Ted White

Crucial Fact

His favourite word was money.

Last in Parliament May 2004, as Canadian Alliance MP for North Vancouver (B.C.)

Lost his last election, in 2004, with 36% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Canada Elections Act February 22nd, 2000

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It has come to my attention that some of the amendments that were put forward by Reform, which will be voted on tonight, are seconded or proposed by a person other than the member for North Vancouver, myself, or the member for Elk Island. Some of those members unfortunately are not able to be present tonight.

Earlier this day we co-operated in the House to allow the transfer of some amendments from the NDP to another person's name. Therefore I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House to transfer all the Reform motions which are not in the name of the hon. member for North Vancouver or the hon. member for Elk Island to be moved by the hon. member for North Vancouver and seconded by the hon. member for Elk Island.

Canada Elections Act February 22nd, 2000

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you would agree it is improper for the member opposite to say that we are misleading or misrepresenting any of the issues, or that we are misleading our constituents.

Canada Elections Act February 22nd, 2000

Madam Speaker, I and standing to speak on the Group No. 3 motions to Bill C-2, the Canada Elections Act.

Members will remember that the bill was originally sent to committee prior to second reading on the pretence of making meaningful amendments. The minister said that because the bill was important he was putting it into committee so that we could make meaningful amendments.

We deliberated on the bill for several weeks in committee for long hours; from nine in the morning until ten or eleven at night. We discussed many of the amendments or similar amendments to what we are discussing here. However, the government never took it seriously. The reason it sent the bill to committee before second reading was to make a few technical amendments of its own. It pretty much ignored, as the speaker before me said, any reasonable amendments submitted by the opposition.

The Group No. 3 motions are mainly concerned with the area of appointments to staff positions within Elections Canada. As speakers before me have mentioned, the returning officers throughout Elections Canada are appointed by the Prime Minister.

Why would Canadians be happy to have in their electoral system, which is supposed to be totally non-partisan, the Prime Minister appointing all of the 301 returning officers across the country? The answer is that they are not happy. It is outrageous that the government can use this bill to appoint Liberal Party hacks to positions within Elections Canada all the way down to returning officers and deputy returning officers. Out in the field positions of Elections Canada, all the parties get to appoint people.

During the last election many of my colleagues, myself included, told the returning officers that we would not participate in this patronage exercise. We told them that they should advertise the positions and get the best people for the job. That is the way it should be done, from top to bottom in Elections Canada.

The member who spoke before me mentioned the questions we asked the Chief Electoral Officer in committee. I asked the Chief Electoral Officer if, when Elections Canada was helping third world countries and emerging democracies to set up their elections legislation, he ever recommended the system of patronage that we have here in Canada.

Jean Pierre Kingsley, the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, said:

—obviously when I go out on the international scene I do not recommend that the Canadian system be emulated where it comes to the appointment of returning officers. I clearly indicate, as I do in Canada, that the appointment of returning officers under the present system is an anachronism.

It is plain wrong and improper, in an elections act that is supposed to be non-partisan, for this political patronage to go on.

I would like to speak at length about the patronage aspect of the bill but, in many ways, it is actually other areas of the bill that have come to overshadow this section. For example, there are a series of legal challenges that are certain to be launched against the bill based on previous legal activity both at the provincial and federal levels.

A series of legal challenges are certain on a thing called the 50 candidate rule, which requires a party to have 50 candidates before it can put a party name on ballot. The Communist Party of Canada took the federal government to court on that issue. It won its case in Ontario. I cannot understand why the minister is persisting with a ridiculous and stupid provision in the bill that has already been struck down by the courts. Why would he not just reach a consensus with the small parties that came to committee and said that they would be satisfied with 12 members? They did not have to have the two that the courts had said. They would agree to 12 because that was sensible and it related to the rules of the House. The minister would not agree.

Then we have the third party spending, which has just been struck down again in the courts of B.C. In the court in British Columbia, the judge specifically mentioned that the evidence used in the Libman case by this minister to justify a gag law in his elections act is invalid because the evidence used was based on a preliminary report by a UBC political science professor, Richard Johnston, which indicated that third party spending might influence election outcomes.

Although that finding went into the Lortie commission report, which was subsequently used in the Libman case, Professor Johnston later concluded that third party endorsements had no discernible effect on election outcomes.

There have been three studies done in Canada, as well as studies done in other countries, on the effects or non-effects of third party spending in elections. After studying that evidence, Justice Brenner, in the B.C. case, stated:

—there is no evidence which would allow me to conclude that third party advertising or spending has an impact on voter intentions.

To override Charter rights it is necessary that there be more than a general hypothetical concern about a problem when there is no evidence to demonstrate that it has existed in the past or that it is likely to exist in the future.

