Philip Mayfield

[Supply, March 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as I was asked the question, I would be happy to respond. I am going to respond very briefly because I will have the opportunity to deal with it in detail in my speech.

When the member says the hon. member for Fraser Valley East did not offer any suggestions, that is entirely inaccurate. She is correct when she says that there is a legitimate contract. The Supreme Court has even ruled on that. What she does not say is that there are other avenues the federal government could take to relieve Newfoundland of this burden. The member does not speak of those but the hon. member for Fraser Valley East certainly did and I will be referring to them later in my speech.

[Supply, March 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have just listened to an astounding speech. I cannot believe that a member from Newfoundland would take the stance that it is okay to hold her constituents' heads under water while their pockets were being picked.

The member did not address the motion in any way that I could understand. Does the hon. member agree that Newfoundlanders should bear the brunt of this injustice over the next 45 years? Should her constituents do without the benefit of the resources that will help them build their economy, give them jobs, put their children in schools, put money on the table, give them independence? Who does the member represent? Does she represent her constituents or does she represent the Liberal Party in this Parliament?

[Privilege, March 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your intervention. There was no intention of disrespect. If there is I apologize. I will repeat the quote: "Sources in Ottawa say the government, fearful of turning Bouchard and" the member for Charlesbourg "into martyrs, quietly has decided to drop the matter". This quotation is taken from the Toronto Star of December 18, 1995.

Is this true? Is this what the government has done? Is this the motivation for lack of action? Where exactly does the government stand on the issue? We have not heard a position. We have not seen any action taken. Canadians want to know. Canadians do not deserve to have their voices smothered by a closure of this debate.

The Speaker said only two days ago:

The House today is being faced with one of the more serious matters we have been faced with in this 35th Parliament-I am of the opinion that nothing will be gained by delaying consideration of this issue to a later date.

I believe the charges are so grave against one of our own members that the House should deal with this accusation forthwith.

The Speaker assured all members that they would have an opportunity to speak to this grave matter. I believe I can speak for members of my caucus when I say I am offended by this motion of closure.

If the matter is so serious, why do the Liberals want to bring closure to this debate? Do they not want the interest of Canadians represented? Their actions are preposterous. This is an elitist attitude and it is undemocratic. It stifles the debate of the elected representatives of the people who are deeply concerned by the matter.

Canadians want it debated. They want answers to the questions raised by the communiqué. Let us not try to cover up the matter and choke the voices of the Canadian people. Canadians deserve to know and have a right to know whether the member's behaviour is in contempt or whether his participation in it was an offence to Parliament. For once let us allow Canadian people to be heard and continue this historic debate until the issue is completely aired, but that will not be.

The defence minister said that there were certain things we do and do not do in public life. I completely agree with that statement. That is why we must send the matter to the committee, investigate it, and learn if such behaviour by the member is acceptable for a public official. Above all, let us represent the interest of Canadians. Let us take seriously what our constituents are saying to us. Let the matter be clarified in Parliament for us and for all Canadians.

Before I close I need to mention the most crucial reason the actions of the member must be investigated. That reason is principle. From the argument I have just given the House can see that my colleague's question of privilege is not a personal attack. He has not taken these steps in an attempt to discredit the members of his family or his party.

The main point here is that the people of Canada have seen a member of this House make a mistake, if we wish to use that term. We all make mistakes, in this House and everywhere. Life is a series of mistakes. We say things we should not. We do things we should not do and sometimes we do things we do not even know are wrong. But in the end Mr. Speaker, there are consequences for our actions which you as the Speaker of this House must fairly allot.

Canadians perceive that the member for Charlesbourg has made a mistake, but to rectify the situation Parliament has done nothing. It has not even investigated the accuracy of the accusation. I would be incensed if these accusations were flying around and I was being accused with no recourse, no redress, no way to clear my name.

If we deal with this matter and send this issue to committee as a matter of contempt to be considered by the committee, we at least tell Canadians that their leaders are treated the same as every other Canadian before the law. It tells them that politicians do suffer the consequences of improper and illegal actions, that equality matters all the time, even when it does not benefit the politicians or the elite. Let us do the right and honourable thing and send this matter to the committee for investigation. Let the committee receive the whole issue without the masks and the deletions.

