Bill Blaikie

[Electoral System, October 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it was Mr. Eves who linked his agenda to that of the new Liberal leader, not once, but six times. Mr. McGuinty has promised to do in Ontario what the NDP tried to accomplish three days ago in this House, with respect to proportional representation.

Now that Mr. McGuinty is the Premier of Ontario, has the Liberal government changed its mind about a referendum on proportional representation? Or does it think that Mr. McGuinty is wrong-headed on this issue?

[Electoral System, October 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is funny that so many Liberals are up on their feet today congratulating Mr. McGuinty when it was Mr. Eves--

[Veterans Affairs, October 2nd, 2003]

That is the problem, Mr. Speaker, with asking questions of this government. It cannot make any decisions because it has to check it out with the provisional government and clearly the provisional government has not made that decision yet.

So I say to the Minister of Finance with respect to the $2 billion that was promised to the provinces for health care, can he tell us, as a representative of this government, whether this government intends to honour that promise and have that $2 billion flowing toward the health care of Canadians?

[Veterans Affairs, October 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, on a day when Canadians are still dying in the service of their country, it might be a good day to fully honour the memory of those who volunteered to do likewise many years ago and restore the veterans independence program to all the widows who deserve it and who were wrongfully cut off.

Now the Minister of Veterans Affairs says that he has the heart but he does not have the money. Yesterday the Prime Minister said to his caucus that he was going to find the money.

I wonder if the Minister of Veterans Affairs can get up today and say, “This debate is over, all of us here agree that those widows should get the money to which they are entitled”.

[National Defence, October 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my leader, Jack Layton and the federal NDP caucus, I want to join with colleagues in the House today in mourning the loss of Sergeant Short and Corporal Beerenfenger, and to extend to their families our sympathy and our respect for the sacrifice that their family members have made and for the ongoing sacrifice that they will make as a result of the events in Afghanistan today. We also of course wish a speedy recovery for those who were injured in this event and we hope that soon they will be back to full health.

We have a peacekeeping memorial and we have it because Canadian peacekeepers and peacemakers put themselves in harm's way on a daily basis when they take part in these kinds of operations. It is something we should show great respect for, and today we realize once again and very painfully that this is the kind of danger that attends this kind of activity on the part of Canada. However it is something these soldiers do willingly, something they volunteer for, and we should take every opportunity to pay our greatest respects to all who volunteer, particularly to those who have paid the supreme sacrifice.

Today we say, as we say on November 11 and on so many other occasions: at the going down of the sun, and in the morning, we will remember them.

[Transportation, September 19th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the member for LaSalle—Émard is also associated with a certain kind of continentalism. In that same context, I wonder if the Minister of Transport is aware of this internal memo within the Canadian National Railway which now prohibits employees from using any language that has the word Canadian in it. They can say CN, but they cannot say Canadian National. They cannot say Canadian National Railway. They cannot say Canadian National Railroad.

I wonder if the Minister of Transport would undertake to look into this and communicate to CN, or to the Canadian National Railway, that using the word Canadian--

[Infrastructure, September 19th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the future prime minister outlined an exceptionally conservative economic agenda. In fact it hardly seems necessary to unite the right. Why re-invent the wheel when we are going to have a government led by the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard?

My question actually is for the Minister of Transport, also the minister responsible for Toronto. I wonder if he could explain to us why the member for LaSalle—Émard ignored cities completely in his economic speech yesterday.

[Immigration, September 19th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, in June of this year before the House rose for the summer, I brought to the attention of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration the fact that many foreign delegates to the Lutheran World Federation meeting in Winnipeg in July were having an unjustifiably difficult time getting visas and I asked the minister to intervene accordingly.

I regret to say that he does not appear to have done so, at least successfully, as whole national delegations from some countries never did get into Canada for the meeting. This was more than just regrettable. It was disrespectful to the Lutheran Church, damaging to those who were refused, and will be harmful to the prospects of further such global meetings in Canada.

The Lutheran community in Winnipeg is still upset with the government about this, as is the provincial government, and I thought it important to put on the record this unhappiness with the government's handling of this event.

[Government Programs, September 18th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I thought it was the Prime Minister who had secretly taken out an NDP membership.

I would like to ask him about another aspect of his emerging progressive legacy and that of course has to do with the decriminalization of marijuana. I wonder if he could tell us whether or not he thinks this aspect of his legacy is safe. Will we have this legislation passed before his successor takes office?

[Government Programs, September 18th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health and others in the camp of the member for LaSalle—Émard have suggested that the next Liberal prime minister might not be as committed to progressive aspects of the Prime Minister's legacy as we in the NDP are, for instance.

My question is for the Prime Minister. How does he intend to ensure that these progressive aspects of his legacy, the things that he has accomplished on human rights, on Kyoto, on Iraq and on electoral reform, are not undermined by his successor?