Omar Alghabra

[Price of Petroleum Products, May 26th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the parliamentary secretary had the opportunity to speak because he really made my case.

I really do not have to highlight for Canadians the fact that he had nothing to offer. All he could come up with was something that I already pre-empted in my speech. I already pre-empted the fact that they have nothing to do except claim that we are going to impose new taxes.

By the way, I did not say this in the House but he would not know the Liberal policy. He needs to know that it is wrong to make things up and it is wrong to mislead Canadians. I know why he is doing it. It is because he has nothing to offer, his minister has nothing to offer and his Prime Minister has nothing to offer. They are out of ideas. They are running on fumes.

I am willing to debate the parliamentary secretary and the minister and to compare our policy to his. I spoke about our tax shifting policies. Perhaps he did not want to hear it but I will be happy to debate it with him later.

[Price of Petroleum Products, May 26th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this very important matter as a follow up to my colleague from Markham—Unionville.

The issue of gas prices is very important to Canadians. Many of my colleagues, from all parties, have indicated that a lot of Canadians have asked questions of parliamentarians, of other politicians and of other political leaders about the situation with the rising gas prices.

It is certainly having an impact on our economy, the income of Canadians and their financial obligations. It is important to have this discussion and debate, so I am glad to have the opportunity to speak to the issue because it is vital to my constituents and to other Canadians.

What is needed is an honest and frank debate so we can have a discussion about the real situation and what we can do. As leaders of our country, what is our role as legislators and what is the role government to find a solution to the increasing pressure on Canadian families? It was quite disappointing and disheartening when we witnessed the Conservative offering nothing for Canadians, nothing on the subject and nothing on the substance of the debate.

As I walked in tonight, I was joking with the Minister of Natural Resources. I pre-empted him. I asked him if he would accuse us of raising gas prices. That is exactly what happened. The Minister of Natural Resources debated this issue for 10 minutes. What did he talk about? All he did was accuse the future Liberal government of raising gas prices, falsely.

Let me be very clear. The Liberal Party has no plans to raise gas taxes, just like the Liberal Party has no plan to raise the GST. The Conservatives have offered nothing but rhetoric and pandering rather than discuss this issue on its merits and its substance.

What is going on right now? Oil prices will continue to rise. They have been rising for the last couple of years. I do not know why the Minister of Natural Resources bragged about the fact that gas prices had doubled under his mandate and he could nothing about it.

I disagree. A lot of things could be done about it. Perhaps the initial instinct would be to control the price. It would be our primal instinct to do that. However, that is not the solution. If we really want to offer a genuine solution out of this dilemma for Canadians, we cannot fool Canadians into believing a short term imposition or fixing of prices will fix the problem or resolve the issue.

Several provinces tried to control gas prices and ended up causing an increase of gas prices. A lot of market controls may appear to have some short term impact, but eventually the long term impact is negative and Canadians will end up paying in consequence.

What is important is there has to be a recognition that our dependence on fossil fuels is not sustainable, obviously, for environmental reasons. We know the harmful effects of greenhouse gas emissions. That is indisputable. We also now know the negative impact on our economy of this dependence on oil prices. As oil prices continue to rise, our economic activity will stagnate.

We see what is happening to our traditional manufacturing sector, to farming and to transportation. A lot of these industries are being impacted by gas prices. We need to find a way to transition our economy and prepare it for the 21st century.

The 21st century economy is going to be less dependent on fossil fuels. A competent CEO would foresee the future of the market and position his or her company to benefit for the patterns and the potential growth in the market. He or she would invest and work in the areas where the growth is and divest from areas where there is very little growth predicted. That is what a government should be doing in managing our economy.

We need to see the signs. If we do not act now, we will be sleepwalking into economic irrelevance, not to mention negatively impacting our environment and leaving a bad legacy for future generations.

What the leader of the Liberal Party is proposing is that it is high time we shift our economy and transition our economic activity from activities that could be perhaps in their dying or stagnant days to activities of future growth, jobs, investment and green technology. We also need economic activity that would be beneficial to our environment, that would punish pollution and reward investment and creativity. That is the real answer to this dilemma.

To look the other way and eschew that there is nothing that can be done is nothing but pure incompetency and neglect of the duties that Canadians expect of their government.

What our Liberal leader has been proposing is that it is time we drafted a new policy for the 21st century economy. It is time we reward good behaviour, such as income, investment, green technology, the creation of jobs. It is time we shifted that tax burden on to things that we want less of, such as pollution, greenhouse gases, waste.

This is simple yet brilliant. This is what Canadians want. This is what Canadian expect of political leaders. We can disagree on the substance. I welcome this debate and I am sure we will be have it in the future weeks and months. The one thing no one can disagree with is that the leader of the Liberal Party is working on behalf of Canadians. He is being creative and presenting ideas and taking his responsibilities seriously.

