Gerry Byrne

[Pensions, November 23rd, 2010]

Madam Chair, sometimes the principle of do no harm should guide the government members when they consider what bold actions are required to assist senior citizens so that they have stable pensions. But do harm they did, as I explained earlier to the House. The decision to amend Canada Revenue Agency policy on how registered retirement income funds are handled for the purposes of calculation of the guaranteed income supplement will cause huge, huge grief and insecurity for our senior citizens.

Seniors may not be aware of this change in May 2010, because certainly there has been no government publicity. Now, should they withdraw, say, $10,000 from their registered retirement income funds, RRIFs, to be able to adapt to or handle a major medical emergency like a heart attack or having to give care to a family member, the consequence is that $10,000 over and above the minimum annual that is required for withdrawal from a RRIF is all calculable for the purposes of whether or not that senior citizen will receive the GIS the following year. In addition to that, by not allowing that $10,000 to be considered optionable income in 2010, they will lose their GIS in 2011 and they will also lose certain provincial benefits that are tied to the GIS, such as a drug card. For the sake of a $10,000 withdrawal, those senior citizens will lose upwards of $17,000 to $25,000, and they do not even know they are about to lose it. This is wrong.

When we talk about the big scheme of pensions, we also have to consider the little details. That is a huge detail that is being lost by the government.

[Pensions, November 23rd, 2010]

Madam Chair, I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary what was the basis on which the decision was taken to ultimately destroy thousands and thousands of dollars in value to those lower income senior citizens who hold RRSPs?

In May 2010, the Government of Canada decided that for those who cash in RRIFs, registered retirement income funds, those funds would indeed be accountable to whether or not those citizens received the benefits of the guaranteed income supplement.

Prior to May 2010, if a senior pensioner were to cash in a RRIF, he or she could elect to have those funds deemed optionable under the terms and conditions of the old age security, GIS legislation. They were optionable, the same way that employment insurance and other pension income is currently now, to this day, still optionable.

But if a senior citizen cashes in a RRIF today, that income is no longer optionable and it is calculated against the means test of whether or not that senior citizen will gain access to the guaranteed income supplement.

As a result of this unannounced policy decision by the federal government, literally thousands, if not tens of thousands, if not potentially hundreds of thousands, of Canadian seniors who cashed in a RRIF so that they could pay for medical assistance or emergency care will now have that income calculated as to whether or not they will be eligible for the guaranteed income supplement next year.

They are not aware of this because the government did not ever make this known to any member of the public. They are going to lose their guaranteed income supplement, literally thousands of dollars out of the pockets of seniors citizens.

Why did the federal government not publicize this? Why, more importantly, did it take this decision?

[Foreign Affairs, November 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are in shock following yesterday's horrific explosion at a Mexican tourist destination, which claimed the lives of so many while seriously injuring so many more.

We particularly mourn the five Canadians who were tragically taken from their families and their friends. This tragedy is made all the more painful and poignant knowing that among the fatalities were a nine year old child and a newly wedded couple who were forever taken in the blast.

Now at this time we wish a speedy and successful recovery for those Canadians who remain in hospital and for all who were hurt in the explosion.

Our sympathies go out to the families of all those who lost their lives yesterday, and our thoughts and prayers go to all who were injured.

[Preventing Human Smugglers From Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act, October 28th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the government attempts to create fairness, and one of the great mediators of fairness is the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Would the parliamentary secretary be prepared to table in the House an opinion by the Department of Justice as to whether or not all provisions within this bill will meet the test of the charter or a charter challenge?

Would he provide that to members of the House, so that we can review as to whether or not these provisions do indeed meet the test of fairness as prescribed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

[Business of Supply, September 28th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, Canadians listening to this debate will be caught in two worlds. First, the world the government is projecting, which is that this is all about forcing mandatory imprisonment and that is what the long form census is all about. It has been for 144 years. It is a story of imprisoning Canadians for not wanting to give their personal information.

This side of the House reflects on the fact that educational institutions, those who provide educational administration, health administration, social services and others, use that information to provide appropriate services with the best use of taxpayer dollars.

In all of our collective experience in dealing with the long form census, does the member know how many Canadians have been jailed?

[Criminal Code, September 21st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill S-215. It is an amendment to the Criminal Code and a very important one.

The brevity of the bill is a reflection of its accuracy in addressing a particularly critical situation which is relatively new to us but of which we are painfully aware. The bill would amend the Criminal Code to clarify that suicide bombings fall within the definition of terrorist activity.

Not very many years ago suicide bombings were not something we would contemplate or even consider on North American soil, or in any first world democracy. Of course, they are very real and they are ever present as a threat against us.

