Bob Ringma

[Restoration Of Death Penalty Act, April 15th, 1996]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-261, an act to require a referendum on the restoration of the death penalty and to amend the Referendum Act.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to introduce a private member's bill calling for a binding national referendum on reinstatement of capital punishment.

For too long, in fact forever, Canadians have been shut out of the debate process where this issue is concerned. Through the use of a referendum this bill would allow Canadians a say on whether the Criminal Code should be amended to include the death penalty as a sentencing option for persons who are convicted of first degree murder.

Critics will note on reading the bill that it does not ask them to vote for or against reinstatement of capital punishment. Instead it asks simply that MPs allow Canadians to make the final determination in this respect.

I also want to thank my constituents of Nanaimo-Cowichan. It was they who voted overwhelmingly by a margin of 919 to 104 for this initiative to be brought before the House which it is today. I believe this sentiment to be an accurate reflection of the support in rest of Canada for the bill. As such, and in closing, I ask colleagues on both sides of the House to support the bill when it comes before them. More important, I urge members of the subcommittee-

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[The Constitution, April 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how much Canadians will be cheered by that 1987 response.

The intergovernmental affairs minister has also said that Quebec's racist bill 101, the language law in Quebec, and I quote him: "A great Canadian law and is liberal in many ways."

In many ways inclusion of distinct society has the legal potential to allow for policies which will take away from the rights of Canadians. I ask the minister if the inclusion of a distinct society clause is necessary, what measures will the government take to ensure that the clause will not undermine the equality of all Canadians?

[The Constitution, April 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in welcoming the intergovernmental affairs minister to his seat, I note that some time ago he indicated that a distinct society clause in the Constitution would not confer special status on Quebec and I quote: "It is an insult to suggest Quebecers would use the clause to trample minority rights".

Canadians familiar with Quebec's oppressive language laws fear a distinct society clause would be used to further the exclusionary policies of separatists.

For the benefit of Canadians, will the minister clarify his intentions about including a distinct society clause in the Constitution?

[Somalia Inquiry, March 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, then we have other problems. As a former member of the armed forces like the member himself who just spoke, I can tell this government a thing or two about leadership, honesty, integrity and responsibility.

The Minister of National Defence cannot keep blaming his subordinates for the chaos in the department. He is the Minister of National Defence. Documents were altered. Unlawful orders were given and cover-ups happened on the minister's watch.

If the minister is not willing to take full responsibility for the chaos in the Department of National Defence, will the government, the Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister demand his resignation?

[Somalia Inquiry, March 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I take that then as an admission of guilt, shall we call it.

Let us go over the facts one more time. At the written request of CBC Radio the information commissioner investigated allegations that the Department of National Defence tampered with documents. It was at his initiation. Yesterday however the minister said it was the defence department that went to the information commissioner and that is false, false, false.

I ask the government again, why did the defence minister say what he said?

[Somalia Inquiry, March 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the defence minister told this House that his department initiated the information commissioner's investigation into DND's document tampering. That is just not true. According to the deputy information commissioner, the investigation was launched at the specific request of CBC radio.

I ask the government, why did the defence minister mislead this House?

[National Unity, March 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals promised Canadians a say on national unity. This means they will put a vague unity package to a referendum or call an election seeking a mandate to negotiate a deal with Quebec. Those approaches are unacceptable to Canadians as they use the buy now, pay later approach which sank the "Charlatan" accord.

However, from April 1 to 30 people in my riding of Nanaimo-Cowichan will have a say in our country's future.

Tele-vote '96 on National Unity allows residents to vote on proposals outlining the basis for a renewed confederation and a federal bargaining position if Quebec attempts to separate. Answers from constituents will form my position on these matters in Parliament.

Starting today, constituents will receive a householder in the mail providing details of Tele-vote '96. Starting April 2, I will be door knocking and holding town hall meetings because this April the voters in Nanaimo-Cowichan count for Canada.

[National Defence, March 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it was not the Department of National Defence nor the minister who went outside for this information. It was Mr. McAuliffe of the CBC. This is pretty important stuff. What the information commissioner wrote yesterday about the destruction and alteration of documents in national defence strikes to the heart of our system not just in national defence but in government.

The Somalia commissioners must be able to trust the documents they receive from the Department of National Defence. The media relies on access to information to do its job, as do members of Parliament and Canadians across the country.

The minister's mismanagement of his department has placed this whole trust in jeopardy. He is responsible for his officials. He has had clear warning of the problems. Will he resign?

[National Defence, March 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, let us re-examine the situation regarding the Minister of National Defence and this whole incident about destroying documents. Look at the timing.

This cover-up first came to light in October 1995. At that time the minister said to the House: "As soon as we get to know why this happened, we will certainly make it public". We had all that time. The minister has not made it public. We have to learn the details of this whole thing from an outside agency and still do not know what the minister has done to punish the offenders and correct the problem.

Instead he is once again burying his failures under a cloak of closed door administrative action. Documents are destroyed and altered and the minister continues to cover up.

Will he take the responsibility required here and resign in order to restore public confidence?

[Somalia, March 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the shredding of Somalia documents by officers at national defence is further evidence of cover-up but this is only the latest incident to plague the defence minister.

February: The minister describes his chief of staff's pronouncement that Canada is not prepared to fight as "consistent with government policy".

January: Somalia investigator has files stolen and is threatened with action for charging that generals who impeded the investigation acted inappropriately. Somalia commission expresses concern that DND lawyers were intimidating potential witnesses.

April 1995: Public affairs director general breaks the minister's gag order to disparage a confidential autopsy report.

March 1995: The minister replaces the Somalia commissioner Anne Doyle because of conflict of interest charges saying he should have been better informed.

January 1995: Video shows airborne soldiers making racist remarks to Somalis and engaging in hazing rituals. The defence minister ignores advice from officials and disbands the regiment in an act of political expediency.