Gerry Byrne

[Committees Of The House, December 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the orders of reference which were adopted by the House of Commons on October 28, 1997 and by the other place on November 5, 1997, the special joint committee has considered the subject matter related to the proposed resolution respecting a proposed amendment to term 17 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada concerning the Newfoundland school system.

It adopted its report on December 3, 1997 in which the committee recommends that both Houses of Parliament adopt the resolution to amend term 17. I have the honour to table this report in both official languages.

[The Environment, November 26th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, there is more than a plan. There is action. One thing the government realizes is that transportation is actually a major producer of greenhouse gases. It is one of the major, major producers of greenhouse gases. That is why the government has dedicated itself to increasing energy efficiency, not just in the transportation sector, but as well in the heating of buildings and other things. Energy efficiency is exactly where this country should be going and where we are taking it.

I promote very strongly that federal buildings and government vehicles right across the government increase their energy efficiency by using different types of energy sources. As well, we are always actively engaged in the debate regarding transportation policy and creating greater efficiencies.

That is one object of the Canada Transportation Act, which I will happily engage in debate about. It is providing economic efficiencies and also creating an opportunity for greater efficiencies in terms of the transportation routes. Instead of duplicating loads, companies are now providing better services more cheaply, but most importantly, with reduced use of fuel.

[The Environment, November 26th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in response to the comments and the question.

Unfortunately, I cannot respond to the comment about the oceanographer because there was no specific information provided. I will suggest that new, more, better information is always important. That is one of the reasons why Canada is a world leader in providing satellite technology and providing environmental monitoring. Always as a country, as a globe we should be striving to provide better information on the environment. Canada is successfully developing a world class industry in that regard, providing services to countries around the globe and that is actually providing jobs for Canadians.

That is why I say that the challenge of global warming is significant and of a huge magnitude. However, the opportunities for Canadians to embrace the problem and seek solutions and to actively engage in the solution provides us with unique opportunities.

[The Environment, November 26th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to address this very important issue on the minds of all Canadians and of the entire globe.

I speak on several fronts from my experience as an environmental biologist. I have experience from an academic point of view and from a practitioner's point of view in the fields of community forestry, community based aquaculture and a number of other community based industries striving for sustainable development in rural communities in my home province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The basis of the experience I am bringing to this debate is my own personal experience working in the field of science, working in the field of sustainable development, and working in a province which I think is very nobly showing great leadership in moving ahead in the field of sustainable development and contributing to the solutions to global warming and the problem of climate change.

I come from the province of Newfoundland and Labrador where we have on our doorsteps one of the most vast offshore energy resources in the world. The Hibernia field and the Jeanne d'Arc Basin are producing and have the potential to produce significant energy resources that will be used by global trading partners.

This is why I am very pleased to contribute to the discussion on Canada's role in increasing energy efficiency, Canada's role in increasing responsible consumption, and Canada's role in providing global leadership on this issue.

We also have in our province one of the cleanest sources of renewable energy found in the Lower Churchill Falls project. Hydroelectricity will be for North America one of our great advantages in terms of producing sustainable successful results in reducing our carbon levels so that we achieve the greenhouse gas reduction targets that we have set out.

I speak as a scientist with a laboratory in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. As has been raised during the course of this debate, I have been witness to the destruction of the northern cod stocks. While others in the House speak from third hand information, I was in northern Newfoundland during the time of the cod crisis and experienced first hand the consequences of inaction and the consequences of not listening to science.

I feel very strongly that we have to listen to the scientists on this issue. I note that my colleagues opposite are now publicly saying that we should strictly be basing fisheries management decisions on science and science alone; that administrators should be exempt from the process of setting total allowable catches, exempt from determining the total biomass availability; and that science and science alone should be the guiding consequence. Hon. members of the Reform Party are saying now that the issue of global warming and climate change is in their backyard that scientists are quacks.

That is an absolute outrage. When it is not in their backyard science should be the guiding factor, but when it potentially is in their backyard scientists are quacks. I think that is reprehensible. Quite frankly inaction, not listening to scientists, is what got us in trouble in 1990.

