Hec Clouthier

[Budget Implementation Act, 2000, June 1st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, unlike the previous speaker, I am definitely here to defend the rights of all Canadian citizens. I want to make that perfectly clear to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the entire House.

I have some great concerns about the amendments that are proposed to Bill C-32. In particular, clause 35 of Bill C-32 is consequential on clause 36, the substantive provision of this act. I will therefore speak to why the government cannot accept the motions to delete clauses 35 and 36 of Bill C-32.

Clauses 35 and 36 amend the Excise Tax Act to address the issue of tax evasion. These measures are intended to deal with exceptional circumstances where there is clear and unequivocal evidence of an intention to evade the payment of tax and where the collection of taxes is therefore in perilous jeopardy.

There are important safeguards in the use of this measure. In particular, the Minister of National Revenue must apply to court for judicial authorization. The court can place whatever condition it deems appropriate on that order. The court order is then subject to appeal by the taxpayer. There is a process in place that is to be followed and can be followed by each and every taxpayer in this country.

A similar provision relating to income tax already exists in the Income Tax Act. The proposed measure would give the Minister of National Revenue the same tools to protect against tax evasion under the Excise Tax Act as he has for income tax purposes.

For these reasons and many more, the government believes this is an important measure and we cannot accept this motion. Although it is not surprising, considering the fact that the hon. member for Medicine Hat said he wants to in some way, shape or form, actually delay, under Bill C-32, the delivery of over $2.5 billion in increased payments under the CHST. That in itself speaks volumes for the hon. member for Medicine Hat and his party for their basic thinking of the way Canada should be run and the way we should evolve under our taxation system. Without a doubt, they are unequivocal in their support of the scandalous and scurrilous flat tax. My dad used to say that if something is too good to be true, it usually is. That is definitely the case with this flat tax system.

We all know that the vast majority of the MPs in the Canadian Alliance, not counting a few of them present here today, basically think along the American tradition. They want to Americanize our country Canada especially with regard to the taxation system and the way we distribute the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars to make the social fabric of our country the best in the entire world. But they do not want to do that. They want the Napoleonic version of life where might makes right; look after the rich and forget about the middle income people and most assuredly forget about the poor people.

Let me tell hon. members who will benefit from the flat tax. The rich will benefit, because under the flat tax proposal, people making about $40,000 a year will pay about the same tax that they are currently paying under our system, but those people making $100,000 would pay approximately $4,000 less. Does that seem fair? It certainly does not seem fair to me and I know it does not seem fair to the Canadian public.

If it was such a great tax, why would the American friends of the hon. member for Medicine Hat not embrace this tax with open arms? The ultra right-wing of the Republican Party, Newt Gingrich himself, has decried this flat tax saying it will not work. The reason it will not work is simply that under the flat tax system there will be less money brought in to the revenues of this country. Therefore, we would not have the same amount of taxpayers' dollars to distribute, to make Canada and equitable place for all citizens to live in.

Under the flat tax we would not be bringing in as much money, so what does the Canadian Alliance plan to do? The CA most assuredly plans to eviscerate our social system. CA members have already said that. They are on the move. One of its members currently sitting here is running for the CA leadership. He is talking about a two tier health care system. Let us Americanize the health care system. There is a bright idea. He must be a 100 watt bulb. In America 38 million people as we speak are not covered under health insurance. The single public payer use system we have in Canada is recognized around the world as the very best there is on planet Earth.

Many other countries, including the United States of America, would like nothing better than to move to our medicare system. Under the flat tax we would not be able to have that because we would not be bringing in the proper amount of money to look after our medicare system. Why would we not have enough money? Because the rich people would not be paying near the income tax they should be paying.

I for one believe that the more that we gain out of the country, the more that we prosper, the more that we should be willing to share with our fellow citizens. But not under the flat tax system. Under the flat tax system the rich pay less and the poor get more. By more I mean they get more right in the ear. They would not get a darn thing extra out of the flat tax system. They lose, they lose and they lose, because there would not be money in there to make the system work.

The hon. member for Medicine Hat espouses the great benefits of the flat tax but maybe he should join the flat earth society because it just will not work. He knows it and hon. members opposite know it. That is part and parcel of their amendments to Bill C-32.

