Debates of Dec. 11th, 2007

The Environment

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to hypocrisy on climate change, the Liberal Party is hands down the winner.

In recognition of its complete failure over 13 years to fight climate change, we are happy to continue awarding a special Liberal with the hypocrite of the day award during the course of the current United Nations Conference on Climate Change taking place in Indonesia.

Today's award goes to the Liberal member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore who said, “We'll clean up Kazakhstan, but we won't clean up downtown Toronto”. And who can forget when he infamously called out the Liberal leader on his failed environmental record and said, “We didn't get it done”.

When it comes to fighting climate change on the world stage, there is only one party that is serious about getting things done and getting all major emitters like China, India and the United States on board. That party, my friends, is the Conservative Party of Canada.

Chalk River Nuclear Facilities

[Michael Ignatieff, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government has broken its embargo on the legislation to deal with the mess it has made of the isotopes crisis. Therefore, let me ask the Prime Minister about the legislation.

Why does the nuclear regulator have no role in assessing whether the Chalk River reactor is safe during the 120 day period? Why does the government believe AECL, which was in flagrant violation of its licence, is competent to decide whether the reactor is safe to operate?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the government has independent advice indicating there is no safety concern with the reactor.

On the contrary, what we do know is the continuing actions of the Liberal appointed Nuclear Safety Commission will jeopardize the health and safety and lives of tens of thousands of Canadians.

We do not have the authority to act as an executive, but we do have the responsibility to demand that Parliament step in and fix this situation before the health of more people is put in jeopardy.

[Michael Ignatieff, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, attacking the regulator, taking him out of the process, is going to make the problem worse.

In a speech in June 2006 at Chalk River, the Minister of Natural Resources said “we're getting our house in order”. The house is not in order. AECL is a crown corporation. Its board is named by the government. The government should have known it was violating the terms of its licence.

Why did the minister sit here for 18 months doing nothing?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, both AECL and the CNSC operate independently of the government.

That said, the actions of the regulator, while within its legislative authority, are clearly, in the eyes of this government, not in the public interest. It is in the public interest to get this reactor back online and get these medical radioisotopes produced. There is no threat to nuclear safety at all. There is a threat to human health.

The Liberals should stop protecting their appointee and get on with getting these medical isotopes produced.

[Michael Ignatieff, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, since when is the Prime Minister of Canada an expert on nuclear safety?

The Chalk River nuclear reactor ceased operations on November 18. However, it was only last Friday, after 18 days had passed, that the Minister of Health began to assess the situation.

Why did they neglect to take action for one month, during which time the health of Canadians was at risk? Why is the health of Canadians still at risk?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the government consulted experts to obtain their professional advice on a situation of public interest.

Since when does the Liberal Party have a right, from the grave through one of its previous appointees, to block the production of necessary medical products in the country? This is not in the public interest. The longer this goes on, the greater the public health damage. The Liberal Party is standing in the way of fixing this.

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

Mr. Speaker, for a year and a half it appears that AECL has been running a nuclear operation outside of its licence.

The current nuclear isotope crisis could not have come as a surprise to the government. AECL is a crown corporation that reports to the Minister of Natural Resources.

I am not asking about what the minister has done today. I am not asking about what he did last week. I am asking him this. What steps has he taken over the last 17 months to fix this problem?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, AECL, operating independently of the government, has taken steps necessary to deal with any immediate safety problems. The question is whether the Liberals will continue to block the production of medical radioisotopes in the country.

It is on their shoulders, and they continue to block what is necessary for the public interest and the health of Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, we ask the questions here.

The behaviour of the government and AECL over the last 17 months has put us in this medical national crisis. The government solution to the crisis is apparently to lower nuclear standards and hand the matter over to AECL without any oversight.

Will the minister, or the Prime Minister for that matter, tell Canadians what will happen if there is a nuclear accident? Who will be responsible? Will it be the Prime Minister?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, there will be no nuclear accident. What there will be is a growing crisis in the medical system in Canada and around the world if the Liberal Party continues to support the regulator obstructing this reactor from coming back online.

This is essential. It is in the public interest. It is necessary for the public health of Canadians. The Liberal Party can cast around all the blame it wants on AECL, that is fine, but it should stop blocking the best interests of the health of Canadians.

Official Languages

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois has introduced a bill to apply the Charter of the French Language to businesses under federal jurisdiction in Quebec. Recognizing Quebec as a nation by extension includes recognizing its language, French, including in the work place. For the Conservatives, that is not so. Today, the Conservative members and chair of the committee on procedure joined forces to prevent this bill from going to a vote.

