Bob Ringma

[Canadian Volunteer Service Medal For United Nations Peacekeeping Act, February 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in speaking in support of Bill C-258 I have to ask the basic question of why a medal, or for that matter, why a Canadian medal. I would like to cover the ground here by trying to describe what is happening to our country in relation to this medal as an example.

Medals generally are a reflection and a record of our history as a country, of our independence and of our associations. The key word is independence. Looking at our history as a country over the last 100 years we find we have ties to the United Kingdom. In times of war these ties have been rather firm and very loyal. That does not necessarily change over the years but it does in another sense. The loyalties are still there but other loyalties are built up.

We can look at the issue of wartime service in World War II, the creation of a Canadian army, the creation of the third largest navy in the world, and the expansion of the Royal Canadian Air Force. This gives us a good measure of the emergence of Canada

as a nation on its own without defaulting what has happened and what the ties are to the United Kingdom.

In looking at our history we have to look at our loyalties. We certainly have had a loyalty to Great Britain. We have had a loyalty to our other allies, be it the United States or France. We have developed over the years new and greater loyalties to the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. However, among all of these loyalties, associations and services we have a greater basic loyalty which is to Canada. We must allow our basic loyalty to ourselves to emerge.

The proposer has mentioned, and I would like to bring it out again, that this bill in no way attempts to usurp the royal prerogative of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada or the Prime Minister or the honours policy committee to establish honours and awards. Rather, it gives the government the opportunity to respond to the report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs which recommended that such a medal be established to recognize the service of the Canadian military in peacekeeping. That is the nub of it all.

A committee of this House is saying that we are Canadians and that we must do something to recognize what Canadians are doing. I did hear the words from the hon. member for Halifax explaining that there are entanglements and we should not remove this royal prerogative. I agree with this to a degree, but our greatest loyalty once again must be to ourselves.

We are moving in the direction of being our own authority in this country. From the Statute of Westminster back in 1933 and over the years we are continuing to move in that same direction.

When it comes to the issue of medals we have already heard that we are coming up with belated recognition for things such as Korea. When I came back from Korea in 1952 I was awarded a United Nations medal and a British Commonwealth medal for service in that country.

Forty years after the fact Canada belatedly decided it should issue its own medal for this service. Several years ago it came up with the Canadian volunteer service medal for Korea. It has now also come up with other awards in recognition of Canadian service which include: the 1983 special service medal; the Dieppe clasp, Dieppe occurred over 55 years ago and we have only come to provide belated recognition of it; and for the merchant marines. Service by the merchant navy took us 50 years to recognize.

We have received belated and sometimes no recognition at all. Hong Kong has been mentioned. This country has not yet recognized the service of our people in Hong Kong 55 years ago. There is no recognition of what I believe was called the ferry command. Civilians and military alike were ferrying aircraft from Canada and the United States over to the war zone in the U.K.

We are moving in that direction but we are dragging our feet. To give another illustration of moving somewhat in the same direction, I participated in a non-United Nations peacekeeping effort in 1973. We went to Vietnam to replace the old, almost useless international commission for supervision and control. I should not say useless; it was hamstrung. Its hands were tied as to what it could do.

In any event in 1973, Canada along with Indonesia as another representative of the western world and Poland and Hungary sent a non-UN commission, a quadripartite commission to Vietnam to oversee whatever peace we could muster out of that sad country. As a result of that I was asked to head up a committee to strike a medal. It was a very interesting experience.

A committee of four got together, one representing each of the four countries. We designed a medal. We designed a ribbon incorporating the colours of the four countries involved: red-white, red-white, red-white, and red-white-green. We came up with a unique medal. It was certainly unique in its execution because it was hand forged in a back alley of Saigon. Nevertheless we came up with a medal of our own for issue to the 1,000-plus members of that specific commission.

The illustration of this is that you can do things on your own or in concert with others. We did it quickly. We did it inexpensively. We came up with a unique medal in observation of that specific enterprise.

I see that other countries have issued their own medals. Ghana, Belgium, the Netherlands, the United States, and Ireland are issuing their own UN medals. Canada is first among equals in United Nations service. Surely if there is any country in the world that must have its own UN service medal, it is Canada.

