Bob Mills

[Members Of Parliament Retiringallowances Act, June 22nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, it is amazing how that works. It certainly is nice to give a speech to somebody. It makes my point about democracy and how little there is of that in this House as we have gone on.

I would like to go back to the pension and how Liberals justify it. I have pointed out that this attempt at justifying the pension plan is going to fall on deaf ears. I think to the next election and about bringing up the trough charts that will be available as we show who is at the trough and what sorts of benefits there will be.

I also think about that PC candidate who is going to say: "I cannot opt out of the plan". I think of the Liberal and NDP who will say: "Our party did not opt out of the plan". I also think of the position we are going to be in when we say: "We all opted out of the plan when given that opportunity".

An article in today's Gazette is interesting. It states that the voters will not forgive MPs for keeping their lavish pensions. This is where it is really at. By voting themselves reduced but still lavish pensions this week, many Liberal MPs might be signing their own political death warrants. I guess we should say

hurrah for that and right on because that certainly is going to help our campaign.

The public is not stupid. The public knows what is happening. The public has sent the message that it should come from the constituency to Ottawa and that is where the message has to be. It is a clear message. The message on pensions is that they are too rich, too gold plated. Eighty per cent of Canadians are saying that. That is what the polls are saying about the MP gold plated pension plan. They do not believe that the party knows best. They do not believe that this is a fair item.

For the member for Kingston and the Islands who brings out his green book, his little, little green book, I have a little, little red book. If I might paraphrase from this little, little red book concerning the topic of punishment of backbenchers, it says that MPs must learn to stop listening to the views of their constituents and remember their loyalty is to the party. That is exactly what the message in the pension plan is, loyalty to the party.

So we will quote from this little, little red book because this little, little red book-

[Members Of Parliament Retiringallowances Act, June 22nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, it gives me pleasure to speak on Bill C-85. I will be splitting my time with the member for Fraser Valley West.

Major problems exist in Canada. There is the debt and the deficit. There is the criminal justice system and all the reforms which are necessary. There is parliamentary reform, which rates fairly high with Canadians. We certainly need to look at the other place; all of us would agree many changes are required there. Free votes. Recall of MPs so we can get rid of the bad ones. Referenda. Those are the issues people are talking about. The other things they are talking about are things which are not compatible with what they see as being fair. Certainly MP pensions fit into that category.

Canadians are now very aware that over the last number of years we have built a $553 billion debt and that the debt deepens by $110 million per day. By the time the next election comes the country will be another $100 billion in debt.

When those are the problems, Canadians do not want us to waste our time talking about things like pensions and how we are going to take care of members of Parliament. We have wasted our time talking about things like gun control, quotas, the $2 coin and the minor changes we will make to the pension plan. People are saying there are some big problems which we should be addressing. Canadians are asking us to get on with the job of addressing those problems.

When talking about the pension plan Canadians ask how the Liberals can justify the pension. How do they do that? What do the Liberals say when they are in the House of Commons to justify their pension plan? Let us look at the kinds of things we have heard during the debate.

First, we have heard about the red book. The red book says that we are going to change the pension plan. The Liberals say they have done that. They have made the eligibility age 55. The rest of the country of course is looking at 65, 67 and a much higher age in the future. Double dipping is not allowed any more. "Big deal", is what most people will say about that. They say they have gone further than what they had planned. I think the Reform Party can take some credit for that.

We hear: "When you leave one job, you are going to have a hard time finding another one". I believe that if one has done his or her job here one will probably have an easier time finding another job. The people here who have done a good job will be sought after by industry.

What about job security? That is a little hard to sell as well. In what other job does one find security any more? If people do their jobs they will have security, which is what we should have here.

Members have said that when they leave their jobs this pension is compensation for a low salary. It has been made very clear by the member for Calgary Centre that there are other parts to this job. All Canadians are asking for is to have things up front. They want to know what MPs get.

[Members Of Parliament Retiringallowances Act, June 22nd, 1995]

Of course not.

[Bosnia, June 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we found out today that the government will be joining the Bosnia strike force. The presence of such a force is not in keeping with the peacekeeping mandate and has only two purposes: one, to join an escalating conflict as a combatant; or two, to facilitate the withdrawal of UN troops from the region.

Since the government is contributing troops to the strike force, does this mean it is abandoning its professed resolve for neutrality or is it preparing for withdrawal as we have proposed for the last six months?

[Bosnia, June 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, every report from Bosnia suggests that our peacekeepers can no longer do their job. The Canadian commander says they are "frozen in place".

In response, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said this morning that if our peacekeepers "are no longer able to accomplish their raison d'être then they will have to be evacuated".

Given the minister's statement, is the government now preparing the evacuation of Canadian troops from Bosnia?

[Nigeria, June 15th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I share the sentiments of the Secretary of State for Latin America and Africa who spoke well on the need for the restoration of democracy in Nigeria.

