Gerry Byrne

[Lewisporte Marine Terminal, May 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege to meet with officials from the town of Lewisporte several days ago. I met with them to discuss impacts from the reduction in service.

As well, we discussed opportunities and ideas they had to promote economic development and growth in their community. I am pleased to continue that work. I will be meeting again with the town of Lewisporte in the not too distant future to come up with concrete solutions and ideas for the town.

[Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, April 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, what was also pointed out on several occasions was that the project had a very substantial and positive impact on the community. It was supported by the province of Prince Edward Island. It was supported by the community.

I would simply ask the hon. member to listen to his own words for one moment. He said that no one was questioning the fact that this was a viable and valuable project. In fact the hon. member for St. Albert acknowledged that he was “not worried about where the money ended up because I think in the end it was not a bad deal”.

[Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, April 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, if those categorizations were ever true there should be a surplus of questions being faced by the minister responsible for ACOA.

This is the first opportunity I have had to stand on my feet and answer a question in the House since January 16 and I am very pleased to do so.

With respect to the question at hand, I would like to point out to the hon. member that the project in question was put forward as a priority by the provincial government and the community. As the hon. member acknowledged, the project had a very substantial, productive benefit to the area.

[St. John's Harbour, May 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the motion put forward by the hon. member for St. John's East respecting the proposed St. John's harbour cleanup.

It always behoves me to remind the hon. member for St. John's East, being a good fellow from St. John's, that there are other issues, other harbour cleanups that have been proposed for other parts of the island of Newfoundland and indeed throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

I would like to promote the concept of a harbour cleanup in Corner Brook. The Atlantic coastal action program, the Humber Arm group, have been proponents of that endeavour for quite some time. I would have liked to have as well included in this motion in terms of its context and wording a more all inclusive, a more encompassing debate and a more encompassing discussion written right into the text of the motion itself.

This being a debate, we are allowed to go the full gambit of basically how it will proceed. I would like to provide some discussion about priorities and about expanding the mandate. The House engaged in a discussion just this afternoon about priorities. This is an opposition day on which we discussed at length the need for national regulation on clean, clear drinking water as a priority matter. It was put forward by the Conservative caucus, by the Conservative Party as the priority.

If we look at the recent round of infrastructure programs put forward in my home province of Newfoundland and Labrador, we did respond to what our people, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, said were their priorities, as would be noted by the hon. member from the Conservative caucus. We invested literally tens of millions of dollars into clean, clear drinking water in communities and as a matter of fact in rural communities. This is something of which I am very proud and has to be explored.

On the issue of harbour cleanup, the hon. member has put forward that the municipality of St. John's has put up $31 million. The rubber is ready to hit the road. The pedal is ready to be put to the metal. The province has also put up $31 million. A total $62 million is committed.

I would like to pose a question. Is it possible with $62 million already sourced that the project could now begin? Given the fact that it probably would be initiated over a 10 year period, an extended period of time, that the commitment is genuine and real and that the need is there, which I think the hon. member opposite has proven quite effectively, could the $62 million be put into play immediately?

We determine our priorities and our commitments and put forward money for municipal infrastructure that provide for clean, clear water. We put money forward for municipal sewer systems in rural communities. If St. John's harbour cleanup is the priority, as the hon. member says, and I agree with him, we have an opportunity to put $62 million in play, not tomorrow, but today, right now, on the floor of the House if the hon. member consents.

[Helge Ingstad, April 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I mark the recent passing of a great world explorer and archaeologist, someone whose profound contribution to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, to our nation and to the entire world will be remembered forever.

Dr. Helge Ingstad of Norway and his wife, the late Anne Stine Ingstad, are credited with the discovery of the Norse encampment at L'Anse aux Meadows on the northern tip of the Great Northern Peninsula. Their discovery and study of the archaeological remains of this Norse village have led to its establishment as the only truly authenticated Viking settlement in all of North America.

Based on the life's work of the Ingstads, L'Anse aux Meadows is now preserved as a national historic site within the Parks Canada system and has been designated as a world heritage site by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, UNESCO.

On behalf of the House I extend my sincere condolences to the family and to the people of Norway as we remember the life and work of the late Helge Ingstad.

