Bob Mills

[Civil International Space Station Agreement Implementation Act, November 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, certainly it is my privilege to speak to Bill C-4 on the space station and what it means to Canadians.

I want to start off by talking about the provincial co-operation that needs to go on whenever we put any kind of legislation forward. Certainly Bill C-4 would be an example of that. I would like to know from government members just how much consultation went on in talking to the premiers about the implications for Canadians of a space station.

Because we have not heard answers from the Liberals, all I can do is try to project how much consultation they might have done. What I would have to do is look at the most recent bill we discussed in this House. Yesterday we talked about Nisga'a. Let us examine that and compare it to Bill C-4 and how much provincial consultation went on.

Also the premiers of Saskatchewan and Manitoba came to try to consult on the agricultural issue. What kind of consultation happened and what were the results?

Let us examine that first in the context of Bill C-4. Let us ask government members, did they consult with the provinces? That is the question. Let us look at the examples of their consultation process.

Let us start off by looking at the Nisga'a agreement. In the Nisga'a agreement which involves the people of British Columbia, the consultation was extremely limited. Closure was used on that bill in the parliament in British Columbia. Yesterday's press release by the leader of the opposition in British Columbia puts it into perspective:

The motion this morning by the federal government to invoke closure on the Nisga'a treaty debate is a reprehensible abuse of the democratic process, said Liberal Leader Gordon Campbell.

“This is an egregious abuse of the democratic process, and shows flagrant contempt for all British Columbians,” said Campbell. “It's an unacceptable slap in the face to our province, and to all Canadians who deserve a full and open debate on the landmark treaty”.

“On a matter of this critical importance to our country, to our province and to our constitution, every member of parliament deserves the right to speak. Every Canadian should demand the right of their MP to speak. To put this in context, we would not for a moment dream of shutting off debate on a change to the constitution affecting Quebec, but that's exactly what the government's doing to B.C.”

The federal government's closure motion, introduced at 11.30 a.m. EST, will shut down all debate on the treaty this afternoon at 6.30 p.m. EST. At the time the motion was introduced, there had been less than 10 hours of debate on the treaty, of which only four hours [and 12 minutes] had been allocated to the official opposition. In that time, the official opposition was able to field just 16 speakers out of a caucus of 58 members. There are 24 Reform opposition MPs in B.C. alone.

This is the example of the co-operation the B.C. politicians feel this federal government gives them. I wonder what the B.C. government would say about the consultation on the space station and its involvement for the 21st century.

Let us move on to Alberta. There is a longstanding tradition that most Alberta politicians feel toward the federal government and its lack of consulting them on most issues. There are so many examples we would not have time to deal with all of them.

I wonder what the Alberta politicians would say about the consultation on Bill C-4, the space station and the implications for the people of Alberta.

Let us go to Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Representatives from Saskatchewan and Manitoba came here last week to consult with the federal government. They wanted to talk about the most important issue they had before them which is the agricultural issue. The farmers are hurting. They are losing their farms. Young farmers are leaving simply because there is no future for them in agriculture. That is our food supply. I wonder how much consultation the premiers of Saskatchewan and Manitoba would say the federal government has had with them.

We could talk about the space station and the implications to agriculture which one member spoke about earlier. It could be a boon to the agricultural community regarding production. I wonder if they have been consulted, if they know what is involved and if they want taxpayers' money to go toward that.

I wonder as well if Ontario and Quebec have been consulted. Mr. Bouchard makes many, many speeches on the topic of consultation with the federal government and the lack of it. It does not matter which party it is in Quebec, we hear the same thing. Mr. Harris in Ontario does not feel he has been consulted on the many issues that affect the great province of Ontario.

If we ask Atlantic Canadians if they have been consulted about the space station, they would say, “No, agreements come out and we get no support at all from the federal government. We have all kinds of fishing agreements. We have the supreme court setting the laws for us and that has opened a time bomb for Canadians”.

A race based policy has been set up in this country. This race based policy is going to cause a great many problems in the future for my children and grandchildren. They are going to have problems because we have set aside special rights for different people. I would hope that the consultation necessary between provinces would go on and would involve everything from space stations to Nisga'a to any other agreements the federal government might enter into.

One of the first items to identify in this severe problem is the co-operation between the provinces and the federal government. It just is not there. It should be there whether it is on the space station or Nisga'a. It should be there. It must be there. We should be here to fight for that right.

Let us talk about the effects on Canadians of legislation that happens here. Let us talk about the space station and what it will do for Canadians.

Obviously, there will be a pride among Canadians when they hear that Canada is playing a role in developing a space station. We are playing a scientific role. We are co-operating with the United States, Japan and countries of the European Union. There will be pride that we are part of this project.

There will be influence created by our involvement in the space station. We will have influence in terms of our marketing and sales and what we do around the world. Our trade will be helped because of the space station.

