Dennis Mills

[The Budget, March 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the member. He made the comment that we should not be here doing things to get re-elected, that we should be doing what we believe is right.

I want to remind the House of the words that came from the opposition during the whole budget preparation period, in October, November and December. All we heard were comments on pepper spray, water spray, gossip on airplanes, et cetera. Not once in the fall did we have a comprehensive debate in the House on tax reform or what we should do in this year's budget. Literally this year's budget was prepared by the government with very little input from the opposition.

My question is very specific. Can we have an undertaking from the opposition, because this budget has been put to bed other than a few votes, that maybe over the next few months finally the Reform Party will get back on to its agenda of comprehensive tax reform, take it seriously, create some meaningful debate in the House and stop criticizing for the sake of criticizing?

[The Budget, February 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to some of the debate today. I understand when members of the New Democratic Party give a long list of things that we should have done and could have done that add another $10 billion to $15 billion to the cost of operating the nation's programs. However what puzzles me completely is that for years and years I have sat in the House, both in opposition and on the government side, and have heard speaker after speaker from the Conservative Party talk about the importance of the Liberal Party putting the fiscal framework of the country's books back in order and about over the last few years our Minister of Finance following the direction of the Progressive Conservative Party so much so that for the first time in 50 years we have a balanced set of books.

We have a balanced set of books. We did all this in terms of health care and huge tax cuts. The member lists many other areas in which he would have wanted spending. How much of a deficit would he have wanted the Minister of Finance to take on?

[Publishing Industry, February 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-55 is imperative for the continuing success of the Canadian magazine industry.

Advertising revenues represent the single most important source of revenue for Canadian periodical publishers. These revenues have allowed them to nurture the careers of some of our most important literary figures and social commentators.

Without Canadian magazines, how would the first works of future Canadian authors and poets find their way to Canadian readers? Would large foreign publishers print the poetry of a future Margaret Atwood or the historical commentary of a future Jacques Lacoursière?

Advertising revenues allow Canadian publishers to provide a venue for thousands of Canadian photographers, journalists and editors. These revenues help pay the salaries of many creative Canadians.

Allowing foreign publishers unlimited access to the Canadian advertising services market would mean the death of a vital cultural industry, an industry that has played an essential role in the cultivation of Canadian literature, photography and political thought. This is what is at stake in Bill C-55.

[Supply, February 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I can remember my very first question in the House of Commons. It was 11 years ago and it was to the then environment minister for the Conservative Party who is now the Premier of Quebec.

My first question dealt with the challenge that the national government had in cleaning up the hot spots of the Great Lakes, including the St. Lawrence River. I remember vividly how Mr. Bouchard stood in the House of Commons to courageously and proudly proclaim the responsibility of the Government of Canada to deal not only with the problems of the hot spots on the Great Lakes, but also the St. Lawrence River. In no way shape or form did Mr. Bouchard ever walk away from the responsibility of the Government of Canada to deal with issues related to water.

I do not think for a second that the national government can absent itself from this debate, we well as the fact that it has a major national role to play. Any suggestion by the Bloc Quebecois that taking inventory and managing our water resources is strictly a provincial issue is something I would oppose to the death.

I think the record will show that over the years the Government of Canada, the people of Canada, not just in Quebec but in Ontario, have spent hundreds of millions of dollars not only attempting to reclaim some of our water resources but also making sure that the proper infrastructure is in place so the water resources can be maximized through municipal infrastructure, grants and programs.

The NDP has put the motion before us. Let us approach it in such a way that we work as a national government with the provinces.

I urge members of the Bloc Quebecois not to become so parochial or territorial so as not to interact. These waters flow back and forth from one province to another. We share the Great Lakes. I would appeal to Bloc members to view water as a national issue. The Government of Canada must have a responsibility and a role to play and the Bloc should encourage the Government of Canada to assume that role.

[Supply, February 9th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I want to suggest to the member for Fundy—Royal that the fact that Clayton Yeutter who was the free trade negotiator spent his entire life studying and planning North American water management should give us a heads up. Clayton Yeutter is now on the record as saying that water is a part of the free trade agreement, something he would not say 10 years ago.

It is very important that this House gets its head around this issue.

[Supply, February 9th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the member for Jonquière for her thoughts on this very important issue. I believe Quebec has done more on evaluating and studying the issue of water than any other province in Canada.

Over the years I have been amazed at the public service commitment to this issue and some of the creative ideas on pollution control and security of the resource, et cetera.

I believe passionately that the Government of Canada must speak for all of Canada. There is no doubt in my mind that we can have all the consultations in the world but let us look at the challenge we will face in time of the stabilization of the Great Lakes. Most experts on climatic control in this country will tell us that in time we will need to stabilize the Great Lakes.

We share those lakes with the United States. If we go through the exercise of stabilizing the Great Lakes, the Americans in my humble opinion would have to pay their share of that stabilization exercise.

My question for the member for Jonquière is whether she can see and support the notion that the Government of Canada must be the ultimate voice for a national water strategy and policy?

[Supply, February 9th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by congratulating the New Democratic Party for this motion today.

My first campaign in Broadview—Greenwood was all about the free trade agreement. I can remember that about a week into the campaign I received a phone call from an associate of mine from Houston, Texas who was close to Clayton Yeutter who was the free trade negotiator for the United States. He said “Dennis, Clayton Yeutter spent his whole life studying water. In fact he did his doctoral thesis at the University of Nebraska and in 1961 published `North American Water Management'. You had better make sure that when you are going through this free trade agreement you understand exactly where water sits in the agreement because this is a man who has dedicated his entire life to water”.

I took the time to get a copy of Clayton Yeutter's Ph.D. thesis from the University of Nebraska. I urge all members to get a copy of it. It is a 600 page thesis. If there was ever any doubt in members' minds as to whether water was a part of the free trade agreement, this Ph.D. thesis will take that doubt away. It is a part of the free trade agreement.

In my very first speech in the House of Commons I begged former Prime Minister Mulroney to get a one page protocol letter from Ronald Reagan saying that water was exempt. The then government would not do it. I wrote several letters to Clayton Yeutter asking him to acknowledge that water was not a part of the free trade agreement. He never responded to those letters. I have them on file. I also know that in the last few days someone has talked to Clayton Yeutter and he will now publicly admit that water is in fact a part of the free trade agreement.

Canadians do not even have a proper inventory of what our water assets are. We waste a lot of water. Before we export a gallon of water we should take stock of what we have.

I would ask the member the following question, keeping in mind that we have not done an inventory of water in our country.

Let us imagine that we went through that exercise and discovered that we did have some excess water. If it were properly metered, priced accordingly and Canadians were looked after first, would the Reform Party member then consider the notion of selling? Again, I want to say that would only be after it was excluded from the free trade agreement. What would the member's views be on sharing and selling of water only after we took the necessary time to take stock of it as an issue, province by province, region by region?

[Committees Of The House, December 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. This is the report of the Subcommittee on the Study of Sport in Canada entitled “Sport in Canada: Leadership, Partnership and Accountability; Everybody's Business”.

[Privilege, December 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I can only speak to that portion of the member's remarks that deals with the subcommittee on sport. I can say two things. It was approved in the heritage committee this morning that the report would be tabled here on Thursday morning. I can also say to the hon. member that he will not find one sentence of any article anywhere in this country in the report that will be tabled here on Thursday. The report as of this minute has not been leaked in any way, shape or form to the press.

[Canada Small Business Financing Act, November 23rd, 1998]

You guys are just stalling.