Bob Ringma

[Committees Of The House, September 22nd, 1995]

My question, Mr. Speaker, is again for the government House leader. Will he agree to introduce at least a resolution allowing for the election of committee officers by secret ballot during the life of this Parliament?

[Committees Of The House, September 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about internal committee procedures but the responsibility of the House with regard to House rules.

If we look at the figures of the 34th Parliament, the third party received no less than 11 vice-chairs or even chairs. It is hard to believe that the Mulroney Tories would have a greater sense of fair play than the Liberals, especially when the now minister of immigration said in 1987: "The secret ballot offers members of Parliament an opportunity to do what is right for this country"-

[Committees Of The House, September 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, after witnessing question period this week Canadians are now familiar with the government's public unity strategy. However, out of sight of the cameras the Liberals are practising a different strategy, namely appeasement through the election process at committees.

After 14 meetings this week it has become clear the Liberals have formed some sort of alliance with the Bloc in what can only be concluded is an effort to appease the party which would tear our country apart, in the vain hope that it will lead to unity in our time.

Will the government House leader bring forward a notice of motion to amend the standing orders to ensure the election of committee officers by secret ballot?

[Petitions, September 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition on an entirely different subject, very interestingly calling on Parliament to halt negotiations on native land claims in British Columbia and turn Indian reserves over to the bands, fee simple, and to make our natives come under the same laws as the rest of Canada.

These petitions come from a very central area in my riding, centred around Lake Cowichan, Honeymoon Bay and Youbou.

[Petitions, September 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of my constituents dealing with the amendment or the non-amendment of human rights, the Canadian human rights or the charter of rights, in any way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality.

[Point Of Order, September 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, very simply, in view of the counter argument given by the chief government whip and in view of the fact that he has used some of the argument here himself as a whip in opposition or as a member of a committee, I respectfully ask that the deposition by the hon. member for North Island-Powell River be taken by the chair and be given back in written form as an answer, not just accepting the verbal answer given by the chief government whip today.

[Lac Barrière Band, June 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in early May I asked some questions in the House regarding allegations of sexual abuse and misappropriation of funds at the Lac Barrière band. I got no answers on the first occasion and inaccurate responses on the second.

Therefore, my colleague for North Island-Powell River and I met with a segment of the band in late May and then visited the reserve yesterday.

Despite the minister's knowledge of concerns regarding sexual abuse of young band members and financial irregularities involving members of the Liberal Party at Lac Barrière for the past year, no apparent progress has been made in confirming or denying these allegations.

If there is substance to the allegations, they should be dealt with as soon as possible. If there is no substance, they should be thrown out to prevent further division in the community.

I demand that the minister initiate a judicial inquiry to shed light on the whole issue, so that members of the band can finally get on with their lives. These people are tired of the government's rhetoric: they want to see results.

[Peacekeeping Act, June 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak in support of Bill C-295 presented by my colleague from Fraser Valley East.

The bill has several important features that commend it. The first is that it is a peacekeeping bill. I believe it is important that all Canadians, including their representatives in the House, understand the difference between peacekeeping and peacemaking. This is little understood.

The situation in the former Yugoslavia gives us a good example. If I understand it properly, there is a real peacekeeping operation going on in Croatia. This is so because the warring factions there agreed that they wanted peace and agreed to the UN going in to keep it, which the United Nations did under chapter VI, the peacekeeping chapter of the UN charter.

In Bosnia, on the other hand, we do not have a peacekeeping operation there because there was no prior agreement among the Serbs, the Muslims and the Croats to have peace. Therefore, as is very evident, there is no peace to keep. What is going on there is humanitarian assistance under chapter VI of the UN charter. What is needed in Bosnia-Hercegovina is an agreement between the warring factions that there be peace, or we need a declaration with follow up actions by the United Nations that peacemaking is required under chapter VII of the charter. We need one or the other to happen there and we have neither.

