Ethel Blondin-Andrew

[Pensions, September 26th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is a difficult process and it is something which deserves more time and attention. I do not have the information for the member right now, but we will get back to him very soon.

[Pensions, September 26th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, this is a major concern. Anything that involves individuals with disabilities particularly when it comes to the benefits that are due to them is of major concern to the government. We are working very hard on this. We will get back to the member with detailed information.

[Copyright Act, March 17th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, had I been here for the first vote I would have voted with my party. I would therefore like my vote applied as such.

[Aboriginal Affairs, March 12th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, as a follow-up to the signing of the national framework agreements with the Inuit, Metis and the First Nations, out of a possible 41 regional bilateral agreements to date, we have signed 29. Tomorrow we will be signing three more with three Inuit groups, the Baffin Inuit Association, the Kivalliq Inuit Association and the Kitikmeot Inuit Association.

It goes a long way in showing the sensitivity we have toward empowering aboriginal people. I think that bothers the Reform Party but that is all right, we will continue on with our good work.

Next year we will have expanded. When we sign all these agreements it will be a total of $200 million. I know that all members in the House will congratulate us on our good work.

[Cbc North, February 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure it is of absolutely no surprise to the members opposite that CBC is a rather unique institution. It is an arm's length institution. It has institutional bodies that guide it, that set its priorities.

I am really pleased that there is a debate on CBC North. It is the public broadcaster for Canada's north. CBC North has the mandate to serve all Canadians living in the north regardless of language, culture or locality. It was created in 1958. CBC North brings public broadcasting services to remote and isolated communities which are not economically viable for commercial broadcasters.

Indeed we do have a very unique relationship with CBC. In fact it would be safe for me to say that northerners have a visceral attachment to that public broadcaster. It has made their reality more real to the rest of the world, to the rest of Canada for sure. It has brought in a sense to some of the remotest regions the world news, world events and those in the rest of Canada. It has been a unifying force in this country politically, culturally, economically. I would say that northerners have a unique relationship and a very deep attachment to that public broadcaster.

I do not believe for one moment that I have remained silent or mum on this issue. I may not be broadcasting my views as such for political purposes because I feel that there has been real pain. Really difficulty decisions have been made. Those are difficult things. I think in a sense to go out there and parade around politically on this issue would not be wise.

I am trying to be very careful in picking my words because I do not want to offend my colleagues. I know that they have an equal

attachment and respect for the people who work in the north in that public broadcasting institution.

CBC's northern service is part of the corporation's public mandate as reflected in the Broadcasting Act to reflect Canada and its regions to national and regional audiences and to contribute to shared national consciousness and identity. All that to say CBC North currently produces 220 hours of radio programming per week in 10 different languages. It serves a total audience of over 100,000 Canadians from across the north in radio production centres in Iqaluit, Rankin Inlet, Inuvik, Whitehorse, Yellowknife and Montreal.

CBC North gathers and exchanges the news of daily life in northern Canada. Regional, national and international news is presented every day. It is drawn from CBC's extensive news gathering sources.

Radio truly is a lifeline service for northern Canadians. Mr. Speaker, if you have ever had a Delta experience in the north, for example in my riding where I come from, you will know about sitting in a fish camp and being able to get very important messages about the changing weather, about transportation, about medical services or about any such necessities that are there for the people who live on the land. You will know that CBC is a very real and big part of northern people's lives.

Having said that, on television CBC North produces four weekly current affairs programs in seven languages. Television production centres in Yellowknife, Iqaluit and Montreal present multilingual coverage of major events.

The CBC recently announced decisions to address budget reduction measures. We must get our fiscal house in order, and that means reductions in government expenditures. No federal department or agency has been immune. Everyone has had to tighten their belts. Ministries have cut, departments have cut, crown agencies have also had to cut. The CBC recognizes that it must do its part in this exercise.

