Gerry Byrne

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, February 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss amendments to the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act. This act provides the legislative authority for parliament and this government to provide equalization payments to the provinces by virtue of the fact that all Canadians are equal and deserve equal access to equal services. Fundamentally, that speaks to what this legislation is all about.

We have heard in this House what the opposition parties feel this bill should not be about. They feel this bill should not be about equity, that it should not be about building Canada from coast to coast to coast, that it should not be about providing services to all Canadians, no matter the level of income or the location of residence, on the basis of equity. We have heard from the opposition that it should be about the principle of every person for themselves; that every person, man or woman, should fend for themselves, based on their ability to compete and survive in a very turbid world of market forces, and that is the way it should be. That would be a great speech in Washington, D.C., but this is Canada. Canada was built on a principled set of tenets. Canadians deserve equity in social programs from coast to coast to coast.

I re-emphasize that this debate has been about what the program should not be. This debate so far for the opposition has been about what it should not be for Canadians. The opposition has said that we should not have equity, that we should not have regional distribution of wealth, that we should not build Canada as a mosaic of regions where each region builds upon the strengths of others and provides support where support is needed.

The opposition fails to remember that it was some of the eastern provinces which first began the process of transfer payments. It was the eastern part of this country that actually provided transfer payments for the building of the west. That did not happen last year, nor did it happen 10 years ago. It happened literally hundreds of years ago, but it happened. That is an example of how this country was built.

Do members of the House see me trying to profess that that was a wrong move, that it was un-Canadian, that now my region or province has been hard done by? No. That is what built this country. A major principle that built this country is that all Canadians should be provided equal access to government programs and services, in particular social programs such as health and education.

It is terrible that hon. members opposite are still heckling that point of view. We are debating the fact that in this country social programs will be provided to the citizens of St. John's, Newfoundland on the same basis as they are to citizens of Victoria, B.C. Hon. members opposite have some explaining to do, not just to their own constituents but to their own consciences. It is not a Canadian principle.

The Constitution has entrenched the principle of equity for Canadians. It has done so through the principle of providing services to Canadians.

I am very proud to be a Canadian. I am also proud that opposition members still defend the principle of equity. Unfortunately they do not come from the Reform Party, but I think there are a few members across the way who still quietly, while not disturbing their caucus ranks, realize and understand the value that Canada is not a dog eat dog society, that there are still some principles of building a country and that those principles are based on the fact that Canadians in need will be assisted by Canadians who, at that point in time, have a little more to offer.

We could simply take a snapshot in time of what Canada is today, but we must remember that Canada changes over time. The east coast was the economic engine of Canada not too long ago. We were the economic engine that provided resources to help build other parts of the country.

We have not heard any new ideas from the opposition about rebuilding the federation and building on the social programs and services which Canadians enjoy. What we have heard is how to take them down.

That is what the Reform Party has based its entire debate on. That is what the Reform Party and other members of the opposition have based their entire discussions on. Their question is how do they take down the program.

How do we take it down? By simply providing tax relief to Canadians. What will this tax relief do? It will provide the provinces with the opportunity to be able to tax their citizens. It is more appropriate for the provinces to tax their citizens based on the individual capability to provide the services.

What does it really boil down to? It is so that the people in Newfoundland and Labrador will be able to use their own money to provide all the programs and services they would need in order for them to be equal Canadians.

What does that really say about the Reform Party's position? This means every man, woman and child must stand solely for themselves. No matter what the financial circumstances of the provinces, no matter what the circumstances of the region, everybody should be on it for their own. Is it a great country building principle? Quite frankly it is one that I reject out of hand.

Reformers are really saying that they want all persons to fend only for themselves. I do not accept that notion. I do not agree with it whatsoever. It is a very short term view of what Canada is all about and what Canada has been in the past.

We are already seeing in the House indications that when it is appropriate for members opposite to rise and demand additional services and programs for their own constituencies they have no problem doing it, but do not ever institutionalize a program in the Constitution or in legislation which actually provides for the basic principle that Canadians help Canadians. Do not ever do it unless it affects Reform Party constituents. Then it can be done because it is completely appropriate.

The country was built on a more solid foundation than that. They country was built on the foundation that through time, through place and through any sort of political arrangement Canadians help Canadians.

