Philip Mayfield

[Sahtu Dene And Metis Land Claim Settlement Act, April 25th, 1994]

I would need about another 15 minutes to complete my intervention, Mr. Speaker.

[Sahtu Dene And Metis Land Claim Settlement Act, April 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to preface my comments by saying that there is a legitimacy about the comments that the Reform Party members are making in this debate.

I am honoured to be here. I am honoured to participate in this debate and express concerns and questions of my constituents.

Far too many aboriginal people struggle daily with the economic and social conditions that are overwhelming and tragic. Few Canadians would argue that their standard of living is acceptable. For far too long aboriginal people and the state of their affairs were out of sight of most Canadians. However, as Canadian people become increasingly aware of what life on reserves has meant in terms of humiliation and loss, there is a justifiable reaction. Let us remedy the situation. Let us make it right. There is a will for this to happen.

Some people are saying there is no way that we can move too quickly or do too much to remedy the unacceptable state of aboriginal affairs. I have heard non-aboriginal people in their enthusiasm and guilt say things like it is the white man's turn to live on the reserves with no vote and do what the department of Indian affairs tells him.

In my mind, however, what we must accomplish is somewhat less reactionary. I believe that what we should be doing is bringing down the barriers and co-operatively opening up the way for aboriginal people to come as far into the mainstream of Canadian life as they individually choose to come.

I have heard aboriginal people respond to this guilt of the white man. In very natural human terms aboriginal people are prepared to take whatever the government will give up; money, land, special rights. Aboriginal leaders are justifiably proud that they have learned how to get money out of the government, as one western chief described it. They have learned that in the present climate of political correctness the government has little if any will to deny aboriginal demands.

As an example of this the media reported recently that the minister of aboriginal affairs was handed a memorandum of understanding by Chief Phil Fontaine and after quickly reading the memorandum, without a word of clarification or consultation and to the surprise of everyone in the room, the minister took out his pen and signed it. All involved were so surprised at the minister's action, to quote the reporter, you could have heard a pin drop.

I see the Sahtu Dene and Metis comprehensive land claim agreement that we are debating today in much the same light; a willingness to give to the Sahtu Dene and Metis whatever is demanded. Once again there is a willingness to relinquish large tracts of land, water, surface and subsurface rights with little public consultation south of 60. There is also the unanswered question of the federal government's legal ability to enter into such an agreement without at least consulting the provincial governments.

I am not suggesting that past wrongs and present day inequities should not be addressed. They must be addressed. But inasmuch as there are now no secrets about what happened on the reserves and in the residential schools, by the same token neither should there be any secrets about what the government of the day does behind closed doors.

So far the Sahtu Dene and Metis agreement has been made behind closed doors with little public consultation. When the facts become known, as surely they will, what will be the reaction of mainstream Canadians? They will feel they have been deceived by the government. Will their reaction stall and delay and even prevent the kind of programs that fair-minded aboriginals and non-aboriginals alike have been struggling to achieve? Will the reaction move against and stifle the agreement?

Bridges can and should be built between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people. These bridges need to be built for two-way traffic. Cultural enrichment can cross these bridges in both directions for the benefit of all Canadians.

In the mosaic of cultures that is being created in Canada, every culture can receive as well as contribute to the Canadian mosaic. I am not confusing this concept with that of the melting pot of cultures. What I am insisting on is that we have as an ultimate objective a unity within Canada that dynamically includes all cultures with no benefit or loss of benefit based on cultures-

[Petitions, April 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from my constituents in 100-Mile House, British Columbia.

My constituents ask that Parliament not repeal or amend section 241 of the Criminal Code and uphold the Supreme Court of Canada decision of September 30, 1993 to disallow assisted suicide, euthanasia.

This petition is presented with my concurrence.

[Day Care, April 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister misses the point. I do not advocate withdrawing funds or inhibiting people from going to work.

A voucher system would allow parents to stay home with their children or to send them to the most suitable day care. It would also direct public assistance to those who really need it.

