Ted White

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995, June 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The hon. member who has just been speaking continues to mislead the House by talking about sovereignty association. He is a separatist and he should tell it as it is. He is a separatist and he should stop misleading the House.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, June 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on the motion in relation to the Canada social transfer because the Liberal government is simply not facing up to the reality of the situation in Canada regarding health care. It is trying to hide the reality by disguising it with a large lump sum transfer to the provinces and leaving the provinces to deal with the problems while at the same time continuing to apply, certainly at the moral level, a very restricted Canada Health Act.

In the Globe and Mail today there was a quote I can read to illustrate the problem very well. It is a quote from an adviser in the Prime Minister's office of all places who said:

My view is we don't really have a problem per se. We have an incipient potentially harmful issue. We are not freaked by it. We just have to keep a eye over the horizon.

It is obvious that somebody is a bit worried at least. It really bothers me that the government is acting as if we are back 20 years

when it had control of the media and propaganda and could tell people things and they actually believed it.

Today in the information age with freedom of information and all the information available to people they see through the charade of the government. Everyone in my riding knows that the health care system is in trouble. All the bleating and discussion from the other side of the House about the Canada Health Act being maintained forever does not mean anything. The average person on the street knows there are problems.

I cite a couple of examples in my riding to illustrate problems exist that will only get worse unless the government admits there is a problem and deals with it. For example, a lady in her early seventies late last fall badly twisted her shoulder lifting something. She tore the tendons away from the bone in her shoulder. She went to the doctor who told her that because the tendons had been torn away the only way to fix them was by reattaching them in surgery; they will not heal. She was put on the waiting list and in the meantime given some pain killers.

Five months later the woman was still taking more and more pain killers. Because it is a muscle and tendons are joined to it, the muscle had shrunk back and it became more of a major job to reattach the tendons. Toward the end of February the woman's husband said that they could not wait any longer. Still the doctors could not give any date for the woman to go to hospital to have the tendons reattached.

Luckily Vancouver is very close to the border of the United States. The gentleman arranged to take his wife to Seattle where she had surgery within two days of arriving there. The surgeons there said they could not understand what type of health care system there could be in Canada that would allow a woman to go for six months with that sort of condition. It was unbelievable and unheard of that it would happen in a place like Washington state.

That is one example and I will give another example of a gentleman back in 1989 who noticed a bit of a problem with some blood. He went along to see his doctor who said it was a pretty bad situation and sent him to a specialist for a second opinion. The gentleman asked how long it would take me to get an appointment. The doctor said that it would be approximately 10 weeks.

Anyone in the House who has ever been to a doctor and has subsequently had to go to a specialist knows that what I say is true. I certainly know in this case it was true. It takes anywhere from 10 weeks or more to see a specialist. I know it is true in this case because the story is about me.

When I found out that I would have to wait 10 weeks to see a specialist for what appeared to be a fairly serious problem, I said: "No, thank you. Please make arrangements for me to go to the United States. I do not care if it costs me money because we are talking about a very serious problem".

The doctor said: "Listen, let me make a few phone calls and see what I can do". The doctor managed to get me in to see a specialist the same day. Because I threatened to go to the United States, I was queue jumped, which is wrong in itself. I admit that it is wrong. It should not be that way.

Luckily for me I saw the specialist the same day and within a few days by also threatening to go to the United States for tests I was able to have a colonoscopy. I was diagnosed with colon cancer and given approximately six months to live. This was back in 1989.

When they discovered the problem and there was a suggestion that there would be a waiting list for surgery, I had to raise the point that I was not prepared to wait, that I would go to the United States. Again I was queue jumped. That was not the only operation I had. After having part of my colon removed in 1989 I was put on chemotherapy, which is a devastating experience. Luckily the service was available in my riding.

About six months later I required a second operation and again I was queue jumped. I was admitted through the emergency department of the hospital because the doctors knew that I would go to the United States.

They said to me: "The surgeon is on duty on Saturday. Why don't you come to the hospital, admit yourself through the emergency department, and we will take care of you?" That was wrong but I believe I am here today because of the action I took to go to the United States for some tests and to make sure I was queue jumped for the rest.

