Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 062 (Official Version)

On June 12 there will be a one day economic summit in North Grenville that will be the kick-off to a series of meetings that will continue through next fall.

Initiated by Bob Runciman, our provincial member, and me, the event will be hosted by the united counties of Leeds and Grenville Economic Development Department in cooperation with the three community futures development corporations and the separated municipalities in Leeds and Grenville.

By this time next year, every sector of the economy in Leeds—Grenville will have a good look into the future. Each will have defined their obstacles to growth, their opportunities for growth and developed a plan to move forward.

I wish to take this opportunity to welcome those in Leeds—Grenville who support and will attend the June 12 summit. I look forward to working with them on this cooperative venture.

* * *

Mississauga City Summit

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Bonnie Crombie (Mississauga—Streetsville, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had the opportunity to attend the Mississauga City Summit of 200 business, labour, government and not-for-profit community leaders.

Four task forces were established on waterfront redevelopment and environmental sustainability, human and social services, post-secondary education, and finally, the creation of a centre of excellence for diversity and immigration.

David Suzuki was the evening's keynote speaker. Over 1,000 people convened to listen to the launch of the city's strategic plan and discuss the issues that are critical and affect the sustainable economic development of Mississauga, Canada's sixth, and Ontario's third, largest city, economic development which has been hindered by critical infrastructure funding which has not been released by the government.

The summit was an excellent example of civic society engaging together to improve their community. In this time of economic downturn, we need to encourage more communities to engage in this type of societal collaboration.

I want to congratulate the co-chairs for their initiative, and also thank Mayor Hazel McCallion for her involvement and all of the volunteers and sponsors who made the event the tremendous success that it was.

* * *

[Translation]

Canadian Jewish Congress

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, this week the Canadian Jewish Congress will be celebrating 90 years of existence. The first assembly of this official public voice of the Jewish community was held in 1919.

After a period of relative inactivity, the rise of anti-Semitism in Canada as well as in Europe in the 1930s convinced the community to make the CJC a permanent body in 1934. Montreal philanthropist Samuel Bronfman became its head at that time.

Since then, the Congress has played a vital role in defending and representing the interests of Canadian Jewry. It has also worked in conjunction with other groups on issues relating to the defence of religious and cultural minorities and of human rights. For example, the CJC was pleased with the recent Montreal court decision condemning the crimes against humanity committed in Rwanda in 1994.

The 29th plenary assembly will be one of the high points of this 90th anniversary year

The Bloc Québécois warmly congratulates the congress on its dedication.

* * *

[English]

Tobacco Advertising

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, today I salute all those who helped bring to fruition important legislation that cracks down on tobacco marketing aimed at young people.

I thank all those involved, especially the women who saw the devastating impact of tobacco on health and the importance of acting to save lives: women such as Cynthia Callard at Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada, who prodded all of us for years to eliminate the marketing of fruit- and candy-flavoured products and convinced me to introduce a private member's bill; young women such as youth public health specialist Angela McKercher-Mortimer who, with the Eastern Ontario Youth Coalition, helped coordinate the packages on members' desks today; women such as Jennifer McKibbon, who was a key organizer with Northwestern Youth Action Alliance in its Flavour...Gone! campaign and who continues to press for the inclusion of flavoured chew in the bill; and women such as our federal health minister, who made this the subject matter of a government bill and who has committed to shepherd Bill C-32 through Parliament.

Together, we absolutely refuse to let sinister packaging and deceptive flavourings turn today's youth into tomorrow's death statistics.

* * *

Canadian Jewish Congress

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Jewish Congress will be celebrating its 90th anniversary at its Plenary Assembly in Toronto this Sunday, May 31.

The CJC was founded after the upheaval of the first world war to represent the interests of the Canadian Jewish community and to send help overseas to aid the desperate situation faced by Jews in eastern Europe at the time.

Since its inception, the CJC has pursued its aims of defence, advocacy and representation on behalf of the Canadian Jewish community, as well as Holocaust remembrance and restitution and support for Jewish communities around the world.

The CJC speaks out against injustices, no matter where they occur, understanding that the obligations of history demand no less.

I encourage all members to join me in wishing the Canadian Jewish Congress a happy 90th anniversary and a productive and successful 29th Plenary Assembly. I say to the CJC, yasher koach, may you go from strength to strength.

* * *

Canadian Jewish Congress

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I rise to salute the Canadian Jewish Congress on the historic occasion of its 90th anniversary.

The CJC is one of Canada's oldest, most distinguished and pioneering NGOs. It pioneered in the early organization, integration and representation of the Jewish immigrant community. It led the way in Holocaust remembrance and the struggle against hatred, anti-Semitism and discrimination of any kind. It has been at the forefront of the struggle for human rights in general and minority rights in particular, including landmark contributions to the struggle for Soviet Jewry and Syrian Jewry. It has made a major contribution to the development of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the struggle against impunity.

As a former president of the Canadian Jewish Congress and as an MP engaged on these issues, I say on behalf of my colleagues and the Liberal Party, yasher koach, may you go from strength to strength.

* * *

(1410)

Rugby on the Hill

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Greg Rickford (Kenora, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, politics and sports share a long history of mutual comparison, but perhaps no sport closer resembles the reality of the House than the game of rugby. Like this House, rugby includes strong sides and weak sides, fronts and backs, the occasional mauling and, of course, frequent offsides.

Like rugby, scrums are a frequent occurrence on the Hill, so it seems fitting that today at 6 p.m. there will be a scrum of a different kind when the Ottawa Irish meet the Forces Rugby on the Parliament Hill lawn for a charity match to raise money for the Military Families Fund. The exhibition will feature former Canadian champion Rod Snow, and the hon. member for Central Nova suiting up for the military squad. The Ottawa Irish will feature former Canadian team great Al Charron.

I hope all hon. members will join me today on the front lawn, rain or shine, to support Canada's military families.

* * *

[Translation]

Tax Credit for New Graduates

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Robert Bouchard (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon there will be a vote at second reading on a bill providing a $8,000 tax credit for new graduates working in designated regions. That bill got as far as the Senate during the last Parliament and was supported by a majority in this House.

Unfortunately, the election call precipitated by the Conservative government blocked its progress. However, some 60 municipalities, RCMs, youth forums, academic institutions, youth employment centres and chambers of commerce resolved that such a measure must be forthcoming.

I would therefore call upon the members of this House, and in particular the two Conservative members for Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean who are very familiar with this measure, to support this bill.

We need measures such as these to stop youth out-migration and promote the retention of skilled workers in economically depressed regions.

* * *

[English]

Burma

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, yesterday marked the final day in the year-long extension of Burmese Nobel Laureate, honorary Canadian citizen and pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi's five-year prison sentence. Today should have marked the first day of her renewed freedom. However, Burma's ruling junta has manufactured new charges on the eve of her release. Canada renews its calls upon General Than Shwe to unconditionally release Aung San Suu Kyi.

The Burmese junta's repressive policies have led to untold death and misery and created a refugee crisis in the neighbouring countries.

Canada strongly condemns the Burmese junta on the violation of basic human rights of the Burmese people.

* * *

Taxation

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Brian Murphy (Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, members of the Conservative Party and their leader continue to show that they have no clue how to help Canadian families during this economic downturn. Recently, the Conservative leader said that he is not going to bring in another budget “until we need to raise taxes”.

We thank the Conservative leader for finally being honest. Now we know that the Conservatives want to hike taxes on Canadian families during a global recession. We also know that they increased income taxes during their first budget and they put a devastating new tax on income trusts. The Conservatives and their leader seem to like taking money out of Canadians' pockets.

Will the Conservative leader stand in the House and finally come clean with Canadians? Which taxes will the Conservatives raise? By how much will they raise them? Who would be forced to pay these new taxes?

* * *

Taxation

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Larry Miller (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have become a single-issue party. The issue is taxes. They want them higher and they want more of them. Their leader is the father of the carbon tax. He has also made only one policy commitment: taxes will rise under the Liberals.

In these tough economic times, that is not what Canadians need. We need the stable and focused leadership that only this government can provide. While this government is standing up for hard-working Canadian families, the Liberals want to make it tougher for Canadians to take care of their families. The Liberals are clear. They want more taxes and higher taxes.

That is just plain wrong. I know it is wrong. The people of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound know it is wrong. This government knows it is wrong, and all Canadians certainly know it is wrong. It is only the Liberal leader who has not figured that part out yet.

* * *

(1415)

Canadian Jewish Congress

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, on May 31st, the Canadian Jewish Congress will celebrate its 90th anniversary at its national assembly in Toronto.

Since its inception in 1919, the Canadian Jewish Congress has represented the Jewish community on issues, including anti-Semitism, racism, Holocaust remembrance, and support for Jewish communities that are in need in this country and around the world.

On behalf of the New Democratic Party, I am proud to recognize and pay tribute to the Canadian Jewish Congress and to praise its role as a human rights organization concerned with the social justice and rights of all Canadians and the promotion of the values of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms at home and abroad.

The NDP wishes the Canadian Jewish Congress a happy 90th anniversary and a productive and successful 29th national assembly. To the CJC, yasher koach, may you go from strength to strength.

* * *

[Translation]

Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Jacques Gourde (Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers do not really know this Liberal leader, but the one thing I can be sure of is that he wants to raise taxes. It is terrible to criticize when one has nothing better to offer other than tax increases in these tough times.

For every problem, the Liberal leader's solution is more taxes. He said so, himself, quite openly.

Whose taxes does the Liberal leader want to raise? The victims of the economic crisis? People in need? People in the forestry regions?

Canadians have good reason to wonder and to be worried. The Liberal leader still refuses to give any answers.

The Liberal Party's pretentious attitude towards Quebec is making a strong comeback in Ottawa, and we urge all Canadians and Quebeckers to be wary of the real intentions of the Liberal Party, which wants power at all costs. Canadians will be left to pay the price with even higher taxes.

* * *

Manufacturing Industry

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Luc Malo (Verchères—Les Patriotes, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, in 2007, after announcing plans to transfer some of its activities from Quebec to Ontario, ArcelorMittal announced the construction of a beam mill at Contrecoeur. Two years on, union members feel that it is time for the company to keep that promise. They have launched a large-scale regional mobilization to save the Quebec steel industry.

What should the Government of Canada—which has been ignoring problems in Quebec's manufacturing industry for years—be doing?

It should go forward with the Bloc Québécois' proposal to create a $4 billion fund to provide refundable investment credits to companies like ArcelorMittal that, because of declining production, have delayed planned investments. If they are encouraged to invest right away, they will be able to modernize their facilities and benefit fully from the economic recovery.

* * *

Taxation

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, this morning, the Minister of National Revenue was asked if the Conservatives were planning to raise income taxes. He refused to answer.

He is refusing to answer questions about his hidden tax agenda. The guy who always has an answer for everything does not want to talk about it. I can understand his reluctance to talk about it, because there is sure to be plenty of criticism.

Will the Conservatives raise income and sales taxes? Who will suffer as a result? SMEs? The most vulnerable? The unemployed? The poor?

The minister should stand up and tell Parliament and all Canadians who will bear the brunt of his tax hikes. Once again, the Conservatives are showing their true colours.

[English]

Tory times are tough times.

* * *

Taxation

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Randy Hoback (Prince Albert, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, our government's economic action plan is delivering real results for Canadians. They have asked for leadership from their federal government, and that is what we are providing.

At this critical time, when families need it the most, we are reducing taxes on Canadians, creating jobs, and helping Canadians who are hardest hit by the global recession.

Canadians will benefit from an additional $20 billion in personal income tax relief. Those who have lost their jobs are now eligible for five additional weeks of employment insurance. Canadians are benefiting from investments in skills and transition, which facilitates finding jobs in the new economy.

Meanwhile, the Liberal leader has said, “We will have to raise taxes”. This irresponsible tax hike policy is not what Canadians need during this recession.

The leader of the Liberal Party should stand up in the House today and come clean with Canadians and tell them which taxes he will raise, by how much he will raise them, and who will be forced to pay these taxes.

ORAL QUESTIONS

[Oral Questions]

* * *

(1420)

[English]

The Economy

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, in September the government said there would be no recession, in October no deficits, in November it promised a surplus, but in January it brought down a $34 billion deficit. Yesterday, the deficit ballooned to $50 billion, all in a breathtaking six months, and still the money has not gotten out the door. This is incompetence on a historic scale.

How can the Prime Minister, or any other Canadian, still have confidence in the Minister of Finance?

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, we are all aware that over the last few months the financial situations have deteriorated in all countries due to the recession.

The fact of the matter is that our deficits in Canada are a third to a quarter of the size of the deficit in the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan. These deficits are affordable. What we are doing is borrowing money at historically low interest rates to help unemployed people, to build infrastructure. That is what we should be doing and what we will continue to do.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the issue here is the credibility of the Government of Canada and the credibility of the Minister of Finance.

Just five weeks ago, the Minister of Finance said, and I quote, “I'm comfortable with our projections... We're on track”. We are on track to where? The largest deficit in Canadian history. Canadians just cannot trust the government with their money.

Will the Prime Minister fire the Minister of Finance?

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, what is at issue here is the credibility of the Leader of the Opposition, who has been here week after week demanding not just that the government spend more but that it spend more permanently. Now he tries to pretend he is concerned about the deficit.

I cannot fire the Leader of the Opposition, and with all the tapes I have on him, I do not want to.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, fortunately—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

Order, please. The hon. Leader of the Opposition has the floor.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Michael Ignatieff:

Mr. Speaker, fortunately, the Prime Minister cannot fire me. He should fire the Minister of Finance. Yesterday, the deficit ballooned to $50 billion. It is the largest deficit in our history. This is incompetence on a historic scale.

When will the Prime Minister fire his Minister of Finance?

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, while unemployment and the recession worsen, this government and this Minister of Finance are spending more on infrastructure helping communities and the unemployed. This policy is entirely proper, and we intend to pursue it.

(1425)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, in his last budget the finance minister projected a $34 billion deficit and he said the money must be flowing within 120 days. Today is that day, and where do we stand? The deficit has mushroomed to more than $50 billion, and according to media headlines, “Lots of announcements, but little money”.

How can the Prime Minister have confidence in his $50 billion man, a finance minister who has clearly lost the confidence of Canadians?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jim Flaherty (Minister of Finance, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, who Canadians have lost confidence in are the Liberals.

On the one hand the Liberals say, “spend more money”, and on the other hand they say, “don't run a deficit” and “don't increase the deficit”; this, from the member for Markham—Unionville who does not even know what kind of car he drives.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, that is the voice of failure.

[Translation]

In November, the Minister of Finance refused to see that the economy was in trouble. He predicted nothing but a surplus. Six months later, he has created the biggest deficit in Canada's history. It is clear that he is incompetent.

Does the Prime Minister not think that it is important for Canadians to have confidence in their finance minister? If so, then why is he keeping him on as minister?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jim Flaherty (Minister of Finance, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, how can the people of Canada have confidence in the Liberals when they say this would be the largest deficit in Canadian history when it is not.

The deficits in the 1980s and 1990s, as members opposite should know, if they were living in the country at the time, approached 6% of GDP. That is what was going on in the 1980s and 1990s in this country.