[Privilege, March 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it has been interesting to listen to the debate today. I am reminded of when I was in the ministry and being confronted with what was called situational ethics. It was a means by switching words around and by looking at things a little differently to rationally justify such things as premeditated murder.

The debate today concerns me because words are used so casually and definitions are used so loosely. We are talking about how we may preserve our democracy. The foundation of our democracy is the rule of law.

I am not particularly interested in a view of the law like that of Inspector Javert in Victor Hugo's Les Misérables . However unless we take seriously what the law means, our rights and privileges, and how we conduct ourselves, we are fraying the fabric of democracy. If we in the House who are responsible for the passing of laws do not take it seriously, how can we expect young people who are struggling and looking for a way to get by on the streets to take seriously laws that are given scant heed here?

The matter before us should be reviewed by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to determine if the member is in contempt of Parliament and to determine if what he did was offensive to Parliament.

It would be a mistake not to look at the charge which was brought squarely to deal with it. If it is not a correct charge, if the person did nothing improper, then it should be set aside. The protection the law offers is the protection of all of us.

There are two important reasons the matter needs to be investigated. Before I explain them we need to clearly understand the historical circumstances behind why the subject is before us today in the House.

On October 26, 1995 the member for Charlesbourg sent a fax to all Canadian forces bases in Quebec. He issued the release under the letterhead of the then leader of the Bloc Quebecois, Lucien Bouchard. In part it read that the day after a yes vote Quebec must create immediately a defence department, the embryo of a defence staff, and offer all Quebecers serving in the Canadian forces the chance to integrate into the Quebec forces.

The release concluded:

-I think that soldiers of Quebec origin will respect the people's decision and will transfer their loyalty to the new country whose security they will ensure.

The nub of the question is that they will transfer their loyalty. This was done in the name of the leader of the official opposition in the House of Commons. That is offensive in my mind and that is the charge I would like to have examined.

The federal government's response to the release of the member's communiqué came six days after the referendum vote. The defence minister, as quoted in a November 7, 1995 Toronto Star article, said the following: ``To appeal to members of the Canadian armed forces to become part of a hypothetical, foreign army, I found this matter perplexing. I found it a bit shocking''.

The article also stated that the defence minister asked the military's judge advocate general to give a legal opinion about the propriety of the communiqué released by the member for Charlesbourg.

Since these comments were made Canadians have not heard any other official word from the government. The government has not taken any action against the member; it has not even asked for an apology.

This brings us to the first major reason I believe my colleague had a valid point when he asked that the action taken by the member for Charlesbourg on October 26, 1995, including the charge of sedition, be investigated by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Since the referendum I have travelled extensively in my riding and throughout the country. I have listened to many Canadians who are extremely perturbed and upset at the member's behaviour, that he should do something like this and that there should be no response. They sincerely believe he did something wrong.

The informal broadcast news poll quoted by my colleague indicates that I am not one small voice in the wilderness since 94 per cent of respondents said that something should be done. While this is not a scientific poll with 1,178 respondents it is a larger number than many polls with results upon which major decisions are based.

These are very serious accusations. We have heard many definitions of sedition; many dictionaries have been quoted. I quote from the Criminal Code, section 62(1)(b) which describes sedition and its penalties:

Everyone who wilfully (a) interferes with, impairs or influences the loyalty or discipline of a member of a force,

This is not talking about a revolt. This is talking about influence and this is exactly what was done, in my estimation. The section continues:

(b) publishes, edits, issues, circulates or distributes a writing that advises, counsels or urges insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny or refusal of a duty by a member of a force, or in any manner causes insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny or refusal of duty by a member of a force is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

Section two defines a force:

(2) In this section, "member of a force" means "a member of

a)the Canadian Forces; or

b) the naval, army or air forces of a state other than Canada that are lawfully present in Canada.

This description of the law is amazingly clear.

I mention these Criminal Code provisions to reveal how seriously Canadians feel about the situation and to point them out to Bloc members who would quote any variety of dictionaries to put their own slant on the matter. The definition we are interested in is the definition of the law, the definition of our Criminal Code.

Just as Canadians are upset about the situation, the member's actions infuriate them even more because of the lack of action by Parliament. Parliament's inaction in the situation is inexcusable. People are outraged there has not been any government investigation. They cannot understand why the federal government does not see it as an important issue.

