Chris Charlton

[Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, May 27th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and join my NDP colleagues in speaking against Bill C-20, the nuclear liability and compensation act. In fact, we are the only party in this House that refuses to give the government a blank cheque on this inadequate reform to the limits of nuclear liability.

Simply put, I oppose this bill because it does not keep pace with the rest of the world's measures to provide safe use of nuclear energy. Nonetheless, there is no doubt about the need for modernizing the act. The liability limits were initially set in the early 1970s by the Liberals, but the limits were inadequate even then and certainly by today's standards are even worse.

To its credit, this bill does propose to increase the maximum liability for operators of nuclear installations for damage resulting from a nuclear accident from $75 million to $650 million per nuclear installation, but this limit remains shamefully low when we consider the consequences of a nuclear accident.

This bill seems designed to protect corporations rather than citizens. The total liability is way too low and will not be able to cover a medium-sized accident, never mind a catastrophic one. It has been estimated that a nuclear accident would cause billions of dollars in damage in personal injuries, death and contamination of the surrounding areas. According to the director of environmental governance for the Pembina Institute, a major accident at the Darlington, Ontario nuclear plant east of Toronto, and very near to my own riding of Hamilton Mountain, could cause damages in the range of an estimated $1 trillion.

Six hundred and fifty million dollars does not even come close to being adequate and taxpayers will be on the hook for the difference. Does the government and its friends in the Liberal Party and the Bloc Québécois really believe that $650 million would be sufficient to clean up and rebuild after such a disaster? Apparently so.

The U.S., on the other hand, has a cap of $10 billion. Germany, which has experienced the fallout of the Chernobyl meltdown, has an unlimited amount. Many other countries are also moving in that direction toward an unlimited amount of liability. Does the government really believe that Canadian lives, properties and communities are worth less than those of our U.S. and European counterparts? Again, judging by this legislation, one would think so.

Even relatively minor nuclear accidents can have huge costs. In the 1960s, a minor issue in a reactor in Michigan cost an estimated $132 million and that was over 40 years ago, but the government, propped up again by its partners in the Liberal Party and the Bloc Québécois, believes this bill goes far enough.

One of my big concerns is that this bill really is not about protecting Canadians but is all about the Conservative government laying the groundwork to sell Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. Privatization should never be acceptable and particularly not during tough economic times when the value is at its lowest and the Conservatives are contemplating a fire sale.

Perhaps more than anything else, this bill and the debate around it highlight the outrageous costs and potentially devastating risks of nuclear energy, particularly when we compare it to greener, more sustainable alternatives.

For example, the Three Mile Island incident outside Harrisburg, Pennsylvania in 1979, which my colleagues have already talked about, was a relatively minor nuclear accident, but it cost an estimated $975 million for the cleanup and investigation. To put the absolute enormity of these costs into context, for the cost of cleaning up Three Mile Island, 1,147,058 100-watt solar panels could have been bought and assembled.

The total subsidies for Canada's state-owned nuclear company, AECL, from 1952 to 2000, were approximately $16 billion. This is money that could be spent investigating safer methods of energy. But the enormous costs do not just apply when things go bad. The planned construction costs for the third Fermi plant in Michigan will cost an estimated $10 billion U.S. and take approximately six years to complete. The price of wind power, on the other hand, is dropping fast and can even be had for as low as 16¢ per kilowatt hour right now. Imagine the cost savings to taxpayers and the lower electricity bills for seniors and hard-working families if we could shift to cheaper, safer and more sustainable power. On top of the financial expenses, nuclear energy in general is extremely unsafe, both to the environment and to human life.

There can be no doubt that Canada needs a greener approach in terms of power. Statistics show that Canada ranked 11th in 2008 in a poll measuring wind power capacity. If Canada expects to be seen as a leader in the world, we need to compete in the field of clean renewable energy.

This pressing need is why we in the NDP launched a task force on the economic recovery which I have been proud to co-chair with my colleague, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, who has done incredible work on environmental issues over the years.

