Bob Ringma

[Speech From The Throne, February 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Edmonton Southwest.

I am pleased to rise in the House to reply to the speech from the throne. I might start by saying that some of what I heard in the throne speech, such as the government pledge toward the devolution of power, was encouraging. Unfortunately, it also appears that once again this government is relying on reworked policies from the failed Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords. Once again it is relying on half measures.

I do not know what it is about this government but it cannot seem to bite the bullet on any of the big issues that face us, whether it is really coming to grips with the justice system, the Young Offenders Act, the debt, the deficit or parliamentary democracy. These things are not confronted in proper style. It is half measures and that is all that we are about to get.

I was also disappointed that the speech contained such vague and fleeting references to a subject that I have tried very hard to implement since being elected in 1993. I speak here of participatory democracy.

The speech mentioned this subject on only two occasions. With reference to national unity, the government says in the speech: "The government welcomes public participation in the debate about Canada". It goes on to say: "Canadians no matter where they live will have their say in the future of their country". Good words. I would that the government would invoke them and truly reach out to the people of Canada and say we want your opinion.

I have heard the Deputy Prime Minister on the one hand saying one thing about the possibility of going to the people of Canada in a referendum on national unity and I hear the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs saying something quite different. I have heard the same dichotomy between the Prime Minister and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. I would that the government could make up its mind. Does it want to go to the people or does it not?

The government puts forward nice words but if we examine the Liberal track record it is quite clear that they have little meaning.

In the 1994 throne speech two years ago the Liberals promised: "A national forum on health, chaired by the Prime Minister, will be established to foster, in co-operation with the provinces, a national public dialogue on the renewal of Canada's health system". That was the promise made two years ago in the throne speech. In reality that committee met only once, said nothing and will not report before the next election.

While this in itself is evidence of the government's unwillingness to keep its promises, the February 13 Calgary Herald report on the forum's visit to Calgary shows the Liberal's promise of public dialogue was nothing more than lip service. According to that report the health forum consultations are ``restricted to selected participants and are closed to the public and the media''. So much for consulting with the public.

The government is not living up to the promises it has made and it is certainly not interested in participatory democracy.

While I am saddened by this turn of events, I am certainly not surprised, for this government often talks of involving Canadians in the decision making process but seldom walks the talk. Instead we have a Prime Minister who punishes his own MPs who have the nerve to vote the will of their constituents on issues such as gun control or sexual orientation. In fact he has even gone so far as to threaten not to sign nomination papers for those in the Liberal caucus who have the integrity or nerve to vote on behalf of their constituents rather than blindly toe the party line.

To someone who believes as strongly as I do in participatory democracy, these actions are an affront to the very principles of democracy. Yet to the Prime Minister it is just business as usual. What else should we expect from a man who feels his views are more important than those of the people who elected him?

Two years ago on February 16, in response to a question from a Reform colleague on the issue of voting the will of constituents, the Prime Minister said: "This notion that we should be replaced by polling is revolting to me". How interesting that what I see as the legitimate right of Canadians our Prime Minister views as revolting.

Based on these example, I fear that even the vague government promises of consultation contained in this throne speech are merely more Liberal smoke and mirrors.

However, against the remote possibility that the Liberals are now willing to live up to their promises of consulting, I would like to offer them some advice on how true participatory democracy works. For the past two years, voters in my riding of Nanaimo-Cowichan have had an opportunity to express their views on numerous issues through the use of a telephone voting system.

On a monthly basis, voters respond to questions posed on the public opinion survey system. Their input helps guide me on both local and national issues. It has also assisted me in the decision making process on such issues as international travel by MPs.

My constituents, indeed all Canadians, deserve to be heard in the House and all of us have a duty to do what we can to make this process as simple and as transparent as possible. That is why I have taken the basic voting system that I have just described to the next level. Through the use of state of the art Canadian made computer software, participatory democracy is fast becoming a way of life for voters in Nanaimo-Cowichan.

As a result of the initial vote late last year, I will soon be introducing a private member's bill in the House calling for a national referendum on reinstatement of capital punishment as part of the next general election. Again, reach out to the people, get their opinions and then do something about it. This will be the second private member's bill that I put forward after soliciting the input of my constituents.