I am very delighted that I am allowed the opportunity to speak on equalization. It has been very helpful to my province in a period of economic need. Over 25% of the budget of Government of Newfoundland and Labrador literally is achieved through the equalization program. If we were to suddenly eliminate that, what kind of health care would Newfoundlanders and Labradorians receive? What kind of education would they receive? How could they participate as full Canadians in a system which means that they will not receive the same levels of service as any other Canadian?

How productive or meaningful would our country be if we actually allowed that to occur? By providing government programs and services based on a province's individual capability of taxing its own citizens as opposed to drawing upon the collective strength of all Canadians is a very un-Canadian principle. Quite frankly, why have Canada? Why be a collective? Why be a nation based on principles of equity? Why do it?

Hon. members opposite have no response for me because they realize that just as in any organization, just as in any family, just as in any circumstance, sometimes men and women are called upon in time of need, time of crisis, out of friendship and compassion to help out where they can. That is the principle that built the country and it is not being reflected in the House or during the course of this debate. That is why I am quite honoured to be able to have that entered into the debate.

The equalization program provides a significant amount of revenue which my province of Newfoundland and Labrador and indeed the other provinces of Atlantic Canada require. If it were not there the people of Atlantic Canada would not be as well served as they are today. They would not be provided with government programs and services. They would not feel like full Canadians.

The fact that it does exist despite the fact that it does have some shortcomings speaks well of Canada. It exists in a form that allows for equal participation not just of the provincial governments but of their citizens.

Equalization, according to this act as we have changed it, allows for a significant additional increase in incremental funds to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. Why? Because we are in need right now and it is judged by our ability to tax our own citizens.

In terms of the formula based approach to the equalization formula, which is transparent, up front and very accountable to all citizens of Canada, we provide a basis to transfer moneys to provinces in particular need of those services so that they can provide equally to their constituents. That is a principle which is being aggressively attacked by the platform and statements of the opposition parties.

Why is it that they feel this is such irresponsible behaviour on the part of the government? They define it as irresponsible in that the net effect of it is to reduce personal incentive. Why would they say that to a region such as Atlantic Canada or to certain regions in the west which also receive equalization and still profess to be a party that wants to build the country?

Quite frankly this is not the way that Canada was built. Nor should it be. It is not the position of our government. Nor will it ever be. It is now enshrined in the Constitution that equalization is part of the basic fabric of our country.

I am very pleased to announce in the House this afternoon that Newfoundland and Labrador will be receiving additional incremental payments under the equalization formula as amended in this act.

I think the reaction from the members opposite speaks to the fact that it is a good deal for Newfoundland and Labrador. I always want to make additional improvements to the bill, but I am very satisfied to stand in the House right now to defend an amendment to an act which allows my province the ability to provide government programs and services such as health and education at a higher level than it would if members of the opposition were in power. That speaks to itself. It speaks to what Canada is all about. It speaks to my role as member of parliament in addressing the particular issues. It speaks to what we do in the House, which is debate ideas.

It is very clear that the idea of Canada as expressed by members of the Reform Party and other members of the opposition is not the idea that I share. We are a caring, sharing country where not every man, woman and child will have to fend for themselves according to their own means of the day. It is where we share resources, wealth, ideas and where we share the common greatness of our country.

That may be odious and terrible for the opposition. I hope the microphones are picking up the catcalls that are being put forward in the House. Equalization is a very important element of what we are doing in terms of providing equity and wealth distribution for all citizens throughout the country.

I want to say very clearly that the increased economic performance of Newfoundland and Labrador will mean in due time that we will not require the assistance of equalization payments. We will not require the assistance of any other transfers because that is our objective.

Just 10 short years ago Newfoundland and Labrador trailed the nation in terms of gross domestic product. We not only trailed. We were in negative growth. Today, Newfoundland and Labrador leads the country in economic growth. Our gross domestic product as predicted by some leading financial institutions is predicted to continue to grow into the 21st century. I am very proud of that. That growth will define the fact that we will no longer require equalization payments.

However, right now we have a dependable program of the Government of Canada to provide for some of our needs. Why that is even being debated on the other side speaks again to their positions.

Newfoundland and Labrador has representatives in cabinet and within the finance ministry who are protecting its interests, ensuring that the lives of the people of Atlantic Canada are better today than they were yesterday. That is accomplished in part through equalization.

