Ted White

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, December 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member just mentioned how important it is to have a social safety net and completely ignores the fact that this so-called social safety net has an unfunded liability of something like $600 billion. It will be in total collapse if we do not deal with the problem right away.

I remember in the previous Parliament to this one, at the beginning when the Reform was asking questions about the CPP and pointing out that it was in danger of collapse, the finance minister and members on that side constantly said “There is no problem. It's a wonderful program.” It was one of these Liberal gifts to mankind. Now, in this Parliament I heard the finance minister just weeks ago in question period say that everyone knows that the CPP is in trouble and needs to be fixed.

While I am pleased to see the Liberals realizing that there is a problem after denying in the last Parliament that there was a problem, I would like the member to explain to me how he can promote this as a good program, a good social safety net when it has an unfunded liability of close to $600 billion and everybody admits that it is in hopeless disarray. There is evidence that similar programs around the world have gone under and have had to be replaced with contributory programs like RRSP style programs. Why does he keep defending something that is indefensible?

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, December 4th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the hon. member opposite as usual from the government side scaremongering about proposals to have more of an RRSP style of a plan for Canada pension. He scaremongers without justification because there are many countries throughout the world, as we have told the government over and over again and which it knows very well, that have already fully or partially introduced this type of system.

Perhaps the member saw a program on television last Friday night, 20/20 on ABC. There was an entire segment dedicated to the Chilean experience which is now close to 20 years old. What the program did first was interview all the scaremongers in North America, the unions, the liberals who are opposed to this program. They say you will lose all your savings. The world has ended. Because it is not government, it will not work. Then the program went down to Chile and interviewed people on the streets and in the centres for the pension plans. Every person said what a significant change it was and how good that had been for the pension plans of Chile.

With that plan now almost 20 years old, the benefits to pensioners have been phenomenal. To scaremonger by saying that people are going to lose their investment is ridiculous.

The member knows very well that the government can set in place regulations about what sort of investments can be made, the security of those investments.

I would like to ask the member whether he saw the program W5 on Friday night and, if not, whether he will commit to get a copy to at least see the other side of the story.

The second question is whether he attended the conference that was held right here in Ottawa by finance department officials where Chilean representatives were there to tell how well their program works. Did he attend that conference or see the program on television?

[Criminal Code, November 24th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I have listened with interest to the debate this morning. During the last Parliament, as I mentioned earlier, I put forward a bill which requested, consistent with Reform policy, a binding referendum on this issue. It requested a binding referendum of the public, which has in polls, as other members have mentioned, consistently voted 65% or higher for the past 30 years in favour of the death penalty being reinstated. That is one thing which has not changed with time.

An hon. member mentioned how times have changed and how issues have changed but the fact is that public opinion on this issue has not changed. What that tells us is that this place, where members have free votes and vote opposite the will of the people, is out of step with the people, or the people are out of step with Parliament. It is one of the two. We have to do something to bring those two positions more closely together.

One obvious way to do it is to involve the public in a referendum. There would be extensive public debate. Everybody would have the opportunity to put forward their point of view. In the end the community would make the decision about how it wants the country to run.

An hon. member grossly exaggerated about the way referenda work, saying we would be into referenda every year, that every five minutes there would be a referendum. That is a lot of rubbish. I would challenge that member to point to a place anywhere in the world where referenda are common and where that happens.

Even Switzerland which has numerous referenda per month in the cantons simply does not get into the silly nonsense which the member mentioned of constantly revisiting issues. Certainly they revisit issues but the timeframe tends to be a lot longer. Several years is not uncommon for a change in attitudes to alter something which needs to be brought forward in a referendum. The fact is that a referendum is a very good tool for getting public opinion. There is a decent length of time to discuss the issue.

At the moment it certainly looks as if the public would vote for the return of capital punishment. In discussions with my own constituents, because the majority of people in my riding favour its return, I have asked them what sort of checks and balances they would put in place if they were to vote to have capital punishment returned. What checks and balances would they have to avoid accidentally giving the death penalty to somebody who was innocent?

The most common suggestion I had is a good one. It is that the jury which listens to the murder case has the opportunity to weigh all the evidence, to hear all of the circumstances behind the murder. If the death penalty were to be returned the suggestion would be that the jury have the power to recommend to the judge the death penalty. It would not be automatic. It would be a recommendation of the jury. That overcomes one of the problems which was identified by one of the members where juries are afraid to convict people on that basis.

This suggestion was given to me by one of my constituents. If we are ever faced with this situation we may get into that dialogue. If a jury was to have the power to recommend that sort of thing, then the judge is the final check and balance in accepting or rejecting the recommendation.

I realize the bill before us today does not make provision for that. If we were into a referendum type situation a lot of these suggestions would come forward. It is important to remember that.

