Bob Ringma

[Somalia Inquiry, October 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week government lawyers were chastened by Justice Létourneau of the Somalia inquiry. He was concerned that a letter from crown counsel would put a chill over the inquiry.

The government has tried to gag members of the forces before. Now it is trying to filter both the information and the sources of information.

Why are both the justice department and the Department of National Defence working to intimidate soldiers and keep them from testifying before this important commission? Why?

[National Unity, October 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to members across the way cry out with self-righteous and sanctimonious indignation about the need for a code to govern freedom of speech in the Chamber. Perhaps they should start with their own party.

Recent remarks made yesterday by the minister of fisheries and by the Deputy Prime Minister about members of the Reform Party have reached an all-time low. The Deputy Prime Minister stated publicly that the Reform Party wanted Quebec out of Confederation. This is not only totally untrue but it is so untrue that it is offensive. We are communicating in the newspapers with one million Quebecers this week on our proposals for decentralization which will contribute to national unity.

If the Deputy Prime Minister wishes to do something positive for national unity, she should stop misrepresenting the views of loyal Canadians.

[Referendum Campaign, October 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, is Quebec a distinct society, or is it not?

We reformers believe it is, but we also believe that the other provinces have some distinguishing elements as well.

In our opinion, all provinces should have the same status within Confederation, just as all Canadians should be equal in the eyes of the law.

We have therefore reached the conclusion that it is possible to ensure equality and the recognition of languages and cultures. All that this would require would be to give the provinces primary responsibility for language and culture.

[Points Of Order, October 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, for today, as I have said, we are quite happy to accept 5.30 p.m. as the time for the vote. I submit it is your prerogative to examine the case put forward today versus that of the government benches to see what the technicality is.

[Points Of Order, October 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Journals of Thursday, October 19 show the vote on Bill C-106 was deferred by the chief government whip to today at 5.30 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 45. However, according to Standing Order 45(6)(a):

A division deferred on Thursday is not held on Friday, but is instead deferred to the next sitting day, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.

The next sitting day is today and the ordinary hour of daily adjournment is 6.30 p.m., not 5.30 p.m.

The chief government whip cannot unilaterally defer a vote from Thursday to Friday to Monday to any other time but the ordinary hour of daily adjournment, to wit 6.30 p.m. He could do it pursuant to Standing Order 45(7) but as as you know, Mr. Speaker, he would need consent from the three whips for that.

He did not ask me so that leaves him with only one option which is unanimous consent. If it was done by unanimous consent the records would indicate that. The records show the vote was deferred pursuant to Standing Order 45.

Mr. Speaker, if you would also check Hansard and the video for that day you would find that unanimous consent was not sought. In fact the government whip was not in his seat to be in a position to ask for unanimous consent; he was in front of the Speaker's chair. As you know, Mr. Speaker, it is from there that he asks that votes be deferred according to the authority granted him under the standing order. The standing orders in this case do not give him the authority to defer a vote from Thursday to 5.30 p.m. today.

It may not even be necessary for you to rule, Mr. Speaker. The problem can be solved if the House gives its consent to have the vote at 5.30 p.m., which consent I and the Reform Party are prepared to give.

My concern is not really with the time of the vote. The point is we should be careful about following the rules. Our distinguished table officer, Stanley Knowles, once said that the opposition has only the rules for its protection, hence the authorities on parliamentary procedure emphasize the great importance to the opposition of the only protection it has, the protection of the rules.

[Foreign Affairs, October 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, let us go from France and other countries to Hungary for a moment.

Last May at a meeting of the NATO Parliamentarians Association in Budapest I spoke with representatives of that fledgling democracy in Hungary. Hungary will not permit military movement without consulting Parliament. It will not even allow military planning for deployment without consulting Parliament. When it comes to troop deployment, Hungary is more democratic than Canada.

Will the government do more than pay lip service to this fundamental principle of democracy, which is consultation, which it preaches so eloquently but violates so consistently?

[Foreign Affairs, October 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about consultation before commitment.

The Liberals have long forgotten their red book promises. They promised to reject the camp follower approach to the U.S. They promised a more open process for making foreign policy. They promised to expand the rights of Parliament to debate major

Canadian foreign policy initiatives such as the deployment of peacekeeping forces.

The government is not only violating its own principles, it is acting like the Mulroney Tories during the gulf war. Why has the government broken its red book promises? Will it commit, here and now, to have a full parliamentary debate on Bosnia before we send more troops?

[Foreign Affairs, October 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday afternoon the Minister of Foreign Affairs stated in Washington that "Canada will contribute to any U.S. led NATO force in the former Yugoslavia".

Later the Minister of National Defence confirmed this commitment saying: "It will not be a peacekeeping role. It will be more of a protective force and therefore have a combat capability".

Yesterday, however, the Prime Minister and the government tried to backtrack saying Canada's participation is yet to be determined. But this does not alter the fact that American officials took these statements as a definite support for their plans.

What was promised to the American government? Will we be sending troops? More important, why was Parliament not consulted?

[Canada-United States Tax Convention Act, 1984, October 17th, 1995]

All right thinking Reformers will also vote no.

[Employment Equity Act, October 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, most Reformers will vote no 347.