House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2006, with 76% of the vote.
Species at Risk April 29th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, the real answer is that the minister knows compensation is necessary but he lost the fight in cabinet. A letter from one cabinet minister to another said that removing compensation from Bill C-5 altogether would be the ideal case. That is the truth of the matter.
Instead of telling landowners to trust the government and playing a shell game, why does the minister not admit that the bill will not provide any compensation any time in the future?
Species at Risk April 29th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, as vice-chair of the environment committee, I and other members spent weeks listening to concerned Canadians. These are the people who the minister calls front line soldiers. Environmentalists, farmers, ranchers, foresters and industry all said species at risk could not be saved without providing compensation.
Will the minister guarantee today that compensation regulations will be drawn up within three months of the bill becoming law?
Kyoto Protocol April 23rd, 2002
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the environment minister said there was no preferential treatment being given environmental lobby groups on Kyoto, yet industry groups tell us that they do not have anywhere near the level of involvement in Kyoto planning as do these environmental lobbyists. Industry is only able to give input to the economic study and has not been asked about the setup of the public consultation process at all.
The minister has already indicated he is giving preferential treatment to the views of scientists who support Kyoto over the thousands who do not. Now it appears he is giving preferential treatment to pro-Kyoto lobbyists as well.
Canadians deserve to have full disclosure as to what groups are advising the government on the Kyoto accord. Considering the potentially disastrous consequences of basing policy on only one side of the economic and science debate, the minister owes it to Canadians to ensure he is hearing all sides on the Kyoto issue.
Kyoto Protocol April 22nd, 2002
Mr. Speaker, the real question is has his department lost control of this whole process? The Minister of the Environment has always said that it is important to consult on Kyoto.
How can he now pretend that consultation is fair and impartial when a special interest group has been asked to help design the process? It seems like the whole deck is stacked.
Kyoto Protocol April 22nd, 2002
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment promised to make consultation on Kyoto equal and fair, and yet the Sierra Club of Canada boasts on its website that it is “working behind the scenes with (government) officials trying to produce a real economic forecast”. It also says that it has been asked to contribute to the design of the consultation process and is advising on media relations and which experts will be allowed to speak.
Why are these groups getting such preferential treatment?
The Environment April 19th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, 200,000 litres of diesel fuel are leaking off the coast of Newfoundland, which is only the latest crisis in that region. A quarter of a million seabirds are killed annually with the dumping of oil. Yet only one aircraft is patrolling the entire Atlantic region.
The government is not dealing with the issues of oil spills on our east coast. The fines are too small. The surveillance is disgraceful. When will the government show that it has an environmental conscience?
The Environment April 19th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, economists say that the uncertainty surrounding Kyoto is forcing industries to rethink their investment plans for Canada. Just one example is that important gas exploration is being delayed. The industry is telling us we will soon see gas shortages and a spike in the prices.
Will the government finally reject Kyoto and develop a made in Canada climate change program as we have been advocating all along?
The Environment April 18th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, through you, will the government finally reject Kyoto and implement a made in Canada climate change program, as the Canadian Alliance has been advocating for so long?
The Environment April 18th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, if Canada is given credit for natural gas exports to the U.S. then we should also get extra penalties whenever we sell coal to Japan. Using the government's logic, we would have to pay back credits to Germany when we buy these environmentally friendly technologies.
What a bureaucratic nightmare you are creating, Mr. Speaker--
The Environment April 18th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, Margot Wallstrom, environment commissioner for the European Union, has clearly explained that Canada will not get Kyoto credits for natural gas exports to the United States, yet the government still presses for such a deal.
The U.S. is not part of Kyoto. Even if it were, it is not reasonable that Canada should get credit for American emissions reductions. Is this lack of credits a deal breaker, and will the minister finally say we are opting out of Kyoto?