already depleted staff. The government has taken something in the area of $243 million out of the budget of Service Canada over the past few years and has cut hundreds of employees from Service Canada.

My point is that I very much support the idea of there being one point of entry, one point of contact, for a family that is trying to clear up these kinds of matters, but I am concerned that unless the government is prepared to assign some resources to get this done, all we will be doing is adding more burdens to an already stressed out and overburdened staff of that particular department. We will be adding more problems to an already difficult situation. That is my point.

We will be supporting the bill. We agree with the intention, but I make those points and I hope they will be received well. There needs to be more specificity in the bill about what departments have to be involved. Right now it just says, “including—but not limited to—” Canada Revenue Agency, old age security, et cetera. However, there are other departments. I have cited a few. I think it should indicate all of the places and all of the services that are necessary to make sure it is all encompassing, because surely we recognize that for many people, the places they need to go differ, but surely we can list that in the bill to make sure it is clear.

However, I would say again to the sponsor of the bill that we need to have a serious discussion with the government about what it will do with resources, what it will do in terms of ensuring that not only money but staff is assigned to departments.

Rather than just seeing the Conservatives agree and lay on more responsibilities without putting in the resources, they will first need to decide how best to deal with the privacy issues and how best to ensure that each department is talking to the others and is sharing that information in a way that makes sense, because it will cost money to get that done. Second, they will have to ensure that Service Canada is supplemented with the necessary resources and the necessary staff for the extra mandate.

I think all members will agree. We all deal, undoubtedly, with the kind of problems the bill is trying to address and recognize. We all need to support it, but it is not enough to say that it is important. We actually have to sit down and make sure that the government commits the resources to make sure that what we commit to actually gets done.

My time has drawn to a close. I want to thank the member for Guelph for introducing the bill and to indicate to him that I will certainly be supporting it as we move forward. We would be more than happy to work with him to try to make it as good and as effective a piece of legislation as it can be.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, June 12th, 2014]

With regard to applications made under the Employment Insurance Program: (a) what was the volume of applications for Employment Insurance, Special Benefits, that have been received by Service Canada in 2011-2012, 2012-2013, and 2013-2014, broken down by (i) year, (ii) province/region; (b) how many of the cases in (a) waited longer than 28 days for a response, broken down by (i) year, (ii) province/region; (c) what was the volume of applications for Employment Insurance, Regular Benefits, that have been received by Service Canada in 2011-2012, 2012-2013, and 2013-2014, broken down by (i) year, (ii) province/region; and (d) how many of the cases in (b) have waited longer than 28 days for a response, broken down by (i) year, (ii) province/region?

[Petitions, June 12th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition calls on the government to back off on the cuts to home delivery by Canada Post. Again, it is signed by hundreds of my constituents and other Nova Scotians.

[Petitions, June 12th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions. The first one is signed by hundreds of my constituents and other Nova Scotians who are appalled by Bill C-23 and the affront to democracy.

[Main Estimates, 2014-15, June 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the fact that the Senate is filled with unaccountable, unelected women and men who from time to time are doing great work. They spend $92 million a year and it is unaccountable. We can talk all we want about it. We can wish it were not so. We can wish it were better or we can do something about it. That is what we are talking about here tonight.

Are we going to do something about it? Are we going to say it is time to ship up, it is time to get ready, it is time to start doing things right so that we can be proud of the way that organization works on behalf of Canadians, because eventually we are going to get rid of it. Let us hold it accountable at least. We have the opportunity tonight. Let us do the right thing.

[Main Estimates, 2014-15, June 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member getting involved in this debate. I appreciate the fact that he is feeling somewhat emotional about the fact that we are facing right now a debate about allocating $92 million, $57 million of it discretionary. He does not have to worry that the workers that he is so concerned about representing will be okay. They will be because $34 million will still be there.

He has to answer to his constituents just like I have to answer to my constituents, “What did you do when the opportunity arose to hold the Senate accountable for spending $92 million? Did you step up, or did you sit down?”

[Main Estimates, 2014-15, June 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise for a very few moments to debate this particular motion. I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan.

I am pleased to wade in here to have this discussion. The motion that is before us is about the estimates, and it is about the Senate. The mover of the motion, our first speaker, talked about the whole question of accountability and approving a line item of $92 million to the Senate, where there is no accountability for how that money will be spent.

