Ethel Blondin-Andrew

[Small Business Loans Act, October 26th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-99 and about how the government is acting on its commitment to provide leadership in helping small business grow and create jobs.

I will spend some time discussing the consultations that have fed into this legislation and the initiatives we have taken to help small business grow and prosper.

Small business has always played a crucial role in the Canadian economy, be it a local corner store, a remote fishing camp, parts suppliers to the aerospace industry or a computer software developer.

Small businesses are a vital job creator and are contributors to our country's wealth. Today there are about 2 million small businesses in Canada. They account for almost two-thirds of the jobs in the private sector and 60 per cent of Canada's economic output. It has been stated many times that small business creates 82 per cent of all new jobs.

In my riding small business played a pivotal role in the opening up and the development of the north from small aviation companies that led the way, to the service industries that followed to support the growth, to an increasing number of aboriginal owned and operated companies which provide the services needed and which drive the engine of economic growth in the communities.

I now illustrate some of the dynamic things small businesses are doing in the north. People in my riding are becoming increasingly aware of the potential for growth when we work together to create the economic and social development so needed. An excellent example is the Dogrib Nation group of companies. The Dogrib Treaty 11 Council recognized that the best way to address the needs and priorities of its communities was to play an active role in partnership with the businesses that deliver the services needed. Therefore it created the Dogrib Nation group of companies to address economic development needs from investments in hydro-electric power generation to forestry, heavy equipment supply, aviation in partnership with Canadian helicopters and commercial catering.

The group pursues a number of industrial and human resource development activities for and on behalf of the four Dogrib Nation communities. This is a living testament to the empowerment potential that can be unleashed by small business initiatives.

Another example is the Northern Transportation Company Limited, originally a crown corporation. NTCL's primary objective is to provide cost effective, reliable and comprehensive marine transportation and related services in northern Canada and the Arctic. Now NTCL is the wholly owned subsidiary of NorTerra Incorporated, which in turn is owned by two aboriginal corporations, the Inuvialuit Development Corporation and Nunasi Corporation. The Inuvialuit people of the Western Arctic and the Inuit of the Nunavut are the beneficial shareholders of NTCL.

There is recognition for those small businesses that have been able to achieve equity. Recently NTCL was the recipient of the federal locators award given to those companies that demonstrate they can bring in the groups under-represented in the general population or general labour market areas.

When we bring small business down to the human grassroots level, we look at small communities like the community in my riding of Fort Resolution. The people have undertaken to commit themselves to the small business of running a sawmill, a very industrious and skills related industry. The community can see the results of it and have the participation in terms of jobs and watch exactly how small business grows. They have been able to develop

an economic development arm which has allowed them to provide some of the supplies they need in order to build their homes and to provide the region with some of those facilities.

They have taken it upon themselves to get into an industry that would produce some of the materials needed for building homes such as moulds to create bathtubs and all the other things needed for use inside a home.

There are a number of other items they produce. They are expanding and diversifying which is the key to successful small businesses to either focus and do something very specialized they are good at or to capture a market. This seems to be what they are doing, and doing it very well.

During the recessionary years when large multinational corporations were laying off workers, small businesses were responsible for almost all of the net new jobs created. Why are they so successful? Small businesses embody the dynamism and flexibility to respond quickly to new challenges. They know they have to innovate aggressively in order to compete.

Canada is now moving into a new economy, one characterized by rapid technological change, intense global competition and innovation. Small business has the right stuff to succeed in this environment. However, small business cannot do it alone. It needs the right environment and the right tools to get the job done and that is our responsibility.

The task of the government is threefold in terms of small business being successful. The first thing we must do is create the best economic conditions and institutions that will allow these innovators in the private sector to get on with it. It always helps to have a country as politically stable as it is economically stable. It helps to create the right condition and the right climate for those small businesses to flourish. It helps to create an environment where new ideas are spawned and where ideas, technology, and new production processes move quickly throughout the economy. It helps Canadians realize that innovation does not just happen; it thrives best in countries that consciously understand the process and take steps to create a national system of innovation. This means we must work with the private sector to identify strategic opportunities and channel our resources toward fulfilling those opportunities.

In February 1994 we asked the small business community to help us create the environment and the tools they need to succeed. The House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry, the private sector small business working committee, the chamber of commerce, and many other groups contributed to one of the most comprehensive reviews of small business ever undertaken.

