John Herron

[Hampton High School, June 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Hampton, New Brunswick in my constituency is the hometown of John Peters Humphrey, the principal architect of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

His life's work has made a significant impact on our community and our youth. Local schools have entrenched the study of human rights in their curriculum in the hopes of building a better and more tolerant generation of Canadians.

This month the students and staff of Hampton High School launched a human rights art exhibit entitled “Between the Lines” at the New Brunswick Museum. The show is a unique display of the ties our community has to the legacy of our town's most famous son. In dynamic and creative fashion, these students used their artwork to espouse the ideals of human dignity and freedom that John Peters Humphrey dedicated his life to promoting.

Mr. Gordon Fairweather, a colleague with whom you served, Mr. Speaker, the first Canadian Human Rights Commissioner and a former member of parliament for Fundy—Royal, opened the exhibit.

Congratulations to the students and teachers of Hampton High and, in particular, Alex Pearson, his fellow students and John Murphy for their commitment to this worthy venture.

[Taxation, June 1st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, earlier today I contacted the office of the Minister of Finance to find out what it was doing to eliminate policies that discourage sustainable forestry practices on small private woodlots. Those inheriting woodlots are taxed on the value of the tree land, which encourages clear-cutting. In addition, unlike farmers woodlot owners are unable to deduct maintenance expenses from their income or claim the capital gains exemption.

In a letter to woodlot owners the Minister of Finance agreed that the tax system should not produce environmentally perverse practices. This has been a 12 year chase for 420,000 woodlot owners. When will the government sort it out and get it right?

[Migratory Birds Convention Act, May 30th, 2000]

If I may, I think the Progressive Conservative Party wants to build a broad coalition. We have always been successful when we have invited a number of individuals to actually form coalitions, whether it was the Cartier and Macdonald coalition, the coalition that Robert Borden of whom we spoke today formed during wartime leadership, the coalition that Diefenbaker formed with the Union Nationale, or the coalition that was formed by the Conservative government of 1984 and 1993.

I would like to invite the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment and the Speaker tonight—I am not sure if he is independent. I know he will soon be a provincial Tory and I wish him all the best in that election—to our Tory Tuesday activities.

[Migratory Birds Convention Act, May 30th, 2000]

The parliamentary secretary, once in a while, gets a little concerned when we criticize a particular piece of legislation that is part of the framework. The Migratory Birds Convention Act and the species at risk bill are critical pieces of legislation in the overall framework. We only have to refer to the position paper of the Minister of the Environment released at the Calgary zoo. He referenced that act when he brought forth his species at risk bill.

It is indeed very relevant to speak about both pieces of legislation, and I am sure there have been other speakers who have referenced both pieces of legislation this evening.

Our concern is that there are not enough financial incentives, not enough carrots, and there is too much emphasis on sticks. The carrots are needed to help the stewards of this land. The best stewards of this land for quite some time have been the farmers and the woodlot owners. They have been the best stewards at maintaining species at risk.

Whether it is a migratory bird which is of concern or whether it is another species, it is critical that we have legislation that works.

I cite this example to illustrate my point. Because the burrowing owl is not deemed to be a migratory bird, it does not have the same protection as a bird that might be migratory in nature, such as a blue heron.

It is fundamental for us to maintain the biodiversity of the country and for us to have strong species at risk legislation as well.

Since the parliamentary secretary is listening so intently, I want to reiterate where this species at risk legislation is at fault. Listing is a matter of political choice, not of science. The protection of habitat is discretionary.

Habitat loss represents 80% of the reason a species becomes at risk in the first place. The species at risk bill does not necessarily make habitat protection mandatory for a listed species. That is part and parcel of why this bill, if it becomes an act, would not work. It does not have the financial levers or incentives to help the stewards of our land, our farmers and woodlot owners, to maintain those good practices which are required to protect species that are endangered in Canada, whether they are migratory in nature or whether they are a species maintained within our own borders.

I think it was healthy to have a chance to speak about this pioneering piece of legislation, which was founded long before we ever thought we would have a Department of the Environment.

The Conservative government of Sir Robert Borden recognized the fact that it was imperative that we conserve the biodiversity of the country. The fact that we are speaking about that Conservative prime minister's legacy in the House is indeed a pleasure. I reiterate that we need to have a species at risk act which is strong and effective, which does not penalize our farmers and woodlot owners, so that it will complement, dovetail and support the initiatives that first began in 1916, which we are discussing here tonight.

On that note and on this take note debate I want to thank the House sincerely for the opportunity to participate in this mandatory review. I wish you all the best this evening, Mr. Speaker, at this late hour. I would like to extend an invitation for you to attend our Tory Tuesday activities in West Block after you finish your activities here.

[Migratory Birds Convention Act, May 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, as a blue heron it gives me great pride to participate in the debate this evening concerning migratory birds.

