Pablo Rodriguez

[The Environment, November 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment is hiding out so she does not have to explain why she abandoned the Kyoto protocol. On November 7, she was to appear before the Senate environment committee, but she did not. The media are looking for her. She is hiding.

Today, she was supposed to appear before the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, but once again, she failed to show up.

What did she have to do this morning that was so urgent she could not appear before the Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development? Perhaps her alarm clock failed to go off once again?

[The Environment, November 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, a large majority of Canadians voted for parties that want to start fighting global warming right now. The public is worried about the serious and expensive consequences that the Conservative government’s inaction will have. The public wants immediate action. The international community wants to act right now; a large majority of this House wants to act right now; Canadians want to act right now.

Why are the Minister of the Environment and her government the only ones who oppose my bill? Why are the only ones who have abandoned the Kyoto protocol?

[The Environment, November 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, this morning at the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development one thing was made clear: we must take action right now. The minister’s plan makes no provision for the short term: no objectives, no timetable, nothing. Everything is being put off until the year 2050. On the other hand, my private member’s bill sets out what needs to be done if Canada is to meet its Kyoto objectives and do something concrete, starting today, to preserve and protect the future for the next generations.

I am extending a non-partisan hand to the minister. Will she support my bill so that we can work for our children’s future?

[Points of Order, November 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

When responding to one of my questions, the Minister of the Environment referred to the candidate I support in the current leadership race.

For her information, I would just like her to know that the candidate I support clearly stated that he would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50%, and perhaps even more, in 2050 compared to 1990 levels.

In addition, all the other Liberal candidates also have ambitious objectives. That compares very favourably with the Conservative plan, which refers only to 2003, with real reductions of only 31%.

[Fisheries and Oceans, November 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, he is trying to muddy the waters. A major study shows that there will be no fish left in our oceans by 2050.

The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is saying that that is due, in part, to the impact of climate change. At the same time, his colleague, the Minister of the Environment, is saying that there is no urgency and that it is not necessary to set targets before 2050, when there will be no fish left.

Will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans set his colleague, the Minister of the Environment, straight? Will he tell her that in 2050, it will be too late and that her refusal to act now will have disastrous consequences for fish stocks in Canada, including Quebec?

[Fisheries and Oceans, November 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans made a rather surprising statement for a member of the Conservative cabinet. He said he was concerned about the impact of climate change. Asked to comment on the demise of nearly all fish stocks by 2050, he said, “—then there is the temperature. Off St. John's, for example, the temperature has risen by 4.5 degrees. That has an enormous impact”.

Can the Prime Minister assure us that he will not fire the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans because he dared contradict him and tell the truth about climate change?

[Canada-EU Summit, November 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, not only are the Conservatives determined to destroy the Kyoto protocol at international summits, but they are also finding a way to attack research being done here in Canada. By appointing Dr. Christopher Essex, who denies the existence of global warming, the Conservatives are trying to sabotage research done on this phenomenon.

The Prime Minister's new strategy for resolving climate change problems is to eliminate subsidies to those who do not think the way he does.

Is that what he calls addressing the source of the problem?

[Canada-EU Summit, November 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of Industry appointed Dr. Christopher Essex to the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.

Last April, Mr. Essex sent a letter to the Prime Minister to tell him that allocating funding to research on climate change would be senseless. He will now sit on the council of an agency that distributes nearly $900 million to Canadian university researchers.

Can the Prime Minister assure us that Mr. Essex will not use his new position to eliminate subsidies for researchers who do not think the way he does?

[The Environment, October 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago, I discussed the impact of climate change on public health, melting ice caps in the far north, and coastal flooding—in short, on the future of our children and grandchildren. The Conservatives mocked me.

Yesterday, Nicholas Stern, a former economist with the World Bank, talked about these same consequences, but in terms of numbers, of financial impact.

The government may not care about what will happen to human beings, but will it at least pay attention to the economic impact of the impending catastrophe?

[The Environment, October 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, in June, the Minister of the Environment said she was “enthusiastic” about Quebec's environmental plan to fight climate change.

Yesterday, she contradicted herself, saying she was “concerned” to justify her refusal to hand over the $328 million Quebec is demanding.

Quebeckers want action now, not in 2050. Instead of criticizing Quebec's plan, which set realistic short-term goals, why not hand over Quebec's $328 million immediately?