Andy Mitchell

[The Budget, February 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, further to my question to the minister of agriculture, rural Canada's concerns must be kept in the forefront and must remain a priority for this federal government. This week's budget takes great strides down that road.

I was very pleased to see the finance minister's emphasis on programs and investments that will work for rural Canadians. These budget measures will directly impact my riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka and will help businesses in my riding to create jobs.

In addition to the renewed commitment to a federal infrastructure job creation program which has been very beneficial in my riding, I point to the $15 million annual increase over three years for the Canadian Tourism Commission, and the $50 million investment in the Business Development Bank of Canada. This will lever another $250 million in loans for the creation of tourism infrastructure in rural areas.

I single out the $50 million investment to the Farm Credit Corporation to be used for rural development and the $30 million to expand the community access program to ensure that virtually all rural communities are linked to the Internet.

This is support upon which we can build. This is support that is right in line with what constituents across Canada were asking for when we took testimony as part of the natural resources committee's rural development study.

Those of us from rural areas have identified several priorities that need to be addressed in order to enhance economic development in the rural areas of our country. Some of these the budget has dealt with. I am sure the constituents in rural Canada will applaud the government's initiatives on these rural issues.

The Prime Minister himself made a firm commitment to tackle the unique needs of rural Canadians on behalf of all of us who live in rural areas. Four ministers were charged with the rural development portfolio and my committee has helped lead the way.

We set about detailing the challenges of rural Canada, the lack of formal education for some of those or the lack of access to education in high technology fields where the jobs are for others.

We looked at partnerships between the public and private sectors to better meet the needs of business operators in rural areas so that they would be better able to overcome the disadvantages of distance, geography, low population densities and so that we could enhance investment opportunities and expand our information base.

We looked at ways to enhance the benefits of value adding in our natural resources sector. We looked at restrictive regulatory regimes and how they could be eliminated. We looked at how to eliminate duplication and the need to have increased tax incentives for investment.

Investment in innovative technologies and initiatives that will ensure that virtually all rural communities have access to the Internet and that build upon our efforts to date will go a long way to giving those of us who live in rural Canada the support we need to compete in an urban oriented world.

Further elaboration on planned or existing initiatives will help constituents in my riding understand and therefore benefit from federal commitments today.

[Small Business, February 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.

Could the minister imagine what it is like to be a tourist operator in my riding in May getting ready for a busy summer, then suddenly being deluged with surveys from half a dozen or so government departments? I know the information is important to collect but would the minister tell this House what he is doing to ensure this paper burden is not interfering with doing business?

[Supply, February 13th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I will take the opportunity to say that we have, as a nation, a challenge in terms of our highway transportation system. The Liberal government is working toward finding solutions. However, those solutions have to be found in partnership with other public sector governments, primarily the provincial governments, and in conjunction with the private sector as well.

This government has done a good job. It has set good economic fundamentals which will allow for investment in infrastructure.

[Supply, February 13th, 1997]

Oh, I see, he wants to raise taxes. That is an interesting thing coming from the Reform Party. I think that is somewhat against their new start or fresh start or whatever start it is on this week, I am not quite sure.

The point is that we do not necessarily say that if one has a revenue stream that it must be matched to a specific expenditure. What is going to happen? Do we take that money and divide it up by province? If one province pays more into it does it get more than the other provinces?

We are a nation. We are a nation from coast to coast to coast. We are all Canadians from coast to coast to coast. We provide for ourselves on a national basis. I become very concerned when members of the third party sow the seeds of parochial provincialism day in and day out and try to sow the seeds of discontent from one region to another region. Those are the types of things they are talking about. Those are the types of things that their policies are going to lead to.

We want a national transportation system. We want a national highways transportation policy. It is the Liberal government, through sound fiscal management, that is going to give various governments and the private sector collectively the ability to do that.

