Bob Ringma

[supply, February 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I could say to my colleague that we agree on several points. We agree in particular when you say that we should try to save taxpayers money.

I would like to continue the debate on the motion on the Auditor General's report by reading two sentences to give it a bit of continuity.

On page 597 of the Auditor General's report it states:

We recommend that the department provide complete and accurate information to Parliament on the full cost of using government aircraft to transport users such as the Prime Minister, ministers, and other VIPs.

It goes on to say further:

-the Department, in co-operation with other appropriate departments, should conduct a review of the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of providing government aircraft to transport such users.

I would like to continue the discussion of this proposal on the part of the Auditor General in a pragmatic vein. This is brought forward not just because of the news media talking about the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs spending $173,000 to make two speaking tours. I would like to go further into the background and say that this situation has been going on for years and years. The press always picks it up. It is as if it is a scandal to be flying around in jet aircraft.

Let us go back even further to my own experience in the city of Ottawa in another department, specifically national defence, some 15 or more years ago. I recall at the time feeling very upset when the government of the day offloaded part of its problems on to the Department of National Defence and said: "You fellows take over the running of these jet aircraft. You can take it out of your budget and you can run it and take the flack". I thought at the time it was dirty pool and I still think so today.

What this underlines is that far too often its own politics override common sense. Politics seems to have the effect of saying: "We don't care how much it costs or who carries the load; it will go on".

The whole issue of the use of government jet aircraft, whether it is housed in the Department of National Defence or wherever, illustrates what is bad about government and politics. It also illustrates precisely why the people in our ridings are angry, why they have displayed their anger over the last couple of years and why they say this has to stop.

DND now runs 16 Challenger jets. Why were they purchased in the first place? It is not because 16 jets are needed to run ministers and the Prime Minister around the country and to foreign lands. It is done as a political gesture, let us say, to Canadair, to Quebec, saying it is just money so let us give them a contract and buy these nice Canadian products. We cannot afford to do that given the state of our deficit spending and the state of the total debt.

I am really talking about the attitude of government, not the current government, but all governments one after the other. The attitude seems to be, why not buy a few more jet aircraft, it just costs a few more millions of dollars. That is not good enough.

The Department of National Defence today is absorbing more cuts. It is being cut to the extent that it no longer has the resources required to continue the peacekeeping operations that Canadians and this government continue to expect of it around the world.

I am going to do a bit of very simple arithmetic. If three soldiers for one year cost, let us say $100,000, how many soldiers could we get to reinforce the Department of National Defence where it needs reinforcing, in the front lines with private soldiers and not with general officers, by making a few cuts here or there? The Auditor General's report states that the maintenance of the 16 Challenger aircraft cost the government $54 million a year. I am willing to concede and I think most members are that the government needs several jet aircraft to carry around the Prime Minister, a few VIPs and royalty. Let us accept that.

But let us cut down on the number of these jets. If we could bring down the maintenance costs of this jet fleet to around $14 million we would save $40 million a year. That $40 million a year could be used for hiring soldiers at three per $100,000, to give us 1,200 extra soldiers. Let that sink in a bit. We could have 1,200 extra soldiers for the cost of eliminating the maintenance and overhead of some of this fleet of jet aircraft.

I take another view of this and say: "If I were in business, how would I look at it?" My answer would be: "I need several aircraft to do the things we have just discussed, such as squiring the Prime Minister around. That is legitimate". What are my resources for doing this? I would say: "As a businessman my resources are 16 aircraft, plus in an associated company, the Department of Transport, 101 aircraft".

That triggers me to say that if we have 16 aircraft, all of which we do not need, and 101 others of what sort I do not know in another department, there are probably all sorts of them to spread around. As a businessman I would rationalize all this, look at the inventory and cut down the numbers. We should keep in service only those that are absolutely needed.

