Bill Blaikie

[Transport, October 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, every once in a while the Liberals do something right, so I would like to commend the Minister of Transport for his commitment to passenger rail in this country.

I want to ask the Minister of Transport if he could explain the behaviour of some of his colleagues who seem to be at odds with him on this. I hope it is not because they are enthralled with the new Liberal leader who has a history of supporting bus companies rather than crown corporation rail companies.

Could he explain the behaviour of his colleagues and explain how he intends to make sure that this actually happens?

[Foreign Affairs, October 23rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, obviously we feel that this last year's surplus could have been used for some of those needs.

I have a question for the Minister of Foreign Affairs who, in response to a question by the member for Winnipeg Centre yesterday, said that it was up to American Secretary of State Colin Powell to decide whether the Devil's Lake diversion violated the boundary waters treaty. What happened to Canadian sovereignty here? Surely it is not just up to Secretary of State Powell to decide whether this violates the boundary waters treaty.

Will the minister agree to the request of the Manitoba government to refer this matter to the international joint commission so we can have an independent judgment on this?

[Finance, October 23rd, 2003]

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

The Minister of Finance said that he wanted different kinds of questions from the opposition and I have one for him.

I wonder if the Minister of Finance could tell us why it is that he refuses to use the surplus, which he now knows about, to meet the commitment the government made to add another $2 billion to medicare funding in the country, to relieving student debt, to helping hospitality workers who have suffered from the SARS epidemic and to helping ranchers who have suffered from the BSE problem. Why will he not commit to using the surplus to meet the needs of Canadians?

[Supply, October 23rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, there we have the inconsistency of the Alliance Party, and before that the Reform Party, which hopefully will soon be at an end. We will have a new form of inconsistency, I am sure, but at least the one that we are so tired of will be gone from the House.

Because there the member is, pretending that somehow the member for LaSalle—Émard is a big spender, when he is one of those same guys who, day after day, get up in the House and accuse the former minister of finance of gutting the health care system, taking billions out of the health care system, not spending enough on defence, not spending enough on this and not spending enough on that.

Yet in the same breath, he stands up and says that the problem with the member for LaSalle—Émard is that he is a big spender. He is not a big spender. He cut the guts out of a lot of good programs in this country. The percentage of government spending as a percentage of the economy is way down from what it historically was.

The member for Peace River is a good guy, but he is just wrong on this.

[Supply, October 23rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I understand where my colleague from the Bloc is coming from. I opened my remarks by saying that I understood the Bloc's argument, but our argument, which we think trumps the Bloc's argument, is that we already know what the member for LaSalle—Émard is going to be about. We already know what he is going to be like and we do not want that to happen to the country any sooner than it has to.

[Supply, October 23rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned, the job of the opposition is to oppose that which is worthy of opposition.

I do not understand why my colleagues in the opposition today would want to act in such a way as to lend credibility to the view that the member for LaSalle—Émard represents change, that the member for LaSalle—Émard is something that the country cannot wait for. If he represents change at all, it is change going further to the right, which maybe the member for Selkirk—Interlake would like, but it is not something that the NDP would like, and therefore we have taken the position that we have.

[Supply, October 23rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I want to make it clear that we feel the House should continue to sit. We do not feel that what is happening within the Liberal Party, or whatever the succession rights may be, should get in the way of the House doing its business between now and the projected time of adjournment just before Christmas.

We have made that clear. Just the other day I was up on my feet in question period urging the government House leader to commit to having the House sit at least beyond the period in which the Auditor General could report to the House, because we know that the Auditor General has much to report on in the way of Liberal misspending and mismanagement. We do not want the Auditor General to be unable to report as a result of the House being prorogued.

So if the member is asking me what we think of whether or not the House should continue to sit, we think it should

[Supply, October 23rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would certainly never want to do indirectly what I could not do directly. I always prefer to do it directly. You get my drift, Mr. Speaker.

It is a well known fact even on the Liberal side the member for LaSalle—Émard is a conservative, which raises the question of why there would be any need to unite the right in this country, when the right is already so well united behind the member for LaSalle—Émard.

Although, on the other hand, we see here today a new version of unite the right. We see all these other opposition parties apparently united behind the notion that the best thing that could happen for the country is for this right wing Liberal to take over the country as soon as possible. That is what I call uniting the right. It is why the NDP is not supporting the motion. It is not because we have any particular affection for the Prime Minister and his 10 years of government, the first nine of which were shared with the member for LaSalle—Émard and with which we find great fault.

