Alain Giguère

[Accountability of the Government of Canada, May 30th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, when the spouse of a veteran suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder tried to speak to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, he was scared and ran away.

When the Minister of Employment and Social Development is held to account for the management of the temporary foreign worker program, this champion of no accountability tells us that it is not his fault, that it is not his program, that it is the fault of the Liberals and everyone else, except for him.

When the Prime Minister turns the appointment of a Supreme Court judge into a real fiasco, he pretends that he did not know about the rules.

I do not know if others agree with me, but I am beginning to see a trend, that of a government that refuses to face the music.

While the Liberals are asleep at the wheel, the Conservatives can rest assured that every time they make a bad decision or every time they show a lack of respect for our veterans, they will find the NDP in their way.

[Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, May 29th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the entire international community is trying to prevent the use of certain weapons: land mines, especially plastic ones that are undetectable and can be confused with toys; poison gas; and nuclear weapons. The international community is trying to limit those.

When we limit the use of a weapon, we do so totally and irrevocably. Cluster munitions are generally recognized for being dangerous and for unacceptably targeting civilian populations, but yet they are given a pass. That is what is unacceptable about this bill. Bill C-6 allows another exception. We publicly say that we are against these cluster munitions, but then we turn around and allow them to be used. That is precisely what the Conservatives did with the use of nuclear weapons, the Bomarc missiles and the Voodoo fighter jets.

[Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, May 29th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for this House and especially for you—your job is not easy and I believe we must support you at all times. I also think that my comments crossed the line.

I think the hon. member for Edmonton Centre deserves an apology and I apologize to him.

[Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, May 29th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, here is the perfect example of an idiot. Dying for one's country and dying for freedom is one thing. Dying to allow imbeciles to say that they are allies of the Americans is another. I think it is sad that this individual considers himself a defender of our veterans. If he were truly a defender of Canadian veterans, then he would stop persecuting them and cutting their medical and other services. That would not be idiotic.

What we need here is to defend our country and our freedoms, not those of another and certainly not by using solutions that attack civilians.

[Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, May 29th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I want to present a new approach to talking about cluster munitions. I have heard a lot about this topic, but what I want to talk about is a bit new. The problem with cluster munitions is that they take human judgment out of a military operation.

I want to use some examples from the Second World War. Imagine a pilot who received information about the location of tents in enemy territory. He cannot wait to bomb those tents. He gets there and sees that on these tents is a white circle with a red cross on it. He stops the attack. He will not bomb a field hospital.

That is not the case with cluster munitions. The pilot does not even see the area. He sends a missile to attack an area—not a very specific target, not a tent. He bombs an area. That is the problem. A pilot cannot use judgment and stop an attack. The cluster munition decides who will die and who will not.

A sapper, an engineer, sets up a minefield. It is mapped out. He indicates on a map where the minefield is located, and he indicates what kind of mines were used and where they are placed. There are documents that support what I am saying. Every military manual will say that this is how to create a minefield. A well-placed minefield protects the sapper, but it also protects his troops, showing them they should not walk in that area. It prevents civilians from walking into the area by accident. It is very specific.

When a cluster munition explodes, it does not discriminate. It is left to chance. A huge area is haphazardly mined. Anyone can trip those mines. That is the problem with cluster munitions. The military no longer controls the placement and structure of a minefield.

A gunner attacks an enemy battery that is in a village, or near a village. What does the gunner do? He focuses his first shots on isolated targets before attacking the village, which gives civilians time to find shelter. A cluster munition does the exact opposite. It attacks the entire area at the same time, without warning. Cluster munitions increase the number of civilian victims, mostly because they are indiscriminate. Unlike humans, who can reason, machines are indiscriminate.

We are told to be careful with cluster munitions, because even though we may not use them, our allies might. However, when we stopped using poison gas, we stopped using it altogether. We did not say that our soldiers could not use poison gas but that we would let the Americans use it on our behalf. We did not say that if we ever needed support and if, by chance, poison gas was used, it would not be our fault. Poison gas is entirely prohibited. Cluster munitions are not subject to that same rule.

