Randy White

[The Budget, February 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister of Finance affects all Canadians and not just one province.

Page one of the budget plan states that the government will meet an:

-interim target of a 3 per cent deficit-to-GDP ratio by 1996-97.

If 3 per cent is the interim target, is the ultimate target to reduce the deficit to zero?

[The Budget, February 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I like the way the hon. member got his speech in by asking the questions. He made some very good points. Yes, we learn fast, we new members. I suppose I could use those too.

I guess what reminds me most of the Conservative government over here is the acceptance of deficit financing and the very acceptance by virtue of their budget that the debt will increase by $100 billion in three years. It was not a problem with the Conservatives and it is not a problem with the Liberals.

[The Budget, February 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the cutting back of multiculturalism I was talking about is about $21.5 million relating to grants to cultural groups. That is not the only cut that has to come about. I listed only a few.

I am surprised government members would really believe Canadians would re-elect them in view of where they have already started to go. Their deficit is higher than anyone expected. We can look at what happened last week in the House.

We asked a question of the Prime Minister about why they gave away a patronage payment of $4.5 million to his riding to build a museum. They spent $172,000 on one minister to take one flight to make a speech. They gave $27 million to Quebec City for a conference centre. They blew away $120 million by misfinancing CBC. They took over a deficit of $33 billion. They said it was going to be $45 billion and now they say we should be happy at $40 billion.

There is a saying that goes: If you forget the past, you are condemned to repeat it. The past is the Conservative government. The government is condemned to repeat it if it keeps on the same road.

[The Budget, February 24th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, this is the defining moment for the new government because the first budget sets the tone for the next four years of Liberal policy. I want to talk today about a definition of my own. It defines my view of the substance of the budget. There are some good things in the budget I could spend a good deal of time talking about, but I will talk about those things that are most disappointing.

Here we are in a most critical period of our economic history and the government has gone soft. Instead of clenching its fists and getting tough with the deficit and debt at a time when world markets are watching our every move, the government has opted for a limp-wristed approach. At this defining moment for the new government the word I use to define this disappointing budget is flaccid. The dictionary defines flaccid as limp, flabby, less rigid, lacking vigour and feeble. How appropriate.

The budget is more important for what it does not address than what it does. I want to ask why the budget has not done more or, to paraphrase an American statesman, instead of looking at things the way they are and asking why, I am here today to look at the way they could be and ask why not.

My focus today is on what was not cut and why. There are no details of significant cuts to spending on things like foreign aid, wasteful aspects of bilingualism programs, ineffective multiculturalism programs, subsidies to crown corporations, and grants and subsidies to special interest lobby groups. Quite frankly the reason the government avoided these areas is that they are politically dangerous.

The time for safe, non-contentious decision making is past. It astounds me that members across the floor still refuse to acknowledge the seriousness of the country's financial situation. If we want to gain the confidence of business and the general public we have to make tough decisions now; not two years from now after more studies, but right now.

Let me illustrate some needless cuts. I will start with the b word, bilingualism. The media like to jump on anyone who mentions this issue and brand him or her anti-Quebec. It makes good ink and is guaranteed a predictable response from Quebec members. There is a difference between talking about the theory of bilingualism and the outrageous waste of money that sometimes accompanies the application of that theory.

I am talking about the needless waste of money. When it comes to official bilingualism, the act itself, we have absolutely no idea of how bad the problem of wasteful spending is. I would like to quote from a letter of a government official:

The true costs of official languages activities from the Department of National Defence are higher than those given. Unfortunately, Treasury Board reporting guidelines do not permit us to report, among other things, salaries of military personnel attending continuous language training-and the bilingualism bonus for civilian employees.

Millions of dollars were spent on translating manuals for frigates, but that figure is buried in the budget for the frigates, sunk so deep below the sea of numbers no one could ever dredge up the real true costs. While the commissioner may report the cost of official languages as about $654 million as he did in 1992, the number means nothing. A report released last year puts it somewhere between $2 billion and $4 billion. What is the truth? No one knows.

