Svend Robinson

[Nuclear Safety and Control Act, October 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I will try not to contribute too much hot air to the environment here.

I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-4, an act to amend the Nuclear Safety and Control Act and, on behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party, to indicate our very strong opposition to the legislation.

We join our Bloc Quebecois colleagues in opposing this bill.

Nuclear power is an extremely important issue for Canada given that it is our major power source but it is also the power source that poses a number of very serious threats in terms of the environment, both in terms of workers health and safety and in terms of security.

I want to put it clearly on the record that I strongly believe we should be phasing out the use of nuclear power in Canada sooner rather than later. I believe Canada could join with countries like Sweden, Germany and a number of others that have made the landmark decision to say that in the longer term, and I hope not too distant future, that they will have alternate sources of energy. We would then be able to say to the nuclear industry that it is, in many respects, a dinosaur that has no place in Canada.

Obviously we have to make sure we have proper transition programs in place to support and assist the workers and communities that will be affected by this decision, but at the end of the day I believe a very compelling case can be made that we should be phasing out the nuclear power industry in Canada at the earliest possible opportunity.

The purpose of the bill seems simple enough. It would amend the Nuclear Safety and Control Act to clarify who is liable in case of a nuclear accident. As the Minister of Natural Resources has explained already, under the current wording the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has the authority to order the owner or occupant or any other person with a right to or an interest in it to take measures to reduce radioactive contamination.

However the proposed amendment replaces the words “person with a right or interest in” with the words “person who has the management and control” which would limit the scope of liability. We should certainly not be limiting the scope of liability in those circumstances.

The minister further said that the amendment served to clarify the risk for institutions lending to companies in the nuclear industry. What this really means is that banks can freely lend money to the nuclear industry without having to worry about any kind of liability. Once again, a gift to the big Canadian banks, which we know already bankroll that government party to the extent of literally hundreds of thousands of dollars.

I am very proud to say that my party, the New Democratic Party, alone among all members in the House, is the only party that does not accept that kind of funding from the banks in Canada. We are a democratically financed party.

I think that, unfortunately, even the Bloc Quebecois decided, two or three years ago, to accept contributions from large businesses such as banks. I found that sad. I know that several Bloc members were opposed. Unfortunately, however, they were not successful. In future, there may be public financing. I support such financing, and I commend the Quebec government, the Parti québécois, which effectively said no to contributions from businesses and unions. I hope that, nationally, there will be public financing.

Banks can now invest in nuclear power plants without having to worry about any consequences like contaminated air, water and land. If we need any evidence of some of the concerns around nuclear contamination, all we have to do is look at some of the very grave concerns around the uranium mining industry in Canada.

My colleague from Saskatchewan is well aware of the horrors of the situation up near, I believe, Uranium City in northern Saskatchewan. We know all too well of the risks not only to communities and workers in those areas, but we know that the government has been absolutely and shamefully negligent in its responsibility to help clean up the toxic waste from these communities. In the case of nuclear waste, this is an issue that could last for literally hundreds of years.

The bottom line is that with nuclear power we still do not have any confirmed safe technology to deal with nuclear waste. That alone is reason enough to say no more.

The government and this legislation are telling banks to pony up all the money that the nuclear industry needs and they will be absolved of any serious risk. They do not have to worry about possible melt downs like what happened at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and elsewhere. They do not have to worry about seepage into the land that grows our food or into the water that we drink. It must be nice to make money without worrying about how this might affect other people or the environment.

Even without this amendment, the liability that banks and any other lending institution faces under the Nuclear Liability Act is a maximum of $75 million. Imagine the consequences of a serious nuclear accident, and under current legislation the maximum liability on the nuclear industry is $75 million. That is unbelievable when in fact the impact could run into billions of dollars, yet the nuclear industry gets off scot free.

