Bob Ringma

[Petitions, September 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have two duly executed and signed

petitions representing the views of some of my constituents which I would like to present to the House.

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

[Time Allocation, June 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin with a quote: "Government must be judged by its effectiveness in promoting human dignity, justice, fairness and opportunity".

Nice words but I am afraid their meaning is hollow. Those words come from the Prime Minister in the fabled red book. Unfortunately last night the government showed that the words were only rhetoric. By invoking closure on several key pieces of legislation the government showed its true colours.

How does closing off debate serve the purpose of justice, fairness or opportunity? If anyone in Canada had any remaining doubts about the role of the Bloc Quebecois as the Official Opposition, those doubts went out the window last evening.

Did the Official Opposition stand up for freedom and for all Canadians? It did not. Now all Canadians can see the Bloc Quebecois Party for what it truly is. Both the government and the Bloc Quebecois can share in last night's shame.

[Yukon First Nations Land Claims Settlement Act, June 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting that the just made speech across the way is very typical of Liberal damage control. If you have a problem point your finger, accuse someone else and say it is all their fault. Are the people of Canada fooled by this? No, sir.

I would like to address the people of Canada on this motion. I take the word of my colleague a while ago. The word is shame. It is a terrible shame. The people are not going to be fooled by this. Closure is a shame. It is a travesty of democracy. You know it and you are going to pay for it.

The biggest shame however is figuring out what the motivation is. What has been the motivation across the way to dampen debate, to cut out debate, to stifle it? Could it possibly be that we do not want to hear any countervailing arguments? Could it be even that you want you want to catch your plane? Could it be that the Bloc Quebecois joined in because they want to catch their plane home? Or could it be that there was a little deal struck here? If so, more shame.

This is the first time that I have personally had to undergo this sort of a travesty. I will not forget it ever and I assure you that the voters of Canada will not forget it either.

I say to the hon. member for Nunatsiaq who mentioned his dream that I sincerely hope, sir, that this will culminate in a dream for your people and a dream come true for the people of the Yukon. I hope, because of the ill-consideration of all of the facets of this, that it will not turn a dream into a nightmare.

I would like to underline a few principles that the Reform Party applies to native issues. The first is equality not among just natives but equality among all Canadians. The second is self-reliance. In this we mean elimination of the department of Indian affairs. The third would be the right to self-determination, the freedom to choose not to have the federal government or band councils impose lifestyle.

The fourth would be self-sufficiency, native self-government fashioned after municipal government models with input from all other Canadians. The fifth would be treaty negotiations, fair resolution of all past, present and future native and non-native obligations involving input from all Canadians. Finally, we believe in settling land claims through a fair negotiation involving all Canadians and not just orders in council.

This bill addresses some basic problems concerning the role of the House of Commons. It has always been my belief as a non-politician, perhaps as a naive Canadian, that this House is here to represent the interests of all Canadians. Obviously that means all Canadians without regard to race, religion or ethnic background. I sometimes believe this to be true particularly if I talk person to person with members of this House, even across the way. There are other times however when party machinery gets into gear and I doubt very much at that time that the common wheel of all of Canada is the objective. The handling of Bills C-33 and C-34 certainly raises such doubts. If there was any doubt before tonight that doubt is out the window now.

The original purpose is no doubt well-intentioned but its execution here in Parliament raises very fundamental questions about the operation of the House. What is the hurry? We have to ask that in the case of these two bills. What is the hurry?

We have legislation here of the greatest importance that, as we have heard, has been worked on for over 20 years, legislation that will have a profound influence on the future of Canada, legislation so voluminous that it has to be measured in inches and weighed in pounds and the government says: "Okay, look at it quickly, now get on with it".

The situation was well described when we heard about this for the first time by my colleague from North Island-Powell River when he said:

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we had the introduction of Bills C-33 and C-34 which would ratify land claims and self-government agreements in the Yukon. Last week we were told the government wished to have these bills introduced later in June with the understanding that MPs would have time to prepare properly.

These bills represent the culmination of 21 years of mostly behind closed doors work without the involvement of federal parliamentarians. Today, 24 hours after tabling, Parliament is being asked to debate these bills at second reading.

This is an obvious abuse of power. The Liberal red ink book speaks of the integrity of Parliament. Surely assimilating over nine inches of text overnight with a rushed departmental briefing the next morning does not speak well of the integrity of Parliament or the interest of all Canadians. This action is a travesty of Parliament.

Since then, because of the limited time for debate and in reaction to the government's desire to get the bills passed, the Reform Party has had to drag out discussions of the bill in committee. Here we are back in the House. We were hoping to forestall any precipitate decision on the bills but obviously that is out the window as well.

We have an obligation to the Canadian public, not just us but all Canadians, to let the public know what is going on.