That is why we as parliamentarians have the responsibility to listen to the advice available to us. To do nothing is irresponsible.

While members opposite have found the new luxury of promoting their own environmental agenda and their own environmental performance of the past, it was the Conservative government of the day that refused to act on the science in 1990. It refused to embrace the challenges of fisheries management. Instead of listening to science in 1990 it began the process of listening to the major fish corporations. It said enterprise allocations, regardless of the science, quoting the then minister, the Hon. Bernard Valcourt and others—it is very important that this be noted on the record—“the economic consequences are far, far too great”.

Right now in Atlantic Canada we are experiencing the economic consequences of not acting appropriately and not acting in a timely fashion. While others may laud their fisheries management practices in terms of the west coast in putting together the Pacific Fisheries Treaty, I suggest on the Atlantic coast we have been witness in a very real and tangible way to the consequences of the inaction.

As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, I say that we are dedicated and committed to action on this issue in a way which is responsible, which meets the needs of Canadians. That is action.

I would like to point out that in Newfoundland and Labrador, while we are participating in the energy industry, we are also participating in the solutions. That is what Canadians expect of us.

I would like to point out some other examples of actions which are providing solutions. For example, Alcan Smelter and Chemicals Ltd. is replacing its older facilities with new plants built with the latest technology. Carbon dioxide emissions will be reduced at this facility by more than 350,000 tonnes.

There are examples across the country where we can employ energy efficiency, where we can employ better technologies and where we can respond to the science that we know exists today rather than burying our heads in the sand like ostriches and trying to pretend the problem does not exist. What we have to do is act. That is exactly what we intend to do.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to participate in this debate. I know that it causes quite a high degree of debate between members as to who is responsible and who is not. However, I think that clearly we are all responsible as parliamentarians to participate in the solutions, to participate in developing answers rather than just simply saying “it is he or she who did not act in the past”. What we have to do is recognize that this is the time and the place to act. Let us start doing it.

[Donkin Mine, November 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to rise in the House and join my colleague from across the way.

I rise to address the House on Motion No. 136 which calls on certain limitations to be put on the development of Donkin mine in Cape Breton as a crown corporation.

I would like to begin by thanking the hon. member for Bras D'or for her interest in the issue and the future of the Cape Breton Development Corporation, also known as Devco. As a member from Atlantic Canada, I welcome the opportunity to debate this motion.

I believe the hon. member and this government share common concerns about Cape Breton. We are concerned, for example, about the high levels of unemployment on the Island, as well as in other parts of Atlantic Canada. We are concerned about the long term economic health of Cape Breton and about the future of its young people. I would also suggest the hon. member and this government share a common will for Cape Breton, to achieve long term economic success and social progress across the Island.

That is why our government continues to support the work of the Cape Breton Development Corporation which the hon. member knows is a federal crown corporation. The Government of Canada has set a clear and reasonable goal for Devco. As a coal mining company that is in the business of providing jobs and other economic benefits to Cape Breton, we expect Devco to become commercially viable on its own right. I believe that is a fair and reasonable expectation and I believe hon. members on both sides of the House will agree that this is indeed a reasonable expectation.

We believe that commercial viability is the best way to ensure the tradition of coal mining continues in Cape Breton and that Devco maintains its position as a major employer within the region. The need for Devco to succeed cannot be overemphasized. The corporation continues to contribute more than $150 million to the Cape Breton economy through wages, pensions and the purchase of goods and services. It is the largest coal producer and one of the largest industrial interest in eastern Canada, employing approximately 1,700 people. The economic spinoffs from Devco's activities are felt in virtually every community of Cape Breton.

I am pleased to inform the House that Devco has embraced the government's challenge to become commercially viable. It has taken steps to overhaul its operations, to introduce new technologies, to improve productivity and the labour relations found there and to better manage its business. The corporation's five year business plan approved by the government in May of 1996 clearly stated Devco's mission which is to become a profitable coal mining company.

To aid the corporation achieving its goal of profitability and competitiveness with other energy sources, the government has provided Devco with a repayable loan of up to $69 million over three years. I might add this is in addition to other federal funding that has been provided to the corporation since it was created in 1967.