Suicide bombings are a new tactic. They are a very real tactic and a very dangerous one. Not too long ago it would never have been considered that someone would cause self harm in inflicting a criminal activity to endanger or to harm others. In fact, our whole civil society is predicated on a belief of effective policing and effective enforcement, which is centred around the assumption that those who would commit a crime would take whatever steps are necessary not to impose harm upon themselves, just on others. However, suicide bombings have changed the rules on that. Because of the fanaticism which is implied by a suicide bomber, reasonable thought gets thrown out the window.

Now we have circumstances in which our safety and security and the very stability of the institutions around us are indeed threatened by this very, very real act that has been imposed and has caused such harm to others. Our objective is to prevent that, to minimize it and to take specific proactive actions to allow our justice system to deal with it in an effective way.

In essence, the bill reflects the growing need by law enforcement agencies and by the justice system to accurately target, label and prosecute what exactly is a suicide bomber. In so doing, by this legal change in terms of definition, inclusion of the term and supplied definitions, it would allow authorities to take certain actions based on statutes that are already in place.

Our terrorism provisions are very strong and robust, but they are very specific. This particular legislation allows for certain courses of action to be taken, by labelling, by actually targeting, by describing what this Parliament will not tolerate. We will actually enact legislation, amend legislation, to provide definition and accountability for suicide bombing and those who would perform that act, as has been pointed out by other members, to include in that set of legal mechanisms, provisions to actually stop the propagation through coaching, counselling and other measures. That seems to be a worthwhile activity for this Parliament to pursue.

I cannot begin to describe how victims of this horrendous tactic feel about this. Obviously they are very encouraged by the fact that Parliament is debating this legislation with the intention of adopting it, I assume, and that we recognize not only their pain and suffering, but as well that this Parliament needs to take specific action to deal with the issue in a proactive fashion.

I believe the crafters of this legislation from the other place did their job and did it well. The bill itself is extremely brief, but its brevity reflects its accuracy in dealing with the issue at hand. I think we can take full charge of the fact that as we debate this it would be very helpful to continue the debate around it. However, we have to be resolved in the notion that by defining this horrendous, almost insatiable, act of terror, we help to defeat it. By describing it within the confines of the Criminal Code, we do not allow any language to be used that glorifies it, that allows it to be portrayed in any other manner. It is a criminal act. That is an important step forward in providing some definition and context to this act.

As I said earlier, it was almost unheard of that someone would actually cause self-harm in order to impose harm upon others. If we look at all the systems of our society, we make general, broad assumptions that the car going down the highway in the other lane is not going to purposely and wilfully move into our lane as we move down that same highway, and cause harm to themselves in order to cause harm to us.

The rules have changed and that is a reality in terms of the enforcement. The vigilance of our safety and security is a reality that we face. There are those who are motivated for various reasons and feel as though they are accomplishing something, however horrific or morose, by harming themselves in the effort to harm others. That has to be dealt with in the context of the Criminal Code.

I support this legislation because it does, indeed, empower law enforcement agencies and our judicial system to deal with it effectively. Where it was not dealt with before because it was a vague issue which we had not encountered in many respects very often, the threat is ever present around us. It behooves us to deal with it and there have been pleas for us to deal with it in that kind of proactive fashion. I cannot see why any member would have an issue with this particular legislation on the basis that it seems to resolve a long-standing issue, a vacancy within the act that now is being filled.

I applaud the representatives in the other place in their efforts to bring forward this legislation after significant study in their own respects as to what exactly is required. Their accuracy in dealing with the matter is reflected in the bill because it does not touch on other areas. It deals strictly and solely with the issue at hand. That is very appropriate. It allows our discussions in this House to be very focused and concentrated on the issue at hand. The issue at hand is to provide proper definition and labelling to a very serious criminal activity, which is the act of suicide bombing.

We are blessed in this country that we do not face the actual manifestation of these circumstances, but it is ever present in our society. We are under constant vigilance and threat, but we do not buckle under that threat. We do not change our ways because of our need for vigilance. We encounter it. We take it head on and deal with it in a straightforward manner. I believe that is exactly what is required of us now. Failure to do so would be an admission that we have not done our work.

I applaud the drafters of the bill and hope the House passes it forthwith.

[Lighthouses, June 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, to pay for the $2 million fake lake equipped with a fake lighthouse, which will guide a $400,000 dry docked boat safely to the convention centre floor, I mean shore, hundreds of historic lighthouses along real waterways throughout Canada will either be shut down, sold off or destaffed.

With that in mind, will the minister tell us how much of the security money will go to conduct fisheries patrols of the fake lake by armed fisheries officers protecting Canada against foreign overfishing by international journalists, instead of protecting real waterways and seas?