As we confront the current economic crisis, we must be looking toward the future. We must ensure that the economy of the 21st century is green, sustainable and affordable for ordinary Canadians.

In my hometown of Hamilton, community organizations, environmentalists and ordinary citizens are coming together to imagine and realize that kind of green future. Green Venture, for example, has been doing home energy evaluation since 1997.

Environment Hamilton recently received a Trillium Foundation grant in support of its work on a green economic recovery for Hamilton. Environment Hamilton understands that fighting climate change and creating green jobs go hand in hand. I want to congratulate Lynda Lukasik, who is the executive director of Environment Hamilton, her staff and the board at Environment Hamilton for securing this important multi-year grant for advancing the future of our city.

Environment Hamilton has also launched an innovative project aimed at helping Hamilton area faith groups to conserve energy both at home and in their places of worship.

I recognize that nuclear energy provides jobs for a large number of Canadians and has been a part of our economy since 1949. The industry cannot and will not disappear overnight, but the real issue is that Bill C-20 just does not do enough to bring safety to a naturally unsafe and volatile substance. The compensation process would remain cumbersome and force victims of nuclear accidents to go through the courts. We know how costly and inaccessible the courts are as a remedy for this kind of situation.

Furthermore, the bill does not cover any accidents outside of the plant setting. Oil and mining companies and medical facilities use radioactive materials that can be dangerous, but they are not liable for any accidents related to their use or disposal.

It is as clear as it is unfortunate that only the NDP is serious about protecting the interests of ordinary Canadians while the other parties take a rather cavalier attitude to nuclear safety.

I can only hope that this debate will give the government, members of the Liberal Party and the Bloc Québécois pause. We need to protect families and communities from the devastating potential of nuclear disasters and this bill simply does not do that.

[Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, May 27th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I am really interested in this debate as I know are most of my constituents in Hamilton Mountain.

It seems to me that what this issue is about is protecting Canadians in the case of a nuclear accident and tragedy. I wonder if the member could speak a bit about where the number $650 million of liability comes from. Why does he believe that number is adequate? I think all of the evidence from the experts speaks to the contrary.

We know, for example, that when the Pembina Institute did a study on what the cost would be of a potential major accident at the Darlington nuclear plant, which is not all that far away from my riding of Hamilton Mountain, it estimated the cost to be $1 trillion. Bill C-20 does not even provide for liability of $1 billion. We are talking about $650 million. The reality is, as the member will know, that taxpayers will be on the hook for the difference, and that difference is far from insignificant.

We are talking in the House about the deplorable state of the deficit now, which is 50% higher today than it was estimated to be just four months ago, but those numbers pale in comparison when we are talking about a potential $1 trillion liability as a result of just one nuclear accident.

I wonder if the member could just explain to the House why he believes that $650 million is adequate.

[Guaranteed Income Supplement, May 13th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to participate this evening in the debate on Motion No. 300, which calls on the government to enhance access to, and the level of, GIS benefits for Canada's poorest seniors.

Let me say at the outset that I fully support this motion. In many ways it mirrors the provisions of the NDP's seniors charter, which I had the privilege of introducing on behalf of our caucus in the last Parliament. That charter guaranteed the right for seniors to an adequate income so they could live their retirement with the dignity and respect they deserve. That motion passed with the overwhelming support of a majority of members in the House.

Ironically, the Conservatives supported my motion while the Bloc unanimously voted against it. Yet here we are with the Bloc underlining the importance of my motion by echoing its intent with a motion of its own, while the Conservatives are suddenly opposed. It is enough to make anyone's head spin.

However, the bottom line is that we have spent a lot of time in this chamber talking about the current economic downturn. We have talked a lot about the need to protect and create jobs. We have talked a lot about the need to support communities through infrastructure funding, and we have talked a lot about the need to improve employment insurance. We have not spent nearly enough time talking about the impact this economic crisis is having on seniors, the truly innocent victims of this recession.

Even prior to the market collapse of last October, seniors were increasingly finding it difficult to make ends meet. They have worked hard all their lives; they have played by the rules. But everywhere they turn, and with every bill they open, they are paying more and getting less. Now those financial difficulties are being compounded by the global recession and the government's inaction to protect Canadian seniors from its most devastating impacts.

