Bob Mills

[Foreign Affairs, February 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition met with Mr. Wei, the Nobel prize nominee. The Minister of Foreign Affairs snuck Mr. Wei up the backstairs to his MP office. He did not even give him the courtesy of an official meeting.

It is important that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs hear the other side of the human rights issue in China. Why will the government not admit exactly what its choices are?

[Foreign Affairs, February 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister had a choice. He had a choice between meeting with Mr. Wei, the father of the democratic movement in China, or to warmly welcome the oppressive communist vice-president of Cuba, Carlos Lage. The prime minister chose to meet Castro's henchman.

How could the government justify this choice by the Prime Minister?

[Division No. 72, February 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand and speak but I must admit that every time the government uses closure it makes me extremely annoyed. I think of what my electorate thinks of this kind of procedure. It is so disgusting and so despicable. This is one of the reasons the Reform Party was formed and why we believe we have to make changes to this place. This is such a disgusting act. We all realize how detrimental it is to the democratic process and to any kind of respect we might have for a place like this.

The amendments in Group No. 5 probably fit well with what the government has just done. It is denying the auditor general authority to audit this public agency and it is refusing access to information concerning this organization. The government members do this and then say they believe in democracy.

There are three aspects of Bill C-4 that are undemocratic. The government is slapping the western Canadian agricultural community in the face. That will be remembered. The government should look at the number of western Canadian members it has to get an idea of what western Canadians think of this lack of democracy.

Let us talk briefly about this bill in the time we have. Let us first talk about the supposed elections it refers to. Farmers will elect 10 members and the government 5 members and the president. The farmers are the shareholders of this corporation and should elect all members. They should be electing the president and the members of this organization. If you believe in true democracy, you believe in elections by the people who have a stake.

In Chile and Argentina senators are elected to their senates. Most countries in the world have elections. Elections mean democracy. This is an undemocratic act and we should make that public. This is an insult to the people and the farmers of western Canada.

I read an example of this kind of slap in the face in my newspaper last night. The editorial discusses the disposal of bases. When militaire Saint-Jean was shut down $25 million plus donation of the property was given. When the base in Toronto was given up, 380 acres were donated, plus $22 million. When the base in Calgary was given up nothing was given and no land was given by the federal government. That is typical of how this government abuses western Canada.

What about public information? I am a farmer in part. I received a letter from the wheat board in my mail last week. This letter is an insult to the intelligence of the farming community. This letter talks about how democratic this board will be. It talks about the real power of the farmer. It talks about complete accessibility. This is an insult to the people of the farming community.

If the Liberals cannot allow access to information, what are they trying to hide? What are they covering up?

When I read this letter I say that it is a cover-up. What are they trying to hide? What are they doing? Are they out selling grain for the farmers of western Canada or are they sitting on their duffs in some fancy office some place?

I want to know what kind of prices they are getting for grain. It is my grain. It is our grain. What kind of prices are they getting? They say that will destroy competition. Give me a break. If they release the prices they got for grain in 1996-97 that will not destroy competition. I challenge this government on the ability of the Canadian Wheat Board to be the only marketing agency.

This is about democracy. Let farmers choose. Let farmers decide whether they want to have the Canadian Wheat Board.

That is not the issue. The issue is the abuse that is going on. We should be able to access the information. It should be opened up so the auditor general can ensure accountability.

Rumours are created because of this sort of thing. What are the people in the Canadian Wheat Board being paid? What kind of bonuses do they get at the end of the year? What kind of perks do they get? How can they justify keeping all that secret from the farmers whose grain they are supposed to be selling?

I want to speak about competition. In my area of foreign affairs I often talk to trade delegations. I hear them say “Do you guys still grow grain over there? Do you still have grain for sale? We never see anybody coming to sell it”.

