Gerry Byrne

[Government Appointments, June 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, despite an order to terminate from the commissioner of the public service, the defence minister's former right hand, Kevin MacAdam, still enjoys his $130,000-a-year salary at ACOA through outside influences.

Insiders Allan Murphy and Nancy Baker enjoy inside access to jobs at ECBC, thanks to some influences and a little whitewashing.

ECBC's president is under investigation, while ACOA's president has been cut in an investigation. They are the inside influences.

Would the government admit the common denominator to the outside influences is the Minister of National Defence?

[Government Appointments, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I guess we will have to get a talking book on that. However, I guess we will not be finding out any time soon why Kevin MacAdam earns $130,000 a year.

Would the parliamentary secretary humour the House by referring to the report before it was whitewashed by the Minister of National Defence?

The Public Service Commission says a hiring scandal at ACOA was brought about by outside influences.

The president of ACOA was reprimanded for hiring Kevin MacAdam out of the defence minister's office.

Allan Murphy and Nancy Baker were hired by the president of ECBC out of the defence minister's office, and now it is before the ethics commissioner.

What do all of these have in common? Is it not the Minister of National Defence?

[Government Appointments, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency covers for the Minister of National Defence, who covers for his former political staffer, Kevin MacAdam, who was a former provincial cabinet colleague of the Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. That is pretty cozy.

MacAdam continues to receive $130,000 a year in salary, even though he has never spent a day in P.E.I. since he was hired and has not learned a word of French since he moved to Ottawa at taxpayers' expense. What exactly is he being paid for? Je ne sais pas.

Will the minister drop the talking points and answer the following question: What is Kevin MacAdam being paid $130,000 for?

[Government Appointments, May 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the people of P.E.I. are hurt, ashamed and disgusted with the whole Duffy fiasco and the effect it is having on the province.

Would the minister of ACOA show that someone over there has learned something about the mistakes of their boss, drop the talking points and answer the following question directly and honestly: iIs the ACOA minister's former provincial cabinet colleague, Kevin MacAdam, still being paid $135,000 a year for an ACOA job in P.E.I. that he has never shown up for, while claiming government housing allowances for living in Ontario?

Is there another shoe to drop here in P.E.I.?

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, May 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned those who expressed the point of view that they are not in tune with the people, in contradiction to an election result. The member for the Conservative Party just said that Liberals do not care about western Canadians and, quite frankly, held contempt for them, which is totally inaccurate and unfair.

However, Peter Penashue, when he lost the election in Labrador, stood on his feet and said that Labradorians lost because they did not make a very good decision and that they should have elected him. He said that Labradorians were, quite frankly, not very bright because they did not vote for the Conservatives.

Would that be a good indication of arrogance on the part of the Conservative Party, its mandarins and its candidates? Would that be a reflection of the ignorance of the people of Atlantic Canada?

I ask if a perspective could be offered, given the comments from the Conservative Party—

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, May 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the debater here today.

[Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band, May 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing, to say the least, that an opportunity was held here tonight for all members of this House to speak, to express their points of view and to establish a discussion about the Conservatives concerns about the Qalipu Mi’kmaq First Nation agreement that they signed.

The House of Commons is the place where these issues can get resolved, if there is a discussion. Not one member of the government took the opportunity tonight to present an argument to the people of Canada, and especially to the applicants and members of the Qalipu Mi’kmaq First Nation. The Conservatives had that opportunity, but they declined. Secrecy seems to be the issue of the day for the current government. They had an opportunity to express, in very clear language, what exactly they were concerned about. Let us be clear. It is the Conservatives who are saying they are concerned about something. However, will they express that on the floor of the House of Commons, the forum for the people's business? No. They are holding these discussions exclusively in secret. Is that the right way to do business? I will let them answer that.

