John Herron

[Speech From The Throne, October 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I did not hear an emphasis with respect to tax reduction in terms of what this country clearly needs. This country needs broad based tax reduction. A number of speeches have been made in this House that have focused on the necessity to have broad based tax reduction. We have seen growth in those jurisdictions. We have seen it in Ireland. We have seen it in the province of Ontario.

Does the hon. member believe that the government's rhetoric in the throne speech with respect to tax reduction is just that, or is the government capable of providing tax reductions that Canadian families need so desperately?

[Speech From The Throne, October 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to hon. member's speech. She spent a high degree of time raving about the government's environmental concern.

Since the government took office, the environment has gone from the sixth largest department to the twenty-first largest department in government. This is also a government that waited six years to pass its first environmental piece of legislation since taking office, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, Bill C-32, which was not exactly a watershed bill. As the House knows, the environmental members of the Liberal caucus, those very learned members in terms of the members for Lac-Saint-Louis and York North, all expressed concerns on that piece of legislation.

My question is very simple. Does the hon. member think one piece of legislation passed in six years is a watershed leadership on environmental legislation?

[Speech From The Throne, October 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the hon. member and the hon. member who spoke before him on their fine presentations. What they were stating is intrinsically true. Those regimes which have low taxes have high growth and the chance to create growth and wealth.

From 1992 to 1997 taxes have increased 15% as a percentage of income for Canadian families, to the extent that they now spend more money on personal income taxes than they do on food, clothing or household operations. Given that fact, if the government really wants to develop a children's agenda and it wants to invest in and enhance institutions that invest in the betterment of children, why does it not invest in the institution that has proven to be successful for children, that being the Canadian family? If the government really wants to enhance the welfare of children in the country, why does it not provide the tax relief to Canadian families that they so earnestly deserve?

[Fundy—Royal, June 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, as summer nears, I would like to send out an invitation to all Canadians to visit my constituency of Fundy—Royal this summer.

Fundy—Royal straddles the beautiful and scenic Bay of Fundy which has the largest tides in the world. In fact, tourists from around the globe come to the region to witness these record tides and, of course, to enjoy down-home maritime hospitality.

Fundy—Royal has so much to offer: the beautiful Fundy Trail, the waterways, fishing, cycling, boating and camping. Fundy—Royal has it all. We have picturesque covered bridges and lighthouses adorning the shores of our communities.

Throughout the summer, Fundy—Royal communities host fairs and festivals, like the Sussex Balloon Fiesta and the Rothesay Craft Festival. For a special historical perspective on the region, one can visit the coal mining museum in Chipman.

No one leaves New Brunswick without enjoying some maritime cuisine like lobster, salmon and fiddle heads.

I invite one and all to visit Fundy—Royal this summer.

[Main Estimates, 1999-2000, June 8th, 1999]

That is not exactly a unifying kind of comment that I am hearing from my hon. colleague. I am sure he actually shares some of the sentiments I am trying to express, so I would hope that he would give me the courtesy to be able to express those very concerns.

The hon. member believes that the origin of Senate reform started in 1987, out of the blue, and that nobody was even concerned with the fact that the Senate was not elected until 1987 when the Reform Party started. Would he think in his heart of hearts that there were possibly other individuals in this country who espoused an elected Senate prior to 1987? I would like to tell him that when I was in university I was one individual who espoused that.

[Main Estimates, 1999-2000, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I enjoyed, for the most part, the comments of my hon. colleague from the Reform Party in terms of what he was espousing, the concept of a triple E Senate.

With respect to having the upper chamber elected, for me that is a non-starter. If we asked, most Canadians would say that if there is going to be an upper chamber then it should be an elected chamber.

[Supply, June 8th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I would like to applaud the Reform Party for the motion that it has brought forward today and the dialogue that has taken place.

There has been a lot of unease over the last while with respect to some of the decisions taken by the courts. I do not believe that those recent decisions apply to today's debate, but I applaud the merits of the debate.

The hon. member for Calgary Southeast said that he could not imagine why anybody would have a problem with the motion which has been put forward. He pointed out quite clearly that because of the charter a lot of decisions have started to take place. If it was proclaimed that the definition of spouse and marriage could be changed when the charter was brought in in 1982, I guarantee members that the artificial support we had for the charter would not have been there.

The definition of marriage has always been that of a union between a man and a woman. In his opinion, does he agree that it always should be?

[New Brunswick Election, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, what a great day it is for New Brunswick.

Today Bernard Lord and the New Brunswick Progressive Conservative Party form the newly elected majority government. Lord's campaign platform, a new vision for New Brunswick, sent the right signals to voters, and he is ready for the job.

This election gave democracy back to the people. A Bernard Lord government will listen and consult, and change the complacent attitude of the last 12 years of government knows best.

Lord's New Brunswick Tories campaigned on a platform of lower taxes. This victory proves taxpayers liked what they heard. The federal Liberals can learn a good lesson from the New Brunswick and Ontario campaigns. Tax relief is important to Canadians.

On behalf of New Brunswickers, the federal Tory caucus, and particularly Bernard Lord's and my aunt Renie Lord-Herron, I wish to congratulate Mr. Lord and the New Brunswick PCs on their tremendous success.

Today, New Brunswickers embark on the first day of 200 days of change, and it promises to be a great ride.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, June 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is a shame that the term “phase-out” was taken out of the preamble of the bill. We support the concept of virtual elimination. Having said that, the intent, the language and the spirit of the bill must embrace the concept that those most toxic substances that exist should not exist. When we are considering PCBs, DDT and those sorts of things, we need to empower the government to be able to completely phase-out those kinds of substances.

The system we use is a risk based system. That is how we manage our toxins. We need to embrace the concept of virtual elimination as long as we are challenging industry on an ongoing basis.

The word phase-out primarily addresses, as the member for Churchill River knows, issues such as POPs. We should not send a negative signal in that regard. It was an excessive reaction to a concern of industry. It was concerned that the virtual elimination concept could be changed in that regard. The minister should have the power in certain circumstances to make a call.

With respect to the humanitarian review of CEPA, whether it is done in the Senate or the House my biggest concern is the fact that it be done in a timely manner. We are reviewing CEPA 88 in 1999, some 11 years later.

The member raised another issue with respect to the Senate. I categorically support an elected Senate in every way, shape and form. The concern of many Canadians is that by allowing only the Senate to review something, it is being given to an unelected body. Until we have an elected Senate we actually water down the credibility of any parliamentary review which takes place, despite the fact that the senators engaged in the issue may be making a very valuable contribution on behalf of Canadians.

The alarm bells go off when it is given to an unelected body, which is something the country is ready to address and should address well into the future.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, June 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member has brought forth a very constructive question. This is an issue on which members of his party and our party do not exactly agree.

We do agree on this issue, that science should be what drives the decision making process as to whether a government should act in a particular circumstance. Science should be number one. However, when the science is headed in a very clear direction, and when we think that the use of a particular toxin or a particular process is causing harm to the environment or human health, the government should not have to wait for the last i to be dotted or the last t to be crossed before taking action.

We do not necessarily agree on that particular point. We support the precautionary principle. If there is doubt, the government should be concerned with the environment and human health first before every i is dotted and every t is crossed. The government supports that concept, as do we. The Progressive Conservatives support that concept, as well as the NDP and the Bloc. With respect, I invite my friend from the Reform Party to embrace that aspect of the precautionary principle.