Gerry Byrne

[Afghanistan, March 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the most important and fundamental reason we are in Afghanistan, supporting the people in the rebuilding of their country, is to provide peace and security throughout the entire world. It is to ensure that the costs of insecurity are not realized. That is in large measure what this is all about. The costs of insecurity are overwhelming to the global community.

Cost is definitely a factor. It is an issue that must be considered. It is also something that the government can provide. Clear accountability and transparency about the cost of this particular mission is a must. It is an absolute essential that the government can indeed provide.

However, we are talking in this particular motion about the fundamental aspects. Are we in Afghanistan for the right reasons to support the Afghani people to rebuild its economy, its democratic institutions, its ability to be a full and equal player on the international stage, and to participate in the security of the world? If so, then we have to be there for the long term.

We will continue with our colleagues in the NDP and the other parties to hold the government to account, to provide that transparency, but fundamentally, we are making our commitment to doing this right. Costing accountability is part of this, but also our accountability on the international stage for Canada to do what is right is also on the table.

[Afghanistan, March 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, what has been recognized here during the course of the debate on this motion is the incredible honour and valour displayed by the men and women of our Canadian armed forces in the work they do in Afghanistan and the sense of purpose they give not only to that country and to the countrymen there, but to this House and to all Canadians. They truly are an exemplary group of people. I think that by the nature of the debate we are conducting, we do indeed honour them.

I come to this from a different vantage point than many. I have an opportunity to discuss the Afghanistan mission on a regular basis with soldiers who have served there. It is not that I have ever had the opportunity to travel to Afghanistan and I have not spent an incredible amount of time with the military on our nation's Canadian Forces bases. I do so from a different perspective. I speak not only directly to them when they are on leave, when they are on furlough and back home in the communities they come from in Newfoundland and Labrador, but as well I speak to their grandparents, their parents, their brothers and sisters.

My riding is blessed, I can tell members, in that we have a very significant number of members of the Canadian armed forces from Newfoundland and Labrador. In fact, while the province itself represents approximately 1.7% of the Canadian population, members of the Canadian armed forces from Newfoundland and Labrador constitute over 10%. So it goes without saying that I do indeed have a very direct connection and a strong understanding of not only the job they do but the nature of the character and the valour behind how they do it.

They come from Newfoundland and Labrador, and in fact they come from all over Canada, but that Newfoundland and Labrador connection has made me very, very sensitized to the importance of getting this mission right. There are some who would suggest that the proper approach to take here is simply to abandon Afghanistan, to move out completely, now, and to remove all Canadian military presence immediately.

While that may be an attractive position to some, if we think through the consequences of that, it would mean there would be no further reconstruction or redevelopment occurring at any point in time. To remove any and all Canadian military presence basically sends a signal not only to the Afghans but to the rest of our NATO partners that we are not in it as we committed to be under the NATO charter.

To leave this mission open-ended is not responsible behaviour either. That is what has been told to me. There have to be some conditions. There has to be some support put in place to mark a direction.

Also, it is not responsible to simply remove Canadian armed forces after an end date of 2009. Those who would suggest this are suggesting that there should be no Canadian aid presence in Afghanistan beyond 2009 either, because we cannot send Canadian aid workers into a hostile environment without basic protections. The best protections we can afford them are from the Canadian military.

However, there does have to be a rebalancing and this motion that is now before the House represents that rebalancing. I am very proud of the fact that the Liberal Party of Canada and its leadership have provided the essence of this revised motion. It does not call for a quick and dirty “out immediately” strategy. It does not provide for a never-ending campaign.

It provides balance to the mission. It provides a sense of continuity for those who are conducting it. That is what is being told to me by the members of the Canadian armed forces whom I proudly call constituents of Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, Newfoundland and Labrador.

In our province, we do have a very strong military presence, not in our bases but in our province, because we do not have very many bases at all, but we are very proud of the contribution that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians make to the forces, and we are especially proud of what they are doing in Afghanistan.

That said, I note that this debate has been in accordance with exactly the values they are fighting for over there. The discourse has been civilized and very thoughtful. This is the thoughtfulness that I think they have brought to me as I discuss the overall mission with them. They really do suggest to me that it is inappropriate to remove the role of the Canadian armed forces from Afghanistan right now.

