Jim Hart

[The Debt, April 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the constituents of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt to salute the residents of Salmo, British Columbia. These fine Canadians have decided to take action on the national debt. They have to because the Liberals have done nothing to reduce it, in fact they are increasing it.

The people of Salmo are collecting pennies to send to the debt reduction fund. While these good Canadians are scraping the bottom of the barrel, desk drawers and every nook and cranny, the Grits continue their spending binge.

The Canada Council handed out $88 million in grants last year. One of the latest handouts is $10,000 for a gay and lesbian film festival to be staged in Saskatoon this weekend by the Positively Queer group.

My heart goes out to the residents of Salmo. What will they do when they realize that they will have to collect one million pennies to pay for the Liberal government's financial support of the Positively Queer film festival? That is almost three tonnes of pennies. The Liberals should be ashamed.

[Canada Pension Plan, April 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the constituents of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt to remind all members of this House of a birthday. The Canada pension plan is 30 years old today.

Normally a birthday is cause for great celebration with balloons, candles and of course my favourite, a great big birthday cake. At 30 years of age you would think we could celebrate a long vibrant time, but CPP is tired and sick with iron poor Liberal blood.

Thanks to the Liberals, the Canada pension plan is another victim of mismanagement. The CPP fund is not self-sufficient and not actuarially sound. In order to be solvent, contributions will have to triple over the next 20 years. The Canada pension plan, introduced by a Liberal government 30 years ago, has been so mismanaged that future Canadians cannot look forward to collecting.

The recent budget does nothing to safeguard our social programs and social safety net.

The Liberals have burst the balloons for today's celebration. They have blown out the candles and have allowed our birthday cake to go stale and mouldy.

[Peacekeeping, March 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the members of the House.

President Tudjman in Croatia has had a change of heart and said he would like to keep some peacekeepers in Croatia. The problem is that the only peacekeepers he would like to remain would be unarmed monitors. That is not satisfactory in this volatile situation. We should get our troops out before any further fighting begins. We should give the United Nations three months warning that we are planning to do that so it can fill the vacuum when we leave.

Finally, all Canadians can be proud of the Canadian troops who have served their country valiantly and well in the former Yugoslavia.

[Peacekeeping, March 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise on behalf of my constituents in Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt to participate in the debate this evening.

We on this side of the House realize that the final decision is the responsibility of the government. We appreciate that the government gave us the opportunity to be heard tonight on this very important issue.

The government said it would like to hear what we had to say in order to help it make the decision whether or not we should continue to maintain our present commitment in the former Yugoslavia.

Interestingly this is a take note debate regarding the rotation of Canadian forces. The hon. member for Red Deer earlier used the words of an Eagles song, one of my favourite musical groups. I am not sure which group sang this song: "Leaving on a Jet Plane". In actual fact the troops' bags are packed. They are set to go. On Monday they leave for Bosnia and Croatia in this troop rotation.

According to my calendar today's date is March 29. The commitment to the former Yugoslavia ends on April 1. Yet the government wants to consult Canadians by holding an emergency debate tonight at the 11th hour. We all know nothing can be done to stop that rotation from taking place.

Members of the Reform Party have made very clear their position on the issue. We should announce and make very clear that Canada intends to withdraw from the former Yugoslavia. We should give the UN a three-month notice of that decision. The reason we are taking this position is that we know it would be very difficult for us to pull out immediately and leave a vacuum until another nation is able to step in and take over where we left off.

I feel, therefore, that we should be debating whether Canada should commit continued peacekeepers to the former Yugoslavia in the long run. If we do not debate the issue now, when will the issue be debated?

Recognizing the fact that the debate should have occurred weeks ago, I state unequivocally that we should pull out and give the UN three months notice. Many people on the other side of the House may be asking why we should pull out of the former Yugoslavia. There are numbers of reasons why we should leave.

Despite our past history as peacekeepers to all the world's troubled regions, I feel strongly that in this new world order of regional, ethnic and tribal conflict running rampant and with Canada's own defence resources shrinking at an alarming rate the government must develop a commitment criterion to give us a guide for future deployments of our peacekeeping troops.

On December 1, 1994 the Reform caucus issued a statement which outlined the four conditions that should be met to keep Canadian peacekeepers in the former Yugoslavia. We developed these criteria because of the numerous violations and because Canadian troops were being held hostage.

