Robert Chisholm

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, October 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, in 2011, XL received $1.6 million in growing forward grants to install “state-of-the-art technology that will...double its per-day capacity for ground beef”.

The downside of this high-speed processing is that there is no room for error. In other words, the Conservatives helped build this ultra-modern facility.

My question to the minister is: Will he admit that he failed to provide the needed food safety resources to operate such an intense high-volume facility?

[Increasing Offenders’ Accountability for Victims Act, October 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. He has hit the nail on the head. We know, and Canadians understand, that we are not dealing in a forthright manner with the root causes of crime. We are not dealing with people who are institutionalized. We are not dealing with one of the main contributors to crime, that being mental health issues. There is a sad lack of support by the federal government in dealing with these issues. As a result, we have a level of recidivism that is simply unnecessary. It fails to recognize that we need to identify and treat the problems, and make sure that Canadians are able to return to their communities and make constructive and positive contributions.

[Increasing Offenders’ Accountability for Victims Act, October 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, as the member from Winnipeg North has indicated, there is much more rhetoric from the government about what some of this legislation would do than there is reality. There is some question as to what the government in fact is doing to make our communities more safe.

People in the communities of Dartmouth—Cole Harbour recognize the need to deal with the underlying causes of crime at the community level. We need to deal with issues such as poverty, security, and providing activities for youth. We need to make sure the community is involved in dealing with these issues. While punishment and accountability for actions are important pieces of the puzzle, they are not everything. The government needs to have more confidence in Canadians, communities and the police on the street in dealing with these issues, rather than thinking that carrying a big stick will solve all the problems.

[Increasing Offenders’ Accountability for Victims Act, October 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-37.

I will remind members of what our critic, the member for Gatineau, has stated. We support the bill at second reading. We are anxious to see it move forward to committee where we will give the matter more examination.

There is no question that members of the official opposition support victims of crime and their families. We recognize the value of provincial and federal services that have been provided to victims of crime and their families. However, there is a concern whether these services are adequate and sufficiently funded. I certainly have not heard an adequate explanation from the government whether this additional surcharge would ensure that those services are properly funded. If we are going to provide services to victims and their families to try to address some of the impact of the crimes to which they have been affected, then the support needs to be there and it needs to be properly funded.

We have raised our concern with the idea that the discretion of the courts has been removed in terms of deciding whether the surcharge creates an undue burden and hardship on the offender. This goes to the point that the Conservative government seems to continually move in on the jurisdiction of the judiciary to remove the learned discretion the courts have earned over many decades. This is a concern. In other words, the government is moving into an area in which, frankly, it has no business being. The Conservatives seem to be cherry-picking to restrain the judiciary in areas they think are politically advantageous to them.

There is certainly no evidence as to whether this achieves any positive outcome in terms of addressing crime and making our communities and Canadians any safer. They appear to continually penalize the people who are trying to ensure there is a balance of fairness in restitution and rehabilitation within the system, which has been shown to be much more responsive to the demands that we ensure that our communities are safer for Canadians.

I have some experience with the Nova Scotia victim fine surcharge and its implementation. It is an important measure, but I have not heard the government talk about the consultations it has had with provincial jurisdictions. Is there a standard application for the victim fine surcharge across the country?

I have not heard if the government has worked in any way to make sure that there is some standardization across the country or that the application of this victim fine surcharge is being applied in a uniform fashion across the country and that it complements what already exists in provincial jurisdictions. That is an important question. Certainly it is one members on this side will be pursuing at committee and in further debate in this chamber.

We recognize that more has to be done. We are concerned that members opposite are looking for an easy fix, for measures that would appear to be having some impact. They could be doing more in a substantive way to get at the issues of crime and punishment, to ensure that victims are properly compensated, that services are in place to deal with the impacts of the crimes on victims and their families in the most effective way possible. As we have said, the intent of the bill, which is to ensure that services for victims of crime are properly funded, is laudable and is something we support. Whether this increase would properly fund those programs, we have not heard as yet. These questions will be forthcoming.

I have not heard anything from government members during the second reading debate to answer some of our questions. I am not the first member to raise these questions, but we have not heard anything in response. They are important questions. We are not here simply to pass laws that fulfill a political objective. We are here to ensure the laws of this land do what they are supposed to do, that they are properly thought out and have the intended impact.

