Greg Thompson

[Petitions, October 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition on behalf of the citizens of the province of New Brunswick and others who are opposed to the construction of an LNG, liquid natural gas, terminal on the American side of Passamaquoddy Shore. They believe, as do many of us, that this would endanger our environment, our economy and our citizens unnecessarily given the fact that there have been four approved in Canada recently, all servicing the U.S. market.

We are doing more than our share and the petitioners believe that Canada should say no to the transport of those LNG tankers through Canadian waters.

[Petitions, October 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, 30 years ago the Government of Canada said no to the passage of supertankers through Head Harbour Passage. That was the right decision 30 years ago.

Today, the petitioners, citizens of the province of New Brunswick and other Maritime provinces, are asking the Government of Canada to do the right thing this time and say no to the passage of LNG tankers through Head Harbour Passage to protect our environment, our citizens and our economy.

[The Environment, October 26th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, that is a pathetic answer. Those people have been in government for 12 years. They are in the driver's seat. They now make decisions. They cannot blame it on anyone but themselves.

The man sitting next to the minister refuses to get up and actually answer a question in the House. Why will the Prime Minister not get up and answer for him. If he does not have the wherewithal to say no, maybe the guy next to him can say no.

[The Environment, October 26th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, that is a pathetic minister. He knows--

[The Environment, October 26th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada said no to the passage of supertankers in Head Harbour Passage 30 years ago. That was the right decision. Now the minister is suggesting that this needs more studies, refusing to say no to LNG tankers.

Those studies were done by his department, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and other government departments when they concluded that this is the most dangerous passage in all of Canada.

What would have changed? The tides are the same. The water depth is the same. It is still a narrow channel. Why the hesitation in saying no?

[U.S. Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, October 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in routine proceedings, the Prime Minister of Canada or any minister of the Crown has the opportunity to bring forward issues to the House of Commons, day in and day out. Keep in mind that the Prime Minister wanted to address the democratic deficit.

Going back to the previous question, why the deafening silence on behalf of the Prime Minister of Canada on an initiative where his government could have done something? We hear Americans talking out loud about the consequences of ill-considered legislation. Why the absence of the Prime Minister of Canada and why did he not use the House as a springboard for that debate to engage all parliamentarians?

[U.S. Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, October 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I do know that the member who just spoke has invited the American Ambassador Wilkins to Parliament Hill on, I believe, Wednesday evening to give a talk, as he is one of the co-chairmen of the all party border caucus.

I want to get a sense of what types of questions and information he is seeking from the U.S. ambassador who obviously would have to agree with us that this is a huge problem in the making. In fact, I do know that when we met with our counterparts in the United States during the Canada-U.S. interparliamentary meetings in September in St. Andrews, democrats and republicans alike agreed that this was ill-thought out legislation.

However, in reference specifically to the American ambassador, what are some of the member's thoughts in terms of how he will approach the ambassador.

[U.S. Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, October 24th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, the member for Niagara Falls has been to Washington on this issue. He met with Ambassador McKenna, myself and others in the ambassador's office on this very issue. From the meetings, I get the sense that the Government of Canada is missing this issue, that it has not spoken very loud about this and that it has done a very poor job of educating Canadians.

One of the reasons we wanted the debate tonight is so Canadians in our ridings will understand the issue. The government has failed to deliver that message to Canadians in terms of understanding the importance of this issue.

Why would it take the Government of Canada a year to be heard on this? In fact, we forced this debate. The government would be content to coast to the deadline without ever having this issue on the floor of the House of Commons. Why the silence on behalf of the Government of Canada?

[U.S. Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, October 24th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, one of the points that we have made and in defence of the question asked by the member for Windsor—Tecumseh is the point which I made earlier tonight. During routine proceedings we have what we call statements by ministers. Why would the Prime Minister, for over a year now, not come into the House and make it perfectly clear where the Government of Canada stands on one of the most important issues, and I do not think this is exaggeration, that could be more catastrophic than mad cow disease and softwood lumber combined? This affects every industry and every person in the country.

Why in the last year would the Prime Minister of Canada not use that opportunity to state the position of Canada very clearly, logically and forcefully on the floor of the House of Commons?

[U.S. Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, October 24th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, fortunately or unfortunately, I am not a lawyer, so I did not practice labour law and everyone is probably sighing a breath of relief that I probably have not and did not. The fact is that we have to focus on the issue tonight. The issue tonight is on this passport initiative, this western hemisphere travel initiative.

We do not want to get off the subject. This is just poorly thought out legislation. When the member talks about the meeting that took place between Mr. Bush, Mr. Fox and our Prime Minister, that legislation was already passed. I have never seen any report where the Prime Minister of Canada pushed that heavily in that agenda, but I could be wrong on that one. We will have to wait and see what the Prime Minister has to say about it. I am sure that he will show up probably later on this evening and have a word to say about that issue.

However, the Liberals have sadly let Canadians down on this issue and have missed the boat. Unfortunately, we are going to pay a heavy price as a country in terms of our trading relations with the Americans unless the Prime Minister takes this issue seriously and makes some serious interventions in Washington with the President of the United States.