House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2006, with 45% of the vote.
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?
Health Care System October 28th, 2002
Or the income for seniors.
Fisheries October 11th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Every minister of fisheries associated with the north Atlantic clearly states that the main problem facing our fisheries today is a complete lack of scientific information.
In light of this, would the minister tell the House why the department is proposing to take one of three research vessels, the Wilfred Templeman , out of service?
Marine Atlantic October 11th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, recently the Minister of Transport filled four vacancies on the board of Marine Atlantic. This service exists solely for the benefit of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is a service to that province.
The minister appointed three people from Nova Scotia and one person from New Brunswick to the board but not one from Newfoundland and Labrador. Common sense dictates that those directly affected would have more knowledge and interest in the service.
The regional minister defends his colleague's political appointments by stating that we do not need Newfoundlanders on the board. It is time for the regional minister to properly represent his province. Wake up, Mr. Minister, Newfoundland has been “byrned” again.
Nuclear Safety and Control Act October 10th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has told us that she has other very interesting information. What is it?
Nuclear Safety and Control Act October 10th, 2002
Madam Speaker, I have a very brief question for my hon. colleague. In light of the concerns and everyone's conversion into making sure that we have a clean environment in the future, does the hon. member think that the federal government should be encouraging wind power in certain parts of the country?
Specifically Newfoundland and Labrador has tremendous hydro resources. There has been very little encouragement or backing from the federal government in relation to development or any concern about making sure that power is kept for our Canadian use.
Resumption of debate on Address in Reply October 8th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, when the government prepares the prepared text for the backbenchers, who get up and praise government, how much detail does it give to the members in relation to the topics they talk about?
The member just talked about the investment in health care. Would he tell us if the government will be looking at the discrepancies which exist in the country? If he was around last night, he would have heard me talk about the problems being faced right now in our province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Doctors are on strike, mainly because there is not enough money to pay them competitively with doctors in Atlantic Canada, not to say the rest of the country.
We get the bulk of our health care funding through the CHST formula, which means on a per capita basis. Every other province has either a stable or an increasing population. Newfoundland has a rapidly declining population. This means fewer dollars compared to everybody else to maintain the same plan. Not only that, the people who are leaving are the young and healthy. Those left behind require greater expenditure. We get fewer dollars, have greater expenditures and a big, rough geographic area to service.
Will the government address discrepancies such as this as it moves ahead with its health care plans?