Paule Brunelle

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, April 12th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, today I am pleased to speak to Bill C-9, the budget implementation bill. The Bloc Québécois took the preparations for this budget very seriously. We toured all over Quebec. We met with hundreds of economic players. We were very disappointed, after making suggestions to the government, that the Conservatives stuck with their habit of acting as though Quebec does not exist.

Once again, the Conservatives want to help their rich friends at the expense of the less fortunate and the workers. This bill shows the government's desire to spare the rich, including the banks and major corporations, at all costs and make the middle class and working class pay off the deficit.

The measures contained in this budget attest to this desire because corporations are not asked to contribute to raising government revenues, except for the lower interest rate to be paid by the Minister of National Revenue on tax overpayments by corporations.

The bill attests to the Conservative government's inertia with respect to the environment and the fight against greenhouse gases. Rather than attacking the sources of the problem, the government is ignoring the national and international pressure for a radical reduction in energy waste and implementation of tangible policies to promote the production of clean and renewable energy.

In addition, as a woman, I am personally outraged by the measures, particularly the lack of measures, for women in this bill. In fact, the Conservatives are denying the existence of more than half the population and the challenges they face. There is nothing for women in this bill. It is an unacceptable step backwards. And we know that women are often the poorest in our society and often head up single-parent households, which compounds their problems.

I would now like to speak about Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and isotopes. As the natural resources critic, I have serious concerns about Bill C-9, specifically part 18.

Conservatives, like the Liberals, have dragged their feet on medical isotope production. These isotopes are crucial to detecting and treating a number of serious diseases. Because the core of nuclear reactors is exposed to extremely high temperatures and radiation, NRU reactors must be rebuilt every 25 or 30 years; otherwise, they become too unstable and dangerous. Consequently, the Conservatives' failure to act forced the “temporary” closure of the Chalk River reactor in May 2009, leaving Quebec health care institutions and hospitals to their own devices and creating an unprecedented medical isotope crisis.

Quebec has been paying for the government's negligence and incompetence on this issue for nearly a year now. It will soon be a year since hospitals have had a guaranteed supply of medical isotopes. We have yet to see any money to cover the cost of what the Quebec government has had to pay to manage the crisis. Waiting lists are growing longer and doctors are becoming impatient. Quebeckers want a long-term solution so that we do not put any more lives in danger unnecessarily and so that patients can get the tests and treatments they need.

There have been many calls for help from doctors. What will it take to get the government to act? The Conservatives made a commitment to have the reactor up and running by August 2009. We have seen delay after delay, and now they are saying it will be up and running at the end of July 2010, a full year after it was shut down. It remains to be seen whether there will be more delays. Forgive me if I have doubt the Conservatives' word on this.

Jean-Luc Urbain, president of the Canadian Association of Nuclear Medicine, predicted that patients would experience dark days waiting to receive diagnoses and treatment.

It is important to remember that it is Atomic Energy of Canada Limited that owns and operates the Chalk River reactor. AECL is therefore responsible not only for producing isotopes for Canada, but for producing half the supply of medical isotopes in North America. It accounts for more than 30% of international production.

AECL manages the supply of isotopes, and it is no secret that the government is thinking of privatizing this crown corporation.

What is more, the government commissioned a study in February 2008 to set the corporation's long-term strategic direction. Part 18 of the budget implementation bill gives the federal government carte blanche to determine the corporation's future. We have absolutely no assurance that the federal government will keep on doing its duty and providing Quebeckers and Canadians with a supply of medical isotopes.

In addition, the process is blatantly non-transparent. The government is giving itself the right to notify the House of its decision on AECL only within 15 days after it takes effect. As a result, we run the very real risk of being faced with a fait accompli.

Another thing that troubles me is that the budget provides $300 million in 2010-11 to cover anticipated commercial losses and to support the activities of AECL, such as pursuing the development work on the advanced CANDU reactor, safely supplying medical isotopes and maintaining reliable and safe activity at the Chalk River laboratories.