There is something wrong with a system that allows that sort of thing to happen. I had some of my tests done in the United States because I needed MRI, magnetic resonance imaging. I would have had to wait 10 weeks in Vancouver to go to St. Paul's Hospital which had an MRI. However it was only doing five scans a day, four of which were cranial, for brain tumours and things like that. There was only one per day for the rest of the body.

The unit could easily do probably 20 scans a day but there was no budget. People could take a pet dog or cat and have it scanned by the MRI at St. Paul's Hospital because they could pay for it to have an MRI. However we are not allowed to pay for our own MRI; it is against the Canada Health Act.

I went to Seattle and paid $1,000 U.S. for an MRI. It only took two days to get in. I went there and was treated like a client, not like a number on a medical services plan. I had my MRI. Incidentally nobody asked me how I was going to pay for it. They just admitted me and did the tests. They said: "Mr. White, why don't you have a cup of coffee, come back in two hours and we will give you the radiologist's report?" Three hours later I was on my way back to

Vancouver with the radiologist's report and all the X-rays to take to my doctor.

Everyone in Canada who has been through the process asks when the results will be ready after the test is done, only to be told that the doctor will call in two weeks if there is a problem. That is unacceptable. The quality of care is so much better in my experience when people are accountable to the system that there is no comparison. We have to start admitting there is something wrong with the system the way it stands.

I use the New Zealand experience from time to time. I would like to mention briefly an experience with my mother who is in her eighties. She needed a cataract operation. She had to wait under the old system in New Zealand for up to six years at 80 years of age. By paying for herself she quickly got the service because in New Zealand people are allowed to pay for themselves. In a two-year period the waiting list was reduced from six years to six weeks because people could pay in what the government would call a two-tier system.

In the long run admitting there are problems and dealing with them make it better for everybody. We should not be afraid of a two-tier system that enables some wealthy people to pay and in the end reduces waiting lists for everybody.

[Air-India Disaster, May 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I will just take a few minutes as well.

In looking at this whole situation of the Air-India crash, I know that it has been dragging on now for 10 years, as other members have said. It is really getting to the point where we have to start asking questions about whether it has gone on long enough and how long do we allow the police investigation to keep going and winding down.

My colleague from Reform has pointed out some of the technical difficulties that are involved in starting a royal commission when there is still an RCMP investigation under way. That is an important consideration. However, we are 10 years downstream and many of the people who were involved in the RCMP are already retired. We have a situation where one of the major suspects is already dead, killed in a gun battle with Indian police in India.

According to a newspaper article in the Ottawa Citizen on April 14, 1994 another suspect, Mr. Manjit Singh, also known as Lal Singh, is in prison in India. We have two there. A third person who may have been a suspect was arrested the same day for the bombing which killed baggage handlers at Narita airport.

The evidence is fast disappearing. In the meantime we have spent about $20 million, yet we still have all the families of the

victims who lost their loved ones in this crash wondering what really happened and whether there was a cover-up.

My colleague who proposed the motion asked what happened. Was there a cover-up? What is the truth behind the crash of the Air-India flight? On balance, weighing the questions, weighing the technicalities, weighing the length of time it has taken and weighing the amount of money spent so far, I would have to support the member in his motion:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take immediate steps to initiate a royal commission of inquiry into the Air-India disaster of June 23, 1985 which claimed the lives of 329 people.

[Question Passed As Order For Return, May 12th, 1995]

What was the total number of full time employees at each job classification in the respective federal departments for fiscal 1994?

Return tabled.

[Supply, May 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his questions.

When it is obvious to any clear thinking person that we should vote down a bill on the other side it is not the least bit surprising that 52 clear thinking Reformers would vote against it.

The member brings up all the usual red herrings that MPs would become voting machines and so on. In my riding there have been in the last year only two really controversial issues which I have taken back to my constituents. I have done comprehensive surveys and even a scientific survey which I am currently undergoing with the gun control bill. I am perfectly satisfied that within my caucus members are representing their ridings. There is no problem with that at all.

These red herrings about how we would become voting machines are nonsense. New Zealand has proven with its initiative and referendum act MPs do not become voting machines if you give people more power. I have proved it in my riding.

Last year I overturned a grant for a women's monument project in Vancouver. The people who were organizing that were really upset. Two of them called me on a conference call and said: "We will make sure we get rid of you at the next election". I said: "Please, do not wait until the next election. If you can get 15 per cent of the voters in this riding to sign a petition to say I am not representing the majority, I will resign". They asked if they could get that in writing. I said yes. I put it in writing. To this day I have not seen one signature.