We have noticed that in the last little while the Prime Minister has shown strains of something that we might want to encourage, like the idea of an independent Canadian foreign policy. Yet what has been said about the position that the Prime Minister took with respect to the war in Iraq? What has been the theme on this side of the House with a number of speakers is that we have to have the member for LaSalle—Émard quickly to repair our relationship with the United States. We have to have the member for LaSalle—Émard undo that brief shining moment of independence when Canada said no to a war on Iraq.

We have members on this side of the House, and apparently others who support the member for LaSalle—Émard, who cannot wait for the member for LaSalle—Émard to become the prime minister, so he can go down to Washington on bended knee and make up for the terrible sins of the current Prime Minister.

We do not share that view. We do not share the view that the Prime Minister has done something wrong by not allowing Canada to be involved in the war in Iraq. We agreed with him on that. We take exception to the view that this is somehow a terrible thing that the Prime Minister has done.

Are my colleagues here on the opposition side in such a hurry for the program of reform that the member for LaSalle—Émard has announced he will implement when he becomes the Prime Minister with respect to the democratic deficit? Have we spent all these years, many of us here in committee, on special committees and standing committees talking about parliamentary reform, to pretend that what the member for LaSalle—Émard is promising in terms of parliamentary reform is meaningful reform?

Have a look at what the member for LaSalle—Émard's parliamentary reform package is about. It is about 10% of what the McGrath committee recommended in 1985. It is a pale imitation of anything that has ever been recommended by any committee of this House.

It is a crime against the truth that the member for LaSalle—Émard gets to parade around the country pretending that he is the big parliamentary reform guy, when what he is proposing is just so much minutiae compared to what has been recommended over and over again by committees of the House and recommended individually by so many parties in the House.

Yet today we say bring on that minuscule reform, as if somehow that will be better for the country. Bring on the facade and bring on the scam of curing the democratic deficit. There could not be anything more undemocratic than the way the Liberal leadership itself is run, with million and millions of dollars and legitimate candidates being unable to even consider putting their names in the ring because they cannot raise that kind of money. They cannot fight that kind of money. What the heck is democratic about that? Nothing at all.

While I am on the money issue, and we are talking about the current political context here, many on this side have alluded, sometimes directly, to what is happening between the Canadian Alliance Party and the Progressive Conservative Party.

What is going on here? Some have referred to a parallel government. They do not like the fact that the member for LaSalle—Émard may be conducting a sort of parallel government.

I will tell members where the real parallel government is in this country. The parallel government, the real government, the invisible government, call it what we like, is the people who have decided that they want to bankroll a new right wing party in this country and they want it done before the end of the year, because as of January 1 they will not be able to do so. Let us not kid ourselves. On this side of the House, that is what is going on. It is not unconnected to the new regime that has been brought in with respect to campaign financing.

What else? Speaking of democracy, it is interesting to hear the member for Brandon—Souris and others in the Canadian Alliance get up and talk about democracy when it is clear that the big money on Bay Street and other places has said, “We don't care what the membership of the Progressive Conservative Party thought they were doing when they voted in the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. We don't care what David Orchard thought the new leader of the Conservative Party was promising. We don't care what the membership of the Canadian Alliance thinks, for that matter. We are going to buy ourselves a new political party because we are the real parallel government in this country. We are the real invisible government in this country”.

That is what is going on here, and yet we hear members on this side of the House get up and say they are concerned about a parallel government.

We are concerned about a parallel government, the same one that has existed for decades in this country, one which likes to fund two parties, one that is in and one that is out. And there should not be too much of a distinction between the two of them because every once in a while the people need a change, and God forbid we should have a real change, so we need a kind of a pale imitation of the one that can take over from the other, and so goes Canadian history.

I will resist the temptation to recite the Tommy Douglas story about mouse land, where the mice keep picking between the black cats and the white cats and maybe at some point they should actually be electing one of their own.

Members do not have to take my word for it. They can read an op-ed article in the paper today by Senator Lowell Murray, a distinguished colleague in the other place and a Conservative of long standing, who feels that the Progressive Conservative Party has made a horrible historical mistake. I share that view, not just for its own sake, but for the sake of the country.

These are just some of the things we wanted to bring to the attention of the House today. As I said, we are not interested in jumping from the frying pan into the fire any quicker than we have to. We think the member for LaSalle—Émard has already united the right. We look forward to meeting the member for LaSalle—Émard on the hustings next year and we wonder what the members here today who were so anxious to have him as the prime minister will be saying then.

