Randy White

[Supply, June 8th, 1994]

The Canadian people voted the Conservatives out. They did not vote a red book in.

Government members say: "Why not spend $6 billion of the taxpayers' money on infrastructure jobs? Let us find something else to spend our money on. After all we are only borrowing $40 billion. Why not create 150,000 child care spaces if the economy goes to 3 per cent of GDP? That is a good idea, but we do not want to show the people out there that we are borrowing $1.5 billion to do that. Therefore we will spend $750 million federally and we will ask the provinces to spend $750 million". Here we go again spending another $1.5 billion on the backs of

the taxpayers. And it is in that silly red book if you do not believe me.

Where is this government going as far as spending money? In actual fact it is spending $3 billion more this year than last year. Yes, it has made some cuts. I am going to go through some of these cuts, but they are surface cuts and it has really not touched the problem at all.

By the way, I should not forget to mention it did give about $3 million to the Prime Minister's riding to help build a museum of industry. I think there was another $33 million given to Quebec City for a conference centre. So maybe the government is looking at cutting back somewhere somehow.

What do you say to a government that comes up with estimates and we debate them when in fact it is spending more money than it should? How does one get excited about discussing estimates? Why is it that we have not had a reduction in the estimates in the last 20 years? Just what is wrong with governments in this day and age, in particular this federal government? What is wrong with these folks that they do not understand that people want them to cut back, not spend more?

The government is cutting some surface things and spending more on other things. It is amazing how these governments continue year after year to justify their existence and justify the spending of more money.

We are the directors of Canada corporation. All 295 members are the directors. If you were a director of any corporation and you said to your shareholders: "Well we sort of overspent this year but it is only $40 billion. Next year we are going to overspend by $30 billion", what would the reaction be of the shareholders? I suggest that in private industry, in the real world out there, the directors would not be directors any longer. And this government sanctimoniously stands up and talks about cutting $2.4 million? It is not really a cut. Surface spending is all it is.

Changes have been made in some of the House of Commons expenditures. Why is it that it might be seen as a vote of non-confidence if the estimates were more reflective of that fact? What we have asked for is to have these estimates amended and sent back.

I am going to go through some of the changes as the government whip did. However, I am going to put another side to the story because the warm fuzzies that were presented are not so warm at all. In fact, even some of these small cuts would not have happened had the Reform Party not been here. We pushed this government to make cuts in all of its perks and it still came up with some surface stuff.

The suggestion has been made that we give ourselves too much credit, but we probably do not give ourselves enough. We will give ourselves more credit when we oust that motley crew.

Let us look at some of the reductions. It was talked about that we are going to save approximately 15 per cent of $98,000 and what is that on? The shoeshine service has been eliminated. The number of the barbers has been reduced from three to one. I am not a fan of barbers, as you might have guessed. However the facts are it is really despicable that any government would have the unmitigated gall to stand in this House and say: "We have done you a favour, Canadians. We have cut back on three barbers to one and on the shoeshine service". It is despicable and there is no other word for it.

However the government did save on the messenger service and some office renovations. As I say, the whole list of savings the government whip talked about amounts to just a little more than 20 minutes' worth of interest on our debt. I do not know how you can get in this House and really talk high on something like that. The people of this country should be ashamed of what is going on here.

I notice that we did leave something in the House of Commons budget. There are all kinds of things in there. Let us talk about the $9.2 million it cost for information services. It is still in there. You know what that is besides a PR exercise. It is more paperwork than Mount Baker which is very close to my riding. If you piled the paperwork up in this place you could probably build a small mountain out of it. It would not take a brain surgeon, as my colleague from Wild Rose says, to figure out there is a lot more money to cut in here. To throw some of these little numbers out as government is doing is really incredible.

I could go on about many of the costs in here, but there is a point to be made. This government has not got the idea yet that Canadians by and large, regardless of their political affiliation are looking for significant reductions, a sign that government is in control of itself. Two separate Auditor General reports said specifically that the government is out of control financially. I would be one who concurs with that and I think the greater number of Canadians agree. In fact I probably would guess even people who vote Liberal might think that, although the people they elected seem to have walked away with a different philosophy.

The bottom line is that we do want a change. We are desperate for a change. This country is going broke. We have to stop borrowing money. We have to stop the facade that it is okay to spend more of taxpayers' borrowed money to show people that there is a little blip in employment. That just will not do in the long run.

