Bill Graham

[Canada-EU Summit, November 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we all know why the Prime Minister has cut and run from this meeting. He is afraid to defend his policy on climate change before European leaders. We all know the Prime Minister does not like criticism and will not tolerate dissent very well.

However, our relationship with Europe is far too important to risk just because of the Prime Minister's thin skin. He should go to Finland. The official opposition is prepared to enter into a House order ensuring that the government will be in no danger of defeat while the Prime Minister is away.

Will the Prime Minister accept this guarantee and put the interests of Canada ahead of his unwillingness to deal with criticisms over his indefensible environmental policies?

[Canada-EU Summit, November 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the European Union is made up of 25 countries with a population of half a billion people. Today it is the largest global, economic entity and represents 20% of world trade.

Canada has very important trade and investment links at stake in Europe. Our close ties are historical and millions of Canadians have origins and family there, which is why Canada worked so hard to establish a privileged relationship with the European Union involving twice yearly summits, once in Europe and once in Canada.

How can the Prime Minister pull out of the Canada-EU summit? How can he justify this decision when he will already be in Europe for a meeting of NATO anyway?

[Income Trusts, November 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, he can tell that to the average person who has seen his or her savings wiped out in a single night.

We hear a lot from that party about accountability, but who over there is accountable to average Canadians who lost their money because of this Conservative double-cross? Since the last election, many Canadians put their money into income trusts precisely because the Prime Minister told them to do it and he told them he would protect them.

How does the Prime Minister explain his duplicity to those Canadians who believed in him and have seen their money go up in smoke because he is now not willing to be accountable to them?

[Income Trusts, November 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister can do all he likes to try to turn this into something about corporations. This is not about corporations. It is about Canadians from all walks of life who have lost their savings. He can tell that story to Canadians sitting around the dinner table tonight, with their heads in their hands, asking, “What do we do now?” It is about Canadians on main street who feel cheated.

The Prime Minister is the author of their misfortune, yet he refuses to admit it. It is he who lured Canadians into investing into his promise. It was not the big corporations. It was the average person who was lured in. Will the Prime Minister at least admit that he misled Canadians and offer them an apology?

[Income Trusts, November 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are shocked. They were duped by this Prime Minister. The Prime Minister knows full well that average Canadians are paying today for his irresponsible promise.

Will the Prime Minister apologize to Canadians for the false promises he made during the election campaign? Will the Prime Minister apologize to all the people who have seen their savings go up in smoke simply because they took him at his word?

[Income Trusts, November 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, driving people to despair is no way to make friends. The Prime Minister said that income trusts were here for good. He said over and over again that he would preserve income trusts and that he would never impose new taxes on them.

People believed him. They invested their savings based on the Prime Minister's word.

How can he justify his disdain toward those who believed him?

How can he justify the losses caused by his false promises?

[Income Trusts, November 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, that is not what he said in the election. He assured them that income trusts were essential for those who had spent their lives raising families, saving for their retirement and building our country.

Innocent Canadians are suffering an economic bloodbath today because they believed the Prime Minister. He gave his word. Canadians acted on his word. He then broke his word. He knew then what he knows now and he has no excuse.

How can he explain to Canadians the colossal misrepresentation he made in the last election? How can he justify to Canadian citizens his $25 billion breach of faith to Canadians?

[Income Trusts, November 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, in his election platform, the Prime Minister stated, “A Conservative government will preserve income trusts by not imposing any new taxes”.

Canadians who voted for the Prime Minister did so based on a deception. What is equally concerning, they invested their life savings based on a false promise. Today, thanks to his misrepresentation, Canadians are about $25 billion poorer.

Everything the Prime Minister will tell the House today about the impact of income trusts on government revenues he knew when he made that promise. Why did he engage in a deception of such monumental and costly proportions to all Canadians?

[The Environment, October 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the meeting in Kenya will focus on action to be taken internationally before 2012, but this government does not want to do anything until 2050. This is unacceptable.

Why is this government refusing to allow environmentalists to join the Canadian delegation? Is it afraid of having witnesses when it fails to lift a finger to protect future generations against the economic, environmental and human devastation caused by climate change?

[The Environment, October 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, hopefully somebody will start rewriting the lines for the present Minister of the Environment. We are talking about dangerous and violent weather patterns, millions of people thrown into poverty and starvation, unprecedented crop failures, extinction of thousands of species, tsunamis, typhoons, and seven trillion dollars in economic havoc.

Does the Prime Minister not appreciate the terrible irony that his government is chairing a global meeting in Africa when his approach will lead to disaster for that already overburdened continent?