Bob Mills

[Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 20th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, as the chief environment critic for the Canadian Alliance, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-10. I will broaden the base and talk not only about marine conservation areas, but also about the environment as it applies to a bill like this one and as it could apply to other bills.

I start off by commending our critic, the member for Skeena. As a new member he has done a wonderful job of presenting the views of his constituents and of a much broader constituency of Canadians who are concerned about the environment, the marine aspects of that environment and particularly concerned about parks and the creation of parks.

I did not serve on the committee and hear all the witnesses, but I did go through the legislation. Much of the legislation is like a lot of environmental legislation. It is much like the species at risk legislation that we are talking about in the environment committee. We basically say that this is good and we like to have parks. We think we should preserve species. We think we should have marine areas set aside. The problem is in the details. When we actually get into the details of what the government is planning to do, we find where the flaws and problems are. Today I will try to broaden that base and talk about those problems from a broader environmental aspect.

First of all, there is the area of co-ordination, the co-ordination of bureaucrats and acts that are already enacted by the Government of Canada. We have heard others mention that. For the most part overall we could conclude that heritage, environment, natural resources, fisheries and a number of other departments do not really know what each other is doing. There does not seem to be a co-ordinating mechanism. Some members might argue that it is up to the Prime Minister and his cabinet to co-ordinate these activities, but that does not seem to be happening.

We have an Oceans Act that allows for marine protection areas, but obviously that comes under a different minister. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act would allow for the protection of species, for environmental impact studies and for all sorts of things. I believe that is being amended by Bill C-19 which will come before the House soon. It generally is a good piece of legislation which allows the environment minister to do a great deal when it comes to setting up areas like these.

The species at risk bill will be coming before the House for report stage and third reading very soon. The bill very specifically allows for the protection of endangered species. After months and months we have spent in committee listening to witnesses and working on the legislation it certainly is far reaching and allows for the protection of habitat and the protection of any species that might be endangered.

We have old acts such as the Migratory Birds Convention Act and the Fisheries Act. Both are very powerful acts which are used within Canada and which can be used right across the country and certainly would apply here.

There seems to be a turf war between various ministers who have to get pieces of legislation put on the table so they can lay claim to some aspect or other. I do not know whether it is a power trip or like a university professor who has to turn out so many papers every year. That is almost what the bill appears to be. It seems to be that heritage has not done much for a while so it had better come up with a piece of legislation that can be put before the House and the minister can then take credit for it.

Most Liberal members and most people who consider themselves Liberals think they have halos around their heads when they talk about the environment. The problem is that we see very little action. We hear lots of talk about the environment, that they are going to do great things about the environment, that yes, they care about the environment and yes, they are environmentalists but then they do not do anything.

There is all this confusion. There is a lack of consultation with coastal communities, provincial governments, scientists, the aboriginal society and so on. There is all this vague posturing with halos on but we see very little action.

When it comes to the environment it always comes down to trade-offs. We talk about natural areas versus a quality of life situation. I often use the comparison that there are two extremes in environmental concerns. There are those who would say let us keep everything natural and let us not impact on anything. Of course if we really wanted to carry that to the extreme, I guess all of those people would prefer to live in a cave and not have all of the modern conveniences that we enjoy. On the other side there are those who would probably pave the entire world and really would have no care for our air, water, soil and so on. Those are the extremes. I think most members of the House would agree that somewhere in the middle is the right ground and the ground Canadians would like to have.

It is like when we talk about oil exploration. We all could say that environmentally we are opposed to that. Yet when we have strict regulations that are enforceable, when we have the new technology and are conscious of the timing and the safety precautions, probably we could allow some of that exploration which then adds to our quality of life and does very minimal damage to natural areas.

As well we have to put forward in the House that we as small c conservatives care about the environment. All too often it is said that one has to be a fanatic, or sometimes a socialist, to care about the environment. That could not be further from the truth. It is a totally wrong concept.

Looking around the world we can find major coalitions where environmentalists together with corporations and with conservatives have done a great deal and have actually formed governments. We might look to Vincente Fox in Mexico. It was a coalition between him and the conservatives that resulted in the Government of Mexico that does care about the environment and has in fact put forward a great many environmental conditions.

