Gerry Byrne

[Coast Guard, February 24th, 2009]

Before the applause subsides and the support no longer is there, could the government please explain why it broke its promise and cancelled the building of 12 new Coast Guard patrol vessels, so essential to the men and women who serve? The Auditor General, the Coast Guard itself, and the Canadian maritime industry say that safety is being compromised. Why were these 12 vessels cancelled?

[Coast Guard, February 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, to the officers and crew of the Leonard J. Cowley who bravely and professionally saved 22 lives on a Spanish fishing vessel 300 miles at sea, the pride of our nation is with them today.

[Equalization Payments, February 2nd, 2009]

So O'Brien got it wrong. Is that what you are saying? O'Brien got it wrong.

[Equalization Payments, February 2nd, 2009]

Are you removing the option as to the 50% on natural resources?

[Equalization Payments, January 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, west Labrador is a beautiful place, but so is Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, where I come from.

All Canadians are looking at their government, their ministers and parliamentary secretaries, the ones who are responsible for this budget, to lead us in a time of crisis. That leadership is missing. Providing straight answers to direct questions is what this is all about. It is what Canadians expect.

The O'Brien panel of experts made one specific, key recommendation concerning the handling of non-renewable natural resources: “A 50% exclusion option strikes the right balance”. Yet, this is the very recommendation, the one option now apparently being deleted by this government. This is not the time—

[Equalization Payments, January 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, during the budget lock-up, federal finance officials informed provincial finance officials that the federal government will amend the O'Brien formula through its yet-to-be-delivered budget implementation act by deleting the option of a province to exclude 50% of its non-renewable natural resources, thereby leaving only the 100% exclusion option.

Is this true? I remind everyone that other changes to equalization were previously announced, like the GDP-based cap. However, this one is very different. It was never before discussed. Is it true?

[Equalization Payments, January 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, this is not about the GDP cap. This is about the O'Brien panel, which actually recommended a 50% withholding on non-renewable natural resource revenue. That is the source of what is costing my province $1.5 billion.

I would like to hear the finance minister confirm, yes or no, Premier Rodney MacDonald's statement that a side deal has been cut with his province. Is Premier Rodney MacDonald telling the truth, yes or no? Is a similar side deal available to the people of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador?

[Equalization Payments, January 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the government committed itself to the expert panel on equalization, which will “put equalization on a fair and secure and a fully sustainable foundation, ending federal-provincial bickering”.

Now, without any consultation, Conservatives are gutting the panel's key findings, abandoning the fairness and the stability that it brought and unilaterally slashing the value of my province's revenues by $1.5 billion, a 60% cut over three years.

Will the Prime Minister now admit that his decisions were never about more fairness but were about revenge?

[Economic and Fiscal Statement, December 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the member spent a considerable amount of time talking about a supposed elected mandate of the Conservative minority government and that the Prime Minister received a specific mandate from the people on October 14. Notwithstanding the fact that 62% of all Canadians voted anything but Conservative in the last election campaign, I would like to examine a little bit further this supposed mandate.

I am asking the member, on what specific page in the Conservative Party platform during the last election campaign did it say that a Conservative government would cut $2 billion in federal government programs and spending? On what particular page of that document did the Conservative Party say it would end the collective bargaining rights of federal government employees? I do not seem to remember anywhere during the election campaign those particular statements being made as part of the current Conservative government mandate.

On what particular page or in what speech did the Prime Minister of Canada, then running in an election campaign seeking a very specific mandate from the people of Canada, outline that $10 billion would have to be collected from the sale of federal government assets in order to stem the tide of deficits? In order to collect $10 billion in a downward market, he probably would have to sell $40 billion of federal government assets—

[Committees of the House, June 17th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about the precedent that this is setting.

The issue that the hon. member is speaking of is in relation to a small craft harbour. This House did grant leave to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans to examine the small craft harbour file. If we were to create duplication or overlap and start creating parity as to where this committee should travel based on whether or not deals are cut in the House, I would ask the hon. member to respect the fact that the committee wants to express itself on the seal hunt, and if he has a difference of opinion with the hon. member of the Conservative Party from his own province, what he really should do is resolve it.