Philip Mayfield

[Petitions, June 15th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I also present eight petitions signed by over 200 constituents from Quesnel, Williams Lake and Lillooet in the riding of Cariboo-Chilcotin.

My constituents request that Parliament not amend the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the charter of rights and freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or homosexuality, including amending the human rights code to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase of sexual orientation.

[Petitions, June 15th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House to present a petition sent to me by Mrs. Margaret Wiens of Quesnel, British Columbia, and signed by over 1,000 constituents from many areas of my riding of Cariboo-Chilcotin.

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

[Health, June 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the time has come to give Canadians freedom of choice in health care.

Every year Canadian taxpayers put tens of billions of dollars into health care premiums to pay for our medicare. Yet many of these same Canadians make the conscious decision to drop out of the conventional health care system, choosing alternate forms of health care.

One of my constituents, Mrs. Margaret Wiens, recently wrote to me: "A change in the way we deliver health care is long overdue. It is discriminatory to only cover and recognize conventional drugs. I and hundreds of thousands of others in Canada faithfully pay our medical premiums, and therefore we should have freedom to choose our preferred type of treatment".

I am confident that Canadians are capable of making intelligent decisions on how they will care for their bodies. It is time for the government to share this confidence. The Canada Health Act must be changed to return to Canadians the freedom of medical choice they are calling for.

[Petitions, May 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by Cariboo-Chilcotin constituents from 100 Mile House, Forest Grove, Canim Lake, and Lone Butte, British Columbia.

Those who signed the petition are of the opinion that existing controls on law-abiding, responsible firearms owners are more than enough to ensure public safety. They therefore call upon Parliament to support laws that will severely punish all violent criminals who use weapons in the commission of a crime; support new Criminal Code firearms control provisions that recognize and protect the right of law-abiding citizens to own and use recreational firearms; and support legislation that will repeal or modify existing gun control laws, which have not improved public safety or have proven not to be cost effective or have proven to be overly complex so as to be ineffective or unenforceable.

[Immigration Enforcement Improvement Act, May 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak on behalf of the Reform Party on Bill C-316 put forward by the hon. member for Cambridge.

It is very encouraging after a year and half to see the Liberals finally starting to realize Canada has a crime problem and action does have to be taken. Part of this action by necessity involves taking a hard look at our immigration policy. We must examine the safeguards now in place to deter immigrant criminals from coming to Canada.

We must also scrutinize how to remove those who slip by the safeguards and cause pain to Canadian people. Our constituents expect no less from us.

I will go through the bill in some detail and outline some of the flaws I see in it. I understand the Canadian Police Association had a major part in the drafting of the legislation. Nevertheless, there are some problems. I hope as I go through these the hon. member can either ease my concerns about some of the problems I see or commit himself to strengthening the provisions, intents and phrasing of Bill C-316.

My first concern lies in what I see as the basic discriminatory nature of the bill. The purpose of Bill C-316 is to give Canada's judges an extra option when dealing with criminal immigrants. Not only could criminal charges be laid but the judge as a punishment could order deportation of the criminal, a unique sentencing option available only for immigrant criminals.

Compare this with section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

Every individual is equal before and under the law, and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Under the bill those immigrants charged with a serious criminal offence will be under added pressure to plea bargain away the threat of deportation, a threat not facing a Canadian citizen in the same position. This provision appears to discriminate on the basis of national origin. For this reason alone I am fearful the bill would be struck down on its first charter challenge as being unconstitutional.

Section 3.8 raises questions on the constitutionality of the bill. Under this section criminal immigrants ordered deported by a judge could never be entitled to a conditional release, statutory release, temporary absence or accelerated review under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. There will

be instances when a judge will be unable to have a criminal immigrant deported. I will touch on these instances later.

If our criminal justice system is unable to carry through on a deportation it will have once again discriminated against a non-Canadian. Canadian criminals will be eligible for parole. Non-Canadian criminals, however, will have to serve out their full sentence no matter what circumstances surrounding their behaviour while in custody.