In conclusion, since my colleague was unable to get unanimous approval to designate Bill C-258 as a votable item, I would ask that we unanimously vote to refer the bill to the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs. Let us get together and at least refer the bill to that committee so that it can assess the merits of the bill in proper time. Therefore I move:

That Bill C-258, an act respecting the establishment and award of a Canadian Volunteer Service Medal and Clasp for United Nations Peacekeeping to Canadians serving with a United Nations peacekeeping force, be not now read a second time but that the order be discharged, the bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on National Defence.

[Property Rights, February 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I like to think Canadians live in a democratic and just society. I like to believe Canada is a country which respects the rule of law.

However when I look at our Constitution including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms I become concerned. Property rights constitute the most fundamental of rights: the right to keep what we earn, to acquire what we need through fair exchange and to enjoy those freedoms while respecting the rights of others.

Thomas Bethell wrote in Property and Justice : ``There is a close relationship between the operation of a private property system and the idea of justice itself''. As Canadians we believe we have an inherent right to justice. That means if a criminal steals something we expect to be compensated and we expect the criminal to be punished. If neither happens we are morally outraged.

It is our fundamental belief in justice that has motivated many Canadians to demand stiffer penalties for criminals, to demand more accountability of government spending of their tax dollars, and to demand the retrenchment of their property rights.

In a just society the weak do not have to fear the strong or the corrupt because they know their rights will be respected and the rule of law will protect them. In a just society the state will defend individual property rights from those who would take them. One reason for the state having a police force is to prevent criminals from violating the rights of other citizens.

Likewise when the state arbitrarily confiscates private property without regard to the rule of law justice has failed. Our justice system is built on the concept of private ownership, on the premise that when someone takes something from another they have broken a fundamental law of our society. This is because or possessions are privately owned, not commonly owned. Property can generally be state owned, privately owned or commonly owned. In Canada we like to think we have private ownership, but how can we guarantee it without constitutional protection?

A system of common ownership is by its very nature unjust. Anyone can take the fruits of our labours but it is not called stealing. It is called redistribution because everyone in the community owns whatever is produced. This ultimately leads to a society where justice means from each according to his ability and to each according to their need. Have we heard that one before? Inevitably under this system the needy are merely the greedy and the honest workers are the destitute.

In a society where the state claims ownership or control over property and arbitrarily denies its citizens the right to use and enjoy their property then it has broken its covenant with the people.

Individual liberty and freedom is lost and a state that does not respect the rule of law is a tyranny. Sometimes Canadians have a hard time defining what it is to be Canadian but I do not think communal or state ownership of property fits with that definition.

There is something wrong when Canadians have a fundamental belief in property rights and yet nowhere is that right expressly protected. Why does the government not recognize this right?

There is something wrong when a minister can arbitrarily impose his personal beliefs on society and enact legislation to deprive law-abiding citizens of their property because he does not like guns. This means that Canadians are being governed by people who do not believe in basic property rights. This is not comforting.

In support of M-301 I would sleep better at night knowing that my property rights were protected. I therefore wholly support this motion.

[Young Offenders Act, February 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to address Bill C-37, an act to amend the Young Offenders Act.

This is an issue about which my constituents feel very strongly. That is probably true across Canada. Not a day goes by without my office receiving a letter on this subject. Two weeks ago I presented a petition with 16,300 names calling on Parliament to revise this act in a more meaningful way.

The organizer of the petition is a constituent of mine, Mr. Bernard Castet. Mr. Castet became involved in this issue after his young son, André, was brutally and senselessly beaten and killed by two youths.

It is hard enough for a parent to handle the loss of a child but Mr. Castet's grief was further compounded by the fact that these two young offenders would be tried in youth court for this vicious and unprovoked attack.

It is a sad reality of the current act that Mr. Castet had to go to court to fight the system in an effort to have the two youths raised to adult court where, if found guilty, they could receive the type of sentence that would match the crime. After months of hearings, the court has now ruled that these two accused killers will be tried as adults. However if the government had accepted Reform's amendments to the bill, others like Mr. Castet would not have to go through this same trauma.

