Gerry Byrne

[Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, October 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, despite an order by the Public Service Commission that Kevin MacAdam, the long-time political buddy of the defence minister, must be terminated from his six-figure job at ACOA for indiscretions, he remains in place, still collecting his cheques.

While Mr. MacAdam runs roughshod over the Public Service Commission, could the minister show some semblance of protecting the integrity of the public service by confirming that Mr. MacAdam is no longer receiving taxpayer-funded language training for a job that had mandatory bilingual requirements from the get-go and will he confirm that he is no longer receiving Ottawa living expenses when his job is in Charlottetown, P.E.I?

[Employment Insurance, September 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the minister insists that Canadians concerned about the government's EI reforms just need to get an “education” in them before they speak out.

Irene from my riding got her education. She lost her job as a full-time nurses' assistant and was picking up part-time shifts and receiving EI while looking for full-time work. Irene got her education in EI reform and her textbook was her pay stub, now $65 a week less for working on claim than under the previous program. Is this encouraging anything?

Does the minister understand that she is the one who needs to go back to school and work some--

[Employment Insurance, September 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has said that Canadians concerned about the--

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 17th, 2012]

With regard to the Minister of National Defence, since August 14, 2007: (a) how many gifts has the Minister received; and (b) for each gift, what is (i) a detailed description of the gift, (ii) the name of the person or organization that gave the gift to the Minister, (iii) the value of each gift?

[Questions on the Order Paper, September 17th, 2012]

With regard to weapons-grade uranium (WGU), since February 6, 2006, to what countries has the government authorized the export of WGU and what quantities have been exported to each country?

[Questions on the Order Paper, September 17th, 2012]

With regard to the Minister of National Defence, how many Blackberrys have been issued to him since August 14, 2007?

[Questions on the Order Paper, September 17th, 2012]

With regard to the Minister of National Defence, not including any activity that would be considered a cabinet confidence, since January 1, 2012: (a) what is the date, time, location and nature of all government business conducted by the Minister; (b) what means of transportation did the Minister use the attend each event; and (c) who accompanied the Minister to each event?

[First Nations Financial Transparency Act, June 20th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I applaud and thank the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands because she underscores the fact that there is a strong potential, probability even, that much of this act will be subject to judicial review after the fact.

First, there is a duty to consult. There is also a duty to respect the inherent right of first nations to engage in business practices in a way that is not arbitrary and not subject to uniquely them and not to anyone else in terms of the conduct of regular business. Quite frankly, I am not a lawyer, but I think there is a more than probable reality that there will be a legal challenge under an arbitrary provision of law that actually imposes a different standard on a band-owned business than any other type of business.

In return, I ask the government this question. Before we get into any sort of judicial or legal review, since it is the one that suggests the Auditor General of Canada should review its performance on red tape reduction, will it allow the Auditor General to review whether Bill C-27 is consistent or contrary to its own expectations of itself before passage of the legislation? I think we already know the answer.

[First Nations Financial Transparency Act, June 20th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by my colleague. She is absolutely correct. The government has already done that, not just through aboriginal business but also with what happened at Attawapiskat. The government engaged in a public relations smear campaign against the band council at Attawapiskat to enforce an opinion or point of view that money spent on education was in solution to a housing crisis. It compiled and aggregated all the funds that were given to a particular band and displayed that to the entire nation and to the world press to make a sleazy suggestion that this band was rich and was abusing its funds, when in actual fact the money that was appropriated and dispersed was for health care and education. The money was spent on health care and education.

Therefore, the government already has a track record of doing exactly what the hon. member has just suggested. It integrates these incidents into a communications strategy.

In my home province of Newfoundland and Labrador, there are aboriginal communities and first nations, the Innu and Inuit, who are involved in multi-million dollar business enterprises that are benefiting the community at large. They are engaged in those businesses for the benefit of the community at large.

If I were a competitor, I would want Bill C-27 because I would find out all about those businesses and actually move in and hone in on that because they would be unable to do the same for me, which is a shame.

[First Nations Financial Transparency Act, June 20th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, if I were back home and said, “If animal has four legs and a cow has four legs, well you know that the animal must be a cow”. There is another animal that has four legs, and I will let people draw their own conclusion. That is probably what they would say to me back home.

The fact is that this is a government that regularly does not read its own legislation and believes its own press releases, such as when it came to spying on citizens, when all of a sudden government ministers had an epiphany. They did not know the legislation would allow the government to spy on Canadians and said that they would try to fix it.

Quite frankly, the government does not read its own legislation very often. I do not take a whole lot of comfort in the minister saying that I did not listen to his speech. I am not interested in his speech per se. I am more interested in the actual legislation, which will become law if the government allows it to do so.

The legislation would force band-owned first nations businesses to expose their financial dealings. I cannot make it any simpler or clear than that. The minister needs to read his own legislation.