Bob Mills

[Somalia Inquiry, February 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, two years ago I asked the Prime Minister to recall Bob Fowler from the UN

because of his involvement in the Somalia affair. He refused because all the allegations would be sorted out by the inquiry. To quote him, as he likes to quote so much from Hansard , on March 21, 1995 he said: ``The inquiry will be comprehensive and everything can be discussed at this inquiry''. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister's words have been proven totally untrue.

I want to know if the Prime Minister is going to apologize to Canadians for this latest Liberal broken promise.

[Patronage, February 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, Bob Fowler and his family go way back with the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party. It all started in the seventies when young Fowler was a protégé of the Prime Minister's friends, Mitchell Sharp and Pierre Trudeau. During this time he got to know the little guy from Shawinigan. He has known him ever since.

Moreover, Bob Fowler's sister married another good friend and patronage appointee of the Prime Minister, Roméo LeBlanc, the Governor General of Canada. Let us not forget Mr. Fowler's wife who was a senior bureaucrat in the office of another friend of the PM, André Ouellet, who was the Minister of Foreign Affairs until he also got his Liberal patronage plum as head of the post office.

Then it was Fowler's turn. Just when the Somalia affair threatened to engulf him, whoosh, he was swept off to become ambassador of the UN thanks to the Prime Minister's patronage.

I do not think the Prime Minister is fooling anyone. He protected his friend from the Somalia affair and on that the record it is very clear.

[Somalia Inquiry, February 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the Prime Minister that we asked these questions about Mr. Fowler two years ago and then he was hustled off to New York.

My business experience says that if you want to rebuild something that is not working you start from the top, not from the bottom. The problem is the Prime Minister has been protecting the people at the top. When things went wrong for the Prime Minister's friends in positions of responsibility he shut down the inquiry and let the people at the bottom take the blame.

When will the Prime Minister stop shielding his buddies at the top and show some integrity by holding them accountable?

[Somalia Inquiry, February 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, we have direct allegations that Robert Fowler and General Anderson shredded important documents relating to the murder investigation of Shidane Arone, and that Mr. Fowler did not keep Kim Campbell informed during this entire thing. But the Prime Minister protected his friends, appointed them to positions outside of the country and now he is trying to bury the inquiry before we find the smoking gun.

Will the Prime Minister explain this abuse of trust?

[International Development Week, February 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to address the death of Father Pinard and extend condolences on behalf of the Reform Party to his family and friends.

Father Pinard was tragically murdered while delivering communion in Rwanda. This senseless and shameful act has shocked Canadians and has reminded us all of the dangers faced by many Canadian men and women who work abroad under very difficult and uncertain circumstances to relieve human suffering.

Father Pinard fought for decades to bring hope and love of God to the people of Rwanda. Even in the face of other recent shootings he did not abandon his parishioners. He served them to the very end and this will not be forgotten by Canadians.

On behalf of the Reform Party it is a pleasure to respond to the minister's statement on International Development Week 1997. For decades Canadians have made a great contribution in the area of international development. Thousands have volunteered their time and millions have donated money to aid the cause.

Given this commitment by Canadians, it is also important that the federal government do its part and support the priorities of grassroots Canadians by matching the contributions raised privately by non-governmental organizations and church groups. I believe that Canadians prefer this approach rather than spending large amounts of aid dollars on government to government handouts. By working with grassroots organizations our aid dollars will more effectively help the world's poorest people by providing for basic human needs such as primary education, basic health care and sanitation. Canada will help to bring an end to the cycle of poverty and dependency that is common in many parts of the developing world. This is a worthy goal.

In addition since the minister mentioned human rights, I would argue that his government should act, not just simply talk. When Reformers consulted our grassroots membership on this topic at Assembly 96, they voted overwhelmingly to oppose giving foreign aid to governments that abuse basic human rights. This is a good idea and I am sure that most Canadians would agree with it.