They do suggest to me that there is a need, a requirement, for an end date to the mission. The balance that has been struck and centred around the date of 2009 is very responsible. The combat intensive mission, as currently engaged in or prioritized, must end by 2009, and that is reinforced by my constituents. We also recognize that the continued presence of Canadian Forces to provide protection for those most valuable aid projects is also extremely wise.

The rebalance that is represented within the mission is completely consistent with the advice that is being given to me by my constituents, who are very proud and active members of the Canadian armed forces. I am very proud of the leadership of the Liberal Party that brought us here.

The mission itself is too valuable to be simply brought down on partisan lines. It is also too valuable not to think through the consequences of either the extended spectrum of the argument, cut and run immediately, and without any due concern for the consequences of a complete and utter removal of Canadian armed forces in the present term.

It also balances the fact that we do need to send our men and women a message as to exactly what will be expected of them in the long term. That notion of balance is a product of the Liberal Party and the consultations that we conducted not only within our own caucus but with members of the Canadian armed forces and with the members of the Canadian public at large.

What else can be said? It is very important that we all stand firmly, shoulder-to-shoulder, with those that so proudly represent us in uniform, and give them the political direction as our military provides them with the operational direction.

It is very important to all of us that we continue to maintain a very vigilant focus on the nature of the mission and that we provide oversight so that we continue to get it right. It is also very important that we engage Canadians in a continuing dialogue as to exactly where this mission is going and a representation of its effect, of a results-based analysis.

It is very important that this House continue to analyze issues of cost. It is very important that we continue to analyze the issues of effectiveness. Most importantly, with the rebalancing of this mission that this House is prepared to consider and hopefully pass, it is very important that we continue to monitor and analyze the effect, and the value of our aid efforts, of our rebuilding and reconstruction efforts, to turn the economy of Afghanistan from a somewhat predominated by the trade of illicit products into an economy based on legitimate activities based on the development of natural resources and people power, its human resources.

That can only be done through the creation of long lasting community-based infrastructure related to transportation, sanitation, water, sewer, roads, bridges, educational infrastructure and health care infrastructure. This is really what the people of Afghanistan have been crying out for.

They recognize the need for protection, but they also need to recognize that in order for them to rebuild their country, its democratic institutions and its basic ability for its own citizens to eke out a legitimate living and build those democratic institutions, they do indeed need the support of the international community to focus in, in a very meaningful, thoughtful and effective way, on aid and reconstruction.

I do not believe that if we were to proceed with the previous motion put before this House, this emphasis would have been there, nor would that direction through our own federal agencies involved in international development be there either. It is now.

That is a very important issue that I think Canadians can be very proud of, that there is now a focus on the mission. It is rebalanced, it is headed in the right direction, and meets with a significant amount of support from the Canadian people.

Thinking through those two dimensions, the polar opposites as it were, is not the proper thing to do, to simply just cut and run. Canadians do not do that. We have never done that and we never will.

We also recognize there is a requirement for continuity but at the same time, an ending. That is what has been brought to the floor of this House and to the direction that we give to our senior leaders, both in government and in the military.

The operational issues will remain the prerogative of our military, but it needs the policy stance of this House and the direction given to this government to say exactly what is the Canadian intention in Afghanistan.

I think that is more clearly articulated now than it ever has been. I think that members opposite, members throughout this entire House, will agree that when we send our men and women in harm's way, when we send our aid workers out to do very difficult tasks, it is absolutely essential that they do it from the point of view of a framework that is well understood by all, not only by Canadians here in Canada but the international community as well.

We have done that. We have shown great leadership. As the ministers of the government now head to NATO to conferences in Europe in the coming months, looking to establish further partnerships, further commitments of military presence in Afghanistan, I am hoping that this debate and the passage of this particular motion will assist in those efforts to really reinforce to the international community, to our NATO allies and partners, the spirit of rotation must be respected, the spirit of all pulling their full weight and share must be adhered to. It is the basic tenet and philosophy of the NATO partnership. I think right now we have given the tools to our government, upon passage of this, to enable this to happen.

I am particularly proud of the men and women who served from my riding of Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte. While I could stand here and pay tribute to so many, and I would like to, I can only think of the time that I spent with the Bungy-boys of La Scie.