None of the three pillars of our retirement income support system are strong enough to withstand the impact of the economic storm without government assistance. The first pillar, of course, is workplace pensions. Defined benefit pensions were already faltering in Canada long before the current crisis hit the market. However, they were not faltering because of excessive costs, as most employers would want us to believe, rather they faltered because there was a lack of planning on the part of employers to pay for them. Without a doubt, defined benefit plans cost money.

However, few safeguards were in place to put aside pension investment windfalls in good times. Instead, during times when markets were booming and returns from investments were rolling in, employers opted for contribution holidays instead of saving the windfalls for the inevitable rainy days ahead. Today it is not just raining, the monsoon season has arrived.

As company after company closes its doors or seeks CCAA protection, workers are living in fear that their workplace pensions will not be there for their retirement. That is why I introduced the workers first bill as my very first piece of legislation after being elected. That bill would ensure that workers' wages, benefits and pensions would receive super priority in cases of commercial bankruptcy. If we really want to ensure that workers can retire with dignity and respect, we must ensure that they have an adequate retirement income.

My bill, as well as a federal employer-funded system of pension insurance, is essential to achieving that goal. While the sustainability of workplace pensions is crucial, it is important to note that only about one-half of Canada's seniors population receive some income from workplace pensions, and those incomes account for only about 30% of all retirement income received. Despite the important contribution that workplace pensions have made to the well-being of older Canadians, we must focus as well on the other two pillars of Canada's retirement income system, which are private and public pensions.

Private pensions are individual retirement savings vehicles such as RRSPs. Seniors were devastated when they saw their life savings and dreams disappear in the stock market crash of October. The sustainability of workplace pensions was suddenly thrown into question. For those who had RRSPs, the value of their retirement nest egg plummeted. And for those who were already on RRIFs, they were doubly disadvantaged because the minimum withdrawal requirements meant they would be eating deeply into their capital.

The Prime Minister's response was that Canadians need to hang in there and ride out the storm. But seniors, by definition, do not have a lifetime to wait. They do not have earnings with which to replenish their savings, nor do they have the years required for their investment losses to be made up by market gains. They need the government's help now.

The best place for the government to intervene is in the third pillar of Canada's retirement system, and that is public pensions. Public pensions include the Canada pension plan, old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. The only one of the three that is universal is the OAS.

I have a motion on the order paper that calls on the government to increase the OAS immediately by 15% retroactive to January 1 of this year and to index it thereafter. Moreover, a second motion of mine calls on the government to link both CPP and OAS to standard of living levels to ensure that no senior needs to live in poverty.

The third piece of the puzzle is the motion that is before us today, which deals specifically with improvements to the guaranteed income supplement.

First, it would no longer require seniors to apply for the GIS, which is absolutely essential. By the government's own admission, there are currently 135,000 seniors in Canada who are eligible for but not receiving the GIS. It is incumbent upon us to help seniors access the benefits to which they are legitimately entitled, and it is easily done. The Department of Human Resources and Social Development, which administers the GIS, is allowed to exchange information with the Canada Revenue Agency. The CRA collects the tax returns of seniors and, therefore, the government already has the information it needs to determine whether a senior is eligible for the guaranteed income supplement.

The second issue that Motion No. 300 addresses is the fact that the GIS can only be received retroactively for a period of 11 months. A system designed like that is clearly not designed as a system to lift seniors out of poverty. If seniors owe the government money, the Canada Revenue Agency sure would not limit itself to 11 months of retroactivity. It would hound seniors until it had every last cent owing. So it should be for seniors, and the motion before us today would achieve that laudable goal. It would allow for full retroactivity for unpaid pension amounts.

However, even those seniors who are collecting the GIS still are not receiving an income that is high enough to lift them out of poverty. That is hardly a retirement with dignity and respect, which is why the third component of Motion No. 300 seeks to raise the GIS by $110 per month.