In reference to the comments of my colleague from Yukon, this does not make it easy for me to say that it has been easy, that it has been draconian or Machiavellian, that it was easy to do. It was not easy to do. I am not here as a government apologist. I am here to say that there are circumstances beyond the individual, beyond this government.

Yes, we could make our forays to the Minister of Finance, to the minister of heritage, to any minister in this government, but we must remember that the CBC is an independent agency. Its board of directors and senior management are responsible for making decisions on how best to manage its operations within its resource allocation.

On the resource allocation, yes the government has cut programs all across the board. Agencies and departments have cut. That is true. Yes, we wear that. Yes, we assume the responsibility. But the CBC is an independent agency that sets its own priorities.

Government also sets fiscal targets and it is the CBC's responsibility to determine how best to meet those goals. The CBC is guaranteed journalistic, creative and programming independence under the Broadcasting Act, and Parliament must respect and uphold that relationship. The CBC will decide the appropriate budget for the northern service in the context of its public mandate, overall operations and resource allocation.

The hon. member opposite would be the first to complain if we were to interfere with the journalistic integrity of the CBC. The member would be the very first, I am sure. I would understand that. To be quite honest, the CBC would not tolerate having the government's fingerprints all over its priorities and planning. It would not appreciate that. It would not accept that and the member opposite knows that it would protest vehemently. I would also understand that.

The president of the CBC announced decisions in September with the details of implementation and what it means in terms of layoffs still to be determined in some places. No CBC service is exempt. There will be reductions in both staff and programming in English and French radio and English and French television. However, CBC is not abandoning its public mandate to serve Canadians. In fact, it is returning to its roots as being as Canadian as possible and offering a truly public broadcasting service. It will continue to tell the story to Canada and to present a world seen through Canadian eyes.

New avenues have also opened up. Let me say that I am saddened and unabashed about the sadness and the feeling that I have. I do not perhaps share the priorities that put CBC North in its present position. I would have liked it to be different. I feel there has been a disproportionate cut.

I know the north and I understand the remoteness and the people who work there. The north is a small place. Both my colleague and I know intimately people who work there. So it is not a matter of not caring, it is the reality of the fact that the CBC is an independent agency. It has to set its own priorities.

Yes, we as government officials are responsible for the overall fiscal restraint we operate under and the goals that we set as a government. However, we do not interfere at the departmental or agency level or with the crown corporations that set their own specific priorities.

I feel the north is a priority. I believe it provides a unique service. I would like to continue to work with the people who have the authority, but that would be protested. It would be interfering. I am not allowed to do that.

We have heard the issues raised in the House when ministers of the cabinet have interfered with quasi-judiciary bodies. It is not tolerated. In that sense my hands are tied.

I can only tell northerners how important we feel the work that the broadcasting corporation has offered to us over the years. We cannot thank it enough for that work. We must recognize that the CBC has made a valuable contribution to the north and for the unity of the country and for Arctic sovereignty. Over a whole range of issues it has been a unifying force, a cultural promoter. It is a wonderful institution that should be supported.

I support the CBC but there are realities which are beyond my capacity. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this issue.

[Translation]

[Points Of Order, December 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

As a member of Parliament who has fought long and hard for the rights of Louis Riel and the Metis people, I feel that I and other members who have also struggled long and hard over many decades to right this wrong, have been put in a very untenable position. I feel my rights as a member of Parliament have been marginalized because this bill is rooted in everything that Louis Riel did not stand for.

[Fisheries Act, November 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to congratulate the hon. member on his maiden speech which was very informative and very enjoyable I am sure for all the people across Canada.

I was particularly pleased to hear about the various initiatives that involve his riding, for example, the highway he spoke about. We also have a need for a primary highway. In our case it is up the Mackenzie valley. We are working on that as well.

He spoke about Voisey's Bay. We just announced the first diamond mine in North America. I am sure a similar process will ensue in his riding. There is so much commonality between our regions although we are in two different parts of the country, thousands and thousands of miles apart.

