Jim Hart

[Hepatitis C, April 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, what is so disappointing here is that the health minister seems to not care. He just goes back on his own words.

In November he told the Ottawa Citizen that he did not want to see hepatitis C victims spend their lifetime in litigation.

A few weeks ago he said all victims would receive “compassionate and fair and appropriate compensation”. The minister broke those promises, and all the empty sound bites in the world will not change that.

Just when did he sell out on his principles and was it worth it?

[J. R. Shaw, April 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of all Canadians to congratulate J. R. Shaw, chairman and chief executive officer of Shaw Communications, on his induction into the Canadian Business Hall of Fame.

Canada was built by entrepreneurs who with vision, determination and hard work achieved success and built a country. Through their efforts, their products and services they have helped to define us as Canadians both at home and internationally.

J. R. Shaw built a small family business into a true western success story. A diversified Canadian communications company, Shaw provides an electronic link to millions of people through cable television, telecommunications, high speed Internet access, paging, specialty television programming networks, radio, satellite and digital delivery of music. The Shaw name is well known and well respected and is positioned for continued success in the growing and competitive telecommunications market.

This House congratulates J. R. Shaw, a true Canadian entrepreneur.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1998, March 31st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak against Bill C-36, the budget implementation act. I would like to start by giving the House a few reasons for my rejection and my constituents' rejection of the budget implementation act.

The first thing of course is that budgets are more than just numbers. A federal budget is about people and it is an opportunity for the government to express the hopes, dreams and aspirations of the people of Canada through an annual budget.

The budget this year has some hopes, dreams and aspirations in it. Unfortunately it covers only those dreams and hopes of two people, the finance minister who has dreams, hopes and aspirations of being the prime Minister one day, and the Prime Minister who is developing this millennium scholarship fund so that he will never be forgotten in Canadian history.

We can say with certainty that this Prime Minister and this government will never be forgotten by this Canadian public ever for what they have done to the Canadian people when it comes to the dreams, the hopes and the aspirations of those Canadians.

There are several problems and many things wrong with this budget. One problem that was identified by the Reform Party and also by Canadians overwhelmingly is that there is no plan to pay the debt down.

This is a huge problem for Canadians and for any federal government because it takes a huge portion of the federal budget to service that debt.

That is why that is such a problem. That money for servicing the debt could be put into transfers to the provinces for health care, education and programs that really make a difference to Canadians. This government has failed Canadians in that regard.

I conducted a survey in my riding. Ninety-four per cent of those in my riding responded in favour of debt reduction. They said that 20% to 50% of any budget surpluses should be directed in this area. This budget fails to address that issue.

The second point is there is no net tax relief measures in the budget. The Liberals will boast that Canadians will be better off after the budget. That is like jumping from the frying pan into the fire. I have heard it said that to cook a frog put the frog in the pot, put it on the stove and slowly turn up the heat. Before you know it the frog will not jump out of the water. He will just sit there and get cooked. That is what this government is doing with this budget. It is cooking Canadians to the point where we cannot stand the amount of taxes in this country. I will get into that a little later in my remarks today.

The constituents of Okanagan—Coquihalla value some of the programs they get from government. They want a strong health care system. They want a system that will ensure that they can get a decent education. They want a government that will provide vital services like national defence, foreign affairs and a criminal justice system that actually works for law abiding citizens. These are the types of programs for which Canadians are proud to say they pay taxes, for those programs that mean so much to all of us.

What the hardworking people in my riding do not want to see is their tax dollars being wasted on programs that are not essential. The best example of this is the interest we have to pay on the debt as a result of Liberal and Conservative governments time after time living far too high on the hog.

Taxpayers are paying about $45 billion a year just to pay the interest on our national debt. The average taxpayer pays over $21,000 in federal taxes. Roughly one-third of that goes to paying the interest on the debt.

