Élaine Michaud

[Korean War Veterans Day Act, June 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in the House today in support of Bill S-213, An Act respecting a national day of remembrance to honour Canadian veterans of the Korean War.

This is an important bill intended to designate July 27 as Korean War veterans day nationwide.

I would further like to acknowledge the participation of my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore, the official opposition critic for veterans affairs, in the drafting of this bill. I also want to recognize the tremendous work he does every day with our brave Canadian veterans, as well as his sincere devotion to their cause.

I would also like to acknowledge the considerable work done by the member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant as the deputy critic for veteran affairs. He is also very dedicated to this cause and works very hard on this. He was an excellent critic for this bill, and I want to express my appreciation for his efforts.

This is considered by many as the forgotten war, and to this day the great achievements and contributions of our brave Korean War veterans are still too often overlooked.

Yet, during this conflict, which lasted over three years, more than 26,000 Canadian soldiers joined the UN mission to help the South Korean people and stop this act of aggression by North Korea.

In this valiant struggle to defend democracy and freedom, 516 of these soldiers made the ultimate sacrifice by giving their lives, and of those who came home, many still bear physical and psychological scars that will never fully heal.

We must never forget their courage and dedication in the service of their country, as well as all the sacrifices that these men and women made to preserve peace in the world.

By marking July 27 as Korean War veterans day, we will help commemorate their bravery and honour them as they deserve.

I come from a military family, so Bill S-213 has a special meaning for me. My father is currently an active member of the Canadian army and my mother is a member of the Royal Canadian Navy reserve.

When I was a child, they started teaching me about the huge sacrifices made by members of Canada's military over the course of history, and they taught me that we have a duty to remember those sacrifices every single day, not just on November 11. That is an important date, but every day should be a day of commemoration.

My grandfather, Lieutenant Colonel Norbert LaViolette, also had a career in the armed forces and was among the Canadian veterans who participated in the UN mission in Korea.

Now, a few days before his 90th birthday, I have the privilege of hosting him on Parliament Hill and paying tribute to him to sincerely thank him for his military service during the Korean War and throughout his career.

Lieutenant Colonel LaViolette enrolled in the Canadian Officers' Training Corps at Université du Sacré-Coeur in Bathurst in 1941. He enrolled in the Royal Canadian Air Force in 1943 and then transferred to the supplementary reserve a few years later. When he realized that he was not particularly fond of airplanes, he enrolled in the Canadian army in 1950 and started studying mechanical engineering at the Nova Scotia Technical College.

He was deployed to South Korea in 1953 and stayed there for one year, making him one of the 7,000 Canadian soldiers who helped keep the peace after the armistice was signed.

When he participated in the UN mission in Korea, my grandfather was 27 years old and was a lieutenant with the Corps of Royal Canadian Electrical and Mechanical Engineers. His unit's role was to provide front-line maintenance support for Canadian vehicles and weaponry.

We all know that our soldiers are dedicated and that they honour human rights and Canadian values. Whenever possible, my grandfather and his colleagues tried to help the poorest people in the villages surrounding their base. It was hard for my grandfather to see these people suffering and to see all the destruction left behind by the North Korean soldiers, who even killed all of the male animals in the livestock herds so that the villagers could not renew their food source.

I am very proud of my grandfather's military service and everything he accomplished in Korea. Lucky for us, the only visible scars he came back with were a fear of snakes and such a bad memory of the taste of the water that he still avoids it to this day.

Lucky for us, he came home and raised his family. He is still with us today and will celebrate his 90th birthday on Thursday. However, not all of our soldiers were so lucky. We need to remember them and all of the sacrifices they made. We need to remember all those whose names are in the Korean Book of Remembrance in the Memorial Chamber within Parliament's Peace Tower. They sacrificed themselves for their country, and we need to pay tribute to them. Dedicating July 27 in their honour would be a wonderful way of doing just that.

However, we must also ensure that our veterans receive all the services they deserve after having given so much for their country in the service of democracy. I hope that they will get the support they need, as will Canadian legions, which need help. They have a difficult time providing services for their members and even keeping their doors open, yet they play a key role in ensuring that members' service is not forgotten. Legions also serve as a meeting place, a place of community. They offer support and organize funerals for veterans.

