Ralph Goodale

[Gasoline Prices, April 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the study that was undertaken by the conference board was obviously a very independent and professional study. I would point out that the conference board includes in its ranks a number of eminent organizations from the province of Quebec, including the Quebec department of natural resources. The study should have some credibility on that basis.

The issue of the regulation of consumer prices of petroleum products is very squarely within the jurisdiction of the provinces, not the Government of Canada but the provinces. I would like to know from the hon. gentleman if is recommending a federal intrusion in provincial jurisdiction.

[Natural Resources, April 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman obviously belongs to a party that believes it is impossible to walk and chew gum at the same time.

The opportunities for Canadians in dealing with the energy supply situation in North America are wonderful. While we pursue those opportunities we will make sure that Canadian needs and priorities are met, that our concerns about jurisdictional prerogatives are satisfied, and that sustainable development will be the principle upon which our resources are developed for the advantage of Canadians.

[Division No. 75, April 23rd, 2001]

moved that a ways and means motion respecting the long term management of nuclear fuel waste, laid upon the table on Thursday, April 5, be concurred in.

[Taxation, April 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is referring to thirdhand press reports that clearly are false and wrong.

Today the Prime Minister is addressing the Canadian Petroleum Producers Association in Calgary. He will make the position of the Government of Canada very clear. It will be very, very positive.

[Ways And Means, April 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83(1) I wish to table a notice of a ways and means motion respecting the long term management of nuclear fuel waste, and I ask that an order of the day be designated for consideration of the motion.

[The Environment, April 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, a federal-provincial-territorial process was conducted before the Kyoto protocol.

Since the Kyoto protocol, in complete collaboration with all the provinces, all the territories, all the municipalities, the private sector, the scientific community and environmental organizations, we have had two years of consultation. Some 450 individual Canadians representing every aspect of Canadian life have been involved.

Based upon that we have a Canadian implementation strategy. We have business plan and we have invested $1.1 billion to achieve the objective.

[The Environment, April 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the question is interesting because of the previous position taken by the Alliance Party, which has always been to oppose the Kyoto protocol.

Our view of the matter is that the international negotiations remain ongoing. Canada will play a very constructive role in those negotiations to try to achieve an international agreement that will work for Canada and for the world.

In the meantime, domestically we have already announced our action plan, which is $1.1 billion that will take 65 megatons of carbon out of our atmosphere.

[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.