In line with that, I would like to move the following amendment to the motion:

That the motion be amended by deleting the amount of $164,985,000 and substituting $162,514,000.

That amendment reflects the fact there were some commitments on behalf of this government to make some changes. That is the list my colleague was referring to earlier.

[Supply, June 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to see that the person in charge is always willing to admit an error from time to time. It is too bad the government in charge would not follow in line with that.

I had a great speech prepared tonight, but there have been so many quotes I have to address them and change everything.

The government whip talked previously about re-establishing our credibility. That was the comment he made. One wonders why the Liberal government has to re-establish its credibility rather than establish it. Could it be that this was the very government that started borrowing money on the backs of our youth in the first place and now it is back to try to re-establish credibility?

The question about why Reformers are in this House of Commons is quite obvious. The government did not quite re-establish the credibility it thought it did, and so here we are.

There was some prior discussion about tabling a list. I think one of the members opposite suggested that one of our members did not have a list. He was referring to the list of restraint measures to be reflected in future estimates, the reductions from the House of Commons budget. That was the list he was referring to. I intend to put forward an amendment to the motion based on that list. It is not as though he were coming up with something out of thin air. It is not a list this government needs; it needs a conscience. This government has to do a little soul searching on how to balance budgets.

We are asked time and time again what specific cuts could be made. We divulged a great deal of cuts during the election. Nowhere in these estimates have we see anything like reducing non-salaried items by a certain percentage, not even 2 per cent, not 3 per cent, not 10 or 12 per cent. If members look at some of the non-salaried issues in this government today it would not take very much to figure out there is some money to be saved. One wonders how hard they are looking.

I would like to get back to my old dilemma of how much we are spending to promote the official languages policy. The $650 million we have established could be anywhere from $650 million to $2 billion or $3 billion. No one is certain in this government. There are a lot of places to find cuts. It is just a matter of getting at it and doing it.

I have tried to put these reductions into the House of Commons budgets we are talking about here of about $2.4 million. By the time we put this in perspective, it is interesting that in the period of a 20-minute speech we have already spent $1,767,600 in interest on the debt. Here we are this evening debating probably ten times that amount.

Today the cost to our young people, each and every one of them, is about $26,000 per annum to pay the interest. This is transferred to the young people listening and watching tonight. It is not this party that brought this upon these next few generations. It is the government of today and that previous party from Jurassic Park, wherever it is. I am sorry, I did not mean to point to the hon. member from the NDP. They are not Jurassic Park, yet.

There was a quote a little earlier from the government whip who said that we do not want to get into this discussion on a partisan basis. Unfortunately these discussions about dollars are partisan. They are biased. Many people are very angry at politicians and government. Reformers have come to this House in part to address some of those concerns people have. We have a right to speak about these things and we intend to do so with vigour.

Just imagine for a moment in any country in the world a government which spends $160 billion a year. This factitious country overspends by $40 billion a year. In other words the money it takes in just is not enough, so it borrows to spend $40 billion a year. This government borrowing that much each year then says: "We want to get more jobs. We want to show people up front we are going to get them jobs. What will we do? We will buy them some jobs. Let us spend $2 billion more, even though we are only borrowing $40 billion. Let us borrow $2 billion more and let us go to the municipalities and get them to throw in $2 billion and why not ask the provincial government for $2 billion as well. We have $6 billion, but there is only one taxpayer. Fancy that". Here is a government borrowing on the backs of one taxpayer at three different levels of government. This is the same government which is spending $160 billion a year, of which $40 billion is borrowed.

A member opposite said a little while ago: "If this government does not lose its way". I suggest this government has started to lose its way, it is on a different path than the day it started. It is already borrowing money to show politically it can create jobs when at the end of the day what is going to happen is there will be more people unemployed and we will owe more money.

[Supply, June 7th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, it is just unbelievable the amount of emotion that gets into this process.

The government has moved an amendment today that wants to eliminate such words as "a country that is committed to strengthening our economy". We know that is a problem over there, so it is taking that out. It wants to take out of the amendment "balancing the budgets of our government". It also wants to take out "sustaining our social services, conserving our environment, preserving our cultural heritage and diversity". What is wrong with a good debate on that? It is about time the government started talking in the House about it.

