John Herron

[Public Safety Act 2002, October 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to send a message to the hon. minister.

It is true that this bill has been under consideration for quite some time, since 2002. It was before us last Christmas. There was also the summer recess.

We have had opportunities. If we needed to put this bill through and extend debate on it, we could have done that as opposed to recessing a few weeks early for the summer months or before recessing a week early last Christmas.

Mr. Speaker, you are probably aware that there is more than just a little bit of a rumour afoot that prorogation may take place as well. If the government has a legitimate agenda and it wants to get this bill through in an appropriate timeline, it is a little hard for members to take that we have had sufficient time to debate the bill and now is the time to make a decision. If we wanted to do that, we could have done that a long time ago.

I commend the minister for at least trying to bring forth a response to September 11. However, if the bill was urgent in order to respond to September 11, it is a little difficult to square the debate of this being a priority when we have had ample time to truly make it a priority and pass the legislation much sooner than now. When closure has been brought in for the 84th time by the government, it really does make that point very difficult to take.

I would like to know whether the minister thinks that is a reasonable point to make.

[Mothers Against Drunk Driving, October 1st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today to congratulate Ms. Karen Dunham as the new president elect for Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

For those who are not aware, the mission of MADD Canada is to stop impaired driving and support the victims of this violent crime.

Ms. Dunham has been an active member of the MADD Saint John and Area Chapter since 1997.

On September 8, 1998, Ms. Dunham's involvement in MADD Canada became more than just a membership, it became her reality. Her oldest son, Jonathan, and his best friend, Mike Green, were victims of an alcohol related crash. Having suffered serious injuries, today Jonathan is considered to be a miracle.

The strength, the courage and the selfless dedication Ms. Dunham has demonstrated in the face of adversity will no doubt ensure that she will serve as an excellent president elect of MADD.

I ask all members in the House to join me in congratulating MADD Canada's new president elect, Ms. Karen Dunham.

[Agriculture, September 23rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday federal and provincial ministers finally met with Canadian farmers who are in desperate need of financial assistance to cope with the continuing beef ban and the closed border. Our federal agriculture minister shamelessly rejected their appeal.

The beef industry is losing $11 million dollars a day.

We have an agriculture minister who will only give out more funding to suffering farmers if the provinces blindly sign on to his new agricultural policy framework. The minister has no business ransoming needed emergency funds for farmers by hanging the APF over their heads.

It is incomprehensible that we have a Prime Minister who is morally obligated but refuses to meet with the U.S. government to reopen the border. The government has been recklessly shirking its responsibilities on this national crisis since the get-go.

The government needs to stop punishing farmers and abdicating its responsibility. It needs to sit down and work with our partners to the south, develop concrete solutions and get the border open once and for all.

[Supply, September 23rd, 2003]

Madam Speaker, essentially, what it comes down to is that there would not be a better illustration that the Government of Canada could put forth than to send an all party committee.

Every Canadian has a major problem with this issue. They find it incomprehensible why the Prime Minister would not personally get involved in a file that pillages the economy by $11 million a day. I do not know why the Prime Minister wants to keep his hands and fingernails on 24 Sussex so much that he would not even take the risk of getting on a plane, going to Washington, and having a conversation with the President of the United States. This is the right thing to do. It is all hands on deck on this particular file.

There is one aspect that I wanted to include in my remarks and I did not have time to do it. I would like to take a brief moment to do that.

This is a humanitarian issue as well. If the Government of Canada does not act and does not provide the financial resources to the beef industry right now for bridge financing, the $200 million that the industry requires, that reckless and irresponsible judgment not to provide those funds will result in cattle dying en masse due to starvation over the course of the winter. That is a point of fact. That is an image that Canadians do not want to see from a humanitarian perspective.

If we end up having to burn these cattle that die from starvation due to this crisis because of one cow, then we will see the same imagery that we saw in the U.K. just a number of years ago. If we want to devastate an industry in perpetuity, that is what will happen. If we do not provide that bridge financing to ensure that we fulfil our humanitarian obligation to feed these cattle, that reckless abdication of action will result in that. Every member in the House will have to look at themselves in the mirror and say that they knew for a fact that not enough was done in this debate.

[Supply, September 23rd, 2003]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure, but moreover, it is indeed my responsibility to enter some remarks, on behalf of my party and my riding, to the economic crisis that is affecting every single region and every single riding of this country. In one way or another this pertains to the fact that our border has been closed to safe Canadian beef products going to our principal trading partner, and our friend I might add, the United States of America.

