Gerry Byrne

[Rise in anti-Semitism, February 24th, 2015]

Mr. Chair, the hon. member has confused the message and the debates a lot. If I could offer some perspective, having been to Israel and attending the Knesset, the debate in Israel is pretty intense at times. Israelis are very forward thinking. Israel is a very democratic nation that serves its best interest by serving democracy. There is always debate.

However, to suggest that if one offers criticism to Israel, that somehow one is anti-Semitic has never been an utterance that has ever occurred on the floor of this chamber through the course of this debate. What we have said, collectively and very clearly, is that anti-Semitism is a very real phenomenon that is born in hatred. It is not born in criticism, not in public discourse of fair minded people and fair minded values. It is born on hatred. It incites violence and it will create an era of intolerance.

If that is the message that has confused her in this chamber, I also feel it becomes so painfully clear that the message could be confused elsewhere. That is why we have to speak out so loudly, so forcefully and so clearly to define anti-Semitism as a hatred and a violence that will not be tolerated. Those who seek peace, who seek discourse, as we did at Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, who embrace all cultures and all citizens will all have a place. That is the lesson maybe we can all take home from this.

[Rise in anti-Semitism, February 24th, 2015]

Mr. Chair, I would be pleased to split my time with the hon. member for Mount Royal, who is, I believe it is fair to say, our Parliament's scholar, historian, and collective conscience on human rights issues and who has been a great architect of the Ottawa protocol. I would love to hear a little more of his thoughts on that particular topic.

I have appreciated the discussion here tonight. It has been very valuable to me, and there are two essential messages that have come forward that must be communicated.

One is that anti-Semitism will not be tolerated no matter where it occurs, whether it be on the borders of Israel, in a European capital, or, God forbid, here on Canadian soil.

The second message, of course, is that this cannot be empty rhetoric. This message has to come with a resolve to protect and with a call to action. To those who are threatened by anti-Semitism, we must be firm: never again.

Members might wonder what exactly the member of Parliament for Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte from Newfoundland and Labrador would be able to offer to this particular debate. I have an interesting perspective to offer.

I am an Irish Newfoundlander, and many Newfoundlanders are Irish. In 1968, my constituency decided that the best person to represent us in this chamber was a man named Jack Marshall.

Jack was Jewish. There were a lot of Jews in my riding, but we did not vote for him because he was Jewish, and we certainly did not vote against him because he was Jewish. He was the best person for the job. In fact, he was so very popular and such an effective advocate for veterans right across this entire country, as he was for his constituency in each and every matter that was important to it and to the people of Humber—St. George's—St. Barbe at the time, that the prime minister of Canada had to elevate him to the Senate, because that was the only way to free up the seat. He was a phenomenal representative.

His successor was a kind of a twist of irony. A by-election was held when Jack Marshall was elevated to the Senate, where he so well served this country and every veteran that ever served in uniform. His successor was a young man by the name of Fonse Faour, a Lebanese Canadian who was 24 years of age. We did not vote for him because he was of Lebanese descent, and we did not vote against him because he was of Lebanese descent; we voted for him because he was the best person for the job. Therefore, I come from a perspective that all things are possible. That is the way we are.

With that in mind, I went to Israel last year. I wanted to learn more. We received some great briefings and met with the Canadian representative to the Palestinian authority. Four days into the trip, Hamas started firing rockets into Israel, indiscriminately, for the sole purpose of killing innocent civilians. Hamas, the terrorist organization, was doing what it does.

That was the most profound experience that anyone could possibly imagine. It was transformative for me.

Anti-Semitism is real. It is very active in this world. The events in Montreal prove that it is on the rise. Is it on the rise everywhere? I think it is.

Yesterday, because I have been an outspoken advocate for peace and for the right of Israel to exist and to protect itself, I received a message from within my own constituency suggesting that I was acting like a Nazi for my beliefs and my sincere conviction that peace can happen, that Israel has the right to exist, and that action against anti-Semitism must be taken.

These are the perspectives that a man from Newfoundland and Labrador who sits in this chamber can offer to this debate. Not only do we have to communicate that anti-Semitism is not to be tolerated, but we have to send a message to the Jewish community, to those who would advocate for peace and for harmony, that we will not stand idly by, no matter what corner of the globe or part of Canada we are from.

I will conclude with that one perspective. This is an issue that should captivate us all. We have a duty to action and a duty to protect, and it is inherent in each and every one of us.

[Fisheries and Oceans, February 6th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, in the government's response to a report by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans concerning small craft harbours, a suggestion—no, a promise—was made to the House and to the thousands of volunteer members of our country's harbour authorities that the government would not cut the very lifelines needed to manage these harbours for the mutual benefit of both DFO and the communities. Yet, in Newfoundland and Labrador, that is exactly what is happening: cuts to staff, cuts to training, and cuts to DFO offices.