Canadians have already done a great deal to foster international development but we can do better. We can make sure that our shrinking aid budget is spent more effectively and we can expect greater accountability for that spending from CIDA which should be given a true legislative mandate. If we do all this, then our development program will be on track for the 21st century.

[Radioactive Waste Importation Act, December 11th, 1996]

The half life is 2,800 years. Where are we going to store these nuclear wastes for 2,800 years and who is going to pay the bill?

In Russia the spent rods are stored in a gully. They have been dumped there and they are leaking. In Canada we store the rods in an air conditioned, liquid filled cement vat and the cost is phenomenal. In Russia they turned off the air conditioning because they could not afford the power so there was no air conditioning for the stored rods. Is there a time bomb there? You had better believe there is a time bomb there and it is one we have to deal with.

It can be argued that accepting nuclear waste creates a lot of jobs. If that is the case then we have to weigh the jobs versus the costs and the benefits versus the dangers. The point I am making here is the fact that we must have an open debate on this subject. I believe that this bill is saying that before we agree to transport any nuclear waste, we must know the facts and they must be clear.

It does concern me as a Canadian that the government does not have a plan, that this is going to be done ad hoc. It will be sprung on us and there will be only two days of debate or a take note debate some night and at the end of it we will not get to vote and we will be stuck with tons of nuclear waste.

To say that we have legislation and that this bill is redundant is totally untrue. We need legislation and a long term plan. Obviously if we are talking about 2,800 years, that is a pretty long term plan.

To simply say that this bill is not timely or that it is not important to the Canadian public is really misrepresenting the entire issue of nuclear waste. I know Canadians across the country are going to start asking these questions. They are going to expect answers to the many questions members are raising during the discussion.

In conclusion, I am saying that Canadians need information, an open debate, open discussion, open presentation to the House of Commons. It affects every one of us. Before any further planning is done in this regard, we need to deal with it here.

[Radioactive Waste Importation Act, December 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today on Bill C-236. It is very timely to talk about setting ground rules for the transport of nuclear waste. It is something that has been in the news the last couple of nights. I was rather shocked a few minutes ago to hear the parliamentary secretary for natural resources say that there are no plans for the movement of any nuclear waste between countries, that there are no plans anywhere.

Whatever researcher wrote that speech obviously must have done it prior to April because the Prime Minister agreed openly and publicly to accept Russian nuclear waste at the Russian conference. He said Canada would do its part to take nuclear waste. I am not talking about medical waste. I am talking about war grade plutonium.

Just two days ago one of the ministers in Mr. Clinton's cabinet noted that Canada had agreed to take U.S. nuclear waste and that a test project would be undertaken in the next few months. It is kind of scary that the parliamentary secretary for natural resources would say that the government has no plans. The Prime Minister announced the plans and other ministers have confirmed those plans. To say it is untimely to talk about this and that something like this is not necessary is totally and absolutely incorrect.

Members are getting used to having different things said at different times and the interpretations are left for the public which will see what the truth really is.

For decades there have been problems with the waste from the the 413 commercial nuclear reactors that now exist in the world. Not only is it a problem in Canada, it is a problem in many countries. I would like to relate to the House an experience in the last month when we were in the Scandinavian countries looking at the problem of Russian nuclear waste.

In Murmansk there are 80 submarines containing nuclear waste which it would be so dangerous to move that they would need a cement ship built around them. They would then have to be transferred in a special rail car with a special rail line built to transport them.

The question is how that nuclear waste can be transported to Canada. Two icebreakers are 3,000 feet under the ocean leaking nuclear waste. That needs to be cleaned up. Eighteen nuclear power plants are as bad or worse than Chernobyl. The world has a serious nuclear waste problem and we need to look at what Canada's role should be.

It is very fitting that we talk about the transport of nuclear waste. How is the nuclear waste to be moved from one point to another? How is the nuclear waste from the U.S. to be moved to Canada? How is it going to be moved from places like Murmansk? Do Canadians want to be the nuclear dumping ground for the world?

