Andy Mitchell

[The Budget, March 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to have an opportunity to speak to the government's most recent budget which has established the right combination of measures to help move the country forward.

The budget deals with the Canadian deficit, as it needs to do. It deals with the issue of jobs, which is also a priority today. It also deals with the least advantaged in Canadian society and the obligation and need of government to help those people.

It does it in a way that understands government has two responsibilities. The first one is a fiscal responsibility. As a government we have a need to ensure that the expenditures we undertake are prudent, that we get value for every dollar we spend, and that we make sure Canadian taxpayers are getting full value for the money they are paying into the federal government.

Our responsibility as a government goes far beyond fiscal responsibility. It is more than just a matter of maintaining the books. It is more than just a matter of a balance sheet or an income statement. As a government we also have a social responsibility. We have a responsibility as a government to individual Canadians.

For the last 50 years we have historically agreed that we will not allow Canadians to fall below a certain level. As Canadians we collectively agree that when an individual goes to a hospital the first question asked should be what is wrong and not how much money does he have. We also agree to ensure that people have shelter and will not starve. We must have a social safety net, and government has that responsibility.

When we look at the budget it is important to recognize that we have achieved our mandate or our objective of fulfilling both those responsibilities.

I will talk a bit about fiscal responsibility. The government has done a good job in the three budgets it has brought forward in dealing with the Canadian deficit. During the campaign we promised to reduce the deficit to 3 per cent of GDP and we will be achieving that. Beyond that we have set a new objective of 2 per cent of GDP.

It is difficult to get one's mind around percentages. It is even better to look at some numbers. When the two-year planning phase announced by the minister in his recent budget is completed, the deficit in Canada will have been reduced by $25 billion. No government in the country has done a better job in reducing expenditures or in deficit reduction than we have done as a federal government.

Even more important in terms of fiscal responsibility, our borrowing as a nation and as a federal government in the upcoming year will be reduced to $13 billion and in the year following to only $6 billion. That is the best record in the country in 30 years and the best among the G-7 as a percentage of GDP. We are doing a good job in ensuring the borrowings of the federal government are being reduced dramatically.

We have gone from program spending being about 16 per cent of our gross domestic product to where it will be reduced by about 12 per cent when this budgetary cycle is completed. That also represents significant progress. It is the best we have done in the nation since the second world war.

There are things far beyond deficit control that governments need to deal with. One important objective is the need to create jobs. As a government we are doing a good job in that regard. We are ensuring that an environment exists within the country which allows jobs to be created. We are doing it in part because we are getting the economic fundamentals right.

Inflation in the country is at the lowest sustained level it has been in 30 years. That is a strong economic fundamental. Interest rates in the country have dropped by three points in the last year, another strong fundamental.

As I mentioned a moment ago, government's borrowings are being substantially reduced. This means the private sector is not being crowded out of the capital market and is being allowed investment opportunities to create jobs. We are getting the fundamentals rights. We are allowing for an environment to be created in the country in which job creation can occur.

As many of my colleagues have pointed out today during the debate, job creation has been occurring in the country. In the last three months Statistics Canada has reported almost 125,000 to 130,000 new jobs or in excess of 600,000 new jobs since the government came to office.

Despite getting the fundamentals right, which is important and represents real progress, our government also understands the necessity for government to target specific areas in which to do specific work. That is why we see new initiatives announced in the budget which deal with youth unemployment. Our government realizes this is a particular area of concern and we are acting in that respect.

The government also understands that there are areas where we can have the most impact on job creation. We have seen some initiatives undertaken by the government which will help see that happen. The establishment by Industry Canada of a technology fund that will start off at $150 million and grow to $250 million is important. It is a growth area of the economy where jobs can occur and we need to support it.

We are a country of exporters. We need to have more small businesses involved in it. Much of our exporting is done by the largest corporations. We need to move that down the scale so that our small businesses are taking part in export development. I was pleased to see our investment of another $50 million in the Export Development Corporation.

On the high tech side $50 million has been invested in the Business Development Bank of Canada so that it will be able to provide the necessary capital to firms dealing in the high tech sector. This is an example of the government understanding that in addition to the fundamentals we have done a good job in getting right there is a need for us to operate in specific sectors to help stimulate job creation.

The third area I mentioned when I started my speech was the need to help the least advantaged in society. There is a need. Whether it is helping the least advantaged areas in society geographically-and we do that through our transfer program, our equalization payments-or whether it is that we have increased the child tax benefits for 700,000 low income families, we understand the need to help the least advantaged in society.

