Andy Mitchell

[Bell Canada Act, March 7th, 1996]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-227, an act to amend the Bell Canada Act (construction charges).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce my private member's bill which is entitled an act to amend the Bell Canada Act (construction charges).

Rural Canada is put at a disadvantage by inadequacies in the cost and accessibility of advanced communication technologies. In rural Canada this disadvantage extends to the simple provision of telephone service. Rural Canadians often face steep costs for service provisions because of their increased distance from existing lines. Right now service is mandated to customers within 62 meters of distribution facilities.

This bill proposes that service be provided for customers up to 1,000 meters away from existing lines and that beyond that construction charges be capped at a reasonable amount.

Phone service is an essential service. It should be affordable to rural Canadians. I ask all members of the House to support the bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[Speech From The Throne, March 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, that reminds me of a question that was asked in the first debate on the throne speech about the infrastructure program.

It is not simply about the short term jobs that may be created by building a new sewer or road. What we need and what we lack in some places in rural Canada is infrastucture. When this program builds a new road or sewer system and unserviced lots are now serviced, the ability to attract business and economic activity and to create jobs is enhanced for the long term.

I think the program worked well in rural Canada. It delivered what it was supposed to deliver and it will lead to long term jobs. It is doing that right now.

[Speech From The Throne, March 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the member has made a very good point. It is absolutely essential that there be a one stop delivery component or window for small business, not only in rural Canada but in urban Canada.

That is why the Minister of Industry has begun a pilot project called the Canada-Ontario Business Centre which will do just that. It will allow business people to go to one location to see all the various products the government and the private sector offers to assist them with their businesses. It is essential that there be one place to go rather than spending time shopping around. The minister recognized that need and he is working toward it.

To my colleague in the Bloc, I look forward to working with him in the coming weeks and months to see that the program is rolled out across Canada.

[Speech From The Throne, March 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. The point I was making about rural Canada is that the technological infrastructure, the ability to access the information highway, which is taken for granted in urban Canada as just being there, is often not available to rural Canada. When trying to attract business people and businesses to our area, one of the handicaps and competitive disadvantages often faced is lack of access to the Internet and high technology types of facilities.

I am pleased that the Minister of Industry has recognized this need. We are starting to see some very concrete programs such as the community access program and the school net program. These are important initiatives being undertaken by the Minister of Industry. They are making an impact in my riding and in other rural areas of the country. Obviously the minister intends to do more and I support this. I look forward to his initiatives in the weeks and months to come.

[Speech From The Throne, March 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the speech from the throne has carefully set out a number of important themes with respect to the unity of Canada, the development of Canada's economy and the development of Canadian society. These themes respond to the hopes and aspirations of all Canadians.

One of the themes made very clear in the throne speech is the need to understand that we in rural Canada face particular challenges that our urban neighbours often do not.

As we in rural Canada, in rural Ontario and in rural Parry Sound-Muskoka work to increase and expand our economic activity, our problems include such things as geography, transportation and low population density. Our challenges include the delivery of government services and the acquisition of modern and sophisticated communications infrastructure. These can be handicaps on existing or potential business enterprises. Solutions to these problems and answers to these challenges will provide many opportunities for businesses and communities in rural Canada.

An important distinction is found in the type of economies that exist in the rural parts of our country. Our rural economies are largely based on primary industries and depend on natural resources. Pursuing activities in agriculture, fisheries, mining, trapping or forestry can generate very different problems from those faced in an auto plant, a high tech manufacturing facility or the financial offices of Bay Street.

Fluctuating commodity prices, stifling regulatory regimes and the seasonality of employment are all economic realities faced by the men and women working in rural Canada.

There are important and often overlooked differences in rural Canada. We have defining cultural traits. We honour tradition at the same time as we look forward to and embrace the future. We turn toward our families and extended families for the type of support that today others expect and indeed require from the state. We understand the land and the sea and the importance of its riches. We have a long tradition of harvesting its abundance.

For recreation we also turn to those same places where many rural Canadians find their employment. Together with visitors from urban Canada and from abroad, we enjoy the natural amenities of rural and wilderness Canada in cottage country where hunting, fishing and a wide variety of other recreational activities can be pursued.

