Ted White

[Questions On The Order Paper, April 24th, 2001]

With respect to Alberta Court of Queen's Bench File No. 00-19047 and Supreme Court of Canada File No. 0001-09477: ( a ) what is the total cost incurred by the government to date, whether already paid or under commitment, in connection with these files, including but not limited to legal fees billed by Fraser, Milner, Casgrain, the Department of Justice in Winnipeg and Edmonton, and/or other legal advisers, as well as travel and administrative costs associated with the court actions and filings; and ( b ) what amount has the government budgeted to cover all costs until the cases are closed, including all appeal options?

[Broadcasting Act, March 30th, 2001]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-325, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act (designation of cable channels).

Madam Speaker, we really should do this one right away because it gets rid of a terrible irritation for consumers of cable television, where the CRTC forces suppliers, like Rogers or Shaw, to reallocate channels on the band of one, channels 2 to 13. It creates great annoyance for consumers.

This would remove the CRTC's power to do that and allow cable companies to negotiate cable channel positions based on viewer preferences.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Employment Equity Act, March 30th, 2001]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-324, an act to amend the Employment Equity Act (elimination of designated groups and numerical goals) and the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Madam Speaker, this is another bill which I am sure the government will be rushing to pass at the earliest opportunity.

The enactment would amend the Employment Equity Act to remove the concept of designated groups and numerical goals and repeal the employers' reporting requirements to finally put an end to government sanctioned quotas based on race, which is nothing more than state sponsored racism and needs to be stopped.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Income Tax Act, March 30th, 2001]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-323, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (political activities by charities receiving public funds).

Madam Speaker, the bill, when it is finally passed, as I am sure it will be based on the history of private members' bills in this place, would disqualify from charitable status corporations, trusts and organizations that have received discretionary funding from the public money of Canada or a province, if they then give direct or indirect support or endorsement to parties or candidates for election in a federal election.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology Act, March 23rd, 2001]

Madam Speaker, the minister interrupts to say that the critic supports the bill. We support the idea that there needs to be technology development in conjunction with cleaning the environment. Of course we support that aim, but the point I am making is that there are divisions within the government which can already do that without setting up another bureaucracy.

I worry about accountability. The problem with setting up yet another bureaucracy is that there is hardly any accountability for the ones that are there. I gave some examples from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council before question period began. There are plenty of examples. There is the $38,600 for history and aesthetics of television medical dramas in North America. That is enough to make anyone sick.

The problem with the government is that there simply is no accountability. Committees have difficulty getting information about the way the government spends money. The Auditor General of Canada has accused the government of moving money around in the books in a way that makes it difficult to determine exactly what is going on.

The project that is taking place under the bill is just another excuse to expand the government. It should not be necessary. It should not be done when we can handle the project easily within other arms of government.

I realize the government is past the point of no return and will probably not withdraw the bill. In fact, I heard the minister say yes. The problem with this place is it would not matter if 300 MPs said it could be done more easily or more efficiently in some other arm of government. Because he is in charge, he will ram it through anyway and to Hades with the fact that it will cost taxpayers more money.

I will close by saying that since we are debating motions for amendments to the bill, I disagree with the motion put forward by the Bloc because it would simply add to the bureaucracy by involving the provincial governments.

[Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology Act, March 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, prior to question period, I was getting excited about the perhaps waste of money that the government is proposing in setting up a whole new bureaucracy to administer money or hand out money that could easily be done through some other arm of the government.

I would give an example to the minister if he would take the time to attend some of the bacon and egghead breakfasts which are put on by the Canada Council just about every month in this place. If he had been in attendance at the one that was held last week, he could have a met a professor from the University of Victoria who is involved in environmental studies and is already studying the environment and ways to help reduce pollution.

It is totally unnecessary to set up a whole new organization to deal with this issue of environmental studies and technologies.

It is completely ridiculous and it is an excuse to spend more money, make more patronage appointments and make the government even bigger. It is, because there is a bit of a surplus of taxpayer money, an excuse to spend. It is wrong to keep doing that when it is other people's money. I gave some examples—

[Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology Act, March 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak about the motions that are before the House, I would like to reflect upon the entire bill and the new crown corporation that would be created.

What I see equivalent to a crown corporation is an entire new bureaucracy. The minister said it was not a crown corporation. It would be an entirely new bureaucracy that would need telephone lines, fax machines, computers, offices, furniture, expense accounts and all sorts of reports. It would be a huge new bureaucracy that would cost an enormous amount of money for taxpayers when the government already has in existence literally hundreds of organizations that could spend money on grants to deal with the issues which the bill deals with. It is a waste of taxpayer money.

