Philip Mayfield

[Petitions, February 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by 115 people who are calling for amendments to be made to the Food and Drugs Act dealing with herbal remedies and other nutritional supplements. The petitioners call for increased personal freedom without government interference to use herbal remedies and supplements.

The petition is signed by citizens from the area of 100 Mile House and Lac La Hache.

[Petitions, February 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present to the House today.

The first petition deals with amendments to the Criminal Code and requests that the age of consent for sexual activity be raised from 14 years to 18 years of age. This petition is signed by 231 individuals from my riding and indeed from across Canada, Ontario westward.

[Senate Of Canada, February 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, when the Fathers of Confederation founded our parliamentary system they viewed the Senate as a chamber of sober second thought distinct from the more populist House of Commons. It would give protection to Canadians from unreasonable laws and actions.

Given the recent track record of the government's appointments to the other place and the blatant disregard of some senators for the duties they are appointed to carry out, Canadians from coast to coast are raising their voices for change. Canadians are tired of their government using the Senate as its own patronage heaven.

It is time for the government to move toward the 21st century and reform the Senate so that it is accountable to all Canadians. By making the upper house equal and elected it will become the effective chamber of sober second thought that was first envisaged. We owe this to Canadians.

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, December 1st, 1997]

It is a guaranteed loss.

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, December 1st, 1997]

Madam Speaker, as I listen to the debate on the report stage amendments, I do understand that the devil is in the details.

I want to discuss a little more generally some of the fundamentals as we consider these amendments, particularly those in Group No. 6 before us now. I want to talk about the fundamentals of retirement security. I am thinking primarily of RRSPs, the old age pension, the Canada pension plan and tax relief.

First of all to talk about RRSPs, company pension plans and RRSPs are the largest portion of retirement savings plans for most Canadians. Consequently the Liberals hit RRSPs hard with tax grabs over the last four years, undermining the fundamentals of retirement security.

For example, in 1995 the RRSP contribution limit was reduced from $14,500 to $13,500 for 1996-97. That is $1,000 less for people to invest for their retirement and $1,000 more for the government to tax and grab from Canadians.

As well in 1996 the government reduced the age limit for contributions to a RRSP from 71 years to 69 years. As well as giving two years less to contribute to a person's own retirement security, reducing the age limit allows retirement income to be a tax target two years sooner. It is one big tax grab after another, aimed directly at seniors.

Even worse, the government plans to erode the RRSP retirement pillar even further. During the last session of Parliament, the government members reluctantly admitted that they were looking at more ways to tax RRSPs. This is shameful. It is a shameful action of the Liberals to do this. No sooner do people try and salt some money away for their retirement than the government is right there with its hand in their pockets trying to get every last red cent. If the Liberals continue the steady calculated hacking away at RRSPs, people will lose their incentive to save for self-sufficient retirement.

The old age pension is the second pillar of retirement that the Liberals are slowly destroying. In the year 2001, the old age pension, the guaranteed income supplement, the pension income tax credit and the age tax credit will be replaced by the so-called seniors benefit. Unfortunately when the seniors benefit is implemented, the government plans to claw it right back again.

For example, pension experts estimate the seniors benefit will raise the average tax bill of a retiree from $3,000 to $7,000 a year. The government in its effort to grab every tax dollar it can, will base the amount of the clawback on family income, not individual income. This means seniors will end up paying more of their retirement income to the government. Some seniors are even considering divorcing to avoid this unfair tax grab.

Why does this government shamelessly hammer away at the family institution at every level from youth to seniors? Why do the Liberals consistently kill individual self-sufficiency, instituting more and more costly controls on citizens with its we know what is best for you attitude?

It is clear that the government invented the seniors benefit strictly for the purpose of grabbing more tax dollars from the elderly knowing this will impoverish many. By the year 2030, the seniors benefit is projected to produce $8.2 billion in additional tax back benefits. The only beneficiary in this case is the government, not the seniors.

The third pillar of Canadian retirement security is the Canada pension plan. When the Liberals established the CPP 30 years ago it was structured in a fashion similar to a pyramid scheme. Early contributors reaped attractive benefits paid for by younger entrants to the plan. The problem in the 1990s however is that there are fewer and fewer contributors paying for more and more beneficiaries. It would take $600 billion to pay all the benefits promised so far, but the CPP fund can only meet present commitments. That is the catastrophe the plan is facing.

To rectify this problem the government plans to hike the CPP payroll tax. For example, CPP premiums will be hiked from 5.85% of wages up to a maximum salary of $35,800 to 9.9% by the year 2003. Workers now paying $944 a year will see their annual contributions rise to $1,635 by the year 2003, which is an increase of 73%, the largest tax hike in Canadian history. And for all this the retired person will receive less than $8,800 per year after retirement.

This means that Canadians, especially young Canadians, will have to pay much higher premiums for much smaller benefits. For example, the Library of Parliament says a person who retired in 1976 will get $12 for every dollar contributed, but a person retiring in the year 2041 will actually get a negative return. This means that after all the years of contributing, instead of being paid interest on the money contributed, Canadians will actually be eligible to receive less than the amount they paid into the CPP fund.