Next month, my constituents will have their say in the unity issue as participatory democracy takes yet another step forward in Nanaimo-Cowichan. I will once again bring their views forward to the House. Since I am a believer in true democracy it is my duty to do so, even though the Prime Minister feels that such behaviour is revolting.

[Petitions, February 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition with 777 signatures asking for legislation from this House to reform the justice system and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. The principles to be observed here are: to have a just and safe society; to protect victims and not criminals; to eliminate drunk and drug defences; and in the case of third time young offenders, to give consideration to a military style bootcamp as suggested by the member for Nanaimo-Cowichan.

[National Housing Act, December 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Reform members will voting nay on this motion, except for those who might wish to vote otherwise.

[Surveys, December 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, registered voters in my riding were asked if a national referendum should be held on the reinstatement of the death penalty. The overwhelming response from 919 of over 1,000 voters was that a referendum should be held at the time of the next federal election.

In another initiative my constituents are being asked whether Quebec should be recognized in the Constitution as a distinct

society. In just two short days my constituents have rejected such recognition by a margin of 86 per cent. The survey will be ongoing until the end of December.

It would appear that the days of government imposing its will on the people are drawing to a long overdue close and direct democracy will allow them to be heard.

However members opposite need not take my word for it. All they have to do is ask their constituents, that is if Liberal members have the same belief in the values and principles of democracy as do Reform Party members.

[Alliance Quebec, December 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage recently signed an umbrella agreement to provide Quebec anglophone groups with $8.4 million. Although Reform is against such expenditures generically, if the government is to do it we hope it will do it in a fair way.

Will anglophone groups that did not sign the deal continue to receive funding? Or, will it be channelled entirely through Alliance Quebec?

[British Columbia, December 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I think the non-answer from the non-minister will probably reflect the non-votes for the Liberals in the next election in British Columbia.

My supplementary question is for the Minister of National Revenue. Given the short shrift British Columbians have had over the years with the closure of Royal Roads, the closure of base Chilliwack, the KAON project, the welfare fiasco of recent times, et cetera, will the minister with his new found influence try to move the government away from knee-jerk reactions toward meaningful action?

The specific one is the west coast fishing strategy, fishing licences and fishing quotas. Will the minister move toward making them fair and non-discriminatory because he understands what is going on in British Columbia?

[British Columbia, December 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Minister of National Revenue, our minister from British Columbia, on his new found influence with cabinet and the Prime Minister.

Will he now try to achieve distinct society status for British Columbians?

[Recognition Of Quebec As A Distinct Society, December 6th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I would like to advise the House that I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for Simcoe Centre.

I am pleased and I am also saddened to rise today and speak to government motion M-26, which seeks to recognize Quebec as a distinct society. It also gives me great pleasure to stand before my colleagues in the House today as a loyal Canadian and state why I am opposed to this motion.

Speaking here today, I hope to make clear my opposition to this motion from a historical, legal, and personal point of view. Along with Bill C-110, this motion constitutes the other half of the Liberal initiative to appease Quebec separatists in the wake of the disastrous handling of the October 30 referendum by the Liberal government. From a historical perspective, I must again note the saying, which has often been quoted in the House, that those who do not learn from the mistakes of the past are destined to repeat them. It would appear that history is not a subject the framers of this motion are even remotely acquainted with.

For the benefit of those Liberal members who were not present in the Chamber last week for the debate on Bill C-110, I will say it again. If this motion were some grade B horror movie it would be dubbed "Son of Meech". This motion, or is it a rerun of a motion picture, is a doomed rehash of the Meech and Charlottetown packages which were ultimately rejected by Canadians. If they could be given a say on this motion it would be rejected outright as well.

I was not present during the Meech and Charlottetown debates, so I have waited several years to speak on this issue, but my remarks are as relevant now as they would have been in 1987 or 1992. This is when attempts similar to the one before us were made by the former Tory government.

Yes, Madam Speaker, and members on both sides of the House, "je me souviens". I remember the failures of those initiatives, even though the members across the way clearly do not. I also remember that a former prime minister and a government bloated with arrogance yet painfully thin on solution proposed essentially the same thing. I also remember what became of that government just one year later.