The people of British Columbia in particular are feeling more than a little abused as a result of the taxes they pay. B.C. today has the highest taxes in all of North America. The average family income in British Columbia is approximately $58,000 a year. The average tax bill for those families is approximately $29,000 a year. That is an overwhelming amount of tax for one family to have to pay. While all Canadians need tax relief, it is needed nowhere more than in my province of British Columbia.

The hardworking people in my riding are tired of seeing their tax dollars flow to Ottawa and never return. This government continues to take but puts little back into the province of B.C. Last year transfers from the federal government accounted for only 7.9% of the provincial revenues. That is the lowest in the country.

Other provinces receive much higher amounts from the federal government. For example, 43% of Newfoundland's provincial budget comes from the federal government. For New Brunswick that figure is 45.5%. For Quebec 17.6% comes from federal coffers. The Canadian average is 16.9%. For British Columbians it is at 9.7%. Once again the rest of the country gets the gold and we know xactly what B.C. gets.

This government continues to take from B.C. and does not give back. I will give members an example. Fruit growers in my riding have experienced this firsthand. In 1997 orchardists in the Okanagan and Similkameen valleys were devastated by the worst hail storm in 100 years and other severe weather related disasters. Fruit growers sought immediate assistance under the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act, to no avail.

The minister of agriculture blamed the banks when in fact the orchardists and the people of British Columbia knew it was not a problem with the banks, it was a problem with the federal Liberal government.

In contrast, it took less than one month for the maple syrup producers affected by the ice storm to begin receiving compensation. In fact, a new program called the ice storm recovery program was designed to provide an additional $50 million for part time farmers, specifically meeting the conditions of these producers.

B.C. fruit growers, on the other hand, waited almost a year and are still waiting while the producers in central Canada wait less than a month. Where is the fairness? Where is the equality in a system like that?

Another problem in my riding and in British Columbia is in the softwood lumber industry. The industry is in serious difficulty because of the federal Liberal government's mishandling of the export quota system. In 1995 the Liberals struck a softwood lumber deal with the Americans. They say they made the deal to ensure fair treatment of our lumber products being exported to the U.S.

What the Liberals actually did was put themselves of telling every Canadian lumber firm, no matter how big or how small, how much lumber they can export to the U.S. As a result of this bureaucratic nightmare it has cost my province and my riding jobs in that softwood lumber industry. That is not good enough from this government and we want to change that.

I see my time is running out. There are so many things that are wrong with the government's handling of the budget but I will not have time to address them all. However, I would like to close with the millennium scholarship fund.

The focus of the budget should have been debt reduction and on tax relief. The constituents of my riding said so and Canadians from coast to coast said so. Instead, the focus has been on new spending in a sphere of provincial jurisdiction, the $2.5 billion scholarship fund.

Perhaps the biggest flaw in the new millennium scholarship fund is its abuse of the Constitution. The government continues to abuse its constitutional spending power by spending without consultation and without co-operation in the provincial areas of jurisdiction.

I started off this afternoon saying that budgets are about people and should be about people, about dreams, about hopes and about aspirations. They should be about a government that has a vision that is going to carry us into a new era in the year 2000. However, this budget fails to do that. This budget should have been about young people who are looking for their first job, about young people and young families who want to buy their first homes, about single mothers who are trying to make end meets and for the future of Canada.

I would argue that the government has let those people down. That is why I am proud to stand opposed to the budget implementation act, Bill C-36.

[Agriculture, March 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the constituents of Okanagan—Coquihalla to express my concerns over this Liberal government's double standard when it comes to the issue of federal aid for Canadian farmers.

The 1997 fruit growers in Okanagan and Similkameen valleys were devastated by hail and other weather related disasters. The B.C. government sought help for the farmers affected by these disasters through a cost sharing program with the federal government like the new B.C. whole farm insurance program. This government continues to stonewall.

After the central Canada ice storm it took less than a month for the federal government to give aid to the maple syrup producers. Orchardists in British Columbia have been waiting almost a year.

