Lost his last election, in 1997, with 33% of the vote.
Questions On The Order Paper March 20th, 1995
Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I just want to make it clear that when the request was made for unanimous consent to introduce the back to work legislation and the opposition did not permit that to occur, it was not the Reform members. The Reform members did concur. It was the Bloc and the NDP.
Port Of Montreal March 20th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, if the government was serious about preventing future transportation stoppages, it would have supported Reform's private member's bill this morning.
The Minister of Labour floated the idea of binding arbitration last night. If she had really believed what she was saying, the minister would have stood in her place and voted for the best offer selection bill introduced by the member for Lethbridge.
I ask the Minister of Labour this. What steps will the government take to prevent future rail disputes? Please, no speeches and no lectures about the collective bargaining process. It rings pretty hollow to 45,000 public servants.
Port Of Montreal March 20th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately millions of Canadians are held hostage by this work stoppage and they need to be heard as well. It is the government's shortsightedness and bumbling that is to blame for the rail stoppage.
Thirty-six hundred people in Montreal and Toronto are stranded because of the government. Farmers cannot get their grain to market because of the government. Manufacturers are shutting down production and workers are being laid off because of the government.
What is the government planning to do to ensure rail stoppages will be a thing of the past?
Port Of Montreal March 20th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, for weeks a rail strike was expected. Now, after millions of dollars in lost wages and profit, and aggravating delays for commuters, farmers, and exporters, the Liberal government is finally ready to heed Reform's call for back to work legislation.
The Bloc and the NDP are holding up speedy passage of the legislation, adding to the loss of Canadian jobs and exports. It should not have come to this and it need not, had the government acted.
Since Reform knew weeks ago that legislation would be necessary to end this dispute, since the unions knew it, CN-CP knew it and the government knew it, why did the government not act sooner to avert this costly rail strike?
Questions Passed As Orders For Returns March 17th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I believe there would be unanimous consent to support an order for return of question 131.
Health Care March 16th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, we should ask a taxpayer whether it is free.
The Prime Minister speaks in glowing terms about preserving our national health care standards. I will tell the Prime Minister what is really happening.
In Manitoba there is a waiting period of 61.7 weeks, way over one year, for hip replacement surgery. The national standard is 11.3 weeks. Where is the performance? How are we meeting our current commitments? What good are national standards if the provinces cannot deliver on them?
Is the government prepared to bring the Canada Health Act in line with the 1990s and give the provinces real control over medicine delivery and health care financing?
Health Care March 16th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, wherever costs are lower it is because the standards are not being met right now. It is a sign of things to come.
Experts tell us health care costs are rising by about 50 per cent and the economy is only growing by 4 per cent. The federal government is planning to reduce funding from 10 per cent of GDP to 8 per cent. That means less federal money for medicare, no matter how you look at it.
I have seen the confusion created at the provincial level in Saskatchewan when governments said one thing and did another.
Is the government planning to offload medicare funding on to the provinces by putting a cap on Canada social transfers?
Health Care March 16th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, last night in Saskatoon the Prime Minister made several inconsistent statements concerning the national health system.
He said the government would maintain current medicare standards and yet federal funding would be tied to economic growth and would drop as a percentage of GDP.
There is no way current standards can be maintained under this plan, especially since the OECD estimates that Canada's health care costs will double over the next 20 years.
How does he explain this inconsistency and how will current standards be maintained given increased demand and reduced federal funding?
Points Of Order March 15th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the hon. member for Wild Rose, requested that you consider an emergency debate tonight on the very issue that will be dealt with in the bill. That confirms the feelings of the hon. member that it is a very serious matter which needed to be discussed by the House.
In light of recent developments the hon. member should withdraw the request. It seems redundant to ask for an emergency debate when we will actually be dealing with the legislation we called for yesterday in the House.
The Budget March 14th, 1995
Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I believe it is not proper procedure to note members that are not in the House.