Randy White

[Immigration, June 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

On September 19, 1993 a young lady in my riding was raped by an illegal immigrant. I have in my possession a lengthy criminal record of that individual which reflects sex offences, drunk driving, theft and on and on it goes.

What system is in place to ensure that people like this are kicked out of Canada and stay out of Canada?

[Petitions, June 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of presenting a petition, which I wholeheartedly support, from constituents of Fraser Valley West.

The petition asks that Parliament ensure that the present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no changes in the law which would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.

[Recall Act, June 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to speak to Bill C-210 which is not just another private member's bill. This bill put forward by my colleague from Beaver River speaks to a fundamental philosophy of the Reform Party and, I hope, all other parties of this House. It what all of us as members of Parliament really are all about: listening to the will of the people. This bill represents a chance for members of all parties to make a real difference in the way this country is run.

Today voters are naturally angry and cynical because they often feel helpless about the process of government in Canada. When the government says we have an opportunity to have our voices heard at the next election it is really missing the point because the next election is not soon enough. In case the government has not noticed, the world is a smaller place than it ever was before. Everything moves faster than it did the year before. People nowadays expect action and action means now.

If it becomes evident after an election that a vast majority of constituents in any constituency want their MP out, or at least want another election for valid reasons, then they should have that right.

What difference will recall make? Many people ask that and we talk about it for year after year it seems. Let us look at the comments and results of a conference held at the University of Lethbridge on February 25 and 26 of this year. It was entitled, if you can imagine: Re-inventing Parliament. After 125 years, we are going to re-invent Parliament.

Over 100 Canadians from across Canada met to discuss issues such as recall. Quoting from a report resulting from that conference, this is what was said: "Every workshop recommended to the conference that governments in Canada allow for the recall of elected members. On no item of direct democracy did a more clear consensus emerge".

What was the rationale for that significant consensus? The conference participants felt that recall would go a long way in addressing some of the current ailments of the parliamentary system.

The most important reason cited by over half of the workshops is that recall provides for more accountable MPs, and MLAs in the provincial sense. It ensures elected members act on and listen to constituents' concerns. Recall provides a direct link between citizens and politicians that exists on a continual basis, not just during the 30 or 40-day campaign period, once every four or five years.

It is quite likely that a relaxation of party discipline will accompany recall. Governments will see the need to allow their members more freedom of action in light of the threat that recall presents to MPs.

Recall also serves as an early warning system for governments. If recall petitions become a common occurrence in government members' ridings, it signals to the government that a change in direction should be seriously considered.

It was also mentioned by some in this report from the conference that the threat of recall alone is just as important, if not more important than the actual process itself. There is nothing better than holding a little threat over politicians' heads once in awhile.

At this conference the majority of attendees from across this nation supported the right of Canadians to recall their elected members. Why is it that so many people want recall and this government, like the last arrogant government, chooses to ignore the will of the people? What is it that Liberal and Bloc politicians are afraid of? Why are we hearing such feeble excuses from our government colleagues? Let me give you a few quotes from Hansard when we debated this matter previously.

I will start with a quote from the Liberal member for Vancouver Quadra: "This can be a House that will literally reform itself". You have to talk with the hon. member who made such a statement. If this House would reform itself, we would not have 52 Reformers trying to reform it today. If the hon. member thinks like so many others on this and other issues, why not stand up and be counted?

Another quote comes from the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe of the Bloc party: "This bill would be impossible to enforce" but nowhere in his speech does he explain why. It is just a statement that this bill would be impossible to enforce.

The final quote is from the Liberal Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services who in his brilliance said: "But we still do not have any proof that it would work". Of course we do not; we have not adopted the bill yet.

We know Reformers stand apart from the other parties when it comes to participative democracy. The concepts of free votes and recall for instance are interconnected. We need them both. What would the results be if we had free votes and recall? That is simple: Elected officials who vote according to their constituents' wishes and according to the merits of the particular bill. Is that so strange? Is that so difficult to understand?