The Bungy-boys are two brothers. One served five rotations in Afghanistan; his younger brother served three. They saw what was going on there. One of them came to me and explained how important his work was. We had a discussion about continuing the mission. We talked about its various aspects, the need for rebalancing, and how to continue on with what we are doing.

I think, quite frankly, going through the motion, the directions that have been put forward, he would be very proud of the fact that we are supporting our troops, supporting what they do, but in the process, providing a policy direction which is sensible, coherent and will be effective.

To our troops, I would like to say we are with them.

[Senate Appointment Consultations Act, February 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate if the hon. member could explain this contradiction. It has been cited that some provincial governments are onside with the legislation and the concept of Senate elections. However, the provincial Governments of Quebec, Ontario, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, and recently the other side's cousins in Nova Scotia, the Conservative caucus, have voted unanimously to reject the notion.

The contradiction is as follows. During the Atlantic accord and the great equalization debate, it was stated in the House that while the government wanted to proceed with its election promise to fully exempt non-renewable natural resources from the equalization formula with no caps, the equalization formula being 100% a federal government program, because there was no provincial government consensus on the issue, it could not proceed in fulfilling that election promise.

The Governments of Quebec, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador do not agree with the government's proposed legislation on Senate reform. Yet the government is intent on proceeding regardless of that fact.

Could the hon. member please explain to the House that contradiction? While he is on his feet, could he also provide information as to whether there would the possibility that provincial governments or the federal government could allow the establishment of districts of ridings within provinces to elect senators or Senate nominees, as opposed to only having a province-wide vote?

[Privilege, November 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, in order to ensure that privilege has not been breached in the House, would the hon. finance minister confirm to all members of the House that the draft legislation has not been seen by any eyes outside his own Department of Finance? Has the draft legislation been transmitted to members of the provincial assembly of Nova Scotia, officials from the Government of Nova Scotia or Conservative members opposite? Please confirm.

[Donkin Coal Block Development Opportunity Act, November 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for the excellent question, because it does provide a context to this.

The people of Cape Breton, as the hon. member rightfully pointed out, as throughout Nova Scotia, have really adapted to a new economy. They have developed new manufacturing expertise. They have delved into and succeeded in information technology. They have developed a strong and robust tourism sector. They are exporting their products, their goods and their services to the entire world.

The initiative of Nova Scotians is to be admired. It is a role model for the rest of the country. I for one look at the successes of the people of Nova Scotia with some amount of admiration, reflecting on the fact that I have had some involvement with it with my hon. colleague, who is as well a former minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.

The people of Nova Scotia know that they need a cooperative relationship with their federal government in order to succeed, to be able to harness those resources. Without that cooperative relationship, we have no success.

This particular bill does provide a glimmer of hope that there is that sort of basis of trust and support to be able to do that by streamlining those regulatory regimes. But I can also say that this mine provides 275 jobs to the coal sector. Just imagine if there was complete and full disclosure on exactly what the environment of the offshore oil and gas would be for Nova Scotia if we understood what rules would be imposed by the Conservative government.

The hon. member quite rightfully points out the fact that there is an impasse in one of the strongest growth resource sectors that we have in this country. The people of Nova Scotia are being denied a benefit from that.

He is quite right that as of this morning, for the fourth consecutive time the Minister of Finance and his departmental officials refused to meet, after scheduling an appointment to brief caucus members and those interested parliamentarians on the specifics of those particular changes that they imposed which were contrary to their election promises. For the fourth consecutive time that particular briefing was cancelled.

That is an affront to the people of Nova Scotia. It is an affront to the parliamentarians in this House and in the other place who wanted and needed to attend that briefing in order to be fully informed of a deal that was stated to be signed, sealed and delivered. It does not exist. Perhaps the reason the budget implementation act has not yet been tabled in this House is that the Conservatives do not yet know exactly how they are going to word the budget implementation act, because they do not know the context of their own deal.

[Donkin Coal Block Development Opportunity Act, November 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would encourage all hon. members to get to understand and know the bill that they are discussing. Bill C-15 specifically provides an exclusion to the Canada--Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act. If I am speaking about the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act, it is because it is included in this particular bill. When I do that, I am speaking about the substance of the bill. So I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for reminding members of the government that when they introduce a bill, they should get to understand the bill that they are introducing before raising points of order or objections.

