Ted White

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 12th, 1998]

It is a socialist way, as one of my colleagues said. Fancy telling people they cannot sell their own property on a free market, they have to be controlled by big brother.

It is wrong and there are so many contentious issues in this bill, we should have been able to properly discuss it, to spread it out over a bit more time where there was an opportunity to get full input that could make a difference to the bill. Instead of that, we are faced with closure.

As I said, we will be moving on to some pretty boring stuff next week. I was just looking for a list of some of the bills here, and I see I do not have it with me, but just reading the names alone is pretty shocking when, as I mentioned, we could be talking about something like the Young Offenders Act, getting the age lowered to 10, for example. Everybody out there for 20 years has been asking for that, or publishing the names of young offenders.

I went to a meeting in my riding a few weeks ago, a together against violence group. They had a group of young people there who had previously been young offenders, and we discussed the issue of publishing names. Every one of them agreed that it would have been a tremendous disincentive for them to continue to commit crimes if they had their names published in the newspaper, if they had the public embarrassment that they were violating the rules of society.

These are things people want us to be talking about. They want us to be talking about automatically upgrading to adult court for serious crimes.

Next week we have, for example, Bills C-21, C-20, C-19, S-4, C-6, C-8, C-12, S-3. That is a list of all the bills we are going to be looking at. Unfortunately I do not have all the descriptions here, but they are certainly not worthy of the rush we are exhibiting with this closure on this bill here.

In closing I would just like to say that I am appalled that we have once again run into this problem of closure where democracy goes out the window and we get the Prime Minister sitting over there with a silly smile on his face, happy that he is once again forcing us to abandon debate on an important bill so that he can rush through an agenda that suits the socialists at the other end of this House.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 12th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, here we are in the final 20 minutes of debate on the bill under closure. It is absolutely outrageous that we are facing closure again in the House.

All through the last parliament we had closure, closure, closure. The Liberal government has set a record for closure. In the last parliament alone it moved closure more times than in the entire Mulroney period prior to the Liberals. We thought that was an outrageous record, but this government has demonstrated itself to be totally incapable of understanding the principles of democracy.

Here we are in the last 20 minutes of debate on an important bill. When we look at the schedule through to June we have February, March, April, May and June. We have five months in which to be talking about important bills like this one, bills that Canadians are interested in.

And what is happening? The government is moving closure on a very controversial bill. When we look at the schedule we must ask ourselves what is the rush. Over the next four months there is nothing but a litany of boring, inconsequential, insignificant and irrelevant nonsense on the schedule of what we have to debate over the next few months. It is boring.

For the people in the real world it is boring and frustrating. When they look at the schedule that is coming down the pike, they wonder why we are not talking about the Young Offenders Act, which they have been pleading with us for 20 years to do something about. What are we doing? We are moving closure on an important bill and moving to boring insignificant stuff.

They ask us why are you not talking, for goodness sake, about the immigration and refugee problems we have in this country. We cannot talk about that because, amazing but true, Liberals think that immigrants to this country should not have to speak one of the official languages. They are quite happy for anybody to come here. They support the recommendations in the report that say that international agencies overseas should pick our refugees for us and send them here, even if they are incapable of settling here.

When we look at things like this and the people in the real world outside, the voters of Canada, want us to be debating these things, what is happening? We are having our time cut short. We are moving on to things that are technical in nature, technical bills, boring bills, insignificant bills.

The speaker before me from the NDP mentioned that the Reform Party believes in referenda and enacting the will of the people, and we do. There was a plebiscite run for the farmers in connection with this bill, not directly related but indirectly related, but it was flawed in many ways. First of all, it was a plebiscite, not a true referendum, and it had a carefully engineered question. There was no discussion about how that should be organized.

It really gave the barley farmers, who were the only ones involved, an all or nothing option. It reminded me of that advertisement on television right now where the man comes into the office and says tell me about RRSPs, and the adviser says yes, just put your head here between the vice and I will tighten it a little. That was exactly what was happening to those barley farmers. They had their heads put in a vice where they had no option but to give the answer that the government wanted them to give. When we look at Bill C-4, we have to ask what is the rush.