We hear about the problems of ships sitting for 30 days or 45 days because they cannot take delivery. The Canadian Wheat Board is blowing the marketing of grain. It needs to be accountable. It needs to be examined. It needs to be subject to the scrutiny of its membership, the farmers.

They are talking about putting more crops under the control of the Canadian Wheat Board. That is a pretty scary thought. What about canola? What about feed barley? Will those crops be included? Will the wheat board inefficiently try to market an increased range of grain products? That is not good news for farmers anywhere.

This is about freedom of choice. A farmer has to decide what he should grow. A farmer has to decide what kind of fertilizers he should use. He has to decide when to spray and what to spray. He has to decide whether to insure against hail and all the other problems. He has to decide when to swath and when to harvest. He has to make all those decisions and worry about quality. The most important part is the paycheque that he gets for doing all that. The most important thing is the marketing of the product he produces. He controls everything else but he does not have any control over the people he should be electing to do his marketing.

Those people should be accountable. How much do they get paid? What do they do? How aggressive are they? He has a right, as a farmer, to know those answers.

We need to know we are getting the highest price possible. We need to know what this secret monopoly, which is filled possibly by patronage appointments, is all about. I hear the words accessibility and accountability. That is really what it comes down to.

We can look back to when this board was formed. Many of the farmers in my constituency have told me that they needed it at the time. I do not think we are talking about that. The issue of whether we should have it is not the question. The question concerns accountability. It needs to be open to the auditor general. It needs to be open to access to information. The people affected by this need to have access to it.

[Jeremy Wotherspoon, February 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of Red Deer and all Canadians I extend a sincere and well deserved congratulations to Red Deer speed skater Jeremy Wotherspoon.

We congratulate him on his recent silver medal performance in the men's 500 metre long track event at the Nagano Winter Olympics.

In his pursuit of Olympic excellence Jeremy has become a role model for young Canadians. As an outstanding ambassador for Red Deer, Alberta and Canada we honour Jeremy's drive, determination and success while wishing him the very best in upcoming events.

Knowing Jeremy and his family, I also want to congratulate them because it is with them and their support that athletes like him succeed.

I ask my colleagues in the House of Commons to join us in congratulating this young Canadian on winning Canada's first silver medal at the 1998 Nagano Olympics.

[Middle East, February 9th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, this is not the time to play partisan politics, to get into the infighting that we might get into, but to do what is good for Canada. I think that is our job here in this House tonight, to get the facts on the table so that people can understand what the issues are and what the real threat is.

I believe that we have a moral, a political obligation to Canadians to let them know what this issue is all about. It would be my intention this evening to try to add the information that I have put together which certainly I have received from briefings from Foreign Affairs, from Canada, from other countries, from ambassadors and citizens of Canada who I have talked to. It would be my intention to talk about it from the moral perspective of what is right for Canada, for Canadians and for this House.

After listening to the statement made by the leader of our party, I think it might have been better to have a full briefing of all members of Parliament in this House. We could have had a question and answer period for however long. We could have controlled and allowed people to present their party positions. That is an approach we should look at for the future. Today it is important to get the information out concerning what is an extremely serious situation for Canadians and for the world as we face Saddam Hussein.

An often asked question is what kind of person is Saddam Hussein. I am not sure that we are not looking at another 1938 and another Hitler and having a debate like that. I think this guy is as serious and as dangerous as the man they discussed way back then. This person has a record of using biological and chemical weapons on his own people and on his enemies. He seems to have no compassion in his use of those kinds of weapons.

Look at his history. In 1975 he signed a non-interference pact with Iran, yet in 1980 he invaded Iran and the war began. Those eight years of war did not seem to cause him very much grief even with the million people who were killed, some of his own and some Iranians. He used chemical weapons on Iranian soldiers and on his own people. He accepted the UN ceasefire but it was not long until he decided to push further. He worked on enriching uranium and on biological and chemical weapons. On August 2, 1990, when he invaded Kuwait he again indicated the kind of person he really is, a power hungry individual.

