Bob Mills

[Speech From The Throne, February 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I can certainly give the member a copy of our 20-20 vision of the new Canada. It would take more time than I have to answer.

Basically what I heard was a fairly elitist attitude and one I would expect from someone who is entrenched in this place with looking at the status quo as being the only way where government has all the answers and people have none of them. That is a total lack of respect for the people of this country. That kind of lack of respect has to be beaten down.

There is no place for government to have the domineering attitude that it knows best. We would expect that. That is why most of us are here. That is why there are 105 people who came here saying the same thing: We demand change for this country.

As far as the whole UI matter is concerned, there is a plan for that. Look at the plan. The plan is to give back to people the responsibility for themselves. When a person is 20 years old, they start contributing 10 per cent of their salary to their own plan, one that the person monitors. That person gives 10 per cent and watches the amount grow month by month. If that person becomes unemployed, the government allows them to take some of the funds out.

That person is not going to abuse that system because it is their system. It is their future.

Those are the kinds of new ideas we need. We can apply this to health care. We can apply this to all other areas. The federal government will always have a role. Its role is to make Canada work and to be the umbrella under which all the units will operate. That is what the provinces are demanding. That is what they want. That is what the Prime Minister is saying he is going to deliver.

[Speech From The Throne, February 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it seems we have been meeting this way quite often lately, including last night.

I want to express the views of my constituents primarily, what I have heard them talk about when it comes to this throne speech. I have been listening in the House and I have not heard a lot of people referring to the throne speech and yet this is the throne speech that we are talking about. I want to direct myself at that and keep on that topic.

I think Canadians have been looking forward to this. This is the mid-term of the government. There has been great anticipation as to when things are going to get started and when something will actually be done.

All of us as members of Parliament have been listening to our constituents tell us they are concerned. They are passed concern. They are outright worried about what is happening to the country. Whether it is town hall meetings or whether it is when we are door knocking or whether it is TV phone-in shows or whatever, the message is loud and clear: they are unhappy and concerned about a number of things.

I will talk about how they were dealt with or not dealt with in the throne speech. I will start with official opposition status. Obviously there is a concern that a regional party represents all parts of Canada when it is from one province and conduct only the concerns of one province. There is an outright repulsion by this whole idea. This is not good for anybody in the country. I trust the party in power realizes that as well.

The people are ahead of the politicians, as they so often are. I sat in a seminar with over 500 farmers. In that room there were more people with more common sense and more entrepreneurship than I have found anywhere in Ottawa among bureaucrats or politicians. They are ahead of us. They know what is happening and they are saying: "The message must come from us to government through you guys. You must carry the message that way". They do not see that happening.

I am sure when they look at the throne speech they will only have their outright concern brought forward even more dramatically. The people are saying the are concerned about jobs, about the security of their jobs, their hope for the future. Band-aid solutions are not the answer. Infrastructure programs, government make work programs are not the answer.

We need to get creative. We need to look at things like a total reform of the tax system. That will certainly cause a whole change, a light at the end of the tunnel for business and for individuals. We will see something happening. That is what people are demanding, not a government run by a bunch of bureaucrats.

Canadians are concerned about their pensions. They hear that from ministers. They hear that from provincial politicians. They hear that from everyone. Their pensions might be threatened. That is real, not something they are imagining. They are hearing it.

We need a plan. As representatives of the people we have come up with a plan similar to one Chile adopted 11 years ago in which people are responsible for themselves. They do not count on UI or on government because government has failed miserably in these areas. We need to look at these and give people some hope, some light, but the throne speech did not do that.

Canadians are concerned about health care. They want a plan. They want to know where it is going. They feel threatened. Lines are getting longer. Service is poor. Why is that? There is no long term vision to get a national standard and then let the provinces handle the administration of it. We know that is a major part of Canadian society and we need a vision.

When I was elected the debt was $489 billion. Now it is $577 billion. When we go back to the polls it will be $600 billion plus. That is a lack of vision. We are not doing the job here and that is the message we are getting. The $50 billion in interest payments is destroying our social programs. That is what is destroying us.

In the province I come from I cannot believe the pride and the whole sense of accomplishment because we have balanced our budget. The people are proud it. They say: "I did not vote for those rotten-" whatever the government is, but they are proud of them anyway. There is pride, there is hope and they see light at the end of the tunnel. That is what the federal government has to realize.

We could talk about the criminal justice system. We could talk about the light that is needed in that. We could talk about government waste. We could talk about the other place and the disgust people have for it. We could talk about accountability. Give people the accountability they are asking for.

We need free votes. We need recall. We need to be able to get rid of MPs who do not do their jobs. We need that sort of thing to build the trust, hope and vision for Canadians.

I will touch on the area of foreign affairs in response to the foreign affairs minister. I listened with great interest and I trust we will have the co-operation we have talked about and that in committee there will be meaningful meetings where instead of

partisan politics 15 people can work together for the good of Canada. That is an area in which it can be done.