Four primary messages emerged from the review. Small business told us that with the proper support they have a vast untapped

potential for creating jobs and wealth. This is no secret. This is something that is quite well known and has been demonstrated time and time again. Reducing the deficit is one of the most important steps toward unleashing this potential, we were told by the various proponents. Government programs must become more efficient, effective, and relevant to the needs of small business. Who knows best? Of course small business does, with their various proponents. Finally, the vibrant small business sector that Canada needs cannot be created by the government alone.

We have listened to these messages and we have acted on them. We have placed the needs and concerns of small business at the centre of our job creation agenda. Our consultations reaffirm that high deficits and a rising debt burden spoil even the best prospects for any country's economic growth. We need stable economic policies for sustained growth and job creation. The fiscal policies we are pursuing address this need.

We in Canada recognize the serious debt-to-GDP problem we face, and we are responding to it with the biggest budget cuts since demobilization following World War II. The 1995 Canadian budget will reduce the federal government's borrowing requirements to 1.7 per cent of GDP by the next fiscal year, 1996-97. This is the lowest of all the G-7 countries.

We also set an inflation target range of 1 per cent to 3 per cent and we have in fact kept inflation below the midpoint of that range since 1991. In terms of inflation, Canada is the Switzerland of North America in the 1990s.

Also in the last budget the Minister of Finance announced a rollback of unemployment insurance premiums from $3.07 to $3 per $100 of wages to lighten the burden of profit-insensitive taxes. We are refocusing our remaining programs to reduce duplication and serve the needs of small business in the best way we can.

The red tape and associated paper work and complex regulatory hurdles faced by any venture can be discouraging, if not insurmountable. We have eliminated 250 regulations. We are in the process of reviewing another 370 in an effort to achieve a more efficient and effective framework for business.

We continue to work with the private sector financial institutions to improve their ability to serve small business. They have responded with new services, including specialized lending units to serve the needs of knowledge-based firms. We recognize that there are some areas the private sector will not be able to serve very well.

We have responded by reviewing and then giving a new mandate to the former Federal Business Development Bank. The new name Business Development Bank of Canada is intended to highlight the bank's new approach. The bank will focus on filling our four marketing gaps. First is the knowledge gap, gaining an understanding of the information technologies, software, and related indus-

tries in order to serve businesses where the principal assets are between the ears of the owners and not conventional hard assets.

Second is the size gap, finding ways of providing smaller loans to meet small business client needs while still breaking even financially. People do not go into small business to go broke. People go into small business in order to flourish, in order to specialize and develop and diversify if they have to, to capture those markets that are out there. Essentially, small business means business; essentially that is what it is.

Third is a flexible financing gap, providing loans and other forms of financing on flexible repayment terms, to take account of clients' variable cashflows, particularly in the early years.

Fourth is the risk gap, lending up the risk curve to provide clients with appropriately priced access to capital. This tends to be generally a big problem where you do not have a lot of built-in infrastructure, where you have a lot of difficulty for those small businesses to succeed in areas where they may be very remote and do not have the kinds of infrastructures that are available in a more broadly based population.

We recognize that implementing this new mandate as a complementary lender will require nothing less than a cultural revolution. The bank is developing a corporate plan that will give effect to this new mandate. We expect that the new Business Development Bank of Canada will become recognized in Canada and around the world as a leader in developing new financial instruments for small business. The example set by the new bank will show the major banks that small businesses are worth their time and effort and will inspire them to greater participation in small business financing. Access to financing remains an important issue for entrepreneurs. However, development of a business climate that encourages growth and job creation is equally important.

We are determined that the business framework laws shall be part of Canada's comparative advantage. We are seeking to forge new partnerships among the innovative players in the economy to ensure a vibrant small business sector. We recognize that support for innovation must be sharply focused on the commercialization of science and technology. We are concentrating our efforts in two key areas: building partnerships between all players, especially innovative small businesses, and improving strategic access to information.

We have launched a Canadian technology network that will help small business acquire and manage new and complex technology by putting them in contact with the Canadian research community and we will provide business with rapid access to information on domestic technology.

We have established the technology partnerships program to promote collaboration between Canadian universities and small and medium-sized businesses to turn university technologies and ideas into new and improved products and processes and services. It will bring together universities and businesses in cost-shared efforts to demonstrate, develop, and market promising technologies.

Perhaps nowhere is there greater opportunity for innovative businesses to realize their full potential than through the information highway. The federal government is moving quickly to develop an information highway strategy that will build on national strengths in telecommunications and information and information technologies to create jobs through innovation and investment, reinforce Canadian sovereignty and cultural identity, and ensure universal access at reasonable cost.

