Ted White

[Supply, September 30th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I could be corrected, but I understood that the government side was using the 20 minutes plus 10 minutes questions and comments, which would mean that time is not up. Am I incorrect in that?

[Supply, September 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member some questions about his representation in B.C.

My first question is: Why did the member ignore the input from two, not just one but two public meetings in his riding which told him not to support any recognition of distinct society for Quebec

when he voted for the government's initiative against the wishes of his constituents?

The second question is: Is it true that the member mentioned that he would not be a minister if it was not for the fact that he was Asian? If that is true, how widespread is this problem of racism in the Liberal Party?

My third question is. On the issue of astronaut families, the member comes from a riding that contains a high percentage of Asians. I have an article here from the Vancouver Sun of September 25. It states: ``In the past two months dozens of high-end homes on Vancouver's west side have been listed, including four priced at $2.5 million or higher, that went on the market the same day because Asians are fleeing the country, because they are going to be required to pay taxes on their worldwide incomes by the new provisions introduced in the budget last year''.

To link the article, it describes reports from KPMG Accountants and a number of others who estimate this astronaut family problem to be a major problem. That is certainly the experience that came from New Zealand when they clamped down on this tax evasion. Three years ago Reformers were called racist for even trying to bring this subject up. Now it is clearly a major, major problem here. I would like the member to tell me, does it affect 10 per cent, 20 per cent, 30 per cent or 40 per cent of his riding? How many tax evaders are there in his riding?

[Supply, September 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the minister says everything is just wonderful in B.C. and everything that has gone right is because of his personal intervention.

The minister seems to avoid any public accountability in B.C. for the actions of his party. He was a guest on the David Mitchell radio show a couple of weeks ago, but he only took one phone call from the public on the open line. That one phone call was extremely critical of his government and its policies.

There is another major talk show host in Vancouver, Rafe Mair, who constantly requests the minister to come on the show to answer questions and take an open line to the people of B.C.

I would like the minister to answer why he will not go on the Rafe Mair show or whether he will give a commitment in the House today that he will go on the Rafe Mair show and take open line in order to be accountable for the actions of his party in government.

I would also like the minister to comment on an article that was written by Barbara Yaffe in the Saturday edition of the Vancouver Sun . That article mentions a special report prepared for the intergovernmental affairs minister by the member for Simcoe North who recently travelled throughout B.C. and discovered that ``the people in B.C. are feeling a sense of alienation and are mistrustful of Ottawa''.

The minister was called for comment by Ms. Yaffe and he declined to return the calls. Sure there is a feeling of alienation and miscommunication. The minister is responsible for it.

Why did he not return the call and could he please comment on the report prepared by the member for Simcoe North which indicates clearly that there is major alienation in B.C.

[Supply, September 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I felt the speech given by the hon. member dealt very well with a number of the problems faced by the coast guard and light keepers on the west coast.

I know the member is the critic for Indian Affairs and I wonder if he could give us the benefit of a few minutes explanation of some of the problems that have been created in British Columbia, which has the largest number of Indian bands of any province in the country; if he could expand a little on the problems that have been created by this government for the people of British Columbia by the actions and the policies that have been foisted on British Columbians.

[Canadian Bill Of Rights, September 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, members of the House will know that I have used, from time to time, New Zealand examples to press home how important it was for us to get on top of our debt and deficit problems in order to create an investment climate that would create jobs. I have used these New Zealand examples not because New Zealand has done everything right but because we can learn from the experiences of other countries and choose the best things to implement here in Canada.

There are lessons to be learned from history and the experiences of others in connection with property rights as well. We can easily see that by taking a look at the enormous amount of historical material available to us.

We know the history of ancient Rome and Greece, China, Egypt and Mesopotamia. We know what happened in classical times, medieval times and in the industrial revolution right through to modern times. We know plenty about Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United States, Russia, Cambodia, sub-Saharan Africa, you name it. By studying the historical records of those times and places we can quickly see that when governments do not respect property rights, the people eventually end up living in poverty and misery.