As I go through this history I realize that we did commit back then to being involved. I think Canadians were proud of that involvement because we were fighting a person who was dangerous to society. We know how he has functioned in government. He has even killed his own relatives. He kills dissidents. He kills ministers. He kills Kurdish minorities. We know what kind of person he is. I wonder when I hear people ask if he is really dangerous. I do not think there is any doubt about the danger posed by a person like Saddam Hussein.

We have to look at the history of UNSCOM. I have spent quite some time examining what it has told us over the past seven and a half years. I have talked to 12 ambassadors about their feelings on what UNSCOM was saying. I have talked to our own people about that. I have talked to the Americans, the British, the French, the Russians.

What about UNSCOM? Is this stuff really there? I think all have heard the facts and figures. I could go through a long list but I do not think it will be necessary, except that we must let Canadians know that UNSCOM is telling us that these people have these weapons, that the history, the facts and figures are there. This is not something being imagined nor is it being created by the Americans, as we have heard. These facts and figures are there. Representatives I have talked to from at least 12 countries—the minister has probably talked to many others—agree those weapons are there.

It has been documented that 38,000 tonnes of chemical weapons have been destroyed. This guy produced those things and they have been destroyed. There are 480,000 litres of CW agents for the production of chemical weapons. This guy produced that. He organized that. That is the kind of person we are talking about.

UNSCOM has confirmed the existence of industrial scale VX nerve gas, the production of four tonnes of VX. One drop will kill an individual. He has produced them and we know they are there.

There is a list of other things: anthrax, 8,400 litres and 19,000 litres of botulinum. What more facts do we need? There are people on the ground in Iraq saying that stuff is there. What more proof could we have of the danger of this individual?

I could continue to talk about this matter but will add only a few notes. Britain is shocked and appalled by the amount of chemical and biological weapons in Iraq. That is quoting Britain directly. It is shocked that this level has been allowed to build up and wishes action would have been taken sooner.

I have talked to the Israelis. The Russian position is pretty straightforward. All of us are working for a peaceful solution. It would be much better to have a peaceful solution. Everybody is for that. However, if that is not possible, who are we dealing with? What is Saddam Hussein like? That is the point.

The Russians say their biggest concern is of the conflict spreading, what it will be like to see, and the suffering that the Iraqi people will experience during a war they have already gone through. We are all worried about that. All of us care. Our war is not with the Iraqi people or the Arab states. Our war is with Saddam Hussein, an insane dictator. That is whom our war is with.

Turkey has already suffered from all kinds of instability and terrorism. All kinds of refugees were forced on Turkey because of the kind of dictator Hussein is. Iran is extremely concerned. It is very sympathetic for the people of Iraq, the very people they fought against, but they have no sympathy for Saddam Hussein. They know what he is like. They will confirm, if asked, what kind of an individual we are dealing with in Saddam Hussein.

It is not a matter of establishing how dangerous the person is. We all agree how dangerous he is. We are at the point of looking at the real threats of terrorism and our real options.

Again I paraphrase our leader when he said that the moral justification for taking lives can only be justified if it is to save lives. I think that is what we have to ask. If we take option one and let this person thumb his nose at United Nations resolutions and at the allies, he will continue to produce these weapons. He will continue to develop delivery mechanisms. He will continue to plan in his own sick way how he will push his power beyond his own country.

What does that mean? It is one thing when he terrorizes his people. It is one thing when he terrorizes his neighbours. Could he affect us? Could he destabilize our civilization with his terrorism? That is possible. That is not dreaming. That is not science fiction. That is reality.

If we do not act today what kind of a threat do we have in the future? All of us only need to imagine—or we go to some of the movies in the theatres now—the destabilization that our economies and our countries can have because of terrorism.

Our second option is to demand the compliance of Saddam Hussein to the rules set out in 1991 by the United Nations which say that he must, without any exceptions, without any side deals, allow full inspection of all possible bases within Iraq. He must comply. There are no other options. Everything must be inspected.

