Philip Mayfield

[Supply, October 23rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am gratified to hear the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans talking about erring on the side of caution and of his concern for conservation. I share those goals very much.

I would like to ask the minister two or three questions in that regard.

I live in an area on the upper Fraser River. Not much fishing takes place there, but a lot of fish spawn there. There have been a lot of problems in that area for a good period of time. For example, why was a young rancher charged with disrupting a fish habitat when he cleared out a beaver dam to make stale, stagnant water fresh so that the fish could live there again? Why was another person who wished to rescue young fry from the back waters that had begun to dry up told he could be charged if those fish were rescued and put into an environment where they could live instead of becoming bird food? That person was told it was simply nature's way and the birds need food too.

The real questions I want to ask are with regard to the Likely hatchery. That hatchery was cut back from a production of about two million fish to about 200,000 fish and then shut down because it was uneconomic. Now local volunteers are raising about $1,500 a month to feed the fish that they strip and put into spawning channels and care for throughout the year. Why will there be no assistance to these people in the conservation of the chinook salmon?

This fall the spawning channels in the Horsefly River have been left closed so that the sockeye salmon cannot spawn there. These salmon are destroying the natural spawning of the riverbed because there is no room for them. Yet these spawning channels have remained closed. It is a large run this year and the devastation of that fish stock is evident to everyone who has been there.

The people of Cariboo—Chilcotin hold the conservation of these fish stocks to be a very high priority. Yet we have had no co-operation from the Conservative government, from Mr. Tobin when he was the minister and now from this minister.

I would like the minister to answer these questions on the basis of his concern for caution and conservation.

[Supply, October 23rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, before you make your final ruling, may I ask you, sir, if the intent of the amendment to the amendment is any different than that of the amendment to the original motion, it does change the character of the motion, but that was also the position of the government in the amendment which it brought to the original motion.

I would ask you to consider that, sir.

[Petitions, October 23rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today in the House of Commons to present a petition signed by 36 residents of my constituency who reside in Quesnel, British Columbia. My constituents request Parliament's support of a motion that was introduced by the member of Parliament for Yorkton—Melville which states:

That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should authorize a proclamation to be issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada amending section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to (a) recognize the fundamental right of individuals to pursue family life free from undue interference by the state and (b) recognize the fundamental right and responsibility of parents to direct the upbringing of their children, and urge the legislative assemblies of the other provinces to do likewise.

[Petitions, October 1st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present a petition to the House of Commons signed by constituents of Cariboo—Chilcotin residing in Williams Lake, Ashcroft, 150-Mile House and Tatlayoko Lake.

My constituents call upon the government to enact legislation to wind down the Canadian pension plan and allow Canadians to contribute to mandatory RRSPs of their own choosing.

[Supply, September 30th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to share my time with my colleague from Langley—Abbotsford.

It is a pleasure to stand in the House today and to speak to the motion put forward by my colleague from Medicine Hat, that this House condemn the government for making its 50:50 election promise on future surpluses without adequate public debate as to the optimal size of government, taxes and debt, thus threatening to repeat Canada's 27 year old history of deficit spending, creating high debt, financed by high taxes, causing high unemployment.

Before I proceed, Mr. Speaker, I congratulate you on your appointment. I look forward to the deliberations under your care and control. I would also like to thank the members of my constituency of Cariboo—Chilcotin for participating in the democratic process of the June election, in particular those who worked to support my candidacy and my election. I am honoured to represent the views of Cariboo—Chilcotin and it is my intention to represent my constituents to the best of my ability.

The people of Cariboo—Chilcotin voted for Reform during the last election because, like many Canadians, they wanted three things. First, they want equality to be the guiding principle in the national unity debate. Second, they want accountability from the government, its department and agencies. This has been diluted more and more over the past years. Accountability has been taken from the House of Commons and put in the hands of the cabinet, with order in council administration, and in the hands of bureaucrats. This should be restored to the House of Commons. Third, they want fiscal responsibility to be the watch word of the government and every future government which holds power in this country.

It is the third point on fiscal responsibility which I will focus on. Specifically, I will do two things. First, I will outline where massive government over spending has led our country. Second, I will describe a plan that will save us from forever following that destructive and empty path.

