John Herron

[Parliament Of Canada Act, June 12th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the issue is that they have a vote before them and they have to make that determination. The key word is only, only if it did not exceed what was found immediately in the private sector. The issue here is not to cloud what we have before us. It is whether this bill does or does not and whether they will vote for it or not, whether they want to deal with it.

With respect to the reasoned approach that was just quoted, I think a lot of Canadians agree with it, but that is not what we are debating today. I thank the hon. member for his question and the opportunity to participate in this evening's debate.

[Parliament Of Canada Act, June 12th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the member is wrong in one aspect. It is not just Reform or Canadian Alliance members that this bill actually applies to. It applies to about 90% to 95% of Reform or Canadian Alliance members. That would be the accurate number. This bill has really been brought forward because of them. There are a couple of members in the Bloc, but the bill was brought forward mostly for the Reform Party.

The issue that will come into play at home over the course of the summer is the Reform vehicle which I think is wrong in terms of recall. I am not an advocate of that. The number of signatures required to precipitate a recall situation would be quite difficult, especially when I look at the comments.

In August 1998 the member for Calgary Southeast stated “earlier this week the MPs who opt back in are liars and hypocrites”. That is a very difficult situation for them to sort out internally. I know reform alliance MPs work for their constituents and try to do the best they can in that regard.

What I am trying to illustrate is that one of the fundamental principles of conservatism is that of self-responsibility and responsibility for our own actions, our own community and our own families. In order to do that we are responsible for our own words, our own actions and our own visceral attacks. That is the issue that I had in play.

[Parliament Of Canada Act, June 12th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I want to try to be a little generous in that regard. I think the reform alliance actually did the Canadian public some degree of service by recognizing the fact that the pension plan, as was stated previously, probably was not the best pension plan to reflect the will of Canadians in that regard. I give him credit in that regard.

I also want him to go back to their platform in “Let the Future Begin” in 1997 on which every one of his members ran. They indicated that people would not be receiving pensions until they were 55, which was probably a step in the right direction. I say this to correct the record.

[Parliament Of Canada Act, June 12th, 2000]

That was the member for Calgary Southeast. I suspect that will be a difficult issue for them as time goes on.

I also recall comments made by the former House leader for the Reform Party. He stated “It is those principled individuals who took it on themselves to opt out of the gold plated MP pension plan who got on the alternative pension placed before the House today”.

The member for Elk Island spoke just a few moments ago. The approach he takes in the House more often than not is one of moderation. He said that the kind of language which uses such terms as gold plated pension plan was rhetoric that was not becoming of the House. I commend him for that. However, I question the tenacity and the visceral approach that the member for Langley—Abbotsford took on that particular day.

When I look at the comments of what other individuals have said, I believe it is time to build a strong coalition of Conservative voters, ones who want to pay down the debt, lower taxes, grow our economy and acknowledge where they were wrong.

Last weekend the member for Calgary Southwest said that Prime Minister Mulroney still had not apologized properly to the Canadian taxpayers for what he did with the free trade agreement, which has grown our trade with the Americans from about $100 billion in 1988 to over $320 billion annually. The free trade initiative was brought forth by the Progressive Conservative Party. It was an initiative which represented the fact that Progressive Conservatives are prosperity builders of this nation. We are very proud of that. Those members should apologize for the language and terms they have used and for accusing our members of taking a pork barrel approach.

I will comment on another member of parliament for whom I have a lot of time. He is a very learned member. He is one of the best questioners in the House. I am talking about the member for Medicine Hat. He tries to do his work on the finance committee. However, again an apology is required for the language he uses when referring to the pension plan as only being available to members of parliament: “It is disgusting. It is the height of hypocrisy”. These are the words of the Canadian Alliance.

I referred to the House leader of the Canadian Alliance. He is probably one of the most moderate, nicest guys that we have here in the House of Commons. When he made his remarks, Mr. Speaker, I know that you were in the chair at the time. I hasten to add that the member for Fraser Valley chose not to state this particular quote: “All Reform Party members are going to opt out of the pension plan because we stand on principle and we do not swim in gravy. We are going to opt out”.