Since 1969, according to a report released last year, language policy added $49 billion to the federal debt. The effect on provincial debt and the compliance cost of private industry are left to our imagination. Where does it end?

The government has also gone weak in the knees in the area of foreign aid. Flaccid is the word. The Auditor General's report cites a litany of mismanagement, especially in the area of foreign aid. The Canadian International Development Agency, CIDA, has become a cash cow. The Auditor General reports that CIDA is trying to please too many interest groups and meet too many conflicting objectives. The result is an agency with a budget of over $1 billion a year that is characterized by confusion and ineffectiveness.

What is really confusing is the government's refusal to look to this area for major cuts. It cannot even use the excuse that it is a politically contentious area since criticism of the effectiveness of foreign aid spending is coming from all directions. What is the government waiting for? In 1993 the federal government spent just under $2.7 billion on international assistance with little or no tangible proof of any kind of results.

The horror story continues into the area of-dare I say it-the m word, the department of multiculturalism.

I am disturbed by some of the commentary in the Chamber this week. I firmly and deeply believe we are all equal regardless of race, colour or creed. Every single Canadian should be proud to stand and proclaim his heritage, but he should not expect every other Canadian to finance his group's cultural activities. These groups must be self-supporting.

In 1992-93 federal government spending on multiculturalism was nearly $120 million. What is frightening is the response I got from a researcher when I tried to get the figure. He told us he was having trouble getting a response from government departments that incur costs as a result of multiculturalism programs. In other words again we have no idea what is the true cost of multiculturalism.

A short time ago the deficit was supposed to be $33 billion. That was around the time when the election campaign started. During the election the government would not even tell us what it was. The new government took over and the number suspiciously grew. It went to $42 billion and all of a sudden we are told it could reach $46 billion. Now we are supposed to feel happy with a figure of $39.7 billion. It has to stop.

In closing I leave the House with my definition of flaccid. I will redefine the term. For the purposes of this discussion I will use the acronym, FLACCID. The previous Progressive Conservative government promised tough measures, but when it came to making the politically tough decisions it withered under the pressure. The present government was elected on the promise it would tackle this critical problem too, but its feeble attempt to come to grips with our financial woes suggests another definition of flaccid applies. The acronym stands for federal Liberals are cunning Conservatives in disguise.

[Supply, February 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member touched on my favourite topic, the funding of special interest groups. The fact is that in special interest groups everybody has an interest. For those that have an extraordinary amount of funding it is normally found that the money comes from this very place.

Time and time again we see where both Liberal and Conservative governments have funded special interest lobby groups and quite frankly we are opposed to that. To answer the question it is exactly that. The difference comes from eliminating the broad funding levels and trying to get all special interest groups to act with some relative amount of equality and then all petitions could be considered equal.

[Supply, February 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the question was but I know the statement I picked up refers to the importance of a petition and the weight given to it. After campaigning and talking to as many people as all of us have in the House, it is surely recognized that people do not feel they have enough effect on the role of government. For instance, look at the petitions that poured into this place on the GST and it went through.

There has to be a way to allow people to express themselves and the vehicle of a petition is noteworthy. It is the proper way. The problem is when the petition gets into the House of Commons and what happens to it. What kind of effect can the average individual Canadian have on the political agenda of this House of Commons?

My response to the hon. member's comments is that we believe in petitions. We think petitions should come to the House of Commons but we think subsequent to it receiving them there has to be some teeth in it so that we are made to listen to the people.

[Supply, February 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, there is not a lot of difference between Fraser Valley West and Fraser Valley East; they are both in the Fraser Valley.

It is a little difficult not to duplicate some of the comments made here by virtue of the subject in itself. It is not as large a subject as the finances of the country and so on. Nevertheless it is an important issue. It is quite fundamental to many issues on which the Reform Party is looking for change.

