Paul Dewar

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, November 21st, 2007]

With respect to climate change: (a) what studies and evaluations about intensity-based targets have been undertaken, requested or commissioned by the government and (i) what is the cost of these studies, (ii) what are the findings and recommendations of these studies; (b) what recommendations does the government agree with; (c) what scientific and economic studies did the Prime Minister rely on to make his June 4, 2007, speech in Berlin, Germany, endorsing the use of intensity-based targets to fight climate change; (d) what studies and evaluations with respect to intensity-based targets have been requested or commissioned by either the departments of Environment or Natural Resources to be undertaken before December 31, 2007; (e) what studies, reports and recommendations have already been presented to the government prior to January 2006 with respect to intensity-based targets and which departments prepared these studies; and (f) with specific reference to the climate change debate, on an annual basis for the last five fiscal years, specifying for what research projects and which departments granted the funds, what amount of funding has the government provided directly or indirectly to (i) Dr. Tim Ball, (ii) Tom Harris or the Natural Stewardship Project, (iii) Dr. Ian Clark, University of Ottawa, (iv) Dr. Tim Patterson, Carleton University?

[Justice, November 20th, 2007]

That was not my question, Mr. Speaker. It was about government policy. The Conservatives are changing Canada's position on the death penalty by stealth. When we contrast the government's actions in the case of Canadians on death row with its actions on behalf of a millionaire in jail, the Conservative position is perplexing and downright illogical.

Could the minister explain how he assigns priority to clemency and transfer cases and what makes the case of Mr. Kapoustin worthy of government lobbying, but not the case of a Canadian about to be killed?

[Justice, November 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the government's refusal to ask for clemency for a Canadian on death row is immoral. By their actions, the Conservatives have sentenced a Canadian to death with no formal announcement, no notice of the new policy and no debate. Meanwhile, the government has placed the case of a Canadian in a Bulgarian prison at the top of its priority list.

Why is the minister trying to hid the government's new position on the death penalty and why is the Bulgarian case taking so much precedence over a Canadian about to be executed?

[Petitions, November 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a petition on behalf of constituents and citizens of Ottawa.

The petition calls on the government to lift visa requirements for the Republic of Poland. Poland has been a member of the EU since May 1, 2004. Canadian citizens do not require visitor visas to visit Poland. The petitioners are asking that a reciprocal agreement be made by the Government of Canada.

[Constitution Act, 2007 (Senate tenure), November 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the member's comments on the Senate and I am not clear where the party stands on the bill. What would he say to the position of the Ontario government, in particular the Liberal premier of Ontario? They are on the record that their position presently, unless it has changed recently, is the abolition of the Senate.

Has the member had conversations with the premier of Ontario, or for that matter his brother who sits close to him, about this issue? At the end of the day, if this does not work, if the real reform that is necessary is not limits of eight years but limits of zero years, does he agree with the Ontario government and the Liberal premier of Ontario that abolition of the Senate is the way to go?

[Constitution Act, 2007 (Senate tenure), November 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make sure we hold to the same standard for all members here. The government member previous to me gave a little speech a minute ago, but I will be succinct.

When we look at the bill, what we see is that the government is tinkering. At the end of the day, we are asking if this is enough. That is my question for my colleague. Is this enough to actually make the Senate a democratic institution? Is this tinkering enough or should we be doing more?

If this bill and the other bill for Senate reform are all we have, is it enough? Does the hon. member think his constituents will be happy with that or do they need more?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, November 16th, 2007]

With regard to the government's intention to harmonize regulations on pesticide residue limits for fruits and vegetables with those of the United States: (a) what evidence does the government have that shows that there will not be an increase in pesticide residue on fruits and vegetables; (b) what safeguards are in place to ensure that Canadians are not exposed to higher levels of pesticide residue on fruits and vegetables; (c) will independent and peer-review tests continue to be used to determine pesticide limits and the cumulative effect of the resulting residue on health and the environment; and (d) what are the implications to Canada's sovereign right to determine regulatory standards, affecting Canadian food security and food safety, in adopting foreign standards for regulations of pesticide residue limits?

[Afghanistan, November 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, there is more. On April 23 diplomats told Ottawa that the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission was “unable to monitor the condition of detainees as per their agreement with Canadians...”. The very next day, the former defence minister told the House that the “Commission has assured us that it will report any abuse of prisoners”. He said, “It is able to monitor all the prisoners”.

Is the government finally willing to admit it has been caught? Is it willing to admit that it is in violation of the Geneva Convention or do the Conservatives believe the Geneva Conventions are simply a suggestion list?

[Afghanistan, November 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government has been forced by a judge to release documents the NDP has been demanding for months. In the heavily censored documents, we have confirmed three key facts.

One: the government was aware of conditions in Afghan prisons at the same time ministers claimed they knew nothing. Two: Canada is incapable of tracking all of its prisoners in over 600 Afghan prisons. Three: the detainee agreement is not being respected.

Why, when it promised it would do better, is the government just as bad on the detainee issue as the previous Liberal government was ?

[Green Communities, November 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the community of Old Ottawa East in my riding has declared itself a green community dedicated to sustainability. This community is taking leadership where the government has failed.

The Glebe Community Association has resolved the Glebe to be a pesticide free neighbourhood. Old Ottawa South has committed to renovating the Old Firehall with the highest green standards. Every community association in my riding is fighting for better public transportation, preservation of green space, green development and sustainability.

As the member of Parliament for Ottawa Centre, I support our communities' actions on the environment.

This grassroots movement is taking the lead on sustainability, but they cannot do it alone. They need sustained funding and good green policies from government. I call on the federal government to support the leadership shown by these community associations so that we may achieve a green and sustainable Canada.