Mr. Chair, I would like to ask the minister how the $10 million will contribute to the survival of lobster fishers in southeastern New Brunswick next season.
House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2011, with 35% of the vote.
Business of Supply May 28th, 2009
Mr. Chair, I would like to ask the minister how the $10 million will contribute to the survival of lobster fishers in southeastern New Brunswick next season.
Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act May 28th, 2009
Madam Chair, I would like to address the House for a few minutes to discuss Bill C-20, An Act respecting civil liability and compensation for damage in case of a nuclear incident.
One of the reasons why it is important to take the time to study this bill is of course the fact that the act goes back to 1976. You will understand that I was only three years old at that time. The whole nuclear movement has changed and evolved over time. The time has certainly come, 33 years later, to ensure that provisions are updated and to improve the act which has been in effect since then.
Updating means ensuring that the act reflects what is going on today, but also ensuring that we go a little further by being proactive and instituting measures so that the population feels better protected. We also want to see those who will be dealing with nuclear material and facilities take on some responsibility.
We all know that we need energy if we are to function. Whatever type of energy we use, have to have it to power our cars and heat our homes. That is reality, in this country and throughout the world. We are not unique in this. We most certainly live in a climate where the population has to heat their homes in the winter. We have to find a way. Some feel that certain energy solutions are less polluting than others. If we want to take the environment into account and pollute less, this may mean putting the emphasis on wind power and hydroelectric power.
However, we must also examine sources of energy that are extremely polluting, be it coal-generated energy or electricity produced by burning oil.
Nuclear energy also exists and must not be set aside. I heard certain members oppose Bill C-20, which seems a bit bizarre to me. As I mentioned earlier, when an act goes back to 1976, sooner or later we have to ensure that we update that legislation, especially when we are talking about nuclear energy.
Some members may be against nuclear energy and speak against it. However, we also have to look at the whole matter of the use of nuclear matter for worthwhile medical purposes. The crisis we are experiencing currently seems worse to me than the one in 2007. This year, in 2009, we are going to experience what appears to be an insurmountable isotope crisis. Indeed, from one day to the next or from one week to the next, we see that the government is introducing and adding amendments stating that medical isotopes will not be available before a given time.
The reality is that everyone in our country and elsewhere needs medical care. We have to be able to find solutions and identify people's illnesses. We may then see that there is no disease; that can happen. In that sense, medical isotopes allow us to move forward. They make it possible to find health-related, medical solutions for our fellow citizens.
If we want to be able to move forward in this area we have to be able to develop isotopes and this is done in a nuclear environment. It cannot be done with thin air, nor with wind turbines. We cannot make isotopes with hydroelectric energy, even if some people would like that. That is the reality we have to deal with.
If we want to continue to ensure a better quality of life where the health of our population is concerned, we must also be able to take steps to provide a safe nuclear environment. I was talking about protection earlier, and I may have an opportunity to get back to that.
When we speak in the House, it is good to have people listen to us, and not have them be talking to each other instead. Sometimes that can be distracting. It seems that some people are not interested in this very current and important matter, important for the health and safety of our populations.
I was talking about isotopes. Who can be against the obvious virtues of nuclear energy? Nuclear energy will be used to create medical isotopes. We must not forget that Canada produces 50% of the world's medical isotopes and 70% of the isotopes used in North America. It is all well and good to look at what we provide to other countries, but when the time comes to make a decision and vote on this bill, we will also have to take into account the fact that we use medical isotopes for the citizens we represent, Canadian citizens. How then can we be against the clear advantages of nuclear energy in that regard?
We cannot oppose it. I hope that some of the members who say they are against nuclear power will take a few extra minutes to think this through and think about their fellow citizens, the members of their family as well as themselves; they may at one time or another have had to undergo medical tests that involved the use of isotopes. It is almost impossible to be against the virtues of nuclear power in this regard. We cannot tell our fellow citizens that we will just stop producing isotopes because their production involves nuclear power. It would be like telling them that we will no longer be able to diagnose their diseases because we do not want to produce medical isotopes anymore. We really have to think about this with great care.
