Bill Blaikie

[Leader of the Opposition, March 22nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues here in the House, I certainly want to welcome the Leader of the Opposition to his latest political incarnation.

I am told that before he came to Ottawa he was once a Trudeau Liberal and since then he has been a Progressive Conservative, a Reformer, an Alliance MP, and now a Conservative. We hope for his sake that his grand tour of the political right is over, that the pilgrimage is over, and that he can now come safely to rest.

We hope that in the days and weeks ahead he will have a chance to put flesh on the bones of his policy pronouncements. We hope that we will have an opportunity to have a debate in this country with some clear choices in the coming election, whenever the Prime Minister decides to call it, and I will not give him any advice on that at the moment.

I noticed that he made reference to supporting roles. We thought that perhaps the Prime Minister should receive an award for best actor in a foreign film given some of the issues that we have raised with him.

The Leader of the Opposition accused the NDP of wanting to destroy the system. The hon. member has certainly not shrunk from the destruction of several political systems on the right in his own political career, so perhaps he is more attached to systemic change than he is willing to admit.

In any event, we would certainly welcome a debate between him and our leader about what part of the Liberal system he wants to protect from the NDP.

I extend our congratulations to the Leader of the Opposition and wish all the best to him and his family as he takes on these new responsibilities.

[Health, March 22nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is not enough just to get up and repeat this mantra about the Canada Health Act. The fact is that the government has not done anything with respect to the Romanow recommendations. It has weakened the Canada Health Act by changing the regulations. It has allowed all kinds of privatization to the health care system.

How the Liberals can attack the Tories on this is a bit like Bush attacking Kerry for making things up. The fact is that it is under the Liberal government that privatization has been proceeding.

Will the Minister of Health not just stand by the Canada Health Act but move against privatization and say that his government will not tolerate the privatization of our health care system?

[Health, March 22nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.

I am sure as we speak the Liberal propaganda machine is devising a plan to vilify the new leader of the official opposition because he wants to privatize our health care system. Yet it is under the Liberals that we have seen the progressive privatization of our health care system.

I want to ask the Minister of Health, where do the Liberals get the nerve to attack the leader of the official opposition for wanting exactly the same kind of health care system that is being brought to us courtesy of the Liberal Party?

[Public Service, March 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the House will note that there was no denial of the issue that I raised. It beats me why the government could not have found somebody else who was ready to take this on right away.

One of the other things that is being delayed, which if it was forthcoming we might be able to deal with in a more confident manner, is the whole issue of whistleblower legislation. There is still no whistleblower legislation being laid on the table by the government so that people who do want to come forward can come forward with some confidence knowing that the government is committed to the concept.

When will we see that?

[Sponsorship Program, March 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the House would be less preoccupied with this issue if the public inquiry that the Prime Minister called was up and running, but it is not. It is now over a month and there is still no public inquiry underway.

My question is for the Prime Minister. We have been told that Judge Gomery has been on vacation for the last three or four weeks. Is this true? And if so, why did the government not pick somebody who could get down to business right away?

[Canadian National, March 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the strike at Canadian National is about many issues, but ultimately it is about the attitude of an American led management team that is contemptuous of its own workforce and Canadian values. This disrespect has taken a new and nasty turn in the community of Transcona where CN is now using the strike as cover for closing down the midway or street that runs through the CN shops, which has been used by the public since 1909.

I am told that yesterday a young man was arrested, handcuffed and charged for using the midway. Shame on CN and shame on the government for its indifference to the way that Hunter Harrison and his paramilitary managers are treating railroaders, strikebreaking with American imports and now abusing the people of Transcona.

A truly Canadian government would step in and tell CN to show more respect, open the midway, send the American scabs back where they came from and go to the table with a new and decent proposal.

[Foreign Aid, March 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, indeed the secretary-general did challenge the country to do more and I am asking the Prime Minister today: Will he make a commitment today that in the budget there will be the funds to meet that long sought, never reached goal of .7% of gross national income for overseas development assistance?

Maybe he could tell us while he is at it and receiving all that praise from the secretary-general, did he explain to him why he cut so much money from that budget in the first place?

[Foreign Aid, March 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, today the moderator of the United Church, the Reverend Peter Short, led a prayer service in front of Parliament in which he echoed the call of Secretary-General Kofi Annan for Canada to do more. He specifically urged that Canada meet the goal of raising our official development assistance to .7% of gross national income.

I want to ask the Prime Minister while he is in the mood for just saying yes, will he say yes to this particular request? Can he tell the House today whether the upcoming budget will include in it the money to meet this particular goal?

[Privilege, March 8th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I was just diverting for a moment until such time as you stopped me. You are doing your job, so let me return to the main point of order. I was just on a sub-theme of the main point.

I also want to agree with the right hon. member, not just with respect to the whole question of reviewing appointments, but with some of the appointments that he mentioned. I do not say this out of any particular criticism or concern about the people who have been appointed. We have not had a chance to really review those appointments or to have those people before committees. However the right hon. member has made a good point, particularly when it comes to these new appointments, such as the creation of a national security advisor, again by a government that made a big deal out of the fact that we would have a committee on national security and we would involve parliamentarians in the whole question of national security in a way that we never have before, but when it had a minor opportunity, or an already existing opportunity to involve parliamentarians in something having to do with national security, it did not do it, just like it did not do it with the new head of the Canada-U.S. Secretariat and a number of other positions.

I would urge you, Mr. Speaker, to find that the point being raised by the right hon. member is a legitimate one and that the government is, unfortunately, as in so many other cases, in contempt of the House.

[Privilege, March 8th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the member from the government's side has said that they intend to look into this to see whether what is being alleged by the right hon. member from Calgary is true. However it seems to me that on the face of it, it is true and that the government should have been aware of this, especially a government that has made a big deal, and particularly a Prime Minister who has made a big deal, about addressing the democratic deficit, and about how there would be more opportunity for Parliament to review appointments, and how this process would be enhanced and enriched.

In fact, we have a government that is not even willing to live up to that which is provided for now in the standing orders. I commend the right hon. member for bringing this to the attention of the House. I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that you would see this for what it is. It is a contempt of the House and, unfortunately, in keeping with the general pattern which we begin to see on the other side of the House.

I raised a question today, which I think is probably not an appropriate point of order, but the government is also in contempt of the House for calling the byelection in Ottawa Centre for November 29. What could be more of a contempt of the House of Commons than to create the possibility that a seat will be vacant in the House for up to 15 months only to serve the political agenda of--