I got back from Germany rather late last night. It is a perfect example. The green party is in coalition. The minister of the environment, whom we met with for three days, is actually from the green party. There are various coalitions around the world which put the environment into an important role. To try to label people as being pro or anti environment obviously is very wrong.

Again the Liberals talk a lot, but the Liberals do not do very much. I have a good example. Last month I was in a city in B.C. talking to a group of citizens about the Sumas plant which is being built in Washington state. There were no Liberals present at those hearings. The project affects a great many people in the Fraser Valley and in the Vancouver area. No Liberals were there, yet that was the perfect issue where they could have been involved.

What we have then is Liberal legislation coming forward with little consultation. The Liberals basically leave the details to the regulations and very little details in the bill itself. It is a concept of trust them, trust their bureaucrats and there is nothing there.

What we really need to talk about is consultation, co-operation and compensation. I move:

That the amendment be amended by adding:

“and that the committee report back to the House no later than the first sitting day in 2003”.

[Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker made it sound a lot different from what I have been led to understand. The member who spoke before him with whom he shared his time gave a much more jaded position of how the government treats public consultation.

The member implies that there will be a wide open communication process. Listening to what was said by the member for Skeena who sat on the committee, it does not sound like the members on that side really wanted to hear people from the coastal communities who want to communicate and give members the opportunity to hear them.

Does he disagree with the process that the committee undertook?

[Climate Change, November 1st, 2001]

Madam Speaker, it has been interesting to listen to the various comments. I want to make it very clear that I believe climate change is occurring and I believe the earth is round. I think the demand side is important. I have talked about the technology being important and about science being important. As I said, an hour and a half ago I visited an ethanol plant here in Ottawa. I saw that technology and what its future might be.

As well, I talked to some people in the transportation industry from Ballard Power this afternoon. Interestingly enough, while the first bus ran in Vancouver on a power cell, the second set ran in Chicago under Canadian control. The third set is in Los Angeles under U.S. control. They are now taking advantage of it and taking credit for it. That is the kind of thing that worries me.

Also the whole area of sinks is poorly understood and a lot of people would question the science. With respect to emissions trading, I do not think that is helping the air; it is just changing where we put the pollution. This is a most important issue.

The Kyoto protocol is terribly flawed and must be rejected. We must start over again, not stop, not deny that it is occurring, but do something better.

I have been an environmentalist for most of my life. I have worked as a conservation biologist and I have worked to educate people about energy efficiency and resource conservation.

Some might say that Kyoto is a good first step. I find that because Kyoto is the way it is, it is not a good first step. Good first steps in environmental policy are defined by getting the best bang for the buck. Kyoto does not come close to achieving this. It is not cost effective and the hard earned dollars of Canadians are being wasted.

It is an agreement that will achieve almost nothing for the environment while severely hurting Canada's economy. It also hurts Canada's ability to continue to be a healthy and secure place and the best place in the world to live.

If Kyoto is accepted, billions of dollars will be taken from health and environmental programs. Billions of dollars taken from the Canadian economy will lead to massive underemployment and even unemployment.

What will it achieve? By 2100 it will have achieved less than a .2 degree Celsius change in projected temperature increases, a redistribution of pollution to other parts of the world, increasing pollution from developing nations and little planning to effectively aid these nations to reduce their own growing air pollution. We must let them leapfrog from the 1950s into the 21st century.

As well, it does not build confidence in technology. I have just mentioned the example of Ballard. That is in California now. Canada has lost those buses.

We are presently in a vulnerable position. We are engaged in a war. We are tightening our borders. We are spending new money on security. We are in an economic slowdown. We agree that climate change is occurring, but are we truly willing to commit to an international agreement that achieves almost nothing environmentally and no doubt will lead us into a considerable economic recession if not a true depression?

We must move on now with meaningful words. We must come up with a new protocol that involves all countries, that is realistic, is based on solid science and has realistic goals that all countries can achieve.

[Climate Change, November 1st, 2001]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should renew discussions on climate change through the development of a new transparent, accountable consultation process, based on sound science and economic study, that results in realistic goals for carbon emissions reduction.

Madam Speaker, it is certainly my pleasure to speak today about this most important subject. I think this will be one of the subjects, next to terrorism, that in the next few months will be on many people's minds.