Democracy is powerful but we have to give power to the majority. We have to give power to the people. That is what Reform is attempting to do. It does not mean we turn into voting machines. It simply means we give a Canada to people built the way they want it to be instead of built the way the elite want it to be.

[Supply, May 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I was quoting from a newspaper article. I assumed it was okay for me to use names in that case, but I will avoid doing so in future.

Canada, in its time of great peril, should not be hostage to an outdated system. Clearly, confidence in the ability of our present setup to settle the great questions which face us is confidence badly misplaced.

That was quite a long article but I thought it was very worthwhile reading to the House because Rafe Mair made some very good points. The Prime Minister will have to face the fact that the system is in the process of change.

Parliamentary democracies around the world are looking for new ways to be more democratic. Thirty years of experience under the old system are not going to account for anything in the information age. In New Zealand in late 1993 the government passed the citizens' initiative and referendum act. New Zealand's citizens now have the right to start initiatives and control referenda on the ballot.

In the 18 months or so since the implementation of the act a number of initiatives have been started. However in almost

every case, as soon as the initiative was registered with sufficient signatures, the government reacted, addressed the problem and the initiatives were subsequently taken off the ballot.

We have always been told that initiative and referenda are incompatible with parliamentary style democracy, but here is New Zealand proving it works. The real reason we do not have initiatives and referenda in Canada is because the Prime Minister does not want to give up the power he has to control what happens in this place.

Past governments have been no better. Twice the previous government passed a gag law to try to keep people quiet at election time. Twice the gag laws were struck down but the government still chose to appeal the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench in Alberta in an attempt to reimpose the gag law on free speech.

On May 8 the appeal was heard in Calgary. To refresh members' memories, the Alberta Court of Appeal reserved judgment after only one day of hearings on the case. On June 25, 1993, Justice MacLeod of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench struck down several sections of the Canada Elections Act which restricted expenditures by individuals to only $1,000 and parties could spend up to $10 million or whatever they wanted.

It was clear from the reaction of the justices, particularly Justice Kerans, that the justices had no patience for the government's appeal. It looks fairly certain they will overturn the government's position and restore free speech, thank goodness.

For the moment the Prime Minister still has power over his MPs but sooner or later, little by little he is going to have to give it up. I condemn the government for its failure to keep its red ink book promise to make the government more open and to permit MPs to be more accountable to their constituents.

Besides all of that, the Deputy Prime Minister promised to resign if the GST was not gone within one year of the election and she still has not done it.

[Supply, May 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member opposite spent so much time talking about the past, perhaps I will start my speech today with a quote from Edmund Burke dating back to 1774. The Vancouver Sun used this quote on May 21, 1994 to criticize the electronic referendum on the Young Offenders Act that I ran in my riding of North Vancouver.

Edmund Burke said:

Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.

Mr. Burke made this statement more than 220 years ago, long before the information age. The level of education then was probably pretty low and it probably would have been doing a disservice to constituents to take their opinions to Parliament. In the 1990s people are well educated and well informed. A modification of Mr. Burke's statement is in order.

I would like to see modern politicians saying: "Your representative owes you not his industry only, but also his commitment to alert you to the affairs of government that affect you so that you may become informed and so that you may instruct him how to represent you".

The problem is that even if every member in the House agreed that his or her first duty is to represent his or her constituents, we would still have to overcome the hurdle of repressive party discipline that we have already seen illustrated in recent times. We cannot change our present, benevolent dictatorship into real democracy until we come to grips with that situation.

When I was in my late teens and early 20s I belonged to the Young Nationals in New Zealand. I worked at many elections, helping really good candidates to get elected to go to Wellington for which members can read Ottawa. I really hoped they would make a difference.

It was disappointing to me to find that excellent candidates got elected but as soon as they got to Wellington, they were unable to represent their constituents' views. They had to toe the party line. They never voted against the party under any circumstances. At the very least, the strongest statement any of them could make was simply to abstain.

In those olden days there were no computers or fax machines or CNN. Governments pretty well controlled what we knew about the world. Even then, I dreamed of a day when voters would be able to have a much greater say in the decision making of their governments.