One such amendment called for any young offender charged with murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, aggravated sexual assault and aggravated assault to be tried in adult court. This is also the substance of Mr. Castet's petition.

The Reform Party, along with Mr. Castet and the more than 16,300 people who signed that petition, believe such an amendment would be a positive step, not only in terms of meting out punishment to fit the crime, but also as a deterrent factor. Admittedly the justice committee did put forward a compromise amendment but it is still less than what the public demands and desires.

Reform also called for a lowering of the age definition by two years from 12 to 17 years inclusive to 10 to 15 years. Most people, except the government, seem to agree that if a person is old enough to get a driver's licence and have many other societal responsibilities, that person is old enough to be accountable for his or her actions in adult court. Such a change in age limits would also prevent young offenders from slipping through the cracks of the current legislation.

Mr. Castet and his 16,300 petitioners also agree with the Reform Party that the extra privacy provisions of the Young Offenders Act are inappropriate for violent or repeat young offenders. In these cases, the publishing of names would make protection of the community the number one priority.

Reform also supports amendments to make parents more accountable for the actions of their children. This accountability would take the form of compensating victims for property crimes if it can be demonstrated that there was not a reasonable effort to exercise parental control.

While Reform members advocate such things as stiffer penalties for serious crimes, we are not looking to lock up all young offenders nor do we believe that even the most hardened young offender is beyond rehabilitation. A further Reform amendment posed just such an approach, calling for rehabilitation opportunities to be emphasized in a disciplined environment.

I would like to take a minute to address another item that I have brought up in the House before. I would like the House to consider seriously the whole matter of the punishment of young offenders.

Looking at the situation facing us today, young offenders are put away but they lose none of their rights. They can go with their hair whatever length they want. They have colour TV. They have all the rights in the world. There is no sense of punishment or discipline. A movement was started in the United States called boot camps. I approve of the thrust of this movement because it disciplines young offenders. They cannot go into a punishment facility with their own agenda. If they are found guilty of something they have to follow the agenda of the boot camp.

I have stood here before and spoken of my experience in the past, not as an inmate of a Canadian army detention barracks but as an observer of one. The basic thing about a detention barracks was that the inmate obeyed every rule immediately. After having served his minimal time he swore that he would never go back to that facility again. He was not abused. He was not beaten. He was simply made to toe the line. This works.

The other big benefit of this scheme where inmates are disciplined and made to follow our agenda and not their own agenda is that it is cost effective. Young offenders or anyone else for that matter, even an older offender, can be put in such a facility and in 30 days they are ready to obey the rules of society. It will have an effect that 60 days or 90 days or half a year of doing what they want in a youth facility will not have.

I will wind down that portion of my pitch to the House in pleading with all members to please let us take a look at the effectiveness of such discipline on young offenders particularly, but on others as well.

In conclusion, in carefully reviewing the bill I fully appreciate the efforts the Minister of Justice has made to try and satisfy the various special interest groups which make up the Liberal Party. It is a formidable task. However, in doing so the minister has put forward yet another piece of middle of the road legislation which has become the trademark of all Liberal governments.

Unfortunately the vast majority of Canadians want decisive action on this issue, not this watered down liberalism. On behalf of Mr. Castet and his late son André, I urge the government to hop off the fence and make the necessary changes to this important legislation.

If I have two minutes left I am going to once again return to my pitch and plead with the public as well as the members of the House to consider running boot camps or military style detention camps. For a minimum period of incarceration these camps will have a disciplinary effect for life on the people subject to that sort of punishment. It does not inflict physical harm. It simply says: "You obey the rules of this establishment. You do not have rules of your own". In so doing, it brings them around to saying: "Yes. Maybe I had better pay attention and listen to what society is telling me".

[Education, February 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, each year the federal government gives provincial education departments millions of dollars to subsidize French classes.

Much of this money is used by school boards as a source of general revenue rather than French language education. For example, a recent report by the Carleton Board of Education states the income from these grants supports the system as a whole and is not specifically directed to the immersion program.