[Supply, February 13th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a number of points. Quite frankly, members opposite speak in general terms to something I have had an opportunity to talk about before and which I am going to take the opportunity to talk about again. They do not understand the nature of Canada, the nature of Confederation, and

they do not understand how this works. The hon. member laughs when I talk about Canada and Confederation. That speaks volumes about exactly how he feels.

This nation is a partnership of provinces and of Canadians. He talked about what British Columbians pay in gas tax. They do contribute significantly to Canada. However, other parts of the nation may not have the opportunity to contribute quite the same for whatever reasons.

Does that mean that part of Canada gets that much more service? Does that mean the less advantaged areas of the country are doomed not to receive assistance from those parts of the country that are more fortunate? Is that the kind of system he is calling for? I suspect it is because when their rhetoric is looked at and listened to, it is obvious they do not understand the very fabric of Canada and the very nation of Canada.

He suggests that we pay $5 million in gasoline tax and then turn around and send the money out and only use it for that. However, if we do that what happens to those public services that we provide as a government for which we do not collect any revenue? Does that mean that we do not have a national public health care system because there is not a revenue stream for it? Is he calling for an end to public health care?

[Supply, February 13th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity today to debate this opposition day motion and to speak particularly about the issue of highway transportation.

The story we have to tell as a government and the types of things we are proposing and intend to proceed with show quite clearly that the resolution condemning the government is totally inappropriate, misses the mark and does not accurately reflect the reality of what is taking place today.

Quite frankly the issue of transportation is an important one for me and for my riding. Parry Sound-Muskoka, part of the most beautiful part of the world, depends in large part on tourism. Indeed the vast majority of tourists who travel to my part of the country do so on the highway transportation system.

In my riding we depend so much on that industry that almost one out of every two jobs is tied to tourism. For every million dollars of new tourism expenditure we attract to my riding, primarily again through the highway transportation system, we create 39 person years worth of employment. For me personally as the member for Parry Sound-Muskoka the whole issue of highway transportation is an important one.

I also had an opportunity with others on all sides of the House to participate as the chair of the natural resources committee in a rural development study. We had an opportunity to talk to Canadians from coast to coast to coast about the needs of their communities, about the need for improving the economic climate that exists in rural Canada.

Almost to a person in the types of testimony that was provided to us the issue of transportation infrastructure, particularly highway infrastructure, came up. Not only was there the issue of tourism which we heard about from my constituents and from constituents across Canada, but we also heard about the importance of moving our natural resources from where we either harvest them or extract them in rural Canada to our markets and the importance of the highway transportation system to do that.

There is also the importance of a strong highway transportation system in terms of being able to value add to our natural resources in rural Canada and of being able to move those to market in an efficient way.

The committee on natural resources in its rural development study has examined this issue. It clearly states that transportation is important. The government is committed and concerned to have seen us as a committee of the House deal with the issue. I congratulate members of the transportation committee, which released its report yesterday dealing with the whole issue of highway transportation in Canada, for the work they have done, for the report they have tabled and for the recommendations they made in terms of highway renewal.

Not only for rural Canadians but for all Canadians the highway transportation system is critical. Ninety-five per cent of all transportation that goes between cities is on our highways. Seventy-five per cent of all freight that we move goes by highway. Sixty per cent of our exports to the United States, our largest export partner, goes by road and 80 per cent of our imports. Therefore it is critical for rural Canadians and for Canadians everywhere.

We need to look first at where we stand today. The reality of the situation when we are talking about highway transportation is that it is primarily, although not exclusively, a provincial responsibility.

Just this past October the Minister of Transport had an opportunity to meet in Prince Edward Island with his counterparts. He talked to them and dealt with the whole issue of a national highway policy. He received strong support from his provincial and territorial counterparts for the need to move forward but with a clear understanding that the lead responsibility in the issue of highway transportation rests with the provinces. The federal government should and must take a role in highway policy.

Historically the federal government has supported the whole issue of highway transportation since 1919. The best example occurred between 1949 and 1971 through a series of federal-provincial agreements involving the construction of the Trans-Canada Highway. As it had been in the previous century when it was linked from coast to coast by rail the nation was being linked coast to coast by a national highway.