We should have no fear about this. If a party performs poorly it will be rejected at the next election. However, when a sitting member significantly breaches the trust of his or her constituents we need a mechanism in place in the House to get him or her out of that position.

The government's use of fear to attack the idea of recall is really an expression of its own fear. The government keeps throwing out the bogeyman about the dangers of unscrupulous factions trying to oust an MP. Government members are pushing the panic button and this tactic is based more on fear for their own jobs than anything else.

The process of petition and recall election gives the MP ample opportunity to present his or her case to the electorate. This is direct democracy, a concept I understand but perhaps some members do not. Whether the government likes it or not, it is an idea whose time has come.

Recall forces MPs to be more accountable to their constituents. That is what my colleague wants to achieve with this bill. That is what the Reform Party wants. Most important, and what this government ignores at its own peril, it is what the people want.

A famous former Prime Minister once said that opposition MPs were nobodies as soon as they walked 100 yards away from Parliament Hill. I wonder what party that individual was from. I agree with Peter McCormick who said that the former Prime Minister could not have been more wrong. Given the way the Canadian parliamentary system operates, our MPs are people of some significance in their communities and may become nobo-

dies when they arrive on Parliament Hill. That is what I believe if they do not stand up for what they believe in and vote the wishes of their constituents instead of being a minor mouthpiece of their party.

The last Parliament was called one of the best by the media and why is that? Because it was good theatre with lots of bad actors. If you look at the acrimony, the accusations, the asinine behaviour, if that is what the media wanted, that is what it got. What you did not hear so much about is the cold hard facts that Canadian public opinion of the institution of Parliament reached an all-time low during the 34th session.

I call upon those members who are sitting in the back rows to join us in this cause. Show the Canadian people that you are here to make a real difference. If you are looking for the opportunity to be truly different, truly representative of your constituents and truly a person of principle, then you should speak up now by supporting this bill.

Here is your chance to do more for those who really count and they are the people who put us all here. Do something a little different: Make a stand and choose to play the real role of reforming the way this country is run. This recall bill could be the first step.

In closing, all Canadians and government backbenchers know we need their vote to carry this issue. I would like to see what they are really made of. I would like to see that vote carry. Recall represents strong MPs, not weak ones. Therefore, please consider this reform necessary, a reform that Canadian people want. Do not turn it down just because the party is afraid of a little recall.

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, June 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged and proud to be asked to speak to private member's Bill C-240 put forth by my colleague from Surrey-White Rock-South Langley.

My colleague previously spoke briefly about stirring up passions and primal instincts when talking about such a subject. I guess my colleague would do well to live in a community like mine, surrounded by seven prisons and correctional institutes. He would know what passions would be in a community that has many offenders wandering the streets on day parole.

My colleague has given a picture of what ails the criminal justice system specifically in the area of detaining dangerous offenders. I would like to tell a story that illustrates just how bad things have become. Bureaucratic mismanagement in itself is not much of a story. Unfortunately people are killed in these stories, innocent people who leave behind families filled with rage and sorrow. Let me be absolutely clear that although these tales read like detective novels, the real reason we in the Reform Party are focusing on them is the human suffering caused by the criminal justice system that we feel has fallen apart. I was quite incensed today to see the justice minister stand in question period and suggest that the system is working well. It is not working well.

My first story is this one. In a basement apartment in Seattle at the end of a hallway, out of sight of windows and doorways, rests a chair. At the base of the chair is a pool of blood three inches in diameter. The trail leads upward to a stab wound in the chest of a 57-year old man slumped slightly to the right and forward. A large band of masking tape covers his mouth and the rope used to strangle him dangles loosely around his neck.

Although this may sound like fiction it is not. This is fact. It is a description taken directly from the police report and documents I have received from prosecuting attorney Norm Maleng of King County, Washington.

