Bob Mills

[Foreign Affairs, November 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we heard the Deputy Prime Minister say that they let the UN decide whether this was a good deal or not, whether trucks were all right and whether trucks could be used for humanitarian purposes or used by the military. That is the question.

We need to send a message to Iraq on where we stand and that we are with our allies, standing up for the sanctions the UN is going to impose.

[Foreign Affairs, November 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, in the House the Liberals are fond of standing up, beating their chests talking about how great they are with the UN, about how good they are at attacking Saddam Hussein, but they are letting a billion dollar trade deal sneak through and hopefully nobody will see it, leaving it to the UN to decide what to do.

When will this government stand up and let Saddam Hussein know exactly where it stands on that issue?

[Iraq, November 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, Saddam Hussein is asking Canada to drop trade sanctions against Iraq. The minister has two choices. He can go with France and Russia and drop the sanctions, or he can go with the U.S. and stick with the sanctions.

Does the minister have a position, or is he going to waffle like this government does on most issues?

[Passports, November 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the member has had six months to do something about it. Last month he assured us that passport security was going to be taken care of. Now we find passports being used as currency in the drug trade.

How many more of these kinds of scandals must we have before the minister does something about our passports?

[Passports, November 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, this spring two men were charged with the possession of stolen passports. This past weekend we had 25 blank passports produced by a secure printer in Ottawa.

Does the minister know about this? Does the minister care about this? What is the minister going to do about this?

[Access To Information Act, October 31st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, to sum up what we have heard, and it is a rather ominous thing that we have heard, we have deteriorated even further than we did in the last session into looking at the past, thinking we need more big government, more government control, less accessibility for the public, less accountability.

In 1994 on a similar type of bill a government member stood up and said “We are going to open up access to information and we are going to reform it and make it better. It is under review within the next 12 months and the justice minister will be coming up with new legislation within 12 months”. That was in 1994.

Now the government members have the audacity to stand up and say “Some of these things are good and we have to open up government. However, it is under review so we will not support anything like this”.

How long can they keep saying that? Going into the 21st century it is still going to be under review. I trust the Canadian public will put them under review very carefully in the year 2001 or before.

The government talks the talk. Some of the opposition parties talk the talk. It is very interesting that some of the opposition parties talk about changes and being accountable to people and yet most of their speeches sound like they come out of the 1960s.

I do not feel we have moved very far. We have a finance minister who conducts a poll, who has his former leadership member conduct that poll, a former membership of his team in 1990, for which hundreds of thousands of dollars of Canadian taxpayer money is paid. There is nothing wrong with that. He then proceeds to keep it secret for 18 months because it was politically unwise to put it forward. There were political reasons. He decides to make it public after his own lawyer said he could never win in court. Mulroney challenged the court and lost, and he even had some reasons. He said the minister is going to challenge it and but does not have any reasons at all other than political.

I see this as a very negative point. Obviously the government is not interested in accessibility and accountability in letting the taxpayers know what they are getting for their money.

In conclusion, that is the reason we came down here. We came here because we felt the status quo must be changed. The Canadian people feel it must be changed and the debate today has further confirmed why we have to change the way this place operates.

[Access To Information Act, October 31st, 1997]

moved that Bill C-217, an act to amend the Access to Information Act (disclosure of results of public opinion polls), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, most Canadians believe that this is the best country in the world in which to live. They are proud of the country in which we live. However, most of them would agree that the status quo is not acceptable. We cannot keep on doing things the way we have always done them. Now there is a demand across Canada for more open and accountable government.

Open government means a free flow of information between government and its citizens. It means government informs the public, rather than manipulating them. Open government means that when tax dollars are used to commission polls about the thoughts and opinions of Canadians, then everyone has the right to access that information in a timely manner.

Canadians want to be able to access to these poll results in an easy manner, not in a manner in which they have to jump through a whole bunch of bureaucratic hoops and satisfy a whole bunch of requirements before accessing the information. If that is what has to happen, people will be discouraged from accessing poll results.

Unlike the Parliament of the Conservative Party which was very secretive, this Parliament has shown itself to be more willing to open up the process. This government believes there should be changes and that things will have to be changed to satisfy Canadians. As well, this government believes that Canadians should never have to face the situation, as happened in the Mulroney years, when the information commissioner had to take the prime minister to court in order to release information from publicly funded polls.