In times of peace and prosperity it is very easy to talk about things, to agree to treaties and to promise things without really knowing what they mean or what they might do to the Canadian public. It would be easy to find the money to cover up some of these loose promises, but now we are in a different situation. In times of crisis like these, talk is expensive. Words are expensive. Every word carries great weight. In times of crisis we must renew those commitments made when we were in a free and easy mode. Those commitments made with great optimism but without regard for consequences were excusable then but are inexcusable now.

This brings me to the subject for today. I think that within the next year Canadians will be facing perhaps the most expensive government commitment since World War II. I am not talking about new security measures, which will undoubtedly be costly. I am not talking about the ongoing war against terrorism, which will also be costly. I am talking about Canada's commitment, signed in 1997, to the Kyoto protocol. As we speak meetings are going on in Marrakesh with the intention of ratifying it. The minister will be joining those meetings next week.

In light of that I have put forward my motion today to, I hope, begin discussion in the House about this most important subject. I strongly believe that the Kyoto protocol is not the right answer for climate change. I agree there is climate change but I do not think the Kyoto protocol is the answer.

I would like to address the specific flaws of the accord and present my vision of an action plan that would much more effectively address the problems of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. The Kyoto protocol would do little to help the environment, yet at the same time it would bring great pain to the Canadian economy. Very simply, I believe that the Kyoto protocol is unworkable, and if this house is built on sand and a storm comes, this house will fall down.

Kyoto is a bad agreement. It is an agreement built on sand. The storms of reality have come since September 11 and the Kyoto house will undoubtedly fall. The best we can do is tear it down before we Canadians get hurt. While filled with good intentions, the protocol would do little to prevent global warming. The actual accomplishments of Kyoto, if its carbon emission reductions were to be met, would be almost nothing.

One of the lead scientists involved in the International Panel on Climate Change has estimated that if all countries that signed the protocol, including the U.S., lived up to their commitments, projected climate change would be reduced by only less than one-fifth of a degree celsius by the year 2100. In other words, projected climate change would be delayed by only six years by 2100, yet developed nations are willing to spend trillions of dollars for just six years. For all those trillions of dollars spent worldwide to implement the protocol, it would achieve almost no reduction in projected temperature increases.

If ratified, the protocol would legally bind Canada to reduce its emissions to 6% below 1990 levels. This is certainly no easy task especially considering that in 1999 Canada was 15% above 1990 levels and 22% above Kyoto commitments. How can we expect to reduce emissions below 1990 levels when we have pushed ourselves so far above them?

Let me remind everyone that in 1997 the Liberal government entered into the Kyoto talks without a plan. In fact, we were the only G-8 country without a public position before Kyoto. The Reform Party at the time pushed for accountability. What was the Liberal plan? How much would it cost? Nothing was forthcoming from the government. There was only constant evasion of the question, with big words but no plan. Let me also remind the House that now in 2001 the Liberal government, threatening to ratify Kyoto, still has very little idea of a concrete plan or its cost. It entered into the Kyoto protocol full of great intentions but with empty words and no notion of the costs of implementation.

The Prime Minister has yet to open his eyes to the drastic effects of ratifying Kyoto. So far the Liberals have plans to meet only one-third of the Kyoto commitment. The most interesting developments and repeated assertions by the Prime Minister and his colleagues are that they support development of Alberta's tar sands and other production for export to the U.S. That is going in exactly the reverse direction of meeting the Kyoto commitment, yet they still claim they can meet their targets.

The United States has now rejected the Kyoto protocol. The country that emits close to 25% of the world's emissions is not bound by the protocol. It has decided there are better ways to fight climate change and in co-operation with industry is looking for more effective solutions. It is looking for solutions and it is getting there. Canada is not.

Our biggest trading partner is exempt from a hugely expensive burden that will affect every person in Canada. Not only would this mean that the much higher energy prices in Canada compared to the U.S. would drive many businesses away from Canada to other countries, and what our dollar is doing now is nothing compared to what it will do if we ratify Kyoto, it would also mean that pollution is not eliminated, only transferred to another country.

As well, not only is the pollution in many cases transferred to a different part of the world but companies will not be pressured into developing and implementing cleaner technologies that can have benefits for air quality.

