David McGuinty

[Court Challenges Program, May 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the court challenges program defended minority community rights in Canada. One of the most renowned cases was of course the Montfort Hospital.

We remember how the environment minister kept silent when he was minister responsible for official languages in Ontario. In fact, he tried to shut it down and a whole community had to fight to save the only francophone hospital in the province. The community could not count on its minister but at least it had the court challenges program.

Will the Prime Minister now admit that without the court challenges program the three Mike Harris retreads on his front bench would have succeeded in shutting down the Montfort?

[Business of Supply, May 10th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to put to my colleague, who gave a very good speech, a couple of other facts and get his reaction in terms of how he thinks past behaviour affects future behaviour in terms of economic competence.

Here we have three members of the government's cabinet, the Minister of Health, the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Finance, who left their previous incarnation in the province of Ontario and left behind a $5.6 billion deficit, a $20 billion increase in the provincial debt through money borrowed on international markets, and a $30 billion infrastructure deficit. As well, they announced the budget in a car parts factory.

Finally, we see, as the member has pointed out, GST cuts that make no sense and a tax deductible transit pass that is ridiculous, and 250,000 child care spaces never materialized.

My question for my colleague is this: how can we believe anything this Minister of Finance says given his past record and the legacy of misery he left the province of Ontario?

[The Environment, May 8th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the minister speaks about turning the corner. I do not know how the minister expects to turn the corner when the wheels are completely off his feebated Chevy.

Toxics Watch says that smog levels in the oil sands will exceed Canadian health standards in five years. The Sierra Club said that Albertans will suffer poor air quality as a result of the government's eco-fraud plan.

Since the environment minister's credibility is now eroding precisely at par with that of the Minister of National Defence, will he simply release the full cost benefit analysis that he was required to do and present to cabinet weeks ago before the regulation got there?

[The Environment, May 8th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians have just learned that two key smog-creating pollutants emitted by the oil and gas industry will be exempt from regulation.

The government repeatedly makes claims that economists reject, scientists contradict and environmentalists have declared a simple fraud.

When will the government admit it is recklessly allowing emissions to rise for the next decade, despite a negative impact on our economy, our air quality and our health? When will the minister back up his numbers with details instead of doublespeak and buffoonery? Will Chicken Little admit his plan is a sham?

[The Environment, May 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of the Environment announced that he wants to impose on Canadian businesses a carbon tax of $100 per tonne, or maybe $200 per tonne, or perhaps an amount in between the two. It seems that he is panicking and making it up as he goes along; he sounds desperate.

When making last week's announcement, how could the minister forget the most important measure of his environmental plan? Will he admit that he only thought of it at the last minute or is he making it up, as usual?

[The Environment, May 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, after failing to defend his green plan, the environment minister has returned to making things up as he goes along. Yesterday the minister suddenly announced that his green sham contains a $100 to $200 a tonne carbon tax for industry.

Today the health minister tried to prop him up by claiming that allowing absolute emissions to increase will--wait for it--save lives, but there is not a shred of evidence to support any of these claims.

Before the minister presents his regulations for cabinet approval, he is required to prepare and produce a formal impact statement. Will the minister table his department's analysis immediately? Or does he have one?

[The Environment, April 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, after saying that Canada needed a new clean air act, the Conservatives presented a plan that will allow emissions to continue to increase for the next 10 years. To do so, they decided to use the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, completely contradicting their claims that Bill C-30 was needed.

Will the minister finally put an end to his campaign of misinformation and nonsense, and will he bring Bill C-30 back before the House for a vote?

[The Environment, April 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the nonsense in that answer was intensity based or absolute.

[The Environment, April 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, under last week's green scam, large polluters will not have to start cutting emissions intensity until 2010, while start-ups will get a free pass for the next five years.

All this plan does is it allows for an increase in absolute greenhouse gas emissions. It is no wonder Suzuki calls it an embarrassment and Gore calls it a fraud. Now the head of the UN climate change office says that we can meet our Kyoto commitment, but that this plan falls well short.

Instead of lashing out at critics, why does the environment minister not demonstrate how this defeatist plan will actually reduce greenhouse gases in absolute terms?

[The Environment, April 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the government has officially announced that it will ignore the Kyoto targets, it will ignore the Kyoto timelines, it will ignore the science of Kyoto, it will ignore environmentalists like David Suzuki and it will ignore the recommendations of the parliamentary committee.

It is a sham that prevents Canadians from using most of Kyoto's tools and that delays action for more than a decade. It is pure political hyped theatre of the absurd.

Will the Conservatives stop the doublespeak and deceit and bring their own bill, Bill C-30, back to this House so Canadians can get a real plan for our environment?