At that time we said, first, that all UN detainees should be released immediately; second, that the warring factions should agree to cease all aggressive actions toward the UNPROFOR troops; third, that the Sarajevo airport should be immediately reopened and all humanitarian aid should be allowed to proceed without interference by any of the warring factions; and, fourth, that a ceasefire should be put in place and honoured by all sides.

Let us look at each one of the points individually. Even though all UN detainees have been released there is still no guarantee that the warring factions would not undertake such activity again. As a matter of fact with the situation in Bosnia we are in close contact with Serbian troops on a daily basis. It is a very volatile situation. It is something that could possibly happen.

There have been less aggressive acts toward UNPROFOR over the past couple of months but incidents do occur. There is no guarantee in place by the warring factions to prevent any future aggressive acts. All humanitarian aid is not getting through. Anyone who says it is, is simply not stating the truth.

Two weeks ago the Montreal Gazette reported that there was a desperate food shortage in the Bihac pocket because of the heavy fighting between government troops and the alliance of Bosnia Serbs, Croatian Serbs and the renegade Bosnian Muslims. I would like to quote from the Associated Press report:

The Serbs generally refuse to give the United Nations permission to move convoys into the region through Serb-held territory. The United Nations does not have a mandate to use force to get its humanitarian aid through.

The UN World Food Program, based in Rome, said only 5,000 people in the enclave get regular meals from public kitchens. Patients in hospitals eat only one meal a day.

Only an estimated 20 per cent of the people trapped in the region have received any donated food during the past six months, the agency said.

The reason for the failure of the first three criteria is due to the failure of the fourth criterion which the Reform Party laid down. There is no ceasefire in place in Bosnia that is being honoured by all sides. Do the warring factions even actually want peace? Are they willing to make a lasting truce upon which a negotiated peaceful settlement will be found?

In the case of Bosnia it appears the answer is a resounding no. The combatants do not want peace. Short-lived truces are only holding long enough for the combatants to reform and refit. As we can see, the latest truce between the Bosnian government and the rebel Serbs is crumbling. It is crumbling as we debate this issue tonight. As UN spokesman Alexander Ivanko said yesterday: "It is our understanding both parties continue to opt for a military option".

We must consider the facts. Without a meaningful negotiation between the combatants, peace is only wishful thinking. The role of a peacekeeper is to keep the combatants apart while they negotiate peace. There is no peace and there is no negotiation. Canadian troops are more like pawns in a game of chess between the differing parties. The threat of interference by both Serbs and Bosnians has not been reduced.

It is dangerous to train and equip our troops for traditional peacekeeping missions when we are putting them into a situation which cannot succeed, where there is no peace or a will for peace between the parties.

Many in the House will defend our humanitarian role on grounds that the civilians would be worse off without the peacekeepers. I can sympathize with that because I travelled there. We should be very proud of our troops. They have done a good job.

In the short term it may be true that the presence of UN peacekeepers in Bosnia may have prevented widespread starvation. However, at the same time the UN presence may have actually perpetuated division, squalor and low-level fighting for longer than would otherwise have been the case. We must

ask: Is the present morass a success or has the United Nations become part of the problem despite its best intentions?

The fact remains that the UN's involvement in Bosnia is in limbo, with the very strong possibility that Canadians will be forced into a situation of peacemaking. If the international community is serious about making peace, then maybe the military role ought to be handed over to NATO with a mandate to end the fighting through military means. Yes, I know that solution is also problematic. It is again possible that nothing will be solved. The warring parties will not have settled their differences and fighting would resume once NATO withdrew.

This House must recognize that we should only be sending troops on peacekeeping missions where the warring parties have fought their battles and are ready to negotiate and to sit down at the negotiating table to come to terms with a lasting peace.

What we are doing is committing our soldiers and our nation to a moral dilemma. We must stay forever or else by leaving, become responsible for the resumption of hostilities. Canada cannot afford and has no moral authority to become not only the world's policeman but a permanent benevolent occupier in troubled areas.

Is this commitment going to turn into one of 29 years or more in the former Yugoslavia as we ended up committing ourselves to in Cyprus? Remember this is just another chapter in a centuries old conflict that appears to be without an end.

As we debate this issue in the House tonight we can clearly see that none of the four criteria outlined by the Reform caucus has been met. Support for our continued presence in Bosnia is waning at home as well.