Political pundits and financial analysts say that Canada is at a critical moment in its financial history. I am sure that we can all agree with this. Over the past 30 years we have seen successive Liberal and Conservative politicians repeat the same destructive pattern in government, irresponsible spending which has caused chronic deficits and spiralling debt financed by escalating taxes. Thanks largely to tax increases there is a huge and growing surplus in the employment insurance fund, subdued growth in public debt charges and cuts in provincial transfers for health, education and welfare. Also because of pressure from the Reform Party, the public and the financial markets, we are on the brink of resolving the second of the four problems, deficit spending.

Following our present course, Canada is at most two years away from a balanced budget and this is good news for all Canadians. This brings us to a critical point in our history. Reformers have circulated a discussion paper, “Beyond a Balanced Budget”, to seek the will of the Canadian people. This paper is not a policy paper, it is a discussion paper. It is a discussion paper seeking Canadian opinion. We will find this discussion not only in homes and offices but also on the Internet and in town hall meetings and we will find Reformers listening carefully to what Canadians are saying.

There is a real need for this national discourse. The last time the federal government was in a similar situation was in 1969-70 when Canada recorded a $139 million surplus. After that time, the road the government chose was one of massive overspending and mortgaging our future to borrow the money. It chose to run deficits year after year. Where did this course take us as a country? How can we ever avoid going that way again?

The result of consistent overspending and borrowing over the last 30 years gave Canada a debt that grew from $20 billion in 1970 to approximately $600 billion today.

Allow me to outline the magnitude of this debt. Our $600 billion debt works out to over $19,600 for every man, woman and child in Canada. For a family of four that comes to almost $80,000. I calculate it as $78,400. Canada's $600 billion debt is one of the highest debt burdens among industrialized countries. It is 74 percent of gross domestic product. As a percentage of GDP our net foreign debt is the worst of any of the world's major economies. Canada owes 25.3 percent of its debt to foreigners.

A recent study by the Fraser Institute puts total Canadian debt, all of our Canadian liabilities, at closer to three and a half trillion dollars after accounting for federal, provincial, local marketable debt, government business enterprise debt and debt guarantees, QPP, CPP, unfounded liabilities, hospital sector debt and total unfunded liabilities of the medicare system. Three and a half trillion dollars we are in hock.

To describe the size of our debt more graphically, a financial analyst in the 1995 Grant's Interest Rate Observer said that 8 percent of Canada's land mass is covered in water while the other 92 percent is covered in debt. That is how one financial analyst started to tell investors around the world about Canada. If the net public debt were converted to $5 bills and laid end to end it would circle the earth 1,448 times. I did not make that calculation, I only report it.

I have just described the legacy of 30 years of chronic overspending by successive Liberal and Tory governments. This is what federal government after federal government gave our country again and again to serve their own short term political ends at the cost of nearly bankrupting our nation. We could say so what, and many people do say that. So what if our debt is one of the biggest in the world? So what if government keeps borrowing?

Just as we cannot rack up personal debt and expect there to be no consequences, neither can the country. Let me outline for the House the major consequences of massive government debt that haunt and will continue to haunt future generations of Canadians.

First, interest charges. The federal government spends $46 billion a year to service the debt. That is about 33 cents of interest charges for every dollar in revenue raised by government. It is Ottawa's largest single expenditure, more than twice the size of the next expenditures on seniors and transfers to provinces. These interest charges mount by $5.3 million an hour and chew up $1 in every $3 in budgetary revenues. Think about that. We pay bankers $46 billion a year. We pay Bay Street, Wall Street, Hong Kong, bond bankers for money borrowed to finance yesterday's programs. We owe $46 billion to buy virtually nothing of value for Canadian citizens today.

The annual interest bill would be enough to run each and every hospital in Canada for two years. The interest for one year would pay tuition for four million Canadian youths to finish a four year degree at university.

There is a means of handling this situation. What should a balanced budget look like? What would we do? There should be legislation to prevent a government from increasing the deficit. Over a three year period a government should be required to balance its books or call an election. The first three year period would commence three years from the passage of the measure except for certain crises such as recession, severe flood, earthquake or war. They must be dealt with as they arise. These would be a release valve.

