David McGuinty

[The Environment, May 15th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the minister knows very well that EnerGuide, a made-to-measure program for Canada, was a huge success.

Can the Minister tell the House when the EnerGuide program fell out of favour with the Conservative government? Was it when the Conservatives were looking for money to finance their budget promises and realized that the coffers were emptying a bit too quickly? Or was it when they abandoned any semblance of financial support for protecting Canada's environment?

[The Environment, May 15th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the government pretends to be looking for a made in Canada solution to global warming. It is really too bad that it has not bothered to look in Canada.

Last week the government cancelled the EnerGuide program that helps Canadians make their homes more energy efficient. According to the World Wildlife Fund, this was an incredibly successful program that has helped hundreds of thousands of Canadian households reduce their energy bills by 30%. CanWest news business editor Bruce Johnstone calls cancelling the program a major and silly “mistake”.

Why would the government abandon a successful, made in Canada program?

[The Environment, May 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment is clearly unable to defend the environment. She cannot even answer a simple question without resorting to empty platitudes.

Yesterday, she talked about the 53 smog days that Toronto had last year, and she is using this to justify her invisible made-in-Canada plan.

Why does the minister not just admit that cutting $500 million in federal funding and eliminating 12 programs will do absolutely nothing to fight climate change and reduce smog?

[The Environment, May 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, as put so eloquently by the late Hank Williams Jr., the Minister of Finance has finally shown us his “cold, cold heart”.

This morning we learn the minister has told his Ontario counterpart that over $500 million in federal funding to fight global warming has been wiped out. That money was a critical component of Ontario's plan to phase out coal-fired energy production in the province. It would have been the equivalent of taking seven million cars off the road.

Why is the government so intent on making the air Ontarians breathe even worse?

[The Environment, May 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, clearly, Canadians should not look to this government for climate change solutions. This much is clear. We know that the current Minister of the Environment was once appointed by Premier Ralph Klein to fight against climate change solutions, including Kyoto. Last week, Gwyn Morgan, a former CEO in the oil industry who is well known for his opposition to the Kyoto accord, was appointed as a senior advisor to the government.

Will the Prime Minister finally admit to this House that he has no new ideas in mind to fight against climate change and that he is quite content to copy the policies of his home province?

[The Environment, May 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear for those of us who are working on new and creative solutions to global warming that this government simply does not get it. Our Minister of the Environment worked with Premier Ralph Klein to fight and take down Kyoto. Just recently, the Prime Minister appointed Gwyn Morgan, a well-known anti-Kyoto industrialist, as a senior adviser.

After signalling to the world that Canada will not cooperate on Kyoto, the government turns around and slashes and burns 15 programs on climate change. My question for the Prime Minister is simple. Is he taking his lead on his so-called made in Canada climate change plan from Ralph Klein, Gwyn Morgan or Washington?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, April 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I share the member's concerns and the notion of a clean water act. I can assure the member and the House of one thing. If the government were to withdraw this country from the Kyoto protocol and the leadership role that Canada has played over the last decade, a mounting 128 signatures to join this Kyoto protocol, we would not tackle seriously together and internationally the whole notion of protecting one single atmosphere.

If the Conservative Party and the government do not understand that, perhaps they should speak to the Canadian Council of Chief Executives who overwhelmingly support the Kyoto protocol and whose companies have moved to embrace it over the last 25 years.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, April 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the first thing I would say to the hon. member is that as a father of four children, I share his deep concern and passion for the child pornography challenges we are facing in the country today. I share his frustration in the limits of the law and the application of the law in terms of arresting the further spreading of child pornography, online or otherwise.

There are risks. We are hearing, for example, in American senate hearings just this week of young people being exposed, at a very young age, to these challenges online. However, as a lawyer, I would also say that it is important for all members to remember that we have to strike a balance here. I believe that the charter is now working for us in terms of its interpretation by the courts. There are some challenges, of course, in terms of sentencing. There are challenges in terms of enforceability, as my local police force reminds me on a regular basis.

Maybe I could just switch the channel for a second and reply to the member that the single most important thing we can do, as a country going forward, is invest in our social and human capital. That means investing in our kids where it counts most. Every child psychologist in the world who is an authority tells us that if we get to our children between the ages of three and seven, we are going to be better prepared for the economic challenges of the future. Even a Conservative government would understand that. I look forward to working with the government on a real child care plan for the country.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, April 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time this afternoon with the member for Vancouver Quadra.

I welcome this opportunity to make a few remarks about the Speech from the Throne presented by the government a few days ago.

Before doing so, however, I would like to sincerely thank the people of Ottawa South for electing me again to the House of Commons as their member of Parliament. For a second time, I make a sincere and single pledge to them. I will work as hard as I can to serve the needs of the people of Ottawa South in order to ensure that our community continues to flourish.

I will do everything in my power to respond to the needs of the people of Ottawa South, and so ensure that our community continues to flourish.

I have so far dedicated my career to solving public welfare and policy issues here in Canada and around the world. Through the great privilege of public office, I hope to continue to use my experience to help the people of Ottawa South and, by extension, the people of Canada.

I look forward to working constructively with this new Conservative government when it makes sense for Canadians and for the people of Ottawa South. On accountability and integrity, for example, I will work tirelessly with the government to rebuild trust between our federal government and the people.

During the recent election campaign, people from Ottawa South opened their doors to me.

