Bob Mills

[Supply, October 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, let us first remember that asthma is caused by smog, not by a greenhouse gas, and that health concerns are about smog and this is about climate change and greenhouse gases.

Second, let us say that there are a lot of innovative companies in Canada. They have received no encouragement over the years from the Canadian government. It is sort of being a boy scout to say now there will be all these jobs out there when Denmark, Germany, the United States and Japan are leaders in alternate energy research. It certainly is not Canada, because nothing has been done to help that.

If we talk to the chief climatologist at Environment Canada, he will tell us that we cannot do a model that will accurately predict the next 30 days of weather. It is rather interesting that the government can get a model that will project for the next hundred years. With El Nino and all the factors that come into weather change, how can the member justify that she or the government can accurately predict what the weather will be for the next hundred years?

[The Environment, October 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the government is great on words but little on action. That is really what the commissioner said today.

The environment commissioner said that she has huge concerns that we have a huge environmental deficit which we are leaving for future generations. The deficit is resulting in declining fish stocks, polluted air sheds, contaminated sites and the mishandling of toxic substances.

Kyoto will not address any one of these problems and any of the others today. Why is the government about to ratify Kyoto when it has failed miserably on environmental issues which are affecting the health of Canadians today?

[The Environment, October 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, here is what the environment commissioner said in a report today about contaminated sites, and I quote, “This government does not have the firm commitment and leadership, and an action plan essential to timely clean up of high-risk contaminated sites”.

The government has been judged and been found wanting. Why should Canadians give the government a blank cheque for Kyoto when it has been proven incompetent at cleaning up real environmental problems?

[Petitions, October 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I present a petition signed by 2,250 people in my riding of Red Deer.

The petitioners believe that the creation and use of child pornography is condemned by a clear majority of Canadians and that courts should make it clear that such exploitation of children must always receive swift punishment.

Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to protect our children by taking all necessary steps to ensure that all materials which promote or glorify pedophilia or sado-masochistic activities involving children are outlawed.

[Lisa's Law, October 21st, 2002]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-231, an act to amend the Divorce Act (limits on rights of child access by sex offenders).

Mr. Speaker, my bill, which is old Bill C-400 from the previous Parliament, is also known as Lisa's law. It protects children from being forced to visit their pedophile parents in jail.

The bill is in the same format as Bill C-400 that I introduced in the previous session and which was in committee. Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 86.1, I wish to have the bill returned to its previous status before prorogation.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Kyoto Protocol, October 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, there will not be any problem of getting confused about the government's plan because it does not have a plan. That is really obvious.

The Kyoto accord targets carbon dioxide which itself is not a pollutant. The minister should know in fact that smog is caused by such things as particulate matter, nitrous oxides, sulphur dioxide and other things, yet he continues to confuse the two issues. In Calgary last week he talked about smog and all those sorts of things.

Why does the minister not come clean and tell Canadians what Kyoto really is about?

[Kyoto Protocol, October 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in the government's latest economic model on the impacts of Kyoto it admits that it will miss its target emissions by about 70 megatonnes. These lowball figures just really show the ineptitude of this minister in dealing with this file. Why is the minister so intent on ratifying an agreement that he has no intention to live up to or honouring on the international stage?

[Kyoto Protocol, October 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing that the Prime Minister knows that when he does not even have a plan.

The Prime Minister and the environment minister stand up day after day in the House and say they are consulting with the provinces and industry. In reality, eight out of ten provinces and seemingly most of industry are saying that we should not ratify without a plan.

If indeed these consultations are meaningful, why is the government not listening to the provinces and industry and developing an implementation plan before it considers a motion in the House to ratify Kyoto?

[Kyoto Protocol, October 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, article 3, section 2 of the Kyoto protocol states, “Each Party included in Annex I shall, by 2005, have made demonstrable progress in achieving its commitments under this Protocol”. The Prime Minister said we have 10 years to develop a plan.

We are already close to 30% over our 1990 levels. How can the Prime Minister continue to say that we have 10 years to develop a plan?

[Kyoto Protocol, October 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the one group the Prime Minister has forgotten about is the people of Canada. Canadians are now starting to engage and ask questions about Kyoto and what it means to them. Specifically they are asking why we would spend billions of dollars to buy emissions trading credits from countries like Russia when we could spend the money here in a made in Canada solution.

Why will the Prime Minister not listen to Canadians, scrap Kyoto and develop a made in Canada plan?