He also mentioned youth which is my responsibility. What could the government do better for young people in Labrador?

[Ethics, November 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, quite clearly this is a party that is coming apart at the seams. It has absolutely nothing to take to the public. It is villainizing me. It is trying to build a reputation on my back. I will not stand for it any more.

[Ethics, November 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, last week I had the opportunity to put the information before the House. I have done so.

I have been villainized, I have been criticized, I have been damaged politically by these people wrongfully. The facts were misrepresented.

I tabled all the information that they asked for. They have since moved the goal post. They are not satisfied. This is a party bereft of ideas. This is a party that has nothing-

[Privilege, October 31st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today on a point of personal privilege to address the issue of my use of government credit cards and to clarify outstanding questions and concerns.

When I was appointed Secretary of State for Training and Youth by the Prime Minister in November 1993 I was provided with both En Route and American Express credit cards by the Department of Human Resources Development.

At that time I was fully advised of the departmental guidelines governing the use of these credit cards. It was clear to me then, as it is today, that I would be responsible to the department for the full reimbursement of all personal expenses incurred.

Since being issued these credit cards I have both incurred business and personal expenses. I have never hidden or denied this. As a matter of routine procedure I have fully reimbursed the Receiver General for any personal purchases. This has been my practice since day one.

I have always known that my record of credit card use was subject to public review under access to information and I have never acted to hide records or to mislead the public. For the record, I would like to note the following three points.

I never asked for the use of a government credit card and I certainly never asked for special treatment or exemption from applicable guidelines.

The administrative procedure in place for repayment of monthly credit card statements was of departmental design. I had no say or input into this procedure.

Yesterday in the House the member for Elk Island referred to a memo dated January 22, 1996. He did not mention that attached to this memo was a personal cheque to cover all non-departmental expenses. He did not mention that also attached to this memo was an itemized breakdown of those expenses with complete notation of personal expenses. He did not mention that five days prior to this expense claim on January 17 my office sent a memo to the

department outlining what my personal expenses were and pointing out that I would be submitting a cheque for them.

I admit this administrative procedure is very convoluted. The covering memo referred to by the member for Elk Island is a form document prepared by departmental officials and as a stand alone record is misleading. In fact, my staff raised this concern with HRD officials and requested a revised covering memo that more accurately reflected business and personal expenses. A copy of that revised memo forms part of the subsequent record and certainly predates any access to information request.

During the three years that I have used these cards I have not once been advised that I was in breach of departmental guidelines.

To the Canadian public, my constituents, my family of course and my loyal friends, Mr. Speaker, I want to assure you that at no time did I use these credit cards in bad faith or for personal financial benefit.

The suggestion in the media that I have used government credit cards for the purchase of vacation airline tickets to Hawaii and Mexico is simply false. I did vacation in Hawaii. I like to think that I have worked hard for my money and deserved the vacation. I paid for my airline tickets with cash. I have the receipts which I can make available to the media.

I have also travelled to Mexico and I have a cancelled personal cheque to confirm my payment of those airline tickets.

On the charge of purchasing a fur coat with a government credit card, I can only say that a deposit of $554.53 was required and that a credit card imprint was needed. That expense was promptly reimbursed. Like many Canadians I now have an outstanding balance and I am on a monthly repayment plan with the retailer.

Finally, I am in full agreement with the Prime Minister and his observation that while conforming to departmental guidelines, my use of government credit cards for personal purchases was a mistake and in poor judgment. As a northerner with much of my time spent in remote communities with no access to financial services, I have not had any previous need for a personal credit card.

With the benefit of hindsight I see that reliance on government issued credit cards was a mistake. Following discussions with the ethics commissioner, I have applied for and received a personal credit card for all non-departmental purchases.

At this time, I am prepared to table documentation in the House to support my statement on this issue. I ask for unanimous consent to table this documentation.