This deficit is more in the neighbourhood of 3% of GDP. The deficit is affordable. It is necessary for Canada. We are doing the right things now when Canadians need these things done.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, before and during the last election campaign, the Prime Minister stubbornly denied the existence of any crisis. He then even presented an ideological statement about dealing with the crisis, promising a surplus. A few months ago, his Minister of Finance was talking about a $34 billion deficit, and yesterday he admitted that it would be $50 billion instead. Today there are 1.5 million people unemployed and half of them are not receiving employment insurance benefits.

Was the Prime Minister totally incompetent in not seeing the signs of a looming economic crisis, or did he want to conceal the economic reality in order not to compromise his chances of being re-elected?

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand just where the leader of the Bloc has been the past few months, since November. All of the G20 countries are in agreement on spending, creating deficits, and implementing measures to stimulate our economies. We spend more when the recession hits the unemployed harder. That is why the deficit is bigger. We are spending more for the communities and for the unemployed and will continue to do so.

Unfortunately, the Bloc voted against those measures for the communities and for the unemployed.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I know that in October I was out campaigning against this Prime Minister, who was telling all Canadians and all Quebeckers that there was no crisis. He said so in two debates. That was the Prime Minister's attitude, denying reality. The measures he got adopted in his budget with the Liberals' backing are inadequate.

What is the Prime Minister waiting for before presenting a real set of measures which would help out the unemployed and business, while at the same time stimulating the economy?

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, according to the Minister of Finance, it is clear that we are spending more for the unemployed, communities, and infrastructure. This is essential, and necessary. Canada can afford to do so during a recession. What is inexplicable is that the Bloc is calling for those things yet votes against these measures for our communities and our people.

(1430)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, the anticipated $50 billion deficit is the result of the failure of the Conservatives' so-called economic plan, which was supported by the Liberals. It is not true that the government is spending more. The problem is that revenues are falling. That is proof of the failure of the Conservatives' economic plan. Using the deficit as a pretext for refusing to take action to deal with the crisis is a recipe for certain economic and financial disaster.

When will the Prime Minister wake up, realize the extent of the crisis and implement a real recovery plan?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jim Flaherty (Minister of Finance, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the economic action plan is in place. Money is flowing. Access to credit is increasing. The bond market is functioning well. Credit markets are functioning better. All of this is as a result of the economic action plan which we brought in with the earliest budget in Canadian history.

It is true that the recession is deeper than anticipated. It is true that we are spending billions of dollars more on unemployment, on people in need of benefits to help cushion the impact of the recession. We think that is the right thing to do for Canadians.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, Canada has the means to take action. As the Prime Minister stated earlier, Canada's debt is the lowest of all G7 countries and the forecast deficit is also the lowest. However, the Conservative's economic pseudo-plan is one of the weakest in the industrialized world. The government has the means and the duty to take action.

What is the government waiting for to help workers and industries in trouble by introducing a second recovery plan that corresponds to the demands of Quebec, workers, businesses and the Bloc Québécois?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jim Flaherty (Minister of Finance, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, we have probably the largest stimulus package in the G7. The IMF confirmed that. This is in cooperation with the provinces and the territories, which are doing even more than we asked them to do. All of the governments in this country are cooperating in order to stimulate the Canadian economy. I do not quite understand the member opposite when he says “spend more”, since he voted against the initial stimulus package.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, as the NDP has been predicting since the beginning of the year, the Minister of Finance confirmed yesterday that his deficit will beat the record set by Brian Mulroney. In fact, the Conservative government is about to beat all the records for poor economic performance.

With their bad decisions, the Liberals and the Conservatives have contributed to a structural deficit.

Does the Prime Minister realize that his past decisions have contributed to the current woes?

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, once again, the deficits of other countries, such as the United States, the United Kingdom and Japan, are two or three times greater than Canada's deficit. Our deficit is manageable and serves to help communities and workers. I do not understand why the New Democratic Party is voting against these measures for citizens in a period of recession.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, the reckless tax cuts to the big profitable banks and the oil corporations, that were brought in by the government and in fact by Paul Martin and the Liberals prior, have left us without the financial capacity to respond when Canadians need us the most, and now we have the biggest deficit in Canadian history.

The chief economist of the Toronto-Dominion Bank, Don Drummond, says that the decisions over the past 10 years have created this structural problem. The fact is the Conservatives have simultaneously created the biggest deficit since Mulroney and at the same time they have thousands of unemployed people who cannot get help. Will he not finally admit that he got it wrong?

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, all of the factors contributing to the deficit, including the rise of the deficit, are short-term factors. They are not long-term factors; they are short-term factors. There are rising payments to the unemployed, because of the things we are doing to help unemployed people in this country, and rising payments to communities, to the auto sector.

We are also experiencing lower tax revenues including lower corporate tax revenues, not because of corporate tax cuts but because corporations are not making profits. But it should not worry the leader of the NDP because when he was in the coalition, he was all for corporate tax cuts anyway.

(1435)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, even the banks who received the corporate tax cuts agree that those tax cuts have caused the structural deficit situation in this country.

One would think with such a big deficit the Prime Minister might be able to point to some results, but the truth is we have another confirmation today that the infrastructure money is just a bunch of announcements. It is not making it out the door. In fact, even federal projects in the exclusive federal jurisdiction to the tune of $462 million have not been approved. Bridges and railway projects and harbours, the money is not flowing. When is the Prime Minister going to get it out the door?

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the NDP demands the government should do deficit spending one day and the next day he says we should not. One day he is for corporate tax cuts and the next day he is not. One day he is demanding we bring in improvements to employment insurance and infrastructure, and when we do that he votes against it and says we are spending too much money.

There was a day when the NDP used to stand for something. Now it is just against everything.

* * *

Employment Insurance

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, in my own province of Quebec, thousands of aerospace workers have lost their jobs in this economic crisis that that Conservative finance minister has so badly managed. What does he offer to these unemployed workers? The biggest deficit in Canadian history and no better access to employment insurance.

How does that Conservative finance minister have any credibility with these unemployed workers today?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jim Flaherty (Minister of Finance, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, this is just more Liberal hypocrisy. The Liberals had no ideas coming up to the budget. We asked them for their ideas for the economic action plan. We got nothing.

The only idea we have heard since the budget, since the economic action plan, is a plan to raise taxes for Canadians which is the last thing that should happen in the middle of a recession.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, there speaks the voice of failure.

[Translation]

Throughout Quebec, paper mills and saw mills have locked their doors and sent thousands of workers home. This Minister of Finance has racked up the largest deficit in Canadian history and has not found one cent to help these workers.

What credibility could this Minister of Finance have with forestry workers who today are unemployed and have no employment insurance benefits?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jim Flaherty (Minister of Finance, CPC):

The member opposite, Mr. Speaker, is saying, I think, spend more money to help people who are losing their jobs and help them retrain. That is exactly what we did in Canada's economic action plan. Billions of dollars are being spent in the budget to support people who need retraining, who need opportunities to re-enter the workforce.

Even more than that, since the budget, given the depth of the recession, billions more are going out to help people who are losing their jobs. Is that not what the member wants?

* * *

The Economy

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker,--

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

Order. The hon. member for Wascana has the floor. We will have to have some order. He is about to ask a question and someone is going to want to respond and has to be able to hear it. Order.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Ralph Goodale:

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are not inspired by a Conservative government that is so consistently dead wrong; wrong about the recession, wrong about a fictitious surplus, wrong about no deficit in November, even more wrong about the deficit in January, wrong by 48% at least. Worst still, these Conservatives are wrong about the jobs they promised to Canadians, wrong by 540,000, and many victims cannot get employment insurance.

Therefore, we have $50 billion in red ink, no new jobs and no better access to EI. Why?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jim Flaherty (Minister of Finance, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, as Canadians know, we are in the midst of a global recession. It is a deeper recession than anticipated. Fortunately, as the IMF confirmed on Friday in its report on Canada, Canada entered the recession in the strongest position of any country in the G7, and Canada will exit the recession in a strong position because of the steps we have taken in Canada's economic action plan.

Canadians know this. Canadians know that we are better off than other countries. Canadians know that our financial system is solid and so is our fiscal situation.

(1440)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, that is the man who created a deficit before the recession.

This morning the Minister of National Revenue, the Conservative tax collector, was asked specifically to rule out tax increases by the government. He would not do it. Asked to be unequivocal on taxes his confused answer was “we're not there”; in other words, not unequivocal.

Remember when Conservatives promised never to tax income trusts. That promise was broken. They stabbed two and a half million innocent Canadians in the back.

How can Conservatives be believed on the deficit or taxes, or anything else that involves trust?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jim Flaherty (Minister of Finance, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the only idea we have heard from the Liberals since the budget is their idea that taxes need to be raised. That is from the Leader of the Opposition.

However, there is another idea today. The finance critic opposite says there might be certain measures that the Conservatives are doing that the Liberals would think would not be worth doing, things that they think are not necessary. So, the question is, what would the Liberals cut? The home renovation tax credit? Infrastructure investments? Employment insurance benefits? Investments in agriculture? Health care funding like they did in the 1990s to the provinces, to the sick, to the elderly, to students and children--

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

Order, please.

The hon. member for Chambly—Borduas.

* * *

[Translation]

Employment Insurance

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Yves Lessard (Chambly—Borduas, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

Order, please.

The hon. member for Chambly—Borduas.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Yves Lessard:

Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada sets the number of unemployed at close to $1.5 million. The latest figures show more than 680,000 unemployment insurance recipients, which is a 10.6% jump over the month of March. However, with only 46% of unemployed receiving EI, we can see there is an accessibility problem. By lowering the minimum number of hours to 360 hours, a greater number of unemployed would be helped. Everyone can understand that.

Why then is the minister refusing to understand it?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Minister of National Revenue and Minister of State (Agriculture), CPC):

Mr. Speaker, once again, the Bloc Québécois are continuing to be unreasonable. On the one hand, they are criticizing the size of the deficit, while on the other they are constantly proposing measures to make it bigger still.

The Bloc Québécois cannot attack us by saying we have not done anything for the unemployed. First of all, we have added five weeks of employment insurance. Second, we are giving 18 more weeks of work-sharing, and third we are giving $3 billion for training, $500 million of which we have just announced. This will enable laid-off workers to receive up to two years of employment insurance.

They voted against it.

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Josée Beaudin (Saint-Lambert, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, after the Conservative disinformation process finishes with the economy, it moves on to unemployment. Stating as the minister has, that 360 hours would give a person 52 weeks of employment insurance is quite simply false.

Instead of clutching onto the unfair system put in place by the Liberals in the 1990s, what is the minister waiting for before bringing in a true EI reform that would meet the needs of the unemployed?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Minister of National Revenue and Minister of State (Agriculture), CPC):

Mr. Speaker, our measure gives an additional five weeks of employment insurance benefits. That means that a person who was entitled to 30 weeks will get five more weeks with the measure the Conservative government has put in place.

Do we know the estimated number of persons who were going to benefit from that measure? It has been estimated at 400,000. They were proposing two additional weeks, which would have meant those people would have had nothing more. We are giving five more weeks—

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

The hon. member for Hochelaga.

* * *

Justice

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government is stubbornly pursuing its completely repressive agenda. With Bill C-31, it wants to pass legislation with a provision that would allow police officers to photograph and fingerprint anyone who is arrested, before it is even decided whether charges will be brought against them.

How can this government reconcile its abusive approach with the presumption of innocence, which is recognized in the Quebec and Canadian charters?

(1445)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Rob Moore (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, if there is one thing that Canadians know they can count on from this government, it is to stand up for the rights of victims, to stand up for the rights of law-abiding citizens, to take the criminal justice situation in this country seriously, and to do what it takes to protect Canadian society.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, this is another example of the Conservatives' lack of transparency. True to form, they are trying to put a poison pill in this bill, which is generally supported by the opposition. This provision is unacceptable. The government must remove it.

Will the Minister of Justice remove that provision from the bill?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Rob Moore (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, we have introduced a very important piece of legislation that is this government's latest step in tackling crime. It includes the right of police to fingerprint a person who has been arrested for a serious indictable offence, such as murder, kidnapping and sexual assault. If the hon. member has a problem with that, I encourage him to explain it to his constituents.

* * *

The Budget

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Bob Rae (Toronto Centre, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, 36 days ago, on April 21, the Minister of Finance said, “I'm comfortable with our projections. I'm staying with our budget projection. We're on track”.

I would like to ask the Minister of Finance a very simple question. Do we believe the Minister of Finance who spoke on April 21 or are we to believe the Minister of Finance who speaks today about a budget deficit that is completely different? What is the answer to that simple question?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jim Flaherty (Minister of Finance, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question, particularly since I know he is an expert on deficits from his time in Ontario.

The plain fact is that the world economic recession is deeper than anticipated. Fortunately, Canada entered the recession in a strong position because of strong fiscal policies. We paid off almost $40 billion worth of debt in the first three years of this government. That puts Canada, as Canadians know, in the best position to weather the storm.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Bob Rae (Toronto Centre, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, having dined out on me for 15 years, the minister will perhaps understand why some of us want to have one simple meal with respect to what he has done and what he has said.

The simple fact is that 36 days ago the Minister of Finance said, “I'm comfortable with our projections. I'm staying with our budget projection. We're on track”. How could he have gotten it so wrong just 36 days ago?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jim Flaherty (Minister of Finance, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, what is the member opposite opposed to? Is he opposed to Canada taking the necessary measures to help our country get through the recession?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

Order, please. The Minister of Finance has the floor and there seems to be excessive noise on every which side. The hon. Minister of Finance has the floor.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jim Flaherty:

Mr. Speaker, it appears that the bellowing of the member for Toronto Centre is contagious to his seatmates.

As I was saying, is the member against additional employment insurance benefits being paid? They are being paid in the billions, which, of course, increases the deficit, but that is a good thing to do because that is what Canadians need right now. It is the right thing to do.

Similarly in the auto sector, it is the right thing to do. Is the member against us helping the auto sector?

* * *

Employment Insurance

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, fishermen in Atlantic Canada to forestry workers in British Columbia, Canadians, through no fault of their own, are losing their jobs and they are not eligible for EI.

Three weeks ago, the finance minister said that he was willing to work with opposition parties to fix EI and stimulate the economy. Those suggestions were totally dismissed by the Prime Minister. Obviously the Prime Minister has no confidence in his finance minister.

Will the Prime Minister do the right thing and replace the finance minister?

(1450)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Ed Komarnicki (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, we added billions of dollars to the EI program. What we will not do is what the Liberal Party proposes to do, which is increase taxes, increase payroll taxes by putting in a premium hike.

The Liberals took the 360 plan and stole the NDP plan. In referring to the plan in a news release, they said, “This will result in an employment insurance premium hike”.

We will not do that. We will invest money to help Canadians. We will surely get through this but we will not do what they propose and that is increase taxes.

* * *

Finance

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance.

Yesterday he said that the deficit would be $50 billion or more. How much more?

We cannot believe the minister on the previous estimate. Why should we believe him on this number? Since we cannot believe either number, will he do the decent thing and resign?

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, let me be absolutely clear once again. Canada is responding to a global recession from a position of fiscal strength. Our debts are low and our deficits are manageable and affordable compared to other countries. That deficit has gone up because the recession is deeper. If the recession gets deeper, we will do more to help the unemployed and to help people.

