David McGuinty

[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.

[BioNorth, November 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, this morning I was pleased to open the 12th annual BioNorth, Canada's international biotechnology and life sciences conference and exhibition presented by the Ottawa Life Sciences Council. I am proud to say that the Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto biotech triangle is second in the world only to California's cluster.

This year, BioNorth focuses on the commercialization of Canada's extensive and tremendous level of research. Our government has committed more than $2 billion over the next five years to sustain Canada's global lead in university-based research.

Thanks to an outstanding business climate, the private sector is now spending more than $3 billion a year in life sciences R and D and is responsible for over 70,000 Canadian jobs.

Innovation is at the core of Canada's economic success. We are working hard with Canada's entrepreneurs and Canada's investors to secure innovation, growth and prosperity for all Canadians.

[Telecommunications Act, November 25th, 2005]

My understanding of the bill is clearly that the cost of maintaining this list will be passed on to the telemarketers themselves, except those exempt parties, which will be forced to maintain their own lists. Those exempted parties like registered charities or political parties will be forced to maintain their own separate lists.

I think this is an apples and oranges scenario. I think we are talking about two different things. We are talking about Canadian citizens who decide not to receive unwanted telemarketing calls actually having to register themselves with the do not call registry operator, whether that is the CRTC itself or a third party. I think the whole question of access to telephone numbers in phone book white pages is another matter.

My understanding of the bill is that it does not treat the question of delisting one's telephone number from standard white pages. That is another matter. I am quite sure, if I understand the bill in its entirety, that no cost will occur or accrue to the average Canadian citizen who wants to get on such a list and stop being harassed, particularly at dinnertime.

[Telecommunications Act, November 25th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting comment from the member of the Conservative Party. I share his concern with respect to the costs when it comes to operationalizing the system.

If he has read and understood the bill, he will know that in fact the costs of maintaining and running the registry list are passed off to non-government actors. Therefore, and first, I think we and the Canadian public should keep in mind the fact that this is a very good balance between a government setting a regime which will regulate and help control the problem, this nuisance, in fact, while at the same time striking the balance in terms of costs.

I think it is very difficult to draw any kind of logical cause and effect relationship between this kind of system and the gun registry and the trials and tribulations in setting up a very difficult system across the country to regulate something as potentially dangerous as unregistered firearms.

To repeat myself, I also like the fact that the CRTC has recommended, and it is possible, that a third party actor be called upon to administer this. Given the Conservative Party's propensity for believing that all things in the private sector happen to be more efficient than all things in the public sector, a notion that I do not particularly accept, as I say, given that party's preponderance for such a belief, which informs that party, it should be quite happy with the fact that there is a strong possibility that the third party running the list will be a private company.

[Telecommunications Act, November 25th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Bloc Québécois colleague for his preliminary comments. I congratulate him for being here so that we may all work together in this House. That is precisely the objective the government has pursued for the past 18 months. We are trying to maintain a constructive agenda as parliamentarians and as a government. I hope that the vote held on Monday will be in favour of the government so that we may continue to work as colleagues in the House. That remains to be seen.

With respect to the amendment of the Senate that effectively caps to a total of $1,500, for example, for individual offences, far be it from the House to question the wisdom of the Senate with respect to that amendment.

I would probably say that it has more to do with, and perhaps everything to do with, the flexibility that the system will require. Sometimes the best way to start with a major system like a do not call registry is simply to start. Once the system is up and running, we will be in a position to review it, hopefully within a year of its operation, and as the member rightly points out, with mandatory three year reviews built into the act.

I think the balance that has been struck in the registry, which also gives the CRTC the right to hire a third party to create it, will tell us fairly quickly, particularly if it is a private sector third party, how well the fining provisions are actually working. We need to slowly ramp up the system across the country. It will be new. There would be some onus on average citizens who do not want to receive such calls to register themselves on the list. I like the fact that even those exempt parties would be required to maintain a list.

I think that what we are really getting to here, and what my colleague rightly points out, is that there is pretty well unanimous support in the House for some type of system to really deal with the commercial telemarketing problem that we have in the country.

That reminds me, of course, of the famous scene from the comedy Seinfeld , in which Mr. Seinfeld receives a phone call in the middle of his dinner from an unwanted commercial telemarketer. He picks up the phone and says, “I'm sorry, I can't speak to you now but if you give me your number at home, I will call you at dinner hour”. The point is that Canadians are quite intolerant of the system now. I think this actually strikes the right balance. I welcome the Senate amendments.

[Telecommunications Act, November 25th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise this morning to begin the House consideration of Senate amendments to Bill C-37, an act to amend the Telecommunications Act.

Bill C-37 would help protect Canadians from unwanted telemarketing phone calls by establishing the legislative framework for the creation of a national do not call list. To achieve this end, the bill would provide the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, CRTC, with the powers necessary to establish a more effective regime to protect consumers against unsolicited telemarketing, while at the same time protecting their privacy.

Bill C-37 would enable the CRTC to do three fundamental things. First, it would allow the CRTC to impose administrative monetary penalties similar to fines for non-compliance; second, it would allow the CRTC to establish a third party administrator if it so desires to operate a database; and third, it would give the CRTC the ability to set fees to recover the costs associated with maintaining the do not call registry list.

The costs of maintaining such a list would include database maintenance, complaint processing, and investigation and enforcement costs. The CRTC has recommended that a third party administrator should be selected to maintain the national do not call list.

