Ted White

[Supply, February 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would first say that the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle should not be complaining that we have not had a vote in this place since 1923 when he has made the NDP's own motion today non-votable. If NDP members wanted a vote, why did they not make it votable today? Why use today for a non-votable motion if they only get one votable motion?

Everyone is laughing. Is that not a sad commentary? This is what I said earlier. Why on earth are these motions non-votable? It is an affront to democracy and everyone in this place should be absolutely ashamed that it even happens.

In terms of our motion last week, which was votable, I think the member would have to agree there was good bang for the buck in that one. The Liberals voted against their own policy. The newspapers and the media were very happy to talk about that one. It is a shame that there will not be any coverage of today's discussions.

In terms of the system I would support myself, as the member knows I have been the critic for direct democracy right up to the last election. I always took the position that I needed to be neutral because people tend to be wedded to one form or another of proportional representation. I always felt it would be difficult for me to continue in my role as critic if people felt that I was predisposed toward one system or another. I would prefer to retain that neutrality at this time just on the off chance that we ever get that all party committee. I would like to be sitting on the committee with people knowing that I am taking a neutral stand.

[Supply, February 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question from the member on the Liberal side: Do the constituents expect us to be here in parliament when the House is sitting? That is a wide ranging question.

In my experience, I have found that most people do not even know when parliament is sitting, for a start. In the summertime, they quite often ask when we are going back to parliament. I would expect the hon. member probably gets the same sorts of questions. People do not even know when parliament is sitting. However, they also recognize, certainly in the west, that this place is not terribly relevant to the process of governing.

Unfortunately, because of the lack of democracy in this place, they know that the outcome of every vote is known before the debates begin. They know that today when I stand here and give a 20 minute speech and answer questions it will not make one bit of difference to the outcome of today's business.

In 1993, I made a promise to my constituents, and I repeated it in writing in the North Shore News four days before the vote in the election of 2000. I promised that while parliament was in session that I would be here three days and in my riding two days. The reason for doing that is so that I can meet with my constituents and deal with their concerns, assist those who want to come here to give evidence before parliamentary committees, talk about the bills that are before the House and be available because, frankly, many of us would recognize that a lot more can be achieved dealing with our constituents than can be achieved in this place.

There are many surveys that have been done in Canada by Ipsos-Reid and other polling companies that have discovered that the longer a person is in this place as a member the more emphasis he or she places on helping constituents because it is the one area where there is satisfaction, and virtually nothing in this place gives satisfaction.

In terms of the voting from the constituency, of course at any time while parliament is in session there are always large numbers of people away on committee travel and overseas travel. Those people should be able to vote remotely.

In New Zealand there is a house rule that was adopted in 1996, at first on an experimental basis and made permanent a year later. Up to 20% of the caucus of each party can be absent at any time and the whip votes by proxy for that 20%. That gives flexibility for people to be away on committee travel or overseas travel and yet there is 100% attendance all the time. Some may argue it is cheating the system, but it is really no different from being able to vote from the riding.

[Supply, February 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, as you know, I always manage to tie it into the topic in the end and I certainly will in this case.

As I was stating, this day could have been used to debate critical NDP issues, such as corporations that do not pay any taxes. I am sure that at least half of the reason the member wants to keep stopping me is if there are NDP members watching today all manner of myths are being dispelled about the rhetoric that is handed out to them on a daily basis. Whenever I have these people approach me in my office I always ask for examples of the corporations that did not pay taxes and the reasons they did not. When they do the research they find out that it is all nonsense.

The NDP members could have used their day today for these other topics and we could have talked about these critical key issues. Instead of that, we are stuck with an issue that we have debated before.

As other members of my party will say, we do support the thrust of the motion. If it were votable today, we would be voting in favour of it. Unfortunately, it is non-votable. That is just an example of how undemocratic this place really is.

[Supply, February 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, of course I am tying it to the debate. What I am trying to point out is that the members of the NDP had a wealth of subjects that it could have debated today and I am trying to assist them. If they had debated something a bit different, the benches above us would be filled with the media wanting to report it. Instead there is not a single person from the media in this place today. I would be willing to bet that there will be nothing, not a word, of a report in a newspaper anywhere about what has happened in the debate today.

What I trying to do is help members of the NDP to see that perhaps they could have got more bang for their buck if they had discussed one of their critical issues instead of talking about something we already talked about and got nowhere on less than a year ago.