Will the Deputy Prime Minister and the government consider the introduction of a child care voucher system rather than universal day care?

[Day Care, April 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development or for whomever the government chooses to answer.

The red ink book advocates an extensive increase in the number of child care spaces available. The government funding for this service will be paid by individual taxpayers whether or not they use it. Government funded day care increases the tax burden on Canadians and will further discriminate against families who choose to be single income households.

Does the government recognize that such a proposal will force more parents to send their children to day care even if they would prefer to stay home with them?

[Petitions, April 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from constituents of the city of Quesnel, British Columbia.

My constituents are unhappy that Canadians were not consulted before the Official Languages Act was entrenched in the Constitution.

They call on Parliament to enact legislation providing for a referendum of the people binding on Parliament to accept or reject two official languages, English and French, for the government and the people of Canada.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1994, April 15th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak on Bill C-17.

Overspending, high taxes and the enormous debt we are paying interest on are the big, big problems this government has still to deal with.

I spoke before about high taxes that Canadians are paying, taxes that are preventing investment in Canada, taxes that are

making it necessary for both parents to go out and work so that they can pay their rent, their mortgage and feed their families.

Most of all I talked about the fact that high taxes have resulted in an underground economy that is going to be difficult to stop. Sure, we have halted some of the smuggling of cigarettes because the government has cut the tobacco tax, but in its place is liquor smuggling. Stories in this week's press tell of warehouses stacked to the ceiling with contraband alcohol. The reason for this is the high taxes that Canadians are no longer willing to tolerate.

I have also talked about the government's infrastructure program and the fact that it will not create the permanent high tech jobs this country needs. Rather, what we have coming are short term jobs, jobs that will last only as long as the government pours money into the program affected.

I mention high tech jobs and the fact that the government seems to be shying away from the realities facing this country. Whether we want it or not, high technology is already here. It is going to affect all of us at some point. The information network is the first example that comes to my mind.

But what does the government do? It announces it will be pulling out of the space program. It cancels KAON. Here the potential job programs of the right kind are to be found, high tech jobs. We are losing the opportunities to create and expand the kind of skills this country is going to need if we are to compete in future markets, markets that will be technology based.

A constituent from Williams Lake, British Columbia wrote to me about the space program. He is convinced there are very good reasons that Canada should stay involved in the space program beyond the fact that it provides an insight into cutting edge technologies. My constituent goes on to say that he does not want to see Canada put on the back burner, but not getting involved in high tech industries will put Canada on the back burner.

The future more so for the next generation is going to be exciting. High technology will ensure that this is so, but only to the extent that we keep up with all the changes. Just look at the last 10 years and the changes to the workplace brought about by computers. This leads me to my next point, being able to be a part of the changing face of the workplace.

The February budget made reference to investing in jobs and people. Today the government will introduce its five point education program and work strategy program aimed at solving the problems of this country's youth, who are rapidly becoming known as the lost generation. The aim of the program is to create a new work ethic for young people between the ages of 15 and 24. There will be apprenticeships and the Canadian youth service corps. Is this Katimavik revisited? There will be a learning package.

Apprenticeships can be wonderful things. We do need young people to have formal training and marketable skills, but we must not leave it to the government to take responsibility for teaching the people. The private sector has to take the lead role so that people are trained for the jobs that will be there, not the jobs the government thinks might be there.

The learning package is probably the most commendable part of the youth program. If it does offer hope to the youth, if it does offer promise and jobs, I commend the government on this. I sincerely hope it is not a false promise.

In Tuesday's Globe and Mail there was an article by a young university student. This student passed comment about the fact that the professor had to take time from giving the economics lecture to give the class a lesson in grammar. It is a fact that some university students, although they have got into university and will probably get their degrees, still will be unable to function effectively in the real world of business and commerce because they cannot write a proper memo. They cannot reproduce a report or a letter that can be understood clearly. This is a major problem. It is not an isolated incident.