Let us talk about co-operation and what we will learn by co-operating with these other countries. The prestige and position of Canada in the world will be improved by the space station.

Let us look at the effects on Canadians. Let us compare the space station and all of the good things we have gone through to Nisga'a and the message that sends to the world. Let us compare the two. We have pride and co-operation, prestige and influence in the world because of a space station, but the Nisga'a agreement sends the message that we are persecuting a group of people, that we have a race based policy.

I hope all Canadians believe in the equality of all people, but we have a government that is putting forward a race based policy in the House. The government is afraid to debate the policy because it knows it is onerous to the people of the country. It allows four hours and twelve minutes to debate an issue like that and expects us all to be happy and say “Isn't democracy a wonderful thing”. We are sick and tired of that kind of presentation to the world. The world is looking at us.

The UN has condemned us for our treatment of our native people. The UN has said that it is time we talked about the grassroots people of the country. We do not need to be spending time in here talking about a sophisticated space station. We need to be talking about the grassroots people who really count.

What is happening to those people? They are living in poverty. They have problems with crime and alcoholism. What has caused that? The race based policy of governments in the country over the years have caused the problems. They have created a situation where they think they can solve the problems by throwing money at them and by signing these agreements which no one is happy with.

Many of the people on the reserves are contacting some of our members. The member for Wild Rose and a number of other members have done extensive work with the natives. The member for Prince Albert has also done extensive work with them. They have done a lot of talking to the grassroots people. That is the message we are sending to the world as well.

On the one side, we have the great Bill C-4, the space station bill, that gives us pride in our country. On the other side, we have another piece of legislation that makes us absolutely sick to our stomach and we cannot let the people of Canada know about it because the government is afraid to let it be debated in the House.

The Liberals have no courage at all. They do not stand by their convictions. They should be embarrassed to go out in public. I think that is why so many of them moved to Ottawa and live here. They are afraid to go back to their own constituencies. They should be afraid because of the image they are sending to the people of Canada. One day it will come to haunt the hundreds of people sitting across the way who are listening so attentively. It shows how much interest there is in this kind of issue.

Let me talk further about the constitutional changes and the loss of rights. We are here to talk about the space station. We have said what that does for us and the pride it gives to us. However, what we should be talking about is the loss of rights and the loss of democracy in the country? That should be part of what is happening here as well.

What rights have we lost? I feel I have lost rights by the use of closure in the House. When closure is used we do not have the right to debate the issues and let Canadians knows about them. It used to be that closure could be used once in a session and the government would worry about whether it would be defeated. It now uses closure on every single bill. I expect it will use closure on the space bill. Why would it not on something as great as that? That will send a great message to the world as well: We had to use closure on the space station that every party agreed with. It is a great idea. We are proud of it and we want to be involved but the government has to use closure on it because that is how its democracy works and that is how democracy exists in Canada.

We have lost our rights. We lose our rights every day in the House. Whether it is on closure, Bill C-68, the committee approach to things, satellite TV or whatever it is, the government operates like a dictatorship. It is time the government changed its attitude and started to think about the people who really count.

The government throws out fancy bills like Bill C-4 and says that everyone will agree with it because they are a bunch of patsies who are just going to go along with it. It knows we will put up one more speaker and it will then ram the bill through because it is a good bill. This is an opportunity for us as opposition members to at least let the government and the Canadian people know how the government is operating.

This is not about Bill C-4 and the space station. We are for that. We think it is great and we are proud of it. This is about democracy and the total abuse of democracy in this place. That is why all of us need to stand on our feet and be counted with regard to the issue.

The Nisga'a people would want us to stand and talk as well, even if they are opposed to what we are saying. In a democracy, one has the opportunity to speak and that is what it is all about. We go around the world peddling democracy. We say that we are the example of a democratic state. How can we say that when closure is used at the drop of a hat? It does not matter what bill it is, closure is used on it.

Here we are setting up a group of people who are going to run a socialist state, where the chief and council will have the rights to land and the rights to everything. The individual person will have no property rights. We cannot have a race based policy like that. We cannot have a top-down government like that. My God, if that worked then the east bloc countries would be leading the world. They would be the only super powers around.

I have been in all the east bloc countries. They are collapsing. They are being destroyed because of their type of government. This government is doing exactly the same thing to Canada, to this great country, a country that should be on top of the world. It is destroying it by destroying democracy and destroying the sorts of things that all of us grew up to believe Canada was all about.

It is time to examine that and to stand up and be counted. It is shameful that the other parties are not standing up to hold the government accountable. I am proud to be part of a group that is standing up, that is getting that message out and is saying what it is really all about.