The rules determining which farmers qualify for federal disaster relief assistance should be the same for all Canadians and should not be based on what part of the country they live in. The Liberal government must end this double standard today and announce financial aid for B.C. fruit growers.

[Criminal Code, March 30th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, it is always interesting and entertaining to listen to the Liberal backbenchers explain to Canadians on behalf of bureaucrats and deputy ministers of the government why a good idea cannot go forward.

I rise on behalf of the constituents of Okanagan—Coquihalla to speak to Bill C-211, an act to amend the Criminal Code as it applies to the arresting and detaining of individuals who breach their condition of parole or statutory or temporary release.

I am proud to say I do this because my constituents have asked me to do it. Indeed Canadians from coast to coast to coast have witnessed problems with the parole system in their areas. This is a serious problem and the Government of Canada insists on saying that the status quo is fine and everything is okay. I am here to say that it is not fine. It is not okay. Things have to be changed.

I congratulate the member from Langley—Abbotsford for introducing to the House this very important piece of legislation. The bill does what the parole system fails to do. It takes steps to ensure the safety and security of all Canadians. I would like to ask government members and people watching today who the parole system is for. We will hear the government argue today that it is for people who commit crimes, people who have violated our codes and our laws. I will put forward a different argument today. I will put forward the view of grassroots average Canadians.

As members of Parliament it is our duty to provide citizens with a safe environment for them to raise a family, to feel secure when their children are playing at a local playground, to have them go to school, to walk the dog at night, to go to a grocery store or to visit a shopping mall. This is what Canadians want from the government. This is the reason behind such legislation as the Criminal Code, Corrections and Conditional Release Act and government agencies like Correctional Service Canada and the National Parole Board.

Bill C-211 will do two things. First, it will amend the Criminal Code by making a breach of condition of parole or statutory or temporary release an indictable offence. This means that the police will have the ability to arrest without warrant a parolee who the police believe on reasonable grounds—that is very important—to be in breach or about to breach conditions of parole.

Second, the bill will amend the Criminal Code by giving the parole board the power, following the arrest of an offender, to release him or to ask a judge to keep him in custody until a warrant is issued.

Almost weekly Canadians are subjected to news concerning parolees who commit unspeakable acts of violence. In my home town of Summerland, British Columbia, just this past year there was a tragic murder of a mother and a grandmother which sent shockwaves through a community that had not had a murder in over a decade.

Kevin Machell, on September 5 of last year, was on day parole and failed to report to his Calgary halfway house. Authorities of Correctional Service Canada did not issue a warrant until some 24 hours after his failure to report. The normal policy of Correctional Service Canada on such tardiness with respect to halfway houses is that action be taken within 10 minutes to one hour. No one will deny, even Correctional Service Canada, that was not done. Why? We do not know. The system is broken and has to be fixed.

The inaction by officials of Correctional Service Canada gave Machell the time he needed to drive to Summerland, British Columbia, and allegedly murder his estranged wife and her mother in front of their two preschool children aged 2 and 4, witnesses to this heinous crime.

The event is made even worse by the fact that the victim had obtained a restraining order against Machell and had written the National Parole Board asking to be told of a change in status for Kevin William Machell. The victim was not notified and remained unaware of Machell's escape until it was too late.

The events leading up to this horrific event call into question the entire parole system, Correctional Service Canada and its policy toward parolee violations and the failure of the National Parole Board and Correctional Service Canada to inform the victim of Machell's escape. Correctional Service Canada failed the victim in this case and it has failed Canadians time and time again.

Machell had in the past made threats on the victim's life. These threats of violence had been taken seriously enough by the B.C. supreme court that it issued a restraining order against Machell, yet Correctional Service Canada made no attempt to inform the potential victims, who turned out to be the murder victims, of Machell's disappearance.

Why was this potentially violent criminal given the opportunity to even be out on parole? This heinous crime could have been prevented in so many ways. The lines of communication were obviously blurred or flawed between Alberta and British Columbia and of course the third link, Correctional Service Canada. The victim should have been notified and she was not.

