Monique Guay

[Nuclear Safety and Control Act, June 4th, 2002]

Indeed, it was a royal interruption. I only wanted my colleague to complete his speech by giving us an overview of what happened in the Tokamak file, a file he relentlessly defended.

I would like him to give us a summary. The bill before us today is very important. The member worked very hard on the Tokamak file, but to no avail. I will now ask him to give us a detailed account.

[Nuclear Safety and Control Act, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I was in the process of asking a question when I was interrupted because of these events.

[Nuclear Safety and Control Act, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my question is quite simple. I want to congratulate my colleague for his excellent speech. The member is the industry critic for our party.

I know he has very strong feelings about this issue. He was really affected by the closure of the Tokamak reactor, which was in his riding. He has fought tooth and nail for this issue. I would like him to brief us a bit on what has happened.

A message was delivered by the Usher of the Black Rod as follows:

Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.

Accordingly, the Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.

And being returned:

[Nuclear Safety and Control Act, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I was environment critic for a very long time. I am very familiar with the issue of nuclear waste.

This debate has been ongoing in the House for a number of years. I see here some colleagues who sat with me on the Standing Committee on the Environment in those days.

One cannot speak from both sides of one's mouth when talking about nuclear waste. However, this is what is happening in the House of Commons.

I remember travelling with the Standing Committee on the Environment to Washington and New York, among others. We met with parliamentarians there and we told them, “We have to talk about nuclear weapons, because we are headed that way”. I remember we were soundly rebuffed. We were told to mind our own business and that this was none of our business.

However, we are selling Candu reactors and we are taking dangerous political steps with regard to the nuclear industry. There is now talk of storing nuclear waste here in Canada.

I will put a question to my colleague, who might have more information than I do since I stopped being environment critic a while ago. Needless to say, I am still very interested in the issue.

A few years ago, there was no study to indicate that storing nuclear waste had no harmful mid or long term effect on the environment.

I would like my colleague to give me further details in this regard. Have there been recent studies? At athe time, the Standing Committee on the Environment had asked whether there was really no danger in storing nuclear waste here.

Can Canada really afford to take in nuclear waste from other countries and bury it in the Canadian Shield? Perhaps there has been studies on this recently. I am putting this question to my colleague.

[National Missing Children's Day, May 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, May 25 is designated National Missing Children's Day. In 2001 alone, 66,994 missing children were reported to various police services in Canada.

Some of these children are victims of custody battles between parents and are abducted by one of their own parents. Others are abducted by predators, who need treatment. Still others choose to run away on their own, because they cannot bear to suffer any more.

Instead of pointing the finger, we must do everything within our power to end the suffering and trauma experienced by these children.

The emotional and moral damage inflicted upon these children will have a significant impact on the healthy and normal development that children have the right to experience.

To all these suffering children, we extend our love and our determination to eradicate this problem. We give them our love.

[Committees of the House, May 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have certainly seen this kind of reaction, which is perfectly normal.

Moreover, we have to realize that it is not with one ad campaign that the issue will be settled and that everyone will have been reached. Reaching people is not easy. We have to reach them where they are. Any means to reach them, including seniors' associations, chambers of commerce, newspapers, radio and television, are to be used. We need to be everywhere.

There are still people who telephone—we have been discussing this issue for a while—or visit me at my constituency office to talk about the leaflet they have received. They tell me, “We didn't know that, Mrs. Guay”. This is in spite of the fact it has been discussed for some time. But these people were informed only very recently, because we were able to reach them in another way.

So we have to be able to reach people everywhere. But this takes time. This was the government's responsibility, but it is my colleague who did the job. Had we not informed senior people and have-nots, no one would have done so.

We must continue to put this approach forward. This is not petty politics. This is a very important issue. We must put an end to poverty.

One person out of five, this is already one person too many. We cannot have a two-tier society, with extreme wealth and extreme poverty. We need a balance. One way to achieve balance is to pay people what we owe them. They must be given back what they are owed.

Let us stop filling the pockets of the government with billion dollar surpluses. These are billions, not millions. Let us give society what it is owed. Let us pay what we owe. Let us solve the problem. Let us have solid framework legislation. Let us make sure that forms are clear, accurate and easy to fill, so that people have no problem filling them.

This would make us happy on this side of the House. I hope that, next time, the government will listen to and follow up on our suggestions.

[Committees of the House, May 10th, 2002]

Some people are not doing their job. Let us say that certain people are not there fort certain committee meetings.

