Jim Hart

[Department Of National Defence, September 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence insults those Canadians who have served in the Canadian Armed Forces. He insults those who have died for our country at Dieppe and Vimy Ridge and the battle of Ypres. He insults those who have spent 50 years fighting for peace in our country.

Morale in the Canadian Armed Forces has suffered under this Minister of National Defence and General Boyle. Our forces deserve leadership of the highest calibre. Instead they get unethical conduct driven by a policy authorized by this minister, there is no responsibility, no accountability.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Canadians are calling for the minister and General Boyle to be fired. What is the Prime Minister going to do about it?

[Department Of National Defence, September 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said today that the Minister of National Defence undertook a very difficult task, and indeed he did. The Minister of National Defence, after all, oversaw the policy of containment of access to information documents. General Boyle implemented a policy of containment. The policy was designed to mislead the media, to withhold the information from the public and to destroy key evidence.

Was the Minister of National Defence a pawn or a player in this scheme, or did Boyle do it on his own?

[Point Of Order, June 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I think he is just trying to get extra sandwiches at your reception.

Mr. Speaker, my point of order pertains to comments made in this Chamber on Tuesday, June 18, 1996. The comments were recorded in Hansard on page 4031. The House leader for the separatist Bloc Quebecois, the member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie, then said:

-for having misled the House by making false accusations that called into question the honesty and integrity of the member for Charlesbourg.

The member then went on to demand an apology from me for having brought forth my point of privilege.

It is my understanding that it is unparliamentary language for a member to suggest that another member has misled the House. This morning Mr. Speaker ruled out of order another such accusation from the separatist Bloc Quebecois.

The member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie has impugned my motives and this is reflected in the official record of the proceedings of the Chamber.

I was not present in the House when these unparliamentary words were uttered. This is the first opportunity I have had to respond to bring the matter to your attention.

I refuse to apologize for defending the interests of the country against the people whose sole purpose for being in Ottawa is to desecrate and destroy what Canadians hold so dearly.

For his unparliamentary language, I believe the member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie should be required to withdraw his remarks and apologize for his accusations.

[Somalia Inquiry, June 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence today is deflecting questions regarding General Boyle because he says the open public inquiry will get to the bottom of the matter. I would like to point out that this is a daily open public inquiry for the Canadian public. The Canadian public would appreciate a straight answer from that side of the House.

In the past, the Prime Minister has expressed his confidence in the chief of defence staff. Given the proof that we have seen today that the CDS disobeyed directives from the Privy Council Office and the Minister of National Defence's office, will the Prime Minister now restore confidence in the military and fire the Minister of National Defence and the chief of defence staff?

[Committees Of The House, June 20th, 1996]

Yes, and astonishment. I have a couple of comments and maybe a couple of questions. I would like to answer to the charge by the hon. member that I presented this motion in a partisan or political fashion. I would like to say right here and now that this is one issue that crossed political party lines.

I acted because I was asked to act on behalf of Canadians from coast to coast to coast who phoned, faxed and wrote me letters. They asked me at meetings to do something about this because the government would do nothing about it. That is why I acted and it crossed political boundaries. It went further than that.

Joseph Maingot, who is undoubtedly the expert in Canada on parliamentary procedure, said in his testimony that I did things properly. The reason it went to committee is because I followed the rules given to an opposition member in this House of Commons. I followed the rules on behalf of Canadians and presented the motion in a proper fashion. There was nothing wrong in the way that motion was presented.

I would also like to ask the member for Charlesbourg to explain to this House and to Canadians exactly what the oath of allegiance that our Canadian Armed Forces personnel take means to him. I would like him to keep in mind that 11 Canadian Armed Forces personnel serving in Bosnia were killed. I would like him to be cautious in his answer because there are people who have laid down their lives for this country on the oath of allegiance.

Maybe he could explain why he dared to use the letterhead of the official opposition, Her Majesty's loyal and official opposition, to bring this House into disrepute. He used that letterhead to ask them to consider changing their allegiance.

Finally, I would like to ask the member for Charlesbourg, if it was a normal press release, if it was a normal communique in the course of a member of Parliament's actions, why it did not follow the normal course, which would be to the media? It did not follow that course. It went directly to Canadian Armed Forces bases in the province of Quebec. That is not the normal route for a press release coming from a member of Parliament-

[Committees Of The House, June 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with keen interest to the hon. member for Charlesbourg.

[Young Offenders, June 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the constituents of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt I rise to demand that the federal government stand up and protect the rights of victims from violent young offenders.

It was only a few weeks ago that young offenders hijacked a school bus in my riding and threatened the lives of young students. This week another case of a young offender threatens some people in my riding.

Three years ago a young offender was convicted in the unprovoked shooting murder of 63-year old Edward Francis McDermott. He was convicted under the Young Offenders Act and sentenced to the maximum sentence, a ridiculous three years. The murderer is set to be released and four psychiatrists have testified that he is too dangerous to go back on the streets. The murderer is being described as a psychological time bomb. Crown counsel is trying to get around the Young Offenders Act to keep him in prison.

Penticton crown counsel should not have to find a loophole in the Young Offenders Act to protect society from violent young offenders. The Liberal government should act to make our streets, homes and playgrounds safe. So far it has failed.

[Points Of Order, June 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, a point of order. During question period the Minister

of National Defence asked that I table documents regarding an access to information that I received dated March 15, 1995 regarding the special investigations unit.

I ask for unanimous consent to table the document.

[National Defence, June 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I do have the proof and I will be more than happy to table it.

Yesterday and today the minister stated that he had no proof that the SIU was still conducting covert operations on Canadian civilians. Access to information documents prove that the operations were ordered by the minister's own chief legal adviser, the judge advocate general. The National Defence Act does not allow the SIU to spy on civilians and it did.

Did the minister know that the SIU was ordered to conduct a covert operation on a private citizen? What is he going to do about it today?

[National Defence, June 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the military special investigations unit continues to conduct covert operations, contrary to the Marin recommendations of 1994, recommendations that the Minister of National Defence yesterday said have been followed. However, we have proof that the special investigations unit is still spying on Canadians.

Will the minister explain why on March 15, 1995 the judge advocate general authorized the special investigations unit to spy on a Canadian civilian in direct contravention of the Marin recommendations?