Bob Ringma

[Saint-Jean Military College, December 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, a couple of months ago I watched in amazement as the government caved in to pressure from the Bloc and Parti Quebecois when it agreed to pay $34 million to Quebec for the 1993 referendum. The decision was based almost solely on the word of the most distrusted Prime Minister in Canadian history.

For the past month I have been even more amazed as the Bloc and its PQ allies try to force the renegotiation of a signed deal on the military college at Saint-Jean. This is not some vague verbal guarantee from a former politician; it is a signed agree-

ment. The Bloc and PQ are being totally hypocritical in their demand. The government must not acquiesce to this absurd request.

The government has finally agreed to Reform's request that British Columbia be treated equally as regards Royal Roads. Let us hope that we have now seen the end of this charade.

[Employment Equity Act, December 13th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to address Bill C-64, an act respecting employment equity.

Reform opposes this type of legislation and I certainly oppose it. Affirmative action by any other name is still affirmative action. It leads to the creation of special designation groups and causes reverse discrimination as the process of merit hiring is forced to take a back seat to artificially created criteria.

The annual report of employment equity for 1994 clearly shows there is no need for this legislation. Visible minorities represent 8 per cent of the workforce governed by the current act compared to 9 per cent of the entire Canadian workforce. The report also states that women represent 45 per cent of the workforce covered by the existing act compared to 45 per cent of the entire Canadian labour force. These two facts alone show that a hiring process unencumbered by government regulations is able to adequately address this issue.

In our lifetime let us admit it, we have seen terrible inequities. Going back to the thirties and forties, there have been gross inequities in our social system but they are being corrected over the years. Human dignity and human will are creating the redress.

I find it amazing that this government feels a need to interfere with the free job market which is working well when it fails to use the same urgency to address real issues like the debt and the deficit. Why do I say the government is acting with urgency? This bill was tabled in the House yesterday, shortly after 1500 hours. The ink on that official document could hardly have been dry at the time. I did not get to read the bill until this morning. Yet here we are less than 24 hours after its introduction being asked to debate the bill's merit. That is acting with a sense of urgency but I think it might be more accurately described as an abuse of the democratic process.

I saw the converse in this House this morning when my colleague, the member for Lethbridge, was speaking on Motion No. 13 and wanted to continue debate on it. Those on the government benches said: "Oh no, we cannot do that. We did not have enough notice". They had 48 hours' notice to continue debate but that was not sufficient for them.

Why the urgency on this bill? I do not know. Are the Liberals afraid to have the complete details of the bill brought to the attention of the Canadian public, or are they simply afraid to tell Canadians about the bureaucratic maze which has to be created by this bill?

One thing I do know is that the business people in my constituency are fed up to the teeth with government bureaucracy, with more and more taxes and more and more regulations to adhere to and forms to fill out. Canadian employers are already deluged with government imposed paperwork.

That burden is increased even more through clauses 9 to 18 of this bill which call for the collection, analysis and review of their workforce leading to the preparation of an employment equity plan, complete with long term and short term numerical goals. There is also the requirement that an annual report on employment equity be filed with the minister. Let us look at the bill.

Clause 9 states that for the purposes of implementing employment equity every employer shall collect information and conduct an analysis of the employer's workforce in accordance with the regulations in order to determine the degree of under-representation, et cetera. It goes on about conducting a review of the employer's employment systems, policies and practices in accordance with the regulations. It is only those employees who identify themselves or agree to be identified by employers as aboriginal peoples, et cetera.

Clause 10 indicates that employers shall prepare an employment equity plan that does this, that and the other thing.

Let us look a bit more at this bill which will totally discourage private enterprise. It will specify the measure to be taken by the employer. It will establish a timetable for the implementation. Where under-representation has been identified it will establish short term goals. It goes on and on and on.

Clause 11: Every employer shall ensure that its employment equity plan would, if implemented, constitute reasonable progress.

Clause 12: Every employer shall make reasonable efforts to monitor implementation.

Clause 13 indicates that every employer shall update numerical goals at least once during the period.