What are nuclear wastes like? I am not chemist or physicist and I do not know the details about this, but I am told that a grapefruit sized ball of plutonium conceivably would destroy a city the size of Toronto. We are then told that the intensity can be downgraded

so it can be transported safely. Let us have the details concerning that transportation.

The next item we need to have some details on is terrorism. How is the transfer of this plutonium, of this nuclear waste, of these spent rods, from Russia to Canada to be secured? How can this plutonium be guarded so that it is not open to terrorists to get their hands on it? If they are that dangerous, Canadians at least need to have that item discussed.

A serious study was done, the Bellona report, which resulted in the top Russian nuclear scientist committing suicide and the second in command nuclear scientist in Russia now being held in prison without a trial because he released some information on the dangers of the nuclear waste.

One does not fool around with this stuff. It is not something about which you make an ad hoc deal with the Americans or the Russians around tea some place. This is the sort of thing that should be openly discussed with Canadians, that should be openly debated in the House of Commons and the decisions are made after that debate.

For the parliamentary secretary to say that we have no plans for moving nuclear waste is wrong. The Prime Minister signed a deal in April in Moscow saying we would do our part and take war grade nuclear wastes.

One can argue that is our part to the international community but to say that we do not have any plans, there are plans. There are plans in Russia and in the U.S. Those are clear, open and we know about them.

There are more questions to be asked. If we can get it here without terrorists getting their hands on it, if we can transport it safely without it being dangerous to the population, then we have to find out how much of it can be burned. Only about one-third of that waste can be burned. The two-thirds that are left have to be stored. That means transporting nuclear waste here, of which only one-third can be burned and the other two-thirds will have to be stored. How are we going to store them? How much is it going to cost? How are we going to deal with the problem? As far as I know, there is no answer to those questions.

[United Nations Universal Declaration Of Human Rights, December 10th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I cannot give a legal answer to that question.

My honoured colleague obviously is an expert in international law and constitutional law. I respect him for that.

I would say that when it comes to human rights it comes more to the point of common sense, not the sorts of things where we could get hung up in a court of law, in international courts, where we could debate it for years on end.

It reminds me of the couple of monks in a monastery back in the 17th century who debated for 100 years whether or not angels have wings. The debate went on for 100 years and at the end of the time, they came to a conclusion. Their conclusion was that some angels do and some angels do not. That is what happens when we get too hung up in the legal ramifications.

I would say in answer to the hon. member's question that the role of Canada is to show leadership. Through our Constitution, which I believe does give equality to all within the law, that is what we should try to achieve on an international basis. The closer we come to achieving that, the better this world is going to be for the human beings living in it.

[United Nations Universal Declaration Of Human Rights, December 10th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to take the second half of my fellow member's time and to again remember December 10, 1948, the conference on human rights and the statement made at that time.

Human rights is something that hopefully every single one of us as Canadians feel strongly about and are concerned about. I am sure we could talk about it in many different ways. What I intend to do tonight is concentrate primarily on the international aspects.

Each and every day my office receives a great many letters from across the country appealing to the government to do more about human rights. I suggest that many Canadians who have written those letters feel that the current government has done a poor job in many areas of human rights.

In much of the current debate a false dichotomy has developed. On one hand, many human rights activists argue that Canada should completely cut off countries with abusive governments. They argue that we should not trade with them, that we should publicly condemn them and that we should isolate them. On the other hand, the government has taken the approach of cosying up to at least 99 per cent of the dictators, of being their best buddy and of saving its outrage and contempt for the other 1 per cent to make it look like it actually cares. Neither of these approaches achieves the goal that most Canadians want.

From speaking to Canadians I believe they want government policy to accomplish several things. First they want Canada to help people who live under abusive regimes in the most constructive way possible. In order to help people, Canada must have a presence in the affected country. Canada has a lot of experience in building legal and democratic institutions in the developing world. This is an important feature of Canada's current foreign aid program.