The hypocrisy of the leader of the Liberal Party is breathtaking. He cannot decry a deficit when he comes here and demand spending, not just this year but permanently.

* * *

The Economy

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Devinder Shory (Calgary Northeast, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, while our Conservative government has a real plan for the economy that includes lower taxes, the Liberal leader has only one idea. What is it? He complains that Canadians are not paying enough taxes. This is discredited tax and spend and tax again liberalism. Let me quote the Liberal leader, “We will have to raise taxes”. What taxes? How much? When? The sky is the limit.

Could the government please inform the House what the IMF said just last week about our economic leadership?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jim Flaherty (Minister of Finance, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal leader boasts that he is “Not going to take a GST hike off the table”. On the contrary, we are lowering taxes. We are keeping them low.

The International Monetary Fund said last week that the January 2009 fiscal package was appropriately “ large, timely, well diversified and structured for maximum effectiveness”. The IMF observed that this commitment to prudence, along with a strong track record of budgetary responsibility, underpinned Canada's--

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

The hon. member for Outremont.

* * *

[Translation]

Canada Pension Plan Investment Board

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Thomas Mulcair (Outremont, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board will be releasing its annual report tomorrow. We already know that they have lost a record-breaking $24 billion. But what Canadians really want to know is how much the top executives intend to pay themselves in bonuses this year. Last year, despite losses, managers and executives had the nerve to pay themselves $11 million in bonuses.

Will the Minister of Finance take a stand for once in his life and say no to the theft of workers' savings?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jim Flaherty (Minister of Finance, CPC):

Mr. Speaker. I do not have the power to do that, as the member opposite should know.

The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board is separate from the political process. The provinces and the Government of Canada, as finance ministers, work together. We arrange to appoint a board but the board and the management operate the investments and conduct the business of the Canada pension plan. It has been a very successful plan over the years.

I think most Canadians would prefer that politicians, including the member for Wascana, keep their hands out of the till.

(1455)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Thomas Mulcair (Outremont, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, he was with all of the provincial financial ministers this week. That is not an excuse.

Tomorrow, the CPP Investment Board will be releasing its annual report. In a press release last week, it announced its unprecedented losses of $24 billion. The same release also makes it clear that despite those record losses and despite the fact that hundreds of thousands of Canadians have lost their jobs, it has every intention of paying itself bonuses again this year.

Precisely how much does the board need to lose before the government stops it from paying itself bonuses?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jim Flaherty (Minister of Finance, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I was with all of the provincial and territorial finance ministers earlier this week and we spent more than a day together. We conducted the triennial review of the Canada pension plan. We unanimously supported the work that has been done by the plan on behalf of Canadians and reaffirmed our intention not to politically interfere with the Canada pension plan.

* * *

[Translation]

Arts and Culture

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Carole Lavallée (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' cuts to culture are really hurting artists. This summer, Les Grands Ballets Canadiens will be touring in the Middle East, but because of the Conservatives' negligence, they will have a $150,000 shortfall.

The director of Les Grands Ballets Canadiens, Alain Dancyger, criticized the situation, saying, “It is embarrassing to have to ask for money in a country like Egypt. It is unacceptable that we should have to accept donations from Egyptian companies because our own country, a G8 nation, cannot support us”.

Will the Conservative government finally listen to reason and restore funding for the programs it cut?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Dean Del Mastro (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that les Grands Ballets will be going on its middle eastern tour. Our government is very supportive of the les Grands Ballets Canadiens.

“How supportive?”, you ask, Mr. Speaker. That is a great question and I am glad you asked me that. This year alone les Grands Ballets will receive $1.5 million from the endowment fund, which is more than three times what it received under the Liberal Party. That is how much this party has given.

That is not all, Mr. Speaker. It will also receive $1.2 million from the Canada Council for the Arts this year and next. That is more, because we are putting more money into the Canada Council for the Arts. The Bloc does not care about the arts.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Christian Ouellet (Brome—Missisquoi, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, Stéphane Lemardelé is a well-known artist from my riding who has been invited to participate in Portrait du Québec at Saint-Jean des Arts in France this summer. Mr. Lemardelé will be hosting a week-long showcase of Quebec arts. Canadian Heritage told him that none of their programs applied to him.

Will the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages admit that his programs do not meet artists' needs, and will he support this exceptional artist instead of stubbornly refusing to do anything?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Dean Del Mastro (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC):

Once again, Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to get up on this issue.

What will not help artists in Quebec is the Bloc stimulus plan. It will not help them at all because when we flip through this, there is nothing in here that supports arts and culture.

However, where there is a lot of support for arts and culture is in the government's economic action plan which contains record funding for the arts and culture and the Bloc voted against it. The Bloc members can explain that to Quebecers when they try to explain this.

* * *

Fishing Industry

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Siobhan Coady (St. John's South—Mount Pearl, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, fisher, Kevin Nash, is getting the lowest price in 20 years for his lobster catch. He cannot break even. In Quebec and throughout Atlantic Canada the story is the same. At the same time, these fishers are watching the minister mismanage the finances of Canada. A lot of these people will soon be out of work without qualifying for employment insurance.

Could the Minister of Finance explain to those struggling Canadians why he should not be out of work as well?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Gail Shea (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to supporting fishers, our government is there. We have provided access to credit to many fishers and many fishing businesses over the last six months. We have established the community adjustment fund, which allowed us to invest $10 million in lobster marketing for eastern Canada. We supported the development of a lobster council.

We have doubled the budget for small craft harbours. We are spending record amounts of money upgrading our Coast Guard fleet, which assists the fishing industry.

We are the same government that provided $750,000--

(1500)

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

The hon. member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl.

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Siobhan Coady (St. John's South—Mount Pearl, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, all these announcements are for tomorrow's money. They do not help for today.

The government can tell us all it wants that it will deliver money for marketing of lobsters, for example, just like it told us we would not have a deficit.

However, on this side of the House we want to hear and Canadians need to hear what the government will do. Will it give us a new Minister of Finance, one who actually cares about Canadians and is competent enough to deliver?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Gail Shea (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I just want to explain for the hon. member the relationship between supply and demand and why it was so important to invest in marketing money for the lobster industry.

Advertising impacts the buying behaviour of people. The buying behaviour of people affects demand and increased demand brings an increased price. That is why we have invested in the lobster industry.

* * *

Canada-U.S. Border

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, this morning, after days of talks, we saw the minister do everything in his power to capitulate to U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano. The minister is trying to make surrendering our sovereignty sound like a success. He is helping to facilitate the militarization and thickening of the Canada-U.S. border by agreeing to gun boats, black hawk helicopters, drone planes, fences and spy planes.

Could the minister explain why he is giving up our sovereignty and damaging our tourism and trade?

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Dave MacKenzie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member opposite just cannot understand that we have a great relationship with our partners to the south. It has grown since this party took power. It does not matter which party is in power in the United States. Today's meeting between our minister and the homeland security secretary was a great meeting to build those bridges across our country and their country. I do not know what he could find wrong with it.

* * *

Arctic Sovereignty

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, let us go from southern sovereignty to northern sovereignty.

The government boasts about promoting Arctic sovereignty, yet it has not appointed anyone to the Canadian Polar Commission, the lead agency on the Arctic. The commission promotes knowledge of the polar regions, enhances Canada's international profile and recommends policy direction. It has had no board and no chair since October 2008. The ad campaign promoting the Arctic in Europe is kind of hard to take seriously when the government has not been able to appoint people to the board that leads Canada's promotion.

Will the minister simply explain why the lack of leadership, where are the members of the board and where the heck is the chair?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Chuck Strahl (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I will tell the member where the leadership is on the north. The leadership on the north is on this side of the House.

It is a pleasure to say that we have announced in the budget and have already allocated $85 million for science research projects. We have announced $200 million for housing projects in the north. We have announced the permanent research station in the north.

We continue to work with our northern partners because we believe, on this side of the House, that northern sovereignty is not negotiable. We take it seriously, like all Canadians will.

* * *

Trade

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Ron Cannan (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, in these challenging economic times, it is even more important than ever to open new doors for Canadian businesses. That is why our Conservative government has been busy negotiating new free trade agreements, like our agreement with Colombia, which is currently before the House.

Could the Minister of International Trade please explain to the House why our agreement with Colombia is so important to the prosperity of both countries?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, we presently have about $1.3 billion in two-way trade with Colombia, but that can increase with a free trade agreement. That would mean more production in Canada and more investment. The bottom line is more jobs.

Colombia has made significant strides ahead in human rights. Our agreement binds it to the International Labour Organization and all those standards, unlike other agreements it has signed with other countries. If we do not get that agreement, other countries that have signed agreements with Colombia will have a competitive edge in their products.

The foreign minister from Colombia will be here this week. I invite members opposite to engage with him on those issues. We have a great opportunity here to see progress for Colombia and for Canada with this free trade agreement.

* * *

(1505)

[Translation]

Point of Order

Order and Decorum in the House

[Points of Order]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Michel Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order pursuant to Standing Order 10 of the House of Commons, which states at the beginning: “The Speaker shall preserve order and decorum, and shall decide questions of order.”

We must consider the fact that time is immutable and that the Standing Orders set out that question period takes place from Monday to Thursday between 2:15 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. The quota of questions from each party is determined by the results of the last general election and reflects the representation of each party here in the House of Commons.

The members of this House, as well as those listening in the gallery and watching question period on television, all witnessed the standing ovations specifically from the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party. I am weighing my words and I can confirm this. We counted the number of standing ovations by these two parties that we saw today. Given the number of these ovations and the fact that time is immutable, as I stated earlier, this has deprived the Bloc Québécois and the NDP, yesterday and today, of the opportunity to put a question that had been negotiated on the basis of the quotas established according to the results of the last election.

As proof, I will tell you how many standing ovations have taken place today. There have been six standing ovations by the Conservative Party. There have been four by the Liberal Party. There have been none by the Bloc Québécois or the NDP.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Michel Guimond: The Liberals and Conservatives can go ahead and make fun of what I am saying, but I want to warn you right now, Mr. Speaker, that if you, as the person responsible for maintaining decorum, do not rule immediately on these standing ovations that are depriving us of our democratic right, there will be standing ovations by the Bloc Québécois and the NDP during upcoming question periods.

This situation has been raised repeatedly at the weekly meetings of the House leaders and whips and in informal discussions among the whips, but to no avail. If the Liberals and Conservatives think that this adds lustre to the work of Parliament and MPs, they are sadly mistaken. They should ask their constituents whether they agree with this sort of behaviour, which is more what one would expect from braggarts. That is what they look like, a bunch of braggarts.

Consequently, Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest a way of dealing with this situation.

(1510)

If a party abuses standing ovations, under the discretionary authority you have by virtue of the Standing Orders, you should cut some of the Conservatives' planted questions or eliminate some of the Liberals' allotted questions so that we can have our quota of questions.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

Order, please.

The hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons on the same point of order.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jay Hill (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to use up too much time of the House, but all of a sudden it is such a big concern to my colleague across the way. I merely want to point out that you have a very difficult job, and all of us recognize that, in trying to maintain decorum, especially on Wednesdays and especially during question period.

I would point out for my colleague across the way that other things happen in question period that delay it and that delay the natural unfolding of the questions and the answers by the government, in addition to standing ovations, which he seems to be so incensed about. I hope his heart is all right today because he certainly was very worked up. I would hate to see anything bad happen.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, in your decision that the clock had run out, we noticed that all four political parties were impacted equally by that, that each of us had one question with no supplementary left in the agreed-upon lineup. The fact is everyone was impacted that way.

I point out for my hon. colleague from the Bloc Québécois that when there is a lot of hollering and heckling, when individuals resort to unparliamentary language, which creates a huge furor in the chamber, it makes it extremely difficult for you, Mr. Speaker, to manage question period and it always results in delays, similar with standing ovations.

I merely point out there are other reasons that make it difficult for you, Mr. Speaker, to maintain control than standing ovations. I would hope that from time to time members would want to show support for their leader and for others in their caucus.

(1515)

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I wish to support my Bloc Québécois colleague. The time allotted for question period is very limited. We have 45 minutes to ask questions. We have 35 seconds to ask a question and 35 seconds to respond to a question. If the government and the official opposition enjoy supporting their leaders by giving standing ovations, this wastes time. We are the ones who lose out on our democratic right to ask questions here in the House. We lost the opportunity to ask questions yesterday and again today.

Is that what my hon. Conservative colleague, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, wants? Does he believe in democracy? Does he believe that the opposition has the right to ask the government questions? Or is this a tactic to prevent the opposition parties in the House of Commons from asking the government questions, because it is afraid of having to provide answers to Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, my suggestion to you, since you will have to make the decision, is that you hold a meeting with the four whips of the four political parties to come up with a solution. That is within your mandate. If people are going to play such games here in the House, take control, Mr. Speaker. If you think you do not have control, we know you have it. So cut off the question and move on to the next political party, who otherwise might miss the opportunity to ask their question.

If they want to stand up during their allotted time, let them do so and they can have their fun. We, however, have questions to ask the government and we have the right to ask them. We have the right to get some answers and we do not want those answers stolen from us by anyone.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Thomas Mulcair (Outremont, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I will make a quick comment on the same point of order. The Conservative member who has just spoken is trying to mislead you, because in fact what the Bloc Québécois whip has said is correct: the Bloc and the NDP are the ones who have been deprived of their time.

You do indeed have a difficult task. You are asked to apply the rules we have set for ourselves. But those rules are a reflection of our democracy and of the latest election results. Because of the systematic misconduct of the Liberals and Conservatives, who are acting like endlessly clapping circus seals, we are being deprived of our democratic rights. We are therefore asking you to intervene.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, ridicule never killed anyone. I would encourage the hon. member for Outremont and his cheerleaders to compete in the 2009 Parliamentary talent show. This year, we will have a Just for Laughs festival in Ottawa. We are entitled to ask questions. If people's reaction is enthusiastic, they should stop seeing that as some sort of plot. If these members are not able to get to their feet because they are not asking the right questions, that is their problem, but I do not need anyone defining democracy for me.

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

The Chair has heard enough. I must point out that there is virtually nothing in the rules about the content of question period. For example, there is nothing requiring each question and each answer to take only 35 seconds. It merely states that 45 minutes are allocated for the entire question period, nothing more.

The order of questions is not set out in the rules. That is something that is worked out by the House leaders. The list is submitted to the Chair after an agreement among the parties in this House.

[English]

The order of this list was changed at the beginning of this Parliament to reflect the makeup of the House, the size of the parties in the House and so on. I was not party to those discussions. Those were settled by the parties themselves. It has been that way since before I was elected Speaker for the first time, in 2001.

This is not a new procedure as far as I am concerned. When I was a student there was no order prescribed. The Speaker chose who got to ask the questions from whichever party and he enforced whatever time limit he felt was reasonable. That was taken away by agreement among the parties in the House. It was not by changes in the rules, but by agreement. We have that agreement today.

[Translation]

If the hon. Bloc Québécois whip does not like the order that has been agreed to, he needs to negotiate it with his colleagues. It is not up to me to set the order.

[English]

The rules have been set by the House leaders themselves. They agreed on this list, and I am only following the list that is there. I agree that if time gets taken up we can lose questions at the end, but sometimes we get extra and I am not told to cut it off when we get to a certain point. I am told to continue until the 45 minutes are gone.