We have seen the tragedy and the horror of the situation arising in the aftermath of the melt down in Chernobyl, in the Ukraine, in Belarus and elsewhere which took many lives and resulted in a huge increase in the number of congenital birth defects. The lives of each of those children suffering from a congenital birth defect are worth millions of dollars, yet under the bill the government will be limiting even further the liability of the nuclear industry.

Why is the government prepared to step backward as is being done in this case? Why are there only two parties in the House of Commons, the Bloc Québecois and the New Democratic Party, that are prepared to stand up and oppose this regressive and destructive legislation, legislation that will have an adverse impact on workers and on communities? I know the member for Fredericton deep in his soul must be asking the same question as to why his government is bringing this piece of regressive legislation before the House.

Considering the dangers and expenses associated with nuclear power, the only amendments that should be made should be to widen and expand the scope of liability for the nuclear industry, certainly not to narrow it as Bill C-4 would do.

The government has said that this legislation is only a piece of housekeeping. In fact, there are many serious issues that arise from the bill.

The bill makes it easier for banks to give loans to nuclear power plants because banks no longer have to worry about liability issues. The Minister of Natural Resources has said that the bill is not and should not be misconstrued as a measure to provide favourable treatment to the nuclear industry. This is frankly absurd. When banks finance virtually anything else, such as a house or a building, they take on a measure of liability. Why in this dangerous industry, an industry which has the capacity to create an accident which could have an absolutely catastrophic impact, are banks being let off the hook? How can this not be considered favourable treatment?

This Liberal government and, I am sorry to say, the Conservative government before it have long favoured the nuclear industry, giving it billions of dollars in subsidies. When we add up the subsidies to this dinosaur industry, the nuclear industry, we have to ask ourselves why Canadian taxpayers are prepared to put up with this.

I want to pay tribute to the various groups across the country, such as the Campaign for Nuclear Phaseout, and individuals such as my former colleague Lynne McDonald, who has been working very hard, Gordon Edwards and others who have really been making a difference in trying to educate Canadians as to the destructive impact of this industry in Canadian society and elsewhere.

There have been massive accidents such as the horrendous ones in Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and the various “smaller” problems. Nuclear plants in Ontario and New Brunswick have not deterred the government from continuing to support this dying nuclear industry. In fact, the minister has made it clear that the amendment is designed to make it easier for the industry to gain capital and therefore to expand.

You are signalling me, Mr. Speaker, that I have only one minute left. I am prepared to speak for many more hours on the legislation. I am not sure if I would have the consent of the House to continue, but I would ask for that consent so I can continue to share with Canadians my concerns about this very destructive industry and this bill which is so regressive. I am prepared to continue certainly for the next couple of hours at least.

[Canada Pension Plan, October 22nd, 2002]

Madam Speaker, first, I want to thank my hon. colleague from Davenport for his comments, but I do not necessarily share in his invitation to the Canadian Alliance to show some creativity in its response to the Canada pension plan. The last time the Canadian Alliance, I think it was then the Reform Party, put forward proposals with respect to the Canada pension plan, it suggested that we turn the whole thing over to the market. Had we accepted the advice of that party, today there would be literally tens of thousands of pensioners in Canada with absolutely no pension whatsoever. I do not think we want to ask those members for ideas about the security of elderly people in the country.

I would like to ask the hon. member a specific question with respect to the Canada pension plan funds. Does he agree that there should be a form of ethical screening in the investment of these funds?

For instance, the Caisse de dépôt et placement has rules to make sure that it does not invest in corrupt countries.

Does the hon. member agree that there should be stricter guidelines to ensure ethical investment? Here particularly I would give the example of the shameful investment by the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board in Talisman oil, Talisman oil which is fueling the bloody civil war in Sudan. Does the hon. member agree that there should be an ethical screen in the investments of this public pension fund?

[Canada Pension Plan, October 22nd, 2002]

Madam Speaker, first, I think the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec is truly a model for eastern Canada.

We are not afraid to extend the principles of the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, unlike the Canadian Alliance who argues that it would be terrible to base the Canada Pension Plan on the same principles as the caisse. We, in the NDP, say bravo to the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec.