That is why Reform supports this process which includes things such as monitoring elections to make sure they are free and fair; providing legal expertise to reform the court systems; and providing training for police so they will serve and protect rather than intimidate and bully their populations. It is our hope that through this type of policy we can help the people in the developing world to establish democratic and legal institutions that ordinary people trust.

Reform also supports working with non-governmental organizations and the private sector to build civil societies in developing countries. With this policy Canada will be able to help people in the developing world to help themselves to a better future. As social and business groups emerge as legitimate political forces in developing countries, they will be able to assert themselves and work against corrupt and abusive governments.

Reform also sees international trade as a source of hope for people in developing countries. Certainly there is an intense debate surrounding this point but I believe supporting human rights through various programs and reforms will mean little if the people we are trying to help continue to live in absolute poverty and destitution.

International trade creates jobs and incomes for millions and millions of people who would otherwise have nothing. This is not to say that wages are always at an acceptable level. It is not to say that the workplace conditions are what we would expect here in Canada. But if we ask the question, would the people living in abusive countries be better off or worse off if Canada and other developed countries refused to trade with them, I believe the answer is clear.

In the political debate in Canada, Reform has consistently argued that the best kind of welfare program is a job. If this is true in Canada where we have a whole social safety net which includes free health care, employment insurance, old age security, welfare and a host of other programs for our citizens, then it is doubly true in countries where no such programs exist.

For all of the reasons I have mentioned: providing jobs, assisting in democratic institutions and building and reforming corrupt legal systems, Canada should not choose the path of isolation. Even though cutting countries off would be a strong symbolic statement, I do not think it is the best way to help those people who desperately need our assistance.

Nonetheless, neither should the Canadian Prime Minister be best buddies with foreign leaders who reject democracy and frequently run corrupt and abusive regimes. This sends out all the wrong messages. I believe this is where the current government and our Prime Minister have failed.

It must be clear to Canadians that our government is not condoning the kind of massive repression and abuse that frequently takes place around the world. Unfortunately it is not clear. In fact many Canadians have written me to complain bitterly about the behaviour of the Prime Minister. They believe he has callously ignored human rights abuses in his foreign travels and this has left them outraged.

This reminds me of a highly ironic point. Just over a month ago the Prime Minister attacked me and the leader of the Reform Party for having met with the U.S. speaker of the house of representatives, Newt Gingrich. He was shocked and outraged. It seems the Prime Minister believes that Reform should not meet with the democratically elected leaders of our closest ally, the U.S., but it is a demonstration of true Liberal Party leadership when the Prime Minister befriends dictators all the time.

In fact I would not even be surprised if we find the Prime Minister golfing with Saddam Hussein over the Christmas break. How many people commented about the Prime Minister dancing with the Prime Minister of China and some of his past history? Or how about embracing Mr. Castro and some of the abuses there? I have been in some of the jails in Cuba and have looked at them and have seen the human rights abuses in that country.

My point is that while Reform does not advocate isolation, we do reject the government's shameless pandering to foreign dictators. We reject it and so does the Canadian public. It is for this reason that at the last Reform Party assembly in Vancouver our membership voted overwhelmingly, over 90 per cent, to oppose federal government foreign aid to governments which suppress basic human rights. That is the commitment our party has made and we will follow through on it when we form the next government.

Reform will end the Liberal government's practice of giving handouts to abusive regimes.

In the future Canada must provide an example to the world. We should use our foreign aid program to constructively promote democratic and legal reforms. We should encourage expanded trade to generate jobs in developing countries, but we should make it perfectly clear that the systematic abuse of human rights is unacceptable. We should voice our concerns and cut off aid to those who reject freedom and ignore human rights.

[Peacekeeping, December 10th, 1996]

When did we vote on any of them?