The government's own projections of the cost of implementing the Kyoto protocol lie between 1.5% of Canada's real GDP per year to an unbelievable 10% of real GDP per year. The Liberals have promised no carbon tax and no new energy program for controlling the wealth of energy rich provinces, but carbon emissions trading schemes being considered in order to reach Kyoto targets are only another name for a carbon tax or a new national energy program and they may be more expensive.

We must remember that economic recessions are defined by 1% to 2% reductions in GDP. We must also note that our economy has been slowing for many months. The September 11 attacks have slowed this growth even further. Adding one recession to the recession that would be brought about by Kyoto would mean economic depression.

Even though the government continues to boast about its spending of $2 billion on climate change, it forgets to tell about the total cost to Canadians, which is billions and billions of dollars in lost revenue in this country. This means that jobs, technological advancements and our very security will be threatened. It also means money for our environmental programs is seriously compromised. Air quality monitoring, particulate reduction, water treatment, endangered species protection and stewardship programs are badly hurt by such ineffective spending, but these programs have the very tangible results that Canadians want and deserve.

Another fundamental flaw of Kyoto is the way it does not include developing countries. While developed countries had in the past been the biggest greenhouse gas emitters and are responsible for most greenhouse gas emissions, according to the U.S. department of state the net emissions from developing countries now exceed those of developed countries. I have been to Beijing, Mexico City, Rio and Santiago and have literally chewed the air. That is what is happening in those developing countries. I know that these emission problems are our responsibility, but we need to help those developing countries, not simply do things to Canadian industry. How do we help these nations leapfrog the terrible industrial pollution levels that they will face in the coming decade? They must be included in renewed discussions.

That leads me to my vision of renewed climate change discussions and more realistic domestic action. The government's empty words, loose promises and commitments must give way to meaningful words and effective action. We are in a time of crisis and our words carry much power.

We have long been bound by the Kyoto protocol, but it now must die. The protocol has created much awareness of the climate change issue. It has created much that is good but also much that is not good. It is holding us back from new commitments and new action to address climate change. It is Canada's climate change albatross and it has to be taken from around our neck. It is time to move on this issue.

First, I believe that we must break the pressures that Kyoto will create. We must put an extra push on renewed research into the great gaps of climate change science. The Liberal government has invested much in the Kyoto protocol and it will not admit the weakness of climate change science. Much science is not objective here. Much of the time this science is government supported to prove the Liberal government's position. This must change.

It might allow for more recent developments such as prominent U.S. NASA scientist James Hansen's recent research about how reducing certain carbon air particulates may be a much more effective way of combating climate change than the constraints of Kyoto. Such an approach makes sense. Reduce particulates that have tremendous health impacts while reducing climate change. This would be a double benefit rather than Kyoto's double drawback.

A 12 year old girl wrote me horrified by what she thought climate change was going to do. She thought there was going to be a 20 degrees Celsius increase in temperature, massive flooding, violent weather and so on. She was terrified for herself and her family. I sent information to this young girl telling her that things were not that bad, that scare tactics were being used. Let us get back to the real science.

Second, so much potential good is lost when money is wasted. Tangible and necessary environmental programs such as water treatment, air quality monitoring and stewardship programs are compromised when money is wasted. The huge amount of money wasted on Kyoto is much better spent on increased support for research and development and cleaner energy technologies.

An hour ago I visited an ethanol plant here in this city. That is one of the technologies we must promote. By focusing on technology, our economy avoids being depressed while better support for research and development helps to guarantee faster leaps and bounds in clean technologies which we can then pass on or sell to developing countries.

In the present climate of uncertainty and heightened security, it also makes sense to support the development of a diversified supply of energy sources including natural gas, ethanol, fossil fuels, wind and hydro, hydrogen fuel cells, and so on. Five years in energy technologies make a world of difference. A five year old power plant is dirty compared to one built today. With increased support this will occur even faster. A strong economy is critical for these technological leaps and bounds to happen.

Third, while targets in international discussions are possible, they cannot take place without significant experience with domestic localized action. The provinces must agree to any commitments made in these international discussions. More local tangible actions are meaningful and must be where the bigger ideas of international targets find their inspiration and their roots. Commitments must be meaningful rather than being pie in the sky. This means having realistic goals worked out with those who are largely responsible for meeting those targets: the provinces and industry.