What have the Conservatives offered? They have offered nothing but pandering, fearmongering and misleading Canadians. They are doing that because they are panicking. They know the Liberal Party, under its current leadership, is presenting Canadians with a real alternative, with thoughtful ideas and a bold vision that will position Canada to be a leader in the world for job creation, for environmentally sustainable strategies, for improving our social inequity. That is why the Conservatives are attacking us in a ridiculous fashion and making up false stories. They know they cannot really have an alternative to the policy that our leader has presented.

This is a serious issue and Canadians are expecting us, as political representatives in Ottawa, to debate it, to show some enthusiasm and some zeal for the protection of the interests of Canadians, for drafting the future of our economy and for the betterment of our environment. This is what we plan on doing in the next election.

I know the Conservatives will have nothing to say except explain why gas prices have more than doubled under their watch. They have offered nothing to solve the environment crisis or to help our economy. Jobs are being lost, the environment is continuing to deteriorate, but the government has no vision except to fabricate, and I do not want to say words that are unparliamentary, but makeup untrue facts.

This is really a reflection of the Conservative Party. It has nothing to offer Canadians except to be in opposition, and that is where they belong.

[Price of Petroleum Products, May 26th, 2008]

Keep exaggerating. It's good for us.

[Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, May 16th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I will tell members what I am surprised about. I am surprised that the minister is here answering questions. I hope he does not disappear like he did last time.

The minister told us at the natural resources committee that the National Bank review of AECL was completed. We know the government is secretly considering the privatization of AECL. This decision appears to be nothing but the government using taxpayer money for this writeoff.

Will the minister simply admit that this decision will make the privatization of AECL easier?

[Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, May 16th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, today the government announced that it is shutting down the MAPLE reactor project at AECL. This technology was being developed to replace the aging NRU reactor at Chalk River, which produces medical isotopes.

Considering the isotope shortage crisis that the government created earlier this year, how can it tell us that this decision will not have a negative impact on the secure and long term supply of the medical isotopes?

[Canada Post Corporation Act, May 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's speech with interest. Would he clarify one thing for me? In his speech he said that he came from an area of Canada where they valued private enterprise, and I am sure that is the case.

Could he name an area in Canada where private enterprise is not valued? I am very interested in hearing if he actually believes that, or if he could clarify that point.

[Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, May 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am really surprised because my colleague is not known for hyperbole and being selective in his remarks.

When I spoke to the bill, I said that not only the industry asked for it, but the host communities did as well. I do not know if he was there when the mayors testified before committee. They supported the bill. In fact they said that they wanted it now.

The member can claim that he is speaking on behalf of Canadians, but the record is clear. Mayors, host communities, the industry, the insurance industry, all stakeholders and experts support the bill.

Yes, there are some outstanding questions, and I do not diminish them, but the member cannot tell me that I only said the industry supported the bill. Host communities and mayors agree with it. The member should really read the transcript or speak to the mayors who host these power plants and get their opinion if he has any doubts.

[Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, May 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I first want to echo my colleague's comments about the fact that our committee has been doing a pretty good job of working together and advancing good, strong, sound policies. Fortunately our committee has escaped some of the Conservative tactics. I want to thank the parliamentary secretary for working cooperatively with the committee.

He really does ask good questions. I am very interested in hearing the answers from the NDP. I cannot speak on their behalf. I can speculate that the NDP members sometimes play on the emotions and the fears of some Canadians. Their intent to pander and to be alarmist causes them to inflame some of those emotions, fears and concerns.

Let me be clear. I do not want to undermine the debate about what the amount should be. The question of the $650 million liability limit is a good and legitimate question. We have debated it extensively in committee. Yes, there are some good questions about what the right amount is, but given the experts and the witnesses we heard from and given the comparison to other international standards, we feel that it is a good leap from $75 million to $650 million. Also, the minister now has the authority to review it every five years to make sure it is adequate and comparable to international standards.

[Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, May 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have had to make a speech over a period of two days. I have about two minutes left so I just want to summarize what I said previously in my speech, which is that the Liberal Party does not support the amendments presented by the NDP. We think that the bill as it stands, after a comprehensive study, is needed for the industry, and we urge the government to bring it back for third reading as quickly as possible.

However, I also want to summarize by reminding the Conservative government of some unanswered questions that remain in the minds of Canadians. When it comes to the future of nuclear energy in our country, there are a lot of unanswered questions, questions that the Conservative government has failed to answer.

First, we still need to know what the government has learned from the recent fiasco at Chalk River.