We have reached a point in time now when the information age has made it possible for my dream to become reality. We are on the verge of a revolution in democracy, despite the unwillingness of the Prime Minister to see the writing on the wall.

Frankly I doubt whether our parliamentary system can survive the information age in its present form. It must adapt and change more quickly than it has ever done in history to cope with the new power each of us will have as voters. Reading the precedents from Beauchesne the way the government whip often does is going to have less and less relevance in the future.

I can recommend to members a comedy that appears on television on Sunday nights on The women's network. It is called "No Job for a Lady". It is based on the experiences of a rookie woman MP in England. Whilst the program is pretty funny, it is a fairly accurate portrayal of what happens in this place.

The writers obviously have a good knowledge of the workings of the House of Commons. They have no difficulty showing viewers that committee meetings and travel junkets have very little use other than to keep MPs busy between votes. They make no bones about the fact that the system is completely controlled by the Prime Minister and that the wishes of the voters are irrelevant to the process.

There is growing awareness that the present system is becoming less and less relevant in modern times. Let me read a segment from an article written for the Financial Post recently by Rafe Mair, a talk show host on radio in Vancouver:

Surely we must now all agree that the system the Fathers of Confederation devised of pasting a parliamentary government on to a federal system no longer suits us and our present difficulties. Our system, with victory to the "first past the post," means a minority becomes an official majority which can do as it pleases for five years. It usually oppresses the majority and certainly oppresses all minorities such as B.C. and Alberta, a clear lesson of the election of 1993-

The main argument against changing our system is that it will result in weak governments. If by "weak" it is meant that the prime minister will not have his way unless the Commons, voting freely, agrees, then I will take weak government. Surely the collective wisdom of all MPs and their leaders is greater than that of a caucus which must agree or lose the perks of power-

For under our system, power is from the top down. The party in power must, to stay in power, stay united no matter how bad things get. The party leader becomes a dictator-for it is he who appoints cabinet ministers and parliamentary secretaries. He controls the patronage. Every backbencher is held in check by his own ambition to get into cabinet; each cabinet minister is held in check by his desire to stay there.

If Chrétien proves incapable of handling our crisis how do we change him?-He can't be relieved of office unless the majority of Liberal MPs choose to share power, most unlikely given the track record of majority governments in Canada.

The leader to save Canada from its perils may be sitting in the present Parliament-it might even be the Preston Manning or Jean Charest-but we will never know unless the centrally dominated Liberal caucus wants it to happen. And it is an immutable political law-

[Petitions, May 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition on behalf of the Reverend Sharon Copeman and 40 residents of North Vancouver who are members of the United Church of Canada.

The petitioners state that in 1994 the 35th general council of the United Church commended the federal government for resuming aid to Cuba and urged the government to continue its efforts to normalize relations between Cuba and its neighbours and strongly urged the removal of U.S. blockades.

They ask members of Parliament and the government to sponsor a joint resolution with the Senate of Canada urging the Government of the United States to lift the blockade against Cuba which causes undue suffering for the people of Cuba.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, April 26th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands did a desperate job of defending the restrictions on debate this afternoon, but there really is no excuse for restricting debate on such an important topic. It is not because the media do not think it is a hot topic any more but because people out there are aware of the budget and the problems it could produce.

At the various public meetings I am attending people keep asking me: "What did you think of that budget?" It is almost as if there is this background awareness that the budget, which was a major anticlimax, might just come back to haunt us.

Several weeks ago when the finance minister had his short meeting with Moody's bond rating service it was clear that Moody's went away dissatisfied with the explanation from the finance minister. The Financial Post predicted the same day that Canada's debt rating would be downgraded within a few days. As we see that is exactly what happened.

Even when Moody's announced the downgrade the markets had already anticipated the news and there was very little reaction out there. As the lack of substance in the budget becomes more and more apparent, it is quite likely we will continue to incur ever higher interest rates to finance our borrowings.

We have been lulled into a false sense of security lately by a dollar that seems to have risen a little in value. I even heard the business reporter on CTV this morning saying that our dollar was holding up very well. However, when we look at our currency against a basket of major world currencies instead of simply comparing it with the U.S. dollar, we find that our currency has continued to drop against the basket of major currencies.