Nearly doubling CPP premiums will also kill thousands of jobs, reducing the number of Canadians who can contribute to the fund. Even the finance minister admitted this fact on May 3, 1994 when he said “payroll taxes are a cancer on job creation”. Further, Department of Finance economist F. Weldon wrote in 1993 that a one percentage point increase in payroll taxes means a decline of nearly 1% in employment. That works out to 140,000 jobs lost. The Liberals want to hike premiums by four percentage points. That is 560,000 jobs sacrificed for this latest Liberal scheme. Bill C-2 will kill more than half a million jobs.

So far I have explained the three pillars of retirement security: RRSPs, old age pension and the CPP. Now if I may, I would like to read a letter that I received from one of my constituents expressing her concern about the amendment to the CPP. She writes:

I am writing in regard to the increase in CPP. I am a housewife with two small children. My husband works 12 hour days, six or seven days a week. Even with all the hours my husband works, we are only making ends meet.

We cannot afford an increase in CPP. This increase only means my husband has to work even harder which means we will see even less of him. How is this good for my two children? How is this good for our marriage?

The government borrows, or should I say steals, from the CPP fund and then increases it because they can't pay it back. Why do we have to pay for a dishonest government? They preach about how they want to save our children. They preach about broken marriages. Then they turn around and screw us again. Couples stress over money and it does affect the children. It does affect the marriage.

How can I afford to put my children in swimming lessons or baseball when any extra money we have the government takes? My oldest son is five and he said to me, “Why can't I, mommy? We can't afford it, right?” This is from a 5 year old. All his friends at school get hot lunches on Fridays but he doesn't. How are we supposed to dish out another $100 a month?

Will CPP be there when my husband retires? I doubt it. I have a friend who at 28 is having to declare bankruptcy. She has three children. I know that it could be us. Kids are in trouble today more than ever because parents aren't there. They have to work harder and longer so the kids are on their own. The future looks bleaker. Something has to be done about this CPP. Canada is on its way to ruin the way I see it.

[Gun Control, November 28th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, two things happened this week to indicate that the wheels are falling off the Liberals' gun control scheme.

In a brief presented to the justice committee, the Canadian Police Association said the Liberal government misled them into believing that police could get into the firearms computer system when making emergency calls. After hearing this criticism the Liberals now say that the police on call will have computer access to the system.

We also learned this week that the justice department's mail-in registration system will be so unreliable and unsafe that it will actually endanger policemen into providing inaccurate information. For example, justice officials claim that any firearms serial number incorrectly recorded on a mail-in application and then put on a registration certificate will still make the certificate valid. This is ridiculous. This means police will be unable to count on the accuracy of vital information entered into the system.

Why do the Liberals not face it? Their gun registration system is falling apart and must be scrapped immediately. It is becoming obvious that this sloppy gun registration system gives police no security but instead greater risk.

[Aboriginal Affairs, November 27th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the minister's focus is on a misunderstanding of Canadian Indian people. For example on one reserve a 13 year old boy with no family is involved in deviancy, gangs and auto theft. A spot in a treatment centre has been reserved for this lad but there are no funds for his therapy. Yet according to the memo leaked from Indian affairs, there are no restrictions to stop others from making multiple claims for social assistance.

Is the minister aware of how some abuse the system by making multiple claims while others in desperate need get nothing? Have her officials so blindfolded her from seeing the real story—

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, November 27th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, in light of those comments I will reserve my comments to later.

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, November 27th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to participate in the debate on Bill C-2.

Today I want to discuss the four pillars of retirement security. These are private RRSPs, the old age pension, the Canada pension plan and tax relief. My comments will focus on two areas. First, I will examine the damage the Liberals have inflicted upon each of the four retirement pillars. Second, I will outline positive steps the government—

[Criminal Code, October 31st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words. I want to say them because I know how concerned are the people of Likely about what has happened to one of their neighbours, Mr. Boyle. There has been a travesty of justice. A man has been caught literally with blood on his hands and he has been freed. There is more than indignation in Likely and in the Cariboo—Chilcotin over what has happened.

A long time ago a lawyer told me that the legal system has nothing to do with justice, it has to do with keeping a refined set of rules. In this instance the rules have not served justice. It does not take a genius to know when justice has been denied. In this instance it has been. I call on this Parliament to consider the needs of justice and the needs of Canadians rather than to put the whole emphasis on the legal system and those who support it and operate it. Until we do this the legal system will be held in contempt and often the contempt which it deserves.

I call on Parliament and the justice committee that will be reviewing this legislation to keep in mind that our laws are there to protect the Canadian people. They are there to provide the tools to the police who give us that protection, to call people to account who have broken the law, who have done unjust deeds, who have hurt their fellow men, who have denied their fellow men the justice they have a right to expect. We have to go beyond keeping rules. We have to keep in mind what is right.

Justice must be served. I would call on the government for the sake of Likely, for the sake of Mr. Boyle who lost his life, I call on Parliament to consider first of all the needs of Canadians as they seek justice and to seek to live their lives by a system that provides justice.