The commitment and the ongoing involvement in highway transportation continue today. The federal government in fiscal year 1996-97 is committing somewhere close to $300 million or $292 million through federal-provincial agreements to highway construction and maintenance. In addition it spends approximately $100 million on highways and bridges for which it has direct responsibility.

Improvement in our highway transportation system is needed. That is why the government has had both the natural resources committee through its rural development study and even more directly the transport committee working on trying to develop ways to proceed, the proper actions that should be taken, the kind of strategy we should be looking at as a government to pursue improvement of our highway transportation network.

As the report on transport made quite clear there is a need for action now. We have an aging system. It is considered to have a 30-year lifespan. Right now it stands at something like 14 years. We are facing increased costs to maintain the system. As it grows older governments at all levels are having to commit increased financial resources to maintain it.

There is growing congestion in our major metropolitan centres. I often drive to Toronto and it does not take long to see the congestion. There has not been adequate investment in our highway transportation system.

Where do we go as a nation? Where do we go as Canadians? Where do we go as governments of all levels? One of the important things we need and one of the things the transport committee suggested is a national highways policy. We need a framework. We need a blueprint. Governments need a strategic road map to ensure a proper highway transportation infrastructure.

The committee made a number of suggestions and included a number of components which I think are appropriate. It talked about the need for a long term commitment of federal financial assistance. It talked about the need to develop partnerships between the public and the private sectors and between different levels of the public sector and the provincial and federal governments. It talked about the need to explore and develop new technologies and best practices in creating and maintaining our highway infrastructure. It talked about the need to develop innovative financing models to come up with the necessary financial resources that will

be required to make the major investment in updating and maintaining our highway infrastructure.

On some of these points the government has made very clear what it intends to do. The fact that it is presently committing close to $300 million to highways in Canada is appropriate. We should continue at a minimum to make that kind of financial commitment to a national highway system.

This has been debated a bit by previous speakers in the House but it is important that a infrastructure program be used to assist in transportation. In the program announced by the government right after the election in 1993 much of those funds were used in several provinces to help with important transportation related projects.

Unlike what one member was trying to suggest before, the program worked based on decisions as to the local priority, where the money should be spent and the types of transportation infrastructure. If transportation was chosen the decision was made at the local level. It was not made by the bureaucracy in Ottawa or by the members who sit in the House or in the various provincial legislatures or by their bureaucracies. The decision was made where it should be made: by local councils, local individuals who understand and know their priorities. We should continue to have such an infrastructure program and part of it should be used for transportation.

I will speak as a rural member for a second. It is important to note rural Canada has significant challenges that are somewhat different from those faced by urban Canada. Our transportation system is one of them. Obviously the geography is different. We have much larger distances to go. The density of our population is such that the need to communicate between a series of smaller municipalities intensifies our need for a highway transportation system. Our need to pursue our economies by transporting natural resources to market suggest that as we pursue a commitment of federal dollars, be it through an infrastructure program or otherwise, we must remember the needs in rural Canada are particularly high. We must recognize that when allocating the resources we allocate as a government.

We need to look at our financing options. We need to be creative. The third party sometimes has difficulty with the whole concept of being creative in government, looking at new solutions and looking forward as opposed to looking backward.

There are a number of creative ways to attract investment into a highways infrastructure. It could involve different levels of the public. It could involve a situation where we attract private investment into the infrastructure program, where we have the private sector invest in highways. We could recover that investment in a number of different ways. It could come from the public pursue through governments paying back that investment over years as the assets are depreciated. Or, it can come from the public through user fees if that is the types of decisions that might be made.

The key point is that we need to be creative in how we approach our financing of this type of infrastructure. I applaud the transportation committee in making that point very clear. We need to be creative. We need to reach out for innovative solutions in how we create highway transportation infrastructure.

