Hec Clouthier

[Donkin Mine, November 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House on Motion No. 136 which calls on the government to develop the Donkin mine in Cape Breton as a crown corporation.

I join the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources in thanking the hon. member for Bras d'Or for bringing this matter before the House. There has been a great deal of debate in Cape Breton about the future of the Donkin mine. The government appreciates the opportunity to address this issue and to advise the hon. member and all Canadians of its position on this matter.

As the parliamentary secretary has noted, the Cape Breton Development Corporation, better known as Devco, is a coal mining company that currently operates not one but two coal mines as well as support facilities that include a railway, a port facility and a coal washing plant.

Devco is headquartered in Sydney which is a wonderful community. It had a great race track at one time. It holds all the coal leases for Cape Breton, including the Donkin mine on the island's east side.

The corporation is a major employer in Cape Breton and must continue to play a vital role in the long term viability of Nova Scotia's great coal mining industry. In order to do this Devco must become commercially viable. As hon. members have been informed, the corporation is continuing to lose money. By the way, that is exactly what my horses did when I raced them at Sydney, lost money.

Progress is being made but Devco still has a long way to go before it can meet the government's objective of being a commercially viable crown corporation.

Hon. members know Devco believes the key to economic profitability in the short term is not to play bingo at Stornoway but to get its current business right, to reverse the trend of annual losses by the fiscal year 1999-2000. With that in mind, this wonderful corporation has focused on achieving productivity improvements and introducing new technologies and promoting increased co-operation between management and labour and I hope between all members in this esteemed House of Commons.

As the parliamentary secretary has very clearly and unequivocally indicated, Devco will be looking at all options to get around the existing geological problem at its Phalen mine.

[Petitions, November 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of the proud citizens of the great riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

This petition calls upon the Parliament of Canada to adopt an official pledge of allegiance to the Canadian flag after consulting with Canadians on its wording.

[Supply, October 30th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to commend the hon. member for Edmonton North for her very loquacious remarks. It is rather regrettable that the hon. member had to suffer the trauma when she was very young. I know of what she speaks. I do have a great deal of empathy for her.

I would like to ask the hon. member for Edmonton North to elucidate on zero tolerance. I know that it is very difficult because when lawyers get involved and if you do have the money so to speak you can beat the charges, but I would like her to elaborate on the zero tolerance issue please.

[Supply, October 30th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley. It is a very contentious issue. I wholeheartedly support what he has said this morning.

Besides being a member of Parliament, in one of my other lives I am also a professional harness horse driver. It is interesting to note that we cannot get on a sulky and race a horse if our blood level count is over .04. I disagree that it should be lowered to .05. It should be lowered to at least .04.

The rationale behind the horse racing community is that we have to be careful and have a great concern for the equine flesh. I have far more concern for humans and believe .04 should be the threshold.

The hon. member spoke about lawyers getting involved. There is such a thing as democracy. If a person is charged with impaired driving they can go to court. It is their democratic right. They can have a very sharp lawyer, a Philadelphia lawyer. How would the hon. member ameliorate the situation with respect to lawyers? Would he be agreeable to some kind of mandatory sentencing?

It is very difficult because we are getting into the area of human rights. I agree with the thrust. I am just wondering if there is a certain component in the hon. member's motion to deal with the aspect of the lawyers getting involved and getting someone off.

[Peacekeeping, October 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege for me to pay tribute to Canada's peacekeepers.

They provide an invaluable and a necessary service to communities throughout the world. However, this commitment does not come without personal cost. These men and women leave behind wives, husbands and families in discharging their duties.

It is with this in mind that Randy Chester and group of committed volunteers have started the Home Fires Burning project. It was a personal experience for me to be at the ground breaking ceremony for the first Home Fires Burning project in all Canada at CFB Petawawa in my riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

The project's objective is to provide visible recognition for those who provide a supportive role in our military community. All they ask in return is a safe journey home of their loved ones.

I believe it is fitting and proper that we pay honour to not only the peacekeepers but to their families.

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, October 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to be in this hallowed House participating in this debate.

It is rather interesting to note that the party opposite has a void in its argument on the Canada pension plan debate and it was evinced by their void in not being here for the democratic vote. Hopefully we will not be indulging in this vituperative political rhetoric but I guess they will persist. It reminds me of last night when I left this hallowed Chamber and thought of the viciousness of their attack. It made me think that this is the last refuge for the vaguely talented on the opposite side.

Having said this I notice that one of their main points of contention in the debate is that this is a payroll tax. That is utter rubbish and nonsense. It is a pension plan. It is a contribution to a pension plan. It is not in any way shape or form a payroll tax.

We do have an employment insurance tax but we are doing everything we possibly can, and have done so since we were elected, to reduce the employment insurance tax not once, not twice but thrice. We will continue to reduce the employment insurance tax whenever we have the opportunity and the fiscal responsibility to do so.

