Robert Chisholm

[Navigable Waters Protection Act, April 22nd, 2013]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-492, An Act to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act (Shelburne River and other rivers).

Mr. Speaker, it is a terrific initiative my colleague, the member for Halifax, is leading on behalf of the official opposition, marking Earth Day by staking our claim to the fact that Canadians dearly love their lakes and rivers and want them protected. We are setting out today on a campaign to reclaim those rivers.

The private member's bill I am sponsoring would deal with the Shelburne and the Margaree Rivers. One was designated in 1997 and the other in 1998. They are rivers that have deep cultural, economic and recreational value to their communities and to the province as a whole. They were designated in a process that involved a committee of federal representatives. The pitch was put before them that they had outstanding value and should be designated.

I am suggesting, and I believe Nova Scotians will agree, that it is time we had proper protection for those two heritage rivers in Nova Scotia. I will take the opportunity to discuss this issue with Nova Scotians throughout the summer.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Business of Supply, April 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, there is not much time, but I will try to make a couple of points.

First, the reason why we oppose this FIPA and why we want to engage in much more public discussion is that we want to see increased trade with countries like China, with emerging economies, but we want to ensure we have good agreements, agreements that promote Canada's interests and protect our ability to maintain Canadian control over our natural resources and over key sectors. That is something the government seems to forget.

We want to ensure that foreign investors have clear and predictable rules that protect the interests of Canadians.

By negotiating bad deals and then delaying the ratification, as the Conservatives have done in this case, they are sending out mixed messages and foreign investors are confused about exactly the direction in which the government is going.

Finally, we want to engage with China in the exchange of ideas and culture so as to level the financial playing field. We need to understand better how our people and our businesses can do business in China and how we can be more successful.

We need to look at a country like Australia that has developed cultural links which provide education and training for businesses in its country in order to do very successful investing and business in China. That is the direction we need to head in our country.

[Business of Supply, April 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the intervention by my colleague from Halifax West. He has been around this place a few years and makes an important contribution on behalf of Nova Scotians.

I want to assure the member and his colleagues that the motion in no way precludes any public meetings or any opportunities through committee to engage in discussions with Canadians. In fact, we have been arguing for that from the beginning. We moved a motion at committee to make sure this agreement comes to committee for study but that has not happened. Play their games as they will, the point is that the motion is meant to make a clear indication to the government that we will not agree to FIPA the way it is and that we need to examine it much more closely.

Perhaps that member with his experience and knowledge could explain to us why it is that the government has been so hesitant to have any public discussions about the bill. The government has had since November to enact this agreement, but it has failed to do so. Canadians would be curious to know whether or not the government is hesitating because it is concerned there is fairly significant weakness.

[Business of Supply, April 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intervention from my colleague on this important topic.

It is interesting, and I would like her comment on this, listening to government members talk about what a great opportunity this is to debate the bill. Yet it was the official opposition that gave them an opportunity to debate the bill, an agreement that took 18 years to negotiate.

They say that not passing the agreement will have dire consequences. Yet they will not let it see the light of day. They will not bring Canadians into the secret and let us find out what it is they want us to sign. They say to trust them on a deal that would bind our hands for 33 years.

I want to ask my colleague if she would comment on that, and also on the fact that the executive council has had the opportunity to give the bill royal assent since November. Yet it has failed to do that, with no explanation.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, April 18th, 2013]

With regard to the changes made to the Fisheries Act in Bill C-38 and Bill C-45: (a) which First Nations, Aboriginal groups or organizations have attended or participated in engagement sessions to discuss the proposed amendments to the Act; (b) how much funding has the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) contributed to the capacity of First Nations to engage on the proposed amendments or on policy and regulation changes in the 2012-2013 fiscal year; (c) which First Nations or Aboriginal organizations have received funding for capacity to engage on proposed amendments or on policies or regulations in the 2012-2013 fiscal year; (d) which First Nations, Aboriginal groups or organizations has DFO worked with to hold or facilitate engagement sessions; (e) what are the dates and locations of meetings funded by DFO and hosted or facilitated by First Nations, Aboriginal groups or organizations to discuss changes to the Fisheries Act or new policies and regulations in the 2012-2013 fiscal year; and (f) how will DFO work with First Nations, Aboriginal groups or organizations to engage on proposed amendments, policies or regulations in the 2013-2014 fiscal year?

[Questions on the Order Paper, April 18th, 2013]

With regard to the changes made to the Fisheries Act in Bill C-38 and Bill C-45: (a) with which industry groups did the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) meet to consult on amendments to the Act; (b) what are the dates, locations, agendas of consultation sessions held with industry groups to discuss the amendments to the Act; (c) how much funding has DFO contributed to industry and civil society groups to engage on the amendments to the Act; and (d) how much funding has DFO allocated for engagement sessions in the 2012-2013 fiscal year?

[Rehtaeh Parsons, April 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the parties, and I would like to thank them for agreeing to rise to observe a moment of silence in honour of a constituent of mine, Rehtaeh Parsons, who recently passed away. I would add anyone else who has succumbed to victimization.

I thank all members of this House for accepting this opportunity to show that respect.

[Fisheries and Oceans, April 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' disregard for fisheries science, in fact many people would call it their contempt for fisheries science, has reached new heights. They have gutted fish habitat protection. They have slashed funding to departments. Now they are cutting access to scientific resources by closing seven world-class fisheries libraries across the country. Experts are calling the move a disaster and a national tragedy.