Yesterday, we lost four questions on what I would call the normal list. Today, we lost four questions on what I would call the normal list. There was one from each of the four parties in those four questions.

(1520)

[Translation]

I am not here to decide who has lost questions and who has not. I have the list here before me. I followed the list given to me by the parties in the House. It is not my choice. I did not decide who would ask questions and who would not.

[English]

I know that time gets wasted with applause. I would be all in favour of eliminating applause, whether it is standing or not. However, it is not my choice. Members do it, unfortunately. I usually use the time to announce the name of the next person who is going to speak, but sometimes it takes longer than that.

I encourage hon. members to maintain order in the House during question period. We would get through more questions, if that is what members want. We would get through more questions if the questions were shorter and the answers were shorter. However, it seems that most members prefer to use most of the 35 seconds that are allotted for the purpose.

I am not being critical of this. I am simply stating what I think is obvious. I would suggest that if hon. members feel that some change is needed in this list, they have a chat at the House leaders' or whips' meeting, which I am sure will happen again next Tuesday. If they make a change to the list, as your humble servant I will of course follow the changes dictated to me by the House leaders in that respect.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Yvon Godin:

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I hope you are not happy with the behaviour of the members in the House of Commons today.

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

It was very loud.

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Routine Proceedings]

* * *

[English]

Government Response to Petitions

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to one petition.

* * *

Interparliamentary Delegations

[Table of Contents]

Mr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian Parliamentary Delegation to the Election Observation Mission of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly in Moldova.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I have two reports today.

First, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian Parliamentary Delegation to the Visit of the Science and Technology Committee and the Economics and Security Committee Sub-Committee on East-West Economic Co-Operation and Convergence in Lithuania.

Second, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian Parliamentary Delegation to the 70th Rose-Roth Seminar in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation of the Canadian Branch of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie (APF) respecting its participation at the seminar of the United Nations Development Program and the meeting of the Political Committee of the APF, held in Luang Prabang, Laos, on April 8 and 9, 2009.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Yasmin Ratansi (Don Valley East, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I have three reports.

Pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian Parliamentary Delegation to the Meeting of the Steering Committee of the Twelve Plus Group, Canadian Group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, in London, United Kingdom, March 7, 2008

Pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian Parliamentary Delegation to the Meeting of the Steering Commmittee of the Twelve Plus Group, Canadian Group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, in United Kingdom, September 15, 2008.

Pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian Parliamentary Delegation to the Meeting of the Steering Commmittee of the Twelve Plus Group, Canadian Group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, in London, United Kingdom, March 2, 2009.

* * *

(1525)

Committees of the House

International Trade

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Lee Richardson (Calgary Centre, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on International Trade on Bill C-24, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Peru, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Peru and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Peru, with amendment.

* * *

Public Accounts

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Shawn Murphy (Charlottetown, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the following reports of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts: report 11, on Chapter 1, A Study of Federal Transfers to Provinces and Territories of the December 2008 Report of the Auditor General of Canada; and report 12, on Chapter 5, Surveillance of Infectious Diseases, Public Health Agency of Canada of the May 2008 report of the Auditor General of Canada.

* * *

Procedure and House Affairs

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 15th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

In accordance with its order of reference of Thursday, February 26, 2009, the committee has considered vote 15, the Chief Electoral Officer under Privy Council in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2010 and reports the same.

* * *

Canada Pension Plan

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Scott Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, Lib.)

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-396, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan (deductions — disabled child).

He said: Mr. Speaker, as we all know, the Canada pension plan has been one of the great pillars of this nation for many decades. This private member's bill attempts to build in a bit of compassion for those who take the time out of the workforce to look after a disabled child. It allows for the calculation of the contributor's average monthly pensionable earnings for the deduction of months in which a contributor remained at home in order to care for that particular disabled child.

It is an honour to present this on behalf of the constituents of Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor.

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

* * *

Citizenship Act

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Olivia Chow (Trinity—Spadina, NDP)

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-397, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (persons born abroad).

She said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce my private member's bill, an act to amend the Citizenship Act for persons born abroad, which has been seconded by the member for Vancouver Kingsway.

The purpose of the bill is to restore equality for all Canadians. On April 17, some very young, internationally adopted children suddenly became lesser Canadians. On that same day some children born abroad will be stripped of their right to inherit their Canadian parents' citizenship.

It is not fair to create two levels of citizenship. It is not fair to strip away the right of parents to pass down their Canadian citizenship to their children.

We know that millions of Canadians work abroad. Some work for Canadian corporations, some teach in schools and universities and others work for the United Nations and humanitarian organizations, such as UNICEF and Doctors Without Borders.

By enacting this legislation, the government would treat citizenship in a manner that reflects and promotes Canadian economic, social, intellectual and humanitarian engagement with the world.

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

* * *

(1530)

World Autism Awareness Day Act

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Shawn Murphy (Charlottetown, Lib.)

moved that Bill S-210, An Act respecting World Autism Awareness Day, be read the first time.

He said: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House today to sponsor the private member's bill, an act respecting World Autism Awareness Day, which was introduced in the Senate by the Hon. Senator Jim Munson.

In 2007, the United Nations General Assembly recognized the second day of April in every year as World Autism Awareness Day. With 1 in every 165 Canadian families now being affected by autism spectrum disorder, I believe now it is imperative and timely that the federal government follow the United Nations and declare April 2 as World Autism Awareness Day in Canada.

I encourage my hon. colleagues in the House to support this very important bill.

(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)

* * *

Petitions

Democratic Republic of Congo

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table a petition on behalf of some 50 constituents of the riding of Mount Royal who seek to bring to the attention of this House the continued gross violations of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, a country that has been witness to the world's deadliest conflicts since World War II, where some 5 million people have died in the last 12 years alone in what has been called “Africa's world war”.

The petitioners are rightly alarmed by the war crimes and crimes against humanity targeting the innocent, by the massive acts of rape, sexual violence, pillaging, forced labour and summary executions perpetrated on a daily basis and by the repressive measures inflicted by an increasing dictatorial regime.

Accordingly, the petitioners call upon the government to take a leading diplomatic role in implementing international resolutions to put an end to the conflict in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo and to respect existing peace accords, to support the creation of an international criminal tribunal to put an end to the culture of impugnity and bring the perpetrators of these crimes to justice, and to organize an international conference in Canada on the situation in the Congo.

We cannot continue to be indifferent bystanders. Silence is not an option. The massive violations of human rights require immediate action on behalf of Canada and on behalf of the international community.

* * *

Canada Post

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present this petition on behalf of my constituents who feel the changes made to their mail service are creating safety concerns for residents.

The petitioners believe their door-to-door mail delivery should be reinstated, as the community mailboxes create more litter and pose a safety concern for residents.

The residents feel they are being treated unfairly and that they were not given adequate notice. Therefore, they are calling on Canada Post to reinstate their door-to-door mail delivery.

* * *

Energy Industry

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Scarborough East, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition, in both official languages. The petitioners, numbering well over 200, are from Etobicoke, Scarborough, Richmond Hill, Aurora, Mississauga, Brampton, Pickering, Ajax, Cambridge, Waterloo, Guelph, Windsor, Amherstburg, and Leamington, Ontario; Red Deer, Alberta; and Marysville and Kimberley, B.C.

They draw to the attention of the Canadian government that many countries around the world have energy market monitoring agencies, and that an energy superpower like Canada needs such an agency.

They call upon the Canadian government to recognize the serious impact that high energy prices, including gasoline and fuel prices, are having on the economy. They are citing a lack of competition and transparency in the energy industry. They believe this to be to the detriment of all Canadians.

They wish the Canadian government would acknowledge this and reinstate the office of petroleum price information. They also wish that hearings be conducted. They want to ensure that this serious matter is brought to the attention of Parliament. They also request that the monopolistic efficiency defence abuses provision of the Competition Act be eliminated.

* * *

(1535)

Protection of Human Life

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Scarborough East, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by 250 Canadians. These petitioners call upon the Canadian government to recognize once and for all the importance and primacy of human life and that life is from the time of conception until natural death.

These petitioners call upon Parliament to pass legislation for the protection of human life from the time of conception until natural death.

* * *

Questions Passed as Orders for Return

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 120 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.

The Speaker: Is that agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

* * *

[Text]

Question No. 120--Mr. Claude Bachand:

With respect to the contract for private motor vehicle (PMV) relocation services and the Department of Defence and the Department of Public Works and Government Services: (a) why did the departments terminate the contract with Colley Motorships Ltd.; (b) when do the departments intend to re-tender the contract for PMVs; (c) when do the departments expect to award the PMV contract; (d) in the meantime, do the departments intend to tender a number of contracts containing a single shipment request so as to remain under the $25,000 limit, in accordance with Government Contracts Regulations and, if so, will this method be used as a temporary solution until the final call for tenders; and (e) how many complaints about Autorail Forwarder did the departments receive during the contract period?

(Return tabled)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Tom Lukiwski:

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.

The Speaker: Is that agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

* * *

[English]

Motions for Papers

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.

The Speaker: Is that agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

* * *

Request for Emergency Debate

Sri Lanka

[S. O. 52]

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

The Chair has notice of a request for an emergency debate from the hon. member for Toronto--Danforth. I will hear the hon. member now.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I know hon. members are well aware there is a humanitarian crisis unfolding in Sri Lanka at this very moment. In fact we took note, and more than that, of the crisis in Sri Lanka back in February when the conflict was at its full height. An emergency debate was held at that time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit to you that we need to have an emergency debate again about the unfolding situation in Sri Lanka, because the way in which the conflict has come to an end, and the current circumstances of over 250,000 people who have been relegated to internally displaced persons camps is grave indeed.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure you have been following what has been going on, as have we, and as has the Tamil community here in Canada, which is a very considerable number with tens of thousands of people, many of whom have families in that very region.

As we know, the United Nations Secretary-General attended the area and came back visibly shocked by what he saw, and the humanitarian crisis that was unfolding I know touched him very deeply. In addition, the human rights experts at the United Nations, at the highest level, are indicating that profound problems need to be examined.

The urgency we are facing right now is that literally every day in these camps, people are dying due to the conditions. Canada has failed to take strong diplomatic action to insist that the government of Sri Lanka open these camps to international observation, make sure that aid is fully available, make sure that medical care that is needed by people in order to literally save lives day by day is made available, and open up the camps to international journalists so that the world can know what the truth of the matter is.

I believe that Parliament must debate this issue as a matter of urgency today so that we can raise the issues that I have outlined here and discuss the need for immediate action.

It is not very often in the history of this place that one is faced with a circumstance where as many as a quarter of a million people have been shepherded into camps which are not being run the way internally displaced camps should be run, which is by the United Nations, by the international community. We have a responsibility here as citizens to stand up for and with those who are suffering under these circumstances.

It is a matter of urgency because lives are being lost as we speak.

[Translation]

The Tamil community raised an extraordinary concern. I met with the community's leaders. Members of their own families are in those camps. They are not managed according to international standards and it is our responsibility to protect those who suffer in such cases.

I hope and I expect that you will grant an emergency debate on the current humanitarian crisis in Sri Lanka.

Thank you very much for considering this request.

(1540)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

The Chair thanks the hon. member for Toronto--Danforth for his submissions on this point.

[Translation]

I know that we had an emergency debate on this issue a few weeks ago because of the drawn-out conflict between the two armies in Sri Lanka.

[English]

I am not satisfied, based on what I have heard at the moment, that the request the hon. member is making meets the exigencies of the Standing Order at this time. Yes, there could be a further humanitarian crisis, I agree. I am not satisfied at the moment that a debate in this House would be helpful on the point in terms of the Standing Order, and therefore, I am not allowing it at this time, but I stress that it is at this time. I am sure the hon. member will make another request later if circumstances change or something becomes more pressing on the issue.

Government Orders

[Government Orders]

* * *

[English]

Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act

The House resumed from May 26 consideration of the motion that Bill C-20, An Act respecting civil liability and compensation for damage in case of a nuclear incident, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

The hon. member for Halifax West has 15 minutes left in the time remaining for his remarks.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was speaking to Bill C-20, the nuclear liability and compensation bill, which is a bill that has been in the House before. We studied essentially the same bill in the previous Parliament and now it is back before us.

I was saying yesterday that one of the concerns I have about the situation with this is the role of the minister in reviewing the liability limit every five years. The idea that this needs to be reviewed is valid, but my concern stems from the lack of a coherent nuclear energy policy from the government. It raises the question of how it will deal with the liability issue when it cannot competently manage this file.

We have not seen competent management. If we look at the history of what has occurred over the past year and a half, there was the closure of Chalk River and the decision of the government to try to scapegoat the nuclear regulator and blame Linda Keen for the problems which, as we can see now, clearly were not simply problems with the regulator, but there was a fundamental problem at Chalk River, which I am sure we are going to hear more about in the coming days.

There are concerns, indeed, about the future of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and the lack of leadership from the government in that regard. We are all anxious to see the direction in which the government wants to go.

Recently, we have seen media reports where a professor from the University of Calgary actually asked if AECL was about to follow the path of the Avro Arrow and be sold away from Canada, with the loss of many scientists and so forth. The professor detailed the history of neglect for the nuclear sector under the Conservative government over the past three years.

The fact is that internationally over 200 nuclear plants are planned, involving billions of dollars and thousands of jobs. It is an industry in which Canada has been a true leader internationally. We all know the lack of value that this neo-conservative government puts on science. It seems to me at times that it really does not believe in empirical evidence but only in anecdotal evidence. The Conservatives do not believe in science, so to speak.

In fact, one of my colleagues suggested the other day that Barney the Dinosaur should be the official Conservative Party mascot. The Conservatives probably would not like that. They would want him to wear blue instead of purple, I suppose, because purple is too close to red, but I digress.

There is a serious lack of clarity by the Conservatives when it comes to the question of AECL's privatization. They will not tell us if it is on the garage sale list with the CN Tower, for example. The budget documents this year muddied the waters further in their reference to some obscure partnership in stating that the minister is reviewing AECL's structure involving private sector participation in the commercial operations of the corporation. We do not know what that means.

It is distressing to know that since last August there has been on the minister's desk a report from the National Bank done on the future of AECL, which has not been publicly released, even though the government has had since last August to review it. Of course, the minister has had since November, when she was appointed, to review it. It has still not been made public. We still have no idea where the government is going with AECL. One wonders why the government has sat on the report since August. It raises the question of what the government is hiding in this regard.

Is the government going to accept a recommendation to privatize more than 51% of AECL's design service departments, for example, or what is it going to do? Would the minister sell AECL to France or would it go to Canadian interests? What is it going to do? What is the value of AECL during a period of recession?

That is the problem with the government's theory of having a garage sale and selling major government assets worth billions and billions of dollars at a time when their prices obviously are reduced by the recession. We all see how the prices of things are down across the country, perhaps not enough things in some cases for families, but the fact of the matter is for items like government owned buildings and major items like that these days, clearly the dollars one can get for those sales are dramatically reduced. It makes it a terrible and unwise time to unload those kinds of things in a garage sale.

(1545)

AECL is another example, and there are a lot of questions about AECL's future and no answers.

There is also the issue of the government's lack of support for AECL's bid to build nuclear plants in Ontario. Ontario is going the route of building more nuclear plants. It is making a choice about who the builder is going to be, and AECL is one of the bidders.

