Philip Mayfield

[Income Tax Act, March 31st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to debate Bill C-223, an act to amend the Income Tax Act with respect to the deduction of interest on mortgage loans. Before I get into the speech itself I would like to take this opportunity to thank the member for Portage—Lisgar for all his hard work in seeing this bill come to fruition and debate in this House.

The purpose of this bill is to provide for the tax deduction of interest paid by a taxpayer on the first $100,000 of a mortgage loan to first time home buyers.

Many of us here have had the experience of purchasing a home. It is a huge investment which gives a lot of security and joy. However, it is also the cause of a lot of stress and doubt. This, in many cases, is not simply the purchase of property, but the purchase of a home. A home is for families to grow together in, a place of security and a site of well-being.

Although the physical house may hold some importance for families, it is the psychological and social aspects of a home that people hold dear to them. A house is for living, but a home is to cherish.

One may wonder where I am going with this. In today's economy many young families simply cannot afford to purchase a house to make a home. Many young people start out facing an enormous financial burden, as most already have a huge debt load from pursuing their post-secondary education and getting started in their lives.

Knowing the economic realities that most young people face today, they have some other debts to pay, such as credit card debts with large balances. There is also the unseen debt that every single Canadian faces every time they pay a tax and also the enormous national debt that has been built up over the decades.

We should look at this bill as an intervention toward tax reduction. To put it more simply, young people today simply cannot afford to purchase a house on top of all the other expenses and taxes they have to pay. Instead of purchasing a home many couples, in essence, withdraw from their disposable income and throw money into rental properties that they will never recover and never receive benefits from when they could be using that money toward creating equity in a house.

The money saved in taxes could be used for paying down other debts or to increase their savings. In essence, buying a home is the largest single step that most people take in achieving retirement security. It is an investment that lasts a lifetime.

Bill C-223 would provide Canadians with an extra opportunity to purchase their first house by giving them a much needed tax break, making ownership more feasible. The economic spinoffs of such a move would also help local economies, especially the Canadian housing industry. It would also benefit the industries that supply furniture, finishings and fittings that go into equipping and maintaining a home.

This initiative, Bill C-223, which has been brought forward by the hon. member for Portage—Lisgar, has widespread support from a variety of groups and individuals. In the short time I have I would like to quote from one of the supporters, although the theme expressed here is shared by many other organizations. I speak of the national trade association of the manufactured housing industry.

After reviewing the content of Bill C-223, the association said they “support both the logic behind the provisions of the bill and the limitations that have been applied. Limiting the benefits to first time homebuyers and the first $100,000 of a mortgage will have a highly desirable effect of increasing home ownership among our young families”.

The association goes on to say “In our opinion, increased home ownership is of considerable benefit to the homebuyer, the community and the greater economy. Home ownership helps to foster stable families and stable communities. More housing demand will stimulate new housing development and produce secondary benefits throughout the local economy”.

I believe that the provisions of this bill would create a very enviable situation. I am sure that I speak for many of my hon. colleagues on all sides of the House when I say that stimulating the economy is very desirable and something that should be encouraged as much as possible.

Looking at my own riding of Cariboo—Chilcotin, I know that I would readily support any initiative, whether federal, provincial or local, which would have a positive economic spinoff for our local economy. With the economic downturn in the province of British Columbia we are in need of initiatives that will boost local economies.

There has been some opposition to the idea proposed in the bill. However, I feel this opposition is unwarranted. Opponents suggest that this would give an unfair financial advantage to homeowners over those who rent. This is simply untrue.

There are provisions by Revenue Canada that benefit those who own rental properties. Many types of expenditures are deductible from rental revenue in the year they are incurred, including property taxes, insurance, advertising, maintenance and repairs. Also interest paid on money borrowed to purchase or to improve rental properties can be deducted. Savings experienced by rental property owners can be passed on to tenants in the form of lower rents.

