Dan McTeague

[Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, October 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the comments by the member who just spoke. He gives us the impression that the city of Pickering is not a safe place.

I would first like to ask the member a simple question: whether he has ever in his life been in a nuclear power plant. If he has not done it, he should do it. I invite him to visit my riding. At some point, it might be a good idea for the entire committee to come to Pickering or somewhere where there are other nuclear plants. He would understand the situation clearly.

When we constructed that building in the 1960s, nearly 50 years ago now, there have been no major incidents involving people living there for a long time. The member should know that in my riding there are two million people living in the vicinity of the nuclear plant, within 25 km of that plant.

I have to say that I am not a nuclear power promoter—I have never worked in that field—but I know very well that the workers, the employees who work there, provide good management of the plant. Everyone who works there always lives in the region, they are proud of their work. We are not flooding great expanses of land or displacing people to build a hydroelectric generating station.

I invite the member, before he says any more about things that affect my riding, to come at our expense, at some point, and visit the power plant to learn the measures that are taken there. I believe that he will have a completely different opinion about our nuclear power plant.

[Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, October 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. parliamentary secretary's comments on the proposed legislation are well exercised. I have both a question and an offering, which his minister may have discussed a little earlier.

It appears at first glance that no municipality currently host to nuclear waste or that houses a facility, such as mine in Pickering, has been consulted on the bill. While these are early days, it has our party's support to send it to committee to have that consultation, Would the hon. member accept an undertaking to consult the mayors of Clarington, Pickering, Kincardine and the member for Renfrew's mayor as well?

It seems to me that the municipalities carry an uneven burden. In terms of the liability immediately and the cost of deployment with any difficulties that occur, the municipalities tend to be on the hook for this.

Could the hon. member inform the House as to whether some facilities are now in the hands of the private sector, particularly the Kincardine Bruce power facility? Does the act in any way detract from or does the fact that some of our nuclear facilities, at least one, being owned in the private sector, create any problems as far as the bill is concerned?

[Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, October 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the member is treating this issue with great vigour and dedication. He brings a very fresh perspective to the area as critic for natural resources. Ostensibly, issues of energy will flourish over the next few days, certainly, with the cost of energy as we head into a colder period of time.

During the deliberations, will the hon. member be able to provide direction to the government, considering what has happened south of the border in the United States? In California, a relatively depopulated area, we see that the forest fires there have accounted for well in excess of $1 billion in liability. Considering the cost of damage and that a number of our reactors find themselves in populated areas, I am wondering if the hon. member would be able to provide at least some direction to both the committee and to the House, should this bill be referred to the committee, as to whether or not that amount itself would be sufficient given the current realities in market valuations.

[Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, October 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is a very important and timely resolution in terms of an issue that has been going on for some time. We all recognize that $75 million may not be enough.

The House will know that the first large commercial nuclear reactor is located in my riding of Pickering--Scarborough East. It employs well over 2,000 employees of the Power Workers' Union, who live in that community. We would like to believe that the reactor is not only safe but that regulations and legislation are following to make these things, to a greater degree, far more important so that our constituents and certainly Canadians in my province will benefit as a result of lower emissions in terms of nauseous gases and the burning of fossil fuels.

I would like to ask the minister if he envisions a greater role for the mayors of host towns such as Durham and Clarington in Ontario. Will mayors such as my great mayor David Ryan, and of course the mayor for the Bruce Peninsula, have a much more meaningful role to play in terms of the deliberations of this liability since the host communities tend to take a significant amount of the responsibility for nuclear waste as well as the responsibility for the potential for liability, which we hope does not happen?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I certainly did not want to give the impression to the hon. minister that I was misquoted. It appears that she may not have heard me correctly. I would urge her to look at the blues with respect to what I did say. While we cannot get involved in the judicial matters of another country, we do have a consular perspective, and I do understand that the minister may have mistaken what I said.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I will not get into comments which might be fairly highly partisan.

