Bill Blaikie

[Liberal Party of Canada, May 14th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, a recent appointee of the Prime Minister as the Liberal candidate referred to a vote for the NDP as a whisper, ignoring the fact that I seldom whisper, and neither do other NDP MPs for that matter, ignoring the election of progressive mayors in Toronto and Vancouver, the re-election of NDP governments in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, the increase in proper support in other provincial elections, and of course what happened last night in Hamilton.

I ask the Deputy Prime Minister, does she think that turfing a progressive candidate like the former deputy prime minister and ignoring the steel industry had anything to do with this so-called whisper becoming a mighty big shout against the Liberals in Hamilton?

[Right Hon. Member for Calgary Centre, May 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the NDP caucus, I certainly want to wish the right hon. member for Calgary Centre well as this Parliament comes to a close, and to thank him for his distinguished service as a parliamentarian, as a prime minister, as leader of the opposition, as a minister and as a Progressive Conservative.

It should also be said that the right hon. member served Canada particularly well as Canada's foreign affairs minister during the Mulroney years, as I, who was his assigned critic for part of that time, can well attest. It has already been mentioned the role that Canada played under his leadership and the leadership of the prime minister at that time in the fight against apartheid and I think this is a Canadian story that we do not tell well enough or often enough.

One hesitates to be too complimentary about the right hon. member because some of his adversaries have said a political goodbye to him before and lived to hear their praise repeated in a different context. The right hon. member has a history of responding to duty and one never knows where or in what way duty may call again.

The NDP has a relationship, probably not remembered with affection by the hon. member, with one of the most difficult moments in his political life. We moved the motion that ultimately brought down the newly elected government in 1979. We did not, however, determine the government's tactics in response to the motion. That is a responsibility still to be sorted out.

However for the record I want the right hon. member to know that I argued in caucus at the time for letting him govern for a time while we saw what he would or could do. Perhaps it was because it was my first Parliament and I was not anxious to go back to the streets, I am not sure what the reason was, but that was my position at the time and I stick to it.

I would also like to commend the right hon. member for setting an example for western Canadians by being truly open to and aware of Quebec's aspirations and the reality of a bilingual Canada. Although we could debate certain constitutional matters at great length, I think the example he set in this regard is and will be part of the legacy of the right hon. member for Calgary Centre.

I think the right hon. member was also precocious in his attitude toward women, championing the cause of women's equality long before it was always popular to do so.

Finally, I want to commend the right hon. member for his appreciation of the role of Parliament and, in particular, the role of the House of Commons. Remarks have already been made by the leader of the Bloc Quebecois about the right hon. member being a gentleman and about his sense of humour. What I want to say of him and what I think is one of the highest compliments that can be paid a member of Parliament is that he is a House of Commons man who took seriously this place, its procedures and its possibilities, no matter what side of the House he was on, and saw the importance of doing the nation's business in this chamber and not across the street in some other contrived, unelected and unaccountable venue.

We hope he will write a book, for few have more to teach us about the nature of political commitment, through all the ups and downs that political life offers, than the right hon. member for Calgary Centre.

Good luck and thank you very much.

[Electoral Boundaries, May 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting debate but neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives will ever do anything about gas prices because they are both committed to the corporately dominated market when it comes to this.

My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and it has to do with the democratic deficit. With all the shenanigans going on in the Liberal Party and the refusal to divulge positions on important issues like health care and various other things, it is easy to be cynical, but I want to give the Deputy Prime Minister an opportunity to redeem the government.

Will she tell the House that the government will honour the decision of the Federal Court to reverse the new boundaries in Acadie—Bathurst like the Liberal candidate in that area recommends.

[Petitions, May 12th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present two petitions, both of which contain many thousands of signatures gathered through the Beads of Hope Campaign, organized by the United Church of Canada.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to use its influence in international financial institutions to cancel multilateral debt of impoverished countries, to cancel bilateral debt that developing countries owe to Canada, to continue to increase Canada's official development assistance to meet the goal of 0.7% of gross national income, while increasing support for the United Nations global fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria and to promote sustainable development strategies prepared in-country with a high level of civil society input and involvement.

