Bill Blaikie

[Veterans Affairs, October 31st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, given the obvious likelihood of a surplus and given all the talk around here about a democratic deficit, the fact of the matter is the House of Commons has spoken by unanimously adopting the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Defence and Veterans Affairs with respect to paying all war widows the VIP benefits. Therefore, it is not a question of what the Prime Minister can do, it is a question of the House of Commons having spoken.

Given this government's so-called commitment to democracy, will the Minister of Finance, because he can make this happen, get up and say that the government will honour the commitment to the widows and honour the will of this House?

[Finance, October 31st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the Liberals have allowed the Sea Kings to become the tarmac kings, but my question is for the Minister of Finance.

Today the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives says that this year's surplus will be $6.6 billion. Over the last four years, the CCPA's estimates have exactly mirrored the exact surpluses while the Liberals have been out $36 billion. It is a good thing they are not forecasting the weather, we would not know what to wear.

Will the minister finally admit that he is in fact sitting on a surplus next year and has money to spend on things worthwhile?

[Trade, October 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Prime Minister could find ways to lock this in if he wanted to.

My question is for the Minister for International Trade who knows about the upcoming summit in Miami with respect to the free trade area of the Americas.

Given that at one time a couple of years ago in committee he admitted to me that chapter 11, the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism, was inadequate and probably should be done away with, why does he persist in agreeing to a text which includes an investor-state dispute settlement mechanism? Why does he not just abandon this bad idea and show some leadership in getting rid of it?

[Transport, October 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's Minister of Transport announced new money for VIA Rail the other day and it has now come to our attention that the new Liberal leader's family has an interest in bus stations. For that matter, the Voyageur bus company has a long history of opposing VIA Rail and subsidies for passenger rail in the country.

Is the Prime Minister not concerned that this announcement, which we commended him for, is in danger? What will he do to ensure that money is actually spent on passenger rail and not sabotaged by the incoming Liberal leader?

[Government Contracts, October 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians do not need more information, if they are up to their you know what in alligators. They do not want the Liberals counting the alligators. They want them to do something about it.

I have a question is for the Minister of Public Works and it has to do with the awarding of the census contract to Lockheed Martin.

I have information from a competitor of Lougheed Martin that it received this contract, not through due process, but sometime after the RFP had been initiated and others had gone through the process. However, Lougheed Martin showed up at the end and received the contract.

Could the Minister of Public Works undertake to look into this and report back to the House as to why that American corporation received favourable treatment in that way?

[Finance, October 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I might change the subject because we in the NDP have bigger fish to fry. My question is for the Minister of Finance.

There is $44 billion in outstanding credit card debt in this country to Visa and MasterCard alone. He knows that the spread now between the prime rate and credit card rate is 14 points. It is clear that Canadians are being gouged. If the Liberals are concerned about debt reduction, they should be concerned about this kind of debt reduction.

Will the Minister of Finance finally do something about this and tie the credit card rate to the prime rate in some way?

[Bankruptcy Legislation, October 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to call to your attention and perhaps to the attention of some members of the House the rules for voting, as I understand them.

The rules for voting, as they were when I came to this place and as they were for many years--and I do not remember them ever having been changed--are that once the vote begins members are to stay in their seats. They are not to move around and talk to each other. They are not to leave before they vote or after the vote has taken place. They are not to leave after they vote.

I observed 12 Liberals leave and God knows how many opposition members because I cannot see all of them. Members are not behaving properly.

The idea is that members are supposed to sit in their place until the vote has taken place and then they can leave. I wish you would enforce that, Mr. Speaker.

I can understand why some members may want to leave. The Minister of Labour left because she did not want to vote against workers because that is what her cabinet instructed her to do. I do not understand why other members felt they had to leave, particularly after they had voted. They could at least wait around to see the turnout.

[International Aid, October 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, no one knows better than the Prime Minister that time is running out for various political agendas. To the extent that this is on his political agenda, I wonder if he could tell the House that he will ensure this kind of change in legislation, which would provide generic drugs for people with AIDS and malaria and other diseases in Africa, will happen before the House adjourns or prorogues.

[International Aid, October 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the House seems preoccupied with gifts over $200 and the role of the member for LaSalle—Émard. Perhaps I could combine the two in a serious question to the Prime Minister by asking him to imagine what a $200 gift of generic drugs would do for a person with AIDS in Africa.

When will the Prime Minister make that happen? When will that legislation come forward? Is it the member for LaSalle—Émard who is holding up this process? Whatever it is, we want it addressed and soon.

[Government Contracts, October 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it seems odd that some of those who support the new Liberal leader complain when a crown corporation gets money to do something that is long overdue in this country, but they are silent about the awarding of a contract to Lockheed Martin to do the census or for that matter, the contract that was awarded to Lockheed Martin to do health information services for our Canadian armed forces.

Has the Deputy Prime Minister had a chance to look at the Lockheed Martin file? Can he tell the House today that this contract will be rescinded and the census will be done in Canada, by Canadians, where it belongs?