Why Washington? The two men charged with the first degree murder of Elijio Cantu on June 5 were escapees from a minimum security facility in the Fraser Valley where my home is. The corrections system classified these men as low risk offenders yet one of them had been convicted of attempted murder of a police

officer and had killed another inmate. The story we get from the government is that these escapes are rare and not statistically significant. I would challenge any member of the government to tell that to the family of the victim.

I have another story that comes from a woman in the same town the prison is in. Two young men walk into a pizza place in Abbotsford, British Columbia, where I live. One of them is armed with a sawed off shotgun. No one is shot during the robbery but the restaurant employee who had to stare down the business end of a sawed off shotgun testified he will never be the same. However the story does not end there.

Rosalie Turcotte's son was 19 years old when he was savagely beaten to death with a baseball bat and buried in a shallow grave near Mill Pond in Mission, British Columbia, just a few miles from my house. The young man who was recently convicted of the murder is the one who wielded the sawed off shotgun in the pizza place robbery. He was trying to silence his accomplice, Ken Turcotte, who had told his friends he wanted to confess to his mother about the robbery.

Zachary Finley who killed Rosalie Turcotte's son, Ken, will be eligible to apply for temporary absences immediately. He will be eligible to apply for day parole three full years before the date set by the judge for parole.

Zachary Finley killed Rosalie Turcotte's son, Ken, and was convicted of second degree murder which carries a maximum sentence of life with parole eligibility set at a minimum of 10 years. When the crown's request to increase that to 15 years was denied, a member of the victim's family became distraught. The convicted criminal who committed the brutal act laughed.

What does Rosalie Turcotte have to say about our criminal justice system after her ordeal? Let me quote, and I have talked to Rosalie a number of times: "This is supposed to be our system, paid for and accountable to us. How has it eroded to such a sorry state of affairs? The only ones being served by the system as it stands now are the offenders and their lawyers who are laughing all the way to the bank".

I find this funny. No, let me rephrase that. I find it ironic. It is really the criminals who find it funny. Last week I was asked to debate the head of the John Howard Society over the rights of prisoners to receive old age security, GST rebates, Canada pension plan and other payments. During that interview he was adamant, and I quote: "The prisoners are not laughing at the system". I said it then and, just in case the John Howard Society or any other prisoners rights groups are listening, I will say it again. Listen closely. They are laughing at us.

There is another story that my colleague spoke about previously but I want to indicate some more details that I have been given from certain sources. The House may have heard a bit about the saga of Larry Fisher from my colleague and in the newspapers. He has been released recently after serving his full sentence. Mr. Fisher who has reportedly been sighted in the riding of another one of my colleagues this week has a history familiar to anyone not living in a cave.

Mr. Fisher was released from his latest prison term two weeks ago. It was a 10-year sentence for the rape, stabbing and attempted strangulation of a Saskatchewan woman. Mr. Fisher has been behind bars for 23 years except for a brief taste of freedom on 1980 when he was granted escorted parole. He grabbed a 56-year old woman, dragged her into an abandoned house, raped her, stabbed her three times, slit her throat, tried to suffocate her and left her for dead. He was convicted of six previous rapes.

Let me quote from yet another significant document I have received on the parole board's official reasons for denying Mr. Fisher's parole on April 1, 1993. Mr. Speaker, note the date, April 1, 1993, April Fool's Day, and ask yourself, when I am finished with the story who is fooling whom.

At the time the board said of Mr. Fisher: "There are no significant changes to demonstrate that your release can be managed in the community on any form of conditional release or that your likelihood of reoffending and causing serious harm has been lessened in any way. Therefore detention is confirmed".

Let us jump ahead in the story to February 1994, not too long after that, the next time the board ruled on his case: "There is no new information on file to suggest that your risk of reoffending in a violent manner has been mitigated or reduced since your last review and the detention order is confirmed".

