John Herron

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, November 27th, 1997]

We are going to save the Canada pension plan.

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, November 27th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I noticed that many of the amendments before the House simply want to delete items from the bill. They do not try to improve and they do not try to compromise. They think that whenever they do not like something, it should be scrapped. They do not think about the ultimate consequences and ultimate responsibility. We have to be careful that we do not throw the baby out with the bath water.

We in the Progressive Conservative Party believe that the CPP must be saved. Canadians deserve it and future generations of Canadian deserve it as well.

Our plan for the Canada pension plan which our amendments speak to has to be discussed today.

We know that payroll taxes kill jobs. The communique “The Economist”, speaks to the fact that if we lower payroll taxes it will ultimately create jobs, but also that if we raise payroll taxes it will kill jobs.

The Canada pension plan provides a survivor's benefit. The government wants to raise the premiums by 73% and we know that will kill jobs. We believe that premiums have to be increased in order to save the Canada pension plan and make it viable. Canadians want the Canada pension plan.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business is possibly one of the most democratic business organizations in the country. It polled 88,000 of its members. They said unequivocally and categorically that the Canada pension plan is part of the small business owner's plan for retirement. It is something that has to be saved. However, they know that payroll taxes will continue to kill jobs.

There is a $14 billion surplus in the EI fund. For the government not to connect that with the increase in CPP premiums will actually kill jobs. We propose that if we have to raise premiums, we must at a minimum lower EI premiums. When the chief actuary visited the issue with respect to the EI fund, it was said that the EI fund would be sustainable at $2 and would still be able to withstand a severe recession.

The government has lowered EI premiums by a mere 20¢, from $2.90 down to $2.70. During question period today I was afraid that the Prime Minister would say that he was going to raise them back up to $2.80 because he was a little confused about the reduction. Reducing the premiums to $2.70 is only a drop in the bucket. We need to get the premiums down to somewhere near $2. This would be good for small business. It would be good for Canadians. It would save the Canada pension plan and would ensure that we saved jobs.

Some of the amendments before us do not recognize the need for change. They do not recognize that we just cannot play around with people's pensions. We cannot eliminate what we do not like without any regard for the consequences.

Actually, this lack of responsibility reminds us of another party's plan for the Canada pension plan. I think you know who they are, Mr. Speaker.

The Reform Party tried to save face by presenting a few amendments to the bill. In fact, we agree with both measures that it proposes. But let us remind everybody that this is not a change of heart.

The Reform Party wants to eliminate the Canada pension plan and jeopardize one of the fundamental pillars of our retirement savings program. I agree with a lot of initiatives that the Reform Party presents from time to time, but there are some initiatives which are just plain wrong and some people might even say just plain kooky.

Reform's plan to eliminate the Canada pension plan would ensure that 325,000 disabled Canadians whose only source of income is the Canada pension plan would not have access to income from the CPP. The party to my left wants to scrap the Canada pension plan and leave 325,000 disabled Canadians without a source of income. I say shame on them. If that party were the government, the Canada pension plan would be over.

I campaigned for 36 days during the election this past May. Mr. Speaker, you did as well. You were there talking about the different issues in the election. We talked about the need to cut taxes, pay down the debt, get our fiscal house in order and restore fiscal conservatism to this House and to this country.

During the 36 days of the campaign, CPP came up on occasion. Every single day of that campaign I asked the Reform candidate who ran against me what Reform was going to do about the $500 billion unfunded liability. Unfunded liability. What are Reform going to do with the $500 billion unfunded liability? Mr. Speaker, when I was on the campaign trail, and maybe when you were there as well, Reformers did not have an answer. They did not have an answer for what they would do with the $500 billion unfunded liability.

[The Environment, November 26th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. He raises a very important issue.

It is possible that the result in Kyoto could be no deal. Just because there is no deal, does that mean we should continue our inaction on this issue? I say no.