In an international sense we are actually losing ground quite rapidly. This means that price inflation is just around the corner. Significant price jumps have started to occur already in some consumer products. In my office we recently purchased a second laser printer. The price had jumped more than 8 per cent in six months. Can anyone remember when the price of electronic goods actually went up? Prices have been dropping for years now, and all of a sudden we have price increases on things like cameras, VCRs, vegetables, garden tools, paint and cars, almost everything. It is starting to look like standard Liberal economic policy: allow the dollar to drop and inflation comes roaring back in.

The dollar dropped in the late seventies and early eighties from $1 to 85 cents. Inflation rose. The export sector boomed. It all looked very rosy. We had the appearance of prosperity while our deficit and debt were ballooning dramatically. Unfortunately the strategy is not going to work this time. We are a little too close to the debt wall for it to be effective.

Because of my business background I have quite a number of friends who are small business people. I have taken the time to ask them in the last few weeks about their sales and price levels over the past six months. In a group that includes one of the most productive realtors in the country, a hardware and garden tools importer, a car dealer and a furniture sales company, all have experienced dramatic drops in sales over the past two months at the same time as they have experienced huge price increases from suppliers because of the low dollar.

Stacey's, a large furniture manufacturer in Vancouver, revealed on a radio talk show last week that bankruptcies in the furniture industry were imminent because sales had suddenly dropped to levels lower than they were in the last recession. On the same radio talk show, bankruptcies of car dealers were being predicted as well.

The hardware importer I know has had two price increases exceeding 15 per cent, in some cases since January, and reports that some retail clients have declared bankruptcy in the past month. Sales in this sector have dropped sharply at the same time as the price increases that they are trying to pass on because of low profit margins.

Except for the export sector, the good news is not being passed on to other parts of the business sector. In the meantime there are those sneaky budget tax increases in place taking a bite out of everyone's spending power.

The Liberals and the NDP must be the only people in the country who think that the penalty tax on banks announced in the budget will not lead to higher bank service charges or loan charges for the average Canadian.

Liberals and the NDP must be the only people in the country who think that a 1 per cent increase in corporate taxes and a change that forces corporations to report their income at the end of a calendar year will not lead to an increase in the price of goods.

Liberals and the NDP must be the only people in the country who think that a 1.5 cent increase per litre on gasoline will not lead to an increase in the price of gasoline. Actually the new gas tax also increases the GST because GST is added on after the other taxes on the price of gasoline.

Incidentally the Deputy Prime Minister said during the election campaign that if the GST had not gone within a year of the election she would resign. She has not done that yet.

As I have said before, despite the tax increases and the token spending cuts, the ship of state is still going down a little bit slower with a smaller crew on board. That is all. In three years the increase in interest payments on our growing debt will consume every cent of savings the minister made in his budget. He did not go nearly far enough and he is not going fast enough.

I mention New Zealand all the time in my speeches. It has shown us the way by making some pretty massive cuts in government spending at the same time as it lowered taxes. New Zealand is now expecting a budget surplus in excess of $3 billion. It forecast $2 billion and is getting in excess of a $3 billion surplus. It has increased spending on social programs. Its unemployment rate is down to 5.6 per cent.

I cannot use props in the House but I have a full page advertisement from a New Zealand newspaper wherein Roger Douglas, the architect of a lot of New Zealand's restructuring, has now proposed that by the year 2000 New Zealand could have zero income tax.

I am not suggesting we could follow the procedure here because New Zealand is going to run on a 15 per cent GST. That is easy to do with a consumption tax when there are no bordering countries. Perhaps by the year 2000 New Zealand could be income tax free and running on just a consumption tax. Imagine zero per cent income taxes. That is pretty good.

I repeat what I have said before. The best way to put more money in the hands of the poor, of families, of business, of everyone, is to cut spending and to cut taxes. Tax cuts and spending cuts make it easier for people to buy homes and improve their standard of living. Things work better when people make their own spending decisions instead of having big brother government make the decisions for them.

High taxes punish those who are the most productive in our society. High taxes are a symptom of a government's failure, incompetence and inability to see the damage taxes are doing to society.

The finance minister gave it his best shot and was overruled by what might be a socialist cabinet. I congratulate him for trying but I castigate him for not doing what he knew had to be done. He stands responsible for the massive loss of net worth that is now occurring for Canadians across the country who do not have offshore shipping companies and a multimillion dollar worth.

