Ted White

[Department Of Health Act, November 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member's speech. At one point in his speech he made the comment that sickness in Canada is not made tragic because the system pays for everything. I would like to tell a short story and ask a question of the member about that very aspect.

In 1989 a man I know noticed some blood in his stool so he went along to the doctor. The doctor said it looked pretty serious and that he would have to book the man in to see a specialist. It was going to take six weeks to see the specialist in Vancouver. That is not uncommon. Anybody who has been to a doctor and has had to go to a specialist knows that sort of waiting list is common in Canada. The man said to the doctor: "I am not prepared to wait six weeks for something that could be life or death. Give me the name of someone I can see in the United States because when it comes to life and death, I am prepared to pay".

The doctor said he would see what strings he could pull. The doctor pulled some strings and voilà, in two days the man suddenly received attention. It was not because it was fair that he jumped to the front of the line but because he made a lot of noise about it. He visits the specialist and the specialist says: "You really need an MRI to determine exactly the extent of the problem. It is going to take 10 weeks to get you an MRI at St. Paul's Hospital in Vancouver because there is not enough money to run it. It can only do five scans a day and only one of those is for anything other than cranial scans". If you have a cat that is sick you can take it to the MRI after hours and it can be scanned. You can pay for your cat to be scanned but you cannot pay.

This person said: "I'm not prepared to wait 10 weeks for an MRI. Give me the name of a place in the United States". The doctor said: "Okay, if you go down to Bellingham, St. Joseph's Hospital can do it for you. Let me call and make the arrangements". He called up and the man was offered an appointment the very next day, not 10 weeks, the very next day.

The man decided it was a little inconvenient the next day so went two days later. He was treated like a client, not a number. He was shown into the hospital. He was not even asked whether he could pay or not.

I know this is the truth because it was me. The man was not even asked if he could pay. He was invited into the hospital. He had his test. He had the MRI. The doctor said to him: "If you will have lunch and a cup of coffee, in two hours come back and we will have the report written up and all the pictures for you".

I had my entire tests done and was back in Vancouver in four hours with the results that would have taken 10 weeks.

The worse thing about that whole exercise was when everything had been done, and I had been given the package, they said: "How are you going to pay for this?" I had to pay $1,000 U.S. to St. Joseph's Hospital in Bellingham when I would rather have paid it to St. Paul's Hospital in Vancouver.

What sort of a stupid system is this? This is not rich and poor. It is life and death.

When the member says that the Canadian system does not make sickness tragic he should think a bit more about real cases. It is real. Luckily I had the choice to go across the border and pay $1,000 U.S. to save my life. The sick, despicable system that the government continues to support would have resulted in my death because of the waiting lists and no choice.

All that the Reform Party wants in the health care system is choice. That is all it is. It is not to deprive anybody of anything. If I had been able to spend that $1,000 at St. Paul's Hospital in Vancouver I would have subsidized an MRI for somebody else who could not afford to pay. That is the principle.

That is why the eye clinics in Alberta work so well. That is why the waiting lists are down. The people who have a little extra money and are prepared to go some other place reduce the waiting lists.

I would like to hear the member's comments about that and why he would support a system that would have resulted in my death.

[Privilege, November 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, tone of voice in this place can be as important as what is actually said. During question period the Deputy Prime Minister, in answer to a question from the member for Beaver River, said that 51 Reform MPs were too busy doing other things to attend the Montreal rally.

The tone of voice used by the Deputy Prime Minister imputed motive and inferred that-

[New Brunswick Government, September 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, last week we were subjected to the gloating of government members over the re-election of Frank McKenna's Liberal government.

Of course those members forgot to mention that the way Mr. McKenna is running his province proves that he is no longer pursuing a Liberal agenda. In Halifax two weeks ago the upper management of two major corporations told me that doing business with Frank McKenna's government is like doing business with a private enterprise corporation. They also confirmed that Mr. McKenna seems to have abandoned the old style tax and spend dependency programs of the Liberals.

Clearly Mr. McKenna has joined the Reform wave that is washing Liberalism right out of provincial politics in every part of the country. Mr. McKenna is now running a Reform style government.

Government members rarely credit their constituents with any intelligence, but our side of the House can see that the Reform message has been clearly received and understood by the voters of New Brunswick. If only Liberal members at the federal level had the same degree of understanding.

[Cultural Property Export And Import Act, September 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I just finished speaking on the telephone to an 86-year old constituent in my riding who has been watching some of the debate this afternoon. You will have to excuse me, Mr. Speaker, because he said to me: "What the hell are you politicians doing over there wasting my money?"

