David Anderson

[Meteorological Service of Canada, October 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is not easy for a minister to put to rest rumours circulated by another political party.

However, I can say that, on the matter of office closure, this government has made no decision to close the offices in question.

[The Environment, October 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the polluter pay principle is very important, but there are other principles that are also very important.

I would point out to the hon. member that it is often necessary to reduce pollution at the lowest possible cost, spending the least amount possible. That is another principle. It is also important to have systems whereby no one region of the country is disadvantaged.

That makes three principles. All three are important and I cannot say that any one is more important than another.

[Kyoto Protocol, October 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the government speaks as one voice on this issue. It is particularly important for the opposition to understand that the concerns of industry are being fully accounted for. The fact is that through measures to improve energy efficiency, large numbers of companies including Boeing, General Motors, Shell and BP have all discovered that they made more money as well as satisfying their climate change goals.

[Kyoto Protocol, October 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, far from ignoring the concerns of industry, we have been engaged in constant consultations with the private sector and business over the past five years since the Kyoto accord was signed. This is ongoing. In fact we even delayed a meeting that was scheduled for two days ago until next week because we wanted to continue those discussions and make sure that we had an opportunity to incorporate their views in the federal document.

We are working very closely with industry as well as the provinces and territories on what is a national, pan-Canadian, all-Canadian approach to this issue.

[Environment Canada, October 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, that is the best question I have had today.

I would like to point out that in fact an error was made in the calculations and they did not take into account, in calculating this 40% drop in income to Environment Canada, the fact that Heritage Canada took over the National Battlefields Commission and also Parks Canada. Thus the difference in figures between 1992-93 and 2000-01 is 6%, not 40%.

[The Environment, October 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly withdraw the words that are unparliamentary, but it is a curious question from that party.

We are spending about $100 million on contaminated sites.The sites that have been chosen are priority sites. In fact, we are doing exactly that.

I would like to correct one thing that has been said earlier. There was a comment about the budget of Environment Canada. In fact the commissioner made an error in her calculations and did not include--

[The Environment, October 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, as virtually all these contaminated sites were inherited by the government from the Conservatives I think that is a pretty stupid question to ask because it allows me to remind him--

[The Environment, October 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, once more I suggest that the hon. member consider some of the short term issues and some of the long term issues. The fact is that climate change is a fundamental long term issue on such things as fish stocks. I would point this out to him.

I would also point out to him that, while we accept and appreciate the work of the commissioner, the fact is that the world economic council sustainability index on quality of the environment, air, water, biodiversity and land, puts Canada number one in the world.

[The Environment, October 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the hon. member that the problem of climate change is a real environmental problem. It is true it is a long term issue but it is a very important one.

I would suggest to him also that he read the Speech from the Throne in which it is clearly indicated that the government intends to have new initiatives to deal with contaminated sites, and I welcome his party's willingness to ensure that funds are available for that purpose.

[The Environment, October 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is very colourful in her descriptions but I think she should remember that in fact it is not possible to continue at levels of expenditure which would constantly put a government in deficit.

It has been a tough job to bring the government into a surplus position so we can pay down the debt on the financial side. It is true that we still have environmental objectives to be met. That is why the Speech from the Throne so clearly emphasized the environment, and why the public has been so responsive to that speech.