Professor Johnston's report, which was used in the Libman case, actually concluded, by studying the different impacts, that sometimes third party spending had the apparent effect of working against a candidate in one riding but, on exactly the same issue, had the apparent effect of helping a candidate in another riding.

For example, on the National Citizens' Coalition issues, that are often a part of the third party spending activity, there was no evidence in Professor Johnston's studies that could conclude that the spending had any particular effect in a riding. So that part of the bill is definitely flawed and will be subject to a court challenge.

Judge Brenner, in a February 9 ruling of the B.C. Supreme Court, stated that there were certain circumstances in which the goal of fairness in elections would support an argument for third party advertising.

If, in a future election campaign, for example, all of the political parties were to agree on a significant policy, then the lack of third party advertising would deprive the voters of a alternative view of that policy. That is a very strong argument in favour of third party spending limits.

Although the main thrust of the motions that we are discussing right now deal with patronage appointments to Elections Canada, I know that the minister is completely unresponsive to any of the amendments that were proposed to fix the problem, just as he is completely unresponsive to any of the court rulings which have shown him he is misguided in other areas of the bill. He is misguided with the 50 candidate rule. He is misguided with third party spending. He is also misguided as far as the publication of poll results goes.

I do not know why he persists in trying to reinstate parts of the bill that are continually being struck down by the courts. Is it a game for him? Is he trying to make the National Citizens' Coalition and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation spend their money in court challenges knowing that the minister does not have to pay out of his own pocket for his side of the thing? It is the taxpayers of Canada who end up paying. I wish he would not treat it like a game. I wish he would treat it with seriousness. I wish he would sit down and actually negotiate amendments to the bill that would make it more meaningful.

When members on the other side say that we do not free vote, that is simply not true. We often support their amendments. On this very bill we have supported at least 20 of their amendments. We have analyzed them, taken a look at them and have said that they are sensible amendments. We are supporting some of the Bloc amendments and even some of the NDP amendments because we have looked at them sensibly and logically. They make sense and they should be supported.

Look at the government side. Every single amendment that has been proposed will be opposed by government members. It is not because the amendments make no sense. They are all good and sensible amendments that should be discussed. They will opposed because government members are afraid their nomination papers will not be signed when it comes to the next election. I wish they would reconsider and start thinking about what is good for the people of Canada instead of their pocketbooks at the next election.

In the last parliament we told the government that bills like the Employment Equity Act, conditional sentencing and bills that had flaws in them would be challenged by the courts, just like the one before us today. We predicted that but they never listened. I wish they would listen on the Canada Elections Act because that minister over there will be responsible for the waste of hundreds of thousands of dollars on meaningless court cases which he could be avoided. I wish he would listen.

Canada Elections Act February 22nd, 2000

moved:

Motion No. 31

That Bill C-2 be amended by adding after line 5 on page 18 the following new clause:

“26.1 (1) The Chief Electoral Officer shall, before each general election, hold a competition for the selection of qualified candidates to be placed on a list referred to in subsection (6) for the purposes of the appointment of assistant returning officers under section 26, 28, 29 or 30. The selection shall be based on a candidate's merit and experience and shall be made impartially.

(2) A competition held under subsection (1) shall be open to all qualified electors, other than persons referred to in subsection 22(3).

(3) The Chief Electoral Officer shall give such notice of a proposed competition as, in his or her opinion, will give qualified electors a reasonable opportunity of making an application for the position of assistant returning officer.

(4) Applications for the position of assistant returning officer shall be in the prescribed form and shall be made at the prescribed time and verified in the prescribed manner.

(5) The Chief Electoral Officer shall examine and consider all applications for the position of assistant returning officer received within the time prescribed for the receipt of applications and shall select the highest ranking candidates in the competition from among the qualified applicants for the purposes of subsection (6).

(6) The Chief Electoral Officer shall prepare a list of the highest ranking candidates in the competition for each electoral district and shall send it to the returning officer for the electoral district.

26.1.2 The Chief Electoral Officer may make regulations

(a) prescribing anything that may be prescribed in section 26.1;

(b) defining the expression “qualified” for the purposes of section 26.1; and

Motion No. 32

That Bill C-2, in Clause 28, be amended by deleting lines 24 to 26 on page 18.

Motion No. 33

That Bill C-2, in Clause 28, be amended by replacing line 36 on page 18 with the following:

“officer, the Chief Electoral Officer shall appoint”

Motion No. 34

That Bill C-2, in Clause 28, be amended by replacing line 41 on page 18 with the following:

“returning officer without delay from the list most recently sent under subsection 26.1(6) to the returning officer who is unable to act.

(6) Every appointment made under this section shall be made impartially.”

Motion No. 35

That Bill C-2, in Clause 29, be amended by replacing line 12 on page 19 with the following:

“delay appoint a substitute from the list most recently sent to the returning officer under subsection 26.1(6).

