Debates of Jan. 28th, 2008

Afghanistan

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let us try again. My question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

On November 15, the minister told the House that he had spoken with his Afghan counterpart. During that discussion, did he tell the Afghan minister of foreign affairs that our country no longer transferred detainees because of evidence of torture? Did he inform NATO and the United States? Why were our operational partners kept in the dark?

How can Canadians trust the minister when he has shown such incompetence on our mission in Afghanistan?

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for that question, because it gives me an opportunity to explain once again that last May we improved on an agreement the Liberal Party had made. Under this improved agreement, I contacted my foreign affairs counterpart and told him that we had found a possible case of abuse. The Afghan foreign minister investigated, and on December 31, he confirmed that he was conducting a full investigation into this case.

I can assure the House that the person who was found in the prison in Afghanistan is now—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The hon. member for Trois-Rivières.

Manufacturing and Forestry Sectors

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers agree that the Conservative plan to help the manufacturing and forestry sectors is not good enough. Despite the urgency of the situation, the government has told us to wait for the next budget even though according to its own budget forecast, it has the means to act.

When will the government put an end to its shameless blackmail and improve its plan to help workers in the forestry and manufacturing sectors?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, a number of things have happened since the last time we members of this House got together.

First, the government announced over a billion dollars to help the forestry sector. Second, Quebec got an additional $400 million in equalization payments. Add to that the $12 billion put forward in the economic statement that the government passed. Members may recall that the Bloc Québécois opposed it. Last, with respect to softwood lumber, an issue that the Bloc Québécois took a long time to act on, $25 million has been—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The hon. member for Trois-Rivières.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with over $11.6 billion in surpluses, this government wants to hand over a paltry $1 billion over three years to help workers in the forestry and manufacturing sectors while handing out over $900 million in tax cuts and credits to its friends in big oil.

How can the government justify giving millions of dollars to companies worth billions while refusing to provide immediate assistance to the thousands of workers who have been hit by industry crises and massive layoffs?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, since coming to power, the government has taken action through programs to help older workers, programs that enable people to retire early.

Some of the measures announced by my colleagues target the forestry and manufacturing sectors. The amount we announced is in addition to that. And that is not all we are doing. The Bloc Québécois refused to support us in allocating $12 billion to Quebeckers over the next five years.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the per capita distribution proposed with respect to the crisis in the manufacturing and forestry sectors is totally unfair. While the crisis is hitting mainly Quebec, the government chose a calculation method that will penalize Quebec instead of helping it.

How can the government justify the per capita calculation method it is planning to use, when it knows full well that this will mean that Alberta will be getting more money than Quebec?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

These are more erroneous statements, Mr. Speaker. It is important to recall that the government acted with the communities in mind. The fact is that, when we sit down with municipal leaders, they tell us that it is time that we walk the talk. For example, the mayor of Shawinigan spoke out to call on the members from the Bloc Québécois to effectively support this measure.

I have met with a number of mayors, and all demanded action. More importantly, they demanded that the Bloc Québécois support the government.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, who is from Quebec. How could he approve an arrangement that will see Alberta receive more money per capita than Quebec, when it is in Quebec that the manufacturing and forestry sectors are the hardest hit?

How could that minister go for such an arrangement?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I know that my hon. colleague, the Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, is capable of speaking for himself, but I would like the members from the Bloc Québécois to recognize what this government and this minister have done over the past 18 months to support the economy in Quebec and to create jobs.

One thing is sure: no jobs have been created and no projects have been approved by the Bloc Québécois.

Chalk River Nuclear Facilities

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on December 10, despite a looming worldwide isotope shortage, Canadian officials told European suppliers not to increase their production. The very next day the Minister of Health claimed to Canadians that he was trying to find isotopes, but what was he really doing? He was refusing a direct offer of help and he was again misleading the House about this and refusing to tell the truth. Why?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Minister of Health and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario]

Mr. Speaker, that is categorically false. It is completely untrue.

