Mr. Speaker, let me answer to my colleague that it would be difficult for me to support this bill for two reasons, as I indicated in my remarks.
First and foremost, I think the Canadian government should not wait until a species is at risk before affording some protection. Essentially, there is nothing in this bill on what I would call the prevention principe. It is nowhere to be found in the bill.
Speaking about prevention, I could talk about our fish resources. There has been no prevention for 30 years, and our fisheries have been decimated. This is another case of species at risk. Not only did the government not take its responsibilities, but it also made the problem worse with the action it has taken in the last five years.
Take the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, for example. The government did not take its responsibilities. It did not demand that its partners stop overfishing in the Grand Banks area. This is but one example.
The hon. member is asking me how I could support the government. Why am I not prepared to support it? Because there is no point. It is that simple. There is no point, because it will not take its responsibilities anyway.
Another case in point is the Kyoto protocol on greenhouse gases. Will the government give a clear signal and ratify the protocol? We do not know. Why is it reluctant to ratify a protocol that is a strict minimum to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? I say it is a minimum because pollution will keep increasing and could endanger human life on this planet.