Second, we know that AECL is in need of clarification of its mandate and its future. We know that the Ontario government is waiting to hear from the Conservative government about that future in determining its bid process for the future of power plants in Ontario.

We also know that the Minister of Natural Resources intervened with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. We want to know what is the future of that commission. We want to know if the minister intends to strengthen the independence of that agency.

There are a lot of unanswered questions. Canadians have a lot of hesitancy about the competence of this government.

I notice that the Conservative government has not yet put up anybody to speak on the amendments to this bill, so I hope the Conservatives can answer these questions in their remarks. Until then, we look forward to them bringing that bill back for third reading so that we can vote on it as quickly as possible.

[Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, May 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak to Bill C-5. I spoke in the debate at second reading and now I have the opportunity to speak at report stage.

Fundamentally, the bill is an administrative one. It does a lot of housecleaning on the Nuclear Liability Act. The last time that was done was over two decades ago. There has been a need for reforms, upgrades and updates. For several years the Department of Natural Resources did extensive work in preparing the bill and Bill C-5 was the outcome. We had the opportunity in committee to conduct a comprehensive study on the bill.

First, I will outline what the bill does. Initially it raises from $75 million to $650 million the limit of liability that any nuclear operator has to carry in case of an unlikely accident. Initially it was $75 million, a very small figure. Obviously there was a need to raise that amount and this bill raises it to $650 million. It also tightens up the definitions of liability and all associated legal terms that come with that liability.

The bill establishes clear criteria for operators to hold financial instruments or security to ensure that liability. Any operator must carry some type of financial security to ensure that the operator is viable and is able to comply with that liability. As well, the bill offers some flexibility on what type of financial instrument the operator can carry.

The minister is required to review the limit every five years. The bill allows for the liability to be increased through regulations; it is no longer required through legislation. Also, the minister has to review it every five years and perhaps amend it.

The bill establishes a nuclear claims tribunal, which did not exist before. If there is a claim and there is a dispute, rather than settling it through the courts, an independent quasi-judicial tribunal will be able to adjudicate on those things.

The bill does a lot of excellent housecleaning work. It establishes criteria, tightens up definitions and expands on certain areas. It is the product of a lot of work and consultation.

The natural resources committee has done a great job in talking to all stakeholders and experts about the bill, its ramifications and its implications. We heard from nuclear operators, from insurers, host communities and municipalities that have nuclear power plants in their vicinities. We heard from experts, from NGOs. We heard from organizations that are anti-nuclear.

We had an opportunity to ask questions. As committee members we had an opportunity to engage with the experts and stakeholders. We had some amendments. Eventually we kept the bill as it stands.

There was an issue whether $650 million was the right limit. There are other countries that have greater limits and there are other countries that have equivalent or smaller limits. The question is a legitimate one, not that other questions are not legitimate, but that question is the one we struggled with the most. What should the right limit be? Given that the royal recommendation of the bill set that figure as part of the core substance of the bill, it was very difficult logistically and procedurally to even contemplate an addition.

We are hoping that over the next few years the minister will look at this bill, conduct further studies, and consult with more groups. But, realistically speaking, the new figure of $650 million seems reasonable and in parallel with a lot of the international standards, the Europe standards, and those of many countries around the world. It is a big jump from $75 million, which is the current figure, and the bill is hoping to make it $650 million.

The committee, to its credit, did a great job examining all the evidence. The bill actually passed in committee last December. Therefore, the question I have now is: Why did it take the minister six months to bring this bill back?

Many nuclear operators and groups have been waiting for this bill because they need stability in the industry but the minister has chosen to wait for six months. Once the bill is passed at report stage, we want to pressure the minister to bring it back as quickly as possible. Operators are waiting for this bill to become law. It is essential for their business and the future of this industry.

There are a lot of remaining questions about the Conservative government's ability to manage the nuclear industry and their vision of the role of nuclear in the future energy mix of our country. We saw how the Conservatives bungled the situation with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. We saw how they took unprecedented action by firing a quasi-judicial, independent nuclear commissioner just for doing her job.

The Auditor General's report criticized the government's handling of AECL, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. We heard from AECL about its need for finance support and some direction about the future. We know now Ontario is looking to buy a nuclear reactor and AECL is in the bid for that proposal. The problem is that Ontario needs to know what the Conservatives' plans are with AECL. They have yet to tell us about their plans. We know they hired a consultant in February. We have yet to hear what the mandate of that consultant is, when to expect a report or anything about their vision.

We also know that they promised to conduct a review of the fiasco that happened in Chalk River. We have yet to hear anything from that examination. Canadians are really uneasy about how the Conservative government has been handling and managing the nuclear file. We all know that nuclear has a bright future.