We have to make an effort to engage the developing countries because China and India are the second and fifth largest emitters of carbon dioxide in the world. At a minimum we have to try to engage the developing nations. I believe we can work in a very constructive fashion to bring in a phased in program for the developing countries.

At the end of the day whatever position is reached in Kyoto, or perhaps not, the challenge before us from a Canadian perspective is to show a leadership role and to develop a very distinct implementation strategy for the country.

[The Environment, November 26th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, Canada has always been regarded as a world leader and a driving force on critical issues which threaten the preservation of our environment.

The Progressive Conservative years were characterized by action and leadership. In contrast this government is long on improvising and short on planning and implementation when it comes to protecting the environment and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This is just as true for the last four years as it has been for the last four weeks.

The Kyoto conference on climate change is less than one week away. This government is flying by the seat of its pants and has said nothing about its position for Kyoto. What it fails to recognize is that any target is irrelevant when there is no plan in place to achieve it.

In absence of an implementation strategy, set targets amount to nothing more than good intentions. To be effective, our position must be informed by science, enhanced by government and anchored in society's will. Only when society is fully engaged will our policies and strategies succeed.

The issue of climate change is real and it is complex. It is a fact that there is a discernible human influence on global climate change.

It is true that the world's scientists do not know the exact consequences. However it is a disservice to misrepresent to Canadians that the science is divided as some of my colleagues in this House have tried to do.

I actually understand why the Reform Party does not understand the science beyond this and it does not believe in global warming. I think it is because it still lives in the ice age.

As a northern and a marine nation we must be resolute in addressing this very serious problem. Global warming from a Canadian perspective is indeed a national problem. It challenges the environment of the town of Charlottetown, P.E.I. For the Reform members who actually represent some seats in western Canada, it also threatens the Fraser River delta in British Columbia.

This government's made in the U.S.A. approach is not leadership. The science and technology that addresses climate change is evolving. A target a decade or more away is likely to become irrelevant as the science continues to evolve. However the PC party will accept reaching 1990 levels by the year 2010 as an interim target as long as an implementation strategy accompanies this target.

The Minister of the Environment stated in this Chamber on October 22, 1997 in referring to the earth summit in Rio, “Frankly with respect when we made our commitment in Rio in 1992 we really were not aware of what we had to do to achieve our target”. The environment minister should heed her own advice. Without an implementation strategy we will not build on the global efforts of the past five years in Rio, Berlin and Geneva.

The government has been so focused on trying to arrive at a target that it has forgotten to develop an implementation strategy for home. It has been conspicuously quiet on its negotiating strategy in relation to economic instruments and in clarifying what is not on the Kyoto table. In no way should a Kyoto position include potential trade sanctions for any non-compliance.

As the auditor general has stated, the government has a vast implementation gap when addressing environmental issues.

Some hon. members across the way like to raise the record of the previous Conservative government to deflect attention away from their actions or lack thereof over the last four years on perhaps any subject.

My next comments may not be focused on the members in the House today, but they may be addressed to some of the individuals in the front row such as the finance minister, the defence minister, the fisheries minister and so on. The fisheries minister blamed us for the problems with respect to the salmon treaty when we were able to negotiate a deal.

If the Liberals want to compare records, our party is up to the challenge, especially with respect to the environment. Perhaps hon. members across they way forget that it was our party and our leader who developed the 1992 green plan. It was our government that brought in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to control toxins. This government has failed to pass one piece of significant environmental legislation. Our party was responsible for the Montreal protocol which committed over 24 nations to the reduction of ozone depleting gases. Today over 150 countries have ratified this protocol.

Even the finance minister is trying to get in on the act. He claims that when the Liberals came into government—we heard his tirade the other day—nothing had been done on the environment. I remind the finance minister that we signed an air quality accord with the U.S. to control air pollution. Under our government and our leader we announced further measures for acid rain control. Under our leader Canada was the first country to ratify the UN conventions on biodiversity and greenhouse gas emissions. Under our leader we introduced a national protocol on packaging to reduce waste.