No wonder the Liberals did not want to write property rights into the charter of rights and freedoms, because when you look at what they are doing in this bill, they are preventing people from selling their own property on a free market. What sort of way is that for a civilized country to conduct itself?

[Senate Of Canada, February 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it tends to be embarrassing for the government when skeletons come tumbling out of the closet unexpectedly. It certainly looks like one of those skeletons just appeared.

A recent patronage appointment of the prime minister made a public speech on November 13, 1982, a speech which so impressed one of my constituents that he kept the transcript for 16 years. One paragraph of that speech reads:

I too had some difficult years as a politician; I'm still having them, in fact, because everything we undertake and everything we are doing to make Canada a French state is a part of a venture I have shared for many years—

I would like to know if this same agenda is shared by the prime minister because those oh so patriotic words were in a speech by none other than his recent Senate appointee, Serge Joyal, unelected, unaccountable and completely unacceptable.

[Pairing, February 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we are certainly hitting some nerves today. And we understand why that certain convention is in place, don't we?

They talk about tradition. The member opposite on the government side talked about tradition and how we could not change anything because we have got to live up to tradition. The fact is, he just wants to find a reason not to do something. It used to be tradition in this place that there were not any women. It used to be tradition in this place that we sat for six weeks a year. The fact is it does not have to be a tradition. We can change anything we want to in this place.

To say or to imply that the only reason one would want to vote by proxy is to avoid ever coming here is also ridiculous. The proxy votes would be under the control of the whip. The whip would not have to allow a single person to be absent. But the whip would have the right, if necessary, to issue a proxy vote privilege to a member who had to be away for some reason.

I just see it as a modernization of the procedures of the House. To say that the member has to be in the House to vote is just a crock frankly. As anyone except the most naive will know, most members monitor the proceedings of the House on television from their Hill offices or their riding offices when they have to be away. There is absolutely no earthly reason why a member could not provide an intelligent proxy vote on any type of bill.

As a member myself who has the opportunity to speak many times in this House, I take ever possible opportunity to do so. Every day that I am here on duty I get up to speak in this House. I recognize the value of speaking here. But to pretend or to claim that I would not be able to vote intelligently if I was not standing in here every day is totally ludicrous. In these days of telecommunications, members simply do not have to be here in order to make intelligent voting decisions.

I think we should wrap it up here. It has obviously created a fair amount of emotion among the members. If I have been successful in anything today, I would be thankful that I have done that because we should be discussing these things, and frankly, we should be doing it openly and publicly. We should not be pretending to the public out there that certain things happen here when they do not. And the public already knows they do not.

The public knows that people vote the party line in this place. The public knows that MPs for the most part do not represent them. They represent the parties. We really have to do something to put real democracy into this place instead of constantly pretending.

[Pairing, February 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, if there is evidence that can be shown to me that people in other parties do not always vote their party line, I would be pleased to see it.

The speaker from the government side tried to mix the participation in debates with the voting, as if somehow the debates were meaningful. The fact is even on government bills there is hardly anybody in this place. Members stood today and acted as if this place was full of people taking notice of the debate and not even a dozen people are here.

[Pairing, February 6th, 1998]

The speaker from the government side tried to mix participation in debates with voting as if that made a difference.

[Pairing, February 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, all the members who stood mentioned democracy. The last member who stood also talked about opposing the motion. However, the point we have been trying to make here is that we cannot even vote on it. This place is so undemocratic that there is not even an opportunity to vote at all.

The member from the NDP got up and talked about democracy but all he could talk about was representing the NDP's position. He talked about this motion as if it were a Reform motion. This is Private Members' Business. It is the business of individual members of Parliament. If a well experienced member like the member from the NDP has not caught on yet that this is supposed to be a period of free voting for members then he has a lot to learn about democracy at this point.

Pairing is something also that Reform does not support because it does not work for a party like Reform which has written into its party constitution that we have an obligation to represent the majority will of our constituents in this place, as I have done on three separate occasions, voting against the line of my party.

