David Anderson

[The Environment, June 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for drawing attention to the fact that 20 hours after the request from his party leader I did table the two documents in the House for 1996-97 and 1997-98. I hope he has had an opportunity to look at them.

The other reports will be tabled in the House when the material is ready, when they have been checked and when they have been translated. I should add for his information that this does involve a lot of consultation with the provinces.

[Canada Water Resources, June 8th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, in accordance with section 38 of the Canada Water Act, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the annual reports for the years 1996-97 and 1997-98.

[The Environment, June 7th, 2000]

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, we are adding an extra $50 million this year.

[The Environment, June 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member mentioned, I think the number he used was 171 different reserves. Mr. Speaker, as you know, I only have 35 seconds but I would be glad to provide him—

[The Environment, June 7th, 2000]

Briefly, Mr. Speaker, over the last five years some $400 million of federal money has been devoted to that problem.

[The Environment, June 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, after two days of discussions with my provincial and territorial colleagues in Quebec City, we made substantial improvements with respect to air quality.

I would like to congratulate the province of Ontario's change of position. It has altered the schedule for reduction of the ozone problem in Ontario. We now will have a 45% improvement over the next 10 years rather than 15. In addition the province has said that it will drop that date to 2005 if I, as Minister of the Environment, and my colleague the Minister of Foreign Affairs are successful in negotiating an effective ozone annex to the clean air agreement with the United States, which we fully intend to do before November.

[The Environment, June 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, may I correct the hon. member? It is Walkerton, not Waterton.

The second point is that if $600 million is to be wasted for doing something which has no environmental benefit, obviously resources are misplaced. We want to spend money where it will help protect the lives of Canadians and protect their health. That is why the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities have outlined a strategy for infrastructure for clean water, sewage treatment and solid waste disposal.

[The Environment, June 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the question asked was essentially whether we accept responsibility for areas of water quality under federal jurisdiction. The answer is yes. That has nothing to do with our desire to give the provinces and leave the provinces the responsibility for their areas of jurisdiction.

That party, not that it understands the constitution, should understand that there are certain areas of provincial jurisdiction that we should respect. It does not, but we do.

[The Environment, June 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the logic of the hon. member's question is very faulty. First he said that the provinces have certain responsibilities and then he said that we have certain responsibilities. We take full responsibility for our area—

[The Environment, June 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is customary in the House when legislation is being debated for all points of view to be put forward. If the hon. member was not here, or did not hear when she was here, perhaps there would be an explanation for why she does not know what was said when this legislation was debated.

If she is asking me to read out the debate in Hansard , it would take a few hours. She is really going to have to do a better job of posing questions on that if she intends to get precise answers in the 35 seconds that I am allowed to reply.