Shame on the government. Shame on the MPs who failed their constituents by avoiding the truth that we cannot buy our way out of poverty. We have not even begun to address other very real problems with government programs that lead to waste and cheating.

For example, I have a copy of an advertisement that appeared in the Vancouver Sun on March 4, 1995. It was sent to me by a constituent, Mr. George Brooks. The advertisement reads:

UIC top-up positions: two festival production jobs available mid-April with performing arts association. Outgoing individuals with festive or event experience sought. Must have minimum of 21 weeks UI benefits.

My constituent asks since when has UIC been a prerequisite for employment in Canada. Here we have blatant abuse of a program that is supposed to help people get retrained. Mr. Brooks has asked quite a good question.

Special interest groups know how to milk our system. Nothing was done about it in the budget.

Look at Bombardier. The hon. member mentioned government grants to business. Bombardier, a tremendously profitable corporation, is receiving grants from the federal government. These grants go directly to the bottom line because it is a profitable company. We have no business giving grants to a company like Bombardier.

I urge members to vote against the implementation of the 1995 budget on the basis that it has failed to address government spending and brings us one step closer to a debt and currency crisis.

[Employment Equity, April 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, over the next hour this House will have the opportunity to discuss what some members will see as a politically incorrect motion.

I made the decision to prepare this motion after receiving complaints from constituents that they may have missed out on being selected for taxpayer-funded training or job creation programs solely because they did not fit into a designated target group on an application form.

It is appalling that the government of a democratic country has a policy condoning the selection of workers or trainees based on their gender or ethnic origins. It makes the government guilty of promoting sexism and racism, and it is particularly bad policy when there simply is no statistical evidence to support the claimed need for employment equity programs.

For example, figures from Statistics Canada indicate that the unemployment rate for young males ranges between 20 per cent and 23 per cent, while the unemployment rate for young females ranges from 14 per cent to 15 per cent. While both figures are far too high, clearly it is the young men who are the disadvantaged group. Their unemployment rate is consistently twice the national average, and it probably is contributing to their higher suicide rate and an increase in youth crime.

Some interesting material comes from a research paper by Dr. John T. Samuel of Carleton University, which cites statistics from the 1986 census, showing that 72.1 per cent of visible minorities over 15 years of age are in the workforce while only 66.5 per cent of the general population over 15 is in the workforce. The same census shows that the average personal income is $17,500 for the general population and almost $1,500 more for visible minorities. The REAL Women organization has also confirmed these figures in their own investigation of the representation of visible minorities and women in the Canadian workforce.

Well-meaning people are chasing ghosts, because there is no evidence that employment equity programs are needed. This is not to say that every employer out there is a saint. But the best

way to handle individual cases where there is improper treatment of employees is for those cases to be dealt with in the courts and the employers properly punished.

Unfortunately, government-enforced provisions start with the assumption that all employers are guilty, even though 1993 Nobel laureate and economist Gary Becker notes that discrimination poses internal as well as external costs on a company. In other words, discriminatory employment decisions cost firms money. If they do not select the best person for the job, that translates directly to a drop in productivity and a drop in the bottom line. Since the overriding objective of a company is to make money, discrimination will be short-lived and the marketplace will police discrimination. This theory is borne out by the statistics I have already given and the ones that will follow in the rest of this speech.

In terms of public support for employment equity, a December 1993 Gallup poll showed 74 per cent of Canadians to be opposed to such programs. This high percentage is not a surprise to me because to this day I have never met a person who wanted to get a job or be promoted on the basis of their gender or their race rather than the skills or merits they have brought to the job.

Sadly, this government, as usual, is not the slightest bit interested in what the majority of Canadians think and is bound and determined to stick to an agenda of social engineering that will unfortunately have the opposite effect to that which is intended.

I correspond on a regular basis with a young lady in Vancouver named Kim Oliver. Kim has a disability called Fragile X Syndrome. Despite having this disability, Kim has a great sense of humour, she has great ambition and quite an artistic flair. Kim has indicated in her letters that she wants exactly what any other young person wants. She wants to be able to support herself through the skills that she can bring to the workplace.