The government intends to work developing national education standards in math, science and language skills. This is long overdue and is a good move by the government. Only when we ensure that our children can read, write and express themselves properly will we be able to see a decrease in the unemployment rates for the younger generation.

Education is a major key to self esteem. What satisfaction to be able to pass the interview for a job and to adapt to the rapidly changing world marketplace.

Although the government's first budget does have some positive attributes, it does not in any way address the most pressing problem facing the country: the need to get Canada's financial affairs under control.

Many Canadians have learned how to cut back on spending because they have been forced by economic circumstances to do just that. However it is plain to see the federal government has not learned this whole lesson yet.

Taxation at current levels is an abuse of power. We have a government that is taking money from people and businesses in such quantities that these people are unable to maintain their present standard of living.

It is ludicrous when a young person with a minimum wage job has to try to borrow money to pay taxes because his employer

did not deduct sufficient at the source. This is really being put between the proverbial rock and hard place.

It is just as ludicrous when a small business person is forced to shut down because after taxes, licence fees, the cost of special audits and all the intrusions that can come from government the income is just not there. The business closes down and the employer and employees are out of work.

At a time when the government could and must reduce its expenditures it stubbornly refuses to do so. Rather it borrows what it is unable to tax, while taking from people money needed to put food on their tables. What is the government using it for? Grants to special interest groups; building multicultural centres; enforcing bilingualism; grants to multinational corporations; duplication of services between departments and between provincial and federal governments. A lot of this is in the name of humanity and kindness.

The government talks about Reform policies being of the slash and burn kind. The Reform Party has never advocated slash and burn policies as we have been accused. Instead we have proposed a program of maintaining essential services such as health care, pensions and education while prioritizing areas of expenditure reductions with a goal to reducing taxes. Non-essential programs that are a heavy drain on the treasury have to go if we are not to go belly up as a country. Effective prioritizing must begin. The government continues to avoid such prioritizing.

For example as part of its so-called cuts in spending the Liberals have slated closing down the chinook salmon hatchery on the Quesnel River in Likely, British Columbia. The reason given is that the hatchery is uneconomical. This is true, but the reason it is uneconomical is it is being operated at 10 per cent of its capacity. How could it possibly be operating in an economic manner at such a low rate? The major risk of losing this hatchery is the real possibility of also losing the chinook salmon in the upper Fraser system. Along with the salmon will go the hatchery workers' jobs.

[Teresa Mallam, April 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, last Saturday one of my constituents, Teresa Mallam of Quesnel, British Columbia, came to Ottawa.

Teresa, B.C. Report magazine's Cariboo correspondent, was here to receive the Canadian Association of Journalists prestigious prize for investigative journalism, an award that Teresa won for an article written in June 1993 about the 1989 brutal murder of Mary Jane Jimmie of Quesnel.

Mary Jane Jimmie's murderer has not been apprehended, but Teresa's persistence in going after the facts and attempting to find out what really happened may now lead to the person responsible being convicted and sent to prison.

I would like to offer my congratulations to Teresa for winning the award and for the high standard of journalism she has brought to the interior of British Columbia.

[Party Fundraising, March 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments the hon. member just made. It indicates a debate and perhaps a bit of a difference of opinion on this matter.

I am pleased to add my comments to the debate. It represents an opportunity for the government to begin to help restore the faith of Canadians in the electoral process.

In the past we have seen Parliament held hostage to a variety of special interest groups by their contributions. They have found support in some or all of the recognized political parties of the past. My comments are really intended on a non-partisan basis.

Special interest groups have found support in some or all of the recognized political parties. The interests of Canadians have been neglected by politicians appeasing the demands of large financial contributors. A wide spectrum of demands from business, unions and even federally funded special interest groups are regularly brought to members and to the government itself.

In politics one soon learns that nothing is free. Whatever is accepted will have an invoice following along sooner or later. The larger the gift the larger the price tag on it.

