David McGuinty

[The Environment, March 31st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment has known for more than one year that his so-called green plan will result in considerable, irreversible damage to our planet. He cannot deny it. His own science adviser warned him about it. Today, researchers, economists, environmentalists and even the department's own employees are sounding the alarm and the minister continues to ignore them.

When will the government abandon its strategy of denial, delay and trickery?

[The Environment, March 31st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the planet will suffer irreversible damage if we do not limit global warming to 2°. The UN knows it, scientists know it, economists know it, and the minister's own chief scientific adviser has been telling him that for over a year. But the only bright lights emanating from the government were the lights left on at 24 Sussex when the Prime Minister snubbed Earth Hour on Saturday.

After two years and no regulation, when will the government finally listen to the warnings and act with the determination shown by millions of Canadians on Saturday night?

[Committees of the House, March 14th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, as a member of Parliament in this House, I am shocked by what I have heard here from my colleague, the chair of the standing committee. It is more than disturbing.

In a question for my colleague, to paraphrase Mr. Mulroney himself, let me say that the government here, sir, has an option. It has an option and that is to proceed in an open, transparent way.

I would like to hear more from my colleague, more information, more shocking revelations, as we have heard from the senator today. I would like to hear more from my colleague to substantiate his call for a fully open, funded, properly empowered inquiry to get to the bottom of this, because I think it speaks directly to the whole question of the office of the prime minister and whether it has been brought into disrepute and sullied.

What exactly happened here? I really need to know more and I think Canadians deserve to know more as well. Perhaps I could put that question to my colleague.

[Citizenship and Immigration, March 14th, 2008]

Some progress, Mr. Speaker. The backlog has increased by 100,000 in 26 months. I would ask the minister to get to work and not by closing the doors on immigrants.

Let us be clear. The Conservatives say that Canada has received 429,000 newcomers, but that number has been falsely inflated by temporary workers and students.

Why is the government trying to distract people from its plan to significantly reduce the number of newcomers by fudging the numbers and tooting its own horn about its pathetic record on immigration?

[Citizenship and Immigration, March 14th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the government is so desperate to close the door on immigrants that it will ignore the painful mistakes of previous Conservative governments that tried to do the very same thing. Diefenbaker tried to shut out immigrants by capping the system only to abandon his plan a month later because his policies were short-sighted and misguided.

Why does the minister insist on closing Canada's doors to the newcomers we desperately need to fuel our labour and population growth even though history shows this is absolutely the wrong approach?

[The Environment, March 11th, 2008]

We saw his resolve in Walkerton, Mr. Speaker. That is where we saw his resolve.

A plan to combat climate change was ready when the Conservatives came to power. They ignored it. Now the Conservatives have a plan with no regulations, with objectives beyond reach, criticized by environmentalists and a source of shame for Canada internationally.

When will the government acknowledge its failure and submit an ambitious plan that will give Canadians real results?

[The Environment, March 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the government quietly released an update to its sham of a climate change plan.

It is the minister's 3D plan and it goes like this: for 10 years, deny the existence of climate change, then delay action, and finally, to complete the trilogy, deceive the Canadian people. Deny, delay, deceive.

Yesterday the minister presented nothing, no regulations, no analysis, and no support from any group anywhere. The minister is just not paying attention. When will the Prime Minister give Canada a minister who is focusing on his job, and is not consumed with legal and ethical problems of his own making?

[Business of Supply, March 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is very revealing going to the character and value of government. The numbers cited by the member are the numbers that were cited by the Minister of the Environment at the Senate committee when he mounted an attack on the Kyoto protocol implementation act for Canada.

I will again ask the member and the government to table one shred of analysis but, of course, there is none. What we found out was that the government was just making it up. When people do not have evidence, they bamboozle and raise their voice but they do not actually answer with evidence.

The challenge for Canadians, who now know that they need to cut through the noise, is to understand that there is no climate change--

[Business of Supply, March 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am in agreement with the NDP environment critic but I am also in agreement with the Prime Minister who, when as leader of the opposition, was asked about abstaining on the Liberal government's 2005 budget vote. This speaks to my earlier comments. The Prime Minister said:

What's become apparent is that the Bloc Québécois and the NDP will grandstand on these things [but] it is up to us in the Conservative Party to decide whether the time has come to have an election. In our judgment -- I think in Canadians' judgment -- it is not that time.

The Leader of the Opposition will decide in due course when the time is right.

It is important to be honest with Canadians that part and parcel of the motion put by the NDP is a partisan tactic. We are not prepared to have the Conservative government's four or five scandals swept off the table because we believe it is important for Canadians to get the true sense, the nature, the values, the approach and the tactics of the Prime Minister. Whether it is the Brodie affair, the Minister of the Environment's meddling in municipal affairs and all kinds of other things, we really want Canadians to get a sense of the in and out scandal. We want them to get a sense of exactly what kind of government we are dealing with.

[Business of Supply, March 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, those remarks are hardly worth stooping for.

I would like to go back to some of the evidence around the government's turning the corner plan.

The Pembina Institute is now saying that the government has little chance of meeting its target whatsoever. It says that there are at least eight loopholes and gaps that undermine the credibility of the government's target for 2020.

The World Wildlife Fund and the Tyndall Centre have said that the government has set reduction targets that are well below what is achievable, and, in some cases, cuts that have already been achieved in the oil sands by companies operating there are well below what the industry already plans to do. My that is aspirational.

The proposed plan means that the windfall profit for tar sands companies could be in the order of $30 million to $700 million, according to the report.

The C.D. Howe Institute says that the government is likely to miss its 2020 emissions target by almost 200 megatons.

The National Energy Board says that under two of its three scenarios, greenhouse gas emissions will continue to rise.

It is all there in black and white. The government does not have a track record.

With respect to the member's personal comments, I will leave that to the voters of Nepean--Carleton to decide.