We established this commitment to small business in the Liberal Party's red book because we recognized that they are the engines of Canadian economic growth. We put this commitment into action by announcing proposals designed to help small business grow. We furthered this commitment with the measures contained in the last budget, and we will continue to maintain this commitment to ensure the health and prosperity of Canadian small businesses.

We brought forward Bill C-99 to enable the completion of the process of modernization that moved the SBLA program to full cost recovery. This renewal will relieve the financial burden of the program on Canadian taxpayers while enabling the SBLA to continue to provide its benefits to small business.

I would like to emphasize the importance of what can be accomplished when we work together in partnership as Canadians. Earlier I talked about some of the innovative and dynamic things that are happening in my riding as a result of people working in partnership and co-operation.

The United Nations recognizes Canada as the best country in the world to live in. We accomplished this by living and working together. We created the environment, economically, socially, politically, and the opportunities for all Canadians to empower themselves and in turn contribute to society. It is through these actions that we will also fulfil our promise of creating jobs and prosperity for all Canadians.

The north is no different. As proud Canadians in the north, we too want to contribute to society, we too want to contribute to the overall economy and well-being of our country. It is through an innovation like this that perhaps those opportunities and those doors of opportunity become more available.

[British Columbia Treaty Commission, October 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on the whole issue of time, the only answer I can give is what has been prescribed in the working documents of the bill. I believe the member mentioned five years. For instance, Treaty 11 goes back to 1921.

Each treaty has a life of its own. We should say that the B.C. Treaty Commission has been set up to facilitate the negotiation of modern treaties in B.C. Once the process is completed the B.C. Treaty Commission will no longer be required. The B.C. Treaty Commission agreement states that the principals, Canada, B.C., and First Nations Summit, "shall terminate the BCT upon completion of their duties under their agreement or where BCT is no longer performing its duties". It is based on whether it is able to complete its work or not. Once its mission is completed, then as a mechanism the commission will essentially be disbanded.

The member talked about the authority. I do not have the answer to that. I can take it under advisement. I am sure the appropriate departmental officials are watching and will be able to get back to the member with an answer.

[British Columbia Treaty Commission, October 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in the debate on second reading of Bill C-107 regarding the establishment of the British Columbia Treaty Commission.

The negotiation of treaties offers Canadians a chance to look at the issue not only from a historical perspective but also from a modern reality. The tabling of this legislation on the British Columbia Treaty Commission gives us an opportunity to discuss the implications and the importance of treaty negotiations in B.C.

Members from British Columbia, including my hon. colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, understand only too well the importance of these negotiations. The history of British Columbia and the various interests speak for a process, in a sense beg for a process such as this.

This legislation reflects not only how current treaty negotiations are done but how critical they are. The situation we have today regarding negotiations is much different than when the numbered treaties on the prairies were settled. It bears discussion on the kind of relationship aboriginal people across the country have with their treaties.

I stand in the House of Commons as a representative of the Government of Canada and as an elected member for my constituents. I stand here also as someone whose whole life has essentially evolved around the whole issue of treaties in terms of the kinds of inalienable rights that aboriginal people have discussed, debated and put on their priority list throughout the years of discussing the Constitution and land settlements. The treaties have always arisen as a major priority.

If people have a sense of passion, a sense of direction and vision about their interpretation of the treaties, it comes from the fact that it is a much analysed subject but also very personal. My grandfather who is a chief, Zaul Blondin, was a signatory to Treaty 11. In that signatory I see many things not just for me but for the future of my people. In relation to British Columbia I can see the same kind of intent, the same kind of compassion, passion, dedication and determination about the process when it relates to not just one group but all of the groups. My frame of reference is from my experience. My experience is from the perspective of the First Nations.

I know the numbered treaties for the First Nations I referred to in my area, 8 and 11 in the Northwest Territories, set a very interesting perspective for the future of a people; the Dene people guided by these two treaties, the language itself, the immense vision by the people who signed those treaties, the people who had the vision. It was not colloquial. It was not parochial. It was not odd and simple. It was very visionary.

This language, as long as the grass grows, as long as the sun shines, as long as the rivers flow and as long as this land shall last, are not just words. They have given the opportunity for aboriginal young people to have post-secondary education. They have given the opportunity for people of aboriginal descent, no matter where they live and who are treaty, to have accorded to them the appropriate health programs and services to deal with taxation issues, health issues, hunting and fishing rights and related issues and issues still debated like housing. Those issues are being constantly debated.