Fourth, the United States, Mexico and our other trading partners under continental programs must be in agreement before we sign any protocol. Unlike the European Union, we are just at the beginning of developing new co-operation. We cannot be put at an unfair disadvantage to our key trading partners. Again, this means pollution is only redistributed and we are hit with severe economic problems.

Fifth, we must include developing nations in climate change discussions. This does not mean setting targets for them; it means helping them to leapfrog.

Sixth, we must continue to focus on programs that encourage energy and resource efficiency. Where possible, ways and means that encourage Canadians to be more efficient in their use of these resources must be supported and discussed.

[Lisa's Law, October 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I introduced in the House a private member's bill that I hope will make a difference for children in the country. I hope Lisa's law will better ensure that the health and safety of children are at the centre of our justice system.

I hope the proposed amendments to the Divorce Act will help make sure that sexual offenders, especially those who have committed sexual offences against children, cannot use court orders to force their own children to visit them in jail.

Earlier this year I walked with two children aged five and six and their mother, Lisa Dillman, into Bowden Penitentiary. Against their wishes these children were being forced to visit their father who had committed and was convicted of terrible sexual offences.

These two children have endured a great deal of psychological trauma. They and their mother have struggled long and hard to be liberated from the terrible burden of a court system that puts their perverted father above their own safety and security. I ask that all members of the House support these amendments when Lisa's law is read again. La Presse —Radio-Canada

[International Actions Against Terrorism, October 15th, 2001]

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to speak this evening about this terrible subject that has changed our lives from the time it happened on September 11.

All of us know that this war against terrorism has to be fought and it has to be won. We need to make it very clear that it is a war against terrorism. It is not a war against the Muslim religion or against any religion. It is a war against people who do such evil as we saw on September 11.

I once visited Islamabad and talked to Muslim scholars at the university. We asked them how terrorism fits within the Koran and within their religion. After many hours of talking about this issue, it was very clear that anybody can interpret any book any way they want if they want to put forth a cause as we have seen with Osama bin Laden. This is not about religious and we need to make that very clear.

That moment in history has changed all of us. I was in the U.S. when it happened. I was amazed at how the American people responded. I was amazed at the number of people lining up at blood donor clinics, giving donations and holding candlelight vigils on the same evening the incident happened. The response was overwhelming and one that could not have been imagined by the terrorists who killed themselves and the innocent people earlier that day.

We must also give our condolences to all the people who lost their lives, all the families who have been affected and all the memories that are there. We need to give the government our full support. It is important that we come together as a nation to fight terrorism and wipe out these terrorist groups.

While I was thinking about what I was going to say in the debate I jotted down some comments of what I think terrorists are like. First, I do not think they are of any particular nationality or religion. They have no real conscience about who they are killing. Someone like Osama bin Laden is not a religious cleric. He is a cult leader. He has nothing but bad in his heart.

I then thought back to my visits to Bosnia, Kosovo and Kashmir, all of those visits in a war situation. One of the things I did in a lot of those places was to go into schools and ask kids what they thought about the war. Eight year old kids could tell me about the hate they had for this religion or that group of people or whatever. That level of hate was built into them. We in North America do not understand that sort of thing. We have to counter that feeling that is built right into these little kids.

I have 16 pages of notes written by 10 year olds about what it is like to be in war. Some of the kids would tell me tales about 1942. Some of the Serb kids even told me about what it was like when they were attacked by the Ottomans back in 1589. We have to understand that level of hate and that is partly what we are dealing with.

I also must bring to the House the message that I got from my riding about this whole issue, and it is important that we focus on that. My constituents told me that the CBC town hall meeting was not representative of Canadians. They told me they did not think that way. They have responses about the Prime Minister. They feel his response was somewhat lackadaisical and insincere.

When the war started last Sunday I could not help but notice that we listened to Bush on television, then to Tony Blair, then to Chirac, then to Schroeder and finally, two hours later, we heard our Prime Minister tell us what we were going to do.

I and many of my constituents were very disappointed by that sort of reaction.

We have been told over and over again that we need to deal with the immigration system. When I was in the camps in Macedonia we put refugees onto planes without even checking their health or their background. If we even bring one terrorist into our country, it is not worth it. We have to check them out. We value and welcome those refugees to our country but we need to make sure they are legitimate.