In reality, and let me clarify this, members on both the government side and the Liberal benches have been extraordinarily upset that we are going to cut off all the money to Senate, which will not be able to operate anymore and some of the staff may be laid off. They have been very concerned about that.

Let me assure members that what we are talking about is the discretionary part of that particular budget line, which is nearly $58 million, and the $34 million, nearly $35 million represents statutory forecasts, in other words the amount of money that has been deemed necessary to keep the lights on and the staff working, and so on.

I know that members opposite and adjacent have been very upset by the fact that we may be proposing to vote on a motion that would lay staff off. I would love to hear what working people across this country think about the faux concern that they have heard tonight from government members and Liberal members.

That is the first point, the concern that we would cut off money and that the Senate would not be able to operate.

The second concern, of course, is that if we close the doors to the Senate, then we would not be able to do anything. We would not be able to pass any legislation. We would not be able to do any business.

It used to be the case in this country that 10 provinces had a Senate or two Houses. They got rid of them, and they still operate. The provinces still do business. My province of Nova Scotia got rid of its Senate in 1928, and it is still working. It is still governing. It is still doing business. It is still passing legislation. It is still raising taxes and still spending money on behalf of the people who have elected the Senate members.

Let us be clear, I understand what the nub of the problem is here. The Liberals and the Conservatives have had this other institution over there that they have stuffed chockablock full of partisans for 150 years, who have gone across this country from coast to coast to coast on the taxpayers' dime performing partisan activities.

It is not that some of them have not done good work or that some of these committees have not done some good work from time to time, when they have been able to find time, when there are no elections or fundraising events or snowstorms in P.E.I. or something of the like happening. They have done some work.

It is not about the individuals, and that is what gets confusing sometimes. It is about a few of them. It is about the ones who seem to use the money they get, the allowances, and the credit cards they get, as if it is their own money to do with what they will, before they finally get caught. It is those ones who end up getting chased around by the authorities, the police, and others. That is a bit personal. Those are the people we are talking about.

We are saying to the government and to the Liberals that we can hold the Senate accountable. That is what this motion is all about. It is about accountability.

Why do we not, as a group, stand up, suck it up a little bit, and start playing hardball with the Senate, start demanding some accountability? The government has not been able to do it in the 10 years it has been proposing to make the Senate accountable. It has not been able to do anything. Let us agree tonight, all of us here in this chamber, to do it once and for all. We will defeat this motion so that all of a sudden, tomorrow morning, the senators will realize they will not get $57 million until they start coming up with some accountability measures that have teeth and that Canadians can trust, and most important, members in this House who are responsible for paying those bills will have some confidence that once and for all, the activities that go on in that chamber will be held accountable.

We will get to the other part. Members suggest that it is impossible to actually deal with Senate reform or abolishment, but it is not. Canadians are ready for it. Provinces are ready for it. We hear about it wherever we go in the country. People are fed up with the fact that we have a chamber where men and women have been appointed simply because of the favours they did for a particular prime minister or for the water cans they carry for a political party. That is not good enough. Canadians are demanding more. They are demanding more because the government and the former government have been asking Canadians to tighten their belts and to do with less.

I talked to a woman today in Dartmouth who is having a hard time finding housing for her and her two children because of the cuts the government has made in the availability of affordable housing across this country. We have tried, my colleagues on this side have tried to force the government to bring forward a national housing strategy, to no avail. The woman, on behalf of her children, wants to see us holding the Senate accountable for at least $57 million of the $92 million that we are supposed to approve tonight.

A number of people have been in my office in the past two months who have had to wait upwards of 40 days to get their claims paid through EI. They have asked me why it is that the Senate, which is unelected and unaccountable, can be allowed to spend $92 million without any explanation, without being held accountable.

I am here to say, and my colleagues are suggesting in their debate and in their support for this motion today, that we have the opportunity to hold this institution accountable tonight, right here, on behalf of my constituents, on behalf of Canadians across the country who are asking us to be accountable for the money that we allocate. We have the opportunity to do that today. Let us do it today. Let us vote to hold the Senate accountable and then let us move on to get rid of the Senate, because we can operate. Canadians are asking us to make sure that the decisions that are made by the Government of Canada in fact are accountable and are made by people who are duly elected.

[Main Estimates, 2014-15, June 10th, 2014]

I'm not complaining about you talking about us. You can talk about us all you want. I just want you to focus on accountability.