Jim Hart

[Petitions, December 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from 75 constituents.

They call upon Parliament to reduce the federal deficit by reducing government spending and by refraining from any form of tax increase.

[Petitions, December 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have five petitions to present today.

The first petition is on behalf of 400 of my constituents from Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt and from people across the country.

They call on Parliament to preserve Canadian unity and parliamentary tradition and to protect the rights of all people of Canada by prevailing upon the Speaker of the House of Commons to recognize the Reform Party as the official opposition during the remainder of the 35th Parliament of Canada.

[Bankruptcy And Insolvency Act, December 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise on behalf of the people of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt to speak in support of Bill C-323, an act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (order of discharge).

I begin my remarks by congratulating my Reform Party caucus colleague, the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby, on the fine job he has done in bringing this legislative proposal forward for the consideration of the House. In my view, all members of the House should be quick to rally in support of this bill.

Very simply, the changes to the bankruptcy laws being proposed by my colleague would prevent persons from declaring bankruptcy in order to escape paying civil damages for an assault or battery they have been found to have committed by a Canadian court. Clearly, Canadians want the members of the House to support changes in our laws that will protect the victims of crime in our society.

Canadians have demanded measures that will address the damage done by violence in our homes, our streets and our playgrounds. We on this side of the House were elected on a mandate to bring changes to the criminal justice system. The wave of support for the Reform Party of Canada which swept across the west in the last election is based on the demand by the Canadian electorate for changes in the way our society deals with crime and, in particular, violent crime.

I take this opportunity to give fair warning to the Liberals that this wave of support for the Reform Party of Canada will sweep across the nation in the next federal election. I have no doubt about it.

The efforts of my colleague will not go unnoticed by Canadians. He has introduced a private member's bill which seeks to add civil damages awarded in respect of an assault or battery to the debts listed in the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act which cannot be released by the act. Again, I congratulate my fellow British Columbian for his efforts on behalf of all Canadians and the Reform Party of Canada.

Canadians know that the Liberals have proposed changes to the bankruptcy laws of our country. Canadians are aware of the gutless and poor legislation the Liberal Minister of Industry has presented in the House. In true Liberal Party fashion the government is ramming the changes to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act through the House on a fast track like it has with so many other bills.

Bill C-109, the weak and cowardly Liberal government changes to our country's bankruptcy laws, was introduced and read for the first time on November 24, 1995. It was read the second time on November 28, 1995. That is four days later, for the Liberals across the floor who are counting the days on their calendars. Bill C-109 will become another bright light on the Christmas tree of Liberal red book broken promises. Bill C-109 will be rocketed through the House like a missile, with no debate, or as little as possible, no amendments, no regrets and no apologies.

Bill C-96 creates a new department for the federal government. The creation of a new department is a far cry from the demands of Canadians to reduce the size of government. The new department is exempt from having to submit an annual report. The books are being hidden by the Liberals.

Bill C-101 is another bill debated in the House. It was a collection of weak and ineffective changes to the Railway Act. That bill was so far from what stakeholders in the industry wanted that it was worthless.

Bill C-107 was another great debate for the Liberals. It was cast in stone. It could not be changed, not one word. There was nothing to debate. The Liberals passed it in a matter of days, patted each other on the back and congratulated the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for all the hard work he had done to steer the bill through the House.

Canadians are absolutely amazed by Bill C-62. It is so seriously flawed the Liberal minister is scrambling to make changes to the bill even before it gets sent to committee.

If the Liberals care to pay any attention to my warning of their fate in the next election then they should endorse my colleague's bill. Bill C-323 will go a long way in fighting violent crime in our society. The victims of these crimes need the resources it takes to recover from the violence that has been committed against them. The perpetrators of these violent acts are using the country's bankruptcy laws as a convenient tool to get away with their crimes.

Do the Liberals really want to be known as the political party that stands 100 per cent in support of the segment of society that uses violence as a response to events in their lives? Do the Liberals really want to be known as the political party having the guts to stand up to the perpetrators of violence? Or do members of the House want to be known for saying to perpetrators of violence: "You cannot hurt someone and just walk away". This has to be said to those who beat up on women, to those who punch smaller persons, to those who sexually violate another human being, including children.