We obviously need better training at the U.S. border and at our airports. Our military has declined to a point where many Canadians are wondering if we are really sending these people to do a mission for which they will be proud and one which they can do. The problem is not that they are not good people or well trained. The problem is that their equipment is just not there.

This is a time when I want to be united. I want to support the government on this sort of thing. I have travelled for over 30 years around the world. Canada has slipped dramatically. We have to be conscious of that. Our profile is not what it was and we need to work on that. This is an opportunity for us to do that.

Let me read sections of a letter I received from a senior flight attendant on the Delta flight that left London on its way to Atlanta but which was diverted to Gander, Newfoundland. I thought the letter probably summed up some of the best of what Canadians are and how we can work together.

At 11 a.m. on September 11 the Delta flight got the message that it needed to land immediately and that U.S. airspace was closed. The flight was diverted to Gander, Newfoundland and 40 minutes later it landed. Fifty-three international flights landed at Gander.

The Delta flight landed in Gander at 11 a.m. At 6 p.m. the passengers and crew were told they would overnight on the plane, that they would be able to get off at 11 o'clock the next morning and that they would be held somewhere in Newfoundland. They were then taken from there to Lewisporte which is 45 kilometres from Gander. I think this is important because this is really what it is all about. These people were then taken to the community hall where bunks were set up with various kinds of mattresses and so on.

The following is a description of their stay. During the days the passengers were given a choice of excursion trips. Some people went on boat cruises on lakes and harbours. Some went to see forests. Local bakeries stayed open to make fresh bread for guests. Food was prepared. They had their laundry done in the laundromat. People brought in special baking and so on . When the passengers got back on board their flight two days later it was like they had been on a cruise. Everybody knew everybody else by their name. They were swapping stories of their stay and impressing each other with what a great time they had. It was mind-boggling.

Just to summarize what happened on that flight, one of the passengers got on the PA and said “I'm taking up contributions to set up a scholarship in Lewisporte”. They collected $20,000, which was then matched by one of the passengers. A scholarship has not been set up for a high school student in that town.

That is a true Canadian story which makes all of us feel good. It is the sort of thing we have to put forward as we deal with this terrible crisis that we are in now. We need to work together.

[Divorce Act, October 15th, 2001]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-400, an act to amend the Divorce Act (limits on rights of child access by sex offenders).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce what I will be calling Lisa's law.

The motivation for this is the visit of two young girls of five and six to Bowden prison to visit their father because of a court order. At that point, I never wanted that to happen again to any Canadian children. I feel these kids are psychological victims and are continuing to suffer because of that judgment.

I know that this will receive all party support. A great many members have talked to me about it. It is my pleasure to introduce it at this point.

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

[The Environment, October 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the Commissioner of the Environment for her audit delivered today. All Canadians are concerned about clean air, water and soil.

Once again the government has been given a failing grade in the protection of human and environmental health by the commissioner. The commissioner identifies lots of government plans but little evidence of actual implementation.

The report is a terrible indictment against the environmental protection the government has provided since it took power in 1993. It provided vague goals and good intentions but little action to meet these goals. Its intentions become little more than just empty words.

The lack of commitment to sound science which is the foundation of achieving the goals is severely lacking. Some examples are that there is a water problem and yet there are decades old regulations with no national standards for drinking water. It plans to ratify Kyoto but it has no idea of the cost. The government must show leadership and must implement solid scientific plans if it wants to protect the environment

[Petitions, June 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the petitioners from Alberta and B.C. who have signed this petition request that parliament process the landed immigrant status for Cris Pusztay's wife and son so that they will be permitted to return to Canada without delay.

[The Environment, June 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the serious shortcomings of the Liberal government in the clean-up of contaminated sites.

More information has come forward indicating that the federal government has known of serious health threats to the people of Sydney, Nova Scotia and yet the only action taken was dumping millions of dollars into short term solutions. Sydney is only one glaring example of thousands of known and unknown contaminated sites across Canada.

The government is also currently faced with the clean-up of the Giant Gold Mine near Yellowknife. It is again leaning toward the cheapest, short term solution that will almost certainly cost Canadians their health, the health of their environment and the health of communities over the long term.

The government cannot boast about Canada's environmental superiority until it cleans up its act and takes responsibility for its own actions. Canada's own house must be put in order and critical contaminated sites across the country must be cleaned up now.