I want to make a brief comment and then ask a question of my colleague. I strongly support his call, and the call that has been made for some time, for improvements to the pension scheme for firefighters. Certainly we have been working for some time on this. The firefighters have an effective lobby. They come to Parliament Hill once a year. They get lots of support from members on all sides of the House and yet nothing changes.

I take this opportunity to underscore the importance of showing some respect for these people who put their lives on the line to save the people of this country and to heed that plea, as my colleague from Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore said so eloquently.

I am one of those members who had the great privilege and honour of serving in the House with Stanley Knowles. One of the real pillars of Stanley's approach to politics was his profound concern for pensioners. He pointed out there were really three pillars to pensions: first, the old age pension; second, the Canada Pension Plan; and third, of course for those who had it, private pensions.

Members of the Canadian Alliance have suggested that somehow we should turn over the Canada pension plan to the market. We should get rid of the public component of it and the requirements that there be investment in Canada and turn it over to the great casino of the market. We know all too well what has happened with Enron, WorldCom and Nortel Networks, and so on.

I know my colleague from Kings—Hants is a great supporter of that casino market system. I wait with interest for his comments and his proposals for the pension system.

Could my colleague respond to the suggestion by the Alliance that we throw the Canada pension plan into the great free market system and see what happens to those who have invested in stocks like Enron, WorldCom and Nortel Networks?

[Export and Import of Rough Diamonds Act, October 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party to join with members from all sides of the House in supporting the principle of Bill C-14.

My colleagues and I have long called on the Government of Canada to take the steps that are necessary to ensure Canada's participation in the Kimberley process, which is an international certification scheme that aims to break the link between armed conflict and the trade in rough diamonds. We know all too well that civil wars in Angola, Liberia and the Democratic Republic of Congo are currently being fueled by the export of conflict diamonds. Rebel groups in Sierra Leone were also exporting diamonds to finance their military campaigns, although fortunately this conflict now appears to be over.

This morning I do want to pay particular tribute to the member for Nepean—Carleton for the work he has done, the tireless efforts that he has put into making this important legislation possible. I know that he has travelled to Sierra Leone on a number of occasions and has come back to Canada and made his colleagues and the public generally more aware of the concerns in this area. I think all of us owe a debt of gratitude to the member for Nepean—Carleton for the work he has done.

I will not be speaking at length as others have given some of the history of this process. We know that a number of dedicated NGOs have also been very much involved in making this important advance possible. Here I want to single out Partnership Africa Canada, which has really done an outstanding job. As Canadians, I think we should be very proud of the work it has done at the international level to help make this important Kimberley process viable. It has been working since 1996, along with another NGO called Global Witness, to conduct research on the issue and also to come up with an international mechanism to help address the problem. We heard earlier about UN resolution 1173, calling for the embargo of conflict diamonds from Angola. This has really been a partnership of NGOs, the diamond industry itself, political leaders and the United Nations working together to determine how we can actually track and stop the flow of these conflict diamonds and the resources that come from them from funding bloody struggles.

In May 2000, the Government of South Africa initiated the Kimberley process at an international meeting to discuss the establishment of an international system to monitor the trade in diamonds. Later that year in December, it was Canada that co-sponsored UN General Assembly resolution 55/56, which envisioned the creation of an international certification scheme for rough diamonds. This resolution was adopted unanimously by the General Assembly.

Here I want to point to the role that was played by our then ambassador to the United Nations, Ambassador Bob Fowler. Members of the House may recall that Bob Fowler made very strong and eloquent speeches on a number of occasions at the UN Security Council, drawing to the attention of members the importance of acting. We should as well recognize that we owe him a great debt of gratitude and that again as Canadians we have played an important role here. Just as our Ambassador Philippe Kirsch played such an important role in the establishment of the International Criminal Court, so too Ambassador Bob Fowler, I believe, deserves a great deal of credit in this area.

