Bob Ringma

[Aboriginal Affairs, May 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we heard yesterday the tragic story of 40 children who were abused both physically and sexually at the Lac Barrière reserve in Quebec. Several of them also have drug and alcohol problems.

In addition, Health Canada spent $150,000 on controlling drug and alcohol abuse, fighting family violence and promoting mental health.

Since the minister assured us just the other day that he was making progress on these issues in Quebec, what does he intend to do about this?

[Petitions, April 26th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like to present a petition on behalf of six of my constituents and a number of other citizens calling on Parliament to amend federal legislation to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.

[Official Languages, April 26th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Commissioner of Official Languages told us that official bilingualism was, to all intents and purposes, a failure.

Moreover, he noted in his report that even government departments do not meet the standards set in the Official Languages Act. It is obvious that the Liberal government's commitment is purely symbolic. The time has come to review this policy to better serve the people of Canada, perhaps on the Swedish or Belgian model.

We believe that a language policy which leaves language and culture in the hands of the provinces will better serve the linguistic needs of each province.

The BNA Act of 1867 ensures minority language and education rights are respected. I will be tabling a private member's motion later in this session. I hope that members in this House will support me in bringing a practical alternative-

[Petitions, April 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it pleases me to present a petition to the House in accordance with the standing orders.

The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that the disbanding of the Canadian Airborne Regiment is an act without precedent in Canadian history.

Therefore they request that Parliament initiate a royal commission or a wide ranging full public inquiry into the Canadian Armed Forces, including the reserves, to investigate, report and make recommendations on all matters affecting operations, tasking, resources, effectiveness, morale and welfare.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, April 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as we are all aware, on February 27 the finance minister brought down his second budget. That document showed how spending is to be reduced by $4 billion, taxes are up by $1.5 billion and the annual projected deficit will be only $32.7 billion; that is, $32 billion deeper in debt.

The document did not show how the government will spend $50 billion to service the debt this year and how our overall debt will climb by more than $100 billion over the term of the Liberal government. Think of it. We are spending $50 billion to service

the debt. How much could we buy in the way of social services or anything else for $50 billion in a year?

The surprisingly mild public reaction toward the budget seems to indicate Canadians do not fully understand the full extent of our financial situation. Do they realize we are $550 billion in debt and by the time the government ends its mandate we will be $650 billion in debt? I do not think it has quite struck home yet.

It is therefore our job as a responsible opposition to tell Canadians all is not well. We must do much more to tackle our crippling debt and deficit situation. The fact our hon. colleague across the way from Haldimand-Norfolk only received two phone calls on this well illustrates this fact. The public is not aware of the severity of the problem.

What can be done? According to the government it is moving as fast as it possibly can to solve the problem. However, if we look closely at this baby step budget we find that is not the case. More can be done.

Look at my area of responsibility, official languages. I can very easily demonstrate how we can save money without sacrificing service to the public. We will look at my little area but this could be multiplied one dozen or two dozen times by other areas, thus illustrating we can find the money.

To be fair to the government, it has moved quietly even in the area of official languages to trim some of the excess spending, but not enough. The estimates show how approximately $50 million has been taken from official languages spending in the Department of Canadian Heritage. Likewise, there is a small reduction in the budget for the commissioner of official languages.

Again, these are only baby steps in the right direction. There are many more areas that can be reduced or eliminated. Funding of special interest groups is a classic example. We are looking at one little area of detail within overall official languages. This year Canadian heritage alone will spend $28.5 million. Where does this money go? About $1 million will go again this year to Alliance Quebec, a so-called English language rights group in Quebec. I say so-called because it is difficult to truly believe this group is doing any meaningful work to preserve English rights in Quebec.

Earlier this week I stood in the House and asked the government why it would give Alliance Quebec $1.2 million when it has been learned $837,000 of that is being spent on wages, while another $95,000 goes to pay for luxury offices in downtown Montreal. At the same time its membership has sunk to an all time low of about 2,500. This figure was disputed on radio this week by Mr. Hamelin, head of Alliance Quebec, who said its numbers have risen to 3,700. Even if they have, this is down from a membership strength of 15,000 or 20,000 some years ago. What is going on?

The government response to my question on the donation to Alliance Quebec was: "It is important the Canadian government supports minority language groups outside and inside Quebec. That is what we are doing. That is what we will continue to do".

If we examine that answer we will quickly discover it does not make any sense. How can anyone claim that lining the pockets of a few well heeled Liberal friends in the Montreal area does anything to support the anglophone community within Quebec? This group spends 75 per cent of its taxpayer supported budget on wages and rent. What can it actually be doing to support the community it purports to represent?