The members opposite can wax eloquent about all the wonderful things they want to do with other peoples' money. It is other peoples' money. The majority of Canadians, whether watching this or reading about it in the newspaper, know it is their money. They are getting s bit fed up with this place which is not a travelling museum but a stationary museum wasting their money.

I get plenty of calls like the one I just had. I know that now at least my constituent will know I am trying to do something to change that system which is a disgrace. The sooner the other side recognizes it, the better.

[Excise Tax Act, September 25th, 1995]

I listened to the hon. member's speech with interest. I do not know what his background is prior to being an MP, but I was in small business. I owned a small business and I employed 10 people. As I listen to this talk about giving special consideration to certain industries, whether it be through subsidies or tax concessions or grants or whatever, as a small business person who created jobs without any subsidies, without any help or special consideration from government, it really starts to irk me. And I know that it irks all the other small business people out there who are also creating jobs without this special treatment from government.

I realize we are talking about culture here and that this gets everybody very upset. However, why should there be any more protection for a magazine than for any other small business, simply because it is cultural?

I have sold my business now, but were the 10 jobs I created not worth just as much as the jobs that are created by some magazine that is subsidized? Does it mean it was not important because I did not get a subsidy and it was not cultural? I had to compete with Office Depot and huge companies like B.C. Tel, which had millions of dollars to compete with me. Did I start whining and moaning, asking for the government to help me? No. I got out there and did what I did well and I made sure I concentrated on products and services that people wanted.

What is wrong with the magazine industry looking around and taking a few surveys to find out what its customers want and putting it in a format people are prepared to buy, without needing a subsidy here and a subsidy there? They would do well to build a niche for themselves.

For example, in New Zealand, where I am from, the film industry was subsidized forever by the government. When they had their debt crisis down there they pulled the subsidies for the film industry.

For a change, instead of making a lot of rubbish the film industry started making worthwhile quality films which it could sell internationally which now win awards. I am sure some members here have seen those films.

What possible excuse could the member have to denigrate all small businesses that fight to create jobs without these subsidies? How does he justify giving special conditions to these other industries?

[Capital Punishment, September 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it was my error. I meant to mention at the beginning of my speech that I would be splitting my time with the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley.

[Capital Punishment, September 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I do not suppose too many Canadians will be surprised that government members

do not want to make the motion votable. The elitism of an old line party is well entrenched and democracy does not easily penetrate its protective shell. In their hearts they must know that they have made a bad decision. They have ensured that we will face the wrath of the growing number of Canadians who see their justice system in disarray.

Canadians see a system unable to protect them from young punks who can commit crimes with immunity and hide anonymously behind the curtain of the Young Offenders Act. They see a system that releases dangerous offenders into their midst on bail or after minimum sentences for an outrageous crime.

They see representatives at a meeting of the Canadian Police Association in Vancouver telling the Minister of Justice that over 95 per cent of policemen want return of the death penalty. They see members of that same police association telling the minister that if he does not address their concerns they will make an election issue of capital punishment.

These are well informed law enforcement personnel telling us there is a problem. If they are telling us there is a problem, there is a problem. In the meantime it looks as though the government side will continue to hide its head in the sand, pretending that everything is working well and refusing to address the concerns of its citizens.

Canadians from coast to coast are sick of politicians and pointy headed professors telling them what to think about crime. They know that their streets are more dangerous than they were 20 years ago and all the statistics in the world will not convince them otherwise.

For example, Canadians hear academics arguing against the return of capital punishment by claiming that the murder rate has decreased since capital punishment was abolished in 1976. It is absolutely true that there has been a slight decrease in the murder rate since 1976. However those same academics seem to conveniently forget to mention that the last hanging in Canada took place in 1961, some 15 years before, and that there was a sharp jump in the murder rate in the 15 years following the last hanging. In fact it almost doubled. Even now, in 1995, the murder rate is still 50 per cent higher than it was in 1961 when the last hanging took place.

The slight drop in the murder rate since 1976 probably has more to do with demographics, the number of young males in society, than it does with the abolition of capital punishment. Are we going to allow the public to discuss these things and to learn the truth? No.

The House has let the people down again today. It has denied them a voice in the decision making of their government. Sadly the chances are that probably not many of them noticed. Their contempt for the system is well founded. They know that the outcome of virtually every vote in this place is predetermined long before the debate every begins.

I will try again another time with other motions and private members' bills designed to give the public a voice in government. This issue has not gone away and neither has the pressure for democratic change. The system has entered an irreversible period of evolution that I hope will soon see a majority of MPs insisting on their right to represent the people who sent them here instead of caving in to the orders of the whip.

[Capital Punishment, September 20th, 1995]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should support and work toward enabling legislation for a binding national referendum on capital punishment to be held concurrently with the next federal election.

