David Anderson

[Infrastructure, June 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the infrastructure program just referred to, of which the entire opposition appears totally unaware, makes $2 billion available for infrastructure projects. Green infrastructure is the theme. In my province the figure is 75% must go to water, sewage and solid waste projects and 25% to other projects.

There is a major program which the Conservative Party never brought in when it was in power, and of which it is still unaware. I suggest the member look at the figures. He will find it is an important contribution to improving the infrastructure in municipalities.

[The Environment, June 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister made available in the last period since the budget $1.1 billion for climate change alone, plus other substantial amounts.

I do not know where the hon. member gets the figure of $145 million. She has plucked that out of a hat somewhere. All I can say is once again it is the NDP saying that a figure of $145 million is insignificant. It may be very significant and deal with the problem to which it will be applied.

[The Environment, June 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member gives no indication of where these assertions come from. There is no truth whatsoever to the reference to the figures with respect to greenhouse gases.

I do not know where she gets her statements. She has consistently asked questions of this nature before, which really have no answer unless we have some factual information rather than her wild surmises.

[Freshwater Exports, May 31st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I really do not know where the hon. member has been since Walkerton. Witness after witness has pointed out that the way Canadians value water has led to its misuse. The way Canadians assume water is a free good is one of the reasons they appear unwilling to pay the amounts of money needed to protect water sources.

The member should look at the testimony given in Walkerton and she will find the importance of making sure that we collect the data needed so we can make intelligent decisions when it comes to water and its protection.

[Freshwater Exports, May 31st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is mistaken both in her preamble and in her question.

There is no policy change by the Government of Canada. The government remains committed to the prohibition of movement of bulk water out of watersheds. We will continue to protect water at the source rather than at the border.

[The Environment, May 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, not for the first time the hon. lady is incorrect in her assertions. The government has no intention of altering the standards.

We do of course continue with ongoing scientific work, which she may describe as unnecessary, but we do think the decisions that affect the well-being, the health and the location of individuals in Canada should be based on good information and not on her unscientific views.

[The Environment, May 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague, the Minister of Health, has made clear on a number of occasions, we intend to proceed with the testing of the sites adjacent to the tar ponds. We intend to continue to follow the advice of an expert, Dr. Lewis, who came from outside Canada so that we would have an independent opinion.

We will continue to work to make sure that where it is necessary we take the measures needed to protect the health of the individuals in this area.

[The Environment, May 14th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question relates to those who need to be relocated permanently. It is exactly that question upon which we are attempting to receive the best scientific information we can.

If he wishes to move people away from that part of Cape Breton, surely we should at least have the scientific basis upon which to do it.

[The Environment, May 14th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the question follows those by representatives of the same political party last Friday. We intend to wait until we have the scientific report which was commissioned and which we expect this week before making decisions on relocation and a number of other questions related to that.

We do not think it is appropriate to proceed without having the scientific basis for decisions which could massively disrupt the lives of individuals and involve great cost to public authorities both federal and provincial.

[The Environment, May 14th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that I will be signing, on behalf of Canada, the United Nations convention on persistent organic pollutants in Stockholm next week.

At the same time, I would like to point out to the House that we all owe a great debt of gratitude to Dr. John Buccini, who chaired the meetings in Johannesburg that led to this protocol. I think that as a result we have something of great interest and importance to Canadian northern peoples.