Philip Mayfield

[Petitions, October 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to present a petition from constituents in Clinton, Cache Creek, and 100 Mile House, British Columbia.

My constituents call upon the government not to amend the 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. They also call upon the government not to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to include sexual orientation in the prohibited grounds of discrimination.

I concur with these petitioners.

[Supply, October 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, there is some strategy, some rationale to my comments on the infrastructure program. We do have a stand. Reform supports the development of human infrastructure, supporting federal government activities that work toward the development of job skills, especially skills that are transferable to a variety of job positions.

Second, Reform supports the development of physical capital, maintaining airports, maintaining our sea ports and roads that enhance our economy for years to come and enhance our economic competitiveness in the world today.

On the other hand, it seems that the Liberal stand does not develop human capital. The skills developed are strictly for construction, general labour skills. The vast majority of jobs are short term basis. The minister cannot deny that. Skills developed are not transferable to other areas, just other construction projects.

It does not develop physical capital. For example, in the Liberal policy on infrastructure in Ontario less than half, 41.3 per cent of the money, is going toward roads; 23.3 per cent for sewers; 47 per cent going to non-residential projects like the ones I outlined in my speech.

[Supply, October 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege to address the members of this House in debate.

As the member of Parliament for Cariboo-Chilcotin, it is my duty and my privilege to represent the views and the concerns of the people in my riding. They are a diverse group but they share a common concern, the state of our nation's finances.

The Liberals have called upon the opposition benches, the opposition members, to provide them with some ideas. I hope they have been listening to this debate throughout the day. It is quite interesting to be over here and sort of be treated like a ping pong ball, to be asked to give ideas. Members do that and then they are slammed because the ideas are no darn good at all.

In the last federal election, Canadians were given three clear choices regarding the deficit. The Conservatives claimed they could outgrow the deficit in the hopes that economic growth would save the country's bottom line. The Liberals and the New Democrats said that they could contain the deficit focusing first on the campaign promises and paying the price some time down the road. Reform stood alone in saying that we must eliminate the deficit.

To prove our commitment, we set a target of three years to do that. We did it in a clearly outlined program of eliminating the deficit, zero deficit in three years. The people of the Cariboo spoke clearly on the matter. They wanted an end to sky high deficits, extravagant perks, government waste and yes, gold-plated pension plans too.

They did not want to outgrow or contain the deficit. They wanted it eliminated. The Liberals who do not share this view received a mandate to govern though I fear many opportunities to turn this country around have been ignored and have been lost.

A year has passed since the Liberals formed the government and our country is now a startling $535 billion in debt. With a financial catastrophe ahead of us the government has to commit itself to new ways of thinking. We are asking in this motion for the government to describe that. It has to eliminate waste. It has to eliminate overlap, redirect programs and then the lavish services Canadians can no longer afford and no longer want.

One program that I am particularly concerned about is the Canadian International Development Agency. CIDA was formed in 1968 under an order in council to distribute aid and help the poorest of the world's people. Since that time, however, CIDA has grown into an enormous organization with over 1,300 employees only 250 of whom work overseas and an over $2 billion budget. That is not much if one says it fast, but nevertheless it is $2,000 million for its budget.

Despite its size and expense, it has no official mandate from Parliament. This agency according to the Auditor General lacks the focus and direction to either make a concrete difference in the developing world or build enduring partnerships.

Another report found that it is more influenced by the bureaucratic environment than it is influential in the policy process. It has no long term plan and thus tax dollars are being wasted on programs that according to the report are having little effect on those in need.

What I find most disturbing is the fact that CIDA's work is duplicated in many areas by numerous non-governmental organizations. Many of these organizations receive the bulk of their funding from CIDA and this in my view is both wasteful and redundant.

This agency is adrift and directionless, wasting thousands of millions of dollars in the process. I call on the government to bring a mandate for CIDA before this House as quickly as possible to give this agency a firm direction and bring it under the regular scrutiny of the House of Commons.

The Reform Party has spoken out on CIDA proposing Bill C-250, an act to establish the Canadian International Development Agency. By formally establishing the agency and providing strict guidelines for its operation, Reform hopes to bring more control and accountability to CIDA. CIDA will then be able to focus on the tasks it must accomplish, leaving behind its heavy bureaucracy and saving Canadians a lot of money in the process.

I am more concerned though about one of the Liberal government's most glamorous projects, the celebrated infrastructure program. Reformers are committed to infrastructure; roads, railways, airports. They are all critical for the country. They tie the country together. They pull our communities closer together than ever before. They bring me as a member of Parliament from the isolated regions of Cariboo-Chilcotin to the federal heart here in Ottawa. Most important they keep Canada competitive in an expanding and competitive global market.

