Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has made a number of claims which I could probably spend at least 10 minutes refuting.
He indicated in his comments that pollution prevention under Bill C-32 would be voluntary, which of course he knows is incorrect; it would be on the authority of the minister.
He also references Elizabeth May, who worked for a Conservative member, so that is always an interesting critique of this government.
Specifically he mentioned that this bill is not green enough. I wonder how he can say that when he voted for some amendments and introduced other amendments at report stage which were not environmentally friendly. How can the member stand and say that this bill is not green enough when he would have seen significant changes that would have altered this bill to make it less environmentally friendly?