Just a few weeks later this man was released into the community because his sentence had expired. Let us think about this for a moment. After issuing two clear statements about the dangers this man would pose to society if released, the system is forced to release him anyway.

Our question is simple: Why? Why can the system not take its own advice and keep high risk offenders like this where they belong, behind bars? The criminals are laughing at the government whose members day after day stand in the House to tell a story. Their story is that the system works, everything is okay, and the Reform Party is playing politics. Our story is that the system is laughable. It is beneath contempt.

More important, I want to stress before closing that our story is not really our story. It is the story of Rosalie Turcotte who lost her son. It is the story of a man in Seattle who lost his life. It is

the story of Larry Fisher and all the people living in fear in the communities where he is sighted. Increasingly it is becoming the story of a government that has not only lost touch with reality but has lost the courage to act responsibly and to make the necessary corrections.

My colleague's bill is an excellent one. We need the courage to stand up to the naysayers, those who will do nothing, and send a clear message to the justice system that these dangerous offenders must not and cannot be allowed back on the streets until they have proven they are ready.

[Environment, June 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that was not intentional. These gentlemen were listening so intently to what I had to say which I think I just excited them a little bit.

The Reform Party strongly supports ensuring that all Canadians and their descendants live in a clean and healthy environment. We are working on environmental policies that go much more in depth than what many may think and understand.

The environment is a national concern. I am sure it is a concern of the parties in the House today.

We support the concept of a public education program of environmentally conscious purchasing. In fact we believe the federal government should take a leadership role in that environmentally conscious purchasing while encouraging the private sector to follow. That is absolutely necessary. So often today we talk, talk, talk and we legislate from a government perspective but we do not lead by example.

We have to meet the needs of the present without compromising our ability to meet the needs of the future. In other words, we are looking for some action now and we cannot compromise the legislative things we are doing for the future. We need a long term perspective on this environmental program.

We believe environmental considerations must carry equal weight with the economic, social and technical considerations of any project that is put into place. It is a major step forward if we can finally judge things not just on the economics and the social viability but on the environmental viability as well. All programs, whether government or private industry, should make that assessment.

I have some other things to say, but before my time runs out I want to read something that I read in the House not too long ago in statements. I think it bears repeating. It was given to me by a young lady who very much believes in the improvement and the

quality of her environment. I read it several times and it touched me so much that I think it should be repeated again.

The words on this document are actually printed in a circle as though they were a small ball. It states: "If the earth were only a few feet in diameter, floating a few feet above a field somewhere, people would come from everywhere to marvel at it. People would walk around it, marvelling at its big pools of water, its little pools of water flowing between the pools. People would marvel at the bumps on it, at the holes in it, and they would marvel at the very thin layer of gas surrounding it and the water suspended in the gas. People would marvel at all the creatures walking around the surface of the ball and at the creatures in the water. People would declare it as sacred because it was the only one and they would protect it so that it would not be hurt. The ball would be the greatest wonder known and people would come to pray to it, to be healed, to gain knowledge, to know beauty and to wonder how it could be. People would love it and defend it with their lives because they would somehow know that their lives, their own roundness, could be nothing without. If the earth were only a few feet in diameter".

I think that says it all about environmental legislation. What we have here is only one precious resource in the universal globe. It is somewhat like a ball. We would cherish it so much if it were that size, but today to some extent we do not cherish it enough.

Finally there are several other items I want to talk about on where the Reform Party comes from in establishing some policy. We support the establishment of clear federal-provincial jurisdiction over environmental matters to reduce duplication, confusion and unnecessary regulation. We know this exists today. I sincerely hope the committee addresses that major important point.

The Reform Party supports promoting partnerships with provincial governments, private industry, our educational institutions and the public to promote environmental protection. The Reform Party supports the development of environmental regulations through consultation with industry and the public.