Will the minister stop this reckless plan to continue dismantling fisheries science in the country?

[Rehtaeh Parsons, April 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise on behalf of our caucus and our party to offer our deepest condolences to the family and friends of Rehtaeh Parsons. It is a heartbreaking situation. The shock and grief that is still so palpable in our community is being felt across Canada and, indeed, around the world.

What happened to Rehtaeh should never happen to anyone. Everyone has a role to play in preventing such a tragic series of events. We must harness this outpouring of anger and sadness into meaningful action. Schools, law enforcement agencies, justice officials and, indeed, politicians at all levels of government must do better.

In honour of Rehtaeh Parsons, and for everyone who has succumbed to the burden of victimization, I ask all members of this House to think about how they can help to prevent violence against women and children.

[Hydroelectric Project, March 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, as the member before me, I too am pleased to speak on the motion. I thank the member for Nipissing—Timiskaming for bringing this motion forward. The federal guarantee is important for the Atlantic region and, frankly, for Canada.

I will make a couple of points and then focus on the benefits for Nova Scotia, the province I am from.

First, we support the federal government loan guarantee for the Lower Churchill project and we have since the 2006 election. Our leader at the time, in 2011, Jack Layton, wrote to the governments of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia indicating he would do what he could to work with the federal government, whomever that would be at the end of the 2011 election, in order to make sure this loan guarantee went forward.

Second, the project offers extensive environmental benefits. We believe that the federal government must play a role in facilitating the transition in a way that is fair to all provinces, and I will talk a bit more about that as it relates to Nova Scotia.

The third and final message is that New Democrats believe the federal government should be taking a leadership role in supporting renewable energy and interprovincial co-operation across the board. We would like to see the federal government be more assertive and take seriously its constitutional role in developing equity and support across this country. We believe it could be doing much more, and this is an example of a type of project. Some would suggest this is a nation-building project that would benefit the Atlantic region and this is the kind of thing that should be going forward across the country.

Nova Scotians have lived for decades now with a dependence on either coal or bunker C, and they have seen world market prices continue to go through the roof. At the same time, there is environmental damage that is caused as a result of burning coal, which is surely known by all members here. The economic damage, let alone the environmental and health damage of burning coal, is something we know we have to do something about. The Province of Nova Scotia, along with the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, has reached an agreement which goes a considerable distance to accomplishing this.

Back in April 2010, the Government of Nova Scotia released the renewable electricity plan. In addition to the commitment of having renewables provide 25% of all electricity by 2015, the plan specified a new goal of 40% renewable electricity by 2020.

At that time, the government of the day saw three ways to do that: one was with more intermittent sources, such as wind, complemented by natural gas; two was hydroelectric energy from Lower Churchill; and three was more clean energy imported by neighbouring provinces.

A number of months later, the Province of Nova Scotia signed an agreement, along with Emera Energy and Alcor Energy, and with the involvement of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. In return for bearing 20% of the cost of building the hydro facility and associated transmission facilities between Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia ratepayers would receive 20% of the energy from Muskrat Falls for 35 years. This would be supplemented by what they referred to as a “supplemental block”, which would provide another proportion of energy for the first five years of the agreement.

In addition to the base and supplemental blocks, Nova Scotia Power would be able to purchase additional hydroelectric energy from Alcor at market rates.

It is important to recognize not only is this meant to replace or greatly lessen the reliance on hydrocarbon-producing coal-burning plants, but it would also establish a dependable price that Nova Scotians have not seen for a period of 35 years. I just heard Liberal Party representatives say that ratepayers are going to be paying the cost, but ratepayers are paying the cost right now of a dependency on coal and bunker C. They are paying it right up the nose and they are paying it every day on their bills.

This was a courageous decision by the government of Nova Scotia, along with the government of Newfoundland and Labrador, to begin to actually do something about establishing some stability in rates for ratepayers, while at the same time to deal, and again in a courageous fashion, with environmental and health concerns by the burning and production carbon.

There continues to be naysayers in the province of Nova Scotia and across the country. This deal has been supported by the federal government. It was the right decision to make for not only taxpayers in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador but for all Canadians.

Provinces like Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia need to make strides to end their dependence on coal-burning power plants. The provinces do not seem to recognize the fact that the world has a serious climate change problem and Canada has to do its part. One way for Canada to do its part is to deal with how it gets its electricity. For Canada's economy, for the economy of the Atlantic region, it just simply makes sense.

Right now Nova Scotia is at the end of the power grid, or at the end of the line. We can only receive power from one end, and there have been problems in negotiating prices both on the world market and with our neighbours because of that dependence. Now we are going to be in the middle of the loop, between Newfoundland and Labrador, between Muskrat Falls and Quebec. We are going to ensure that we negotiate the best deal for Nova Scotia ratepayers. We are going to continue to deal with our neighbours in Atlantic Canada. We are going to continue to deal with Quebec. Nova Scotia buys power from Hydro-Québec and it will continue to do that. It is another source within a range of sources.

However, this guarantee allows us to ultimately stand up for ourselves, to develop a source of power generation in Atlantic Canada that benefits Atlantic Canadians. It allows us to stand on our own two feet, to continue to develop our economies and contribute to the country as Canadians would expect us to do.

I want to again thank the member opposite for bringing this important motion forward.