We want to become a strong middle power. We want to have leadership. In those areas where we can we want to do really well. If it is peacekeeping, then let us be sure we have the very best trained with the best morale. Let us pick and choose the missions and then let us do our best so that the whole world will see us as the best. The pride Canada will gain from that will have great domestic value as well.

Let us talk about diplomacy. We should be the world's leading diplomats. We have the best reputation. We do not have a colonial record. We do not have any kind of aggressive record. We have the best record. Canadians are very shy. We tend to have an inferiority complex when we are outside the country. We must get over that and the government has to lead the way on it.

We need to promote our country because we are a trading nation. We need to lead in demanding and helping with UN reform. The UN is not working. It is a bureaucratic nightmare, one that has become corrupt with time. It is 50 years old. It needs to be reformed dramatically. We should emphasize the details of that.

As an example, we are still fiddling around with Haiti and the mission expires today. It is gone today, yet there is still no agreement. We are still getting changes. The UN is not doing the job set out for it and we must work on that.

I could go on with this vision. I hope I got my message across that it is leadership we need. We need leadership to show the Canadian people that we do have a vision for the country and that we are sincere in what we are doing.

Probably the best quote I picked up in the last three days of the throne speech debate just happens to be from the member for Beaver River: "Canadians have told us they want a nation where a person's dreams are not hollow, where ambitions can be pursued and ultimately realized. They want a country where people can look to the future with excitement rather than fear, where a mother or father not only hopes but honestly expects that their children's lives will be better than their own. They want a country where every individual feels safe enough to explore, confident enough to innovate, secure enough to take risks. They want an environment where accomplishments are celebrated and setbacks are only temporary. They want a country where people can feel secure in their homes and their communities, where every member of society can live with dignity and where men and women can grow old without fear".

That summarizes the vision I see for this country. I hope other members share that vision with me.

[Curling, February 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have some good news for Canadian curling fans. The World Junior Curling Championships are being held in my riding of Red Deer, Alberta between March 9 and March 17.

This bodes well for Canadian success because, as many will remember, last year Red Deer hosted the World Junior Hockey Championship and the best team won: Canada, of course. Now it is time to show the world that we do not just have the best hockey players but the best curlers as well.

Come on out March 9 to 17 and watch the world's best compete for the curling domination. What better way to promote Canadian unity as Canadians from coast to coast gather at the Red Deer curling rink to watch the action.

I am willing to bet that even hardened separatists who come will be converted and will end up pulling for Team Canada, the home team, our team.

[Foreign Affairs, February 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech I want to comment on the minister's statement. He said that he would consider using the foreign affairs committee as a vehicle through which members could discuss this sort of thing. That should be very positive. If foreign affairs is not an area that we can approach in a non-partisan way, then there probably is not an area where we can. I look forward to that co-operation. I certainly hope it works.

A few areas must be talked about with regard to Haiti and this decision. As the last speaker mentioned, this is in our hemisphere. We have a great deal at stake in maintaining stability within the Americas and can set an example that hopefully the Europeans will look at when considerations come up later in the year regarding Bosnia.

We have to talk about the leadership role we can play in Haiti. I believe we are giving an important message which I hope will be

picked up by everyone. Obviously we are doing a favour for the U.S. It is election year but we will not talk about that issue. However, we expect this should weigh rather heavily when the US. considers setting policy in such matters as international trade and removing anti-Canada provisions in the Helms-Burton bill. We expect the Minister of Foreign Affairs to make very clear to the Americans the help Canada is providing them in this area and that certainly we need consideration in other areas-wink, wink.

We need to talk about the problems, the factions that exist in Haiti and their long history. Guns are still in the hands of people, particularly in the countryside. We could talk about the hatred that has built up in this country. These are all issues that could be talked about.

As I understand it, Canada will have control of this mission. That was something that really bothered us in Bosnia where we were not even part of the contact group. This is a move forward.

I want to tell the minister that I was at a town hall meeting last night which over 300 people attended. I gave a 20-minute presentation on Haiti because I knew this debate was coming tonight. That is just about as grassroots and as immediate as one can get. A wide range of people were there, not simply party members. I think the group was a typical cross section of Canadians.

I was rather surprised at the message which was: "You're cutting our health care, you're threatening our pensions. Now what about this going off to other places?" I was rather surprised that the message was quite as blatant as this, that it was so outspoken.

Two people said that Canadians should go but that we should be sure the soldiers have the right equipment and the right training. They put qualifications on their going. However, a huge number of that 300-person crowd said: "We have real concerns. We think you should hold back until you have all the criteria".

