Gerry Byrne

[Newfoundland School System, October 27th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely.

[Newfoundland School System, October 27th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding that it was the minority itself that chose a change, the hon. member opposite raised the issue that section 93 applies here.

I would caution that term 17 is a fundamentally unique amendment. It is part of the terms of the union between Canada and Newfoundland. It is an agreement that affects only the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

While education is a provincial jurisdiction, term 17, as it was formerly worded and as we are debating in the House, was a limitation on provincial responsibility or provincial right. We are changing that term and section 93 does not apply.

[Newfoundland School System, October 27th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the question asked by the hon. member opposite is if I find it abnormal or unusual. The simple answer is no. The Canadian parliamentary system allows for two houses. Joining forces to hear testimony from expert witnesses in one forum is very efficient. It is very honest and it is very straightforward. I have absolutely no problem with it at all.

[Newfoundland School System, October 27th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure as a young member of Parliament from Newfoundland to participate in the discussion on the amendment to term 17. I would like to emphasize a couple of points.

While we speak of the amendment to term 17 in the House, we are also speaking to all the Canadian public. We do so through the televised debates in the Chamber.

I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis.

There are certain points which the hon. member opposite raised which cannot go unchallenged. It would be unfair not to challenge them.

It was suggested that the francophone community of my province of Newfoundland and Labrador enjoys second class status, that it has accepted second class status, as alleged by the hon. member. He alleges that it is content with that position. I am here to report to the House of Commons this afternoon that the francophone community of Newfoundland and Labrador is very much alive, vibrant and very assertive about its position in our society. It has done so with great power, great conviction and great pride.

I am proud to report to the House this afternoon that the francophone community will be participating in the school board process. It will enjoy the privileges and rights of its own school board. That is something which is very specific and unique to the francophone community. It is in celebration of the fact that it has a very special culture, a very special language which deserves recognition within the policy of school board governance.

The francophone community also enjoys its own newspaper. In the riding of the hon. member for Burin—St. George's there is a francophone community that flourishes. It is very much alive. It is not second class to anyone, as suggested by the hon. member opposite. It is very much alive and very proud. They are very much willing to participate in strengthening their culture. I salute the francophone community of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The current debate is on the amendment to term 17. In this House we enjoy certain privileges, one being the privilege of debate. I am proud that the privilege of debate was extended to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in this argument.

A referendum was held in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador and it has been stated on several occasions that the debate was very clear, the referendum was very clear. The conclusion of the referendum was a change was requested by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We have a situation where we are going to change the school system of my province to what the wishes of the people are. I am pleased to continue with this particular debate among my colleagues in this House and in the other place so that we can ensure speedy passage, a thorough thoughtful passage, because that is exactly what the people of Newfoundland and Labrador want us to do.

Saying that the other place has no part in this debate I think is fundamentally wrong. Our Constitution recognizes the other place, recognizes its existence. Therefore a unilateral decision to say that we should not join in discussion with the other place is wrong. It is important that we take into consideration all parliamentarians' points of views. In saying that, I take into consideration some great members of the other place.

I speak of none other than the hon. Jack Marshall, a member of the other place who very much protected the rights, privileges and responsibilities of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. He was an outspoken advocate of the rights of veterans and did a very good job. I am not prepared to say that his role was in the least bit insignificant. Quite frankly it was very significant. The people in my riding as well as those in the riding of Burin—St. George's understand that. I am sure if he were still a member of the other place he would be anxious to join in this debate and would provide a fruitful discussion and would add considerably to the context.

As a Newfoundlander educated in the very school system that we now debate, and as a Roman Catholic educated in the system that we now debate, I support the change. I support the amendments fully. I think it is time Newfoundland and Labrador be the recipient of a modern education system in line with the wishes of the people.

I feel strongly that this is about the protection of rights. I feel strongly that all citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador should be afforded all those protections. I will give a specific example.

In my province there are approximately 1,100 to 1,200 communities. Every community has a school. Not every community has 20 schools representing all the major religions that are vested within the province but all communities have at least one school. Some have three. Some communities with small population levels have a number of schools.

Where a denominational right exists, if you are a member of that community but you are not a member of the denomination which holds the school in the community, under the current system that we are suggesting we should amend you will be instructed in a religious denomination which is not your own faith. I have been through that system and I have seen young men and women of other religions, future leaders of our country, instructed in a faith not of their choice. It is not because of anything we are doing in the House today, but because of the old system. That is exactly what happened.

If you happen to be a member of the United faith or the Pentecostal faith in a community which only had a Catholic church, then you were either instructed in Catholicism or you did not go to school. That quite frankly is not befitting of a modern day society.

Religious instruction will be entrenched. There will be religious instruction for those who wish to participate. That is a fundamental right. What will also be fundamentally guaranteed is that those who do not want to be instructed in a religious faith not of their choice will not have to be subjected to that. From the point of view of this House that is a very important consideration.

