John Herron

[Supply, May 3rd, 1999]

There is absolutely no reason, as the member for West Nova has just pointed out to me.

We are putting forth some initiatives, some financial initiatives, some tax incentives, to provide the industry with a more level playing field. There has been a lot of discussion that we cannot compete with the subsidies that exist in the Koreas and the Chinas. My comment is so what. We do not care. There are other markets we can chase down.

Competing with some countries that have subsidies of up to 20% or 30% of the cost of a ship is not a market we are interested in anyway. Those markets have ships with high steel content and low amounts of mechanical outfitting. That actually means they do not have sophisticated, high tech, cutting edge navigational equipment. They do not have systems in terms of the high tech industries such as shipshape drilling hauls which would be used in offshore exploration or drilling in that regard. Those are the kinds of ships we can be competitive with. Our labour is competitive in that regard. The only thing that is not competitive is our tax regime, plain and simple.

I believe fundamentally that the role of government is to do two principal things when it comes to industry. The first is to provide it with sound viable access to markets. That means physically in terms of rails and roads and trade regimes as well. This is something I would like to discuss in the next few minutes.

The second thing the government has to provide is an internationally competitive tax regime. The initiatives that have been put forth have been agreed upon by an unprecedented number of individuals in our society. The shipowners association is on side. The shipbuilders association is on side. Labour is on side. In fact, in 1997 at St. Andrews, New Brunswick all 10 premiers voted for the development of a national shipbuilding policy with fundamental principles that the federal government must and should pursue. To date I am very sad to say that action taken by the federal government essentially amounts to nil.

[Supply, May 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to discuss a very important issue which is critical from an economic development perspective for the region of Atlantic Canada and, I would argue, for Canada. We are talking this afternoon about the issue of the survival and the overall competitiveness of a very fundamental industry.

My colleague from the Reform Party said earlier that he was unsure about why we did not table any specific initiatives in the question we put forth. I will share with him some of the rationale for why we chose that approach.

The wording in the question we chose today is the same policy initiative that was accepted and agreed upon by the Liberal Party of Canada at its policy conferences in 1988 and 1993. I would wager that many members who are sitting in the House today and will be sitting in the House come vote time actually voted for the very same initiative when they were before their own membership. I could not figure out why in any shape, way or form these members would vote against the same initiative.

[Supply, May 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to my hon. colleague.

Last summer he worked hard on this bill. He will table a private member's bill this week or next week. This legislation will require the support of the members from all the provinces.

I would like to compliment his efforts and ask him about one particular initiative. The free trade act has been very solid for this country in terms of augmenting our trade. That is beyond dispute. However, given that the Jones act was exempt, even though we got a pretty good deal for the country in general, would it not be a decent idea for us to say to the Americans that we should develop some kind of bilateral accord for developing certain types of ships so we could get some market penetration? I would recommend perhaps shipshape drilling hauls where they are having a capacity problem.

We should begin an initiative sector by sector by going after certain types of ships as a starting point. Would he agree that is a good initiative in beginning to break down the trade barriers?

[Supply, May 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would caution the parliamentary secretary to be far more judicious in his comments in terms of the use of the words tax incentives versus subsidy. Revising Revenue Canada leasing regulations is a tax incentive. It is not a subsidy in any way, shape or form. He can ask the finance minister or the secretary of state for finance. It is a concrete initiative which was tabled by the industry, the premiers, labour, shipowners and shipbuilders, who all agree that it is not a subsidy.

The wording of our motion comes from Liberal Party policy conventions of 1993 and 1998. Did the parliamentary secretary support it at those conventions? If he did, will he support it when it actually comes to a vote?

[Supply, May 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I applaud my colleague from the neighbouring riding of Saint John for the efforts she has put forth on a consistent basis, not just during this mandate of 1997 but during her first mandate between 1993 and 1997. She knew it was imperative to have a viable shipbuilding industry.

I commend the member for her efforts. I also point out to the parliamentary secretary that Canada has benefited from a rules based trade regime such as NAFTA and the FTA. This does not mean that we have stopped fighting for our shipyards, and I know the member for Saint John will.

[Firearms Law Sunset Act, April 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to be making only a brief couple of comments. My colleague from the Reform Party has permitted me to split some time here, so I am grateful for that.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment did point out one valid issue which is that it takes a little while for legislation, whatever the topic is, to actually have any kind of effect. I would argue that the government never let Bill C-17 make a positive effect in that regard.

Bill C-68 is a bad news bill because it makes no sense to register the long guns of innocent deer hunters, duck hunters and farmers. The law enforcement officers in society today would rather have the $300 million plus that is going to be spent for better law enforcement initiatives than the arbitrary registration program in Bill C-68, which the Progressive Conservative Party and this hon. member definitely oppose.

[Youth Employment, April 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, earlier today I contacted the Minister of Human Resources Development to register my concerns about the decision to cut $180,000 from the summer career placement program in southern New Brunswick. This means that the ridings of Fundy—Royal, Charlotte and Saint John will have approximately 200 fewer jobs to offer their youth. All this when students are already graduating with an alarming $30,000 of debt.

The reason for this is the disconnected test of reductions in the local unemployment rate for adults, not students. In fact, most regions in the province of New Brunswick have been cut. When will the minister revisit the entire issue of funding levels in New Brunswick?

[Hazardous Goods, April 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, every day firefighters put their lives on the line to ensure the safety of Canadians, yet they cannot get the support they need from their own federal government. Firefighters have been denied access to the needed funding to implement the program operation respond, which is a communications system that can quickly identify hazardous materials and provide appropriate emergency response techniques and guidance.

My question is for the Minister of Transport. Will he make available the additional research and development funding for operation respond which would properly safeguard the Canadian public, yes or no? Certainly the minister thinks that Canadians and Canadian firefighters are worth $236,000.

[Ontario Taxes, April 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in Ontario jobs are up because taxes are down. Mike Harris' government yesterday announced its blueprint plan to keep Ontario on the right track.

From 1995 to 1998, Mike Harris has cut taxes 69 times, including a 30% cut in income tax rates. This was the largest tax cut in Ontario history and the first real increase in take home pay for the average Ontarian. These cuts produced the dramatic result of 540,000 new jobs being created in Ontario in under four years. That is more new jobs than the combined populations of London, Kingston and Sudbury. This puts Mike Harris's Tories ahead of schedule in their five-year plan to create 725,000 new jobs. Most of all, the Harris government's efforts to improve the province's fiscal management means more money for education and health care for all of Ontario.

Ontarians will ask if they are better off than they were four years ago. Yes, they are. They will also ask who the strongest leader is. That is Michael Harris. Less tax, balanced budgets—

[Nuclear Waste, April 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we do not have to be asked to participate in the program. The Prime Minister is practically writing letters to the President of the United States perhaps even demanding to participate in the MOX program. For something that we do not have to be asked to participate in, the government is spending an awful lot of money on it. The feasibility study performed by the government indicated that the plan to burn Russian and American weapons grade plutonium would cost Canadian taxpayers $2.2 billion. The study itself has already cost Canadians $1.5 million.

How much does the government have to spend before getting the support of the Canadian parliament? Is this really a spending priority of the Canadian people?