I would like to read from one of Kim's letters. I quote:

The United Farm Women of the 20's and 30's were western women who withstood the hardships of life on the farm alongside their husbands. They were responsible for lobbying for the vote, universal social programs, and pensions for widows and orphans. They also helped their men form unions and collectives. I identify with these women because, unlike today's feminists, they took matters into their own hands, using printing presses to spread the word via a women's newspaper, travelling to the Geneva Convention in the 40's and most impressive of all-got men to let us vote! Unlike NAC, Vancouver Status of Women and other special-interest groups, the UFW didn't have the media nor did they have millions in government funding-So why keep funding ethnic groups or women's groups? All they do is tell women, especially poor `visible' minority women with disabilities, that we are the victims of racism, sexism, white male imperialism-and that we will never be equally paid, heard, educated because of men and men's cultural symbols. Makes you want to scream, doesn't it?

Kim identifies with people who had to work hard for what they achieved. She also makes it clear that she does not want to be treated like a victim by special interest groups.

Kim also writes that she has found that members of the Reform Party treat her like a fellow Canadian instead of putting her into a box labelled "disabled" or "disadvantaged".

I wish I could hold up some of Kim's drawings to show to the House her artistic flair, but unfortunately we cannot use props in the House, so I would ask members to believe me when I say they are very good. I think Kim will eventually find a place in the workforce to utilize her artistic skills. I know she wants to achieve that not through employment equity but through her own hard work.

This should not be interpreted as meaning that the disabled do not need any assistance to gain skills or that the government should not be involved in helping them gain access to the workplace. However, it does mean that we should not insult their intelligence and their abilities by artificially pushing them to the front of the line for employment. Like everyone else, they just want the chance to prove their worth and their true value through open and unbiased job interviews.

Obviously, there are fewer opportunities in the job market for someone with Fragile X Syndrome, and that is where every one of us as caring Canadians can help. We must be aware of the problems and we have to do what we can to support them. For Kim, I would like other members of this House to give me some examples, or perhaps the public who become aware of this debate, of where there have been successes in Canada achieved by people with Fragile X Syndrome. What sort of jobs have they managed to fill? How have things worked out for them? I hope they will write to me so I can pass these successes on to Kim, to give her even more encouragement for the future.

In wrapping up, I would like to read one more piece from a letter she wrote to me last September:

We have a ministry responsible for women's equality, plus multiple feminists groups who are government-funded. As well, `visible' minorities and natives have just as much government attention.

So why does the Ministry of Social Services and Human Resources still classify women, minorities and natives as disadvantaged?

She also mentions:

Why is it that our social services and human resources departments have no `Ministry of the Disabled'? If we are to be Foster Children, couldn't the Provincial/Federal governments acknowledge our special needs?"

I know that Kim is not alone in feeling this way. She represents a very large group of thoughtful people with disabilities who really feel that the government is not representing their needs.

In their well-meaning attempts to promote the equality of opportunity that we all support, the government is actually fostering legislative racism and pitting identifiable groups against one another.

In their pursuit of social engineering they are inadvertently sowing the seeds of racial conflict by forcing employers to emphasize differences in race and gender instead of the differences in skills and suitability that should be the basis for employment.

I have here a letter and a questionnaire from the Chief of Defence Staff to all regular force and primary reserve members, announcing a survey of Canadian forces to identify the representation of aboriginals and visible minorities.

Is it not racist to be carrying out a survey specifically designed to identify persons by race? Is it really appropriate for a government to have a database identifying its employees by racial background?

Respondents have to identify themselves as black, Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Korean, South Asian, East Indian, Southeast Asian, non-white Latin American, non-white West Asian, Inuit, Métis, First Nation, or mixed race and colour.

If anyone except this Liberal government had asked for such a survey, they would be labelled as racist and accused of planning some sort of racial persecution. As it happens, all available statistics indicate that young Caucasian men are the ones who are in the disadvantaged group.

When we take a look at the employee make-up of several prominent groups that promote employment equity, we find some very disturbing situations. The Ontario government's office of employment equity in 1994 had a workforce made up of 90.5 per cent women, 52.9 per cent racial minorities, 5.6 per cent aboriginals, and zero able-bodied white males.

The workforce of the Ontario Rights Commission is 67 per cent women, 38 per cent minorities, even though these minorities represent just 9 per cent of the general population; there are no white males in the senior management group or the policy branch of this commission.