Part of a modern democracy is making sure that in the case of a community where the majority is of one particular faith, that for some reason the minority is not required that they get either no education whatsoever or religious instruction in a faith not of their choice. That is just a simple point I would like to add to the debate.

As someone who grew up in the system, someone who believes in the need for change and will be supporting it strongly, I encourage members opposite to think once again about the constitutional provisions that provide for debate by the Senate, to support this change and to do so in an expeditious fashion.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, October 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it has been an interesting morning and afternoon discussing Bill C-4, an act regarding the Canadian Wheat Board. It is something which the hon. member opposite from western Canada claims he knows a fair bit about. What astounds me is that he talked about democracy. I know a little about democracy and I know that this bill speaks directly to democracy.

This government has made a very firm pledge to listen to the producers. It listens to the people who are affected by legislation. That is exactly what Bill C-4 does. It speaks exactly to the needs of producers and to consumers who enjoy the agricultural industry. It is a Canadian industry. It is not just a western Canadian industry. That is why we are debating it here on the floor of the House of Commons. It is very important for us to discuss it. I honour and respect the opinions of our colleagues from western Canada, our colleagues from Reform.

We too represent western Canada. We are prepared to listen to their arguments, to their discussions and to their points. That is exactly what we are doing here today. We are referring this bill to committee prior to second reading. That is what the debate today is about. We are referring this bill to committee prior to second reading. That is the democratic process.

Referral to committee prior to second reading allows members opposite and government members to provide greater input into the substance and structure of a bill. It is an innovation that was created by the Liberal government in the last Parliament to allow opposition members and government members to provide greater substance to bills.

From the democratic point of view that is a very important point, something we are not afraid of. We are not afraid to listen to people who have opinions and want to have their opinions registered for the record.

However, we have come to a point where we are arguing—actually my colleagues opposite are arguing—whether or not this bill embraces democracy. Clearly two-thirds of the board of directors of the Canadian Wheat Board will be representatives of the producers who are most directly affected.

I understand a little something about democracy and I would suggest to the hon. speaker that clearly those who have a vested interest should be represented on the board. That is clearly what Bill C-4 does. For the first time in the history of the wheat board we will actually have representative democracy. Those producers who are most directly affected by the actions and outcomes of the Canadian Wheat Board will have a direct say in its management and its structures. That is representative democracy.

This morning the hon. member for Portage—Lisgar had to ask the question, what is democracy. I can certainly understand why he would have to ask that. He has intimated that he does not understand where democracy fits into this bill. The farmers themselves are sitting on the board of directors of the Canadian Wheat Board. They are the ones who represent the associations, they are the ones who represent the farmers and they do the best job. Two-thirds of the board of directors will be farmers and that is exactly what this bill is all about.

The hon. member for Portage—Lisgar mentioned that his farmers are starving. For 62 years the Canadian Wheat Board has been representing farmers and it has been doing a very good job. Stability in the wheat board process is very important and it is something that creates stability within the agricultural community.

We are prepared to create innovation because innovation is important. We are creating innovation within this act to respond to the needs of the day. Two-thirds of the directors of this organization will be from the producers themselves, and I find absolutely nothing wrong with that. It is quite a good bill. It is a bill that meets the needs of the wheat industry. The Canadian Wheat Board will now be more representative of those needs.

Wheat exports have been increasing recently in part because of the efforts of the Canadian government and in large part because of the efforts of the Canadian Wheat Board. We have actually seen increases in our export capability in this field. We have seen increases in revenue, in the amount of value that is created from our agricultural community. That is a very important point to add when we talk about the supposed inefficiencies of the wheat board. Where do we get increases when there are supposed inefficiencies from this structure? It is a good structure because it represents the needs of the people who are most interested in the Canadian Wheat Board.

It bothers me to address this in the House because the House deserves better decorum. However, there has been a suggestion that the farmers who will sit as members of the board of directors for the Canadian Wheat Board will for some reason be corrupt and that this wheat board legislation will protect corrupt farmers. That was the suggestion from the Reform Party. As they go around their constituencies making representations about the Canadian Wheat Board, they will suggest that the legislation allows inappropriate activity to go unharnessed and unabated.

I would like to point out the wording in the Canadian Wheat Board Act what we proposed directly follows the Canadian Business Incorporations Act and nothing more. It follows exactly what every private sector firm incorporated under the rules of the Government of Canada follow today.

When they go about their riding consultation process are they going to point out that day after day as long as Reformers sit in the House, that they have indemnity from any sort of prosecution? That is a procedure they enjoy every day.

When Reform members make inappropriate statements and members from the opposition benches make what some would consider inappropriate statements, it is the House of Commons and the people of Canada who will pay for their legal bills. That is amazing.

Reform members are discussing the fact that they feel this is completely inappropriate that farmers, those who sit on the board of directors of the Canadian Wheat Board should be completely open and susceptible to any charge or allegation, even if it comes from the benches of hon. members opposite.