I am happy to speak to the issue of petitions. It is a petition that expresses one of the oldest forms of grass roots populace input of citizens to express their aspirations and their grievances. Ordinary citizens are provided the opportunity to bring these issues directly to the House of Commons. Petitions can also become a vehicle for members to strengthen their own representations or those of their party on important issues.

I also recognize this particular issue has been referred to the procedure and House affairs committee. I am a member of that committee and it is on the agenda. Nevertheless it is important to express our positions at this time.

Compared with bills, motions and oral and written questions, petitions appear to rank low in importance. Their greatest apparent drawback is that after they are presented the House takes no prompt visible further action, much like the situation we have in the House when members give a speech. Often it is not recognized that something happens immediately after the speech and it takes some prompting to get things done.

We have over 200 new members in the 35th Parliament. It is my belief that the House will see more basic reforms to its operation than any of the previous 34 Parliaments. The existence of the new prayer this morning is one example of that. I am reminded of a saying: "If we continue to think the things we thought we will continue to get the things we've got". Basically it says that if we do not start looking at new issues and pressing

1597

for reforms then we will continue to get those things we have had over the last 125 years.

With this in mind, the process of petitions is another reform that is required as much, as was mentioned here today, as free votes, elections every four years, an elected Senate, recall, referenda and improved question periods. These are things that need to be changed and they all deserve a day when we can discuss them.

To understand the need for change I wish to provide a history of petitions in Parliament and then an opinion of what is wrong with the current system. Finally I will provide some recommendations for change.

We have heard a little bit of that history already this morning but it bears repeating in some cases. The right to petition the crown for redress of grievances dates back to the reign of King Edward I, as my hon. friend from Edmonton Southwest mentioned this morning. That was in the 13th century. It was from petitions that legislation by bill was gradually derived.

The practice of putting petitions before the Canadian House of Commons was adopted from the mother Parliament in Great Britain. In Great Britain petitions were debated in the House until 1842 when the practice was discontinued because the debates left no time for other business. That in itself leads us to understand that since it was so busy with debates on petitions it meant that people actually wanted to have some say. At the time of the discontinuance approximately 33,000 petitions each year were being submitted for debate. Would it not be nice to have that kind of interest in this country?

After 1842 in Great Britain, petitions were read and then could be referred to a committee of petitions, although debate was not generally permitted on them. If petitions related to personal grievances they could be designated as urgent and be debated immediately.

Again in Great Britain, the committee of petitions published a report of petitions and had similar powers that standing committees have in this House today. On the other hand, the committee of petitions in Great Britain had no power to investigate or report on the merits of a petition or to call witnesses for investigation.

In 1974 Great Britain discontinued the practice in favour of its current practice which is that the petition goes to a minister of the crown who must make a recommendation or an observation to the House which is tabled and printed.

In the early days of Confederation, public petitions played an important role in the proceedings of the House. Petitions were frequently referred to special committees. Orders for return were made for copies of particularly topical petitions and debates and divisions sometimes took place on whether petitions should be received.

Over the years, the number of petitions has dropped significantly. People began to turn to the courts and other administrative bodies for redress of grievances. Lobbying took place at other levels. MPs became more sensitive to public opinion and began to use other procedures such as oral and written questions to articulate the needs of their constituents. It was and continues to be today the fact that the House does not promptly and visibly act on a petition that causes the most frustration. From my perspective there is more formality and bureaucratic red tape put on the front end of a petition process.

We really have to look at the process after the petition is received. That is where we get into the meat of it. Standing Order 36 is completely dedicated to format with the exception of subsection (8), which indicates:

The Ministry shall, within forty-five days, respond to every petition referred to it.

If you look at the response given it appears to be merely lip service. Is it any wonder why petitions are seen to be an exercise in futility when the government's own standing orders do not acknowledge their importance?