It would be worse if Motions Nos. 1 and 6 passed because then it would involve provincial governments. They also would need extra staff, extra phone lines, extra fax machines and all the other stuff to make it work. The universities, other crown corporations and government departments have plenty of staff, many of whom are probably working on the types of projects that the bill would facilitate. There is no need to create an entire new bureaucracy.

If the Government of Canada was a corporation, the first thing management would be asked to do, if someone came with a request for this type of project, would be to look at the overall budget of the corporation and the aims of the corporation to see whether the project could be carried out using existing staff and facilities. That is exactly what we should have done instead of creating a whole new bureaucracy.

Second, if there was no way of doing it without setting up a new department within the corporation, the management would be asked to see if it could get rid of something else that had served out its useful time. Do we see a single facility disappearing? Do we see a single dollar being cut from the government expenditures? Not one dollar is disappearing. All that we see is another bureaucracy, another kingdom to be built that year after year will ask for more and more money from the taxpayers' purse.

Why are we doing it? For no other reason than we can because it is other people's money. We do not have to ask anybody. The minister can go ahead, ram it through, set up the new bureaucracy and, despite his assurances earlier, I have absolutely no doubt nor would my constituents that there will be a ton of patronage appointments for that new bureaucracy. You can bet your bippy on that, Mr. Speaker.

I have no confidence whatsoever that this new bureaucracy will achieve the aims that it is set out to do. It will turn out like the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, a totally unaccountable body that blows away $120 million a year with nobody able to obtain information about what it does and with no accountability. For years I tried to get information about specific grants that were given out by SSHRC. It is absolutely hopeless. I cannot get past the bureaucratic walls that are there to find out why it is wasting money.

The council gave away $2,267,350 for someone to work on the history of the book in Canada. Do members think they can find anything that was produced for that $2,267,000? It was a complete waste of taxpayers' dollars.

How about the $62,000 for an investigation of the motivations underlying undergraduates alcohol consumption behaviour? How about the $50,900 for cabarets, nightclubs and burlesque, investigating the subculture of erotic entertainment in post war Vancouver?

If there was even a slim chance that we could get information about the way this money is being spent, I would feel more confident about groups like the SSHRC and I would feel a little more confident that what would be created under the bill would actually produce something useful.

Let us look at some other examples from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. There was $515,000 spent for the impact of race and gender on social cohesion in light of globalization. There was $16,000 spent for an investigation of attacks on aristocratic behaviour in 18th century Britain. What use could there be to the taxpayers of Canada to blow away $16,000 studying aristocratic behaviour and the attacks on it in Britain in the 18th century?

These are small components of that $120 million that SSHRC blew away that could have better been used, even if it went to the roads in B.C. In the House three weeks ago I asked why B.C. was been completely cut off highway funding for five years. The $120 million could have widened the Trans-Canada Highway in B.C. There was $20,000 spent for a study of the changing mode of reproduction among the resettled forages of Kedah, Malaysia.

Is it any wonder that I get letters from my constituents complaining about the way this place blows away money?

I said earlier in my speech that we do it for no other reason than we can. If anybody in the House was asked to put in $10 or $20 to contribute to the $125,000 for the Tell Malada archeological project investigating the urban life in the semi-arid highlands of central Jordan, I bet nobody would put $10 in there. They would not be interested because it would be their own money. That is the big danger of this bill.

[The Economy, March 14th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the finance minister does not care about the value of the dollar. He does not care if it drops to 50 cents U.S.

For ministers who have their assets offshore this may not be a problem, but for the seniors in our country who have to travel to the United States, for importers and for other Canadians who travel, this erosion of their wealth is very important. How could the minister justify this lack of concern about the plunge in our currency?

[The Economy, March 14th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in October 1993 when the Liberal government took power the Canadian dollar was worth 76.75 cents. Now, eight years later, it has gone down by 11 cents. That is a 14% drop in value in just eight years of Liberal mismanagement.

What is the finance minister's target for the Canadian dollar one year from now and three years from now?

[Supply, February 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the fact that we know the outcome of votes in this place before the debates begin is not reflective of the fact that the government has 172 members out of 301. It is reflective of the fact that there are no free votes. The fact is that because there are no free votes in this place we know the outcome of every vote.

The member asks me what numbers the government needs. If this were truly a democratic place, the number the government would need is the number it could convince to vote for its measure, so that we could have meaningful debates here and meaningful input at committees because the government would be challenged with the task of convincing every member in this place that it was a good measure. Each one of us would have a lot more power to influence, to tweak and to make minor adjustments. Earlier today I gave the example of the 12 candidate rule; it never would have wasted millions of dollars of taxpayers' money because it could have been solved right in this place with a free vote.