The motion suggests that the government should be condemned. It is hogwash to use that word because the government should not be condemned.

The government should be complimented because in the last three and a half years, through its sound management of the Canadian economy, through the work it has done in managing Canada's finances, it has been able to create a financial environment that allows it options it would not have had if it had not acted in a prudent manner.

It is appropriate to look for a second at how some of that has worked. First, the government has taken a deficit which was about $42 billion when it took over and it is going to come in somewhere a little over $17 billion. We will know soon when the Minister of Finance brings in his budget.

The government is moving very quickly to a balanced budget. That will allow it to be able to make a long term financial commitment to a highway transportation system without increasing the debt. The government will be able to make that long term commitment without having to add on to its carrying charges. Sound fiscal management in reducing the deficit is giving the government the options to pursue such things as a national highway transportation policy.

By having economic policies that have led to the lowest interest rates in 40 years has made it possible and attractive for the private sector to make investments in things like highway transportation. The environment has been created. That is what the economic policy is all about. The government has created an environment, in this case low interest rates, that will give the private sector the opportunity to make the kinds of investments that it wants to be able to make.

These economic policies have led to the lowest sustained rate of inflation for well over a generation. It gives governments and the private sector the opportunity to make long term capital plans with some sort of surety in terms of future cost. That is what a stable inflation environment has been able to provide. It is working to allow the government to work in partnership with the private sector to pursue a policy that can lead to improved highway infrastructure.

Let us look at another matter. The government has created an environment so that trade has increased substantially since it has been in office. It has increased by something like 28 per cent. Today about 42 per cent of the value of all the goods and services produced in Canada come from trade. We have created the volume, we have created the market, we have created the need so that a proper investment and infrastructure can occur.

The member talked about not wanting to invest in a highway that was going to be empty. The reality is that as a trading nation and with the volume of trade going up, again investment in transportation infrastructure makes good, sound economic sense.

In summarizing, let me state clearly that first, the government has had some very specific policies that have helped in the area of highway transportation infrastructure. That is important to know.

Second, the government recognizes that more needs to be done. We do need an improved highway transportation infrastructure and the government is moving forward in that respect. We saw it with the natural resources committee, we saw it with the transportation committee. We are seeking out solutions. The Minister of Transport has met with his provincial and territorial colleagues to come together and find the best way to go forward.

Finally, by bringing sound fiscal management to this country, by creating a low interest rate environment, a stable inflation environment, the government has created the conditions so that investment can occur in our transportation infrastructure.

[Public Safety Officers Compensation Fund, February 12th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, further to my question, the issue of nuclear safety in Canada comes up again and again.

In her response, the Minister of Natural Resources reminded us that Canada has a lengthy history in terms of advocating the destruction of nuclear weapons and that all nuclear activity in Canada is conducted only after the most stringent safety and security measures are put into place.

As Chair of the natural resources committee, I studied clause by clause the nuclear legislation that is currently before the House. As a result, I have a true appreciation for the complex issues that surround nuclear safety in this country.

Moreover, I have a true appreciation for the concerns of my constituents and other Canadians who, while acknowledging the contribution of nuclear power to meet our energy needs, insist, and rightly so, that nuclear activity in Canada be undertaken only while adhering to the strictest environmental standards.

I recently met with several concerned individuals in my riding who were members of an organization devoted to maintaining high standards in nuclear safety.

Like these individuals and others like them, I am committed to protecting Canada's environment and natural resources. Our federal government has an ongoing commitment to environmental protection in Canada and has advanced this cause considerably since the original Canadian Environmental Protection Act took effect in 1988.

We know that some toxic substances do not break down naturally but stay in our food, water and soil and accumulate over time. To better protect the environment and the health of Canadians from these toxins, we introduced a new act in December 1996 to manage toxic substances more effectively, improve the application of regulation and encourage public participation and co-operation between governments.

The bottom line is that it is better to prevent pollution than to try to manage it after it has been created. It is this same principle that guides the nuclear safety legislation which establishes the Canadian nuclear safety commission and contains measures that protect the environment.

