Bill Graham

[National Defence, June 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, let us take the government at its word. Let us assume it is looking at such an aircraft. Let us establish the fact right now that if it does decide to proceed with those aircraft, they will be Canadian owned but they will be maintained as if they were American.

For all intents and purposes to the United States, they will be maintained when the Americans feel like, when they can fit them in, and they will take off from American bases when the Americans let them.

At least hypothetically, will the Prime Minister assure the House that any military aircraft purchased by Canada will be based in Canada, serviced here by Canadian companies and Canadian workers?

[National Defence, June 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, previous answers furnished by the government in the House have studiously avoided the issues around the government's intent to proceed with the sole source contract in the United States for strategic airlift.

The Conservatives undertook to purchase such aircraft, and the Minister of National Defence clearly wants to purchase the American C-17 aircraft. The Chief of the Defence Staff has made it clear that the support of our troops in the field, in Afghanistan, requires tactical airlift, and Mr. Speaker and members of the House, they require it now.

Are we not now at the point where the Prime Minister is putting his political agenda ahead of the needs of our troops?

[Public Safety, June 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, hockey aside, statements made by certain members of Congress are unacceptable. One member of Congress claimed that our immigration system is responsible for the presence of many members of al-Qaeda in this country. Canadians are justifiably proud of our immigration system, which is based on the values of acceptance and respect.

Since the government is so proud of being in with the Bush administration and has so much contact with it, as the Prime Minister said, how will he defend the values upon which our Canadian immigration system is based before the U.S. Congress?

[Public Safety, June 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, that is all very well, but members will recall that the former ambassador often took to the airwaves directly to defend Canada's interests and to respond directly to damaging inaccurate attacks. Unfortunately, American legislators have also joined the chorus of who blames Canada. One has said there is a large al-Qaeda presence in Canada. Another calls for a physical barrier along with the rapid implementation of the new U.S. passport law.

How does the Prime Minister intend to take these issues directly to American lawmakers? He must act before his visit in July because most American legislators will not be in Washington when he gets there. He must be careful to give an answer in the House which is more responsive than his answer yesterday about the Oilers, which seemed to have jinxed them in their game last night.

[Public Safety, June 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, some American media are seriously distorting the reality around last weekend's arrests in Toronto. CNN labeled one report “the enemy north of the border”. On the FOX news channel, the Prime Minister's network of choice in the past, our border was labelled a gateway for terrorists, all of which is affecting our ability to resolve key issues like the border and passports.

What specific actions has the Prime Minister taken, or directed our ambassador to take, to respond to these inaccurate and damaging media reports south of the border?

[Public Safety, June 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister referred to community actions. Unfortunately, this weekend, a Toronto mosque was vandalized.

The members of this House condemn all acts of aggression against a religious group in our country. We must never allow terrorist threats to compromise our values of tolerance, openness and respect for others.

What will the government do to reassure Canada's Muslims, who simply want respect, tolerance and peace?

[Public Safety, June 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I echo the Prime Minister's comments about the increased security measures in place since 2002 and the great efforts that Canada has made in terms of border security and international cooperation, supported by all members of the House.

Some American legislators, unfortunately, and inflammatory media commentators have described Canada as a haven for terrorists, with a large al-Qaeda presence. For this, they blame Canada's immigration system, the very system that has helped us build the country that we are proud to serve in today.

What actions, would the Prime Minister tell the House, is the government taking to respond to these inaccurate attacks on Canada's immigration policies?

[Public Safety, June 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians were shocked to learn of this weekend's arrests in Toronto.

All Canadians, I am sure, will join members in congratulating our security and intelligence services, and the extraordinary work they have done in this case involving sensitive investigations going well back into last year.

Obviously, the cooperation between CSIS, the RCMP and local police authorities is instrumental for the successful completion of this type of operation.

Will the Prime Minister please advise the House as to the present status of this matter?

[Aboriginal Affairs, June 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians will keep asking questions about the softwood lumber deal.

However, it has been brought to my attention today that at the public accounts committee the member for Prince Albert actually stated that aboriginal Canadians live in a Marxist paradise. Members of the House will no doubt recall that Karl Marx famously said, “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs”.

Where is the ability of this hon. member and what are the real needs of our aboriginal peoples if they are to be treated thus? Given the Prime Minister's distaste for the Kelowna accord, can he tell us what his party means by a Marxist paradise for--

[Softwood Lumber, June 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the softwood lumber agreement reached by this government with the Americans is undoubtedly more advantageous for American producers than for Canadian producers. The Prime Minister may call it a historic agreement—it is historic for Americans. But Canadian producers do not see it that way. Several reports by industry experts have now shown this.

Will this government finally acknowledge that it has placed the entire forest industry, and all our exporters, in a difficult position with this ill-fated agreement?