[Energy Efficiency Strategy, February 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to continue the debate on this very worthwhile and important motion, Motion No. 300.

I think this motion which deals with energy efficiency and the federal government's response to the calls and expectations of energy efficiency is a very timely debate and discussion. The impact of the Department of Natural Resources Canada's programs on energy efficiency has been very positive both for the environment and for the economy.

Picking up where I left off I would like to say to the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre that he was quite correct in his earlier conversation with the House when he made the link between energy efficiency and job creation. Every $1 million invested in energy efficiency projects generates approximately 20 years of employment and millions are being invested each year.

Canada's energy services industry grew by 600% between 1991 and 1995 and is now a $300 million industry.

Energy efficiency also creates indirect jobs and it reduces operating costs for industry and businesses which in turn makes them more competitive in domestic and international markets. Competitive companies grow with the economy and generate employment and income for all Canadians.

Canadian industry is showing the way when it comes to energy efficiency. Nearly 250 companies, representing about 75% of total industry energy use in Canada, have registered with Natural Resources Canada's industrial energy innovators program. About 80% of these companies have filed voluntary action plans to improve their use of energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Ninety-seven per cent of the participants in the industrial energy innovators have also registered with the climate change voluntary challenge and registry incorporated and with the VCR. Another 46 industrial companies have registered directly with the VCR. Through the Canadian industry program for energy conservation, industry has formed 19 individual sector task forces that work in close partnership with Natural Resources Canada in finding ways of improving energy efficiency.

Let me give the House some other examples of Canadian energy efficiency achievements. During the 1990s the amount of energy used by new clothes washers and dryers, for example, decreased by about 20%. New refrigerators, freezers and dishwashers are using between 30% and 40% less energy than those manufactured just 10 short years ago. Those improvements are largely the result of federal regulations that establish minimum energy performance standards for household appliances and for other energy using products.

Progress is also being made in the transportation sector which is the single largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. The sales weighted average fuel consumption rating for new cars sold in Canada improved by about 8% from 1990 to 1996.

From a technology perspective Canadian leadership is particularly evident in the buildings area. For example, for the past two years the energy technology branch of Natural Resources Canada has spearheaded the green building challenge 1998, an international project to develop and test a system to assess the environmental performance of buildings around the world. Just last month Canada hosted more than 600 international delegates at the green building challenge conference in Vancouver. This event was a huge success and strengthened Canada's position at the forefront of green building design and construction.

Canadian firms are also developing leading edge energy efficiency manufacturing processes. For example, with research and development support from Natural Resources Canada, Stackville Limited of Mississauga, Ontario has developed an innovative powder metallurgy process for manufacturing automative parts. The process eliminates casting, forging and tooling operations which means it saves both energy and materials. It has helped make Stackville one of the largest producers of powder metallurgy auto parts in North America.

We are finding that you do not have to be a large corporation to be a world leader. A small company from Lethbridge, Alberta is generating a great deal of interest after developing the world's first cargo carrying natural gas motorcycle, again with support from Natural Resources Canada. The so-called cargocycle produces 20% fewer greenhouse gas emissions than a similar gasoline powered motorcycle and has enormous potential in the international markets. This company is now exploring options for commercial production that could mean 3,000 new jobs in Canada.

I thank the hon. member who put forward this motion for his efforts. It is providing government with an opportunity to highlight our achievements to date. I look forward to continue working with him and this House in advancing the cause of energy efficiency and in the process advancing the cause of Canadian industrial efficiency and productivity.

[Devco, February 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the measures that the hon. member from Bras d'Or is speaking about are not meagre at all; $111 million for workforce adjustment is quite substantial.

It is no secret to the hon. member, nor is it any secret to members of the House, that Devco has been under certain strains of late. The management has been dealing with them as effectively as it can. We have now arrived at a solution.

We are in a situation where we are trying to put forward solutions. I would ask the hon. member from Bras d'Or to participate, for the sake of her constituents, in solutions and not just problems.

[Energy Efficiency Strategy, December 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the charter also protects parliament and the operations of parliament. Quite frankly the public complaints commission was enacted and brought into being by an act of parliament.