Machell was on the loose for 24 hours before a warrant was issued for his arrest. Under the current law, even if Machell would have been stopped in Alberta, maybe on just a routine check by police officers, the police could not have detained him. What kind of parole system do we have when even if he was an absentee, he was tardy from his half-way house, and stopped in the province of Alberta on the highway, they could not have detained him?

Bill C-211 would change that. It should be changed. There is no reason for this not to go forward.

Liberals defend the justice system time and time again. They pretend it is working just fine the way it is. They want the status quo. They say it is their priority to protect citizens, yet they are ignoring Canadians who want tougher justice laws and rules and they are ignoring the facts. They ignore the fact that 30% of federal inmates reoffend with a significant proportion of those offences being violent. They ignore the fact that convicted criminals seldom serve the prison time they are given. According to the National Parole Board even the most violent offenders serve on average only about half their time. They ignore the fact that in the past 35 years violent crime has increased 350%.

Canadians are sick and tired of the government's lack of action toward criminals and toward crime. They want a justice system that puts their rights ahead of the criminals. They want a system that will ensure parole is limited, earned and tightly monitored.

Last September I introduced a motion in the House that instructs the government to adopt a zero tolerance policy concerning parolees' unexplained tardiness in reporting to their half-way houses. This motion will instruct Correctional Service Canada to automatically issue a Canada-wide warrant for parolees who are more than 10 minutes late to their half-way houses and will make it a priority of the correctional service to immediately notify those who are in danger due to a parolee's absence.

At the start of this intervention I asked the House, and I asked Canadians, who is the parole system for? The government and the bureaucrats would stand to defend it and say it is for the likes of Kevin Machell who violated his parole. The answer that my constituents and all Canadians are telling the government today is that is not the case, that the parole system should put the victims of crime first.

Cecilia and Tammy Grono were murdered. Two pre-school children now do not have a mother or a grandmother. The system should be for law-abiding citizens of this country, not for those people who have violated the laws of this country and have shown that they have disdain for the laws and good order. This bill will accomplish that.

This bill is a good piece of legislation that should go forward today and I urge all members of the House to support my friend and colleague from Langley—Abbotsford in passing Bill C-211.

[Starred Question, March 23rd, 1998]

With regard to the Canadian forces: ( a ) what preparations has the government undertaken to ensure their integrity during and after a secession attempt; and ( b ) what policies, procedures and regulations has the Deaprtment of National Defence prepared to guide its members during a future referendum or negotiations?

[Reserve Force Act, March 23rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank all members who participated in this debate on Bill C-232, an act to enhance the participation of the Canadian Armed Forces reserve.

In particular I would like to thank the government members for coming here with the notes of deputy ministers of various departments telling us why the federal government should not enhance or encourage members of the federal government to participate in the reserve force. This is one of the problems.

I think one of the government members who spoke here today basically has talked to bureaucrats and has talked to deputy ministers but did not get into the grassroots, did not talk with the reservists themselves.

I am very proud to stand in this House and say that I served five years in the regular force and five years in the reserve force of the Canadian Armed Forces. These problems that this bill will address are real. These problems are becoming more and more evident with the policies of this government. In 1993 when this government took over in its white paper it reduced the regular force to some 60,000. This government was on track to reserve the reserve force. All the while our international commitments and commitments domestically are increasing.

The arguments the government put up today are not reasonable. The argument stating this would not allow people in the reserve to go out on UN peacekeeping missions is pure balderdash. This is basically saying that the reservists are unable to get the training to even apply for that international commitment at this point because the federal government is thwarting their ability to apply for those courses. The government is saying no and if it does say, they have to use their own personal leave.

It does not prevent them from applying for a peacekeeping mission for 10 to 12 months. Granted, other arrangements would have to be made with an employer, because this is not job protection legislation. This is only to ensure they get their training to enable them to apply for other missions, to serve our country.

