Bill Graham

[Softwood Lumber, June 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the softwood lumber agreement is increasingly being perceived by Canadians as good for the American industry and bad for Canada.

This week the Free Trade Lumber Council said the deal guarantees that for the next seven to nine years there will not be free trade in lumber. The U.S. wants managed trade and there is no doubt who will be the manager. Others are telling us that by abandoning our hard won victories under NAFTA the government is also abandoning the very principles of free trade for all Canadian industries.

Will the Prime Minister please tell the House why he is in such a rush to craft a deal that destroys the very underpinnings of our free trade with the United States across the board?

[Canada-U.S. Relations, May 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary will have to face the embarrassing fact that the Ontario legislature recently endorsed a motion condemning the policy of his government and saying that this plan of the Americans will cause unnecessary damage to our economy. The hon. parliamentary secretary and his party might like to know that this motion was introduced by the leader of the Conservative Party.

Some members will recall the Prime Minister having turned his back on the premier of Ontario when he went to dine with him. Would the Prime Minister listen to the premiers, the tourism industry and his own Conservative colleague and stand up to the Americans on this issue? Or is going to he lead us to his own--

[Canada-U.S. Relations, May 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, as usual, the facts have nothing to do with the answer we have been given. The American ambassador was at least honest with Canadians: he does not think that the Prime Minister’s wishful thinking will become reality and that one way or another enforcement of this policy can be pushed back to the last minute. The western premiers have told us that the implementation of this unnecessary legislation will have a disastrous impact on trade and tourism.

Is there no one in this government who is prepared to defend Canada’s interests, or will it be left to the provinces to do that?

[Canada-U.S. Relations, May 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the passport issue shows the point to which this government regularly and consistently gives in to American demands. After he met with President Bush, the Prime Minister told us that it is a fait accompli and so we should just accept it. Fortunately, the provinces do not give in as easily as the Prime Minister.

Will he listen to the provincial premiers or will he leave it up to the provinces to fly the Canadian flag and defend our rights against President Bush’s administration?

[Canada Elections Act, May 30th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has yet to explain to the House and the Canadian public why his press release talks about eliminating the opportunity of governing parties to manipulate the time of an election for partisan advantage, while at the same time providing that the Governor General has unusual powers to do whatever the Prime Minister asks her to do.

Those two propositions are totally inconsistent. The government gives the impression that it is flying by the seat of its pants. It scribbles down laws on the back of an envelope, which mislead rather than solve the problems of Canadians.

This is a constant series of sneaking constitutional amendments by legislative sloppiness. When will this end and can we deal with this in an intelligent parliamentary way?

[Canada Elections Act, May 30th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, that is the whole point. This is just an illusion the government is trying to create around the idea of electoral reform.

The government told Canadians that providing fixed dates for elections every four years would eliminate partisanship, but the bill does not go anywhere near that. Again, there is a huge gap between what the government says and what it does.

If this act were enacted, the Prime Minister could go to the Governor General at any time and still ask for a snap election. Why does the legislation not specifically preclude the Prime Minister from seeking an early election or is this legislation designed to mislead the people rather than protect our democracy?

[Canada Elections Act, May 30th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we showed to what extent the government dissimulates the truth and today we have even more evidence.

This morning, the government tabled its bill to supposedly allow fixed date elections. However, as usual, the difference between the legislation and expectations is shocking. Contrary to the government's press release, the bill still allows the Governor General to launch an election at any time and still at the request of the Prime Minister.

Why is the government presenting a bill that differs from its political message?

[The Environment, May 29th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we also hear this sort of double talk when it comes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The government talks about reductions but cuts funding.

The governments of Quebec and Manitoba are calling on the government to respect the Kyoto protocol. Today, no one in Canada or abroad knows where the Minister of the Environment really stands.

Will the Prime Minister finally tell us whether he intends to honour our national and international commitments?

[Child Care, May 29th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's answer totally demonstrates how far out of touch he is with reality.

The Ontario minister was stunned by the Prime Minister's recent claims that the Liberal government created no real spaces. Last week she said, “I do not know what to say to that, except to say that it is wrong”.

In the riding of the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, 100 child care spots have been opened as a result of the agreement and another 60 spaces were slated to open next year. Today, all of this is at risk.

Would the Prime Minister admit that the Liberal plan was working and it is only partisan ideology that keeps the government from implementing a much needed early learning and child care system for our country?

[Child Care, May 29th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians have a growing understanding that the government's child care scheme will fail them. Ontario's Minister of Children and Youth Services said, “The Conservative plan betrays Ontarians because it offers no money to cover operating costs”.

The British Columbia minister said that she knows of no business or community organization prepared to buy into the proposed tax deductions.

However, the government is determined to press ahead with the very deduction that it knows failed to create a single space under Mike Harris.

When will the Prime Minister listen to the provinces that are actually engaged in delivering child care and implement the child care agreements they signed and they know are crucial to the future of Canadian children?