I have got the ire up of the big fellow across the way, but he knows we are right. He knows that the Liberal government is reducing the taxes. We have reduced taxes by $58 billion in the last three to four years and we will further reduce them. We are on the road to economic recovery.

Canada is recognized without a doubt as the best country in the world in which to live. The former leader of the hon. members opposite is now running as the leader for a new party. He happened to be flying around the world on taxpayers' dollars a couple of years ago and said, “Canada is a third world country. Do not come to invest in Canada”. Is that the type of person we want running this tax?

I just noticed that the hon. member for Medicine Hat is listening to what I have to say. I do not know if he will get up and make a comment but I would like him to make a comment on the flat tax system.

[Maurice “The Rocket” Richard, May 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, hockey is the tie that binds the country together. Today we have lost a link that united all hockey fans. Maurice “The Rocket” Richard was not only loved and respected by all Canadians. He was a hero, a symbol of all that is great and good about this spectacular sport. His No. 9 sweater has been woven into the fabric of the Canadian conscience.

As a child growing up in a family crazy about the Montreal Canadiens, Richard was an inspiration. When he touched the puck his eyes glowed the Rocket's red glare. He was the first player in history to score 50 goals in 50 games. His playoff record of six overtime goals still stands today.

Most Canadians were not even born when Richard played. He retired after the 1960 season, after another Stanley Cup victory. It has been 40 years since the late Maurice “The Rocket” Richard thrilled with his skills, but the impact he made has spanned generations. His legend will never die.

[Committees Of The House, May 16th, 2000]

Very bad. Vous êtes méchante.

[Committees Of The House, May 16th, 2000]

I was not here then.

[Committees Of The House, May 16th, 2000]

It is like a Christmas present.

[Natural Gas, May 12th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am indeed delighted to participate in this very worthwhile debate today.

With regard to the hon. member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, I am a little surprised. Although he does speak very eloquently and very passionately for the cause in which he believes, I noticed that throughout his dissertation he kept using the word “think” many times: I think, I think, I think.

It might have been a relative of his for all I know, but there was a famous king called Solomon who at one time said that people use thought or thinking only to conceal their actions and speech to conceal their thoughts. I know it is a little twist in the words but I am just trying to figure out what he is trying to conceal.

I believe that perhaps he is trying to conceal the real agenda of his party, which is basically debt driven. His party is of the belief that the government, the taxpayer of Canada, should, in all circumstances, financially support any institution that they believe in their own minds—and I disagree with him on that—the people need. I personally believe that people need to take responsibility for their actions.

I would like to take this opportunity to address the motion on natural gas put forth by the hon. member for Churchill River. It is the government's current energy policy not to fund any megaprojects but to leave the competitive market to decide what goes forward and what does not. It is our firm belief that we should not be an interventionist government with regard to megaprojects. This is one reason, among a few others, that we have difficulty in supporting the hon. member's motion.

I understand the hon. member's desire to ensure an environmentally friendly and secure energy source for his region, but that is what Canada's approach to the complex, evolving global challenge of climate change is all about. We see it as a challenge that is both environmental and economic. We on this side of the House look upon challenges as opportunities in work clothes to work for the benefit of each and every Canadian, to work for the benefit of each and every province; in other words, the opportunity to do the right thing.

The Kyoto protocol in December 1997 reaffirmed the conviction among some 160 countries that six commonly identified greenhouse gases were accumulating in the world's atmosphere to the point that they must be altering the earth's climate. The majority of global scientific opinion suggests that human conduct is certainly contributing to climate change.

The protocol involved a commitment on the part of the industrialized world to bring down greenhouse gas emissions. This action is much like an insurance policy against those future risks. Just like buying insurance, we cannot get the coverage we should have had after the fact. We must do it before.

For Canada our Kyoto target is minus six, to get our emissions down during the period between 2008 and 2012 to 6% below the level they were in 1990. We are well on our way to that, but it will not be easy. Nothing in the world is easy, unless we are constantly critics. If we constantly criticize, that is easy, but when we have to make definitive decisions that will have a positive impact on the people of Canada things on occasion are not easy.

The hon. member opposite spoke about Canada's northern climate. I come from northern Ontario so I know of what she speaks, but Canada's northern climate, vast distances, increasing population, increasing production, and its resource based and energy intensive economy make our commitment to that road much more difficult to meet. If we can carry on from this point forward with no changes and business as usual, by the year 2010 Canada's greenhouse gas emissions will rise to about 26% above our Kyoto target.

