Gerry Byrne

[Supply, December 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to what I call a wonderful accolade which has been given to the government, a wonderful vote of confidence, a wonderful gesture of the opposition stating that it has the utmost confidence in the government to conclude in 31 days what I would call one of the most fundamental, one of the most important and one of the most significant agreements in Canadian political history.

The opposition through the Reform motion is calling on the government to conclude an agreement by December 31, 1998 on what its version of social union would be. It is calling on the government to unilaterally conclude those discussions and to come up with an agreement by December 31.

If we really reflect on it, as the hon. member for Burin—St. George's should do instead of babbling on over there, the opposition is telling us that we should have a clear and full mandate to unilaterally, without the scrutiny of the opposition, conclude that agreement.

If we think about what social programs are to Canadians, the values that Canadians instil through their social programs and what they mean to them practically in their day to day lives, this is quite an accomplishment. The opposition is giving us quite an accolade.

On social programs, our health care system, our employment insurance system and our job training system, things that Canadians cherish and rely upon, the opposition is telling us that with unanimous consent of the House we should be able to conclude an agreement within a 31 day period.

Canada is a nation that has evolved over 130 years. If we think about it, the opposition is now telling us that we should have 31 days to conclude a very significant piece of work. I take the compliment very seriously and gratefully, but I think the issue is far too serious, far too important and far too fundamental to the wishes and aspirations of Canadians for us to do so without fully engaging our partners in this discussion.

Social programs are very important. We take very seriously our role in guarding them and making sure that they are available to future generations just as they are available to us today. It is not so much ensuring that they are available as is but that they evolve according to the wishes and the needs of Canadians over time.

The agreements and discussions that will come forward in coming months and years must reflect the priority of Canadians. They must reflect their wishes. That involves citizen engagement. That cannot be done in a 31 day period as the opposition is telling us.

I do not think any agreement could be drafted, and I am not saying should be drafted, in a 31 day period given the fact that there probably would not be too many opposition members around on December 31, 1998 to review it, to reflect upon it or to offer their opinion.

I do not think that bodes well for the conduct and activities of the House. I do not think that those are the original intentions or wishes of the opposition. However, it reflects their very poorly thought out, opportunistic and ill spirited intent to corner the government for the sake of cornering it by suggesting that it would be appropriate to conclude such a significant agreement within a 31 day period.

Canadians are far more intelligent, far more reflective and take their social programs far more seriously than to be boondoggled by such a very inappropriate and ill conceived notion.

We are working diligently toward building a consensus, working with our partners and working with all sides of the House in an honest debate, not on something that is preconceived and arbitrary, not in the best interest of Canadians and not reflected by the premiers of the province. Within the past 24 hour period they have come forward and said that we should do this thoughtfully and responsibly and get the best possible social union, not just any social union.

That is the difference between members on this side of the House and members on the other side of the House. We are looking to get what is in the best interest of Canadians. That means not concluding a deal just for the sake of concluding a deal. It means making sure that we build upon the 130 year history of our country and that we build upon the efforts, the initiatives and the strengths of our forefathers, the people who built the country.

We have to remember the country did not evolve within a period of 31 days as is now being suggested as the objective, the motive or the principle we should adopt. It is being suggested that as at December 1, 1998 we should put in place an arbitrary deadline for the form and the finality of a social union which will be the cultural base of our social programs for the future and will be the rigid structure.

That is not what this is all about. We are not engaging in a debate that will actually determine the nature of social programs. We are engaging in a discussion about how the implementation of those programs will proceed. We will still need a lot of flexibility over time. We will still need the input of Canadians over time. No matter when or whatever agreement is concluded, Canadians must, should and will be a part of any process. Canadians have to be. We have to engage our citizens in any such discussion.

If we include a December 31, 1998 deadline and say that there will be no further discussions after that point, on New Year's Eve 1998 while the Reform Party is out celebrating the Government of Canada will be finalizing the entire form, structure and nature of the social union.

Let us think about it. Canadians across the country have already thought about it. They do not want it. They want a process which is a lot more responsible, inclusive to their wishes and abides by the wishes of the 10 provinces. The provinces have spoken. They have said that we should continue the discussions, not put arbitrary deadlines on anything but build an agreement which is substantive, in good form and reflects the needs of current and future generations.

I do not think there is much more to say. Canadians know what they need. They know what they want. They know what they deserve.

What they deserve is a process that is fair, equitable, transparent and reflects the fact that it is irresponsible to negotiate an agreement with a gun to the head as the Reform Party is suggesting through a motion that binds the Government of Canada to a December 31, 1998 deadline to conclude all future discussions, to finalize it, to finish it and to have no more involvement.

I will conclude where I began. The Reform Party has given us quite an accolade. It is quite an acknowledgement of our capabilities, our spirit and our willingness to work for Canadians. It is quite a show of confidence. However, it is unfortunately one that I will reject right now because this party and this government are more interested in doing things right, in including the citizens and in doing things the responsible way.

[Cape Breton Development Corporation, November 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear that the hon. member is finally beginning a dialogue with the employees who rely on that facility for employment.

The Government of Canada has already received an invitation from the employees, the union and the employer to initiate a dialogue to get the business to its maximum efficiency.