The premise of this motion is not new. As the hon. member for Richelieu has already pointed out, the province of Quebec has had similar legislation in place for over 15 years. There is a difference. Quebec's contribution limit is $3,000. Even with this $3,000 limit Quebec's provincial Liberal Party was able to raise $6.5 million during the 1986-87 campaign.

Shortage of campaign funds has not been a problem. Instead Quebec has been able to add real credibility to its legislature in these reforms.

John Parisella, director general of the Quebec Liberal Party at the time supported this contribution limit by claiming: "There is no way a government is going to sell its soul for $3,000. No individual company has a hold on us. Nobody owns this government".

One has to look no further than the current New Democratic Party government in British Columbia to understand the danger of political manipulation. Unions have been major supporters of NDP campaigns. Since the last provincial election the unions have really hit pay dirt. Only unionized companies are permitted to bid for most government contracts. Also businesses that have solid records of treating their employees fairly are now being forced to accept union intervention without their employees even having a vote. We cannot permit special interests to dominate the political agenda simply because they give money to a political party.

François Gérin, who the member has already mentioned, a Quebec Conservative during the last two terms of government was the main advocate for federal reform of political contributions. He argued that a party's acceptance of large contributions was a conflict of interest that brought the whole political process into question. He understood the perception of his constituents as he said: "Someone who works all year to earn $15,000 and has a family of three cannot understand that somebody will give $25,000 and ask nothing for it". The average family income in his riding at that time was only $15,000.

François Gérin demonstrated in his own riding the capability to run a campaign without huge contributions during a non-election period. With only 23 per cent party support on the national opinion polls, his constituency association was able to raise three times as much money as he needed to fund an election. In his case he used a strict limit of $1,000 maximum contribution.

Despite his many attempts, Mr. Gérin was never able to convince the Conservative government to change the Canada Elections Act. He did convince the Quebec caucus of the Conservative Party to adopt this policy. In the 1988 general election every member of the Quebec caucus took a vow to accept only personal contributions.

The results were quite surprising: Conservative candidates won 62 of the 75 seats, a greater success than even the Bloc Quebecois received in the last federal election. While the Conservatives received only 43 per cent of the popular support in 1988 across Canada, in Quebec that percentage was 51 per cent. In his own riding Gérin received a decisive 60 per cent of voter support. A significant amount of this additional voter support resulted from the increased interaction he had with his constituents.

Limiting the size of contributions means depending on broader support; depending on a broader support base requires more interaction with the voters. With that, financial support becomes a more significant demonstration of an electoral mandate.

As matters now stand, voting at the polls can often be a last minute decision resulting in a luck of the draw election win. In such instances those voting may give little real consideration to the value of their vote.

The opposite can be true by candidates and their parties reaching out to include even those who can make only the smallest contributions. Those considering supporting a campaign with their money will take the time to develop an understanding of the issues, the local candidates and the political parties they represent.

Corporate and personal tax considerations may vary greatly. Regardless of who makes the contribution, the same tax credit is realized. But this tax credit is of limited value to an individual, whereas after claiming a tax credit a corporation can, and corporations have, written off larger amounts as advertising or promotion expenses.

This has resulted in leaders of business, unions, special interest groups and lobbyists using their influence and other people's money to contribute to political campaigns instead of using their own personal money.

The intention of this motion is to prevent this abuse. A few powerful individuals are often in positions to make decisions that are paid for by using other people's money without their consent.

Trade unions have freely spent money raised through membership dues to support particular parties. In the case of publicly held corporations, what could have been shareholders' profits have been used to support a particular political party. Money donated to special interest groups for special purposes is sometimes re-routed to fund political campaigns.

This motion would allow only individual constituents the opportunity to make a political contribution to any legitimate party or nominated candidate to a limit of $5,000.

Elections are intended to democratically elect governments that best represent the desires of the people. We must not permit powerful individuals using other people's money to dominate the political agenda or the democratic process.

Limiting the amount any individual can contribute will give a truer representation of a political party's popular support.

[Supply, March 14th, 1994]

I am ware of that, Mr. Speaker. I will try to contain myself in future.