This nuclear safety legislation replaces the Atomic Energy Control Act with a modern statute to provide for more explicit and effective regulations of nuclear energy.

Formulation of the Canadian nuclear safety commission underlies its separate role from research, development and marketing, and recognizes that since the original act was first adopted in 1946 the mandate of the regulatory agency has evolved from one of primarily national security to one primarily focused on the control of health, safety and environmental consequences of nuclear activities.

This legislation provides the Canadian nuclear safety commission with a mandate to establish and enforce national standards in these areas. It also establishes a basis for implementing Canadian policy and fulfilling Canada's obligation with respect to the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.

The legislation brings the enforcement powers of compliance and penalties for infractions into line with current legislative practices. The commission is empowered to require financial guarantees to order remedial action in hazardous situations and to require responsible parties to bear the cost of decontamination, all measures that will help protect the environment.

The constituents in my riding care about their environment. Canadians care and so does this Liberal government. On behalf of my constituents, I would appreciate that the parliamentary secretary further address these issues.

[Nuclear Safety And Control Act, February 12th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member worked very hard on this piece of legislation. We need to talk about finding a balance. I do not think that we can legislate every specific possibility that may come up at some time. If we look back to when the legislation was originally enacted in 1946 we will find things in the legislation which were not even imagined for 1996. That bill has had to serve over the last 50 years.

One integral part of the bill and of our regulatory regime is that we have a licensing board which stipulates on a case by case basis specific licenses established for each person to operate. The public should know that nobody handles this material in any form unless a licence has been issued to do so. Each situation is different. There is a big difference between a nuclear reactor and dealing with isotopes for medical research. Therefore there has to be some flexibility in the licensing regime.

When giving instructions to the commission to use the word reasonable, I believe that by using the word reasonable we are allowing the commission to deal with each situation given the events and the facts and the evolution of technology over the years and to give the flexibility necessary in the licensing process to deal with the health and safety of Canadians.

When trying to define a minimum standard when doing experimentation with isotopes it is going to be a whole lot different than a minimum standard for dealing with nuclear reactors or other types of licensees.

I believe that using the word reasonable and combining it with a strong board of seven members with some strong licensing powers and with some strong regulatory regimes with the ability to fine companies or individuals who ignore their licensing requirements will protect the health and safety of Canadians, which is the intent of the bill.

[Nuclear Safety And Control Act, February 12th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite apparent the Bloc is trying to stretch this 50 year effort to finally update this bill to protect Canadians' health and safety with a few shenanigans, but I shall continue. Hopefully, we will get the concerns of Canadians through the House despite that.

As I was saying, there are a number of important objectives in this legislation. We have talked about the need to update the regulatory regime. We have talked about finding a balance.

As well, this bill gives the government the legislative authority to carry out its international obligations. Those international

obligations are very important. For instance, it allows Canada to work toward the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and nuclear explosive devices. We have undertaken important international agreements to try to stop the spread of nuclear weapons in the world. This legislation provides the government the tools it will need to carry out those international agreements. That is another important objective of the bill.

Fourth, all government departments have worked on streamlining the regulatory regime under which Canadians must operate. This bill works toward that end. It works toward ensuring that the carrying out of regulations will be done in an efficient and cost effective manner. That is another important objective of the bill.

There are a number of specific provisions in the bill. I would like to speak to a couple of the provisions which will work toward achieving the objectives of the legislation.

First, the bill will expand the size of the commission from five members to seven members. That will allow more expertise, more representation on the commission, so that when decisions are being made there will be a broader group of individuals with a broader range of expertise. They will be able to make better and more effective decisions.

Second, the bill has increased the level of fines for individuals or corporations which contravene their licences. That is very important. By doing that we will get away from the situation where a company might consider a very minor fine to be simply the cost of doing business and will continue to not follow the rules and regulations. The bill will introduce fines which have real teeth in them. The increased fines will be an incentive to companies to adhere to the rules and regulations of their licences. I am very pleased that the legislation gives the government the power to establish fines at a level which will serve as a deterrent.