That is very important. There is a matter of trust that has to be brought forward to the people of Nova Scotia. Exactly what will the bill result in for them? How will this translate, because a side deal of which nobody understands the content, as in the original Atlantic accord and the changes to the equalization act, does not do anything to instill confidence in the people of Nova Scotia. But what does is when members stand up and represent their constituents, like the member from Cape Breton and the member for Sydney—Victoria. They are keeping their eyes on this sort of stuff. They are making sure that their constituents and the people of Nova Scotia, and indeed all of Atlantic Canada, are fully aware of the consequences of this. This bill is going to be supported by the Liberal Party of Canada and this caucus because of the hard work that came forward by members of our caucus to make sure that the work got done.

There will be 275 new jobs as a result, should the private company, Xstrata, decide to go full force and develop the mine, which we are all extremely confident that it will. There will be significant resource revenues that come into the province of Nova Scotia. I note that one element of this bill requires that all royalty payments should go to the Receive General for Canada first and then flow to the government of Nova Scotia second. That, quite frankly, causes me some concern, because we know the track record of this particular government. It could decide to block that particular flow of royalty revenues if the government happens to have a future disagreement with the province of Nova Scotia.

However, I have confidence that this mine will proceed because of the hard work of all interested members of Parliament, those who actually got to know the bill and the context of it, who supported it and are adding to this. But one thing has to be clear. There is a matter of confidence and trust that if people say that they will do something, they should do it. There was an absolute guarantee given to all 10 premiers and 3 territorial leaders of this country. It was broadcast to the entire country in the middle of the election campaign back in 2006 that there would be 100% exclusion of non-renewable resource revenues from the equalization formula with absolutely no caps involved.

What do we have? We do not know for a fact because we cannot actually get a copy of the briefing materials from the Minister of Finance or the Department of Finance as to exactly how he intends to amend the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act because of course they have scheduled four separate briefings and on four separate occasions they have cancelled those briefings. But one day, we will have that particular piece of legislation, I am confident, tabled in the House and we will be able to see with the rest of Canadians what exactly is entailed in this.

What we do know is that a letter was put forward by the current Prime Minister, then the leader of the opposition, stating there would be 100% exclusion of non-renewable natural resources from the equalization formula and no caps. We now know from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, the former minister of national revenue and others who clearly stated in the House that that is not the intention of the current Conservative government, that it intends to impose a cap and that it is requiring an either take it or leave it position by the provinces that are so affected. They accept certain elements and abandon others because they cannot have both.

Quite frankly, it would have been very helpful to the electorate in Atlantic Canada in the last election campaign if they had known that little detail.

I thank the member from Cape Breton and the member for Sydney—Victoria for keeping their eyes on this file and making sure it happens for the people of Cape Breton and Nova Scotia.

[Donkin Coal Block Development Opportunity Act, November 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be sharing my time this afternoon with the hon. member for Charlottetown to speak to Bill C-15, the Donkin coal block development opportunity act.

I note that my colleagues across the way have decided to introduce a new element to this particular debate, that of the Atlantic accord and the offshore developments. It is their choice. It would not be mine if I were them because of course that is not a stellar success story on behalf of the Conservative government right now at this point in time and that they would be wanting to talk about that.

I will say this. There is an incredible success story to be told and that is through the persistence of colleagues of mine, the member for Cape Breton—Canso as well as his colleague, the member for Sydney—Victoria, both from Cape Breton representing the needs and the aspirations of the people of Cape Breton and Nova Scotia for quite some time.

I want to congratulate him and the members for Cape Breton--Canso and Sydney--Victoria for keeping the pressure on this, and for bringing the views of the people of Cape Breton forward.

This is going to result in over 275 jobs for the people and miners of Cape Breton. It will mean that men and women who are currently working in other parts of the country and other parts of the world will be working at home now. It also means incredible new economic opportunities.

Cape Breton Island is really the Celtic tiger in so many ways. It has diversified its economy. It has gotten into the high tech sector. It has become involved in communications, manufacturing, software development, and has made huge strides in the development of its tourism sector. It deserves our congratulations and our support.

It is members like the Liberal member for Cape Breton—Canso as well as his colleague, the member forSydney—Victoria, that really I salute here today because they took the voice of the people who they represent and they translated it here on the floor of the House of Commons.

