David Anderson

[The Environment, May 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member attentive though she is perhaps has missed some of my recent speeches at the Globe in Vancouver, in Toronto and in Seattle. We have stressed time after time—

[The Environment, May 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the first question related to a report two years ago. The next question related to a report 15 years ago.

If the hon. member would persuade the NDP provinces of British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba to sign on to the national accord on water, we would be substantially better off. I expect they will.

[The Environment, May 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to report to the hon. member and to the House that in the two years that has passed since the report that the hon. member has quoted, there has been more of a consolidation within the Department of the Environment. We have increased budget contributions substantially to the Department of the Environment. We are working closely with the provinces on the accord on water.

In answer to his very general question, he will in fact have much better success at finding where responsibilities actually lie today than two years ago.

[The Environment, May 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I never thought I would rise in the House to tell members of an opposition party that by their own admission they believe an American political figure with little contact with Canada knows more about what we do in the environment than they do as a group. That is incredible. Members of the NDP admit they know nothing and they are relying upon someone from outside the country as an authority on what happens here.

With respect to the first part of the question, if I may, and with respect to the Quebec livestock case, the Quebec government and the auditor general of Quebec, there has been an investigation. The process has been changed. Any continuation of this investigation would be strictly historical.

[The Environment, May 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Governments of both Nova Scotia and Canada have tried before to impose decisions with respect to the Sydney tar ponds on the residents of that area.

I find it astonishing that a representative of that area would want the government to overrule the system that we have set up which includes the local people participating in making decisions. It is certainly the type of socialistic directed government that we in British Columbia have learned to distrust so much.

I think he should think more about bringing these people in with the federal and provincial governments so we can get an acceptable solution and do not waste—

[The Environment, May 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the hon. member's preamble to his question is sheer rubbish. The fact is we have a good system in place. There will be opportunities of course to improve it. It is a new system, virtually unique in the world, where there is such a commission in effect between three countries above what they can do domestically in terms of appeal. Undoubtedly there will be improvements and changes in the approaches that are taken and the mechanisms in the future, but to suggest that any change must be a negative is sheer unadulterated rubbish.

[The Environment, May 15th, 2000]

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct. The regulations for sulphur in gasoline have been in effect in California for some four or five years. Costs have been minimal. They have been in effect since the beginning of the year in New England. Again, in an area with a gasoline market larger than Canada as a whole, costs have been about half a cent per litre.

The fact is we are talking about approximately 30 lives lost prematurely as a result of the level of sulphur in gasoline and the resulting emissions and air quality that comes from it. We wish to reverse that. We wish to cut down on those deaths. We will continue to put in place the regulations that industry has known were coming for the last six years.

[The Environment, May 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to again join with the hon. member in congratulating the member for York North on the work he has done in establishing the EcoSummit. I would remind all members of the House that it is taking place this evening and tomorrow. There will be some very excellent speakers and panels. The Government of Canada and I am sure all members of the House share with her the desire to make sure that water policy in Canada is maintained at the highest possible standards.

[The Environment, May 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, as the member should be aware, but apparently is not, there is a citizens' group of the local residents that is working to put together the plan for dealing with the Sydney tar ponds problem. The problem is very serious. There are health risks. It is perhaps the most polluted single site in Canada.

However, I do not think it is appropriate for me to step in and overrule the work being done by the citizens' group. We tried before to interfere and impose a solution, first in Ottawa, then in Halifax and then both together. None of those efforts worked despite the expenditure of tens of billions of dollars.

This time we want the local people to agree that they have the right solution.

[Environment, May 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct. The number of Canadians who die prematurely by reason of asthma and other respiratory diseases is indeed appalling.

We are approaching the subject on two fronts. One is domestically. We are attempting to work out with the provinces a new agreement to limit airborne contaminants to levels which will reduce that death toll.

In addition, I have undertaken discussions with the United States administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. These negotiations will continue until October. We hope to have a transboundary agreement on ozone, which is one of the major components of smog. I should add that is particularly important, because some 30% to 85% of the smog in Canada is from American sources.