Robert Chisholm

[Military Contribution Against ISIL, October 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have a comment on that question, except to say that this is a complicated issue and the decision will affect many members in the constituency I represent.

I wish all members of this House would take it a lot more seriously because of the impact it will have, not only in the immediate term but in the long term, on them, their families, and all of the people who will be subjected to this bombing campaign.

[Military Contribution Against ISIL, October 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, if I have any time left, I would like to share it with the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

I am grateful for the opportunity to stand in the House tonight as a member of the official opposition and a representative of the good people of Dartmouth—Cole Harbour. This is a serious issue, whether or not to send Canada's military women and men into harm's way, and it is a difficult issue. It is also a complicated issue and I hope I can add something to this discussion, a discussion being held not just in the House but in the pages of our newspapers and around kitchen tables all across the country.

Canadians are very concerned about the decision the government is making, because they know this is not just a question of whether we should send six jets to fight for six months. They understand that this is a decision about whether we commit our military to a prolonged, expensive and deadly war.

This may be a global issue, but as a member of Parliament, my first responsibility is to my constituents. Dartmouth—Cole Harbour is home to a large number of women and men in the armed forces, as well as countless veterans and reservists. For them, their families and friends, this is not a theoretical debate. These are decisions that change their lives and the lives of their families forever.

They know this because many of them are still struggling with the aftermath of other decisions the government has made on their behalf. Therefore, it is difficult for them, on the one hand, because they are the embodiment of loyalty, honour and commitment. If we ask them to go, they will go without a second thought because that is what they do. That is what they are trained to do, and they are trained very well. They are the best in the world. On the other hand, these same Canadians are on the front lines of another battle, a battle with their government for the help they need after they come home.

In my community, there are members like Major Marcus Brauer, who teeters on bankruptcy because the government has not honoured its commitments to him and his family. There are veterans with PTSD, like Medric Cousineau, who walked all the way to Ottawa to raise money for service dogs. There are great Canadians like Dennis Manuge, who led a year-long battle for pension benefits clawed back from disabled veterans.

When these are the experiences of so many people in my riding, people who have dedicated their lives to their country, it is a stark reminder that although the Prime Minister can talk in terms of months, for many the decision to enter this war will last a lifetime.

I am deeply troubled with how the government is framing this issue. It suggests either people are for air strikes because they care and want to do something or else people do not support air strikes because they do not care and would rather do nothing. It is outrageous.

If that were the case, the government would be accusing Germany of doing nothing. Does it call Norway a coward or say that Italy and Italians simply do not care? They are all allies that are deeply involved in providing aid and have all rejected air strikes. Of course we do not say those things because it is insulting. It is clearly untrue and such gross oversimplification diminishes us all.

Regardless of members' positions on the motion before us, I believe that we are duty bound to acknowledge how complicated, dangerous and fraught with risks this situation truly is. I would suggest that no clearer example can be found in terms of how complex it is than to consider the role of Syria.

Witness the moral knots the Prime Minister is tying himself into in trying to explain how he would deploy our military assets against Assad's enemies, but only at the request of that brutal dictator. We can also look to the campaign in Libya, where many analysts agree that our overreach in bombing that region has added more fuel to the fire.

I do not believe Canada should participate in these air strikes, but that does not mean I do not understand or respect the people who would make a different decision.

They are compelled to support entering this war out of compassion for the victims of ISIL, or out of rage at its atrocities, or out of fear in response to the threats made against our country. Intelligent, compassionate people disagree about what we should do.

I can appreciate the impulse to join air strikes aimed at people who have done terrible things, not just with impunity but seemingly with delight. It offends every fibre of our being. It provokes anger and outrage and disgust. I understand that. I feel it too, but these strong emotions are not the frame of mind with which we should make such decisions. We all agree that something must be done, but what?

The Minister of Foreign Affairs said himself yesterday, and I quote, “The scale of the humanitarian crisis is truly hard to comprehend”. He also said, “When we look at a humanitarian crisis of this size, there is always more that can be done”.

I completely agree, because the millions of internally displaced men, women, and children matter. The victims of the horrible atrocities ISIL is committing matter, and how we respond matters.

Some are caught up in the notion that the only way to deliver peace is with bombs, when really it is not that simple. ISIL is an enemy that does not think like we do. It invites the attacks. It craves the violence. In fact, it is counting on it.

As I said earlier, we cannot underestimate how complicated this situation is, and no one can say what the future will bring, but it is becoming increasingly clear that in this case, more violence will not suppress the violence. Attacks will not dissuade attacks. Killing will almost certainly lead to more killing. This is complicated.