The Ottawa South community is facing the same pressures and challenges as many other communities in the country: rapid growth, preserving green spaces, an aging population, health care needs, low cost housing, public transit and higher education, to name just a few.

That is why I am firmly committed to do my share so that the government can undertake a variety of measures to achieve progress in the future.

Each time the residents of Ottawa South open their doors to me I see again how Ottawa South is also a microcosm of Canadian society. With over 80 languages and dialects spoken, our community is proof that people from every walk of life, every race, every creed, and every culture can come together to build a society which is the envy of the world.

I want the House to know that, as Canadians today, we have a special charge, a 21st century responsibility thrust upon us as the world comes together much more quickly than we ever could have anticipated. In short, my community and our country are a project that the world ought to be watching carefully and they are, and we must succeed.

Keeping this in mind, I believe Canadians have serious reservations about the government's approach as laid out in the Speech from the Throne. It aims for a few tentative political points. It does not and cannot be interpreted to amount to a vision. The government across the floor has rejected the tried and true balance of social spending, personal income tax cuts, and debt reduction that has served Canadians so well over the past decade.

In its place we have yet to see an economic blueprint or even some general economic direction for this nation state. Instead, we have a promise to replace fair, productive income tax cuts with a cut to the GST. I am certain that the economists in the Department of Finance have repeated to the government what every other economist in Canada has said. The switch-up does not make any economic sense at all. The balanced approach has seen us lead all G-7 countries in growth and allowed our government to deliver eight surpluses in a row. It will give the government its first balanced budget in the coming weeks.

I know that the Prime Minister understands this. He is an economist by training. But perhaps the economist is not fully prepared to take the bold steps that a Prime Minister must take. Canadians agree that every dollar discharged on our mortgage frees up valuable resources to invest in our common future, but to invest wisely, a government must have a vision.

On their doorsteps I listened as my constituents described the quality of life challenges inherent in our rapidly urbanizing country. The world is urbanizing at breakneck speed and not only in Canada. The question of quality of life in Canadian cities speaks not only to our future as a nation but to our ability to attract capital, to retain the best and brightest minds, and to adjust to our economy in transition. It also speaks to the larger question: how will quality of life be improved for billions of people around the world?

The previous government was right to pursue a progressive and forward looking cities and communities agenda because the world will need the skills, the experience and the knowhow of Canada's cities, our companies and our governments as it struggles to deal with the consequences of rapid urbanization. It is surprising that the current government has neglected cities entirely. Even more surprising is the neglect the government has shown for families.

When my constituents opened their doors to me, I was able to understand their needs and those of their children.

I remember speaking frequently with parents about the need to save the early learning and child care program.

Approximately 84% of children today live with two parents or a single parent who work or study full time. The early learning and child care program represents our most enlightened self-interest. Despite the government's rhetoric, I know that it knows better. It knows better than to waste this unprecedented opportunity to build a national early learning and child care system.

We should invest as early and as often in our children as we possibly can. Studies show that the national early learning and child care plan is the program that can help us most close the poverty gap in 2036.

In a world where a people can borrow their capital, copy their technology and buy their natural resources, the only thing left to us as a country is to develop the smartest people possible. But in order to invest wisely in people, a government must have a vision.

On their doorsteps I shared my concerns with other citizens about the future of our natural environment. My neighbours understand instinctively what science has come to confirm, that the caring capacity of the planet is not limitless, that we must stop a fundamental fiction wherein we believe that we can continue to draw down our natural capital without compromising the planet's regenerative capacity, and that the implementation of the Kyoto accord is indispensable if we do not want to play Russian roulette with the atmosphere.

When the Prime Minister recently met with President Bush and President Fox in Cancun to discuss continental issues, I was pleased to hear the word “energy” being discussed. I was even more pleased to see that we are going to pursue an energy strategy as a continent. The Prime Minister shied away from advocating a continental greenhouse gas reduction strategy. Perhaps he is not fully prepared to take the bold steps that a prime minister must take. To invest wisely, a government must have a vision.

I take great pride in being a Liberal member in this Parliament. I believe liberalism is the outlook best qualified to deal with our world. It is imbued with a spirit of progress and reform, vision and imagination. Liberalism has implicit faith in the power of men and women to do what is good and possible to meet the challenges of the present and the future.

We believe in always striving to improve, not settling for what comes easiest. As such, I believe our opposition reply to the Speech from the Throne demonstrates the best of the Liberal tradition. I would like to cite words written by my own father, words which I would ask others to live by as we work together in this 39th Parliament:

Let us remember that when we leave this earth, we can take with us nothing that we have received--fleeting symbols of honour, trappings of power--but only what we have given: a full heart enriched by honest service, love, sacrifice, and courage.

[Violence Against Women and Children, April 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, violence against women and children is a major recurring social and economic problem in our country.

On April 2, 2006 this fact was highlighted by the murder-suicide of the Mailly family of Cumberland. It appears that François Mailly killed his wife, Francine, and their three children, Jessica, Brandon and Kevin, set the house on fire and then took his own life.

Unfortunately, this type of tragedy is all too common in Canada. Studies have repeatedly shown that women are more at risk from violence in their own homes than they are in the street. It is time that we as a society recognized that the violence experienced by women and children is part of a wider social problem that requires specific attention.

All levels of government must commit to finding solutions and looking for ways to integrate violence prevention strategies in all our social programs.

Our heartfelt condolences to the Mailly family.