Bill Graham

[Minister of Public Works and Government Services, October 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I think that was a clear admission from the Prime Minister that Michael Fortier could not win that seat.

This morning senior officials from Public Works, the Treasury Board and Human Resources refused to appear before the government operations committee to speak to government cuts in programs for adult literacy, women, minorities and students.

What is going on? We have a Minister of Public Works who defies all precedent and refuses to run for a seat in the House, and we have senior officials from his department and others who refuse to appear before the democratically elected representatives of Canadians in this House.

[Minister of Public Works and Government Services, October 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we were told that Mr. Fortier would run. We just were not told which way he was going to run. He is running away. Of course, that is in conformity with the Minister of Foreign Affairs as well.

We cannot ask the Minister of Public Works questions in the House of Commons because he is not sitting here. The Prime Minister's closest political adviser was too busy to run in the last election, but he is not too busy to sit at the cabinet table. What makes Michael Fortier so special? Why is he not required to conform to parliamentary precedent and run in the Montreal byelection?

Why does the minister for accountability get to hide from democratic accountability?

[Minister of Public Works and Government Services, October 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite ironic that the minister of responsibility and transparency does not sit in this House. Michael Fortier, an unelected minister, responsible for most government spending, a political minister from Montreal, responsible for the lack of assistance for older workers in Montreal, is a Montrealer who refuses to face his electorate.

Why does Mr. Fortier, who ran the Prime Minister's leadership campaign and co-chaired his election campaign, not have the strength to run in the Montreal by-election?

[Decorum, October 23rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely clear why the Prime Minister and his party do not support Status of Women Canada in defending women's equality.

Women are not second-class citizens, and although the Minister of Foreign Affairs clearly implied it, they are not men's property. He still has not apologized for his remark.

Why has the Prime Minister not reacted to this insult to Canadian women, and how long will they have to wait?

[Decorum, October 23rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we could qualify that as a bit of a stonewall.

The Prime Minister cannot escape the fact that he ran an election campaign promising honesty and accountability. He is allowing his Minister of Foreign Affairs to ignore his obligation for openness, responsibility and integrity.

Since the Prime Minister will not personally apologize, will he at least insist that the Minister of Foreign Affairs do the right thing, address this matter directly and issue an appropriate apology in the House?

[Decorum, October 23rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has now had four days to reflect on the statement made by his Minister of Foreign Affairs. This matter has to do with respect for women, acceptance of responsibility for one's actions, integrity, accountability for the truth and the dignity of the House of Commons.

In view of the silence of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, is the Prime Minister now prepared to apologize for the totally inappropriate remarks of the minister in this House?

[The Environment, October 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, all evidence points to the contrary. This plan will be harmful to our children's health, contribute to the degradation of our environment and destroy Kyoto. While the Conservatives continue with their consultations, our planet is dying.

Why will the Prime Minister not just admit that he does not care about the environment, that he has no plan today, and will not have one tomorrow, next year or in 44 years?

[The Environment, October 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it was exactly that sort of bafflegab and hot air that set off the fire alarms in Parliament this morning.

Environmentalists are telling us that this nonsense from the Conservatives is nothing more than a policy made in the U.S.A., like so many other actions of the government.

For the next four years, Canadians must wait while the government does nothing but talk. For the 15 years after that greenhouse gases will increase. Climate change gets worse for more than 40 years.

Why is the government violating its responsibility to the environment, our children and the future of our planet?

[The Environment, October 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, this spring the government completely walked away from Canada's global commitments on the environment. It cancelled programs already in place to help Canadians make their homes energy efficient. It gutted other environmental programs right, left and centre.

When we asked what it would do to save the environment, we were told to wait. We have waited and what we got today was nothing less than a national disgrace, a national embarrassment.

My question is for the Prime Minister. How on earth could the government have laboured so long to now tell us that there is not one new action in this decade to stop climate change or reduce air pollution for our citizens of this country?

[Business of Supply, October 19th, 2006]

I can only assume that members in the House were gathered to shake their heads and wonder how the NDP could stand up with so much shame on their heads for having to put in the most fiscally irresponsible, the most vicious mind cutting government that ever came into power. How does the hon. member dare to stand in his place and make this accusation--