I heard one of the members on the other side of the House ask: What are your constituents saying? In my riding we conducted a telephone poll and 68 per cent of the constituents told me they would like us to leave as quickly as possible.

For just 30 seconds, Mr. Speaker, I would quickly like to turn to Croatia where President Tudjman would like to see UN peacekeepers, at least he did say he would like them out of-

[Bob's Birthday, March 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the constituents of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt to congratulate film makers Alison Snowden and David Fine for winning an Oscar at the Academy Awards on Monday night for their film "Bob's Birthday". Their success demonstrates that Canadian film projects can compete effectively in the global marketplace.

Reform members believe it is high time for the federal government to get out of the way and allow Canadian entrepreneurs to take their place as the producers of Canadian film projects.

Canada has proven that we can win Oscars. Let us do it without federal funding. Canadian taxpayers want to know why the Liberals continue to spend dollars to make films. Our film industry can stand on its own two feet and should be supported by the investment from Canadian entrepreneurs, not government subsidies.

This side of the House wants to congratulate "Bob's Birthday" for proving once again that Canadian film productions can prosper in a global marketplace.

[Firearms Act, March 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the constituents of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt to speak to the justice minister's gun registry bill.

I cannot call the bill firearms control legislation because the crime control aspects of the bill are hidden behind legislative measures which the Liberal government promised to anti-gun groups in its pre-election platform. This is unfortunate.

Notwithstanding the political shenanigans the justice minister and his party have chosen to pin on the bill, I think all Canadians including everyone on this side of the House and anti-gun groups would like to have the opportunity to discuss real crime control measures. As a result of the Reform motion to split the bill we may have the opportunity.

I make no mistake in describing the Liberal government's firearms legislation as simply amounting to a gun registry. I reinforce the term gun registry. The crime control aspects of the bill are hidden behind the gun registry being created by the minister.

Canadians including anti-gun groups, Liberal party supporters and others will be sorrily disappointed if the minister's legislative proposals are enacted. My constituents have not been fooled for one minute with respect to the matter. It is obvious to everyone that some special interest groups are emotionally out of control with regard to the issue of gun control. Because of that

an all-out debate on the subject of crime control in the House is being prevented by the government.

The bill is solely aimed at punishing law-abiding legitimate owners of firearms in Canada. These law-abiding citizens are more concerned than anyone with the safe usage and storage of firearms. Of all people they should not be the target of the legislation.

All Canadians want crime to be reduced on the streets, in our cities and in our towns. Canadians want to be able to feel that the authorities are able to control crime.

The Minister of Justice stated in the House that it was estimated some 375,000 guns were smuggled into the country and about 3,800 weapons were lost or stolen within our borders. The justice minister introduced legislation which concentrated on the 3,800 weapons loose in society.

What about the 375,000 smuggled weapons? As far as I can see the minister's actions are twofold. First, his actions are directed at punishing legitimate owners of firearms, appeasing a special interest group. Second, as some kind of afterthought his actions may do something about the real problem, the 375,000 weapons smuggled into the country. This is preposterous. Anti-gun groups are not amused. Neither are sporting groups, hunting clubs, target shooters or Olympic sports spectators. The grassroots of Canada is not amused.

There is no reason the government cannot attempt to control smuggled weapons without slapping the faces of law-abiding citizens. My constituents therefore stand in favour of splitting the bill.

Recently I conducted a household survey in my riding and 78 per cent of my constituents said that they did not want all guns including shotguns and rifles registered. Seventy-eight per cent of my constituents said that they did not want short barrelled pistols banned. Most important, 92 per cent of my constituents want tougher mandatory sentences for criminals who use guns.

To date I have presented 43 petitions in the House containing over 3,000 signatures of constituents who oppose further legislation for firearms acquisition and possession. They call on Parliament to provide strict guidelines and mandatory sentences for the use or the possession of a firearm in the commission of a violent crime.

People do not have to look far for an example. They can turn to their local newspapers for examples of how the criminal justice system is letting the public down. For instance, I turn to the Penticton Herald that had an article entitled "Slap on the wrists no deterrent".

The article was about a man convicted of a weapons offence involving a restricted weapon. He was convicted, given a slap on the wrist, a $440 fine and a year's probation. Canadians must be asking themselves, if the courts do not do their part in placing a deterrent on this kind of offence, what good is it to demand that hunters and sportsmen register their shotguns and long arms.