I will now refer to the hon. member for Calgary Southwest who is vying for the Canadian Alliance leadership. We will have to question the leadership candidates in terms of what their particular issues are as well, be it Tom Long or Mr. Day. There are questions about when the member for Calgary Southwest, the son of a former Alberta premier, said: “It is the intention of Reform MPs to opt out of the pension plan. We call upon every member of the House to do likewise. Opt out or get out will be the cry in the constituencies”. Is it the cry in the constituencies? Will it be the cry that will actually precipitate recall?

It is a cry which must be respected if fairness in leadership by example and integrity are to be restored to parliament and any budget it endorses. When the word integrity comes into play, I am very proud to be a member of the Progressive Conservative Party and to be part of a team led by the Right Hon. Joe Clark. Mr. Clark is an individual who has taken a very honest approach to government. His integrity and honesty has always been beyond question. Again, I want to build a coalition with members of parliament who are in the Canadian Alliance, the moderates within that caucus with whom I have had the pleasure of having conservations.

I want to really do the things that we need to do in this country. We have to pay down the debt. We have a $580 billion debt, which is a mortgage on the future generations of this country. I want to lower taxes to grow our economy and to maintain our international competitiveness. We must recognize the fact that the economies of the Irish, the Danes and the Finns have taken off. There has been 18% growth in the United States, 14% growth in Germany and 14% growth in the U.K., while Canada has fallen behind with only 7% growth. Those are figures for 1992 to 1998.

We need to get our tax regime in order. To do that we need to build a coalition, an alliance, a further conservative consensus. We will not be able to do that if members continue to make visceral attacks on our leader, Mr. Clark.

A comment has been made that maybe I want some time out, but I do have more to say. At the time the member for Beaver River said that they would win Fundy Royal. I had the honour in my riding association to have all eight MLAs who actually share the boundaries of Fundy Royal at my nomination just about nine days ago today. They endorsed my campaign. All eight riding associations came forward to endorse my campaign. The most fiscally conservative premier in the country, Premier Bernard Lord, was actually there as my guest speaker. I know the strength of my riding. She attacked me. She was going to send us home whether or not we had a pension.

I want everybody to know who threw the first dart. This particular member of parliament said that the pension plan was a scheme, a dream, when one thinks about what has gone on in the last several years to make sure MPs look after themselves. In other words some may opt out but the rest will continue to pork out. It is what I understand. Those people who are still in an overbloated pension system because they have qualified now will just continue to pork out while some people will opt out.

There were some immoderate approaches taken by reform alliance members. I spoke of the moderate language of the member for Elk Island and the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. He mentioned quite simply that the MP pension plans should be converted into a money purchase system, the same as many private companies are doing.

I do not have any problem with taking that kind of an approach if that is a belief he wants to follow. However, visceral attacks were made by the member for Elk Island about the gold-plated pension plan. He attacked hon. members of parliament who actually tried to advance public policy in the country, hon. members of parliament who actually stood in the House and delivered principles that built the prosperity of this nation.

I look at the member for Cumberland—Colchester. I know he was attacked on that very issue in 1993. I look at the former member for Charlotte as it was called at the time, and now the proud member for New Brunswick Southwest, who was attacked on that very same issue. The visceral hatred brought forth against our candidates at that time should be remembered.

I know that my colleagues in the Reform camp or the Canadian Alliance camp, with reform as its middle name, may look at the language in terms of reciting these quotations and be a little upset over it. The intent of what I was trying to do was to say that the language the former leader of the Socreds brought forth provincially was wrong. It was wrong to use hatred and visceral attacks condemning our leaders in terms of Brian Mulroney to the degree they did. They utilized hatred in terms of attacking with respect to the keys and not taking the limo, not taking the house in Stornoway or the chauffeur, and opting out of a pension plan and maybe opting back in.

If they want to build a coalition of Conservative voters, I think it is time that the hand is more than just extended and they say that they went over the top time and time again in what they said about some hon. members. It probably was not in the spirit of developing sound public policy.

[Parliament Of Canada Act, June 12th, 2000]

That was said by the member for Edmonton North, the current leader of the Canadian Alliance.

Another concern I have is with a hard working Alliance MP for whom I have a lot of respect. These are debates and challenges which they will have to work out among themselves. On August 6, 1998 he stated, when a member of parliament chose to opt into the pension plan, “Members who opt back in are liars or hypocrites”. That was very callous, and perhaps short-sighted.

