Bill Graham

[Agriculture, May 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we got complete bafflegab from the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food about immediate assistance for farmers spring planting. Recently 10,000 farmers stood on Parliament Hill pleading for spring planting assistance. They need the money to put crops in the ground now, not in the distant future like other promises of the government.

Since the minister will not answer, will the Prime Minister give farmers a straight answer today: Will they or will they not have money for their spring planting?

[The Budget, May 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, this is a budget that ignores a number of issues. Aboriginal peoples have been ignored by the government. Access to day care has been ignored by the government. Innovation and productivity have been ignored by the government. And environmental measures have definitely been ignored by the government.

The Minister of the Environment has clearly thrown in the towel. How can she explain her inability to find the funds needed to protect Canada's environment?

[The Budget, May 3rd, 2006]

He should tell that to the aboriginal people of our country, Mr. Speaker.

It took 18 months for the Liberal government to pull together the provinces and native communities for a historic agreement. It took the Conservatives 18 words in the budget to rip it up. The Conservative premier of Alberta has condemned what they have done. He said he preferred the Liberal plan, that the Liberal plan was better.

Why has the Prime Minister given up on the aboriginal people, the first nations of our country?

[The Budget, May 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, all the congratulatory S. O. 31s from the members opposite cannot hide the fact that yesterday the country saw its first neo-conservative budget, a budget that puts right-wing philosophy ahead of the good of the country and puts wealthy Canadians ahead of poor Canadians. It is a budget that attacks the future of our children, abandons our responsibility for the environment, and is designed to make sure that aboriginal Canadians come last. On top of that, the budget raises income taxes on those who earn the least and benefits those who earn the most.

Why did the Prime Minister not tell the country in his campaign that one of his five priorities would be to raise income tax for the poorest of Canadians?

[Access to Information, May 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, there are consultation meetings and then there are ratification meetings. It is the latter that the government opposite is holding. It does not want to consult, it just wants to get its actions ratified. The Commissioner has told us that the effect of this legislation will be to weaken the Commissioner’s oversight role and increase the government’s ability to cover up wrongdoing.

Does the Prime Minister now intend to respect the words of his own Information Commissioner so that we in this House can pass legislation which reflects his pertinent opinions?

[Access to Information, May 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the President of the Treasury Board, who sometimes uses vocabulary that runs ahead of himself a bit, described the criticisms of the Information Commissioner as extreme and over the top.

However, during the election campaign, the Prime Minister pledged to implement the Information Commissioner's recommendations. When the Prime Minister extended the term of the Information Commissioner, he expressed a desire to have the benefit of the commissioner's views.

Why will the Prime Minister not now recognize that, as the Information Commissioner says, these new proposals actually reduce the amount of information available to the public as a result of the government's policies?

[Access to Information, May 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister spoke in the House about his election promise to implement the Information Commissioner's recommendations for greater access to information.

Now we learn that the government did not even consult with the Information Commissioner until after it tabled its new legislation in the House. The Information Commissioner offered to work with the new government before it introduced the legislation. It did not even bother to return his calls.

Why did the government ignore the views of the very parliamentary officer who was so important to it during the election campaign?

[Darfur, May 1st, 2006]

Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the minister for his extensive review of what has taken place up to now, Canada's extensive contribution to what is taking place in Darfur, and his recognition that the previous contribution was very much balanced around the fact that this was an African Union mission supported by the United Nations, one where Canada could play its most important role by supporting the African Union.

He made it very clear tonight that the prospects for a lasting peace in the region and the end of the suffering for the people there requires a more extensive form of international commitment, which would include diplomatic, United Nations and other activities. He would appreciate, of course, that all of us understand that in this type of situation, the primary condition for peace is the establishment of stability. That stability can only come with the provision of troops that have rules of engagement which would allow them to enforce a mission which would establish that. The African Union have done their best. We have supported them with equipment, helicopters, mobile vehicles and money, as the minister has said.

Is it now time that we can expect the government to either share with the House or with the Canadian people its plans for the deployment of troops in this area? Do we have the troops available should they be called upon to take part in a United Nations mission? The minister seemed to indicate clearly to the House this evening that it is expected to come forward shortly?

[Access to Information, May 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is boasting again. He was bragging yesterday about championing reform to access to information and respecting the work of the Information Commissioner. Today, however, the commissioner is saying that the text of proposed legislation is nothing but a bureaucratic dream. It is a bureaucratic dream, but a nightmare for anyone wanting access to information in this country.

Will the Prime Minister promise today to implement the commissioner's recommendations, like he promised us during the last election campaign?

[Access to Information, May 1st, 2006]

Reservations, Mr. Speaker. No previous government has put forward a more retrograde and dangerous set of proposals is what the commissioner said, proposals that actually reduce the amount of information available to the public. We could not get a more damning condemnation from a more credible source.

Why will the Prime Minister not listen to the leading expert in the country who he boasted about before and fully implement his recommendations as promised in the last election?