Investments in infrastructure must be seen as just that, investments. When starting a business, buying saving bonds or purchasing shares, people always have to consider the return on any investment. Governments can no longer spend money as they sometimes have in the past. The time for catering to regions or special interest groups is long gone. Governments today must invest in trying to help the most people with every dollar they spend, in other words getting the most bang for the buck.

That leads me to the infrastructure program. This program is rooted in the myth that governments can buy jobs. The vast majority of jobs created in this program are short term, the kind of jobs Canadians would pass on if given the choice. Their desire is for real long term positions with real opportunities, real chances for improvement and real hope. The infrastructure program gives Canadians false hope. The good news is just a flash in the pan, careful or you will miss it as it goes by. We are

left with billions of dollars of added debt for our children and grandchildren to repay in the years to come.

The infrastructure program has lost control, coming on stream just as provinces start into municipal elections. Municipalities and provinces have taken advantage of the program to start on their pet projects even though a government news release said that any projects that are not infrastructure based will be refused.

What do any of the following projects approved have to do with infrastructure? A canoe hall of fame for Shawinigan, Quebec; boccie courts in Toronto; luxury boxes in Edmonton's Northlands Coliseum; rental cabins in Saskatchewan's Rowan's Ravine Provincial Park; an artificial ice rink for Gilbert Plains, Manitoba; duck and pond gardens for Winnipeg; removing overhead wires in Shelburne, Nova Scotia to film a movie. I could go on and on.

Infrastructure is supposed to be about roads and sewers. It is supposed to be useful, accessible and beneficial for all citizens in a community. How many people I wonder will be playing boccie in Toronto? How many will be able to afford a brand new luxury box at the Northlands? How many will be making use of the new cabins at Rowan's Ravine?

These are not infrastructure projects. They are pet projects. Their very existence goes against the words of those in charge of the infrastructure program, against the Liberal red book and against the promises of this government.

Then there is the issue of the program's cost. This $6 billion has to come from somewhere. I can only think of two places; either through more debt which will be repaid by our children and grandchildren or more taxes. At a time when Canadians are taxed to the hilt and their governments are broke, this program pushes us even closer to the brink. As the finance minister himself pointed out on so many occasions last week, the debt is our biggest obstacle to long term security and prosperity.

Why the government is making the obstacle harder to overcome for the sake of boccie courts and cabins is beyond me. To close, I believe the key to eliminating our deficit is to focus. To succeed the government must commit itself to cutting the deficit, not to some ambiguous floating target, but to a simple number and that number is zero. It is only then that we can begin to start pulling ourselves out of the deep pit that we are now in.

[Supply, October 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her intervention. I thank her for indicating that this motion gives her party the opportunity to crystallize Liberal policy. That is exactly what this debate is about.

We would like to know what the Liberals really plan to do. We would like to know what the government process is going to be. We would like to know how they are going to reduce the spending she has talked about.

Despite the pejorative comments that have been made by the member about the Reform policies, there are still questions about what the Liberals are going to do. These questions are raised by this member's speech. She has discussed crown corporations. Should we privatize crown corporations? The question is also can we afford to continue subsidizing crown corporations at the rate at which they are being subsidized today?

She talked about the open consultation process. There is real doubt in my mind about this process. It seems as though people are being told: "Look how hard it is to cut expenditures". Nobody in this House believes it is easy, but to say to people: "Let us see how you can do it if we cannot" is not really a consultation process. There is nothing being put before the people for them to work with. Just to say how difficult it is and "can you show us how to do it" is not a consultation process.

The question still is how will the government reduce the deficit. That is what we are asking. We are not asking more questions about if, when and may. How will the government reduce the deficit? How will the government regain control of the financial position of our nation?

That is the question I put to the member, not to decry about other policies, not to say the member has not told us how to do it. What is in mind? The government has been waiting for years to take power. The problem has grown in complexity and intensity for those years. By the time all the processes are finished the problem will be advanced that much further. We will likely need to have more consultations.

How will the government reduce the deficit? What is its vision? That is what we are asking.

[Supply, October 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, It is interesting to listen to the hon. parliamentary secretary. I would encourage him not to break his arm patting himself on the back however.

On this first anniversary I find it interesting that the Liberals come to the House of Commons saying: "Give us your ideas". After being in opposition for eight years and burning to take power with all they had to offer the country, they end up asking: "Well, what are your ideas?".

I find the credit they take for the infrastructure project interesting. This project will add $6 billion or $8 billion to the debt. It will provide jobs for a few months which our children will end up paying for. I find this very interesting.

The question on my mind is with regard to the consultation process. Two of these processes are taking place right now, one by the Minister of Human Resources Development and the other by the Minister of Finance.