Canada's help to Rwanda, if we take another example, was one of humanitarian aid: the provision of medical assistance, food, water and communications under chapter VI, which is the peacekeeping chapter.

Let us look at our activity in Somalia. This came under both chapters VII and VI of the UN charter. From January to June of 1993 members may remember seeing pictures of Somalian warlords roaring around the country in vehicles that had machine guns mounted on them. What was required there was a military operation to bring the bandits under control. Canada during that first six months was in Somalia as a peacemaker under chapter VII of the UN charter. Once the situation was under control and some agreement had been reached with the warlords, Canada moved into operating under chapter VI, which is the peacekeeping chapter of the UN charter.

Aside from understanding the difference between peacekeeping and peacemaking, the important point to be made is that it has got to be clear in everyone's mind before we get involved in any military operation what kind of an operation it is. Is it clearly peacekeeping or is it not? This lack of clarity has led us to the situation we now have in Bosnia.

It is also important to know what the terms of reference are or what the mandate is before we get involved. Canada has a good example and a bad example of each in our experience in Indochina, in Vietnam. Canada, as part of the International Commission for Supervision and Control, spent nearly 20 years in Indochina along with India and Poland. The problem was that we were ineffective there because the rules governing the ICSC did not allow Canada to tell the world what was going on. We could not unilaterally bring the world's attention to the violations of peace agreements.

After nearly 20 frustrating years we finally learned our lesson in 1973. In that year we responded to the U.S. desire to extricate itself from Vietnam and get its prisoners of war out of North Vietnam. Canada agreed to be one of the four nations that formed the International Commission for Control and Supervision. There was a juxtaposition of the initials ICCS as opposed to the former ICSC.

We went into that commission with what we called an open mouth policy which allowed Canada to make public all violations to the peace, which were for the most part by the Viet Cong. I have described this operation before in this House and do so again because it illustrates a certain amount of savvy on Canada's part. We went into Vietnam, did our job, got the American prisoners of war out and then left the commission within six months without getting bogged down as we did in the previous ICSC or as we did in Cyprus for 29 years.

What Bill C-295 does is bring Canadian peacekeeping missions before Parliament. It is important that we do this. The debate and review that would take place would diminish the chances of our going into a military operation with inadequate terms of reference and without knowing what we are getting into and for how long.

Bill C-295 would not tie the hands of cabinet or the Department of National Defence in reacting swiftly where military intervention was required. It would simply ensure that things were properly considered and that the Canadian people were involved in the decision making process through their parliamentary representatives here assembled.

Several weeks ago I was in Hungary and I discovered in that rather new democracy that they are very interested in civilian control over the military. What I found is that their Parliament has more control today over their troops than Canada has over its own. Even one Hungarian soldier may not cross the frontiers of that country without parliamentary approval. That is not so in good old democratic Canada.

Canadians take pride in the fact that we have been leaders in the international community in peacekeeping operations and particularly in the United Nations sponsored ones. We take pride in the professionalism and compassion shown by our troops. This applies to Somalia as much as it does anywhere else. We have heard the negative stories out of Somalia and there is no excusing those transgressions but there has been precious little publicity given to the good works of the men of the airborne regiment in that unfortunate land.

Our men in uniform are a cross section of the population of Canada. They act humanely and compassionately. We have heard far too little about the help our troops gave to the Somalians from restoring order to medical assistance, food, shelter, schooling and so on. I really do wish the news media would bring out this aspect of the airborne regiment's performance. Perhaps the Somalia commission of inquiry under Justice Létourneau, which continues hearings today, will be instrumental in telling the story about what went right as well as what went wrong.

In any event, our experience over the years, good and bad, in peacekeeping and peacemaking in Croatia, Bosnia, Rwanda, Somalia, the gulf war, the Sinai, the Golan Heights, Suez, Kashmir, the Congo, Vietnam, Korea and other operations should give us pause as Canadians to think about what we have done in the past and what we will do in the future.

