Andy Mitchell

[Supply, May 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in debate today. This is an important subject matter and I am pleased that the Alliance has turned its attention to having a broad based debate about the issues of rural Canada.

I have listened carefully to both hon. members of the opposition who have spoken, the member for Yorkton--Melville and the member for Medicine Hat. I profoundly disagree with the substance of the motion and with the comments they have made to support the motion. I do so because the Alliance motion demonstrates two important problems, first, a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the issues that face rural Canada and second, a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of our federation.

There is no attack on the lives of rural Canadians and on the communities of rural Canada. I can tell hon. members what we have seen in the House. We have seen the government proposing through HRDC to help build community capacity building and watched the Alliance oppose it. We have seen the government propose a strategic infrastructure program of $2 billion. The hon. member for Medicine Hat talked about the need for infrastructure. What did the Alliance do? It voted against it.

We have seen the need for access to capital by small businesses that operate in rural Canada. We have such a program called community futures and it provides loans to small businesses at commercial rates in rural areas. What happened? The Alliance campaigned against that particular program. It is right in its platform that Alliance members do not want to see it.

We believe that rural Canadians have a right and should be able to access health care, post-secondary education and life long learning and have a competitive business environment. All these things can be obtained by going forward in the implementation of broadband Internet technology. What do we see? We see the Alliance totally opposed to that type of initiative.

I will spend a moment not talking about those particular issues, but talking about some of the fundamental differences that exist between this side of the House and that side of the House.

The opposition suggests, particularly in talking about legislation, that it is an either/or type of scenario. We are either with rural Canadians or we are with urban Canadians, that there is no connect between the two. Legislation must be either one way or the other way. That is a fundamental misunderstanding because what opposition members do not understand is that Canada is more than the sum of its parts. It is more than a collection of regions. Canada is a nation with national values, goals and objectives. The legislation that we bring forward in the House needs to speak to those national values, goals and objectives.

We also need to understand that a successful Canada is one that is made up of strong component parts, both urban and rural. It is not a case of one or the other. To be successful we must have both strong urban and rural communities and strong urban and rural components. We cannot have a successful rural Canada if we do not have a strong urban Canada, if we do not have those markets or if we do not have the support of those urban communities. Nor can we have a successful urban Canada if we do not have the wealth that is generated from rural Canada and we do not have the communities that sustain rural Canada. The two component parts are absolutely essential. There is a fundamental misunderstanding of that in the opposition.

The two members who have already spoken have spent time telling us what is wrong with rural Canada and the government's approach. That is fair enough. It is part of what the Alliance members are there to do. It is their job to be critical of the government, to say what it is that they do not think is right.

However, it is only part of their job. Criticism is part of it, but it is only part. What Alliance members have not done this morning and have not done in the eight years that I have watched the debate in respect of rural Canada is to point toward an alternative vision. There is an obligation to Canadians. I say to Alliance members that it is not simply good enough to criticize. The opposition should criticize but it should also put forward an alternative vision for rural Canada. In fact, it has not done that.

The issue of rural Canada and rural sustainability is far too important to be a partisan political exercise. It requires members of parliament, members of the other place, and members from all parties to come together to ensure we have a sustainable rural Canada and to ensure we can in fact protect the needs and the interests of rural Canadians.

I want to talk a little bit about a vision for rural Canada because we have not seen a great deal of it from the other side. To me we need to pursue a three part approach to ensure the sustainability of rural Canada.

I believe our approach must be a bottom up and not a top down approach. The solutions for rural Canada do not simply lie here in Ottawa. They do not lie in the provincial capitals. The solutions to rural issues lie in rural communities themselves. We need to reflect and it is important to reflect that the needs, challenges and priorities of a rural community on the prairies are not the same as those in northern Ontario, Atlantic Canada or the interior of British Columbia. They are all as valid and important, but to ensure that public policy works well we need to take the approach that individual communities must be empowered to pursue their sustainability in a way that makes sense to the challenges that they meet in their particular communities.

It must go beyond that. It is not good enough to say that we take a bottom up approach. It is critical that we ensure that communities have the capacity to move forward on their particular approach, that they have the capacity to retain, attract and train human resources, that they have the capacity to understand what their assets are so that they can build upon them. Rural communities must have the ability to build a community consensus on the direction that they want to take and that they have the ability to develop a community plan that they can move forward on.