The first consultation I mentioned is one for which Canadians are asked to give the government their ideas, but it is a process that makes it extremely difficult for Canadians to take part. After the minister's announcement they were given until September 7 to get their briefs in. This was after applying for the information on the proper procedure to follow.

As far as the people of British Columbia are concerned, these consultations are being held November 16 and 17. It seems to be a very short timeframe for filing briefs, one that is impossible for anyone but the special interest groups who already have their briefs in. As a result, members of Parliament are having to gather the information, take it out to their ridings and perhaps return it to the minister.

With regard to the consultation process with the Minister of Finance, it seems to be much more an exercise in rubbing people's noses in the mess that has been caused by previous governments over the past 25 years, to soften them up for the process of what is to take place. I really question whether consultation is being required as much as preparing people for the onslaught of what is to come.

The Reform Party provided a program during the election campaign a year ago in which by focusing resources upon those people most in need we would be able to eliminate the deficit in three years. This would be done without the harsh consequences the Liberals keep trying to portray us as bringing onto the country.

The question I would like to ask the hon. parliamentary secretary is when will the Liberals really take seriously the process of consultation and open the doors for Canadians as well as opposition members to provide the ideas they keep calling for?

[Immigration Act, October 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I speak in support of the motion to regulate testing of all applicants for immigration for HIV-AIDS.

Today I would like to talk about a potentially massive health care problem which could be easily averted if we as parliamentarians take action. The problem is the entrance into Canada of HIV or AIDS infected immigrants. We are talking about immigrants, not visitors.

AIDS is a relatively new phenomenon in comparison with other diseases. The term has only entered the vocabulary of most Canadians over the past decade. Public awareness of the disease is still far less than it should be. Consequently there has often been a lag in the response of governments and institutions in dealing with the problem. We are aware that AIDS is only communicated in certain instances, not by casual contact. This is a situation which we must rectify today.

What is proposed is mandatory HIV-AIDS testing for all new immigrants to Canada. There is a great deal of logic and common sense to the proposal. I believe the action would be supported by a substantial majority of the Canadian public.

The facts are simple. The treatment of patients infected with the HIV virus and AIDS is an enormously expensive undertaking. Despite the millions of dollars spent on research, at this time there appears to be very little hope for a cure or even an effective vaccine. Those who study AIDS continue to advocate prevention as the best line of defence.

The motion could play a key role in reducing the number of Canadians who would otherwise be infected by the disease. HIV and AIDS infection is spreading rapidly across the world. These are the current numbers: by mid-1994 approximately 986,000 cases of aids have been reported. However, as the World Health Organization has noted, several factors suggest this is only a small part of a larger total. Many countries were slow to admit they have an AIDS problem and to move to set up systematic surveillance and reporting.

In areas where expertise and blood testing facilities are lacking it may be difficult to differentiate AIDS from other common diseases. In remote parts of the developing world many people fall ill and die without ever coming into contact with modern health services. Given these factors the World Health Organization believes the number of people to be infected with AIDS is much higher. The WHO estimates that by early 1994 more than three million cases of aids have actually occurred, including over 500,000 infants born to HIV infected women.

Some may argue that three million cases in a world population of over five billion does not represent a major health crisis, but the number of AIDS cases is actually a small part of a much larger problem. AIDS is the late stage of infection by a virus that can take more than a decade to cause illness.

The real measure of the scope of the epidemic is the number of people infected with HIV. The World Health Organization estimates there are more than 15 million people worldwide, including more than a million children infected with the virus. By the year 2000 if conservative forecasts prove correct, the cumulative total of HIV infections may reach 30 million to 40 million and the number of AIDS cases, more than 10 million.

A World Health Organization publication entitled "AIDS, Images of the Epidemic" notes the need for proper surveillance for better understanding of the disease. It notes that the most convenient approach to surveillance is to locate it in the health care system and test people who come in for care.

I believe the motion being put forward today is very much in the spirit of that recommendation. Canada already has in place the means to impose HIV-AIDS testing on immigrant applicants. These powers are contained in subsection 19(1) of the Immigration Act.

Canada has a long history of facing the challenge of infectious and lethal diseases brought to our country by immigrants and newcomers. For example, the forced quarantine of European immigrants for cholera and typhoid on the Quebec island of Grosse-Île is well documented. The island is now considered to be part of Canadian history and was recently visited by Irish President Mary Robinson because of its significance. Although Grosse-Île was at times a place of death and great suffering, it served the purpose of protecting the Canadian population as a whole from infection by these terrible diseases. It was the guiding principle then and it must remain the guiding principle for our immigration officials today.

Members of Parliament are accountable to the people they were elected to serve. Too often as members we hear stories of how the system failed. Sometimes it is a case of a criminal being paroled to offend a second time. Other times it is a case of a deportation order not being followed through and a policeman being murdered as a result.