The petitioners also call upon Parliament to ensure that patents or trade related intellectual property rights do not block access to public goods like life-saving medicines.

They further call upon Parliament to double funding to the federal government's domestic program, the Canadian Strategy on HIV-AIDS, to address HIV-AIDS in Canada.

[Infrastructure, May 12th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, note the absence of any comment whatsoever on non-profit delivery of health care versus for profit private delivery. That was a complete evasion of the question.

I want to ask the Prime Minister, are we to be treated to the same mystery when it comes to the Prime Minister's policies on cities? We are told now that there is a great privatization scheme in the works for cities and how to deal with infrastructure in cities, which we are not supposed to know about until the election.

The people at Earnscliffe must be salivating knowing that they are going to have more say than the mayor of Toronto when it comes to spending money on infrastructure. Would the Prime Minister--

[Health, May 12th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question for the Prime Minister. The Conservatives have made their position on for profit delivery of health care very clear. They are for it. They are wrong, but at least they are honest. We have made our position clear. We are against it.

I want to ask the Prime Minister, does he think that for profit delivery of health care has a place in our system, yes or no?

[Health, May 12th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is curious to see the official opposition concerned about high gas prices; this is the first time in 25 years. I remember a Tory government that fell because it jacked the price of gas up so high. My question for the Prime Minister--

[New Democratic Party, May 12th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is the custom of the NDP caucus on Wednesdays to make a statement to the House on issues of concern to women. Today, on behalf of the NDP caucus, I pay tribute to two particular women who have contributed greatly to the life and work of the NDP on Parliament Hill and who will each soon be leaving here for new challenges.

The hon. member for Dartmouth has been a valued member of our caucus and the House, and we give thanks for the quiet depth, the courage and the playwright's eye that she has brought to her work on behalf of Canadian culture, the disabled and the cause of social justice in general.

Sharon McLaughlin, originally from Transcona, Manitoba and long time assistant to NDP House leaders, came to the Hill over 10 years ago and has been a devoted, competent and caring compatriot of the NDP caucus. We give thanks for her organizational talent and the political enthusiasm that she brought to her job in the opposition lobby and to caucus events.

We affectionately wish both Sharon and the hon. member for Dartmouth all the best in their future endeavours.

[Supply, May 11th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, how often do I have to explain the nature of the clinic in Manitoba to the hon. member and his colleagues? However, we will get him some more information on that so that he can be as well informed on that as he likes.

Clearly, it is not a for profit clinic. It was a for profit clinic and the Manitoba NDP government did something about that because it found it philosophically unacceptable and changed the clinic. I can get the hon. member more details on that.

With respect to tax points, this is an ongoing debate between the provinces and the federal government as to what the federal government is contributing vis-à-vis tax points. It goes back to the seventies. The provinces and the federal government, depending on which stage we enter the argument, are guilty of various kinds of sophistry with respect to tax points.

I wonder, is the hon. member suggesting that the Conservative position is that the federal government is already giving enough money through tax points and that there is no need for more federal funding for health care? Is that what the hon. member is suggesting because that is what is implied in the question.

With respect to Quebec, I believe that Quebec has made even more suggestions with respect to the transfer of tax points. This is something that would have to be worked out between the federal government and the provinces and/or Quebec, but this is not relevant to the debate today about privatization. It is only relevant to the extent that anything that impinges on the federal government's ability to regulate with respect to for profit health care in this country because it is not contributing its fair share to the overall cost of health care and therefore it has no moral high ground from which to preach to the provinces.

[Supply, May 11th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that if the federal Liberal government, over the last 10 years, had been providing the kind of money to the provinces that it should have been providing, provinces like Saskatchewan or, for that matter, other non-NDP provinces would not feel that they have to do some of the things that they have to do today.