Perhaps it starts innocently enough. A government promises to regulate the economy for the common good, redistribute the wealth more fairly, make the rich pay their fair share, close the loopholes. I have a feeling I have heard this stuff somewhere before. It is a naive assumption that the government knows best and that the average citizen needs to be protected from himself.

History is full of examples. Whether they are headed by madmen like Stalin or Hitler or by well-meaning dreamers like Nehru or Nyerere, they always fail. Along the way they produce conflict instead of peace, famine instead of plenty. Instead of more and better rights than those we hold in the line that we receive from the

Magna Carta, they deliver fewer and lesser rights. They promise a gilded cage and they deliver only the cage.

I challenge members to name one society that respected property rights where the people were not happier and better off for it. I challenge them to name one society that did not have property rights where the people are not more miserable as a result of that. The more protected the right to property, the better the living conditions and the better the societal order.

History also teaches us that where property rights are not respected, neither are personal rights. Along with the loss of property rights comes loss of liberty, loss of freedom of speech, loss of decency in society.

In her speech earlier today, my colleague from Port Moody-Coquitlam mentioned the benefits of transferring ownership of forests into private hands, for example. She gave an example of how sustainability was ensured by transferring the property rights to private hands. This same benefit can be seen in New Zealand which has transferred part of its forests to the private sector. It raised $2.5 billion to pay off the final portion of its foreign debt by doing so. What results from that is we have private investors who have to protect that property in order to recover the $2.5 billion investment and to receive an ongoing income. It is the guarantee of sustainability, it is the guarantee of replanting of those forests and it means that the government now is only in a regulatory role, instead of interfering in the marketplace.

Similar experiments with ownership of lakes have shown that when a camp ground owns the lake it makes sure there is no pollution in that lake. It makes sure that fish are stocked in that lake. With private ownership comes the desire to protect the property.

Property rights are the foundation of a decent and responsible society. They are the most important human right. It amazes me that we have a Constitution and charter of rights that guarantees the lengthy avoidance of deportation by known criminals and bogus refugees, but it does not guarantee property rights to law-abiding citizens. It amazes me that we have a Constitution and charter of rights that permits crimes to be committed without penalty by people who are under the influence of drink or drugs, but it does not guarantee property rights to law-abiding citizens. Canadians are supposed to feel good about their Constitution and charter but for the most part they are frustrated by it and with it.

Motion 205 put forward by the Reform Party member for Comox-Alberni is an excellent one. I urge all members to support it for our own well-being.

[Committees Of The House, September 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question about the operation of committees. There has been some discussion about the British parliamentary system. There is a lot of tradition involved in the operation of this place. That is absolutely true.

However, all it takes is the political will to change these things which have been in place for a very long time. Most of these things were put in place to fit a time that has long gone, a time when the people were not well-educated and when communications were not very good.

When Edmund Burke said: "You don't do your constituents any favour by representing their will", that was 200 years ago. Today we live in the information age. Our constituents are exceptionally well-informed. They know what is going on in the world. They can find out the minutest detail about what is going on in this place.

I am sure all members have experienced from time to time constituents who know more about a particular bill and its possible problems or benefits than they do. There is a member over there from the islands who said that he never reads the bills. There are constituents out there who take a direct interest.

The suggestion from Reform is that we can run on a general mandate of what we stand for but within that we must have flexibility to suit the information age and the flexibility to adapt that agenda to comply with the will of the people, the people who, after all, are paying our salaries. This means that when a committee goes travelling across the country taking submissions, it should truly take democratic submissions so that it is not a predetermined outcome and that it truly wants to know what Canadians want and is prepared to have the political will to adjust its agenda and get away from partisanship.

It does not happen very often. If we look at the past three years in this place, I have had to vote three times contrary to my party mandate in order to represent my constituents' wishes on government bills. Therefore, it is not something that happens every day. It is on very carefully considered issues. I do not suffer any consequences from being able to do that.

It is a new democracy. All it takes is the political will. I would urge members to get behind these changes so that we can get real democracy in this place.

[Committees Of The House, September 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to debate this issue today on committees.