Once certain members have thought about this, I want them also to think about how anyone can be against updating and improving an act that has been around from 1976 to 2009. It is impossible to think that a member could oppose that and vote against this bill because he or she is against nuclear energy. That is missing the point. The point is that we have to be in favour of the bill because we are going to need nuclear energy in order to be able to provide medical care to Canadian citizens and to identify certain diseases or certain problems. Let us at least update the bill. Why run an additional risk? As parliamentarians, why not ensure that those who work with nuclear power be made more liable? We cannot be against that idea either.
Earlier, I mentioned protecting our citizens. There is no doubt that nuclear energy is not like water. We can drink water, even if it may sometimes be polluted, but not nuclear substances. So we have to be careful. Certain steps have to be taken. However, citizens must also feel that they are in a realistic environment. They must feel that parliamentarians have considered all aspects and that the government and the various government agencies have taken the necessary steps to ensure that the population is well protected, especially when we are dealing with nuclear power. It has to be said that this is an environment that can be unstable in some respects. No one will deny that. However, if we want to ensure that we are giving our citizens greater protection, one of the ways of doing that is to update this law in order to make sure that we will have much better regulation.
The other point concerns liability. We want to make sure that we are increasing the liability of nuclear power plant operators. One of the important things to point out in this regard is that the bill will increase liability from $75 million as it is currently to $650 million. Increasing these liability levels will ensure that people will not be able to take their work lightly. In addition to ensuring the protection of the environment and of our citizens, we will be making those who operate nuclear facilities more accountable, and raising the liability level from $75 million to $650 million is one proof of that.
Generally, it is when there are no limits that people do things in a somewhat more negligent way. If you increase liability to such a level, this clearly demonstrates that we want to attain an objective: that of ensuring that operators are doing their work seriously, so as to provide greater protection to our citizens.
As everyone will have understood, I will indeed be voting in favour of this bill. We will never be able to eliminate nuclear power, except perhaps in 100 or 150 years. This is not just about energy, but about medical treatment. Some of us may not agree with one or another of these matters, but it is very difficult to be against the medical aspect. If we cannot be against nuclear energy as it relates to medical matters, clearly we have to improve the act if we want to increase the protection we afford our citizens, and if we want operators to be more liable.
I will conclude here. If members have questions for me, I am ready to answer them.
Mr. Speaker, how ironic of the parliamentary secretary to say such a thing when this afternoon, just a few hours ago, the Prime Minister himself said that his next budget would include tax hikes. He has the nerve to try to make someone else the messenger. We are not the ones who said it. The Prime Minister is the one who said it.
The fact is that we are in the middle of an economic crisis. Who should we be helping during this economic crisis? We should be helping our workers, the people who need help supporting their families.
My specific question was based on the President of the Treasury Board's answer about the economic action plan. Why did the Conservatives make those announcements two months ago when they cannot even give municipalities the contracts so that they can create jobs right away? If the government had done its job two months ago, perhaps even two years ago, infrastructure programs would be putting people to work right now on construction sites in cities and towns.
Why are they waiting? What are they waiting for? Are they waiting for more people to be out of work? Are they waiting for more struggling people to kneel before them and beg for help, for work? Why wait so long? Why mislead the people?
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this adjournment debate to speak to a very important matter that I raised with the minister on March 13, the job losses in my province of New Brunswick. The reality is that the Conservative federal government has not done much since coming to power. In addition to squandering the surplus left by the previous government, it has racked up an incredible deficit.
We wonder if we have hit bottom yet. We are no longer talking about a deficit of $1 billion or $34 billion. We are now talking about a deficit over two years of approximately $120 billion. When will this unreal deficit level off? In the meantime, tens of thousands of workers have lost their jobs across the country. When people lose their jobs, their families lose their livelihood.