The very week that I and my colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, found out that the scheduled shutdown would be prolonged, we in fact did contact the company officials to whom the hon. member referred. We in fact did scour the world for replacement isotopes.

The fact is there was a 65% decline in isotopes in this country at the time when Parliament reopened the Chalk River reactor. Parliament was right. We were right to intervene, and that was for the benefit and health and safety of Canadians.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government did not take immediate action; it waited 19 days. While medical wait times grew longer because of the shortage of isotopes, the government ignored available solutions.

As I said, it waited 19 days before contacting other international isotope suppliers. Even worse, it told them not to increase their production.

The Minister of Health misled this House and Canadians. Why?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Minister of Health and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario]

Mr. Speaker, that is the same question and it will be given the same answer.

When I was informed of the problem, we took action. Parliament decided to act and we made the right decision to safeguard the health of Canadians. I support this decision. The leadership on this side of the House is such that we looked after the health of Canadians. It was the right decision.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in yet another example of one more ministerial incompetency, the natural resources minister has proved he is just as clueless as his cabinet colleagues. He was asleep at the switch leading up to the Chalk River fiasco.

Here is what the Prime Minister said. “No actor is blameless in this affair”. That includes the minister.

Where is the accountability? Why did the government fire the nuclear regulator instead of firing the natural resources minister?

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, the facts remain that on this case the former president of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission had a number of options available to her through the Nuclear Safety and Control Act. She was issued a cabinet directive. She ignored all those unnecessarily and was willing to put the lives of thousands of Canadians in jeopardy. That was unacceptable to the government.

We brought a bill before Parliament ultimately and every member of Parliament from every party supported it because it was the right thing to do. Parliament overruled the former president of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, only that minister can take pride in the fact that Parliament has done his job. If he had done his job, we would not have had to rule on the matter in the House.

The only action that the minister did was to fire the independent safety regulator. He fired her without providing cause. He fired her in the dark of night before she was to testify before a committee. Obviously the government does not want her to tell Canadians the truth. What is it hiding?

Why would the government not call for an independent review of the firing? What is it afraid of?

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, all the facts are on the table. Every member of the House had an opportunity to question myself, the Minister of Health, officials from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and AECL. We stayed here until every last question was answered. I submitted myself before a parliamentary committee. We answered all those questions.

The facts remain that the former president of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission chose not to act even though there were a number of options available to her. There had to be accountability. The government has acted decisively.

Justice

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are really seeing the true colours of the Liberals when it comes to being tough on crime.

Last week Premier Dalton McGuinty met with the Liberal leader and pleaded with him to ask his Liberal senators to speed up the passage of the tackling violent crime act. The Leader of the Opposition said, no.

Premier McGuinty said:

Now it's winding its way, in a very slow fashion, through the Senate. The Liberals have some influence over that. We want that to receive passage.

Will the Minister of Justice please explain to the Leader of the Opposition why the bill should become the law of the land?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for all the work he did to get the tackling violent crime act through the legislative committee.

Canadians know that we are the party that is tough on crime and that we will stand up for innocent victims of crime.

On this one, I agree with Dalton McGuinty. I think the Leader of the Opposition's refusal to urge his colleagues in the Senate to pass our crime legislation is another example of the Liberal approach to crime, which is to see nothing, hear nothing and do nothing. That is not good enough for Canadians, and we will not put up with it.

Manufacturing and Forestry Industries

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, because of the support from the Bloc Québécois and the Liberals, the Conservative government is still free to use economic blackmail on the families of workers. Making the $1 billion conditional on the budget passing is an outrage.

How come the big oil companies are getting cash, and the families of workers are getting blackmailed?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague, who has also sat in the Quebec National Assembly, must surely know that there is a process to follow for appropriating new amounts of money. This process is called a “budget”. That is when we will allocate the $1 billion to the communities that are in desperate need.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our question for the government is quite simple.

Why is it when it comes time to give billions of dollars to its friends in the oil companies, it is cash on the barrelhead and when it comes time to give a little money to help working families in the forestry and manufacturing sectors who have lost their jobs, it is more and more blackmail?