With regard to the parliamentary reform aspects, if we had truly meaningful free votes in this place, the first past the post system would not be as critical. It would not matter so much. If each of us was truly representing our constituency views and voting that way in this place, it would not matter that we were elected by first past the post because representation would be the key issue not how we got here.

On the other hand, as the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle knows, I and my party are supportive—and the critic will be speaking about this in more detail later—of the general thrust of the motion. We spoke in favour of it in past times when he brought this issue forward. The issue is not whether we are in favour of the motion, it is whether they are getting a good bang for their buck today.

Let us talk a bit more about parliamentary reform that they could have introduced, quite apart from free votes. If the private members' business was all votable then it would be meaningful to bring back this motion in a votable form and during private members' business.

We should have the ability to vote from our ridings when we are there on business, as is done in some other countries. In this day of technology, why do we actually have to be physically here to stand in our places and vote on an issue, which we fully understand and which we have been following? Just because we are in our riding for a day should not exclude us from the ability to vote. That is not democratic.

There are systems available now. We could even have fingerprint recognition where we would put one of our digits into a little machine which would recognize us in our riding. There is no reason that we should not be able to vote remotely. When we are away on parliamentary committees or overseas on some important issue to do with parliamentary business, why should we be deprived of the ability to represent our constituents by voting in this place? It just does not make sense.

The only reason we are not moving toward some of these reforms is the intransigence of the minister opposite. He is not willing to accept anything that represents a greater degree of democracy. He talks the good talk about modernizing the elections act but when push comes to shove he is not interested in doing that. He had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the bill that he tabled this week to change the Canada Elections Act to allow parties with 12 candidates to have their names on the ballot during elections.

When the new elections act came through this place several months ago and the small parties, including the Communist Party and the Green Party, came to Ottawa to give committee evidence, they all said that the 50 candidate rule was unfair. I agreed with them. We worked out a compromise; 12 candidates, the number that is recognized in this place.

We went to the minister with that compromise and he said no. What happened? He got involved in an expensive court case which was won by the Communist Party of Canada. The court ruled that two members were sufficient to constitute a party and insisted that the minister come back to this place and fix the problem before February 15. The day before the deadline he introduced a bill to change the number to 12.

The minister argued that he was trying to improve democracy by modernizing the bill but he had to be dragged kicking and screaming to that point, only to accept the number that was proposed in a compromise nine or twelve months ago. In the meantime, he spent huge amounts of taxpayer dollars defending that position.

I would predict confidently that he is into the same problem with the Canada Elections Act, with the challenge by the National Citizens' Coalition over third party advertising. He will spend a fortune, probably millions of dollars, challenging it in the courts only to have it struck down as unconstitutional as it has been three times previously.

Those are the sorts of issues, if the NDP really wanted to be forward thinking and creative, that would have moved us forward from where we are. We should be talking about the things that would make this place work better for the people we represent.

Another modernization we could do is, if the government would not accept absolutely total outright free votes, maybe we could agree that if, say, 30% of the total membership of the House, which would be about 60 members at the moment, demanded a secret ballot, that we would do something completely different. Let us get outside the box. If 60 members in this place demanded a secret ballot on a private member's bill or on a government motion or a government bill, then we have a secret ballot. I know the minister would argue immediately that we could not do that because our constituents want to see how we voted. There is some validity to that sort of statement.

However, the fact is that sometimes democracy would be served by having a secret ballot in this place. The example I just gave, of the 12 candidate rule, is a good example of where a secret ballot could have fixed the problem. That side of the House was compelled to vote for something that the courts were saying was wrong. In a couple of weeks time they will vote 180 degrees opposite for something completely different because they are whipped into voting the way they are told, instead of voting with common sense. There are good debates in the House where common sense prevails. Members from the opposite side have told me that they liked the idea I had talked about with a proposed bill but that they could not vote for it.

There is something wrong with our democratic process when we have that state of affairs in the House of Commons, where people on the government side know that they should not be voting against something but they are compelled to vote against it by the whipping on that side of the House.

We could achieve a lot with a decent piece of parliamentary reform.

