David Anderson

[The Environment, June 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the water quality standards in Canada are set by a committee formed of the provinces, the territories and the federal government. Health Canada chairs that committee.

The standards that are set are for a number of potential pollutants. In the case of E. coli the tolerable figure is zero parts per million; in other words a total ban on the release of any water that might be affected by E. coli.

It is important to recognize that we do work with the provinces as closely as we can on water quality issues. We provide them with expertise and scientific materials, but the actual operation of the—

[The Environment, May 31st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, actually the hon. member is somewhat mistaken. The provisions I talked about are by and large mandatory provisions with respect to automobiles and with respect to Imperial Oil. He may have heard of the discussions between Imperial Oil and myself a few weeks ago. These are mandatory requirements, regulations.

There are some areas of federal-provincial jurisdictional overlaps where co-operation is needed. There we may have to get the support of the provinces. I sincerely hope the hon. member will help me get the support of the three NDP provinces in the country so that we can have the highest standards possible of air quality throughout Canada.

[The Environment, May 31st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, there was a different government in place in 1990, 1991, 1992 and 1993, for those four years, which I think is comforting to him.

A process was put in place with respect to improving the quality of gasoline, reducing the sulphur in gasoline, reducing the sulphur in diesel, improving the quality of the vehicles, and extending the requirements of passenger vehicles to SUVs, trucks and vans, thus doubling the number of vehicles covered. There were changes with respect to benzene for the Canada-wide standards and ozone work with the United States on the ozone annex—

[Migratory Birds Convention Act, May 30th, 2000]

moved:

That this House take note of the Order amending the Schedule to the Migratory Birds Convention Act to incorporate the Parksville Protocol, which amends the 1916 Migratory Birds Convention, tabled on Thursday, May 18, 2000.

[The Environment, May 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, in terms of internal political battles within a party, we certainly will say that the Tories have far more experience and are much better at it than we are. They have many more corpses on the floor.

I would say to the member that he has chosen the one minister of the environment from all the provinces, who drives the largest SUV with the worst gas mileage, to cite as his example for the rest of us. I think it is quite ridiculous that he would make such a suggestion.

[The Environment, May 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know this is question period and when he asks a question and gets words he should not complain about hearing talk. That seems to be ridiculous.

With respect to the programs we are putting in place, I trust the NDP will support us and make sure the provincial governments which are controlled by the NDP similarly support us because, as the commissioner made clear, it is the failure of the provinces to proceed which is at the core of our problem.

[The Environment, May 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, once more one of these questions from the NDP, which is stuck in the past.

I outlined to the House very recently the steps that are being taken on smog. This requires international action with the Americans on the ozone annex. It requires co-operation with the provinces, including the three provinces which have NDP governments, on Canada-wide standards for things like benzene, mercury, ozone, as well as particulate matter and others.

We then have domestic Canadian actions, which the Minister of Health and I are undertaking under the new CEPA which came into effect April 1.

[Genetically Modified Organisms, May 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question.

It is true that there is a difficulty facing many countries in the world, in fact all trading nations, in making sure that environmental considerations are taken fully into account when economic decisions on trade are made.

Nevertheless, in Montreal in January we managed to agree to the Cartagena protocol on biodiversity. We think that provides a real opportunity for all the nations of the world under the United Nations to move successfully to reconcile these difficulties.

[The Environment, May 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, once more I thank the hon. member for her pertinent question. We have had an increase in some greenhouse gas emissions since the period she suggested, 1990, and particularly, I might add, since the tremendous burst of economic activity that took place since 1993 when this government took office.

The result however is that we do have a bigger problem to deal with greenhouse gases than we would have had if the party over there had remained in power or that party had taken power, because then the economy would have collapsed and the problem of the environment would have disappeared.

I am suggesting that we will have in place in the next five months a plan to deal with greenhouse gases—

[The Environment, May 30th, 2000]

On the issue of smog, we have a three pronged process. We are working with the provinces on Canada-wide standards on benzine, ozone, particulate matter and mercury.

We are working with the United States on an ozone annex to the clean air agreement that we have with them. We expect that to be signed in November.

We are working directly with the new CEPA, the Canada Environmental Protection Act, so that we could, as indeed the Minister of Health and I did only last Saturday, put particulate matter 10 microns and below on the list of toxic substances. We have a three pronged approach.