(2.1) Every appointment made under subsection (2) shall be made impartially.”

Motion No. 36

That Bill C-2, in Clause 30, be amended

(a) by replacing line 31 on page 19 with the following:

“additional assistant returning officer from the list most recently sent to the returning officer under subsection 26.1(6) and es-”

(b) by adding after line 33 on page 19 the following:

“(2.1) Every appointment made under subsection (2) shall be made impartially.”

Motion No. 37

That Bill C-2, in Clause 34, be amended by replacing lines 16 to 19 on page 21 with the following:

“appointed impartially from the list mostly recently sent under subsection 34.1(6) to the returning officer making the appointment.”

Motion No. 38

That Bill C-2 be amended by adding after line 21 on page 21 the following new clause:

“34.1 (1) The Chief Electoral Officer shall, before each general election, hold a competition for the selection of qualified candidates to be placed on a list referred to in subsection (6) for the purposes of the appointment of deputy returning officers under section 32 or subsection 253(1) or 273(1). The selection shall be based on a candidate's merit and experience and shall be made impartially.

(2) A competition held under subsection (1) shall be open to all qualified electors other than persons referred to in subsection 22(3).

(3) The Chief Electoral Officer shall give such notice of a proposed competition as, in his or her opinion, will give qualified electors, a reasonable opportunity of making an application for that position.

(4) Applications for the position of deputy returning officer shall be in the prescribed form and shall be made at the prescribed time and verified in the prescribed manner.

(5) The Chief Electoral Officer shall examine and consider all applications for the position of deputy returning officer received within the time prescribed for the receipt of applications and shall select the highest ranking candidates in the competition from among the qualified applicants for the purposes of subsection (6).

34.1.2 The Chief Electoral Officer may make regulations

(a) prescribing anything that may be prescribed by section 34.1;

(b) defining the expression “qualified” for the purposes of section 34.1; and

Motion No. 39

That Bill C-2, in Clause 35, be amended by replacing lines 23 to 27 on page 21 with the following:

“paragraph 32(b) or (c) shall be appointed impartially from the list most recently sent under subsection 35.1(6) to the returning officer making the appointment.”

Motion No. 40

That Bill C-2 be amended by adding after line 29 on page 21 the following new clause:

“35.1 (1) The Chief Electoral Officer shall, before each general election, hold a competition for the selection of qualified candidates to be placed on a list referred to in subsection (6) for the purposes of the appointment of poll clerks under section 32 or subsection 253(1) or 273(1). The selection shall be based on a candidate's merit and experience and shall be made impartially.

(2) A competition held under subsection (1) shall be open to all qualified electors, other than persons referred to in subsection 22(3).

(3) The Chief Electoral Officer shall give such notice of a proposed competition as in his or her opinion will give qualified electors a reasonable opportunity of making an application for the position of poll clerk.

(4) Applications for the position of poll clerk shall be in the prescribed form and shall be made at the prescribed time and verified in the prescribed manner.

(5) The Chief Electoral Officer shall examine and consider all applications for the position of poll clerk received within the time prescribed for the receipt of applications and shall select the highest ranking candidates in the competition from among the qualified applicants for the purposes of subsection (6).

35.1.2 The Chief Electoral Officer may make regulations

(a) prescribing anything that may be prescribed by section 35.1;

(b) defining the expression “qualified” for the purposes of section 35.1; and

Motion No. 41

That Bill C-2, in Clause 36, be amended by replacing lines 31 and 32 on page 21 with the following:

“appoint deputy returning officers from other sources if the candidates”

Motion No. 42

That Bill C-2, in Clause 36, be amended by replacing lines 31 and 32 on page 21 with the following:

“appoint poll clerks from other sources if the candidates”

Motion No. 43

That Bill C-2, in Clause 37, be amended by replacing lines 38 and 39 on page 21 with the following:

“able grounds, refuse to appoint a poll clerk recommended”

Motion No. 44

That Bill C-2, in Clause 37, be amended by replacing line 39 on page 21 with the following:

“returning officer recommended”

Motion No. 75

That Bill C-2, in Clause 273, be amended

(a) by replacing line 8 on page 108 with the following:

“273. (1) Subject to subsection (1.1), the returning officer shall appoint”

(b) by adding after line 15 on page 108 the following:

“(1.1) Every appointment of a poll clerk made under subsection (1) shall be made from the list most recently sent under subsection 35.1(6) to the returning officer making the appointment and shall be made impartially.”

Motion No. 76

That Bill C-2, in Clause 273, be amended

(a) by replacing line 8 on page 108 with the following:

“273. (1) Subject to subsection (1.1), the returning officer shall appoint”

(b) by adding after line 15 on page 108 the following:

“(1.1) Every appointment of a deputy returning officer made under subsection (1) shall be made from the list most recently sent under subsection 34.1(6) to the returning officer making the appointment and shall be made impartially.”