[ATLANTIC SHELLFISH INDUSTRY, May 12th, 2010]

Mr. Chair, the member captured a lot of the hope, but as well, all of the frustrations in Newfoundland and Labrador and in eastern Canada about where the fishery is going. I think what is being met here is a sense that we need some direction and we need a sense of leadership. The leadership is coming from within the fishing communities but we are not necessarily seeing it from within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

One of the problems with the buddying up system, to which the minister just referred, is that the department does not actually believe in it. I had an opportunity in the standing committee recently to question the assistant deputy minister, Dave Bevan, about whether the department was committed to continuing with the buddying up system. His reply was that the department was not because it did not contribute to rationalization but contributes to people staying in the fishery.

What is wrong with that? I fail to understand why we cannot do things to support our fishers in making a viable industry out of this. Buddying up does not take any more fish out of the water. It is the same as allowing new entrants into a fishery does not take any more fish out of the water if they are simply dividing an existing quota and dividing it more fairly.

A few times tonight the government said that it agrees with that and a few times tonight it said that it disagrees with that. We are not really getting a coherent, clear picture on where it stands on it.

However, I will ask the member for St. John's East this question. Is there a certain importance, a certain relevance to consistency in the decision-making process? I stood here tonight and said that the minister had made a good decision by making the new entrants to the southern gulf fishery feel very stable and comfortable in the fact that they would have a place in that fishery for many years to come.

I then asked if it was the right thing to do the same for those involved in the northern shrimp fishery or should those who are relatively recent new entrants into the fishery feel very insecure. The answer I got back from the government was that they should feel very insecure. That, to me, creates a problem.

Does the member for St. John's East believe it is important to have consistency in the management of our Canadian fisheries?

[ATLANTIC SHELLFISH INDUSTRY, May 12th, 2010]

Mr. Chair, the member for Cape Breton—Canso as well as the member for Beauséjour and myself have been complimentary of the minister's decision to ensure that those who are new entrants to the southern gulf crab fishery are not penalized by their date of entry into the fishery.

The minister took a very deliberate decision. She basically upheld a decision by the former Liberal government, recognizing the legitimate place of new entrants into the fishery. She said that the new entrants would be guaranteed a stable position within the snow crab fishery in the southern gulf not only for this year but for five years straight right up until 2014.

From our side that seems like a very responsible position to take. We applaud her for it.

I would like to ask the member, should that principle also apply with other fisheries as well? There has been some suggestion in the northern shrimp fishery that the minister may actually turn herself around in this and apply a last-in first-out principle instead of actually saying that we will institute a fair increase, fair decrease principle in terms of allocations.

There is some concern in the industry that the minister may in that instance choose a last-in first-out instead of using the model that she used for the southern Gulf of Saint Lawrence crab fishery, the model used for her own constituents, which is regardless of the fisher's date of entry into the fishery, there is still a place and the fisher will still share a proportionate share based on the previous percentage of the quota.

[ATLANTIC SHELLFISH INDUSTRY, May 12th, 2010]

Mr. Chair, the member for Beauséjour rightfully reflects the views of so many in this industry. There are many who want to remain, who want a viable, strong industry to support them, their communities and the families around them, and there are some who do want a reasonable opportunity to exit and pursue other opportunities.

The minister echoes those same comments by suggesting that there is an opportunity through a $50 million fund to build up a plan, to be able to think through some future financing, to potentially put in a restructuring plan down the road. The problem is that there are two ways to restructure the fishery. One is through a compassionate, responsible, well-ordered rationalization plan through public funds. The other is through the stark, deep, dark, very painful experience of a sheriff's order for foreclosure. That is the other way this is going to occur. The problem is that with the economics of this fishery right now, far too many are facing the latter rather than the former.

With the economics of the fishery, prices being as low as they are, with market demand still slumped due to the global economy and the slump in market prices, this industry is not healthy. The economics of the industry are reflected in the economics of the individual enterprise. They will not be able to sustain themselves to participate in an organized, reasonable restructuring plan as proposed by the minister down the road. What they are going to see is the sheriff's office coming with a foreclosure statement.

Will the member for Beauséjour reflect for us all what the experience has been with the lobster income support program? There was $15 million allocated and $8.5 million ultimately spent. We initially reacted when the announcement was made, saying $15 million would not be enough. We reacted when the eligibility criteria were announced, saying $15 million would never be spent. The latter is exactly the truth. In a time of deep, dark crisis, only half the money was spent.

Will there be a lobster industry? Will there be an opportunity for people to participate in an organized, responsible way to rationalize themselves in this industry, or will foreclosure statements be posted on their doors?