Bill Graham

[Softwood Lumber, June 13th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we will see. In fact, as the hon. member for Wascana pointed out yesterday, the free access to the American market guaranteed by this agreement only remains in effect if the market situation stays the same as it was last April. However, as everyone knows, and as we predicted, the market situation has already changed, putting our industry at a disadvantage.

Is this not proof of the Prime Minister's total capitulation to the American forest industry?

[Softwood Lumber, June 13th, 2006]

Let us hope so, Mr. Speaker, but presently the provinces are sounding the alarm over the consequences of the Prime Minister's rush to please the American lumber industry. B.C. is concerned. Ontario and Quebec are concerned as well. Remanufacturers are shut out. The American proposal, as we understand it, rewrites the rules so the Americans can keep illegally collected duties and gut the dispute resolution mechanism which is the very basis of NAFTA.

I ask the Prime Minister again, do his comments yesterday represent an ignorance of the lumber industry, an ignorance of the deal, or an unconditional capitulation to the interests of the United States of America which will threaten the future of free trade between our two countries?

[Softwood Lumber, June 13th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, for many of the reasons we raised in the House some weeks ago, the Prime Minister's rushed and poorly thought out softwood lumber deal is presently unravelling. His comments yesterday that the industry and the provinces support the settlement do not quite square with the facts.

As for the industry, at least 80 Canadian lumber companies have filed suit in the U.S. courts over the last two weeks, and unless they withdraw those actions, the deal is dead on arrival.

I ask the Prime Minister, do his comments yesterday represent an ignorance of the lumber industry, a misunderstanding of the deal that was signed, or ultimately an unconditional capitulation to the lumber interests of the United States of America?

[Canada--U.S. Relations, June 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to represent the riding of Toronto Centre, so I am in the very enclave that is the hotbed of these “radical” discussions.

I am proud of the fact that we have a large Muslim population. They come from all over the world. They are Canadians. They are hard-working, law-respecting members of our community trying to make a better life for themselves and their children.

They do not deserve to be unjustly, improperly and viciously attacked by American lawmakers, but if they are, they expect their Prime Minister and government to stand up and defend them, not attack us for amplifying it. Where is their defence on behalf of the government that is supposed to represent them and represent Canadian values?

[Canada--U.S. Relations, June 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, that is just not good enough. Our very economy is at stake.

When Mr. McKenna was our ambassador, he led a vigorous campaign to thwart this type of misinformation.

When the current Prime Minister was in opposition, he went to the United States to criticize his own country on Fox News.

Why is the Prime Minister not in the United States today to defend our country or at least to do what is necessary to safeguard our reputation and our economy?

[Canada--U.S. Relations, June 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, Congressman Hostettler, the chair of the committee studying the passport law, yesterday described Toronto as a breeding ground for terrorists, referring to south Toronto as the type of “enclave” that breeds radicalism.

We have learned how, if unchallenged, this type of misinformation can spread in the United States. For years after 9/11, congressmen and newspapers were saying that the perpetrators came from Canada.

What is the government doing to stand up to these unjustified and abusive attacks on Canada, making sure that the American media and the politicians understand and speak the truth?

[The Environment, June 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, that is the best argument, and no doubt the reason the Prime Minister just gave is the reason the environment minister did not attend the annual smog summit in Toronto. Instead, the minister found time to speak to the Canadian Club where she attempted to lay the blame for abandoning the fight on climate change at the feet of the underdeveloped countries of the world.

We understand that this is an age-old Conservative reaction; when in doubt if they can blame the poor, that is a great out.

Was the minister's failure to attend the smog summit because she did not want to face an audience that would not accept the rhetoric, or is it because of the Prime Minister's and that party's rejection of the problems of our inner cities? Is that where it comes from?

[The Environment, June 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister's reasoning made sense, eminent economists would never have written him an open letter stating that a made-in-Canada climate policy that does not take into account international cooperation is doomed to be ineffective both environmentally and economically.

Will the Prime Minister finally listen to these eminent economists—not to his own yes-men, but to these economists—and to Canadians and follow through with Kyoto? That is my question.

[The Environment, June 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, condemnation of the government's environmental policy grows louder with each passing day for its abandonment of Kyoto and the environment. It has been criticized by scientists, by provinces and most especially by Canadians. Economists have now added their voices pointing out that abandoning the Kyoto protocol will be a disaster for the Canadian economy.

Clearly, the Prime Minister is not receptive to protecting the Canadian environment. Now it would appear as well that he is not interested in the economic arguments in favour of Kyoto.

Does the Prime Minister reject the premise that meeting our Kyoto objectives will bring substantial benefits to the Canadian economy as eminent economists assured him in a recent letter?

[National Defence, June 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I will repeat the question.

Will the Prime Minister assure the House that any aircraft purchased by Canada, regardless of type and regardless of their country of origin, will be serviced in Canada, under Canadian control, for the benefit of our aviation, our military and our aeronautics industry?