[Supply, June 7th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I have just two comments. It is ironic that one hears in the House, as surprising as it is, the Reformers discussing national unity. I would suggest that Reformers are as nationalist as the government. The difference is how you run that government, how you run a country and how you deal with it. I certainly do not subscribe to its approach.

The inherent right of our aboriginal peoples has always been of concern to Reformers. We believe in their inherent right. The difference is that the government has yet to define what inherent right is, what kind of management style it is, how much is it going to cost, will the department of Indian affairs still exist and so on.

We believe in the inherent right of aboriginals to govern themselves, but there are a lot of questions that have to be answered before we would sign on the dotted line and that is understandable.

[Supply, June 7th, 1994]

Yes, it is a cliché but if you ever saw Jurassic Park, Madam Speaker, it is sitting across from me.

I appeal to the people of Saskatchewan, Newfoundland, Quebec, British Columbia, Alberta, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Ontario, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Yukon and the Northwest Territories to set aside regional differences and work toward a strong, financially secure nation.

Once again, a concern. Our generation of politicians are excluding the millions of young people under the voting age in this discussion. The future of these young Canadians is being decided upon and they will be the ones responsible for this decision and the mess we create. Does it sound familiar? That very kind of philosophy was embedded in Liberalism when they started increasing debt and borrowing year after year, as did the Conservative Party as well. If our young could vote they would not separate, they would build a stronger Canada.

We cannot make a strong nation by emphasizing the differences through multicultural policies, differences through bilingual policies, differences through special aboriginal policies, patronage and other political toys. We are a federation of 10 equal provinces. We are the true north strong and free. We are our home and native land and we will always be a united Canada.

[Supply, June 7th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, what you will be hearing in the next 10 minutes as I speak are the visions and the aspirations of the people I represent. I speak for them today as Canadians who are genuinely interested in Canada as a whole nation.

Many Canadians wonder why their elected representatives are spending so much time discussing national unity. In many cases it is generally considered that politicians are the real problem, not the good people of any province. Yes, there are differences throughout this country but you cannot solve the problems within a country by opting out of a country.

Because we have had many frustrating years in this country of patronage and financial mismanagement does not mean our nation is facing an unsolvable dilemma. The people of Atlantic Canada have a special identifiable culture. So do Quebecers as do people in Ontario and the west. That does not mean we do not

have an identifiable Canadian culture. We do. We have a lot of things that bind us together.

In the years to come Canadians will demand even more equality, more of an identity and more accountability from the federal government. I suspect we will do it together with the same national hockey teams, the same national anthem, and the same pride in our flag as we have today.

I firmly believe however we need a new vision, a new political approach. The old line parties drove us to the crossroads we are at today. We do need a change, do we not?

There is a significant frustration that exists in this 35th Parliament, patronage, poor answers given to the opposition parties' questions posed on behalf of their constituents, ineffective legislation and disregard of the poor financial conditions they got us into in the first place.

When that old approach is eliminated then Canada, that is all provinces and territories together, will move ahead and lead the world. What is it that will tie us all together? How can we share Canada and yet respect the cultural differences of all of its parts?

We must return to the days of financial stability, of balanced budgets and of optimism in a proud future and not a shadow of doubt about interest payments going to foreign countries and those kinds of issues.

It has been said that the only thing necessary for the success of a separatist idea to prevail is for the people of this good nation to do nothing. We must take it upon ourselves to balance this budget with a firm, realistic approach. For instance, we cannot reduce the deficit to 3 per cent of gross domestic product of some $730 billion and neglect to tell the people that the government will raise Canada's debt by $100 billion over the next three years in doing so. That is called hocus-pocus politics. We have seen it for 10 years. We saw it for five years before that and we are seeing it again today.

The long range solution to the continual co-operative coexistence of all Canadians is to increase the incentive for ordinary Canadians to save, invest, work and employ others. Today we make it costly to employ people and we subsidize people to stay home. We have a system that increasingly taxes work and subsidizes non-work.

If all provinces capture the vision of a country that lives within its means, a country that saves for the future generations and a country that spends on necessities, we will coexist with respect for one another. Let me outline for members some of the specific attributes that a united Canada will exhibit when we finally remove the greatest impediment, the last of the traditional party philosophies.

First, governments have no money on their own. It is not their money. It is necessary to legislate a way by which the people can control government spending.

Second, budgets must be balanced every three years both provincially and federally.

