David Anderson

[Endangered Species, April 12th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, we now have these apologists for socialism explaining their position. They are saying that no matter what the social or economic impact on any scientific listing, nobody will listen to the people, the industries or the communities affected. It will all be done by scientists and the scientists will not even take that into account either. They are only considering the one question of whether the animal is endangered.

[Endangered Species, April 12th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the member is correct at least to the extent that the bill was tabled yesterday. The bill will be sent to committee and he will find there is ample opportunity for examination and any suggestions he may wish to make for change.

I would suggest to him that the proposals he has made here would deny a right that people have had since the Magna Carta. In other words, when one's livelihood or land is affected by government action, one has a right to be heard. The socialists over there do not seem to think that right is valuable; they do not seem to think it is useful. We on this side of the House think it is important.

[Species At Risk Act, April 11th, 2000]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-33, an act respecting the protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[The Environment, April 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that there is action on a wide front on many environmental issues. It is certainly correct, as he pointed out, that the Hon. John Fraser, the former speaker of the House, did switch from being the ambassador for the environment to taking on responsibilities for the Pacific Salmon Commission. If necessary, and as appropriate, we will appoint a successor.

At the present time, the work that John Fraser carried out is being carried out by Canadian ambassadors in every country of the world.

[The Environment, April 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the member has just said, the meeting in Japan over the last few days was very successful. It is true that there are difficulties with respect to ratification related to American constitutional differences between the senate and the administration, of which the member should be aware. However, we fully intend to put in place our plans to implement the Kyoto agreement. We will be working with the provinces in order to get that in place as soon as possible.

The important thing is not ratification. The important thing is making sure we have plans in place to reduce greenhouse gases.

[The Environment, April 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I wrote to the Ontario government minister responsible asking for a renewal of the agreement before it expired. At that time we invited Ontario to enter into a new Canada-Ontario agreement on the Great Lakes.

It is my hope that the premier of Ontario will allow his minister and his government to step up to the plate and join with us in continuing with the protection of the Great Lakes. Until that happens we will continue to co-operate wherever we can with—

[Environment, April 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I can inform the hon. member that I wrote sometime ago to the Ontario minister for the environment proposing that the agreement be continued and re-established for another period of years. The Ontario government has not yet substantively replied to us. This does not mean that we are not continuing with negotiations. We would like to continue so we can sign an agreement as soon as possible.

I can assure the member that in the meantime we will make sure that everything possible is done to maintain the quality of the environment of the Great Lakes and to make sure that there is no harm to the environment by reason of the lack of an agreement.

[Environment, April 3rd, 2000]

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

The shipment in question is currently in the United States in a port in California. We are discussing with the department of defence as to how this may be handled. I believe it will visit another American port before coming to Canada and we hope that the American authorities, as the hon. member suggested in his question, will be willing to take this waste into the United States.

[Fisheries, March 31st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has once again changed the terms of his question.

To the original terms of the question the answer was no. He has changed the terms of the question to have me comment upon testimony made yesterday. I will be happy to do that, but I am only allowed 35 seconds on the floor of the House. I do not have time to do that. Let the hon. member go back to the committee and pose the questions himself.

[Environment, March 31st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I really do like the powers that the opposition assigns to ministers of the crown. I can declare that ships will not come to Canada. If I could do that, we would have no problem with illegal immigration. We would have no problem with toxic waste coming to our ports.

When it comes within our waters, we will have some control. It will not come here for another six days. We are currently discussing, with the United States Department of Defence, alternatives to the proposal that has been put forward to ship this waste to Canada.

The hon. member simply does not understand that ministers of the crown cannot, by waving their fingers, have ships turn around in mid-ocean.