Can the Minister of Canadian Heritage or his secretary of state explain why his government is permitting money intended for French immersion to be used for general administration costs by school boards from coast to coast?

[Chemainus, February 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in 1980 the little Vancouver Island town of Chemainus was suffering economic hardship. The community's major industry had suffered a severe blow with a slumping lumber trade and the plant closure of MacMillan-Bloedel's 120-year old sawmill.

However, since those dark days the town has become an inspiration for all Canadian communities because of its bootstrap tourism project. Chemainus is now known as the little town that did for its outdoor murals that have seen tourism become a multi-million industry. Four hundred thousand tourists from around the world flocked to Chemainus last year to see its 32 murals.

Recently the architect of the Chemainus murals, Karl Schutz, was in London where he accepted the prestigious British Airways Tourism for Tomorrow Award for the America's, beating out 120 others.

I congratulate Mr. Schutz and all the enterprising citizens of Chemainus, which is now the mural capital of Canada if not the world.

[Supply, February 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, once again, this is not directly relevant to the speech I have given, but I would be happy to answer it in any event since it seems to be a sincere question.

We would target seniors, such as myself, who do not need the old age pension. That is where we would do the cuts. We would target things properly. Those who need it either continue to get it, or in some cases perhaps they should get more. Those who do not need this sort of support should not get it. I think the majority of those would agree with this analysis and say to put it where it is needed, not where it is not needed.

[Supply, February 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that the question is a serious one.

First of all, I am not a spokesman for Premier Klein of Alberta. Second, the observation, while very interesting, has nothing whatsoever to do with the presentation I have just made in this House. It is totally irrelevant. It might be directed to some of the detail in the budget, but I cannot honestly take the question seriously.

[Supply, February 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we will continue in Reform to split our time.

I am pleased to rise in the House today to address Reform's opposition day motion. I am also pleased to be here as a member of a team that has the gumption, the fortitude and the imagination to come forward with an alternative budget ahead of the government's own. It indicates to Canadians and to the House there are better ways of doing business and getting us out of the crisis we are fast approaching.

For the benefit of people who have just tuned in I would like to read the motion of the day: "That this House reject this government's totally inadequate target which reduces the deficit to 3 per cent of GDP within two years and will leave Canada at the end of this period with a federal deficit of about $25 billion, a federal debt of over $600 billion and $50 billion in annual interest payments and higher taxes".

The operative word is that we reject the government's target. Many in the House may ask what is the purpose of our motion. Is it simply partisan politics? I will admit there is a political overtone to our motion. However, its purpose is anything but partisan.

Its purpose, if adopted as a motion, would be to show to Canadians and to the international financial markets that the government is serious about getting its debt under control. This is a very important goal because Canadians must know that any sacrifices they may be asked to make as a result of the upcoming budget are designed to take a serious bite out of the staggering debt and deficit situation. It is also important to show international financial markets that the government understands the severity of the fiscal situation and is prepared to take concrete action to deal with it.

In November the prestigious C. D. Howe Institute issued a report urging the government to move faster in the area of deficit reduction. It said the target of 3 per cent of GDP was not acceptable to the money markets. We now see that this sentiment is shared by other influential members of the financial community. To the consternation of members across the way, last week Moody's bond rating agency announced that it is reviewing Canada's AAA credit rating. In fact it was probably to the consternation of all Canadians. News of this review caused the dollar to fall and interest rates to climb. We simply cannot afford this type of reaction to the government's relative inaction.

We must renounce the government's shortsighted and inadequate deficit reduction plan by adopting the motion that is before the House today.

Why do I say that we can no longer afford to follow the government's reduction plan? It is because the problem is of such a size that we can no longer afford to ignore it. We ignore it at our peril.

That problem is a projected annual deficit of approximately $40 billion, which incidentally is about the same size as the debt financing we are paying. Think what we could do with $40 billion to spend on programs. We have to bring the deficit under control. This deficit of $40 billion will get added to the national debt, which is now more than $550 billion. It is a debt which is growing by more than $1,400 every second of every day.

The government's idea of deficit reduction is to trim a $40 billion shortfall to $25 billion. It is not enough.

