Andy Mitchell

[Business Development Corporations, October 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of Canadians the importance of business development corporations. At the same moment that we are looking at a wide ranging revision of our programming through human resources development it is important that we recognize programs that work well.

Since 1981 over 200 BDCs have been providing loans to small businesses. In Ontario 55 BDCs have granted over $115 million in loans to almost 5,000 businesses. Companies exist today which otherwise would not.

The job creation impact has been impressive. In Ontario the program has created 10,926 jobs at an average cost of only $6,200. Even more impressive is the realization that the corporations make loans which have been turned down by traditional lenders and that in 93 per cent of the cases the advances are repaid in an orderly fashion.

BDCs are a success story of small business support and job creation. They deserve continued support.

[Social Security Programs, October 6th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, let me comment on the two points that my hon. colleague made.

This review is going to be needed in any event because our social policy programming needs to be updated. But if he thinks that we are going to undertake a review without trying to find cost efficiencies, without trying to deliver our programs in a more efficient way, without trying to get better value for each dollar that we spend, then he is totally wrong.

From my discussions with the Canadian people, from the discussions with the people in my riding, from the telephone calls and the mail I receive, Canadians have said two things. They want a social security system that they can depend on, that is going to last because it is going to be affordable for us and for the future generation and that this social policy review must deal with both of those issues.

As to dealing with specific areas of jurisdiction, I have listened today, yesterday and the day before to the Bloc Quebecois say over and over again that their major concern about the social policy paper is not that Canadians or Quebecers have more opportunity for employment. They have not told us about how they think this social policy review can improve social programs or their suggestions. What they have told us is that their primary worry is jurisdiction.

I suspect that the individual in Quebec, just as is the individual in Ontario, is not so much concerned about where their cheque is coming from. They are concerned that there is a social security safety net to protect them. They are not so much concerned whether we have constitutional t's crossed and i's dotted. They are concerned that we have efficient government and a social program that can be delivered in a cost efficient manner that will be there for themselves and for their children.

If the Bloc Quebecois wants to continue on and on to put this in the terms of a jurisdictional question, I think that your electorate in Quebec will say what this is about is to ensure that we have a social safety net; what this is about is to ensure that we have an opportunity to re-enter the job market; what this is about is to give Canadians the best social program, a secure job with a decent wage. That is what Canadians want.

[Social Security Programs, October 6th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to speak tonight on social security reform.

May I add that I am also proud to serve a Prime Minister who has had the wisdom and courage to deal with an issue that will lead Canadians into the 21st century. I would also like to congratulate the Minister of Human Resources Development whose hard work, perseverance and leadership have resulted in an initiative whose fruition will be absolutely essential to the well-being of Canadians.

Our reform of social security is not being done in isolation. It is one of four components of the government's job and growth agenda, which also includes ensuring a healthy fiscal climate, reviewing government programs and priorities and strengthening the performance of the Canadian economy, in investment, innovation and trade.

As a government we intend to pursue all four pillars aggressively. It is important that we understand what the social security reform process is all about. It is not simply about cutting government expenditures, although this is important, and fiscal considerations cannot be ignored in all of our deliberations.

It is also not simply an exercise in being more efficient although the elimination of duplication, the reduction of overhead and the co-ordination between the various levels of government are also important.

It is not simply about creating a quick fix for an ailing system. We are not prepared to simply tinker with the system so that it can stagger forward for another three or four years. The time for basic reform is upon us and we are prepared to meet and take up the challenge.

What this process is really all about are jobs and security. It is about helping Canadians in whatever socioeconomic position to be gainfully employed and to provide their families with a life of security within a system that we and future generations can afford to maintain. Our social security reform process will address three major issues which are critical to ensuring that Canadians can provide the best form of security for themselves and their families, a job with a fair wage.

In this respect the discussion paper which the minister tabled yesterday deals with three areas which must be addressed if we are to assist Canadians in achieving job security: First, ensuring that our young people receive the necessary education to compete in the job environment of the 21st century. Second, to ensure that Canadians who are suffering from structural unemployment are given the necessary training and other tools to re-enter and maintain long term employment in the workforce. Third, to ensure that the disincentives built into the income security system are eliminated and that individuals are encouraged to work rather than be given an incentive to stay at home.

It is true that no one can promise that an education will guarantee anyone a job. What we can guarantee, almost without exception, is that without an education a person will have less of a chance to obtain a job. To demonstrate this we merely need to look at the statistics.

In the last three years job growth for university graduates has increased 17 per cent. There has been no growth of jobs for high school graduates. Most telling, there has been a 19 per cent reduction in jobs for people who did not complete high school.

The discussions of how best to fund post-secondary education to make sure that it is accessible to all Canadians and how to make sure that is relevant and meaningful are important objectives of this reform and forms an integral part of our agenda for jobs.