It will take a long time for Canadians to forget the reign of terror brought on by the Mulroney government and the secretive administration which existed then. I am sure this government does not want to have a repeat of that sort of regime. Of course, it does not want to leave those kinds of memories in the minds of Canadians.

There is no doubt in my mind that this kind of backroom government that was so common before must be changed and it must be changed quickly. The Canadian public will not accept any more of this sort of blind faith in politicians. Canadians have learned from experience that they cannot trust politicians who tell them “trust me”.

Politicians who selectively release important information to manipulate the public, particularly when the public paid for those polls, is just not acceptable. To simply advance the ideas of the government through polling is just not acceptable.

We recently witnessed a perfect example of this sort of behaviour. On October 29 a Globe and Mail article by Hugh Windsor is an example of what Canadians will not accept.

I am going to quote from the article and talk about it because it was so timely that it was published just a couple of days ago. It really points to exactly what the bill is all about.

I will give a bit of background. This is with regard to the finance minister who we all know hates to be criticized and we know that he will go a long way in order to prevent criticism.

This issue relates to the harmonization of the GST and provincial taxes. He would not make any moves without conducting massive numbers of polls and many focus group studies. This was paid for by the Canadian taxpayer. Then, of course, a number of people wanted to see the results of the polling and focus groups.

Another issue which arises from this is the fact that the minister also chose his political friends for this hundreds of thousands of dollars in polling that was done. David Herke, a former member of his leadership team, did most of the polling along with Elly Alboim, a former CBC journalist. After the polling and focus groups were finished, the minister said this cannot be made public.

The question Mr. Windsor asked very clearly in his article was how we can the opinions of the Canadian people on the topic of taxation and say that they should be state secrets. The minister is quoted as saying that this would be deemed injurious to conducting the Government of Canada and injurious to federal and provincial affairs. He also said that it would be materially injurious to financial interests, and he went on. Those were the grounds on which he said these polls could not be published.

The access to information commissioner said it was not a national threat to the country or to provincial relations. The minister then requested that the information be made public.

Just to show how far the finance minister would go, he hired his own lawyer to challenge the information commissioner on releasing polls that were paid for by the Canadian public. This blockage continued for 18 months. Finally, after his own lawyer advised him he cannot block these anymore, that if this goes to court he would lose, his lawyer advised him to release the information.

Now, 18 months after the polls which were paid for by the Canadian taxpayer were done, they were released. What did they contain that was so injurious? I will quote from the actual poll results:

[They] will be seen as a bribe and a waste of taxpayer's money if the reform is seen to be a political exercise unrelated to improving the tax system; the issue is political, not substantive; no evidence that people think the GST is in need of reform; the GST reform has no relief for consumers, it has a patchwork look and the appearance of more confusion for business and more bureaucracy; the GST commitment needs to be dealt with politically rather than substantively; the most effective method is likely to come clean now about the promise and the inability to fulfil it rather than pretend to have fulfilled it.

These are the claims that were made by the opposition parties in this House about the harmonized GST. Yet this minister took 18 months to hold this public polling in secret just because it was politically against what he was trying to do. Obviously if the taxpayer is going to pay for it then the taxpayer has the right to know about it. If a political party wants to do polling it certainly can keep it secret because it paid the bill.

Certainly the current government, as I have said, has not been as secretive as the previous one, but the whole red book concept of open government obviously is really being held to question now when we examine the actual facts.

I know we are going to hear from members across the way that there is no need for Bill C-217, that they really are not interested in blocking any poll results. However, what we are saying is that when any federal departments, boards or agencies commission polls paid for by the House they should be made public.

I have a lot of arguments that I think we will hear against the need for this bill. I do not think I have to go through all of them other than to simply say that many Liberal members in the House have stood up and said that results should be open and that the justice minister is going to fix the access to information. We have been promised since 1994 that there will be substantive changes to the access to information. Those have just not happened.

When we see a minister, as the example I have just described, doing that we can see just how old-fashioned and unwilling to change this government may have become.

Let us examine the Treasury Board changes which I can go through item by item. There are seven major items. I can provide that information to anyone who wants it. The key thing is that the headlines probably say it all, “Liberal poll rules are much like the Tories. Liberals will still allow polls to be kept secret”. That does not go with the promise by the Liberals of an open government.