Currently each Canadian taxpayer is in debt over $39,000, while the debt of every man, woman and child in this country is more than $19,000. They need relief and they need it now. We cannot afford to wait longer for the government to get serious about deficit reduction, or should I say deficit elimination.

I hope that I have established the need for us to act. I would now like to offer the government some suggestions as to how to reduce the deficit. If it does not want to take the time to go into the taxpayers' budget, here are a few things from my particular area.

First, we must get hold of the deficit by spending reductions and not by tax increases. We have said that over and over again but I think we have to say it over and over again. Canadians are already taxed to the max and they cannot, nor should they, tolerate tax increases of any type. There are many places where the government can cut back on its spending. I would like to focus on an area for which I happen to be the spokesperson in our party, official languages.

My Liberal colleagues will no doubt shudder at the idea of trimming anything having to do with official languages. However, given our dire financial straits we can no longer afford to feed this sacred cow with the same unbridled abandon that we have for almost the past 26 years.

Just before I detail the cuts I propose, I would like to state very clearly again that Reform supports the use of two official languages in Canada. We believe Canadians have a right to receive services from key federal institutions where there is a justifiable demand. That is why later today I will be calling on the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages to support my motion which would ensure people in minority language communities get the services they are entitled to from the federal government in the language of their choice.

People have a right to these services but, at the same time, all Canadians have a right to have their tax dollars spent wisely. This is why I believe we can reduce spending in this area without sacrificing minority language rights such as services to the public.

I have reviewed the more than $600 million in annual official, official languages spending. I say official because there appears to be more spending in this area which does not appear in the official documentation so I am just looking at the nominal book value of $600 million. I have been working on this for over a year so I know there is much more there that is out of view but I have not been able to put my finger on it yet.

My research shows that we can save roughly $300 million in a year by making the following changes to current government spending practices. This is only $300 million, but if we get $300 million here, $300 million somewhere else and $300 somewhere else we have $1 billion. If we keep doing that we can come up with the answers.

First, I propose a savings of $80 million by trimming the amount the government gives to the provinces for second language education. Education, as we all know, is a provincial jurisdiction and the federal government should stop meddling in this area. Much of this money is used for programs such as French immersion, which has in itself been called into question by several noted scholars, including Professor Hammerly of Simon Fraser University. Federal funding of immersion has also resulted in the creation of a two-tiered education system in many districts. This in itself is a good reason to discontinue this funding.

However, coupled with our desperate need to get our finances in order, it is an area of spending which must be eliminated. Under my proposal over three years we would save federal taxpayers more than $240 million.

Another area we can save in is the promotion of official languages. This program costs us more than $41 million in the current fiscal year. We can support official language groups in communities without spending copious amounts of money to do so.

I had better wind up by saying that the government's deficit reduction policy is inadequate. It is not enough to tackle our serious debt problem and it is not enough to inspire confidence among Canadians or the international money markets.

I urge the government to take this situation very seriously. We will try to help by offering suggestions such as I have just done as to the areas where we can cut.

I support the motion and I urge members and the government to do likewise.

[Canadian Flag, February 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, 30 years ago, I was moved by a ceremony at the Citadel in Quebec during which the Canadian flag was hoisted for the first time.

I was impressed then, as I was two hours ago, to stand on the lawn in front of this building to participate again in a memorial to our flag of 30 years.

I would ask Canadians in this House to join me right now in singing

O Canada.

[The Economy, February 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, over the weekend I was happy to read the details of another Reform convert.

The premier of British Columbia is now talking like a responsible Reform member as he spells out $9.3 billion in federal spending reductions. Many of these ideas were borrowed from Reform, such as the elimination of regional development departments and transport subsidies.

While it is true the premier has not shown the same type of financial restraint in dealing with B.C.'s deficit problem, it is encouraging to note he appears to have had a change of heart.

Reformers and the premier of British Columbia are advocating a plan of sound spending cuts and zero tax increases to get the country back on the road to fiscal health. If we can now drag the government and other provincial players on to the Team Canada deficit reduction bandwagon, we will be sending a strong message of unity and commitment to international financial institutions.