In an article she wrote for the August 26, 1994 edition of The Toronto Sun , Christie Blatchford said: ``It is quite clear that if the commission is a glimpse of the future for Ontario under employment equity, the face of the future is female and non-white''.

The Employment Excellence Organization asks whether the only difference between the racist agendas of the Heritage Front and the Ontario Rights Commission is that the latter is funded with taxpayers' money. That is a pretty extreme statement, but that is the sort of thing these employment equity provisions are making people say.

The government does not want to hear these things because their entire argument is based on emotion rather than facts. The fact is that one cannot fix discrimination by imposing a different type of discrimination.

The Sri Lankan-born author and economist of a 1992 report from the Economic Council, Arnold deSilva, found no correlation between wage levels and a person's country of origin. He also concluded that there is no significant discrimination against immigrants in general and that there is no systematic employment discrimination on the basis of colour.

Another study done for the Government of Canada in 1992 by Daniel Boothby involving a sample size of 115,000 people and entitled "Job Changes, Wage Changes and Employment Equity Groups", concluded that: "Visible minority status had no significant effect on the probability of job loss and, all else being equal, women are less likely to lose jobs than men".

In 1992 Statistics Canada reported that 56 per cent of all undergraduate degrees earned at Canadian universities go to women. In 1990 they took 45 per cent of the degrees in traditional male territories of business management and commerce. They accounted for 47 per cent of the law degrees, 46 per cent of medical diplomas and 63 per cent of those in veterinary medicine. Fazil Mihlar, a senior policy analyst with the Fraser Institute says that evidence of discrimination in the workplace is scant and isolated.

In my riding of North Vancouver I have been unable to confirm a single case, even though each time someone has called or written to me in support of employment equity, I have asked for any specific example of discrimination in North Vancouver so that I could make that situation public.

I challenge other members of the House to do the same before they support the ongoing use of employment equity programs or the inclusion of those requirements on government employment and training forms.

Bell Canada falls under the Federal Employment Equity Act of 1986. In 1989 Bell Canada had 61 more female employees than males. On a numbers basis that is pretty well balanced. Just two years later there were 2,058 more females than males employed by Bell Canada and the number of males employed had dropped by almost 2,000. No one could possibly argue that women are not adequately represented at Bell Canada but the trend in male employment with that company should be a cause for grave concern for believers in forced employment equity. They had better start insisting that Bell Canada place a special category on employment forms for the under-represented group, in this case males.

While I am talking about job loss I should mention that a number of my constituents have been asking me whether there will be affirmative action firing practices during the downsizing of the civil service announced in the budget. Will this whole exercise end up distorting the civil service employee base with enforced equity quotas that fail to recognize individual skill levels and the value to the taxpayers that are picking up the cost?

I already receive complaints from constituents who say that some employees at the front counters and on the phones at federal government departments hardly speak English and cannot be understood. Some of the members opposite will not like hearing that message but I have an obligation to pass on the concerns of my constituents to the House.

The federal government in the United States is considering the introduction of legislation to end affirmative action and an initiative has been started in California to place affirmative action on the ballot at the next election.

Polls indicate that affirmative action is going down to defeat in the United States in the interest of a fair and open marketplace. As one man put it on an interview on CNN, employment equity is a bit like the Vietnam war. It seemed like a good idea when we started it, but it turned into a nightmare.

Sadly, the government is still living in the past, trying to enact an agenda that is 20 years out of date, well-meaning and soft-hearted, but definitely soft-headed at the same time. On top of that it discriminates against skilled people who cannot label themselves as a visible minority.

I wonder how many Liberal members would be prepared to step down from their seats today, right now, so that a member of a visible minority could step into their place. I see no volunteers, no doubt because each of them would take the position that he or she has earned the right to be here. Why should they give up their seat to someone else who has not been through the election process? That is exactly what it is like in the real world job marketplace too.

People all across Canada oppose employment equity programs and every MP on the government side should admit that the programs are unfair and discriminatory. At the very least, they should admit that they would not like to see such programs applied to their own MP jobs. They should also agree to put an end to discrimination by refusing, as I do, to approve any grants or job creation programs which make employment equity a condition of the project.

Finally they should show courage and give their constituents true representation in the House by voting against any future employment equity bill.