Ted McWhinney

[Tong Sun Louie, April 21st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Tong Sun Louie, who has died in Vancouver at the age of 102, was born in Canton and emigrated to Canada 90 years ago, establishing himself as a prominent Vancouver businessman and philanthropist and a founder of the Chinese Benevolent Association. His family includes university professors, medical practitioners, accountants and financial advisers, all leaders of the Chinese-Canadian community.

The Chinese-Canadian community in Vancouver encompasses a wide diversity in language and culture, places of origin within China, and actual years lived in Canada. Tong Sun Louie's long life reaches back to the historical origins of British Columbia, and he may certainly be considered among the early founding fathers of that province.

[Supply, April 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, the hon. member for Repentigny has quoted the constitutional example of the United States.

We should not forget that, ever since the declaration of war on Japan, in 1941, the U.S. Congress has never used the rule set out in the U.S. constitution. Committing U.S. troops is always left to the president, to the executive branch.

In a way, Canadians have borrowed the British system inherited from the past.

[Dr. Judith Hall, April 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I signal the achievements of a distinguished Canadian medical scientist. Dr. Judith Hall, educated at Wellesley College, the University of Washington and Johns Hopkins, is currently head of the Department of Pediatrics at the University of British Columbia's children's hospital.

She combines world class expertise in pediatrics and genetics. She has been able to develop and apply new genetic techniques to patient care, particularly in respect to children. She has now been named Officer of the Order of Canada for her internationally recognized research on human congenital anomalies and children's growth disturbances.

[Supply, April 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we have to establish our priorities by considering the ways and means that are available. Unfortunately, Senate reform is virtually impossible, except marginally because of Part V of the 1982 Constitution Act, which I advised against incidentally. The only way we are going to change the Senate, other than marginally, is with a constituent assembly.

I have the feeling that the generation of Canadians coming into political power very shortly will want to have a constituent assembly and will want an act of constitutionalization. But I would advise the hon. member that I think he could use his talents and energy in other areas of constitutional reform where we do not have that constitutional straightjacket that Part V of the Constitution imposes. It is a pity.

My friend Rafe Mair and I agree that we would like to be United States senators. There is no more beautiful job than that. But it is just unforeseeable for another 10 years here. Give us a constituent assembly and all will spill. But the country has to be ready for it and it is not quite ready yet.

[Supply, April 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad we can enroll the member for North Vancouver in the process of parliamentary reform. It will be more complex I think than many members envisaged in 1993 when first elected.

The presidentialization of the prime minister's power in Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Canada is a phenomenon of our times. It cannot be reversed, but we can develop countervailing checks and balances, constitutional checks and balances, much as they were developed in Westminster in the 18th century, but they are more likely to be within the political parties themselves. I wish the hon. member would direct his very fertile mind and imagination to that task because he may have a good deal to offer us.

On reform of the electoral system, each electoral system begets its own practices and we could live with PR. I could myself. I have a feeling in some ways that it would be a more interesting House. Again, it would change the constitutional system and we would have to make corresponding changes in other institutions. I could suggest them, but it is a large test and we would be into a decade of work.

As for the business, the give and take between colleagues, the give and take across the House, it is one of the things I value. This is a continent widely divided. This country is the distance from Moscow to Vladivostok. One of the experiences on that long, five and a half hour flight twice a week from Vancouver to Ottawa and Ottawa to Vancouver, is that I meet with constituents and I meet with the opposition parties. There are more than two parties in B.C. federally. I have conversations. I believe there is a process of give and take and it is beneficial.

I think it was in that spirit, if I may say so, that it was suggested I was not speaking to the motion. But if the motion was whimsical, not perhaps serious, I put it down to the spring and the arrival of the daffodils. It was in that spirit that I attempted to offer a prairie rose to the hon. member for North Vancouver.

[Supply, April 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I also was puzzled by the choice of the topic of today's debate, but I am puzzled with all political parties at a certain time.

Two weeks ago we might have debated all night the Kosovo intervention but another party chose to debate something else on domestic politics. I do not criticize that. Then all parties decided to adjourn a day early and we had the debate two weeks later. The committees which are all-party committees, defence and foreign affairs themselves did not have any initiatives from government or opposition members to come back earlier than a week ago. The House sometimes chooses its business in ways that may seem strange to outside people but we do get our work done.