Although it is a debate about committees, it could almost be a debate about democracy itself. It is really a debate about the definition of democracy in a way that it fits our committee structure.

I could talk about committees in general. My colleague has already brought up specific examples of committees. I could speak about them in general but I will start with some comments about a committee that is probably the worst committee on the Hill. It is perhaps the best example of what I would call manipulated democracy.

That committee is the committee that decides whether private members' bills will be votable. Just before the summer break in June 1996, a member from the government side of the House, the member for Mississauga East, had her comments about the committee that had just decided that her private member's bill would not be votable quoted in the Hill Times : ``I am not suggesting that it is a kangaroo court. It is more like a cockroach court. You cannot see them at work and then they run away''.

It is a really good description of what that committee stands for. The member from the government said had a private member's bill that would have ended concurrent sentences and forced rapists and murderers to serve consecutive sentences for multiple crimes. That bill was made non-votable because the government side had decided it did not want that issue to go to a free vote in this place.

Can a member of this House get an explanation of why it was non-votable? Can she or he find out what happens in that commit-

tee? No. There are no records kept. There are no notes. It is all done in secret behind closed doors with no records kept. No wonder the member for Mississauga East called it a cockroach court. As she said, we cannot see them at work and then they run away.

That member's experience is not unusual. It has happened to me. Every single one of the private member's bills and motions that I have put forward has been made non-votable. Maybe there were good and logical reasons for that to happen but there is no way that I could get an explanation for that. That for me certainly and perhaps anybody in this place who has put forward a private member's bill is the worst committee on the Hill.

As the member for Mississauga East said, if she had a bill that offered better treatment for criminals it would race through the place in a week, but if you have a bill that wants to side with the victims or correct obscene injustice in our system you can expect resistance and many years of effort and debate. To that member, welcome to the club, because that is what this side of the House is fighting the entire time.

Last year there were a total of 16 private members' bills which would have toughened up the justice system and not one of them could get past the system that is put in place through these committees to prevent it from ever becoming law. Even the ones that are made votable by that cockroach court committee that end up being passed in this House by the members get referred to committees which then stonewall them, delay them and keep them there under the orders of the ministers until they disappear completely off the map.

We see those examples over and over again. The bill that would have rid section 745 from the Criminal Code passed in this House and yet the committee and the minister are defying the will of the members here. It is contempt of Parliament in our estimation.

The members on both sides of this House are demanding more and more that all of our private members' business should be made votable and that the committees should stop interfering with the process. We should be permitted to bring the will of the people to this place and to put it through and turn it into law. I certainly hope we will soon see the disbanding of this cockroach court committee which has been a major problem for us.

The problems of the committees are really symptomatic of a load of problems that go right through the system which operates here, that makes this place almost just frosting. The real issue, the real cake, all happens behind closed doors. Everything is predecided and this is just the charade that happens on the top.

An example is I write letters to ministers about important issues about these committees. Months go by. A letter written to the justice minister remains unanswered after two months. A question on the Order Paper in this place, put here on October 5, 1995 with a 45 day answer period asking what sort of money the Squamish Indian Band gets in my riding has been sitting on the Order Paper since October 1995 and never answered. That is just another symptom of our constant problems.

My colleague from Fraser Valley mentioned the employment equity committee. I was sitting with him on that committee when the employment equity bill was considered last year. We were told that bill would be referred to committee before second reading so that members could have meaningful input to shape the bill prior to coming back for second reading in the House. What an absolute sham that was. It was unbelievable. When we describe it to people in the outside world away from this place they can hardly believe that it is true, what we tell them.

There was a time limit-arbitrary rules created by the committee-to discuss any clause. It did not matter how long it was, how short it was. Five minutes included the time it took for the government member to read it out and describe what it was all about. My colleague from Fraser Valley and I were denied the opportunity and ability to even ask questions of expert witnesses who were at that committee, experts from the government side. We were not even allowed to question them. We had questions from our constituents and we were denied the right to put them. That bill was rammed through the committee after hours, at short notice, when it was impossible for us to get witnesses to come to the committee. This is an abuse and a manipulation of democracy. It is unacceptable.

