Bob Mills

[Foreign Affairs, June 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the minister totally misses the point. We have listened to AECL and it has told us about the safeguards. None of us in our committee are convinced that those will work. This kind of rhetoric might work in a Liberal caucus but it will not work for Canadians. Why does the government not come clean and tell Canadians where this nuclear program is going?

[Foreign Affairs, June 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals continually deny their involvement in Pakistan's and India's nuclear programs, yet today there are Canadian technologists over there working in both countries. These Canadians are building the nuclear program in both countries and they have been there for years. Experts say that this technology is interchangeable between domestic and military uses.

The facts speak for themselves. Why will this government not start telling Canadians the truth?

[Foreign Affairs, June 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I guess it is a little difficult to understand exactly where the Prime Minister is coming from. My question, however, is to the foreign affairs minister.

Yesterday, the Department of Foreign Affairs signed a deal with South Korea to build nuclear reactors in China and Turkey. That was yesterday.

Considering that our nuclear fingerprints are all over the India and Pakistan nuclear programs, can the minister justify the signing of this deal to peddle nuclear technology at this critical point in time?

[Nuclear Testing, May 14th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, that answer, I am sure, really makes Canadians feel reassured. A real leader would bring China, Pakistan and India together in forging a new Asian security agreement. A real leader would take action to stop a new arms race and a new cold war. Canadians wonder why does the Prime Minister not act like a real leader?

[Nuclear Testing, May 14th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister shrugged off Canada's nuclear sales to India. He simply said it broke its word. That might be business as usual in Liberal circles but Canadians find that irresponsible.

Canada's unique heavy water technology is still at the heart of India's nuclear arsenal. Is the government not just hiding the fact that it was Paul Martin Sr. who was involved in the deal in the first place?

[Petitions, May 14th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I got a little carried away.

The petitioners call on parliament to request that the Prime Minister accept the results of the Senate election in Alberta and any other province that might so choose to elect a senator.

[Petitions, May 14th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present petitions signed by 151 people from my riding of Red Deer.

These people believe we deserve an accountable Senate and I fully and strongly endorse—

[Nuclear Testing, May 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, as usual, we got a non-answer, sort of a liberal answer.

Canada has a special obligation and that obligation is because we have supplied so much of this nuclear technology to these countries.

Is the minister prepared for the government to show some leadership and get an Asian security agreement, get them to sign this non-proliferation treaty and get them to stop testing?

[Nuclear Testing, May 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, India's nuclear testing is symptomatic of a bigger problem. The problem is the increasing tensions between China, India and Pakistan. Instead of attacking the symptoms, the government should get to the root of the problem.

Is the government prepared to get to the root of the problem? Will Canada press for an Asian security agreement? Will it push to get these countries to sign a non-proliferation treaty? Will it get these countries to stop testing nuclear weapons?

[Canada Labour Code, May 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is truly a privilege to be able to speak to the motions in Group No. 6.

We have had the opportunity to talk about Bill C-19 a number of times in the House. I have to start off by saying that it is despicable when the government uses closure on a bill like this. This bill will affect every single farmer in western Canada. It will affect anybody, basically, who has anything to do with the movement of products across this country. The government owes the Canadian people the opportunity for us to debate this openly and talk about this issue as it will affect all Canadians.

The sort of thing that this government persists in doing is despicable. It is disgraceful. It is anti-democratic. It has used closure more than any other government in the history of this country. Canadians are watching and are going to demand some accountability for this sort of action.

The key thing about this amendment and the key thing about this bill is the protection of the economy of Canada. That has to be number one. We are talking about jobs and the standard of living that we have grown used to as Canadians, and we are falling behind.

I have had the opportunity to travel to many parts of the world and I have started to realize more and more what is happening to us as Canadians.

I cannot help thinking about last Friday when I was going to the airport. The cab driver said to me “The Ottawa Senators are not going to lose another game. They are way better than the Capitals and they will beat them hands down”. That is a little bit like we sometimes hear the Prime Minister talk about Canada. The United Nations says we are number one; therefore, we do not have to work harder. That is wrong. We have to continue to work. The world around us is becoming more competitive and we must be conscious of that.

In travelling recently to China, seeing the changes that have occurred there and having the opportunity to talk to some of our shippers and some of our businessmen, I asked: “What do you think of Canada looking from here back there?” The message that I got was “We don't deal with Canada as much as we used to”. They do not feel that there are the same opportunities, that there is the same aggressive tendencies to try to sell them something, particularly when it gets to things such as wheat.

I talked to a brewer who is responsible for buying malt barley for 150 breweries. He said he does not go to Canada any more for supplies. He does not go to the Canadian Wheat Board because he is not sure about whether delivery will come or when it will come. He indicated that there seemed to be many problems with guaranteeing delivery.

I talked to a Japanese shipowner who indicated a problem. He books his ships on a two year basis and allows so many days for sailing, so many days for loading and so many days for getting to the port of destination. He said he could not come to Canada because his ship might be sitting for 30, 40 or 50 days as a result of some transportation blockage or of some strikes that are so frequent.

That is what is hurting us as Canadians. We can talk about strikes and the national economy. However, we have to ask ourselves, going into the 21st century, what happens when a strike is called. We know for sure union bosses keep getting the salaries they have been getting. We know union members who go on strike do not get the salaries they have been used to getting, and if they are out for very long we know they never make up that money again.

We certainly know the economy of the country is hurt. We certainly know many people, for example farmers, are hurt. Let us just stop for a minute and look at the farmer. He has a lot of decisions to make. He has to decide when to plant, what to plant, what kind of fertilizer to use, what kind of seed to use, and then depend on the weather. He should not also have to depend on the unions to get his commodity to market and ultimately get paid for it.

Those people are hurt. The whole country is hurt in terms of our reputation because we do not have modern labour practices that allow us to be competitive.

A question has to be asked. There must be a better way than having strikes. There must be a better way than Bill C-19 which is liberal in its makeup. It goes a little way here and a little way there and does not stand for very much. No one really knows what it means. It certainly does not improve either the economy of country, the well-being of our people or our reputation internationally.

Instead of resting on our laurels it is time that we examine different ways of handling the situation. The motions put forward would help us to do it.

I will speak specifically to Motion Nos. 18 and 20 which the Reform Party has put forward. What effect would they have on our national economy? That becomes the number one issue when we decide what will happen. They also talk about protection not only of our economy but of third parties.

Going on to Motion Nos. 22 and 23 the key issue, as the previous member mentioned, is that all commodities be included. It is not enough to only include grain. We should be including many other things that move through our ports. On the prairies there are all kinds of different products. Right across the country we have products that depend upon transportation and upon the movement of goods.

We need to look at better ways. We need to examine them. I do not think it is fair to say that any one of us is anti-union. That is not the message. The message is that we have to find some other way to deal with the problem of labour disputes other than strictly going on strike. I hope the day will come when strikes will be a thing of the past.

It is also important to emphasize that we have to do what is good for the country and its economy. We have an international reputation to worry about. I am worried the government is not listening. I suppose it would argue that because of the huge turnout it is listening and is here to understand exactly what the message is.

However it is a little hard sometimes to see its members through the fog, but I am sure they are over there listening very carefully to the message that our member from Wetaskiwin has led us through in the debate on Bill C-19.

The bill is too little too late. The government is not listening to the people. The bill is out of date and back in the 1970s which is where most government members are at. It does not show any kind of vision for the 21st century. It will certainly not help the economy or the people of Canada.