I am standing here today pleading with this government to allow these polls to be subject to access claims, that it be done in a reasonable manner, not 90 days but 15 days from the time the poll is commissioned if it is paid for by the public, that these polls then be presented to the Speaker of the House, that he then has the authority to release that information in due course, and then the public has the right to know what those results are.

That is the major part of the bill. Those are the reasons behind it. I think the government will be hard pressed to justify to those Canadians who are asking for accountability that a poll paid for by them should be kept secret.

[Nigeria, October 22nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, two years ago Nigeria's rulers killed Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight others. Canada helped to suspend Nigeria from the Commonwealth.

The minister is now going to travel to the Commonwealth meetings this weekend to ask it to extend the suspension. Everyone agrees the suspensions have not worked.

At McGill last week the minister said that we may have to take more coercive measures. What kind of coercive measures is the minister talking about?

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, October 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the last member gave us a history lesson. Let us just review very quickly some of the history since 1993. We nearly lost Canada in a Quebec referendum. We are $100 billion deeper in debt. There are $26 billion in increased taxes. Youth unemployment stands at 17%. Patronage appointments abound everywhere. We have job equity. The deception is that somehow our financial problems have been fixed although we have a $50 billion interest payment. Now comes the most severe tax grab that we have ever had where the tax will be raised from 5.6% to 9.9% of a person's income.

To show the total disrespect for democracy, we now have closure being used on this bill that affects almost all Canadians.

Let us go back in history to 1966 when this experiment in socialism was started. We were told that deductions would never go above 5.5%. However, with mismanagement we now have a pension plan that is underfunded by $560 billion.

Let us talk about the pension plan as hon. members across the way want to keep talking about it. Let us talk about young people. They are the people who are going to be affected by this the most but let us also include seniors who have children and grandchildren.

We are going to destroy the incentive of these young people. We are going to rob them of their jobs because of these payroll tax deductions. The small businessman is going to be put further down the line and his chances of survival are that much less.

During the last election I made up a little card. This little card refers to exactly what this plan is all about. I talked to many young people, particularly, in the workforce at their places of work. I said to them “Let us think about what this plan is really about. In the next six years you are going to go from a $935 maximum deduction if your income is $35,000 to a point where you are paying $1,645. Your employer will have to match it. This is roughly $3,300. If you are 30 years old you are going to paying that $3,300 for 35 years until you are 65. At the end of that time you will get $8,800 provided you don't have too high an income. If you have too high an income the government is going to claw it back from you. Maybe what you are doing is really investing $3,300 a year for 35 or more years to get nothing”.

What would be a better way? Obviously, a better way would be to take that $3,300 and invest it in almost any kind of securities or program if it was compulsory. If it was at only 6%, at age 65 that very same person would have a $275,000 nest egg and would have an annuity that would pay $26,000 until death.

What kind of investment are we asking our young people to make? We are asking them to be robbed. We are asking them to be part of this deceptive scheme that will take six years to implement.

Let us come to the present. The government is saying “We are very early in our mandate and so let us get the dirty things done quickly and then maybe people will forget about it. Maybe the electorate will forget about it”. All of us in this House had better dedicate ourselves to making sure that the electorate knows what kind of robbery this is for our young people.

I would like to read some quotes. I really think these are fitting. Mr. Axworthy, who was a member of Parliament, was quoted on April 1, 1993 as saying “It displays the utter disdain with which this government treats the Canadian people,” when he talked about closure. The House leader said on November 16, 1992 as quoted in Hansard “I am shocked. This is just terrible. This time we are talking about a major piece of legislation. Shame on those Tories across the way for using closure”.

Mr. Speaker, with all respect I must quote you on April 23, 1993 from Hansard when you said “This is not the way to run Parliament. This is an abuse of the process of this House”. I say to the government, it is a disgrace what it has just done, using closure on a piece of important legislation. Mr. Speaker, we agree with you totally. I tell you, they should go up in our caucus room because you are right.

We know that you are close to the people of your riding and to the people of Canada, Mr. Speaker. That is what the people are saying about this charade that we saw taking place today.

The government will continue to move closure. That is the sad part about it. This is just the beginning. In the last House the government used closure 29 times, the most in the whole history of Parliament.