What should those criteria be? The message certainly included the length of stay. The resolution in the UN very clearly says that this is an extension for six months. I listened carefully to the minister, making sure that he emphasized that part of the mandate in the UN resolution. I trust it will be made clear that in fact it is six months. Conditions could arise that would cause us to reconsider but there is a six-month period in there.

The government should tell Canadians the cost of this. If on September 30, 1996, the government tabled in this House what this mission cost us, that kind of openness would help to build the confidence of the public, certainly the 300 people I talked to last night.

Is there a contingency plan? When the Americans were there they had a carrier in the harbour. They had attack helicopters that could be brought in. That is a pretty big stick to hold over anyone.

My question is: Do we have any kind of contingency plan, any kind of big stick that we might use to keep people in line?

I bring forth again the U.S. election situation. Obviously this plays very heavily on why the Americans want to leave. They want to leave because they cannot afford to have any ripples and obviously this is a major issue.

I also want to ask about the OAS. I want to know what the OAS has said, what it is going to do, how strongly it is supporting this sort of mission. Can we count on the OAS for support and help and what sort of help will that entail?

It seems to me that the OAS should become a much more important body. If we talk about the regional nature of the Americas, the OAS should be the one that helps monitor problems within that sphere. Obviously Europe is another area and possibly Africa is in their sphere. In southeast Asia there is the whole area of the Asia-Pacific. If we have these spheres we can then start to create a more peaceful world in which all of us can live, trade and get along.

I also would like to know about the reconstruction. Haiti is a country that does not have an education system, that does not have the services, the social system. Certainly there are the problems in the countryside which we have read about. What sort of plan does the UN have, if it has a plan, for the reconstruction of this country? We need a long term solution. We do not need to go back in a few months, years, or whatever. We need a plan.

In conclusion and in talking about this take note debate, I know the minister is aware of my concerns that we do not have a sham of a debate. We must have a true debate where all members take part and represent their constituents on a non-partisan issue like this one, where they can actually hear the pros and cons of the debate. They would then have the duty in a free vote to vote on what this assembly has heard on an issue like this one.

Let us take the politics out of it and put it into the area where we are really representing. This would be a perfect area to do that. If we are sending over 100 troops we should have that sort of debate.

As well, it is important that the government at least 48 hours prior tells us of the tentative budget, the mission's mandate, the size and duration of the commitment, the rules of engagement and certainly the rotation and so on planned for those troops. We owe that to Canadians. If we cannot get that information then we should not be signing a blank cheque. If the UN is so disorganized that it cannot provide it, then perhaps we should not be going.

These sorts of things are the big issues for Canadians and they are asking these questions: What is the mandate? Would you send your son or daughter on this mission? Is it safe? Do we have the equipment? Do we have the mandate? We owe it to Canadians to come up with the answers to those questions.

I believe the House will respond to that in a very positive way. That is how we build up the feeling as Canadians that we are proud of our peacekeepers, that we are proud of our missions abroad, that we are proud to be Canadians. We tend to be shy when we talk about ourselves. I know that all members on all sides of the House would agree it is time that we became proud Canadians. We can demonstrate it through missions like this one provided we have the confidence of the people. The way to have that confidence is to make it transparent, make it open, let them be part of it, let the members of Parliament be part of it and ask the people.

I welcome this opportunity to deliver this message. I know that our new minister is listening.

[Petitions, December 13th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present to Parliament a petition signed by a number of people in Alberta regarding the military offensive by the Sri Lankan armed forces against the Tamil regions.

The petitioners are requesting the restoration of their rights and dignity and the release of Mr. Manickavasagam Suresh.

Therefore the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to ensure Canadian neutrality in the national conflict in Sri Lanka is not jeopardized. They request Parliament to intervene immediately and release Mr. Suresh.

[Constitutional Amendments Act, December 12th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I will start by telling the House why I ran for office. Why did I want to come to this place? To sum it up I would say it was because I could add something to this country. I believe in this country. I have travelled extensively and I know what people think of this country.

What is wrong with the country? I thought there was a lack of equality. The political system was one where the message came from Ottawa back to the ridings and the parties were too strong. I was mad because of the GST, because of the national energy program. I was mad at the arrogance of government. I looked at it and thought that this was a very centralist place. In the past as I

have mentioned the national energy program and the GST were forced on people by Ottawa.

I look at this Parliament and I do not see that much has changed. I see employment equity being forced down people's throats when others are getting rid of it. I see gun control being forced on people without any attempt to change any of the clauses. There was the Quebec referendum where we were told to be happy, that everything was fine and it was not.

Now there is this unity package and I see closure. Closure is the ugliest thing that can happen in this place. People are disenfranchised and are not allowed to speak for their constituents.

Canadians are saying: "We need jobs. We need tax reform. We need somebody to deal with the criminal justice system. We need the reform of Parliament itself. We need more free votes. We need to know that our MPs can stand up for what we believe".

