Andy Mitchell

[Petitions, February 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition has to do with the proposed amendments to the human rights act. My petitioners are opposed to that.

[Petitions, February 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present two petitions today.

The first one deals with the basic service pensions for men and women who served in the armed forces during the war and calls on the government to introduce such a pension.

[Committees Of The House, February 9th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I would simply say that we in the Liberal Party balance our approach. It is not an either/or proposition. The urban member has a particular need and that will be taken into account. The rural member will have a particular need and that will be taken into account. Between those two needs we will find a balance. We will come to a solution that has components which help the one member from urban Canada and the one member from rural Canada. It is not an either/or situation.

One of the problems with members of the party opposite, and I will say this quite clearly, is they never realize that things are not black and white. There are greys out there. You can compromise. You can find a balance.

[Committees Of The House, February 9th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Algoma for bringing up those particular points and to emphasize the 25 per cent rule.

Like I do, the hon. member represents a riding that is in northern Ontario. We share many of the concerns that come from representing a rural part of the country and that come from representing a large geographic area.

He is absolutely right. We need the flexibility of the 25 per cent rule. It is particularly important in rural Canada. We need the flexibility that it gives. We need it in terms of geography. There are suggestions in the proposal that came forward which would make his riding-and the hon. member can correct me if I am wrong-stretch from Hudson Bay to Lake Huron with a big strip right in between. We can all picture a map of Ontario and picture what that riding would be like.

That kind of thing cannot be allowed to happen. It becomes impossible to represent a riding that would have that kind of breadth of geography. If you know the terrain and if you know how far the communities are dispersed in that area, you can see the importance of that 25 per cent rule.

One of the things that this report has considered, which the hon. member alluded to, is the whole issue of balance. We have to balance the needs of rural and urban Canada. It is not an all or nothing situation in which we do it strictly by the book and strictly by numbers and we draw lines on the map. That is not the way to do it. We have to take into account some of the special challenges which we have in rural Canada. We have to take into account some of the special needs of geography, diversity of industry and many of those things I talked about.

The hon. member is quite right in pointing out the importance of that 25 per cent variance to those of us who represent northern Ontario and for those who represent all of rural Canada.

[Committees Of The House, February 9th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her comments. The economic concerns that the country faces are ones that we have to consider when we are taking a look at this package.

I believe that the package does that for a number of reasons. First of all, the process that it has developed is going to be a far more efficient process. It is going to save money. By simply saying that if a change has not occurred in a province, if the population has not changed or there are not the variances that are occurring in individual ridings, we will not go through the process.

That is going to save substantial dollars. That recommendation is in this bill and that is one of the reasons I support it. Second, I support it because I would be very concerned. One of the suggestions in 265. Why not go to 220? Why not go to 210? Why not go to 150?

There is an important concept here. As parliamentarians one of our roles is to represent our constituencies. If we lessen the number of members in this House to a point at which we are not able to do that, this government will become captured by the bureaucracy.

We need government controlled from this House, not from all the office buildings that surround this city. In order for this House to control this government, to control the process of government, we need sufficient members in here to be able to do that.

That is why the balance struck with this bill between keeping very minimal growth but ensuring that there are enough representatives to control government is important and in the long run will save some dollars.

Finally, if we entertain a proposal that is going to require constitutional change, that is going to require unanimous approval from all 10 provinces, that is going to be a cost that we certainly do not want to have to incur.

[Committees Of The House, February 9th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to talk about the issue of redistribution and specifically the motion that was tabled today.

I would like to begin by congratulating the procedures and House affairs committee for the work it has done. It has done an excellent job. I am also very pleased to see the first use of a new procedure where the committee is coming forth and recommending the bill. It is a good system. It worked well in this particular case. We should see more of it in the future.

I am rising today because the issue of redistribution has a very important impact on my riding. It has a very important impact on all of northern Ontario and a very important impact on all of rural Canada. Rural Canada has challenges in terms of representation and distribution that are not necessarily faced in the same way as they are in urban Canada.

We face the issue of declining populations. We have the difficulty of large geographic areas we have to try to represent. We have the issue of how we communicate with our constituents. If we are in very small urban areas it is not difficult, but if it takes four or five hours to travel from one part of a riding to another part of a riding the issue of communication becomes very important.

We have the issue of diversity within our large northern ridings. We have the diversity of the people who live there, the diversity of the industries that exist there and the diversity of the geography, as I have mentioned. These are special challenges that people in rural Canada, people in northern Ontario, people in my riding have to face on the issue of redistribution.

There are three specific areas I would like to address. The first is the issue of capping the number of members in the House of Commons and the 25 per cent variance rule. The second is the whole idea of the public consultation process that is being introduced with this proposal. The final and very important area is the issue regarding the definition of community of interest. That is a very important concept about which I would like to talk very briefly.