We should not take such pride in our past participation that we join in all such operations without due consideration. I suspect that there was an element of that in our entry into the former Yugoslavia. Bill C-295 would enhance our decision making process and I heartily commend it.

[Code Of Conduct, June 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am almost honoured to be one of the last speakers of the week. It is interesting to address Motion No. 24 which arises out of the provision contained in Bill C-43, the Lobbyist Registration Act.

This motion is for the creation of a joint House and Senate committee to establish a code of conduct for MPs, senators and lobbyists and I have to say that an ethics code is a worthwhile effort which must be pursued.

Let us look at the pursuit of that. I have a very interesting pile, not a prop, of parliamentary documents on my desk which show that there has been interest in this subject for years and years and where is it getting us? I have here "New Conflict of Interest Rules for Canadian Parliamentarians", by the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. Good show.

I have here Bill C-116, which was first read in the House of Commons in March 1993.

I have here Bill C-43, conflict of interest guidelines for parliamentarians, dated June 1992, the Hon. Senator Stanbury and Don Blenkarn joint chairmen.

Here is another one from the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell entitled "Public Sector Ethics and Morals: A Discussion Paper" dated October 1991.

Then there is Bill C-43, dated November 1991, an act to provide for greater certainty in the reconciliation of the personal interests and duties of members of the Senate and the House of Commons, to establish a conflict of interest commission and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

These show real interest on the part of the House over the years to say let us do something about the ethics around here.

There was Bill C-46 in 1989, Bill C-114 in 1988, and "Ethical Conduct in the Public Sector" by the Hon. Michael Starr and Hon. Mitchell Sharp, a book written in May 1984.

Then there was Bill C-6 in 1978. How far back do we need to go to show that there has been real bona fide interest by both Houses on the subject matter of ethics?

There is the little green book by the Hon. Allan J. MacEachen, which was written in July 1973.

There it is. Years of evidence saying that something must be done. Here we are in 1995 and again we are hearing declarations of great intent. We really must get at it now. This is the time to get at it.

I will compliment the government for the initiative which says: "Let us do something about ethics". However, my note of caution concerns the recent actions of the government. The words are fine. What are its actions? I do not think the actions of the government meet the lofty rhetoric.

Since the government came into power, which is now approaching two years, we have had many examples of what I would call less than ethical behaviour. We had the Minister of Canadian Heritage interfering with the CRTC in the matter of a radio licence application for a constituent. We had the same minister lunching with movie moguls in Hollywood at the same time the Seagram takeover of MCA was being negotiated. Now we have that same minister engaged in a dinner for dollars affair, which has clearly placed him in an apparent conflict of interest.

If these ethical breaches were confined to just this one minister one could conclude that he was simply misguided, ill-informed or just plain incompetent. However, the Minister of Canadian Heritage is not alone in this fall from the ethics bandwagon.

We are all aware that currently the auditor general is investigating a situation involving the diverting of $26 million in highway funds. In this instance the Minister of Public Works and Government Services has benefited politically, not financially I am sure, by seeing the money go from a busy and deadly stretch of the Trans-Canada highway to a seldom used tourist trail in his Nova Scotia riding.

We have also seen the justice minister awarding contracts for crown prosecutors to highly placed Liberals, some of whom have connections to the revenue minister. While it is commonly accepted that the awarding of such legal contracts is based on partisan politics or downright patronage. The government promised it would do business differently. It promised to break with politics as usual in favour of a more open and honest process. Has that promise been kept?

These are a few examples of some of the less than ethical behaviour of government ministers. I could go on at length but time is limited and it might be of more use at this time to review exactly what the government had to say on the issue of ethics during the election campaign and look at the promises it made.

The now infamous red book, dead book, states: "The most important asset of government is the confidence it enjoys of the citizens to whom it is accountable. If government is to play a positive role in society, as it must, honesty and integrity in our political institutions must be restored". These are wonderful words.