If we do not follow through on the motion being discussed today, I believe one day the government will have to account to victims and friends and families of victims who contracted the disease through government inaction.

Why must we allow this to happen? Why is it that so often the government and governments like it must wait to be confronted by the victims before they make changes to policies? It is not unduly cruel to deny HIV and AIDS sufferers entrance to the country if it will prevent even one Canadian from contracting the disease. Persons infected with HIV and AIDS clearly, in the words of the Immigration Act, are or are likely to be a danger to public health or public safety. Something must be done.

Protection of the public is not the only criterion for denying individuals infected with AIDS or HIV the right to immigrate to Canada. The second part of the act takes into consideration another important component of any discussion of health care and that issue is cost. The act recognizes it should not be a priority of government to admit to the country those who will be a burden on the Canadian health care system.

Clearly immigrants infected with HIV or AIDS would be a source of excessive demand on the Canadian health care system. The disease is as expensive to treat as it is inexpensive to prevent. Recent figures from the United States show the average cost of treating a person with AIDS was $32,000 a year and the annual cost of treating a person with HIV but not AIDS was estimated at $5,150 a year. In 1991 the cost of HIV and AIDS care in the United States was estimated at $5.8 billion, including $4.4 billion for people with AIDS and $1.4 billion for HIV infected persons without AIDS.

In Canada some figures have shown the cost per year for persons infected with AIDS is $33,900. Our health care system is already overburdened and many Canadians have been forced on to waiting lists because of funding cutbacks. I call on the government not to aggravate the problem further by allowing immigrants with a terminal contagious disease into the country.

There are other factors to consider. Canada's taxpayer funded health care system is available to all citizens who want to use it. This is not the case for most other countries. It is conceivable that individuals knowingly infected with this virus could come to Canada because we have a publicly funded and accessible health care system. Our system may even be desirable to U.S. residents suffering from the disease, millions of whom have no health care insurance.

I would also like to note at this point that the United States already tests applicants for legal immigration to that country for AIDS and HIV.

In conclusion, a battery of blood tests is already part of the standard medical examination that is mandatory for all immigrants. Adding HIV will not substantially increase the cost of examinations, most of which are user pay. The cost of an HIV-AIDS test is $12, approximately one-third the cost of a test for tuberculosis. There is no good reason not to test for and exclude immigrant applicants with HIV since those with other untreatable or serious communicable diseases are already subject to exclusion.

[National Science And Technology Week, October 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this is National Science and Technology Week. I would like to take the opportunity to pay tribute to a remarkable young woman from the riding of Cariboo-Chilcotin.

Ciel Patenaude of Horsefly, British Columbia will be facing the world next May in the International Science and Engineering Fair in Hamilton, Ontario. Ciel and her 31 teammates will be representing Canada for the first time in this world series of science fairs, competing against 1,000 high school students from 30 countries.

I am pleased that more and more women are becoming involved in science and engineering. I am especially proud that Cariboo-Chilcotin will be represented at the International Science and Engineering Fair. I wish Ciel and her teammates all the best in the upcoming competition.

I will be looking forward to Team Canada bringing home the gold.

[Patrick Kelly, October 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am hearing concerns from my constituents and have been studying the facts. I would like to add my name to the list of individuals urging the government to take action in the case of Patrick Kelly. Mr. Kelly is the former RCMP officer who was convicted of murdering his wife based on eyewitness testimony.

The eyewitness has since reversed her position yet there have been unacceptable delays in the process which could lead to a new trial. Since the conviction of Mr. Kelly allegations of dishonesty on the part of the investigating officers have also been put forward.

Dawn Taber, the eyewitness who was critical in putting Mr. Kelly behind bars, has rescinded her testimony claiming she lied in court under pressure from the investigating officers.While the government has called an independent review into the case, I am concerned that the Minister of Justice has yet to give a deadline for the review's completion.

It is imperative that Patrick Kelly receive a speedy review of this conviction in light of these new revelations and receive the justice he deserves.

[Petitions, October 17th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to present a petition from constituents in Horsefly, Williams Lake and 150 Mile House, British Columbia.

My constituents call on the government to refrain from passing any legislation that results in additional gun control laws. My constituents also request that under existing laws Parliament act to increase penalties for the illegal possession of a firearm or for criminal use of any firearm.

This petition is presented with my concurrence.

[Petitions, September 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to present petitions signed by over 100 constituents from Williams Lake, 100 Mile House, and Lillooet, British Columbia.

My constituents call upon the government not to amend the 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.

They also call upon the government not to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to include sexual orientation in the prohibited grounds of discrimination.

I present this petition with my concurrence.