Work, family and the enjoyment of our natural world are basic to rural life and perpetuate very important values. These values in pursuits unite us a nation. Our unique lifestyle in rural Canada is as relevant to the farmer in Quebec as it is to the farmer on the prairie. It is relevant to the miner of Nova Scotia who understands the miner of northern Ontario. The fishermen of Newfoundland is closely akin to the fishermen of British Columbia.

In the throne speech the government made it very clear that it understands and recognizes both the importance of rural Canada and the unique nature of its challenges. I applaud the statement in the throne speech committing the government to the economic renewal of rural Canada. I am particularly pleased that this will be done in a way tailored to our specific needs and our specific challenges.

The task ahead is to provide the framework within which this commitment can enfold and to provide the specific measures that will lead to economic renewal in all parts of Canada.

It is important that rural Canada have a strong voice in government which I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, it does on this side of the House. It is important that voices resonate with our rural perspective and that these voices find expression at the cabinet table. I am confident that there are many capable men and women in the current ministry who can articulate the issues of rural Canada as we

work to implement our renewed interest in the well-being of rural Canadians.

As the member for Parry Sound-Muskoka I look forward to working with my colleagues in cabinet to help implement the government's renewed commitment to bettering the lives of rural Canadians.

We in rural Canada know we need to diversify our economies and to increase our education levels and skills. We know we must do this through community based actions in concert with the private sector and government.

While natural resources will always be an important sector we must value add to them to increase the returns to us in the marketplace. We must embrace the positive changes that are taking place in the world. We in rural Canada will be innovative but we will look to the government to develop a process that will encourage our potential.

The government has begun this process. Since 1993 federal departments have worked more co-operatively to improve the delivery of programs in rural Canada. Last year we established the adaptation and rural development fund which will provide $60 million per year to help rural Canada adjust to new economic realities.

Beyond this it is appropriate that the various regional development agencies which operate across Canada mandate a specific portion of their financial resources to rural Canada. I also urge that the $300 million fund that is being proposed under changes to employment insurance be used in rural Canada to provide the services and infrastructure necessary for long term economic development.

As I mentioned earlier in my speech, rural Canada suffers from a relative lack of technological communications infrastructure, considering the distances and lower population densities that exist. This deficiency sometimes puts our educational institutions and business people at a competitive disadvantage. Parents in rural and remote Canada also want access to good communication services for the safety, education and entertainment of their children.

I compliment the Minister of Industry on the school net program which is connecting many of the schools in my riding and across rural Canada with the Internet. I am also pleased to see the implementation of the community access program which will provide links to the community access network for up to 1,000 rural and remote communities, allowing them to market themselves and their products.

The government at the end of the first session of this Parliament announced the reform of the unemployment insurance system. This is an important and positive initiative. It must however recognize the economic realities of a rural economy dependent on natural resources to generate employment. Many of our jobs are seasonal because of climate and natural cycles. People work part time not because they want to but because they have to.

Reforms are necessary and reduction of costs are necessary, but reforms and reductions cannot be achieved solely on the backs of rural Canadians who work or invest in seasonal industries. I am pleased to see that we are addressing that question in our approach to the needs of rural Canada.

Another important component of revitalizing the economy is access to capital. The government has moved diligently in this area. The Federal Business Development Bank, now the Business Development Bank of Canada, has a new mandate as a complementary lender and has had its debt ceiling raised to $12 billion.

The community futures program is being revitalized and has new funds attributed to it so it also can help rural Canadians.

Today I call on Canadian financial institutions, which oftentimes tell us that it is too risky to lend in rural Canada, to use a portion of their $5 billion profit to find innovative ways to lend in rural Canada.

Canada began as a rural country and we have grown to become a world leader, a cosmopolitan people, an industrialized state, a highly urbanized nation. I am proud of all this. However we must remember our roots. We must remember the millions of Canadians who live and work in rural and small town Canada. We must remember the basic wealth generated by natural resources. We must remember the unique potential that is our rural Canada.

The government will not forget the contribution of rural Canadians. Rather, we are working to help rural Canadians make their contributions to strengthening the economic and social structure of Canada which will be the foundation of the national unity we are all working to achieve.

[National Unity Essay Contest, March 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the outstanding contributions of the high school students in my riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka.

