Robert Chisholm

[Business of Supply, March 24th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. The question was to the point that government must do what it can do, and I would suggest that is absolutely the case. The member is right. We are not just talking about the ocean. We are talking about lakes and rivers, waterways, marshes. We are talking about a marine habitat. We are talking about our environment.

This is an opportunity for the government responsible for the Environmental Protection Act of 1999 to do something, to designate this as a toxic substance, to list it and provide the opportunity for the private sector then to look to that as its guide and begin to take action to correct this problem. It is time to act. It is time for the federal government to act.

[Business of Supply, March 24th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today to speak about this important issue. I want to thank my colleague, the member for Victoria, for sharing his time with me. I also want to say how proud I am of my colleague, the member for Halifax, who sponsored this motion, which reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of the House, microbeads in consumer products entering the environment could have serious harmful effects, and therefore the government should take immediate measures to add microbeads to the list of toxic substances managed by the government under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.

That is a fairly clear-cut request and is something the government could move on. The evidence is clear on the damage of these products. The industry itself is recognizing the fact that these are harmful additions to our oceans, lakes, and the environment and is doing something about. Far be it for the government, I would suggest, not to recognize that it is time for it to take, in this case, frankly, not major action but a significant action in terms of doing something about the environment.

I must say, though, that I am not overly optimistic. We have heard the government say that representatives are going to attend an international conference to talk about it and see what happens. For the past nearly four years, I have seen the government gut the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and the habitat protection provisions of the Fisheries Act. I have seen it cut hundreds of millions of dollars from agencies like the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the science section of the Department of the Environment, money that funds the science that would determine the links and the impact on the environment and marine habitat and the consequences of that for all of us.

I have seen this, and it continues to cause me concern. The latest are the regulatory changes the government made to the Fisheries Act to allow salmon farmers to use toxic substances in the conduct of their sea farming. We know that there is already a company on the east coast that has faced serious charges. It was forced to pay significant fines for having done just that. Now the government has weakened its ability to protect that marine habitat and the environment so that the operators of open net-pen salmon farms can continue to conduct their business with almost no regard for the traditional fishery and fish habitat.

I must say that while I am standing to speak in support of this motion and am encouraging the government to follow through and do something about this, in light of the overwhelming evidence, I am nonetheless somewhat pessimistic about it.

When it comes to our lakes, rivers, and oceans, there are a lot of things that need to be done to change or reduce effects on those environments, whether it be lowering water levels, rising temperatures, or acidification. We may be, in fact, only able to mitigate the effects. In the case of microbeads and the impact they have on the environment, we can simply stop their production. We can stop them at their source and not have to deal with the introduction of these substances into our environment.

Let us be clear. We know that plastic is a serious concern and a contaminant in the world's oceans. Especially problematic are small manufactured pieces of plastic called microbeads, which are used in consumer products such as facial cleansers, shower gels and toothpastes. These microbeads persist in the environment and cause harm to fish and other wildlife.

There have been outrageous concentrations of microbeads found in the waters of the Great Lakes, particularly downstream from major cities in the sediment of the St. Lawrence River. As has been said by others, microplastics and microbeads can be consumed by a variety of marine life, including fish harvested for human consumption. They can cause asphyxiation or a blockage in organs in marine animals. Chemical pollutants tend to accumulate and persist on microplastics, which could be transferred to animals ingesting the plastic. What we need to do is simply stop them at the source.

I had the opportunity to attend a conference in Victoria a few weeks ago on ocean acidification. Our oceans are becoming more acidic as a result of the increased CO₂ in the air. The oceans are just simply not able to handle it. We need to act. We need to recognize that climate change and CO₂ emissions are a problem and do something to control that. However, we also need to recognize that is having a real impact on our oceans and our marine environment. Again, I refer to the fact that there was skepticism being expressed at this conference among scientists and researchers about the failure of the federal government to recognize that these are problems and that it needs to step up the funding for science and research and begin to take steps in order to mitigate the impacts.

As I indicated earlier, the New Democrats want to take immediate action to designate microbead plastics as toxic under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which would then allow the federal government to regulate, phase out or eliminate the use of microbeads in products used or produced in Canada. We want a clean and healthy environment. It is something that we have stood and talked about in this House for many years, but certainly for the last four years as we have witnessed the onslaught, the attack, on our environment and our marine environment by the current Conservative government.