Remarkably, the same hasty panic occurred in the House a year ago when a similar bill zipped through the House in a single day. That was Bill C-133 which created Nunavut. Bill C-133 dealt with one-fifth of the Canadian land mass. In effect it created a new province, therefore affecting the Constitution of the country. It allocated $580 million to 17,000 Inuit. Bill C-133 was rushed through the House in one single day on June 4, 1993.

The opposition agreed with the bill. What deal was made? In spite of the enormous implications of that bill the Canadian public did not react. Why did it not react? Timing and orchestration. Rush a bill through. Restrict debate and nobody is the wiser. What was going on there and what is going on here? What on earth is the hurry?

I can only identify two people who spoke out against Bill C-133. One was the Reform member for Beaver River; the other was Pat Nowlan, the then member for Annapolis Valley-Hants. I would like to quote from of Mr. Nowlan's remarks, he being an independent Conservative. After he gave a little plaudit, Mr. Nowlan went on to say:

I speak almost with a forked tongue. That gets into the substance of the agreement I am glad to say is here today. It has to be put on the record that I am totally against the process. To have had the minister of Indian affairs speak for 18 minutes as he did in introducing this bill at second reading does not even begin to equal the 15 or 16 years it took to get the agreement. The member for Comox-Alberni said 20 or 25 years-If there was ever an example of a dead Parliament doing dangerous things, this bill sadly is it. This bill should not have been brought in in the closing days of Parliament, the last weekend before we rise. Whether we come back, we do not know.

He was prescient, was he not? Look at the similarity of that situation one year ago today to what we have here in this House tonight. I go on to quote, time coming up.

With all the good things the minister of Indian affairs and other speakers have said about it, this bill has the potential of nation building, of bringing the Inuit into the federation on some of the major points of the agreement.

That was his cry of shame, that the thing was not properly debated and considered.

In summary, we have had a shame before this House this evening. I hope the people of Canada will lock it away and remember it.

[Yukon First Nations Land Claims Settlement Act, June 21st, 1994]

I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. For the record, had I been here in time, I would very much have voted for the nay side.

[D-Day Celebrations, June 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that there are Canadians who are serving their country well while being conscious of our indebtedness.

I was in Normandy last week with the official veterans delegation observing the 50th anniversary of D-Day. We remarked on the dedication and efficiency of Colonel (retired) John Gardam who has organized for Veterans Affairs a guard of honour, trumpeter, piper, and flag party made up of Canadians serving in the militia.

This group is doing an excellent job representing Canada at ceremonies throughout Europe. They are doing so in the most economical way possible, by staying at barracks rather than at hotels.

I salute Colonel Gardam and his troops for demonstrating that excellence does not necessarily equate to the expenditure of money.

[Referendum '94, June 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the member for North Vancouver to remind the House that voting in North America's first electronic referendum started this morning.

Voting on the Young Offenders Act will continue 24 hours a day until Monday, June 20. This should give all members ample time to vote in the referendum using the secret PIN numbers they received earlier. The Hill phone system will not allow calls to 1-900 numbers, therefore members wishing to vote must do so from off the Hill and are therefore subject to the same user-pay principle as all other Canadians taking part in this historic event.

North Vancouver voters were also issued PIN numbers to ensure one person, one vote, but anyone in Canada can register their opinion on the Young Offenders Act by calling 1-900-451-5033 from their touch-tone phone.

I am confident all Canadians will look forward to assessing the results of Referendum `94.

[Canadian Film Development Corporation Act, May 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, thank you and I thank you for the intercession of my colleague to get it straightened out.

The last hon. member who spoke painted an almost glowing picture of the industry today and that is good. I am very happy that is so and it is burgeoning. In view of that, and this is an honest question, does the member foresee the day coming when such loan guarantees will no longer be required? Is that coming? Is the industry successful enough that in the foreseeable future it will be able to stand on its own?

[Canadian Film Development Corporation Act, May 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my remarks on Bill C-31 will be premised on the assumption that most of us in this Parliament want to do what is best for our country as a whole and for the industries, such as the film and television industries which are a part of that entity.

What is the best role that Parliament can play? My thought is we should try to have the most thorough examination possible of any subject that forms the basis of a bill before the House.

I do wonder if Bill C-31's timetable is going to permit the examination the bill merits. It was tabled on Thursday, May 26. It was announced on Friday last that second reading would be today, Monday, May 30. I found out about it Friday afternoon. I do not think that is too much time to gather the facts on a subject one is not particularly familiar with.

One of the problems the public at large is having with the government and Parliament is the perception that decisions are made behind closed doors, that government with a majority in Parliament can do as it pleases. This House could dispel that impression by bringing things into the open. I am not suggesting there is anything concealed with Bill C-31, but surely more time for consideration would help the debate as well as the public perception of it.