We must provide Canadians who become unemployed the necessary tools to rejoin the workforce. Forty years ago when the unemployment insurance program came into being, most unemployment was of a short term nature, usually caused by a cyclical decrease in consumer demand which was restored as the business cycle revolved. After periods of time which were measured in months rather than years, individuals would be recalled to their place of employment.

Unfortunately this is no longer the case in many instances. There exists in Canada today a significant amount of structural unemployment. People who are losing their jobs are doing so not because of cyclical decline in demand but rather because the jobs have disappeared permanently. We need to face up to this reality and understand that not only do workers need to be provided with income support, and they do, but also with tools so they can adapt themselves to new jobs which are being created.

These tools include better access into the support system; provision of basic literacy and numeracy skills; training to assist adaptation to new technology; on the job work experience to allow employees to be more effective and incentives for hiring unemployed workers. In this area we must ensure the responsibility is shared by giving responsibility to communities, local businesses, labour and educational groups so that they, who best understand the needs of their local community, can drive the process.

We must work at removing the disincentives for people who are receiving income support from returning to the workforce. The provinces must be given greater flexibility so they can meet the needs and priorities in their regions. Child care needs to be provided so that single mothers can return to the workforce. Individuals must have the opportunity to obtain entry level jobs with a gradual reduction in benefits and move away from the all or nothing scenarios which presently exist.

We must end the cycle of child poverty so prevalent in single parent families. We need to ensure that the federal child tax benefit is made stronger and target it to where it is needed most. As I said earlier, we need to work with the provinces to ensure better child care and child development. We must work hard to ensure that child poverty is not the result of irresponsible, non-custodial parents who refuse to pay court ordered child support.

The discussion paper tabled yesterday is not the final word. The final word belongs to the Canadian people. Not only is the government committed to receiving input from people across Canada, but I am personally committed to hearing the concerns and ideas the residents of my riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka have to provide.

On November 7 and 8 I will host a forum at the Rosseau Community Centre to hear what my constituents have to say. Their views, their letters and their presentations will come back to Ottawa with me to be presented to the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development. The particular concerns generated by a seasonal tourism economy, the challenges of operating in rural Ontario will be brought forward to the government and will be considered.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this meaningful process. I am committed, along with my colleagues, to ensuring that Canadians have the best social security system, a stable job with a fair wage.

[Financial Administration Act, October 6th, 1994]

I will tell you why. There is a fundamental misreading on the other side about what our job is and about what politics is. Members here were not elected to come to the House so they could have a third party tell them what is right or wrong. They were elected to come to the House to use their best judgment, for them to analyse what is going on, for them to bother to read the budget and for them to offer their political opinion and their best judgment.

To abdicate that responsibility to a third party is inappropriate. You are a member of Parliament. I am a member of Parliament. It is our responsibility and to shirk it to a third party is inappropriate.

To go beyond that I have some basic concerns about giving the responsibility to the Auditor General. I have great respect for that office. I know members opposite have great respect for that office. They have often mentioned it. I would be very concerned if we undertook this bill which could very well result in the Auditor General being engulfed in partisan politics, being engulfed in the give and take of the debate, because this is a political issue.

If the government's estimates of expenditures or revenues are wrong, then the government will pay a political price. It is the job of the opposition to make the government pay for it, if it is appropriate.

The opposition was not able to do that when the last budget was tabled because by and large the Canadian people accepted it as sound. That is the difficulty. You were not able to make your case and now you are looking for a third party to make it for you. That is not appropriate. The Auditor General's office is an important one. It undertakes a number of important tasks.

Recently a private member's bill passed, which I was quite happy to see, that gives the Auditor General the opportunity to report on this House on more than an annual basis. That is an important step. It gives the Auditor General the opportunity to come to the House and comment on what the government of the day is doing.

Beyond that, there are some structural difficulties with asking the Auditor General to provide comments and assurances on financial forecasts or projections. Guidelines have been established in the accounting industry, which I much admire and in my previous life had an opportunity to work with quite closely.

The Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants states very clearly that a very cautious approach ought to be taken when passing judgment on estimates. In fact, it cautions its members to be very careful when offering that kind of opinion, I think with good reason. The institute recommends that the reporting be limited to stating that the assumptions and projection used are suitably supported or consistent with the organization's plans and that the forecasts presented fairly reflect the assumptions.

The Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants further calls for the auditor to provide a disclaimer, noting that the projections could be materially wrong if there are changes to assumptions and projections. Although members may not want to believe it, the world goes on every day and the assumptions that are made for a budget do in fact change. Indeed they change. The world changes every year. I know the Reform party has a hard time grappling with the fact that change is ongoing and that we have to learn how to deal with it.

There is another concern. What happens if the Auditor General is wrong? Is the Reform Party going to be standing in their places railing against the Auditor General as being the cause of our deficit? To suggest that, because projections are wrong and is the cause of our deficit is ludicrous. With this bill we would be suggesting that if the Auditor General makes an assessment and that office is wrong, that the Auditor General would be responsible for the deficit. I cannot buy that.

