Robert Chisholm

[Business of Supply, February 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the member went on at some length about the perils of big government, yet we have seen the government acting, frankly, like a big thug on the rights of veterans.

The security agencies are now not only in our pockets but are in our iPhones, our BlackBerrys, and our computers. They are tracking us everywhere we go, and the member stands and says that it is okay.

Why does she think Canadians should simply accept the government's assurances that things are okay, when we know, for example, that the claims it makes about veterans getting more services are absolutely false?

[The Environment, January 29th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the government's attacks on the Experimental Lakes Area program have defied common sense. Its experiments were critical in helping us better understand things like acid rain, phosphates, and the environmental impacts of the oil sands development.

However, news that the Conservatives hired an oil lobbyist to advise them on the ELA begins to make things a lot more clear.

When will the government start listening to scientists on science rather than to oil lobbyists?

[Business of Supply, January 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question asked by the member for Malpeque of the parliamentary secretary. Let him answer it on his own time.

Let me deal with something else that I want to answer; that is, there is no question that Canada Post, up until last year, made nearly $2 billion in profit.

The question is, what is the CEO, who is making a half a million dollars, doing over there? What is he doing over there to ensure that Canadians receive the services that Canada Post is mandated to provide? Is he examining the alternatives that other G7 countries around the world have examined and have successfully implemented to ensure that their postal services are viable? Or has he been sitting on his hands, trying to lecture seniors that they should be using this opportunity to get some exercise? I think that is wrong.

[Business of Supply, January 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the member over there is a minister of state or a parliamentary secretary, but he has a title and he is responsible for this file: Canada Post. He makes a bit of a stipend for that. I do not know what it is, but say it's $30,000 or $40,000. This is his file.

Canada Post has just announced that it is going to cut services to Canadians and that it has examined options, yet the parliamentary secretary or the minister of state, whatever that member is, does not know what those options are. He does not know what the costs are. He does not know what the implications are for Canada Post. What is he doing?

[Business of Supply, January 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate for a few moments in this debate. I have 10 minutes and a lot to say, so let me begin. I am going to be hosting a town hall in Dartmouth on Thursday evening from 6:30 to 8:00 to talk about these cuts. I am pleased to have a go at it tonight because when I have a town hall I let me constituents do the talking instead of taking up the time myself.

I am pleased to be here to talk about this motion and to talk in support of home delivery by Canada Post to Canadians. I have been listening to the debate all day and to the members opposite trying to explain why they are moving in this direction, and I still do not have a clear answer. Let us be clear. They sound like they know what they are talking about. The government has it down pat in terms of cutting services. Whether it is services to veterans, closing down offices, closing down services to fishermen, closing down services for people on EI, closing down libraries, or not ensuring that military personnel and their families get the services they need, the government is really good at closing down services. It has all the answers when it comes to why it is that Canada Post has to shut down home delivery to two-thirds of Canadians and why it is that it has to jack up prices by more than 50% for small businesses and charities. It has all the answers.

If the Conservatives are so smart and sure of themselves in their explanation and arguments for this, why did they announce the decision in the dead of night? Why did they announce the decision the day after Parliament closed, when there was no one watching or listening and no one to question them, to try to hold them to account and to get some answers? There was neither a minister nor an executive from Canada Post in sight when Canadians got wind of what the government had announced and began to demand answers. They government members did not have anything to say then, but they stand in the House today and have all the answers.

The Conservatives talk about how people are not sending mail any more, that they are responding to the times. Let us be clear about this. We know that Canadians have been using mail less over the past number of years. What has the government done about it? Has it done anything? Has it made the kind of changes that need to be made to make Canada Post services more acceptable to Canadians? No, they have not. They waited until this particular point in time and said to thousands and thousands of seniors and people on disability, who would have trouble accessing these community mailboxes, they are on their own, and tough luck. They are saying to small business people and charities, who depend on mail delivery, that Canada Post cannot afford it any more and that they will have pay nearly double the rates they are currently paying. It is simply not good enough.

I was talking to Carl today, a man from Dartmouth. He is 88. He said he just got off the phone with his sister, who lives out in the country down near Lunenburg. She is his younger sister. She is 87. He is upset about this because he said it is going to be difficult for him to access the mail in weather like this and weather that we have had throughout the winter. He said his sister has gone days, if not weeks, trying to access her community mailbox in the country.