In summary, the government understands that the way to deal with the Canadian economy, the way to create a budget and present a budget, is to have an approach that takes in several components and not to fixate on one simple part of it. That is why we have dealt with the deficit. That is why we have dealt with jobs. That is why we have dealt with helping the least advantaged in society.

I close by reiterating that the government understands it has a dual responsibility in governing the nation. It understands fiscal responsibility but it also understands it has a social responsibility to individual Canadians.

[Supply, March 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have an opportunity to ask a question of my colleague.

In the beginning of his speech he talked about the economic issues. We have talked a lot about that today. It has to do with whether there is a role for government to intervene, a role for government to work in partnership with the private sector, a role for government to work with regions to ensure we level out the playing field. We must establish if it is appropriate to use federal money, our financial resources, to help areas like Labrador and Newfoundland.

The party opposite is absolutely correct that the private sector must be the primary engine. However, there is a role for government. I believe our government's policies are appropriate and need to be implemented in order to help that area. The hon. member's party's position and what he is suggesting is that we totally withdraw, that we simply leave it on its own even though it is a disadvantaged area.

I defer to the member on another point. I was able to check my notes and the figure I should have used was $15 billion, not $20 billion.

[Supply, March 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it does not add to something which is totally false, it simply reinforces the reality of the situation.

The budget brought forward by the Reform Party stated a goal, an objective of where it wanted to be economically. Then it listed a number of fiscal measures that should be undertaken. There was a funny thing about that. When we add up the specific measures it suggested and compared them with the goal it was trying to reach, the two did not match.

There was a big pool of cuts that needed to be made which it was not willing to make clear. There were big cuts the Canadian people were to be asked to undertake but they were not spelled out. It did not tell Canadians the specifics of what they would be. That is the reality of the Reform budget.

It was calling for all of these cuts and these things to happen, but it was not willing to put in writing each and every cut that would have to be made to reach the target it wanted to achieve.

Quite frankly, the Liberal government and the finance minister through his three budgets have shown a path to the Canadian people by which we can reach good fiscal management, substantially reduce the deficit and do it in a way that is paced in an appropriate manner and in a way that combines the two responsibilities I talked about earlier, the fiscal responsibility the government has and its social responsibility.

I think the reaction of Canadians to the budget of the Minister of Finance shows we are on the right course which will bring sound fiscal management to the country in a way the Canadian people think is appropriate.

[Supply, March 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I accept the fact that there is a contract in place which governs the power coming from the upper Churchill River. There will come a day, hopefully in the not too distant future, when the economics of energy will be a little different from what they are today. The demand for hydroelectricity will increase and the opportunity will exist for Labrador and Newfoundland to sell the power to create new facilities on the lower part of the system. That will come when the economy changes and demand increases. At that time it will be quite right for the people of Labrador and Newfoundland to look at the best way in which they can use that increased capacity.

I look forward to that day. I look forward to the people of Labrador and Newfoundland being able to do further development in their best interests.

[Supply, March 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite went on about his great pride in the country, which I share with him.

He talked about wanting to have the opportunity for everybody to have a fair shot at economic prosperity. What is missed here, which I think the Reform Party generally misses, is that government has a role to help both the people and the areas of the country that are least advantaged.

Reformers are right in that we have an economic responsibility as a government. We fulfil that economic responsibility very well. But what they forget and what they ignore is the fact that government has a second responsibility, a social responsibility. The people of Labrador and Newfoundland know very well that the Reform Party if given an opportunity to govern would spend its time strictly on economic affairs and would forget the social responsibility. That is what the future would hold if that party were in power.

The government when it governs the people must remember that it has that dual responsibility. Yes, it must manage the economic affairs of the country well and it has a firm responsibility in that area. However, it has a social responsibility to ensure that those regions which are less advantaged and those individuals in society who are less advantaged have an opportunity as well.

[Supply, March 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the Reform Party motion.

I will talk a little bit about the actual facts in the motion, the Churchill Falls agreement. I want to talk about what has been discussed over the last few minutes, exactly how much support the federal government has provided to Newfoundland and Labrador. It is indeed significant.

I will also talk about the absolute political inconsistency and hypocrisy of the Reform Party in bringing forward this motion some few days before a byelection takes place in Labrador, an area which before the byelection the Reform Party hardly new existed.

