House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2021, with 54% of the vote.
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 have a quick question for the Minister of Natural Resources.
Just for the record, the act that is in front of us says that we will deregulate the Nation Research Universal Reactor. AECL, as a whole, will still be regulated but that reactor will no longer be regulated by the commission. Is that accurate or not?
Chalk River Nuclear Facilities December 11th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, we ask the questions here.
The behaviour of the government and AECL over the last 17 months has put us in this medical national crisis. The government solution to the crisis is apparently to lower nuclear standards and hand the matter over to AECL without any oversight.
Will the minister, or the Prime Minister for that matter, tell Canadians what will happen if there is a nuclear accident? Who will be responsible? Will it be the Prime Minister?
Chalk River Nuclear Facilities December 11th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, for a year and a half it appears that AECL has been running a nuclear operation outside of its licence.
The current nuclear isotope crisis could not have come as a surprise to the government. AECL is a crown corporation that reports to the Minister of Natural Resources.
I am not asking about what the minister has done today. I am not asking about what he did last week. I am asking him this. What steps has he taken over the last 17 months to fix this problem?
Federal-Provincial Relations December 10th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, the government's seat distribution legislation means that Alberta and B.C. will each get new seats in the House for every 100,000 citizens in their province. However, get this. Ontario needs 200,000 citizens for each additional seat. Some fairness.
Instead of real answers, the government offers insults. The people of Ontario deserve much better from the Conservative government.
Will the Prime Minister at least commit to consult all of the premiers before forcing this unfair law on the people of Ontario?
Foreign Affairs November 30th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I guess it had nothing to do with the fact that Brian Mulroney has been a director on Barrick since 1993 and the fact that he is the chair of its international advisory board.
Mr. Mulroney appears to have been acting as an unregistered lobbyist for at least one other company where he serves as a director. Just how many companies has Mr. Mulroney been discussing with the government? Will the government table all records of involvement with Mr. Mulroney or will we just have to wait until each minister is subpoenaed?
Foreign Affairs November 30th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, explain this to consumers. Last July in Chile and again last week in Tanzania, the Prime Minister held private meetings with senior executives from Barrick Gold. Both of these visits helped Barrick do damage control over controversial mining operations that have had devastating impacts on local environments and have led to serious complaints of human rights violations.
Why is the Prime Minister going out of his way to promote this one particular company on the international stage despite these controversies?
Budget and Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2007 November 28th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, only the Conservatives can claim repetitive tax cuts to bring it back to where it was when the Liberals were in power.
My question for the hon. member is very specific.
Last March, the Prime Minister, with fanfare, made an announcement about public transportation. He committed to help the city of Mississauga by investing $83 million to help build the new bus rapid transit. At the time he said that this was part of the 2006 budget.
We are now are talking about the implementation bill for the 2007 budget, and the city of Mississauga, to this minute, has yet to receive the 2006 promise. Will this be another broken promise, like the child care spaces promise, like help for immigrants to get foreign credentials, like the income trust promise or will the government finally send the city of Mississauga the funds promised so the people of Mississauga can have their bus rapid transit?
Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act October 30th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I want to echo what the member is saying. I also want to add that this amount reflects those studies and also reflects international standards and what other countries have been doing for the last few years. It reflects the Senate committee report that was tabled two years ago. I agree with his sentiment and I believe that this amount is reasonable in this day and age.
Obviously I am very interested in hearing from witnesses and experts at committee, but at this point I am willing to recommend that we send the bill to committee.
Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act October 30th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I am never comfortable when we talk about nuclear accidents and this bill is not intended to talk about that.
I want to ask the member, what did he do in 1976 when the liability act set the amount at $75 million? Did members of the NDP support it at $75 million? If the NDP felt that $75 million was unacceptable, why did those members not raise the issue before? Why have they been silent on this issue for years?
The NDP can do nothing about it. All those members do is exploit the angst and feelings of frustration, and fearmonger, but they are unable to present practical solutions. They are unable to deal with the real life situations for Canadians.
I commend the hon. member for his ability to inflame emotions, but as far I am concerned, I am here to do my job. I am here to protect the interests of Canadians. I am here to work with my colleagues in the House of Commons. I will do what is best for Canadians.
Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act October 30th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, the problem with the NDP is that it lacks pragmatism. The NDP has absolutely no idea how the world operates. The NDP can live in utopia and can pretend that it is defending the interests of Canadians but all it is really doing is living in a fantasy world.
The reality is there has to be a balance between what could happen and what should happen. If we did not set any liability, nobody would ever produce nuclear energy in our country.
We have to make assumptions on what is the most foreseeable unlikely possibility and make calculations based on that. What we do though is leave room so that in the case of a catastrophic failure there is some mechanism to deal with it. We cannot make assumptions on a daily basis under the worst case scenario that is most unlikely to happen and end up bankrupting the energy sector and the industries.
That is my response to the hon. member's question.