Another member mentioned that the trend was away from capital punishment. In the United States, which is our closest neighbour, more and more states have been reintroducing capital punishment. There is a growing desire for zero tolerance on crime in many of the United States. Crime authorities are coming down harder and harder on crime and it is working.

For example, in New York City the police commissioner, who is an elected official in the United States, some years ago decided he would take a zero tolerance policy with respect to youth crime and general crime in the subways. He ordered the police to arrest people even if they so much as spit on the sidewalk or put up a bit of graffiti. Within a very few months that zero tolerance sent a message to the drug dealers, the murderers, the rapists that crime would not be tolerated and crime dropped dramatically on the New York subways.

As a result that police commissioner was elected to become the mayor of the city. He introduced much tougher crime control and the murder rate dropped something like 35% in about six months. There was a program on television about this recently. A woman who lived in one of the black ghettos said that in her entire lifetime of 30 years she had never had a day when there were not gunshots fired until that mayor was elected and had a zero tolerance on crime and started to clean up the way society was operating.

There is a desire in society to get control of these criminal elements. I look at youth crime in my area where graffiti is rampant. I have been in Canada since 1979. In Vancouver graffiti was almost unknown then. When I came to Ottawa in 1993 there was hardly any graffiti. Now this whole town is covered in it. My riding is covered in it.

If we had the same zero tolerance approach to things like youth crime, we would be in a much better situation today than we are. This bill represents a desire by the public to see their government, which is us, recognize their concerns and get back to zero tolerance of these crimes. If we do not step down hard on things like graffiti, then we will naturally have to accept all sorts of serious crimes. We saw on the weekend in Victoria where a 14 year old girl was murdered by a group of her peers. We have to get the message across that we are not prepared to accept this type of crime.

Despite what some members have claimed there has been very consistent public opinion on the issue. They want to see us return capital punishment to the law books. The fact remains that this place is out of step with those people and that members who stand and arrogantly say they will defy the will of their constituents are doing them no service whatsoever.

[Criminal Code, November 24th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order. In the 35th Parliament the bill which was just mentioned by the hon. member was my bill. It was not a Reform bill. It was a private member's bill. The member needs to get his facts straight. Reform policy is not quite the same as what is coming forward in these bills. So he needs to get his facts right. I do not mind if he criticizes private members' bills, but do not attach those directly to the party.

[Questions On The Order Paper, November 21st, 1997]

With regard to phase 3 of the Pacific Rim national Park, which was to have been proclaimed a national park in or around 1975, (a) what is the reason or reasons phase 3 has never been proclaimed a national park; and (b) what is the target date now for proclaiming phase 3 of the national park a national park?

[Points Of Order, November 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I want to add slightly to your consideration of the question raised by the member for York South—Weston.

Perhaps you can consider the impact on the rest of us of agreeing to the suggestions made by the member. If he were to receive a supplementary question on the odd occasions he is here and asks a question, I do not think it would detract much from the rights and privileges of the rest of us.

I hope you will take that into account, Mr. Speaker.

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Quebec), November 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I must apologize to the hon. member because I did not realize I was still on questions and answers. I was having a discussion about the petition with my colleague. I caught the end of the comments and I will do my best to respond.

I would like to say first of all, although he is mentioning that it is being portrayed that the separatists want this, it is certainly not what I have felt or portrayed.

It is very obvious that the opposition voted with the government in Quebec City unanimously. It is obvious then that there is a very high level of consent and it certainly gives a high comfort level for the result there.

Certainly I would never say that it is something the separatists want, however I would just like to make the point here that I am sorry that members did not allow my colleague to answer the last question because I believe the quality of the debate would have been improved by allowing more of the interaction that was going on.

If the hon. member wishes to speak to me afterward, that is fine.

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Quebec), November 17th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I recognize the member would have preferred to have addressed his question to my colleague, and so I will make a suggestion in that regard in a moment. First I will address the question of referendums.

Referendums cost money of course. There is a cost to democracy. It is a matter of how much cost we are willing to accept in order to have democracy.

On the specific issue of what percentage should be accepted in a referendum, that is established before the question is put. For me to give a broad brush answer that it should be 50% plus 1 would not be fair. It depends on the issue and the agreement beforehand as to what would be an appropriate percentage. There are different rules depending on what is perceived by society to be the seriousness of the question.

As I recognize that the majority of the content of the hon. member's question was really for my colleague, I would like to ask the unanimous consent of the House to allow my colleague to answer.

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Quebec), November 17th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, this is a debate on a complex issue for those of us who have not had the benefit of 30 years of debate in Quebec. I must admit that for the first time since my election in 1993, I am at a point in the debate, this close to a vote, and I really do not know yet whether I am in the yea or nay position.

I would just like to clarify an impression that has been coming from the last few speakers, that the Reform Party is opposed to this. That is not actually correct. The decision has been made by our caucus that we will be voting the way we determine to be the best option. As a consequence, this has become one of the most interesting debates in the House in the last four years.