[Parliament Of Canada Act, June 12th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a different aspect to the debate before us. My remarks will be related very much to the politics of this issue, as opposed to the substance of the bill itself. As most members of the House know, the matter of pensions for members of parliament has been a lightning rod in the last number of election campaigns, which has been largely promoted by one political party over another.

In that regard the concern that I have is that this was used as a political wedge in a very aggressive fashion in the 1993 election campaign and in the 1997 election campaign as well.

When that was done the language that was utilized and the literature that was produced was against very noted members of parliament, including my former leader, Mr. Charest. I know that every member who sits with the Alliance, the former Reform Party, utilized that particular document in terms of the amount of compensation the former member for Sherbrooke, the hon. Jean Charest, would actually receive from pension benefits. It was based on the fact that he may live to be 90 and that if he had lost the election at that particular time it would have amounted to such and such an amount.

My comments are in defence of the solid, hon. members of parliament who lost their seats in the election of 1993 because this issue was used as a political wedge.

I have difficulty in terms of taking this approach initially because some members of parliament who sat formerly as Reformers, who are now with the Alliance, I regard as very honourable individuals. I compliment the member of parliament whose father was the former provincial leader of the Socreds. He said “We did some really silly things that we should not have done in the first place”. They gave away the keys to the limo. They were going to turn a national institution, Stornoway, into a bingo hall. They attacked all senators, including Senator Ron Ghitter, who was a very solid legislator at the provincial level as well as the federal level. Personal attacks were made by Ezra Levant and the member for Calgary West which were clearly over top. At least they had the fortitude to apologize for their remarks.

Reform Party members opposed pension plan schemes for members of parliament. They went on to say that the Reform Party would support the provision of pensions for MPs only—the key word being only—if those pensions were no more generous than private sector norms and met all requirements for a registered plan under the Income Tax Act. That is the litmus test that was established by Reform members of parliament. My concern is whether they are following that perspective.

There were very moderate approaches made by some individuals who clearly said that the pension plan is too generous and should reflect what we would see in the private sector. There were other members of parliament who chose to ratchet up the rhetoric. This is what they will have to deal with when they go back to their ridings in the next election campaign.

One of the gimmicks that we know still exists within the Reform protocol is the issue of recall. In the event that constituents do not support the way their member has voted, that member could be recalled. The number of signatures that is required to do that is not all that great. I suspect that there are a number of members of parliament who are now with the Alliance, formerly the Reform Party, who are a little apprehensive about that particular aspect which they advocate. They did not advocate the pension plan, now they do. They did not advocate residing at Stornoway, now they do. They did not advocate taking the car, now they do. Maybe they do not advocate recall now.

I know what the current leader of the Canadian Alliance said on a previous occasion about the pension plan. She came to my riding the other day and made a very direct comment. She said “We are going to win the riding of Saint John. We are going to win the riding of Fundy—Royal. We are going to win the riding of New Brunswick Southwest”. This in spite of the fact that they did not have one poll to substantiate their capacity to win even one seat. They said that they were going to send them home whether they received a pension or not. The point is, that would be a purely political jab with respect to the pension plan.

With these comments on the pension plan Canadians will know which MPs are greedy and which ones really care about the taxpayers. Those are not my words; they are the words of the member for Edmonton North. She went on to say “Believe me, the voters won't soon forget those MPs who promised integrity in government but decided to pig-out while the trough was still full”.

[The Environment, June 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment saw yesterday that Irving Oil, one of Canada's largest refiners, is not only producing low sulphur gasoline for its own stations, but it is now distributing its product in Ontario.

If the minister wants to get the other refiners on board faster, then he should do what the automakers association, the refiners, health and environmental groups, and the Progressive Conservative Party want to do and that is to reduce the excise tax on low sulphur gasoline, thus reducing prices to consumers and protecting human health. We did this with lead.

Why will the Minister of the Environment not lower the taxes on low sulphur gasoline so we can protect the health of Canadians?

[Gulf War Sickness, June 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, after tremendous public display of remembrance, respect and gratitude for our Canadian war veterans with the recent repatriation of the Unknown Soldier, Canadians wonder why the government is doing so little to address gulf war sickness which plagues our Canadian troops today.

A recent British report has clearly and positively recognized that the disease is real. In addition, the Minister of National Defence recently stated publicly that the Canadian forces members who have loyally served their country in war zones must be fairly treated.