As I have said, we do know some things. We know that deploying six CF-18s would lead to a greater level of engagement, and engagement is sometimes known as mission creep. We have good reason to believe that the value of such air strikes is dubious. We certainly know from experience that the cost of waging war is enormous, not just to our treasury but to the physical and mental health of the Canadians we deploy, not to mention their families.

There are five million and counting internally displaced people who need immediate assistance. That is an area where Canada can and should do more. It is a task where heavy lifting is truly required.

Yesterday the Minister of Foreign Affairs asked if we should “stand with our close allies...or stand aside as they put themselves on the line”. That is a false dichotomy, and the minister should be ashamed for diminishing the risk that will be taken by each and every person who is sent there to help in whatever capacity.

Make no mistake, humanitarian efforts in that region are not for the faint of heart. It is a job that will put Canadians in harm's way. It is also a job that better reflects who we are as a nation. We all agree that this is a problem that is not going away any time soon, certainly not in six months. It will take a long time, but that is what pulling our own weight is really about. It is about committing time, money, and the resources that are needed for the long run.

It is for those reasons that I implore the House to vote in favour of the amendment proposed by the hon. leader of the official opposition. His amendment recognizes that strong and direct force is absolutely necessary to confront ISIL but that it must come from capable and enabled local forces. It calls for military support for the transportation of weapons where needed and for assistance to investigate and prosecute war crimes. The amendment calls for monthly updates on the cost of our mission and wholeheartedly supports the brave men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces who stand on guard for all of us. Perhaps most importantly, the amendment calls for a significant boost in humanitarian aid in areas where there will be an immediate lifesaving impact, including contributing to winterized camps for refugees and investing in water, sanitation, hygiene, health, and education for people displaced by the fighting.

My time has drawn to an end. I thank the House for the opportunity to come here tonight on behalf of my constituents and to share some of my views and the opinions of some of my constituents.

[Nááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve Act, October 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about the experience and commitment to the environment, conservation, and biodiversity in the ecosystem that exists in our caucus. She is absolutely right. I know that my colleagues will bring that experience and knowledge to their work on committee to make sure that those issues with respect to the caribou, the Nahanni River, and the protection of the watershed will be very much part of their deliberations and questions and research as committee members.

[Nááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve Act, October 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North is correct that Canadians are increasingly interested in issues of conservation and the need for biodiversity across our country. They are looking to the government to take steps to ensure that the ecosystem is protected. The government has failed in many respects. An example is the issue of marine protected areas. The government signed onto a UN agreement a couple of years ago committing itself to achieving the UN goal of having 10% of its coastal area protected as marine protected areas by 2020. That is six years away. At this stage, it is under 1%. Unfortunately, the government has not proven itself up to the task of making sure that it follows up on the commitments, whether it be this park, Rouge River park, or whatever it is. More has to be done.

[Nááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve Act, October 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine.

I am pleased to speak for a few minutes to this important bill, Bill S-5, an act to amend the Canada National Parks Act creating the Nááts’ihch’oh national park.

This is a process, and we recognize that the terms and conditions of the constitutionally-protected Sahtu land claim agreement have been met, including the creation of an impact benefit plan and a management committee. However, we have some concerns around the government's commitment to the park, and I will talk a bit about that.

The establishment of these parks on land and marine areas is all about meeting conservation targets, preserving biodiversity and, in this case, helping communities realize the economic and tourism potential that our national parks can provide.

Some of my colleagues have raised concerns about the government's commitment and whether it is carving up parks in Canada in such a way as to facilitate achieving two objectives: one, meet these constitutionally-required negotiations with first nations; and two, continue to allow resource development to go forward unabated.

It was suggested by someone involved in this process that the boundaries of this park were carved out in such a way as to ensure that a mine, almost in the middle of this territory, was kept out of the park and therefore would be allowed to continue to produce. These things are a concern.

As was mentioned by my colleagues, the Sahtu Dene Nation was involved in these negotiations. Three options were put on the table and one of those options was agreed to. While we have not heard a lot of complaint out of that area, questions have been asked as to why the smallest piece, in this case option 3, was chosen?

A few minutes ago my colleague for Edmonton—Strathcona asked why the government had not come forward and attached an additional commitment to this project. After a particular period of time, of five years or so, will it participate in discussions around expanding these boundaries? That would certainly give some of us some comfort as it relates to where the government is going with this.

The Parks Canada budget has been cut to a significant degree over the past few years. Budget cuts have led to a 33% staffing cut in science for Parks Canada, as one example. There have been 60 out of 179 positions eliminated. Talk about hampering Parks Canada's ability to carry out its responsibilities.