Those are the kinds of things we need in this country in order to pay just tribute to veterans and take care of them once they return. Many of them left everything behind to take up arms when Canada put out the call. When the UN asked, Canadian soldiers were there. They did not hesitate to join the Korean War. In fact, Canada sent one of the highest numbers of soldiers, per capita, to Korea. Those men and women sacrificed themselves. They went to the front lines and were ready to give their lives for the values we cherish here in Canada. They were ready to defend the ideals of freedom and democracy that we enjoy here and want to see established in every country on earth.

I am happy that all the parties of the House made such a concerted effort to move this bill forward quickly. If everything goes smoothly and this passes through the legislative process quickly, we could be celebrating the first official day of remembrance to honour Canadian veterans of the Korean War this year, in 2013, the 60th anniversary of the Korean War Armistice.

We have achieved this outcome today because all parties of the House were able to work together, thereby allowing us to honour people like my grandfather, people who truly gave their all in the service of Canada. It is a great privilege for me to have the chance to pay tribute to him today. I know that that time in his life had a tremendous impact on him.

Earlier I was talking about some of the bad memories he brought back with him. I am sure he had others that he never shared with his family, because soldiers sometimes experience horrible atrocities when taking part in armed conflict. We know this from our veterans returning from Afghanistan, for example. I had the opportunity to welcome some of them home to CFB Valcartier. Some of them were my age, and some even younger. Their experiences overseas will mark them for life. Some of them can no longer be members of the Canadian Forces because of what they went through while they were overseas. Nevertheless, we remember their sacrifice.

I welcome the initiative the House is taking through Bill S-213. Once again, I thank all of my colleagues in the House and those in the other place for their support. I hope this bill will pass quickly so that we can celebrate the first day of remembrance to honour Canadian veterans of the Korean War in 2013.

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I found the speech given by my colleague from Medicine Hat very interesting. I have been fortunate to work with him for the past few weeks on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

I want to come back to the issue of costs because I have not heard a satisfactory answer. My colleague said that even though there is no new money to accompany the new provisions in the bill, we will not necessarily see an increase in costs or service demands in the various police forces.

Yet, we already know that some municipalities spend 50% of their budgets on their police. This is huge. The police are short of resources. My colleague could see this as well as I did, in the work of the committee.

If we increase eligibility for these programs, there will be an increase in service. Can my colleague really tell the House that there is no need for new federal funding, just as police forces are undergoing massive cuts? I am specifically thinking of the elimination of the police officers recruitment fund, among other cuts.

In light of this situation, how can he continue saying that there is no need for new federal funding to help our police forces?

[Language Skills Act, May 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity today to speak to Bill C-419, An Act respecting language skills. I want to extend my sincere thanks to the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent for having introduced such a worthwhile bill. We often run into each other because our ridings are side by side. I can attest to the outstanding work she does each and every day. The bill she introduced is yet another example of her good work.

I would also like to tip my hat to the member for Acadie—Bathurst, the NDP official languages critic, who has always been a fervent supporter of bilingualism and francophone minority communities. I want to applaud his efforts, which helped contribute to this bill's success.

As I said, I am very proud to support Bill C-419, which is designed to ensure that the 10 officers of Parliament are bilingual.

Having been raised in a perfectly bilingual military family, I have always cherished both official languages. I grew up watching both Passe-Partout and Sesame Street, and learning both French and English at home.

At a very early age, I was taught the importance of bilingualism in Canada as a way to better understand two of our founding nations and their culture. I was also taught that speaking both of Canada's official languages would offer me better employment opportunities, especially if I wanted to work in the public sector. Therefore, I have always believed that it was an essential prerequisite for the highest-ranking public servants to master both official languages in order to be appointed to such important positions.

When I was a parliamentary guide here in 2007, it was a point of pride for me to point out to visitors from other countries that bilingualism was a prerequisite for our highest-ranking public servants as a proof of the importance that was given to bilingualism in Canada.

Unfortunately, as has often been the case since I became a federal MP, the Conservative government has denied that basic principle since winning majority status. It appointed a unilingual English Auditor General who is still not able to respond to questions in French during press conferences.

Bill C-419 aims to fill a major gap in the current legislative framework, and that gap was made obvious with the Conservatives' ill-advised appointment. This bill also clarifies the language obligations of the 10 officers of Parliament. Given that their functions and roles require them to interact with parliamentarians and Canadians, they must be able to communicate with parliamentarians and Canadians in the official language of their audience's choice.