It will come as a surprise to no one that what we are talking about this evening is an act about protecting and maintaining the populations of birds of a migratory nature between Canada and the United States. This is an environmental initiative and I know, being the knowledgeable man that you are, Mr. Speaker, that it comes as no surprise whatsoever that this environmental initiative was brought forward by the Conservative Party of Sir Robert Borden when he was the prime minister of this country.

In the true essence of the word conservative, he was a conservationist of the finest kind before we even thought about having an environment minister. It was because of that kind of leadership that was brought forth by perhaps one of Canada's greatest prime ministers that his legacy remains and the act remains on which we are having the opportunity to speak in this place this evening.

This convention was a response to a drastic decline in migratory bird populations in the early 1900s. The legislation was the first legislative effort designed to regulate hunting, prevent trafficking and control the uses of migratory birds through permits. It also created migratory bird sanctuaries that were intended to control and manage areas important for the protection of migratory birds.

Behind the legislative framework between the United States and Canada, I would like to take this opportunity to point out the many private citizens who reside in the United States and indeed within the borders of this great country, Canada, who have taken it upon themselves to maintain wetlands for migratory species. The organization I am speaking about, which I am quite sure members are familiar with, is Ducks Unlimited. I have witnessed the preservation activities of the DU groups in the wetlands of Fundy—Royal and throughout Atlantic Canada. More money is raised for the preservation of wetlands on a per capita basis for Ducks Unlimited in Atlantic Canada than in any other region in North America. That initiative is fundamentally critical because, from a wetlands and waterfowl perspective, Atlantic Canada is one of the most critical migratory habitats that exists.

However, weaknesses in the convention such as the lack of protection of habitat led to the call for strong endangered species legislation. We now are debating the initiative brought forth by the government known as the species at risk act, Bill C-33, which is intended to help maintain the biodiversity legacy that we wish to leave to future generations. My primary analysis of the bill is that it dovetails with the Migratory Birds Convention Act quite importantly. The issue we are concerned about primarily is the fact that the species at risk act is perhaps too discretionary in nature.

Our first objection to Bill C-33 is that the very listing of whether a species is at risk is a matter of political choice and not merely that of science.

Clearly the Progressive Conservative Party understands that the listing of a species, and the habitat restoration perspective, is that we must take into account social and economic implications as well.

[Supply, May 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite proud of the initiatives John Hamm is taking for the province of Nova Scotia. Because of the tax and spend liberalism and the socialist individuals who have created the financial crisis in that province, Premier Hamm has had to make some choices.

This is a mere experiment within the government to see how it can deliver some services in a more cost effective manner. My perspective is I support my provincial cousins in their initiatives to deliver services in innovative ways. If it turns out that it was not the best course, it was an experiment.

The Government of Nova Scotia has been forced into making some tough choices. We should give that government the chance to get its fiscal house in order.

[Supply, May 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the issue at hand here is that the three towns, Moncton, Saint John and Fredericton, are about the same size. If they were on their own, clearly they would have some kind of an airport. It is paramount for economic development reasons.

I accept the argument that those three airports are within an hour or an hour and a half driving distance. As opposed to taking a hands off approach and saying whatever happens happens between those three airports or whatever happens happens to the economic development in those three towns, the federal government owes it to the citizens in those three towns to step forward and provide leadership in terms of other solutions with respect to air transportation, whether it is one centralized airport or whether it is rebuilding one of the existing airports. That becomes a very difficult issue to manage. It is very parochial in nature regardless of where we live.

The issue is that the federal government at a minimum should maintain those three airports unless it has agreed with its provincial partners and the citizens who reside in those three towns to build a better transportation system.

[Supply, May 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to have a chance to participate in this debate. It is an issue that all Canadians, regardless of where they reside in Canada, feel that parliament should have had quite some time ago.

I want to take this particular moment to commend the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester for his work as transport critic in actually raising this particular issue and bringing this debate to the floor of the House of Commons today.

Mr. Speaker, I know that you understand this particular issue as I do. When it comes to long range planning, whether it is on transportation issues, environmental issues, climate change, or the development of tax policy or trade policy, the government is absent in terms of actually having a long term vision, regardless of what the actual topic might actually be. Whether it is the need to develop an implementation strategy for the Kyoto climate change, whether it is planning in advance to avoid a pollster strike which we had just a few years ago, or whether it is the same kind of vision that we actually had when we were in government with respect to trade—our trade with the United States was around $90 billion each and every year and today we trade over $260 billion each and every year—it was that kind of long term planning for which this government is absent.

What all the provinces have been advocating for quite some time is to have some federal leadership with respect to a transportation policy for this country. One of the greatest challenges that a country as complex and as large as Canada is, is the geography from coast to coast to coast. The size of this country gives us as a nation an immense amount of challenges that we have to recognize. It was the same kind of challenge and vision that actually built the railroad that we have from coast to coast. Now we need to take that vision that we had for the 19th century and put it into a 21st century context.

The transportation challenges that we have right now in this modern, globalized world is that we need to be able to move our goods and our people from point to point in rapid fashion in order to stay competitive, to be able to function as a modern country and to maintain our place in the global economy.