This bill will address the enhancement of the Canadian Armed Forces to more than just unemployed people and students. It will open the forces up to a wide variety of people with different skills that will bring a new meaning to the term citizen soldier. This will bring new skills and abilities and it will also address another very important issue in the white paper of 1994 by this Liberal government, a mobilization plan.

The minister of the day outlined a mobilization plan with four strategic ways to expand our force if needed. None of those commitments have been met. This bill addresses it because whatever mobilization plan we have in this country, we will require trained and capable armed forces personnel and they will have to be made up partly with reservists.

No, this bill does not discriminate against reservists. There are discrimination laws in this country. A pregnant woman cannot be discriminated against, and neither can a reservist. That is a basic principle in this country.

Those arguments that have been put forward have blinders on to the facts. We have a Canadian Armed Forces that is declining in numbers, a reserve force that needs training and training time.

We have international and domestic commitments that are increasing on a yearly basis, almost on a daily basis, yet this Liberal government has failed to do anything for those people and for the state of the Canadian Armed Forces.

In closing, with those arguments and because we have heard today in this debate that we have support in principle from the Conservative Party, we have support from the Reform Party, we have support in principle from the New Democratic Party and, by the sound of the Liberal speakers and the notes they got from their bureaucrats to argue against this bill, there was even a hint of support in principle from those people, I would say, for goodness sake, let us not stand in the way of progress. Let us move this bill to the next level, send it to committee and get all of these details ironed out there.

I would therefore move again that Bill C-232 be deemed votable by the House.

[Reserve Force Act, March 23rd, 1998]

moved that Bill C-232, an act to facilitate participation in the reserve force, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the people of Okanagan—Coquihalla to speak to my private member's Bill C-232, the citizen soldier act. This bill will entitle employees of the federal government to a period of leave not exceeding two months annually for the purpose of training in the Canadian Armed Forces reserve. This legislation does not affect the private sector and private sector employers.

The question of legislating employers to allow training time for reservists with full time employment has been a contentious issue for some time now and, in particular, since the increased contributions in military activity since the early 1980s.

In response to the problem a national organization called the Canadian Armed Forces Liaison Council was designed. It was first established in 1978 with a goal that was not aggressive enough to accomplish its mandate of bringing more employers into agreement with allowing reservists to participate in the Canadian Armed Forces reserve.

In 1992 it was reorganized, given its present name and a new, more challenging mandate. The Canadian forces liaison council's mandate not only includes promoting reserves to the business community, but also advances reservists' concerns to business and works directly with employers in the area of recruitment.

The Canadian forces liaison council has been very successful. More than 3,000 employers have indicated their support of the reserve force in writing, including more than 1,700 who have adopted a military leave policy.

Some employers also pay the difference between military and civilian pay and other employers are even giving two additional weeks' leave for courses in the reserve.

I acknowledge that the Canadian forces liaison council has done a wonderful job. However, its role has been limited to the private sector and there is room for improvement, in particular when it comes to the need for the federal government to take a leadership role in allowing its employees to participate in reserve training.

This first came to my attention in 1994 when the then chief of defence staff, General John de Chastelain, appeared before the special joint committee reviewing Canada's defence policy.

When I posed a question to the chief of the defence staff on this issue he told the committee that the federal government was the worst offender in allowing training time for reservists.

Again in 1995, after the report on restructuring the reserves was presented to the Minister of National Defence and then to the House committee on defence and veterans affairs, I asked the members of the commission, the three commissioners, again to confirm whether or not the federal government was playing a proactive role in allowing reservists the training time they required to participate in the Canadian Armed Forces. Again they agreed with me that the Government of Canada, the federal government, the largest employer in our nation, was not in fact promoting reserve friendly policies in office protocol.

There it is. A contradiction exists. On the one hand the government encourages private sector employers to have their employees participate in reserve training through the Canadian forces liaison council. On the other hand, public service employees are not receiving that same encouragement. Bill C-232 addresses that discrepancy.