The other factor I would consider, if I were a businessman or even if I were the government running this operation, would be the bad press. Every time a flight is taken-some are quite legitimate-one gets bad press. There is no sense in keeping up this nonsense. Get rid of them. Get rid of the bad press and get the people off our backs. The media caters to the people and tells all the nonsense. If I were a businessman or if I were the government of the day, I would look very seriously at this matter.

In conclusion, I recommend that the government look at this seriously, not just the Auditor General's report but the whole situation. It should pragmatically rationalize all of the aircraft being used by the government, sell some to get the cash the government needs for necessary programs, reduce the overhead of government and finally-and this is most important-change the attitude of the government, the members and the bureaucracy toward the use of public funds.

[Cigarette Taxes, February 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House the Prime Minister cited a three to one favourable response to the tobacco rollback tax on an Ontario radio show. The Prime Minister said that this is proof that Canadians support the government decision.

A radio talk show in my riding of Nanaimo-Cowichan reports just the opposite. CHUB radio talk show host Larry Thomas says callers to his show are nearly unanimous in their condemnation of the tax break.

In addition, the Prime Minister cited some support for the plan from radio show callers in our leader's riding when the Minister of National Revenue appeared as a guest.

I suggest the hon. minister listen to the constituents in his own riding. Talk show host Terry Spence from CFAX in Victoria reports a poll taken in his show was 55 to 5 against the tax break. The callers see the main issue being one of law and order and suggest the best plan of attack is for the government to show some intestinal fortitude-

[Canadian Embassy In China, February 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, a number of journalists have recently chronicled the financial boondoggle associated with the new Canadian embassy in Beijing, China.

From the lease of 1.3 hectares of prime swamp land in 1978 to the purchase of imported Utah grass and Canadian maple trees at a cost of $5 million in more recent times, Canadian taxpayers have seen this project go from $18 million to $79 million.

Now we all know the current government was not responsible for this spending nor should we believe it condones it. However Canadian taxpayers, like Roger Napier on Thetis Island in my constituency, would like some assurance that this type of chaotic spending will not occur again.

My constituents simply ask that the current government learn from the mistakes of past governments to prevent a repeat performance which we surely cannot afford.

[Bosnia-Herzegovina, February 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Can the minister tell the House what the government's position is on air strikes.

[Bosnia-Herzegovina, February 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the hon. Minister of National Defence. As we have already heard in this House this afternoon members on both sides of the House, indeed all Canadians, were appalled by the bombing of the Sarajevo marketplace on Saturday.

Can the minister inform this House what options the government is considering as a suitable response.

[Cigarette Taxes, February 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, many of my constituents are greatly concerned by the suggestion that the government may be about to lower the taxes on cigarettes. The concerns range from the loss of revenue to the increase in health costs due to the effects of smoking.

Now the health minister for the province of British Columbia has added his voice to those of my constituents. The hon. Paul Ramsey predicts a 35 per cent increase in tobacco consumption by B.C.'s adolescents if the government follows through with its suggested tax cut.

In addition, Mr. Ramsey projects the measure will result in an increase of $130 million per year to his budget for the treatment of tobacco related illnesses.

Mr. Ramsey has requested the government take no action to reduce taxes until it is fully discussed at the meeting of federal-provincial territorial ministers of health tomorrow.

My constituents and I add our voices to that request.

[Board Of Internal Economy, February 2nd, 1994]

Would the hon. whip not agree it is better to present information in the House openly like this rather than through our party representative? In that way it is presented to the public as a whole and not hidden in messages.

[Board Of Internal Economy, February 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. whip for his response to the question.

For the edification of the House, the reason I bring this matter to the House-

[Board Of Internal Economy, February 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, to reiterate I would ask the representative on the board to do three things. First, to agree on a procedure with that board for making all such expenditure decisions public.

Second, to rule that June 9, 1993 decision of the Board of Internal Economy to pay those extra salaries to members not entitled to them was wrong.

Third, to report their findings to this House.

[Board Of Internal Economy, February 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I cannot phrase it generally because it is quite specific. It goes back to the discussion we had in this Chamber on Friday, January 28, which was ruled on-