Many industry observers see this question of where the government stands as critical to the future success of AECL. They consider the question of whether it wins its bid as critical as well. The government appears to have abandoned AECL on this front.

Unlike the Conservative government, Canadians understand the value of a Canadian nuclear industry. A recent survey of attitude toward nuclear power found that 75% of Canadians are “not comfortable with the presence of non-Canadian nuclear plant manufacturers and plant operators in Canada”. The study also found that the contribution to the local economy and the use of Canadian technology were rated most important for nuclear projects by Canadians. We can see why. Imagine how many jobs this involves in Canada, how many scientists and our top minds are engaged in the work of AECL.

As that professor from Calgary noted in a recent media story, when the Diefenbaker government killed the Avro Arrow project in 1959, the result was the demise of a unique Canadian high-tech invention, an innovative process where Canadian minds were very much engaged. It forced thousands of world-class scientists and engineers to leave our country. This is the same kind of issue, where the Conservative government is talking about the possibility of giving AECL away, or not supporting it and allowing it to fail.

Hopefully, we are not about to witness a repeat of the Avro Arrow. With the Conservative government's neglect and incompetence in this sector, Canadians are understandably worried.

It is not surprising that there are serious questions being raised about the future of CANDU reactors and the fate of the thousands of dedicated scientists and engineers who work for AECL and about what the government intends to do about the production and supply of medical isotopes. It is hard to tell. There seems to be no clarity or no plan from the government.

When there was a shutdown of the NRU in Chalk River in December 2006, we would have thought the government would have started then to produce a plan to replace Chalk River, to come up with some other way to produce medical isotopes. There is no apparent evidence of efforts being made by the government to produce a plan and to move forward with solving that problem.

What was the government's answer? It blamed Linda Keen. She was the scapegoat. The government took no responsibility. It is like we see so often in question period. Whatever questions we ask, it seems the government wants to go back more than three years ago when the Liberals were in power and blame the Liberals for everything. The Conservatives do not take any responsibility for the fact that they are now government.

We would think they were still in opposition. They have not really made the transition. They have not adjusted to the fact that they are government. The Conservatives have been in government for three years. It is time to be responsible. It is time to take responsibility for the job they have to do. Their duty to Canadians is to take action and take responsibility on a matter like dealing with medical isotopes, which is so important to Canadians.

There have been at least three radioactive leaks at the Chalk River site in the past few months, and now we have the indefinite shutdown of the laboratory there. The fact that the government still does not have a plan to ensure the security of our isotope supply is shocking. Canadians were exposed to the situation in 2007, so it is no wonder, after all this period of not seeing any action, they do not trust the Conservative government.

The Conservative government's answer in 2007 was not to find a long-term solution to secure the supply of medical isotopes. Instead, it was to fire the nuclear safety regulator for doing her job. It is even more clear now that she was doing her job. And the government did it in the middle of the night, not even in broad daylight, which was amazing.

(1550)

A few weeks ago, Canadian Medical Association representatives were on the Hill and I spoke with a few of them, including a nuclear medicine doctor from Halifax, Dr. Andrew Ross, who is an outstanding physician and researcher. He told me that the nuclear medical community was very worried at that time about the isotope supply. That was before this shutdown and before the current crisis. He said that one major incident with a closure would create a crisis.

We had a situation already where the reactor in the Netherlands, which is a major producer of isotopes, was shut down over a long period. I gather it is now back up, but Canada was supplying over half of the world's isotope needs and the closure of Chalk River was going to cause a crisis regardless. Therefore, that has been a very big concern for the CMA—

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Bradley Trost:

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to ask about the relevance of my hon. colleague's remarks. This important legislation. He is dealing with all aspects of the nuclear industry and this legislation is about nuclear liability.

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie):

I thank the member for his comments and I will give the hon. member for Halifax West some latitude in coming to the point of the bill.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Geoff Regan:

Madam Speaker, clearly the bill is about nuclear liability and I am certainly talking about the nuclear industry. I think the points I have been making are very relevant to the debate before the House and it is important we consider these issues.

When we talk about the crisis situation we are in, it is clear the government has no plan whatsoever to deal with it. I guess the Conservatives will look for another scapegoat to blame for their incompetence. We can see why Canadians have a lack of trust in the government and why the opposition has it on probation.

With respect to Bill C-20, while we support the principles of the legislation, it is important that we hear from witnesses in committee on important issues, issues like concerns the industry may have about how this bill will impact the competitiveness of the nuclear industry. It is important to assess the level of support for the bill within industry and whether this is the right liability limit.

I very much look forward to the future study of Bill C-20, with an eye to improving the legislation where it is needed.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Christian Ouellet (Brome—Missisquoi, BQ):

Madam Speaker, unfortunately I must apologize to my colleague from Halifax West because I did not hear the first part of his speech.

I was unable to determine in his speech if his party, the Liberal Party, and he support an increase in the number of nuclear plants. Bill C-20 will protect nuclear plants in the event of an accident.

Does the Liberal Party agree with promoting nuclear power plants and building more of them?

(1555)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Geoff Regan:

Madam Speaker, I find my hon. colleague's question quite surprising because he is surely aware that decisions about electricity generation in the provinces fall under provincial jurisdiction. It is a provincial responsibility.

Furthermore, given the fact that the Bloc Québécois members have been talking about protecting provincial powers since the party's inception, I am surprised that the member would even suggest that the federal government should get involved in an area that falls under provincial jurisdiction.

The fact is that the provinces have to make these decisions. For example, the Province of Ontario has decided to build nuclear power plants.

I think that the federal government and Parliament should ensure that the regulations are strong enough to deal with this sector.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP):

Madam Speaker, Bill C-20 is about limiting liability in the case of a nuclear accident. It is something that needs modernization, but I have a curiosity about one of the points the member raised. The Liberal Party has concerns about whether this is the right amount of liability to apply to the nuclear industry. For Canadians to follow this, a cap is placed on the amount of compensation that can be paid out to individuals or communities in the event of an accident.

He has expressed concerns about whether the limit of $650 million is the right limit. We have seen a number of nuclear accidents happen over the years. I am not talking about Chernobyl, but relatively small ones have gone through $1 billion or more in compensation with a start. The Americans have a $10 billion pool. The Japanese and Europeans have unlimited liability in their nuclear facilities in terms of compensation. Canada is putting in $650 million in liability.

If the member is concerned about the level of liability that is placed in the bill, is he aware, from all of the advice that we have received, that it cannot be amended at the committee stage? If the Liberal Party votes for the bill at second reading and puts it to committee, it is also endorses and votes for the liability level set out in the bill. He must be comfortable with that liability level. This is something I hope my colleague will be clear about with us today.

If he is comfortable with that, then great. That is his choice and his party's decision. However, he cannot raise concerns about it not being enough money and then say we might fix it later. This cannot be fixed later. It either is this amount or it is not.

I would like a clarification on what my colleague has expressed as a concern so far.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Geoff Regan:

Madam Speaker, I trust my hon. colleague for Skeena—Bulkley Valley has read the bill. He makes me wonder whether he has, because if he has, he knows that the current limit is one of only $75 million. The bill proposes to increase it to $650 million. That is nearly tenfold. It is a dramatic increase in the liability limit and I am surprised he does not make any acknowledgement of that fact.

If the bill passes second reading and goes to committee, we will have the opportunity at committee to hear witnesses and experts on the question of the liability level. I think he is familiar with the parliamentary process. He knows there are votes at committee. There are votes at report stage and third reading. Then the Senate deals with the bill. There are many opportunities, as the bill goes forward, to make decisions in regard to what makes sense and what does not and whether it makes sense to go forward or ask the government to start over again.

My impression is that the bill is a good level. However, I am certainly interested to hear what witnesses have to say at committee.

(1600)

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Massimo Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Lib.):

Madam Speaker, I have a quick question for the member for Halifax West.

[English]

He is our critic for natural resources and he does a good job. I know he spoke about competitiveness, so I want to hear his comment on how he regards the limited liability affecting competitiveness. We see the job that the AECL does and the fact that we have been reliant on only one facility. I would not have a problem with it being competitive.

How would the limited liability affect competitiveness? In the end, if we have third parties opening up these nuclear sites, the government would probably be responsible for liability. Would it affect competitiveness? Would it be more open or would it be restrictive?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Geoff Regan:

Madam Speaker, this is related to the question of competitiveness. If we set a limit so high that an operator of a nuclear facility is unable to obtain insurance, then it is unable to operate. We are certainly not going to see the kinds of new nuclear plants that the Government of Ontario wishes to build, for instance. I think even the Government of Saskatchewan has indicated an interest.

Even NDP governments in some places these days have expressed an interest in having nuclear plants. They have made the decision, in their own judgment, that the concern about climate change is at the top of the environmental agenda these days and that is the major problem we face in the world environmentally. Relative to other kinds of sources of energy, they have decided they prefer nuclear energy.

However, if we are to have nuclear production in our country, it is important we ensure that AECL or other operators can exist, operate them and manage to have the insurance they require. A moment ago, we heard about the U.S. system, which is a very different one. When the U.S. has a much larger industry, much larger companies and many more reactors than we have in Canada, it can manage to have a different kind of system.

It seems to me that the system proposed here, with a vast increase in the limit, is one that suits Canada better. However, as I said, I look forward to hearing witnesses before the committee.

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Olivia Chow (Trinity—Spadina, NDP):

Madam Speaker, I hear that the member is concerned that the Americans are looking to perhaps purchase the atomic energy plant at Chalk River, the nuclear plant. They are certainly interested in purchasing significant sections of Canada's nuclear industry, but under the existing liability act, because $75 million is way below the international standards, they are held liable, using the American standard, to $10 billion.

If the bill were to pass with only $650 million as the liability, it would enable these American companies to pick up sections of the Canadian nuclear industry because they then would not have to face the $10 billion liability possibility.

How does passing the bill keep and secure our nuclear industry? Would it not say to the American industry, “Come on in and--”

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie):

Order. I will have to give the hon. member a few seconds to respond, so 35 seconds for a response.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Geoff Regan:

That is very short, Madam Speaker. The member indicated that I had said something about being concerned about Americans buying these plants. I do not remember saying the word “Americans” at all during my speech or making any reference to them. I am concerned about the fact that the government is looking at selling assets, whether it be its buildings, whether it be AECL and others, at fire sale prices. In this situation, we should be very concerned about that. However, in terms of the comparison between the U.S. system and ours, again, the U.S. system is very different and we should hear witnesses about ours.

(1605)

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Christian Ouellet (Brome—Missisquoi, BQ):

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-20, because the Bloc Québécois believes that this legislation is absolutely necessary. The previous maximum compensation of $75 million in the event of an incident had been established quite some time ago, in 1976, and needed to be increased.

But before I go any further, I would like to respond to the member for Halifax West, who said earlier that he did not understand my question, because he thought I did not know who had jurisdiction over nuclear power plant construction. That was not my question. What I was asking was whether the Liberal Party wanted to develop the nuclear industry. When you invest $800 million in nuclear research and development, you are promoting it. The federal government is not saying it is going to build nuclear facilities, but it is promoting them.

Once again, the Liberals have no clear policy, and the member could not give a clear answer to my question, which is why he changed the subject. It is always the same thing with the Liberals at present: they do not know where they are going.

I will come back to the initial topic. Bill C-20 seeks to establish a liability regime applicable in the event of a nuclear incident. The bill clearly says “in the event of a nuclear incident”. It makes operators of nuclear installations absolutely and exclusively liable for damages up to a maximum of $650 million. It is hard to imagine that the company that owns a nuclear facility will be solely liable. In fact, even a minor nuclear incident will cost more than $650 million. Damages will easily run to billions of dollars. Who will pay for that? The provinces and the federal government.

Bill C-20 is a reincarnation of Bill C-5. We had studied that bill in committee and had had the opportunity to ask insurance companies whether they were ready for such legislation. Naturally, insurance companies are generally rather cautious, and they were not necessarily willing to pay much more than $650 million. They might have gone as far as $1 billion if we had forced them, but I had and still have the feeling that they cannot go any farther.

So we cannot compare the Canadian system to the American system as some people do, since we do not have many plants. American plants pool their money. It is not a $10 billion pool, but it varies from $9 billion to $11 billion. This pool also varies based on those giving guarantees. We agree that this would certainly be much closer to what a nuclear accident would cost.

The Bloc Québécois believes that this would still be an improvement over the previous legislation that provided for only $75 million in compensation, even though it is proving to be difficult to obtain insurance above the amount set out in Bill C-20. However, we realize that governments will be required to pay out the rest of the amount.

We are very concerned about a nuclear accident. There are several incidents each year at every nuclear plant. We call them incidents because they are contained. One of the most dangerous activities is changing the bundles of uranium-235 and uranium-239. They are changed by robots when all of their energy has been used up. When they are moved, there can be radiation in the room, and also outside the room where the reactors are located.

There is always some danger. We are well aware of that.

(1610)

Last year, between November 5 and November 9, such an incident took place at Gentilly-2 in Quebec. I am not mentioning this just because it is Gentilly, since these kinds of accidents happen all over the place, for example in Burlington.

We are well aware that there can be problems with aging plants. The CANDU system is not internationally recognized as a safe system. It was possible to sell it abroad, but that was more under the Liberals, because it was practically a gift. The reactors were delivered and no payments were ever requested. So it was not because of the quality of the CANDU.

Earlier, the hon. member for Halifax West said that the government was not taking responsibility regarding the production of isotopes. That is true, and he is correct in saying so. Last year, we were forced to pass special legislation to get the plant running again, without any assurance that it would last. It was 55 years old last year, and this year it is 56. It is clear that this plant is past its prime.

However, the MAPLE, which was developed with taxpayer money over 15 years, is still not functional. We have even stopped hearing that this project would be completed. One of the reasons was that the engineers who might have done so have left, because the work was not moving along quickly enough and they could not see an end to the project. All of the top minds left the country under the Liberals and moved elsewhere. Our nuclear scientists and engineers are no longer here. That is one reason why the MAPLE was stalled, and why the government decided to scrap it after spending billions of dollars on its development.

Quebeckers have a hard time with this, since they contribute by paying taxes. Only 6% of all of Canada's nuclear energy is produced in Quebec, while Quebeckers pay 23% of all nuclear research and nuclear-plant promotion. Furthermore, this energy is not necessary. It can make people rich, but it is not necessary. We prefer green energies. In Quebec, we focus particularly on hydroelectricity.

All of Canada could also develop power plants run by deep geothermal energy, a sector that is completely ignored in this country, even though 24 countries have developed it. By drilling two to five kilometres underground, we can extract heat to generate decentralized electricity. This would be much better than a Canadian network that Quebec would not go along with, since it interferes with our jurisdictions. We will never accept it.

So, we are in favour of Bill C-20 in principle. As I said earlier, it is certainly not enough, but it must be said that nuclear power costs the government a lot of money. Even if the companies pay for the insurance, the government still establishes systems so that, for example, field hospitals can be set up quickly. The RCMP spends a lot of money to make checks and prevent terrorist attacks from taking place at nuclear plants. Security of nuclear plants costs the government money, and this money comes from taxpayers. So this is not a necessary energy source, nor is it a green one, that we could support.