Infrastructure is in a desperate state. It is being reported constantly that infrastructure in Parks Canada is in serious need of investment, to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.

The government has not shown a willingness to invest in these important parts of Canadiana and Canadian infrastructure. In fact, it has been cutting back. The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development has been reported as saying that there is a wide and persistent gap between what the government commits to and what it is achieving. When we go into a situation like this, it is important to note what the government is bringing in behind it.

This is a critical piece of territory. It is a large portion of the South Nahanni River watershed. My understanding is that option one, the bigger piece, would have ensured greater protection of that watershed to make sure that the health and well-being of the Nahanni River and the caribou would be adequately maintained. There is some concern that option three did not cut the mustard in terms of guaranteeing that the watershed was going to be protected, and it left out an important breeding ground for the caribou in this area.

My colleague from Northwest Territories knows this area well. He talked in his intervention about tourism. One of the commitments the government makes in negotiating agreements with the first nations community is economic benefits, economic development, and other ways to compensate for the change in the land use in an area like this. Part of that is tourism. As he so clearly stated, given his vast experience working in this area, Canada has done a terrible job promoting areas like this across the country.

The amount of advertising in the United States about tourism opportunities in Canada has basically dried up. The concern, of course, is what the government will do to ensure that those opportunities that are part of this agreement materialize for the first nations. It was indicated that a park had been formed close to seven years ago, and the government still has not followed up with the investments and infrastructure that is required.

That having been said, as I indicated earlier, we have not heard a great deal of concern expressed by people involved in this particular undertaking. However, we are looking forward to a more extensive discussion and to hearing experts at committee so that there may be a fuller discussion to examine what else can be done.

My colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona said it well when she said that in terms of making suggestions about what we can do to make this bill better, it is better left to the representatives on the committee and the witnesses that will be called before the committee to make sure that sound recommendations come forward. Members can bet that members on that committee from the official opposition will certainly be in a position to offer helpful advice based on consultations they will have with the first nations communities involved in this particular endeavour.

As my colleagues have also indicated, I will be supporting moving Bill S-5 forward from second reading to committee.

[Fisheries and Oceans, October 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, for 15 years, a moratorium on mussel aquaculture in Malpeque Bay has protected local fisheries, but now the Conservatives are considering scrapping the protection, even though the concerns have not been addressed. Serious safety issues have not been resolved, and the unregulated use of lime poses a risk to the ecosystem and to lobster stocks.

My question for the minister is this: will she maintain the moratorium on mussel farms to protect the local ecosystem and local fisheries?

[Petitions, October 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from several Nova Scotians who support the MP for Nickel Belt's national strategy for dementia, contained in Bill C-356. It is a national scourge that needs a comprehensive strategy to address it.

I am proud to present the petition in support of this action.

[National Defence, September 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, in May, the Federal Court ordered the Treasury Board to revisit the case of Major Marcus Brauer.

The Chief of the Defence Staff, the Canadian Forces Ombudsman and the grievance board had already declared that the Treasury Board's decision to deny him benefits under the home equity assistance program was unjust.

It has been four months. Actually it has been almost five years. What is the holdup? Why is the government being so unjust to military families? When will it do things right by the Brauer family?

[Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, September 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the question coming from the member for Winnipeg North would have absolutely nothing to do with the piece of legislation on the table at the moment. I do not know if he is troubled by the fact that we have given thoughtful consideration to this piece of legislation and we support it. I do not know exactly why he is asking another question.

This is an important deal. Let us not forget, this is the first time that the government has negotiated a deal that we are comfortable in supporting, that we believe meets the three criteria that we laid out that are in the best interests of Canadian industry and of Canadians, and we think it is worthy of support. That should be something that we are all paying attention to and that we are all concerned with because let us be clear that the government House leader just stood and talked about the fact that they were not able to come to an agreement on anything. Once again, Conservatives are going to apply time allocation and closure on a whole host of bills, a whole host of important issues. Yes, we are surprised that they were able to negotiate any deal that we could support, but wonders never cease in this chamber.

[Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, September 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely sensitive to this issue and to any agreement tying the hands of any government. However, I am sufficiently confident, as a result of the analysis that we have done on this, that this free trade agreement would not apply to provincial, territorial or municipal procurement or crown corporations, where most Canadian procurement is located.

Secondly, under the investor state provisions, we understand that not only would the process, for the first time ever, be laid out in a transparent matter, but we would be able to cancel this provision within six months. While it is certainly not what we would negotiate, which I indicated off the bat, and I do have concerns in those areas, in this case I would suggest to my hon. colleague that I am sufficiently convinced that the concerns that she raised are not at issue in this agreement.