Currently, military personnel who have the disease are being released under 3B, which is a release for medical reasons not attributed to the Canadian forces. This means officers are being dismissed with no benefits. I ask, is this treatment fair?

I strongly urge the Liberal government to address gulf war sickness as other countries are now doing and provide the Canadian forces with fair and equitable treatment and access to benefits.

[International Circumpolar Community, June 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me as a New Brunswicker to have an opportunity to speak to Motion No. 237. It gives me an opportunity to speak about a region of Canada about which I know little on a personal basis.

Canada is a very diverse country. One of the things I would like to share with you, Mr. Speaker, and I know that you share the very same sentiment, is that one of the most distinguished privileges a member of parliament has is the opportunity to meet Canadians throughout the country in their own communities, like-minded and otherwise. That is something which I greatly cherish.

I have also cherished my opportunities to speak to the member for Churchill River, who is a very learned member of parliament and one who takes the development of public policy quite seriously. I know this bill is brought forth with good intent.

I know from my role on the environment committee that the great north is a region of this country that quite often gets forgotten in the development of public policy. Quite often decisions that we make in the southern regions of the country have a negative effect on the north. The people of the north do not necessarily have a role in terms of changing those decisions, yet they have to live with the consequences.

The best illustration that I know of is that of persistent organic pollutants and pesticides that, on occasion, because they are airborne, end up in the food chain of our northern peoples.

The circumpolar community is where discussions of this nature take place among members of the international community.

One good reason this motion deserves a high degree of positive scrutiny is that the rest of the international community who are members of the circumpolar community utilize the 55th parallel. Canada, as one of the largest members geographically, I believe is the only country that does not utilize the 55th parallel.

One fundamental principle which defines how the Progressive Conservative Party believes this federation should work is that the rights of the provinces should always be respected in ensuring that they have an appropriate role.

I am going to reserve our opportunity to finalize a position here this evening on how the Progressive Conservative Party will vote on Motion No. 237. I do not think it would be wrong to consider that perhaps the provinces would want to send a representative to the circumpolar conferences where they establish public policy or international agreements that may affect their own regions. I understand the province of Alberta already participates as a member, despite the fact that it is below the 60th parallel, and that it participates on occasion within the circumpolar international community.

From our perspective if we were to write this motion I do not think it is wrong for the federal government to tell the provinces that they have to participate at an international level at circumpolar conferences of this nature. However if this motion were amended to include that if, after being consulted, the provinces thought it was something they wanted to join to add that representation with the federal government, I speak personally as opposed for the party in this respect, but I would be far more comfortable with that.

The issue is twofold. The rest of the international community utilizes the 55th parallel. The hon. member for Churchill River wants to bring Canada in line with that thought. Canada has always thought of the north as above the 60th parallel. If that fits the services of the provinces and it is what the provinces want to maintain, I am comfortable with that.

The provinces may want to have a greater role in the international agreements that are taken on by the federal government. To illustrate, with respect to Kyoto the federal took on a target and time line and really had no idea how it was going to implement it. It had no plan. To have a higher amount of provincial input in taking on these international commitments would be a step in the right direction to getting the job done. Nothing gets done in this federation unless the provinces are on side. It is very difficult to implement things.

As I stated earlier the Progressive Conservative Party would like the opportunity to consult some of its provincial partners. It would like to seek their input in terms of what their thoughts would be in having greater responsibilities in participating in an international venue of this nature. It is fundamental that we consult the first nations as well and seek their input.

We have been given the opportunity tonight to talk about the great north, which actually helps define the magical country that we have.

The intent of the hon. member's motion is to bring Canada in line with the international community versus perhaps putting too much responsibility on the provinces, a responsibility which they may not wish to take on.

I think the motion has been brought forth in a very constructive manner. It is something that Canadians will have to revisit as they continue to participate in international conferences from a circumpolar perspective. It is because Canada is the one country that is out of step with the international community that we should ensure that if it needs to be revisited with our provincial partners, we do so. I applaud the member for bringing the motion forward.

[Income Tax Act Amendments, 1999, June 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-25, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act and the Budget Implementation Act, 1999.

For Canada to succeed in a global, knowledge based economy we must be more innovative, productive, invest in skills and development and seek out new opportunities around the world. The Liberal track record, however, has been declining productivity and investment, with record levels of taxation, and punishing regulations and red tape. The government is not providing Canada with the leadership and the vision it needs to maintain our competitiveness and our place in the world as we head into a difficult era of global economy.