(1615)

Furthermore, the issue of nuclear waste has never been settled. This is a matter of great importance. To date, nuclear plants in Canada have produced over 2 million irradiated fuel bundles and they do not know what to do with them. That number will double if our existing reactors operate until the end of their predicted life spans.

So we are talking about 4 million bundles that need to be put somewhere. At the moment, consultations are under way all across Canada to find out where to put these things for the next 1,000 years. There has been research to see if this uranium might not be used to produce a depleted but still usable uranium. They came to realize, after fortunes were spent on it in France and after the Americans bought the rights to carry out this research, which incidentally they too gave up on about a year or a year and half ago, that there is no future to reusing uranium in this way.

So a place has to be found to put the bundles. They can be reused—this is possible—to make nuclear weapons. We know just how dangerous that is.

As long as nowhere is found for storage, stable storage if possible, of these bundles, we will not be able to develop nuclear energy and we will not be able to keep on thinking that it is a green energy and not a hazard to human health. It is a hazard to health because nuclear waste is a hazardous substance. What is more, the mining of uranium is dangerous as well.

I have consulted experts, and pure uranium could be used in nuclear facilities. I know that the present government wants to promote its use for extracting the oil from oil sands. Heat is needed to produce electricity and to extract as much oil as possible from oil sands. Then those nuclear plants will have to have a location for secure storage of their waste.

It is not just a matter of individuals deciding to accept or not to accept nuclear waste being stored in some location, but there is a whole context, a whole province, a whole part of a country, that has to agree to it. When this hazardous waste is being transported by truck or train, accidents or thefts can occur, as well as terrorism or sabotage, and they can occur just about anywhere. So it is not the responsibility of a small community, but the responsibility of a very large area.

In terms of such incidents, Bill C-20 does include some sensible provisions. We all hope that nothing will ever happen, but Bill C-20 is the very least the government can do. However, we are concerned that increasing insurance will cause a change of course resulting in the promotion of nuclear energy and CANDU reactors, which are not very safe as far as thermal and nuclear plants go, not to mention completely unnecessary.

As I said earlier, we can produce electricity using green energy. I went on at length about geothermal energy because, according to a study done in the United States, it can meet the needs of the entire United States and render coal-fired and nuclear plants obsolete. By 2050, geothermal energy alone can meet Americans' energy needs. There will be nine billion people on the planet in 2050.

(1620)

We will need a lot of energy. Nuclear energy will not be able to supply that demand, and the prospect of plants melting down will always be a sword of Damocles hanging over our heads. Bill C-20 would never have been drafted if nuclear power were not dangerous. We are stuck in a vicious circle. We have this bill because nuclear energy is dangerous, but if we were not doing dangerous things, we would not need bills like Bill C-20 to protect people in case of an incident. Once again, I agree that $650 million is not going to protect us.

Suppose an incident were to occur at Chalk River. The fallout would go beyond Chalk River to Ottawa and Quebec. So $650 million would not be nearly enough to compensate people, rebuild houses, and clean up and decontaminate areas. It would certainly cost much more than that.

So the government must think instead of investing more, and that is what we are calling on the government to do. We want the government to put money towards developing green energies, instead of investing in research limited almost exclusively to nuclear plants and the sequestration of the CO₂ gases produced by the oil sands. As I mentioned earlier, there is geothermal energy, but also solar energy. We know that great strides have been made in terms of generating electricity with solar energy. Spain has some examples of it working very well. We know that wind energy is already going well. So the government could spend more money and do more to develop the hydroelectricity we are capable of generating.

There is also biomass energy. Right now, we do not know what to do with our forestry workers. Biomass energy was used especially for heating, but it can also be used to generate electricity. Digesters can also be used on farms. Instead of letting animal excrement create methane and make greenhouse gases even worse, we could use digesters. The government should help farmers create electricity with these systems. They are on the market. It is just a matter of cost-effectiveness.

If we looked at the overall cost of nuclear energy per kilowatt-hour, we obviously would not even think about developing it. If we look at just the cost of production and not how much it will cost to dismantle the plants that will still be there even when they are not in use, even 40 years after they have stopped producing. Those areas will be radioactive. We will have a hard time closing those plants.

In any case, the cost of insurance will be included in the price per kilowatt-hour. That is what I wanted to mention as well. Even if we had requested much higher insurance, ultimately, the customer would always be the one to pay, because the price per kilowatt-hour would increase.

So I agree with a bill like Bill C-20. It is a minimum, but at least we are in favour of that minimum. However, we need to invest in green energies, and we need to do it now. The price per kilowatt-hour will be much lower and the risk of danger greatly reduced since it will be much easier to provide security. A wind turbine or a geothermal power plant is not at risk of being blown up. No terrorists are interested in doing that. But someone could be interested in blowing up a nuclear power plant if there was ever a conflict somewhere.

So, a green energy that is not dangerous is not the same thing as a green energy that is dangerous. Bill C-20 has to do with the health of the people and how to respond to a potential accident. That is the minimum.

(1625)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP):

Madam Speaker, after listening to members of the Bloc, I do not sense that they are overly supportive of the nuclear industry or the development of more nuclear plants in the country. I, therefore, would question why they would be interested in supporting the bill when the responsible position to take would be to vote against it.

In Manitoba, we have a lot of hydroelectric power but we have only developed half of our potential. If we were to develop the rest of our potential and be able to transport it to the east-west power grid across the country, we could potentially close down all the coal-fired plants in Ontario. Instead, what we have developing here is nuclear plants being considered in Ontario and, evidently, in Saskatchewan and Alberta, which is clearly the wrong way to go for all the reasons that the member just illustrated, such as the storage of the material which is very expensive and has a risk for many years.

Huge deposits of nuclear material have been put in the oceans by the Russians and other powers over the years and we may never know what the long-term effects of that will be. It, obviously, cannot be good because over time those barrels will rust and the materials will be leaked into the oceans. I do not think we want to be promoting more of something that has not worked very well in the past.

I would ask the member to reconsider where he is going with this because I kind of like what he had to say and he was on the right track in his speech, but he has not really explained to me why he supports the bill.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Christian Ouellet:

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for this question, which allows me to make some clarifications.

We are fundamentally in favour of safety. We are fundamentally in favour of companies having a minimum liability in case of an accident. The companies already exist. There are 18 nuclear facilities in Canada, so the danger does exist. However, we do not want to create any more facilities. We hope to see an end to the production of nuclear energy. However, we cannot close the facilities that already exist. There is no way we will be able to stop them as long as they seem to have some usefulness.

We want to provide people with a little protection. If an accident happens near Hamilton, $650 million will not make any difference. However, the company will have a minimum liability. It is in that sense that we are saying yes to this bill and no to nuclear energy development.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his speech. I know he is a great environmentalist and green advocate.

The purpose of this bill is to make businesses more responsible. However, a few years ago, the government made some changes to legislation that allow private companies to manage nuclear facilities. One might wonder why private companies are being given such responsibilities and allowed to manage industries that involve a great deal of risk and potential harm. By their very nature, these companies have very limited liability. In the event of a problem, they can simply close up shop and disappear. The problems would then fall to the community and the government.

I wonder if my colleague believes that this is enough, or if we should not monitor this industry and the remaining facilities. Unfortunately, when private companies' resources run out, they simply disappear. Does my colleague believe that the compensation that private companies are being asked to provide will be sufficient in the event of a problem?

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Christian Ouellet:

Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate the excellent question posed by my colleague from Sherbrooke.

No, that amount is not sufficient. We realize that. We are simply saying that the amount is better than the $75 million proposed earlier. The fact that some plants have been privatized is certainly a huge problem.

However, we must not forget, and I would like to remind my colleague from Sherbrooke, that in Canada we have an organization called the AECL. This commission inspects nuclear power plants and issues operating permits. It is a group of independent and very competent persons. They are so independent that, last year, the Minister of Natural Resources fired the president because she was not telling him what he wanted to hear. This group was independent. It may be less so now. I do not know. However, I think it is absolutely necessary. It is an integral part of the cost of producing nuclear power. We must have organizations that conduct inspections and ensure that the plants are in good working order. Just imagine if the 18 plants we have now grew to 50. That would result in huge expenses just for inspections.

For that reason I believe that this energy is not viable. It is not a green energy and we are diverting inordinate amounts of money that never produce even one kilowatt hour.

(1630)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Chris Charlton (Hamilton Mountain, NDP):

Madam Speaker, I am really interested in this debate as I know are most of my constituents in Hamilton Mountain.

It seems to me that what this issue is about is protecting Canadians in the case of a nuclear accident and tragedy. I wonder if the member could speak a bit about where the number $650 million of liability comes from. Why does he believe that number is adequate? I think all of the evidence from the experts speaks to the contrary.

We know, for example, that when the Pembina Institute did a study on what the cost would be of a potential major accident at the Darlington nuclear plant, which is not all that far away from my riding of Hamilton Mountain, it estimated the cost to be $1 trillion. Bill C-20 does not even provide for liability of $1 billion. We are talking about $650 million. The reality is, as the member will know, that taxpayers will be on the hook for the difference, and that difference is far from insignificant.

We are talking in the House about the deplorable state of the deficit now, which is 50% higher today than it was estimated to be just four months ago, but those numbers pale in comparison when we are talking about a potential $1 trillion liability as a result of just one nuclear accident.

I wonder if the member could just explain to the House why he believes that $650 million is adequate.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Christian Ouellet:

Madam Speaker, I never said that $650 million was enough. On the contrary, it will never be enough. However, it is one way of ensuring that the private businesses that own the plants take at least some responsibility.

It is always the citizens who pay. It might be said that governments pay on behalf of citizens, but it is always the citizens who end up paying. Had we required $10 billion in insurance, the premiums would have been so high that they would have been included in the price of the kilowatt hour and people would have paid in any event. The companies do not contribute. It must be understood that they never contribute. The cost is covered by the price of the kilowatt hour or, if there were an accident, after the fact. We will pay one way or another for an energy source that is not safe, that is dangerous and that could cause accidents.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Olivia Chow (Trinity—Spadina, NDP):

Madam Speaker, I am speaking against Bill C-20, the nuclear liability and compensation bill.

We do need a new nuclear liability and compensation act, and we have needed it for at least 20 years. As a liability limit, $650 million is nowhere near enough. The Auditor General has said that we need a new act as have various organizations. However, to set the limit at $650 million is nowhere near enough.

The United States has a compensation--

(1635)

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie):

Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member.

At this point I must, pursuant to Standing Order 38, inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for St. Paul's, Health; the hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, Arts and Culture.

The hon. member for Trinity—Spadina may resume.

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Olivia Chow:

Madam Speaker, as I was saying, the United States has a compensation limit of $10 billion. If we look at other countries that have had quite a few nuclear accidents, whether it be Germany or Japan, we will notice that they do not have an upper limit at all, that if there is an accident, the company must pay all the costs of cleaning it up.

This bill used to be called Bill C-63, then it was called Bill C-5 in the last Parliament, and now it is Bill C-20 and the number remains the same. New Democrats said back then that we do not support $650 million as the existing compensation limit because it is way too low. We said it then. We say it now. Why are we seeing this number again?

I believe one of the reasons we are seeing this bill reintroduced today is because American nuclear companies are really interested in purchasing significant sections of Canada's nuclear industry.

Under the current legislation, they would subjected to the American rules as Canadian law does not meet the international baseline. We know the international minimum, according to the two international agreements, the Paris and Vienna conventions, requires a bare minimum of $600 million. Because of that, under American law, the parent company of a subsidiary can be sued for compensation due to the actions of, say, a Canadian subsidiary of an American company if the law governing that subsidiary is below the international standards, as it is now. If this bill were passed, then the American corporations could pick up any number of nuclear companies.

What concerns me most is what is happening at Chalk River. We have a reactor shutdown. We have at least 30,000 patients per week who need the precious medical isotopes the reactor produces and we know that these isotopes will run out in a week. We also know that the reactor has had a heavy water spill and we also know that it will be shut down at least until mid-June, and maybe even longer.

Now, people who have cancer or who need heart scans cannot get the scans done. People who have thyroid cancer, as I have had, after the thyroid has been removed, need to ingest a medical iodine isotope, pill I-131, which I remember taking. It would then destroy the cancer cells in the thyroid area as the thyroid attracts these nuclear iodines made by the isotopes. If people do not get it treated, if they do not take that iodine pill, which is called a seed, then the thyroid cancer cells could spread.

I am glad that when I was diagnosed with that cancer, I was able to have it removed and then, at that time, able to have access to this iodine I-131 pill. I cannot imagine what will happen to these thyroid cancer patients who need this treatment, and then to have them hear that we are going to be running out of these isotopes in a week. What is going to happen to them?

Instead of focusing on a plan B, instead of looking at whether to build a new reactor that is supposed to be on line, we are discussing this bill that certainly does not really make sense because the liability of $10 billion is 1,540% higher than the limit proposed by this bill.

(1640)

Is it because our reactor is that much safer than what the Americans have? Is it because Canadian taxpayers have far more money, that if there were a big accident, certainly the Canadian government could do the cleanup? I just heard that we have at least a $50 billion deficit. Where are we going to find the money to do the cleanup if the company is not liable?

Is the imminent sale of AECL to an American company that has the government so eager to make the Canadian nuclear legislation more American-friendly? That perhaps is one of the reasons. We are quite concerned because right now in tough economic times, the value is the lowest, which means that AECL can easily be picked up if there are interested buyers once this bill has passed.

We believe that this is bad legislation. We do not think that it can be amended, especially the dollar amount of $650 million, through the committee. I have already heard that such an amendment would be ruled out of order when it is referred to committee, which means that we are stuck with this dollar amount of $650 million. In the speeches I have heard today, whether from the Liberals or the Bloc, there is concern that $650 million is too low. This bill cannot be passed at second reading because it is just not good enough.

If we think of forecasting costs of possible accidents, a major accident at the Ontario Darlington nuclear plant, God forbid, east of Toronto, which is not far from where I am, could cause damages estimated in the range of $1 trillion, not $1 billion but $1 trillion. No wonder the Japanese and the Germans do not have an upper limit.

There are statistics of the costs of past accidents. On October 5, 1966, the Enrico Power Plant, Unit 1, outside Detroit, Michigan, not far from our border, suffered a minor issue in its reactor. The public and the environment did not experience any tragedy. The minor repairs of the entire accident, which were not entirely fixed until 1970, were $132 million in 1970 dollars. This amount would be covered, but that was a 1970s figure and it was for minor damage.

If we look at Three Mile Island, which I think everyone is familiar with, in 1979 in Harrisburg, again there was a minor nuclear incident. It caused one to two cases of cancer per year and the cleanup and investigation of the incident cost an estimated $975 million U.S. That is over the Canadian limit already and again we are talking about seventies and eighties dollars.

It is troubling that we have such a low limit of $650 million. We know that nuclear energy is extremely unsafe if it is exposed. I remember when I had to take a radioactive iodine pill, I was in a secure room. No one could come anywhere near me for at least three days. The food was put in through a secure passageway. It was extremely radioactive. No one would want to sit beside me when I was taking that pill.

If we look at the world's foremost expert on nuclear liability, Norbert Pelzer, he is saying that the upper limit should be unlimited and that even the $10 billion in the United States is insufficient to cover a huge nuclear incident. Our amount is not even enough for a minor issue, never mind a major problem.