There is a valid reason why we should have the same rules that govern every private sector forum in the country incorporated under the Canada business act that same respect should be given to the farmers who take the courage, time and energy to sit on the board of directors of this corporation.

I would like hon. members opposite to point out when they go about their constituency consultations that they do not want farmers who sit on this board of directors to have any protections whatsoever, to have any sort of umbrella within the Canadian Wheat Board. They should be able to do their business and not do things which are contrary to the laws of Canada as has been suggested, not to do things which are contrary to the best interests of farmers. They should be allowed to just go about their business.

While members opposite enjoy parliamentary privilege day after day in the House of Commons, they would have farmers be susceptible to prosecution regardless of how frivolous the charge. That is exactly what hon. members will not talk about as they go about their riding consultations, that they enjoy parliamentary privileges and that they will have their legal bills paid for by the House of Commons, yet they will not even extend part of that same privilege to anybody else. That is hypocrisy.

Now I come to my conclusion. Soon we will refer this to committee before second reading. It will be a great opportunity to work with my colleagues, to respect the wishes of farmers and to strengthen, not tear down, the Canadian Wheat Board. Quite frankly, I believe hon. members opposite want to weaken it because they know it is a darned good Liberal innovation and it will strengthen our resolve in western Canada.

[Canadian Wheat Board, September 26th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, what we are discussing here is a principle of democracy. The hon. member should understand that under the current legislation which is before the House of Commons today, clearly two-thirds or 10 out of 15 members of the board of directors will come from producers.

If the hon. member does not understand a thing about democracy, perhaps he should be talking directly to some of the farmers. I will quote a farmer, Mr. John Rowett, “It is more grassroots. You know, the producers are the guys who really know what is good for producers, right?” Perhaps what the hon. member—

[Canadian Wheat Board, September 26th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, this is my first opportunity as the parliamentary secretary to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board to address the very very important question raised by the hon. member. It speaks exactly to the heart of the bill.

What the minister and this legislation have proposed for the first time in a very long time has come from farmers themselves, from producers. Farmers and producers themselves will have a direct role in the management of that agency and they will control their destiny. That is the democratic process and I think it is a very good piece of legislation.

[Canada Marine Act, April 14th, 1997]

moved:

Motion No. 61

That Bill C-44, in Clause 61, be amended by adding after line 31 on page 38 the following:

"(2) A person or body who wishes to enter into an agreement under paragraph (1)( a ) shall submit a proposal for the sale, management and operation of a public port or port facility to the Minister at least 60 days before an agreement would take affect.''

(3) The proposal may include, but is not limited to the following: a ) the objectives; b ) capital and operating plans; c ) fee and tariff schedules; d ) management and ownership structures; and e ) any other information and related documents the Minister considers appropriate.

(4) A person or body shall take all reasonable steps to bring notice of the proposal to the attention of persons likely to be affected by it at least 60 days before an agreement would take affect.

(5) An interested person may at any time within the notice period file an objection with the Agency that it is not in the public interest to dispose of all or part of the federal real property that formed part of a public port or public port facility, and the Agency shall consider the objection without delay and report its findings to the Minister who shall be governed accordingly.

(6) Section 40 of the Canada Transportation Act applies, with such modifications as the circumstances require, to every report of the Agency made under subsection (5) as if the report were a decision made pursuant to that Act."

Motion No. 62

That Bill C-44, in Clause 61, be amended by replacing line 32 on page 38 with the following:

"(2) The agreements shall include "

[National Heritage Day, February 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, today, February 17, is national heritage day in Canada, a moment to rediscover and appreciate the things that make our country a unique part of the world.

Newfoundland and Labrador is a proud partner in the Canadian Confederation. On Saturday, February 15, people from all over Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte gathered to demonstrate the pride and the hope that they share in Canada through our national flag day. People gathered in numerous community celebrations to fly proudly the maple leaf on its 32nd anniversary.

Approaching the new millennium, we are in the position to reinvent our future and strengthen our federation for generations to come. A strong nation is one that is confident. And, as Canadians, we are confident of the road ahead.

Celebrating national heritage day and flag day helps to strengthen our future. It is my pleasure to extend an open invitation to all Canadians to come and visit our province and explore the tremendous heritage that Newfoundland and Labrador has to offer as we celebration Cabot 500.

[Medal Of Bravery, December 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the brave efforts of Mr. Stanley Hutchings and his fellow Canadians who participated in the exceptional rescue of Ellen and Mark Barton and their deckhand from the treacherous waters off of British Columbia one day.

These men risked their lives to help the stranded vessel. These men knew that if they did not respond quickly, they would be looking for bodies rather than survivors. After more than three hours of wrestling with the elements, their rescue efforts managed to bring these people in safely. Their heroic efforts will never be forgotten by the survivors.

Recently, Stanley along with 27 other outstanding citizens received the Medal of Bravery from the Governor General of Canada to recognize their acts of bravery. It is a great honour to congratulate Stanley Hutchings on this memorable day.