Peter Kent

[The Environment, May 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I would correct my hon. friend. She is wrong. The environment commissioner is wrong. In fact, if the—

[The Environment, May 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to correct my colleague's impression and that, as a matter of fact, of the environment commissioner. While it is true that about 4,000 to 5,000 screenings are completed each year under the current Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the vast majority of these are very small projects that pose little or no environmental risk.

Under the new act, the focus will be on projects that pose high risks to the environment and the actual number of federal panels or standard environmental assessments will actually number in the hundreds.

[The Environment, May 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question, but it misrepresents and exaggerates what she is talking about.

Information that is relevant to our government's development of industrial smoke stack emissions regulation is available through a variety of sources, including the provinces and industry itself. Environment Canada will continue to work with other jurisdictions and with other expert bodies to ensure high standards to protect human health and the environment.

[Questions on the Order Paper, May 18th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), Ssince January 1, 2006, Parks Canada has not sold, subdivided, leased, or in any other way alienated or dealt with its holdings of real property on the east side of Little Lake in Peterborough, Ontario.

With regard to (b), Parks Canada is not considering doing so.

With regard to (c), Ssince the answer to (a) is no, this is not applicable.

With regard to (d), Parks Canada has not communicated with any federal or provincial parliamentarians regarding Government of Canada holdings of real property on the east side of Little Lake in Peterborough, Ontario.

[Parks Canada, May 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I provided an answer to this question when it was raised by the Bloc Québécois more than a week ago. That answer is we appreciate that these valuable artifacts should be on display, where possible, in museums appropriate for their exhibition. In the short term, there is no location. They will be stored. They will remain in Quebec. We are looking at a number of opportunities for those artifacts to be displayed again in museums in appropriate locations in Quebec.

[The Environment, May 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, again the hon. Leader of the Opposition shows his fixation with carbon taxation, which is something this government has repeatedly said it will not impose on Canadians. We will not attack jobs. We will not threaten investment or our recovering economy.

With regard to the cost of inaction on climate change, those costs would run into many billions of dollars.

I would ask my colleague to familiarize himself with the Environment Canada website.

[The Environment, May 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague again for her question.

The government is acting. In fact, we are the first government in this country that has taken real action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Our sector-by-sector approach to reduce GHGs is working. It is leading to innovation, fuel efficiencies, new technologies and real reduction of GHGs.

There was a delay before our government came to power in 2006, of course. We only need to look to the previous Liberal government's decade of environmental lip service and inaction.

[The Environment, May 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about who is throwing whom under buses.

My colleague travels abroad to lobby against Canadian jobs and responsible resource development. Her leader dismisses responsible resource development as a disease, playing one region of the country against another. Now he is saying that Ontario's forest industry is responsible and afflicted with this same disease.

I would think that the official opposition should get its own house in order and organize its incoherent policy stances before it criticizes this government.

[Business of Supply, May 16th, 2012]

First, Mr. Chair, the term that I used was a figure of speech. I could have used greenwashing. I could have used whitewashing and, as I have said in this House, I could have used shell game or three card monte, which is also an offence under the Canadian Criminal Code. However, these are only offences if criminal proceeds are involved.

It is a figure of speech. I am delighted that it caught the attention of those charities that may have been compromising their status. I am glad if it has caught the attention of the opposition and I am glad it has caught the attention of the Canadian public. I would hope that those charitable organization, which do have the benefit of charitable status, will conform with CRA regulation.

With regard to my early Christmas present, our government, since coming to power in 2006, had stated quite clearly that the Kyoto protocol was one of the largest single mistakes made by the previous Liberal government with any thought or consideration or due diligence. It was my honour to represent Canada, both at the Durban conference in December and upon the--

[Business of Supply, May 16th, 2012]

The short answer, Mr. Chair, is no. Our government appreciates the great service that charities across the spectrum provide in adding and supplementing in areas where government cannot necessarily provide services. Charities provide great support in areas of culture, the arts and, indeed, in health care and academia.

My points were referenced and included the environmental non-governmental organizations. My remarks reflected our government's concern about a small number of agencies in Canada with charitable status which, as evidence accumulates almost by the day, were putting their charitable status at risk by behaviour and by actions that were in violation of CRA regulation.