(1645)

The other part of the bill that is problematic is the compensation process is cumbersome. It should be like an insurance claim. Instead, right now victims of nuclear accidents have to go through court. Going through the legal system is extremely costly and not everyone has access to it.

The other problem is the bill does not cover any accidents outside the plant setting. For example, if oil and mining companies use radioactive materials and a mistake is made, such as a spill or something takes place, this insurance would not cover that at all and the victims would be left high and dry.

When we calculate the cost of cleaning up Three Mile Island, if that dollar amount did not come from the nuclear industry itself but directly from taxpayers, we could have built 1.15 million hundred watt solar panels. We should think of the possibility of the green jobs we would be missing if the taxpayers have to pick up the tab if there are any accidents. We certainly need to have more green jobs.

Canada ranked 11th in last year's poll, measuring wind power and in the last budget, the government cut off the grants for wind energy, which will make it even worse. The bill is really not helpful.

I want to point out various accidents. For example, East Germany had an accident in 1975. On May 4, 1986, again in Germany, there was fuel damage. What happened was attempts by an operator to dislodge a fuel pebble damaged its cladding, releasing radiation, detectable up to two kilometres from the reactor.

In June 1999 Japan had a control rod malfunction. The operators, attempting to insert one control rod during an inspection, neglected the procedure and instead withdrew three, causing a 15 minute uncontrolled sustained reaction at the number one reactor of the Shika Nuclear Power Plant. The electric company that owned the reactor did not report this incident and falsified records, covering it up until March, 2007.

Also in September 1999, a few months later in Japan, workers did something wrong, which exceeded the critical mass, and, as a result, three workers were exposed to radiation doses in excess of allowable limits. Two of these workers died and 116 other workers received lesser doses, but still have a great many problems. In March 2006 Tennessee had a big problem.

These countries that have had problems have set either no upper limit or a limit in the billions. In Canada setting the limit at $650 million is really not at all useful. That is why the New Democrats will not support the bill.

(1650)

We would hope the government would take it back, consider the upper limit, either make it similar to the U.S. or, even better, do not set an upper limit. That would be a new nuclear liability and compensation act, which is overdue, and it would certainly get the support of New Democrats.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Bradley Trost (Saskatoon—Humboldt, CPC):

Madam Speaker, I listened to my hon. friend's remarks.

First, does she realize that the compensation as set out in the bill is for victims and not to repair everything that may possibly happen in a nuclear accident?

Second, does she not realize that it is not only commercial nuclear reactors with which we have to be concerned? There are smaller accidents as well.

Saskatoon, for example, has a nuclear reactor, which is experimental and is used for research. We have to be concerned about those, and there are many others across the country.

Third, does the hon. member realizes that if we do not pass the bill, the limits will remain lower than they are? I can understand the hon. member wanting the limits to be higher, but if the legislation is defeated, the limits would stay low instead of rise to give more compensation.

Could the hon. member comment on those three points?

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Olivia Chow:

Madam Speaker, of course $75 million is nowhere near to being adequate. Neither is $650 million. Right now if American companies purchase a Canadian company, then the $10 billion U.S. figure kicks in, not the $75 million.

Yes, I know there are 30,000 men and women working in 150 companies in Canada. I also know AECL, Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., is a publicly owned entity, and I am glad it is. We should not privatize it. What I am concerned about is the bill would open the door for privatization of AECL and/or other industries that could be picked up by the Americans.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP):

Madam Speaker, I want to note that we have a list of nuclear accidents, totalling some 81 over the years. These have caused untold damage to the surroundings.

We have no such record when it comes to hydro development. I do not think we can find any serious accidents in hydro development in Quebec, Manitoba or anywhere else in the country that have caused deaths and the disruption that nuclear accidents cause.

Wind development is catching on big time around the world and it is being developed in Canada. There are no serious ramifications similar to what we have determined with nuclear accidents.

In terms of the liability issue, are we making an assumption that Canadian reactors are going to be built out in the middle of nowhere? Whether a plant is developed in Japan, Germany or in the United States near an urban area or in Canada, why would we have a $650 million liability in Canada, $10 billion in the United States and unlimited in Japan and Germany? It makes no sense.

The bottom line is the taxpayers are going to end up footing the bill for this at the end of the day. If the accident is big enough, the company will declare bankruptcy and turn the whole mess over to the taxpayer. That is what we will end up with.

Clearly we should not be developing any further nuclear plants. We should keep the ones we have going as best we can and raise the limits for them. However, we should not develop new ones when we have such good opportunities to get into wind and hydro development.

We were told years ago that DDT was safe, then we banned it. We were told that asbestos was safe, then we banned it. Now we know that nuclear power is not really very safe. Why do we continue to ignore these warnings and want to develop more?

I was very disappointed when I heard from the member from Saskatchewan say that his government was considering new nuclear plants. There will be an election in Saskatchewan in a couple of years and I think we would like to fight an election on that issue, and see how it resolves itself. Therefore, I do not think the Saskatchewan government should go ahead and build many plants because it will get them half built and then they will be shut down.

There are many other areas we should be looking at, and I think the member is on the right track when she talks about wind development and hydro electric development. We should be proceeding with that and not developing more nuclear power.

(1655)

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Olivia Chow:

Madam Speaker, in this economic downturn, green jobs are the way to go.

We need an alternative energy plan for renewable energy whether it is solar or wind. That is the way to go. We should be investing in the technologies for batteries and panels, for example, so we can harness solar energy and put panels on as many building as possible.

We have a huge country with a great land mass, so we could be the superpower of wind energy. We could even manufacture those wind blades or different types of wind turbines in Canada. That would produce jobs and energy. It is certainly a win-win situation. We would burn less and we would pay less.

However, there are existing nuclear plants. Some of them have to be fixed and some have to be rebuilt. Privatizing the existing ones or having a fire sale is not going to do the job. At the end of the day, taxpayers will be paying for it. Inevitably and unfortunately there could either be human error or the plants may be too old, they might leak and there would be consequences.

Nuclear waste or spillage is extremely dangerous and harmful to people, plant life and the environment. It is very costly to clean up. Nuclear waste stays forever, so it has to be contained. Once it has leaked out, it is very difficult to clean up. That area is going to be very costly, and $650 million for liability is just not enough.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Jim Maloway:

Madam Speaker, I would like to follow up on the member's comments. Would she agree that an amendment could be introduced, if this bill were to pass second reading and go to committee, to increase the liability to an unlimited amount, which is the case in Germany and Japan? Even though we do not particularly like the bill and do not like further nuclear development, at least we would get some sort of structure in force that would be consistent with the highest standard, that being Germany and Japan, as opposed to some low standard here of $650 million, which hardly seems adequate given the situation in the world right now?

Does the member think that will have any real negative effect in the sense the companies may or may not be able to get liability insurance in an insurance market that keeps going up and down in a very inconsistent way?

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Olivia Chow:

Madam Speaker, the New Democrats will support any bill that would increase the liability limits to $10 billion or that would have unlimited liability, just like in Japan and Germany. We would give it very speedy passage. It is long overdue. The existing Nuclear Liability Act does not work because the limit is so low. We need it renewed because it has not been changed since the mid-1970s. However, this is not the way to go.

Once it passes second reading, it cannot be amended at the committee because it is a substantial change. The government should either withdraw the bill and bring in a new bill with different limits or there should be an amendment to change the numbers.

(1700)

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP):

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague for Hamilton Mountain.

I rise with deep regret to speak to Bill C-20, the nuclear liability and compensation act, because I believe all members of good conscience should oppose this bill. It leaves Canadians and our communities woefully under-compensated in the event of a nuclear accident.

Communities, like Kincardine near the Bruce nuclear facility; Whitby, Oshawa and Toronto adjacent to Darlington; Bécancour near Gentilly in Quebec; and Point Lepreau in New Brunswick, are all in jeopardy if a major accident were to occur. We know that a major accident at the Darlington nuclear plant would cause damages in the range of $1 trillion. Clearly, $650 million or even $10 billion are insufficient in terms of liability coverage.

Interestingly enough, there are no nuclear facilities in British Columbia. Madam Speaker, I am sure you are well aware of that and perhaps a little bit grateful. This could be because of the mess at Hanford in Washington state. It has cost taxpayers billions because of the expensive remediation that has been going on there for years with no end in sight. Today, Hanford is the most contaminated nuclear site in the United States and the focus of the largest environmental cleanup in U.S. history. It is hugely expensive. It is certainly more than $650 million. It is in the range of several billion dollars or perhaps a trillion dollars.

Hence, we have the $10 billion liability demanded in the United States, which is far less than the unlimited liability required in Japan and China, because, quite simply, the cost to a community and the people who live there is without limit in the case of a nuclear accident.

As we all know, this bill is being reintroduced by the government despite its many deficiencies. In the last Parliament, New Democrats were the only opponents to this bill, and with good reason. No private insurer will cover an individual for compensation from damage caused by a nuclear accident.

While Bill C-20 updates legislation from the 1970s, as has been pointed out, it only increases compensation levels to the absolute minimum international standard. The existing compensation limit of $75 million and the new limit of $650 million is simply not acceptable. What on earth is the government doing? Why is it so prepared to ignore the reality of this situation?

American nuclear companies are interested in purchasing significant sections of Canada's nuclear industry. Under the current legislation, they would be subjected to American rules because Canadian laws do not even meet the international base line. Under American law, the parent company of the subsidiary can be sued for compensation due to the actions of its foreign subsidiary if the law governing that subsidiary is below international standards.

These American corporations are reluctant to invest in the Canadian industry, that is until Bill C-20 is passed. Sadly, the government does not seem to understand the irresponsible nature of this legislation. However, the nuclear industry has the attention of the Canadian public and this issue has strong political resonance with all Canadians. They are, quite simply, concerned about nuclear safety.

The NDP is the only party that is taking the health of Canadians seriously, so seriously that we have been asking the difficult questions, such as why is the liability limit $10 billion in the United States and only the proposed $650 million in Canada? There is no reason for that. It is not rational. The American limit is a whopping 1,540% higher than the limit that is proposed by this bill.

(1705)

I have another question. Is the imminent sale of AECL to an American company making the government eager to make Canadian nuclear legislation more American-friendly?

Those are important questions but so far we have heard no acceptable answers.

It is more than clear that only New Democrats are serious about protecting the interests of ordinary Canadians while the government takes a cavalier attitude toward nuclear safety.

The Conservatives certainly seem to be laying the groundwork to sell AECL during tough economic times when the value is so very low. We, as Canadians, need to be profoundly concerned about the possibility of the privatization of nuclear facilities. These facilities must be properly managed, and there is no question about that, and that is in the public interest. I, for one, would feel far more comfortable if they remained in public hands. I do not see much evidence that the government has the public interest at the centre of its many questionable policies.

Quite simply, the Conservatives are failing to protect Canadians in the event of a nuclear spill. This level of compensation, the $650 million, would mean only a handful of dollars for the loss of a home, a business or the loss of a life. It is far below that which is required by the international community. For Canadians, and particularly those who live near nuclear power plants or other nuclear installations, this is unacceptable. Their government has sold them out to vested interests.

New Democrats will not be supporting this limited level of liability, nor will we be supporting the bill. It does not even begin to touch on the real cost of a nuclear accident, and that is a betrayal. It is a betrayal of Canadians and of our communities. It is simply not the kind of behaviour that I believe many Canadians expect of our government and should demand of their government.

This is nothing less than a corporate subsidy to the nuclear industry to make it possible for it to move in, take over and privatize the industry that Canadians built. We on this side of the House simply will not bow to that kind of corporate subsidy. We will not allow the government to get away with that without a great deal of discussion and raising our voices on this side of the House.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP):

Madam Speaker, I would ask my colleague to maybe expand on the notion of what would happen in a community. I think we can all imagine. Those of us who are of a certain age can certainly recall Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and other accidents that have happened. The devastation and damage is immediate from the explosions.

My colleague talked about further implications for communities and I would ask her to maybe expand on that. What sort of things are we talking about in a community, not just the hours after a disaster but in the days and weeks after and the ability of citizens to survive and continue their life as they know it in their own homes and in their own neighbourhoods?

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Irene Mathyssen:

Madam Speaker, it is very difficult for Canadians to imagine. We have seen accidents in other parts of the world and so far we have been spared those horrific events.

We know there are leaks and we know there have been leaks at AECL into the Ottawa River. We know there have been leaks at the Bruce Nuclear Power Plant into many centres that take their drinking water from Lake Huron. However, we have not seen the kind of devastation that was suffered at Three Mile Island or Chernobyl.

In terms of Chernobyl, generations have been affected by the fallout from that accident. The people who provided emergency assistance when Chernobyl exploded are long dead and gone. Their lives were shortened. They were afflicted with miserable radiation sickness and, even worse, cancers and death as a result of the fallout.

I cannot imagine what could possibly happen in densely populated areas like Toronto, Oshawa, Whitby or Pickering if we experienced a nuclear accident. If Darlington were to fail in some catastrophic way, we simply would not have the facilities to manage. Hundreds of thousands of people would need immediate help and our hospitals would be overwhelmed. The reality is that our systems are overburdened because federal and provincial governments have not seen fit to keep up with the needs of the medical community and hospitals. Hospitals and emergency services would be overwhelmed. Homes would be lost.

We know that in other kinds of disasters, such as floods, fires and hurricanes, the loss of homes is catastrophic to the people who live in those communities. Imagine hundreds of square miles where homes become uninhabitable, schools can no longer be utilized and there simply are not the kinds of services to support a huge population. While it may seem extreme, this is what we need to be prepared for.

Nobody who lived in Chernobyl believed that the nuclear plant would blow sky high until that catastrophic event, which left a community bereft, created illness and destroyed the future of not just the first generation but the second, third and fourth generations. We have no idea how many generations will suffer as a result of that accident.

We need to be prepared and $650 million does not do it and $10 billion does not do it. It is something we need to be cognizant of. We cannot allow taxpayers, the people of this nation, to be put on the hook to allow private sector nuclear facilities to pop up in order for the nuclear industry to prosper exponentially in terms of profits. We need to stand firm.

(1710)

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Chris Charlton (Hamilton Mountain, NDP):

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and join my NDP colleagues in speaking against Bill C-20, the nuclear liability and compensation act. In fact, we are the only party in this House that refuses to give the government a blank cheque on this inadequate reform to the limits of nuclear liability.

Simply put, I oppose this bill because it does not keep pace with the rest of the world's measures to provide safe use of nuclear energy. Nonetheless, there is no doubt about the need for modernizing the act. The liability limits were initially set in the early 1970s by the Liberals, but the limits were inadequate even then and certainly by today's standards are even worse.

To its credit, this bill does propose to increase the maximum liability for operators of nuclear installations for damage resulting from a nuclear accident from $75 million to $650 million per nuclear installation, but this limit remains shamefully low when we consider the consequences of a nuclear accident.

This bill seems designed to protect corporations rather than citizens. The total liability is way too low and will not be able to cover a medium-sized accident, never mind a catastrophic one. It has been estimated that a nuclear accident would cause billions of dollars in damage in personal injuries, death and contamination of the surrounding areas. According to the director of environmental governance for the Pembina Institute, a major accident at the Darlington, Ontario nuclear plant east of Toronto, and very near to my own riding of Hamilton Mountain, could cause damages in the range of an estimated $1 trillion.