It is curious. I wonder whether this $300 million of taxpayers' money is literally a gift for potential buyers. I was unable to get any answers about this.

In addition to the supply of isotopes, a number of other issues remain unresolved and are cause for concern.

How much is Atomic Energy of Canada Limited worth? We have invested more than $8 billion in it over the years. Can Quebeckers and Canadians expect a return on their investment with the sale of AECL? What sort of future can workers at the Chalk River laboratories and the Montreal offices expect? What will become of the intellectual property pertaining to the CANDU reactors if the company passes into foreign hands?

These are worrisome questions that still do not have answers.

I would now like to talk about the forestry industry. Quebeckers are worried. This industry is going through an unprecedented crisis in Quebec, and the bill contains no real measures to reassure Quebeckers.

Even though the forestry industry is the lifeblood of the Quebec economy, the latest budget completely ignores the demands of the Bloc Québécois. It is unacceptable that the Conservative government is putting 57 times as much money into Ontario's automotive sector, when the forestry industry has to make do with scraps.

The elimination of tariffs for the machinery and goods needed to modernize and improve productivity is nothing but smoke and mirrors. The industry does not have access to loans or loan guarantees to buy the machinery. Even if tariffs are eliminated, the issue will not be resolved.

The $25 million per year over the next four years is not nearly enough for all of the lumber and pulp and paper mills to modernize. They still need to borrow money to purchase the necessary equipment.

This budget blatantly ignores the demands of the industry. For five years, forestry companies have been calling for loans and loan guarantees, but they have not seen anything.

In conclusion, the government is following the path it set out in its 2006 economic statement, with policies geared towards Ontario and Alberta to the detriment of the pressing needs of Quebec.

We do not see any measures that meet the needs of the Quebec economy. This budget should take Quebec's interests and values into account.

For these reasons, I will certainly vote against this bill.

[Nuclear Security, April 12th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Washington nuclear security summit opens today. It will be attended by some 50 countries including Canada, which is being represented by the Prime Minister. Since the purpose of this meeting is to agree on ways to safeguard nuclear material that could be used to develop a nuclear bomb, it is important to question just how credible Canada actually is when it comes to nuclear security.

The non-proliferation of nuclear weapons is at the very heart of the debate at this summit. Canada recently concluded an agreement on the sale of CANDU reactors with India, a country which has not signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

Clearly, Canada is more interested in selling its CANDU reactors than addressing security issues.

How does this Conservative government intend to defend its position, which is indefensible considering that Canada is a signatory of the non-proliferation treaty? It is indeed important to address the problem of proliferation of weapons, but it is important that the commitments made in Washington are not made hypocritically.

[Medical Isotopes, March 30th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, in addition to jeopardizing the health of patients, the isotope crisis is impacting the budgets of Quebec and the provinces. Dr. François Lamoureux, president of the Association des médecins spécialistes en médecine nucléaire du Québec, is still seething: “The government...has acted like amateurs...it has created a crisis throughout the world. This matter has been so badly mishandled—”

The reactor's restart has been announced six times. How can we believe that it will happen this time?

[Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act, March 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for making us aware of this issue. When I was the critic of the status of women in 2004-05, I was truly struck by the plight of aboriginal women. These women truly experienced extreme violence. It is disturbing that a bill such as this heaps more discrimination on them. We wonder how they will find a way to turn things around.

This is the first I have heard about the bill. My colleague spoke of the loss of privileges when an aboriginal woman marries a white man. Can he give concrete examples? What are these privileges?

[World Water Day, March 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, as critic for natural resources, I would like to take advantage of the fact that yesterday was World Water Day in order to make my colleagues aware of just how important this resource is, even though we too often neglect it.

Three per cent of the world's freshwater reserves are in Quebec. It is estimated that almost 10% of Quebec is covered by this precious liquid.

While almost 40% of the world's population is fighting for access to this resource, which is essential to all life, we are lucky to live in a place where access to potable water is not a daily concern.