The numbered treaties in the prairies were signed in advance of settlement. The government of the day sought to ensure that certainty and title were confirmed before Europeans settled in what are now Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Although certainty was the intention, the issue is yet much debated, the treaty is much debated, and most of the results are as of yet lacking definition or implementation and are not at all conclusive. That also begs for a process and hence we have the British Columbia one.

There needs to be certainty. There needs to be very clearly spelled out the future for aboriginal people. I have a document

called "Sovereign Injustice-the Forcible Inclusion of the James Bay Crees and Cree Territory into a Sovereign Quebec". On page 5 it talks about the unilateral alteration of aboriginal treaties:

Existing land claims treaties provide for a permanent federalist arrangement and include federal and Quebec governments (as well as aboriginal peoples) as parties. How can the PQ government claim it would be legal or legitimate for a secessionist Quebec to unilaterally alter existing treaties with aboriginal peoples in Quebec? On what basis could Quebec claim it can simply take over existing federal treaty obligations and unilaterally determine that the Canadian government would no longer be a party to the treaties concerned?

That question has a lot to do with certainty. Aboriginal people feel this is their homeland. They have an inalienable right, as my colleague from Churchill indicated earlier on in debate, that aboriginal people feel they have an inalienable right to this country. They cannot be separated from this country because it was the creator who put them here. They did not come from somewhere else.

Treaties have a number of interpretations, some very spiritual. It is not only legal analysis, it is also a spiritual commitment, a spiritual determination that the aboriginal people have that relationship with treaties.

In British Columbia the situation was much different. Certainty over the land question was never resolved prior to settlement. As a result we are now dealing with a situation that presents challenges that did not exist at the time the early treaties were concluded. Much development has occurred in British Columbia. There has not always been that attempt for partnership.

In Canada and in the world there are no entities unto themselves that feel they can exist without partnership.

Aboriginal communities understand with good measure what there is to be gained from those partnerships and of working together with other groups which is happening across the country, including in British Columbia, in the Queen Charlotte Islands. In the Haida Gwaii we have the first ever bicultural model, a Haida Gwaii trust. This is a trust fund between non-aboriginal and aboriginal people that resulted from an arrangement that came about with the federal government, the provinces, industry, as well as the aboriginal peoples themselves.

These things can happen but they are not easy. No one will tell anyone familiar with the negotiation process that it is simple or easy. It is not. However it is necessary. It is necessary to go through rough waters. It is necessary to have a dialogue that is challenging.

One of these challenges is the need for the government to represent third party and public interest at the treaty table. Let me put it this way. Those third party interests in terms of the treaty negotiation advisory committee are well represented. The list was read previously by the member for Edmonton East. It explained there is representation and fairness there. There is nothing secretive or conspiratorial. It is an open process and very transparent.

Canada recognizes the need to consult with third parties and to provide information to the public if treaties are to be lasting and beneficial for all Canadians. Some of my colleagues and I have spoken on a number of occasions about the importance of an open treaty negotiation process. How can we best as a government address the challenges in the areas of taxation, health, education, justice, policing, hunting and fishing rights, to name a few, in a global sense without a proper process?

This year this negotiation process will lend to and aid this whole situation. Nevertheless, many people continue to falsely believe the treaty process in British Columbia is secretive, conspiratorial, that the whole truth is not being told and that a special deal is being made. This is not the case. This belief has been fostered by a lack of awareness, understanding, compassion and sensitivity. If those people were as informed as they should be this would not be the case.

Information is a great enlightener. It pays to read and it pays to go to the source to negotiate to be with those people. Go to the source and meet with those people. That is what this country is all about.

The negotiation of treaty under the auspices of the British Columbia Treaty Commission process is not one based on backroom deals or secrets. The treaty process has never been as open and as transparent as it is in British Columbia today.

In B.C. we have set in place a province-wide treaty negotiation advisory committee made up of 31 organizations representing major economic sectors in that province. There was a time when this group operated under confidentiality rules. This is not uncommon. It happens when people are dealing with issues they feel deserve that kind of arrangement.

Today, however, when providing advice to the government on treaties being negotiated under the B.C. Treaty Commission an openness protocol is at work. Many of the recent TNAC sessions have had and will likely continue to have media present. How much more open can it be?

On local and regional levels negotiators meet regularly with regional and local advisory committees to discuss the topics being addressed at the treaty table. Of course this is part of the consultation process and allows public and third party interests direct access to the negotiators. That accessibility is one way of demonstrating to people that there is not any kind of conspiracy or a cover-up. It is a partnership.

As far as actual treaty table talks, one of the items to be initially discussed during the readiness stage is the procedural document referred to as the openness protocol.