We obviously have to slow down that trajectory, to flatten it out and then turn it downward to reach our target within this decade. Where we will be when it ends will depend on how astute we are at managing our domestic change challenges in relation to the rest of the world. We need to marry strong environmental performance with a strong economy. The Canadian public wants to have both together.

About 79% of human made GHG emissions are related to the way we produce, transport and consume energy. The more energy efficient we become, the fewer emissions we generate. The more we achieve in this regard through greater energy efficiency, the less we will have to rely on other means to satisfy our Kyoto protocol commitments.

Across our entire national economy in every sector, in every individual behaviour, each and every one of us must achieve energy efficient excellence. From a government policy perspective we have thus far used a variety of tools to achieve greater energy efficiency. For one thing we have tried to improve our own operations within the Government of Canada. We are on track to slash our emissions by more than 20% and to reach that goal by the year 2005. People can make informed decisions about energy use. The EnerGuide label for equipment, houses and vehicles is a great illustration.

The third tool is peer group challenges like the VCR, the voluntary challenge registry, where industries and business pledge to improve their performances and report their progress in a tangible and public way.

There are incentives like Natural Resources Canada commercial buildings program which puts up some cash to encourage developers and builders to incorporate best practices from the ground up. Hand in hand with these tools we must achieve a faster rate of new technology development and timely deployment of new technology. This is the key underpinning for everyone's use.

Let us consider an innovation like Solarwall, for example, developed by Conserval Engineering. It is a new solar based energy saving technique for large building ventilation systems. It requires modestly increased one time construction costs, but it generates significant savings in ongoing operating costs year after year. We get a more efficient ventilation system, fewer greenhouse gas emissions and a growing market across North American and around the world.

We must build our capacity for efficiency innovation in government labs, in academic institutions and in the private sector. We must put that knowledge to work quickly in the marketplace. Federally we are moving in that direction, specifically in each of the last four federal budgets. Within Natural Resources Canada about $100 million each year are normally invested in research for climate change solutions. Other federal departments add another $50 million annually.

The bottom line in all this is that there is no one simple answer. Regretfully, although I have great respect and admiration for my colleague from Churchill, I cannot support the hon. member's motion because it advocates a megaproject policy for energy which has been replaced, as we speak, by a successful, competitive market based approach.

The focus of the Government of Canada's policy is on providing environmentally friendly and secure energy solutions for all Canadians. This approach encourages energy solutions through initiatives that address the complex global challenge. In my great riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke I have two of Canada's greatest diversified energy producers: a hydro electric dam at des-Joachims and the Atomic Energy of Canada Laboratories in Chalk River.

We need to be the very best. We need to be the most intelligent, innovative and efficient at finding, developing, producing, delivering, consuming and exporting the world's most sophisticated and diversified energy products, skills, services and science. The Liberal government will be very ambitious in this regard. The upper Ottawa valley is leading the way. My great riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke is at the cutting edge. I believe that is a worthy Canadian ambition for one and all.

[Justice, May 12th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I unequivocally support parts of Bill C-17 which would reduce cruelty to animals, but I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice to assure the House that this legislation will not egregiously affect those who are involved in business and animal related industries, including fishing.

[Samuel De Champlain, May 12th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, nearly 400 years ago, in 1603, Samuel de Champlain began years of exploring and mapping eastern Canada from the St. Lawrence to the Great Lakes.

In 1613 Champlain lost one of his navigational instruments, an astrolabe, near Cobden in my great riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. Over 200 years later that astrolabe was found by a local farm boy and is now on display at the Museum of Civilization across the river in Hull.

In 1632 Champlain published a detailed map of Canada as it was known at that day and it has been acknowledged as a masterwork of Canadian cartography.

He wrote:

The great love I have always had for making discoveries in New France made me more and more eager to travel this proud country so as to have a perfect knowledge of it.

Nearly 400 years later that spirit of discovery is with us today in the form of students who are visiting from Champlain Discovery School in Pembroke. I salute these young students who will be our celebrated cyberspace explorers in the 21st century.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2000, April 13th, 2000]

That is wrong and the member knows it.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2000, April 13th, 2000]

That is the province.