House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2019, with 34% of the vote.
The Environment April 2nd, 2001
Mr. Speaker, obviously in the last number of days the international negotiations with respect to Kyoto have run into difficulty because of the position taken by the United States and because of some of the intransigence shown by other parties, including those in Europe.
The Canadian point of view is that we need to work very hard in the international community, not to showboat or to grandstand but to get an agreement on climate change that will truly work for us and for the world.
The Environment April 2nd, 2001
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has always taken the position that it will make its own decision with respect to ratification. When we believe that the time is right to do so, that timing and that decision will be driven by considerations which are Canadian made. We will not be driven by decisions in other capitals, whether that is Washington or anywhere else.
Natural Resources March 30th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman does not listen. I have said very clearly that we do not agree. We do not agree with the American position.
Kyoto Protocol March 30th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asks us to do something about Kyoto. In fact we are. We are investing over $1.1 billion in climate change solutions.
We will also continue to work with all our international partners to put together an international arrangement that works. We obviously disagree with President Bush's decision and we will work very hard to obtain an international consensus to bring down greenhouse gases and mitigate the problem of climate change.
Kyoto Protocol March 30th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, Canada is very seriously pursuing its international obligations. We negotiated with respect to the Kyoto protocol. We have been very active in the years since Kyoto in not only elaborating upon the international implementation mechanisms but taking action at home in Canada.
Last year in the budget of February and the mini budget in October we committed $1.1 billion over the next five years, which will eliminate 65 megatons of carbon dioxide from our atmosphere.
Natural Resources March 30th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, there is no energy crisis in Canada. We are blessed with enormous assets: conventional fossil fuels, hydro power, heavy oil, the oil sands, new frontiers in the north Atlantic and in the Arctic, plus nuclear, plus a growing portfolio of renewable and alternative fuels, new technologies like fuel cells, and the best energy brain power in the world.
We do not have a crisis but we do have an enormous opportunity to seize that opportunity. We are not pursuing a North American energy policy. We are pursuing the expansion and successful functioning of energy markets in the Canadian interest.
Natural Resources March 30th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada still believes very much in the principles that are contained in the Kyoto protocol.
We signed that protocol in 1998. We have been working assiduously to see that its terms are implemented. Just last year, for example, we invested $1.1 billion to pursue all the initiatives, some 400 initiatives, to implement the principles of the Kyoto protocol.
Natural Resources March 30th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, the position taken by the Government of Canada with respect to the development of our natural resources is a position that is based entirely upon the principles of sustainable development. That means the effective integration of economic, environmental and social considerations.
We have enormous resources to develop. They can be developed to the great advantage of Canadians in terms of jobs and growth and investment, but we will do so very squarely protecting the interests of our environment, our social concerns and, in northern Canada particularly, the concerns of aboriginal Canadians.
Division No. 58 March 28th, 2001
moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in with a further amendment.
Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology Act March 28th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I would like to explain what Motion No. 8 standing in my name is all about with respect to Bill C-4.
It is a consequential and technical amendment. The clause was amended when the bill was before committee. The clause allows members of the foundation to select an auditor at the annual meeting of the members, thereby alleviating the need to hold a separate meeting to appoint the auditor.
The new language of clause 26(1), as amended in committee, is as follows:
At the first meeting of the members, and in any subsequent fiscal year at the annual meeting, the members shall appoint an auditor for.
Upon reviewing the bill and after the committee had finished its work, it became apparent that a consequential amendment was required in subclause 26(3) to make subclause 26(3) consistent with the change made in committee to subclause 26(1).
Accordingly Motion No. 8 now before the House dealing with subclause 26(3) is that consequential amendment to make sure subclause 26(3) at report stage is consistent with the change made during committee hearings to subclause 26(1). It is not a substantive amendment but obviously the two subclauses have to be consistent.