These openness protocols have been agreed upon by the three parties at the table, the federal and provincial governments and the First Nations. Many of the treaty table members of the public and third party advisory committees can, if they so desire, attend and observe main table negotiation sessions. So it is open and people are welcome to attend.

I know of one instance, the Sechelt treaty negotiations, where negotiation sessions are videotaped and replayed on the local cable station. I cannot imagine a more open process than that. I was in Sechelt in my previous incarnation, if I might, as the critic for the aboriginal portfolio for the Liberal Party. Their process on self-government, which is renowned throughout Canada and the world, has also been very open. The Sechelt people do not have anything to hide. They have a lot to be proud of and a lot to share, and they do.

I assure members the public has not been shut out of the process; rather, it has been invited in and encouraged to attend. We are well aware the treaty process cannot happen in a vacuum. The public and third parties need to know about and be involved in the process. We encourage their input and involvement.

This is a fairer process, much more acceptable than the kind of imposing process previously engaged in. Now it tends to be more of a partnership, one of equality. Maybe that is what is so objectionable to some.

There are many threads the negotiation teams need to weave together for the modern treaty process to work, including representing the Canadian public and federal government at the treaty table, balancing effective negotiations with openness, ensuring the consultation process is an accountable one, and providing the public and media with timely information. Under the B.C. Treaty Commission process all of these threads are coming together. We are only at the beginning of the process, but we are moving toward strengthening the social, economic, and legal fabric of British Columbia with regard to land claims.

In Canada the treaty process has a past that forms an integral part of our history. It has a present. Many of us here in the House of Commons have seen the passage of modern treaties, as in the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and the Inuvialuit Final Agreement. It has a future through the passage of legislation establishing the B.C. Treaty Commission and the negotiation and settlement of treaties under its auspices. That is why I am here today, to help usher in Bill C-107 and to ensure the job of treaty negotiations can continue in the province of B.C. so these negotiations can ultimately reach a successful conclusion.

I conclude by saying that treaty making is a world-known process. Treaty making is done between nations. Treaty making is done between various groups. It is an honourable process. It is not a process that begs criticism or any kind of misunderstanding. It is an honourable process. It is a process that will allow partnerships to develop. It is generally a process of honour that when you have made a treaty it will in fact help to deal with some of the tougher questions governments have to deal with. It solidifies for governments, for communities, for peoples the programs and services. The arrangements that are made become clearer. They should, anyway.

In the myriad of claims and the whole conglomeration of land questions regarding title in British Columbia, with the whole issue of hunting and fishing, fishing rights and the Sparrow case, let us hope this process will lend some clarity, some definition, some partnership that will allow these groups to come to some conclusion and reach some of the results that have long been sought after and long wanted.

[Employment Equity Act, October 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, throughout the course of the constitutional talks I learned a very important lesson from Canadians. Treating all people the same does not necessarily express equality. Needs are different based on the individual needs of a person.

I salute my colleague for the efforts he has made on behalf of his son. However, we are not talking about one individual. We are talking about four designated groups. Those groups have a disadvantage in the system. It is not that blatant.

I know there is an appeal process. If a person feels discriminated against he or she can go to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. However, if a person is systematically ignored, not promoted or marginalized year after year and if the statistics bear out no movement for certain designated groups, systemically there is a problem. It is very subtle because employers can ignore employees they do not favour. They can engage in a very subtle approach and make it difficult for employees by ignoring them, by not promoting them or hiring them for other jobs. It is very hard to prove.

As I indicated before, because these four designated groups get paid less and are under-represented on promotion lists, they need

our help. That is something the hon. member should think about. It is not to discriminate, not to make more dependent and not to hire people who do not have the talent or merit. It is to enable those people who have the merit and the talent to integrate into a system that has not allowed them to do so. The doors have been closed and we need movement there. We need to open not only our hearts, but the doors to employment and training opportunities for those designated groups.

[Employment Equity Act, October 16th, 1995]

I appreciate the hon. member's question. On a professional and personal level I felt the case had to be highlighted and maybe this was the only opportunity I would get as a member of Parliament. It also demonstrates that this person, who is aboriginal and disabled as I emphasized in my speech and members can check Hansard if they want, has struggles which are many. Many programs and services are available but not all of them can overcome the struggles.

Bill C-64 may not address this issue. However, I felt it was a very important issue to be raised on behalf of a person who belonged to one of the four under-represented groups or targeted areas. That person has an opportunity to have a voice through me. That happens with many of us in the House of Commons.