Mr. Speaker, there are very few things in democratic politics that stir up more contention and trepidation than the use of referenda. There are very few issues in politics that stir up more controversy and emotion than the issue of capital punishment.

That makes Motion No. 431 a motion with potentially far-reaching implications for Canadians. It combines the contention and trepidation associated with referenda with the controversy and emotion surrounding decisions about capital punishment.

However it is important to stress that Motion No. 431 is not calling for a return of the death penalty as some critics would claim. Yes, the issue is contentious, but the underlying principle of direct democracy which led to the filing of the motion is one of the founding principles of the Reform Party.

At a personal level, when I think back over the events of the last 25 years that underlying principle is the very reason I am standing in the House today. It started for me as a teenager in New Zealand 25 years ago when I worked on a campaign to help get elected an MP of the National Party in the Auckland area of New Zealand.

It did not take long for my innocent 18-year old belief in democracy to be shattered by the realization that within a very short space of time party line politics and the power of a party whip could destroy everything that my candidate had stood for. It killed the fires of change burning within him. It killed his resolve. It made him afraid to represent the very people who had placed him in that predicament.

I had a dream those 25 years ago that one day within these shackles we call a parliamentary democracy MPs would be free to represent their constituents and to invite them to help govern the country they work every day to support.

I never dreamed that I would one day be one of those MPs. It was never my ambition to work for change from within the system. Somehow the pieces just came together, one at a time. I joined the party which in 1989 had barely begun. Yet it had the principles of direct democracy as a cornerstone of everything that it stood for.

One of its first policy positions was to state that the people of Canada should have the right to make binding decisions through referenda on issues of personal conscience. Capital punishment is one of those issues of personal conscience and Reform policy material has always identified it as an issue to be put before the people.

I submitted Motion No. 431 in April of this year, well before the controversial Bernardo and Deley cases came before the public. It was selected in the random drawing of Private Members' Business on May 29. In the first week of September I learned that it would be debated in the House today.

The motion reads:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should support and work toward enabling legislation for a binding national referendum on capital punishment to be held concurrently with the next federal election.

Every poll taken over the last decade has shown a major divergence of opinion between politicians and the public on the issue of capital punishment. Like it or not, public pressure will continue to build until we address this divergence of opinion either by bringing Parliament into line with the public or the public into line with Parliament.

Telling Canadians that they will not be allowed to decide is not going to make the problem go away. We need to place a clear question in front of them and allow them to make the final decision. All it takes is for us to agree to have an open and public debate followed by a binding referendum which will do the task of either bringing the public into line with Parliament or Parliament into line with the public.

Unfortunately there is a small problem standing in the way of implementation. Motion No. 431 is not presently votable, which means that the House cannot make its intention clear to the government. Without a vote we will be failing in our duty to represent the people who sent us here. For this reason, before continuing I would like to ask the consent of the House to make the motion votable.

[Capital Punishment, September 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, since 1970 in the U.K. 89 per cent of Conservative MPs and about 81 per

cent of Labour MPs have voted at least once against the orders of the whip. This free voting has resulted in the defeat of some unpopular government bills but it has never caused the fall of the government. MPs in the U.K. have gained the courage to stand up and represent their constituents because the benefits of doing so far outweigh the disadvantages of punishment by the whip.

On Wednesday the House will debate my motion that asks the government to hold a binding referendum on capital punishment at the time of the next election. I will be asking members to make the motion votable and to subsequently support the motion so that the people who pay our salaries can have their say on this important issue.

Let us show our constituents that we are prepared to represent them and to do so in the interests of real democracy.

[Auditor General Act, September 18th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. member. He did make one error. He said the Reform Party does not care about the environment, which is not true at all. We have a comprehensive blue book policy on the environment. It is just that we like to be logical. We do not like to hear all sorts of generalities quoted as if they were scientific facts.

We could well question our confidence in an intergovernmental expert panel which concludes that there is global warming after observing the disastrous results of government experts managing things like the fisheries. These governmental panels are quite good at destroying the environment while at the same time arguing they are protecting it.

The hon. member quoted from the Globe and Mail that the ozone layer was opening up a huge hole. However he forgot to mention that the Globe and Mail also mentioned that the scientist who had first discovered the ozone holes has now said he realizes it is part of a cycle and that it may not be a dangerous phenomena at all.

In addition he mentioned that we just had the hottest summer in 200 years but he did not mention what caused the hottest summer two hundred years ago. What does he think caused the hottest summer on record 200 years ago? It could not possibly have been the CFCs from refrigerators or the emissions from automobiles. I wonder if maybe the jury is still out on this whole thing.