In January I initiated a national unity essay contest at all of the high schools in my riding. I asked students to provide me with their ideas about how Canada could achieve long term national unity. I wanted to encourage our riding's youth to put their thoughts on paper and to commit themselves to working together with their peers to promote unity and pride in Canada.

Our students' responses are a tribute to the sincerity and depth of these young people. I have received many terrific essays and ideas.

Most encouraging of all is the strength of conviction I feel in these students' writings. They believe in their country. They believe in a united Canada from coast to coast to coast. They believe in what we share as Canadians and are committed to preserving it.

These students are our future and they are prepared to and capable of accepting the challenge that is Canada.

[Finance, December 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak on this prebudget debate and provide some input on what I believe we should see in the minister's budget come next February. May I start by indicating there are four principles that the government and the minister should follow in formulating this budget.

First, there is a recognition by most members of this House and by most Canadians that the deficit is too large, that it is not sustainable in the long run and it must be reduced and eventually eliminated as quickly as possible. That is the first principle.

Second, the fiscal actions undertaken by the government should concentrate on the expenditure side and should not entail general tax increases.

Third, in the formulation of the budget the government has to remember that it has a dual responsibility. Yes, it has a fiscal responsibility, but also it has a social responsibility to individual Canadians and to society at large.

The fourth principle that should be followed is that the actions undertaken in the budget, as are many of the actions taken by this government overall, must have as their primary focus economic growth and job creation.

Our government clearly recognizes the need to act on the deficit. Looking at the record, it is very clear. When we took over government the deficit was almost 6 per cent of our gross domestic product. The following year it went down to 5 per cent; the following year it is going down to 4.2 per cent; the year after that it is going to 3 per cent. As the minister announced in his testimony to the finance committee, he has set the target for 2 per cent in the fiscal year after that.

That is a 66 per cent reduction in the short period that we have had an opportunity to control this government. It is not the slash and burn the Reform Party would want to see us undertake. It is responsible economic management and the emphasis is on the word responsible.

An important point is the minister pointed out in his budget presentation that in fiscal year 1997-98 our borrowing needs as a government will have been reduced to $7 billion. That is the lowest borrowing needs of any government since 1969. We are going to be accomplishing something that has not been accomplished in almost 30 years.

As far as reducing the deficit, as I mentioned earlier, there are two tracks to take. There is the expenditure side and we want to reduce expenditures. But we also want to see increased revenue, not by increasing the tax rate, but by bringing growth to the economy so that no individual taxpayer is paying more but that there are more taxpayers. That is the key to eventually controlling our deficit, economic growth and ensuring that there are more Canadians working and more taxpayers.

Obviously our goal is to bring the deficit to zero. As I said earlier we are going to do it in a responsible way and not in a slash and burn scenario that members of the third party would like to see us undertake.

Our actions in the last two years have certainly indicated our commitment to this. The minister in his February budget last year announced a 19 per cent decrease in government operating expenditures. He announced a 14 per cent reduction in the civil service. These are real fiscal measures that are leading to a reduced deficit.

To arbitrarily slash and burn when we are dealing with our budget is not appropriate. There are things that we spend money on that are important, that are investments in the future and things that we have to continue. For instance, there is the expenditure on the research and development tax deduction. Sure, the government can save money by totally eliminating that but those savings are false savings. It might save us something for the first year or the second year. If we stop research and development it is going to have a very negative impact on our ability to compete and a negative impact on our ability to generate jobs and income in the future. We have to be careful that we do not simply slash and burn but that we remember there are important things that government undertakes that we need to continue to spend money on.

There is something this government will not do and something I know the minister will not do. That is to follow the advice of the Reform Party or to follow the advice or the actions of the Conservative government in Ontario to substantially reduce expen-

ditures on social programs, not so that the deficit can be controlled, but rather so that tax decreases can be passed on to the most wealthy in society. That is something we will not do as a government. That is not responsible control of our deficit. It is not responsible fiscal management.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, the government has a fiscal responsibility. We do have an obligation to bring the deficit under control. However, we have to remember that we also have a social responsibility to individual Canadians. It is important to remember that behind every line on the federal budget there are real Canadians, real people who are impacted by those changes.