It is certainly true the people of that country deserve a far better government than they currently have. When they went peacefully to the polls two years ago they had a genuine hope that for the first time they would be able to choose their own president, but their hopes were dashed. Not only was their democratically elected president Chief Moshood Abiola arrested in jail by the army, but almost every personal freedom was taken away from the people of Nigeria. This unfortunate set of circumstances was described in detail by the secretary of state.

In response to this robbery of democracy the Canadian government has been quite right to condemn the illegitimate government which has taken over. It was similarly correct in taking certain punitive actions against that government. In the future the Reform Party hopes the Canadian government will vigorously promote democracy and improve human rights in Nigeria and throughout the world.

In general Reform supports positive measures to improve human rights such as support for the strengthening of democratic and legal institutions in the developing world through our international aid program. Canadian aid should support human rights promotion, democratic change and institution building. Reform also supports working with non-governmental organizations and the private sector to build up a civil society and middle class in developing countries. As civil society expands and the middle class grows, human rights issues will improve.

In severe cases such as Nigeria where the government is responsible for massive human rights abuses and with which a co-operative approach is not likely to be successful, we would support the multilateral use of certain penalties.

I pass on a message to the people of Nigeria that Canada does care and we will continue in our commitment to assisting democratization and human rights in that country and in others. With hard work and persistence they can overcome tyranny and Canadians look forward to the day when we will welcome their democratically elected leaders to our country.

[Peacekeeping Act, June 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak on this private member's bill. It is certainly timely. I congratulate the hon. member for Fraser Valley East for bringing it forward at this time.

The current crisis in Bosnia has brought into sharp focus the need for Canadians to have clear criteria for the future of peacekeeping missions. That is exactly what Bill C-295 does.

Certainly we have heard in the House many times that we cannot go everywhere. We have heard that we have to be more accountable, we have to be more transparent, and of course we always have to be aware of the cost of such measures.

Let me review what has occurred in Bosnia to illustrate why we need a bill such as this.

Canadian troops first went to this war-torn country over two and a half years ago in the honest hope that they could provide assistance and humanitarian relief to the people of Bosnia. They also hoped to keep combatants apart and facilitate a negotiated peace for the region.

Unfortunately, these laudable goals were not backed up by a United Nations mandate that could get the job done. With no leadership from Ottawa, our peacekeepers have been left twisting in the wind.

Our peacekeepers are the best in the world and their service in Bosnia has been above and beyond the call of duty. They deserve to have modern equipment, a coherent government policy, decisive leadership from Ottawa, and a UN mandate that allows them to do their job properly. Unfortunately, the government has let them down in almost all these respects.

We have received most recently mixed messages. We have a defence minister who says we should consolidate, we should fight back, and he even condones air strikes. We have a foreign affairs minister who says let us leave it the way it is and hope we can return to the mandate, as long as they do not keep taking us

hostage and humiliating us. We have a Prime Minister who in effect simply tries to ride the middle and more or less agrees one day to go one way and another day to go the other.

We do not have leadership in this area, and we certainly are letting our peacekeepers down because of it. Meeting with people as recently as today, that has been reconfirmed by people who have been there as recently as two days ago. To begin with, the government has overextended our commitments to peacekeeping while simultaneously cutting back on the defence budget. The results have been most unfortunate. For example, we have troops who go out on peacekeeping missions with equipment that would be considered antiques by many nations.

Compounding this, we have Liberal defence cuts that have very much limited the availability of trained personnel. This means that for missions such as the one in Bosnia we have to keep sending the same people over time and again. How do members think our soldiers feel as they are posted back to Bosnia for the third or fourth time? What about their families? What do members think their reaction is when they see Canadian peacekeepers being targeted by all sides in that conflict? What do they feel, knowing that Canadian troops are regularly taken hostage at gunpoint by the very people they were sent to help?

We must decide what we are going to do, and this bill helps us to do that. We must specialize. We must pick our areas. We cannot be everything to all people. And of course we must make sure we have a clear mandate and the equipment to deliver on that mandate.

There is no peace to keep in Bosnia. There is also no humanitarian mission to speak of. The only thing the UN is successful at is being used as a pawn by the warring factions. The government should have recognized this long ago. Canada should never have renewed our commitment to Bosnia in March, considering the ridiculous situation our peacekeepers are in. The Reform Party warned the government and we asked for this withdrawal since before last Christmas, but the government did not listen.

Our proud peacekeepers were not sent to Bosnia to be hostages. They were not sent there to be forced to helplessly watch murder and torture, since their mandate does not allow them to stop it. They were not sent there to be shot at by the very people they are supposed to be helping to find peace.

The Bosnian mission has disintegrated beyond repair. While the government buries its head in the sand and wrings its hands in indecision, it is up to private members such as my hon. colleague from Fraser Valley East to speak for the people of Canada and to stand up for the interests of our peacekeepers.