Therefore it is impossible for pairing to work for new style parties. It is great for the old line parties that refuse to change. That is one of the problems.

For the members who stand and say that a vote in this place actually belongs to the member and that he is representing his or her constituents is not only naive, it treats Canadians as if they are fools, as if they do not know what happens in this place. Everyone over there is instructed by the Prime Minister how to vote and everyone down at this end is instructed by their leaders how to vote. Every single one of them is instructed how to vote. When we talk about democracy and freedom it is just not true.

[Pairing, February 6th, 1998]

We can see who does not support democracy, but I am still astounded that any member of this place would not want to vote on something that affects their working conditions. I am absolutely astounded.

I hope members who are bullied into voting a certain way by their whip or somebody else will at least work behind the scenes to have the issue considered in more detail.

[Pairing, February 6th, 1998]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the practice of vote pairing should be abandoned and the standing orders be amended to establish an absentee proxy voting system which would permit a party cast properly authorized proxy votes for no more than 25% of its members.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for explaining to those watching either from the gallery or on television why we have advanced the clock. It is always a great source of amusement to people these strange and antiquated rules we have here.

This motion I am putting forward today deals also with another one of these strange and antiquated rules that have come to be part of the procedures in this place.

I would like to read the motion one more time because it is an important motion:

That, in the opinion of this House, the practice of vote pairing should be abandoned and the standing orders be amended to establish an absentee proxy voting system which would permit a party to cast properly authorized proxy votes for no more than 25% of its members.

In a moment I will go into describing what vote pairing is and why we should change it. First I would like to mention that unfortunately this motion is not votable. Even though it talks about amending the way this very House works and it would affect potentially every single member of this House it has been made non-votable.

I have a very good friend in the New Zealand house. As many members know, I am from New Zealand. The New Zealand deputy speaker, who also has the name Ian, is a good friend of mine. I was visiting New Zealand recently and I told him that some private members' business is non-votable. He was astounded because in New Zealand they are all votable. That gives a sense of accomplishment to members to at least get their material votable. It is very sad that this motion is not votable, because I am going to read from a portion of a 1994 report of the standing orders committee from New Zealand.

The reason I introduced this motion is that it is a part of a package of motions that I put forward based on some changes that were made in the New Zealand house in 1994 which proved so successful that they have been adopted as permanent changes.

On the issue of proxy votes, I will read a paragraph from the report, because it describes for everybody what vote pairing is and why there should be a change: “Parties in New Zealand have for many years operated a system of pairing where the effect of a member who is absent from the House is cancelled out by a member from another party agreeing not to vote while the other member is absent. Initially it was an arrangement entered into privately, but since 1951 in New Zealand it was recognized as part of the proceedings of the House. Paired members were recorded in Hansard for any division that is taken in their absence. The primary use of pairs was to ensure that members could be absent from the House to carry out public business in relation to their portfolios or constituencies and that ill members did not have to attend the House for close divisions”.

The system worked effectively for the two main parties of the House but the committee believed in New Zealand that it would be good to introduce a proxy system.

Under the recommended proxy system, instead the pairing members would be required to give proper authority for a proxy vote to be cast for an abstention to be recorded in their name. It must state, among other matters, who is to exercise that proxy. In practice what happened in New Zealand was that generally members would give the proxy to their party whip and the whip was able to exercise that vote in their absence. A member not wishing to vote with his or her party, in other words a dissenting vote, could be given to a member of any other party as long as it does not exceed the 25% limit.

The limits are policed fairly closely. As I mentioned, after having run this now for close to four years it was determined last year that it should be made permanent because it had worked so well. It has enabled members to fulfil their requirements in ridings and to attend conferences related to their critic roles or particular areas of interest. It has enabled ministers, for example, in close governments which the New Zealand government has to attend important conferences like the Kyoto conference without having to worry that there may be some sort of urgent vote where they suddenly have to be told to race back because it could be a close vote. It is just a very civilized way of handling necessary absences from the House that do occur.