However, a balanced budget law would be an important first step in reassuring Canadians from coast to coast that the painful tax increases and reductions in the social safety net that were made necessary by previous governments will never occur again.

[Supply, September 30th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Stoney Creek for his speech. I have appreciated working with him in committee. He has an ability to put the best possible face on a sorry situation and I want to congratulate him for that.

It is interesting that he talks about the benefit of lower interest rates as though the Liberal government has brought them down on its own when in fact the government is capitalizing and taking advantage of the interest rates on a worldwide basis.

He talks about an attitude of let them suffer. This is an attitude which I have a great deal of difficulty with as I travel throughout my constituency.

I think of an elderly woman whose husband died last year. She has a total combined income of about $13,000 a year. Now with the clawbacks of her old age pension she is having a great deal of difficulty and is finding it impossible to pay the taxes on the house that she owns. She is desperate to know what to do in light of these government policies.

I think of the small business people who have been established for years and are floundering under the weight of the regulations and rules of three levels of government and finding it impossible to pay for having to prove daily that they are keeping these rules. Comments about the new Canada pension plan startle me because they say that many of them are not going to be able to continue to operate and to pay these taxes.

I find it interesting that the member talks about the $1 billion scholarship fund when the students themselves are scoffing at it.

I would like to ask this member if he believes that the Canadian people are demanding higher and higher taxes for the level of service they are receiving which is putting them in such jeopardy in their established day to day lives.

[Speech From The Throne, September 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you, sir, on your appointment to the Chair. You look great.

I appreciate the comments that have been made but I wanted to raise a question about the throne speech opening up a pathway to prosperity.

The difficulty I see in my riding is that I talk to elderly people who are having to sell their homes because of clawbacks. They have small incomes and they cannot afford to pay the taxes. Youth cannot get enough money for education. Men and women are losing established jobs from established companies and those jobs are not being replaced.

I see nothing in this throne speech which would offer hope to these people. Is there some mechanism which the Liberal government has in mind to guarantee that taxes will not be raised and to give Canadians relief from the taxation which is killing us economically and destroying the social fabric of the lives of so many families?

[Petitions, September 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today in the House of Commons to present a petition signed by members of my constituency who are residents of several communities, Williams Lake, Horsefly, McLeese Lake, Tatla Lake and Lac La Hache.

My constituents call on Parliament to urge the governor general to appoint a duly elected person to the forthcoming vacant British Columbia seat in the Senate of Canada.

[Canada Endangered Species Protection Act, April 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this second round of debate on the amendments.

This bill is one which presents a topic that most Canadians are in support of, the protection of endangered species. However, this bill as it is crafted creates many problems, problems for land owners and users, problems for those who have a sincere concern for those endangered species, because it not only threatens the land owners and the users and people who enjoy that land, it is also an endangerment to the species that are threatened themselves.

This is a bill that clearly has not been carefully thought through. I would like to begin by reading a short statement from Mr. Jack Munro, chairman of the Forest Alliance of British Columbia. He says: "Firstly, you have an approach in this bill that does not pay nearly enough attention to social and economic impacts. I am not suggesting that the protection of threatened species is not worth paying a price, but I am saying that we should assess that price and be sure that we come up with a fair way of deciding who pays. The furthest this bill goes is the reference in clause 38 to the need for an evaluation of costs and benefits of research and management activities. Presumably that includes social and economic costs such as lost jobs if timber harvest is no longer allowed in a particular area. But where something as crucial as people's jobs and way of life is concerned, we should not have to presume anything. The government should have to do much more than merely a general evaluation of costs and benefits".

In my mind the great difficulty of this bill is the lack of thought that has been put into it. Unfortunately the Minister of the Environment has not given any thought to how much Bill C-65 would cost land owners and taxpayers as a whole. When asked at a committee meeting in February what cost he would be willing to impose on an individual or society, the environment minister replied: "I have not thought of that threshold".

No wonder Canadians are worried about the impact this legislation will have on their lives. The minister responsible for Bill C-65 has not even considered their needs. He has not even taken time to think through the possibility that Bill C-65 may have enormous negative effects on the lives of Canadians, as well as the economic effect on our nation as a whole. This kind of tunnel vision is characteristic of this government as it attempts to legislate for the benefit of one special interest group after another, without keeping in mind the Canadian people as a whole and their needs and the benefits that they deserve and the enjoyment that they are entitled to.