There has been some concern in recent years over the brain drain that has plagued Canada. With the highest level of taxation in all the G-7 countries, many of Canada's finest talents leave our country in search of jobs in the United States. Why do many Canadians leave for jobs south of the border? Very often it is for a lower rate of taxation.

Currently all U.S. mortgage interest payments are deductible. When homes are sold the vendors do not have to pay capital gains tax on the first $500,000. Bill C-223 would place Canada on a more level playing field with the United States and may make the decision to remain here a lot easier for Canadians.

In closing, I encourage members of all parties to support the bill. This initiative can play an important role in serving as a building block for not only a stronger family unit but a stronger local community and a stronger economy.

Passage of the bill would provide great and needed benefit, particularly to young Canadians who despite their economic vulnerability bear enormous financial burdens. Young Canadians would be given the opportunity to set down roots and to eliminate some of their debts while at the same time being helped to prepare for the future. This is something we could all be proud of. It could even mean the difference between the same individuals staying in the community or leaving the country.

Again I thank the member for Portage—Lisgar for introducing the bill and for his initiative with regard to tax reduction.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1998, March 31st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be here this morning to take part in the debate on the implementation of certain provisions of the budget.

We have seen something different from the government this year in that it has finally introduced a balanced budget. The government predicts that this will be the case over the next three fiscal years. However, its actions in this have not changed dramatically.

As we have seen time and time again with this government it has taken measures to limit debate on various bills, including this bill. It seems that it does not want members to do their job, that is, to examine these bills in this place and to represent the views of their constituents.

The government has with this stage of Bill C-36, as it has time after time, tried to restrict the voices of millions of Canadians so that it can have its way and pass bills which may not serve the best interests of the people and of the nation.

The official opposition has introduced an amendment to this bill which states:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

“this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-36, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 24, 1998, since the principle of the Bill, while charging the Consolidated Revenue Fund to establish and fund the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation, fails to guarantee that appropriate and objective accounting standards will be followed as advocated by the Auditor General.”

I have had the pleasure of sitting on the public accounts committee and listening to the reports that the auditor general brings to that committee.

Before I speak to the specifics of the measures that the Minister of Finance brought forward in his latest budget which are being implemented by this bill, I would like to take a moment to talk about the auditor general.

The individual appointed to this position serves parliament as the watchdog of government, government finances and government departments. He works for parliament, not the government.

This individual is charged with ensuring that the government is wisely spending taxpayers' hard-earned money and making sure that taxpayers get good value for their money. In today's economic environment getting good value for our money is something that we all must do.

Under the scrutiny of the auditor general the government has had to become more prudent in its fiscal management, and I have the greatest respect for the office of the auditor general and for this mandate.

Bill C-36 contains legislation intended to implement many of the announcements made by the government in this year's budget. The bill is divided into 13 parts, each of which either establishes a new program, amends existing legislation to alter program delivery or authorizes the federal government to engage in some new activity.

The scope of this act includes the Canada millennium scholarship foundation, assistance to reduce student debt, grants to encourage savings under registered education savings programs, and incentives under the Employment Insurance Act to provide a premium holiday in 1999 and the year 2000 for employers who hire young people.

Low income families will qualify for the Canada child tax benefit. There are some minor changes, mainly cosmetic, which affect old age security and veterans allowances. Other provisions of this bill include a wide variety of items such as raising excise taxes on cigarettes, reducing the excise tax on air transportation and allowing certain native bands to impose a 7% value added tax on alcohol, tobacco and fuels.

Although many of my constituents in Cariboo—Chilcotin express some happiness with the fact that the books finally are balanced, they certainly do not feel this is the government's victory. They feel this is their victory. They are the ones suffering the enormous tax burden like most Canadians. They are also suffering the enormous cuts to health and social programs, a lot of them at the provincial level after transfer payments were cut.

While watching programs and services that directly affect their everyday lives such as health care and declines due to cutbacks, they have seen the federal government dole out millions of dollars on such things as free flags. This is discouraging. Many of my constituents understand that we simply cannot continue living as we have become accustomed to in past generations, we have to start taking responsibility for ourselves and our families. We have to stop living beyond our means.