Without a deportation an individual under these circumstances could spend the rest of his or her life in prison at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer. This again potentially violates both the word and spirit of section 15.1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Reform MPs believe in effective laws to deter crime, like the member who sponsored the bill. Reformers, however, believe in laws that will stand up under the scrutiny of our most basic rights, even challenges from the Trudeau charter, which many feel has failed to protected the basic fundamental rights of Canadians. That is another debate.

We want laws will stand the test of time and unfortunately the bill as it is written fails to deliver.

Aside from these basic concerns there are a number of other serious problems with the bill that must be addressed at some point. Section 4.3 is one example of the short-sighted nature of the bill. As I mentioned earlier, a judge can add deportation as an additional punishment for non-Canadian criminals with any chance of parole removed. Yet section 4.3 states the criminal can only be deported to his home nation with the consent of that foreign state.

Many countries like Somalia and Vietnam refuse to take back criminal nationals. Under the bill we could develop a backlog of criminals in limbo ordered to be deported but not allowed to leave, all the while with the Canadian taxpayer on the hook for their time in jail.

Section 4.6 again highlights the seriousness of the bill's flaws. This section states no foreign criminal can be deported unless the criminal's home state either has conditional release laws similar to Canada's or agrees to conditional release provisions similar to Canada's.

In effect the hon. member is asking the rest of the world to adopt Canada's haphazard criminal justice and parole systems. If others do not do so, and there are dozens such as Vietnam and the state of California, the federal government would be unable to deport them.

I now ask the House to look at section 4. 5 of Bill C-316. It reads: "The order may provide for the removal from Canada to the foreign state of members of the family of the foreign offender on the same basis as described in section 33 of that act", that being the Immigration Act.

When an individual commits a crime care for dependent children is assumed to be passed on to another family member, a wife, husband or other relative. When this is not possible, as is the case with a single parent, these dependants become wards of the state. Whether the provincial family services departments across the country would allow for the deportation of children into uncertain and potentially dangerous circumstances is not clear. This is an issue that should be examined at length before the House debates Bill C-316 again.

Finally, I wish to bring to the attention of the House what I see as the largest oversight in the bill. Section 2 states section 3(f) of the Immigration Act would be amended by adding the following: the bill is to "ensure the expeditious removal from Canada of any person who has entered Canada and has subsequently been convicted of a serious criminal offence while in Canada".

What does the word "entered" mean and to whom does it apply? The answer can be found in the Immigration Act definitions. According to the act the word "entry" and all its derivatives are defined as follows: "Entry means lawful permission to come into Canada as a visitor". The bill will only apply to those in Canada on a temporary basis. The bill will not affect criminal immigrants at all, only those temporarily in Canada who will have to leave in any event when their visitor's permit expires.

I share the hon. member's concerns over criminal immigrants. During my time with the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration these concerns were brushed aside time and again by Liberal MPs. The hon. member for Cambridge is a rare exception to that rule. This general indifference to criminal immigrants is sad to see since the small majority stains the entire immigration process.

After all, each of us in the House has a family history that extends beyond this country's shores. Each of us is an immigrant or a descendant of immigrants.

I and the rest of the Reform Party share this member's basic concerns that those who come to Canada unwilling to contribute peacefully to the betterment of our country but choose instead to violate its laws and threaten its people have no legitimate place in Canada.

Regrettably Bill C-316 as it now stands has too many loose ends and too many unanswered questions. Should the member seek the unanimous consent of the House to withdraw the bill and have the material referred to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, I would be more than willing to support him. The issue is too important to leave any longer and certainly has merit for further consideration.

If he chooses to push ahead with the bill as is I will support it in second reading on principle and intent. If, however, each issue mentioned in my speech is not addressed and the numerous

loose ends in the bill are not tidied up I will be unable to support it at third reading.

[Sexual Orientation, May 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, an Ottawa Citizen columnist recently stated that criticizing the use of the words sexual orientation in Bill C-41 is homophobia. This is yet another example of the forces of political correctness trying to stifle and suppress debate in the House.

The justice minister insisted on including sexual orientation in Bill C-41, but as many MPs have noted it is virtually indefinable. As one MP said: "Don't ask me to tell you what it is because [it's] difficult to interpret, to define". These words belong to our very own Prime Minister.

