House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2004, with 58% of the vote.
Agriculture March 10th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, if hon. members opposite were truly serious about getting the border open and working with the Minister of Agriculture they would not be standing in this House day after day criticizing what the government is doing.
This government is doing everything possible. The opposition would be better served if it took a proactive approach instead of a negative approach.
Question No. 66 March 10th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, the response is as follows: (a) The government has not yet finalized the energy science and technology strategy. Therefore, it has not made decisions regarding future funding for specific science and technology areas.
(b) The federal government will announce a plan to meet its greenhouse gas emission reduction targets under the Kyoto protocol in the near future.
(c) The federal government does not currently have estimates on the level of emissions that could be reduces as a result of tidal and wave energy projects. Such estimates would depend on the performance of the new technologies, or the number and size of future installations, and on the type of electricity generation replaced by tidal and wave energy projects.
(d) The government has not yet finalized the energy science and technology strategy. Therefore, it has not made decisions regarding future funding for specific science and technology areas and cannot estimate the amount of electrical power that could be generated as a result of support to the tidal and wave energy industry.
(e) The government has not yet finalized the energy science and technology strategy. Therefore, it has not made decisions regarding future funding for specific science and technology areas.
Forestry February 25th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member stood to ask the last question and said that the Government of Canada had done absolutely nothing to help with the problem of the pine beetle. I said clearly that we put in $40 million, and that is far from nothing. That is a fact.
We are working with the province on research and we are working with it on a daily basis. As I said, we will continue to work with it, and we do recognize how serious the problem is.
Forestry February 25th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, it is amazing how many people from the opposition would get up and ask a question, do absolutely no research and not know what they are talking about. To say we have done absolutely nothing is absolutely false. First, we have already put $40 million into working with the B.C. government and the industry to find a way to deal with the mountain pine beetle.
To say we have done nothing is absolutely false. We will do much more.
The Environment February 25th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Industry and myself have had several weeks of ongoing discussions with the auto industry. In negotiations from day to day there are always things that will come up on which there will have to be a further agreement.
I have full confidence that at the end of the day we will work out an agreement to the satisfaction of the auto industry and to the environment and government.
The Environment February 25th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the hon. member that he eliminate the word if. There is no if. We are going to reduce the auto industry targets by 5.2 megatonnes. We have 14 previous agreements. The auto industry is bringing forward new technology all the time.
Eliminate the word if. There is no doubt in our mind that the reductions will be made in the right way and not according to the member's way.
The Environment February 25th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member could not be any more wrong in his assumptions in the statement he just made. He is absolutely wrong.
We have 14 previous voluntary agreements with the auto industry. We are now close to signing another voluntary agreement where we will reduce by more than 25% over the target.
What the hon. member should do is work with the people in Canada and not be critical of the target. We are moving the file forward.
Supply February 17th, 2005
Madam Speaker, the member misunderstood what my colleague said. He did not say what the member just stated. We very clearly support the voluntary approach. Negotiations are going on with the industry and we will wait to see at the end of the day how this will work out.
Let us look at what is happening in the United States. I think that is where there is a bit of confusion. We are very happy with what is going on in Canada today. We should be talking more about what we have actually accomplished with the Kyoto protocol, the amount of emissions that is actually being reduced from the atmosphere compared with the growing economy.
For anyone to say that nothing is happening in Canada is absolutely wrong. Canada is leading in the world in what we have already accomplished, but we certainly will need to do more and we will continue to do more.
Supply February 17th, 2005
Madam Chair, I fail to understand why the critics of the Kyoto protocol do not do some factual research. Canadians are inspired and they are taking up the challenge to carry out each of their responsibilities. The old billing efficiency program is going very well.
What the hon. member should keep in mind is that while Canada has made major improvements in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the economy has grown by 40%. Therefore we have to look at the balance.
Is he suggesting that we should shut down every single industry in this country? Members from western Canada would have something to say about that, as well as people from all over Canada. Canada is doing a great deal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but we all realize, as the Minister of the Environment will say, there is more to do.
Supply February 17th, 2005
Madam Speaker, I should give my hon. colleague some advice. When I was on the opposition side from 1985 to 1989, I never asked a question or made a comment in the House in those days when I did not know the answer.
The hon. member should do some research, and the number is 5.2 megatons.