The last member said “Hey, this is an honourable place”. This place has lost its democratic reason to exist. This place is a disgrace because of those people across the way.

I trust that all of us are going back to our ridings and I trust that the people in those ridings are going to say “How can you shut down debate? How can you not listen to us telling you about this robbery that is going to take place of every Canadian?”

What are the options? The government would like us to think that there are none. But let us just quickly talk about those. There are many options. Within six years I believe the government will admit it was wrong. Of course it will not be the government at that point but when the government members are sitting across here they will say “That was probably the worst mistake we made in this House”.

What are the options? The options are obvious. Let young people set up a private plan. Let us take a look at what Britain is going to be doing. It is going to that sort of a plan. The U.S. is pretty much committed to going to that plan within the next two years. Australia and New Zealand have already done it. Chile has been on that plan for 16 years. Let us examine those. Let us see what other countries are doing so that we can do the same for the people of Canada. There are options out there.

So that the hon. finance minister cannot continue to misquote the Reform position, let us tell people today that all of those people who have paid into the CPP will be paid out in a credit system whereby they will get a prorated pension plan for the years of contribution.

It will take time to phase in this plan but we have to start it now. All of us know that in time if we stay with the plan we have we will be going back for more contributions, more money, more tax grabs.

We have to look at these options. We have to present them in the House. They need to be debated here, but the government has closed down that option. As we heard from the finance committee they do not even have it in their schedule to discuss this.

As we know from the last Parliament. the government will think nothing of using closure in committee, using closure at third reading and ramming this legislation through because it has a deadline of January 1. When the workers start to realize that their contributions have gone from $935 to $1,645, we had better believe they are going to let people know and we better believe they will let the members across the way know. Four years from now it should be time and it should have moved well enough along that the results will be at the ballot box.

In conclusion, today has been a dark day for our country. It has been a dark day for young people. It is up to us to communicate that across the country. All of us on this side of the House had better dedicate ourselves to that job.

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, October 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, before I came to the House I travelled extensively. I spent 30 years travelling around the world. I truly want to emphasize just how critical it is that the government preserve the integrity of the Canadian passport.

The Canadian passport is a ticket to freedom. It may be the most treasured passport in the entire world. Our passport is a key which opens the door for Canadians wherever they go.

That is exactly why the Canadian passport is so important for a man named Ron Ready. Ron is a Canadian who has been in Jordan for the past six months on important personal business. He does not want to come home until he has completed his task, but now he says that he may be forced to.

Things changed for the worse for Ron only a few hours after two individuals carrying what are now being called forged Canadian passports attacked a Hamas leader.

Ron says he was contacted in his hotel by the police and told that as a Canadian he should stay indoors because his safety might be threatened.

We have talked to Ron four or five times, almost every day, to find out how things have changed. Ron did contact foreign affairs, both over there and here in Ottawa. He called the prime minister's office for action. When he received no answers, he contacted the official opposition.

After communicating with Ron we were shocked to find that so little had been done to protect Canadians in Jordan and elsewhere in the Middle East. In fact, we can think of nothing that was done at all. Ron says that the only help he received was the same advice he got from the police: Stay inside.

Jordanian acquaintances told him there was talk of killing westerners. Meanwhile, he said, the embassy would not even pay for him to call the foreign affairs department in Canada. When Ron Ready really needed the foreign affairs department, foreign affairs was inept and unavailable for him.

At the very least, Ron thought the Canadian government should issue a travel advisory so that other Canadians would not wander into the situation, but foreign affairs refused to do it.

When an incident takes place anywhere in the world and Canadians are at risk I believe that the government should do what it can to help them. Instead of taking action the government stalled. Instead of thinking about how life would be for Canadians stuck in this situation, the government was only hoping that no one would ask the difficult questions that would embarrass it.

If the media and the official opposition did not push for answers I doubt the government would have told us about this situation at all. The government waited for days, hoping no questions would come. It did not even think for a moment about the implication and the threats this placed on Canadian passport holders travelling abroad.

We think the government owes it to Canadians to get an assurance from Israel that our passports will not be used in covert operations ever again. A Canadian passport is too important to be muddied doing the dirty work in undercover operations.

I ask the government what specific actions it will take to ensure this will not happen again.