As members of the House we ought to be doing all we can to protect our borders from those who seek to bring crime to our otherwise free and peaceful nation. We ought to make it very clear to the international criminal community, as well as our own criminal community, that Canada will put behind bars anyone who attempts to bring weapons into the country. We must ensure that is well known beyond our borders and that the maximum punishment for those bringing weapons into the country will be applied.

Not only anti-gun groups but all Canadians want smuggling stopped. I might add that all Canadians want the full force of our laws and maximum punishment delivered to persons using firearms in the commission of an offence.

While the citizens of the nation have the privilege of owning firearms, we must make it perfectly clear that we do not and will not tolerate abuse of the privilege. We must adopt a zero tolerance policy on criminals in the country.

Society has been living with handgun registration for over 60 years. Because of the difficulty our citizens face in terms of obtaining an FAC, we do not take lightly abuse of firearms laws. Virtually every constituent, firearm owner or member of an anti-gun group that contacted me during the debate of this issue has left me with one thought above all: punish the criminals who use firearms. Firearm owners, law-abiding citizens and anti-gun groups are sick and tired of legislators going after the wrong guy when dealing with the problems associated with firearms in society.

Together all groups and all Canadians ask the minister not to follow the precedent set by former ministers of justice. He should do us all a favour and split the bill. Let us do some work in the House on crime control. Canadians will continue to read in the newspaper and see on television the mayhem, the bloodshed, the heartache and the horrors lethal weapons in the hands of criminals are causing on our streets. We will continue to see and hear of such criminals walking away from their deeds in that our courts refuse to deal out maximum penalties for crimes committed with a firearm because of plea bargaining and other reasons.

In other words, by splitting the bill in half we would be allowed to deal with the two issues: first, crime control and, second, a gun registry. All sides of the House would be able to work on crime control first and most importantly. Surely the Minister of Justice would have us believe that he is so well

intended he can accommodate the desire of this side of the House and Canadians who recognize that crime control is the most important issue.

Any right thinking Canadian knows that with some 375,000 weapons being smuggled into the nation, the criminal use of firearms will continue. The criminal use of firearms does not exist because of hunters, sportsmen, gun collectors and law-abiding citizens. The criminal use is by criminals.

In closing, the constituents of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt would support the bill being split in two. By doing so we could deal with crime control and then the gun registry. We could salvage some good sections in terms of protecting our borders from international criminals. We could try to protect law-abiding Canadians at the same time.

[Petitions, March 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today according to Standing Order 36 to present a petition from 43 petitioners from the town of Hedley in my riding and also from my home town of Summerland, British Columbia.

The petitioners are opposed to further legislation for firearms acquisition and possession. They ask the government to provide strict guidelines and mandatory sentences for the use or possession of a firearm in the commission of a violent crime.

These 43 petitioners add to the some 3,010 petitioners who have also signed this petition in my riding.

[Supply, March 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing what we are hearing here today.

A prominent politician told me recently that politics-I know the Liberals may not agree with this-is the art of the possible. The member for Labrador told me that. I agree with that statement. Politics is the art of the possible.

The Reform Party has given the House an idea. What we are hearing is the idea being stifled, not legitimate criticism or maybe a suggestion or two to add to the idea, but accusations and fearmongering from the other side of the House. It is unacceptable.

This government has one answer to the problem of poverty and one answer to the problem of people being unemployed. That is massive amounts of government money being thrown at the problem when it is shown clearly that it has not worked.

The government is like a baby. At one end it has a huge appetite and at the other end it has no sense of responsibility.

[Department Of National Defence, March 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention this government plans to spend $10 million to renovate the dilapidated World War II barracks at CFB Cornwallis for the international peacekeeping centre.

Could the minister of national expense, I should say defence, explain to Canadians why taxpayers must pay for this ridiculous renovation while modern DND facilities are available across the country?

[Petitions, March 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the fourth petition is regarding the current gun legislation before the House.

To date I have presented 3,010 signatures. These petitioners from Osoyoos, Oliver, Princeton and other areas in the Okanagan Valley oppose further legislation for firearms acquisition and possession and ask Parliament to provide strict guidelines and mandatory sentences for the use and possession of a firearm in the commission of a violent crime.

I concur with my petitioners.