John Herron

[Progressive Conservative Party Of New Brunswick, October 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to state that today is a great day for democracy in the province of New Brunswick.

The Progressive Conservative Party of New Brunswick is on the eve of having three members elected to the legislature in Fredericton. Those candidates are Everett Sanipass, Brad Green and our leader Bernard Lord.

Today will represent the first day of Bernard Lord's entering into the legislature in Fredericton. It will be the first day of a long electoral career.

Congratulations on Bernard Lord's victory today.

[The Environment, October 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in a few weeks environment ministers will be meeting in Buenos Aires to follow up on the Kyoto climate change conference. The provincial and federal energy ministers will be meeting in Halifax next week to discuss the Canadian position.

I hope this government has learned from its make it up as you go approach in Kyoto on climate change. It had no meaningful dialogue with Canadians, no meaningful dialogue with the provinces and at the eleventh hour meeting in Regina the agreed to position was abandoned the very next day.

Given the mistrust created by the Regina debacle, would the energy minister commit today that any position agreed to in Buenos Aires will have the full support of the provinces?

[Health Care, October 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would advise you not to break your leg in New Brunswick on a Friday night. Chances are there will be nobody available to look after you. Federal government cutbacks have affected the ability of our provinces to provide adequate health care to our rural communities. There are no incentives for young physicians to set up practice in rural communities and the ever increasing workload hampers the abilities of these towns and villages to fill vacant spots.

There are over 20 medical positions available right now in my constituency and in the surrounding region from Sussex to St. Stephen. The town of Hampton which in 1976 had eight physicians for the town and the region, as of November 1 will be serviced by only three. The last time this area had only three doctors was back in World War II.

Health care cutbacks by this government are forcing Canadian families to give up their rural way of life because it is no longer safe. The situation is serious and must be addressed immediately.

I urge this government to come up with a plan to ensure rural health care is protected. Canadians deserve adequate rural health care. Canadians deserve better.

[Supply, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I compliment the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca for his speech. I thought it was a very thoughtful presentation.

I would like to highlight something he pointed out in his comments, that is, the necessity for us to have severe minimum penalties for any kind of criminal use with respect to a firearm.

Individuals such as myself and the member I believe as well are not against gun control. This has become a very black and white debate, whether someone is for gun control or against it.

We want to be very prudent with respect to gun control and require that there be a clear acquisition certificate, that weapons and ammunition be stored under lock and key in separate places, that hunter safety courses be taken. The kind of initiatives that were part of the previous legislation actually accomplished that.

I ask the hon. member whether in his estimation would he believe that this piece of legislation, Bill C-68, is more about politics than crime prevention. Is it not more about taxation than deterring the criminal use of firearms?

[Supply, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member which I would like to preface.

I would like to ask the member whether he really believes that this piece legislation, formerly known as Bill C-68, is more about taxation than gun control. I would ask the member to share his thoughts with respect to whether he thinks that registering the long rifles of innocent deer hunters, duck hunters and farmers will have any effect on deterring the criminal use of firearms. I think ultimately it will not and the excessive registration costs which are rumoured to be in the area of $300 million to as high as $1 billion are far too excessive for our law-abiding citizens.

If we really want to deter the criminal use of firearms in this country, I would ask the hon. member to answer the question of whether this $60 million to be utilized on an annual basis would be better used to put more police on the street, to actually seriously fight crime in a real way.

I also have a more specific question for the NDP in general. In 1993 the NDP called for a national gun registry, yet during the last parliament the majority of the NDP caucus opposed Bill C-68.

In 1997 in the riding of Kings—Hants the candidate actually painted himself as being anti Bill C-68 while the member for Halifax and the NDP leader painted themselves as pro Bill C-68. Where is the position of the NDP with respect to Bill C-68?

[Aboriginal Affairs, June 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the government owned Port Radium mine employed native Deline workers, over half of whom died from work related cancer, carrying uranium ore like sacks of flour.

In order to enhance the trust the minister tried to build yesterday, will she ensure that no government communications in the future ever question the effect of uranium mining on the health of the Dene people?

[Division No. 209, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to seek unanimous consent of the House for me to reverse my vote on that last motion.

[Nunavut Act, June 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I want to discuss a point used during the hon. member's speech. I consider him to be a very constructive member of parliament who definitely wants to contribute in a very positive way to the process.

In 1993 Reformers were first elected in substantial numbers primarily in the western provinces. When they came to the House they said they were interested in providing opposition politics and in contributing to the process in the most constructive manner possible.

Last night I found myself in a very difficult situation. Before I voted on Reform's amendment to Bill C-39 I looked at our rationale for voting against it. The rationale we were given initially was that Reform wanted an elected senator for Nunavut. As someone who fundamentally believes we need more democracy in the politically system, I believe that senators should at the very least be elected. I would love to have supported the Reform amendment last night.

The amendment was that this House decline to give third reading to Bill C-39, an act to amend the Nunavut Act and the Constitution Act, 1867, since the principle of the bill does not guarantee that the government will select senators who have been lawfully elected in a territorial Senate election. Had I supported Reform's amendment I would not be able to support Bill C-39. I was forced to vote against having an elected senator because of how Reformers chose to word their amendment.

I ask the hon. member to work in a more constructive way within his caucus. If the intent of Reformers is to be constructive, when they make amendments of this sort they should use language that would actually guarantee the election of senators, as was done in Alberta. They should not decline the progress of a very important bill. That is not constructive politics.

[The Environment, June 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, last week I asked the environment minister to respond to the environment commissioner's report on this government's handling or mishandling of the environment.

This report clearly states that if the performance of the government does not improve the environment and the health of Canadians will be damaged. The commissioner states this government has no plan to protect Canada's biodiversity, no viable plan on climate change and it is failing to enforce its own environmental assessment guidelines.

Why is this minister allowing the government to deliberately abandon environment at the cabinet table?

[Environment, June 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, May 31 to June 6 has been designated World Environment Week. This is an opportunity for all Canadians to reflect on the beauty of our nation with all its forests, mountains, rivers and lakes, a landscape that defines a country. It is also a time when Canadians hope the Prime Minister will for once reflect on his poor environmental record and reconsider the importance his government gives to this portfolio.

I urge the government to tackle the problems reported by the commissioner of the environment and by the environment committee during the past few weeks.

This government has no plan to protect Canada's biodiversity. It has no viable plan to address climate change and it is failing to enforce its own environmental assessment guidelines.

I also urge the government to revisit its cuts to the department which will hamper our ability to meet our environmental commitments both at home and abroad.

This government must recognize that reducing the size of the environmental budget has a direct impact on the Canada we will leave to future generations.