I had a call from Sue the other day. She said there have been times over this winter when she has gone a number of days not being able to get into her mailbox because of the ice and snow.

As I indicated, I am anxious to talk about this, but so is my colleague. I will be splitting my time with my colleague from York South—Weston who wants to chime in as much as I do. I was hesitant whether or not I would split my time, but I think I will, nonetheless. He is a fine fellow and I know he has a lot of important things to say about this.

Why is the government on this and so many other issues not prepared to consult with Canadians, is not prepared to consult with Carl, Sue and so many of the people in Dartmouth who are going to see the service cut? Why are thee Conservatives not prepared to come with me to the town hall at the Woodlawn United Church on Thursday night and hear what people have to say?

People are concerned about the fact that they are not going to be able to get the service they normally do. I hear government members say there are other Canadians who do not get door-to-door service any more and depend on community mailboxes. We fought against that because we believed it was wrong too. Two wrongs do not make a right. The government has to figure how it is going to provide services to Canadians, how it will be able to make Canadians' lives better, how to make Canadian families' lives more affordable instead of finding ways to cut back services.

Recently the Conservatives announced a big program called the Canada jobs strategy. It was announced last year with great fanfare and they spent millions of dollars on advertising for this wonderful program. They could not even get that right. They still do not have a Canadian job strategy. Their job strategy, the way it is currently designed, will take program money away from the most vulnerable learners, people who are trying to access jobs by overcoming their literacy problems and breaking down the barriers to their becoming employable. That is what the government is proposing, but it cannot even get that right. Maybe that is the problem. Conservatives cannot sit around and come up with services they can expand or renew because they cannot get it right. That is what Canadians are looking for.

The government says it does not have any money. We know it has given tax cuts in the trillions of dollars to the largest corporations in Canada. It has foregone trillions of dollars in revenue and has to stop delivering the mail to 88-year-old Carl who lives near Mic Mac Boulevard or Mic Mac Mall. Is that fair? Do Canadians not deserve a little more respect from the government than having fingers wagged at them saying that they will have to do without and can no longer depend on this service because Conservatives cannot afford it any more, but that they have to give more money to the oil companies and the banks.

In terms of the whole issue of expanding services and whether Canada Post could start making money from postal banking, the government should be examining those kinds of options. It should be able to come to the House and tell us that they are going to expand these services and ensure that Canada Post will try options like those adopted in other G7 countries to ensure that services are available for Carl, Sue and the other people in Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, who desperately need and deserve these services. This is a service that we should be providing to all Canadians. It connects our communities from coast to coast to coast. That is the kind of country that we on this side of the House want to live in.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 27th, 2014]

With regard to Employment lnsurance (EI) for fiscal years 2006-2007 through 2012-2013 (year-to-date): (a) what was the volume of EI applications, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province where claim originated, (iii) region/province where claim was processed, (iv) the number of claims accepted and the number of claims rejected, (v) for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; (b) what was the average EI applications processing time broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province where the claim originated, (iii) region/province where the claim was processed, (iv) the number of claims accepted and the number of claims rejected, (v) for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; (c) how many applicants waited more than 28 days for a decision and, for these applications, what was the average wait time for a decision, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province where the claim originated, (iii) region/province where the claim was processed. (iv) the number of claims accepted and the number of claims rejected, (v)-for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; (d) what was the volume of calls to EI call Centres, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; (e) what was the number of calls to EI call centres that received a high volume of messages, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; (f) what were the national service levEI standards for calls answered by an agent at EI call centres, broken down by year; (g) what were the actual service levEI standards achieved by EI call centres for calls answered by an agent at EI call centres, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; (h) what were the service standards for call backs by EI call centre agents broken, down by year; (i) what were the service standards achieved by EI call centre agents for call backs, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; (j) what was the average number of days for a call back by an EI call centre agent, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; (k) for EI processing centres, what was the number and percentage of term employees and the number and percentage of indeterminate employees, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province (iii) for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; (l) for EI call centres, what was the number and percentage of term employees and the number and percentage of indeterminate employees, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province, (iii) for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; (m) how many complaints did the Office of Client Satisfaction receive, broken down by (i) year, (ii) region/province where the complaint originated, (iii) for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; (n) how long on average did a complaint take to investigate and resolve, broken down by (i) year, (ii) for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, by month; and (o) what were the major themes of the complaints received, broken down by year?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 27th, 2014]

