Geoff Regan

[Offshore Drilling, June 7th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, apparently he has no idea what is going on.

Canadians are worried by the government's inability to manage an offshore spill like the one devastating the gulf coast. The minister refused seven requests to provide a plan on how the government would respond to a major spill off our coasts. The best he can come up with are lame PMO talking points and a feeble attempt to shift responsibility.

Could the minister at least assure Canadians that if there is a spill in our waters, the oil companies involved would assume 100% liability for all cleanup costs and all damages?

[Offshore Drilling, June 7th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico has already cost BP nearly $2 billion. On seven different occasions so far the minister has refused to confirm that Canada has a response plan in place should such a disaster happen in Canadian waters.

Can the minister at least tell us if a security deposit is required before drilling is authorized, and if the answer is yes, how much is required?

[Offshore Drilling, June 2nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, we have asked seven times now for the government to table its plan to deal with a major offshore oil spill.

Instead of a plan, we get half-truths about the activity in the Arctic waters. We get a minister who admits he has no budget to conduct research into the effects of a major spill, a minister who admits he does not have one red cent for oil spill emergency relief.

Why is the federal government not taking the lead on an issue that could have such dire consequences for our environment and our economy?

[Offshore Drilling, June 2nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Inuit are calling for public hearings on federal plans to conduct seismic testing in Lancaster Sound, which is a proposed marine conservation area. Exploratory activities are being carried out despite the fact that the minister admitted that he does not even have a budget to study the effects of a spill in the far north.

President Obama suspended activities in the Arctic until an emergency response plan can be implemented. Why are they not doing the same thing?

[Offshore Drilling, June 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, someone should tell the minister about the economic and ecological disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. Yesterday, the minister admitted that his government had no budget to respond to a spill in Canada. Yet they are fast-tracking exploratory permits in the Beaufort Sea and conducting seismic studies in a marine conservation area.

For the sixth time, why are they refusing to disclose their emergency response plan for oil spills at sea?

[Offshore Drilling, June 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the U.S. has imposed a six-month moratorium on Arctic oil drilling to prevent another oil-spill disaster. Our minister has stuck his head in the sand, pretending that there is no activity going on in our north. He must have misplaced his PMO briefing note about seismic testing at exploration leases.

Inuit groups are calling for public hearings and consultation on a federal proposal to do seismic testing in a planned marine park. Why will the minister not listen to Canadians and suspend oil and gas activities in the Beaufort and Lancaster Sound until a full review is conducted?

[Business of Supply, May 31st, 2010]

Mr. Chair, is the $6 million cut the reason for the additional layoffs in Chalk River? We received information to the effect that at least another 30 jobs will be lost because of the budget constraints AECL is facing.

[Business of Supply, May 31st, 2010]

Mr. Chair, I think Canadians will be concerned that the minister seems to have no actual idea of how much this is costing in terms of the contract with Rothschild.

The main estimates indicate that $102 million was set aside for AECL's 2010-11 budget. Why was that number lower than the $109 million allocated in 2009-10?

[Business of Supply, May 31st, 2010]

Mr. Chair, the minister cannot tell me, in other words, how much, as I asked, has been paid to Rothschild since it was retained to conduct this sale.

Can he tell us perhaps whether it is being paid through a flat fee arrangement or will it also receive, in addition to that, a percentage of the final sale price? If a percentage is going to be added, how much in total does Rothschild stand to make from this deal?

If this $4.9 million is for advisory services and support for the department, how much is the department actually spending on this restructuring over and above this amount?

[Business of Supply, May 31st, 2010]

Mr. Chair, the supplementary estimates provide $4.9 million for AECL's restructuring to “--procure advisory services and support Natural Resources’ operations to advance the next steps in the restructuring process of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited”. Does this include payments to Rothschild for conducting the sale of AECL? If so, how much? How much in total has Rothschild been paid since being retained to conduct this sale?