What should be examined in detail is the whole concept of government assistance to industry versus free enterprise. There is a role for government to play, especially regarding start-up industries.

There is, for example, a real lack of venture capital in Canada. The government should not get into the business of providing venture capital, but it should encourage it through taxation rules on capital gains. If the government does get involved with the provision of loans or loan guarantees, it should do so for a strictly limited period of time. No industry that habitually depends on the government for support is going to prosper in the long term.

As we consider the extent to which the Government of Canada guarantees loans, we should be mindful of Canada's deficit and debt situation. With the federal debt at the $500 billion dollar mark the government must send out a signal of fiscal responsibility and a capability and willingness to get things under control. Its signal to date is inadequate. While Bill C-31 is a relatively minor matter, the loan guarantees it proposes exacerbate the government's position on the side of fiscal responsibility.

On the positive side of this bill we note that similar loan guarantee programs exist in several of our provinces. Quebec, Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia all have programs of guarantees. They have experienced a very low rate of default which is good news.

It is also noted that the Canadian Film and Television Production Association and l'Association des producteurs de film et de télévision du Québec both believe this program will be of great benefit to the industry. The government has stated it believes the program should only exist for a short period of time. That is on the positive side of it.

Also on the positive side, there is evidence of real growth in the industry in western Canada. Activity in indigenous Alberta productions has increased by 360 per cent in the last few years. British Columbia has enjoyed similar growth. This increase has come without any federally guaranteed loans. It shows that relationships between the producers and Canadian financial institutions is healthy and is improving. Perhaps this indeed demonstrates there is no longer a need for guaranteed loans.

This House should look closely at what is happening in the industry in western Canada, that the provinces alone are able to furnish the guarantees necessary and that this is having a very positive effect on the industry. It is growing and succeeding. Why then do we have to keep coming in with federal government intervention?

The other concern I would voice, but on the positive side concerns co-operation interprovincially and internationally. There are joint production efforts going on between the provinces and between our country and others. This also is a sign of success. That is where we should allow the industry to capitalize on its success and go in that direction.

If this program goes ahead another concern is the equitable distribution of loan guarantees. This is to be to all of the provinces. I would like to know from the government what process will be used to ensure an equitable distribution if the bill takes effect. If the effect of Bill C-31 is to regionalize the industry, to concentrate more development in Ontario and Quebec as opposed to the development which is going on in the west of Canada then again it is not going to have the effect it should be having. If it is going to regionalize, please let us make sure this regionalization is not concentrated in one area but is spread throughout.

The spokesman for the bill in committee mentioned a promise to get rid of Telefilm as a crown corporation. I would like know from the government what the time schedule is on that and when it thinks it should happen. Also, why was the statement made that Telefilm could eventually be done away with when the

government is doing more now to jack it up with Bill C-31? I do not quite understand that.

In conclusion, I encourage the government to introduce bills such as Bill C-31 with a little more leeway in the timing to allow for more comprehensive preparation for debate. We do agree the government has a role to play in encouraging industry, particularly fledgling industries in Canada. However, it seems to us the role should concentrate on providing appropriate tax incentives rather than loans or loan guarantees.

If in its wisdom and with its majority the government decides to proceed with this bill, we caution it to put a time limit in the bill, a sunset clause as it were, and to ensure that the international financial community fully understands why this temporary assistance to this Canadian industry is needed.

[External Affairs, May 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the fourth anniversary which occurred just last week of the democratic election in Myanmar or Burma. Unfortunately we cannot celebrate this important date because a repressive military regime has not allowed the democratically elected government to take its rightful position.

Calls from the international community, including a petition to the United Nations signed by the majority of members of this House, have fallen on the deaf ears of the ruling junta.

The National League for Democracy won 80 per cent of the seats four years ago, yet its leader remains under House arrest.

On this anniversary we once again call on the Burmese military rulers to release the democratically elected Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, or prime minister, in order that she may participate fully in the shaping of Burma's future in accordance with the will of the Burmese people.

[The Prime Minister, May 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday the Prime Minister refused to answer a serious question about the fate of aboriginal people in a sovereign Quebec.

The Prime Minister called it hypothetical, saying: "If my grandmother had wheels, I would have been a bus. I do not like if, if, if". Yesterday in Calgary in responding to concerns about separation the Prime Minister told the crowd: "If we provide the people of Alberta, if we provide the people of Quebec, if we

provide the people of Canada with good solid work in government-"

I suggest the people of Canada do not like hypothetical answers any better than the Prime Minister enjoys hypothetical questions. Rather than wondering whether he might be a bus, the Prime Minister should be more concerned that he might have missed the bus.