As we travel internationally and involve the international community, and as foreign affairs critic I have been able to do that in lots of places, I want to be proud of the country that I come from. I want to be proud of the country that has a democratic process where every member of parliament has an opportunity to stand up and speak. I do not want to be part of a country that uses closure at the drop of a hat and allows four hours and twelve minutes of debate on something that will affect the rest of our lives, the lives of our children and our grandchildren. It is a shameful example of what we have seen in the House in the past day or so and, for that matter, over the last six years.

We are proud of the space station but we are not proud of the other things the government has done. We cannot stand in pride and also have shame in our eyes because of what the government has done. In the last 24 hours, it has just committed probably one of the most shameful things that we have seen since we have been in the House and something that will affect us for so many generations.

I am embarrassed for the government members of the House. They should hang their heads in shame, as 10 or 20 of them are doing over there right now. In fact their heads are so low I cannot even see them because they are under their seats with embarrassment, which is exactly where they should be.

The space station, yes; the Nisga'a agreement, no. Let the government take notice of just how many more speeches we have to give and how many more comments we will have about the lack of democracy that has been displayed in the House.

[Civil International Space Station Agreement Implementation Act, November 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we do believe in equality of all people in Canada so that they will be able to participate in programs like the space program in the various educational institutions. It seems to me that all government legislation in this place should make people equal, not set them aside with special status. As an example, that is what the Nisga'a agreement does not do.

On another issue from the last question, in areas like Kashmir, Iraq, Iran or wherever, it seems to me that it would be very important, from an intelligence and peace standpoint, to use a facility like the space station for those observations. Does he see a lot of implications of this development for that purpose as well?

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, November 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I trust you are listening to the sort of abuse that comes from across the floor. The Liberals can say something but nobody else can say it.

What happens in the Liberal's race based policy where they build a dependency on welfare and act like an east bloc operation? Socialism might be a great idea but it just does not work.

The Nisga'a agreement has a template for homelands. This is something that will affect the country down the road in a dramatic way. People will look at the debate, or lack of it, in the House and say that this has changed the country and it is not for the good.

We are creating a rivalry, a dispute. We are creating something that will come back to haunt us for years to come in the country. The Indian industry, largely in many parts set up by whites, has not made a better place for our native grassroots people. We will destroy the Indian people by this sort of legislation, by not giving them equality and by not helping them to enter the 21st century as equals.

I see nothing in the Nisga'a agreement that will improve the situation. We are setting up a third line of government. We are setting up a third order that will leave nothing but confrontation and rivalry between the native people and their neighbours.

We should talk about that because many of the neighbours of native people have learned to understand them, to work with them and to help them. I think that is where we want to be. We do not want to set them aside as separate individuals. Even the B.C. Liberals, these people's brothers and sisters from B.C., do not agree with that.

We could talk about the cost of these treaties. We could talk about how this will be a template for what could happen and how treaties, like Treaty 8 in Alberta, can simply be reopened and the problems that can create. How can the government, in all conscience, sit there and allow the balkanization of our country? How does it have the nerve to let that sort of thing happen?

Although I am no expert, we could go through the agreement and find many others areas.

I cannot close without reading a news release. “The motion this morning by the federal government to invoke closure on the Nisga'a treaty debate is a reprehensible abuse of democracy”, said Liberal leader, Gordon Campbell, today at noon. “This is an egregious abuse of the democratic process and shows flagrant contempt of all British Columbians”, said Campbell. “It is an unacceptable slap in the face to our province and to all Canadians who deserve a full and open debate on this landmark treaty”. That is from a Liberal. That is how the Liberals feel in B.C. I think that message should be listened to by all members in the House.

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, November 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, you can see how touchy they are about this. They do not like being called that sort of thing. Neither do we when they throw it back at us. It is not true. We believe in equality and that is really where it is at.

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, November 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to speak today, as only about 16 opposition MPs will get an opportunity to speak because closure has been imposed by the government. There are 24 members of parliament from British Columbia alone who should have the opportunity to speak to this motion, but will be denied by a government that does not believe in democracy.

We need to look at this issue. All of us are concerned about the native people of this country. The United Nations has condemned Canada for its treatment of native people. We have thrown treaties at them. We have thrown money at them. We have thrown programs at them. We have thrown Indian affairs concepts at them. We still have the same problems today that we have had for so long.

We have developed an Indian industry in the country, much of it run by white people. We have put in over $7 billion, at least $5 billion of which was used up by the industry itself, never reaching the grassroots people. We have chiefs and councils working against the grassroots people who we in the House should be protecting and improving their way of life.

We have tried to amend our consciences. I guess that is what we have been doing over the last 30 years. Look what we have. We have told native people that they can ignore the hunting, fishing and logging rules. We have told them that they can avoid income tax and sales tax, as well as Bill C-68. We have told them that they can be admitted to school with lower grades, have employment quotas for preferences, can invade parks and block roadways and we will just ignore it. Are we doing them a favour?

