House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2004, with 35% of the vote.
The Environment October 4th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, given the performance of the New Democratic Party, it is understandable why the endangered species legislation is very high on their minds.
I would suggest to the hon. member that we will not unduly and improperly pressure agencies which parliament set up to be independent of the executive of the Government of Canada.
The Environment October 4th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many times I have to tell the New Democratic Party that we are bound by the law and constitution which respect the division of responsibilities between provincial and federal governments.
I would point out that the concern expressed with respect to Quebec was in fact dealt with by a Quebec report. I quote the press release of the Quebec government which said:
According to this analysis, the project will have no significant environmental impact on Lac Témiscamingue if the conditions of the Ontario Minister of the Environment's certificate of authorization are met by promoters.
Criminal Code September 28th, 2000
moved that Bill C-36, an act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal harassment, home invasions, applications for ministerial review—miscarriages of justice, and criminal procedure) and to amend other acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Biosafety Protocol September 28th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, the final phases of the Cartagena protocol were negotiated in Montreal in January, and I took part. Canada played a very important role. I thank my colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, for the great work he did in this regard.
I point out that the standard practice of the Canadian government, when faced with the issue of signature and adhering to the protocol, is to consult with groups in Canada that may be affected and may have concerns. We have virtually completed those consultations. I fully expect a decision of the government will follow very shortly.
Endangered Species September 28th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for pointing out what is a critical issue for Canada. We have in his province a large number of species at risk, including the beluga whale, wolverine, woodland caribou and many others.
The approach is threefold. We are trying to work with the provinces on the accord on species at risk to make sure we have maximum co-operation and no holes in the system, and with organizations and communities so that we can encourage, on the ground, attitudes among people who live and work out there where these species are to protect them. We have our own species at risk act which is moving through the House process.
The Environment September 28th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, the member's question follows the same faulty assumptions that preceded his questions with respect to Walkerton.
The fact is the primary responsibility in this situation for the issue of a municipal dumpsite is provincial and municipal as well. That is the Canadian constitution. There are certain federal aspects. We provided technical information to the province in its assessment. There are aspects which we are now considering appropriately under sections 46 and 48 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
The Environment September 28th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, the contradictions in the hon. member's question show how faulty the question itself is.
He has pointed out that we were there at the beginning providing information to the Ontario government, which has the primary responsibility for a landfill site of this type. He has pointed out that we were right there providing that information.
Later in the process, when concerns were raised about transboundary pollution getting into the province of Quebec and the province of Ontario and getting into an Indian reserve from lands outside the Indian reserve, in accordance with I believe sections 46 and 48 of the act we followed the normal procedure set down by the legislation. That process is continuing.
The Environment September 26th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I did not think that as a member of the House I would hear a leader of a political party refer to the laws made by parliament and this administration following the laws made by parliament in such derisory language.
The fact is the request has been made. The agency has been asked. When the agency reports in accordance with the law, I will deal with the report of the agency once again in accordance with the law. I will not countenance the recommendation of the hon. leader of the New Democratic Party that I should ignore my statutory responsibilities on a piece of legislation passed by parliament.
The Environment September 26th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, the province of Ontario carried out an extensive environmental assessment of the proposal of the Adams mine.
The federal government has recently received petitions asking that this be looked into. In accordance with the law, I have given the task to the Environmental Assessment Office to look at the questions raised and report back to me so that again in accordance with the law I can make a decision as to whether or not to proceed.
Points Of Order September 22nd, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I hope that my reply will not have the incendiary effect of my reply as in the last response.
In response to the question of the hon. member, as the hon. member may appreciate I do not have the details in front of me and I am guessing, but I believe there was some $40 million in the budget to deal with the problem that he has raised before the House.
This is a longstanding situation. We are now trying to put in effective holding tanks on all VIA trains across the country so that we can completely deal with the problem that he has raised. I cannot give him at this stage information as to how far that program has progressed, but there is a substantial amount of money put aside to deal with that very problem. I thank him for raising the issue.