I do not have the opportunity to get up to make statements which is something I would have done as a member of Parliament in the previous session. I felt that because this person was a disabled aboriginal person and his case was so specific that it needed a bit of profile. I have provided the opportunity at this time.

In terms of employment equity, if we look at all of the information I have provided, the hon. member will know that perhaps this was stretching it a bit. However, I felt that because of this individual case, which has had very little success, perhaps it would be an opportunity for it to have a bit of attention.

[Employment Equity Act, October 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be associated with this important initiative, Bill C-64.

I believe the hon. member does not know what we mean when we talk about merit. I have worked with the under-represented target groups for many, many years. In 1984 to 1986 I worked with the Public Service Commission where we instituted a number of initiatives because there was such a gross under-representation of those target groups.

For instance, aboriginal people are the lowest paid on a national average. They are paid less than all of the average working population. If you are a disabled person you are grossly under-represented. It is very difficult for a disabled person who has merit to get a job on a meritorious basis.

These hon. members should be looking for ways to integrate the under-represented people rather than keeping them out and marginalized. Those aboriginal people who make it into the system are still mostly located in the technical and clerical areas. That is a fact and it has nothing to do with merit. Those people have merit. The problem is that they are not getting promoted. Even though they have merit, the qualifications, the experience and the skills, they are being paid less than other people. Talk about inequality. Those are the facts.

Let the hon. members know there is nothing wrong with sharing an equal place in the workplace, shoulder to shoulder with a woman, an aboriginal, a disabled person or a member of a visible minority. There is nothing wrong with that. No one said that if you are an aboriginal person, a woman, a disabled person or a member of a visible minority you have to be stupid or unqualified to make the employment equity program. That is not what this bill states.

This bill states that everyone will have an opportunity because of systemic discrimination and because the opportunities have not made themselves available over 125 years to those people to enter with equality into the workplace. This bill states that they will have the opportunity now. There are still fewer people of those four target groups who are paid as much and who have as many promotions. I do not know why the hon. members cannot accept that fact.

The other day the hon. member for Wild Rose put a rather disparaging human face on employment equity by using his son. I have three children, but I am not going to come out here and plead a case for my children. I have worked to get them an education. They can fend for themselves and work for themselves. This is about broad public policy; it is not about one case.

If there ever was a case, listen to this. In my riding there is an aboriginal man who is now severely disabled. He is an elder in the community. In 1959, along with his four partners, he was working in a sawmill. He was in a serious accident while sawing wood for the government employees in a place called Rocher River. His friend was decapitated and this man's arm was amputated. He made a number of attempts to receive some type of compensation for his loss but had no success. This is an employment equity issue, an equality issue, a human rights issue.

Because this man lived in a harsh and inclement environment he had to rely on his skills. He went to residential school in that area but was not an educated man. He was a trapper. He had children. His children could not pursue or finish their education simply because he needed them to stay home and cut wood, haul water, and do all those things necessary to survive. I am not sure where the system failed. This man's wife has worked all of her life and has no regrets, but it was a severely difficult case.

These are the kinds of things we are talking about. We are talking about having a human mind and heart to the toils and the struggles of the average Canadian. We are not talking about creating gross inequality and promoting people so that they are falling off the top.

This is a very disparaging and discouraging kind of discussion we are having with members opposite. Why is it so difficult for them to understand the struggles of that kind of individual rather than bringing in people who are saying they did not get a job because they are not the right colour? That is not what it is about.

There are people who are disabled, women, visible minorities, aboriginals, and a combination thereof who have severe difficulties. On the national average, when these people make it into the system they do not get paid as much as the person who is already there. They are paid less for the same work.

There is another problem. When they get into the system they are at the bottom. Aboriginal people, for instance, are mostly in clerical and technical areas. They are not in senior management areas. That is changing but very slowly.

We need some help and this provides help, but it does not step on anyone to do it. I challenge the Reform Party to come up with facts to prove that it does. The facts will not bear its position out.

As a country we value diversity. We support our many communities as a source of social stability and economic strength. As individuals too many Canadians continue to face enormous barriers to employment which prevent them from achieving their full potential.

I have met with the disability groups. I have seen those people. I have spoken with them. It is all right to stand in the House of Commons and isolate oneself from that constituency, but sometimes one should go to the source. We as elected members have to go to the source, keep open minds and respond to those people rather than criticize them and stomp on any opportunities they might have.

It is ridiculous. We have to help those people. They have less than we do in terms of opportunities. As a disabled person mobility is a problem and the work environment can be a problem. Those are the things we have to work on.

