Philip Mayfield

[Aboriginal Affairs, October 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the public accounts of Canada were tabled yesterday. There we find some $200 billion—that is $200,000 million—in specific aboriginal claims that the federal government will have to deal with.

Considering that government revenues for the year are only about $147 billion, what does the government plan to do with these enormous demands on the treasury?

Last week it was $5 billion to pay for work of equal value and this week it is $200 billion for aboriginal claims.

There is not enough money in Canada for the government to pay out these demands. Where does the buck stop?

Grassroots aboriginal people have been largely excluded from the government payout loop. Why will the government not listen to aboriginal people who need the money and give them individual property rights and the money they need to take their place on an equal footing with all Canadians?

There is not enough money in Canada to pay the $200 billion. There has to be a better way that all Canadians can live with.

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, October 26th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I believe the member has missed the point.

The federal government already has an agreement with the provinces and with Canadians in the constitution that there is an amending formula. Now it has made an agreement to a different amending formula without referring to the constitutional means of doing this.

The government cannot have it both ways and still square its actions. Canadians have a right to expect that the constitution will only be amended according to the amending formula agreed upon.

We now see in this treaty that there is a means of amending the constitution without the proper amending formula. In my mind, this is amending the constitution through the back door, not through the regular means that the provinces and the Canadian government have agreed to use.

I would like the member to comment on this. This is a bastardized way of dealing with the constitution that is inappropriate.

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, October 26th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her intervention and her analysis of the treaty.

There is one thing that concerns me. This is the first modern day land agreement where self-government rights are actually contained within the land claim agreement. As a result of this, section 35, as it has been interpreted by the supreme court, means that the rights contained in the land claim agreement can never be unilaterally reclaimed in the future by the government that gave these rights.

From these rights flows the ability to create legislation. Up until this point, legislation has been the prerogative of the federal and provincial governments only.

How can the hon. member square this with the government's claim that there is no constitutional amendment through the back door when through this means the constitution will be irreversibly affected without the consent of the province, according to the amending formula?

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, October 26th, 1999]

Could the member explain how this is not amending the constitution through the back door?

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, October 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct one comment made by the hon. member. The Reform Party has never held that aboriginal people are not able to care for themselves. It is in fact just the opposite. We would like to see aboriginal people across the country be able to maintain themselves and be responsible for themselves on the same basis as all other Canadians.

The land claim agreement contains within it the right to self-government under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. According to the supreme court this cannot be changed.

[Pay Equity, October 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, pay equity is nothing but pay inequity.

Bureaucrats assigning an arbitrary value to jobs has nothing to do with fairness. It has nothing to do with unity. Every other worker in the country can now kiss a tax cut goodbye so the government can finance its loss to the federal court. It is hard to see the equity in that. There goes the surplus. There goes tax relief.

Why is it that whenever the government makes a mistake, taxpayers end up paying the bill?

[Pay Equity, October 20th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government says it supports the principle of pay equity. It was a Liberal government which wrote the law. It was this Prime Minister who promised to pay on the basis of equity. It was this government that failed taxpayers by refusing to define the meaning of equal value.

My question is again for the President of the Treasury Board. Will she table new legislation to clearly define the meaning of equal value before the government is challenged again on its fuzzy thinking?

[Pay Equity, October 20th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party supports equal pay for equal work and so does the majority of Canadians. However, it is the government's failure to clearly define what equal value means that leaves taxpayers on the hook for billions of dollars.

My question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Why is each taxpayer stuck with a $343 bill to pay for the government's bungling?

[Taxation, October 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, further on high taxes, in a letter to the Minister of Finance, Clinton from Dartmouth wrote, “I'm part of the working poor. Instead of creating useless programs, do me a real favour and give me some real tax relief. P.S. I want more than just a couple of hundred bucks. And get rid of bracket creep while you are at it”.

Does the Minister of Finance hear Canadians? Will he tell us and Clinton how the total final tax bill will be reduced this year?

[Petitions, June 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition deals with the sanctity of human life and calls upon parliament to act immediately to extend the same protection to the unborn child as that enjoyed by born human beings.