Gerry Byrne

[Fisheries, May 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the allegations are categorically not true and my deepest sympathies for the person who said them.

[Points of Order, April 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, that was not the intent at all. In fact, I did not hear any comments. I was speaking at the time. I just simply say that for the dignity of the House that we respect hon. members, that there was no misintent by anyone. I think what was really important that happened last night, and if I could just stress one point, let us not get sidetracked by what the intent of the debate was, we had a very good discussion last night. It was very productive. I am simply saying that I did not hear anything. I wish I did, but I did not. I was speaking at the time, and I simply ask the hon. member that we take the debate as it was, value it and take the input from it and we will leave it at that.

[Points of Order, April 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I was speaking at the time the leader of the fifth party was referring to statements that were made.

This is a very dignified place. This was a very straightforward and productive debate that was held last night. While yes, at times, as a participant in that debate I can attest that emotions did sometimes flare, and there was discussion both behind the curtains and among members opposite and members on this bench, I would remind not only those listening to this conversation or discussion right now but those who are producing Hansard , as well as those who may have been watching on television, that seals were often a significant component of the discussion last night. While there may have been some miscommunication or misinterpretation, I would simply say we should remember that both official languages were being spoken in the House at the point in time. If we were to translate “seal”, maybe that might allow for what the misinterpretation might have been.

[Cod Fishery, April 29th, 2003]

I feel it is important for everyone to express their points of view, which is really why we are here tonight.

I congratulate the member for Bonavista—Trinity—Conception for calling for this debate in the House of Commons tonight on what is a most important issue.

It goes without saying that none of us here tonight, nowhere in Newfoundland and Labrador, nowhere in Atlantic Canada, nowhere in Canada does anyone want to close any fishery, but of course the decision has been made and conservation is paramount.

My responsibility working with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is to ensure that there is a long term economic plan, a plan in place to support not only communities but individuals, and to make sure that plan responds to their needs. I intend to make sure that plan is enacted and enacted well. I am absolutely and steadfastly committed to that. I guarantee that it will be done.

One of the things we can do and we can do very well in Newfoundland and Labrador is invest in aquaculture. Economic activity in aquaculture has expanded greatly in my home province. For example, in 1992 the total value of aquaculture production in the province was just over $1 million. In recent years that production has expanded to over $20 million in value. That production occurs in rural coastal Newfoundland and Labrador.

We also have huge opportunities throughout the entire region but if tonight I concentrate somewhat on Newfoundland and Labrador it is because that is where some of the major impacts are occurring. However I know that we can take the technology, the research and the developments, expand that which has occurred in other areas of the country and make sure that it fits very well throughout the entire Atlantic region.

It can be done. Those who say that rural Newfoundland and Labrador is not strong and vibrant do not truly understand what rural Newfoundland and Labrador is all about. It is incredibly strong. We need to make it stronger and we will do that by some strategic investments in its future.

One of the reasons we invested $25 billion in the immediate term, $30 million in Atlantic Canada and $14 million in Quebec for a total of $44 million in immediate income support and replacement, is because there is a definite need and it needed to be done. It is the right thing to do.

I did not take any particular satisfaction in having to do that . I for one would love to have people fishing cod but it is not possible at this time. Therefore we stepped in with immediate assistance. We will be able to provide some assistance on projects that are needed and that have been asked for on several occasions.

For example, we can develop things like marinas but, most important, we can invest in rural communities in their true strengths, such as aquaculture, a suggestion that was brought to the floor of the House of Commons tonight and one which I took very seriously. Maybe there is an opportunity to invest in science activities by fishermen. I think that was a very credible and responsible suggestion made tonight by a member opposite and I intend to take him up on that challenge. It is a very good one.

One of the things I have learned in this business, in the House and in the art of representing people, is that if we separate from each other, if we simply draw partisan lines and seize political opportunity for the sake of seizing political opportunity, we are not serving the people we represent. That was one of the reasons I welcomed the debate tonight. I wanted to seize opportunities and ideas and put them into action.

