Geoff Regan

[Cracking Down on Crooked Consultants Act, September 22nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the comments of my hon. colleague for Scarborough Centre. He said, “with greatest respect to lawyers, it should not just be lawyers”. On behalf of the lawyers, I appreciate his comment and I agree with him. There are certainly lawyers who work in the immigration field and have a great knowledge of the immigration regulations and the laws that apply, but there are other people who are in fact very knowledgeable.

He is also right that the whole industry of immigration consultants is one that has changed and developed a great deal in the last 15 years. He is also right that it is time to regulate this area and take strong action because it is something that many of us, if not all of us in this House, find to be a concern. People come to us and we discover perhaps that in some cases someone unscrupulous was dealing with them. In other cases, we find people who are really knowledgeable, know what they are doing and do a good job. It does not need to be a lawyer but it does need to be someone who is well trained. It is important that we ensure that people working in this field are well trained and have the appropriate qualifications.

I am sure my colleague would like to comment on that some more.

[Combating Terrorism Act, September 20th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech made by my hon. colleague from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek. I appreciated and enjoyed his comments.

I wonder if he would agree with my assessment of part of what is happening here. We have seen that whenever the government does not like the way things are going, it brings forward one of its crime bills. In fact, at times over the past few years we have seen some of the so-called tough-on-crime bills languish. They just sat around for months when the government did not bother to call them. The Conservatives would then try to blame this side of the House or blame the Senate or whomever for the fact that those bills had not gone forward. In fact, the government had not put them on the order paper each day to make that happen. They had not brought them forward.

When the government wants to change the channel, it tries to create fear in people. We have seen that with the census. The Conservatives want people to be afraid that those terrible census takers are going to arrest them. My hon. colleague from Abbotsford was actually claiming a few minutes ago that this is the reason we have the census. I do not think there is a question on there asking if one has been arrested or jailed for not answering the long-form census. In fact, no one has ever been arrested for that.

We have seen the fear the Conservatives create by suggesting that Russian bombers, propellor aircraft that are 40 years old that do not even enter Canadian airspace, are a huge threat to us. Therefore, we need these F-35s, these $16 billion worth of fighters. I wonder if my colleague would agree with that.

[Offshore Drilling, June 14th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, U.S. regulators gave the same assurances before the gulf blowout. The minister needs to accept his responsibilities, close the loophole and protect Canadians. After all, why should a fisherman have to go up against a whole team of corporate lawyers using every legal manoeuvre and delaying tactic in the book?

When will the minister bring in a bill to make oil companies 100% liable in the case of a major spill?

[Offshore Drilling, June 14th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources has finally admitted the truth about absolute liability being limited to $30 million on the east coast and $40 million elsewhere. That is a drop in the bucket if we consider the $3 billion cost of the ongoing gulf disaster. When he boasts about unlimited civil liability, he forgets that it requires proving negligence. That would cost millions and could take decades.

Will the minister take immediate steps to ensure taxpayers are not left holding the bag in the case of a major spill?

[Oil and Gas Sector, June 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister was advised to read section 167 of the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act. He has obviously failed to do his homework.

Maybe he can scan section 162 of the accord implementation act for Newfoundland and Labrador. This provision is also clear. Absolute liability is limited to $30 million on the east coast where deep water drilling is currently under way.

Why will the minister not protect Canadian taxpayers and ensure oil companies are 100% liable in the case of an offshore disaster?

[Oil and Gas Sector, June 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources continues to deny reality when it comes to accountability for a major oil spill.

Current rules are clear: corporate liability is limited to $30 million on the east coast and $40 million elsewhere.

If the minister read the regulations instead of sticking to Dimitri Soudas' deceitful script, he would know that.

When will the minister correct this legal loophole?

[Oil and Gas Sector, June 9th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, like yesterday, the minister claims there is absolute liability and companies must provide guarantees. Maybe he should read section 167 of the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act because he will see the section sets a cap of $30 million. There is no guarantee of liability beyond that. The gulf blowout costs are already approaching $2 billion.

Why will the minister not protect Canadian taxpayers and ensure oil companies assume full liability? Cap the leak, not the liability.

[Oil and Gas Sector, June 9th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources has to stop misleading Canadians about liability in the event of a major oil spill. The current rules are clear: automatic liability is limited to $30 million on the east coast and $40 million elsewhere. Companies are not necessarily held accountable for 100% of the damages and the cleanup costs.

Will the minister make the necessary legislative changes to make companies 100% liable?

[Oil and Gas Industry, June 8th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, with the lame responses we keep hearing from the minister, it is no wonder Canadians have no confidence in the government's competence to deal with a major spill. The minister keeps repeating that companies file safety and environmental plans. Maybe the minister should check how well that worked with BP in the gulf.

We need a plan to protect Canadians, not a minister who will not accept his responsibilities. The government relaxed the regulations last year. Why does it no longer require backup plans for relief wells?

[Oil and Gas Industry, June 8th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court of Canada has recognized the principle that polluters should pay for damages they cause.

As a result of the gulf disaster, BP's costs are already close to $2 billion. However, on Canada's east coast, deposits are only $30 million and there is no strict liability. This could leave Canadian taxpayers exposed to billions in liabilities.

Why has the minister failed to take any action to protect taxpayers and ensure that oil companies assume 100% of the cleanup costs and damages?