Philip Mayfield

[Charitable Contributions, October 1st, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate in the second hour of our consideration of Motion No. M-318 introduced by the hon. member for Fraser Valley. I remind the House of the motion we are debating, that in the opinion of this House the government should bring in legislation for making the tax deduction for contributions to charitable organizations no less than the tax deduction for contributions to political parties.

I have been a part of the charitable sector of our country for a lot longer than I have been a part of the political sector, so I speak to this motion with a degree of personal conviction and I support it.

I am reminded of the history of our country and the large part charitable organizations have played in that history, for example, in the growth of hospitals and schools. The community charity sector and the churches provided relief and assistance to those who were beyond their own means to look after themselves.

We are all well aware of the enormous benefits all of our country derives from the generous contributions and the generous efforts of various charities and the people who support them. To say these are not important is nonsense. We cannot diminish it.

For example, St. Paul's hospital in Vancouver is a hospital that belongs to the Roman Catholic Church. I am sure the church does not wish to do this but if it did it could remove those services. Here is an organization that has provided hospital care and educational facilities like schools for the full duration of our country's history.

To give a snapshot of charities in Canada, in 1996 nearly five and a half million people gave about $4 billion to the nearly 80,000 registered charities in this country. That is a lot of money. Charitable organizations are major employers in Canada as well as major contributors. They employ approximately a million people. We are not talking about an insignificant sector of our country.

I cannot fail to mention what it meant to charities when the government decided to cut back on the value of contributions by limiting the tax deductions available. Speakers have mentioned a number of times that you get $75 out of $100 on your tax receipt for political purposes and a $17 receipt for a $100 contribution to a charity.

I am not speaking against political parties and the need for people to participate in the political life of our country. This is important. I do believe the Canadian people put a lot more emphasis upon the need for people to participate voluntarily in the lives of our communities. Tonight we are discussing an issue of participation, the avenues of participating and the willingness of the government to facilitate that participation through gifts and activities.

I am reminded that charities may be around knocking on doors for the money they need. Often the money they use is simply to operate the machinery that provides an avenue for other people to contribute their time in large numbers of hours in a whole variety of ways.

Charities support a wide range of activities and provide a wide range of services, everything from health and welfare to athletics. Their contribution to the quality of life of individuals and the community is greatly appreciated and proven.

What would it be without those services that are given freely and generously by Canadians? This is even more the case in today's world as most of us have had to tighten our belts. We have seen this not only in our individual lives but governments in particular have had to change the way they spend public funds.

When I was a minister looking after a church and the needs of people in Vancouver, I was well aware of the consequences of the government's decision to take people out of the mental health institutions and move them supposedly to community based care. However, there was no community based care. We found large numbers of people walking on the sidewalks unable to care for themselves. And who but people like the volunteers, the Canadian Mental Health Association, the hospitals and the churches were able to look after these people.

I am aware that more people can give more money to charities. It has been mentioned that 75% of a person's income can be contributed to a charitable organization for a tax credit. However, how many people have it in their ability to contribute 75% of their income?

There are some who can, but these are not the people who get up in the morning and go to work every day. These are not the people who need to have all that they have to care for their children and families, to pay the mortgage and to look after their own immediate needs and if they are lucky, have a little bit left over to contribute to their favourite charity. Many people because they cannot contribute money, contribute time, but the time and the money go together.

I think it is a red herring to suggest that the government has provided opportunities for people to contribute more and more generously, when in fact the government has limited these opportunities and provided opportunities for people who are wealthy and can do this. In fact, the wealthier one is, the more one can contribute and the more benefits one can get for contributing. However, this does not speak to the needs of the average man and woman, their families and their desire to participate freely and voluntarily in contributing their time and money.

Charities have to work harder to ensure that people do not fall through the cracks. With the lack of adequate funds, it is becoming increasingly difficult for them to do this. This is why we see charities resorting to bingos and lotteries. As well they send vehicles from door to door to pick recyclable items and use this as a means of income.

It is estimated that for every 1% the government cuts from social service programs it takes an increase in donations to charities of nearly 6% to maintain the level of services. This increase is not happening. The charities are not getting this kind of increase. As a result, those who most require these services are not getting the assistance they need.

Individuals who donate to specific charities also want to have a say in where their money is going. This is not the same as when we hand over our money to the income tax department. It takes it with very long teeth and with the threat that if we do not do it, we may go to jail or it may raid our bank accounts. However, by giving to a specific charity we are supporting a self-approved activity and supporting a cause personally.

On the other hand, governments must identify needs to allocate the necessary resources to meet those needs. We know that needs to happen. We also know that political parties need to have money for their members to participate in the political process.

The reason we are asking this House to approve this motion is that this type of participation is just as important in the charitable sector as it is in the political sector.

I would encourage hon. members in the House to vote for this motion, particularly those members of the government party who are thinking that they should vote against it because it is going to cut back on government resources for their programs.

We have enough government. Our government is massive and big. We need to provide opportunities for individual Canadians to participate more and more on a personal basis with their time and with their means.

[Special Import Measures Act, September 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate and thank my hon. colleague for the speech he has given.

As a nation we have been facing serious economic difficulties for a long time. It is interesting to hear how economic leaders in other parts of the country talk about Canada. When they are asked what is wrong with our economic system in their eyes, they point to things that we talk about consistently in this place. They say first of all “Your debt is way too high”. Second they say “Your taxes are way too high”. Third they say “You have not had a plan for 25 years. You do not know where you are going”.