Clause 14: Every employer shall consult with his employees by inviting representatives to provide their views.

It goes on and on and on. Thirty pages of bureaucracy imposed on employers around this country. Have I said that they are already deluged? Well they certainly are. All these measures will only serve to undermine the productivity of Canadian business as executives are forced to spend even more of their already limited time on needless government paperwork.

Clause 21 of the bill creates employment equity compliance review officers, or to use a less politically correct term, an affirmative action army. This army has the authority to enter any business which it feels is contravening the act and demand documents and the co-operation of the employer and staff. On reading part II of this bill I thought George Orwell would be very proud as big brother takes yet another step into our lives.

Clause 25 creates the headquarters or the command post for the affirmative action army with the establishment of an employment equity review tribunal. More bureaucracy and more tax dollars dropped into the bottomless pit that is the national debt. This government continues to talk fiscal restraint yet its actions do not match its words.

I would go further into the analysis of this bill but the government's haste to ram it through prohibits any more thorough examination.

In my own riding, residents of the city of Nanaimo are well aware of the adverse effects of this type of legislation. Several years ago the city implemented pay equity which resulted in an immediate and significant tax increase. It also has a lasting effect on the taxpayer in that the result is that the annual salary for an entry level employee will soon reach $30,000.

Another example of this type of policy was brought to my attention recently by a constituent. This young man is an exceptional student in a technical program at Malaspina College. His high marks caused the institute to nominate him for a federal scholarship. While his marks qualified him for the award, his gender did not.

The scholarships are handed out on the basis of gender. Since Malaspina did not have a female student with appropriate grades the qualified student was refused and both scholarships were given to another institution. This is the type of reverse discrimination this sort of legislation will create.

I will wind up if my time is up. Hiring policies should not be based upon race, culture or gender. They should be colour blind and gender neutral. If ever a bill epitomizes the difference in philosophy between the Liberals and I might even say the NDP and the Reform Party, this is it.

Canadians are hard pressed for programs they want and they cannot afford to pay for programs we do not need. In the interests of the already overburdened taxpayers, I urge the government to abandon this nonsensical legislation.

[Budgetary Policy, November 28th, 1994]

First of all, we must realize that Quebec already has a problem with Bill 101. I believe in Quebecers' generosity so there should not be a problem in the future because the people themselves will decide what to do and for whom and how much to spend. I assure you that the same applies elsewhere in Canada. Canadians are quite generous by nature; they care about their fellow citizens whatever their origin and will do what is needed to protect languages or anything else.

[Budgetary Policy, November 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, English speaking people are able to learn French. There is no difference in brains as I understand it. I am trying to tell the hon. member for St. Boniface and anyone else who wants to listen that there are problems with French immersion training among youngsters. This problem has been brought out in a most recent issue of Saturday Night magazine. I would be very happy to pass a copy of it to the member. I would also be happy to give him a copy of Professor Hammerly's book. This evidence of the failure of immersion training of youngsters is being swept under the carpet because this group of parents for the French language receive a grant of $900,000 a year from the federal government. They parlay that apparently into more. They are not at all interested in doing anything but continue touting immersion training, whatever its deficits.

[Budgetary Policy, November 28th, 1994]

That is unacceptable. I have read the red ink book.

The Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions described the paper brought in by the Reform as containing positive suggestions. It is refreshing the hon. minister recognizes the value of some of the ideas being batted around in the House.

I remind everyone of the precarious situation of our country. We have a debt at the federal level of $530 billion or $540 billion. We are increasing that debt. As of this year our deficit spending looks like another $40 billion, which works out to a rate of $110 million each and every day we go deeper into debt. It is a serious problem. The public at large in Canada is finally starting to haul it aboard. Certainly the financial institutions have hauled it aboard. It is time the government did so.

I will touch on one small area today and perhaps two if I have time to show what we can do to wrestle with reducing spending. I am the critic for official languages. I would like to suggest that we can save in the area of $310 million annually. This is not a big deal relative to the amount of deficit spending we are going through, but if each area can pick up $310 million in a year and spread it across the board we can get this thing under control.

