John Herron

[The Budget, March 27th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, one part of the speech I did not pick up was actually mentioned by a couple of members. The government has allocated more revenues with respect to the environment. We all know that the environment was the sixth largest department when we were in government. Now it is the very smallest, the 21st largest.

Was this initiative, this little tidbit of cash, put in place to assist the government in passing its first piece of environmental legislation of its own? Is that why we had a bit of an augmentation in the environmental budget?

[The Budget, March 27th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member's speech. His speech was very indicative of what we saw in the terrible budget that was tabled a few weeks back.

During essentially 70% of his speech he never uttered the words “tax cut”. When the rest of the industrialized world is taking giant leaps to reduce taxes, the government is taking baby steps and jeopardizing this country's competitiveness well into the future.

When will the government grow up and learn what a tax cut really is?

[The Budget, March 27th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I agree with many of the comments my hon. colleague made in his speech.

We do not see the division that we had perhaps in 1988 that actually created the growth in our economy with respect to the free trade agreement. As I mentioned earlier in my speech, our trade with the Americans was around $90 billion and it is now $260 billion.

If we had any kind of a downturn in the economy, particularly in the American economy, does the hon. member think our economic fundamentals are in order now? Do we really have a plan to actually reduce taxes so that we can ensure that we are still competitive here in Canada? Is there a plan for us to actually pay down the debt?

[The Budget, March 27th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question was intended to be constructive and he will get a constructive reply.

These are the facts. Quite simply during the 1984 to 1993 era the Progressive Conservative government could have and should have done more in terms of paring down our deficit and heading toward balancing the budget.

To put that in perspective, in 1984 the deficit was approximately $40 billion. The Progressive Conservative government of the day pared down the deficit to just under $20 billion. At that time the government was clearly headed in the right direction over the first three years. The Progressive Conservatives were heading toward an era of actually paying down the debt during a boom economy. I have said before that it should have and could have done more.

During that era the Reform Party actually took flight. It would be very wrong for Reform members to say they came about because they were upset with the direction in which the country was going with respect to fiscal responsibility. During that same era from a historical perspective we were on a better track.

In 1988 and 1989 the government missed an opportunity to continue on that track. It walked into a cold recession, one of international magnitude which affected many economies. In the United States the U.S. debt doubled by $2 trillion during the Reagan and Bush administrations. It doubled in a number of economies. One exception was the U.K. under Maggie Thatcher which actually had a more aggressive approach during that era.

To blame only Brian Mulroney for why we had a huge deficit is the same as blaming the whole western economy. It is the same as blaming George Bush and Ronald Reagan for the deficits and combined debt in the U.S. When we put it in that perspective, deficit permissibility was in our psyche. I applaud the Progressive Conservative government for bringing the issue to the table and actually venting it but it missed the opportunity to do more, I must say.

That is the context in which this debate should always be phrased. To blame the Conservatives for the deficit, they were heading in the right direction. They got caught up in an international recession. It was part of the western world. It happened in Germany under Chancellor Kohl as well. History will speak for itself in that regard.

I thank the member for his constructive question.

[The Budget, March 27th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have an opportunity to speak to this debate. We all know that the budget debate is one of the most critical ones we have each year. I will be splitting my time with the learned member from the riding of West Nova. I know we are all looking forward to his speech.

Budgets are more than just about numbers. Budgets are essentially what I consider to be a blueprint that illustrates the values of the government. It is a blueprint to discovering what kind of vision the government has not only for today but well into the future. It is also very much a blueprint to ensure that we put forth the necessary initiatives so we can be competitive not only today but into the future, so we can have a vibrant economy to pay for all the programs or initiatives that we hold dear as Canadians.

I want to talk about what the government is not doing in the budget. In 1988 Canada went to the polls on the initiative of free trade. We all know that election came down to one public policy issue. At that time our trade with the Americans was essentially around $90 billion each and every year. Today I am very proud to say that through the FTA and NAFTA our trade with the Americans is well over $260 billion annually.

We have had an enormous amount of economic growth over the last seven years. From where has that enormous growth come? It has largely come from our trade relationship with the American economy, which we all know is white hot. Without that initiative, without that vision, without that blueprint, we would not be able to compete in the economy and pay for the programs that we hold so very dear.

We are now at another milestone in the country's development. The rest of the industrialized world, our trading partners, the Americans and the Europeans, are now taking leaps in tax reduction, giant steps to ensure that their economies are more affluent. I call this an amazing coincidence. Maybe it is just a coincidence, but I would argue that it makes economic sense.

The Irish exponentially lowered taxes both in the corporate tax regime and in the personal tax regime, combined with investments in terms of education. The Celtic tiger as it has come to be known in Europe, Ireland, now leads Europe in the amount of its economic growth with 98% growth in its GDP over the last 15 years.

Over the last number of years we have seen an exponential amount of growth by the Germans of 18%, by the British of 18% and by the Americans as well. It is a similar number. Meanwhile growth in Canada has only been 7%. We are lagging behind our trading partners. The reason for it is that we cannot keep wealth in this country.

