John Godfrey

[The Environment, November 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday of this week the NDP abandoned a united stand in favour of Kyoto to score political points by introducing a bill that made no mention of Kyoto and would not commit to any reduction of greenhouse gases until 2015.

Yesterday the government, in cooperation with the NDP, announced that its dead air act will be revived by a special committee. Yet, this bill was pronounced dead on arrival by the majority of this House upon its introduction and that majority included the NDP.

The NDP is not clearing the log jam. It is adding to it for political gain. Environmental groups like the David Suzuki Foundation have expressed concern about this dilution of the debate.

Our position has been clear. We support Kyoto. We want a focused discussion on that issue and not a distraction from that party which has been known to use smog and mirrors to create the impression it is moving forward on climate change, when really it is slowing the discussion down.

[The Environment, October 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the government's cop-out plan on global warming has no short term targets, no medium targets and no action on greenhouse gases for 50 years. While the Conservatives talk, greenhouse gas emissions are increasing.

This dead air act is a sham. It is a smokescreen designed to avoid doing anything real on global warming. No amendments to the bill could ever change that fact. When will the minister withdraw this embarrassing mistake?

[The Environment, October 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, environmental groups agree that the minority Conservative government's environmental plan is a disaster.

Today the NDP abandoned Kyoto as well.

This dead air act rips the heart out of existing environmental protection legislation, leaving Canada with a fragmented, uncoordinated and piecemeal Canadian Environmental Protection Act. No amount of tinkering with this disaster will salvage it. It is simply wrong-headed.

When will the government withdraw this fraud of a bill and bring forward a genuine plan on global warming?

[The Environment, October 30th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, since the government will not amend its no fly list to include environmental groups as part of the Canadian delegation, what about members of Parliament? Canadians deserve to be represented at this important international conference by parliamentarians who actually believe in Kyoto, not just by Kyoto's enemies.

Will the minister include representatives of all parties in the Canadian delegation, as has been the case every time in the last 14 years?

[The Environment, October 30th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the government's muzzling continues. For the first time ever, Canada's minority Conservative government is refusing to include environmental, aboriginal and industry representation in the official delegation to the next Kyoto conference in Nairobi.

Including these groups was a practice started 14 years ago. Is the environment minister expecting so much controversy at the Kyoto conference that she just does not want any real environmentalists around to contradict her?

[The Environment, October 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the decision that was challenged was made by the Conservative chairman of the committee.

After hijacking the environment committee, the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre revealed the true intentions of the minority Conservative government. He described the Kyoto plan as “obsolete and out of date”. The true colours are exposed.

Who is making climate change policy in this country: the environment minister who claims she supports the Kyoto process, or the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre who has exposed the real position of the government, which is to kill Kyoto?

[The Environment, October 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is a bit rich for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister to talk of slowing parliamentary business. For two hours yesterday the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre hijacked the environment committee to prevent any discussion of the Kyoto implementation bill which passed second reading in the House.

The government is completely ignoring the fact that it is not a majority government and must work with the opposition parties if it wants to get anything done. It must also accept that we on this side of the House have a right to study private members' business.

Will the Prime Minister accept the will of Parliament and allow the environment committee to study the Kyoto bill without interference from the Prime Minister's Office?

[Points of Order, October 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to table the entire document from the Canadian Lung Association.

[The Environment, October 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is not just the Lung Association that the minister is misrepresenting. Yesterday she claimed that the Federation of Canadian Municipalities supported the clean air act. Again, that is not accurate. Not once in the FCM press release is there any mention of the clean air act. In fact, the FCM said, after the minister tabled her flawed act, “We don’t need to wait for new legislation to begin working in partnership”.

The House cannot accept this kind of continual misrepresentation on the part of the minister. Will she apologize for repeatedly misleading the House?

[The Environment, October 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, to salvage her clean air disaster, the Minister of the Environment has been misquoting the Canadian Lung Association. What the lung association really said was that it:

--has serious concerns that the proposed approach under the Clean Air Act will not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases quickly enough to lessen the health effects of climate change.

Misleading the House like this shows the minister's utter disrespect for Parliament.

Why did the Minister of the Environment misrepresent the real position of the Lung Association?