Omar Alghabra

[Chalk River Nuclear Facilities, January 29th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government has the AECL fiasco backward. The Conservatives fired the nuclear safety regulator for doing her job and protected the minister for failing to do his job.

Now the Minister of Natural Resources wants the nuclear safety regulator to have the commercial success of the companies he or she is regulating trump nuclear safety, so I have a question for the minister. In his fantasyland, who is responsible for nuclear safety: is it the minister, or is it the Prime Minister?

[Chalk River Nuclear Facilities, January 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, only that minister can take pride in the fact that Parliament has done his job. If he had done his job, we would not have had to rule on the matter in the House.

The only action that the minister did was to fire the independent safety regulator. He fired her without providing cause. He fired her in the dark of night before she was to testify before a committee. Obviously the government does not want her to tell Canadians the truth. What is it hiding?

Why would the government not call for an independent review of the firing? What is it afraid of?

[Chalk River Nuclear Facilities, January 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, in yet another example of one more ministerial incompetency, the natural resources minister has proved he is just as clueless as his cabinet colleagues. He was asleep at the switch leading up to the Chalk River fiasco.

Here is what the Prime Minister said. “No actor is blameless in this affair”. That includes the minister.

Where is the accountability? Why did the government fire the nuclear regulator instead of firing the natural resources minister?

[Chalk River Nuclear Facilities, December 13th, 2007]

Speaking of advice, Mr. Speaker, this week the Prime Minister cowardly attempted to undermine the credibility of the nuclear safety commissioner by accusing her of being a partisan hack, and the record shows she is not.

Ironically, the Prime Minister decided to overrule an independent and credible commissioner by relying on the advice of the Durham Conservative Riding Association's vice-president.

How can anyone have confidence in Canada's nuclear safety when the Prime Minister personally makes the decision and relies on the advice of partisan hacks?

[Chalk River Nuclear Facilities, December 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have independent advice that this is not true.

My question is for the Minister of Justice. It is clear that the government has deliberately been undermining the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. Incredibly, the justice department cutoff legal advice to the regulator on Monday, just before that act was introduced.

The minister ordered his officials to stop giving legal counsel or doing any work on the Chalk River research reactor. This is a clear violation of the minister's obligations. Is it the minister's intent to kill Canada's nuclear regulator?

[Chalk River Nuclear Facilities, December 12th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I noticed that the minister did not answer the question. I do not know what the problem is. Is it that he did not know of the problem or that he knew and did nothing? I wonder which is worse.

In the last annual report, AECL did not report that it might have a problem with its licence. This is completely unacceptable.

I wonder if the minister will heed our call and ask for the Auditor General to conduct a special audit so that AECL is accountable to Canadians and parliamentarians?

[Chalk River Nuclear Facilities, December 12th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, last night, the House of Commons reluctantly passed an unprecedented law to cover for the incompetence of the Conservative government.

The situation in Chalk River turned into a crisis after a year and a half of inaction. The government should have been aware of the potential impact by the nuclear reactor shutdown by AECL.

I hope the minister responds to this question with sincerity and transparency. What concrete measures is the government taking to hold AECL accountable to Canadians and to parliamentarians?

[An Act to permit the resumption and continuation of the operation of the National Research Universal Reactor at Chalk River, December 11th, 2007]

Mr. Chair, I need help. What we are saying is we really do not want to suspend the regulation, but at the same time we want the nuclear reactor to be up and running quickly. It sounds like it is just a matter of paperwork that is not being done. Why are we not getting that paperwork done quickly?

They both are willing to do it as quickly as possible. I do not see why we should suspend the regulator when all that is needed is to have the paperwork done.

What I am hearing here today is that this matter could be resolved within four to five days and if it meets the requirements, the licence could be issued. Unless there are other issues beyond that safety case, this licence could be issued within five days. I think it would take us as much time to get this law passed through the Senate and receive royal assent and it would be setting a very dangerous and unusual precedent.

This is perplexing to me and to many Canadians, and it is unacceptable. This has to be resolved today. I need a commitment from AECL and the commission to work together. I have seen a letter from AECL to both ministers saying that they are working on it. I do not see why we need this law. But I still have not seen any reasons why they cannot work together.

That is it, Mr. Chair.

[An Act to permit the resumption and continuation of the operation of the National Research Universal Reactor at Chalk River, December 11th, 2007]

Mr. Chair, I would like to know from Mr. McGee when the reactor can be up and running, assuming the safety case were acceptable to the commission. I just want to have a visual understanding as to what day the reactor could be up and running if the safety case were submitted on Thursday.

[An Act to permit the resumption and continuation of the operation of the National Research Universal Reactor at Chalk River, December 11th, 2007]

Mr. McGee, I think we could spend a lifetime arguing this point with you but I do not want to do that. I want to move forward.

This is a very serious scenario and you are aware of the health consequences to Canadians. We need this safety case to be put together as quickly as possible. You are telling me that you can get it done by Thursday. Is that correct, given the circumstances that we are facing?