I remind the hon. member that his own colleague has put forward suggestions that the employees should take it over and privatize. The other members of the union—

[Lumber Industry, November 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Canada entered into agreements with several countries with regard to trade practices, in particular the softwood lumber agreement.

What is happening in the B.C. forest industry, especially the coastal industry is that exporters that rely on Asian markets in particular and who in many instances do not rely on American markets are now feeling the pinch of the Asian flu. That is severely restricting their export capability but they are expanding and moving forward with new markets. The Canadian industry is probably the most buoyant and the most competent in developing those types of markets.

[Lumber Industry, November 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure of the full context of the question. A statement was made so I will answer it with a simple statement.

Canada has one of the best forest practice management systems in all the world. It is protecting our forest industry and it is making sure we have credible good markets to rely on. Canadian forest practices are among the best in the world. That ensures we have export markets. Those are the kinds of things that Canada is doing exceptionally well in protecting our forest industry.

[Agriculture, October 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it must be Friday. Up until 30 seconds ago I thought there was no such a thing as a silly question, but now I think we have resolved that.

The government has been doing things very actively for the benefit of farmers. The Canadian Wheat Board, for example, has been consistently working at generating high value and high prices for farmers.

Despite the fact that world markets have been declining, Canadians have been enjoying world price increases basically due to the Canadian Wheat Board.

[National Science And Technology Week, October 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is in the middle of celebrating National Science and Technology Week. I point out that Canada has made a commitment to become the world's smartest natural resources developer, the most high tech, the most environmentally friendly, the most socially responsible and indeed the most productive.

Natural Resources Canada provides the scientific knowledge to position Canada as a world leader in wise management of our natural resources. With industrial, university and government partners it also carries out research to exploit new technologies, products and services.

During National Science and Technology Week, Natural Resources Canada makes a special effort to open its doors to the community, particularly to students to communicate the importance of science and technology in the natural resources sector.

More and more Canadians look to science and technology to improve their lives and to address important issues such as climate change.

[Petitions, June 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by thousands of people from my riding regarding the provision of a freight and passenger ferry service between Port au Basques, Newfoundland and North Sydney, Nova Scotia.

This service is a constitutional obligation of the federal government and a right held by all people of Newfoundland and Labrador under term 32 of the Newfoundland Act, 1949. The petitioners feel that this service is a vital link between the province of Newfoundland and the rest of Canada. It is critical to ensuring the economic well-being of our province.

Petitioners feel that the provision of high quality, customer oriented ferry transportation services on this route must be guaranteed on a timely basis and at reasonable rates to users. Therefore, the petitioners call upon parliament to amend the Canada Labour Code, Part I to prevent any disruption of this essential service as a result of strikes or lockouts, and to increase the federal funding available to Marine Atlantic for this particular ferry service.

[Employment, June 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the decision to close mines based on the availability of natural resources is always a very difficult one which faces many communities throughout Canada.

However, in this situation the local people themselves are working together for solutions. I would like to work with the hon. member and, quite frankly, I would take the opportunity right after question period to sit down with her to review the issue and get more details.

[Colonel F. G. Noseworthy, June 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House this morning to congratulate a native of Corner Brook, Newfoundland, a very honourable and noteworthy individual, Colonel F. G. Noseworthy, who is a member of my riding of Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte.

Mr. Noseworthy received the Order of Military Merit at an investiture ceremony that was presided over by Governor General Roméo LeBlanc on May 29, 1998.

The Order of Military Merit was created over 35 years ago to recognize meritorious service and devotion to duty by members of the Canadian forces. Mr. Noseworthy has been with the military engineering branch of the Canadian forces for over 29 years. It is my pleasure to congratulate him on such a great accomplishment.

Mr. Noseworthy was cited for his hard work. He excelled as a staff planner at both national and international levels, including as chief of staff of the 12 nation European community monitoring mission.

His competence and professionalism have not only been noted, they have now been recognized by such a prestigious award. Congratulations to Mr. Noseworthy.

[Fishers Bill Of Rights, June 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources I am pleased to respond to this question. It is one of several that have been raised by the hon. member opposite on this issue which is of direct effect and consequence to his riding.

The hon. member has so often raised this question and we have responded in kind appropriately. We have said specifically to the hon. member that this government honours the efforts of workers. We are very much in tune with the needs of workers. That is why the Minister of Human Resources Development has pledged a $3 million fund to provide assistance and transitional assistance for this particular industry and sector.

As has been done on several other occasions I am pleased to report to the House that the workers are taking advantage of this opportunity. In addition to the 40 or 50 workers who have sought employment opportunities elsewhere, several are taking on active employment measures. They are taking their futures into their own hands. We are seeing a return to work for that group of workers, not to the extent we would like but it is continuing. We expect to see future mining activity in the area which this group of workers will take advantage of.

We emphasize that while the hon. member opposite postures by suggesting the minister is the most appropriate one at this forum to answer this question, he once again deludes the people who are watching this broadcast. As the hon. member knows it is the duty of the parliamentary secretary. He has asked questions directly to the minister. The minister has responded directly. We are following parliamentary procedure. The minister cares very deeply about these workers.