With regard to the Social Security Tribunal (SST): (a) how many appeals have been sent to the General Division level; (b) how many appeals have been heard; (c) how many appeals have been allowed; (d) how many appeals were summary dismissals; (e) how many appeals were dismissed; (f) how many appeals are pending; (g) what is the average time for appeals to be heard; (h) how many appeals are dealt with per month; (i) what proportion of appeals are heard within the SST's timelines; (j) is there a backlog of cases; (k) how many cases are waiting to be heard; (l) where are cases coming from by rural/urban, or geographic region; (m) what are the common issues being (i) heard, (ii) allowed, (iii) dismissed; (n) how many appellants were granted access to consult their case file ahead of a hearing by the General Division, (i) by number, (ii) as a proportion of all appellants at this level; (m) how many appellants were granted access to consult their case file ahead of a hearing by the Appeal Division (i) by number, (ii) as a proportion of all appellants at this level; (n) how are the cases being heard; (o) how many cases are heard via telephone; (p) how many questions and answers in person; (q) how many questions and answers via email; (r) has there been any feedback from SST members on the process; (s) what kind of training for SST members has been implemented; (t) given that SST members work from home, has any kind of networking system been put in place to support SST members; (u) given that decisions made by the Umpire and higher courts were provided in a jurisprudence library online, will the General Division or Appeals Division decisions be available in the jurisprudence library; and (v) will the more specific “Decisions Favourable to Workers” website be continued?

[Petitions, December 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by many Canadians. It is on the issue of tradespeople travelling to other parts of the country, trying to find work.

It is certainly something that happens a lot in the Atlantic provinces. The petition supports Bill C-201, introduced by my colleague, the member for Hamilton Mountain. It allows tradesperons and indentured apprentices to deduct travel and accommodation expenses from their taxable income so they can secure and maintain employment at a construction site that is more than 80 kilometres from their home, a very important issue. I am happy to affix my signature and table said petition.

[Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, November 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very important issue. It is a very important part of the bill and it needs the attention of the justice committee and other members of this House.

When the Minister of Justice introduced the bill with great fanfare outside, wrapping his arms around the families of those young people who took their own lives as a result of cyberbullying, he suggested that was the focus of this legislation, and we took him at his word.

However, what came to be apparent very quickly when we saw the details of the bill was that it contained matters far beyond the issue of cyberbullying, as if cyberbullying were not important enough.

We are talking about a practice of bullying on steroids, bullying that has been torqued up to the extent that people who are completely unknown to one another can create the kind of violence and damage to a person's reputation that we have never heard of before. They do it in anonymity, without any sense that they are going to be held accountable.

It is incumbent upon all of us here in this House, especially the government, to recognize it as a that scourge we need to deal with. That is what we need to focus on. The fact that the Conservatives have brought so many other important matters into this one piece of legislation is a question of playing politics, and it is unconscionable. I apologize to the families of Rehtaeh Parsons and Amanda Todd that the government is conducting itself in this manner.

However, as I have said before, I will stay focused, as I know my colleagues will, in ensuring that the matters relevant to cyberbullying get dealt with and that we do our jobs as members of Parliament and members of the justice committee to ensure that the legislation that passes through this House does what we intend it to do.

[Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, November 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member for Charlottetown's questions because they are very serious questions. The issues he raises are extremely serious, and they have been raised by a number of experts in this field over the days following the introduction of Bill C-13. Exactly those questions and the serious nature of those questions are really the basis of my concern. That is why I have urged the government to split Bill C-13.

It had originally introduced this legislation as being directed toward making it an offence to participate in the act of cyberbullying, which involved eight clauses: clauses 1 to 7, plus clause 26. Then the following 55 or so pages deal with matters that are not focused on the question of cyberbullying.

The motion by my colleague, the member for Gatineau, was that we would split the bill. We would deal with the issue of cyberbullying, a matter of sufficient consequence that it needs the full attention of the House. Then we would deal with the surveillance issues and the powers that the government would like to see expanded for authorities in a separate manner. These are two consequential issues, and it is incumbent upon us to stay focused on each of them.

However, my focus at the moment is on the offence of cyberbullying. That is what I want to see us deal with here today.