I am also pleased to report that Devco made a number of positive achievements in the one year of its operating business plan. Although it faced a number of ongoing challenges, particularly at its Phalen mine, the corporation operated within the $43.5 million funding level approved by the Government of Canada.

Devco's annual report for the period ending March 31, 1997 shows a positive development on a number of fronts. I would like to briefly outline some of the progress that has indeed been made.

For the first time in the history of the corporation, new contracts were negotiated with bargaining units without the use of an outside conciliator. This is solid evidence of improved labour relations and the commitment of its employees, unions and management to work together.

Also during the past fiscal year Devco's safety results improved by more than 40%. This was reflected in a 10% improvement in employee attendance at the workplace. The corporation's emphasis on safety is good for workers and it is good for Devco.

Devco has also taken further steps to involve its workers in the decision making process. A quality management program known as beyond 200 was developed last year to promote continuous improvement and a commitment to quality across the corporation.

In terms of sales, in 1996 the corporation sold a record 2.8 million tonnes of coal to its primary customer, Nova Scotia Power Incorporated. Coal sales for the first six months of the current fiscal year yielded revenues of $86 million.

Devco's coal marketing strategy will continue to focus on meeting the needs of Nova Scotia power, which is far and away the corporation's most important customer.

I know hon. members will want to join me in congratulating Devco's management and workers on their efforts over the past year and a half. Their achievements to date have been meaningful and important.

For me personally I would like to congratulate Devco workers who have gone above and beyond the call of duty and showed the expert miners they truly are.

At the same time, it is important to acknowledge that more needs to be done. The corporation is projecting a funding requirement of $25.5 million over the next two years which is within the limit approved by the government. Devco is forecasting that it will achieve positive cash flows in the year 1999-2000.

To achieve this latter goal, the corporation will have to continue to improve productivity at its existing facilities. Devco's short term planning framework which as I noted earlier has been fully endorsed by this government calls for the corporation to focus its efforts on addressing the challenges it faces at its existing mines.

This is not an easy task. Over the next few months the corporation will explore ways to get around serious geological problems recently encountered at its Phalen mine. Devco will be considering all options for the Phalen mine and for its other coal resources including Donkin coal.

This does not mean the Donkin mine will or will not be developed. Far from it. In fact, as the hon. member for Bras D'Or is aware, a private company is in the process of undertaking a feasibility study to determine whether the mine can be developed on a commercial basis by a private sector entity.

This analysis, combined with Devco's own studies over the past few months, will form the basis of its next annual corporate plan update. This update will be submitted to government in early 1998.

The government has complete confidence in the management of the Cape Breton Development Corporation and in its workers. We agree that with the decisions that have to be made we firmly believe in management and workers ability to make appropriate recommendations to government for the future of the corporation.

In closing, I want to once again thank the hon. member for Bras D'Or for bringing this matter before the House. I believe that the underlying objective of this motion is to ensure employment and economic security in Cape Breton. I can assure the hon. member that we will keep the House informed of any developments relating to Devco that contribute to this important goal.

If I may say, we are very open to assisting in the process of Cape Breton development and Atlantic Canadian development. This government is committed to keeping an open channel to any and all new options.

[Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park Act, November 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask the consent of the House with your permission to begin the private members' session, which I believe is slated for 1.30 p.m. Seeing no further business, I ask the consent of this House.

[Devco, November 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has made a very specific allegation but in a very roundabout way.

The chairman and the entire board of directors of Devco are actively pursuing the revitalization of this crown corporation. I am pleased with the work they are doing under difficult circumstances.

Facing an international environment for these types of markets is a difficult process. They are doing a very good job. We support them fully and I encourage the hon. member to do the same instead of making silly accusations.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, November 19th, 1997]

—is in dereliction of their duties for the simple reason that I see a party which has a caucus of over 50 members, but I only see four in front of me.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, November 19th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I would simply like to point out that some disparaging remarks have been cast on members of the House. I would like to point out that those disparaging remarks, I think, should be retracted given the fact that the Reform Party—

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, November 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to respond to the motion put forward by the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville.

