Greg Thompson

[Motions for Papers, November 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the point we are making here is that for members of Parliament to do their jobs, this information is important. The government simply wants to sit on it and dither away its time, if you will--

[Motions for Papers, November 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, here we go again. A number of notices, as the parliamentary secretary is aware, have been on some pretty important issues, one of them being agent orange, another being information on the passport issue which will wreak havoc with the Canadian economy unless the Government of Canada takes firm action with its U.S. counterparts, as well as the LNG issue in terms of a study that the Government of Canada is conducting, which the parliamentary secretary has already made mention of in this House.

Those are important issues. It is unacceptable that the Government of Canada takes so long. With the resources that the Government of Canada has, it could answer those in an afternoon if it wanted to.

The question on the LNG issue would be what is the government trying to hide? The information that we now have, and this is the last point I will make, is that the Prime Minister's shipping company, the company that is owned by the Martin family, is now in concert with and a partner with another LNG company that is--

[Petitions, November 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition in my hand signed by the residents of the province of New Brunswick. The petitioners suggest that the Government of Canada should say no to the transport of LNG tankers through Head Harbour Passage. Head Harbour Passage is one of the most dangerous waterways in all of Canada. They say this cargo is much too dangerous to attempt to put through those waters.

They ask the Government of Canada to say no in order to protect our environment, our citizens and our economy.

[National Defence, November 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, following the resignation of the agent orange coordinator, I made a number of recommendations to the government to improve the process, among other things, making the position independent of government with the power to make recommendations in regard to compensation.

Did today's announcement of Dr. Furlong's appointment to this position include any significant changes to address the deficiencies in the original plan?

[Criminal Code, November 14th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I cannot believe what the parliamentary secretary saying. The government wants to do yet another study on this issue and then, to make matters worse, he suggests LNG is not as bad as oil tankers. That defies every known piece of information in the universe. I cannot believe the parliamentary secretary would suggest that.

Why have these terminals been turned down by every town, village, city and port on the eastern side of the American seaboard? Because they are dangerous sites. The last one licensed to the United States was built 125 miles off the coast of New Orleans. Why 125 miles? Americans do not want these sites. Now with the new energy act, it is more difficult for communities to turn them down, like they have done in the past.

We will be the pawns in all this. Canadians are the ones who will be taking the risk. Do we not have a right to say no, as American jurisdictions have done up and down the east coast of the United States? I want the parliamentary secretary to answer that question. Do we not have the right to say no in Canada, a sovereign nation?

[Criminal Code, November 14th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, just before the break I asked the government a question in the House of Commons during question period in relation to an LNG terminal or terminals proposed to be built in the United States at Passamaquoddy Bay, which is very close to Canada. In fact, to service this terminal, these LNG tankers, if built, would be required to go through internal Canadian waters. That capsulizes the issue.

Our position, the position taken by the Government of New Brunswick and the citizens of New Brunswick and the surrounding areas is simply that this area is much too dangerous for an LNG terminal. We are saying that the Government of Canada should stop it now because Canada is in a position to say no to the transport of those LNG tankers through Head Harbour Passage.

Head Harbour Passage is one of the most difficult waterways in all of eastern Canada to navigate safely. We have suggested that the Government of Canada should say the same thing now as it did 30 years ago when it said no to a similar proposal on that side of Passamaquoddy Bay. At that time, an American corporation was looking at building an oil refinery in the same location and those ships would have had to go through that very narrow, dangerous channel at Head Harbour Passage. The Government of Canada, about 30 years ago, said no to the passage of those ships, stating that it was too dangerous. After having done extensive studies on that waterway, the government concluded that it was simply too dangerous and that it would not risk our citizens, our environment and our economy by allowing those ships to go through there.

The Government of Canada should say the same thing today because there is an application to proceed with at least one of those terminals on the American side of Passamaquoddy Bay. For the government not to act, sooner as opposed to later, is not an acceptable position. It knows that the size of the ships going through there will be bigger than any ships that have navigated that passageway in our lifetime. The ships are simply too big and too dangerous to go through that stretch of water. Why the Government of Canada would not simply say no now is hard to believe. We are simply asking the government to protect our citizens, our environment and our economy by doing the right thing.

The government can do that in many ways. Under the Fisheries Act, I will cite sections 43 and 29 . It could enforce the Canada Shipping Act and say no under section 562.1(1)(e), or the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

The Government of Canada has the power to say no. We are asking the Prime Minister not to dither on this file, to stand and protect Canadians, to do the right thing and say no to the transport of those tankers through our waters.

[Motions for Papers, November 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have one little point left. We also are working on this liquid natural gas issue on which I just presented a petition.

The member knows this issue inside out and backwards. This information is critical as well because this issue still has not been resolved by the Government of Canada in terms of allowing those very dangerous tankers through Canadian waters.

The parliamentary secretary's father would know this issue inside out. Could the parliamentary secretary please get on with the job of answering and providing us with those documents necessary to making the right decisions?

[Motions for Papers, November 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, on the Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers I want to bring to the parliamentary secretary's attention June 27, which was a few months ago. At that time I asked for copies of all studies conducted by or in possession of the government concerning chemical defoliants, including agent orange and agent purple, applied between the years 1956 and 1984 at CFB Gagetown. This is really important information and it is critical to the work we are doing on this file.

The government could get this information in the next 24 hours if it so chose to do so but it has not.

This whole investigative and public relations process in which the government was engaged in Gagetown where in fact the government hired Mr. Vaughn Blaney to do some of these public exercises, Mr. Blaney has resigned his position. When the government goes about replacing him and setting up a better system of conducting some of these hearings this information will be critical.

I am asking the government to get on with it. It has been since June 27. It has been too long. We need the information now.

[Petitions, November 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have another petition from the residents of New Brunswick and places beyond who are upset with the possibility of LNG tankers passing through Head Harbour Passage, New Brunswick en route to an LNG terminal built on the American side of Passamaquoddy Bay. This would endanger Canada's environment, our citizens and our economy.

The citizens of New Brunswick are asking the Government of Canada to say no to the passage of those tankers through internal Canadian waters, the same thing that the Government of Canada did 30 years ago when it said no to the passage of oil tankers through that same very narrow, dangerous stretch of water.

[Questions on the Order Paper, October 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of questions on the order paper in regard to the LNG project that we are hoping to stop in New Brunswick, which would mean the stoppage of LNG tankers through internal Canadian waters destined for U.S. LNG terminals.

Just as a reference, the parliamentary secretary's father was one of those responsible for stopping oil tankers in the early 1970s and we appreciate that. I know the parliamentary secretary is concerned about this file but I do have a number of technical questions on the order paper. His argument will be that they have not been on there a long time because the government has answered some of them, but some of the answers to these questions are critical to this file. The timing on this is very important. I hope the parliamentary secretary would address that need for speediness.