However, in the minister's capacity with respect to Canadians abroad, I wonder if she would undertake to apprise this House of the latest developments with respect to Brenda Martin, a Canadian who has been incarcerated for some time in Mexico. It is a very complex case. We have now learned that she is no longer able to make collect calls to Canada. Her situation appears to be desperate, to say the least.

I would like to find out from the minister if she will undertake to this House to ensure that our consular officials are attending to Ms. Martin's situation. We had every expectation that she might be released within the next few weeks, but it turns out that this case has been put back again.

While the minister will probably respond by saying that we do not get involved in judicial matters within another country, I am looking to ensure that from a consular perspective--I will not bore the minister with all the details because I think she knows them--she will undertake to apprise herself of the latest developments with respect to Ms. Martin's case, and I hope there will be absolutely no misunderstanding with Mexican authorities as to how important this case is for Canadians and, I trust, for her office.

[Address in Reply, October 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the comments made by the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell and I would like to ask him a simple question. He indicated his interest in our veterans.

The hon. member will know, given his profound understanding of the concern of soldiers, that before the last election the Prime Minister, his leader, wrote a letter to Joyce Carter in which he promised that immediately after the election the government would proceed with the extension of all VIP programs to spouses of deceased veterans.

Rather than flowery talk about very general ideas and concepts that he has in his mind, I ask the member to deal with this one specific issue. Will he, as a member of Parliament, live up to the commitment that the Prime Minister, his leader, made and honour the commitment to veterans and their spouses? I want a very simple answer, yes or no. The devil is in the details. The hon. member has an obligation to stand up for all veterans and their spouses, and for Joyce Carter. Will he or will he not do it?

[Veterans Affairs, June 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, last week the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo accused me in the House of trying to score cheap political points over the issue of extending VIP benefits to widows of deceased World War II and Korean War veterans.

In a letter to Joyce Carter, dated June 28, 2005, the current Prime Minister wrote that a Conservative government would immediately extend the VIP to these widows.

On October 28, 2005 the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, as veterans affairs critic, also wrote Ms. Carter and said that she had been advocating for an extension of the VIP benefits and that this position was adopted by the Conservative Party.

War widows know who has acted to score cheap political points. After a year and a half in office, Canada's not so new government, the Prime Minister and the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo clearly did not get the job done.

Must war widows now resort to taking the Prime Minister up on his challenge to the provinces and sue him over another example of breach of faith in order to get what was promised to them by these promise-breaking Conservatives?

[Business of Supply, June 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting to hear a member from Ontario discuss this issue. I wish the hon. member would stick to the issue at hand, which is the bold-faced abrogation of an agreement that the then leader of the opposition, now Prime Minister, said fully, squarely and without equivocation he would support.

I will give the hon. member a copy, if he wishes, of the arrangement between the Government of Canada and the Government of Nova Scotia on offshore revenues. It is signed February 14, 2005, St. Valentine's Day. It breaks my heart to have to tell the hon. member this, because it contrasts what is said in the budget.

Under point four, it says:

Commencing in 2006-07, and continuing through 2011-12, the annual offset payments shall be equal to 100 per cent of any reductions in Equalization payments resulting from offshore resource revenues. The amount of additional offset payment for a year shall be calculated as the difference between the Equalization payment that would be received by the province under the Equalization formula as it exists at the time if the province received no offshore petroleum resource revenues in that year...under the Equalization formula as it exists at the time...

The budget on page 115, which the hon. member claims to have read and has invited other members to talk about, simply says:

—the Offshore Accords and ensures that these provinces will continue to receive the full benefit that they are entitled to under the previous system.

There is the problem. The government has gone to the old system while abrogating the new one.

Would the hon. member finally get it right and answer this? Would he at least acknowledge that this is a broken promise?

[Business of Supply, June 7th, 2007]

You need to do your homework again.