To illustrate how tragic this particular crisis actually is, Madam Speaker, I know you are well aware of the fact that $11 million has been lost each and every day to the Canadian economy due to this border closure. In addition, to make the number even more stark, over the last four months, since this border has been closed, it has been estimated that we have lost in the range of hundreds of millions of dollars to the point that many family farms are questioning whether they are going to be able to continue throughout this process.

I have not seen a more callous and disrespectful lack of leadership since I have been in this chamber over the last six and a half years, than we have received from the Prime Minister and the government on this crisis.

This is an issue that our leader, the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, has pointed out and made very clear. This needs all hands on deck. This is not a partisan initiative by any means. We are calling on the House, this chamber, to put its shoulder to the wheel and do what is best for all farmers and for the beef industry in Canada. We are asking for an all party delegation to go to the United States, our trading partner and friend, and show that we have a safe, sound food safety system and that there is no need for our border to be closed to livestock at this point in time.

Government members have said that we are the first government that has actually had any kind of a border opening when a country has had a BSE case and had the border partially reopened. Let us be clear. The border is 70% still closed right now. We are losing $11 million per day. So far, the government has not done enough. It is completely and categorically insufficient.

Moreover, we have a duty as a nation to look at this issue from an international perspective as well. What signal does it send to the international community when a progressive country like Canada has a single case of BSE? We have a progressive and modern system to be able to trace the lineage of that cow which was detected to have BSE. We can determine what herd that cow was actually in. We can tell its entire life history in terms of where this cow has been and we have taken a number of steps to ensure that our system is safe.

What signal does it send to another country which happens to discover a BSE cow? Do we think that country will be as progressive as Canada has been in terms of fessing up to the international community, but moreover proving that we had our act together? We need to have this border open not only for the preservation of our own economy, for our own beef industry, but we need to ensure that responsible behaviour throughout this world takes place with respect to food safety and that we have an international perspective.

There are so many sectors of this industry which are really taking it on the chin right now. I would like to take a moment to speak to two particular sectors which are front and centre in the riding of Fundy--Royal that I have the privilege of representing.

One sector I would like to speak to pertains to the dairy industry. Many people think this is a beef cattle issue and it is. However, it also means that dairy cattle cannot go to the United States. Many farmers breed dairy cattle for export. That industry is now closed. There is even a probability that cows over three years in age will likely not be shipped to the United States for a number of years even if we did have the border open to a livestock perspective.

We also know that it is paramount that farmers refresh and renew their dairy herds. Part of that process is the fact that culled cows must be rendered at a facility. Quite often those culled cows may be even shipped stateside to be rendered. Moreover, given that we have an incredible surplus in rendering products, we know that culled cows from dairy farmers are only receiving a pittance compared to what they had received in the past.

Madam Speaker, I intend on sharing my time with my colleague who has joined us to participate in this very important debate, the member for Cumberland—Colchester.

There is a clear consensus that actually rests within the agricultural community from the provincial level in terms of what needs to be done. We need almost $200 million of immediate farm aid just to bridge the beef industry over the next number of months. I am saddened by the fact that we have not been able to convince the minister of agriculture to make the contribution that is required with respect to ensuring the preservation of the beef industry.

The provincial agriculture ministers have not managed to convince their federal counterpart. There is consensus on the fact that $195 million is needed to lessen the impacts on cattle producers.

It will cost $200 million. We have a clear consensus of what needs to be done to bridge this particular issue.

Another sector that I would like to highlight in my remaining time hits very close to home, about 30 kilometres from my house. The province of New Brunswick does not have a kill facility at the present time. One particular trucking company, Valley View Farms, which is Jim Sherwood's operation, has had an 80% drop in business since the outbreak in Alberta of BSE in this one cow.

Truckers carrying livestock have incredibly specialized equipment to transport livestock in a very humane way. The price impact may actually mean about a $2,000 payment per month for only one trailer. If a trucker were to have a fleet of 20 trailers that would mean a $40,000 payment. These individuals obviously have loans that must be repaid and no means to be able to address those loans.

I am calling on the Government of Canada to ensure that we maintain the infrastructure that is necessary for transporting live cattle. If we do not have bridge financing for those transporters, that sector of the beef industry will not be there once the border does open up. These truckers must be included in this framework as well.

[Supply, September 23rd, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member. I believe one sector of the cattle industry which has been drastically neglected in this debate is the transporters of live cattle. The individuals who own specialized equipment, the truckers, have been left out of any kind of potential compensation or bridge financing component in this crisis. These individuals still have to make payments on their equipment.

Could the hon. member comment on whether the haulers of livestock should be considered in a compensation package of this nature?