I assume that spring has arrived early in the west and that explains perhaps the tone, perhaps the thrust of the present debate. I hope you will allow me in that spirit, Mr. Speaker, simply to send a message to that well-known western raconteur and wit, Malcolm Parry, based on information he derived from the political chattering class.

Every party has its political chattering class. They hang around party headquarters. They do not get out in the trenches like the hon. members opposite or those around me.

Let me put the record straight. I do not intend to quit parliament. I am not about to be named roving ambassador for the Balkans. I am not about to be elected to the college of cardinals. I am not even the next general manager of the Vancouver Canucks. I might wish such a fate upon some of the hon. members opposite, that is to say the Vancouver Canucks. But we are all optimistic in the west. We may find another Pavel Bure and we may somehow win the golden chalice again.

Some comments have been made and I am always complimented when I find members opposite listen to my speeches or in some cases read my householders, my letters to constituents. The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands is a very promising younger member of this House. In fact, Professor Sandra Anderson, who is an environmental specialist and I believe the wife of someone close to the present members of the House, has regarded him as one of her most promising, if unpredictable, students. He has made some comments on the issue of APEC funding. I would think that this would perhaps direct attention to the special role of western members. I include my colleagues opposite in this.

We are interested in getting results. We do not have to take the essay in imagination that a New Brunswick scholar has made in today's Globe and Mail on the transformation of the parliamentary system, nevertheless getting results in parliament is a matter of hard work. We have to research a file; we have to meet the parties concerned. If we make propositions, we have to quantify their social cost, their financial cost and we have to lobby people, ministers, our own caucus and others.

I feel very happy that after 15 months I was able to produce a result in the APEC funding issue that I felt to be the correct one and which I had recommended in the first place. I am glad to have hon. members opposite join me in that. I take the comment of the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands in that light.

I would also say to the hon. member for North Vancouver who has given me the benefit of his advice, and it has been valuable in many ways on certain matters involving native leaseholds and other things, that I have given about 150 hours of time since early December to the issue he discussed today, Bill C-49. I do not have the exact transcripts of his remarks, but I believe there is progress being made there.

There were issues in which I felt the legislation could be tidied up. I have been proceeding by quiet diplomacy, meeting with lawyers, meeting with the parties, the stakeholders and meeting with ministry officials. I am hopeful that a resolution which I would think would be satisfactory in terms of the constitution, the charter and the interests of the conflicting stakeholders will be reached.

In other words, I think it is an opportunity for correcting this simplistic view of parliament that our main work is making speeches and that it is sometimes good to make charges to the opposite side of the House and back, Don Quixote style.

Most of our work, and this applies to people in government and opposition, is hard slugging work. It is research. Sometimes I think I am doing a half million dollar private lawyer's work for an MP's salary. I think that is true of all members of the House.

Some remarks have been made on the west. I would have to cavil with my colleagues on that. I understand the west is a large concept but I have argued since I was first elected in 1993 that B.C. is separate and distinct in itself. We are a fifth region, which is not to say we cannot coexist peacefully with the three prairie provinces and that we cannot co-operate as we are doing, as is obvious in the task force that has been referred to. But we are a distinct society and the Prime Minister recognized this in the joint resolution of both houses of parliament.

It has implications of course, concretely. For example, if we ever get around to reform of federal institutions and an elected Senate, I want a fifth of the seats in the elected Senate for British Columbia. I think the hon. member for North Vancouver would not disagree with me on that. I want to see proportional representation in federal institutions.

Since we contribute 13% of the national revenue from B.C. and five or six years ago got only 7% of federal funding for sciences and research and development, I am delighted to say that it has gone up. When it gets beyond 13% I think we will ask for 20% as a region.

In these areas the west has its own distinctness, but within it, I would argue B.C. has a distinctness more so even than Quebec has in relation to Canada as a whole. The miracle in our case is that we made the transition to a multicultural society without too much pain, with a great deal of optimism and goodwill, to the point where the ethnic communities are no longer a monolithic block, if they ever were one such block of people.