This government's record cannot even begin to match what was accomplished for the environment when our party and our leader were in government. For this government the environment has not been a priority.

On the greenhouse gas debate the government has not fully engaged the public at large, NGOs, municipalities and for that matter the provinces. While the minister has claimed she has been in dialogue with the provinces, the fact remains this government has not come forth with initiatives or economic instruments that will enable citizens, municipalities or even the provinces to implement any accord derived from Kyoto.

The Progressive Conservative Party realizes that Kyoto is not a conclusion but rather a small yet significant step forward in our collective political, social, economic and industrial adaptation to meet the challenge of climate change. Our party's focus is on developing a strategy that will enable us to meet our obligations. We have also focused on the mechanisms our government must present to the world community to be developed with both the industrialized and developing nations.

A global problem like climate change requires global solutions. The debate on reducing emissions must move away from the focus on who will lose as opposed to how we get the job done with as many win-win solutions as possible. An international solution must include commitments to develop international emissions trading systems, a joint implementation strategy and an acknowledgement of Canada's potential to be a carbon sink.

Engagement of developing countries may be the most critical issue that challenges our ability to address global warming. Even if the industrialized nations are able to achieve significant reductions, the current rate of emissions growth in the developing world will still pose a problem.

Our made in Canada solution must be market driven, incentive based and focused on developing new technologies. New taxes are not part of a constructive solution.

The natural resource minister has said that progress toward a target can be made in setting energy efficiency standards, promoting technological advances and educating consumers on energy savings.

The minister is right, yet the government has lacked the initiative to implement a regime that supports these very comments. If the minister truly believes this is the case, why do we only allocate $20 million annually to promote investment in both energy efficiency and renewable energy?

Without adequate funding for research and development and energy efficiency, and without incentives for early action for industry, Canada will continue to lag behind competing nations in this field which is full of vast opportunities for Canadians.

The implementation gap must be closed on public education as well. Most Canadians are unaware the everyday choices they made on an individual level can make a real difference.

Since the government has taken office the number of energy efficient R-2000 homes being built in Canada has fallen by 55%. Governments have a responsibility to enhance and level the playing field for the development and adoption of renewable sources of energy. Equitable tax incentives must be introduced for wind, solar and expanded hydro supply of energy.

A modern transportation policy must be developed for the 21st century. Challenging the automotive industry to develop more energy efficient vehicles is a component. The transportation sector is responsible for over one-third of carbon dioxide emissions in Canada.

In addition, we must move away from using carbon intensive fuels, such as moving from coal to natural gas wherever possible. This no regrets philosophy is the cornerstone of developing a workable solution.

I reiterate that environmental decisions made by governments which will affect us greatly into the 21st century must be informed by science. These decisions, in turn, must be enhanced by government, which has the responsibility to enhance the collective will and to provide leadership. Only when policies and strategies are anchored in society's will can they succeed.

I close by quoting the hon. member for Davenport who stated in June 1994 “If our voices our strong, the speed of progress will be swift”.

[The Environment, November 26th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I have a couple of questions for my hon. colleague. I find a couple of points to be a bit confusing.

The hon. member said that this was a global problem which required a global solution. I do not understand. Some of his remarks, and definitely those of his leader, actually refuted science and questioned whether the science actually existed.

Why would they recognize on the one hand that the science is questionable and then on the other hand come forward and say it is a global problem?

I find rather confusing. Reform is all over the map on this issue.

The hon. member was reported in the Ottawa Citizen of October 25, 1997 as saying that environmental taxes may be part of the equation if they are dedicated. I actually believe the Reform Party does not like taxes, but I do not understand why it would advocate taxing something that is not a problem.

[Environment, November 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question was quite precise. I asked whether any positions derived from Kyoto would be subject to a vote in this House? That was the question I asked.

