John Herron

[Taxation, March 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party's motion to end discrimination against single income families reflects what the Progressive Conservative Party has been advocating for years.

Our position has been consistent since our 1996 policy conference. Our document clearly states that “a PC government would introduce a joint tax return so that single earner households with dependent children stop paying more tax than dual earner households with equal incomes”.

The Sears family of Quispamsis in my riding, like so many families across Canada, is being discriminated against because it chooses to have one parent stay at home to raise the children.

Let us get away from this unfair tax policy where the government believes it can make the best choices. The best choices can and must be made by the people it affects, Canadian families. We should allow Beth Sears to make the choice that best suits her family without unfair tax penalties.

On March 9 the PC caucus along with the opposition members voted in favour of this motion. Unfortunately Liberals voted against it. Again the government had an opportunity to demonstrate its support for children and their families, and it failed to do so.

[National Defence, March 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in response to a question in the House on the replacement of the Sea King helicopter fleet, the Minister of National Defence said that “The matter is being dealt with at a staff level to make sure that we get the right kind of helicopter with the right kind of equipment”. After 20 years of research, the minister is claiming the forces are dragging their feet.

Will the minister order the Canadian armed forces to produce the statement of requirements this month, yes or no?

[Division No. 327, March 8th, 1999]

Yes, the member mentions Brian Mulroney. He actually just defended the free trade agreement brought in by former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney.

I also find it ironic that the member is now supporting free trade when his party jeopardized that particular arrangement. He is backing off on picking out a party that now wants us to unite as opposed to not uniting.

The other thing I find a little ironic is that this individual was speaking about protection for the plastics industry. We also know that this individual is not necessarily a strong supporter of the latex industry.

What I want to point out is that Canadians want to be able to establish their own cultural, environmental and labour standards. We are an exporting nation. Having said that, every time we get into a situation from a trade dispute perspective we cannot necessarily back off for the sake of backing off. We have been assured by the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister for International Trade that Bill C-55 is NAFTA friendly and that it will stand up with respect to the mechanisms under NAFTA. That is why the Progressive Conservative Party is supporting it.

[Division No. 327, March 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, when I first came to the House earlier today it was not my intent to actually speak to this particular bill. However, I want to react to some of the comments made by the previous speaker.

I actually heard a very impassioned plea concerning his support of the free trade agreement which first came into effect in 1989 and which was expanded to the NAFTA in 1993. He actually pointed out something that is very factual. Canada is indeed an export driven economy. We rely very much on our trade not only with the Americans but throughout the world for our economic prosperity.

He also pointed out the benefits of free trade. Before free trade we had about $80 billion to $90 billion worth of trade annually with the Americans. Today, because of the success of free trade, we trade essentially $240 billion worth of commodities with the Americans on an annual basis.

I agreement with the hon. member that free trade was great for this country in terms of our wealth and growth. The amount of substantial growth which we have seen in this country over the last number of years has been largely due to our export driven, resource based economies, while our domestic economy continues to be stifled because our regime is so overly taxed.

In both the FTA and NAFTA we were able to negotiate exemptions for culture. That is something which I believe Canadians fundamentally support.

What is free trade about? It is about the free exchange of commodities. It is also about fair trade. I believe that Canadians want to establish their own environmental standards, their own standards with respect to labour and their own cultural standards.

The Progressive Conservative Party is supporting Bill C-55 because what it represents to us is free trade.

I wish the hon. member had the opportunity to benefit from another history lesson which I will touch upon. During the acid rain debate which culminated in 1987 we had to talk to the Americans about their industries and what they were doing with their sulphur dioxide emissions. They were killing our lakes and rivers. The Americans said that they were not so sure the science was conclusive. We showed them the science. We also showed them that they were hurting their northeastern states as well. We negotiated with Ronald Reagan and George Bush, in a very aggressive fashion, an air quality arrangement so that Canada could protect its rivers and lakes with respect to free trade. We knew it was the right thing to do. Protecting Canadian culture as well is the right thing to do.

The standpoint of the member who just spoke on free trade and who said that it was fundamental to the growth of this country, that if we did not have it we would not be as strong as we are right now, is a little ironic. I also want to point out to the hon. member that in 1988 his party chose to run candidates primarily out west which potentially split our vote and we lost some candidates. By splitting our vote the Reform Party almost sacrificed the free trade agreement. This is an individual who now wants us to unite and come together. It was his party's fundamental economic principles that actually attacked—

[The Environment, March 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, is the finance minister for real? The science on climate change certainly is and our international Kyoto obligation is as well. As a former environment critic, the Minister of Finance should be ashamed.

Last spring the auditor general pointed out that this government lacked the political will to implement international agreements. We should not be surprised because this government is in the sixth year of its mandate and it has yet to pass one piece of environmental legislation, except for the MMT bill which cost Canadian taxpayers $16.5 million.

Will the minister commit today to provide industry with the necessary economic instruments to begin to combat climate change?

[The Environment, March 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance should step in to the real world and see that climate change is for real and so is the Kyoto challenge.

The truth of the matter is that we are 25% behind our goal and environmental issues continue to be a low priority for this Liberal government.

Another Liberal budget has just passed and so has another opportunity for the minister to take concrete action to combat climate change.

When will this government put an end to its paltry environmental record and announce new and significant economic instruments so Canadians can meet their Kyoto target?