[Family Supplement, September 22nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to enter some remarks on this motion on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. The motion is indeed immensely flexible and is moderate in nature. I think it is a motion that all members of the House should be very comfortable in supporting.

The motion reads:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should index the family supplement to the cost of living in the next Federal Budget.

One could even argue that this should be done in all future budgets to ensure that the intent and the value of this particular supplement is there for Canadians in the way in which it was designed in the first place.

Members likely are aware that some EI claimants with children can get more money because of the family supplement. Employment insurance's family supplement provides additional benefits to low income families with children by providing them, in some cases, with up to 80% of their weekly earnings instead of the usual 55% of earnings for most recipients. The amount of the family supplement depends on family income and the number and ages of the children in the family. In 1999 and in 2000, the last year for which we have statistics on this particular program, 195,000 families received the family supplement.

To be eligible, an individual, spouse or common law partner must receive the Canada child tax benefit and the annual family income must not be more than $25,921. That is a very paltry amount of money. The intent of this program really is to try to help those low income families who indeed need a hand up. To ensure the effectiveness of the program, it seems only logical that the supplement be indexed to the cost of living. Otherwise, the families are not receiving the full benefit of the program.

The motion calls upon the government to review this essential program by indexing the family supplement to the cost of living. As the mover of the motion pointed out, it has been six years since the family supplement was established and it would seem only reasonable that a review be performed to determine whether changes like the introduction of indexing are in fact required.

The program targets individuals in need. It is geared primarily to women and children in low income families. I will point out the issue with respect to women, if I may. Figures from 2001 and 2002 indicate that $175 million was paid in family supplement benefits to a total of approximately 187,000 recipients, of which 134,000 were women. It is a point of fact that 16% of Canadians are one parent families. This initiative really does speak to the progressive nature of the country, if I dare say it, the progressive and liberal nature of the country, to ensure that we give those individuals a hand up where it is indeed needed. Families that are already in desperate situations with one or both parents out of work and collecting employment insurance need this extra benefit.

The motion asks the government to index the family supplement to the inflation level. I support the motion on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada because if we examine family incomes we see that the income ceiling for receiving the family supplement has been frozen at $26,000 for over the last six years since its inception in 1996. Inflation is eating away at the family supplement. Unless we index it, we are taking away from the maximum assistance the program could be providing. Inflation erodes support payments, which have not changed in nominal terms. I think every party that supported this initiative at second reading should indeed go down that track as we move forward at this stage of the debate in this process.

I would like to add that there are some other initiatives the Government of Canada should be using, which would really follow and dovetail with the efforts of the hon. member who has moved this very constructive motion. I believe we should increase the basic personal exemption in order to take these individuals, those Canadians earning the lowest incomes, off the tax rolls altogether.

In our platform, which we tabled before Canadians in November 2000, we advocated that the basic personal exemption be raised to $12,000. That would ensure that not a nickel, not a dollar of tax, would be collected from a family earning $24,000. Even in a one parent family situation, the equivalent of spouse could be claimed. That would be the threshold at which it would begin.

In the debate on the motion we are discussing now, it could possibly become irrelevant from that one initiative but it is possible for us to dovetail the efforts in that regard.

The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, since its Quebec policy conference in Quebec City in 2000, has been advocating that the Government of Canada endure a very rigorous process of Canadian social audit. The intent of that process is we would have a social auditor who would work in the same way the Auditor General does and who would collect the inventory of our social programs to assist Canadians and ensure we get the outcomes that we seek. This could be done in a very constructive way.

To the member who moved the motion, if that social auditor were in place already, the issue pertaining to inflation, of indexing the family supplement to the inflation rate, may have already been done. Therefore, this is a process that we should continue to pursue for another day, the process of ensuring we provide the financial needs for families and our young. We know the more we invest in our young people at earlier ages to ensure they are healthy and educated is an immense social benefit for our society. Beyond that, it is just the right thing to do from a moral perspective as well.

Ensuring the best possible development opportunities for children and young people is not only the right thing to do but it makes sense for the social and economic future of this great country.

I am pleased to support the motion. I hope the government will act quickly upon it. I must take the opportunity to ask the government to do more to help Canadians who need it and above all, I compliment the member for moving the motion in the first place.

[New Brunswick, June 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, on August 27, 1952, the federal government authorized the expropriation of the 720 square kilometre area in southwestern New Brunswick, now occupied by CFB Gagetown. Three thousand residents, including 720 families in 20 rural communities, were forced to leave their homes.