We want to ensure the ongoing recreational fishery and the safety of fish and other aquatic species. I fail to understand the contradictions that exist within the government caucus opposite. On the one hand it works to promote the recreational fishery and tries to ensure that the private sector non-profit groups that are out there working on cleaning up the habitat to promote the recreational fishery are supported yet dealing with an environmental issue like this, it is hesitant. It fails to follow through. It is those kinds of contradictions that perplex many of us here, and certainly many Canadians in Dartmouth—Cole Harbour and beyond.

It is time we acted. It is time the government moved forward. We know what the problems and the impacts are. We know what the solution is. We need to join with the 21 companies around the world producing or carrying cosmetic and personal care products that have made some level of commitment to phase out microbeads in those products or stop carrying products containing them.

It seems that the government will only take leadership from the private sector. Here is an example. It is time the government got on board and started doing something about a serious problem affecting our environment.

[Questions on the Order Paper, March 12th, 2015]

With regard to the home-equity assistance program administered by the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS): (a) what were the costs to TBS for the federal court case initiated by Major Marcus Brauer, broken down by (i) legal costs, (ii) staff costs; (b) what was the cost of the third party review of the Bon Accord real estate market order by Judge Richard Mosley; and (c) what is the estimated cost to the TBS for the class action suit for home equity assistance?

[Petitions, February 26th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I present a petition on behalf of more than 200 residents of Dartmouth and the surrounding area. It was presented to me by a group of women in Dartmouth who are part of the Catholic Women's League, a phenomenal group of people who are doing amazing work. Last year, it had to do with the issue around the international mining practices of Canadian companies.

This petition has to do with supporting small family farmers, especially women, and recognizing their vital role in the struggle against hunger and poverty.

The petitioners ask that we ensure that Canadian policies and programs are developed in consultation with small family farmers and that they protect the rights of the small family farmers in the global south to preserve, use, and freely exchange seeds. It has to do largely with the whole question of the diversity of farmers' seeds that are being restricted, increasingly, around the world.

[Fisheries and Oceans, February 25th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, a letter from 120 businesses, scientists, lawyers, and citizens is begging the Prime Minister to rethink dangerous changes to the aquaculture regulations. The minister wants to sidestep the Fisheries Act, which now prohibits releasing toxic substances into fish-bearing waters.

After gutting the Fisheries Act, the Conservatives are putting up more challenges to habitat protection.

Will the government listen to these concerns and withdraw these damaging changes?

[Regional Economic Development, February 5th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the economy of smaller towns and regions is also suffering under the Conservatives. Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation was replaced by ACOA. However, whatever it is called, the bottom line is clear—the Conservatives have failed to deliver the help that this region needs to build its economy.

ECBC was shut down in the omnibus budget bill last year, but according to the mayor of Port Hawkesbury, “ACOA has failed us miserably...”. Why has the minister not been talking to the mayors about the problems with ACOA?

[Victims Bill of Rights Act, February 4th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right, and I said this in my remarks earlier.

It does not matter if we support this legislation, and we have indicated that, but it does not mean that we have to ram it through. When legislation comes to this place, it is our opportunity to bring the perspectives of our constituents forward, to address it, comment on it, to share our stories and those experiences, and to raise what we think are the strengths and weaknesses of particular legislation. Just because we support a bill does not mean that it should be rammed through the House. Likewise, if we have concerns about particular legislation, it should not be rammed through the House.

How many times has there been time allocation? It is in the eighties, and that is very bad. It is bad government.

[Victims Bill of Rights Act, February 4th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good point, but we will fix that in the election in 2015. The New Democratic Party will form government in our country, and we will not only correct the most egregious parts of the agenda of the members opposite, but will bring in our vision, the vision that has been articulated by the leader of my party, the MP for Outremont, who is so clearly leading the strongest opposition that has ever been seen in our country and in Parliament.

[Victims Bill of Rights Act, February 4th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right. It is all well and good to lay out the principle and to give direction that one shall do this or do that. I am providing the context in this case of a lower level government, but without the commensurate resources. What is in fact being accomplished, other than raising the expectations perhaps of people who, in this case, deserve to be treated better? That is one of my concerns.

Nonetheless, it will not prevent me from supporting the legislation. It is a weakness, though, that will have to be addressed later on down the road.

[Victims Bill of Rights Act, February 4th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to rise and speak to this bill. As I indicated, I think this is an important bill and an important step forward.