When surveying different defence associations across the country about my bill, I received a letter from Lieutenant Colonel D.W. Wright, representing the Royal Canadian Armoured Corps Association. He said that the Government of Canada has provided for limited military leave within the Public Service Staff Relations Act. Employees are permitted to receive a leave of absence for military duty and may elect to receive either their government salary or their military per diem.

He goes on to say that, unfortunately, the regulation is permissive rather than directive and most often thwarted by supervisors who exercise the ultimate discretion.

I will repeat that because it is very important and very disturbing for people who wish to serve their country through the reserve force. He said that the policy is most often thwarted by supervisors in the federal government who exercise the ultimate discretion. Therefore that means the reservists must devote their annual holidays which they have earned through their work with the federal government to meet their training obligations.

It is with this poor record of the federal government in mind that I introduced Bill C-232. This bill does not attempt to supersede the fine work done by the Canadian forces liaison council in the Canadian business community.

The Minister of National Defence, through the Canadian forces liaison council, would still be able to negotiate with private sector employers training time for private sector reservists. This bill does not affect them in any way, shape or form. What it does is directly attempt to address the poor record of the federal government when it comes to reserve training. With Bill C-232 I hope to accomplish three fundamental things: one, to enhance participation in the Canadian Armed Forces reserve; two, to ensure reservists receive the training required for effective augmentation of the regular forces; and third, to lay the groundwork for a national mobilization plan for Canada.

Participation in the reserves can benefit employers tenfold. Through their part time military experience reservists acquire many skills that are transferable to their jobs, including leadership, discipline and loyalty. Often reservists acquire special technical skills which they can use in their specific trade or profession in their civilian life.

Many employers have discovered the tremendous value of reserve training and education as their employees become more productive, more capable and highly motivated. All they ask in return from their employer is to train and upgrade through their military qualifications.

In the past few years Canadians have had the opportunity to examine firsthand the role reservists play domestically and internationally. I thought I would take just a few moments to talk about those instances.

Most recently, of course, the ice storm in eastern Canada required the deployment of some 4,000 reservists to the provinces of Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick to assist in humanitarian relief.

Similarly, last year's floods in the Red River Valley required the deployment of some 500 reservists.

On the international scene, 800 UN peacekeepers, or 20% of Canada's entire UN commitment during the UNPROFOR mission in Yugoslavia were reservists, part time soldiers, citizen soldiers.

In 1993 it is interesting to note that Canadian soldiers fought their biggest battle since the Korean war. The battle in the Medak pocket pitted Canadian personnel and French troops against the war-hardened Croatian army. More than half of that proud troop was made up of citizen soldiers, reservists from the militia in Canada.

The Canadians won the battle. It was a true success for our Canadian Armed Forces, for reservists and for the total force operation.

Reservists continue to play an important role in the Canadian Armed Forces as part of the total force. They serve with distinction domestically and internationally and remain a vital link between the Canadian military and society at large.

The federal government, as Canada's largest employer, should create an environment where individuals can explore service in the reserves and serve their country. For example, militia units generally are made up with over 60% of their soldiers being either students, seasonal workers or unemployed persons. These soldiers have very few problems when it comes to finding the necessary time to train. However, once the militia reservist has finished their schooling and finds a full time job, the reality is that their priorities change. They tend to quit the reserves, quit the militia unit, and go into civilian life. They see this option as being easier than juggling their lives to ensure time for work, friends and the militia. These soldiers, in a way, are being punished for trying to keep a regular job and a regular life while trying to serve the government and Canada as well.

This bill is designed to enhance participation in the reserve from all walks of life, not just from the ranks of students and the unemployed. The federal government must take a leading role in facilitating participation in the Canadian Armed Forces reserve. As an employer, government departments and agencies can help individuals balance their careers with a desire to serve their country.

This attitude will filter down to smaller private sector employers. This is a very important point. One of the reasons for this bill is leadership by example. We want the federal government to do what the federal government is asking the private sector to do through the Canadian Armed Forces liaison council.

