House of Commons Hansard #42 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was highway.

Topics

Candu Reactor
Oral Question Period

December 17th, 1999 / 11:25 a.m.

NDP

Bill Blaikie Winnipeg—Transcona, MB

Mr. Speaker, many Canadians were concerned some weeks ago when the Prime Minister uncritically dismissed the concern that many Canadians have about the selling of a Candu reactor to Turkey.

Given the fact that we have a virtual moratorium on building nuclear reactors here in Canada, why do we insist and why does the Prime Minister insist on exporting a technology that we have already rejected any further here at home, and, in particular, selling it to a country which is earthquake prone and therefore much more at risk from having nuclear reactors?

Candu Reactor
Oral Question Period

11:25 a.m.

Algoma—Manitoulin
Ontario

Liberal

Brent St. Denis Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources

Mr. Speaker, it is a well known fact that Canadian nuclear technology is the best in the world. If approval is given for the sale of a Canadian reactor to Turkey, it will be located in a safe location, a long way from any of the difficult locations where there have been earthquakes. I am very confident that the very best results will take place.

Candu Reactor
Oral Question Period

11:25 a.m.

NDP

Bill Blaikie Winnipeg—Transcona, MB

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that earthquakes in any part of Turkey would threaten nuclear reactors in other parts of Turkey. If this technology is so good, why are we not using it ourselves anymore? Why is it that we have a virtual moratorium on building nuclear reactors in this country?

It is a bit like the way in which we now sell insecticides and pesticides to other countries which we have banned in this country. Why do we continue this unethical behaviour of trying to con other countries into buying technologies that we will not even use ourselves?

Candu Reactor
Oral Question Period

11:25 a.m.

Windsor West
Ontario

Liberal

Herb Gray Deputy Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member ought to go back to the drawing board with his question because he has his facts wrong. We have not banned the use of our Candu technology in Canada. As the hon. parliamentary secretary has said, it is the most advanced in the world. I do not know why my hon. friend is not willing to recognize this achievement in Canadian science and research and development.

Taxation
Oral Question Period

11:25 a.m.

Progressive Conservative

Scott Brison Kings—Hants, NS

Mr. Speaker, Premier Harris is right. The federal government is planning on taking $560 million from the workers and employers of Ontario.

Why is this government, during a season of giving, preparing to take more from Ontario workers and employers, some $560 million? Why is the government playing Scrooge in this the Christmas season?

Taxation
Oral Question Period

11:25 a.m.

Willowdale
Ontario

Liberal

Jim Peterson Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions)

Mr. Speaker, I would simply remind the hon. member that the increase in the CPP was agreed to by Ernie Eves and Stockwell Day.

Having said that, I am very pleased to be able to take this question on behalf of our finance minister, the minister who has already cut personal income taxes by 10%, the minister who put forth Canada's six point program for reform of the international financial architecture, the minister who was appointed head of the G-20.

All Canadians can indeed be proud of the global role of international financial leadership played by our government.

Taxation
Oral Question Period

11:30 a.m.

Progressive Conservative

Scott Brison Kings—Hants, NS

Mr. Speaker, that is cold comfort to the 22,500 people who will lose their jobs in Ontario, according to the C. D. Howe Institute, because of this payroll tax hike. Will the government listen to the premier of Ontario, stop this tax hike and save 22,500 Ontario jobs?

Taxation
Oral Question Period

11:30 a.m.

Willowdale
Ontario

Liberal

Jim Peterson Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions)

Mr. Speaker, if the member wants to talk about jobs, there have been 760,000 new jobs created in Canada over the past two years and over 1.7 million since this government took office.

With the Reform Party in free fall and with the Tories unclear about even a clear question, it is absolutely no surprise that on Canada's political highway the united alternative is nothing but road kill.

Justice
Oral Question Period

11:30 a.m.

Reform

Bill Gilmour Nanaimo—Alberni, BC

Mr. Speaker, the Ontario court of appeal in the Bavinski decision stated that there must be a new trial when the key crown witness recants or, in other words, gives false evidence. In a similar case, the Hache case, the Nova Scotia court of appeal came to the same decision. In both Bavinski and Hache new trials were ordered.

Patrick Kelly has been in prison for 16 years based on the testimony of a witness who now says that her evidence was untrue. Why will the Minister of Justice not use her power to order a new trial for Mr. Kelly, or at the very least refer his case to the Supreme Court of Canada?

Justice
Oral Question Period

11:30 a.m.

Erie—Lincoln
Ontario

Liberal

John Maloney Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Kelly's section 690 application was referred to the Ontario court of appeal. In May of this year the court, in a two to one decision, responded to two questions on the reference by advising the minister that none of the new information presented to the minister would be admissible on appeal. I appreciate that the court of appeal examined the facts very carefully and presented reasoned judgment.

Further submissions have been received by Mr. Kelly's counsel and they are presently being considered by the justice minister and the department, and a decision will be made fairly and objectively in the near future.

Youth Criminal Justice
Oral Question Period

11:30 a.m.

Reform

Chuck Cadman Surrey North, BC

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice is telling Canadians that her proposed changes to the young offenders law will make young lawbreakers more accountable for their crimes. The youth sentence for crimes such as manslaughter and aggravated sexual assault is now a maximum of three years. The minister wants to reduce that to a maximum of two years, plus one year in the community under supervision. That is probation. Most Canadians would see that as less accountability.

Is this really getting tough on violent crime? Where is the increased accountability in releasing violent offenders from custody earlier than they are now?

Youth Criminal Justice
Oral Question Period

11:30 a.m.

Erie—Lincoln
Ontario

Liberal

John Maloney Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, the primary purpose of the new youth criminal justice bill is the protection of the public. We are doing this by accountability, fairness and rehabilitative measures.

Many factors go into a decision. In the new bill the government is proposing that adult sentences may be applied to children younger than 16 and 17. In this case an adult sentence may be applicable in the situation.

Bill C-20
Oral Question Period

11:30 a.m.

Bloc

Richard Marceau Charlesbourg, QC

Mr. Speaker, the speech by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs on the conditions for recognition of the next Quebec referendum has added far more to people's confusion, rather than dispelling it.

How can the minister seriously claim that the Quebec National Assembly retains its freedom to draft the question of its choice, when, in the same breath, he is saying that, if the question is not to his liking, he will not follow up on it?

Bill C-20
Oral Question Period

11:30 a.m.

Saint-Laurent—Cartierville
Québec

Liberal

Stéphane Dion President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs

Yes, Mr. Speaker, there is a whereas clause in the bill indicating that the legislative assembly of a province may ask the question it wants of voters in a referendum, absolutely whatever it wants. But it will take more than just any question to bring the Government of Canada to a negotiating table in order to address breaking apart a country and stripping from one-quarter of the Canadian population, the Quebecers, their entire connection with Canada.

Only a clear question which would lead the people to clearly state their desire to cease to be part of Canada could justify such serious negotiations.

Bill C-20
Oral Question Period

11:30 a.m.

Bloc

Richard Marceau Charlesbourg, QC

Mr. Speaker, will the minister not admit that, under the pretext of clarity, he is expressing with this bill his intolerance of Quebec's undertaking and is sowing the seeds of confusion, by setting the conditions for the next referendum in advance, when he has absolutely no business setting such conditions?