It is unfortunate that we are dealing with a piece of legislation in this House when there does not seem to have been an attempt to coordinate it with what exists at the provincial level. There is Bill C-350 and there are some conflicts between it and Bill C-37. Those things have to be clarified. We have to ensure that the work we are doing here is adding in a positive and constructive way to the laws of this land and not creating more conflict. We have already seen that legislation passed by the government, as it deals with crime and justice, has been challenged in various jurisdictions. Various provisions have been struck down by the courts. I suggest that these things happen because the legislation is not well thought out and members of this House who have much experience and knowledge to bring to bear are not given the opportunity to fully engage in debate and examination of legislation.

In conclusion, we on this side will be supporting this bill in principle to send it to committee. However, we have a number of outstanding questions that we will be pursuing. I hope members opposite will recognize the need to co-operate to ensure that this legislation, if it passes this House at the end of the process, is the best piece of legislation it can possibly be.

[Business of Supply, October 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the member is right that the Conservatives are making the claim that everyone will be better off. However, what we have heard in the House, what the member has heard and what I have heard in my office in Dartmouth—Cole Harbour is that the most vulnerable people, those who are unemployed through no fault of their own who are earning the lowest amount of money, are the ones who are having their meagre earnings clawed back the most.

The lengths to which the government will go to further shift the burden onto the most vulnerable people in our communities is unbelievable. It is wrong. It is up to us to stand up and push the government back and ensure that Canadians know the government is not representing them. It is representing someone else, and we are going to be there for them.

[Business of Supply, October 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the changes the government would make to the employment insurance system, which is funded by employees and employers and not by the government, would create real problems for people who are unemployed and for employers who depend on a seasonal labour force being available. Increasingly, there is a casualization of work, whether it be at hospitals or with major employers, where employers are unloading full-time employees and increasingly depending on part-time employees.

If the government keeps moving in the direction it is going, there are going to be fewer people available to fill those part-time and casual jobs, and maybe those employers are going to have to move out to Alberta as well.

[Business of Supply, October 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and add a few of my thoughts to this debate and thank the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles for introducing this motion.

This is an extremely important discussion that we are having today. As a result of this discussion, maybe we can begin to get to the bottom of why the government on the one hand is making claims that it is doing such great things for unemployed Canadians, but on the other hand the fact that a great number of Canadians, hundreds of thousands of them, will be worse off as a result of this decision.

I will be sharing my time with the member for Churchill.

When the government first introduced these changes and said it would move forward with this working while on claim pilot project, it told us that the intent of the program was to decrease the amount of clawback of employment insurance, so that people who take a part-time job and are still able to claim EI are encouraged to continue to work.

It is a laudable intent and one that we support. As information about the pilot project dribbled out and we became increasingly aware of what was happening, we began to ask questions, as did many Canadians who called my office and, I am sure, the offices of the members opposite to get the details of exactly how the program would affect them.

We started to ask questions here in this chamber of the minister and the parliamentary secretary. The minister said, first of all, that the changes would affect everyone and benefit all Canadians on EI. We began to raise some discrepancies with what she was saying, and then she said it was going to help the majority of EI recipients. We started to bring more information forward, and then the minister started to change her tune again. She said that the vast majority of EI recipients would be better off as a result of this project. That is basically where the government stands.

Members may recall that I brought a case forward last week of a woman in my riding who was trying to make ends meet by picking up a few hours of work. Before this program, while on an EI claim, she was able to keep almost $110 per week, but now that is being clawed back to $75.

It was in such contrast to what the minister and the parliamentary secretary have been telling us here in this chamber that my staff called Service Canada to give the details of this case directly to it and to find out what the circumstances were. It was not that we did not believe our constituent who was raising the issues, but we just wanted to double check the information, because it flew in the face of the answers that we were getting here in the chamber. Service Canada employees told us that in fact what we had told them was correct, that the woman would be receiving $35 a week less as a result of her part-time efforts.

The government states that the intent of the changes is to encourage people on EI to take part-time work, to find any employment opportunity because, as the minister said, they will feel better if they are able to work even a few hours and it might provide an opportunity for them to make connections and find a full-time job. While that is not an ideal situation, it is not completely untrue.