On December 3, 1952, Colonel A.J. Brooks, member of Parliament for the riding of Royal, rose in the House and stated:

--it came as a great shock to the people in [Western Queen's county] to read in the newspaper that their homes [farms, communities, churches, schools, friends, societies and cemeteries] were to be taken from them and that this was to be a military area.They are splendid people; they are people whose ancestors lived in that section of the country for four and five generations.

Some of those ancestors were my Irish ancestors in that regard. Fifty years later, former residents and descendants will gather to reflect on their heritage and celebrate their once proud communities.

I invite all members of Parliament to join the thousands of former residents and their descendants from all across North America for the 50th anniversary of this tragic event.

[Petitions, June 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition on behalf of Mr. Brian Holmes of Ontario regarding aerial spraying. Mr. Holmes has collected signatures from across the country from concerned Canadians who believe that chemicals used in aerial sprayings are adversely affecting the health of Canadians.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to stop this type of high altitude spraying. The petition has been duly certified by the clerk and I present it at this time.

[The Environment, June 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is my responsibility to enter some remarks for the record on Motion No. 385. As you are aware, Sir, the motion states:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should develop and report annually on a set of social, environmental and economic indicators of the health and well-being of people, communities and ecosystems in Canada.

The goal of the motion is to develop a comprehensive set of indicators to evaluate the well-being of Canadians on an economic, social and environmental level. If the motion passes, it will actually encourage the probability for the Standing Committee on Environment to vigorously examine and improve on the wording of the motion itself. As it stands right now, I would say that the language of the motion is somewhat vague, but the idea is there and it needs to be examined. It is a very good and solid first step in bringing forward this system of indicators. I am proud to say on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada that we fully intend to support this motion.

I believe the idea behind the motion is accountability. Oftentimes governments, and in particular from a partisan perspective this Liberal government, have had a history of making promises and commitments that we never see fulfilled. As reference documents, I suggest hon. members peruse red books one and two.

It is interesting to note that in February this year the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Madam Gélinas, appeared before the environment committee and shared the very same idea that the member for Leeds--Grenville is advocating here today. In the commissioner's address, she challenged committee members to pursue the Liberal government to live up to its Johannesburg commitments. She said action was needed from the government and committees should serve to help motivate it.

The summit in Johannesburg, in which I was a participant, produced a plan that contains noble ideas and commitments which indeed need to be followed through with. As hon. members know, the summit was held to discuss and develop a plan for sustainable development. In my view, sustainable development encompasses a wide range of issues, including a state of well-being. Whether we are talking about biodiversity, health, industry, technology, trade or the environment, it all falls under one umbrella of sustainable development. We know that a healthy economy is necessary in a progressive society, but after all, if we cannot drink the water or breathe the air, what is the point?

The summit reaffirmed sustainable development as an central element of the international agenda and gave new impetus to global action to fight poverty and to protect the environment. Governments agreed to and reaffirmed a wide range of concrete commitments and targets for action to achieve more effective implementation of sustainable development objectives.

Canada is already forced to comply with the commitments that were made in Johannesburg. Therefore, it would seem to be a logical progression to establish a set of indicators within Canada to measure sustainable development or overall well-being. The commissioner of the environment herself advocated this approach to the environment committee members. She said that government must establish an action plan for the future based on the commitments made in Johannesburg. Further, she went on to say that this progress must be monitored and tracked.

Those individuals who come from a corporate or business background say that if we cannot measure it, we cannot manage it, and I think that really speaks to the intent of the motion itself. We need to avoid the situations that happened after the Rio convention in 1992, when sustainable development promises were made by the Progressive Conservative Party but not kept by the Liberal government; as hon. members might remember, we were downsized a little bit about a calendar year later. Eleven years later, we do not want to repeat those very same mistakes.

Madam Gélinas has recommended that the government produce a report with long term goals and a destination for Canada to move toward in terms of sustainability. The motion being debated today on the floor of the House would effectively push the government in the right direction toward following through with sustainable development commitments that would ensure the well-being of Canadians. It would provide for the definition, development and periodic publication of a set of indicators of the economic, social and environmental well-being of our country, communities and ecosystems.

Through the motion being brought forward, the committee will have an opportunity to continue the work that the commissioner of the environment has outlined and challenged our committee to do. It is extremely important that we contribute to the overall achievement of developing a plan for sustainable development in this country. The environment committee could then in turn receive input from the public through submissions and public hearings to determine the broad societal values of what such indicators should be based upon.

Once again, the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada supports this private member's motion. As vice-chair of the environment and sustainable development committee, I must say that I am looking forward to putting my shoulder to the wheel and helping the member for Leeds—Grenville in this worthwhile pursuit he has tabled before the House.