The biggest problem is that even if we ourselves do not use cluster bombs, we use their delivery systems. One of the biggest is the F-35. Our government wants to buy F-35s. An F-35 without cluster bombs is like a shotgun without bullets. Therein lies the contradiction.

How can we employ technology that is designed for the use of cluster bombs? That is what makes this situation so hypocritical. This is just like what happened with nuclear warheads.

Canada signed an international protocol prohibiting it from having nuclear weapons. What did Diefenbaker's Conservative government do? It said it wanted to use American F-101 Voodoo fighter jets and huge Bomarc anti-aircraft missiles. Those missiles are effective only if equipped with nuclear warheads. Canada might not have any nuclear warheads, but it would allow American technicians to bring nuclear warheads to Canadian military bases. If things started going badly, those American technicians could put nuclear warheads on Canadian planes and Canadian missiles. In theory, we signed a protocol prohibiting the use of nuclear weapons.

The very same thing is happening now. The government puts on a show of being virtuous, but behind the scenes, it is finding ways to use these weapons. This kind of approach is dishonourable. If we do not want to use cluster munitions or be allied with countries that use cluster munitions, the simple answer is peace. We just do not participate in armed conflict with people who use these weapons. If we do so, we become accomplices.

One day we will have to face that fact. Just because the Americans go to war does not mean we have to be idiots and join them simply because the Conservatives think it is exciting.

It is not exciting to see Canadian soldiers die. It is not exciting for members of the Canadian Armed Forces to have to kill people. Even less acceptable is when Canadian soldiers participate in military operations whose targets are primarily civilians. Peace is not built with weapons, but unfortunately, that is something we forget too often here.

Obviously, the NDP opposes Bill C-6, which allows for sly ways to use these unacceptable weapons. We want Canada to sign on fully to an agreement that has already been signed by several countries. That is what we want, and it is not unreasonable. Many countries that are U.S. allies have already done it. Being a U.S. ally does not necessarily mean being their underlings or their servants and finding that exciting. I will leave that to the government people.

So, naturally, the NDP believes that clause 11 has to go.

[Energy Safety and Security Act, May 29th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, agreeing on legislation is already quite a difficult exercise, but the other problem is that, with this government, passing legislation is absolutely no guarantee that it will be implemented.

We are told that we will have very strict safety standards. It looks really nice on paper, but what about their day-to-day application?

For the past two years, the practice of transporting oil by rail has increased by 900%. We should therefore expect that there is a decent railway safety system in place. Is there?

Regarding the number of audit investigations, only 26% of the minimum number of audits is carried out, and 100% of these 26% are poorly done. That is unbelievable. In addition, there is no follow-up of violations. This has got to be the pinnacle of mediocrity. It is a remake of the Pan Am Airways scandal, when they charged clients an additional fee to guarantee their safety, but it was only a marketing scheme. In fact, the company had changed absolutely nothing. We also know what happened with Lockerbie. This is another problem.

We can argue about legislation, but when the government still refuses to implement it, this is when we get such poor results. This is when a Lac-Mégantic disaster happens.

There have been major developments in terms of nuclear liability. The nuclear industry of 1976 and the nuclear industry of today are very different creatures. There are mining facilities where ore enrichment is carried out. This is also a dangerous process. Nuclear plants are not the only ones at risk of exploding. Nuclear plant explosions are bad enough, but now there are more and bigger mines that have ore enrichment processes. That is dangerous. This is something new. It must be discussed.

The nuclear industry also produces medical materials for treatments. Radioactivity is used for medical purposes, if you will. There are plants that make these materials. There are plants that handle radioactive materials. This is dangerous. We must discuss this as well. Therefore, the dangers that were noted in 1976 are very different from the dangers today. We must talk about this and we must make regulations. We must be sure that Canadians are protected and that they are compensated adequately in the event of an accident.

If it costs $2 billion or $3 billion, will you tell Canadians that you are sorry and that it is first come first served? When there is no more money, will you say that is just too bad for them? I do not think that Canadians will particularly like this. It will be up to the taxpayers to foot the bill.

For people who say they want to protect taxpayers, they are being awfully generous to those who systematically expect taxpayers to pick up the tab. Canadians should not be the ones paying the price for these situations.