If people live in high unemployment areas or in areas of extreme poverty as do some aboriginals, they are marginalized socially. They do not have a mode of transportation. There are many barriers facing them. Some are institutionalized; some are systemic. That is true. That is a fact. That is something we cannot deny and we have to face reality.

I spoke about an individual who has endured, who has worked many years on the land with one arm. The individual said to me: "My arm must be worth $100,000". Any insurance company would say: "How can we put a value on the loss of one's arm or any extremity?" It would be putting a value on a life. It would be putting a value on the man's capacity to provide for his children so they can pursue and finish their education and his wife can be there to raise their children with him. That was not made available to that family. These are the kinds of situations that arise out of the inequities, the barriers, the obstacles.

In 1994 the Employment Equity Act annual report painted a depressing picture for people with disabilities, members of visible minorities, women and aboriginal people. Since 1991 employment has declined more severely for employees covered under the act than for employees in the Canadian economy.

In spite of an increase in the population of designated groups fewer of them found their way into the labour market. They are not a threat. Believe me, the jobs are safe. They just want an opportunity to do something, to make themselves independent.

Members opposite on a daily basis wail away about how people have become so dependent, are on welfare and are living off the system. Here is an opportunity for them to help those people to integrate into the system, to be independent, to have self-respect, to have a job and to support their own families.

Members of designated groups still find themselves at the lowest end of the social and economic scale. Not only do they not have the opportunity, many of them are also the poorest. It is not correct that the wage gap between visible minority employees and other full time workers has widened for men and remains almost the same for women since 1987. There has not been that much movement.

I do not know why the intimidation. I do not know why the perverse, twisted language that strikes fear into the hearts of the average Canadian. It is so seductive to speak that way. It is so easy to use colourful, provocative gross language that overstates the case and sells it unfairly. That is not right; that should not be done. Let the facts speak for themselves. There is something seriously wrong when talented, educated women continue to be over represented in clerical, sales and service jobs but under-represented in upper management and technical jobs.

How can we call ourselves a caring and passionate society when we deny people with disabilities accessibility and the dignity that comes with a job? It is a source of national shame that our first peoples account for only 1.04 per cent of the workforce, occupy the lowest paying jobs and are on the losing end of the wage gap when compared with other Canadians.

It is unacceptable that university educated aboriginal young people experience an unemployment rate twice that of their white male counterparts, considering the barriers that face them when they enter high school.

In some places I have visited there is a dropout rate in excess of 85 per cent. Those children who make it into the system, who make it through high school and who make it through university are in an alien, foreign environment. It is different. It is difficult. I have done it. I know. It is difficult for them. They need support. They do not need criticism, opposition and confrontation. Leaving employable people on the sidelines does us all a disservice. It damages individuals. It wastes enormous talent. It hinders our economy and diminishes society as a whole.

Employment equity is quite simply fairness in the distribution of jobs. Bill C-64 is designed to ensure that nobody is denied employment opportunities or benefits for reasons unrelated to ability. Inequality by comparison is a drag on our economy. Passive income support costs all Canadians, not the least of whom are the individuals affected. There is a pressing need for the legislation.

By the turn of the century two-thirds of entrants to the workforce will be from the four designated groups: women, aboriginal peoples, members of visible minorities, and people with disabili-

ties. The country needs the wealth of their talents. We cannot afford to overlook any segment of the population any longer.

Will those two-thirds be the unemployed? Will those two-thirds be the ones on welfare? Will those two-thirds be the ones who are not moving anywhere, not promoted, not given any employment, not given any opportunities?

Those are the real questions to be answered. People are our most important natural resource. Strategies that capitalize on the underutilized capabilities of every employable Canadian are clearly in the best interest of the country.

Employment equity improves the workplace environment and promotes productivity by encouraging a more tolerant and integrated workforce. This is the intent of Bill C-64. That is why I ask members opposite what is so reprehensible. What is so wrong with having the four designated groups standing shoulder to shoulder and sharing the workplace with the rest of the population? That is the way it should be. That is what our country is about.

We are a mosiac. We are not a melting pot. Canada is that kind of a country. We do not try as in the United States to make everybody the same. We are all individuals in the House which does not stop us from respecting one another. We do not have to agree ideologically with each other to respect one another as people. That is not the way the country should be proceeding into the future. That is not the way a country as diverse as Canada will work.

