Ted White

[Supply, April 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have not had the opportunity to speak on this issue in the previous days of debate. Unfortunately I did not make it on the list of speakers.

I thought I would take it from a different tact today by talking about the concerns expressed by my constituents on both sides of the issue.

I have a letter from an elderly gentleman who was concerned about the Aviano air base and whether or not there was protection in case Milosevic lobbed some missiles. I have letters claiming that this NATO action is completely illegal and should not be happening.

A few people have become very emotional about the issue, but I must say that overall there has not been a lot of public reaction to this despite the serious nature of the issue. Last week while monitoring radio talk shows in the Vancouver area, we did not pick up a single call on this issue. Despite the serious nature of this issue and the fact that Canada is involved in this international conflict, it would seem that the average person on the street considers it too far away and something that is not important enough to worry about. I receive more letters about the taxes families are paying and the difficulties with the immigration system or justice issues than I receive about the situation in Kosovo.

Nevertheless there are some strong feelings out there. I want to put on the record some of the input I am getting. It is frustrating for me as a person who is reasonably well travelled that I have never been to the region where this conflict is taking place. All of the constituents who have written to me have not been there either. Sifting through all the information can be frustrating in trying to make sure that we have the correct impression about what is going on in Kosovo.

Perhaps the one thing that everyone agrees upon is that the conflict has been there for a long time. Without making judgments as to who is at fault or who is doing what to whom, the conflict has been there for a long time. Perhaps there is a lot of truth in the argument some constituents are presenting that doing what we are doing will not solve the problem, that it may actually exacerbate it.

It is frustrating not to have been there. It would have been valuable and interesting to have heard from any members who had lived there or had relatives there. They could have given us some inside information about the way people feel in that country.

I asked a question at one of the military briefings at the defence committee last week regarding the number of refugees and how much that problem had escalated. Were there ten times as many refugees now as there were six months ago? The answer was that there had been a large increase in the number of refugees but it was not related to the bombing but rather to the police activities of driving people out of their homes. That is indirectly related to the bombing. Because of the bombing going on police were getting more enthusiastic and driving people out of their homes.

I had no opportunity to cross-examine and pursue this further to get deeper into the question. This relates to the frustration of not having intimate knowledge about the area and being certain that the information we are getting is 100% correct.

I will read a couple of excerpts from some of the letters I have received. These reflect some of the concerns coming from people in my riding. Mr. Ken Moir wrote to me and said in part of his letter:

These people are in greater disarray as the bombing attacks continue. The objective of the bombing attack is not being achieved-may turn the war into an infantry assault-at very great cost, and should not be considered in any way whatsoever.

It is my opinion an infantry assault would be a preamble to WW 3. Let our MPs ponder this unthinkable probability, and think wisely as to how Canada is to proceed either in NATO or out of NATO. It is my opinion that (the Prime Minister) is not the leader that we so urgently need at this time.... Where is Lester Pearson when we need him? My views have some input from my time in Europe in WW 2 1943-45.

That is a concerned person writing in with his feelings about the situation.

A lady who writes to me quite often, Victoria Hogan, sent me an e-mail addressed actually to the defence minister:

My opinion is not reflected in the alleged 78% of Canadians approving of our bombing of Yugoslavia. If asked, I most certainly would have said NO, and so would hundreds of people of my own personal acquaintance. In fact, today on national TV Vancouver Sun Columnist Barbara Yaffe said that the media has been giving a very one-sided account of events in Yugoslavia, and that this could well account for this so-called majority opinion. I had thought so right from the start, but Barbara was courageous enough to say it on national TV.

Ms. Hogan goes on to express her opposition to what is going on, much in the way that Ken Moir did, asking us to concentrate much more on diplomatic efforts.

To the credit of the NDP, that is the basis of the motion that is before us today. I will read it into the record for members who may have missed it: “That this House calls on the government to intensify and accelerate efforts to find a diplomatic solution to the crisis in Kosovo through the involvement of Russia and the United Nations, and to urge NATO not to impose a naval blockade or take any other actions that expand the conflict and stand in the way of a diplomatic solution”.

It is hard to disagree with the intent of the motion. I know there has been a lot of support for it today.