It is interesting that one of the thoughts provided for me in notes provided by members of our caucus is that Bill C-32 would codify long-used practices related to such things as keeping victims informed of the status of prosecution, ensuring that protection and security are available for the victims, and allowing victims to participate in sentencing and parole hearings. It would turn them into rights. What was particularly important for me was the reference that it would involve codifying long-used practices, and I will tell members why.

In 1989, my wife was hired by the Government of Nova Scotia to help set up a victim services division within the Department of Justice. It was to be built up from scratch, along with the systems to facilitate programs that would exist from one end of the province to the other, as a recognition that victims had an important role to play within the system and that they needed to be provided with the support and, in some cases, the resources and education to make sure that their rights were recognized and upheld.

Those were the early days of the rights of victims being increasingly recognized within the judicial system and process in Canada. In those days, certainly in Nova Scotia, I recall that it was often a question of finding room for victims separate from the accused within the court. It was a question of finding specific spots that victims could call their own, places they could go to be separate from the accused and receive support from justice officials at that time. That was often how basic it was in those beginning stages of trying to ensure that those services were available. We have come some distance, and that is only a good thing.

The bill would further extend a number of rights to victims and their family members. They or a spouse, dependant, or guardian mandated to act on their behalf would be able to demand to be informed about the resources available to them in the criminal justice system. They could also request information on the status of an investigation and prosecution, make a victim impact statement, apply for a publication ban in cases involving young victims, obtain information about the convicted parties, and gain restitution from the convicted.

As I said, this is an important initial step by the federal government to establish this framework, this charter, to clearly indicate the rights of victims and the responsibility of the justice system to recognize those rights.

Why is this bill important? It recognizes the impact that crimes can have on individuals, their families, and their communities, and it would give them better access to information, tools, and services.

The parliamentary secretary spoke to that particular point when he was up earlier. He talked about how important and urgent he thinks it is, and he named some victims. We all, in our constituencies, have dealt with families and victims of crime. We have all seen the damage that can be done through the criminal justice system.

That is one reason why I was so disappointed the government brought forward time allocation on this bill. It has only been in the House for three hours up to this point, and it is being limited. I think we may end up dealing with this for a total of eight hours. There are a lot of members on all sides of the House who want to speak to how important the bill is to victims in their constituencies, to families and others who have been involved in these issues and are pleased to see Parliament moving forward on this. I am pleased to see this moving forward in the House, but disappointed that it has taken eight years for it to get to this stage.

The government clearly has been dragging its feet. Some would say, especially those on the other side, that it has taken so long because the government has been consulting. Surely, when we finally have legislation in this place, all members of the House who have been duly elected by their constituents, whether in they are in a recognized party or not, should have an opportunity to participate and provide the feedback they have received from their communities and the people in their constituencies.

We want victims to have access to the services and supports they need. We recognize that for many victims getting assurance that they can participate in sentencing and parole hearings and being informed of the status of a prosecution are very important steps. However, we want the government to provide real support and processes that will work.

That brings me to another disappointment I have with the bill. I have not heard the government enunciate that the bill it is bringing in feels in many ways a bit like a policy document. It is setting a framework with respect to how things should happen in the criminal justice system, the rights and the roles of victims and their families, when a lot of that would happen at the provincial government level, as it does now. The government is not providing the resources along with those added roles and responsibilities. We have seen this in some of the other legislation that has come forward, where the government has said that this will be, that this will happen, and who shall do the following, yet the provincial governments have ended up picking up much of the responsibility.

We just heard that the government cut its disaster relief to the provinces. There used to be a $1 million eligibility threshold for disaster relief. It is now $3 million. That may not seem like a big deal, but over the past 15 years, my home province of Nova Scotia has made 15 applications under the disaster relief plan that previously existed with the $1 million threshold. The new $3 million threshold would have meant that 14 of those applications would not have been eligible and that upwards of $20 million would need to borne by the province and the communities, many of which are small communities.

I am just illustrating my point about how the government tends to download roles and responsibilities to the provincial government without taking into account the attendant costs.

There will be, and there should be, an expectation that victims will receive the support that is clearly spelled out in the bill. They will demand them and the provinces will have to step up. That is not a bad thing, but in many cases there will be some financial responsibilities.

I am glad this bill has come forward. I support it. It is a good move. I wish the government would have allowed more fulsome debate on it so we could all tell stories from our individual constituencies, but it is a step in the right direction. We will have to ensure that in future Parliaments we are able to correct the existing weaknesses.