[Emergency Service Volunteers, February 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring attention to the House to a serious inequity in our current tax system. Emergency service volunteers across Canada who are not paid for their time and efforts are penalized under existing laws. Currently a $1,000 tax free allowance is provided only to those volunteers who receive remuneration for their services.

The Progressive Conservative Party recommended to the finance committee that the Income Tax Act be amended to provide a tax credit of $1,000 to all emergency service volunteers. The PC Party believes this proposal will end the discrimination against rural firefighters who rarely receive any compensation for their work.

The Minister of Finance had a chance to rectify this unjust situation in his latest budget but chose to ignore this recommendation. The current policy is unfair to all those who volunteer their time. We urge the minister to reconsider his decision.

This country needs sound opposition. It does not need group therapy sessions for a united alternative.

[Supply, February 11th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member highlighted a couple of examples in his question. Clearly there are some places within government spending where some better choices with the public purse can actually be made. I do not think some of the initiatives he just mentioned would be very high up on my priority list, to say the least.

I would not want to make a comment that we are spending enough money on the poor and probably do not need to do too much. We have to be able to challenge ourselves to ensure that we are getting the best bang for our buck with respect to our social programs.

I still think there needs to be a governmental role, whether that be provincial or federal, to address those needs.

[Supply, February 11th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, the reason I asked that is in the few hours we have had here today I think all parliamentarians would like to have some constructive time to continue to discuss this issue.

The deputy whip made the comment that lowering taxes would be a bad thing for the poor. I am not exactly sure what she was trying to say. It makes no sense to tax low income Canadians, people who actually make very little money.

One of the initiatives we are speaking about today is raising the personal exemption from around $7,000 to $10,000. That one initiative alone would take two million Canadians off the tax rolls overnight. Those are two million Canadians who simply should not have been there in the first place.

When I think of public policy and taxation rates I look at them from this standpoint. Many people believe, depending on where they live in the country, that the poverty line is around $21,000. If that were true we would be saying as a society that it is okay to tax individuals who make $14,000 less than the poverty line. I just do not think that is acceptable in any way, shape or form.

We are also focusing on another sector within society, the working poor. Those individuals get up every day, work hard and are very proud, but every day they keep working they find themselves falling further and further behind. One reason for that is that it has been far too long since our income tax brackets have been indexed for inflation. Some individuals may be making a bit more money from time to time but are actually taking home less money. Those are the persons who really need tax relief.

In order to grow our economy the Progressive Conservative Party is advocating providing Canadians with broad based tax relief but primarily concentrating on lower and middle income Canadians.

We are looking at indexing the child tax benefit. In the fall of 1997 the member for Shefford was successful in having a motion passed in the House with respect to that issue. That shows her commitment to children and to citizens who actually live in poverty.

The issue of poverty affects a vast number of Canadians. Canadians are becoming more and more sensitized to the issue. They are now seeing that we have turned the corner with respect to our fiscal house as a nation and at the provincial level in some cases, for example with the record growth we are now seeing in Ontario. We are at a state where we have a balanced budget which is a good thing for all Canadians regardless of on what side of the House members sit.

What I mean by saying that Canadians are becoming more sensitized is that they want us to address these issues. In a country as wealthy and innovative as ours we need to ensure that all Canadians live with a decent level of income so they can have decent shelter and food and their children who go to school can have a healthier diet and function in school.

[Supply, February 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to today's motion. I am very pleased that our caucus has actually taken the initiative to select this very important subject that affects all Canadians.

Throughout the day we heard a number of different statistics with respect to the number of individuals who actually live in poverty. One in five children lives in some form of poverty. December 10 represented the 50th anniversary of the declaration of human rights which was written by a former constituent in my riding of Fundy—Royal, John Peters Humphrey, who comes from the town next to mine. I consider Canada to be one of the most gifted and affluent countries in the world. Having citizens in any form of poverty in a country with the resources and wealth we have I consider a national shame. Given the resources and the capabilities we have we need to do more for people who live in the margins of our society, give them that hand up so they can live with the dignity they clearly deserve.

Poverty is much more than just a lack of money. It affects children's health, education, welfare and general well-being.

I remember during the election campaign of 1997 there was one day toward the end of the campaign when I campaigned just outside of Havelock, New Brunswick. I might from time to time think of myself as an idealistic person. I am someone who considers himself to be a fiscal conservative who believes in certain ideals and certain doctrines.

I remember campaigning at one door which will leave a memory with me for many years. I think it will help to shape some of my politics. I was there talking about some of the things I thought we could do in order to grow our economy. After the conversation at that door the constituent said to me “I like what you have to say, but the thing which actually affects me most today is whether I have bread in my cupboard or milk in my fridge”. In this forum that is a very difficult situation for us to imagine. Poverty exists in every riding in this country. It affects way too many people in a society of this nature.

In my riding there are some initiatives which I would like to take this opportunity to point out. It is what has been done on a community basis in order to address the physical needs of some of the poor, individuals living in poverty. I would like to salute the Sussex Sharing Club, the Lakewood HeadStart Association, the Kennebecasis Valley Food Basket, Chipman Community Care, Minto Community Resource Centre and the Hampton Food Basket.

I also know there are a number of initiatives that are done from a church level and a community level as well. I can look at a church in my nearby region, the United Church in Hampton and Reverend Stephen Mills, in terms of some of the initiatives that we have done for our local community.

This issue touches us on a more macro basis as well. Given the non-partisan nature of the subject of poverty and the desire of the Progressive Conservative Party, in fact all parties in the House, to address poverty, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to continue this debate until midnight.