Moving back to some of the correspondence I have received, I received an e-mail addressed to the Prime Minister from Nenad Gajic, who I believe is a person from the Yugoslav area, expressing a strong protest toward NATO's and consequently Canada's declaration of war on the federal republic of Yugoslavia.

You have acted unilaterally in this matter. You led Canada into aggression against a sovereign country which did not attack Canada.

That is a different perspective of the situation from someone who has come to Canada from that region and is very disturbed about it. I know other members have received e-mails like that from people who have come here perhaps as refugees or as immigrants and feel that Canada has declared war, that we are doing entirely the wrong thing.

Finally, I would like to mention Mr. Ken Timewell who writes to me regularly on issues of peace throughout the world, or perhaps conflicts throughout the world. I received a letter from him dated April 17:

I have just returned home after a vacation abroad, only to learn that the Canadian government is actively supporting the U.S.-led NATO bombing of “Serb targets” in the Balkans. Worse still, I am told that all five major political parties in Canada support this illegal military action. It is truly a sad time in our history.

Mr. Timewell goes on to mention that he does not support the aggressive military action by NATO members and does not see how it can possibly bring anything but added instability to the region.

He wrote to me again a few days later and we had several discussions on the telephone too. This gentleman was deeply concerned about the issue. He wanted me to get his concern on the record in the House and I am pleased to do that today.

We had quite a discussion about whether or not he had intimate knowledge of the region. When he wrote his second letter he did say:

Perhaps not unlike yourself, my knowledge of the recent history of the Balkans is quite modest, however I am working hard to become informed on the subject.

He then goes on to say that despite his lack of information of an intimate nature about the area, he still within himself is opposed to this type of conflict and really does not want us to be involved. He goes on to encourage us to get involved at a diplomatic level. That relates back again to the thrust of the motion before us today.

That puts on the record some of the concerns which have come through. I must say I have had many more letters against what is happening than those for. As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, listening to the radio talk shows and looking at letters to the editor in the newspapers, there really has not been a lot of public reaction.

I am not sure if other members have found this in their ridings as well. We have certainly received letters from individual constituents, but the public as a whole does not seem to have reacted.

That pretty much wraps up everything I needed to get on the record today. I welcome any input from members as a result of what I raised today. If there are any questions I would be pleased to answer them.

[Supply, April 27th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member could respond to the types of letters I mentioned in my earlier intervention.

I have another letter from Ken Timewell who is very interested in this particular issue. Mr. Timewell does not support the aggressive military action by NATO nor does he see how it can possibly bring anything but added instability to the region. He goes on to say that it is a tragedy that the Serbian military has killed thousands of ethnic Albanians and forced hundreds of thousands more to flee their homes. He also finds it tragic how western governments have escalated the crisis with their support of NATO while shunning the United Nations, having multiplied the number of refugees and produced civilian casualties of their own. Mr. Timewell asks us how we can justify supporting the illegal bombing by NATO forces.

How would the hon. member respond to one of his constituents who wrote that sort of letter to him?

[Supply, April 27th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member very closely. I wondered if he was receiving the sorts of letters from constituents that I am.

This is a letter from Ken Timewell in my riding, who writes “I beg you to work for a peaceful solution. The humanitarian solution being used by NATO is leaving behind too much destruction and too many dead”. He goes on to encourage us to use every possible tool that we can to encourage some sort of diplomatic resolution.

Is the member receiving many letters like this, the way I certainly am at the moment?

[Tobacco Industry, April 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, tobacco executives in the United States have recently been convicted and fined huge sums of money for helping to smuggle cigarettes back into Canada through the Akwesasne reserve.

With the case already proven in the United States, and plenty of evidence that RJR was involved in Canada, Canadians do not want to be told that the RCMP are still investigating the matter. They want action.

Why have Canadian tobacco executives not been charged? Why is the government negotiating a cash settlement behind closed doors with executives who are golfing buddies of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance?

[Liberal Party Of Canada, April 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the more the years pass, the more things remain the same as far as Liberals are concerned.

One hundred years ago, newspapers in western Canada were complaining about the indifference of the Liberal government to the needs of the west.

Wilfrid Laurier, against the wishes and advice of western Canada, reduced the ranks and efficiency of the mounted police. Unlike more recent Liberal prime ministers, at least Laurier had the integrity to admit he had made a mistake.