This will have two dramatic impacts. First, many working Canadians will have the opportunity to consider serving their country part time in the reserves. Second, the reserves and the armed forces in general will benefit from the new pool of skilled tradesmen and people with new abilities entering the Canadian Armed Forces.

Bill C-232 will entitle employees of the federal government a period not exceeding two months annually for training or service in the reserves. I will talk for a moment about the two month period which I have suggested. It is a length of time not to exceed two months.

I picked the two month period because the first training course a reservist must take is the general military training course. It is commonly referred to as recruit training. Some of us would call it boot camp. It is an eight week course and new recruits must successfully complete the course in order to continue service in the militia.

Reservists may receive their recruit training on weekends. Usually it is over an extended period of time, about six months in length. They have to attend recruit training every weekend, or it is offered on an eight week summer course.

Many people interested in serving with the reserves have been unable to commit to the eight week period during the summer, especially when they are employed full time. Some are unable to give up their weekends for a six month period. Others cannot get permission from their employers to take the summer course. Therefore service in the reserves is not an option for these people at this time.

Bill C-232 will enable employees of the federal government and crown corporations to take the initial eight week recruit training course. This will open up the reserve option to many working Canadians who previously could not take that course.

This does not mean that the reservists will want a two month training period every year. In fact reservists would not even have the opportunity to take two months a year. They would still have to apply for a course. They would have to meet a certain criteria. Most of the courses available to the reserves are not eight weeks in duration. In fact the normal period is about two weeks and that is why in my bill I specifically say up to an eight week period.

There are essentially three types of reserve service. Class a is a part time status which involves working one or two nights at the local community armoury and working on some weekends. Training cannot consist of more than 12 full consecutive days. Class b and class c services involve longer periods of continuous reserve employment.

The important point to note is that except for the initial training course most other training and specialty courses are two weeks in duration.

Another important point in my bill is forced generation. If Canada is realistically to look at the mobilization plan outlined in the 1994 white paper, a policy such as this one would have to be put in place.

I would ask for unanimous consent of the House for Bill C-232 to be votable.

[National Defence Act, March 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would have the same independence as we are suggesting with an inspector general. The system the minister has proposed is about patronage appointments, order in council appointments. Appointments would be given to friends of the Liberal government across the way. Those people I suppose with a stretch we could say are independent, just as much as the Liberal senator from B.C. who was appointed has independence from the Liberal government. There is no independence.

The structure in the bureaucracy would involve military people and civilian people who are connected either through the chain of command or through the bureaucracy on the civilian side of the Canadian Armed Forces.

To answer the member's question, I fail to see how the government's solution offers the security of independence at all. I would strongly urge the government to reconsider this very fundamental point that there be independence in a justice system. I strongly urge the government when we put our amendment forward to wholeheartedly accept the amendment of installing an independent inspector general.

[National Defence Act, March 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question. Unfortunately, under the test of independence that I would certainly apply, there does not seem to be the independence we would like to see that an independent inspector general would provide for the Canadian Armed Forces.

One of the reasons for the independence requirement as I mentioned during my remarks is that in one recent case a military person was actually intimidated by the judge advocate general's office.

We need the independence to make sure that the office will not interfere with the military structure whatsoever and that it will act as an ombudsman for people in the military structure, either family members in the military, the military personnel themselves or civilian members of the Canadian Armed Forces who are involved with the military.

That is what we mean by independence. There would be no connection whatsoever and they would have investigative power to investigate complaints. It would be similar to a provincial ombudsman role.

There is evidence around the world that an independent inspector general is very effective. The United States armed services has an inspector general. Millions of dollars in fraudulent expenditures, et cetera have been uncovered in the armed forces internally. People who have been intimidated by the chain of command or by other forces in the armed forces structure itself have been helped.

Independence is very important. The government's reaction to this does not meet the test of independence. Therefore I would suggest that we would be putting forward amendments that will see a true independent inspector general in the new military justice system.