John Herron

[Supply, February 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, some of the comments my hon. colleague made during her speech I found to be somewhat inflammatory and almost offensive.

What this member was trying to convey was that since we are the government, we have the luxury of being there right now, that everything is good in our economy and that everything that has gone wrong in the past is the Tories' fault.

One of the reasons we have the growth in the last number of years is that we have an export driven economy compliments of free trade in the 1988 election. I think she might remember that election because those members actually opposed free trade.

Second, the government likes to take a lot of credit for all the jobs it created. Two-thirds of the jobs created in this country were created in Ontario by the government of Mike Harris.

[Job Corps Program, February 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, at the end of March the federal-provincial New Brunswick job corps program comes to an end. This program assists older workers and makes possible projects like facilities beautification, silviculture, fish enhancement, upgrading tourist facilities and other environmental projects.

While the province was prepared to continue the program, the human resource minister, ignoring his own officials, decided not to renew it or extend it, leaving 956 people with an uncertain future.

Employers and participants have praised the program and new Brunswick communities have benefited immensely from the projects. Cancellation will affect the entire province.

The Liberals have finally stumbled upon a good program and now they are ignoring the assessment of their officials by cancelling it without providing a replacement to meet the needs of participants, employers or the community.

I urge the government to reconsider its plan before adding hundreds more to the ranks of the poor.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, February 9th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the merits of supporting Bill S-11, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights act.

This bill, sponsored by my colleague the hon. member for Shefford, was originally proposed in the Senate by my friend and Progressive Conservative colleague Senator Erminie Cohen.

I have been fortunate enough to speak to a number of very important bills since being elected in June 1997. I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this particular bill because it addresses probably the most important right of all, that of human rights.

Senator Cohen comes from a province with an outstanding tradition of championing human rights issues. Gordon Fairweather, the former member of parliament for Fundy—Royal, the riding I represent, was also Canada's first human rights commissioner.

John Humphreys, the world renowned principal author of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, was born and buried in the town of Hampton which is in my riding.

Senator Cohen, like our fellow New Brunswickers, understands how difficult times affect Canadian families and the community as a whole when the local plants shut down. Families have to make sacrifices that they never dreamed would happen to them. She knows about the closures at the Potocan mine and the impending job losses at Lantic Sugar. These are hardworking Canadians with an uncertain future.

I do not think that anyone should be surprised that Senator Cohen has tabled this bill. Bill S-11 shows her ability to care for individuals. I have known Senator Cohen for a number of years. I also know the member for Shefford. They are caring individuals who want to ensure that we do the best for those persons at the margins of our society.

This bill is about ensuring access to the basic tools people need to get back on their feet. It is about maintaining pride and dignity despite the tough times life sometimes has to offer.

Currently the Canadian Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, religion, nationality or ethnic origin, colour, sex, marital status, family status, disability, conviction of an offence for which a pardon has been given, and sexual orientation. By explicitly listing Canada's vulnerable groups, the poignantly absent qualification in the 22-year old act is a reference to social condition. Seven out of ten provinces in Canada prohibit discrimination on the basis of social condition, social origin or sources of income in their respective human rights legislation.

According to the United Nations in its review of Canada's compliance with the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights signed in 1976, this great nation of ours received a failing grade on our ability to protect the rights of the poor. We parliamentarians have an opportunity to take a tremendous leap forward and rectify this tragic situation by supporting Bill S-11. The time for Canada to bring forward federal legislation is long overdue.

On December 10 we celebrated the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As I already mentioned, this document was drafted by native New Brunswicker and former resident of my riding of Fundy—Royal, John Humphreys.

The declaration states essentially that all human beings regardless of their circumstances are born free and equal in dignity and rights. This bears repeating. All human beings regardless of their circumstances are born free and equal in dignity and rights.

It is a shame that Canada's own human rights act does not fully respect the goals and the intent of this important document, a document drafted by a Canadian.

The 50th anniversary of this world renowned declaration also marked the end of the first year of the United Nations international decade for the eradication of poverty. However, being poor in Canada continues to be one of our greatest hurdles for achieving equality. There is no better time for us to act than now.

One in five Canadian children live in poverty. We recognize that when children are poor, it is because their families are poor. As Canadians we are fortunate enough to live in a wealthy country but the marginalized are in need both physically and psychologically.