There is no absolute requirement for the party to use its entire 25% but that figure was adopted in New Zealand and found to be very satisfactory.

As I mentioned, it is part of a package of changes that were introduced on a whole range of issues. Another thing they have done in New Zealand—and I have put another motion in on it—is that they have compressed the sitting days of the House into three days, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, so that Mondays and Fridays are free days for members to have extended weekends in their ridings. This is working very well.

For members of this House who are from Ontario and Quebec it would be extremely convenient. Even for those of us who have to travel long distances, to have those extra days to do riding business would be very valuable. That is another change that was introduced in 1994.

We really should learn from houses that have gone through the process of studying these changes and have found that they are very good to introduce.

The New Zealand House has also dealt with the issue of quorum and, one that interests me, question period. The changes to its standing orders require reasonable answers to questions. If the speaker rules that the answer to the question was not actually an answer to the question, the minister must appear at the end of the day and re-answer the question. That has had the effect of tightening up the entire question period into something meaningful.

To get back to the basic motion I introduced today, it reads:

That, in the opinion of this House, the practice of vote pairing should be abandoned and the Standing Orders be amended to establish an absentee proxy voting system which would permit a party to case properly authorized proxy votes for no more than 25% of its Members.

I defy any member to say that it would not be an advantage to be able to have that percentage available to a party whip for members to be necessarily absent for some purpose. It is an absolutely sensible position to take. It is very distressing that the motion cannot even be voted on when it is something that is important to the operation of this place.

Because the House has the power to do anything I would like to ask at this time for unanimous consent of the House to make the motion votable so that members would at least have the opportunity to indicate whether or not they think it is a good idea. I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to make the motion votable.

[Customs Act, February 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-18. The purpose of the bill, as has already been mentioned, is to give customs officers the authority of a peace officer, which means that they will be able to arrest without warrant certain individuals trying to cross the border who are perhaps suspected of child abduction, impaired driving and so on.

Certainly I am pleased to see these sorts of actions being introduced. It reminds me of a case not so long ago, I think in the Vancouver area, where an impaired driver came to a border crossing and because there was no power for the customs officer to detain the driver he had to be allowed through. It is not an uncommon situation, I would say.

The customs officers notified police but before the police were able to apprehend this person he had already driven off the road and down an embankment. It was by pure luck that he did not hurt anyone. It was a very good illustration of why this type of law is necessary.

Costs to implement these new requirements are a concern, as my colleague mentioned. One of the letters of response to our questions which came from the minister indicated that they estimated the planning and start-up costs to be approximately $5.5 million and that it would take approximately nine months to complete.

The history of the government is that it is woefully lacking in its ability to estimate costs. I rather suspect that this $5.5 million is more likely to be $11 million or $12 million. I will use the example of the Nunavut legislation that went through the House during the last parliament. Reform warned that the estimates for costs in that situation were nowhere near what it would actually cost. Already, in the last month or so, the government is asking for more money for that Nunavut program. We believe it will probably get to $1 billion before the dust settles from an original $100 million estimated by the government.

Notwithstanding the estimates of the government of $5.5 million, I would be surprised if it happens in that cost range. Despite that, we believe these sorts of measures are necessary.

It is quite obvious from the background material that groups like CAVEAT, Canadians Against Violence Everywhere Advocating its Termination, have been a long time lobbying for this type of legislation to be passed. I wonder about the fact that the government is finally responding to public pressure for this sort of legislation.

Is this is a sign that maybe the Liberals are finally getting the message that they have to get tough on crime? I hope this is a sign they are finally recognizing that the public calls for changes to the Young Offenders Act, that the public wants rid of ridiculous conditional sentencing provisions, and that they will actually be acted on. We are going to see some justice restored to what really has become just a legal system.

In that regard I hope the minister will avoid any temptation to interfere and to thwart the activities of customs officers once they have this new power to be able to arrest and detain people suspected of criminal activities. The minister does not have a very good history of allowing people in customs and immigration to carry out their duties.