Apart from parliamentary reform, members of the NDP could have talked about other issues. I mentioned child poverty. They are always on about taxing the rich and that corporations do not pay enough income tax or that 1,000 corporations did not pay any income tax this year. I have been in at least three public debates with the member from Vancouver East where she has spouted the usual rhetoric about corporations that do not pay income tax. I have challenged her on all three occasions to name the companies that did not pay the income tax and to tell me why they did not. She has never come up with a list and has never come up with the reasons. I know why. As soon as she gets the names of the companies and looks at the reasons, she will see there are very good reasons for not paying the income tax.

For example, the Royal Trust, I think, was used as an example one time. It is a subsidiary of another company. It transferred its profits to the parent company which then paid the income tax.

[Supply, February 20th, 2001]

Somebody yelled out “That is democracy”. How in anybody's mind could it be democratic that they have 100% of the power with less than 50% of the votes? It just does not make any sense.

I heard the minister say a few minutes ago that he does not like the idea of any type of proportional representation because there is no consensus on how to go about implementing it. New Zealand, the country that I am originally from, gave us a wonderful example of how to go about doing it. In 1994, I think it was, there was a referendum in New Zealand that asked the people whether they wanted to change the system. That is democracy.

The people of New Zealand decided they did want to change the system. Over the next 12 to 18 months elections New Zealand, or whatever the body responsible for elections in New Zealand is called, set about informing the people of New Zealand of the alternatives.

Every home in New Zealand received a booklet of about 28 to 30 pages describing the various forms of proportional representation and the likely outcome in an election. I have a copy of it in my office. At the end of that period there was a second referendum where the people of New Zealand chose the system they favoured. They chose mixed member proportional, which is similar to the system in Germany.

Within that system there are many variations: how the list is appointed and whether they are elected or appointed.

For the minister to stand there and say that there is no consensus on how to proceed is silly. Frankly, I am surprised the minister would be that silly.

Unfortunately, the motion is non-votable, so we all know that it is pretty much meaningless to have this day of debate. It is sad to say it but that is the reality. I heard the minister himself say that it was like shovelling air. That is true. What a disgrace that we can spend a whole day here debating and giving careful thought to this topic but at the end of the day we cannot even vote.

I realize the NDP members have the opportunity to choose which of their motions will be votable and which will not, but I put the question forward: Why should there even be any non-votable motions? Why should anything in this place where there has been a debate be non-votable? It defies logic to have a whole day of debate in this place at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars to run this place every day and not even be allowed to vote on the issue at the end of the day.

The same logic applies to private members' bills. I spoke this morning with a member from the Liberal side of the House who was very disappointed that his private member's bill was made non-votable. He had the feeling that it was because of opposition members on the committee that his bill was not made votable. The fact is we should not be facing this sort of position. All private members' bills should be votable, just like government business is votable in the House.

It is sad that we have a motion that is non-votable, but on top of that we have a motion that the NDP members already raised in this place less than a year ago. It puzzles me why they would be revisiting something that we already debated less than a year ago. Why did they not use their day on a votable motion about parliamentary reform? Goodness knows there is plenty that needs to be done in this place to make it more democratic. Why on earth did they waste a whole day debating something they already thrashed in private member's business a year ago?

Regarding the subject of the motion, I constantly hear the NDP members bleating about the growing gap between the rich and the poor. I hear them talking about child poverty, about NAFTA and about the need for more social programs. Why have they not brought any of those issues forward today instead of bringing forward something they already debated 12 months ago?

The debate illustrates the reason why the NDP is in decline. There is no new thinking there. There is nothing stimulating about what it is doing. No wonder it is in decline. I guess because it never wants to be the government it can pretty well say anything it wants to.

I will give an example. During the election campaign I was at an all candidates debate at Capilano College in my riding, which is a well known hotbed of socialism in my riding. The NDP candidate for North Vancouver was unable to come, so the member for Vancouver East filled in that day. I must say that I do enjoy debating the member for Vancouver East. It is always very entertaining for both of us and for the audience as well.

In this particular case, the audience at Capilano College was entirely on the side of the member for Vancouver East. The member for Vancouver East promised anything. The students could have free tuition as much as they wanted. They could have interest free student loans. They could have their student loans waived. They could have gay marriages. They could have anything they wanted. Everything they asked for she said an NDP government would give them.

Some of the students were in tears. They were so happy at what they were being promised by the NDP they were sobbing in their seats. Of course I got the thumbs down. I probably got a two pointer out of ten.

The fact is that the NDP members are out of touch. They know they can promise anything to any special interest group and never be faced with having to enact those measures in this place.