There is a flavour of the legislation from so many areas that this government presents that is of deep concern to me. I am concerned about a general attitude of moving responsibility of matters from the House, from Parliament, to the cabinet table with the increasing amount of discretion that is built into legislation for ministers and avoiding accountability to Parliament, to the elected representatives of the people.

What I have just outlined are several flaws in this endangered species legislation, Bill C-65. For these reasons Reformers, while we are favour of the protection of these endangered species, cannot support this bill. It needs to be changed. It has to be changed to receive the support of the Canadian people. This bill needs to be entirely rewritten. It needs to go beyond the interests of special interest groups and their agendas.

Therefore Reform has put before this House 42 amendments to Bill C-65. These amendments would require the minister to consider the social and economic impacts prior to recommending what action should be taken regarding endangered species. The government should ensure fair compensation to land owners and users. The government should ensure co-operation by all those who are concerned and there should be a commitment most of all to the preservation of endangered species. That certainly is not in this bill.

There is a threat to land owners and users who make their living and derive their income from these sources. If they are told that their land may be subject to being cut off or protected for an endangered species and their economic benefits may be taken away from them, what would be their reaction? The ranchers and the land owners have said the reaction would be simply to plough under, to destroy, to get rid of it so the threat would be taken away.

That is not what we are trying to achieve. What we are looking for is a legitimate and fair means of protecting the endangered species of this country.

I encourage the House to pass these constructive, fair and even handed amendments which the Reform Party has brought to Bill C-65.

To state it briefly, we have three things in mind. We might consider them the three Cs for the endangered species. The first is there should be a commitment made by all to the preservation of endangered species. The second is there should be fair compensation for those who suffer a loss or who are deprived for some reason

in the course of the protection of endangered species. The third is there should be co-operation.

There should be a commitment, there should be co-operation and there should be compensation. If these three Cs were adhered to, and if these objectives were written into the bill, Reform would have no difficulty in supporting it.

I remind the House that Reform supports the responsible protection of endangered species but it does not support Bill C-65 as it is written. This bill needs to be entirely rewritten. Therefore if the government refuses to pass Reform's 42 amendments, I will be voting against Bill C-65.

[Canada Endangered Species Protection Act, April 24th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate on Bill C-65 and on the amendments. Before I offer a critical analysis of this bill I want to say that the Reform Party and I support unequivocally the responsible protection of endangered species. However, we do not support Bill C-65 in its present form. When I speak to the bill I speak also to the amendments that are coming.

Before I outline why we take this position I will tell the House that there has been a significant outcry from within and outside my riding in opposition to this legislation.

I quote Mr. Roy Staveley, acting senior vice-president of B.C. Hydro: "The next issue I would like to touch on is public involvement. B.C. Hydro agrees that Canadians should have opportunities to share knowledge and participate in efforts to protect and recover species at risk. The most effective way of doing this is by maintaining an open and transparent process. We feel that the Canadian endangered species protection act needs more provisions for consultation with affected parties throughout the process, from listing of species to preparation and implementation of recovery plans.

"The protection of species at risk will best be attained through partnerships with key stakeholders. However, as currently written, the proposed legislation results in duplication of federal, provincial and territorial regulatory authorities. This would be inconsistent with the harmonization and intergovernmental approaches to environmental protection or the national accord and will likely result in jurisdictional disputes, duplication, poor enforcement and administration, public confusion and inefficient allocation of scarce resources".

I like very much the way the hon. Stephen Kakfwi, minister of lands and renewable resources of the Government of the Northwest Territories summarizes this: "I suggest that the fundamental problem presented by the proposed legislation as tabled in Parliament is that it is inconsistent with both the spirit and the intent of the hard work done by all jurisdictions, including the federal government, to establish a co-operative national approach to protecting the interests of endangered species. The irony here is that the best intentions have been asserted but this in turn has given rise to the erosion of the best plans".

The outcry is also locally heard in my constituency of Cariboo-Chilcotin. Let me read to the House some of the letters I have received. A resident in Williams Lake stated: "This legislation will do very little to address concerns about endangered species but goes a long way to starting a war in the courts and opens the door for groups with no concern for the social and economic impact or the inviability this act would bring to working people, be they forest workers, farmers, ranchers or miners. The courts and lawyers are going to have a heyday with this one".