One example my colleague from Fraser Valley gave was how the chairman decided he had had enough discussion and just passed something by himself. We had another example where we managed to catch a few of the government members napping and got a particular clause through and the chairman reversed it by himself. He changed the vote. The vote was yes and the clause passed. He said it was no and it had failed. We were unable to get that reversed. Days later when we came back into this House and appealed to the Speaker for justice to be served and these decisions at the human resources committee to be reversed, we were told that the committees were their own masters.

I have another example. I sat on a small committee which was looking at the boundary changes in North Vancouver. There were only three members on that committee, two from the government side and myself from the Reform Party. There were about five clerks there, one to watch translation, one to watch what's going on and others whose jobs I do not know, five people and the three of us. We had to elect a chairman. One of the government members asked me if I minded if he nominated the other government member to be the chairman. I told him I knew how it worked around here and he should do what he had to do. So he nominated the other Liberal member to be the chairman. Then they both look

at me to second the nomination. Can you believe it? "Not a chance" I said, "you can't expect me to do that, it is not democratic". They looked at one another for a moment, looked at the clerk, and the clerk said that we could always change the rules, so they did. They changed the rule so they did not even need a seconder to elect the chairman.

The whole committee system is a disgrace. I could go on for an hour giving examples. I see my time is up and I welcome questions and comments. I will just say that this needs changing badly.

[Supply, May 30th, 1996]

He got elected.

[Supply, May 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it seems the minister is holding a bit of a grudge over the attacks on his highway project. I certainly would like to hear a little more on that.

The minister did say specifically that he does not take exception to hon. members of the Reform Party as individuals. Then he followed up and said the policies are in the gutter. I would like to ask the minister then if the policies are in the gutter, and since the policies were produced by the public of Canada with its input and voted on by members of the Reform Party at convention, is he saying that the more than two million people who voted Reform in the 1993 election, 20 per cent of the voters of Canada, are stupid,

intolerant, bigoted and that they would be so stupid as to produce those policies?

If that is what he is saying I would like him to repeat it so that anyone who wants to read it will know exactly what he thinks of them.

With respect to the infrastructure program, in my riding I always select a random committee from the voter's list. I have no idea who they are or what political party they represent. They come, usually about 30 people, and they make the decisions about the grants in the riding. They make some pretty good decisions.

It is not true that the leader or anybody else in this party tells me what to do about those grants. It is true that the majority of people out there feel it is a waste of money, that we are giving money to places which do not need the money to create the jobs.

I will give an example. Morguard Properties, which runs a big shopping centre in my riding, is obliged to look after the gardens in that shopping centre. It would obviously employ students to do it because it is the least expensive labour. Yet year after year it applies for a grant. It is outrageous that we are giving Morguard Properties money.

A better way to do it is through persuasion of the business community to give jobs. It always does if it is persuaded. It does not need the grants.

[Supply, May 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the hon. member mention the committees during his speech. It brought to mind that during question period today the Minister of Justice mentioned that if he could withstand appearing before the justice committee, he could face any tribunal in the land.

I have a letter from the Minister of Justice to a committee that I sit on called the Joint Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. I think that the member will appreciate the frustration and be able to confirm it. The committee is not a high profile one but it is pretty important. It determines which government regulations are appropriate. It is really sort of a community watch dog. It can even disallow regulations so it is pretty important.

The committee wrote to the minister in February 1995 with regard to Bill C-84 with some questions and suggestions. The member for Scarborough-Rouge River who is sitting opposite was a signatory to that letter to the minister.

On May 3, 1996, more than a year later, the minister sent back a reply so far off topic, so full of incorrect information, that the only conclusion that could be reached was that he either thought we were a bunch of idiots or he never read the letter that he signed. Now we are placed in the position of having to call the minister before the committee in September to find out if he even knew what he was signing.

If the minister thinks that the worst thing he has ever faced is the justice committee, wait until he comes to the Joint Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. That is the sort of frustration and idiocy that goes on in this place that produces the cynicism that so many voters out there feel.

Does the hon. member agree that these sorts of frustrations occur in committee?