It was insinuated, in committee and elsewhere, that we were trying to violate the language rights of officers of Parliament, but that is clearly not the case with Bill C-419. In fact, there is nothing keeping an officer of Parliament, such as the auditor general, from conducting a press conference entirely in English. The important part is that they be able to respond to questions in French when necessary.

We are not trying to deny officers of Parliament the right to work in French. On the contrary, we are trying to guarantee the language rights of every Canadian. It is a matter of respect for all Canadians, whether they live in a minority language situation or not, and respect for the MPs they elected to represent them.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, I had the opportunity to study my colleague's bill in detail and I saw the merits of it. I understood the need for this bill. The original version of it was excellent. It responded directly to the concerns raised by the appointment of the current Auditor General, among other things.

This bill received support from members of all parties represented in the House. Unfortunately, at committee stage, the bill was butchered. The committee's Conservative majority did everything in its power to limit the scope of the bill, going so far as to insinuate that the NDP was trying to institute measures that would discriminate against the hard of hearing. I have heard it all since I have been in Parliament. They also eliminated the preamble of the bill, which provided the definition of officer of Parliament.

Without that part of the bill, this concept remains rather vague.

The Conservatives also removed any mention of the fact that the Constitution recognizes French and English as Canada's two official languages that receive equal privileges in Parliament. They removed that. This is not something controversial. This should be common knowledge for everyone in the House, regardless of their party or whether they are unilingual or not. That was not the issue. I thought it was a real shame that the Conservatives did not want to include these fundamental principles in the final version of Bill C-419.

Quite honestly, when we look at their record when it comes to official languages, especially when it comes to defending the French fact and the French language in Canada, we are hardly surprised.

Consider the appointment of a unilingual anglophone Auditor General. We spoke about that in the House. The government promised that, in less than a year, Mr. Ferguson would have a sufficient mastery of the French language to at least be able to answer questions. That is still not the case today. It was truly unrealistic to make such a promise given the scope of the Auditor General's duties. It was absolutely illogical and inconceivable to think that, in just one short year, he could gain a sufficient mastery of the language of Molière to be able to answer people's questions and interact with them without the help of an interpreter.

Consider also the appointment of unilingual anglophone judges to the Supreme Court. For years, the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst has been fighting to try to change the law and ensure that, even in the Supreme Court, people can really choose the language in which they want to interact. They can make that choice now, but there is no guarantee that the judges present will understand everything and that these people will truly receive equal treatment. They may receive less time to plead their case because the interpreters need time to do their job. Judges who do not have a good knowledge of French may not be able to grasp the subtleties in the documentary evidence.

We have here a host of problems that the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst and other members of the NDP have been trying to resolve for years. We are faced with the same situation today: judges appointed to the Supreme Court do not understand French, not even the most basic French. This is problematic, and this government has an unbroken record of inaction in this regard.

Another example is the closure of the Maurice Lamontagne Institute library, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' only French library. This government shut down the library just to save a few bucks.

When we look at the different decisions this government has made, we unfortunately get the impression that French represents additional costs for Canadian taxpayers and that it is not necessarily considered a fundamental value or foundational principle of Canada. French is seen as a constraint and an obstacle to overcome, rather than “the language of ambition”, as the Commissioner of Official Languages so eloquently described it.

I want to get back to the closure of the Quebec City maritime search and rescue centre. There are some rumours in the papers that the government has apparently decided to reverse its decision to close the centre, but it still refuses to confirm that.

We tried to raise the issue several times at the Standing Committee on Official Languages. We moved some motions. When the Commissioner of Official Languages appeared the last time, we even asked a number of questions about this issue. The commissioner completely agrees with the NDP that the government must guarantee bilingual services at the Halifax and Trenton centres. That is not currently the case. Both the Auditor General and the Commissioner of Official Languages illustrated that.

However, to save a few million dollars, the government is prepared to jeopardize the lives of the hundreds of thousands of people who use the St. Lawrence and who have the misfortune of being francophones in this country. That is really too bad, but it reflects the attitude we saw in committee.

Although the government was reluctant, we managed to keep the essence, the spirit of the bill. We are proud of that. Once again, I want to congratulate my colleague for working so hard and for being patient while working with members from all the parties. I am not always patient, so I admire that a lot.

The NDP has always been firmly committed to protecting the language rights of Quebeckers and all Canadians.