On the idea of capping and the variance of 25 per cent, I believe the committee's report offers a good balance between what essentially used to exist, which was unrestricted growth of the number of seats here, and a plan that is going to allow for moderate growth.

I have been encouraged by the committee report because we have avoided a whole constitutional wrangle that could occur if we proceeded with recommendations such as those presented by the party opposite. It is not a time to be arguing about constitutional niceties; it is a time to be dealing with our economic problems. I am glad the committee has seen fit to ensure we do not have to go down that road.

When we study the ideas in this plan we should remember it is important for individual MPs to able to provide effective representation to their constituents. All of us in the House work very closely with a large number of constituents. In my case we receive around 900 phone calls a month. We get almost 100 letters a day. We have a large number of town hall meetings and have to travel over large areas.

All members of the House face the challenges of representing large numbers of people. An important part of what we do is to listen to our constituents, to hear their points of view and to bring them forward to the House. If we go down a road where few of us are representing an ever increasing population the basis of being able to represent constituents will be placed in jeopardy.

I am glad the report has found the balance between keeping the numbers down, which we have to do in terms of economics, and ensuring there are sufficient members to provide proper representation to individual constituents. I believe this proposal will do that.

I was also pleased to see the 25 per cent rule maintained. That is absolutely necessary for a number of reasons, the first one being geographic. There must be a geographic limit to how large a riding can get. If as members we have to travel six, eight or ten hours to go from one end of our ridings to another-and there are some ridings like that in the north-it becomes very difficult to provide proper representation. The maintenance of the 25 per cent rule will give the flexibility to take that particular issue into account.

I also believe there is an issue of needing to provide representation a bit differently in rural Canada than it is provided in urban Canada. Those challenges I pointed out previously that exist in rural Canada need to be addressed. I believe the flexibility the 25 per cent rule provides will allow that to happen.

Most important, at least as far as I am concerned, is that the 25 per cent rule and the flexibility it will allow will give us the opportunity to adhere to the community of interest guidelines in the legislation. I will talk about them in a couple of minutes.

I want to congratulate very heartily the committee on the public consultation process it has recommended in the proposed legislation. When it is implemented we will find that we have a far more effective public consultation process, certainly a far more transparent process and a more efficient process. I will touch on those three points just briefly.

First I will deal with the effective aspect. The idea that we are to have the ability to go into individual ridings or individual provinces and adjust ridings where they have gone beyond the 25 per cent rule at five-year intervals will mean we can be much more effective and much more efficient in ensuring that we have proportional representation.

It is also important the committee suggested that when the commissions go out to consult with Canadians and come back with a recommendation they are not just going to come back with an all or leave it plan. They will come forward with three specific options. The individuals who are to examine them and provide input will have a number of options before them and some basis upon which to provide their input, to have discussion and to have debate about what would be the best route to go. They are certainly recommending a transparent process.

Under this plan the positions of the two members of the commission appointed by the Speaker will have to be advertised. The Speaker will go about obtaining staff for these commissions in a very public process. Additionally Parliament will have the opportunity to examine who is chosen for those commissions and if seen fit a motion can be brought before the House to reject those individuals. We see a very transparent process being put in place.

Also in terms of transparency, under the legislation the commissions will have to tell Canadians up front the exact parameters they are to use in examining redistribution. One difficulty we found with the previous process was that the only time individual constituents became involved was after the work had all been done and it was plopped on the table.

The fact that the guidelines will be set out before the procedure is important. It will allow Canadians to have the necessary input. It is very important that the process for MPs to examine the legislation will be the same as that for the general public.

When there are public consultation meetings individual members of Parliament who feel a need to give representation will do so as part of the public process, not as some separate process that takes place only in this House. I am happy to see that the MPs will be participating in the same way that all other constituents will be.

I believe we are going to see some efficiencies put in place with this process. One of the most important is the fact that it says if the parameters have not been breached, if there has not been sufficient changes in population, if the variance has not gone beyond the 25 per cent rule, a commission will not be struck nor will it have to examine it.

That is a major and significant change from the way it is done right now where it is necessary to review it even if a change has not occurred. This is going to save substantial dollars for the federal government and it is going to save substantial dollars for the Canadian taxpayer. I very much support that.

I believe as well that Canadians will be very pleased with the fact that government in this instance is going to stop doing something it does not need to do. I very much support that.

The third area has to do with the issue of community interest and the fact that it is being defined very clearly in the legislation. It is absolutely critical that it be done. In Ontario, the area I am familiar with and in particular in my riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka, the lack of attention to community interest concept created a lot of difficulties with the recommendations that had been brought forward.

I would like to cite a couple of examples of how that has happened, using my own riding as a basis. One stipulation on community of interest is the local economy. My particular riding is made up of the Parry Sound district and the Muskoka district. They share in common the industry of tourism with a common market. Under the proposal that was originally tabled those two areas were going to be completely divided and the fact that they had a common industry, a common tourism market, was going to be totally ignored.