I will be quite straightforward. A contract exists in respect of Churchill Falls that was freely entered into and which has been ratified by the Supreme Court. That is a reality. In hindsight one might suggest it was not necessarily a good contract to enter into. Coming from the financial business area, I can say there are a lot of contracts that one could look back on and ask: I wonder why I ever did that. Unfortunately, one rule of law, one of the tenets we have in Canada and something that keeps us going is the fact that we respect contracts. In this case, the contract has been ratified by the Supreme Court.

The member is right. Things have changed a lot since the contract was signed. At the time it probably seemed like a good deal. Energy costs were low. The only practical way to deliver power from Labrador is through Quebec. Quite frankly, when the project was being developed thousands of jobs were created for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. However, hindsight is 20-20. An oil crisis ensued shortly after that and there was an increase in the cost of energy. I guess we learned that long term contracts are probably not always the best way to go. The Supreme Court spoke to this matter and clearly stated that it was a firm contract.

The Reform Party knows and consistently insists that natural resources and the management of natural resources is not the purview of the federal government but is the purview of provincial governments. That is something the Reform Party not only wants to see continue but it also wants to see it enhanced.

Quite frankly, the federal government does assist Labrador and Newfoundland in developing its natural resources. It has worked with the province in the hope of finding ways to develop on the lower Churchill. It went on record in 1975 of offering financial assistance in the development of a transmission link to the island. It is now working at Voisey Bay to find the tools we need to find ways of streamlining the regulatory regime. In fact the member who put forward this motion has worked closely with the natural resources

committee and signed off on a unanimous report on finding ways to ensure that we can assist in the important development of Voisey Bay to make sure that it can come on stream, that it can be a reality and that jobs will be created in Labrador and Newfoundland.

Not just as the federal government have we supported that province through the natural resource sector, in Labrador today there is the Canadian forces base at Goose Bay which adds $128 million to the local economy. That is more than fish harvesting and trapping; it is about the same as what pulp and paper and agriculture together supply. The federal government through the establishment of CFB Goose Bay adds tremendously to the economy.

Other types of assistance are provided. There is the whole issue of transfer payments from the federal government to the provincial governments. I know that my Reform colleagues across the way might suggest it should be equal for each province, but we feel a little differently over here. Areas of the country which are most in need require greater assistance than some of the other areas. That is borne out when we look at the fact that Labrador and Newfoundland has the highest per capita rate by which we provide transfers to the provinces. That is the way it should be. It is the way the Reform Party would want to see ended.

Let us talk about the Reform Party and Labrador and Newfoundland. First, it was very difficult in fact near impossible to find that subject in the 1993 Reform Party campaign literature and campaign platform. As I said at the beginning of my speech, this discovery of Labrador and Newfoundland seems to have occurred only with the advent of a byelection in that area. If one goes through the record of this House and looks in Hansard for a reference to Labrador by the Reform Party, it will be a very thin record that will be found.

Let us talk a bit about the Reform Party and what great things it will do for Labrador. I notice the finance critic was one of the architects of the 1995 Reform budget. Unfortunately the Reform Party did not get around to doing a 1996 one. I will touch on some of the things Reform suggested and the impact they would have on the people of Labrador.

Reform would get rid of the Canada pension plan. It would give up on it and replace it with private RRSPs. This is great if one happens to have a lot of money. Those who earn a lot of money can establish their own RRSPs. With the Reform budget, those who are not that fortunate to be at the upper end of the income scale are simply out of luck.

A $20 billion suggestion on reductions in social programs was in the Reform budget of 1995. I wonder how that would play out for the people of Labrador. I doubt that it would be a real positive thing for them.

Besides looking at the Reform budget and campaign literature, perhaps we should move right to what the Reform leader had to say about Labrador and Newfoundland. I understand the leader was in that area in September 1994. I happened to look at a couple of newspaper clippings on that visit. I want to make sure the people of Labrador know exactly what the leader of the Reform Party had to say. On another issue affecting Newfoundland he said: "The unemployment insurance system should be reformed so that seasonal workers are taken out of the system". My goodness, the leader of the third party is suggesting that seasonal workers, on whom we depend so much in rural Canada and in Labrador, should not be included in the UI system. I hope the people of Labrador know that is the position of the leader of the Reform Party.

We know from many exchanges in the House that the Reform Party does not believe in regional development agencies. That is certainly shared by the Reform leader when he goes on to say in that article that the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency should be disbanded.