Why the double-cross of our harbour authorities and the volunteers? Why was Parliament deceived?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 26th, 2015]

With regard to public revenue: for each government organization, including a department, agency, or Crown corporation, (a) when providing a good or service, does that organization charge a fuel surcharge or any other charge or fee related to the cost of fuel; and (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, (i) what is the nature or description of the good or service provided for which a fuel surcharge or related fee is charged, (ii) in each case, when was the fuel surcharge or fee first instituted, (iii) how often is the fuel surcharge or fee adjusted, (iv) what were the dates of each occasion on which the fuel surcharge or fee was adjusted or set since January 1, 2011, (v) for each adjustment or setting of a fuel surcharge or fee referred to in (iv), what was the amount established on that date for the fuel surcharge or fee?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 26th, 2015]

With regard to the statutes, regulations, policies and practices governing the Department of Fisheries and Oceans related to the issuing and administration of commercial fishing licences and fisheries resource allocation decisions: (a) what is the definition of (i) a commercial fishing licence, (ii) a commercial fishing permit; (b) what are the differences between a commercial fishing licence and a commercial fishing permit in terms of (i) the rights and responsibilities of the harvester holding either a licence or a permit respectively, (ii) the rights and responsibilities of the Minister in terms of resource allocation policy; (c) what is the definition of the “Last-in – First-out” (LIFO) policy; (d) how often has the LIFO policy been acted upon in determining allocations of annual quotas to either commercial fisheries licences or to permit holders that have experienced any year-over-year decline in the total allowable catch, broken down by (i) year, (ii) each such regulated harvesting category within any of the fisheries management areas of each fisheries stock area within the Newfoundland and Labrador, the Gulf, the Maritime and the Quebec regions of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, further broken down in turn by (iii) species fished, (iv) individual fisheries management area within the species stock area within the past ten years, including the total quota levels for each such species and for each such fisheries management area within each stock area in each year; and (e) in each of the occurrences reported in answering (d), for each of the past ten years described, what was the total number of fish licence holders or permit holders who were directly affected by a reduction in quota on a year-over-year basis and were subject to the application and enactment of the LIFO policy, broken down by (i) species, (ii) individual fisheries management area within each fisheries stock area?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 15th, 2014]

With regard to the Department of Canadian Heritage: what was the (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) agenda, (iv) list of attendees or participants by name and title, (v) file or reference number, for minutes of all meetings of any group or committee involved in the planning or programming of 2014 Canada Day events in Ottawa?

[Red Tape Reduction Act, September 15th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I take a certain amount of umbrage in the fact that the NDP is already telling us and Canadians that the Liberal Party of Canada is about to form the next government. When we were in that position, the member asked what we would do to certain policies, regulations and statutes. That is a pretty telltale sign of where the NDP is going.

This bill is about eliminating other regulations. What I heard from the New Democratic Party is that it is supporting this legislation. One minute those members are talking about a terrible thing being done, and we all agree there was a terrible tragedy, but they are pairing that with a regulatory system. They are saying that the regulatory system is the ultimate cause that we should be debating, but they are also saying that they support the legislation.

Does anyone else see the irony in all of this? Does anyone else see how ridiculous the New Democratic Party's positioning has been as it desperately tries to get itself out of the quicksand of its polling numbers of recent months?

[Red Tape Reduction Act, September 15th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member from the former fourth party made an interesting point. He signals clearly to the Canadian public, and specifically to the House, that if the NDP had its way, it would engage in a massive re-regulation exercise. This is a policy point that the NDP announced during its caucus meeting. It said that it would be announcing its platform in the coming weeks, if not sooner.

We look forward to hearing the NDP's position on exactly which federal entities, which federal agencies, which federal activities it would re-regulate in such a massive way.

[Red Tape Reduction Act, September 15th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Winnipeg North in his debut speech since noon today.

I do not think the irony will be lost on anyone that this bill would enable the government to craft a set of regulations about regulating regulations. With regard to the statute proposed in Bill C-21, everyone should be very clear there would be no statutory effect. The bill is about a policy. It affects a policy; it creates no statutory effect. I say that because subclause 8(1) of the bill clearly states:

No action or other proceeding may be brought against Her Majesty in right of Canada for anything done or omitted to be done, or for anything purported to be done or omitted to be done, under this Act.

It goes on to say in subclause 8(2):

No regulation is invalid by reason only of a failure to comply with this Act.

There is absolutely no enforcement mechanism. There are no teeth whatsoever behind this bill. What we are doing on the floor of the House of Commons on the very first day of the fall session is debating the creation of a policy, not a statute.

With that as the backdrop, let us talk about what this policy would do.

