Ralph Goodale

[Prairie Giant, May 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, a recent CBC mini-series entitled Prairie Giant portrayed the political life and times of former Premier Tommy Douglas of Saskatchewan. In many ways this movie is a highly interesting story of a very colourful personality during an important period in Saskatchewan's history.

Many people of different political persuasions think very highly of Mr. Douglas, and rightly so. But the movie contains a major historical error in its negative and mistaken depiction of another prominent figure of the era, the hon. James G. Gardiner. These mistakes have been well documented by many journalists and academics, like Dr. David Smith, as well as New Democrats like Allen Blakeney and Ed Broadbent.

In fact, the character identified as “Jimmy Gardiner” in the film is a fictional concoction, totally contrived. The CBC should ensure that viewers of this production know that it is not a documentary and the portrayal therein of James G. Gardiner is incorrect and untrue.

[Business of the House, May 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it being Thursday, I wonder if the government House leader could inform us of the work program that he has in mind for the rest of this week and through the period to the Victoria Day weekend.

I wonder if he could also inform us of the action that he would intend to take around what appears to be the premature discussion in the media of the details of the Auditor General's report, which is not due to be published until next Tuesday but appeared in the press today.

[Darfur, May 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are very anxious to know the government's specific plans with respect to Darfur, what is going to happen and when. The genocide is excruciating and getting worse every day.

Could this be another tragic case of all the world watching, waiting, talking and debating, but not actually doing anything while hundreds of thousands die?

Could the Prime Minister share with us his plans for how Canada will make a decision in this matter, what are the essential elements that will go into that decision and when will some international action actually begin to take shape?

[Darfur, May 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, there was some inconsistency yesterday between the Prime Minister and his defence minister about Canada's capacity to become further engaged in Darfur beyond the advisory role that we currently play. The Minister of National Defence said a flat no, but the Prime Minister essentially said maybe.

This is too important a question to allow any ambiguity. Either we have the physical capacity to send more troops, if required, or we do not. Will the Prime Minister simply resolve any doubt about this matter? Do we or do we not have the necessary capacity?

[Darfur, May 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, in the human tragedy in Darfur Canada has maintained close contact with members of the African Union and provides financial and technical support for peace and security initiatives.

Through the Commission for Africa, I had the opportunity to meet with Nigerian President Obasanjo and then the chairman of the African Union. I heard first-hand how important this Canadian engagement was.

Will the Prime Minister tell the House what specific contact he has had with President Obasanjo and the African Union, when was the last communication and are there any outstanding requests for assistance?

[Child Care, May 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, every mainstream aboriginal organization in the country says that the government is wrong.

After the Liberals first balanced the country's books, we increased federal support for families and children by close to $10 billion per year. We had the child tax credit, the child benefit supplement, child care expense deduction, parental leave and the list goes on.

In last Tuesday's budget, the Conservatives cut $1 billion from the Liberal package, slashing the young child supplement. With the biggest federal surplus ever, why did the government cut support to the most vulnerable families?

[Aboriginal Affairs, May 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, what he counts is last year's money and maybe next year's money but nothing this spring.

Until February, the books of the Government of Canada carried specific allocations to fully implement the Kelowna accords for aboriginal people: $1.8 billion for education, $1.6 billion for housing and water, $1.3 billion for health, $170 million for governance, $200 million for economic development, more than $5 billion altogether until February.

With the biggest surplus in Canadian history, why did the government gut 90% of the funding for aboriginal people?

[Agriculture, May 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, until the budget, farmers thought they might get as much as $2 billion more this spring in emergency assistance but the Conservative MP for Battlefords—Lloydminster says that he does not see any sense in making a big payment to farmers. He says that pockets are not deep enough in Ottawa for such a program.

The government inherited the biggest surplus in Canadian history. Why were farmers misled to think they might get more cash this spring?

[Business of the House, May 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, aside from House business, I would also be interested in the views of the Minister of Finance about the theories of Herb Grubel with respect to tax policy in our country.

More particular, could the House leader inform us of his plans for business in the House for the rest of this week and next week? Could he tell us when the expedited legislation to distribute at least $2 billion to Canadian farmers this spring will be introduced?

[Softwood Lumber, April 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it will be very interesting to examine the exact impacts on the Canfor firm on both sides of the border.

This is not free trade. It is not fair trade. This is limited trade, capped, restricted and controlled to suit the United States, and the deal will last only as long as it works in the Americans' favour. On top of that, the U.S. industry gets $1.5 billion, taken illegally from us, to fight Canadians with our own money.

Last September the Prime Minister said that was wrong and he would fight it. Again during the election campaign he said it was wrong and he would fight it. Why has the Prime Minister flip-flopped again to settle for less?