The allegations that are constantly being brought forward by this member and members of his party do not reflect the fact that a specific complaint was lodged against a specific police force. There is an act of parliament which governs, enshrines and protects the laws of Canada. It has been brought into force to review the particular complaint in that situation.

We are asking, and I am quite confident we have the backing of all Canadians, to let the commission do its work. That is a very simple request. It is within the scope and the purview of parliament. It has been enacted by parliament. It operates at arm's length from the government. We have no active role. That is all we are asking for, to answer to the specific complaints and the specific allegations.

The posturing, the rhetoric and the ill conceived political grandstanding that have been constantly the trademark of the particular party across the way cannot interfere with the due process that must proceed and should proceed. The process was formulated by parliament in a non-partisan way. It was voted upon and enacted by parliament and should be outside the purview of parliament. It should proceed on its own merit and in its own way.

I simply ask for due process and justice to let the matter proceed.

[Energy Efficiency Strategy, December 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I think if we had 40 more minutes there probably would not be too many more new ideas coming forward from the Bloc. Members of the Bloc Quebecois have repeatedly tried to mix and match figures to suit their particular purposes when it comes to discussing this particular issue. They have not wanted to look at the true facts.

The Bloc Quebecois fails to mention that the recent analysis on EI coverage clearly concludes that the EI program is indeed meeting its key objective of providing temporary income support between jobs to workers in Canada. It concludes that about 78% of the unemployed who lost their jobs or quit with just cause were indeed eligible in 1997; not 43% or 42% as alleged by members opposite, but indeed 78%.

The employment insurance system is a major tool to help unemployed Canadians, but it is just that. It is a tool. Contrary to what the Bloc and the opposition insists, employment insurance is not a panacea and is not for all unemployed Canadians who are not automatically covered. For example, people who are not entitled to EI are people who have never worked, people who have quit their job to go back to school, or people who are self-employed and do not pay EI premiums.

What the Bloc has consistently failed to mention is that in addition to the significant measures under the EI program to help put Canadians back to work who are indeed eligible for this particular insurance, the Government of Canada is also providing additional benefits and support through the youth employment strategy, through the Canadian opportunities strategy, through the transitional jobs fund, through the post-TAGS program in many areas of Atlantic Canada and the Gaspé of Quebec, and indeed active employment measures through the Part II funds of the Employment Insurance Act, as well as the new hires program.

What members have failed to mention is that we are putting $1.1 billion in employment insurance premiums back in—

[Energy Efficiency Strategy, December 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has raised an important question. He has basically made the allegation that the Department of Human Resources Development Canada is discriminating against women, specifically in the choices it makes during the evaluation of eligibility for employment insurance benefits.

The people involved in the member's concerns are a group of women who participated in the fishing industry in various forms. They basically came to the hon. member with what I would call a serious complaint. They felt that they were not receiving due process.

It may be worth pointing out that the people in question received what appears to be due process in that the Department of Human Resources Development Canada received complaints from members of the community in which the hon. member is actually a resident himself. When there is an allegation that a person may not be fulfilling the requirements under the arm's length provisions of the employment insurance eligibility criteria, the department has a responsibility to review it. It is quite often referred to Revenue Canada for investigation.

Departmental notes show that under these circumstances the evidence did not indicate that there was full compliance with the requirements for insurable earnings. Again, these allegations of abuse came from the community members themselves. They were not generated by departmental officials per se, but in many instances came from the community.

[Energy Efficiency Strategy, December 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise to address the House on the motion put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre. I want to thank the hon. member for bringing this matter before the House and commend him for his interest in energy efficiency.

This is a very important issue for all Canadians, for our economy, for our environment and indeed for our quality of life here in Canada. It deserves the careful attention of this House.

In Canada and indeed around the world there is a growing awareness that we need to use energy more efficiently. The combustion, the use of fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural gas produce greenhouse gas emissions that are contributing to climate change and to other environmental problems. Unless action is taken now, future generations will be left with an unmanageable environmental and economic burden.

I am pleased to say that Canada is a recognized world leader in energy efficiency. Between 1990 and 1996, a period during which our economy and population grew significantly, efficiency gains by Canadians resulted in annual energy cost savings that reached $4 billion for the year 1996. Secondary energy use was 3.2% lower than it would have been without improvements in energy intensity. Of course that means carbon dioxide emissions were also lower than would otherwise have been the case.