This law has been in need of change since 1976. Here is a fact: in 1976, inflation was at 10%.

I do not need to point out that, even back then, $40 million was too little. Imagine what that is worth now. It is not enough for anything. All it would pay for is relocating people to a hotel for a few days. That would eat up the $40 million. That number really needs updating.

We want something comprehensive. That is why we are sending it to committee. We have things to talk about and we need to hear from experts. The experts will give us some very interesting information. We have to take the time to listen to them.

What can I say about the wonderful stuff that is oil? Do we need it? Yes. Will we keep needing it? Yes.

I listened to the comments by my colleague from British Columbia. When I was in the northern part of that province, I saw what they were using as a rescue boat.

Believe it or not, it was basically a rowboat. Anyone who thinks a little motorboat can stop an out-of-control tanker from running aground off the coast of British Columbia is mistaken. The Coast Guard is definitely not equipped to deal with these challenges. They have nothing.

Unfortunately, the people who promise to respect the environment and so on are the same detestable bunch that did such a wonderful job in Port Valdez, the same rotten pack that did such fabulous work in the Gulf of Guinea and the Gulf of Mexico, the same despicable gang that performed so admirably off the coast of the Philippines. Those people never paid the bills. The Exxon Valdez cost $7 billion, and the case is still before the courts. Nobody was ever compensated, and that was a long time ago now. No, those people do not want to pay for their irresponsible actions. It might be a good idea for Canada to have ways to protect itself from that.

[Energy Safety and Security Act, May 29th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, since we are talking about liability, I will point out that a railway accident recently occurred in Quebec. Oil was spilled, and it is amazing to see that no one is being held liable for it.

That is amazing. The moment someone arrives with a bill, no one is there to accept it, and it becomes an embarrassing problem. One of the major weaknesses of this bill is that you have to phone a lawyer before you call anyone to clean up, repair and provide compensation. Something is wrong. People are in trouble because someone did not do their job right, and they have to go looking for a lawyer.

I would like my colleague to tell us about that disconnect, about the fact that we in Canada always have to phone a lawyer before calling someone to clean up.

[Protecting Canadians from Unsafe Drugs Act (Vanessa's Law), May 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to this bill. This is kind of a magical moment. Every now and then, a rare bill brings Parliament together to pass a law that is good for all Canadians. I believe that is what is happening now.

However, I have two concerns about this bill. The first is that we have to make sure the bill will be properly enforced. Passing a bill is all well and good, but it has to be enforced. Unfortunately, in many areas, the devil is in the enforcement details. The government has good intentions, but, unfortunately, it does not provide the tools to properly enforce the law. The unfortunate events that occurred in Walkerton are an example of that.

My second concern is about generic drugs. Most of them are not currently subject to clinical trials. Basically, the brand-name drugs go through clinical trials, and the generics just copy them. Unfortunately, too often, there are quality differences between the brand-name drugs and their generic equivalents. It has been found that imported generic drugs are often dangerous.

I would like the NDP health critic to tell me whether this bill will protect us from such situations.

[Protecting Canadians from Unsafe Drugs Act (Vanessa's Law), May 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the text of this proposed legislation is important, but so is enforcement. Unfortunately, Canada has one great weakness: it passes bills but does nothing to enforce them. Just yesterday, we talked about rail safety issues with the distinguished member. In theory, there is a law that protects Canadians, but the Auditor General discovered that the law is not enforced. There is no real oversight, just a smokescreen.

The member indicated that the minister is open to amendments to improve what is a necessary and useful bill. My question for my distinguished colleague is this: will measures also be taken to enforce this law on the ground? Passing a bill without doing anything to enforce compliance is pointless. What guarantees can my distinguished colleague offer about the idea behind this excellent bill?

[Fair Elections Act, May 13th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, my question will be quite simple.

The aim of an elections act is to allow people to vote freely, knowing that the election has not been fixed. Does the hon. member really believe that, with this act, first nations and student participation will increase? Does he feel that Pierre Poutine, the professional election rigger, will be going to jail? That is the question. What will be the purpose of this act?

Everyone involved has said that the act will not make for more voter participation.