Let us talk about what they will not talk about. Let us talk about their agreement, the agreement that was negotiated in good faith, not in the course of a day, a week, or a month, not even in the course of a year, but over the course of several years. It was signed and sanctioned by the Prime Minister of Canada, and every word of that agreement was taken as if it were his very own. That agreement held the very substance of the enrolment criteria which the Conservatives now say they have a problem with. However, do they say they have the problem? No. They will never admit that the agreement is what they are now taking issue with, the agreement that the Prime Minister of Canada personally sanctioned. No. The fault, according to the Conservatives, is with those darn applicants, those people who are coming forward now who should never be coming forward and applying the rules to them that they negotiated in good faith.

The Conservatives will not talk about the agreement. In order to talk about it, they would have to express why they find fault in their own agreement and promises. If they talked about the agreement, they would have to admit that they no longer support their own agreement, the one they negotiated with the Federation of Newfoundland Indians, the agreement that was ratified through a referendum by every member of the Federation of Newfoundland Indians after a five-month referendum campaign. It was the agreement that was ratified by the cabinet and then ratified in a signing ceremony.

Then, over a four-year period, an enrolment committee, comprised of a majority of members of the federal government's Department of Aboriginal Affairs, and appointed by that department and by the Federation of Newfoundland Indians, then had the opportunity to say who was in and who was out. It was the members of that enrolment committee who actually said that 24,000 individuals would now become members. That enrolment committee had an opportunity to use various means and mechanisms to say there was a problem. Did the members of that committee ever do that? No. In fact, not only did the enrolment committee keep processing applications for the four years that it sat, it actually accelerated the enrolment process, in response to a motion to slow it down by one of the Mi’kmaq elders.

What they are now suggesting, which is really charming, is not to look at the agreement but to look at the census records from 2006. In 2006, only 24,000 Newfoundland and Labradorians self-declared that they were of aboriginal ancestry. That apparently is clear evidence that it would be totally ridiculous that anyone should suggest having anything more than 24,000 members. Well, guess what? That would be the same census that the same Conservative government said was an outrageous invasion of the rights of personal privacy and that no Canadian citizen should ever be forced to fill out. That is the long form census. They are using the long form census, the one they abolished in 2011, as the entire basis of argument to shut down the agreement that the Prime Minister of Canada personally signed off on.

If not even bothering to stand up in the House of Commons is a matter of principle, the members of that party and government should stay sitting down and abide by their agreement.

[Search and Rescue, April 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General dropped a bombshell this morning concerning the government's proprietary search and rescue mission management software. In 2009, Canada's vital search and rescue software was corrupted and faces repeated risk of failure after being critically damaged. The system can no longer support daily operations, according to the Auditor General, and is “near the breaking point”.

Free smart phone apps are now the tool that plan search and rescue missions. This was never revealed to the public until this morning. Has mission software failure in 2009 contributed to subsequent deaths in the offshore, and did it impact the response to the Burton Winters tragedy?

[Taxation, April 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, when the courts ordered Revenue Canada to refund taxes that were inappropriately garnished from commercial fishermen participating in the fisheries licence buyback program, no one told them the impact this decision would have on their future pension eligibility. Service Canada has ruled that the interest on these tax refunds will result in their GIS being denied to these retirees as of July 1 of this year.

Will the minister assure this group of retired fishermen that they will not have their GIS benefits cut in 2013 and 2014? Will she allow the pensioners the ability to option that particular lump sum payment and keep their GIS, yes or no?

[Qalipu Mi’kmaq First Nation Band, March 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for that very reasoned question based upon experience.

What this would mean for the personal lives of the Mi'kmaq of Newfoundland is that it would provide closure to an issue that has been ongoing since 1949, since the inception of Confederation. When Canada joined Newfoundland and Labrador in 1949 in Confederation, there was no recognition of aboriginal rights or existence after that time. It was not until 2002 that serious negotiation began. They were upfront about it: it would be based upon a landless band. There would be no reserve or land entitlement attached to this particular agreement.

The essence of this agreement is one of very pure fact. The Mi'kmaq people of our province and of Canada were denied for years. They were told by premiers and by governments that they did not exist. The recognition through this agreement was very important, because after decades of battling that notion, it was proven that they do exist and that they were to be recognized by the nation as a first nation.

Now, apparently, the government intends to take that back again. We have started all over again. We are going back to where we were.