One NDP member has talked a lot about parliamentary reform. One way those members could have contributed would have been to have proposed a motion today about parliamentary reform and what needs to be done differently in the House. We could have even re-debated the child poverty issue. They even get their own history incorrect.

A motion was introduced and debated in the House on November 24, 1989. Every November we get regurgitated throughout the country about how parliament promised to get rid of child poverty by the year 2000 and the NDP rush around the country saying that it promises to get rid of child poverty by the year 2000.

The fact is that is not what the NDP motion said in 1989. I can read the exact wording. It states:

That this House express its concern for the more than 1 million Canadian children currently living in poverty and seek to achieve the goal of eliminating poverty among Canadian children by the year 2000.

It was not to get rid of it but to seek to achieve it. The reason it was worded that way is that it was the last day in the House for Mr. Broadbent, the leader of the NDP at the time. It was a votable motion and the whole place wanted to send him off on a high note.

It was of course a motherhood and apple pie motion that would seek to achieve and to try to eliminate something at some time in the future, and everybody voted for it. Since then the NDP has regurgitated the motion every February by promising to get rid of child poverty by the year 2000.

Frankly, if the NDP can point to a country anywhere in the world that has managed to do that—

[Supply, February 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, this is my first opportunity to give a speech in the House since the last election, although I did ask a question a week or two ago.

I guess the time is appropriate to thank my constituents for sending the Liberal appointee in my riding packing. My vote percentage went up again for the third time, so that was pretty good. The appointee in my riding, an NDPer who switched horses in the middle of the NDP's mandate in B.C. to join the Liberals, was sent packing with a lower percentage of the vote than the previous Liberal candidate, so that was pretty good too. Actually NDP members provincially are jumping ship at an increasing rate because there is an election any day and the NDP are expected to go down in a massive defeat in B.C.

I will read the motion and the amendment we are debating today:

That this House immediately strike a special all-party committee to examine the merits of various models of proportional representation and other electoral reforms, with a view to recommending reforms that would combat the increasing regionalization of Canadian politics, and the declining turnout of Canadians in federal elections

The motion is really about fairness, despite all the words we heard from the minister just a few minutes ago. Frankly it is hopeless talking to the minister about fairness or about the idea of proportional representation, because after all his party has 100% of the power with considerably less than 50% of the popular vote. Why would he be the slightest bit interested in any fairness? He has well under 50% of the vote and 100% of the power. What could be better for them? It is not surprising.

[Suzanne Wilson, February 14th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate North Vancouver resident Suzanne Wilson on the completion of her millennium photo project, Your House/Our Home.

Here is something that will shock the Liberals: she completed her project without using a single cent of taxpayer dollars. It was done entirely with her own money and donations from supporters.

In Suzanne's own words “The purpose of my year 2000 photo project, Your House/Our Home, is to leave a photographic and written record of the homes of families of the city of North Vancouver in the year 2000”.

In this she has succeeded. Her more than 2,000 photographs and stories stand as a testament to individual initiative and creativity. I am proud to be recognizing her today in this House.

Suzanne's exhibit gets my vote as the best millennium project in Canada, way ahead of the concrete dinosaurs, herb gardens and papier mâché pigeons that were approved for funding by the Liberal government's millennium bureau in 1999 and 2000.

[Infrastructure, February 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the chart for spending on highways across the country shows a different picture. The minister's national highways program consistently goes off the pavement before it reaches B.C.

For the year 2001, out of a budget of $110 million not a single cent, zero dollars, nothing, has gone to B.C. From now on B.C. wants its fair share of the money.

When will the minister live up to his obligations and restore full funding, B.C.'s fair share of that funding, for the highways of B.C.?

[Infrastructure, February 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, there is a transportation infrastructure crisis on the lower mainland of Vancouver, but the government continues to suck $360 million a year in gas taxes out of British Columbia. That is more than five times the annual highway budget for B.C.

How could the Minister of Transport justify this $360 million tax grab when he does not return a single cent of that money to B.C. for highways?

[Petitions, October 19th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I am presenting a petition today signed by 83 people from North Vancouver, including Mr. Jones of Epps Avenue. The petitioners point out that whereas 80% of Canadians practise personal and corporate religious faiths that recognize the power and universal sovereignty of a supreme being, they pray and request that parliament reject all calls to remove references to a sovereign God from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the national anthem, as it may divide Canadians forever.