Earlier this year in March, the most recent Kimberley process meeting was held here in Canada, in Ottawa. Some 48 countries agreed to enact domestic legislation in order to create a global certification scheme for rough diamonds. That is the purpose of this legislation before the House today: to ensure that Canada plays its role as a member of the Kimberley process. We have heard already how that will work and we are hoping that the first Kimberley process certificates will be issued beginning on January 1 of next year.

Obviously this is an important step, but it is by no means the only step that has to be taken in order to deal with conflicts in areas such as Angola, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Sierra Leone. It is important that there be strong diplomatic action as well and that Canada play an important role there, that Canada work tirelessly to bring about peaceful solutions to these conflicts through diplomacy and, if necessary, through the contribution of peacekeeping forces under UN auspices. Yes, we must work hard on the issue of conflict diamonds, but we must also redouble our diplomatic efforts to deal with the underlying causes of these tragic and often incredibly bloody and violent conflicts.

We know that this will be good for the Canadian diamond industry.

We have heard the comments from the Bloc Quebecois member on this issue. He comes from a riding where there are diamond mines.

In fact, clearly the Canadian diamond industry would benefit from the Kimberley process because our Canadian stones would be certified as conflict free. We know as well that a number of consumers have avoided diamonds altogether because of the risk of supporting conflicts or terrorism. Hopefully now that this process is going to be in place they will call off these boycotts and this will again assist the development of the Canadian mining industry.

There is one important area in which I want to call upon the government to take every possible effort to strengthen the Kimberley process. The gravest weakness in the Kimberley process is the lack of independent, impartial, external, regular monitoring of governments' compliance with the regulations. This is a very important area and it is one which I hope Canada will be working hard on to strengthen in the coming months. Yes, we signed on to the Kimberley process, but it seems to me we also should be listening to those voices from the NGO community in particular, including Partnership Africa Canada, Global Witness, Amnesty International and Oxfam, which have all noted that this absence of independent monitoring may be a fatal flaw in the system. It is essential that we campaign actively to ensure that this problem is addressed.

In March of this year they made an effort at the Ottawa meeting on the Kimberley process, but unfortunately the participating committees were not able to agree to independent monitoring. Russia, for example, objected to external scrutiny of its diamond industry as it considers diamonds a strategic mineral. Other nations objected that such monitoring would be too costly, or they said it might jeopardize commercial interests, but it is essential that we move toward independent monitoring because without it there are simply too many loopholes in the entire certification system.

Conflict diamonds could enter the international marketplace under the guise of legitimacy and supported by the Kimberley process certificates. Now, for example, the Kimberley process only admits so-called review missions which will be established only when there are “credible indications of significant non-compliance”. These missions will only be conducted with the consent of the country concerned, which means they can simply be rejected by the suspect country. They would not be truly independent and impartial and the reviews would not be conducted on a regular and ongoing basis.

One example of this, according to Partnership Africa Canada, is the United Arab Emirates, which produces absolutely no diamonds whatsoever but increased its exports of diamonds to Belgium from $4.2 million in 1998 to $149 million in 2001. This is a country that does not produce any diamonds at all. Clearly if the United Arab Emirates does not join the Kimberley process, its diamonds will be excluded from the global trade.

It is important that we recognize that this is a significant step we are taking. Again I pay tribute to the member for Nepean--Carleton, to Partnership Africa Canada and to Ambassador Bob Fowler for the leading role they have played on this issue internationally, but at the same time I urge them to continue working to significantly strengthen the Kimberley process.

With that, once again, on behalf of my New Democrat colleagues, we join with members on all sides of the House in commending this important step forward. We will do whatever we can to work to strengthen it and make it a more effective scheme to ensure that conflict diamonds do not in any way fund the wars taking place at the present time.

[Fisheries and Oceans, October 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

Earlier today I released a confidential coast guard document written by the director of operational services for the coast guard that states “...penetration of submerged or capsized vessels...is prohibited... This is not open to interpretation.”