We know now that the stresses of our cities, which have changed just over the last two or three decades in the population growth, whether it be in Vancouver, Halifax or Toronto, is that from an urban planning and an urban transportation perspective the federal government has a role to help maintain that public transport infrastructure so it does not wear down our roads and wear down our other infrastructure so that we spend so much money in maintenance. More importantly, we need to encourage and have modern up to date transportation policy so that people can commute to and fro from our cities which would actually put less stress on our infrastructure and less environmental pollution with respect to smog or that of climate change.

The government went to Kyoto in 1997 to establish and agree to a target and a timeline without any consultation with the provinces, the municipalities or Canadians in terms of accepting a target to reduce greenhouse gases by 6% below 1990 levels by the year 2008 to 2012 with no plan on how to do that.

One of the things the government should be doing, and with what I call no regrets, things that we should be doing for many reasons, whether it be human health, smog or just saving money on urban infrastructure, is to develop a sound urban transportation policy. The federal government has a role to work with the provinces and municipalities in that particular fashion.

I also want to comment on some callous remarks that were made by the Minister of Transport earlier today to the member for Cumberland—Colchester and to the member for Saint John. When it comes to an airport perspective in the province of New Brunswick, he said that he would let market forces decide what happens in terms of the principal airports between Saint John, Moncton and Fredericton.

We can let market forces actually make that decision to some degree or we can do what the Progressive Conservative Party wants to do and our transport critic wants, which is for the federal government to demonstrate leadership for the maintenance of those three airports or to actually develop a vision in terms of what air transport policy should be in the province of New Brunswick, but not from a top down perspective by waiting to see what happens or letting the chips fall where they may.

The government should be working in conjunction with the province of New Brunswick, with Premier Bernard Lord and with the municipalities that are serviced by those three cities to determine what the best thing would be to do, as opposed to just ignoring the remarks by the member for Cumberland—Colchester. At a minimum, the government should be stating that all three airports will be maintained in their present fashion unless the federal government provides some vision that the province, the municipalities and all citizens in southern New Brunswick could actually concur with.

We need to upgrade our transportation system because it is deteriorating. We do have challenges today that we did not have a few years ago. The member for Cumberland—Colchester showed me statistics from 1993 and the number of accidents involving dangerous goods was approximately 250. Today, on average, each and every year there are almost 450 accidents involving dangerous goods. I maintain that because of our growing economy, our growing population and the growing stresses in our transportation infrastructure that these kinds of things are bound to happen unless we actually make the investment in our rail systems, our trucking system and our roads, including the Trans-Canada Highway. We are bound to have these kinds of accidents time and time again unless we actually modernize our infrastructure to maintain the record growth that we have had.

The provinces have stated that the government's policy with respect to transport has been inconsistent, unco-ordinated and perhaps, above all, reactionary.

If we look back to the airline merger, everybody knew that Canadian Airlines was in financial trouble and that it was about to unfold but instead, the federal government allowed the market forces to decide the airline's fate. In some communities for a number of months transportation strategies were causing an immense amount of problems with respect to air transport and being able to move people the way that we wanted to do.

I would also maintain that when this government took office in 1993 the revenues for the Department of Transport from fuel taxes and user fees, whether it was leases on airports or whatever, were essentially equal to its expenditures. Right now the Department of Transport takes in $3.9 billion more each and every year from resources, such as fuel taxes and leasing fees. I guarantee that the provinces are not getting anywhere near that kind of return on their highways.

At a minimum, the federal government should be dealing with these four particular issues: first and foremost, working in collaboration with the provinces to develop a national transportation strategy for highways; second, having a clear vision in terms of urban transportation; third, working with the municipality so that we can develop the infrastructure for public transport; and fourth, to recognize that the transportation strategy that it has will assist in its strategy with respect to greenhouse gases and climate change.

[The Environment, May 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, here we go again. Today the commissioner for the environment released another damning report over the government's dismal environment record. He pointed out the government's lack to grasp or understand the benefits of aggressive tax incentives to support energy efficiency initiatives, not just lip service. Alberta's environment minister, Gary Mar, has recognized the need for this particular initiative in his best effort strategy.

Is the reason the government continues to flounder on climate change because the Minister of the Environment is fighting over the file with the Minister of Natural Resources, because the Prime Minister has no grasp of the file, or because the finance minister has no clue what a tax cut is?

[Species At Risk Act, May 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for my hon. colleague. I was a bit concerned when she mentioned a couple of times the necessity to have a compensatory regime. One of the things bothering landowners, woodlot owners and farmers across the country is the government's commitment to developing a good stewardship, compensatory regime.

How does the hon. member square with what the minister said on September 23, 1999 as reported in the Vancouver Sun ? The minister said “Responsible behaviour is something we expect, not something we need to buy”. Could my colleague comment on that?

The other question I have is, why would she not support an amendment at the committee stage for a legal scientific listing as opposed to a discretionary regime left to cabinet?