In 1994 just when our citizens most need their voices to be heard on issues like our failing criminal justice system, the poor quality of fiscal management of government and change is desperately needed to the reform of our parliamentary system, the members of our Canadian Parliament cannot make a speech to a petition, they can merely make a brief statement. They cannot present a motion referring to a petition so that action can be taken. They cannot be assured that the petition will go any further than the Clerk of the House. They cannot provide constituents the confidence their concern will be dealt with and they cannot refer the petition to a committee of the House of Commons.

I would propose the following changes to the petition process. The first change is that every petition should be presented to an all party parliamentary committee which selects a specified number of petitions each month for debate.

My second recommendation is that each debated petition shall be presented as a motion to be decided on by the House.

Third, all petitions should be responded to by the minister showing that the government is not paying lip service to the issue.

Fourth, the petition committee should have the same authority as any other parliamentary committee, which is another topic in itself because they too need to change.

Finally, it is necessary to say that citizens do not lightly petition government. We are all aware of how difficult it is to have citizens take a more continued interest in their own affairs and in their own Parliament.

1598

I sincerely hope this has not just been another speech in the House of Commons that will be ignored. A note from my research indicates that many such speeches regarding the petition process have taken place over the years and next to nothing has been done to the process.

[Supply, February 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the comments made by the hon. member. I have heard many comments and statements since coming here as a new member, statements such as "we Canadians and Quebecers", the separation between Canadians and Quebecers. I am most disturbed about the final comments in the hon. member's speech. I do not know if he wrote them down or was just expressing them. However, they were something to the effect that the Bloc be able to achieve two countries, independence, without animosity. I am greatly disturbed by that.

Certainly there will be animosity. That kind of statement is not taken very lightly by a person like me, one who has lived in most provinces in Canada and travelled throughout Canada extensively. As well, I have lived in Quebec.

I would like to ask the member how he feels the Bloc as the Official Opposition represents either eastern Canada or western Canada when in fact it has an agenda, I would suggest, totally alien to either one of those geographical areas in this country.

[Defence Policy, February 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to be a little more brief in my question. I suspect many of us in the House have been touched at one time or another in some way by the military as I have been. I have friends still in the military all over the country whom I knew 20 years past.

I agree with many of the comments made by the hon. member for Labrador concerning national pride. People today are somewhat confused about the role of the military. People within the ranks of the military are also somewhat confused about it which does not do much for their morale.

I do believe we should study first and take action second, as my friend from Saanich-Gulf Islands has said. I also believe we should end the political football that has been evident within the military for 20 years at least. It seems to become an issue every year at budget time.

I would like the hon. member to comment on three areas. When the minister made his opening statement he said that public consultation is a priority with the government but the report that will ensue from the consultation will not constitute the new defence policy. I wonder if that is some form of disclaimer to the findings of the report itself or if it is just another way of saying the committee does not have as much teeth as we think it may have.

Another comment is on the selected communities where representations can be made. It is important to realize that some of these communities should be places like Summerside which has already gone through this type of situation. That community may offer some very good comments on this particular situation now that the deed has been done down there. The locations of these representations should be very carefully assessed and selected.

One other comment I would like to have made by the hon. member is the role of the reserves. I well remember growing up in the maritimes in the mid-1960s. I joined the military in Halifax, virtually having left school at a predetermined age. I had very few opportunities but I received a very good opportunity with the military and made a home there which led to a career.

What role does the government see for the reserves? There is a great opportunity for expansion. Perhaps the hon. member could comment on the future of young people in the reserves.

[Petitions, February 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(1), I rise to present a petition from concerned citizens of the township of Langley in the riding of Fraser Valley West, British Columbia.

This petition of well over 1,000 names expresses the concern of installing supermailboxes in our heritage community of Port Langley, the birthplace of British Columbia. Supermailboxes would not be in keeping with the historical traditions of this heritage community.

Therefore, the petitioners request that Parliament designate Canadian heritage communities to be exempt from Canada Post's supermailbox program.

This petition is submitted with my full support.