They are plural also. They have differences of opinions, differences of attitudes and anybody would have to be wary to take the vote for granted. For example on the issue of the intervention in Kosovo, different ethnic communities within my community of Vancouver take different positions and ask me to explain why I might take one position or the other. That is good and healthy.

In a way our charm in B.C. sometimes is an embarrassment to the rest of the country, but not to us. We produce interesting political leaders. I have sometimes had to rescue my province from its activities in giving counsel in various places, promoting peaceful transitions from impossible situations, from impossible political leaders, but I value the interesting variety and heterogeneity of our political personalities.

Our role is a little like that of the 19th century MP in Great Britain or perhaps the continental European politician today. One of my constituents said to me “We vote for you. You are part of your party but we do not like you to be 100% for your party. We like you to dissent sufficiently when we feel our interests our involved”. There is an art in doing that. You recognize the gain you have from an affiliation with the party. You also have made the pledge when you accept membership that you in general will abide by its principles and its program but the dissent within the party, the argumentation, the presentation of a reasoned case, the diversity of treatment, is there and opportunities are available.

When we do our job well, this is when we really do establish the western personality and in particular, if I may say again, the B.C. personality. There is nothing like it even in New Zealand, Australia, or anywhere else. We are distinct and we are very proud of it.

The pluralism within a party is something we have to ask for more and more in a period when presidential prime ministerships are the rule of the day. A French friend said we have a monarchical president. I said that sometimes it is an imperial president. Nevertheless the countervailing power in our society with an unreformed Senate and various other things is coming within the parties. That is where the give and take is. That is where the legislation is made and it is a healthy development. I think it has lessons for this side of the House and for the other side of the House.

I take it that it is in this spirit, the spirit of spring which came early to Vancouver as it always does, that this motion was put forward by the opposition. I accept it in that spirit.

[Kosovo, April 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we were talking about debates advancing and I think there has been some advance in thinking on both sides since the two earlier debates we have had on this general issue.

Bearing in mind his strictures against treaties made under duress, could the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas envisage a new diplomatic negotiating process that might produce a more even-handed disposition for either the present government of Yugoslavia or a successor government? In other words, does he have something more concrete in mind, accepting the premise that Rambouillet essentially would have been, as he said, a treaty imposed under duress as settlement?

[Kosovo, April 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on the first question which the hon. member raised, certainly part of the consensus that emerged during our two debates in October last year and in February was looking toward international organizations. If it could not be a force sanctioned by the security council, then it could be the OSCE, which has the advantage of having the former Soviet Union as a member. Therefore, we would have its co-operation.

Nevertheless, like NATO it is also an organization that in many respects is out of date. It is there to preserve the Helsinki accords, which themselves were to preserve the Yalta division of Europe. I am not sure that the OSCE is the answer. I would say that we should go back to the general assembly.

I respect article 52 of the Vienna convention and the member's interpretation of it.

[Kosovo, April 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, our role is necessarily limited by the size of our army and by our public defence system. There are only four planes, I think.

Of course, we have no control over the rules of the game. Nonetheless, since we are members of NATO, we were asked to co-operate, and we did so for these reasons. Even though our contribution is more of a symbol than a display military might, I think that our membership in the alliance created an obligation for us. But we must ask whether NATO is adapted to today's reality. That is the key question, in my view. The renewal of NATO seems to be a pressing issue more than ever.

[Kosovo, April 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, NATO was involved because to those making the immediate decisions it was the only organization seen to be ready and able to act. However, I have my own doubts about it because the alliance is strictly a defensive one. It is even more limited than the normal regional security organization.

It should not be assumed, however, that there may not be a sufficient legal base in itself. When President Truman launched the Uniting for Peace resolution it was a revolutionary act, but it is entered into UN history because it is obviously good and sensible.

Let us face it, in terms of Canadian policies in international organizations, the general assembly is a much more democratic and open body than the security council. We have been arguing for a reform of the security council. We get nowhere because the veto of the permanent members applies to amendments of the charter designed so the security council should yield to the general assembly.