The Conservatives say that such an increase combined with full retroactivity would simply cost too much. They put the figure in the billions of dollars. Let me get this straight. The government can find $2 billion to continue subsidizing the big banks and big oil companies but it cannot find the money for the neediest seniors in our country.

This is not about a program costing too much. This is all about a government that cares more about its wealthy friends than it cares about the people who built our country. Conservative MPs should be ashamed of themselves. If they took their heads out of the tar sands long enough to actually notice what is happening in communities right across our country, they would realize that by denying seniors an adequate standard of living, they are also denying them hope.

The National Council of Welfare stated, “Poverty does not just mean a lack of income; it can also be a synonym for social exclusion. When people can't meet basic needs, they also cannot afford simple activities like inviting family or friends to dinner on occasion or buying gifts for a child” or grandchild.

It goes on to say that poverty leads to “isolation and social exclusion” which, in turn, “lead to further problems with poor health, depression and dysfunction. Poverty can quickly rob people of their dignity, confidence and hope”.

What message are we sending to seniors when we are refusing to lift them up to the poverty line? This is not good public policy. It is not even good fiscal management. It is simply mean-spirited. The government's objection to the final part of Motion No. 300 makes that abundantly clear. It proposes that a surviving spouse be entitled to receive his or her deceased spouse's pension payment for six months. It hardly seems unreasonable to allow people time to mourn their loved ones.

Yes, many will need to make decisions about whether they can continue to live in their homes and continue to keep up with their bills and giving them a little bit of time to make those decisions after the devastating loss of a spouse is simply the compassionate thing to do. The six month extension of the deceased spouse's GIS simply shows a bit of humanity to seniors.

However, the government is not often accused of being compassionate. Instead of accepting the proposals of Motion No. 300 and taking pride in having done right by seniors, its approach to dealing with the GIS is telling seniors to get a job. The only budgetary reform aimed at seniors was the Conservatives announcement that seniors could now work and earn up to $3,500 before their GIS would be clawed back. Nothing defines the differences between the Conservatives and the NDP more clearly.

The Conservatives want seniors to retire in the uniform of a Wal-Mart greeter. New Democrats want seniors to retire in dignity and respect.

I cannot wait for the votes to be counted on this motion. For every member of the House the question will become which side are they on.

[Employment Insurance, May 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, last week I introduced a bill to fix EI so new moms could access their regular EI benefits if they lost their jobs during or after their maternity leave. I challenged the government to act by Mother's Day. That is this Sunday, and new moms are still waiting. The meagre EI extension that the minister constantly trumpets does absolutely nothing for a new mom who cannot access those regular EI benefits in the first place.

Women deserve more than flowers and chocolates this Mother's Day. They deserve fairness. Will the minister give new moms fair access to fair benefits today?

[Canadian Flag Pins, May 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the maple leaf is the symbol of our national goals and aspirations. Canadian troops put their lives on the line for the values symbolized by the maple leaf. It speaks to our pride as Canadians.

Today that pride is diminished. In the middle of a manufacturing meltdown, the Conservative government outsourced the production of Canadian flag pins to China. Why is the Prime Minister giving our tax dollars to foreign factories? Why does the Prime Minister not support Canadian jobs?

New Democrats stopped the Liberals from outsourcing our pins in 2005. It is outrageous that we have to do it again.

Canadians simply want some fairness and accountability, but the Conservative government is incapable of delivering.

Of the $3.8 million that the federal government spends on Canada Day celebrations, it is giving $3.2 million to Quebec, leaving a mere $600,000 for the rest of Canada, and only $100,000 for all of Ontario, our most populace province.

Thankfully, my Canada Day barbecue has never needed the government's support, but Ontarians do. They need the support of the government to protect their jobs, both in the manufacturing sector and in the tourism industry.

In the lead up to Canada Day, the government could and should have done both.

[Employment Insurance Act, April 30th, 2009]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-378, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (increase of maximum number of weeks: combined weeks of benefits).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce legislation today that will make the employment insurance system fair for working mothers. I particularly want to thank the member for Nickel Belt for seconding this bill and for his profound commitment to this issue.