The Reform Party is suggesting all the assistance that has been provided over the years has not been the appropriate way to go, regardless of the fact that there might be an economy that is in need of special assistance so that the private sector can do its job. I agree with him that long term job creation will come from the private sector but sometimes the private sector needs assistance. The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency does that but the Reform Party would see it eliminated.

There are some inconsistencies between what is being put forward by the third party today, what its policy seems to be suggesting in this motion and what in fact it says on an ongoing basis. Earlier we talked about natural resources. The Reform Party's policy states clearly that the federal government ought not to have a role in the management of natural resources. What did Reform do today? It put forward a motion that suggested the federal government should intervene in it. This is totally inconsistent. Reform cannot on the one hand say we do not have any business there and then on the other hand say we should intervene.

We have here a party which prides itself on being the party of free enterprise, the party of the private sector, and all of the stuff that goes with that. Yet the Reform Party says a contract that was freely entered into, probably as a mistake by some of the parties, and confirmed by the Supreme Court should be set aside. That seems a very strange position to be taken by the Reform Party.

We should see this motion for exactly what it is: a crass political attempt during a byelection to gain political support in a part of the country the Reform Party historically has ignored. It is a party

whose policies are certainly not in the best interests of the people of Labrador and Newfoundland.

Reformers talk about doing politics in a new way and bringing something new to this House. All we have seen is old politics, the old way of trying to take advantage of the situation and the old inconsistencies.

[Stan Darling, March 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the achievements of a former long serving member of this House. Mr. Stan Darling who served for over 20 years as the member of Parliament in my riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka is not only an accomplished politician, he is now an author as well.

Despite our political differences, I consider Stan a true statesman and a good friend. He is a generous man and that generosity extends to his most recent project with all the profits from the writing of his memoirs being donated to charity.

I congratulate Stan Darling and wish him well as he continues to tell his political tales. Stan Darling, who is visiting with us today in Ottawa, has distinguished himself as a hardworking servant of the people. I salute you Stan.

[Supply, March 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, if we want to talk about logic to suggest that you have a program that simply provides income support and does not provide tools to help create employment, that is an illogical argument.

To answer a specific question about jobs that the hon. member asked, let me tell him about jobs. Let me tell this House about jobs. There have been 650,000 jobs created in this country since this government came to power. That is an answer about jobs. We can talk about the 150,000 new jobs that Statistics Canada just reported which have been created in this economy in the last three years.

We could talk about what our government has done to ensure that the fundamentals of our economy are right so that job creation can occur. Perhaps we want to talk about the fact that inflation is at its lowest sustained level in 30 years and we want to talk about that.

We could talk about the fact that interest rates in this country have come down by 3 percentage points in the last year and that this is stimulating job growth. I think we want to talk about that fundamental.

We can talk about the fundamental that the borrowings the federal government is having to make is going to drop to $13 billion this year, $6 billion next year. The best of the G-7 nations. We are not crowding out the private sector any longer so they are able to have the necessary moneys to invest in new jobs.

What we have is inflation down, interest down, government borrowings down and job creation up. That is what we are talking about with jobs.

[Supply, March 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore today.

It gives me great pleasure to speak to the employment insurance reforms in the legislation that has been put forward by the Minister of Human Resource Development. This legislation is appropriate and is an improvement over the system currently in place. This legislation deserves the support of the House.

I will deal with some general principles upon which I believe the legislation has been formulated. These principles are worth enunciating in the House to make it clear exactly what it is the government is trying to accomplish.

The first principle is a recognition that the best social program one can have is a job. Beyond all else that is the best way of securing one's financial future and is the best social program that can possibly exist.

The second principle is that as a government and as individuals here in Parliament, we need to create an environment in the private sector that allows business in general and small business in particular to create jobs.

The third principle is we need to design programs which encourage rather than discourage people to work.

The fourth principle, and one the government has demonstrated over and over again on the various pieces of legislation it has brought forward, is that the benefits should be directed to those who are most in need. That is an appropriate principle to build reform on.

The fifth principle is we must recognize that the deficit we have as a government and a nation is too high. It simply is not sustainable in the long run.

Those are principles our government has looked at in formulating not only this legislation but many other pieces of legislation. They are good principles and ones that definitely need to be followed.

All members in this House should recognize as I certainly do that an employment insurance system has to be more than an income support program. One of the members from the third party who spoke in the House said it should be a stop gap measure or a temporary income support for times of difficulty.