In my riding we try to address the physical needs of the poor through food basket programs run by great charitable organizations like the Sussex Sharing Club, the Lakewood Headstart Association, Kennebecasis Valley Food Basket, Chipman Community Care, the Minto Community Resource Centre and the Hampton Food Basket. I am very proud of the sense of community that exists in my riding of Fundy—Royal.

Bill S-11 addresses this inadequacy in our Constitution and offers the poor relief from negative stereotypes that affect their psychological well-being. It promotes human dignity, the very essence of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

While provincial legislation addresses the rights of the poor for issues under that jurisdiction, the federal human rights act covers issues under federal jurisdiction such as banking, housing and telecommunications. As it stands today, the poor are too often denied housing or barred from opening bank accounts.

Bill S-11 does not provide any special status for the poor. There is nothing contained in the bill that is not already afforded to other Canadians. There is nothing to fear from endorsing this plan, yet I understand the government has no intention of supporting the legislation. It instead promises to review the human rights act in its entirety for several possible changes.

This promise has been on the table since the Liberals took office and still no new legislation is planned. Senator Cohen and the member for Shefford chose to take action now.

It is our duty as parliamentarians to serve on behalf of all constituents. That is why it is incumbent on us to support this bill. If we choose not to, then we are nowhere near the great moral authority our Prime Minister likes to call Canada.

In 1989 the Progressive Conservative government took bold and persuasive action and succeeded in unanimously passing a resolution to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000. Since that time, Canadians are unfortunately no closer to their goal due to the massive cuts in transfer payments to the provinces by this current government.

Today we have the possibility to announce to Canadians that discrimination on the basis of social condition will no longer be tolerated. Let us not waste that opportunity.

[Government Expenditures, February 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, tonight we resume debate on Bill S-11. It will add “social condition” to the Canadian Human Rights Act and will help put an end to the discrimination faced by our most marginalized citizens. The Liberals have indicated that they will not support this bill.

While many Canadians do not have the luxury of maintaining adequate housing or the ability to open up a bank account, the PMO last year spent a whopping $7.5 million federal tax dollars on travel expenses, making the much criticized $465,000 Mulroney trip to Russia seem like mere pocket change.

An examination of the public accounts reveal that the Prime Minister spent $1.3 million for a trip to Italy last May with 58 personnel tagging along. An overnight trip to New York took just over $175,000 out of the coffers to accommodate the PM and 18 advisers.

This blatant disregard for taxpayers must end. I urge this Prime Minister to rethink how he spends our money.

[Supply, February 9th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, if the hon. member and the government really were that concerned over this issue, they have had six years to bring forward legislation and that has not been done.

[Supply, February 9th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I do not think it would be in Canada's interest to belong to any kind of an accord where we would be compelled to sell anything that we did not really want to sell, that being bulk water.

With respect to NAFTA as it currently stands, I would like to quote the current Minister of Foreign Affairs when he stated in the House last week “The minister knows from past decades that the issue debated in this House is whether or not Canada is obliged under NAFTA to export water. Of course, it is not”.

I would also like to refer to another position. Tom Hockin who was the minister of state for small business and tourism stated in this House on September 17, 1992 “Here are the provisions under NAFTA. As in the FTA, only water packaged as a beverage or in tanks is covered in NAFTA and water itself was not discussed during the NAFTA negotiations with the U.S. or Mexico”.

If we engage in some kind of a trade dispute with the Americans or another country pertaining to water, should we step aside from the free trade agreement? I would think that would be very wrong for Canadians. I would like to point out to the member that if we have had any kind of record growth in this economy over the last number of years it has been largely due to our resource base and our export driven economy. Our trade with the Americans prior to free trade was about $90 billion in 1988. Today it is well over $240 billion.

Free trade has been very good for Canada. It has been very good for the growth of our economy. However, Canadians want to ensure that we maintain our environmental sovereignty including that of bulk water.

[Supply, February 9th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity this morning to speak to the NDP supply day motion which stipulates that the federal government act in co-operation with the provinces. I have to emphasize that very much. I want to pick up on what my learned colleague from Jonquière spoke about. It is imperative that the federal government recognize that there are jurisdictions with respect to water; they are provincial in nature rather than federal.

Having said that, the Progressive Conservative Party will support the intent of this motion that an immediate moratorium should be placed on the export of bulk freshwater shipments and interbasin transfers and that legislation should be introduced to actually do so.

Perhaps no country in the world lives off its natural resources more than Canada does. It is intrinsic on us to ensure that we have a viable environment for us to cultivate a number of the industries which actually make our economy work.

