Jim Hart

[Somalia Inquiry, October 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday Canadians were stunned by the admission of the defence minister that the National Defence Act will prevent certain charges from being laid at the conclusion of the Somalia inquiry.

Yesterday, the Minister of National Defence told the Globe and Mail that charges could be laid under the Criminal Code of Canada. The chairman of the Somalia inquiry stated: ``Most of the matters we will be dealing with might end up in some findings that could perhaps call for disciplinary action as opposed to criminal charges''. As opposed to criminal charges.

Will the minister admit that there will be no judicial remedy for certain charges when the Somalia inquiry is finally concluded?

[Department Of National Defence, October 6th, 1995]

Will the minister resign?

[Department Of National Defence, October 6th, 1995]

My question: The minister's management of national defence over the past two years has only compounded-

[Department Of National Defence, October 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it took two years for the government to act. Originally it wanted an internal investigation. It was only under our pressure that the government opened up the investigation.

The Prime Minister said that these troubles occurred under the previous government. Yet after two years nothing has been done to fix the problems. If the minister knew previously of the evidence that has been revealed this week, he has complicity in covering it up. If he did not know, he is guilty of contempt in the highest order. The minister's management of national defence over the-

[Department Of National Defence, October 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the government has gone kicking and screaming into the Somalia commission. We in the Reform Party are the ones who demanded a commission of inquiry.

The Somalia commission, which the minister called only after pressure from this party, is headed by top-notch people and will come to its conclusions in due course. There is a complete abdication of leadership within the Department of National Defence. The Prime Minister's expression of confidence in the minister and the chief of defence staff cannot change that fact.

Officers are named in police reports. They are implicated in criminal activities, falsifying documents and offering incentives to subordinates to commit murder. Does the minister consider these to be examples of good leadership?

[Department Of National Defence, October 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. The government's record on Somalia is not terribly open, but openly terrible.

This week we have seen evidence that national defence headquarters altered documents. The punishment, it gets to investigate itself. We have evidence that Lieutenant-Colonel Kenward destroyed evidence and obstructed justice. The punishment, he got promoted. We have evidence that Colonel Labbé uttered unlawful commands. His punishment, he has been put in charge of the army staff college to teach leadership.

The minister must have had files on these events. Why did he wait so long before he acted?

[National Defence, October 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence has mishandled de Chastelain, Kenward, Vernon, Labbé, and it goes on and on and on every single day.

My question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Liberal government has done nothing to correct the leadership problems at DND. The Prime Minister's confidence in his Minister of National Defence and the Chief of Defence Staff is misplaced. Will the Prime Minister solve the leadership problem and demand the resignation of the Chief of Defence Staff and his Minister of National Defence?

[National Defence, October 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question speaks to the mismanagement at the highest level at the Department of National Defence and is directed to the Prime Minister.

Every day we have seen another leadership crisis in the Department of National Defence. The minister and the CDS are publicly at war. These are Liberal problems, and the government uses the inquiry to justify inaction. The Canadian Armed Forces are demoralized, dispirited, and cannot wait until June 1996 for the government to act.

Why is the government failing to deal with these daily scandals at the Department of National Defence?

[National Defence, October 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, terrible is the correct response for sure.

I remind the parliamentary secretary that external inquiries are not the question. It is the question of the internal inquiries where cover-ups, corruption and mismanagement are the daily practice at DND.

The Prime Minister knows the Canadian Armed Forces has served the country with honour. He knows that his minister has lost the respect of Canadians and has entirely lost control of his department.

Why does the Prime Minister refuse to demand the resignation of the Minister of National Defence who consistently demonstrates poor judgment and flees not only from his responsibilities but from questions in the House.

[National Defence, October 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is just like the defence minister. He is hiding behind camouflage. The failure is in leadership and it begins at the top.

The most basic principle of parliamentary democracy requires the minister to take responsibility for the decisions of his officials.

Why should we be surprised when officers in the Canadian forces chain of command begin passing the buck? This is an example set by the minister.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Who is calling the shots in the Department of National Defence? When will he appoint a minister who will take responsibility for the defence department?