The Minister of the Environment has just stated that she has been in dialogue with her provincial counterparts. Next week on November 12 there is a meeting with the provincial energy ministers and provincial environment ministers and today they still do not know what the agenda for that meeting will be. When will they know the agenda? What will be discussed? More important, they will be asked to sign on to a position that they have no idea—

[Environment, November 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, when referring to Canada's position on greenhouse gas emissions, the Prime Minister said last week in this House “Our position will, I hope, be acceptable to all Canadians”.

One month before Kyoto all they can do is cross their fingers and hope. Apparently it is a coin toss whether the Prime Minister impedes the progress of industry or negotiates away Canada's reputation as an environmental world leader.

Will the Prime Minister at least consult Canadians? Will he commit today to having any position derived from Kyoto subject to a vote in this House?

[Environment, October 30th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the province of Alberta has clearly stated it will not support any target the federal government sets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. This clearly indicates that all provinces are not on side despite the minister's claims of open dialogue. Obviously open dialogue does not mean full partnership.

How does the lack of support from the provinces affect her strategy, hoping there is one, to implement Canada's Kyoto targets? Will the prime minister commit today to having any position derived from Kyoto subject to the approval of the House to provide Canadians with at least some consultation?

[National Shipbuilding Policy, October 29th, 1997]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should actively develop an innovative National Shipbuilding Policy which focuses on making ship yards internationally competitive by providing tax incentives and construction financing comparable to what is being provided elsewhere in the world and which ensures reasonable access to foreign markets, particularly the United States of America; and should recognize that such a policy would not provide direct subsidies, but create alternatives methods of support to ensure the growth of the industry.

Mr. Speaker, it is with the utmost of honour that I introduce my motion which calls on the government to review, revitalize and renew Canada's shipbuilding policy.

For the past number of months various sectors have been pleading, in fact demanding, development of a national shipbuilding policy. A focused and unified consortium of stakeholders recognize the industry is in need of governmental leadership and initiatives to ensure the future of a strong, self-sufficient and export driven industry.

These stakeholders include the Shipbuilder's Association of Canada and the Canadian Ship Owners Association. Labour is represented by the Marine Workers Federation and even all 10 provincial premiers are on side.

This motion addresses the need for policies and initiatives to ensure Canadian shipyards have reasonable access to international markets. Today's debate brings the issue to the forum where change must and can only be delivered, on the floor of this House.

My objective is for the House to recognize through constructive debate what others know to be true, that the federal government has a responsibility to respond to the needs of Canada's shipbuilding industry.

I stress the need for all members to reach a consensus so this issue will reach the desk of the Minister of Industry in an urgent fashion. Reaching a consensus would be a major step forward for the shipyards and individuals who earn their living in this high tech industry.

Before we get into detail, the support and changes that I and the industry are advocating are not about subsidies. We are calling for changes to simplify regulations to enable our shipyards to compete. These changes would do more for the industry than any subsidy ever could.

The industry recognizes the way it has been supported in the past by government contracts will not continue. It is eager to find new markets internationally where it knows it can compete. This is the key to the success of a shipbuilding industry and our ability to be competitive in a global marketplace.

Canada's marine industry employs 40,000 people nationwide and adds over $2 billion to gross domestic product. Canadian shipbuilders have rationalized 40% of their shipbuilding capacity over the last decade. They have become more efficient and are lower cost producers.

The industry has evolved and modernized. What it needs now are initiatives to use this modernization to be able to compete. Canadian shipyards are now high tech companies supporting Canada's ocean and marine shipboard technology and are part of an industry with a future, yet we continue to impede their progress with a paternalistic approach.

The federal government has no specific industrial or trade policy dealing with shipbuilding. The international trade business plan, Canada's integrated plan for trade, investment, technology and development, does not include shipbuilding.

While this motion does not call for subsidies, I think we need to recognize that all other shipbuilding nations have direct subsidies or a variety of programs that enable them to compete internationally. Canada does not. This forces us to compete on an uneven playing field.