That is what Bill C-323 is asking us to do. It is asking us to deal with bullies. It is asking us to stand up for those who have been hit by a bully. This is elementary. This bill is trying to put on the statute books something that we all learned in the school yard.

The Liberals have already chosen not to do what this bill is asking. I hope that people watching me right now will pick up a pen and write down on a piece of paper Bill C-323, then go to their phone book, look up the phone number of their Liberal member of Parliament and phone him or her. Tell them that you want to register your vote as a yes for Bill C-323 on your behalf. This is to make sure that bullies are punished.

I am willing to put politics aside on this one. We need to protect the people in society who have been victims of violence. We are talking about violent acts which have been proven to be committed. Courts have decided how much the person perpetrating the violence owes the victim. The aggressor laughs at the court order, declares bankruptcy and walks away from the terrible damage done by the violent action. The victim who is probably already paying high medical bills, losing time off work or is being affected in any number of sad, tragic ways, can do nothing. They are stripped of their ability to recover because some smart lawyer has figured out a way to exonerate the client from having to pay for an act of violence.

I cannot believe that on behalf of my constituents I am standing here today and literally begging the Liberals to listen. I am asking them, on humanitarian grounds, to support something that is so basic that any Canadian with an ounce of morals or integrity would support it.

Most Canadians would be surprised to know that those committing violent acts can get off scot free through the bankruptcy laws. Any self-respecting Canadian would say: "Let's put a stop to that today".

Canadians cannot believe that the Liberals ignored the chance to do something about this situation with the proposed changes to the bankruptcy laws. The Reform Party's private member bill, C-323, has been on the Order Paper since last spring. The Liberals knew it existed. They chose not to include this idea in their amending bill introduced just last month. This is shameful. This is embarrassing. Canadians are very disappointed.

I am the national defence critic for the Reform Party of Canada. I have served in the Canadian Armed Forces. As a matter of fact I am still on the supplementary reserve list.

The Canadian Armed Forces is famous throughout the world for standing up to bullies. We did this for 30 years in Cyprus. We are peacekeepers. We are known for having a fair and just society. We are admired for our willingness to take our notion of right and wrong to virtually every corner of the planet and assist in keeping peace, preventing bullies from hitting on people and getting away with it.

I am proud to support Bill C-323. The Reform Party of Canada is proud of my colleague's bill. The people of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, whom I represent, are proud to have me speak in favour of the bill.

[Food And Drugs Act, December 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on October 6, 1995 I asked the Minister of National Defence a question pertaining to the week of revelations at the Department of National Defence. During the week of revelations it had been discovered that senior officials at NDHQ altered docu-

ments. The punishment: the department was instructed to investigate itself.

Further evidence revealed that Lieutenant-Colonel Kenward destroyed evidence and obstructed justice. His punishment: he was promoted.

Yet more evidence showed that Colonel Labbé uttered unlawful commands. His punishment: he was put in charge of the army staff college to teach leadership.

In our parliamentary democracy we have what is called ministerial responsibility. It is the minister's responsibility to know what is going on in his department and to take responsibility for the actions of his subordinates.

I pointed this out to the minister. I said that he must have had these events on file. I asked him why he waited so long to act.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence stood on behalf of the minister. He said that he was disappointed that I would dare to ask a question pertaining to ministerial responsibility. Then he told the House something that all Canadians have known for a long time, that the government was so terribly open it was opaque.

According to The Concise Oxford Dictionary , seventh edition, opaque means not transmitting light, not transparent, obscure, obtuse and dull witted. I admire the parliamentary secretary's honesty. This is one instance where a member of the government was not obscure. I hope the Liberal whip was easy on him. He has been unforgiving with other Liberal members of Parliament who speak their minds.

Being pleased with the parliamentary secretary's openness, I asked him if the actions revealed that week were considered examples of good leadership. Sadly the parliamentary secretary went back to normal Liberal tactics. His answer was obscure. He said he did not like the tenor of my question and that he personally had called for the Somalia inquiry while in opposition.

This was all fine and good but he failed to answer the question that Canadians demanded to be answered. I then informed the parliamentary secretary that it was the Reform Party that called for an open inquiry. The parliamentary secretary would have been satisfied with a cloudy internal investigation. He did not protest the minister's attempts to make the inquiry opaque.