In his reply, the President of the Treasury Board stated that the members of the Liberal Party had obstructed or attempted to delay the economic action plan. I would like to refresh his memory. In November 2008, the government and the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament in order to shut it down completely. Basically, it was a way of covering their backs and avoiding a vote of confidence that they would have lost. When the time came to do something, it was already too late. The economic action plan was presented well after the crisis had taken hold.
In the meantime, people are continuing to lose their jobs and to apply for employment insurance. They often need another 9, 11, 13 or 15 hours of employment to qualify for employment insurance. One thing we are asking for is a 360-hour threshold for benefit eligibility.
There is one area where the government is really dragging its feet on going ahead with the economic action plan and job creation. In towns in my riding, the Conservative government boasted about making an announcement in March of this year. Two months later, these same municipalities were still waiting for the go-ahead to issue calls for tenders. Today, municipalities where the government made its announcements in March 2009, two months ago, are still waiting for the go-ahead just to issue a call for tenders. To be legal in New Brunswick, a call for tenders has to allow a 21-day bidding period.
When will these infrastructure projects really start? In July, August, September, October or November? Winter will come and nothing will have even started. The government talks about creating jobs. When people lose their jobs and we want to put them to work again, the government should not claim that the Liberals were blocking things. We need to look at what the government has done to date. It is making announcements, but it cannot give the go-ahead at the same time. Meanwhile, people have lost their jobs and are not working, and other people are losing their jobs and not starting to work again.
Where is the Conservative government in all this? People need to start working again. We need to stimulate our economy. Meanwhile, people are sitting at home waiting to find a job or be called to work in construction.
Madam Speaker, it is now May 2009. The crisis did not start yesterday or the day before. In my riding, the crisis started over a year ago when pulp and paper mills and sawmills started closing. That is the reality that people in other parts of the country have had to deal with. We told the Conservative government about it, but it was not interested. It probably figured that it could put its head in the sand for a while, then come up for air once everything was rosy and the economy was doing just fine.
The fact is that, in September and October of last year, while the government was campaigning across the country, everyone was saying that the crisis was happening, was serious. But the Prime Minister kept saying that there was no crisis, that the worst was over and that we would get through it. The truth is that the warnings came from politicians, citizens and economists. But the Conservatives would not listen.
Who is responsible for the delays? Why did they not take action—back when the time was right and when people told them there was a crisis—to prevent families from suffering every day?
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening to take part in the adjournment debate.
On February 11, 2009, I asked the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development a question about the crisis situation facing people applying for employment insurance.
For several months now, we have known that many Canadians are experiencing this crisis situation. They are applying for employment insurance for one reason, and one reason only: they are losing their jobs. If they had not lost their jobs, they would not need to apply for EI. They could go on working and receiving a salary in order to support their families. The reality, however, is quite the opposite.
Indeed, people are losing their jobs and have had to wait up to 55 days to receive their first cheque. Not only must the department have all the necessary information, but the employer might need more time to provide the employee with the termination papers. The individual does not receive his or her first cheque until after that. In some cases, there is a 55-day wait, but quite often, up to 75 days can go by between when the individual loses his or job and when he or she receives the first cheque. Receiving your first cheque 75 days after losing your job must be very difficult.
Every day, many Canadians tell me that it would be interesting to see the members of the Conservative government, who do not understand what it is like, go through the EI application process. Of course, MPs are not entitled to EI. But if they were to do so, they would understand the reality facing most Canadian workers every day.
With a delay of 55 days, how can anyone keep a roof over their heads? An individual, just like a family, needs a roof over his head, whether it is an apartment, a room or a house.
In rural areas, people need a means of transportation, such as a car. They also have to eat. That is the minimum for survival in this country. In winter, things get worse. They have to pay astronomical amounts to heat a residence, whether they use heating oil or electricity.