I hope that all parliamentarians will join the NDP in supporting this excellent bill, Bill C-419.

[Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, May 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent question. She has basically summarized my point of view on this.

Some provisions allow victims to be more involved in the release process for persons who are found not criminally responsible. However, this does not provide them with direct assistance in surviving and overcoming the terrible experiences they have had.

I have been a member of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security for a short while. From our discussions and from meeting with witnesses, we have seen how important it is to focus on prevention in order to protect against having new victims. It is one aspect of the job that the government often forgets about, so it takes advantage of very hot issues that have shocked people. However, it is not putting much more thought into it. Yet, this is the type of work that we need in the House, not just the knee-jerk reactions that we see too often from the government.

[Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, May 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question.

It is difficult to deal with such a serious and complex subject when confronted with political games. Unfortunately, that happens far too often in the House.

Unless I am mistaken, the time allocation motion that was debated a little earlier today was the 33rd one that has been imposed. Another time allocation motion was moved this afternoon, which makes this the 34th time the government has decided to close down debate.

My colleague from Gatineau pointed out to the Minister of Justice that the statistics he used to justify the bill before us were not the right ones.

Too often, we see the government making decisions that are perhaps based on the media and on what we see in the newspapers; reactions may be very strong and people may be on edge following incidents that are very difficult for communities and families to deal with.

I hope the committee will be able to fill in the gaps that we unfortunately see far too often when this government drafts bills.

[Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, May 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join my hon. colleagues in speaking about Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder). We have discussed it at length in the House today.

The bill addresses a particularly important and troubling issue for victims and other Canadians. Regrettably, almost every region or community in Canada has seen some tragic event of this kind. I will refrain from naming some high-profile cases in Quebec since everyone already knows what we are talking about.

However, it is important to take the time to debate this properly in the House. I find it deplorable that once again, the government has moved time allocation to limit debate on an important bill that has a direct bearing on the problems victims experience. The time allotted for debate at second reading has again been reduced. I hope that we do not have to face the same situation in committee as we have in other committees, where the government has put restrictions on the witnesses who come forward to tell us about their experience and their views on the bill. In several other committees, we have seen the government abuse its majority to silence opinions that are not necessarily in line with its proposals. I hope that will change this time. This is a crucial issue.

This bill was introduced in the wake of events that made headlines and, not surprisingly, shocked people. We have to take the time to study this bill thoroughly. It would amend certain Criminal Code provisions to make the safety of the public the paramount consideration in courts' and review boards' decision-making processes involving persons found not criminally responsible.

The bill would also create a new mechanism to designate NCR accused as high-risk and subject them to additional restrictions with respect to parole and conditions under which an offender can be released. It would also enhance victims' involvement in the release process for persons found not criminally responsible.

Bill C-54 puts forward major changes worthy of in-depth consideration in committee. That is why my colleagues and I will support it at second reading. We believe that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights must take a very close, non-partisan look at the bill's provisions.

We can all agree that partisanship and political games have no place in our debate on this issue. We need genuine consultation with mental health experts, the provinces and victims to ensure that this approach is really the best possible approach for Canada. We all know that protecting public safety is the highest priority, but that protection must go hand in hand with respect for the rule of law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The committee's study will enable us to ensure that the bill before us is truly in line with the basic principles our country was founded on. These principles must be evident in every law we pass and must be our foremost consideration for every bill introduced in the House, be it to protect victims or anything else.

We also have to make sure that we are doing everything in our power to support victims of crime. I have no doubt that all parties in the House consider that a priority.

We all have a duty to provide victims with the services they need and to ensure that we give them the best support possible during their hardship. We must also continue to provide that support well into the future, so that they can truly reintegrate into society and move beyond the tragic events they experienced. It is difficult to do, but as parliamentarians, it is our responsibility to put those measures forward. We know that victims are the hardest hit by crime, and we have a duty to help them.

There are already various victim compensation programs in place, and they are essential. However, when faced with a bill such as Bill C-54, we must ask ourselves whether or not the measures it contains will really be enough to protect victims of crime from potentially being revictimized.

We must also ask ourselves whether the bill will truly offer more support to victims of crime. I hope that the committee will at least be able to take a closer look at those elements, which are priorities for the NDP, and shed some light on them.

There are other elements that should also direct the committee's work, and I hope that they will be reflected in the work that will begin after the mere five hours of debate allocated for second reading in the House.