Canadians are extremely dissatisfied with the mismanagement of the Minister of National Defence. Whether it is the evidence of cover-ups or the procurement of the minister's gold plated pens, Canadians are demanding change. Since our parliamentary system is based on ministerial responsibility, I asked the minister to resign.

At this point the right hon. Prime Minister intervened. He talked about his personal support for our soldiers. This was not just opaque; it was pure balderdash.

The Prime Minister has been in the House for 30 years. Where was he during unification? Where was he in 1969 when the budget reduced the army from 45,000 to 25,000 and the militia from 24,000 to 13,500? Where was he during the civilianization of the armed forces? Where was he when the regimental system was under assault?

He was a senior official in the Trudeau government on the military dismantlement team.

Regarding Lieutenant-Colonel Kenward and Colonel Labbé, the minister had these reports on file with respect to these events. I ask the parliamentary secretary again why the minister waited so long before he acted. Does the minister consider the actions of these senior officials to be examples of good leadership?

[The Balkans, December 4th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member mentioned the length of time. As we all know, NATO has said this is a one-year mission, 12 months.

Has the member given any consideration to how optimistic that timeframe is in this type of operation. One year seems very optimistic. We are moving some 60,000 troops in there.

During the briefing we received from the government-

[The Balkans, December 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. parliamentary secretary is pointing out and I have acknowledged in the House today the courageous activities of the crew of the HMCS Calgary and the courageous activities of those people on the Sea King helicopter who literally plucked survivors out of a very dangerous situation. We are not talking about the activities of our naval forces; we are talking about land force command. We are talking about soldiers on the ground with boots and rifles and they do not have the equipment. I say again that if the government is talking about those types of troops, absolutely no.

[The Balkans, December 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have been very clear in my comments. I am saying if it is the intention of the government to send combat troops, and the indication is that NATO is asking for combat ground force troops according to information made available to me as a parliamentarian, received through Access to Information and conversations with senior officers.

Many frustrated people in Canada are banging down my door saying to do something about this. I do not think I can make it much more clear to the hon. parliamentary secretary. I am representing the constituents of my riding and other people across the country who have phoned my office saying: "Do not send combat troops". Can I make it any more plain?

[The Balkans, December 4th, 1995]

Babblelogue, yes, that is a good comment.

The opposition parties have a deep concern for what the government will do. It is very clear, and let us not pull any punches on this. What NATO has been asking for and what the U.S. has been asking for are combat troops to participate in IFOR.

This is not the same kind of mission Canada has participated in before, in peacekeeping missions. Let us look at the problems. The cornerstone of a peacekeeping mission depends on the fact that our troops are trained in compromise and negotiation, two cornerstones of peacekeeping operations. Canadians have done that job very well, but now we are moving to a new level. We are moving to the level of combat troops, peace enforcement. Get it out of your head that this is the same somehow as a peacekeeper, because it is not. There are no blue helmets any more. We are talking about a demilitarized zone that has been partitioned through the country of Bosnia. That partition is going through towns, cities, villages, farmlands, and there will be some action there. There will be some firing. Anybody on that side of the House who says there will not be is not being honest with the Canadian public. There will be. The U.S. President has stated that there will be and casualties are expected.

Canadians have to look at what we have been doing in peacekeeping operations since 1956, since the Suez crisis. We have let the equipment and the numbers of our Canadian Armed Forces decline.

I served in the Canadian Armed Forces twice in my adult time. I know the results of what a Liberal government can do to the Canadian Armed Forces when it is in charge. I have lived through it. I am surprised by the hon. parliamentary secretary's attitude. He knows that the hands of a Liberal government ran our equipment and our armed forces into severe decline. We do not have the equipment to get involved in this peace enforcement mission. There are also serious problems in the land forces command which simply have to be addressed.

Members opposite continually blame the Reform Party for the terrible morale in the Canadian Armed Forces. Members of the Reform Party support the armed forces and many in this caucus

have served in the Canadian Armed Forces. No, we are not to blame for the morale problem. It is the decline in numbers, the decline in support. On the other side of the coin there is the increase in demands being placed on our military while the resources are shrinking.

The white paper says very clearly that Canada does not have finite resources. We have to pick and choose which missions to participate in. Canadians have participated honourably and valiantly for three and a half years in the former Yugoslavia. No, we are not turning our backs. But for God's sake, we will not send our troops ill equipped and with a serious morale problem into a combat situation. It is a recipe for disaster and this government will pay the price for it if it decides to take that decision.