Motion No. 77

That Bill C-2, in Clause 273, be amended by deleting lines 16 to 34 on page 108.

Canada Elections Act February 22nd, 2000

moved:

Motion No. 21

That Bill C-2, in Clause 24, be amended by replacing line 23 on page 16 with the following:

“24. (1) Subject to section 24.1, the Chief Electoral Officer shall”

Motion No. 23

That Bill C-2, in Clause 24, be amended by replacing line 25 on page 16 with the following:

“district to hold office for a term of ten years and may only remove him or her for”

Motion No. 24

That Bill C-2, in Clause 24, be amended by replacing line 13 on page 17 with the following:

“(7) The Chief Electoral Officer may remove”

Motion No. 25

That Bill C-2 be amended by adding after line 31 on page 17 the following new clause:

“24.1 (1) The Chief Electoral Officer shall hold a competition for the selection of qualified candidates for the purposes of the appointment of returning officers under subsection 24(1).

(2) A competition held under subsection (1) shall be open to all qualified electors, other than persons referred to in subsection 22(3).

(4) Applications for the position of returning officer shall be in the prescribed form and shall be made at the prescribed time and verified in the prescribed manner.

(5) The Chief Electoral Officer shall examine and consider all applications for the position of returning officer received within the time prescribed for the receipt of applications and shall select the highest ranking candidates in the competition from among the qualified applicants.

24.1.2 The Chief Electoral Officer may make regulations

(a) prescribing anything that may be prescribed by section 24.1;

(b) defining the expression “qualified” for the purposes of section 24.1; and

Motion No. 27

That Bill C-2, in Clause 25, be amended by replacing lines 32 to 37 on page 17 with the following:

“25. Between the 1st and 20th days of”

Motion No. 28

That Bill C-2, in Clause 26, be amended by replacing line 43 on page 17 with the following:

“26. (1) Subject to subsection (1.2), a returning officer shall, without”

Motion No. 29

That Bill C-2, in Clause 26, be amended

(a) by replacing line 45 on page 17 with the following:

“an assistant returning officer from the list most recently sent to the returning officer under subsection 26.1(6), who shall hold”

(b) by adding after line 47 on page 17 the following:

“(1.1) Every appointment made under subsection (1) shall be made impartially.”

Canada Elections Act February 22nd, 2000

moved:

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-2, in Clause 16, be amended by adding after line 35 on page 11 the following:

“(b.1) exercise the powers and perform the duties and functions set out in sections 24, 24.1 and 24.2;”

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-2, in Clause 16, be amended by adding after line 35 on page 11 the following:

“(b.1) exercise the powers and perform the duties and functions set out in sections 35.1 and 35.2;”

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-2, in Clause 16, be amended by adding after line 35 on page 11 the following:

“(b.1) exercise the powers and perform the duties and functions set out in sections 34.1 and 34.2;”

Canada Elections Act February 22nd, 2000

moved:

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-2, in Clause 13, be amended by adding after line 16 on page 10 the following:

“(1.1) In subsection (1), “resolution of the House of Commons” means a motion of the House of Commons that has been adopted by at least three quarters of the members of that House.”

Division No. 692 February 22nd, 2000

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sorry to do this to you again, Mr. Speaker, but because of the noise I did not hear the motion number and I need to keep track of those things.

Refugees February 18th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, it has now been more than a year since the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration was told by Vancouver police that dozens of bogus refugee claimants from Honduras were trafficking drugs in our city.

Some of those refugee claimants have now been arrested more than 15 times each. While the minister does nothing to remove them from Canada, the bogus refugees happily climb into the paddy wagons week after week, treating the experience like a working vacation and costing taxpayers millions of dollars in welfare, medical care and social services.

The United Nations convention on refugees requires refugees to make their claims in the first safe country they reach, but almost all of the refugee claimants in Canada changed planes in Miami, Heathrow or Frankfurt.

One does not have to be a policeman on the streets of Vancouver to work out why the claims are not made in Miami, Heathrow or Frankfurt, but the minister stands by while we get taken for suckers. She is worse than the cardboard cutout we had for a minister before her.

Petitions February 16th, 2000

Madam Speaker, I rise to present a petition on behalf of Vladimir Cicha, Mavis Johnson, Fran Lewis and 240 others from North Vancouver.

The petitioners bring to the attention of the House the fact that the recent arrival of a ship bearing 123 illegal Chinese migrants to Vancouver Island has underscored how illegal immigration is one of the most serious issues facing Canada.

The petitioners call upon parliament to enact immediate changes to Canada's immigration laws governing refugees to deal with the situation.

I might add, Madam Speaker, that the government's response to these petitions so far has been less than satisfactory.