Some mental health experts are already concerned about the potentially harmful effects this bill may have on Canadians with mental health issues who do not break the law. These people obey our country's laws, but they still need additional support from the different levels of government.

Based on what I have heard in the various speeches about Bill C-54, it seems as though the government believes that there are quite a few individuals who would have been found not criminally responsible for crimes, and that these individuals are hiding on every street corner. However, such is not the case. We need to keep these statistics in perspective.

For example, in Ontario, the most populated province in the country, only 0.0001% of people accused of a Criminal Code offence were found to be not criminally responsible. That is a very low number. That does not mean that we do not still have work to do to provide better protection for victims in the future and to prevent more people from becoming victims of crime. However, when we adopt such measures, we must also consider what kind of effect they could have on other Canadians living with mental health issues.

Before I became an MP, I earned a bachelor's degree in psychology from Laval University. During my studies I learned about the stigma experienced by people living with mental illness. These issues are still poorly understood by the vast majority of Canadians.

For example, according to a fairly widespread stereotype, people living with schizophrenia are considered to be violent. That is often not at all the case. These people certainly have some problems, but it is rare for them to commit violent crimes.

There are already a number of community services available. A number of organizations are doing excellent work. Take, for example, Arc-en-ciel, which serves the people of Portneuf, in my riding. This organization is trying to challenge mental health stereotypes.

These are issues I would like to see studied in committee, which is why I support Bill C-54 at second reading. I look forward to seeing what the committee comes up with, so we can ensure that the Criminal Code is properly equipped to deal with people who are declared not criminally responsible.

[Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, May 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, for the past little while, government members have been asking questions about the content of the bill, which is what we were supposed to debate during the time that was just taken away from us.

This is the second time allocation vote already this afternoon. Apparently, the government is going to give us five hours for second reading, which is not very much considering how important this bill is. If the government truly believed its bill was appropriate and would have a positive effect on victims, it would understand that we need enough time to consider and debate this bill thoroughly.

Does the government really believe that this bill does enough to help victims? Does it believe the bill will achieve the stated objectives? We do not know.

We know how things go in committee with this government. It has a majority, so it will call whatever witnesses it wants, and they will say what it wants to hear. It will limit the number of witnesses the opposition can call. We also expect to see another time allocation motion at third reading.

I have never heard a single group ask the government to adopt motions quickly and undemocratically. How can this government justify systematically acting this way and refusing to listen to the opposition?

We deserve to be heard. After all, the opposition parties in the House represent 60% of Canadians. This government seems to forget that every time it introduces a bill.

[Nuclear Terrorism Act, May 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, like many of my colleagues, I am rising in the House in support of Bill S-9 on nuclear terrorism.

This bill would amend the Criminal Code in order to add the criminal law requirements found in two international treaties designed to combat nuclear terrorism around the world.

The two treaties in question are the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, the CPPNM, and the 2005 International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism.

These international conventions require the signatory states to improve the physical protection of their nuclear facilities as well as the use, storage and transport of nuclear materials. The states are also required to create new criminal offences for acts of terrorism, among other things.

These treaties show that the international community is willing to work together to combat the threats against countries all around the world.

Unfortunately, we are seeing an increasing number of nuclear threats around the world, whether we are talking about Canada, the United States or other countries.

In the past, for example, at the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington in 2010 and in Seoul in 2012, Canada committed to be legally bound by these conventions and to ratify them.

In 2005, Canada signed the two United Nations treaties, but since then, the Conservatives have unfortunately done nothing.

Bill S-9 would pop up on the order paper from time to time, when they were trying to fill some holes to avoid prorogation. Now, as we approach the end of the session and there are still a few weeks to fill, Bill S-9 is back.

This is an extremely important issue, but Canada has dragged its feet when it comes to honouring the promises and commitments we made to the international community.

Despite everything, I am happy that we are having this debate in the House and that we can maybe move forward with legislation to better protect Canadians and people in other countries, as well as have better relations with the rest of the international community.

At present, we are still unable to keep our promise to ratify those treaties because we do not have a legislative provision in the Criminal Code that criminalizes the offences contained in the two treaties we are discussing today.

If Bill S-9 were passed, it would allow Canada to finally fulfill its international obligations by amending the Criminal Code, which in turn would then meet the requirements of international conventions that the Prime Minister has clearly said he wants Canada to endorse. It is time to keep that promise and to finally achieve the desired result of ensuring everyone's security.

