Bill Graham

[National Defence, April 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, all Canadians are saddened by the loss of any brave soldier serving our country. Recently, changes to the way in which our fallen are repatriated home have given rise to serious concerns among Canadians and members of this House.

Will the Prime Minister please inform the House what is his government's policy concerning the repatriation of soldiers who make the ultimate sacrifice for their country and how can we ensure their respect?

[Gasoline Prices, April 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is always the same old story and always the same answers. The former government is criticized rather than looking toward the future. Answers are needed for the future.

Last week, the Prime Minister was reminded of his commitment regarding gas prices. Contrary to his firm position in the past, now that he is in power, he is telling us to get used to the price.

The Prime Minister is proving to be a turncoat. He is changing his colours once again. Will he finally do what is right? Will he keep his word and reduce fuel taxes for Canadians?

[Government Appointments, April 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is one more in the continuing pattern of flip-flops that we see from the government. There have been flip-flops on cutting taxes, on access to information, on appointing unelected senators, on floor crossing, and the list goes on and on.

Now the Prime Minister has appointed his Conservative fundraiser as chair of the public appointments commission.

We heard the Prime Minister in his recent speeches talk about appointing only the most qualified people. Is it not a stretch for the Prime Minister to say that the only qualified person for that job was his close friend and fundraiser?

[Canada-U.S. Border, April 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of Public Safety assured the nation that American passport law will not apply to Canadians. He said that Americans and Canadians will keep their traditional free access across our open border, but American officials immediately contradicted his position.

Today we have the sorry spectacle of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Public Safety all contradicting themselves on this issue of national importance. Canadians cannot tolerate this form of ad hoc confusion.

When can Canadians expect a clear answer from the government on this important issue?

[Federal Accountability Act, April 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we oppose those propositions for exactly the reason that we are upset today. They are totally and utterly inadequate. The Globe and Mail observed today that this commitment to access to information, which was the core of his promise to clean up government, just is not there.

Earlier today the President of the Treasury Board spoke of earning the trust of Canadians. Does the Prime Minister really believe that this failure to live up to the campaign commitments will earn the trust of Canadians?

[Federal Accountability Act, April 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about sweeping. I must say that during the last election campaign, the Prime Minister said, and I quote, “a Conservative government will implement the Information Commissioner’s recommendations for reform of the Access to Information Act”. There was no ambiguity during the election campaign.

The Prime Minister was never afraid to speak his mind. Today it is clear that he is more about talking than action.

Was it the thirst for power that brought on such a radical change?

[Federal Accountability Act, April 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign we heard a lot of promises about the legislation introduced today. Where is there something in the bill to stem the flood of Conservative staffers now lobbying their bosses in cabinet? Where is the Prime Minister's pledge to implement the Information Commissioner's recommendations?

Yesterday, the President of the Treasury Board told the House that the government would proceed with all its campaign promises. However this selective accountability act hardly achieves that.

Maybe it is time for the Prime Minister to come clean with the House and tell Canadians that he has no intention whatsoever of living up to those campaign promises.

[Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan, April 10th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, I totally agree with the hon. member that we should not seek in the House to demonize one another and to stifle honest debate.

The hon. member asked two questions. She said that she on behalf of her troops, those who live in her riding, those who have families and who are serving in the theatre, want questions asked: is the mission achievable and is it in accordance with our international obligations?

Does she take the position that it is not achievable? Does she take the position that it is not in accordance with international obligations? If not, why is she asking these questions, because how could she possibly pretend that it would not demoralize our troops if she was standing in the House and saying it is not an achievable mission and it is not in accordance with our international obligations? It does not make any sense.

This is not to demonize anybody. This is to have a debate about what this is. Our troops know that they are there not to solve this problem, but to set the conditions wherein a political solution can be achieved. But they must be allowed to set those conditions in a way in which they are allowed to achieve that, because we have faith in their judgment and we understand they are the best troops in the world that understand how to go about doing this mission.

Anything less, I suggest, is to undermine their capacity to do what we have sent them there to do.

[Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan, April 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. minister for his speech, which I might say, in all respect and friendship to the minister as a colleague, I found some traces of an earlier speech that was made in the House on this subject last November around these issues.

I am very pleased that the government agreed to this debate tonight. We, on our side of the House, do not consider this a debate. We believe this is an opportunity to allow the Canadian public to better understand this mission.

I want to start by echoing the minister's words about how we support our troops. We are very proud of them.

There are few people who can appreciate, unless one is actually in Afghanistan to see our troops, challenged as they are, the job they do. As the minister pointed out and as anyone who has been there will know, they are able to fight when they have to fight, but they are there primarily to help the Afghan people. A young officer like Lieutenant now Captain Greene almost lost his life because he went to a village shura and was sitting down with the very people that he was there to help. That is the image of Canadian troops.

It is a different way of going about this mission. We are confident they will do it in a way where, yes, they can fight, but at the same time they will establish links with the Afghan people so the Afghans will know they are there to serve them, and Canadians can do it better than anybody else in the world.

My question to the minister is this. There has been a lot of comment in the press about the fact that this mission is coalition-led, that this is an American mission we are participating in, not a NATO mission. Is it not correct that in June of this year this will become a NATO mission? The Afghan government wished this to be a NATO mission and Canada, by taking the lead in this mission with our Dutch and British colleagues, is enabling the very thing which the critics of the mission ignore; that is a transfer from being a coalition American mission to a NATO mission. In fact, it is the courageous acts of the Canadians that will allow this to become a truly international mission in Afghanistan for the interests of Afghans.

[Child Care, April 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, ultimately what the Prime Minister's plan will involve is slashing almost $4 billion from child care funding in the country. In Ontario alone, cancelling the child care agreements will cancel 11,000 spaces. What does the government offer in return? Less than $4 taxable a day.

In Ontario, under the Harris government, we saw federal payments to low income families clawed back. Will the Prime Minister assure the House that the provinces will not claw back the money that he will give to low income families in our country so they can have the same child care advantages that other people in the country--