If we had not gone out, if we had not met the people, I doubt that the government would have done it. In fact, they did not do it, we did. We need no lessons from them in this regard. Definitely not.

As I said, I sincerely hope that we can go out and explain this to people. Some have still not been reached. We could not reach everyone, but we must do it to give them what they are entitled to. We refuse to play petty politics. We do not expect acknowledgements. That is not at issue. We want to see this through. We want to reach everyone. We want all those who are entitled to benefit.

It is that simple. We do not expect acknowledgements; we are just doing our job. I would like members opposite to do theirs. Going out on the street is too hard for them. They keep reacting to something that made us react before them, because they have no choice. In this case, they did not have a choice, they had to act. It was too much, it was horrible. So, we are taking measures.

When such things happen, one must act, one goes out. If we had not gone out, if the hon. member for Champlain had not visited the senior citizens' associations, nothing would have happened. We have no lessons to learn from nobody. We do our job here, in Ottawa, it is up to them to do theirs.

[Committees of the House, May 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, when I began my speech earlier, I said that I would not engage in any kind of personal attack. If the member opposite is so upset, I think it may be because we are right. One does not get upset for no reason.

That is not the issue. I have been in the House for nine years, and we have been making suggestions, proposing amendments and questioning the minister for nine years. We have been trying to improve legislation for years.

When the Employment Insurance Act was reviewed, how many hours does the member think we put in to try to improve the legislation? We need no lessons from her.

It is totally inappropriate to comment on who is present or who is absent, because I can assure you that there are a lot more people from the other side than people from our side who do not show up at committee meetings. When I have to be called at my office so that there will be a quorum, it means that someone somewhere is not doing his or her job.

[Committees of the House, May 10th, 2002]

Exactly. They even send buses out to get the people when they want their vote.

These people must be found, must be sought out, must be informed. If we are not able to do that, and I can see there is not much desire on the other side to go out after people and inform them, we are not doing our job.

These people have paid taxes all their lives to this government, and perhaps it is time they got some recognition. It is perhaps time something was done for them. It is perhaps time for these people, if they are entitled to a certain amount of money, to enjoy a slightly more comfortable retirement. We are not talking about millions of dollars each.

If the government does not have that sensitivity, we have missed the boat somewhere along the way. You know what will happen. We cannot create two societies, two levels of society, and this is what the government is in the process of doing. It has created two classes of worker, and now it is in the process of creating two societies, the haves and the have nots. There is no longer any intermediary between the very rich and the very poor. If a situation like this is created, it will blow up in our faces. Eventually there will be trouble. In the next election, they will reap what they have sown.

I am not the one who will be able to change things. People will know quite well what to do. We will be there to remind them that we did our job and that we suggested amendments and changes. We made suggestions to the government, but it does not take them into consideration.

The elderly are not important to the government. Women and children are not important to the government. Seasonal workers are not important. We will remind the government about all these issues.

For the time being, what is important is to further the issue of the elderly and to raise awareness in everyone. All those who are entitled to the guaranteed income supplement must be reached. This is what counts, this is what is important. In future, people must be able to complete their documents easily, they must be able to know they are entitled to this income supplement and, finally, they must be able to easily get access to these documents, without a lot of hassles.

The elderly do not need a hard time. They already have enough problems managing their affairs. They have coped with difficulties all their lives. I think that, when they retire, we can allow them to live better, to live quietly and with serenity, in a reasonably decent manner.

The people entitled to this supplement are not rich. They are in the lower income bracket. They are almost below the poverty line. They are not asking for hand-outs, just what they are entitled to. Who could be against that? I do not see any reason why someone would be against that.

In a situation like this, retroactive application is very important. It can make a huge difference in the life of a couple, an older woman or man, or a single senior who really needs the money.

By improving the life quality of our seniors, we improve our society as a whole. These people have invested their whole lives in our society. They will continue to spend their money to live a better life and to enjoy better housing. They will contribute to our economy. As retired people, they usually contribute more fully to the economy. They have the time to take a more active role in their community, they are willing to do it, they only need the means to do it. We must give them what they are entitled to. I think we have made our point pretty clear.

I want to congratulate my colleague from Champlain, who has done a truly remarkable job. He travelled throughout the province of Quebec, in a very appropriate and professional way. I want to commend him for his work. He will always be able to rely on my support from now on to ensure that every senior at least gets the information needed and that those who are eligible can be reached and sent the money they are entitled to.

[Committees of the House, May 10th, 2002]

This is normal. It happens. Not everyone is part of the wired world.