Joe Comartin

[Question No. 48, February 7th, 2003]

With respect to the government's fleet of over twenty-three thousand vehicles, in total and by each department and agency respectively: ( a ) how many vehicles use alternative transportation fuels (ATFs), are physically capable of using ATFs, are hybrid gasoline-electric vehicles, or are electric vehicles; ( b ) how many Cabinet Minister and Secretary of State vehicles meet any of the conditions listed in part (a); ( c ) how many Deputy Minister, Assistant Deputy Minister, Prime Minister Office or Privy Council Office vehicles meet any of the conditions listed in part (a); and ( d ) does the Prime Minister's vehicle meet any of the conditions listed in part (a), if not why not?

(Return tabled.)

[Black History Month, February 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, February is Black History Month, a month in which we recognize the significant contributions that people of black heritage have made to Canada.

As a major terminal on the underground railway, Windsor was a central destination for those escaping slavery in the U.S., many of whom settled in and greatly enriched the development of the Windsor region.

Black Canadians have, in the fields of science, medicine, business, the military, politics, arts and sports, made Canada a richer country. In every walk of life, people of black heritage have played an important but unfortunately often overlooked role in the development and growth of this nation.

During Black History Month and throughout the year I encourage people to celebrate our diverse multicultural heritage. In particular, I encourage my colleagues to take the time to celebrate the many contributions that people of black heritage have made to Canada.

[Automobile Industry, January 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, we have seen thousands of jobs in the auto sector lost to the United States and Mexico because the government has a lack of commitment to provide serious assistance. Meanwhile, states like Georgia and Alabama have provided hundreds of millions of dollars to encourage companies to locate in those states in the U.S. There is no similar commitment here in Canada.

Discussions are now underway with DaimlerChrysler to locate a state of the art plant in Windsor. Both the union and the company have come to the table and reached satisfactory arrangements to keep that production here.

Will the Minister of Industry match that? Will he get--

[Iraq, January 29th, 2003]

Madam Chairman, my colleague across the way has made some comments about the application of the rule of law. I have two questions.

If the United Nations were to authorize a mandate to use military force against the regime in Iraq, would the member agree with me that there is no one else in the world who can determine whether that mandate is in compliance with international law and the charter of the United Nations, that in fact the only people in this country who can determine whether in fact we should follow that mandate are the people who sit in the House? Therefore, would he agree that we should have a vote in the House before a determination is made as to whether we comply with the mandate and involve ourselves in a military action?

There are two questions. Are we the final decision makers? Second, should we have a vote?

[The Environment, January 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this month the Minister of the Environment had a discussion with the head of the United States Environmental Protection Agency over the loosening of some EPA regulations for 18,000 coal fired power plants and said that it would not have an impact on air quality in Canada.

In the context of the fact that we have 5,000 deaths that are air pollution related and in the context that a great deal of that air pollution from the United States ends up in southern Canada, and in particular in my home city of Windsor, is the minister really serious? Does he believe that by loosening those regulations that--

[Iraq, January 29th, 2003]

Madam Chairman, given the significance my colleague across the way places on the role Canada should be playing, can she agree with me that this is of such paramount importance, as a political policy issue for this country, that there should be a vote in the House before a decision is made as to whether or not we will declare war on Iraq?

[Iraq, January 29th, 2003]

Madam Chairman, my question is for my colleague in the Progressive Conservative Party. We keep hearing from the United States that it has additional evidence from its intelligence sources. We do not see it. Would the member agree with me that the logical thing to allow the inspectors to do the best possible job, the most effective job, would be for the Americans, if they have that information, to share it and share it immediately?

[Kyoto Protocol, December 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, as a party we are always offended when we see government motions for time allocation or closure, and we feel that way with regard to this one, although, as we have made very clear, we are in support of the resolution to move ahead on Kyoto and that we should do so as quickly as possible.

We are actually confronted here as a House with a government that is trying to ram this resolution through after some five years of opportunities to move the process along. At the last minute, it is caught by the Prime Minister's decisions, and we are faced with the question of why it has taken so long. What has happened from 1997 to about six months ago when the Prime Minister finally decided he would ratify Kyoto? What has the government done to work on the implementation program?

[Kyoto Protocol, December 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, let me respond to the point on losing the plants from my area. I understand that. The member obviously does not. The lack of knowledge in that party is just so amazing. Those plants are having to compete under a trade arrangement that party supports, not one that we do. We are losing those plants because the states in the U.S. are able to bid under the NAFTA agreement for those plants. That is why they are going there. It has nothing to do with anything else. It certainly has nothing to do with environmental standards. That is such a joke.

I think I have used up my time, but I would love to go on for another hour.

[Kyoto Protocol, December 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am hearing some comments from the Alliance about the Bush administration working with the states. New York state would be very interested to take that issue on, because it is currently suing the U.S. administration, as are a number of other states including Illinois, because of the practices and policies of that government.

The reality, as we have heard in terms of this bilateral agreement that has been initiated by the maritime provinces and some of the northeastern states, is that all of the activity in the United States that is progressive and meaningful in terms of dealing with the issue of greenhouse gas emissions and, I will add to that, air pollution generally, is coming from the states. It is not coming from the federal government. They are in fact fighting rearguard actions all the time against the Bush administration and the steps it is taking to protect its friends in the oil industry, at least those of them who are so antiquated that they do not understand what their responsibilities are in dealing with the issues of Kyoto and air pollution more generally.

I do welcome the initiative that we have seen from the northeastern states, with New York I think being the leader in that regard, and the maritime provinces because they do recognize the problems that we are confronting.

The same air pollution that floats through Windsor and Essex County eventually moves its way across into the Maritimes and into the northeastern states. I think that is why they have been so progressive in the activities that they have carried on with and continue to do in spite of all the rearguard fighting they have do against the Bush administration.