Randy White

[The Budget, March 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the minister on his speech. It was certainly positive and we need to look forward to efficiency at a reasonable cost today.

The minister is genuinely trying to go in that direction. It is encouraging that the ideas coming out have not been shown in decades. I congratulate the minister for that.

Airports, particularly small airports in this country, have cost taxpayers millions of dollars. That is unfortunate but sometimes often considered necessary because small airports have trouble getting revenue from landing fees, expansion, and so on.

In my own community the Abbotsford airport, home of the International Abbotsford Air Show, has been trying for several years to have its own airport authority which would have seen the result of fewer tax dollars in the federal government and local taxing authority looking after the airport.

In many discussions we had in previous years with the previous government it seemed that we got into the bureaucracy and there ended what would be considered a fruitful discussion.

I wonder if the minister might enlighten us as to where these small airports are going to go eventually. Is the minister open to trying to get some of these communities that want their own airport authorities to get them moved from the Department of Transport locally?

[Bilingualism, March 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard much from the government about a new integrity in politics. The Prime Minister recently stood in this House and refused to speak strongly about the Leader of the Opposition's promoting separatism abroad. Instead, we have heard the government condemn my party for being against bilingualism.

I rise today to appeal to all members of this House to stop the name calling and deal with the facts. The facts are that we are for individual and regional bilingualism. What we are against is the Official Languages Act and the ridiculous cost it has created.

The government member has asked us to provide accurate costs. We tried to get these costs but his government will not provide them because it does not know what they are. Research estimates the direct and indirect costs at between $2 billion and $4 billion a year.

I challenge the government to provide us with the real costs and open the debate up in this House on this issue.

[Members Of Parliament, February 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the government's talk about jobs, jobs, jobs is more about perks, perks, perks. We have been spending $200,000 to date.

I would like the Deputy Prime Minister to advise the House what the cost is of studying the study, that is the cost of this commission to be put in place. I would also like to know if there is any limit to the number of studies the government plans to conduct on the same issue.

[Members Of Parliament, February 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.

In a previous Question Period I asked the Deputy Prime Minister what was the purpose of a $200,000 consultant study on parliamentarians' compensation since the government had announced its policy previous to that. The answer provided was that the government needed more information.

I was surprised to see a letter in my office yesterday on letterhead reading "Commission to Review Allowances of Members of Parliament".

When the Deputy Prime Minister stood in the House to defend the need for a $200,000 consultant study, was she aware that the commission was going to be studying the very same topic?

[Child Molesters, February 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, a terrible injustice in my riding of Fraser Valley West has been brought to my attention by one of my constituents, Sandra Wingrove. Ms. Wingrove is publicizing her name so that others might avoid the pain she and her eight-year old daughter recently suffered.

A young offender who lives in the same federally subsidized housing complex has sexually assaulted Ms. Wingrove's daughter. This child molester has been convicted twice of sexual offences and yet is still allowed to live in the complex with his mother. One must have children to qualify to live in the complex and now it seems one must be willing to expose them to this continuing danger.

Convicted child molesters must not be allowed to access our children. Again we see another case in which the criminal justice system has let us down. Yet the government does nothing.

[The Budget, February 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member on his speech. I would like to once again try to put some logic into this infrastructure program.

The infrastructure program is supposed to have $2 billion coming from the federal government, $2 billion from provincial and $2 billion from municipal. Municipalities will charge residential tax and the provincial probably an income surtax and so on.

I wonder if the hon. member could enlighten us as to how long these infrastructure jobs might last, how he sees the logic in spending $6 billion for that duration of those jobs and how will it be recovered.

[The Budget, February 24th, 1994]

You don't know what economic sense is.

[The Budget, February 24th, 1994]

What happens-

[The Budget, February 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but be astounded how a minister of a government can stand up and continuously say that spending more government money will create more jobs. Ultimately that money is going to turn into a higher deficit, more debt. When is that going to get paid off?

My question though is on the infrastructure program. I was told very recently by a mayor of a municipality that the infrastructure program was basically going to accommodate their program to build sewers and roads. All it is doing quite frankly is costing them one-third of the cost instead of the whole full cost-

[The Budget, February 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, somehow I expected that answer.

The obvious question for the minister then is when does he forecast a successful attempt in getting to zero?