Perverse groups such as the North American Man-Boy Love Association argue that pedophilia is a legitimate sexual orientation and look for legal loopholes to press their case. Bill C-41 gives them one more chance to do just that, endangering our children in the process.

I urge the justice minister to listen to Canadians, listen to common sense and drop the words sexual orientation from Bill C-41.

[Supply, May 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I will read the full text of the note. It states:

Mr. Mayfield, who is this Dr. Greenaway? Is he the former MP? What board did he sit on?

It is signed "Don". The note was delivered to me less than half an hour after the chief government whip made the allegations. I did not have an opportunity to respond to him and he knows it. He took advantage of it.

Dr. Greenaway by his own admission was fired. If he was not fired, why was he not reappointed? Why was this trusted member of the B.C. Treaty Commission not allowed to continue the valuable work he was doing? Why did the government shove him aside to replace him with someone else who did not have the experience, who did not have the same trust, who did not have the ongoing confidence of both sides? I reject the allegations.

It is another example of the kinds of tactics the rat pack used. I have no idea why rat pack tactics are necessary in a government that has the majority.

Rat pack tactics continue not only in the House but in the committees. We see them every day. Why is there no courtesy? Why are members not listened to? We do not ask them to agree with everything we propose. We only ask that they listen. Many if not most of our proposals, ideas and suggestions are not even given the courtesy of casual consideration.

The government deserves this lack of confidence.

[Supply, May 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have a note in my hand to which I would like to respond. There were personal allegations made about me. I would like to respond to them and to the note. I seek unanimous consent of the House to do that.

[Supply, May 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, a former member of the House of Commons, Dr. Lorne Greenaway, had great respect in his constituency of Cariboo-Chilcotin. He ran into some difficulties with his party and out of conscience resigned his seat.

Subsequently he was appointed to the B.C. treaty commission. With his understanding of aboriginal issues and his concern for just settlements for all, he performed outstanding service in that capacity as one of the original commissioners of the B.C. treaty commission.

I am sorry to say Dr. Greenaway was fired. This is the darker side of patronage appointments. Dr. Greenaway was fired so there would be room for someone else. I make no comment about the person who took his place. However, a valuable member who had great respect in the community has been set aside so patronage appointments can be made in his place.

I regret this has happened. This is an indication to me and to many of my constituents and the people of British Columbia of the tone of government the Liberals are setting. We are deeply dismayed by this.

I ask the hon. member if he can recall incidents such as this, the darker side of patronage, from his experience in Quebec.

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, May 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the roots of this Chamber stem back to its namesake in London, Britain's own House of Commons. Those words "House of Commons" refer to the purpose of this institution; to represent the commons or the commoners within government.

We carry on that tradition today by representing grassroots Canadians from all walks of life. Or do we? It is a question each of us should ask before engaging in this debate over MPs' pensions. Are we representing the same Canadians who elected us to this Chamber?

Two years ago Canadians clearly demanded change. After the 1993 election the once Progressive Conservatives were pushed to the backbenches of Canadian history and these Chambers greeted two new parties. The party that I am proud to be a member of, the Reform Party of Canada, promised to think, work and act differently. We started by putting our policies on paper. First in the blue book and then economizing by putting

this on the blue sheet long before the Liberals came out with their own red ink book.

We promised to truly fulfil our role as representatives of the people, going against our own party's official positions if necessary to represent our local electorate. In contrast, Canadians have seen how the Liberals handle MPs who strive to represent their own constituents. They are tossed from committees and bombarded with veiled threats from their leader. May I add, the Canadians I have spoken to have been appalled by these actions. They do not want to be ruled by Parliament. They want to be heard by Parliament.

Reform has also promised to fight for real change in such areas as government waste, deficits and debt and the MPs pensions. Over the past year I have stood in the House on three separate occasions demanding change in the MP pension plan. Or as I have come to call it, the MP pension scam. When one compares the private sector pension plans with the MPs pension scam as I have, it is obvious change is needed.

