Robert Chisholm

[Anaphylaxis, May 8th, 2013]

That's not fair.

[Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act, May 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, this legislation puts responsibility on the government for providing safe, clean drinking water to first nations communities, but it does not ensure that the funding will be available. When I asked the hon. member's colleague this same question, I got in response a list of all of the funding that has gone in this direction in the past seven years. The problem is, it has not done the job, and the question still remains.

I ask the member, is she not as concerned as I am that with the legislation there needs to be the adequate resources directed?

[Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act, May 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am always interested in hearing the member give us some indication of what he thinks and how he feels about an issue that is so important to all of us.

I do not think there is anyone here who does not recognize the fact that there needs to be some action to deal with the desperate need for fresh, clean, safe drinking water in first nations communities. The problem is that bringing in legislation that would make first nations responsible for it, without properly ensuring that there would be funding in place, just compounds an already difficult situation.

Could the member please comment?

[Fisheries and Oceans, May 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the lobster industry in the Maritimes is in turmoil again this year. The lobster boats in Prince Edward Island are tied up as a result of the prices for lobster beginning to head down to the $2.50 mark.

This is an industry with a landed value of $600 million and exports over $1 billion. Will the minister agree to meet with provincial ministers and with harvesters to try to sort out a solution that will work for coastal communities in Atlantic Canada?

[Fisheries and Oceans, May 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of coastal communities that do not think the minister is doing a very good job, nor does this group think the minister is doing a very good job.

The Canadian Journalists for Free Expression have awarded him an F for press freedom. The report cites his department's “zeal in muzzling scientists and keeping critical research findings from Canadians”.

Canadians deserve better. Will the minister now do the right thing, lift the gag order and let taxpayers see some of the science they are paying for?

[Committees of the House, April 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, over the last number of months, after speaking with embassies overseas about the interview process, it sounds like the process has been contracted out to agencies other than being done by embassy staff who represent Canada. There are problems with delays and with things being disconnected. Has the government headed in that direction? Is that part of the reason why we are having some trouble getting information on various files? Has that interview process been contracted out to other agencies?

[Fisheries and Oceans, April 25th, 2013]

The point is, Mr. Speaker, Conservatives are not being straight with Canadians. That is the fact.

Former Conservative fisheries minister Tom Siddon reminded the minister that protecting our fisheries is his only job. The minister has put coastal and rural communities at risk by sabotaging the most basic protections for our fisheries. He then misled Canadians about who he has consulted.

I want to ask the government, when will the minister start doing his job and stand up for the women and men who depend on the fishery and the coastal and rural communities that rely on it?

[Fisheries and Oceans, April 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, that kind of attitude is not going to help us deal with global warming in this country.

The government is also walking away from its fisheries responsibilities. In the midst of the public outcry over Bill C-38, the government claimed it “consulted with fishermen”, but now we learn that the people it consulted with were the oil and gas, mining, and nuclear power companies. Not one fisheries organization did it consult with.

I want to ask the minister, will he come clean and admit to Canadians who he is really looking after?

[Fisheries and Oceans, April 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the owner-operator fleet separation policy protects independent fishermen. It protects Atlantic Canadian and Quebec coastal communities.

Conservatives claim to support this policy, but a Conservative senator thinks differently. He called fleet separation immoral. He said that it led to a falsely seductive life of seasonal work, another attack on seasonal workers in Atlantic Canada and Quebec.

Did the minister categorically condemn this outrageous attack on people in Atlantic Canada and Quebec?

[Combating Terrorism Act, April 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we have been talking about terrorism for the past couple of days. There is no question that everyone in the House wants to do everything possible to protect Canadians against terrorism, and for anyone to suggest otherwise is just simply wrong.

We were all sickened by what happened in Boston last week. As it turned out, I was on my way to Washington at the time and saw increased security in that city. A lot of people were very concerned and troubled about the events in Boston and wondered whether there would be a spillover effect in that city. Frankly, we are all concerned, and have been concerned, about that possibility.

Bill S-7 would not do what the government claims it would do. The fact that it was introduced suddenly this week, surprising everyone, causes us considerable concern.

Back in 2006 these provisions were in the Anti-terrorism Act that came into force in 2001. After the terrible tragedy that happened that year, parliamentarians felt it was important to ensure that our legislation was up to international standards, and we included provisions that are contained in Bill S-7.

At that time, the bill had a sunset clause. In 2006 all members of the House of Commons voted as to whether or not the sunset clause would be extended. That was defeated, and it was defeated because none of the provisions now contained in Bill S-7 were ever used. Police, CSIS and other authorities in this country were able to carry out their responsibilities to keep us safe without the need for the provisions now found in Bill S-7.

The Conservative government has waited seven years to bring this legislation forward. This legislation has been sitting on the order books for months now, and the government did not deem it necessary to bring it forward. That was because it had been advised by authorities that it was not necessary and that it would trample on the civil rights and freedoms of Canadians to a level that is unnecessary, damaging and, frankly, frightful. That is not necessary.

We, along with people outside this chamber, have said that the only reason this legislation has been suddenly dropped on the table for debate this week is for partisan political reasons. Surely to heaven the Conservative government recognizes the importance of what happened in Boston. Surely the government recognizes that this is not an issue that we should be playing politics with, nor should we be playing politics with the civil liberties and human rights of Canadians.

All NDP members have stood in our places and voiced our objections to Bill S-7, and there will be others. Members in the far corner are going to support this legislation because they originally brought it forward, and they feel it is sufficiently expedient to pass it.

I will describe what I would like to see the government do. If the government is serious about dealing with terrorist threats, it should restore the $143 million that is being cut from CBSA. That would ensure that we have the resources at our borders to properly screen people who may want to do harm to Canadians and Canadian property.

I would like to see the cuts of $24.5 million by 2015 imposed on CSIS restored. The budget of the CSIS Inspector General was scrapped in 2012. The RCMP saw cuts of $195.2 million.

If we do not have boots on the ground, and if we do not have the individuals in the field who are directly involved with the investigation of these matters, how can we suggest that we are serious? It is simply not good enough to bring in a bad law and say that we have taken care of it and that everyone is safe. It just does not work that way.

Canadians know that when they cross the border, there are going to be fewer RCMP and CSIS agents available to protect them and to do the work necessary, such as the screening and investigation. That is where we need to be putting our money and resources.

I urge the members opposite, if they are serious about combatting terrorism, to put money back into resources so that we have people on the ground who are able to do the work necessary to keep Canadians safe. Bill S-7 does not do it. That is why my colleagues and I have risen to object strenuously, and we will not be supporting it.