[The Balkans, December 4th, 1995]

Thank you very much for that disjointed odd question.

[The Balkans, December 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt to participate in the debate today on an issue of national importance, the NATO mandate to commit a peace implementation force to Bosnia.

The Reform Party supports international peacekeeping commitments and takes pride in the work that our armed forces have done worldwide. They have a reputation of being the best peacekeepers in the world and this reputation is well deserved.

From Korea, Cambodia, the Golan Heights, Bosnia, Somalia and Rwanda Canadians have been there and have done the job asked of them with honour, dignity and determination. They have performed above and even beyond the call of duty.

Nothing serves to show the dedication and bravery of our troops better than the rescue mission of a Romanian freighter sinking in a storm off the Atlantic coast this past weekend. A master corporal with the support of his colleagues rescued the crew in a 30-year-old helicopter despite the odds and the shortcomings of this antiquated vehicle. This helicopter lacks sufficient range, forcing the frigate to close in tightly to the distressed ship and the master corporal and his colleagues are true Canadian heroes.

Since the end of the cold war peacekeeping has changed dramatically. We have left the era of classic peacekeeping to a new era of active peace enforcing. In response to this change the Liberal government has increased Canada's peacekeeping commitments.

However, the Liberals have done this without a coherent policy. They have increased our commitment while decreasing significantly the resources they are willing to allocate to the Department of National Defence and military personnel.

This must be considered before we can determine what kind of force Canada is able to contribute to IFOR. We must also have a clear set of conditions before we commit our armed forces to a task such as this.

Reform Party members have developed such a clear set of conditions that we would like followed before committing our troops on peacekeeping and peace enforcing missions. The Reform Party's conditions are: one, all peacekeeping missions must be approved in advance by Parliament, including a proposed budget; two, the belligerents must signify their genuine willingness to settle their conflict peacefully; three, the mandate, duration and rules of engagement must be specified and adequate command and control must be in place, sufficient resources must be available to do the job; four, Canada must be included in any diplomatic negotiations; five, rules governing troop rotation must be established and adhered to.

As it stands right now the Liberal government has not been forthcoming with information to determine whether these conditions are being met.

Today we are debating the issue of contributing to the NATO peace enforcing mission in Bosnia. However, this is only a take note debate. Parliament will make no decisions here today. The government has already made the decision.

The United States has made it known that Canada is contributing between 1,200 and 1,500 troops. Twenty-two Canadians were sent to Bosnia on Saturday with other NATO forces to begin the preparations for the main NATO force. The Canadian people had no voice in this decision.

Canadians will not know whether the belligerents are genuine about peace until they sign a formal agreement scheduled for December 14. This is not a done deal. The leader of the Bosnian Serbs has already served notice that he is not happy with the accord and he has warned of bloodshed over Sarajevo.

While supporting all peace efforts in Bosnia, I have a number of military concerns this government must take into consideration before sending our troops to Bosnia. Before we make a commitment to IFOR we must first assess whether our land forces have the personnel, the equipment, and the resources necessary to contribute to the IFOR mission; second, whether our land forces are facing a morale problem; and third, whether questions on leadership raised by the Somalia inquiry should be addressed prior to a deployment of this nature.

For the past 25 years the Canadian Armed Forces have been abused politically and financially by governments to the point where our forces are in disarray. They are quickly becoming ineffective in taking on missions asked of them by the government. This is not an indictment of our military personnel who shoulder the burden of these commitments, but it is a condemnation of successive governments that have failed to provide effective leadership and resources to the Department of National Defence. Our armed forces are at the edge not of technology or effectiveness, but at the edge of survival as a fighting force.

The 1995 budget of the Liberal government has cut the defence budget to the point of calling into question whether our land forces are capable of sustaining any combat role. To the Minister of Finance I say that there is a point at which armed forces must be funded to remain viable. We have hit that point. Yet the Department of National Defence is bracing itself for more cuts at a time when our government finally is calling on them to do a job they should have been equipped to do in the first place.

No other country has neglected its armed forces as much as Canada. In the early 1960s our armed forces totalled over 120,000. Today the Liberal government is reducing that number to some 60,000. Yet the demand on our armed forces has remained the same. And the demand on our military personnel will only increase as the new world order unfolds.