Bill C-15, to develop the Donkin resources, is simply a matter that the member for Cape Breton--Canso really kept the pressure up. He kept an eye on making sure that the legislation was drafted to meet the needs of the people whom he represented and brought those jobs home.

However, the members opposite on the Conservative side are actually wanting to raise the whole spectrum of the Atlantic accord. Just this morning, for the fourth consecutive time, there was to be a briefing by the Department of Finance for those interested in the amendments that were forced upon the people of Nova Scotia in their Atlantic accord agreement.

That is not what they asked for in these amendments. It is not what they were promised. Everyone in the House and everyone in the province of Nova Scotia, in Atlantic Canada and throughout this entire country knows that the promise that was given to the people of Atlantic Canada was 100% exclusion of all non-renewable natural resources for the equalization formula with no caps.

That however was not what was translated and provided by the Conservative government once it took office. That commitment was given on January 3 in an open letter to the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, followed by an open letter to the Council of the Federation under then Premier Ralph Klein, as chairman of all 10 provinces and 3 territories, that there would be 100% exclusion of all non-renewable natural resources for the equalization formula with no caps. The statement was also given, “no excuses”.

We seem to be surrounded now by excuses, by fine print and by a cap. That quite frankly I think causes the people of Nova Scotia still some great concern, especially when there was to be a briefing just this morning.

For the fourth consecutive time a briefing was scheduled for all interested parliamentarians from both sides of the House. That briefing was offered by the federal Department of Finance back in October of this year, so that we could actually learn firsthand the nature of the side, side, side deal between the Prime Minister and the Premier of Nova Scotia.

It was cancelled once, it was cancelled twice, it was cancelled a third time, and this morning, 14 minutes before the meeting was scheduled to occur, it was cancelled for the fourth time, even to the point where a member of the Department of Finance was actually showing up for the meeting. Because there was no BlackBerry in the--

[Aboriginal Affairs, October 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, in 2003, an historic plan was mapped out to recognize the full aboriginal status of the Mi'kmaq people under the membership of the Federation of Newfoundland Indians.

The hon. Marc Lalonde was asked to chart a course for the status of a landless, reserveless band with full economic, social and aboriginal benefits going to the members. He did just that and cabinet approved formal negotiations to proceed under this framework.

Could the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians report to the House whether the government has continued to negotiate with the FNI under the original Lalonde plan and, if so, whether we are near ratification?

[Business of Supply, October 25th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I will, indeed, put that into context. I appreciate my colleague's intervention because it is troubling to every Canadian.

When one particular province is having a legitimate dispute with the federal government and, when the facts are analyzed and the people of Canada decide that a promise was indeed broken, that causes trouble within the federation. The day the federal budget came down, the finance minister, representing the Government of Canada, the Conservative government, basically stood in the House and said, “As far as we are concerned, we do not listen to any dissent. We, as a government, are only going to be prepared to listen to those who agree with us. If you have a problem with the federal government, do not tell us because we are not listening”.

That is what he said when he stood in the House, that the days of bickering between federal and provincial governments are now over. We know that to be true when one province in this country, a member of the federation, actually has a lawsuit standing with the federal government over a broken promise. Three provinces are engaged in fair share campaigns--

[Business of Supply, October 25th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, since the member is not fully aware of exactly what the motion is before the House, I will read part of it. It states:

...the government must also drive greater Canadian productivity by making investments in things such as:

physical infrastructure, new technologies, research and development....

This has basically been the thrust of my talk this afternoon.

That said, I will agree with him that the government has not lowered taxes because it has been a thinly disguised veil that it has put over the Income Tax Act. Every Canadian who filled out a tax form in 2005 knows that his or her marginal tax rate on the lowest bracket was indeed 15%. Every Canadian who filled out a tax form in 2006 knows that his or her marginal tax rate for the lowest income tax bracket was 15.25%, an increase. In fact, the Government of Canada, the Conservative government, increased the taxes of every Canadian.

In 2005, the marginal tax bracket rate was 15%, put in place by the Liberal government, and then, in 2006, it went to 15.25%, an increase, effective July 1, 2006, of half a percentage point. Half a percentage point is how much the taxes went up and that is exactly what will be filled out on this year's tax form.

That may be thinly disguised because the Conservative government continues to repeat a mantra that it lowered taxes, but every Canadian tax filer knows that it actually increased them.