What are we doing for these people? I am sure the member for Wild Rose could tell us in great detail because he has been on the reserves, has seen the grassroots people and talked with them right across the country. The reality is that they do not have sewer and water facilities. They have a crime rate that is four and a half times greater than the rest of the population. There is a high suicide rate, three times more AIDS, no initiative, and alcohol and drug abuse is at 62%. That is the reality of what the Indian affairs policy of the country has given the native people.

In my riding, Yolanda Redcalf, a Sunchild O'Chiese member on reserve, went on a 45 day hunger strike because of housing conditions. The answer from Indian affairs was, finally we will give in to her, shut her up and we will not worry about the rest of the people. That happens over and over again. That is the policy of the government.

We need to deal with this huge problem, which is probably as great as the Quebec unity issue. It is a problem that will face us for many, many years to come.

Let us talk about some other groups that have come to the country. I often hear that we are the ones who caused the problem. To a great extent I expect that we are. As one person told me in Kitchener last week, we should think of the refugees who came to this country. Let us go back to the Chinese population who built the railway across the country. What about the Italians who came? My wife's parents came to this country with six kids and less than $100.

In Kitchener I talked with two Polish brothers. I talked to members of the Serbian and Bosnian communities. They said “Listen, when we came here we wanted to work. We wanted to build something better for ourselves”.

What have we done to the native people to destroy their initiative? Why are they not starting businesses? Why are they not building something for themselves and for their families? It is because of a racist policy that the federal government, largely Liberal over the last 30 years, has put forward.

As a party we believe in equality for all people. We believe that people should have the same status, no matter what their religion, colour or race. Everyone is equal. As soon as we start giving special status to people we start the decay and the decline which we see today. It is the special status which some Liberal government long ago decided to give these people that is at the root of the problem. We are not doing them any favours.

Let us look at what is happening in Atlantic Canada today. Let us look at the salmon fishery on the Pacific coast. The same thing has happened around the world. The homelands were given to the people of South Africa. There was once a guy in Germany who said that people with blue eyes and blonde hair were better. What is the difference when the Liberal government—

[Petitions, October 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition signed by 682 people, many of them students, from central Alberta. These constituents are requesting that the Canadian government confront China directly on the human rights abuses taking place in Tibet. They are extremely concerned about the issue of China-Tibet relations and ask the Parliament of Canada to pressure China to address this issue.

[Pakistan, October 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the democratic government of Pakistan was overthrown by a military coup. There have been months of internal strife in that country, with complaints of corruption, repression and growing Islamic fundamentalism. In this context we must remember that Pakistan has had several military governments in the past and that its political culture is complex.

The official opposition supports the restoration of the democratic government in Pakistan. The stability of Pakistan, a nuclear power since last year, is crucial to this region.

We understand the concerns of Canadians of Pakistani descent. That said, Canada should not make any rash decision to impose sanctions or talk about suspending anyone from the Commonwealth. The blustering we heard from the foreign affairs ministers yesterday was a typical overreaction.

We oppose sanctions and threats. Instead, why does the government not encourage Pakistan's Asian neighbours, the IMF and the World Bank to put pressure on this military regime?

[The Late Gordon Towers, June 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, this week Alberta lost one of its most prominent sons, Gordon Towers, who died at the age of 79.

Born in Red Deer, he devoted his life to the people of Red Deer and Alberta. We were neighbours south of Red Deer, and I have known him for a long time. We did not always agree, but I always respected his sense of community and his loyalty to the people of Alberta and Canada.

Towers, a strong supporter of the Progressive Conservative Party, was a five time member of parliament for the Red Deer riding. In the course of his career as a MP, he served as a parliamentary secretary to the solicitor general and later to the minister of science and technology. Towers ended his public career as the lieutenant-governor of Alberta, but at heart he was always a constituency man.

I am sure that the people of Red Deer will always remember him for the model that he set. Central Alberta has lost a favourite son and he will be deeply missed by his family, friends and former constituents.

[Petitions, June 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a petition signed by 34 people from Alberta. These individuals call on parliament to pass legislation incorporating the rights of children and the principles of equality between and among all parents.

[Nelson Mandela, June 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, members regularly unite in recognizing political greatness. One such leader who deserves this unity is Nelson Mandela. Taking the helm of his country after nearly three decades in prison, he has acted as a moral compass for a deeply divided society.

The bitterness of apartheid could quite easily have erupted into a violent and extremely bloody civil war. However, it did not and today it is one of the few functioning democracies in Africa. South Africa is now holding its presidential election.

In pursuing retirement he now seeks peace and quiet to contemplate his life's work and the future of his country. But it is his leadership and his moral purpose that characterized his term in office that have made these elections possible.

This House will not be sitting when his successor is sworn in. Nevertheless I think that this House will join me in extending to Mr. Mandela our very best wishes and our admiration for what he has accomplished as President of South Africa.