Philip Mayfield

[Agriculture, May 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak today on motion M-314 put forward by my colleague from Moose Jaw-Lake Centre.

I find it interesting that my Liberal colleagues speak of the lack of necessity for this bill. Both the hon. member for Lisgar-Marquette, who just spoke, and the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, who proposed this motion, are active farmers who are struggling under the inefficiencies and the problems of the system as it is now and are seeking to put solutions forward.

The agricultural industry is intricately tied into the whole social fabric of Canada. Over one million Canadians today are involved in agriculture. Many of our peers in this Chamber, as I have mentioned, have left their farms to represent their friends and neighbours in the House of Commons. Millions of other Canadians only need to look back a generation or two to find a parent or a grandparent who worked the land. My own father ranched at the Springhouse ranch and my grandfather at the 141 mile ranch in the Cariboo district of British Columbia.

The product of the hard work of our Canadian farmers and ranchers sustained our troops during two great wars, saved the lives of millions of the world's poorest nations, and feeds the needy and destitute of today. They fed the world for decades and will continue to do so for decades to come. We are blessed with an amazing basket that feeds the hungry of the world. The question remaining, though, is how to continue feeding the world in the most efficient way possible.

The agriculture industry of today is vastly different from that of 50 years ago. Today, agriculture is controlled and managed through a number of government departments and private sector organizations. We have bureaucrats in downtown Ottawa studying regional farming policies, and at the same time their counterparts in the ten provincial capitals are duplicating many of the same services the federal government is offering. On top of these bureaucracies are a variety of government agencies and private corporations that work in the industry.

Combine all these agencies and government departments together and you have a tangle of rules, restrictions, and regulations that hamper initiative and change. What is needed is a new vision, a new and better approach to the management of agriculture.

There are three starting points the government must first realize before a positive change can take place. The three points I refer to are that each region of our country has unique and diverse needs; that each government has a responsibility to respond to these needs, using its respective strengths; and that each person within the agriculture community has a strong desire to go about their business in the most efficient and profitable way possible. Let me take a moment to expand on these three points.

First, on the uniqueness of each region, I have had the privilege of travelling through and working in many of the agriculture regions of our country. I have worked in the cattle ranches in the British Columbia interior. I have walked through prairie wheat fields. I have driven by the corn and tobacco fields of southern Ontario. I hope some day to visit some of the farms in Quebec, as I have had the opportunity to do in the Maritimes, particularly in Hants County, where the member for Annapolis Valley-Hants comes from.

What has always struck me is how distinctive each region is and how unique each region's needs are. Do these regions have common concerns? Of course they do. These concerns should be pursued in a united manner. Yet the regions do not share common ground on every issue, and we as parliamentarians must keep this in mind.

Second, on responding to those needs, this year the federal government will spend over $2.2 billion to support our agriculture industry, and the provinces will contribute a similar amount, meaning that almost $4.5 billion will be spent on agriculture programs this year. This works out to over $157 per Canadian or over $332 per taxpayer. That is enough to feed one person for ten weeks, and perhaps longer with careful shopping. Are Canadians getting value for that money? According to the farmers and the taxpayers, the answer is no. Is there room for improvement? Of course there is room for improvement.

For that $4.5 billion the various levels of government manage to keep over 20,000 civil servants on the payroll, 10,000 at the provincial level and another 10,000 at the federal level. According to my colleague from Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, this works out to one agricultural civil servant for every 14 farms.

The limited money remaining after paying these government employees goes into numerous support programs. These federal and provincial programs often end up overlapping each other, resulting in farmers wasting valuable time and paperwork, not to mention the tax dollars lost through duplication.

To respond to the needs of farmers, governments must play to their inherent strengths. That is, the federal government directing its resources to such areas as international trade, monetary policy, whole farm income stabilization, and safety hazards, and the provinces more locally investing their money in such areas as resource management and human resources.

There is the desire for each stakeholder to go about his or her business in the most efficient way possible. We must begin talking more about empowerment, giving individuals more autonomy in their everyday lives.

It is amazing how bureaucratic control has crept into so much of our Canadian way of life, stifling the very initiative it set out to reinforce. Extending autonomy can involve encouraging the private sector to become more involved so the market system can work to the advantage of the farmer, not just to satisfy regulations that are increasingly failing to meet the needs they were designed for.

We in Parliament must be constantly asking ourselves how we as law makers and the civil servants who enforce the laws and implement the regulations are interfering with the private sector. Are we in its way? If so, how can we move out of the way?

I urge the minister of agriculture and his provincial counterparts to be constantly asking the same questions asked during the federal program review for each and every subsidy and program in the department.