Now we get this veto package, which totally lacks a vision for Canada. This is supposed to be a unity package. It is anything but. It is anything but creating the equality that we all believe in. We all want change and this package does anything but allow us to ever have any future change.

We now will need something in the neighbourhood of 92 per cent of Canadians in order to get any change by a package like this. Our hope of free votes, our hope of getting rid of that other place are gone now. It does anything but provide any kind of unity for the country.

We look at the government listening to the people. The PCs did not listen during the GST. They did not listen during Charlottetown. We saw what happened to them in 1993. We now have a government that seems to be following the same pattern.

I look to an example of a week ago in Edmonton where the member from Edmonton East had a meeting. Seventeen people went to listen to the unity package of the Prime Minister while across town 800 people were telling us exactly what they thought of that unity package.

In my riding I have completed a survey that went out last Thursday. So far we are into the hundreds of returns and 87 per cent are saying not to give special status or the veto to anybody. That is 87 per cent of the people who answered that question.

The people of the west and the people of Canada are mad. Yesterday, Mr. Klein dropped out of Team Canada. Is that building unity? Listen to the message. The government is losing the country. This centralist top down government will lose the country. Even the national polls show that 53 per cent of Quebecers are unhappy with this package as are 58 per cent of the rest of Canada.

Only 23 per cent of Quebecers think this package is worth anything. It is just a rehash of Meech Lake and Charlottetown. They did not get the message last time and now they are going to wait until 1997-98 to get that message. We will never get rid of that Senate.

There are 105 people who came here because their constituents demanded change. The separatists want a different approach than we do but they are asking for change. Not one province is not asking for change. This government has no vision. It is into this centralist philosophy of government.

We need some strong leadership to face Mr. Bouchard, a very credible leader. We do not have it.

We no longer have an amending formula. We have a veto formula drawn up by a centralist government. The veto is not fair, it is not equitable and it was done without the consultation of the people.

How would we get out of this problem? Our Prime Minister had the obvious opportunity to get out of it by giving the veto to the people. Give it to all of the people. Do not put in the hands of the separatists. Do not put it in the hands of provincial politicians. Put it in the hands of the people. We can trust the people. They have shown they are involved and will be involved.

The people have spoken. They spoke in Charlottetown. They spoke in 1993. Of course the people spoke to the referendum. It was not the politicians that helped the yes side catch up, it was the people. Everybody, even on the other side, agrees to that.

We need to show some leadership. We need to show some terms and conditions. What does it mean if a province wants to separate? Tell it. Put it straight. The people will understand it. It is the politicians who want to manipulate it. Talk about what land goes with separation. Talk about the language and the culture, the debt sharing, the citizenship. Talk about all of those things, including the protection of minorities, but talk about it. Talk about it with the people.

We need a vision. We need to fight that separatist dream with a vision. We need to fight deception and untruths with truth and facts. That is what this vision is all about. We need to develop a vision and a passion for Canada. That is what we need.

Many of us felt that in 1967 when we went to Expo in Montreal. There was passion there. We felt passion during the Olympics in Calgary. We felt passion whenever we travelled. Last year my constituency hosted the World Junior Hockey Championship and there was passion and feeling for what it was to be Canadian. We were proud of our Canadian kids who won that championship and who demonstrated what it was like to be Canadian.

Do not whine and cry. Plan a vision. Get a vision for the country. Show that we are listening to the people. This country is worth saving. I implore the Prime Minister to get out of the past, do what

is right for Canada. Involve the people. Abandon the centralist governments of the past which did not work. They will never work.

It will destroy this country if we keep following this path. Continuing on this course will truly mean the Prime Minister will go down in history as the Prime Minister who destroyed the country. We must change that.

[Balkans, December 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the foreign affairs minister is so hard-working and dedicated to his job it is scary.

Do members remember yesterday when the government promised it would carefully listen to everything the opposition had to say before it made a final decision on the Bosnia mission? Well, the debate went on until nine last night, which is three in the morning in Brussels, where the Minister of Foreign Affairs is. The fact that he was able to stay up watching the debate that late is great. Then he worked the rest of the night away to fully incorporate the opposition's ideas into the final Canadian plan he agreed to this morning.

It is simply amazing. After staying up all night, this hard-working minister was able to put the final stamp of approval on the Bosnia mission first thing this morning, and all this with the comforting knowledge that he had taken fully into account all the views expressed here yesterday. I never would have believed it could be done. But since the government always tells the truth, it must have been what happened. Right, Mr. Speaker?

[The Balkans, December 4th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, to the parliamentary secretary, because time is about to expire I would like to ask the hon. member if he could ask for unanimous consent to extend-

[The Balkans, December 4th, 1995]

It's a different mandate.

[The Balkans, December 4th, 1995]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With all of this being commented on by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the defence minister and NATO officials, why do we not have the information so we can honestly debate it?