One of the many barriers that prevent women from accessing their EI entitlements is the anti-stacking provisions in the Employment Insurance Act. For example, these provisions prevent mothers who have secured maternity and parental benefits from accessing regular EI benefits in the event that they lose their jobs during these officially sanctioned leaves.

With layoff announcements coming almost daily, new mothers often find that their workplaces are closing during their maternity leave or they return to work but lose their jobs soon after. Shamefully, they find that they have no longer qualified for the employment insurance benefits they have paid for.

My bill will bring fairness to working mothers by eliminating the 50 week cap and changing the qualifying period so that individuals can access their maternity, parental, sickness and compassionate care benefits without worrying that if they lose their jobs in the interim, they will be left without EI.

I hope the government will pass this bill before May 10 because hard-working moms deserve more than flowers and chocolates this Mother's Day. They deserve fairness when it comes to EI.

I would be remiss if I did not thank Ben Rossitter from the Parkdale legal clinic for his advocacy on this issue, and Marie-Andrée Roy and Sam Dinicol for working on drafts and redrafts until we finally brought this bill to fruition.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Canada Consumer Product Safety Act, April 29th, 2009]

Yes, exactly, Mr. Speaker. The question is also why has the government not acted?

I would like to suggest five of them, just by way of example.

Do we need to decide whether the release of harmful substances from products during use or after disposal, including to house and into air, must be considered?

The potential harm from chronic exposure to the substance itself should be considered, in my view. The potential for harm to vulnerable populations, of course, is another. The cumulative exposure to a substance Canadians receive from the products of concern--

[Canada Consumer Product Safety Act, April 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, this bill is called the Canada consumer product safety act. However, in reality, whether we are actually protecting consumers or not will very much depend on whether there are enforcement mechanisms and whether we can actually trigger the kind of decisive action that consumers are counting on us to ensure is in the legislation, so that they can be absolutely assured that products that they are consuming, that they are in contact with, will in fact be safe.

I wonder whether the member would agree that we actually need to include some very specific triggers for government actions and criteria around what should trigger that kind of action and--

[Petitions, April 29th, 2009]

The second petition, Mr. Speaker, that I am pleased to present is yet another petition on behalf of members and supporters of the building trades. The petitioners come from all over British Columbia and I am sure many of them will be in Ottawa next week for the building trades legislative conference.

Building trades across the country have lobbied successive governments for over 30 years to achieve some basic fairness for their members. They want trades people and indentured apprentices to be able to deduct travel and accommodation expense from their taxable incomes so that they can secure and maintain employment at construction sites that are more than 80 kilometres from their homes.

It makes no sense, especially during these economic times, for trades people to be out of work in one area of the country while another region suffers from temporary shortages of skilled tradespeople simply because the cost of travelling is too high. To that end, they have gathered hundreds of signatures in support of my bill which would allow for precisely the kinds of deductions their members have been asking for.

I am pleased to table these petitions on their behalf and share their disappointment that this item was not addressed in the last federal budget.

[Petitions, April 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of tabling two petitions today. It is my pleasure to table another petition about the need to improve food and product safety in Canada. I want to take this opportunity to thank the many residents of Hamilton Mountain for promoting this issue in our community.

The petitioners are concerned that a product of Canada need not have been grown, raised, caught or, in any way, begun its life in Canada. Canadian regulations only require that the last substantial transformation of the goods must have occurred in Canada and that at least 51% of the total direct cost of producing or manufacturing the goods is Canadian.

This is particularly troubling to the petitioners because they note that Canada's failed trade policy limits safety standards and sends jobs overseas. As a result, tainted imports from China and other countries have led to recalls of thousands of toys, food products and pet food products.

Instead of acting to effectively deal with this trend, the federal government is proposing trade agreements with countries such as Peru and Panama that already have been cited for food and safety concerns.

Because of these concerns, the petitioners are asking the House to do a full review of its regulations for product of Canada and made in Canada designations so that all Canadians can be assured of the accuracy in country of origin labelling.