Diver Rick Foreman, who was on the scene at the sinking of the Cap Rouge II , said:

Conditions were absolutely perfect to penetrate that vessel. With something like low visibility, it would have been dangerous. But it wasn't, it was perfect. We just couldn't do it. And for those people, for those kids, that was bad. It was all bad”.

How can the minister possibly justify the cover up that the JRCC had the discretion when nobody in the coast guard knew about it at all?

[Coast Guard, October 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the minister talks about shortcomings. These shortcomings were the responsibility directly of the commissioner and the minister.

The minister has been hiding so far behind a policy of the Canada Shipping Act that clearly was not invoked in the day of the Cap Rouge II sinking. The conditions that day were absolutely excellent for a penetration dive.

I want to ask the minister this. Will the minister and the commissioner at least step down while an independent public inquiry gets at the truth of these tragic deaths and at the record of incompetence, of cover up and deceit by this minister and coast guard senior officials?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my friend, the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, for his excellent speech.

I have a question concerning the response of the Bloc Quebecois and the member to the throne speech on the government's promises to change the legislation on party financing. I was quite surprised to see that, in the list of contributions to political parties, many contributions to the Bloc Quebecois were made by large businesses, including Groupaction. The Bloc Quebecois received a very generous donation from Groupaction.

I would like to ask a question to my friend, the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve. Would he agree to a change in federal laws that would eliminate the possibility for large businesses like Groupaction, which makes generous contributions to the Bloc Quebecois, to make donations?

[Foreign Affairs, October 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. On June 13 this year the Senate passed a motion calling upon the Government of Canada to recognize the 1915 genocide of the Armenians and to designate April 24 of every year hereafter throughout Canada as a day of remembrance for the 1.5 million Armenians who fell victim to the first genocide of the 20th century.

I ask the minister: Will the government now finally join with the French government and many other elected bodies around the world and support this long overdue recognition of the Armenian genocide?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member spoke of the importance of increasing the child tax benefit. My colleagues and I hope that the government will see fit to double the child tax benefit as Campaign 2000 recommended, the group of Canadians who have been working with dedication for many years in the fight against child poverty.

I want to ask the hon. member about a contradiction in the government's approach to people who are living in poverty. People with disabilities in many cases are some of the poorest of Canadian citizens.

At the end of August the government's Minister of Finance tabled a proposed regulation that is a shameful attack on people with disabilities. That regulation would cut people off from the disability tax credit in circumstances in which they need help to feed themselves. In this heartless and cruel proposal by the Minister of Finance, decisions of the Federal Court of Appeal and other courts are being overturned by bureaucrats and by the finance ministry. It is now telling people with disabilities, who are already struggling, that if they are able to get a meal from their plate to their mouth that is the end of the test. If they are struggling to get their food to the table, if they need assistance in getting the food, or assistance in feeding, tough luck. It is one of the most disgraceful and shameful attacks on people with disabilities.

I ask the member who spoke of the new generosity of the government, will he stand in his place and condemn that proposed regulation brought forward by his own government? Will he assure the House and the people of Canada that he and his colleagues will do everything in their power to join with the subcommittee on the status of persons with disabilities, my colleague from Dartmouth, who was our spokesperson on that committee, his own colleague, the former chair of the subcommittee, the member for St. Paul's, and say to the Minister of Finance to stop this appalling attack on people with disabilities?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on the last exchange and ask the hon. member perhaps to clarify why gay and lesbian people, who are involved in committed, loving relationships and who want the choice of celebrating those relationships through marriage, should be denied that choice in a society that reflects and celebrates diversity. The Ontario and Quebec courts have ruled that way.

When the hon. member suggests, and I think he said that the purpose of marriage was procreation, frankly, that is an insult to the many couples who are not able to have children, elderly couples who marry and many gay and lesbian partners who raise children.

Would the member clarify why it is that in any way we would be weakening the institution of marriage by allowing gay and lesbian people to have that choice? Surely that is the essence of equality in a democratic society.