There is another item and that is ozone depletion. Much has been said about ozone depletion. In fact there are those who say it is not a problem at all. There are still no accurate measurements available today to determine whether or not ozone depletion is a fact or a myth. Conclusions that have been drawn about ozone depletion are based upon inaccurate computer models. Whether or not one believes the ozone layer is depleted, it is conclusive the items we use in society today do nothing but harm to our environment. Another issue is that of hazardous materials, whether they are considered commercially hazardous or industrially hazardous materials. It is another issue the committee should give great consideration to.

I would congratulate the government this one time for at least initiating something that will be very positive to communities throughout the country. I look forward to some action being taken that is positive, and if it is not many of us from the Reform Party in particular will be watchdogging it very closely.

[Environment, June 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure once again to speak to such an act. In fact it is one of the few times times since coming to the House of Commons that I have been able to congratulate the government for at least initiating a process that should do Canada so well. In my role I end up critiquing a lot of things that happen in the government and I do not have a lot of good things to say at times. But this time I do.

It is really time to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Many of the things I am going to speak about today will exemplify just what I am talking about.

In looking yesterday at a report from StatsCanada about Canada's environment, which I want to quote from, I would emphasize what the changes to this act could do to help Canadians.

Some of the comments that I get from the StatsCanada report are as follows: Canada is among the top five producers per capita in the world of industrial and household garbage, and among the highest in the production of hazardous waste. That comment speaks for itself. It is so very important that we deal with the issues at hand such as the Environmental Protection Act, and that is what this does in fact.

In 1991 each Canadian generated about 360 kilograms of urban solid waste. That is one heck of a lot of solid waste. This is not just disposed of ad hoc, it has to be controlled, monitored, legislated.

Ontario leads in the production of hazardous waste in Canada. Its total output ranks far above and ahead of some other industrialized nations such as Japan. I believe British Columbia is well up there as well, but Ontario with its large population looks at hazardous waste in a way that must be examined by the Environmental Protection Act.

Canada, Australia and the United States generate between 360 and 828 kilograms of urban solid waste per person each year. That is just astonishing. Much of the waste in Canada consists of plastics, packaging and newspapers, which must be collected and disposed of at municipal facilities. It is just not the Canadian act that is at stake here, there are other environmental agencies in different levels of government that must be examined as well. This emphasizes the importance of the committee discussing, relating and working with all these different layers of government when it examines this act.

Canada is also a major producer of hazardous wastes, which are substances posing a risk to human health or the environment, and requiring special disposal techniques to make them harmless or less dangerous. In 1991 Canada generated about 5,770 kilograms of hazardous waste for each million U.S. of gross domestic product. That again is just an astonishing number when you think about what kind of hazardous waste is coming from our country.

I have a few other comments and then I will get on to my local area in Fraser Valley West. In 1991, about one-half of Canadian households had access to curbside or depot recycling services. This access varied greatly across the country; access to recycling was highest in Ontario, which it should be congratulated for. British Columbia ranked second in paper recycling which is available at 64 per cent of households.

We are doing what we can but there is a lot more to do. I sincerely hope that when the environmental committee meets, as the minister said a little while ago, that she is going to give authority to this committee to investigate, look and discuss all of these issues and report back.

It is important to remember that when this committee reports back to the House and to the minister that the minister take positive action. I could stand here and complain about the input that we have received across the country relative to the Young Offenders Act where we see an act that was designed and is weak, to say the least-I used the word flaccid. I sincerely hope when we get into this act and these changes that we do not cop out like we did in the Young Offenders Act.

We have talked about what the act covered, the regulation of toxic substances, priority substances. My colleague who spoke earlier this morning discussed those in some detail and I do not plan to do that here. Substances new to Canada, export-import toxic substances and waste, regulation, cleaning agents, water conditioners, nutrients, international air pollution, ocean dumping; this is a very sweeping act indeed and it is incumbent upon us to give it very detailed study.

I want to take this opportunity to spend a few minutes and discuss a serious environmental problem in Fraser Valley West. Fraser Valley West is an area nestled against the mountains in British Columbia. It encompasses the communities of Langley, Aldergrove, and Matsqui.