It is because people remember and have learned from history that I say confidently that this motion is unacceptable to Canadians.

From a legal point of view, this motion raises more questions than it answers. That would not necessarily be such a problem except that the Prime Minister will not answer any questions in regard to the meaning of that phrase "distinct society". What does that mean?

This lack of openness by the Prime Minister only adds to the confusion. For example, does the motion confer additional powers on Quebec or not? If, as I suspect, it does or will with the passage of time give powers to Quebec that are not given to the other provinces, then clearly it must be opposed.

Also, is this motion the precursor for an attempt by the Prime Minister to entrench the notion of distinct society in the Constitution? If it is, as I suspect is the case, and the Prime Minister wishes to do so at the scheduled review of the Constitution in 1997, should Canadians not know this now? Let us have the government be forthright.

By extension, any entrenchment of distinct society as an interpretive clause in the Constitution will be unacceptable to Canadians for the same reasons it was back in 1992. Also, does the notion of distinct society in any way detract from the principle that all Canadians are equal? Here again the government will give us nothing but vagaries.

By way of personal remarks I would like to share with members on both sides of the House the contents of a very insightful letter I recently received. The letter is from François Labrecque, a longtime resident of Quebec. I had the honour of meeting him while I was in Quebec City recently, and he wrote to me with his thoughts on this distinct society issue. He writes quite intuitively: "I am not sure the concept of distinct society should be presented as is. Instead of thinking of powers and rights with regard to distinct society, we should think in terms of responsibilities of individuals, groups, responsibilities of the people themselves and of their provinces to ensure that the distinct character is preserved".

He concludes in part that the Liberal Party approach is to provide distinct society status for Quebec and nothing for the other regions and provinces, which provokes negative sentiment in the rest of Canada and is clearly a divisive element.

This is a Quebecer I am quoting, who clearly understands the shortcomings of any distinct society proposal. Reformers would agree with his position.

For the benefit of those Liberal members who require further insight, no Canadian doubts that the language and culture of Quebec make it distinct. The language is dynamic, the culture is vibrant. These two characteristics alone will ensure its survival. That is why attempts to legalize or enshrine the concept in the Constitution are so insulting and offensive to many Quebecois.

The Liberals are asking Quebecers to adopt some siege mentality that claims their language and culture is weak and dying. Fortunately, Quebecers themselves know the exact opposite to be true and realize that assuming responsibilities in key areas will allow Quebec's distinctiveness to be maintained.

From a personal point of view, I watched as the Prime Minister tabled this motion in the House last week on November 27. At the time I could not help but feel that my birthright as a Canadian was being sold for the sake of a deal. I cannot understand how a government that professes to be so dedicated to the concept of equality can advocate something that so detracts from this principle. Then again after seeing Bill C-64, the government's racial quota bill, I should not really be all that surprised.

I ask members of the House to contemplate the concept of equality as they consider the consequences the motion will have on the equality rights of all Canadians.

I cannot support the government's motion to recognize Quebec as a distinct society. There is no safeguard to ensure that the motion will not be used to further the goal of Quebec nationalists. There is no assurance the motion will not be used to confer additional powers on the legislature of Quebec. It offers no guarantee that individual rights will not be made subservient to collective rights. It affords no protection to the minority population of the province.

The leader of the Reform Party has put forward an amendment that would address many of the concerns I have raised. It is my hope that when it is put to a vote members opposite will support it. To do otherwise and to adopt the government's motion as is would be to characterize some Canadians as distinct and some as second class citizens.

In conclusion, unless the amended motion is adopted by the House I serve notice of my intent to vote against the motion as put forward by the government.

[Supply, December 5th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, Reform members, except if they wish to do otherwise, will oppose the motion.

[Constitutional Amendments Act, November 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the main response I would have for the hon. member is that the intent of this bill is not directed at British Columbia or the west. The intent of the bill is another sop to the separatists of Quebec. That is its total intent. In effect, the west is disregarded, as it has been, as I tried to point out, for the last 50, 60, 70 years. It is a continuation of the same old thing.

Anything the member might say about what wonderful things this will do for the west I reject as nonsense.