Third, in dealing with the regulatory regime, the bill will give the federal government the power to delegate administrative functions to the provinces where they are best able to carry them out. We will be able to get away from the situation where one day a provincial inspector shows up to do one part of the job and the next day a federal inspectors shows up to do another part. That system is very inefficient. This bill will allow the provinces to delegate administrative responsibilities.

Fourth and very important is the whole idea of having public hearings. One of the concerns that we heard during the committee meetings was that there would not be sufficient public input for some of the very important decisions which the commission will have to undertake. Through what was originally in the legislation and through the amendments that were made, based in part on the information we received at committee, the legislation has been changed so that there will be mandatory public hearings where people will be able to review decisions. There will also be an appeal process.

I believe this is a good piece of legislation. It demonstrates clearly that the Minister of Natural Resources, in coming into office and seeing a difficult problem, was able to act. She acted on a legislative regime that had not been updated for 50 years. The Minister of Natural Resources stepped up to the challenge and put before the House good, solid legislation.

This bill was not quickly put together. The committee held six weeks of hearings to gather opinions from a broad range of individuals and groups. We were able to obtain a large amount of input which was used to make the bill better than it was when it was debated in the House at second reading.

This bill is about protecting the health and safety of Canadians. It is not about favouring one part of the country over another, about saying that Quebec gets all of this or Ontario gets all of this or the west gets all of this. That is not what this bill is all about, not what we in this House are about today.

It is about protecting Canadians' health and safety, about ensuring that we have a proper regulatory regime over the nuclear industry in this country, about making sure we protect the health and safety of Canadians.

I become quite fatigued when I hear on a bill that is as important as this, about the health and safety of Canadians, on a bill that deals with moving forward the agenda of protecting Canadians no matter where they live, comments about this part of the country getting more and that part of the country getting more. That has no place in this debate.

What this is about is a good piece of legislation, about protecting Canadians and making sure that the system works.

[Nuclear Safety And Control Act, February 12th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Ontario.

I am very pleased to have an opportunity to speak on Bill C-23. As the chairman of the natural resources committee, I had an opportunity, along with many of my colleagues from all sides of the House, to study the bill in detail. A large number of witnesses came forward to provide us with a number of opinions, and concerns in some cases, about the bill.

I was pleased to see that during the report stage of this legislation that a number of changes were proposed by the government and were eventually incorporated into this bill.

I would like to take a moment to thank all of those people who took the time to testify before us as well as to thank my fellow members on the committee, many of whom are sitting here in the House right now, for the work that they did.

It is most important to recognize that this legislation is an attempt to find an appropriate balance. On the one hand it is an attempt to find a balance between ensuring the beneficial use of nuclear substances for the generation of power, medical research and medical technology, and on the other hand it is an attempt in putting in place a regulatory regime that ensures public safety and public health.

That is the balance that has to be found when dealing with the nuclear industry. Bill C-23 does just that. It gets that balance. It puts it in place and does it properly.

As some of the other speakers have mentioned previously in debate, this legislation is long overdue. The original legislation governing nuclear energy was passed in 1946. That is over 50 years ago. It was a time when the primary concern was one of national security, as opposed to one of public health and safety.

This legislation is long overdue and I applaud the Minister of Natural Resources for assuming the responsibility and after 50 some odd years bringing new legislation into the House that reflects the realities of the 1990s. Today we are far more concerned with the issues of health and safety than the concerns of national security.

As I mentioned in my opening comments, the bill looks to create a balance. I would like to quote clause 3 of the bill which deals with its purpose: "The purpose of this act is to provide for the development, production and use of nuclear energy and the production, possession and use of nuclear substances, prescribed equipment and prescribed information in a manner than prevents an unreasonable risk to national security, the environment or the health and safety of persons and is consistent with Canada's international obligations".