Our whole army is approximately 23,000 people, which is smaller than the metropolitan Toronto police force. In fact we could take the whole army and march it into B.C. Place Stadium to watch a football game and there would still be room for thousands of additional spectators.

In addition, our armed forces have been almost demilitarized. The government has trained and equipped our land forces for classical peacekeeping based on lightly armed troops. Leaders are being taught the wrong lessons, which could result in a disaster when faced with a serious combat situation. This is at a time when classical peacekeeping is required less and less.

Peacekeeping missions are now peace enforcing missions, requiring the skills and equipment our government has neglected. The Liberals have based their security policy on peacekeeping alone, at the expense of our combat readiness and conventional capabilities.

Being trained and equipped to act as a peacekeeping force is a far cry from stepping into a conventional combat role. This is what the Liberals are asking of our land forces today. Due to the Liberal government's procrastination, our 30-year old armoured personnel carriers will not be replaced until 1997. The land forces lack critical support infrastructure such as logistics and medical.

I would like to quote from a recent study by the Conference of Defence Associations. They state:

-the Armed Forces are in fact a facade, or a three-dimensional chess board, in which many pieces are missing from the main board, and almost none exist at all on the lower supporting boards.

If the Liberals send our land forces on this IFOR combat mission to Bosnia, we may be asking our land forces to pay the price for the lack of government leadership they have had. No wonder morale in the Canadian Armed Forces is at its all time low. The Minister of National Defence in his rhetoric blames the low morale on the Reform Party. However, the attack on our armed forces by the Liberal government is responsible for the low morale. This in turn has its own cost on operational ability in our land forces. For the past three years they have been forced to rotate 3,000 personnel on UN missions every six months. To many, this may not sound like very much. Many states can field such a force without difficulty. But because of the size of our modest land forces, successive rotations of 3,000 troops is a significant burden.

In fact it is a burden that normal training, which is imperative before any mission, has ground to a halt. Our land forces have been forced to scramble to be able to put together the personnel and the units to fulfil the commitments the government has obliged them to do.

Sadly, the Minister of National Defence blames again, of course, the Reform Party, the only party that is looking out for the interests of our troops, for the problems of his own making. The minister is responsible for the morale problems and should not pass the buck in this cowardly manner.

The morale problem is well documented. For example, an August 1995 chaplains' report states that we are seriously taxing the morale necessary to remain a competent force. It states that rapid successions of deployments requiring the members to continually be away from their families must be balanced with adequate time at home. Stress levels are at all time high, resulting in breakdown of the family and other serious problems.

I am gravely concerned that the government will commit a significant number of our land forces personnel to Bosnia without taking the morale issue of the rotation of our troops into consideration. We cannot rely on land forces reserves to take up the slack. We need them to help the regulars maintain operational strength during their UN tours. While this was occurring, the Minister of National Defence announced the number of militia reserves was being cut by some 6,000.

The rapid succession of deployments is not the only factor that is reducing morale and operational effectiveness. The Somalia inquiry has raised a number of questions regarding the leadership of our forces as well. The leadership problems have been documented extensively by senior officers in the Canadian forces. For example, one report last March states that there is a grave lack of confidence in the senior defence hierarchy among the rank and file. The report states that there is a widespread belief in the Canadian Armed Forces that political agendas and careerism have replaced leadership in the defence hierarchy. The report discusses the perception among soldiers that the loyalty and focus of senior officers is directed upwards, and not downwards to the rank and file. It criticizes how leaders appear hypersensitive to human rights and political correctness at the expense of building the warrior ethic in soldiers. The report states that soldiers perceive that their interests

and welfare are being sacrificed so that senior leaders can be successful in delivering the same bang for the buck.

It is ill advised for the government to consider sending combat troops to Bosnia, given the seriousness of this problem and the fact that the Somalia inquiry investigating the chain of command will not issue a report and recommendations until June 1996.

The government should seriously consider the current state of land forces before committing them to this combat mission. I stress this is not the classical peacekeeping to which Canadians have become accustomed, nor are our land forces trained and equipped. Our whole land force has spent the last three years training for peacekeeping deployments. They lack the equipment and the resources. Morale is low and there are questions about leadership that must be addressed. This is not the time to send them on a mission for which they are ill prepared.