My constituents are angry at the lack of prioritization by this government. They would rather have a much smaller and more affordable bureaucracy. They would rather see cuts in the senior levels of the public service than cuts at the service levels. They would rather have money go to programs and services which would benefit everyday lives instead of going into programs which are more symbolic and do not have a direct impact on everyday lives. We saw that in the flag program and we see it again in the millennium scholarship fund.

The Minister of Finance has stated in question period that my party is against education simply because we oppose this bill. That simply is not true. What we oppose is the manner in which this government has established this fund. After reading the editorials from my local newspapers and listening to my constituents, the biggest disappointments from this year's budget are that there is no tax relief and the government is not putting a real down payment on eliminating our huge debt.

I am sure it comes as no surprise that my party feels there is a better way of dealing with putting our fiscal house in order. We would introduce debt and tax relief measures as a way to stimulate job creation and economic growth. This would help alleviate the much publicized brain drain which sees many of our brightest citizens leaving Canada in search of jobs and lower tax jurisdictions.

There is also the view of many of our critics that we oppose many of the universal social programs that have become a cornerstone of Canadian society. Again this is simply not the case. We do oppose the view that these universal social programs run by the bureaucrats are the best and the only way to care for the poor, the sick, the old and the young.

We support a greater focusing of social policy benefits in hopes of targeting benefits to those who really need the help, doing so in a rational and compassionate manner. Over the past decade in particular we have had to change how we live in this country.

We are all more dependent on our families than we were before. We have had to take more responsibility for ourselves and our loved ones and we have to live within our means on shrinking budgets. Our standard of living is much lower than it was even five years ago.

I am sure there is a great deal of pride in the fact that we as a society are able to look after ourselves, our loved ones and those who look to us. But Canadians also have a lot of resentment over the abuses within our system, the money that is wasted and the intrusion in people's lives.

I hear time and time again from those in my riding the resentment of my constituents over the smugness of the bureaucrats running these programs who say their way is the best and the only way. It brings out real hostility and resentment. People are sick of governments that arrogantly impose their ivory tower, socialistic philosophies which have diminished us culturally, socially and economically.

I am in full support of the amendment brought forward by my party and in opposition to this bill and the tactics of limiting debate that the government is insistent on using in passing this bill. Not only is it censoring both me and my colleagues and the members of the House in speaking on behalf of their constituents, it is also censoring our constituents as a result of the time allocations it has imposed on the House of Commons.

The government's action immediately preceding and with the announcement of this year's budget denied Canadians their first real budgetary surplus in decades. As seen in the plethora of spending measures in this year's budget, including what many perceive as the Prime Minister's only real legacy, the millennium fund, we have seen this government return to its tax and spend ways. The government had a wonderful opportunity this year. It could have given Canadians some real tax relief and start to make payments on our debt after years of mismanagement.

The Liberal government made a clear choice this year to keep Canadians overtaxed by introducing new programs that will only help a small percentage of Canadians. The message from my riding of Cariboo—Chilcotin is clear. What a let down. I urge all my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill.

[Judges Act, March 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of points I would like to make by way of comments.

I am thinking in particular of one judgment I read recently, Delgamuukw, in which the justices referred not to legal precedents but to the literature from the law schools on which at least their judgment was based in part. This means there is a divergence from the tradition of consolidating the law, referring to the law and using the law as the basis on which to build judgments. I am concerned about that.

The second point I wish to raise comes out of today's Ottawa Citizen which has a headline: “Judge scolds greedy lawyers”. Mr. Justice Frank Iacobucci of the Supreme Court of Canada has said that many lawyers are rapidly losing sight of their obligations to the public and to the pursuit of justice.

I am wondering if the influence of these lawyers who have lost this sight is also being lost on the courts. Mr. Justice Iacobucci, to his credit, says that lawyers are not merchants of legal services but members of a calling dedicated to helping clients and improving society generally. But he is concerned that there is a clear tendency for a lawyer to be a hired gun, as he says, in the promotion of the client's cause rather than an active and constructive participant in the course of justice.