People have to wait 55 days for their first cheque. That means that many citizens have lost not only their jobs but also their accommodation and they can no longer feed themselves or their families. How do people survive? We want to boost the economy but how can these people do it if they cannot make purchases?
In reality, these people cannot keep their jobs, which are taken away from them, nor their homes, because they are evicted for lack of money. They cannot even buy food. This is not the 1930s, 1940s or 1950s, when we could go to the general store and put our purchases on account, and then pay for them when we received a cheque.
The fact is that waiting more than 55 days to receive one's first employment insurance cheque is unacceptable.
Why will this government not simply make things better so that people can continue to live with dignity and not be forced to keep begging for help from the federal government?
Madawaska Radio Program April 30th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to pay tribute to the 800th edition of Votre Soirée Western, a radio program hosted by Claude Bossé and broadcast on CJEM in the Madawaska region.
Over the years it has become an institution, with thousands of Western music fans tuning in every Saturday night.
La Soirée Western has become very popular in the 20 years since it first hit the airwaves and is the occasion for many an enjoyable evening spent with friends listening to its selection of Western music.
Mr. Bossé has made a tremendous effort over the years to provide ever more varied programming for every taste. Fans of Western culture really enjoy this broadcast and the number of listeners is constantly growing.
The people of Madawaska-Restigouche join me in congratulating Claude and thanking him for the entertainment he provides every Saturday night. I hope he makes it to his 1,000th broadcast.
Forestry Industry April 21st, 2009
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources has not had the time to meet with the largest forestry workers union. While thousands of them are losing their jobs, she has hung out a “Do Not Disturb” sign on her door.
The only thing she has to offer is diversions to try to gain some time while continuing to do nothing. People are losing their jobs, the industry is in crisis, regions are at risk of disappearing. Will the Conservatives wake up before all the jobs, and the industry, disappear?
How many more jobs have to be lost before something is done to help the workers and the industry?
Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act April 20th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, it would seem that the benefits of such an agreement are not immediately clear to some parliamentarians. There can be no benefits without an agreement. That much is clear. In order to move forward, we have to look to the future and see what opportunities would open up for Canadian companies to do business with a country like Peru if the agreement were implemented starting today.
We may not be talking about a huge volume of trade or a large country, the economic situation in our two countries is different and the size of the economy in our countries may be different. I realize that. However, nothing is exactly the same around the world. In doing business with other countries or companies, seldom are quantities and volumes equal.
Opportunities have to be assessed nonetheless. What opportunities will our companies have? That is what we should think about. If we do not act today, then there will not be any opportunities to enjoy tomorrow. If nothing is done today, then tomorrow's jobs will not be saved.
We have to rebuild from the mess inherited from the Conservatives and figure out how to improve the lives of Canadians and workers, and perhaps preserve the future of those plants affected by job losses because of government inaction.
Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act April 20th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, obviously, many things can be done to improve the lot of our businesses and workers. One thing I liked in the comments of the hon. member opposite, is when he talked about a gateway. A gateway is a means to give us access to markets and make trade easier between two countries.
As I said earlier, it may not be a big country or a major player, but there is a link with the diversification of our markets I was talking about earlier. This diversification of our markets is just as important as economic diversification within our own borders. It is the same kind of approach that can help find a way out of our problems when a market is in crisis and help our businesses take a wider perspective. True, businesses need to work hard, and spend time and energy if they are to access new markets. If they are not provided with the right tools by the government, it is hard for them to do it. But in all of this, we have to take stock of the situation. There are hard facts that should be considered. It is not all wide open, and we should be realistic and reasonable.
The supply management issue is important. Supply management must be protected. We cannot tell other countries this will be sacrificed. We have already given too much in the past. At this time, there are situations where other countries do no respect the same limits we set for ourselves. And our own people end up paying the price. Today, we must work with our people. There are numerous examples. We should be able to maintain some balance. Some things are acceptable, but there are things we should preserve for ourselves. We should make sure we fight for our important and vulnerable industries.