Bill C-37 would amend the Telecommunications Act to allow for a third party administrator and to allow also for cost recovery. It is expected that costs will be recovered from the telemarketing industry itself. Although the precise cost of running such a list will be dependent on the implementation details that will be determined by the CRTC, proven examples from the United States and the United Kingdom demonstrate this to be a straightforward, easily implementable and cost-effective system.

Bill C-37 seeks to balance the wishes of Canadian consumers for privacy and protection from unwanted calls while, at the same time, recognizing the need for legitimate telemarketing companies to conduct their business in a regulatory framework that enables them to do so.

As such, Bill C-37 contains a number of legislative exemptions, including organizations that would be exempted from the national list for calls. These exemptions include: registered charities, companies with existing business relationships with Canadian consumers, and calls from newspapers and from political parties. These exempt organizations would be required to maintain individual do not call lists.

In addition, survey and polling firms will also be exempt from a do not call list and would continue to be allowed to collect the views of every Canadian.

The other place has recommended two fundamental amendments to Bill C-37. The first is that the annual report which the CRTC would file on the operation of the do not call list be tabled by the minister before each House of Parliament. This amendment simply extends the requirement to table an annual report on the operation of the national do not call list to both Houses of Parliament, the House of Commons and the Senate.

The second amendment would allow flexibility in the dollar amounts imposed for infractions for fines of a do not call list. The amendment recommends that the administrative monetary penalty provision be changed from fixed or set amounts of $1,500 per offence for an individual and $15,000 per offence for a corporation to making these amounts the maximum amounts of the fine per offence.

By passing this bill we would enable the CRTC to do its job and to move forward on this issue. The CRTC would undertake further consultations to address issues such as fees and the selection of an administrative organization for the list. The CRTC expects that it would have a national do not call list up and running 19 months after Bill C-37 becomes law.

Bill C-37 requires that after three years a committee of the House of Commons or the Senate or both would be designated to review the administration and the operation of the national do not call list. This means that there would be parliamentary review of the do not call framework once the list has been operational for a little more than just one year. Parliament would at that time be able to consider the effectiveness of the list.

We have heard from Canadians from coast to coast to coast on this issue. The reality is that the inability to control telemarketing continues to be a pervasive source of frustration.

In 2003, Environics conducted a survey on consumer attitudes toward telemarketing. It concluded that 97% of respondents reported a negative reaction to unsolicited calls. Let me repeat that: 97% of respondents reported a negative reaction. Of those, 38% said they merely tolerate the calls, 35% reported being annoyed by them, and 24% said they simply hated receiving them.

Bill C-37 responds to the concerns of Canadians. They are fed up with unwanted, unsolicited telemarketing calls and they want an effective solution.

I will end my remarks with the following. Canadian consumers are overwhelmingly in favour of a national do not call list for controlling unwanted telephone solicitation. Survey results indicate that 79% of respondents support the creation of a national do not call list. Some two-thirds have indicated that they would likely sign up for the do not call list.

The time has come for an effective approach to regulating unsolicited telemarketing, an approach that would benefit both consumers and the telemarketing sector, and striking, I believe, the appropriate balance. I urge all hon. members of this House to pass this bill, as amended by the Senate, to give individual Canadians an easy way to curtail intrusive telemarketing and to protect their privacy.

[50th Anniversary of UNICEF, October 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 50th anniversary of UNICEF Canada and, this evening, millions of children in Canada will collect money for UNICEF.

It was 50 years ago today that Canadians first found little goblins at their doors trick or treating for donations to UNICEF. As a former officer with UNICEF in west Africa, I can speak first-hand about the importance of these donations.

UNICEF is dedicated to protecting the rights of children and depends entirely on donations.

Since 1955 Canadian children have raised $87 million for UNICEF. This year's goal is to raise $4 million for schools, teacher training, and books in Africa.

I encourage all Canadians to put aside a few loonies tonight for the good goblins with the bright orange boxes. I congratulate UNICEF Canada on its 50th anniversary.

[Public Works and Government Services, October 25th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of Public Works, as part of budget 2005, produced a sweeping strategy to improve federal procurement. On the whole, the vision is timely. It should improve management and save money, but some are concerned about the impacts these changes will have on small business. Some 65% of Canadian jobs and 75% of job growth comes from small business.

Could the minister explain to the House how his new small business office will assure that small businesses fully participate in federal government procurements?

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated that the hon. member opened his remarks by referring to a dream, but by the end of his remarks it was either a fantasy or a nightmare. It may be that his remarks were cast in the darkness. They were not at all hopeful. Also, I do not think they were reflective of reality.

Let us talk about post-secondary education for a moment and the government's performance. Since the year 2000, $11 million in millennium scholarships have been distributed to constituents in my riding of Ottawa South.

Home ownership set a record all-time high. Interest rates have been the lowest in real terms since 1951. The Canada pension plan has been single-handedly rescued by this administration in terms of pensions.

In terms of cities and communities, the plan of the government is endorsed by the 25 big city mayors while the Leader of the Opposition walks around the country and tells the Federation of Canadian Municipalities that we should not be involved in any way, shape or form in cities or communities. This is an unreal dream.

On the environment he mentioned contaminated sites. The government, in its own house in order initiatives, has quantified its magnitude of liability, is now describing that liability and is moving to clean up its own federal sites. That is a wonderful progressive move forward.

Finally, on federal-provincial cooperation, in my own home province, in 18 months we have signed with the new Ontario government 10 major deals, which is 10 more deals than the previous Conservative administration did in eight years.

My question is simple. Is it a dream or is it a nightmare?