But again, it is more than just bottom up and more than being able to build community capacity. Senior levels of government do have an obligation to provide tools to those communities to use in a way that makes sense for them, for example, community capacity building that is provided by regional agencies. The hon. member for Medicine Hat denigrated regional agencies. They play an important role in ensuring rural communities have the capacity to move forward with economic development.

Access to capital is a key tool that we need to provide to small businesses that are in our rural communities. Our community futures program does that well. It works well with our communities.

The member for Medicine Hat talked about infrastructure. It is an important tool that is provided by both the federal and the provincial governments. We have provided a federal-provincial program of infrastructure over the last couple of years of $2 billion. We have talked about a new strategic infrastructure program of another $2 billion. It is somewhat disconcerting to see each time that we move forward with an infrastructure program that members of the Alliance vote against it. They are voting against their constituents.

We talk about broadband access and the access it will give to Canadians. I asked a question in the House some three months ago. An hon. Alliance member stood up and said the secretary of state was absolutely nuts. He said nobody in rural Canada cared about having broadband Internet access. He turned to a couple of his colleagues who were sitting behind him and asked if they had ever heard of anybody in rural communities asking for that? They dutifully answered that, no, they had not. Rural Canadians need access to that technology, not for the technology itself but for what it can provide to them in terms of access to health care and education in a competitive business environment.

Today's debate is important. As important as it is to listen to what each and every parliamentarian has to say because there is value to be added to this debate by all parliamentarians, and as important as it is to take into consideration the views of our provincial colleagues and the various provincial legislatures, it is not enough. It is not the primary thing we need to do. The primary thing is to listen to the voices of rural citizens themselves. It is from them that solutions will come and it is their needs and concerns that parliamentarians need to understand.

Believing and knowing that, starting in 1998 the government engaged in what was the government's largest citizen engagement process, a rural dialogue to listen to the needs and concerns of rural Canadians. To date over 10,000 rural Canadians have participated in that process. There have been hundreds of local sessions, dozens of area sessions and many regional sessions. There have been two national rural conferences which brought together over 1,000 rural citizens from all parts of the country.

In those two conferences we saw representation from almost all political parties represented in the House, except one. The Alliance did not seem to feel there was a need to come and listen to the views of rural Canadians. The other opposition parties thought there was a need and a value, but I guess the Alliance did not.

I want to say something because I can hear the criticism already turning in the minds of Alliance members. These rural dialogues were not just about talk. They were not about having a meeting, talking about where we might go and letting it fall off the table. In each of these rural conferences we came forward with a specific action plan on specific things that we needed to do as a government to fulfill the needs and desires, and to work on the issues brought forward by rural Canadians.

I tabled the action plan from the 2000 conference. It had 54 items in it. We worked on those items; we did not let them drop. When we had the conference in 2002 we came back and put them in front of the delegates, the rural citizens, and let them judge for themselves the type of progress and accomplishments we were able to make. Yes, we did well on some, and we need to continue to do more work on others. We are now putting in place another action plan based on the results of the 2002 conference.

That is why I approached all parties in the House over the last couple of weeks and said to them that we have heard what rural Canadians had to say to us at the Charlottetown conference. They have many issues and concerns. I suggested to all the parties that we have a take note debate. It was scheduled to happen on Wednesday. All parties would have an opportunity to talk, and not just about partisan politics. The hon. member for Selkirk--Interlake said to me, with some validity and justification, that his party did not want to do something if it was just an opportunity to praise the government.

We wanted an opportunity to talk about and listen specifically to what rural Canadians said, and the types of responses we need to take as a government. Those are the kinds of things we need to do. As parliamentarians we need to listen to what rural Canadians have told us. We need to work on the priorities that they establish far more so than the priorities that we ourselves may be establishing here.

I profoundly disagree with what the hon. member for Yorkton--Melville has put forward in the motion. However I do respect him because I believe that in his heart, as in the heart of all members in the House, is the genuine desire to help rural Canadians, rural communities and the people who are dependent on rural Canada.

Yes, partisan debate is part of what we do here, but we need to reach beyond reach beyond just simply saying what does not work and start talking about what does work. Canadians want to see that. Viewers watching this debate throughout the day expect the opposition members to lob the government and for the government to lob opposition members right back. If that is the nature of this debate today, it will be a disappointment, not just for Canadians watching but a disappointment for me as well. I want to see us talk about solutions and the things we ought to do make things better in rural Canada. Those members can criticize the government because that is part of their role, but let us talk about things that will work.