[Sports, November 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in my place today to say to all my colleagues that Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, indeed Corner Brook and Deer Lake, western Newfoundland, is becoming one of the premier capitals for sporting and high performance athletics not just in Canada but internationally as well. I want to pay tribute and salute all the people who have provided this platform, this foundation.

It goes without saying that while we are building the infrastructure and building the reputation as one of the premier sporting capitals, not only nationally but internationally, part of the reason we are doing so is that we have high performance young athletes like Eric Daggett.

Eric Daggett is performing very well not only nationally but internationally on the mountain biking scene. He has proven himself to be a very capable young athlete. I want to pay tribute to him and his great successes. He has competed in Kamloops, B.C. He has represented Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte very well. Hats off to Eric; keep up the good work.

[Forest Products, May 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has the best forestry practices in all the world. We owe apologies to no one.

Where we can do better we will. We are employing resources and measures to make sure that we do so. We will always defend partial or inadequate information about Canadian forestry practices and we will do so very aggressively.

Last week I headed a Canadian delegation that went before the Council of Europe to make sure that European parliamentarians understood that Canadian forestry practices are among the best if not the best in the entire world.

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, May 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has made reference to the presence or absence of a member in the House. It is not a point of this debate.

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, May 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It behooves the House that all members participating in this debate stay closely to the topic at hand. We are talking about Bill C-78. We are talking about the superannuation act. I simply request the hon. member, instead of divulging into gratuitous conversation about other matters which he knows have no relationship to the bill, to stick to the matter at hand.

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, May 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for participating in the debate. The answer to the question the hon. member asked is, I would assume, based on the fact that the Speaker did not provide a ruling, that excrement is indeed a word that is applicable and usable in the House. However, I would simply ask that hon. members present who are participating in this debate not use bathroom humour, however playful or however humourous it may seem at the time. This is a very serious piece of legislation and I would like to elevate the debate to make sure that we continue to focus on the issues at hand. Hon. members, I am sure, would like to engage in a bit of playful conversation during the course of the debate, but I think that our responsibility and what we are charged to do here is to stick to the issues at hand, the specifics of this legislation and the needs of our respective constituents.

Hon. members opposite have raised the issue that certain pensions should be based not on the contributions or the formula that the pension plan was based on, but that consideration should be given for lower income pensioners or lower pension levels and that those levels should indeed be topped up. I understand the merit and general detail of that particular proposal. I think it is a very kindhearted idea. In my own personal view it has some merit.

Basically, those who contribute to the pension plan are all public servants. They really want and need the pension plan to be devised and to be implemented on a formula based approach which is accountable and fair so they will know exactly where their money is going as they contribute. That is the way the policyholders themselves would like the pension plan to be administered. I ask hon. members opposite to bear that in mind.

One final point is that there was some reference made by a member of the Reform Party, who I understand is also chairman of the public accounts committee, who attended the committee hearings on natural resources and government operations which reviewed this particular legislation at second reading. A point has to be made. When the committee was considering this particular piece of legislation what it was faced and charged with, in part, was to look at specific amendments; in other words, specific ideas that the opposition had as to how it would change the legislation.

There were very few amendments put forward by the opposition. As a procedural matter the amendments were grouped in various sections. We debated the amendments in those sections, which proved to be a very efficient and effective way of dealing with the legislation.

The point that has to be made is that debate in committee has to be based on specific ideas that have been brought forward by any member of the committee. We as government House members and government committee members did indeed put forward specific proposals for change to the legislation. We debated those and in some measure we got them through in committee. Very few amendments were put forward by the opposition to this particular legislation. Therefore, that in itself was a limitation on debate. The issue at that point in time became whether the legislation as it was currently drafted by the government would indeed be passed at the committee stage.

That is a point in which I think members of the House would be interested. Many of the people who spoke here this morning were not in attendance at committee where much of the work of the House is conducted from the point of view of reviewing legislation, reviewing different amendments and talking about the general issues surrounding the legislation.

I am pleased that members opposite have now joined the debate at this stage. It would have been very helpful if they had joined the debate at the committee stage, but that is their choice. Now we have a chance to renew the debate. We have to maintain a focus on very specific issues. I say to members opposite that we should try to not get involved in too much bathroom humour. It is too serious a piece of legislation to do that and I think that members of the pension plan and members of the general public expect a bit more dignity and decorum in the House.

I would like to thank the House for its indulgence and I would like to proceed with this very useful debate.