I can hear what the member for LaSalle—Émard will be saying. He will be saying, “I don't know why you guys are so unhappy with me. You wanted me to become the prime minister three months earlier than I became the prime minister. In fact, when I wasn't the prime minister, you said to make me the prime minister, to fix the problem, the sooner the better”, and on and on, all the things that have been said here today.

It is a curious business indeed that so many opposition parties could be united around the very person they intend to run against in the next election.

[Supply, October 23rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I thought if I were going to take the same position of the government, that some of members might want to be in the House to hear why. We can always call quorum again if we have to.

It is a very interesting situation that we find ourselves in today with the Bloc motion.

First, I want to say that we understand, from the point of view of the NDP, that one thing the Bloc is trying to point out is that the situation we find ourselves in, with the member for LaSalle--Émard being a certain successor to the Prime Minister and the fact that there is apparently going to be a three month period between when the member for LaSalle--Émard becomes the leader of the Liberal Party and when he becomes the Prime Minister, creates problems in terms of accountability. It already has in the sense that we would like to ask the member for LaSalle--Émard questions because we know he is consulting behind the scenes, sometimes not even behind the scenes, and that decisions are perhaps being made about what the future direction of his government will look like.

However it is interesting, having said that, because it is a legitimate problem, as I said earlier, that it was created not just by the Prime Minister but by the Liberal Party itself, controlled by the member for LaSalle--Émard, a party which decided to have the convention in November knowing full well that the Prime Minister was not going to resign until February. A party that had the interests of the country at heart, and not the interests of a particular leadership candidate at heart, would have said “We know what the Prime Minister wants and when he is going to resign, so we are going to have our leadership convention in February”.

One thing we find difficult about the motion is it lets the member for LaSalle--Émard off the hook, it lets the Liberal Party off the hook, and it tries to pile everything onto the Prime Minister, who no doubt is not blameless in this matter, do not get me wrong. Nevertheless, there is something fundamentally flawed about the motion because it does not take into account the role of the Liberal Party and the member for LaSalle--Émard himself.

In fact a strange thing has happened in the House today. We have all the opposition parties, with the exception of the NDP, singing from the member for LaSalle--Émard's hymn book. They are all part of the choir that says “Bring on the member for LaSalle--Émard”. It has been described as the sooner the better that we have the member for LaSalle--Émard. The member for Brandon--Souris said that we should fix the problem and bring on the member for LaSalle--Émard.

Are all these people secret members of the campaign for the leadership of the Liberal Party by the member for LaSalle--Émard? It is really kind of funny to hear all the people hailing and wanting to bring on, as soon as possible, the rein of the member for LaSalle--Émard, but we do not share this view.

We are in no rush to jump from the frying pan into the fire. We think the member for LaSalle--Émard is even more right wing than the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister himself is no left wing Liberal in many respects, although lately he has shown the odd sort of attack of progressiveness, perhaps in the absence of the influence from the member for LaSalle--Émard. Why something has happened to the Prime Minister in the last year, we attribute it in part to the fact that he is finally listening to the NDP and he is doing some things he ought to have been doing for a long time.

The fact of the matter is the member for LaSalle--Émard, the new Liberal leader, is promising the country 100 days of cuts. Perhaps I could ask about this, particularly of my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois. I can understand why members in the Canadian Alliance and the Tories, or whatever they come to call themselves, might be anxious for 100 days of cuts, because that is their view of the world: cut, cut, cut. Cutting anything that is good is good government as far as they are concerned. However I wonder why members of the Bloc are anxious to bring on 100 days of cuts.

We have a projected surplus for next year somewhere in the neighbourhood of $6 billion to $7 billion. We do not need cuts. We need that money to be spent appropriately on health care, on a new equalization formula with the provinces, on relieving student debt and on a number of other things that have been waiting the attention of the government.

As I said, we think it is like jumping from the frying pan into the fire because we know, as do so many other people, that basically the member for LaSalle--Émard is a conservative himself. He is right wing Liberal.

In fact the member for Tobique—Mactaquac said that he was not worried about the Tories and the Alliance getting together because as far as he was concerned, “Mr. Martin has impressed fiscal conservatives with his ability to slay the federal deficit”. I am just quoting from a newspaper, Mr. Speaker. I would not refer--

[Supply, October 23rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Other members may be satisfied to speak to an empty House but I am not, so I call quorum.