The next part of it is that the weapons of mass destruction must be destroyed. We cannot let a rogue state, a rogue person like this, have control of those kinds of weapons. Otherwise we will pay the price down the road big time.

Yes, we want diplomacy. We want it to the bitter end. We want everybody who thinks they can add something to add it to try to bring about a solution. We want to let Saddam Hussein know that he has taken us to the brink and that the only way to move back is to comply with the UN resolutions. He cannot move back and six months down the road pull us back to the brink again. It has gone too far this time. He was produced too much. He has too much there. He is now a danger to the world as we know it.

It is time we put that message to him diplomatically. If all that fails, we have no other solution but to use force, to force him into compliance. That force used now will save lives in the future. I am convinced of that. In working on this and listening to what I have listened to, I am convinced of that.

We cannot hide from the issue. We cannot pretend it is not an issue. We cannot say Saddam Hussein might be all right. We cannot say maybe he will not use these weapons. He will use these weapons. He will develop them and so it is time for action.

We cannot hide from it. It is time for us to engage in world politics, to let people know where we stand, to stand up and be counted. As difficult as this might seem, we must stop the reign of terror of Saddam Hussein. The terror must end. It is time for Canada and Canadians to stand up for what they believe in, stand with their allies, and the more multinational this is the better it is.

I think everybody in the House should agree that we must stand up and be counted. It is time for that. Our party certainly is dedicated to working to that end. It is not time for partisan politics. It is time for what is good for Canada. That is what Canadians want to hear from us in the House tonight.

[Iraq, February 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we all hope that there could be a diplomatic solution and we wonder why Canada was not involved in helping to get that diplomatic solution. But now the position is it has gone beyond that and we now need to know where the Prime Minister stands on military action and that he take some leadership. That is what we are asking for. Leadership.

[Iraq, February 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister still has not given us an answer to the question. We have been asking it now for two weeks.

We know the position of the President of the United States. We know the position of the Prime Minister of Great Britain. We know the position of Germany. We know all of these positions.

The Canadian people want to know what the Prime Minister's position is. Why will the Prime Minister not tell us? Is he for military action or is he against it?

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, February 3rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to talk about a subject that is rather dear to my heart. Probably one of the reasons I got involved in politics was a total disgust and disdain for governments over the last 30 or 40 years. They have increased taxes time and time again and have totally mismanaged the way they have run the affairs of this country.

To remind everyone, we stand up and give all kinds of reasons why we got in but most of us are here because we want this country to succeed. We want this country to stay as a number one country.

We have to work hard to do that. While we hear the Liberals stand up and talk about how great we are and we are number one, we are falling back. We do have to work hard. One of the reasons is our tax system.

Our kids are going to be faced with a tax system that is even worse than the one we are faced with if the government keeps going the way it is. I also mention, before I get into some details, the mismanagement.

In 1969 we had a zero debt. Then all of a sudden we decided that we better start spending. By 1972 we were at $18 billion in debt. From there we started that downhill slide. By 1984 we were up to about $180 billion in debt. At that time most of us said that is enough. A prime minister was elected who said we will not let that grow one more dollar, a $180 billion is a disgrace for a country like Canada to have as a debt. The rest is history.

In 1988 we found that the figure was about $300 billion, from a guy who said he would not let it grow another dollar. By 1993, $489 billion and of course today, close to $600. That is total mismanagement. That is government out of control. That is irresponsibility. That is saddling our children with something terrible over their head that they are going to pay for.

People out there say they cannot trust government. Government says it is going to get rid of the GST and it does not do it. Government says it is not going to let the debt grow and it doubles and it triples. In the meantime government brags about what a wonderful job it is doing. Government says that it was fixing the tax system. What is it doing? It is tinkering with the tax system. It changes a little bit here, it changes a little bit there, but all of it adds up to increased dollars off that pay cheque.