I listen to my colleague talk about the softwood agreement, the quota system, a system that has affected mills in my constituency, particularly the newer mills but now even the large traditional mills are complaining about the difficulties of this agreement. It strikes me that here we are again in a situation. Two years ago when we were talking about this quota agreement and I was raising objections, I was being told this is the answer to our problem. Clearly this is a matter where long term planning was not brought into effect. Less than two years after this agreement has come into force, our mills are in trouble with it.

It is the issue of long term planning that I am raising again, an issue that affects us in every sphere of this government's jurisdiction and rule. Whether it is health care, whether it is our pensions, whether it is our trade policies and trade agreements, we lack a vision of the future which takes into account the needs of our children and our grandchildren.

The difficulty now is that we have come to a point in the technological advance of the world where simply having forests that have not been harvested, mines that have not been opened up, oil wells that have not been drilled is not enough. We have to have a plan on the table. We have to have a future in mind. And we have to be able to direct our people and our companies in a way that they can take advantage of the opportunities that lead to that future.

Does my hon. colleague see in this legislation the long term planning that is necessary to rationalize the agreements that they affect, or are we simply stumbling along from day to day as we have so frequently in the past? Is this just another example of that?

[Special Import Measures Act, September 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments on Bill C-35. It seems to me that we are bringing in a fix for a problem here that was not properly thought out when the agreements were struck. It strikes me also that this is not an unusual problem.

As we talk about the Canada pension plan, we are involved with short term planning with the determination that there will not be long term planning. We can understand why that is. The government is in such a financial mess that it cannot look farther down the road than perhaps two or three years so we are stuck with a mess, planning from day to day how we might get out of that mess.

We see the problems with the medical plan in Canada, largely as a result of not thinking and planning and preparing as we go down the way, thinking into the future. We see this in the trade, as the hon. member talks about.

Countries like China which have come out of terrible situations with large populations and an economy that was doing nothing for them have been able to plan, to put money in the bank, have trade surpluses and provide for the long term future for their citizens. It should be possible for a country such as Canada with the wealth of resources that we have had and have squandered to be able to do some long term planning as well.

The commodities, the agricultural products, the mining, the petroleum, the wood, the forests have kept us in the secure position we have had up to the point we are at. These have been our treasures, but these are no longer going to carry the weight for us in this modern technological age.

I am dismayed that there is no long term plan for the future of Canada. We are going day to day and year to year. I believe the government has a serious responsibility to begin planning in a way that protects the future of our citizens.

Many of us are here for the benefit of our grandchildren, and yet we see such a small and limited future for our grandchildren in the scope of planning as it exists today. I not only call on the government to begin thinking things through for the long term and not for the present day, but I also want to ask my colleague if in his estimation these changes that are being instituted are going to serve us well into the future, or is this just an immediate short term plan for the shortcomings of the day.

[Petitions, September 25th, 1998]

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the third petition calls upon the government to repeal changes to the Firearms Act as passed in Bill C-68 and to redirect that money to programs that reduce violent crime and improve public safety.

[Petitions, September 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition calls for public hearings to be held prior to any board or group removing or confiscating natural herbal supplements.

[Petitions, September 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present three petitions on behalf of my constituents of Cariboo—Chilcotin from the communities of Williams Lake and 150 Mile House in the central interior and from the west coast community of Hagensborg.

The first petition is calling for public hearings on the multilateral agreement on investment prior to ratification.

[Year 2000 Problem, September 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the clock is quickly running out before the start of the new millennium. The year 2000 computer bug will cause serious problems for those with electronic chips unable to read the four digit year 2000.

Are we ready? Hardly. Every sector of the economy from energy, to health care, to business, to transportation will be affected. This includes everything from computers to life saving medical equipment, to elevators and washing machines. In recent tests some machines stopped functioning completely after the clocks were turned past January 1, 2000. We can expect more of this.

Many are aware of the problem but believe it is not serious. Some even believe it is simply a ploy to make Microsoft even richer. This is a ludicrous misconception.

What we need is leadership on this issue. This government has been largely silent. The Prime Minister and his ministers must speak out now about the consequences of not acting to solve this widespread problem. It is serious. Time will not wait for any of us.

[Questions On The Order Paper, September 21st, 1998]

With regards to various developing countries involvement in the Montreal protocol: ( a ) what role is Canada playing to ensure these countries meet the specified standards; and ( b ) how much money, including indirect as well as direct funding, has the federal government allocated overall to help these developing countries achieve compliance?

[Aboriginal Affairs, June 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the minister does not get it. The supreme court makes decisions in Ottawa but the effects are felt back home. Some First Nations have told ranchers that they no longer own their ranches and that they had better turn over the property without a fight. Investors are being told not to invest a nickel in British Columbia. The situation is getting tense.

My constituents demand a straight answer. What is she going to do to stop the uncertainty before B.C. faces the long summer of unrest?

[Aboriginal Affairs, June 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Delgamuukw decision is wreaking economic havoc in Cariboo—Chilcotin. In Williams Lake an approved development is being shut down in mid-construction. In the Seton Valley provincially approved logging sites are being told to close. In Lillooet a veneer plant employing nearly 200 people is seriously threatened with closure. Ranchers are being told by aboriginal people that they do not own the lands they have deeds to.

What is the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development doing now to defuse this powder keg?