Time and time again it has been proven, and I call it the amazing coincidence, that if we lower taxes we grow an economy to create more wealth to pay for the programs that define us as a society.

It happened in Ireland. It happened in Finland. Finland was essentially a Soviet bloc country. Now it has a very growth oriented economy. It happened when John Kennedy lowered taxes in the 1960s. It happened when Progressive Conservative Premier Ralph Klein made it a mandate to ensure that the Alberta economic fundamentals were put in order and to pay down debt.

It happened with the economy of Ontario. The low tax regime that Michael Harris brought forth, I would argue quite sensibly, is responsible for the record amount of growth in our economy over the last number of years. If Michael Harris and the economy were not as vibrant we simply would not be collecting the revenues in Ottawa to pay for the programs we have right now.

This is the blueprint. Our trade regime has done well, but to retain our economic competitiveness into the future we need first and foremost to get our economic fundamentals in order. This means paying down our national debt. We have a moral obligation to all future generations to pay down the $587 billion national debt.

We have an obligation to ensure that our best, our brightest and most adventurous can grow and prosper in this country. They should be provided with a tax regime by which they can profit and participate in our Canadian economy. We are losing all too fast our best and brightest to the United States and other jurisdictions as they seek opportunities in other countries.

The government is trying to take accolades for its one time initiative of $2.5 billion for health care and post-secondary education over four years. That is only a very small portion of the large amount of money that has been taken away from our provincial partners over the last five to six years. Before we have any more grandiose programs, before we give any more money to HRDC in grants and contributions, before we start reinvesting in new made in Ottawa solutions, let us do the fundamentals first. Let us pay down the debt. Let us make sure that we lower the taxes. Let us make sure that we put money in our priority spending programs, our health care system and our post-secondary education system in particular.

I know you are of Celtic heritage as well, Mr. Speaker. I spoke a few moments ago about the Celtic tiger. People talk about the fact that they have lowered income taxes both corporately and from a personal income perspective. However they have also made it an objective, a mandate of their society, to ensure that anybody who has the aptitude to attend university, to seek post-secondary education, to seek training at a higher level, has the economic capacity to do so. By that I mean post-secondary education in their country is accessible to everyone.

Today that is simply not the case. I believe we need to make it a common objective as a society so that every individual who wants to can participate in this economy. I want to create a culture of opportunity so that we can provide the necessary skills to those individuals who want to provide for themselves by helping them to get educated, by helping them reach the highest level they can with respect to the economy and make the best contribution they can. In order for us to do that we need to make post-secondary education and training more accessible and more affordable.

I finished school just over a decade ago. It may be a bit more than that; I am starting to age. At that time a student debt level of about $6,000 or $7,000 was considered extremely high. As many members of the House know, the average student debt level now is $25,000 to $30,000 annually. For that to quadruple in this period of growth is a national shame.

There is one solid thing on which I would like to compliment the finance minister. Reindexing the income tax brackets for inflation was a very solid initiative and I applaud the government on it.

In conclusion, I want to talk about the blueprint the country needs, the vision that we need. Let us get our economic fundamentals in order so that we can participate in the upcoming century by making sure that Canada has a low tax regime, both corporately and from a personal income perspective; that we pay down our debt; and that we put money in the priority spending areas of health care and post-secondary education.

[Criminal Code, March 27th, 2000]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-462, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act (exemption of long guns from registration).

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed with pleasure that I have the opportunity to introduce my bill, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act, to ensure that there is an exemption from the need to register long guns.

The purpose of this enactment is to exempt ordinary long guns, meaning firearms that are neither prohibited nor restricted from registration. The criminal code is amended to remove the provision that makes it an offence to possess a long gun that is not registered. The Firearms Act is amended to remove the requirement to register long guns.

In addition, there are a number of consequential amendments to both acts removing references to registration with respect to long guns. This enactment does not affect the law respecting prohibited weapons or restricted weapons. Essentially, to paraphrase the bill, it is to remove the need to register long guns which are commonly used by deer hunters, duck hunters and farmers. It is a very important piece of legislation that we believe wastes taxpayer money, so it is my pleasure to table the bill at this time.

To conclude, a number of individuals share the same sentiments and I am looking forward to having signatures from all parties that would participate in that way.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[The Environment, March 27th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, over the last seven years the Liberal government has not passed one piece of environmental legislation of its own despite the fact that Canadians are still working toward improving environmental legislation.

The Species at Risk Working Group, a consortium of mining, pulp and paper, woodlot owners, farmers and environmental groups, have laid out a specific recommendation on what we should see in species at risk legislation. However, the government has chosen to ignore it. This is another circumstance where a borrowed par record on the green is not acceptable.

Why will the Minister of the Environment not accept the recommendations of SARWG?

[The Budget, March 27th, 2000]

Where did the government put the HRDC money then?

[The Budget, March 27th, 2000]

HRDC, $1.2 billion?

[The Budget, March 27th, 2000]

Be gentle.