New Democrats are not opposed to this type of incentive, as long as it does not hurt people who through no fault of their own are unemployed and receiving EI. However, that is not the case. We have brought all of these cases to the attention of the minister. If the government's intent was to make things better for unemployed people, why does it not recognize that it has screwed up, made a mistake and needs to go back to the drawing board to fix the problem?

The government brought forward something that was an improvement over the old system, but rather than being to the benefit of 100% of EI claimants, it may be to the benefit of 60% at most. Most of the unemployed, those with the lowest incomes and earning the least money, are the ones being most disadvantaged. It is wrong-headed for the government to be moving in this direction and I urge it to make a change.

The government fails to recognize that it is not just attacking the people on employment insurance but also the seasonal industries. Here I will talk about the region I come from, the Atlantic region. It is not unique, as there are seasonal industries across this country. However, in Atlantic Canada, whether it be in the fishing industry, tourism and hospitality or forestry, there are increasingly industries that fail to operate 12 months a year, particularly because of the changes in the fishing industry. Because of the move from multi-species licences to single licences, people are only able to work four, five, or maybe six months of the year. For them to stay in their communities and be able to continue to work on traps and be there the next year for the lobster season, it is important that there be some way for them to pick up part-time work.

It is also important for seasonal employers, whether it be agriculture, fishing or whatever, to draw on residents in their communities who are available to do the work. However, under this system and the other changes the government is planning to make to employment insurance, it wants to drive all of the people who support seasonal industries away from Atlantic Canada to Fort McMurray or other places where, supposedly, they may find year-round work. That is great for the industries in those areas where they are able to provide full-time work, but what about the seasonal industries that make the world turn in places like Atlantic Canada? They are not going to have the workforce to draw on. I suggest that this further penalizes Atlantic Canada and its seasonal industries and those across the country. That is wrong. This is not a one-industry country but a country with a diverse economy, and the government has to begin to recognize that.

I have some hope having witnessed the incredible opposition and the call by tens of thousands of inshore fishermen, their families and communities in the last couple of weeks to get the government to support the owner-operator fleet separation policy. The minister and the government said that they would not. They were silent. They were hesitant to support fishermen.

As a result of increasing pressure, they have now stood up and are supporting those fishermen. I believe that if members in the House and people from across this country recognize this problem and communicate it to the Conservatives, they will do the right thing and fix the mess they have made.

[Employment Insurance, September 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the minister responsible for EI is telling us that her new system lets people on a claim keep more money if they find some part-time work. She has been using an example of someone making $450 a week working part-time.

I would like to tell the House about a woman who called my office. She is getting paid $150 a week for part-time work. Before the Conservative changes, she kept almost $110 and now she only gets to keep $75.

Canadians who have been hard hit by the economy are losing more under the Conservative government. Could the minister tell that woman how she is better?

[Business of Supply, September 20th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the member makes an important point.

Those of us who have spent any time in this business recognize what Canadians say repeatedly. They do not want to hear that this is a federal responsibility, or that this is a provincial responsibility or that this is a municipal responsibility. They say that there is one taxpayer and they want all politicians and governments at all levels to work together to help come up with solutions to the problems that are facing them. Working together is what Canadians, Nova Scotians and people in my riding expect to solve the problems.

What do they see instead? They see the Conservative government working unilaterally and making decisions on justice, EI, OAS and the fisheries. However, the download cost is to the provinces, their communities and ultimately to them.

Canadians expect better from us. They expect us to work together, premiers with the Prime Minister and with municipal leaders. They expect us all to sit down to find solutions to the grave problems that face them.

[Business of Supply, September 20th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, we have seen unprecedented cuts to corporate income tax for banks and profitable corporations with the intent, decided by the government, that the money would then be invested in jobs, capital purchases and investment in communities.

What have we seen? We have seen bank accounts on behalf of corporations continue to grow. We have seen compensation for senior executives in some of the wealthiest corporations in our country grow beyond all proportion. It has done nothing for the benefit of Canadians, and it is their money. It is foregone tax revenue that corporations are not putting to use.

It is time we started to ask corporations for something for the money taxpayers are giving them.