Bill Blaikie

[Points Of Order, November 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today because like you I was concerned about reports in the press which gave the impression that I had accused you of favouritism with respect to one particular party in the House vis-à-vis question period. I want to make it absolutely clear for the record that I have not done that.

I continue to be concerned, as you well know, Mr. Speaker, about question period and the role of my party in it. However at no time have I suggested that Your Honour had any bias toward any particular party in this Chamber. I want to make that absolutely clear.

[Railways, November 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals made many promises in Manitoba during the last federal election. A lot of them had to do with railways.

They promised they would stop the flow of jobs from Winnipeg to Edmonton through the CNR. They have not done that. Instead the crew calling office and rail traffic control are being transferred from Winnipeg to Edmonton just the way they were under the Tories.

They promised that Churchill would be revived. What do we have instead? We have the member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon saying that Churchill should not be part of the Canadian port system, and the Minister of Transport and the member for Winnipeg South Centre refuse to repudiate him.

All these promises have been broken. The one thing they did not promise was setting up a Liberal only committee to examine ways to commercialize, which is another word for privatize, the CNR.

They broke all their promises with respect to rail in Manitoba.

[Unemployment Insurance Act, November 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am here today to pursue a question that I asked of the Deputy Prime Minister. The Minister of Transport was not in the House at the time but I asked the Deputy Prime Minister whether or not letters that were being sent to the Prime Minister with respect to something the Minister of Transport had said would be answered.

These letters are from the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and the United Transportation Union and others. They were calling on the Prime Minister to ask the Minister of Transport to apologize for remarks that he had made and to which railroaders had taken offence.

Subsequent to my question and to putting in for this adjournment debate the Minister of Transport had an opportunity to explain what he had to say in the House during question period earlier today.

I listened carefully to what he said. I think he could probably bring the matter to a close if he had added, and perhaps that is what he wants to do now, that if people took offence at what he said that he would apologize. He explained himself earlier today but did not actually apologize. Clearly some very sincere offence was taken at what the minister said. I look forward to what he has to say.

While I have him here and because I have so much difficulty in communicating with the minister on the floor of the House, perhaps he might also want to comment on a couple of other matters.

Recently a colleague of his, the member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon said that we would be better off without Churchill in the Canadian port system. This runs directly contrary to promises made by the Liberals in Manitoba during the last election.

Another matter has to do with Manitoba and Liberal promises during the last election has to do with the Liberals making a lot of promises in Winnipeg with respect to stopping the flow of jobs from Winnipeg to Edmonton on the part of CN. Subsequent to the election of the new government, CN has announced that it will be moving its rail traffic control centre and its crew calling offices from Winnipeg to Edmonton in 1995.

Here we have two Liberal promises to Manitoba, that Churchill would be revived and that the bleeding of jobs from Winnipeg to Edmonton on the part of CN would be stopped. What do we have? We have the rail traffic control and the crew calling jobs being transferred from Winnipeg to Edmonton, and we have a Liberal chair of a committee looking into ports and the seaway, et cetera, saying that we would be better off without Churchill.

I hope the minister can deal with these matters, repudiate the member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon and say that Churchill is still part of the plan for the Liberal government. Could he also say that pursuant to the promises made by his colleague, the member for Winnipeg South and the minister of human resources, that the Ministry of Transport and the government will be instructing CN to stop this constant diminution of Winnipeg as a rail centre by transferring jobs to Edmonton.

[Points Of Order, November 2nd, 1994]

I have been getting the kind of exercise somebody else was referring to earlier only I have been getting more of it than I want.

Mr. Speaker, you will recall an argument I made to you earlier in this session. I argued that the NDP caucus should be entitled according to the mathematics of the opposition to at least a question and a supplementary and a statement each day. We have not come anywhere near that.

This week we have only had two statements. I have to say that I think the treatment of the NDP caucus in this Parliament by you is abominable.

[Points Of Order, November 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have been rising in my place for the last two days trying to get the floor.

[Petitions, October 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present two petitions, both having to do with the same topic.

The names were collected in my riding by a branch of the Ukrainian Catholic Women's League. They petition Parliament to continue to reject euthanasia and physician assisted suicide in Canada. They call for the vigorous enforcement of the present provisions of section 241 of the Criminal Code of Canada. They ask that Parliament consider expanding palliative care that would be accessible to all dying persons in Canada.

[Railway Workers, October 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and it has to do with remarks made recently by the Minister of Transport. The Deputy Prime Minister may be aware that the Prime Minister has been receiving letters asking for an apology from the Minister of Transport to railway workers.

I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether the Prime Minister intends to ask the Minister of Transport to apologize to railway workers for referring to them as "a bunch of grade 8 and 9 graduates who can't be blamed for negotiating excessive collective agreements".

[Irving Oil Refinery, October 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, local 691 of the Communication, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada is on strike at the Irving oil refinery in Saint John, New Brunswick.

The company has insisted on a longer work week and less pay for overtime. Not only is this an attempt by Irving to exempt itself from national bargaining but it is a good example of how jobs are not being created where they are desperately needed.

Irving could create 30 full time jobs, the equivalent of what is being demanded in terms of longer hours. Instead it is using scabs to do the opposite.

It is about time for all levels of government that have not done so already to bring in anti-scab legislation. Workers who want to increase employment opportunities for the unemployed should not have to go on strike to do so and then have scab labour take their jobs.

[Petitions, October 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I present a petition from constituents who call on Parliament not to amend the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act, or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality. The petition includes amending the human rights code to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation. That is the way the petition reads.

[Canada Health Act, October 19th, 1994]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-284, an act to amend the Canada Health Act (conditions for contributions).

Mr. Speaker, the act to amend the Canada Health Act, conditions for contributions, is intended to ensure that the health care insurance plan of a province provides for the obligation for hospitals to disclose to emergency response employees, who provide emergency medical or rescue services to a patient, the name and nature of an infectious or contagious disease that the patient might have transmitted to them.

This is something that the International Association of Firefighters has been requesting for a long time. It is similar to a bill which was first introduced in the last Parliament by Joy Langdon, the former NDP labour critic. However the bill includes a clause dealing with confidentiality which is an improvement over the previous bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)