These two points cause me concern which I add to the debate. I would like to ask my hon. colleague if he sees any relationship between the justices, their influence by the law schools, by the lawyers of the community of which they are a part and if this is part of the reason that these justices are being given these pay raises that perhaps other frontline bureaucrats and government workers are not entitled to.

[Judges Act, March 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise another side to this question. Rural communities like those in Caribou—Chilcotin often do without police services because there is no money for budgets in the larger detachments. I think of places with interesting names like Gold Bridge and Horsefly, but when there is a crisis in such communities it will be an hour or two hours minimum before policemen can respond after driving the distance to get there.

I have been watching the government cut its expenditures. The difficulty is that while frontline services are being cut senior bureaucrats and research people are finding more resources for their needs.

Does the member see a correlation between the increase in crime and the lack of necessary funds for policemen to meet this challenge?

[The Debt, March 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, last the week the President of the Treasury Board released part III of the main estimates. These estimates clearly show the government's intention to continue its tax and spend ways. Canadians are now so overtaxed that bankruptcies are at record levels and now we have a lower standard of living than we did five years ago.

Out of the estimated budgetary expenditure of $148 billion, $43.5 billion is being spent on interest payments alone on the national debt. That is 29% of total government spending just to service the debt.

My Cariboo—Chilcotin constituents have told me time and again they need more money in their pockets for minimum necessities. While this government boasts of busting the deficit on the backs of taxpayers, it is looking for new ways to spend more tax dollars.

Did the government not learn its lesson that it cannot pay down the debt with money already spent? Apparently not.

[British Columbia Economy, March 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the Toronto Dominion Bank announced that the British Columbia economy is essentially in recession. It is not hard to understand why. For example, a Swedish company, Bolidon Limited, purchased Gibraltar Mines near Williams Lake less than three months ago. Last week it announced that it is permanently closing this mine with a 12-year ore reserve still in the ground. What it really wanted were the Chilean mines in the deal.

Two hundred and seventy-eight people will lose their jobs. The economic spin-off of this closure will only add to the economic devastation felt by the community as a result. The actions of both the provincial and federal governments have had an enormous detrimental impact on my riding of Cariboo—Chilcotin and on the entire province of British Columbia. While the national unemployment rate is falling, it rose by almost .5% last month to 9.7% which is higher than it was when this Liberal government began its economic reforms in 1994.

British Columbians are suffering. What does this government care? British Columbians demand changes—

[Canadian Parks Agency Act, March 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to ask these questions of the parliamentary secretary.

The parks system is vast. There are 38 parks, 131 national historic sites, 661 sites operated by third parties, seven historic canals, three marine conservation areas, 165 heritage railway stations and 31 heritage rivers. The proposal seems to make some move toward organizational simplicity and administrative efficiency. There seems to be a delayering and more financial accountability.

The parliamentary secretary said that they are in the process of planning. I hear this so often from the government. What is the government doing beyond planning to bring these good ideas into practice?

[Petitions, March 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House of Commons today to present a petition from 35 residents of Williams Lake in the constituency of Cariboo—Chilcotin.

The petitioners request that Parliament impose a moratorium on ratification of the MAI until full public hearings on the proposed treaty are held across the country so that all Canadians can have an opportunity to express their opinions on it.

[Petitions, March 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today in the House of Commons to present a petition signed by more than 100 constituents from the Quesnel, Wells and Williams Lake Districts of my riding Cariboo—Chilcotin.

My constituents are concerned that freedom of choice in health care is becoming increasingly curtailed and further threatened by legislation and statutory regulations of the Government of Canada.

My constituents request that Canada's Food and Drug Act be revised to allow for freedom of choice in health care.

[Canada Labour Code, February 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sorry to say that there is a general din in the House and I am having difficulty hearing the debate at this time.