I have paid a lot of attention to the speakers today and there are a lot of reasons for my indecision. I would just like to go through them. The first speaker today for Reform actually presented a very good argument in favour of the change and made it quite clear that he would be voting for this. Later in the day there were some very good arguments against that from other colleagues in the Reform Party.

However, for me there are several key issues here. The first one is the issue of provincial responsibility. The text of section 93 begins: “In and for each province the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to education”. When I look at Reform policy on this issue, it is very clear. Reform policy states clearly that we believe that the provinces should have more powers and we support very strongly the idea that education should be a domain of the province.

To me that is a point that is very much in favour of supporting this amendment because I have no business as a federal legislator interfering in the business of the province. It is my feeling that if there are problems at the provincial level which need addressing, it is up to the people of the province to deal with that with their own government, to have marches in the streets, to have the protests, to take the court challenges. As my colleague has mentioned, there is already a court challenge under way. That is the responsibility of the people to challenge the government closest to them. To me that is a very powerful argument in favour.

Second is one against. Reform policy says that for changes that affect the fabric of our society, things that are major changes, we truly believe they should be subjected to the democratic process of referendum. Members may know that I am the direct democracy critic for the Reform Party and I therefore take a lot of interest in these issues and study the direct democracy questions. I am a firm believer in this. I would feel a lot more comfortable if the situation had been, indeed, submitted to a referendum.

However, I spoke with the member for Portneuf for a short time and had an interesting discussion with him about this whole situation. He mentioned something that I had not realized. It is that section 93 really applies only to Montreal and Quebec City. This answered a question that I had as to why I was not receiving any letters from people in Quebec. If there was this tremendous objection to what was going on, why was I not being bombarded with letters such as I got from Newfoundland about the situation there? I was really puzzled by this. It was clarified for me by the member for Portneuf because he explained that the people outside of Montreal and Quebec City are covered under the provincial legislation and do very well, thank you. In fact, in his riding which is predominantly Catholic, very close to 100%, there is still a Protestant school there which is protected by provincial legislation.

Even my colleague from Edmonton East conceded that perhaps the provincial legislation is a better model but his concern is that is not entrenched in a constitutional form and therefore is subject to possible change.

The member for Portneuf in my discussion with him says that this has been around since 1867, so we have to have some faith that it will be there. Again, that brings us back full circle again to this argument about provincial involvement and whether or not the people of the province should have to deal with that issue with their own provincial government and that we should not be interfering in that aspect of it.

As I mentioned, I appreciated the eloquent arguments from members of my own side. The member for Calgary Southeast made wonderfully eloquent arguments, but I have also appreciated the eloquence from some members of the Bloc on this issue. I could hear the frustration also in their voices as they were frustrated to hear that some Reform members were speaking in opposition to this.

I hope that what I am saying is helping to clarify why some are against and some are for without getting too emotionally involved in this.

As I mentioned, my colleague from Edmonton East revealed that there is a court challenge already under way for what is happening here and I am very supportive of that. As I said, the people of the province should be involved in dealing with this if they feel they have been wronged. At the moment the evidence to me as a member of Parliament is that the majority do not feel they have been wronged. I have the confidence that if it were to go to a referendum it would pass handily based on the information I have gathered this afternoon.

A member from the NDP made the point that this change is affecting the minorities. I think that seems to be what is happening here and the larger part of the minority if we can call it that is actually quite happy with the changes that are being proposed. It is kind of ironic in a way, though, that we find ourselves in this position that the Reform Party is doing all the arguments in favour of minorities when we have always been labelled as this anti-minority party and we are the only ones who are arguing that way in this debate, which is quite interesting.

Notwithstanding that fact I think that may be the wrong approach. I have said over and over that at the provincial level that should be resolved, not in this place.

My tendency is to lean toward voting for this amendment but I will listen to the remaining debates before we actually get to the vote.

The only other point that I did want to mention here is that in the minister's speech in October on this issue he mentioned that he felt there was good consensus. Actually I was a bit disturbed by his words because it was not very firm. It was more that he feels that there is probably consensus. I do not have his exact words in front of me. That disturbed me a bit at the time. But in light of other discussions that I have had today, as I mentioned, I think it probably would pass in a referendum. I look forward to having that clarified perhaps by subsequent speakers who come from the Quebec area.

I guess that is all I have to say on the issue. I will listen with interest to the rest of the debate and hopefully will have made up my mind by tomorrow. I certainly never abstained from a vote in this House and I hate to think that I would be put in that position by the time the vote comes tomorrow afternoon.

[Questions Passed As Orders For Returns, November 17th, 1997]

What was the total number of full time employees at each job classification in the respective federal departments for fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997?

Return tabled.