House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2015, with 46% of the vote.
The Environment May 26th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, that from the member who, on the last Friday of Parliament, attacked the scientists. He attacked first nations on climate change. Now he is attacking the government on climate change.
The government is committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, a mess that the former Liberal government left. Those members should be ashamed to be even standing in the House and asking any questions about the environment.
The Environment May 16th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, the member does not understand how the Species at Risk Act works. He needs to go back and read the act.
Independent Canadian scientists were consulted and they made the recommendation. This government has consulted scientists. We have consulted the Inuit first nation.
Why is that member attacking first nations? Why is he attacking Canadian scientists? Shame on him.
The Environment May 16th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, the member also knows the commitment of the government to clean up waterways.
We are the first government that is stopping the dumping of raw sewage, another legacy of the Liberal government. It was Liberal policy that it was an acceptable practice to dump raw sewage. It is not with this government. We are cleaning up the environment.
The Environment May 16th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, as the member well knows, the government is committed to a cleaner environment. After a decade of denial, a decade of neglect from the Liberals, it is this government that is protecting species at risk. This government is cleaning up the environmental mess left by the Liberals. It is this government that is actually doing something on the environment.
Petitions May 8th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present a petition from constituents in my riding of Langley. It is a petition on prolific property offenders. It states that property crime is a serious offence that affects most people and often results in huge financial losses and significant emotional upset due to the loss of security at home.
It states that a majority of property offences are committed by a minority of prolific offenders; that it appears property offences are treated as insignificant and minor by enforcement agencies and the justice system; that the fears and concerns of victims are often left unaddressed by the enforcement agencies or the criminal justice system; that repeated claims compromise the ability of homeowners to receive their home insurance; and that the government has the responsibility to ensure safety and security for its citizens.
They therefore ask that the House of Commons enact specific and precise legislation to deal appropriately with prolific property crime offenders.
Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 May 2nd, 2008
Mr. Speaker, I have a further question on why the NDP voted against Bill C-33 yesterday. It was the only party that voted against Bill C-33. It voted against Nahanni, against the Great Bear rain forest and against the $9 billion environmental dollars.
I would ask the minister why members of the NDP are opposed to good environmental practices but on the other side they talk like they are green but in fact are climate change deniers. Why is that?
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member that climate change is a very serious issue. That is why this government is now taking action. It is unfortunate that for 13 long years the previous government did not do anything. However, now we have the toughest target in Canadian history, and that is an absolute reduction of 20% by 2020. Also, we are seeing greenhouse gas emissions reduced by 150 megatonnes. Those are the toughest targets in Canadian history. We are already seeing the positive results of getting it done.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was quite right when he said that Environment Canada has within its ranks some of the brightest and best scientists in the world. I actually got to meet many of them, and celebrated and congratulated them for their successes, as he pointed out, as Nobel Peace Prize winners on the environment. He also knows this government is very committed to seeing the end of 13 long years of Liberal neglect on the environment. This government is very committed to getting it done on the environment.
As I said, the hon. member is quite right that the brightest minds are right here in Canada. We are very proud of them. The rest of what the hon. member said was simply not true.
The fact is that the media relations policy exists to support and to ensure that media inquiries are addressed quickly, accurately, and in a consistent way right across Canada. I encourage the hon. member to take a closer look at the federal government's communications policy which was first introduced when he was a minister, when his Liberal Party was the government of the day.
If he reads it, he will find the following, “Institutions must ensure processes and procedures are in place to assist managers and employees in responding to media calls”. Actually, his party was government when this was the policy, and it continues to be the policy.
Environment Canada's policy merely responds to the requirement set forth in the communications policy. It also falls in line with the policies that guide and govern media relations practices in all the federal government departments. There are very similar communications policies used in the private business and not for profit sectors. To be clear, Environment Canada asks that requests be run through its media relations officer in order to better ensure that subject matter experts are made available to speak to the media on complex and technical issues, and to be kept fully informed on what is being asked of its employees.
Scientists will continue to be able to speak directly to the media on their specific areas of expertise. Environment Canada's media relations policy is quite clearly based on the elements of good government and common sense. We are there to meet with the media. As I said at the beginning, the claims of the member are not true.
Budget Implementation Act, 2008 April 10th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague very intently. He touched on a number of issues.
I would like to ask him why he voted against the environment when he voted against providing funding of $1.5 million to help the provinces improve their environmental positions by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Why did he vote against providing $30 million to the Great Bear Rainforest? Why has he voted against carbon capture and sequestration? It is a technology in which Canada is a world leader but he voted against that.
On one hand, the NDP speaks as though it supports the environment, but when it actually comes down to voting for funding for the environment, the NDP votes against it. Why is that? Why do we see that inconsistency in the NDP?
Budget Implementation Act, 2008 April 10th, 2008
How are you going to vote?