David Graham

[Business of Supply, October 19th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, my friend from Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa has given an excellent summary of the forestry industry and how it works. He talked about his 300 acres, which I assume used to be 600 acres before it was worked on. With all this great understanding of the forestry industry, which is a huge part of my riding as well in the Laurentians, as we have tens of thousands of kilometres of forested lands, why is he supporting a motion that calls for an agreement now instead of a good agreement when we can get one?

[Business of Supply, October 5th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we could have the consent of the House to see the clock at 5:30 p.m.

[Business of Supply, October 5th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, this spring, at the procedure and House affairs committee, there was a fairly large blow-up when a bill arrived in our lap that apparently was related to a study that was under way at that time. I am sure the member from Hamilton remembers that quite well.

The member for Vancouver Kingsway, whose name this motion stands under, has brought forward this motion on the pharmacare program, which in its own right is not a bad thing. However, there is a study under way at the health committee, which has seen 89 witnesses over 20 meetings, to study this very issue. It has not finished that study. It is ongoing.

Therefore, I wonder if the New Democrats have respect for the process here after the biggest part of the blow-up came from that side on that bill, or if they are not really interested in the study actually considering it and just want the credit for the results.

[Arnold Chan, September 29th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise to pay tribute to my friend Arnold Chan. While I did not know him long enough to sign his passport application, he had a profound impact on my life and on my understanding of this job.

A year and a half ago, he asked me to join him for a walk in the frigid weather. He needed to talk to me in private. He told me that his cancer had returned. He had just told his sons, saying, "They know what this means." His eyes were open.

Arnold always made sure that everyone else was okay before himself, that his responsibilities would never be shirked, that nothing and nobody would be forgotten.

He asked me that night to take on his duties of deputy House leader during his treatment, and after a year of believing I was doing him a favour, I learned that it really was the other way around. He had, as he had for so many others, mentored me.

I wish I could thank Arnold for his friendship, his confidence, his mentorship, and his contribution to making this a better place for me and me a better person.

I would like to thank Jean and the boys for sharing this amazing person with us.

[Customs Act, September 18th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I want to revisit an issue I brought up with the member's colleagues. Privacy concerns have come up quite a bit. I share these concerns generally, but I do not see them arising in the bill. I see the bill as about sharing information that already exists and, principally, getting information into the country that other countries have, which I think would be useful for our purposes.

My concern struck home a few days ago with an Amber Alert in my riding. I want to ensure that had that person gone south instead of north, we would have had the opportunity to catch him. I wonder if the member would comment on that.

[Customs Act, September 18th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I am always happy to ask questions of my colleague, the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent, on any subject.

I find this one very interesting. We spoke not too long ago with many of his colleagues about the issue of Bill C-21 and why it is essential that it be put in place in case situations arise like the Amber Alert that was issued in the Lachute area, for instance. There has been a lot of talk about privacy concerns, but no more data is being given. The bill simply allows us to obtain information already available abroad precisely so that we can better protect our own in cases like the one that happened last week.

Does my colleague agree this bill needs to pass with some urgency so that we can, in emergency cases, prevent someone from crossing the border without anyone knowing?

[Customs Act, September 18th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix on her new role as critic for rural affairs. I am happy to see that the Conservatives have a critic for rural affairs. They love to talk up the regions, but the fact is that, when push comes to shove, they always end up taking them for granted. I represent a vast and rural riding for which the Conservatives have never done a single thing, and that is why I would like to congratulate my colleague.

I would like to get back to the bill itself. We talked earlier about its importance in the context of cases like the Amber Alert in the Lachute area last Thursday. We believe it is essential to realize that we would have had no way of knowing if Mr. Fredette had left the country. I think it is crucial that we bring in a bill like this to fix this kind of problem.

Does my colleague have any comments on that point?

[Customs Act, September 18th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I was getting concerned toward the end of the speech that I had not yet heard a Yiddish proverb, so I want to thank the member for filling in that gap before invited him to do so.

I want to thank the member for his very kind comments with regard to our colleague, Arnold Chan. We had an interesting time in that very long procedure and House affairs committee meeting, so I wanted to thank the member for his presence at that 80-hour meeting on March 21.

The member referred a couple of times to exit control systems and I would like to take exception to that one perspective. I do not see it as an exit control system so much as an exit information system. It does not stop people from exiting the country. This is not a country that does that. We do not say people cannot leave, that they need an exit visa to depart. That is why I wanted to change that wording a little bit.

The bill does not create any new data. The data already exists, as the member knows. It improves our usage of the data and our access to that data. While I sympathize with the privacy concerns I am hearing from the other party, I do not agree with them because the bill does not create new data or new floppy disks. It improves our access to information, our public safety, and the situation for Amber Alerts like we talked about earlier. I think overall it is a good bill. I wonder if the member has any further comments.

[Customs Act, September 18th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard a number of concerns from members of another party that the bill is all about giving data to the United States, but the bill is really about finding out who is leaving the country not about giving information to other people.

Would the member like to expand on how this legislation would be a good thing for our country?

[Customs Act, September 18th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner for his remarks and for his support of this bill.

As I mentioned to my colleague earlier, I believe that this bill is important, in light of the Amber Alert that took place just outside of my riding a few days ago. Had that person gone across the border, we would still be looking for that person. I wonder if the member has any comments on how important this information is in that context.