The issue of rural development is too important to simply be a partisan exercise in the House. All of us who live in rural Canada, who have brought up our families there and who represent constituents of rural communities, know how special a place that is. It is important in our hearts. It is a place with unique values and special traditions. Rural Canada is an important part of this country. The wealth that is rural Canada is absolutely essential, not just for the success of rural Canadians but for the success of all Canadians and for the success of this nation. That is what rural Canada is all about.

I am determined to work to ensure that rural Canada thrives as we move into the future. I am determined to work toward ensuring that we build a rural Canada, not using the tools of the 19th or 20 century but using the tools of the 21st century that will build a rural Canada that embraces the world, not a rural Canada that hides from it. I am committed to those things as are all members on this side of the House. I challenge members on the other side to commit with us to building a better rural Canada, and in so doing, building a better and a stronger Canada as a whole.

[Agriculture, April 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member points out some very important issues. That is one of the reasons that we brought 500 rural Canadians from across the country to engage in a from the bottom up process to develop policy.

There were many issues discussed, but I want to tell members that one thing was key, that is, to have a successful Canada, to be a successful nation, then both component parts of Canada must be strong, both urban Canada and rural Canada. The natural resources wealth of this nation exists in rural Canada. We must support the network of communities that sustain it.

[Gasoline Prices, March 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, on a number of occasions we have reviewed the whole issue of pricing. If the member has a specific example of price gouging that needs to be brought forward, we would be happy to take it under advisement.

[Report on Rural Canada, December 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, the second annual report to parliament on rural Canada entitled “Enhancing the Quality of Life for Rural Canadians”.

[Supply, December 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member's comments and I have a question for him. Why does he believe that rural Canadians are second class citizens? That in essence is what he said. He talked about the broadband issue as a low priority and something to which we ought not to pay any attention. However he does not understand it. He is not only ignorant of it. He is ignorant of his ignorance.

It is not about putting computers in people's homes and having access to e-mail faster. It is about ensuring that rural Canadians have access to health care. It is ensuring that whether or not someone living in a rural or remote community has an opportunity by using today's technology to have first class medical service. That is what the hon. member does not want rural Canadians to have.

It is also about ensuring that rural Canadians have an opportunity to access educational opportunities. He is denying rural Canadians the opportunity to access these types of educational opportunities by denying them the opportunity to move forward on this initiative.

I know what interests the hon. member when it comes to ensuring that businesses operating in rural Canada have an opportunity to be successful in creating wealth and jobs. He denies rural Canadians the opportunity to be competitive in today's world by denying them access to this type of modern technology. That is why I want to know why the hon. member believes rural Canadians are second class citizens.

[Agriculture, November 9th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of ways the federal government is assisting our rural communities and one of the more innovative ways is through our pilot project program. Through that program we are working with over 300 communities across Canada to test innovative solutions to meet the challenges that are faced by rural communities, challenges such as geography or low population density, for the cyclical nature of the resource based economies.

We have invested over $12 million in this program. In the last few days I have been able to announce the latest phase, $2.2 million in 81 communities.

[International Actions Against Terrorism, October 15th, 2001]

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have an opportunity to participate in this take note debate.

Many people have said it here this evening and in debates in the past several weeks, but indeed the world has changed dramatically since September 11. There are important decisions that have been made and important decisions that need to be made. I am pleased that in this debate and others that have taken place since September 11 parliament is having an opportunity on behalf of Canadians to provide input. It is important that we have these debates. It is important that we consider the options that are laid out before us and that we have an opportunity as parliamentarians, on behalf of Canadians, to have these types of discussions.

Over the last several weeks I have had an opportunity through letters, through attending events in my riding and through telephone conversations to talk to a large number of constituents about the events of September 11 and those things that have flowed from those events.

This past Saturday I had an opportunity to hold a town hall meeting in my riding with a number of constituents who came together to talk about the issues that we as parliamentarians are talking about here this evening. I want to take a moment to thank all of those constituents who participated not only in that town hall but who have provided their input to me regarding their views on what has taken place and on what we need to do as a government and as parliament to respond to those events.

I promised my constituents at that town hall that I would speak to the issues they raised and talk a little about them here this evening.

In essence, my constituents' input can be divided into two broad categories. First they identified what they felt were some important priorities that the government needed to be seized with, that we as parliamentarians needed to be seized with. Second, they also took the time to talk about some important principles needed to govern whatever specific actions we would undertake as a government and as a country.

