Bob Ringma

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, October 18th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to voice my opposition to Bill C-53. I do so for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the inclusion of a royal recommendation.

This provision allows the government to spend money implementing the bill. If the bill is meant to streamline government operations, why is there a need to spend money in order to save money? How much will this cost and will it really save tax dollars? We do not have the answers to these important questions. These are vital matters for future debate.

I have chosen today to focus my remarks specifically on how the bill relates to official languages. I would like to preface my comments by clearly stating that the Reform Party in no way discourages individual bilingualism. Unfortunately the bill will legislatively entrench something we do not believe in. I am speaking of the holus-bolus financing of any group which claims to have as its mandate the furthering of official languages in Canada.

While we support the efforts of these groups, we believe they should be self-financing. With health care, unemployment and welfare programs in jeopardy due to a lack of funds, how can we continue to spend millions promoting something as divisive to Canadians as official languages?

This year alone the Ministry of Canadian Heritage is poised to give away over $31 million of hard earned taxpayers' money to these special interest groups. Not only are many of the grants of questionable value, the real travesty is that there is no way of determining how the money is used.

The government appointed watchdog of official languages programs and policies is the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages, which meeting I just left to attend this one. However that committee has openly stated that its mandate does not include spending. In fact the committee has twice voted down motions which would have resulted in comprehensive studies on how much money, such as these grants, is actually being used.

This brings me to section 88 of the Official Languages Act which will be amended by this bill. This section refers Ministry of Canadian Heritage reports, including spending estimates, to the standing joint committee for review. As I have already stated, this committee has neither the will nor the intestinal fortitude to conduct any meaningful review.

I make this statement not out of any sense of malice toward the committee but because of what I experienced during my time in it.

For example, when I proposed a motion to study all official languages' spending, I was greeted with scorn and distrust. To quote one of the hon. Liberal members, "This motion"-meaning Ringma's motion-"is inflammatory and illegal and it calls national unity into question. The member should be ashamed of acting like this and trying to divide the country". What nonsense.

I have sat on this committee since its formation under the auspices of the 35th Parliament. It has only issued one brief report to Parliament, which was more of a summary than a report, and it has not submitted even one recommendation to the House. In fact, my research shows it did not issue a single recommendation during its last two years under the 34th Parliament.

Given these facts, I have to ask how we can even consider legislatively entrenching such an important duty to a committee that is really more of a lapdog than a watchdog.

Another area of concern is the ministry's mandate for official languages as spelled out in the bill we are discussing. The mandate calls for the advancement of the equality of status and use of English and French. Under this mandate the ministry will spend $245 million this year on official languages in education. The constitutions of 1867 and 1982 clearly state that education is a provincial responsibility. Why then is this ministry spending a quarter of a billion dollars in this area of provincial jurisdiction?

Similarly, the ministry will spend $65 million to promote official languages. Again I have to ask: Why? When programs like old age pension, unemployment insurance, welfare and health are under constant attack due to a lack of funding, why is the government placing such a high priority on spending in areas where it has no jurisdiction?

The government has shown it cannot even handle the areas where it has responsibilities. Why on earth is it looking for ways to spend money it does not have in areas where it does not belong?

The biennial assembly, or convention if you will, of the Reform Party which was held here in Ottawa a few days ago passed a resolution calling for the repeal of the Official Languages Act. At the same time, it passed another resolution which would give responsibility for language and culture to the provinces. We believe this arrangement would be practical and would get the federal government out of the business of promoting languages.

The federal government has a responsibility for language equality clearly expressed in the Constitution, in section 133 of the BNA act and in sections 16 through 23 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Let the central government exercise its responsibilities under the Constitution. Let the provinces and special interest groups do whatever promotion of whatever language they want without a subsidy from Ottawa.

Reform supports freedom of speech, not comprehensive language legislation. Reform recognizes that the linguistic reality in Canada is that French is predominant in Quebec and English is predominant elsewhere. We support the philosophy of territorial bilingualism which will recognize this reality.

Reform believes all Canadians are equal and oppose funding of special interest groups which are claiming distinct status. As I said, we endorse individual bilingualism and extend this to languages other than French or English in recognition of the fact that over 12 million Canadians are of an origin which is neither French nor English. These other languages also give Canada strength and character.

Other than the constitution, if Canada needs other language policies these should be decided upon by the people as a whole and not by an elite here in Ottawa.