I can give an example. During the last parliament five or six people arrived from India at the border port of entry at Vancouver International Airport, claiming to be a film crew that was going to make a documentary film all about British Columbia. The immigration officials, upon asking questions of this film crew, discovered that they had no film making equipment and could not answer basic questions about the making of films, so the immigration officials detained them. It was a Friday afternoon. They were put into the lock-up at the Vancouver International Airport.

The Vancouver Sun and several other bleeding hearts jumped on the bandwagon and said that this was racist and that the only reason these people had been detained was that they were from India.

The present Minister of National Revenue also jumped on the bandwagon. He was quoted widely in the news media, claiming that the immigration officials were racist, that they had detained these people for no other reason than racism.

Because of all this lobbying, on the Monday morning the Immigration Refugee Board allowed these people to go free in British Columbia. Surprise, surprise. Within three or four days they had disappeared. Nobody could find them.

About a week or 10 days later these people were arrested in Washington state. They had used Canada as an entry point to the United States. The immigration officials who were the front line people and had asked the right questions had certainly detected those criminals at the border.

The present minister thwarted those efforts. I would hope, now that he is minister of the department, he is treating his officials with a little more respect. Once this act is in law I hope he will not keep doing things like the dismissal of Mr. Coffey, will start to appreciate the skills in the department and will allow the customs people to exercise their rights under the legislation.

Getting a little tough on crime would not hurt. I saw a quote the other day that I think would apply very well to the situation, if customs officers are successful in detaining people who are subsequently convicted of offences. It reflects very well the feelings of Canadians:

We ought to require prisoners to work 48 hours a week and to study 12 hours a week. If we kept them busy for 60 hours a week doing something positive, they would be different people when they came out of prison and prison would have a different impact on them than watching movies and working out on weight machines. If you are not willing to work 48 hours a week and study 12 hours a week you shouldn't get any privileges.

That is a spectacular reflection of how people feel about the whole justice system in Canada. I desperately hope the passage of Bill C-18 is the beginning of some sort of Liberal change of heart that will begin putting some teeth into the justice system.

Security concerns were expressed by the customs union with respect to Bill C-18. It was a bit concerned that adequate training and facilities would have to be provided to ensure the safety of its staff. In consultations with the union and others the minister has assured that new facilities will be built and that there will be adequate training.

As I mentioned earlier, they are expecting that to cost about $5.5 million. Tied into that concern is an amazing figure. The customs department employs 300 students on an ongoing basis to help with customs inspection and 900 students in the summertime. I was amazed when I read those figures. An obvious concern is that the students be adequately trained to deal with the new types of responsibilities that may inadvertently come their way.

The minister indicated that these students will go through a three week training course. I see no mention, though, of any exam at the end of that course. I hope the minister will ensure there is some sort of examination protocol associated with the course, to ensure the people who go through the course are adequately equipped to handle the responsibilities they are given.

Finally I would like to mention that there has been some criticism of the gradual introduction of automatic ports of entry at some border crossings. The unions say the automatic barrier system, which looks at licence plates and allows people in or out, is subject to some problems from time to time. I am astounded that we should worry about it because our borders are so porous anyway. We have this huge and lengthy unpatrolled border. Quite frankly I do not understand why crooks even cross at border crossings.

There are many examples in the Vancouver area where number zero road runs right along the border for about 30 miles or 50 kilometres. All that separates Canada from the United States is a ditch. There have been many examples of smuggling across that border.

A famous case just a couple of years ago involved a store in San Francisco smuggling parrots into Vancouver. They would drive up to the border and put full cages of parrots in the ditch along the highway. After dark someone on the Canadian side would come along and lift the cages out of the ditch.

It is very easy to cross the border around the Vancouver area. There are several trails, like the west coast trail, which go across the border. There is a sign asking one to report to the next customs station whenever it is reached.

It astounds me that so many crooks come across the border and get caught. I hope they retain the same amount of intelligence they already have and continue to do so. Maybe Bill C-18 will help us to intercept them as they come through.

On balance, we support the bill with all its defects. I look forward to voting in favour of Bill C-18.