Worse yet, when my office requested this type of financial information from Alliance Quebec and other similar language groups throughout Canada, we were told that information was not public knowledge and therefore was not available to us. We were told to contact Treasury Board if we wanted information. Treasury Board then told us it could only provide the overall grant information which is readily available in public accounts and therefore of little value. For detailed information we were told to contact Canadian heritage. It in turn told us in most cases it did not not have the information and what it had was not available to us.

I have been fighting this situation for a year and a half in the House trying to get some facts on spending of the government and all I get is sandbagging. This is taxpayers money supposedly being spent for the benefit of all Canadians. The people who provide the funds are not allowed to know how they are spent.

It is only through the persistence of a reporter at La Presse that the information on Alliance Quebec was brought to the attention of the public. It takes a reporter to get it out. This is unacceptable.

It is also interesting to note that official languages may well be the only federal program to have totally escaped the scrutiny of the Auditor General. This program has been in place for a quarter of a century and has never been fully audited. What is going on here? Where is this money being spent? What can we eliminate?

Part V of the 1993-94 public accounts which detail funds for professional special services shows almost $9 million spent in the name of official languages. For example, Privy Council, $900,000; communications, $4 million; transport, $340,000; energy, mines and resources, $500,000; external affairs, $255,000; national defence, $1.6 million, to name a few. How these moneys were spent and for what purpose is a mystery.

Similarly, part VIII of the 1993-94 public accounts shows $273 million for official languages transfer payments; over $270 million of that by communications and $2.5 million by employment and immigration. Again, for what purpose? Only

the people who receive the money know for sure and they are not willing to say.

Surely it makes sense to do a comprehensive audit to find out if all these moneys are being spent wisely. The government lacks the will to do so. It is a sacred cow and it will hang on to it.

If we look closely at the budget we find it simply does not do the job. We cannot afford to stroll toward a zero deficit target. The time for serious action is running out. It may be this year.

In conclusion, I urge the government to take a serious look at spending just in my little area alone on official languages in an effort to get on with the job of deficit elimination, which Canadians will support.

[Alliance Quebec, April 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, even Alliance Quebec's past president was quoted as saying that former employees and activists of Alliance Quebec end up becoming political attachés, bureaucrats and Liberal candidates.

The Canadian taxpayer deserves better. When is the government going to get rid of this Liberal lap dog that is masquerading as a special interest group?

[Alliance Quebec, April 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the newspaper La Presse revealed some very interesting financial information about Alliance Quebec this weekend. According to a report, this group, devoted to protecting the rights of anglophones, has spent more than 75 per cent of its budget on salaries and rent. Its budget of $1.2 million comes from taxpayers. Membership in the organization continues to dwindle, while other groups are doing an excellent job while arranging for private funding.

Would the Minister of Finance explain how this type of special interest funding fits in with his budget commitment to change our approach to interest group funding?

[Constituency Committees, March 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate a group of constituents in my riding of Nanaimo-Cowichan who are doing valuable work on behalf of taxpayers.

Several months ago I followed the lead of my colleague from North Vancouver by inviting interested citizens to get involved in the Canada Employment Centre grant process. Since that time this committee has been hard at work reviewing grants to determine if tax dollars were being spent wisely. This practice has resulted in constituents having direct input into the process instead of having the MP simply rubber stamp these applications, as is usually the case according to a senior official at human resources development.

Based on the positive results from this committee, I am now looking to establish other working groups at the constituency level to get involved in everything from agriculture to transportation.

This committee and others like it should serve as an example to all MPs as to the value of getting constituents involved in the democratic process.

[Canadian Armed Forces, March 30th, 1995]

I am encouraged by part of the minister's response that we will get more information.

The deployment regulations state that personnel must have 18 months between peacekeeping rotations, yet since 1992 Valcartier has sent 5,000 troops to the former Yugoslavia. Given the manpower situation at the base, it is clear this regulation is being disregarded.

Given the tragic consequences this appears to be having on the troops, will the minister explain why deployment regulations are being ignored?

[Canadian Armed Forces, March 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in response to my question on the tragic suicides reported at Valcartier the minister stated: "The rate of suicides is lower in the armed forces than it is in the population as a whole".

However a review of relevant Statistics Canada data shows a suicide rate of .02 per cent, whereas the rate at Valcartier for the past year is .12 per cent, or six times higher. It should also be noted that the suicide rate at Valcartier among peacekeeping forces sent to the former Yugoslavia is still three times higher than in the population at large.

Given these facts, will the minister not agree this issue must be addressed before more troops are sent to Bosnia and Croatia?