In addition, I have some difficulty with the proposed process in the sense that the Auditor General's report will come out three months later. I do not think the House is going to wait for three months before it starts to debate the merits of the budget. There is a similar bill in Nova Scotia. In the Nova Scotia experience the Auditor General's comments come with the budget. There might be some value to doing that and looking at it that way.

However, I would suggest we might want to wait until we see what the Nova Scotia experience is, take the best from it and incorporate it into this House, leaving aside those things that do not work well.

[Financial Administration Act, October 6th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to address the House today on the issues raised by Bill C-245. I was pleased that the member for Fraser Valley West finally got around to talking about the bill in his speech toward the end.

I want to congratulate him because it is an important initiative to take a look at the budget and the budget process. As parliamentarians we absolutely want to do the best job we can in the formulation of the budget, to understand its contents and to know how we can logically discuss it, debate it and liaise with our constituents about its contents.

The issue of the the budget speech process and the degree and nature of consultation which goes into its preparation has been the subject of debate for many years in the House. Contrary to what my hon. friend across the way thinks, I believe the process that was used last year was better than the year before. It was more open and it allowed more Canadians to become involved.

The process that will be used in 1994-95 is going to be even more open. The all-member finance committee will be undertaking a series of consultations with the public in order to have their input before the budget is formulated and not after.

It surprises me when we have these debates and I listen to the Reform members when it comes to the matter of consultation. It does not seem to matter what we are discussing, whether it is the budget process, the social policy review, or whatever, I hear the same message: Do not consult, just do. Do not listen to the Canadian people. Just go out and do it. Ignore our constituents. Just go out and do it.

This is the party that about a year ago travelled through the country saying: "Our primary objective is to consult, to listen to our constituents". Yet every time the government suggests a way to consult it was opposed. It is very strange.

Basically this bill calls for two major ideas. The first one has to do with setting a specific date for the budget to be brought down. I will let others discuss that issue if they wish.

The more important part, and the one that the member did finally get around to talking about, is the suggestion that we have a third party assessment of the budget, that the Auditor General have a mandated role in the budget. I want to talk a little about that, about his concept that the Auditor General ought to be taking a look at the reasonableness of things. I have some concerns about that.

[Petitions, September 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition from 400 of my constituents dealing with the rights of those individuals in this country who were willing to give it all for Canada, our veterans.

This petition calls for the establishment of a basic service pension for all of our veterans who fought in World War II and in other conflicts and for their surviving spouses.

[Ed Carter-Edwards, September 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Ed Carter-Edwards, a resident of Bala in my riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka.

Mr. Carter-Edwards, a veteran of World War II, was the driving force behind the recent CBC special called the "Lucky Ones: Allied Airmen and Buchenwald".

Ed Carter-Edwards was one of the lucky ones because he survived a nightmare during the war. He was one of 168 allied flyers, including 26 Canadians, who were shot down over Nazi occupied Europe and sent to the brutal Buchenwald death camp.

Instead of being sent to a prisoner of war camp, Mr. Carter-Edwards and his fellow flyers spent three horrifying months in the concentration camp. They lived in fear and terror, witnessing many inhumane acts. Thanks to Mr. Carter-Edwards this untold story is now on the record to be shared by all Canadians.

Canadians owe the men and women who fought in World War II a large debt for their personal sacrifices and courage. I am proud to have Ed Carter-Edwards as a constituent in my riding.

[Spruce Glen Public School, September 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to pay tribute to Spruce Glen Public School's graduating class of 1994. These students are now in their first year at Huntsville High School and they carried with them the tutelage of Susan Hawkins, teacher extraordinaire.

Ms. Hawkins, while teaching at Spruce Glen Public School, undertook a class project entitled "Rescue Mission; Planet Earth, a Children's Edition of Agenda 21".

The students participated in the rewriting of environmental plans for the future which arose from the 1992 earth summit in Rio de Janeiro. This led to a teleconferencing project involving the Spruce Glen students and others from around the world. Spruce Glen was designated as Canada's focal point.

I want to take this opportunity to congratulate Ms. Hawkins and the grade eight students for their proactivity in undertaking this important initiative and commend them on their continued support in educating others on the importance of the environment.

[Supply, June 8th, 1994]

The Canadian people voted for it.

[Muskoka Activefest '94, May 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the organizers and participants of ActiveFest '94.

Volunteers began meeting in November last to discuss what is hoped to be an annual event. More than 70 volunteers from throughout Muskoka have come together to promote health care issues.

Muskoka ActiveFest '94 is a 10-day celebration of active living which runs from May 27 to June 5. There are over 120 events and activities people can participate in. Citizens and visitors alike are encouraged to try a new activity or sport. Many events will cater to the family, from golf to line dancing to aerobics. There will be something for everyone, from youngsters to senior citizens as the community joins together to create a better health environment.

Schools, businesses, citizens and the medical community are promoting the benefits of quality daily physical education and active living with ActiveFest '94.