Six hundred and fifty million dollars does not even come close to being adequate and taxpayers will be on the hook for the difference. Does the government and its friends in the Liberal Party and the Bloc Québécois really believe that $650 million would be sufficient to clean up and rebuild after such a disaster? Apparently so.

The U.S., on the other hand, has a cap of $10 billion. Germany, which has experienced the fallout of the Chernobyl meltdown, has an unlimited amount. Many other countries are also moving in that direction toward an unlimited amount of liability. Does the government really believe that Canadian lives, properties and communities are worth less than those of our U.S. and European counterparts? Again, judging by this legislation, one would think so.

Even relatively minor nuclear accidents can have huge costs. In the 1960s, a minor issue in a reactor in Michigan cost an estimated $132 million and that was over 40 years ago, but the government, propped up again by its partners in the Liberal Party and the Bloc Québécois, believes this bill goes far enough.

One of my big concerns is that this bill really is not about protecting Canadians but is all about the Conservative government laying the groundwork to sell Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. Privatization should never be acceptable and particularly not during tough economic times when the value is at its lowest and the Conservatives are contemplating a fire sale.

Perhaps more than anything else, this bill and the debate around it highlight the outrageous costs and potentially devastating risks of nuclear energy, particularly when we compare it to greener, more sustainable alternatives.

For example, the Three Mile Island incident outside Harrisburg, Pennsylvania in 1979, which my colleagues have already talked about, was a relatively minor nuclear accident, but it cost an estimated $975 million for the cleanup and investigation. To put the absolute enormity of these costs into context, for the cost of cleaning up Three Mile Island, 1,147,058 100-watt solar panels could have been bought and assembled.

The total subsidies for Canada's state-owned nuclear company, AECL, from 1952 to 2000, were approximately $16 billion. This is money that could be spent investigating safer methods of energy. But the enormous costs do not just apply when things go bad. The planned construction costs for the third Fermi plant in Michigan will cost an estimated $10 billion U.S. and take approximately six years to complete. The price of wind power, on the other hand, is dropping fast and can even be had for as low as 16¢ per kilowatt hour right now. Imagine the cost savings to taxpayers and the lower electricity bills for seniors and hard-working families if we could shift to cheaper, safer and more sustainable power. On top of the financial expenses, nuclear energy in general is extremely unsafe, both to the environment and to human life.

(1715)

There can be no doubt that Canada needs a greener approach in terms of power. Statistics show that Canada ranked 11th in 2008 in a poll measuring wind power capacity. If Canada expects to be seen as a leader in the world, we need to compete in the field of clean renewable energy.

This pressing need is why we in the NDP launched a task force on the economic recovery which I have been proud to co-chair with my colleague, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, who has done incredible work on environmental issues over the years.

As we confront the current economic crisis, we must be looking toward the future. We must ensure that the economy of the 21st century is green, sustainable and affordable for ordinary Canadians.

In my hometown of Hamilton, community organizations, environmentalists and ordinary citizens are coming together to imagine and realize that kind of green future. Green Venture, for example, has been doing home energy evaluation since 1997.

Environment Hamilton recently received a Trillium Foundation grant in support of its work on a green economic recovery for Hamilton. Environment Hamilton understands that fighting climate change and creating green jobs go hand in hand. I want to congratulate Lynda Lukasik, who is the executive director of Environment Hamilton, her staff and the board at Environment Hamilton for securing this important multi-year grant for advancing the future of our city.

Environment Hamilton has also launched an innovative project aimed at helping Hamilton area faith groups to conserve energy both at home and in their places of worship.

I recognize that nuclear energy provides jobs for a large number of Canadians and has been a part of our economy since 1949. The industry cannot and will not disappear overnight, but the real issue is that Bill C-20 just does not do enough to bring safety to a naturally unsafe and volatile substance. The compensation process would remain cumbersome and force victims of nuclear accidents to go through the courts. We know how costly and inaccessible the courts are as a remedy for this kind of situation.

Furthermore, the bill does not cover any accidents outside of the plant setting. Oil and mining companies and medical facilities use radioactive materials that can be dangerous, but they are not liable for any accidents related to their use or disposal.

It is as clear as it is unfortunate that only the NDP is serious about protecting the interests of ordinary Canadians while the other parties take a rather cavalier attitude to nuclear safety.

I can only hope that this debate will give the government, members of the Liberal Party and the Bloc Québécois pause. We need to protect families and communities from the devastating potential of nuclear disasters and this bill simply does not do that.

(1720)

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Christian Ouellet (Brome—Missisquoi, BQ):

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her speech, especially the part where she said we need to develop other forms of energy. The Bloc agrees completely.

She said several times that we would agree with the limit of $650 million and that we feel that it is enough. It seems to me that I was clear earlier, and I was speaking on behalf of the Bloc. We feel that this is not enough, but that it is better than $75 million. We need to vote in favour of the bill, because if we do not, then the $75 million limit will remain. We cannot change this amount in committee.

The member mentioned that Japan has unlimited liability. What does it mean when a company owns a nuclear facility and has unlimited liability? It means that if the damages run too high, the company will close up shop and go away. That is what it means. The government will be forced to pay. We have to be realistic. We are dealing with companies. The same is true of Germany. Companies can declare bankruptcy and stop paying. Governments are forced to pay.

So yes, we feel that it is not enough, but on the other hand, it is not necessarily true that other countries have found the ideal solution. In the United States, the limit, which is between $9 billion and $11 billion—it is not $10 billion, it varies—would not be enough in the event of an incident such as the member described earlier. She said that it would cost $3 trillion if there were a complication in Hamilton. How could an insurance company insure for that much money? That is my question.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Chris Charlton:

Madam Speaker, I do welcome the question. I think the member and I fundamentally agree that this bill, as it stands, and its predecessor with the lower limit of $75 million in liability, are wholly inadequate.

The member raised the question about what happens if there is a catastrophic nuclear accident where the costs are in the billions and trillions of dollars. He is quite right in pointing out that we ought to be concerned about the fact that companies will close up shop and Canadian taxpayers will be left with the bill for the cleanup. I think he is absolutely right about that.

That is one of the really disappointing parts of this bill. The government is proposing a solution that in fact only tinkers. It does not provide a comprehensive solution to the question of nuclear liability and, more important, the protection of Canadian citizens as we are contemplating nuclear accidents, be they minor or catastrophic.

That is the part of this debate we have essentially skimmed over by focusing on whether $75 million is enough or $650 million is enough.

We know from the recent debate about events at Chalk River, where we are now experiencing an urgent crisis with respect to the supply of medical isotopes that yes, in fact our nuclear facilities are in relative states of disrepair. We need to invest, we need to regulate and we need to ensure nuclear safety.

One of the things that is really troubling to me is that the nuclear safety inspector whom the government fired last year has now been replaced by a political appointee. That is a position that should not be political. We need an independent person in that position. We are not talking about any of those issues though; we are simply talking about whether the amount should be $75 million or $650 million.

Canadians deserve better. They deserve a more complete answer. For that reason, I do not think it is good enough to pick a number out of a hat, such as $650 million, which we know from international experience is not adequate, and say, “Good job. Our job here is done with respect to nuclear liability and compensation”.

Canadians deserve better. This House deserves better. We must give this issue much fuller attention.

(1725)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.):

Madam Speaker, I just wanted to address what I thought was unnecessary fearmongering on the part of the hon. member and some of her colleagues.

In not being happy with the $650 million number, is there another number she might wish to posit that might be suitable for a disaster of the type she conjures up?

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Chris Charlton:

Madam Speaker, I take some issue with the member suggesting that I am fearmongering.

I have a list of 81 nuclear accidents that are all documented. That is not fearmongering; that is trying to deal with the reality and trying to protect Canadians should such an eventuality happen here. Frankly, I think that is our responsibility.

With respect to the member's question about what is the appropriate amount, frankly the Conservative government has opted to go for the bare minimum. We should be aspiring to go with the best international standards, and those right now in Japan and in Europe are unlimited liability.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP):

Madam Speaker, the member for Hamilton Mountain made an excellent presentation and dealt with many of the concerns. The comments of the previous member who suggested she was fearmongering were really misplaced.

We were told years ago that asbestos was safe, and workers worked their whole lives in asbestos mining and installation. Then we found out it was not so safe after all. We have spent untold amounts of money taking asbestos out of government buildings and paying the long-term liability costs of dealing with asbestos. We were told years ago that DDT was safe, and I recall as a child using it in our garden. Then all of a sudden it was discovered that was not safe. We have found out now that trans fats are unsafe.

The Russians, and I am assuming the Americans as well, have been storing nuclear waste in barrels and dumping them in the oceans. How safe is that going to be? How many years will it take before those barrels start to leak and cause untold damage?

Clearly, we have a very short-term view of things. The economics may dictate that we use these products in the short term, but we do not seem to look into the long term to see what the costs are going to be to do these cleanups.

The member mentioned that we have a list of 81 nuclear accidents. Why would we be proceeding to promote nuclear energy development when we know all of this?

We also know that it takes forever to get an approval. Any time an approval is requested in Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta in the next couple of years, people from all political stripes, NDP, Liberal, Conservatives, will be standing up and saying “not in my backyard, you will not build--

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie):

At this point I must interrupt the hon. member. He will have approximately 17 minutes to complete his comments when the bill reappears on the order paper.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

[Private Members' Business]

* * *

[English]

Guaranteed Income Supplement

The House resumed from May 13 consideration of the motion.

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie):

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on Motion No. 300 under private members' business.

(1730)

[Translation]

Call in the members.

* * *

(1755)

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

(Division No. 69)

YEAS

Members

Allen (Welland)
André
Andrews
Angus
Arthur
Ashton
Asselin
Atamanenko
Bachand
Bagnell
Bains
Beaudin
Bélanger
Bellavance
Bennett
Bevilacqua
Bigras
Blais
Bonsant
Bouchard
Bourgeois
Brison
Brunelle
Byrne
Cardin
Carrier
Charlton
Chow
Christopherson
Coady
Coderre
Cotler
Crombie
Crowder
Cullen
Cuzner
D'Amours
Davies (Vancouver Kingsway)
Davies (Vancouver East)
DeBellefeuille
Demers
Deschamps
Dewar
Dion
Dorion
Dryden
Duceppe
Dufour
Duncan (Etobicoke North)
Easter
Eyking
Faille
Folco
Foote
Fry
Gagnon
Garneau
Gaudet
Godin
Goodale
Gravelle
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques)
Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord)
Hall Findlay
Harris (St. John's East)
Hughes
Jennings
Julian
Kania
Karygiannis
Kennedy
Laforest
Laframboise
Lalonde
Lavallée
Layton
Lee
Lemay
Leslie
Lessard
Lévesque
MacAulay
Malhi
Malo
Maloway
Marston
Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca)
Martin (Winnipeg Centre)
Martin (Sault Ste. Marie)
Masse
Mathyssen
McCallum
McGuinty
McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood)
McTeague
Ménard (Hochelaga)
Ménard (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin)
Mendes
Minna
Mulcair
Murphy (Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe)
Murphy (Charlottetown)
Murray
Nadeau
Neville
Ouellet
Pacetti
Paillé
Paquette
Patry
Pearson
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proulx
Rae
Rafferty
Ratansi
Regan
Rodriguez
Rota
Roy
Russell
Savage
Savoie
Scarpaleggia
Sgro
Siksay
Silva
Simms
Simson
St-Cyr
Szabo
Thi Lac
Thibeault
Tonks
Trudeau
Valeriote
Vincent
Wasylycia-Leis
Wilfert
Wrzesnewskyj
Zarac

Total: -- 144

NAYS

Members

Abbott
Ablonczy
Aglukkaq
Albrecht
Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac)
Allison
Ambrose
Anders
Anderson
Ashfield
Baird
Benoit
Bernier
Bezan
Blackburn
Blaney
Block
Boucher
Boughen
Braid
Breitkreuz
Brown (Leeds—Grenville)
Brown (Newmarket—Aurora)
Brown (Barrie)
Bruinooge
Cadman
Calandra
Calkins
Cannan (Kelowna—Lake Country)
Cannon (Pontiac)
Carrie
Casson
Chong
Clarke
Clement
Cummins
Davidson
Day
Dechert
Del Mastro
Devolin
Dreeshen
Duncan (Vancouver Island North)
Dykstra
Fast
Finley
Flaherty
Fletcher
Galipeau
Gallant
Glover
Goodyear
Gourde
Grewal
Guergis
Harris (Cariboo—Prince George)
Hawn
Hill
Hoback
Hoeppner
Holder
Jean
Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission)
Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's)
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Kent
Kerr
Komarnicki
Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings)
Lake
Lauzon
Lebel
Lemieux
Lobb
Lukiwski
Lunn
Lunney
MacKay (Central Nova)
MacKenzie
Mayes
McColeman
McLeod
Menzies
Miller
Moore (Fundy Royal)
Norlock
O'Connor
O'Neill-Gordon
Obhrai
Oda
Paradis
Payne
Petit
Poilievre
Preston
Raitt
Rajotte
Rathgeber
Reid
Richards
Richardson
Rickford
Ritz
Saxton
Schellenberger
Shea
Shipley
Shory
Smith
Sorenson
Stanton
Storseth
Strahl
Sweet
Thompson
Tilson
Toews
Trost
Tweed
Uppal
Van Kesteren
Vellacott
Verner
Wallace
Warawa
Warkentin
Watson
Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country)
Weston (Saint John)
Wong
Woodworth
Yelich
Young

Total: -- 133

PAIRED

Nil

[Table of Contents]

The Deputy Speaker:

I declare the motion carried.

* * *

[English]

Income Tax Act

The House resumed from May 15 consideration of the motion that Bill C-288, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (tax credit for new graduates working in designated regions), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Table of Contents]

The Deputy Speaker:

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division of the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-288 under private members' business.

* * *

(1805)

[Translation]

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

(Division No. 70)

YEAS

Members

Allen (Welland)
André
Andrews
Angus
Ashton
Asselin
Atamanenko
Bachand
Bagnell
Bains
Beaudin
Bélanger
Bellavance
Bennett
Bevilacqua
Bigras
Blais
Bonsant
Bouchard
Bourgeois
Brison
Brunelle
Byrne
Cardin
Carrier
Charlton
Chow
Christopherson
Coady
Coderre
Cotler
Crombie
Crowder
Cullen
Cuzner
D'Amours
Davies (Vancouver Kingsway)
Davies (Vancouver East)
DeBellefeuille
Demers
Deschamps
Dewar
Dion
Dorion
Dryden
Duceppe
Dufour
Duncan (Etobicoke North)
Easter
Eyking
Faille
Folco
Foote
Fry
Gagnon
Garneau
Gaudet
Godin
Goodale
Gravelle
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques)
Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord)
Hall Findlay
Harris (St. John's East)
Hughes
Jennings
Julian
Kania
Karygiannis
Kennedy
Laforest
Laframboise
Lalonde
Lavallée
Layton
Lee
Lemay
Leslie
Lessard
Lévesque
MacAulay
Malhi
Malo
Maloway
Marston
Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca)
Martin (Winnipeg Centre)
Martin (Sault Ste. Marie)
Masse
Mathyssen
McCallum
McGuinty
McTeague
Ménard (Hochelaga)