That might have been an appropriate approach 30 or 40 years ago. Back then most unemployment was of a very temporary nature and individuals who lost their jobs would be re-employed in a number of weeks or months down the road when the supply and demand equalized out. That is not the case today. Today many people who are unemployed find themselves in that position not because there has been a temporary lack of demand for a product or service but because their jobs have permanently disappeared.

It is important when designing a program that it have more than the income support component. It must have a job creation component. It must help individuals become re-employed. They must be able to develop new skills and find new jobs so they can re-enter the workforce. It is not appropriate to simply concentrate on income support alone in today's environment.

The EI program is certainly one that helps in the area of job creation. It does it in three ways. First, it does it through a series of employment tools. The minister announced the employment tools which go along with the program. They will assist in the area of job creation. Second, contrary to what the hon. member from the third party mentioned in debate, this EI program is going to help small business create jobs. Third, the EI program will provide incentives that will lead to increased employment.

This reform is calling for an additional $800 million in revenue for employment tools. That is on top of the $1.9 billion which is already being spent in that area. A significant amount of new money will be spent on employment tools. These tools are more than just handing out a dollar to someone hoping they have a temporary job for a while and then when it is gone it is not to be seen again. These tools are designed to help people obtain long term employment and to create sustainable economies in the areas in which they work.

Many of my colleagues have gone into some detail on these but I will enunciate them here. There are wage subsidies and earning supplements. The self-employment initiative is one that is already in place but which is going to be expanded. It is one I personally believe in. It assists unemployed individuals and provides them with the tools to start their own businesses which not only will employ themselves but possibly will employ others.

There are job creation partnerships which provide valuable job experience for the individual. At the same time they work on creating infrastructure that leads to permanent jobs. There is going to be some specific assistance to areas of high unemployment as well. The employment tools are an important step toward increasing job creation.

There is assistance to small business. I want to correct an impression that might have been left by my colleague from the third party when he suggested that small businesses do not like this reform. I had an opportunity to read the latest bulletin put out by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, a very well respected business organization. It terms the employment insurance program as a hard won victory for small business.

To suggest that small business is opposed to this reform is inappropriate. Small business is in support of this reform because it does reduce payroll taxes not only in terms of the rate but in terms of the maximum insurable earnings. More important, it provides a simplified system for small businesses to keep track of their employees' records of employment.

Too often small business people spend so much of their time dealing with paperwork and basically trying to adhere to government regulations that they are taken away from doing what they do best which is running their small businesses, creating wealth and creating jobs. I am not going to deny that there are some businesses that might face increased costs through this program. They will receive rebates from the government in order to ease the transition if they are faced with higher costs.

We have talked about some incentives to help individuals. Obviously the way the program is designed now, the more they work the more their benefits are. They can earn up to 25 per cent while staying in the system. Lower income Canadians will be eligible for enhanced benefits. It is also important to point out that 500,000 part time workers who were not eligible for UI under the existing program are going to be eligible. That is an important reform.

In wrapping up I want to refer to something which occurred in question period yesterday. It had to do with the exchange which took place between the hon. member for Mercier and the human resources minister. It dealt with the issue of how we were coming along with EI reform. The hon. Bloc member suggested that the minister could not seriously be looking at changing things because we did not see any more money in the budget.

I know the hon. member cares deeply and is committed to this process. However what that showed was a mindset from back in the 1970s and 1960s where something was fixed simply by throwing money at it. That is not necessarily the way to deal with things. Things are fixed by creating something better by being innovative in the approach. Simply throwing money at a problem is no guarantee that it is going to be fixed.

It spoke volumes for the perspective being presented that an absolute relationship was trying to be made that if we do not spend more money then we cannot be doing something positive. That is not a legitimate way of looking at it. This reform shows that through innovation and a new approach we can accomplish something positive and something that works well.

[Windermere House, March 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, last week in my riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka fire destroyed Windermere House, one of our treasured landmarks. Fortunately very few personal injuries were sustained.

Affectionately known as the Lady of Lake Rosseau, Windermere House dates back to 1869 and was one of the best examples of a traditional old Muskoka resort.

Though fire has now claimed it, Windermere House stood for over a century and was a proud reminder of a bygone era. This majestic resort housed guests from all over the world, and everyone was looking forward to another busy summer season.

There are may people, myself included, who feel devastated by the loss of this memorable landmark. The loss of this historic resort impacts every member of the village of Windermere. Despite this adversity, however, I am confident the community will rally and from the ashes a new future will be born.