At the same time, Canadian shipyards have become more competitive by incorporating new technologies and processes, adding new equipment and modern facilities. The fact is that Canadian shipyards could be cost competitive with other European Economic Community and United States shipyards building naval ships today and have the potential to become competitive building merchant ships if we had the opportunity to compete on a more level playing field.

Shipbuilding is a relatively labour intensive activity, thus labour costs have a major impact on the total shipbuilding cost. Over the past 10 years hourly wages in Canada have gone from being among the highest in the mid-1980s to near the lowest in 1996 when compared to European and American shipyards. This is a result of significant currency exchanges, improved Canadian efficiency and rising labour costs abroad.

Due to excess subsidies, low cost shipbuilding nations such as Korea, China, Poland, Ukraine, Brazil and Spain target low technology ships such as crude tankers and bulk carriers with high steel content and low outfitting needs. Canadian shipyards cannot, would not and have no interest in participating in this aggressive market.

While some nations are losing their market share in shipbuilding, others are finding success in specialty niche construction. Canadian shipyards would focus on product carriers, chemical carriers, offshore vessels and specialty ships requiring special paint coatings, improved steel treatment and specific instrumentation, navigation and communication systems. These ships are presently built in high wage areas, such as the EU, Japan and the United States.

Over the past decade Canadian government procurement has been the main source of work for domestic shipyards. However, because of shrinking government budgets and reduced government requirements for ships, new markets must be found.

International markets provide the only possible military and commercial shipbuilding opportunities for larger Canadian firms. In the near term the commercial market offers the best prospects for maintaining and/or expanding production.

Considering the fact that only 2% to 3% of Canadian shipyard capacity is exported today, there is a real opportunity for the government to assume a leadership role and empower the industry to grow. Canadian policies must support both international market entry and sales to Canadian operators and owners. We must agree that the future of the shipbuilding industry in Canada is tied to its ability to compete in the international commercial shipbuilding markets.

Shipbuilding construction has shown consistent increase in demand since the early 1980s. Shipyards around the world are preparing for continued growth. The longer Canadian shipyards wait, the more difficult it will be to enter these international markets.

Canadian officials continually point to the need to follow the 1979 OECD agreement, yet we are the only country to abide by these terms. Members of the EU generally provide direct subsidies to their shipyards of up to 9% of construction costs. Other assistance, such as research and development, tax benefit programs and export financing are also provided.

Providing subsidies is not a solution that I am advocating. It is not a made in Canada solution. There are alternatives which would enable Canada to compete on a more level playing field which do not involve subsidies.

The premiers, the Canadian Shipbuilding Association and other stakeholders believe that there are financial mechanisms used by the Americans which could form part of our Canadian solution.

First of all, the U.S. federal ship financing program, known as Title 11, is a good example. After a long absence from the international commercial market, U.S. shipbuilders have appeared in the world order book compliments of Title 11. This financing program recognizes the common practice of ship buyers demanding a financial package as part of the total sales package.

Title 11, established in 1936, provides for federal government guarantees of private sector financing for the construction of U.S. ships for both domestic and foreign ship owners. The success of the Title 11 export financing and loan guarantee program is an indisputable success.

In fiscal year 1996 more than $1 billion U.S. in U.S. ships were exported and delivered courtesy of Title 11 guarantees. It is worth noting that there has not been a default under this program. There has been no cost to the U.S. government since it was established in 1936.

A second initiative which the shipbuilding stakeholders support involves revisions to Revenue Canada leasing regulations. Leased financing has become a predominant method of financing significant capital items. The current regulations make the ownership of leased financing of a Canadian ship uneconomical.

Accelerated depreciation was the backbone of the shipbuilding industry only a few years ago and resulted in many ships being built. The industry is imploring the government to visit this initiative immediately. There is no reason the government cannot take that step right away. It is not precedent setting and it would make a significant difference in additional activity and reduce social costs to the government.

