Geoff Regan

[Business of Supply, March 10th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party will be splitting its time also and I will be splitting my time today with my hon. colleague, the hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie. I think he will be speaking among other things about the softwood lumber deal.

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak today about the crisis that is facing our forestry sector. The crisis is affecting thousands of families and their communities in every region and every province.

The minister spoke a few moments ago about the situation in the economy and the government's economic plan. However, one of the things that is very disturbing to us in the opposition and to Canadians across the country is what we are not seeing and what we have not seen in recent months from the government, and that is real action.

We know that in the 2007 budget $4.6 billion was approved for infrastructure. Of that money, only a billion has been spent. If the government were truly concerned, if it were truly awake to the situation facing the economy of this country, we would think that it would have long before now started to get that money moving.

In fact, we have heard claims from the government side that when the government cut the GST nearly two years ago that was really because it knew there were going to be problems in the economy, that it foresaw these economic problems. If that were true, which it clearly is not, surely the government would have also launched spending programs to stimulate the economy to prevent us from having the problems we are now in. Unfortunately, we did not see that.

What are the results? Just last week in my province of Nova Scotia, AbitibiBowater and Minas Basin Pulp and Power announced shutdowns and layoffs that will leave hundreds of families with an uncertain future. Those people are worried about putting groceries on the table, about paying the mortgage and looking after their kids. It is the same story in dozens of communities across Canada, whether it is Domtar, Canfor or Tembec making the headlines.

Like other opposition MPs in other parties, the Liberal caucus is concerned with the fate of an industry that is vital to over 300 Canadian communities and has spinoffs in many other communities. So many of these communities are in rural areas and forestry makes up at least 50% of the economic base, particularly in those rural areas.

When we see employment in this sector fall by 9.1% as it did in 2007, we know that many of these small communities are severely impacted by such significant job losses.

Since 2006 the forestry industry has looked to government to establish a plan of action. The Bloc Québécois motion talks about some specific policies it thinks should be included in our forestry policy: refundable tax credits for research and development and measures to support energy and ethanol production from forestry waste, and we look forward to that being developed because there is a lot of research going on, as we know, into cellulosic ethanol which is a hopeful product for the future and I think that is a very good suggestion; the use of loans for loan guarantees; policies to encourage the use of lumber in construction; and the renovation of federal buildings. I think all of these are worthwhile suggestions.

The fact is the Conservative government should have already developed a plan for the forestry sector. The Conservatives have known, as I was saying earlier, for several years now that in this case, and they may have not really known what has happened to the economy over the past six months, the forestry industry was in trouble. That has been clear for quite a while.

In fact, in June of last year the Standing Committee on Natural Resources produced a report that outlined 23 recommendations but then, like now, the Conservatives failed to recognize how serious the problem was and failed to provide any meaningful assistance.

Here is a news flash. Tax cuts are not much help if one is not making a profit. All the Conservative government has delivered are empty promises, political rhetoric and recycled programs.

Several weeks ago the Minister of Natural Resources was in Sydney, Nova Scotia, where she grew up, her home town, to announce a worn over $1 billion community development fund.

[Innis Christie, March 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, Nova Scotians were saddened recently by the loss of a devoted family man, respected law professor, author and arbitrator. Innis Christie was an inspirational teacher who loved moulding young minds almost as much as the time he spent at the Amherst shore with family and friends.

The former Dalhousie law school dean's dedication to the law and to public service is legendary in my home province. His students are now scattered around the world, including several who sit in this place. We all recognize how fortunate we were to witness Innis Christie's wisdom, good humour and sound judgment.

I ask the House to join me in extending condolences to the Christie family and in saluting a great Nova Scotian whose memory will live on.

[Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, February 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the minister's commitment to openness and transparency to Canadians had a half-life of 24 hours. There should be a full public debate on our future nuclear policy, not some backroom deal shrouded in a veil of secrecy.

The minister's department has had the report on AECL's future since August 2008, over six months ago. Will the minister table that report now, or does “transparent public communication” only apply to others?

[Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, February 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the natural resources minister said in a speech last night that we need more “transparent public communication” on the nuclear energy file. However, she prefers to keep Canadians in the dark about the government's plans to sell off AECL.

Will the minister follow her own advice? Will she tell Canadians the government has put a “for sale” sign on AECL?

[Chalk River Nuclear Facility, February 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, there was another heavy water leak at Chalk River as the minister toured the facility. An undisclosed amount of tritium was released again into the ventilation system. This is the third radioactive leak in two months.

Could the minister assure Canadians that the cause of these leaks has been determined and corrected or will she simply abandon her responsibility and ask for another report?

[Chalk River Nuclear Facilities, February 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, given the events of 2007 at Chalk River, any event of concern should have been a top concern and a top priority for the minister. It is clear from the report tabled today that there was a radioactive leak in early December. It is also clear that the minister did absolutely nothing to get the details until a week ago.

If she takes nuclear safety and the supply of medical isotopes seriously, why did it take her seven weeks and a media story to ask for a report?

[Chalk River Nuclear Facilities, February 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has stated that there were no radioactive leaks into the Ottawa River. Yet, as a matter of course plumes in the reactor are released into Perch Creek which flows into the river.

Can the minister simply confirm that a leak of radioactive water occurred at Chalk River, contained or not, on December 5 or since and can she confirm this leak continues today?

[Chalk River Nuclear Facilities, February 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, federal authorities were informed Thursday of this shocking incident. Municipal authorities and the public were only informed yesterday. Once again, this government has not provided vital information about nuclear safety.

Can the minister explain why the City of Ottawa is leading this investigation? Why has the minister again failed to fulfill her obligations?

[RCMP, February 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, a week ago the Conservative government had an opportunity to fix a grave injustice and stand up for members of the RCMP. It failed to do so. In fact, the government continued to show disrespect to the police officers who stand on duty for us every day.

I know from the silence across the way that Conservative MPs are embarrassed by Treasury Board's unilateral decision to roll back a promised wage increase.

RCMP officers are deeply disappointed with this betrayal. One officer stated, “From coast to coast, members of the RCMP are disillusioned following this breakdown of trust with the [Conservative] government. This is the ultimate insult for RCMP members--”.

How can the Conservatives square their actions with their tough talk about tackling crime? It is time they stood up for our Mounties.

[Privilege, February 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to add my own comments and support of my colleague and friend from Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley. We are an adversarial political system in Canada. There are different points of view. We fight hard and we campaign hard, but there are lines we do not cross. We have talked in recent months about the need to try to improve decorum in this House, to try to work together as cooperatively as possible within this adversarial system.

I think that members here for the most part, perhaps all I hope, would agree that what happened here is not appropriate. This is clearly a smear campaign, an attempt to smear the hon. member's reputation based on a false accusation. He set out the facts of the case. I think we can all recognize this is a false accusation. It is entirely inappropriate. It goes beyond the pale and I support his argument that it infringes on his privileges as a member of Parliament.