From the city of Quesnel, council members passed a resolution opposing Bill C-65 due to a lack of any requirement to consider social, economic or community impacts; due to a lack of any requirement to provide redress for affected workers in their communities; due to a lack of any guarantee that workers, communities or other affected stakeholders will participate in recovery plan design.

From the village of Clinton the council stated: "Bill C-65 raises some significant concerns for the major industries of British Columbia, mainly forestry and mining. These two industries are the backbone of the economy in British Columbia and will be put at severe risk with the implementation of Bill C-65. Council believes that Ottawa should listen".

I could not agree more with this comment. Ottawa should listen to what the people of Canada are saying about Bill C-65. The people and the municipalities from all walks of life that I have just

quoted have legitimate concerns and they are rightly justified in feeling as they do. They know that Bill C-65 is a bad piece of legislation and they want this government to listen and to respond to what they are saying.

Some of the reasons Bill C-65 is a bad bill have already been mentioned in the statements I have just read but let me elaborate for the House on some of them. These are the reasons Reform cannot accept Bill C-65 in its present form.

First, the committee on the status of endangered wildlife in Canada, a nine member board appointed by the minister, will decide what species are at risk, how much risk, where the habitat is crucial and advise the minister on what should be done to help the species recover.

There is no guarantee that effective stakeholders will participate in the recovery plan design. This means that private land owners could be forced to make special provision for some endangered species. For example, a rancher may have to fence off an area of his land to protect an endangered species nesting ground from grazing livestock. Unfortunately Bill C-65 offers no compensation to rancher for the use of his material and time or for leaving productive land dormant or for the drop in the value of his property.

Let me tell the House a story of a situation that happened in Ontario about five years ago that relates to this point.

Mrs. Strumillo-Orleanowicz owned a 100 acre parcel of undeveloped land near Smiths Falls, Ontario. To start up a business she planned to sever a building lot. Unfortunately the Minister of Natural Resources denied her permission to do this. Why? Mrs. Strumillo-Orleanowicz' neighbour owned land next door to her property that was inhabited by the endangered loggerhead shrike. To help protect the bird, the province designated 123.5 acres around the shrike's home as its critical habitat. As a result Mrs. Strumillo-Orleanowicz could not sever or develop her land to make a profit. Her creditors foreclosed on the property and she lost everything. The government gave her no compensation.

Bill C-65's second flaw is that it jeopardizes the rights and livelihood of responsible land owners by expanding the rights of activist groups to go to court to stop resource development. It is interesting that those who turn in a neighbour can remain completely anonymous, not allowing the accused to face the accuser.

For example, under section 60 of the legislation, a bureaucrat or an eco-vigilante could sue a forest worker, rancher, land owner or company that he or she thinks has harmed an endangered species or its habitat. This means that there is a possibility that the courts will be filled to overflowing with actions against land owners.

How will land owners respond to this possibility of being taken to court? Their reaction will be a negative one and endangered species will come out on the losing end. For example, according to cattle producers who spoke to the environment committee, land owners will have to seriously consider ways of reducing their exposure to legislative actions and loss of income and value resulting from constraints on use. The obvious and cheapest route will be to eliminate wildlife habitat on their land and specifically habitat that is attractive to species that could at some point be listed as threatened or endangered. There is evidence that the American endangered species law has already had this undesired effect in some areas of the United States.

The third flaw of Bill C-65 is that it tramples the basic principles of justice. For example, under the bill authorities could seize private property and provide no compensation if the property is considered a critical habitat for an endangered species.

In addition, Bill C-65 allows bureaucrats to search and seize private property without a warrant if, by reason of exigent circumstances, it would not be feasible to obtain a warrant. This is a characteristic of the government which is very frightening where the government is prepared to thwart the historic rights and privileges of people to impose its own view of the way things should be. This provision is completely unacceptable to Canadians.

Reform has put 42 amendments to Bill C-65. These amendments would require the minister to consider the socioeconomic impacts prior to recommending what action should be taken. We would like to have compensation, a commitment to the preservation of endangered species and we would like the co-operation of all stakeholders involved.