Does the program continue to serve the public interest? Is there a legitimate and necessary role for the government in this area? Is the current role of the federal government appropriate, or can the programs be turned over to the provinces or even eliminated in the name of efficiency and well-being for the individual farmer and the agriculture industry? What activities could be transferred to the private or volunteer sectors? If the government program continues, how can its efficiency be improved? Is the final package of programs affordable and if not which of these programs could and should be abandoned?

My colleague from Moose Jaw-Lake Centre has taken an important first step by proposing a new dialogue between the players involved in the agriculture industry. I hope this debate on Motion No. M-314 will be an important first step in bringing about substantial change in the agriculture policy of Canada.

I ask and encourage all members of the House to support this motion.

[Questions On The Order Paper, May 5th, 1995]

In the wake of the authors' meeting sponsored by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration last January 6 and 7 in Vancouver, ( a ) have any further meetings of the sort been scheduled by, or discussed within the department, and ( b ) what is the size of the budget allocated by the department for these consultations on revisions to the Citizenship Act?

[Questions On The Order Paper, May 5th, 1995]

In regard to the authors' meeting sponsored by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration last January 6 and 7 in Vancouver, ( a ) which officials from the government were present and what were their positions, ( b ) provide names of the authors involved and their province of residence, ( c ) how much was spent on this meeting and ( d ) provide an itemized breakdown of how this money was spent?

[Petitions, May 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House to present a petition signed by 295 people from the riding of Cariboo-Chilcotin, other areas of British Columbia, and even one from Alberta.

All 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.

[West Coast Fisheries, May 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has been hailed as the hero of the east coast. At the other end of the country the B.C. fishery has taken a beating and, according to British Columbia's fisheries minister, 1995 will be no different.

Along the Quesnel River the chinook salmon run of 1994 was down 75 per cent. The Quesnel River hatchery released over 200,000 fish to support these levels but it is threatened with imminent closure.

Its last release scheduled for this month will consist of 200,000 one-gram chinook babies who only have a one in one-thousand chance of surviving because of their age and size. They are being released a whole year early. These fish are not crying out, "someone reach out and save us", like the minister quoted the turbot as saying in New York. After all, these chinook are not old enough to talk.

It is time for the minister to take his commitment to conservation seriously. It is time for him to show his commitment to protecting the chinook salmon. Preserve the salmon for our children and grandchildren by keeping this hatchery open.

[Questions On The Order Paper, April 24th, 1995]

With respect to the consolidation of office space planned within the national capital region by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, (a) what is the cost per year for each of the 11 office leases currently held by the department, ( b ) what are the expiry dates of each of these leases, and ( c ) what are the expected savings per year for this consolidation plan?

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, April 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, "there are times in the progress of a people when fundamental changes must be faced, fundamental choices made and a new course charted". With these words the finance minister tabled what has been called the most important budget in Canadian history. He says it is a budget with one objective, to break the back of the deficit and bring our finances under control.

Canadians will have to judge by the minister's own criteria. They will have to judge whether the fundamental challenge of a deficit elimination been faced. Have fundamental choices been made to meet that challenge? Has the new course really been charted toward federal fiscal responsibility? These are questions I will deal with.

First is the question of whether the deficit elimination challenge has been faced. In the dying days of the Trudeau government a budget was tabled with a then unheard of deficit of over $38 billion.

Michael Wilson six years ago said: "We have a serious problem, our large and growing public debt". The Tories had nine years to balance the books but failed to do so at each and every attempt. The closest they came to a balanced budget was $19 billion.

Now the Liberals are back. The finance minister, as his predecessors before him, says the time has come to deal with this deficit crisis. When one looks at his three-year plan, the final goal is not deficit elimination, it is only modest reduction. If the challenge is a balanced budget, and it must be, given today's economic climate, this challenge has not been met.

Second is the question of whether fundamental choices have been made to meet the deficit challenge. There were clear decisions to be made: the status quo or new direction, continued deficit or no deficit, tax hikes or spending cuts.

The bottom line said it all. Program spending has decreased a mere $5.1 billion out of a total of $163.5 billion. That works out to only 4 per cent of program spending or a mere 3 per cent of total spending. These so-called cuts are a drop in the bucket compared with what must be done to bring our finances under control.

At the same time, there are new business taxes, gasoline taxes and new user fees. Clearly the government has not taken decisive action and has not made the fundamental choices Canadians have been demanding.

Third, regarding the question of whether a new course in government spending has been charted in the budget, clearly for the past 20 years federal governments have followed a course leading from one deficit to the next at an accumulative cost of over $548 billion.

Since the government came to power it has followed that exact pattern, predicting deficits past 1997. No new course has been plotted. It is still business as usual with deficits, deficits, deficits.