Similarly, the red book promised to appoint an independent ethics counsellor who will report directly to Parliament. Has the government met this promise or its overall commitment to restore honesty and integrity? On the issue of the promise of an independent ethics counsellor reporting to Parliament, the answer is very clearly no. The counsellor is not truly independent, as he is beholden to the Prime Minister and he is certainly not free to report directly to Parliament.

On the general issue of restoring honesty and integrity, I also submit the government has failed. A quick look at the newspapers these days will provide evidence of this fact. The Ottawa Sun on June 13 in an editorial entitled arrogance'' slams the Prime Minister over his handling of the latest debacle involving the heritage minister:For a party that campaigned on the premise of restoring ethics and integrity-the Grits sure have a funny way of going about it''.

Ottawa Citizen columnist Greg Weston summarized the government's code of conduct on June 11 in the following manner: "Thou shalt do nothing that lands thee in jail. Other than that, boys and girls, have fun at the trough".

Columnist Sean Durkin has also questioned the integrity of the government: "Day by day, the Liberal government is acting and sounding more like the Mulroney government of old". Hardly a ringing endorsement of the red book pledge to restore honesty in government.

From today's Ottawa Sun , Robert Fife, page 12, talking about the ethics councillor:

Wilson has been silenced and the role of the ethics counsellor has turned into a farce. The sole reason that Chretien has stubbornly refused to fire Dupuy is to show that he is different from Mulroney. He wants to be able to boast that he hasn't had to fire a single minister to scandal unlike the dastardly Tories.

Instead, what he is doing by defending Dupuy is demonstrating that he is every bit as bad as Mulroney when it comes to ethics.

In fact, he is worse.

At least Mulroney would do the right thing and remove ministers who did wrong from the cabinet table, albeit only after concerted pressure from the opposition benches.

Clearly these examples show the government has neither the will nor the intestinal fortitude to truly divert from its politics as usual policy. This is one of my big concerns about this motion. It may look good on paper but it is obvious the government is not serious about the issue of ethics.

Maybe I should be fair and clarify the statement. It is obvious the Prime Minister is not serious about the issue of ethics. I add this clarification because the member for York South-Weston has publicly urged the Prime Minister to ban the type of fundraisers that have landed the heritage minister in hot water.

The hon. member says this would be an important move to restore integrity to politics. He is quoted in the Ottawa Sun , June 12, as making the following comments about such practices: ``They are buying access. There are always IOUs attached. You have to be pretty naive and deaf, dumb and blind to think otherwise''.

The Prime Minister's top personal adviser is quoted in the same paper: "Cabinet ministers must separate business from fundraisers. Some cabinet ministers are not following conflict of interest rules".

I stated at the start of my address that I believe this motion has some merit. As I have illustrated, allowing the government to control this process is like allowing the fox to guard the henhouse. Surely it is not in the best interests of restoring public faith in the integrity of politicians to appoint politicians and lobbyists to draft a serious code of conduct. To me such a process would be an immediate conflict of interest.

I also question the value of involving unelected, politically appointed patronage hacks in the process. Appointed senators have little if any legitimacy in the democratic process and therefore should not participate in what we are trying to do here. The public must have full access to and involvement in this process. This is the only way to restore integrity and ethics in government.

To accept this motion is to accept the Prime Minister's ethical code of hear no evil, see no evil. Surely no one in the House can find that acceptable.

The overall intent of the motion is good. I support the intent but I have lots of reservations with the process. We must find a way to include the public. We must severely limit or eliminate the role of politicians and lobbyists in the process and we must insist that the ethics counsellor be free to report directly to Parliament.

[Petitions, June 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to present a petition from my constituents calling on Parliament to enact legislation against serious personal injury crimes being committed by high risk offenders by permitting the use of post-sentence detention orders and specifically by passing Bill C-240.