What was the concern expressed by westerners 100 years ago? That cattle and horse thieves would run rampant without effective policing. What are the concerns of the west today? That drug dealers, criminal refugee claimants and organized crime is running rampant without effective policing.

History shows time and time again that the Liberals do not care what happens in the west just as long as we keep sending our tax dollars to Ottawa.

They made the point 100 years ago, and it is still valid. The Liberals do not have, and never had, the interests of the western half of the nation at heart.

[Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, April 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, as I abstained on the previous vote I would like my vote recorded as opposed to this one.

[Supply, April 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, as the member has indicated that his own task force is not important enough for us to discuss in the House, I will ask him two quick questions.

First, will he give a commitment that tomorrow his government will introduce the motion he wants to debate along with a full vote on the Kosovo situation?

Second, will he table in the House right now the schedule for the upcoming meetings of his task force if he is truly serious about consultation instead of releasing it a week after the meetings have happened?

[Supply, April 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it was a very civil speech, although I am not sure how much relevance it actually had to the motion. A couple of interesting points came up in the speech. I do appreciate the member mentioning how he supports proportional representation.

I wonder if he has done the numbers, as I have. He certainly would have discovered that Reform would come out with 60 seats, but the Liberals would drop dramatically and would no longer be the majority government that they are today. I thank the hon. member for that endorsement of a process which would certainly be more representative of how people vote in the country. The situation that gives 100% of the power with 38% of the vote to that side of the House is really not healthy for the country.

I gave him credit earlier today and I do again for actually speaking out publicly from time to time, contrary to the will of his party, and representing his constituents. He is to be congratulated for that.

I wonder if he would mind speaking to the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, who did promise to speak out regularly and correct all the ills of the world, who never has said a word in this place and thinks that everything is fine with the land management bill. I wonder if the member would mind having a little chat with him and setting him straight.

[Supply, April 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member first stood he said that this was a silly motion. I guess if it is such a silly motion it makes the member pretty silly for joining in.

If the member would not mind standing and feeling silly once again, I would ask him to explain how anything he said in his speech, anything at all, had the slightest bit of relevance to the alienation of the Liberals in the west or anywhere else in the country because of their ignoring of the concerns across the country.

For the member's interest, I would like him to know that a Mark Trend poll taken in B.C. and Alberta in mid-March found that the tax relief he puffed up as being something important that the Liberals were all calling him about, did not even receive favour with a fraction of a percentage of the people. The persons responding to the poll said that the average amount of tax relief they would like to see would be $2,600 a year not the measly few hundred the government granted.

He talked about the Young Offenders Act being lauded across the country. It is being criticized across the country as tinkering around the edges as usual, nothing worthwhile and certainly nothing worth having.

He thinks, as many of the hon. members on that side have said all day, that throwing money at the west or anywhere else through diversification funds somehow responds to the concerns. What a lot of bunkum. The importance of the western diversification fund does not even appear as a blip on the radar screen in western Canada.

I would like the hon. member to get up, be silly again and tell us what relevance his speech had to the whole debate.

[Supply, April 13th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, during his speech the member mentioned that the government was responding to the needs of aboriginal peoples in the west. The fact is that the government completely ignored an enormous amount of input that came from aboriginal peoples with regard to the Native Land Management Act, to the point now that the bill has gone to the other place, the Senate, and the Senate has to amend it.

With credit at least to the member for Vancouver Quadra, he admitted there was a problem with the bill. In fact he publicly stated that it was badly flawed, but he failed to follow through at vote time.

How does the member think his constituents feel when their MP speaks out against something and then votes the opposite way in the House? No wonder there is alienation. It is not the least bit surprising.

The member also said it was silly to say that the Liberals did not understand what was happening in the west. I have to ask him why then set up a task force. Why did the Prime Minister do that?

In addition, it seems that basically all the government can do is talk about its western economic diversification program as if it somehow answers all of the frustrations in the west. What a pathetic and pitiful example that is. I doubt that western diversification appears in the top 500 concerns of people out west.

Where is the discussion about criminal refugee problems? Where is the discussion about the Young Offenders Act? Where is the discussion about the lumber quota problems out there?

Let us have some real substance instead of this nonsense about a diversification fund that might help some business somewhere. The businesses in my riding and out west would rather have tax relief and get rid of the western diversification fund.