The bill on nuclear terrorism we are debating today includes 10 clauses that would create four new offences under part II of the Criminal Code, as well as other amendments that are consequential to these four offences.

They have already been described at length in the House. I will not go over all the legislative provisions contained in this bill. However, it is extremely important that we make these amendments to the Criminal Code.

The NDP firmly believes in the importance of promoting multilateral diplomacy and international co-operation, especially on such an important issue as nuclear terrorism. This is not the kind of file that we can shove into a drawer and come back to when we have more time or at a more opportune moment. It is something that must be dealt with fairly quickly.

Canada signed these treaties back in 2005. A number of years passed before some measures were taken in order to get the wheels turning. That is what I find disappointing about the whole process.

There is something else that I find quite unfortunate. Once again, the Senate was given the responsibility of introducing a bill that is of vital importance.

It should not be the role of the unelected chamber. Still, I have to say that I appreciate the technical work that was done here. It was painstaking and detailed work. The senators even managed to correct at least one shortcoming in the bill. That effort is appreciated. However, I still believe that this bill should have been introduced initially in the House of Commons, which is where we should have been debating it from the start. Of course, we have the opportunity to do so now, but it is getting to us a bit late.

Despite the procedural shortcomings, Canada still has a responsibility to the international community, and we really need to take action. We have to get serious about domestic and international nuclear security, and we have to co-operate more with other countries on strategies to fight nuclear terrorism.

Unfortunately, threats in today's world are increasing in number and diversity. It can be difficult to predict what tragedy may happen if radioactive or nuclear material were to fall into the wrong hands. Small amounts of this material can cause absolutely unbelievable damage. That is why it is so important to pass Bill S-9 and ensure that the steps we are taking here, in Canada, truly meet our needs.

Aside from creating new offences for nuclear terrorism, threats and so on, what I find interesting and important is that the treaties address various aspects of transporting and storing nuclear material, be it nuclear waste or something else. Canada is a significant producer of medical isotopes. We still use nuclear material that is highly enriched, which creates large quantities of waste that must be disposed of safely.

There are ways to deal with that. I do not think that the materials currently used to make our medical isotopes should still be used. There are alternatives that would produce good results. In the meantime, we need to commit to reducing the quantity of waste we produce from medical isotopes and find better ways to store it. Canada already does this relatively well, but we can always do better and ensure even better protection for the people within our borders.

Some of my colleagues also mentioned the closure of the Gentilly-2 reactor in Quebec, which highlights the importance of proper storage of nuclear materials and proper disposal of waste. Given the closure of that reactor, we need to ensure that we really can dispose of radioactive materials safely when they can no longer be used, in order to ensure that they do not fall into the wrong hands and do not affect the health of Canadians.

I am sure everyone remembers what happened with Bruce Power, an Ontario company, in 2011. It wanted to transport 16 nuclear reactors down the St. Lawrence River and then on to Sweden to decontaminate them, bring them back here and then bury them. It stirred up a great deal of controversy at the time. Mayors of the cities and towns along the river opposed it, and the company had to change its plans. In fact, people were worried about the precedent it would set, about the transportation of this kind of waste increasing considerably on the river, thereby potentially putting our health at risk. Once again, we cannot always predict what will happen with this kind of transportation.

These are all issues that we need to address as parliamentarians. We had the opportunity to do so with Bill S-9. It is critically important that we pass this bill and I hope it receives unanimous support.

[Nuclear Terrorism Act, May 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to thank my colleague and congratulate her on her excellent speech.

My question is very brief. I liked her comments, because they throw light on a particularly important issue, especially given the modern context in which we now live.

Could she say a little more about the provisions in these treaties that concern transportation and storage of nuclear materials, whether waste materials or some other kind?

In the context of Quebec, if we think of the shutting down of Gentilly-2 or other events of this nature, this issue is of particular interest. I would therefore like to hear a little bit more about this facet of the issue.

[Ethics, May 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, once again we see that the government is prepared to move heaven and earth to protect its dishonest senators.

We in the NDP do not think it right that Senator Duffy received privileged information, while he was under investigation, from the senator who was conducting the investigation.

We can see that when senators investigate other senators, accountability gets lost in the fog, rather like that $3.1 billion.

Will the Conservatives do the honourable thing and ask the RCMP to investigate?