In terms of government priorities, constituents classified things into three general categories. The first priority would be something that we called capture and justice. That is a direct result of the events of September 11. I believe we all remain shocked at what we saw happen that day. Our hearts continue to go out to the victims and to all of the people who are directly responding to that in New York, Pennsylvania and Washington. Constituents made it very clear that there is no justification for what took place, no political justification, no diplomatic justification, no righting of past wrongs. What we saw take place on September 11 was, simply put, a mass murder of 5,000 plus innocent people. My constituents and all Canadians, I believe, very strongly feel the need to seek out those who are responsible for this horrendous crime and to ensure that justice is done in this respect.

We talked about some of the things that have transpired since then in terms of bringing these perpetrators to justice. We talked about NATO and article 5. We talked about the integration of our security forces with those of the Americans and our other allies. We talked about the seizing of financial assets and the importance of that in terms of stopping acts of terrorism.

My constituents very clearly addressed the government's decision to commit our military forces to the coalition to work toward the capture of bin Laden, his organization and other terrorist organizations throughout the world. To be quite honest, although there was not an absolute unanimity, a very clear majority of constituents said that it is appropriate to commit the Canadian military to this endeavour.

In terms of continuing our priorities, the second one was the issue of personal security. There really is no more direct mandate for a government than to provide for the security of its citizens. It is critically important to ensure that our citizens are able to go about living their daily lives with a normal routine. To have anything other than that would mean a victory for the terrorists.

Constituents talked about the establishment of the security committee in cabinet and the $280 million of new funding that has been committed. Indeed, today we saw another step go forward with the tabling of new anti-terrorism legislation that will provide additional tools to ensure the security of individual Canadians.

As a third priority, constituents talked about the need to secure our borders. As the minister of immigration has said, we need to ensure that we firmly close the back door to illegal entries into Canada so that those whose past behaviour does not warrant them being accepted into Canada are kept out. It will ensure that we can keep open the front door to immigration for people who have over the history of the country come to Canada and added to the fabric of this nation.

Constituents also talk about the need to strengthen the interdiction and security at our borders not only for security reasons but obviously for economic reasons. We need integrity at our border.

Beyond priorities, constituents talked about the principles that we need to follow as a government. Simply put, there are three very important principles. First, although they recognize the need to work closely with Americans and with our allies, we need to do it in a way that does not sacrifice Canadian sovereignty.

Second, we need to remember clearly the need to strike the balance between collective security and individual rights, and that we should not destroy the very values that mark Canada as a democracy in our actions to defend it.

Third, we must remember that when we win the campaign against terrorism, and we will, we must be prepared to continue our historic efforts to address issues that contribute to the improvement and well-being of the lives of Canadians and indeed all citizens of the world.

Since September 11, Canadians and Canada have faced new and difficult challenges. I believe Canadians have done a good job in facing those challenges. I believe that parliament, through its debates and suggestions from all sides of the House, has done a good job. I believe the government is doing a good job in responding to the issues in terms of our military commitment, our new legislative initiatives and our new security initiatives.

There is much more to be done. There are many steps along the road to ensuring the security of our nation and to ensuring that we bring to justice those who perpetrated that very terrible crime. We will do these things and we will do them because we are united as a country and as a people. Canada is a great country and Canadians are a great people.

In closing, I will offer a refrain that God watch over our military personnel, the men and women who in the days ahead may find themselves in harm's way.

[Agriculture, September 27th, 2001]

Madam Chairman, I appreciate having another opportunity to talk about the issues of rural Canada. Today we are dealing with the agricultural sector. We have been here on debate before and we talked about the natural resource sector. We have had other opportunities for discussion. I am pleased to see that opposition members and government members are trying to seek solutions to deal with the issues that impact rural Canada.

As the Secretary of State for Rural Development I have the opportunity to deal with some of the key issues that those of us who represent rural Canada deal with on an ongoing basis with our constituents. A big part of what we are talking about as rural members of parliament, and many of us in the Chamber right now are rural members of parliament, is to make sure there is an understanding that a successful Canada and a strong Canada is a Canada that has both of its component parts strong, that we have both a strong urban and a strong rural Canada.

It is not an issue of one being strong at the expense of the other, or taking an asset from one and giving it to the other. The nation is strong when we have a strong urban and rural Canada. That is something we need to work toward. The reality is that we want to make sure as a government, and I am sure as all 301 members of parliament, whether they come from urban or rural Canada, that our rural citizens have an opportunity to access the wealth that is Canada, that we have an opportunity to share in everything the country has to offer.

