House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2006, with 45% of the vote.
Airline Industry November 1st, 2002
Mr. Speaker, Air Canada committed to government to continue to provide services to all the communities served by Air Canada and Canadian Airlines for a three year period. That commitment is now up and Air Canada is cutting routes.
The minister might say he cannot interfere but he can do something about the reasons, which are increased costs because of security charges, airport fees and fuel taxes. Will he?
St. John's Harbour November 1st, 2002
Mr. Speaker, on Monday, overlooking the harbour in St. John's, the Prime Minister is finally going to announce that the federal government will participate in funding the clean-up of St. John's Harbour.
This project has been on the agenda for several years. Finally, with the help and the great work done by: the ACAP group; the member for St. John's East, who has been an avid supporter; the three levels of government; and shall I say myself, the project is about to become a reality.
Despite the fact that the former Newfoundland minister constantly stated that funding for clean-up must come from regular infrastructure funding, it is on the record that our party suggested that a special project fund was needed. We are glad to see that the previous finance minister agreed and that the new Newfoundland minister supported this new direction.
It shows what cooperation can do. It is a good day for St. John's.
Supply October 31st, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I also agree with the member that the Prime Minister is not what he used to be. He seems to be appalled by what some of his members are doing. He is not operating in the manly fashion in which he used to. He is certainly not the rock solid member that we have seen in the past. We see more cops around him outside than usual. He undoubtedly has some concerns on his shoulders, especially when he looks over his shoulders.
I am reminded of the movie A Few Good Men. One way to avoid having the country really see what some of the issues are, one way to avoid dealing with some of the real issues, is to have committee chairs who stifle any real issues that come forth. Good, solid, independent people and good, solid independent Liberals deal with issues as they are presented to committees. People who are put there to stifle debate and stifle issues coming forth do so on the orders of the Prime Minister. What he is trying to do is to avoid the truth. We remember Jack Nicholson saying to Tom Cruise “The truth? You can't handle the truth.” We are wondering if that is what is wrong with the Prime Minister. Perhaps the member would comment on that.
Supply October 31st, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I just wonder if the member is concerned about the fact that all of this is in limbo. We are fighting petty battles that should never be fought because we agree on the procedure, the same procedure as the government is suggesting but wants to manipulate to make sure that it controls the individuals placed in the positions of chairs. While all of this is happening, the business of the country is being held up.
A number of bills that will affect business in the country are waiting to be addressed by the committees. Right now businesses cannot move forward in developing the concerns they want to get involved in and get the necessary funding because they really do not know what the legislation covering said business will be like.
I just wonder if the member has a concern that while the government is fiddling, Rome is burning.
Supply October 31st, 2002
Madam Speaker, my experiences with committees are similar to the ones mentioned by the opposition House leader.
On the fisheries committee we could not ask for a more independent chair. It is the same thing on the culture and heritage committee. If we had the opportunity to vote for chairpersons, we would have no problem voting for the two people who currently fill those roles.
It is our hope, as we get into the new committees, that similar chairs will be there. These are the people for whom we will vote. These are the people we will elect, simply because as opposition members we want to ensure that issues are dealt with in a fair and non-partisan way.
Why then does the House leader think that the government will want to appoint the chairs in caucus? I have seen chairs that have been put into positions to obstruct rather than to ensure that the work goes on. I would like his views on that point.
Points of Order October 31st, 2002
Mr. Speaker, the government House leader, as usual, has only given us half the facts in relation to this question.
The argument may be made that the proceedings of this morning and the proposed allotted day motion by the Canadian Alliance amount to the same question. The nineteenth edition of Erskine May, at page 368, states:
Matters already decided during the same session.—A motion or an amendment may not be brought forward which is the same, in substance, as a question which has been decided in the affirmative or negative during the current session. The rule may be fully stated as follows:—No question or bill shall be offered in either House that is substantially the same as one on which its judgment has already been expressed in the current session....
Further, on page 369, it states:
A question may be raised again if it has not been definitely decided.
The debate this morning was on the motion to concur in a report from the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and on an amendment to return the report to the committee. That question is still before the House. It has not been decided by the House. The proposed motion from the Canadian Alliance is a substantive motion on an allotted day.
Citation 923 from the 6th edition of Beauchesne's states:
Motions moved on allotted days may relate to any matter within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada,....
The Opposition prerogative is very broad in the use of the allotted day and ought not to be interfered with except on the clearest and most certain procedural grounds.
It is clear that we have every right to move to the motion as submitted by the Canadian Alliance.
Supply October 29th, 2002
Madam Speaker, the member made reference to the McGrath report. It recommended that the government make appointments but that they would be held up to scrutiny. How can an appointment be scrutinized or anything be scrutinized if we are working in a committee where the chair is appointed by the Prime Minister to do as the Prime Minister wishes?
Supply October 29th, 2002
Madam Speaker, I listened to the speech given by the hon. member. Certainly the government is prepared to justify the way it makes appointments. Nobody would criticize the government making appointments if the government did it fairly and squarely, and appointed people who were competent and had the trust of everybody else in the House. However we have seen what the government does. The Prime Minister said on July 19, 1997:
You appoint people of your party. I'm not going to name people who are not Liberals.
Many times we do not know who these people are. There are many qualified independent people out there who could serve on boards. The government should immediately place a moratorium on political appointments for a period of two months. In these two months we could establish the necessary parliamentary structures. Once these structures are in place then the candidates who are appointed to high office would be appointed not only with the consent of government, but with the support of the House and the people of the country.
I ask the member to comment on that because it is not my statement. It is from the government House leader in February 1985.
Health Care System October 28th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, when I listen to the hon. members, especially from the government side, talk about health care, it seems that everybody is waiting for a report to come in so they can do something. We are talking about Romanow. We have just seen the report from the Senate. It might be very interesting to compare both, I suggest to the hon. member, to see which is the better one, especially if we factor in the cost of both reports. However, once we get both of them, what is government going to wait for then? Because it is not moving on dealing with the major health care problems in our country.
One of the major problems is the discrepancy in how we fund health care. Most of the funding, as the hon. member well knows, that goes to the provinces goes through the Canada health and social transfer payments on a per capita basis. I have said before here, and the more people that understand it the better chance we have of clarifying this discrepancy, that this works exceptionally well for provinces with populations that are expanding or increasing. It works in the reverse for provinces with populations that are declining. Unfortunately, or maybe fortunately, we only have one, and that is Newfoundland and Labrador. Instead of getting more money as health care costs increase, we get fewer dollars because the population is dropping. The people who leave the province are the young and healthy. The people who remain are the older people who require more health care costs. Consequently, we get fewer dollars and we have greater costs and a geography that is comparable to none in the country over which we have to deliver health care.
How does the member suggest that a province like Newfoundland can receive equal treatment from the federal agencies in relation to funding that would be able to provide the same level of service in such a province, and I know there are others of varying degrees, compared to just a blanket formula that rewards some and punishes others?
Health Care System October 28th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, the hon. Secretary of State for Children and Youth knows that it costs a tremendous amount to operate the health care system in our country. It would cost less if we had fewer people using the health care system. Fewer people would use the health care system if they were healthier and better educated.
We do not hear anyone talking about prevention. Does the secretary of state not think that if the government invested more in our youth so that every young Canadian had the opportunity to receive a solid education that we would significantly reduce the cost of health care in Canada?