Because I am talking about savings in the area of official languages I know they are waiting across the way to jump all over me and tell me how terrible our policies are. Let me reiterate with regard to bilingualism and official languages that the Reform Party is pro-bilingualism, not anti-bilingualism. The more people have French and English the better off we are. The more multilingual people in the country the better off we are in trade with the Pacific rim, with Europe and around the world. We are not anti-bilingualism; we are anti-waste. A lot of waste spending is incurred under the aegis of the Official Languages Act. We have to cut that out.

Another policy would be to give language and culture to the provinces and say they are theirs to take care of; if they want to spend money on them they can go ahead and decide to do so. We would leave it to the provinces. From the $310 million I am talking about we could trim about 30 per cent or $80 million from funding for official languages education. We could leave that to the provinces, keep the federal government out of it and save $80 million. Education, after all, is a provincial responsibility and should be left to the provinces like culture and language.

It should also be noted that most of the money is used to fund immersion programs. Immersion, especially French immersion of youngsters, has been touted by powerful special interest groups like Canadian Parents for French as the best means to create bilingual children. This is simply untrue. Several studies indicate that French immersion, especially at the younger ages, has been a failure.

Dr. Hector Hammerly of the linguistics department of Simon Fraser University has done extensive research in the area and has concluded that French immersion is based on a series of incorrect assumptions. Rather than producing graduates fluent in both languages, it turns out people who he says speak frenglish. They speak and write French poorly and they have difficulty in English. Dr Hammerly has discovered that core French is as effective in producing bilingual graduates as French immersion and costs less to operate.

Therefore, if we are spending money on something that does not work, surely we can afford to cut that spending.

I am always available to discuss any problem involving bilingualism or French immersion with anyone.

Second, we can save $41 million by eliminating grants-

[Budgetary Policy, November 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I advise the House that I am splitting the time with my colleague. I will take 10 minutes.

I am pleased to rise today to take part in this important debate on budgetary policy. I think it was Will Rogers in talking about the weather many years ago who said: "Everyone talks about it but nobody does anything about it".

We are doing a lot of talking about it today. I heard some very sensible things being said in the House and some not so sensible. I wonder what the fallout from all that will be. Will someone actually do something about it? Is the Minister of Finance listening to the words being said in the House, or does he have some staff available to sift through it all and separate the wheat from the chaff? I hope something is being done because some words of value are being spoken here today.

Government policy in this whole area, as restated last Thursday in the House by the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions, is to bring the deficit down to 3 per cent of the GDP. This is not an acceptable policy. Many financial experts have stated it. The C. D. Howe Institute is urging the government to move faster in the area of deficit reduction. There are some signs the Minister of Finance is getting the message, but I do not know if he has it all yet.

The policy of simply taking 3 per cent of the GDP as the target is unacceptable. It would leave us with an $25 billion deficit annually in a couple of years. It is unacceptable for another reason. In response to a question from one of my colleagues on Thursday, the same secretary of state stated that while their fiscal policy was to reduce the deficit to 3 per cent of GDP it was only an interim target. That can be good news and bad news. What will the final target be?

How does the government expect to inspire economic confidence when its fiscal policy is geared only toward an interim target? This is not acceptable to the financial markets. This is not acceptable to Canadian taxpayers. Both expect more from the government than a vague financial policy based solely on an interim target.

I am beginning to think that not only is it an interim target; it is a moving target. The statement of the Reform Party on targets indicates that we have to target our spending. I heard statements in the House today that social spending should be preserved for those in need. I totally agree. We should target our spending to those who need it, not those who do not need it.

Last week Reform finance critics released a paper detailing about $10 billion worth of cuts. It was quite a worthwhile paper. I will not go over it all but I remind the House that last week the Reform proposed that people at the top of government must be the first to make visible and significant sacrifices such as reforming the pension plan of MPs.

Last week in the House a private member's bill was proposed to reform the plan and the government and other members voted against it. They did not want reform if it was going to cost them money.