Several months ago I asked Cariboo-Chilcotin constituents in a householder survey for their thoughts on cutting the deficit. I placed before them the list of cuts the Reform Party presented to the finance committee and asked whether they agreed with this list.

There was overwhelming support for ending regional development programs, privatizing the CBC, stopping the funding for crown corporations, ending multiculturalism and bilingualism funding, immediately stopping support for special interest groups and downsizing the ministries of agriculture, industry, natural resources, and fisheries and oceans. These are the recommendations of my constituents.

Is the budget fair? The finance minister has been quick to stress the budget spreads the burden. No one escaped the pain, he stressed, and the burden has been borne equally.

Is it fair to Canadians? Is it fair to our families? Is it fair to our children? Is it fair to our grandchildren and great grandchildren and future generations to come? The answer on all counts is firmly no, it is not. It is not fair to thousands of civil servants who could lose their jobs based on their race or sex.

According to the minister of intergovernmental affairs cuts will focus on white males in the civil service despite the fact this violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Families will be strained, careers destroyed and the principles of merit ignored, all for the sake of pacifying radical special interest groups.

It is not fair to the grassroots which will continue to be shouted down on the national scene. Funding for special interests, the political fringes of our society, lives on. The radical agendas will continue to be pushed to centre stage while views and opinions of ordinary Canadians will once again be pushed out the exit doors.

It is not fair to young Canadians, our future workers, our future leaders. For the first time in Canadian history young Canadians are facing a future that will bring them less prosperity than their parents or grandparents. It is these young people and not their parents or grandparents who will eventually have to begin paying off a debt that now totals $548 billion.

The finance minister has put off any major cuts for some time in the distant future. It is our children who will have to deal with his indecisiveness with even higher taxes and fewer social programs.

I have often said I did not enter politics for myself but for my children and for their peers across the country. When I graduated from school the opportunities were virtually limitless. When I wanted a job, I picked my field. When I wanted more schooling, admission was both easy and affordable.

I could count on having a good salary to meet my needs and the needs of my wife and family. All that has changed. Young people no longer have their pick of jobs. They have to take what they can get, often piecing together two or three part time jobs to make ends meet.

Tuitions are rapidly rising, enrolment falling and opportunities becoming fewer and farther apart. There are many reasons for these changes such as high payroll taxes, decreasing funding and economic restructuring but it all comes down to one thing, the debt.

As our debt increases over the next three years, our economy will be even more strained to pay ever more interest on our growing debt, meaning our young people will have even fewer opportunities in the years to come. For their sake we have to tackle the deficit now.

The budget has failed on all counts.

The challenge of deficit elimination has not been faced. The fundamental choices Canadians demanded have not been made. A new course towards fiscal responsibility has not been charted, and this budget has not been fair, as the minister claimed.

Canadians are not looking for another Michael Wilson or Don Mazankowski, both of whom drifted from deficit to deficit. They are looking for decisive action to bring our nation's finances back into balance. I hope this finance minister will show more decisiveness next year than he has this year. The window for opportunity is quickly closing.

I am very pleased that the Reform Party has presented an alternative budget, which the Liberal Party has been invited to review, to copy and to use.

[Petitions, March 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions. One petition is signed by people from Hagensborg, Bella Coola. The second is signed by constituents from Williams Lake and places like Alkali Lake, Soda Creek, 150-Mile House.

In each instance these petitioners 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, to support new Criminal Code firearms control provisions that recognize and protect the right of law-abiding citizens to own and use recreational firearms, to support legislation that will repeal or modify existing gun control laws that have not improved public safety, have proven not to be cost effective or have proven to be overly complex so as to be ineffective or unenforceable.

[Justice, March 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the people of Quesnel, British Columbia are outraged by our so-called justice system.

Last Sunday, Quesnel RCMP arrested a 19-year old man who, according to witnesses, dragged an elderly woman into his hotel room, held a knife to her throat and brutally raped her. When the woman's husband entered the scene, the rapist chased him down the hall and threatened him at knifepoint. The community hoped that justice would be served.

The elderly woman who is in what are supposed to be her golden years is in trauma therapy. The loving couple has been scarred forever. Imagine the shock Quesnel residents felt when this rapist was allowed back into the community on a petty $1,000 bond.

Canadians deserve better. While our criminals are given free college tuition or are let go on token bonds to roam the streets, shattered lives are left to heal on their own. Meanwhile, the public continues to ask who the justice system works for, the victim or the criminal?

Will the justice minister please stop wasting time on pet projects and start working to put justice back into the justice system?

[Petitions, March 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have one more petition. I would like to present a petition signed by 134 constituents, again from the city of Quesnel and other areas of British Columbia.

These petitioners request that Parliament not amend 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 of homosexuality, including amending the Canadian Human Rights Act to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.

This petition is also presented with my concurrence.