Its purpose is to reduce the administrative burden on businesses. We know that most regulations on the conduct of normal business will affect businesses, so this is a policy that would affect the regular practice of business. However, it goes beyond that. It would impact things that may not necessarily be front and centre or top of mind with us as parliamentarians.

It would affect the management of fisheries and the environment. It is not just the industry department, the finance department, or the Canada Revenue Agency that this measure would impact. We have to be very clear that it would impact the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and how it regulates the inspection and regulation of food products. It would affect Health Canada with pharmaceutical products and other health products. It would affect the Department of Fisheries and Oceans as to how it manages our coastal and inland fisheries. It would affect a whole range of different departments. It would affect the Department of Natural Resources in the regulation of the mining sector.

With that said, this is a policy that is meant to reduce the number of regulations affecting all departments within the Government of Canada. It is not just the Canada Revenue Agency, the industry department, and a few of what would traditionally be viewed as the more business-oriented departments, because there is no department of the Government of Canada that does not impact the conduct of Canadian business across the board.

In responding to one of my questions, the hon. minister pointed out that 2,300 regulations have already been taken off the books since 2007. Most Canadians and certainly all parliamentarians should know that the catalogue of regulations in Canada is in the tens of thousands. Tomes and tomes of regulations exist.

The idea is to take down one regulation for every regulation that is brought in. It is basically about motivation, about trying to motivate government to do something about red tape.

Here is an equally effective strategy, and perhaps a better one: why not just cull the existing regulations? Here is where this bill falls a bit short. The committee that studies the bill really needs to dig into this aspect. The Government of Canada already has many volumes of regulations on the books, so the presumption of any reasonable and fair-minded Canadian would be that it is going to be tough on the government to bring in a new regulation because it will really have to scratch heads, think hard, and figure out what regulation it is going to eliminate.

We have many tomes of existing regulation that is redundant without being culled. The government could simply pick one and remove it. That would meet the policy requirements that it proposes to enact with this supposed legislation, with this statutory instrument.

That is the key here, so is this really more about a communications exercise? Is it somewhat of a smoke-and-mirrors game for the government to try to look like it is doing something when it really is not doing a whole lot?

Is there merit behind this concept? There is, absolutely. The government is proving that with its own former regulatory red tape commission. The commission took seven years to come up with all of this. It was seven years of bureaucracy, seven years of spending, seven years of studying, and this is what it came up with.

Yes, there is a lot of fat out there. There is a lot of fat in this government. There is a lot of fat that the Conservatives just did not bother to tackle. They have come up with this statutory policy that has no effect whatsoever in law, since there is no liability or consequence to the government for not following its own legislation. It is a bill that regulates regulation.

Here we are debating a policy on the floor of the House of Commons on the very first day that we are back for the fall session, and we have already come to the conclusion that it really does not do a whole lot.

What I also find kind of funny is that I did not want to see this bill in the budget implementation act because budget implementation acts should simply be about budgets, but when we consider all the stuff that went into the Conservative government's implementation act that had nothing to do with the well-being of businesses or the economy, an argument might be made that perhaps this particular legislation might have been able to be folded into the budget implementation act. I would not agree with it, because I think budget implementation acts should be strictly about budgets.

However, that said, this bill was read on the floor of the House of Commons on January 29 of this year. We have not heard a word about it since, and we have actually passed the budget. After seven years of spending on the red tape commission and adding to the bureaucracy, if one is trying to get a signal or cue as to whether or not this is more about a communications exercise to show that this legislation to regulate regulations is a good thing, one need not look any further than that. That is what this is all about today.

What would be the most effective answer in dealing with red tape and government regulations? It would be to go through them one by one and cull any one that does not really have meaning or value. That would be the best and cheapest option, and administratively it would be the simplest and most efficient one. Quite frankly, the government could do it if it wanted to, but now there is this elaborate exercise attached to all of it to posture and create reports and add to the bureaucracy.

Our caucus is looking forward to getting this bill into committee to study some of these issues.

Coming from Newfoundland and Labrador, I will end with something that is very important to me. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans manages our coastal resources and all of our oceans almost exclusively through the use of regulation. If the government is suggesting that for every regulation it brings in it must reduce regulations by one, will government experts and outside experts be allowed into the committee room to analyze whether there might be unforeseen consequences that would actually reduce the ability of the government to do what is in the best interest of Canadians and our resources and our economy and whether this smoke-and-mirrors public relations exercise might actually cause a lot of harm?

[Red Tape Reduction Act, September 15th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, this initiative began seven years ago, in 2007. In the time between then and now, could the minister inform the House whether there has been a deliberate and conscientious effort on the part of the government to remove existing redundant regulation?

The minister referred to a mass of unnecessary regulation and burden that was pre-existing in the system. Could he report to the House that all redundant and unnecessary regulation has now been effectively removed from the Canadian regulatory system?