I would like to bring a little bit of perspective to this debate. In January 1984 the Conservative government established an advisory committee to make recommendations for a federal government water policy. It was known as the Pearse commission. It reported in 1985 and formed the basis of the 1987 federal government document entitled “Federal Water Policy”. The policy clearly stated that the federal government would not support the bulk export of freshwater, nor would it support the interbasin transfer of water for the purposes of export.

In 1988 amid growing fears from the public that water exports would be permitted under the FTA, the Conservative government introduced Bill C-156, the Canada water preservation act. This reiterated the same position taken in the federal water policy document. An election was called and the bill was dropped from the Order Paper. However, when parliament resumed, the Conservative government opted instead to amend the Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act to specifically exclude bulk water for the purposes of export from the agreement.

The debate resurfaced again during negotiations for NAFTA. Once again the government was forced to argue that the agreement would not compel Canadians to turn the tap on for their American neighbours. Michael Wilson, the former Minister of Industry and International Trade, said in this House on April 1, 1992 “Let me state categorically that there has not been under negotiation, nor will there be under negotiation, any provision for the large scale export of water”.

Nonetheless to calm the reoccurring fears of Canadians, the government promised to introduce a side agreement at the time of ratification with the U.S. and Mexico that ensured Canadian sovereignty over domestic waters. Charles Langlois, the former Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry and International Trade, said the following in this House on February 4, 1993:

As for water exports, Canada's position is clearly stated in the federal water policy adopted in 1987. This policy forbids large scale water exports from Canada through the diversion of lake or river water. Furthermore, section 7 of the law implementing the FTA between Canada and the U.S. clearly states that the agreement does not apply to water, except for bottled water to be drunk or stored in reservoirs. This law has been in force since January 1, 1989. Similarly the NAFTA does not include large scale water exports: the law implementing NAFTA will have a clause confirming Canada's sovereignty over its water resources.

The new Liberal government received the credit for the signed commitment as it was in power when the deal with respect to this issue was ratified. The Liberals said in their red book promises back in 1993 that they would bring forth further accords with the Americans with respect to ensuring that Canadian sovereignty over water would be held true. However, they are in the sixth year of their mandate and they still have not brought forth any substantive legislation.

The NAFTA and the FTA ensured we did not ship bulk water transfers to the United States or any other country, but things have changed. The world's desire for water has increased so it is imperative that we take this to a new level now and bring forth legislation.

[Supply, February 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to make some comments in order to set the record straight in terms of the fiscal leadership of this country.

The government claims that all of a sudden it balanced the budget. I point out quite clearly that it was Canadians who sacrificed themselves in paying high taxes who balanced the budget.

I would also like to point out that it was the Progressive Conservative government of Ralph Klein that actually led this country with respect to fiscal responsibility and debt reduction. Things like the balanced budget legislation of the Progressive Conservative government of Gary Filmon actually set that road as well.

I will say one thing quite clearly, nobody would have balanced a budget, including this finance minister, if Mike Harris and Ernie Eves did not actually get the economic engine of this country going again, that being Ontario.

I would also like to point out that because of a tax cut of Mike Harris and Ernie Eves, the province of Ontario is taking in more money, not less money, so that the province of Ontario has a chance to reinvest in health care. They are going to be giving some money back in health care. I would point out that by giving some of the money back to health care, I would equate that with taking away a loaf and only giving back a slice.

[Fisheries, February 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, earlier today on behalf of the member for Cumberland—Colchester, I contacted the minister of fisheries concerning a proposal to create a large agricultural mussel farm in the waters off Tatamagouche, Nova Scotia. The project calls for 1,200 acres to be set aside for mussel farming but many residents still have unanswered questions about the plans and how this will affect their community. Last year we wrote to the minister of fisheries and urged him to complete an environmental impact assessment to address the concerns of area residents. Will the minister announce today that he intends to respond to the concerns of the community and complete a full environmental assessment?

[Supply, February 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support the motion tabled by the Reform Party. This motion is addressing an issue that is not about partisanship. It is about doing the right thing.

The hon. minister spoke about respecting the courts. I respect the courts. I respect the judicial process. What we are looking at is doing the right thing. Here is a clear example where Canadians want us to ensure that we respect the rights of the community versus the right of the individual in this case.

We have to point out that for child pornography to exist, it means a child has been exploited. What I want to emphasize is that we need to send a very clear signal to all Canadians, to all parents that parliament will defend the rights of children.