In his motion the hon. member calls for the government to invest in a comprehensive energy efficiency strategy that will create jobs, lead to the development and export of innovative technologies and demonstrate federal leadership. I am here to inform the House that such a strategy is already in place and is having a clear and positive impact on Canada's economy and on the environment.

The Minister of Natural Resources is a champion of energy efficiency in the government and across the Canadian economy. He has demonstrated this most recently by establishing a dynamic new organization, the office of energy efficiency, which is mandated to strengthen his department's leadership efforts in this particular area. This new organization is an important part of the government's initial response to meeting the greenhouse gas commitments made at Kyoto last December.

The office of energy efficiency is now delivering 18 programs designed to move the market toward increased energy efficiency, including three new programs launched this past April with a funding commitment of $48 million over three years.

Some of these programs provide Canadian consumers and industries with the information they need to become more energy efficient. Others regulate minimum energy performance standards for certain types of energy-using equipment or show leadership through action.

The office of energy efficiency also delivers a financial incentive program to improve the energy performance of commercial buildings.

But market transformation, the changing of attitudes and the removal of market barriers is only one side of the coin. It is also critical that Canada develop technologies, processes and systems that will enable us to use less energy and produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions while maintaining our economic competitiveness in a changing world. Toward this end the energy technology branch of Natural Resources Canada delivers a wide range of programs to support the research, development and application of innovative energy efficiency technologies and processes in all sectors of the economy.

Every project undertaken by the branch is done in partnership with others in industry or the academic community so that taxpayers' dollars are being used to foster investments in energy efficiency. This is an excellent example of how federal spending in strategic areas can also provide value added benefits to society.

The impact of these NRCan programs has been very positive. While the debate has been mixed in the House among those who disagree with the fact that we should be spending any time or energy on energy efficiency versus those who would suggest that we should spend more, Natural Resources Canada is providing a healthy balance in providing market forces and market driven activities which will lead to successful, innovative programs and results.

The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre is quite correct to make the link between energy efficiency and job creation. Every $1 million invested in energy efficiency projects generates 20 years of employment and millions are being invested each year.

[Income Tax Act, December 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to say to the House and to the member who initiated this bill that I offer my congratulations and on behalf of the House and this side we are very grateful. We are indebted to the member for bringing once again the concerns of students and higher education into the forefront of parliamentary democracy.

We need more initiatives and good ideas to present to young people, in particular those facing significant student debt problems. This is one measure which the Department of Finance and Revenue Canada should be looking at very seriously. It complements a series of measures which the government has already implemented, measures which were described in detail by other members.

This is the type of debate that students are expecting of the House and the type of good ideas that should come forward.

[Supply, December 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, that question actually focuses the debate and the discussion much better. I am pleased to answer it. The premier of Newfoundland and Labrador has gone on record. He specifically said that we should continue to work, take our time, be diligent in our discussions, be thoughtful in our discussions and do it right.

The premier of Newfoundland and Labrador has been joined by premiers from western Canada as well the constituencies, places or regions that some members opposite may purport to best represent. However, premiers from across the country have said that they support the federal government. They acknowledge the federal government. They are equal partners in the discussion.

They should not be sidetracked into a secondary role based on a Reform motion which imposes upon the federal government alone to conclude the discussions and the negotiations by December 31, 1998. That is not the spirit. That is not the substance of what we are trying to do. The Reform Party should learn that and understand it once and for all.

[Supply, December 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly understand why the member from the Reform Party would be confused or not understand how members on this side of the House could actually enter into a discussion without a preconceived notion. When the Reform Party caucus meets and decides automatically who the Reformer of the week is, all those discussions have usually come to a preconceived conclusion. That is why that particular aspect of my comments today may not fall on completely sensitive ears.

The hon. member is quite right. This is a process that does take time and has taken time. Quite frankly it will take even more time. The country was not built in 31 days. Nor was it built in a year and a half. Nor was it built in a decade. It took several years to come to the point where we have a national health care system with universal principles that is universally accessible.

It took several years to build an economic system where we have infrastructure from one end of the country to the other, where we have different ideals and beliefs about the implementation of labour market principles and where individual provinces agree with it.

Good things take time and it is about time the hon. member learned that.