Bill C-295 does what the government should have done long ago. Instead of trusting the safety and lives of our peacekeepers to the twist of fate, this Parliament must set down criteria to condition our involvement for future missions. These criteria should outline what is acceptable and what is not. This is what Bill C-295 does. Most important among these criteria is that Parliament have the right to choose what peacekeeping missions Canada will participate in.

It is not up to the Prime Minister to snap his fingers and expect that everyone will do what he wants. We supposedly live in a democracy, not a dictatorship, although the recent tactics of the Liberal Party on Bill C-68, Bill C-85, and Bill C-41 really have me wondering if that is true.

It is amazing that we are told, "If you do not agree with us, backbenchers, stay home. Forget about the people at home. The party knows best. We will take the message from Ottawa to the constituency."

We waste time talking about $2 coins and three most important bills like this are left for us to talk about in six hours' time on third reading. We keep all of these people in line by giving them travel perks, by constituency spending, and by committee activity.

Beyond the basic idea of parliamentary approval, members of Parliament will need specific information upon which to base their decision. Without knowing the specific objectives and duties of the peacekeepers, how can members know how to vote? Without knowing the duration and the maximum cost of the mission, how would Parliament decide on the best course of action? These questions will be answered if Bill C-295 is passed.

Another key aspect of this bill is that it clearly spells out that Canadian peacekeepers shall be neutral and not engage in combat. This may seem obvious, but from watching the crisis in Bosnia it seems like the UN has taken sides. This is unacceptable. You cannot join the war you are intending to stop. This is why we have concerns about the strike force, about the whole concept of that strike force and what it is going to do. I guess we would have to applaud the government on the go slow action of recommending our involvement in this whole strike force idea. To escalate the war is certainly moving further and further away from the mandate, which we do not believe exists there any longer.

Another vitally important criterion for the good of our peacekeepers involves the reasonable use of force. Again referring to the ridiculous situation in Bosnia, we see how this has been a major failing in the past. We have had troops that have not been able to defend themselves properly. We also have troops who have been forced to watch helplessly as civilians were massacred because their mandate did not allow them to do anything

to stop it. Bill C-295 deals with this problem and spells out some very-

[Bosnia, June 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, talking about Bosnia, the Prime Minister stated in this House: "We are very far away from this part of the world and in many ways it is somewhat more of a European problem than a Canadian problem".

If the Prime Minister actually believes what he said, will this be the position the government will take at the G-7 summit?

[Bosnia, June 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, since it appears the Canadian hostages in Bosnia are being released, the government now has an opportunity to safely scale down the Canadian commitment to Bosnia, which is scheduled to end in just three months. An orderly withdrawal started now would take about that time to be completed.

Will the Prime Minister end his chronic waffling and hand-wringing and announce the Canadian contribution will not be extended beyond September?

[Human Rights, June 6th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to the message of the secretary of state on China and Tiananmen square.

Certainly all of us have the memories imprinted on our minds of the horror and the terror and disbelief of what happened some six years ago. We need to think about what we have in Canada, freedom of speech, freedom of association and all of the good things that are part of our democracy and what it really means when we think back to those days.

Those people did not die in vain and China is moving forward as slow as it may be. China has a very major future in the world. It is a time to think of China and look at what that country means in the big picture of the world. I remember my visits in the late 1970s and in the early 1980s. I think about a country that was very agrarian, backward to our western way of looking at things.

I think of all the people in their blue and green clothes, the thousands and thousands of bicycles. I think of going to the movie theatre where I spent six cents to get in and where in the middle, because there was a Canadian there, they played "Red River Valley". Somehow they thought that was the national anthem of the country.

I remember the curious way people dealt with us as westerners but how friendly they were and how important their family and social structure was to them. I think back to being in the schools where education is such an important part of their society, where they go for six days a week, where they start at eight in the morning and finish at six at night and how they do not have text books so they have to read it on the blackboards outside the school. The people are very industrious, hard working. Commerce is important and there is a hidden power, a so-called sleeping giant in China.

China has changed a lot in the last 10 or 15 years. It now has double digit growth rates, unemployment, a massive movement from rural to urban, a dismantling of the state owned business, an aging leader who sort of keeps it together, but it will change dramatically.

For those of us who have been watching closely I do not think we can believe the speed at which this change will occur. There is a new era for China coming. It is hoped there will be a peaceful change to democracy from the chaos that might otherwise occupy that country.

The government still operates in the old way but I believe the new government will look toward the true power of China and so will come democracy in the 21st century. There is a great opportunity for China and for us in dealing with China.

The Chinese government must control corruption. It must solidify economic reform and it must carry out democratization not just from the communes but on through the villages, the towns, the cities and ultimately in the national government.

With all of this I believe firmly that human rights will come and that human rights reform will be part of that movement. I do not believe there is any way the Government of China will be able to stop that.

What is our role? Our role is to speak out against violations. This gives the people both in and out of China an opportunity to feel strength from our opposition. We need to provide assistance in developing governments and so on. Above all, the isolation of China will not accomplish the goals we all hold for China in the future.