[Petitions, November 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the third petition calls on Parliament to refuse to accept the justice minister's proposed anti-firearms legislation and instead insist that he bring forward legislation to fight violent crime.

On behalf of these concerned constituents I am pleased to table these petitions in the House.

[Petitions, November 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition calls on the government to maintain the status quo with regard to same sex relationships.

[Petitions, November 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have three petitions to present to the House.

The first petition calls on the government to enforce the existing provisions of the Criminal Code prohibiting assisted suicide. It also asks that no changes be made to those provisions which would sanction or allow assisted suicide.

[Social Security Program, November 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I very much enjoyed the comments of the member for Nepean. She got into a narrow realm, as she explained, of unemployment and women.

I enjoyed as much the question from the member for Matapédia-Matane because he expresses, as a representative of a totally different part of the country, the particular concerns of that area. That is the value of the House of Commons. We must listen to one another. I hope the process will go forward with the review committee as they tour Canada and pick up all of these comments, all of which are valid. If we are to tackle the enormous problem of the debt and the deficit year by year, we badly need a review of the social spending that we are undertaking.

A leaked government memo indicates a need to reduce social spending by $7.5 billion. This demonstrates that even the Liberals realize the necessity of cutting in this area.

A quick look at where the government spends its money will show why we need to cut in the area of social spending. But unlike the member for Nepean who took a narrow view I, as the first Reform Party speaker on this subject today, would like to take an overview of the whole situation to set the scene.

We have a debt of roughly $540 billion at the federal level. Our deficit spending at this time is running at about $40 billion per year. This means we are getting ever deeper and deeper into debt. At the same time government spending annually is roughly $160 billion. One-quarter of that annual spending, roughly $40 billion, $39.4 billion goes to interest payments. This amount cannot be altered or reduced until we balance the budget. Think of it again, and I address this to the public in Canada, $40 billion a year alone in interest payments on our debt.

Another quarter of our annual spending, just over $40 billion, goes for government services. This includes the armed forces, foreign affairs, the RCM police, subsidies to business, multiculturalism, bilingualism, Parliament, the civil service among others. These areas must be drastically cut before we touch social programs. However, even if we cut this roughly 25 per cent of our spending to the bone, we can only save $8 billion to

$10 billion a year. The mathematics is there. It is just not enough to balance the budget.

The remainder of government spending, $79 billion, consists of transfers to the provinces and social programs. This spending has to be reduced by $12 billion to $17 billion if we hope to balance the budget in a number of years. That is an awfully big reduction.

Let us now look to see what the government is going to do to help address the whole problem. The finance minister brought down a lacklustre budget earlier this year. Not only were there few cuts but spending actually increased. Each day, as we are all aware, the government is spending $110 million more than it is taking in from revenues. We cannot go on doing that.

Despite these facts, however, the finance minister defended this weak fiscal plan and stated the government will have no problem in meeting its debt reduction target of 3 per cent of the gross domestic product as promised in the red ink book. The finance minister now admits his projections may be off and earlier this month informed the finance committee that cuts totalling more than $9 billion would have to be made over the next two years.

It is encouraging to see that the finance minister is finally beginning to realize the gravity of the situation. I suspect he is being pummelled by this country's financial institutions saying: "Minister, look at the reality". We have yet to see the finance minister's actions come close to matching his words.

Similarly, we must look at what action the minister of human resources has taken to tackle his share of the problem. His is a big share of the problem, no question.

For more than a year now we have waited for his social policy review paper. Instead of the action promised in the red ink book, all we have had until last month has been foot dragging. Given his reluctance to release the paper before the Quebec provincial election on September 12 it is surprising the minister even released the paper in advance of the promised Quebec referendum, but he did. This type of blatant politicking only serves to exacerbate the problem because it delays the move toward a badly needed solution.

Be that as it may we finally have the review paper. Looking at it however, what do we really have? So far that paper is nothing more than an eclectic grab-bag of reworked Liberal programs from the 1960s and 1970s along with a continuation of some Tory proposals.