[Bilingualism, October 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of this House to a piece of propaganda masquerading as a news story.

In this story Alliance Quebec wrongly accuses the Reform of wanting a unilingual country by passing a resolution at our assembly calling for the repeal of the Official Languages Act.

This is the type of propaganda the government and its status quo allies use to colour the fact. If the government and its language lap-dogs were to speak the truth they would tell Canadians that the repeal of the act will cost nothing but will save millions.

Bilingualism in Canada is safe through the guarantees contained in the BNA and the charter. Alliance Quebec knows these facts but refuses to state them, not because it fears for the future of French and English in Canada but because it fears the loss of over a million dollars in annual federal funds which it receives through the Official Languages Act.

Speaking of money, the national debt now stands at $534,738,000,000.

[National Unity, October 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, Monday night the Reform Party heard the views of thousands of Canadians during an historic nationwide electronic townhall meeting.

Unlike the Prime Minister, these Canadians are willing to look at new methods of solving the problem. Ninety-three per cent of the more than 10,000 callers want to see an end to the national unity issue. Fifty-seven per cent believe the best course of action is to change the system for all of Canada, with 92 per cent saying that change should come from the people.

While the Prime Minister has stated that he finds referenda revolting, he might want to pay attention to these results. The Prime Minister has also said that Reform wants to discuss this issue because we are a failure with other issues.

Failure is defined in the dictionary as a falling short of what is wanted or expected, in not doing, neglecting. Based on these definitions, it would appear that the word failure is best used to describe Liberal policies when they have them.

[National Unity, September 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it looks like we not only have fiddling, we have waffling.

Despite the Prime Minister's other dialogue, Canadians are concerned about the government's lack of action and dialogue on this thing.

By contrast, Reform will host a national unity town hall meeting on October 3, Monday next. Tune in.

Can the Prime Minister tell us what specific action the government has taken or plans to take to engage in this type of nationwide discussion with the people of Canada on this important subject?

[National Unity, September 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, recent dialogue in the House between the government and the official opposition over the issue of Quebec separation has taken the form of metaphors.

Leaders of the separatist forces have been called maestros leading a symphony. I would like to extend the metaphor to include the Prime Minister and ask him how long he intends to fiddle while the unity issue burns.

[National Unity, September 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, several months ago our party submitted 20 very specific questions to the Prime Minister concerning what action his government planned to take on the issue of Canadian unity. To date the Prime Minister has failed to respond to any of these questions.

Obviously the Prime Minister is subtly continuing his do nothing policy, or more likely just does not have the answers. If the latter is indeed true, may we suggest that the Prime Minister do like other concerned Canadians and tune into his local cable channel on Monday, October 3 for Reform's national unity electronic town hall meeting.

During the show Canadians will have the opportunity to answer three direction questions on the future of Canada. This historic event will give Canadians an opportunity to express their views on this important issue. It will give the Prime Minister an opportunity to see that his do nothing policy is not acceptable to Canadians.

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, September 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I will provide the minister with that and I renew the invitation.

My supplementary question is for the Solicitor General. Nanaimo has been promised extra drug enforcement officers to help address this problem, yet to date his ministry has failed to fulfil that promise.

Why has the minister not undertaken a redeployment of resources to Nanaimo when the commanding officer of the RCMP in British Columbia has clearly stated there is a great need?

[Immigration, September 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the debates which took place in this House last week on the issues of immigration and crime were the same as ones which took place this summer in my riding.

A magazine article dubbed "Nanaimo-Heroin city" identified the Vietnamese community as a major player in the drug trade. As a result the Vietnamese community asked me to set up a meeting with the RCMP and all levels of government to discuss the issue, which we did.

Is the minister of immigration prepared to accept an invitation to meet with the Vietnamese Canadian community in my riding of Nanaimo-Cowichan to hear firsthand their proposals for changes to our immigration laws?

[Petitions, September 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have a petition representing the views of some of my constituents which I wish to present to the House.

The petition calls on the government to enforce the existing provisions in the Criminal Code prohibiting assisted suicide. It also asks that no changes be made to those provisions that would sanction or allow assisted suicide.

On behalf of these concerned constituents I am pleased to table this petition in the House.

[Petitions, September 19th, 1994]

The second petition, Mr. Speaker, calls on the government to maintain the status quo with regard to same sex relationships.

On behalf of those concerned constituents, I am pleased to table these petitions in the House.