One thing that we will not reduce is our commitment to Bill C-2. Why? Because this has not been a cursory commitment. This has not been a commitment just in the last week, the last month, the last year or the last five years. This has been a commitment for about 40 years. One of the great icons of Canadian political history and it certainly endeared myself to him to know that he was also one of the great icons of the Liberal Party, the late Paul Martin Sr., was part and parcel of the genesis of this wonderful bill.

It is rather remarkable to know that a very close relative of Paul Martin Sr., our current finance minister, continues that strong legacy. I am sure that Paul Martin Sr., being up in the hallowed house in the celestial heavens with the other saints of political history such as Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Mackenzie King and Lester Pearson, would be smiling broadly knowing that his legacy has lasted with the truly great finance minister in this Liberal Party.

I notice that members of the Reform Party used an acronym, CPP. We know it stands for Canada pension plan, but they cared to indulge in some kind of fanatical rhetoric. I do not remember it because it is not worthwhile remembering what that acronym stood for. I would say to hon. members that perhaps CPP stands for a commitment to Paul's plan. We are committed to the duty of government and we most certainly recognize the fact that the challenge of any government is to build a road for its citizens that will lead to a sense of self-satisfaction, a sense of self-esteem and a sense of fulfilment.

This coruscating Bill C-2 most certainly rises to that challenge. May I even be so bold as to say that this is a bodacious bill. Hon. members can look up that word.

I notice I have one minute left, Mr. Speaker. One further minute to expound upon the great magnanimous qualities of Bill C-2. This bill not only rises to the challenge, it supersedes it. It eclipses the challenge not only for today, not only for tomorrow, but for weeks and possibly decades to come.

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, October 7th, 1997]

It is quite obvious I agree with that. One would not have to be a rocket scientist. A mere cerebrally challenged farmer such as myself could figure that one out.

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, October 7th, 1997]

That wonderful gesture by the member opposite reminds me of something that George Bernard Shaw once said: “He thinks he knows everything, yet he knows nothing, which points clearly to a career in politics”.

Hopefully I will elucidate on the reasons I am speaking today in support of this wonderful legislation to amend the Canada pension plan.

Once again, for the benefit of members opposite, there are changes in the wind. I guess it was Heracleitus, the Greek philosopher. who said “Nothing in the world endures except change”.

We must amend some of this legislation to make it better, more propitious, more benevolent for the wonderful workers of this great country of Canada.

I have in front of me a few questions that have been asked of ordinary Canadians. I did not realize until tonight that some members opposite could not participate, would not participate or were prevented from participating in this debate. I am truly sorry for that.

We have the friendly giant across, the hon. member from Munchkinland. I see him sitting on the steps over there so he can see what is going on. Perhaps I will lend him my fedora because I am getting blinded here. He suffers from premature “defolication”.

I guess it was the hon. member for Calgary Southeast who say that business was suffering as a result of the CPP. I beg to differ. I am at variance with that. I come from the field of business. What hurt business in the last 10 to 20 years more than anything else was high interest rates. We now have the lowest interest rates in 35 years.

CPP has not prevented me from hiring anyone unless they were not good workers. Perhaps some of the members opposite might fill that bill. It was not the CPP that was stopping me from hiring people. It was the high interest rates, and now we have the lowest interest rates in 35 years and doing a remarkable job.

How do the proposed changes make the CPP more sustainable, affordable and fair for Canadians? Just the simple fact we have raised these premiums a bit, it is sustaining everything for our entire lifetime. Some members opposite could live to be 75 or 80 years of age, although some of them already look like they are octogenarians.

I will go on now to the affordability. Certainly it is affordable. We have six years before it gets up to the top premium price of 9.9%.

Is it fair? Certainly it is fair. I want some of the hon. members opposite who are under the age of 30, mere pups, to take advantage of the wonderful system we are putting in place. The hon. member for Elk Island will not be around that long to look after it, but some of the younger members under the age of 30, still in diapers, will be able to look after it.

Another question is will the CPP be there for me when I retire. I am having so much fun here I do not think I will ever retire. I will not have to take advantage of this. With the system we have put in place to look after the pension plan, it will be there for one and all when we retire, if we so choose to retire.

Here is the question the Reform Party is very interested in. It was asked at many committee meetings. Instead of making changes why don't you scrap the CPP? Can't better pensions be provided through RRSPs?

My answer is simply that Reform Party members have clearly indicated through their own actuaries that the RRSP program is more expensive than the CPP. Why? Not only would they be contributing to their own RRSPs. They also must pay for the benefits that have accrued through the CPP.

That in itself should be clear evidence to the members opposite.

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, October 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, good afternoon.

[Canada Pension Plan, October 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development.

In recent years the number of applications for CPP disability benefits have increased dramatically, thereby necessitating that these payments be paid in a timely fashion.

My question is simply this. Mr. Parliamentary Secretary, can you share with the House—