The minister also denies that this process has anything to do with budget cuts. Well it surely has and it must. I do not think Canadians are fooled by this attempt to sugarcoat the truth. In fact, some Canadians might find the minister's sales pitch somewhat insulting.

We all know what the problem is. The real question is: How do we solve it? We solve it collectively in an open and honest way while ensuring that those really in need do not suffer. We must protect the people who need our help.

We have to eliminate the deficit by carefully reviewing all of the government spending including sacred cows like official languages and multiculturalism. Every time we mention that in this House we get bombarded that they cannot be touched. Well the time has come when we have to touch them and examine them in detail. We must ask ourselves if we are getting value for every dollar we spend and whether we can live without the program.

The process has to be done objectively and fairly treating all provinces alike and all individuals with compassion. Once we eliminate deficit spending we can begin to chip away at the debt. Only through this method can we ensure the continued viability of Canada's valued social programs. In the meantime it is obvious some cuts are needed in social spending but the big question of the day is where to cut.

We have heard a dissertation on unemployment insurance. Last year the program cost Canadians $20 billion. The minister's review paper talks about making this a two tier system, or simply making it harder to be eligible for benefits. I suggest that both of these proposals are nothing more than a continuation of Tory policies.

The unemployment insurance system must be returned to a true insurance plan. It must eliminate regional differences in qualifying periods, benefits and non-insurance components. This area alone could save roughly $5 billion.

The Canada assistance plan helps the provinces fund welfare programs at an annual cost of $8 billion. The government suggests this program be made more flexible to allow provinces to experiment. This may help the provinces. It may help to prevent some of the abuses of the welfare system but we are still going to be spending the same amount.

It may be better to cut much of this spending in favour of a new child tax credit which could be targeted at low income households. As I said earlier this whole process has to target those who absolutely need the help. We cannot afford to continue with the past approach of universality. In any event the new child tax credit would not only ensure the money gets to those who need it most, but it could also produce savings in the area of three to five billion dollars.

In the area of education the government is proposing a system in which RRSPs could be used to pay for tuition. Many years ago there was a registered education savings plan. This was eliminated when it was found to be ineffective. Therefore why does the government continue to believe that a failed program from the past can work today?

Instead of giving money directly to students and not through increased loans as the review paper suggests, how about doing it through a voucher system? That has been discussed in this House. It has merit and really should be looked at.

It would ensure that money is spent on education rather than just going into provincial general revenue funds. It would make post-secondary institutions more accountable and receptive to the changing needs of students and the job market. The savings would not be great but a more efficient use of current resources would be ensured. Education is an area we have to protect to the maximum degree possible.

The review paper does not talk about reforming health care. Health care costs Canadians over $70 billion each year of which the federal government pays about $15 billion one way or another. The health system is increasingly overburdened.

Reform stated during the 1993 election campaign that it would maintain transfer payments for health care at current levels. The medicare system in Canada is something I think every Canadian says we must have. It is of highest priority for protection. What do we have to do then? We have to experiment with ways to get more bang for our buck out of the health system.

This would mean allowing provinces more freedom to design their own health initiatives based on their own needs. The provinces are close to it. They are the ones who have to deliver the services. Let them make more decisions. While it is important in the health system for national standards to apply, those standards should not be so rigid as to disallow provincial experimentation, such as private clinics.

The Liberals decry this type of thinking claiming it will create a two tiered system, which is already a fact in Canada. Why do the Liberals think that is so terrible in the area of health yet they proclaim it as a possible saviour for unemployment insurance? This is an example of the type of double talk the government is becoming famous for.

I have only begun to touch on the many programs in Canada's social safety net and we have already identified about $9 billion in potential annual savings. I have also attempted to ensure that those who are truly in need of help are not adversely affected.

It is possible to save money in this area by carefully targeting where the money goes and rethinking the way we deliver these services. I hope the government has listened and continues to listen when my Reform colleagues add their valuable input over the remaining hours of this debate.