This is a very substantial piece of legislation, very important to all Canadian grain producers. It is an important aspect of the governance of that industry. That is why I am very proud to support the legislation. In speaking to Bill C-4 it certainly accomplishes the objectives set out by the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board.

The member for Yorkton—Melville criticized the government for its decision to refer the legislation to committee before second reading. I simply point out to the hon. member and to all members present that it is a very unique and important method of actually getting input from members.

Once adopted at second reading the spirit of the legislation cannot be changed by the House. That is one reason the government saw fit to adopt a method of referring legislation to committee before second reading so that members would have ample opportunity to look into the details of the bill and to provide constructive and positive suggestions for change.

In criticizing this method of referring the legislation to committee before second reading the member has criticized the fact that he now has the opportunity to put forth his amendment. Amending the preamble to any legislation would not be in order after second reading. By actually referring the legislation to committee before second reading the hon. member has the opportunity to put forward his motion to amend.

I just say that as a point of clarification. That is the purpose of that directive.

The hon. member's motion is to provide a change to the preamble of the bill. That is basically what we are here to discuss. The hon. member is providing an amendment to the enactment section of the bill. What must be pointed out is that the original bill, as proposed by the government and approved by committee, provides substantial opportunity for the governance of the Canadian Wheat Board by the producers themselves. Two-thirds of the board of directors would be put in place by the producers and not by the government.

That is the form of governance I think the democratic process should take. That is the form of governance I think the farmers want and that is exactly what we heard in committee.

They wanted a stronger role for producers, and clearly two-thirds of majority control of the board of directors for the Canadian Wheat Board accomplishes that objective.

The purpose, if I were to anticipate for the member's motion here, would be to add the preamble, to put specific restrictions on the board of directors so that it would be somewhat encumbered in its job and subject to what many would consider to be frivolous lawsuits in the performance of its duties.

The preamble, as put forward, in essence accomplishes exactly what the bill already accomplishes, with one critical difference. It provides specific language, which I am sure opponents to the Canadian Wheat Board would enjoy the opportunity to capitalize on and to create quite a feeding frenzy by the legal community whose members of certain jurisdictions would so aptly want to support as opposed to supporting farmers.

I will rise not in support of this amendment to put a preamble into the bill for the simple reason that I am extremely confident that the bill itself accomplishes the goal of providing the producers the opportunity through the process of annual meetings, through the process of disclosure, through the process of producers themselves maintaining their own majority control over the processes of the Canadian Wheat Board. We are accomplishing exactly what producers want us to accomplish.

That is a very important point and while I see some merit in the spirit of what the member is trying to accomplish, quite frankly and potentially a little naively what the amendment would accomplish is probably a feeding frenzy by the legal community trying to poke holes in the fact that the farmers themselves, the producers, will now take a majority control, a majority position on the wheat board. They are the ones who are most capable with a majority position, a clear two-thirds, 10 out of 15, to guide the report into the future.

I have no hesitation whatsoever in speaking favourably to Bill C-4 in its original intent as passed by the committee of all parliamentarians. It is a very good one.

When we get into these discussions about democracy and about freedom of members to be able to practice their craft in the House of Commons, something that I would simply remind the hon. members opposite of is this. They criticized the fact that the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board chose to put this legislation, with the consent of the House, before committee before second reading so that the members who sat on the committee with me could take a good solid look at the specifics of the bill and have the opportunity to put forward constructive changes before the bill was tabled and before the bill was adopted at second reading.

What we are really seeing here is that members opposite are criticizing the fact that they had the opportunity to participate in the process. They are also criticizing the producers' opportunity to participate in the process. They want to stifle the ability of the producers who will be sitting on that board of the Canadian Wheat Board. They want to stifle that opportunity for those producers to be able to do their job in the best interest of farmers.

Therefore I do not support the amendment. I suggest to the members opposite that what they really should be focusing on here is to let farmers, the ten members, the majority of members who will be sitting on that board, do their job and let them provide the Canadian Wheat Board with the leadership in concert with the Government of Canada, in concert with all the people of Canada, the best options for all farmers.