Bill Graham

[Aboriginal Affairs, June 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, in contrast to the absolutely disdainful attitude of this government and this member, the parties to the Kelowna accord—the leaders of our aboriginal communities and the provincial and territorial first ministers—agree on one thing: this accord established a framework for addressing the serious problems of our aboriginal communities in a consistent and practical way. This government scrapped the accord without coming up with an alternate plan.

Why did the Prime Minister break this historic agreement between the Canadian government and Canada's aboriginal peoples and citizens?

[Aboriginal Affairs, June 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it may have taken the Liberal government 13 years to put together an historic accord for the aboriginal peoples of Canada and for Canadians. It took that government 13 days to turn its back on the possibility of an aboriginal accord. It is disgraceful. It is not acceptable in the House to continually throw out historic agreements.

In that precedent, a mood was set, a new mood for our aboriginal peoples. It was a commitment of all levels of government. Every premier across the country called upon it as a great move forward. This was no Liberal commitment. It was Canada's commitment. The Conservatives turned their back on Canada. They turned their back on the commitment of Canadians for our aboriginal people. It is not acceptable.

[Aboriginal Affairs, June 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, today in the House we call on the House to direct the attention of Canadians to the need improve the quality of life of our aboriginal peoples, the quality of their housing, health, clean water, education and economic opportunity, our daily reproach to Canadians who live in one of the most fortunate and prosperous countries in the world.

The Kelowna accord represented an opportunity to break out of this situation, to turn the page, to start a new non-confrontational approach to our dealings with our aboriginal peoples.

Why has the Prime Minister turned his back on this historic opportunity for our aboriginal peoples and for Canadian society?

[Softwood Lumber, June 15th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, during these negotiations, the U.S. Court of International Trade must reach a decision—soon—which, if it is in line with previous decisions, will confirm that our country respects its international commitments. In that event, the tariffs illegally collected by the Americans have to be paid back in full to Canadian producers.

I am asking the Prime Minister today if he will commit to not signing any agreement until the U.S. Court of International Trade renders a decision, in order to have greater clarity on the matter.

[Softwood Lumber, June 15th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker,luckily we are here. While the Minister of International Trade claims that the agreement represents stability for our softwood lumber producers, the U.S. Department of Commerce is about to dramatically increase tariffs in order to force us to abandon our management practices of our own forests.

It is precisely this type of action that a real softwood lumber agreement should eliminate. Will the Prime Minister commit to rejecting an agreement that gives the Americans the last word on how we manage our own resources in our own country?

[Softwood Lumber, June 15th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's enthusiasm for any softwood lumber deal which he and the trade minister have been trying to force on the provinces and the industry always seemed to us to be both misplaced and premature. Today the deal is clearly unravelling. Negotiations have stalled and it is unclear under what conditions they will resume.

Ironically, this delay is being greeted with relief by the producers because it will stop the government from trying to force a bad deal on the Canadian lumber industry.

Will the Prime Minister commit today that any deal he signs on softwood lumber will comply with the North American Free Trade Agreement and not serve to undermine it as the present terms of this deal clearly would be?

[Points of Order, June 14th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, during question period the hon. government House leader suggested that I had used the term “Italian salute” in my question.

In my question, I used the term “bras d'honneur”, as the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine also did.

If the hon. government House leader had been listening to the question as asked rather than the translation, which he depends upon, he would have known what terms were used by the Liberals in the official language of our country when we spoke it at the time. We at no time would ever disrespect our Italian colleagues. We have too many in the House and too many constituents who we respect and admire.

[Decorum, June 14th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, since the hon. members opposite seem to believe that what they said is acceptable to the Canadian public, perhaps you might ask that your dignities and privileges as the Speaker of the House be protected, because the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board last night was making ridiculous comments in your respect and mocking you, Mr. Speaker, and with you, the dignity of the members of the House and every Canadian citizen that sent us here to respect our democracy.

When you are doing that, Mr. Speaker, you might speak up on behalf of the dignity of the House, since the members opposite will not do that.

[Decorum, June 14th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, that is all well and good, but a picture is worth a thousand words. The image of the parliamentary secretary giving farmers the finger speaks volumes about this government’s contempt for farming and its attitude toward this House.

I therefore again ask the Prime Minister to denounce this insult to our farmers and direct the parliamentary secretary to apologize for what he did yesterday, which was unworthy of this House.

[Decorum, June 14th, 2006]

Precisely, Mr. Speaker, it was regrettable that last night all of us in the House witnessed members of the Conservative caucus acting in a totally unacceptable manner. We raise the matter today because these actions were not simply insulting to Parliament, but showed contempt and disrespect for all Canadians in this institution.

The obscene gestures made in the House by the parliamentary secretaries for agriculture and the Treasury Board reveal an attitude that is an insult to our democracy and to the Canadian people who sent us here to do serious work.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would call upon the Prime Minister to either direct his colleagues to apologize unequivocally, or does he condone these actions?