Bob Ringma

[Committees Of The House, March 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read into the record a short statement in reply to the statement by the chief government whip concerning the Standing Committee on Procedures and House Affairs.

Members were initially informed there were three days of hearings for the subcommittee on private members' business of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. These meetings were to start on Tuesday, March 12 and end on Tuesday, March 19.

Several of our members were counting on being able to present their items to the committee on March 19 and planned trips back to their ridings for most of that week. On Tuesday, March 12 our members were informed the meeting on the March 19 was cancelled and the committee wanted to report back to the House this week.

This 11th hour cancellation made it virtually impossible for a number of our members to present their items to the committee on their own behalf. Because of this change private members' business would now start on March 18 instead of March 25. This in turn created another set of last minute scheduling headaches for a number of our members.

We hope the cordial and efficient manner in which the committee functioned during the first session of the 35th Parliament will soon re-establish itself during the current session. It is our sincere hope that the unfortunate events of this week were merely a temporary aberration from the co-operative atmosphere members had become accustomed to in that subcommittee.

[Canadian Armed Forces, March 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this goes beyond the allegations concerning the member for Charlesbourg. It goes beyond the matter that will be placed before the committee presumably next week. This is a very serious matter. I find the minister's answers to date unacceptable.

The BQ letter and the PQ secret negotiations are exactly why we have been trying to open it up and get the government to discuss the terms of separation well in advance but it has chosen not to do that. That is precisely why we are in a problem right now. Before the final showdown with the Quebec separatists, the government cannot continue to sit on the fence; it has to come out.

Will the minister make it perfectly crystal clear in whatever public domain to the Bloc Quebecois, to Lucien Bouchard and to every member of the Canadian Armed Forces that the Canadian forces are off limits in the debate on Quebec sovereignty?

[Canadian Armed Forces, March 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear that assurance from the minister.

Is this the first time the minister has heard of these allegations that are being made about the interplay between the Bloc Quebecois, the Parti Quebecois and the Canadian Armed Forces?

[Canadian Armed Forces, March 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, first it was a letter calling on soldiers in the Canadian Armed Forces to shift their allegiance to a Quebec army. Now it is high level negotiations and agreements between Quebec officers and the PQ government to establish a Quebec defence staff headquarters after a yes vote.

This is a very serious matter. It strikes at the very integrity of the Canadian Armed Forces. What will the Minister of National Defence do to investigate the separatist attempt to destabilize the Canadian Armed Forces?

[Supply, March 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that you simply canvass the Reform to see how many nays there are, the rest will vote yes.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

[Supply, March 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the majority of my members will likely vote yes to this. There are some who would choose to vote no. We are going to have to canvass at least the Reform to get their vote.

[Supply, March 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we will need a recorded vote because I do not have unanimity.

[Privilege, March 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River is right about the privileges of Parliament. That is precisely what we are about here. We can potentially talk about sedition in the armed forces. We are not talking about that. We can talk potentially about sedition among members of the public. We are not talking about that. We are talking about what happens in this Chamber. Is there a possibility of sedition in the case in front of us?

I ask the hon. member: How is the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs going to be able to examine this question of privilege and procedure in this Parliament with the modified amended motion brought forth by the Liberals? All it states is that the matter of the communiqué, released October 1995 by the hon. member for Charlesbourg, with reference to members of the Canadian Armed Forces, be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Referred for what? Let us be precise here. Give the committee a chance to address the issue by putting some meat in it.

[Privilege, March 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my comments call attention to the fact that in my time of 35 plus years in the military, the most serious offences were sedition or mutiny from within the ranks of the military. For it to come from an outside authority such as a parliamentarian makes it an even more serious offence.

The second point I have to make is that the Bloc is trying to give the impression that this was only going to take place eventually.

I quote from the press release:

"The day after a yes win". Does this mean the very next day, the day after or several weeks later? I do not know. "The day after a yes win, Quebec should immediately create a Department of Defence". Right away.

[Privilege, March 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the essential thing we are discussing here is a breach of parliamentary privilege.

I would like to point out that it goes beyond that: this House is representative of the people of Canada. The issue is of national importance. It is incumbent on us to discuss it here. But when we do so, we are doing so on behalf of all Canadians. All Canadians have been sitting by for months looking at the issue and asking: "What is happening?"

I would suggest that many of us as members of Parliament have received words, letters, protests from citizens asking: "What are you doing?"

I suggest that in addition to addressing the privileges of Parliament in this issue we are also addressing offences, if not in law as pointed out by the last member, in the privileges of the Canadian people.