To simply do as the third party has suggested, to slash and burn without any consideration for what the impact on those people is going to be is not acceptable. It is not responsible fiscal management. It is quite easy to go down the list of expenditures and look at an arbitrary number and simply strike it out. We cannot do that.

We spend money on medicare. We spend money on our old age security system. We spend money on an employment insurance system. We do it because it is right. We do it because it is important. The suggestion that we should just simply slash and burn is not acceptable.

Another principle is that we have to work toward job creation. As the minister has said on many occasions, it is not a contradictory concept. Bringing the deficit under control, bringing fiscal management to the country will help in job creation. A lower deficit will lead to lower interest rates. Lower interest rates will lead to more business investment. It will lead to more consumer confidence. It will lead to more consumer spending. It will lead to more jobs. It will create a climate in which small business men and women can create jobs. It is important for job creation that we control the deficit.

Our policies for job creation work. Since the government came into power it has created 450,000 new full time jobs. The unemployment rate has dropped by 1.7 per cent. We are making progress. There is much to be done, but it is important for Canadians to realize we are making progress.

If we compare that progress with the previous government, which said during the election campaign that there would be absolutely no opportunity to increase employment until some time in the next century, we realize how well this government is doing. However, as I said, we still have much to do.

I will repeat the four principles which I believe the minister must take into account when formulating the budget. First, the deficit must be reduced as quickly as possible. Second, the actions he undertakes should emphasize growth strategies, expense reductions, and he should stay away from across the board tax increases. Third, we must act in a manner which fulfils our fiscal responsibility but also fulfils our social responsibility. Fourth, our actions must encourage economic growth and job creation.

We have a long term vision of economic prosperity. We do not have a vision which simply slashes and burns without any kind of responsibility for expenditures. We will ensure the deficit is brought under control. We will also ensure we invest in Canada, in our children and in our children's children.

[National Unity, December 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address what I believe to be the essence of Canadianism. We are ten provinces, two territories, numerous municipalities and many neighbourhoods, but above all we are Canada.

We are a nation that shares common values, a nation shaped by the challenges of nature, a nation forged by war but one that has fought for peace. We are people who have developed compassion and understanding for others in society. Most of all being Canadian means understanding that the issue is not whether we get a fair share of the pie but rather that the pie is shared fairly.

If we are to survive as a nation, those blessed by economic advantage must be willing to help those areas not so fortunate. That is the way it should be. I am proud to live in a society that cares for the least advantaged and whose people share their good fortune with their fellow Canadians.

In Canada, that is simply what we do.

[Supply, December 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to question the statements made by the member to the House. I suspect he might have selectively read from the reform, rather than reading it from one end to the other.

The hon. member asked a question about the whole issue of incentives for employment and for job creation. He indicated in his speech that he could not see any incentives. I want to ask him about that because I have difficulty understanding that he read this document.

I see items such as $800 million being put into specific programs to encourage employment. I look at wage subsidies to encourage employers to hire people, particularly those who need to be trained. I look at earning supplements to top up wages to encourage people to get back into the workforce rather than having to collect benefits.

The hon. member talked about the self-employment initiative program. That was in UI. It continues to be in the UI reform. It is an excellent program which is going to create a lot of employment. The hon. member suggested that people would not be able to use it because they would not be able to get onto the program. In fact, half a million people who were not eligible for the program because they were part time workers are now going to be eligible for the program.

The member keeps going on that there are no incentives. People are going to be rewarded for every hour they work and for every effort they make. The benefits are based on hours worked, not on weeks. A whole series of things in this reform encourage people to

work. It gives them the incentive to work. It gives them financial support to work.

The hon. member totally ignores those things. He fails to look at those parts of the employment insurance reform which will result in opportunities for people to get a job. The fact is that this is all taking place within a financial context which he totally wants to ignore. He will not look at those things.

My question to the hon. member is very specific. Why do you ignore those things in the UI reform? Why do you ignore the $800 million which is being added to the $1.9 billion that already exists to create employment not only in English Canada but in your province of Quebec as well? Why are you ignoring those things? Why will you not talk about those things? Why will you not admit-

[Petitions, December 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present two petitions today, both on the same subject from constituents in my riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka.

My constituents call upon the government to change the Young Offenders Act and to strengthen certain provisions thereof.