Third, any borrowing by any government must be approved by a national referendum, that is our national government, and a provincial referendum for provincial governments.

Fourth, a vibrant private industry with little or no government subsidization is an attribute that would lead Canada in the right direction for the year 2000 and beyond. Finally, patronage should be non-existent. Of course we need to have a real talk with the folks across the way because we have seen more than that already.

Let us for a moment review some recommendations relative to the financial stability of our great country. If undertaken by all Canadians, it would be motivation for all of us to work together and to stay together.

First, all provinces should have as one of their highest priorities the pursuit of national interests above the pursuit of provincial interests.

Second, the system of transfer payments to the have not provinces should be changed because it has made them less economically viable. The provinces that receive transfers vigorously debate why they should have more and the transferring provinces ask why they are contributing the amounts they do.

Third, the federal government has had access to tax revenues well beyond those needed to discharge strictly federal responsibilities. The patronage and the waste that is seen by the taxpayer in all provinces must be seen to have stopped. It has not stopped. It is continuing. Until this government gets it through its thick regulation book that that has to stop, we are going to have difficulties in all provinces.

If we can convince this government that strong fiscal management and a commitment to balance the books should be a priority, all provinces will be strongly motivated to continue with the federation of Canada.

To ensure the financial independence of the provinces and to place Confederation on a more firm financial footing, it is proposed that the principle of a balanced budget be enshrined in the Constitution. Put it there. Live by it. Live within one's means and then watch all of the provinces feel like they are a part of something that they can contribute to. This would require that all government spending be financed from the current tax revenue and that any shortfall be made up by a reduction in expenditures.

Balancing the books also means balancing the common market trade between provinces. We must give up this "what's in it for me" attitude which is prominent among politicians. We are at a crossroads here, a decision about the equality of members, not who can get the most from a country that has served us so well.

The old line political parties have a fossilized vision of Canada. Fiscal mismanagement has led to a significant regional difference between all provinces, not just one. It is time for a new theme. It is time we moved out of Jurassic Park and into the future.

[Dangerous Offenders, June 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Solicitor General for that response.

The parole board's decision in this case ultimately led to the untimely death of 24-year old Angela Richards. I find that there are other circumstances and that charges are being laid on Mr. Perkin. Again the parole board should have known.

Will the Solicitor General initiate legislation to ensure that in future members of the board are informed of ongoing investigations so that convicts eligible for parole can be detained until all such reasonable investigations are complete?

[Dangerous Offenders, June 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General.

As I mentioned in the House last week, parolee Wayne Perkin was recently found guilty of murdering Angela Richards in my riding in 1992. When I asked the parole board for the details of the decision to release Mr. Perkin in January 1990, I was informed that information is classified since it happened before the new law was passed for hearings taking place after November 1992.

Is the Solicitor General prepared today to guarantee that he will change the legislation to allow access to parole board hearing reports that took place prior to November 1992?

[Environment Week, June 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this week is Canadian Environment Week and it is time to reflect on how lucky we are.

If the earth were only a few feet in diameter, floating above a field somewhere, people would come from everywhere to marvel at it. People would walk around it marvelling at its big pools of water. People would marvel at the bumps in it and the holes in it. They would marvel at the very thin layers of gas surrounding it and the waters suspended in the gas. The people would marvel at all the creatures walking around the surface of the ball and the creatures in the water. People would declare it sacred and would protect it so that it would not be hurt.

The ball would be the greatest wonder known and the people would come to pray to it to be healed, to gain knowledge, to know beauty and to wonder how it could be. People would love it and defend it with their lives, if the earth were only a few feet in diameter.

Let us participate in Environmental Week.

[Baby Boomers/Youth, June 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, now that school is almost out, young people of this country are thinking more about their future. I thought it might be a good time to reflect on the difference between the younger generation and us baby boomers.

To boomers, McDonald's was a farmer with all the pets you could envision. To the younger generation, McDonald's means burgers and fries mc-ketchuped to death.

To boomers, Mac the Knife was the number one song by Bobby Darrin. Today, Mac the Knife is one of countless young offenders.

The boomers have lived with the benefits of borrowed money. Today the younger generation lives with the results of borrowed money.

Yes, there are differences between the two generations. Will the future be better for the younger generation? It will depend on them, their determination, their creativity, their respect for the environment and their optimism.

Let us hope they have learned from our mistakes.