By hiding behind false pretenses, are the Conservatives not being hypocritical in refusing to allow the nation of Quebec to promote its language, namely French?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is well aware of the committee process. The committee has not made a decision yet and we are waiting for that decision.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we already know what the Conservatives have decided. He is talking out of both sides of his mouth.

Last Friday, in Rivière-du-Loup, the Prime Minister said, “that his government practises a federalism of openness that respects Quebec’s historical, cultural and linguistic distinctiveness and gives it the flexibility and autonomy it needs to maintain its Francophone identity”.

How does the Prime Minister explain that he is doing precisely the opposite today by preventing the Bloc Québécois bill from going to a vote in this House?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, this government respects the linguistic powers of the Government of Quebec in its areas of jurisdiction.

In the meantime, the federal government applies its policies in its own jurisdictions. For a long time now, the federal government's policy has been to respect the vital role of both official languages while respecting the rights of linguistic minorities.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives say that under the Constitution, the Bloc Québécois' bill is out of order. What they have failed to understand is that this bill does not apply to federal public institutions, but to private companies governed by the Canada Labour Code, which is something else entirely.

Does the Conservative attitude not prove the party's refusal to acknowledge the primacy of French everywhere in Quebec as well as its stubbornness in refusing to allow Quebec workers, who are governed by the Canada Labour Code, to work in French everywhere in Quebec?

[Josée Verner, Conservative, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is well aware that people in Quebec and across Canada are paying close attention to open federalism. As the Prime Minister said, we will continue to respect the provinces' jurisdiction, we will assume our responsibilities, and we will promote linguistic duality in Canada.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government can try to hide behind the Constitution, but the Official Languages Act is within its jurisdiction. The government already applies Quebec's minimum wage legislation to Quebec workers who are regulated by federal labour laws.

Will the government acknowledge that its attitude demonstrates nothing more than a lack of will to act in order to ensure that French is the Quebec nation's common public language, even in workplaces under federal jurisdiction?

[Josée Verner, Conservative, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, just a few months ago, the former leader of the Parti Québécois urged the sovereignist troops to cease provoking useless confrontations. The federal government will continue to work within its jurisdiction while respecting areas under provincial jurisdiction.

Justice

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday Conrad Black was sentenced for crimes of fraud and obstruction of justice. Because Canada's white collar laws are so weak, a lot of people believe that if he had committed these crimes in Canada he would not have been going to jail at all.

Currently we have no laws dealing with non-compete clauses. Our corporate accounting standards are nowhere near the international standards that they should be. The fact is that investors, many of them seniors, are negatively affected by this and put at risk.

In order to protect Canada's reputation and Canada's investors, including seniors, I have to ask the Prime Minister, why is he so soft on white collar crime in this country?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know why the NDP is so soft on violent criminals in this country. We have a full agenda, and that is right, the NDP helped gut Bill C-9, the conditional sentencing act.

We have a full agenda before Parliament right now and I hope the NDP sees the error of its ways and gets behind all of it.

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear, then, that the government has no intention of taking action on what certainly the Americans and many other people believe are serious matters, to protect citizens, investors and seniors.

Canada is now the real wild west when it comes to financial crime. Naturally, the Conservative government thinks it is acceptable to leave things as they are, but we think it is unacceptable. We have introduced proposals to correct the situation.

Why does the government refuse to protect pensioners, those whose lives are in its hands? Why does the government refuse to take the necessary action? Why does it refuse to adopt a serious policy on this issue?

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

Mr. Speaker, if I caught the first part of that question, does the hon. member now want us to emulate the American justice system? That is what I think he said.

I should point out for the hon. member that when we came forward with a bill to eliminate house arrest for people who commit fraud, it was the NDP that helped gut that bill and get that provision out of there. Let those members get behind us if this is what they believe and give us some support.

The Environment

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the UN climate chief, Yvo de Boer, portrayed Canada as a climate hypocrite by rejecting Kyoto commitments but demanding “developing countries...take binding reduction targets”. Meanwhile, China points to Canada as one of the single biggest obstacles to progress.

The government claims its actions are based on science, but the head of the IPCC has labelled it “a government of skeptics”. Our top Canadian climate scientist believes the minister's policies were devised on a Ouija board. Why is the government refusing to sign on to reduction targets the science demands?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that after 13 years of Liberal inaction emissions climbed 33%. That is what embarrassed Canada.

We now have strong leadership with a target of a 20% reduction by 2020. That is 150 megatonnes. That is the toughest target in Canadian history.