Major items of capital equipment are already exempt from existing Revenue Canada leasing regulations, such as computers, rail cars, trucks and others.

The industry also wants to see the one-sided aspects of NAFTA eliminated. The American 1920 Jones Act legislates that cargo carried between American ports must be carried aboard American ships that are American built, registered, owned, crewed, repaired and serviced exclusively by American firms. Otherwise they are open to free trade. This legislation was exempted from the FTA and from NAFTA.

Canadian shipbuilders do not have access to the American market which is our natural market, yet American shipbuilders have the right to sell to the Canadian market duty free. This unfair and imbalanced version of free trade puts Canadian shipbuilders at a severe disadvantage. The chances of reaching a quick resolution with the Americans are slim because protectionism has pervaded U.S. shipbuilding policy since 1920, as we found out in FTA and in NAFTA.

However it is possible for us to revisit the Jones Act using a strategic piecemeal approach. We need to push for bilateral agreements on certain types of ships and vessels. I think all members would agree that some form of market penetration is better than none.

Currently U.S. grain exporters are unhappy with the Jones Act as they perceive the legislation to be an infinite tariff that has reduced competition and driven up shipping costs. This represents an American chink in the Jones Act armour which may enable better dialogue on possible bilateral agreements later on.

When referring to the government strategy for better economic and industrial development in Atlantic Canada the Minister of Industry stated:

The emphasis has to be on working with community strengths and building on community advantages, and not on wielding a pot full of cash and dispensing it to people on the basis of who they know and who they voted for in the last election.

I agree with the Minister of Industry on this issue. If he wants to work with the community strengths and the community advantages he need not look any further than Canada's modernized state of the art shipyards.

We have highly tooled yards and highly skilled labour. What we do not have is access to markets. Subsidies, or as the minister said a pot full of money, are not needed but a national policy that faces up to the realities of the global marketplace is.

The industry has proven that it is competitive. What it needs is export financing, revisions to Revenue Canada leasing regulations, and attempts at bilateral trade discussions to ensure we have access to our natural markets. A combination of any one of these initiatives would create jobs and make the industry more viable.

The development of a national shipbuilding policy has widespread support. The member for Saint John has been a tireless supporter of the shipbuilding industry since she has become a member of Parliament and during 20 years in municipal politics as well.

At the first ministers meeting in July the premiers recognized the challenges currently faced by Canadian shipbuilders in their efforts to become internationally competitive. They recognized the need for a national shipbuilding policy. The industry and the ship owners association are calling for a national policy.

The current finance minister stated in 1988 as owner of Canada Steamship Lines why he had to have ships built in Brazil:

I fought hard to have the ships built in Canada but was unable to convince the government of the need to have an aggressive shipbuilding policy. If we are not going to do that we will never be a factor in commercial shipping.

All these folks are not wrong. Simply put, we need to develop a modern policy to give Canada access to international markets. While I am pleased that constructive debate is taking place, I believe it is a great injustice that we are not able to vote on this matter.

Therefore I would like to seek unanimous consent of the House to make Motion No. 214 a votable motion. This is a national policy that benefits shipyards in Vancouver on the western coast, inland shipyards whether in Quebec or Ontario, and in Atlantic Canada as well.

This is a national policy. All we are imploring the government to do is to begin dialogue. Everybody wants a national shipbuilding strategy: the ship owners, the workers, the premiers and I believe members of Parliament.

[The Environment, October 27th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, last week the United States announced its position on greenhouse gas emissions for the Kyoto conference on climate change. Canada is the only G-7 country that has not made its position public. It is unacceptable that the government is not prepared for an international treaty that is less than two months away.

Will the minister make public prior to the Kyoto conference Canada's position on greenhouse gas emissions? Will the minister guarantee the full support of her provincial counterparts? If so, does a strategy to implement the—