We are also the home of the Abbotsford International Air Show. I can remember in the early eighties standing on the tarmac in Abbotsford and looking up at Mount Baker which is just a pristine beautiful mountain, snow capped all year round. You could see it as clearly as any clear day on the ocean. Today there is this brown haze over our community that is not just disgusting but it is scary. It is scary for most people in our community. We are fearful for our young. We are fearful for those who have asthma, bronchitis and other respiratory diseases.

It is nothing in my community to walk outside after two or three days of not cleaning off your patio furniture, for instance, and getting this black scourge that comes from the air. Washing homes is a common reality in the Fraser Valley. Air pollution is a serious concern there.

If there is any one thing we will be watching from my perspective from the Fraser Valley it will be this air pollution that is a serious problem.

The cause is by and large the air drifting from the ocean over Vancouver and the clouds in the air nestling up against the mountains, dropping back, and dropping the contents in our community. A lot of it is a result of vehicle emissions.

Although the provincial government has done its best to look at vehicle emissions it still remains a significant problem. Therefore on behalf of the parents, the children and everybody else in our community I will be watchdogging this aspect of the environmental act very carefully.

The other thing in our community that is very much a concern is water quality. We have many farms in our beautiful riding. The water quality has been proven in some cases and some areas to be quite deficient and people have been unable to drink it.

What do we want to see out of this? Our vision for the future is inspired by the importance to our well-being of exploring, developing, renewing and conserving-

[Supply, June 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I think we have to go back a way on this one. We are in debt. It is so hard to get it through over there. We are borrowing $40 billion a year. The reason there are no roads or some infrastructure is breaking down in the first place is that we have been borrowing money on the backs of the taxpayers for years. They do not have it through their skulls yet that they have borrowed, borrowed and borrowed. We cannot afford these programs any longer.

I might add that I talked to several mayors about the infrastructure program. Basically in many cases, and I am not suggesting all of them, there may be some areas that require purposeful funding for infrastructure. In some cases the mayors said that these were jobs they were going to do in the first place. Their costs have been cut. Instead of having 100 per cent infrastructure costs coming out of the residential taxpayer dollar, the provincial government will pick up some and the federal government will pick up some.

All the government has succeeded in doing is borrowing more money on the backs of the taxpayers. That is the philosophy we have here. It is smoke and mirrors.

[Supply, June 8th, 1994]

They are clapping, I say to those who cannot hear it.

Let me just cite a couple of things that have not established any particular amount of confidence, some things that I have tripped over lately. The government gives CPP, old age security, the old age security income supplement and GST rebates to criminals in prisons. Does that give a lot of confidence to people out there? I have received hundreds, if not thousands, of telephone calls from senior citizens across the country since we divulged that. Does that give people confidence?

Our people are overtaxed. Does that give people confidence? The Young Offenders Act so weak that it is just a plain, poor job. I do not know where the confidence is coming from. It is not oozing from my riding. Perhaps it is somewhere along the line.

There was a question about $26,000 per person. To have the unmitigated gall to justify that debt to our young people because they would like to live in the country is pretty poor justification indeed. It is future generations that we have to try to help. Because we live in such a great country does not justify Liberal borrowing at all or borrowing by the other party from Jurassic Park.

The final question was whether or not we could justify cutting at random. We produced during the election zero in three. We justified it. For a new party with 52 elected people, a lot of people understood it. The reason why the zero in three does not quite work right now and we have to amend it is that the debt

charges have risen so high. The government refuses to cut back on its budgets. What are we stuck with? Now we have to go with a higher number of zero in something.

It is a shame the government cannot understand what the people want. It will not take the bull by the horns.

[Supply, June 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, there were three questions. I will back to the first one.

The member opposite talked about how the Liberal government had established confidence in the people of the country.

[Supply, June 8th, 1994]

Was that my question?