However we also have to understand that we will not always agree. However we should absolutely guarantee that we will always try. When we come forward with ideas and plans, we must always respect the fact that there will be divergences of opinions but that at the end of the day there are people out there who need our assistance and who are depending upon us as we depend upon them. They deserve our utmost attention to their needs.

While this is a very difficult time for each and every one of us, I am here tonight to say to the people of Atlantic Canada, to Quebec and to my home province of Newfoundland and Labrador that I will not drop the ball and I will not be distracted. I know there are important jobs to do and that is why I am absolutely steadfast in making sure they are done. We will continue on.

It has been remarked here tonight that there was no specific, rigid criteria for the long term plan. It is because I will go forward. I will consult with stakeholders and make sure their ideas and their input are heard. Then we will quickly invest in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

We will take that long term economic vision and we will invest in areas that are strategic elements and of strategic importance for those communities. In the process we will assist individuals, those who are most impacted by the closure of the cod.

With that, I will go forward. The reason we need to work together is that there is a lot of work to do. However I take some comfort in the fact that while others have tried occasionally to seize political advantage, I am surrounded by members on both sides of the House who have realized that the job we have before us is larger than any one of us. We cannot promote division. We must promote solidarity. While we have differing opinions it is very clear that we have one objective and that is the support of people.

We will go forward here tonight and in the future to make sure our coastal communities in eastern Canada are stronger and better, even under difficult circumstances. It is very easy to represent people in great times and in good times but the test and challenge of leadership comes with our representation in difficult times. We are all, as members of Parliament, up to that challenge.

[Cod Fishery, April 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, we have a discussion behind the curtains that probably should be left behind the curtains.

[Cod Fishery, April 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by saying that this is an extremely difficult issue with which everyone is involved.

[Fisheries, April 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we are doing. We are working with communities to ensure that they have the tools and the resources to build their futures because this is a go forward plan.

We are providing income support in the immediate term because there are fishermen and plant workers who are affected in various ways. There is still a very vibrant fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador.

We have to reflect on that and build it into our strategy but we also know there is a very healthy future for rural Newfoundland and Labrador and we are committed to building on that future with additional funds.

[Economic Development, December 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we are aware that in several years hence there will be significant economic repercussions in northeast New Brunswick due to the closure of mines.

The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency is already engaged in working with stakeholders trying to find mitigation in terms of its economic development strategies. We are doing grassroots, bottom level economic development in northeast New Brunswick. I would be pleased to continue to work with the hon. member and most important, with economic development groups from the area to rebuild that economy.

[Supply, November 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, through you, in your role as Speaker in the Chamber, I must correct the hon. member on my title. My title is Minister of State of, not ALCOA, but ACOA.

It is very clear that a number of different initiatives have been employed, can be employed and will be employed. The technical rulings found within the legislation have been vetted through various voluntary sector groups, as well as through broad consultations with Canadians.

There is a purpose to establishing a criteria based on when the disability tax credit is brought into play and that affects who is eligible versus who is not eligible.

A very specific question has been raised but seeing that there is more to move on to today, I will take it under advisement.

[Supply, November 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the committee produced a unanimous report outlining specific recommendations. I believe it was the Scott report that she was referring to. If I understand correctly, all the information was available to the committee to make its recommendations.

Looking at the range of programs available to those incurring disabilities, our objective is to integrate them fully as participants in the mainstream of society because that is possible and it is our responsibility to do so. A number of different initiatives can be adopted.

The committee, which we are responding to in measure today, was an all party committee. It had a wealth of information at its disposal and it made recommendations.

However, at this point in time it would be more appropriate for me to simply stand in response to the committee report to which the government has already responded. It is something that encourages further debate and discussion.

Other measures can be taken. Obviously the recommendations in the Scott report are things that will not easily be shelved nor should they be shelved. It continues to allow us an opportunity to look at all aspects, all tools, all things available to us and to respond accordingly.