Under current tax laws, contributions to a pension plan cannot exceed 20 per cent of a salary, that is for the average Canadian. According to the accounting company KPMG Chartered Accountants, most private sector corporations spend the equivalent of between 13 per cent and 18 per cent of their payroll on pension plans. Some are far below these levels.

For example, one of Canada's largest telecommunications companies is at a mere 10 per cent of their payroll. Yet government after government has allowed MPs and Senators to skate around these rules, exempting themselves to a level equal to 63 per cent of the payroll equivalent. This means that if the plan was fully subsidized by MP pay cheques, over two-thirds of our income would go into supporting the MP pension plan. Even under the new proposals, pensions would be at 57 per cent of payroll, well over half. This kind of extravagance only leads to contempt among grassroots Canadians.

Many of my constituents have spoken out against this sort of waste. The language has not been positive. It is has been downright unparliamentary. Let me take a moment to quote from a few letters and comments I have received.

One constituent writes: "The government has been asking we taxpayers to tighten our belt as we struggle to live on less as they take in more taxes. It is time for them to set the example in restraint. Don't just talk about it, do it". Is spending seven million tax dollars a year on the new pension scam restraint? Is it responsible spending in the eyes of average Canadians? Think about it.

Another quote: "I think I can speak for most Canadians. We are sick of government waste, especially government pensions and benefits. It is a total extravagance on the government's part. I am 29 years old, my husband is 33, we have three small children. My husband works 12 hours a day, six days a week. We are sick and tired of the amount of income tax he pays".

An hon. member recently spoke at length on how MPs work: "Twenty-four hours a day, sometimes seven days a week". Therefore, MPs deserve this kind of pension. How can we justify taking tax dollars for this sort of luxury pension when many of our fellow Canadians are barely getting by with no security for their future.

There are many more letters I could quote from. In one of my 1994 householders, over one in four respondents spontaneously singled out on their own the MP pension plan when asked where cuts could be made to put our country's financial house in order. That was one in four without prompting.

This plan has become a lightning rod for all that is wrong with government and drastic change is needed. Sadly, the change demanded is one thing the Liberals have left out of the bill.

What surprises me most about this new plan is how little has changed between it and the old plan. I received a question and answer pamphlet from the President of the Treasury Board, as did evey member of this House, and I was shocked at some of the responses to the questions asked. Let me quote some. "Will members still need six years of service to qualify for a pension?" The answer: "Yes. No changes are being made in this regard". "Will the maximum pension still be 75 per cent of a member's best years' sessional indemnity?" The answer: "Yes, but now it will take members of the House of Commons longer to earn their maximum pension". "Will the new pensionable age affect retired members?" Answer: "No." In all, it was lots of talk but not much walk.

There is one change, however, the one time opting out clause. By putting this clause in, members now have a choice: either accept an outrageous unacceptable pension or none at all. In my view, this is a blatantly political move designed to make the government look like it is acting when in reality not much has changed. In fact, after the next election every new MP will have to take the new and improved so-called MP pension scam whether they like it or not.

The Reform caucus, myself included, view these proposals as completely unacceptable, and if they remain as they are it is the intention of the Reform Party of Canada to opt out.

It is sad to see so few members on the government and Bloc sides honouring these same principles. This is not an issue of the pocketbook; this is an issue of the heart. This pension issue

points to how we perceive Canada. Is this a country where we express our ideals of hope and prosperity, how our country will be now and for our children and grandchildren, or do we just grab as much for ourselves as we can while the opportunity is here?

None of us in the House of Commons came to Ottawa for the benefits or for the pay. We came to serve our fellow constituents and bring about the kinds of changes needed.

As long as we draw a paycheque from the Commons or travel on an MP's allowance, we are living off the backs of the taxpayers of Canada. Let me repeat that: we are living off the backs of the taxpayers of Canada.

Canadians are not saying that MPs do not deserve a salary or that we do not deserve a pension. All they ask is that the salaries we earn and the pensions we collect be in line with what is in the private sector, what they might reasonably expect for themselves. This is a call the Liberals have ignored, to their shame.