One reality we need to recognize is that when it comes to rural Canada and rural Canadians, there are some structural differences from those that exist in urban Canada. There are challenges that are faced by rural Canada which are different from those that are faced by urban Canada. As we have these discussions here in the House and as we develop legislation and respond to the issues of the day, it is important for us to recognize those different challenges and to develop public policy that takes them into account.

What are those challenges? Some of them are fairly straightforward and obvious.

Take the issue of geography in rural Canada. There is a lot of geography in rural Canada. Many of us choose to live in rural Canada because of that geography. What it means is that when it comes to delivering programming, when it comes to delivering government services or private sector services, there are thousands and thousands of square kilometres in which to provide service and it is far more challenging than it may be in a tight urbanized centre.

Take the issue of population density. One of those structural realities is there is a low population density in rural Canada, particularly compared to some of our large cities. That has very significant ramifications. When we are trying to attract investment and trying to ensure that we have the right kind of investment in infrastructure or trying to get the investment into businesses, when there is low population densities, the return somebody can obtain from those investments will oftentimes not be as great and may be much more slow in coming than it would be in an urban centre. It makes it a challenge to attract that kind of investment to a rural area.

Sometimes the public policy response for attracting that investment has to be different. We need public-private partnerships. Sometimes the private sector may make an investment on its own in a high density urban area, but it may not be willing to make the same investment in a rural area unless there is a public-private partnership. That is what I mean by having a different public policy response in a rural area from what may be suitable in an urban area.

To speak more directly to the issue of agriculture and agriculture in rural Canada, one of the structural differences that exists in rural areas is the fact that the economy is cyclical in nature. For the most part rural Canada is a natural resource based economy whether it be forestry, mining, fisheries or agriculture. It is a cyclical type of economy based on fluctuating commodity prices.

An economy based that way is very different from many of our urban economies which tend to be diversified. They tend to be manufacturing or technology based. When there is a problem or a challenge in one component part of that economy there are many other component parts that can deal with it and ensure that on a macro basis the economy will continue to move forward and be strong.

Rural Canada has resource based economies which are often single industry economies and cyclical in nature. We understand that there is a need for a different public policy approach. As rural members from all sides of the House we are saying that we need a different type of public policy approach when dealing with rural Canada and its natural resource based economies. That is very clear.

What kind of public policy tools do we as a government respond with to deal with the cyclical nature of these economies? They will be very different from the tools that could be found in an urban economy or a very diversified economy. Those tools exist in the agricultural sector whether we are talking about crop insurance, NISA, CFIP or spring advances. There is a whole series of tools.

Members of the opposition are suggesting that there can be additional tools. We on the government side agree that the tools contained in the agricultural sector ought to be enriched or enhanced. That is the kind of discussion we are having here today. It is not an issue of those tools not existing.

The government has made a very strong response to the public policy issues I talked about by ensuring that the tools are available. However that does not mean the discussion should be over. We are having this debate so we can talk about how we should strengthen those tools or how we should add to them.

The previous speaker talked about consultations that had taken place with rural residents. That is important. Many of my colleagues are travelling across Canada this week as part of a task force developed for members of the Liberal Party. They are talking to rural citizens about those issues. I have established something I call rural dialogue. I do not mean rural consultation but rural dialogue.

I have taken the opportunity over the last two years to talk to rural citizens, be they ones who operate in the agricultural sector, the resource based sector or are simply part of the communities that support those industries. They have told me about some of the issues we need to deal with. In respect of that input we have been developing the tools I have talked about and changing them as appropriate and creating new ones as needed.

It is important to recognize in terms of agriculture the need to get away from simply having short term tools, as important and necessary as they are, to having a long term vision for agriculture. That is why I was so pleased this past June when I was in Yukon where all the provincial ministers came together and agreed on a framework for long term stability in the agricultural sector and the communities that depend on it.

I am pleased to have participated in this debate and the discussion with all members of the House on the types of things we need to do to ensure the long term sustainability of rural Canada.

[Rural Development, June 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to meet with the community futures organizations from across Ontario and to celebrate with them their work with small business in creating wealth and creating jobs.

To that end we are undertaking a number of new initiatives, including a pilot project to increase their lending limit from $125,000 to $500,000, a new common identifier so that businesses will be better able to access community futures and, in order that community futures across the country can learn from best practices, we are establishing a national network of community futures.

On behalf of the Minister of Industry and the secretaries of state responsible for the regional development agencies, I am pleased to announce $600,000 to that end.

[Port Infrastructures, June 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is reviewing the resources available to him and will be making decisions on particular projects that he will be able to initiate this year.