Whether we are talking about chickens or whether we are talking about businesses or whatever we are talking about, there is always a little more taken away. Whether it is one and a half cents on a litre of gas that affects all of us, or whether it is changing the RRSP from age 71 to age 69, every time we do something like that the government squeezes a bit more out of the people.

When the GST was there, the Liberals screamed and shouted they will get rid of it. It is terrible. In 1991, wow, this is the worst thing this government has ever done. The government did pay the price. We see what the Liberals have done in turn and we see what the people have done. The people have gone underground because of that. There is that much less tax being collected simply because that has happened.

Most recently we can talk about the CPP. That is one that is really dear to my heart. We had a promise from government that we would never let CPP premiums go beyond 5.5%. In 1966 when the plan was designed, as early as 1967 bureaucrats were saying it was not going to work and we will never be able to maintain this with the demographics of this country. We will never maintain it at 5.5% So why does the government fess up, fix the plan now? Of course we waited 30 more years. We now are tinkering again. We have now decided to raise the premiums 73%.

Now we are telling a young person who earns $38,000 as the maximum instead of contributing $945 a year, you get to contribute $1,635 a year and your employer matches it. What a great deal that is, $3,300 a year. If it is paid for 30, 35 or 40 years, $8,800 will be guaranteed at the end of that time. What a wonderful investment that is. How can we build confidence in government with that kind of an investment? If that same amount of money were invested at 6% for 30 years there would $275,000 in capital and principal alone. What kind of annuity could be bought with that?

Since I believe in young people and in giving a country worth having to my kids I conducted a lot of research. Last Christmas I visited two countries that also have pension plans. Last year I visited New Zealand which changed its pension plan and Australia which changed its pension plan. Then I thought it would be interesting to take a look at Chile and Argentina to see what kind of pension plans they had.

Fifteen years ago Chile realized it had a problem with its pension plan. It had an unfunded liability and it was going to reach a point where the plan would be bankrupt and would not be able to pay out people when they turned 65 years of age. Fifteen years ago the Chileans decided to fix that problem. They designed a private plan to replace the original plan.

Argentina followed the same principle four years ago. I thought it would be interesting to talk to businessmen and to government and opposition politicians. Then I tried a really interesting thing and went door to door in Santiago, Chile, with an interpreter. I said “I am a Canadian politician, a member of Parliament. I would like to know what you think of your pension plan because we have a pension plan that is in trouble”. What I heard was fantastic.

They said they had a pension plan. They get a stub every three months that listed the companies their pension was invested in. They bought their groceries from the company they had a stake in. There is pride in that system. Twenty-three per cent of the people had savings accounts big enough to handle their retirements, and that is only after 15 years. There is a psychological pride among the people that they are taking care of themselves which we do not have here.

We should ask our young people what they think of the CPP or what kind of confidence they have that they will get anything when they are 65 years of age. I know what the answer is. I know what my kids tell me. They will certainly take care of themselves and are not counting on anything from the government.

That is exactly what government is failing to do. When people are disgusted with government, when people do not trust government, it is because of that sort of mismanagement.

We have to simplify the tax system. We have to make it easier for people to handle. We have to flatten it out. We have to get government out of our lives. All these countries have downsized to the point where they can now manage themselves. If it is good enough for Australia, New Zealand, Chile, Argentina and Britain, it has to be good enough for Canada. Certainly the way we are going will not be good enough.

[Iraq, February 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we have a proud tradition and I believe that is being put in jeopardy because of the way this government is sitting on the fence. What specific resources will we commit if in fact we are asked for them?

[Iraq, February 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, as Saddam Hussein continues to defy international law, the Liberals sit on the fence. They do not send a message to our allies.

After immediately sending ships, air support and hospital units in 1991, what will this government do in 1998 if in fact we need to send military forces? What resources will we use?