Canada has the second highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world. I am sure the House is also aware that as a percentage of our economy Canada has the highest personal income tax rate. Some individuals may look at that and say that we are perhaps getting a good bang for our buck. We are able to maintain these taxation rates and still maintain our position in the global economy. The fact is that those individuals are wrong.

It is true that we have a very valuable society. Our health care system is a treasure. It is a valuable program which Canadians hold very dear. I prefer Canada's health care system to that of the United States. I do not know if the House is aware, but I know the new member for St. John's West is aware that half the bankruptcies in the United States are created because people get sick. Thirty million Americans do not have access to any health care system whatsoever. If someone gets sick it should not result in economic hardship or economic ruin.

Canada is an export driven country. We need to remain so to keep our competitiveness. Canadians have always valued our capacity to build prosperity, to build a stronger nation. It was the Progressive Conservative government of 1984-93 that was indeed a prosperity builder. I want to illustrate that fact by talking about not only privatization and deregulation issues brought forth by the Progressive Conservative government, but also the fact that we really led the G-7 in terms of winning the war on inflation between 1984-93.

This is best illustrated with the free trade agreement. In 1988 our trade with the Americans was approximately $90 billion. The members from St. John's East and St. John's West both know that our trade with the Americans now is $260 billion each and every year. Our growth has come from the economy.

We are also coming through one of the most buoyant periods of economic growth in the industrialized world. Growth in the United States was 18% between 1992 and 1998. In the U.K. and in Germany, in the same time period, their growth was 14%. The Finns had very similar growth.

We could look at the Irish economy. They took very bold, progressive steps in terms of getting their corporate tax rates slashed in half and exponentially lowering their personal tax rates. The Irish economy over that same period doubled.

What the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada is advocating is that we need to do with tax what the Progressive Conservative Party did for trade in order to build a more prosperous society. We set leadership. In fact, just recently a study by very learned economists and political scientists at the University of McGill, which ranked former prime ministers, stated that our government between 1984 and 1993 did far more to prepare Canada to take its appropriate place in the world as a world economic leader than any other government before it.

There are some initiatives that we want to put forth at this point. We think it is wrong that individuals who make $14,000, which is less than the poverty line, should have to pay any tax at all. As a first step, our tax task force report, which was voted on by the membership of the Progressive Conservative Party in Quebec City, stated that the basic personal exemption should be raised to $12,000.

That fundamental initiative on its own would take two and a half million Canadians off the tax rolls overnight. Those two and a half million Canadians simply should not have been put there in the first place.

In terms of getting our economic fundamentals in order to maintain our world competitiveness, we need to address the national debt. Quite simply, it is a mortgage on every Canadian, in particular a mortgage on every young Canadian. I have referred to the national debt as being fiscal child abuse, as we are mortgaging the fiscal competitiveness or the economy of every generation yet to be born.

While the government will say that it has made a payment on the debt or lowered taxes, it is taking baby steps while the rest of our trading partners are taking giant leaps.

I am very proud of our conference that we held in Quebec City, where the membership of the Progressive Conservative Party said that, at a minimum, our party would pay down the national debt by an aggressive legislative format. That is the minimum that we owe every young Canadian.

When I advocate lowering taxes it is not simply for the sake of lowering taxes, it is to maintain our world competitiveness and to instil more growth and investment in our economy overall.

I would like to talk about another issue that I am very concerned about, and that is the issue of brain drain. In order to keep our best and brightest within our borders in this global economy, our most entrepreneurial, the individuals who invest, and the risk takers, we need to provide them with a tax regime in which their initiative and their intellect will be rewarded.

In that vein, let us ensure that Canada's taxation rate can fund the economy which we need. The Progressive Conservative Party believes that a strong economy is the root of providing a healthy and educated society.

Before we do anything else, when it comes to income tax implementation or the focus of the budget, let us do the following fundamentals properly. Let us pay down the national debt in a legislative way. Let us ensure that our tax regime in terms of our personal taxes and corporate taxes becomes more competitive. Let us put money back into our priority spending areas in terms of post-secondary education. We know that the average student debt of $30,000 is wrong. We want to fix that. We also want to put more money back into our health care system. Let us pay down the debt. Let us lower taxes. Let us invest in health care and post-secondary education.