Is the member's behaviour acceptable for a parliamentarian? Canadians deserve an answer to that question. This is what we are asking for. They fear the government is simply papering over the matter. One newspaper article I read in December 1995 stated: "Sources in Ottawa say the government, fearful of turning Bouchard and Jacob into martyrs, quietly has decided-"

[Dunblane, Scotland, March 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, there are simply no words to describe what happened yesterday in the quiet town of Dunblane, Scotland.

News of the killing of 16 young children and a teacher innocently going about their school activities is almost unbelievable. It tears at our hearts, makes us ask why over and over again and then leaves us with a feeling of immense horror, sadness and utter emptiness. It also gives us a great urge to reach out to that community in the hope that somehow, in some small way, we can support them in their inconsolable grief and irreplaceable loss.

To the people of Dunblane, from all Canadians, our thoughts and prayers are with you.

[Research And Development, March 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry is giving us the next chapter in the Liberal program of do as we say, not as we do.

Canadians were hoping for a forward looking science and technology strategy to create good long term jobs. Indeed they were hoping for some form of tax relief to spur investment growth in the emerging technologies. Instead, last year the Liberals killed the Tory defence industry productivity program, DIPP, and now they present a $250 million business subsidy dressed up as a non-subsidy. Call it son of DIPP.

Can the minister tell us how giving people back their own money and calling it not a subsidy is better than lowering taxes?

[Research And Development, March 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal broken promises are starting to sound like a broken record and the record shows this government has failed to support science and technology.

The red book promised a $900 million increase in research and development yet these are the facts: Last year the Liberals cut heavily into basic research and eliminated capital gains exemptions. Why did the government break its promise to increase R and D funding by $900 million? Better yet, why did the government not create tax incentives for research and development rather than subsidies?

[Disability Tax Credit, March 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, talk about slash and burn. Some disabled Canadians, through no fault of their own, have found themselves indebted to the federal government.

Revenue Canada changed the forms for claiming the federal disability tax credit. These disabled Canadians, after submitting the new forms, were deemed ineligible for the credit as they were no longer considered to be disabled. Figure that one out. They were also told to refund to the government the credit they had received from previous years, with interest.

One constituent whose husband is severely disabled wrote to me saying:

Revenue Canada wrote us February 2, 1996. They stated that our disability deduction had been disallowed for 1994 and we owed them $1,200 including $100 interest. The amount had to be paid by February 20, 1996 or more interest would be added-$1,200 is an entire month's paycheque for us.

Will the Minister of Revenue show compassion and review this unfair tax policy? So who is slashing and burning? The Liberals are the experts.

[Protection Of Personal Information Obtained By Certain Corporations Act, December 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to do that. I would first like to thank those members who took part in the debate on my private member's bill on personal information. The debate has been most instructive for me as I continue to consider this very important issue. Out of the debate I realize there are some aspects that do need amendment in the bill, particularly the area regarding sales. Leases were not mentioned in the bill.

With regard to the narrowness of the crafting of Bill C-315, I do believe if members did the same research that I did, they would find there are federal and provincial jurisdictions that limit how widely this bill can have influence. It has been purposely crafted in such a narrow manner so that it would not impede provincial influence. It is my anticipation that if this bill were passed it could be a model and a forerunner for the provinces in bringing in their own individual pieces of legislation for the protection of personal information.

I would like to ask fellow members who are being asked to keep in mind what is fair to commercial interests also to keep in mind what is fair to the people whose names and personal information are being used for commercial gain without their knowledge, without their consent and frequently to their own personal disadvantage, if not their jeopardy. While it may seem burdensome for a commercial enterprise to seek the permission of every person whose name they record, buy, sell or lease, as the case may be, why should companies be able to use this information simply because the rightful owners cannot prevent them from doing so?

In summary, I am asking colleagues to consider first the needs of the protection of their constituents as well as themselves and to support Bill C-315 at this second reading stage.

[Petitions, December 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by 182 residents of British Columbia, forwarded to me by Mrs. Margaret Wiens of 100 Mile House.

These petitioners call upon the government to enact immediate legislation for freedom of choice in health care; that is, full integration of alternative practitioners, homoeopathic, herbal, naturopathic, et cetera, into the Canadian health care system, with full and equal coverage for visits and necessary remedies.