Also in terms of tradition, under community of interest it is defined that we must take into account traditional representation. In the case of my riding at the time of the next election it will have existed for half a century. That was totally disregarded in the process when the maps were struck the first time and the riding was going to be totally ripped apart and divided into three different parts. It was not in keeping with the traditions. This bill states very clearly under the community of interest clause that tradition is an important ingredient.

It also talks about the need to delineate between rural and urban Canada. In my riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka they were going to take an essentially rural area and add into it about

20,000 individuals from a metropolitan centre. We would have a riding that was no longer uniquely rural and would no longer be uniquely urban, but would be a mismatch of the two and would make things very difficult in terms of representation.

As well under community of interest they talk about natural boundaries. That is important. In northern Ontario we have many natural boundaries that need to be adhered to when we are trying to draw up a reasonable constituency, a reasonable riding.

Again in the case of Parry Sound-Muskoka it is bounded by a river on the south, a river on the north, Georgian Bay on the west and Algonquin Park on the east. Those were natural boundaries that established my riding. They did the redistribution and did not pay attention to the issue of community of interest and it was all put asunder.

I am very encouraged about the fact that we do have a very much strengthened community of interest clause in this legislation and I support that.

In conclusion, I do support this legislation because I think it finds the correct balance between trying to keep the numbers in this House down, but ensuring that there are sufficient members to provide effective representation. I support it because it provides a better public consultation process that is going to allow Canadians to have a meaningful input into the process.

Finally, I support this because the community of interest clause has been strengthened and will lead to the creation of better ridings.

[Project Preservation, February 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to pay tribute to Project Preservation, an environmental youth group in my riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka.

Recently the group was honoured with the Ward Smith environmental youth award. This award is presented by the North Bay-Mattawa Conservation Authority for outstanding youth contributions to the local environment through awareness and action.

Project Preservation was established in the fall of 1986 as a response to the growing need for an active environmental group dedicated to education.

Within the past eight years, the need to protect our environment has grown and Project Preservation has evolved with it. Project Preservation's main focus is the publication of a bimonthly newsletter called "Nature's Plea". "Nature's Plea"

covers a wide range of environmental issues and provides an optimistic outlook to the problems we face.

Within the past year Project Preservation has organized numerous tree plants, litter clean-ups, benefit music festivals and campaigns such as the bad mail campaign, a project to combat junk mail.

My congratulations and best wishes are extended to Project Preservation and to-

[Ronald Edward Armstrong, December 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to pay tribute to the late Reverend Ronald Edward Armstrong of Windermere in my riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka.

Reverend Armstrong was killed in a tragic plane crash recently, bringing to an end a life dedicated to the service of others. Besides his work at several parishes in Ontario during the past 30 years, Reverend Armstrong will be remembered for his outstanding contribution to the people on the Island of Bequia, St. Vincent and other Grenadine Islands.

Reverend Armstrong, who founded and directed the Bequia Mission, was instrumental in establishing a school for handicapped children and adults, a workshop for the handicapped and he arranged for the sponsorship of underprivileged children so they could attend school.

Reverend Armstrong was a great humanitarian and a great Canadian. We all share the loss with his wife June, four children and grandchildren.

[National Triathlon Team, December 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to members of the Canadian National Triathlon team from my riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka who returned this week from the world championship in Wellington, New Zealand.

Don McCormick, Sue Tovee, Darlene Murdy, Barry Webb, David Vass, John Hiley and Helmut Kruckle qualified for the world championships, with five of the seven making the trek to New Zealand. At personal expense and significant sacrifice the five triathletes travelled to a country that is 18 time zones away and braved 140 kilometre winds during pre-race training sessions.

When race day finally came, the five triathletes from Parry Sound-Muskoka along with other Canadian athletes performed well for their country in the 1.5 kilometre swim, 40 kilometre cycle, and 10 kilometre run. These individuals demonstrated the true nature of sportsmanship.

I support the athletes of Parry Sound-Muskoka and know that all members of the House support the athletes of Canada.

[Bell Canada Act, November 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to point out that the provision of telephone service in rural Ontario is not adequate and when compared to urban areas can only be described as second class.

There is no requirement that telephone service be provided beyond 62 meters of the existing system. Although quite adequate to ensure subscribers in cities receive new services at reasonable costs, in rural areas it means many individuals must pay thousands of dollars for a phone hookup.

The reality for many of my constituents is that the security and convenience of phone service most of us take for granted are not available to them. In addition, large portions of my riding have been embargoed, meaning private lines are not available. This policy discriminates against rural Canadians wishing to establish businesses depending on such simple tools as faxes and computer modems, let alone access to the information highway. In areas where economic development is most needed the required communication infrastructure is being denied.

I urge the Minister of Communications to amend the Bell Canada Act of 1902 and to end this discrimination against rural Canadians.