Abundance must not lead to waste, however. On the contrary, privileged access to this blue gold requires that we take the best possible care of it in order to pass it on to future generations.

I am therefore asking my parliamentary colleagues to make every effort, to lead by example and to promote responsible use of this treasure.

Water is a resource like no other, and we must all work to protect it.

[Business of Supply, March 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, what strikes me in this budget and this Speech from the Throne is the lack of equity and the target sectors of intervention. The lack of equity certainly is a reality, and we can see that Quebec is still badly served, probably because its needs are not well-known. I would rather think that than think that we want to favour Ontario and Western Canada.

In my riding of Trois-Rivières, we depend heavily on the paper industry. This ailing industry has been telling us for years that it needs loans and loan guarantees. We stood hundreds of times in the House to demand them, but regrettably, the government never wanted to meet the expectations of our businesses. Unfortunately, Trois-Rivières now boasts the highest unemployment rate in Quebec.

Therefore, it seems to me that this government is to blame. When we tell this member that there are problems and difficulties in the industry, he talks about social measures that amount to outright interference in provincial jurisdictions.

When we talk about equity, we talk about giving provinces their fair share. This way, they too will be able to make choices that suit them.

[The Prime Minister, March 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, last week the Prime Minister decided once more to control how one of his speeches would be broadcast, to thumb his nose at traditional media and to post his response to the Throne Speech on the popular website, YouTube.

Citizens are now being invited to ask the Prime Minister questions, and he will answer the questions that receive the most votes from Internet users.

We hope that he will respond to questions from Quebeckers who, like us, are pressing him to explain various things, such as his government's position in Copenhagen, where it won several fossil awards. Others are asking him when he will stop giving subsidies to companies mining the tar sands and when he will finally stop big business and banks from evading taxes.

We hope that the PMO's apparent decision to provide unfiltered information via YouTube will also give us answers to these questions.

[Jacques Hétu, March 11th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, on February 9, 2010, Jacques Hétu, a composer and musician from Trois-Rivières, passed away at the age of 71.

The composer most frequently performed abroad, and considered Quebec's greatest composer ever, he also enjoyed a brilliant career teaching music at Université Laval, Université de Montréal and Université du Québec à Montréal.

Jacques Hétu was made a member of the Royal Society of Canada in 1989, an Officer of the Order of Canada in 2001 and officer of the Ordre national du Québec in 2007. Just a few days before his death, he received the Opus homage award from the Conseil québécois de la musique for his life's work.

He has left us with a remarkable body of work, including five symphonies and several chamber music compositions. In 2008, Jacques Hétu was inducted into the Panthéon de la musique classique in Trois-Rivières, where a music school was named in his honour in 1999.

On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I wish to extend sincere condolences to his family and friends.

[The Budget, March 8th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that if a private company is in charge of isotopes, there will be problems with its dealings with AECL, which is responsible for all CANDU sites, and which also wants to promote CANDU reactors and sell them around the world. Still, the government may want to privatize AECL, or it may not. The whole issue lacks transparency. We do not know the details.

The latest budget allocated $300 million for this. As taxpayers, we have to wonder whether we will be asked to bear the unprofitable aspects of the operation and the risks associated with nuclear waste. Will private companies have control over the isotopes, leaving us, as parliamentarians, with no assurances that sick people will get the isotopes they need? That worries me.

[The Budget, March 8th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. He is quite right. I am not at all confident that this government can manage nuclear energy. When the senior manager responsible for nuclear safety in Canada is asked to resign, it makes you wonder what is behind it all. This woman wanted to enhance safety of CANDU reactors. These reactors are problematic and I am very worried about that.

Just last week, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission again alerted managers of nuclear sites to the possibility of explosions and malfunctions with these CANDU reactors. They were asked to assess the possibility of using another fuel, that is, slightly enriched uranium. This type of uranium is not produced in Canada. Therefore, the problems are stacking up and there is no solution in sight. If I were ill and needed isotopes, I would be very worried.