Individuals benefit from contributing to their communities. Canada profits from the skills and strengths they have to offer. In short we all benefit not just in better social conditions which are critical but in realizing our national economic potential. It is good business for Canada to have those people integrated into the workforce. It is good business for Canada and for us as elected officials to have those people independent, integrated, promoted, and to have them utilize their skills and their merits as they should.

We can recreate our country in a way that better reflects us by working shoulder to shoulder with designated groups and by acknowledging the contributions of members of the designated groups to the economic wealth and rich cultural diversity of our country. Every one of us has a contribution to make but we can only make it if we are given the opportunity.

Thank God for the opportunities given to those people. I have seen them work. I have seen programs clearly targeted to those groups and they work. They have given disabled people an opportunity, such as some of the programs where disabled people are integrated into banks and into some other areas. Be they clerical or whatever, they are a start. We know that and are working on another part of it such as promoting those people if they have the capability and the merit to do it. Why not? That is the way it should be.

Employment is the great equalizer. Jobs give us satisfaction, self-esteem and mutual respect. They also give us wages which allow us to provide a better standard of living for our families. Work gives us reason to believe in ourselves and for others to believe in us. This is the equality women, persons with disabilities, aboriginal peoples and members of visible minorities are seeking. We can take an important step toward that goal by adopting Bill C-64 and by doing so help our goal of building a more vibrant economy and a stronger country through a more representative workforce. We can make a positive contribution to Canada by helping disadvantaged Canadians build better lives for themselves and their families.

I appeal to my colleagues on the other side to take another look and to have a more tolerant view of what equality and equity are all about. It is not about rising above the rest, being better than anyone else and pushing people out of the way. The numbers are not there to substantiate that. They are stagnant; there is no movement there. Those people are not a threat. They need our help. We can do enormous good for those people. We can make a contribution to the country by helping them lift themselves up.

I appeal to my colleagues and I appeal to all other Canadians to take a tolerant view toward the bill and those people.

[Youth, October 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, our youth are the future of Canada and they remain a priority of this government. In fact, this government has increased funding by 7.9 per cent and has earmarked $236 million for youth initiatives this year.

An early sign of success is that we exceeded estimates this summer for employment. We helped over 220,000 young people find jobs. That includes 40,000 jobs directly created by federal initiatives.

In the United States it costs $22,000 U.S. per participant. In Canada we do it for half of that; it is $10,000 per participant. We are well on our way and we are very committed.

[Employment Equity Act, October 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to all members of the House for allowing me to complete my remarks.

A majority of Canadians recognize the terrible plight of aboriginal peoples and realize that for constitutional, social and moral reasons special efforts are necessary to reverse their misfortune.

I am proud that I count myself among them. I urge all like minded members of the House to defeat the draconian motion to ensure that we remain the majority and do the right thing by leaving the doors of opportunity open for aboriginal peoples.

[Employment Equity Act, October 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I find myself increasingly frustrated by the many roadblocks the Reform Party is attempting to erect to circumvent this important piece of legislation. This piece of legislation is good for Canada and for all Canadians. As parliamentarians we have an opportunity to do the right thing and this legislation will do that.

For all who believe in the principles of democracy and the noble ideals of this institution, the Employment Equity Act is a welcome reminder of the values we hold dear as a nation. It is an affirmation that Canadians are just and honourable people who passionately believe in fairness and dignity for all.

To those of us who are members of the designated groups, employment equity is about human decency and democracy. It is not about inequity. It is not about getting more than your fair share. It is about equity. It is the freedom to exercise our constitutionally guaranteed rights to participate in the political process and to make contributions to the economic and cultural fabric of Canada.

My expertise on this matter lies in my life and professional work experience and growing up in a northern aboriginal community where the chances were far greater that I would walk the halls of a penitentiary than the corridors of Parliament. That is why the Reform Party's damaging amendments disturb me so deeply. They would seriously weaken the intent and impact of the legislation.

Of all the ill conceived amendments proposed by my hon. colleague, none concerns me more than Motion No. 6. If adopted this amendment would diminish Bill C-64 by deleting the aboriginal employers exemption in clause 7. It would remove the provision that allows an employer engaged primarily in promoting and serving the interests of aboriginal peoples to give preference in employment to aboriginal peoples unless that preference constitutes a discriminatory practice under the Canadian Human Rights Act.

In practical terms this means the act would not allow municipal bands on Indian reserves to give preference to the hiring of aboriginal peoples, perhaps the most disadvantaged of the groups the legislation is attempting to assist.

It is a well known fact that many non-aboriginal peoples work in and around large populated areas of aboriginal people. That has been historically so and still is in some cases. It should be the intent of all parliamentarians to change that and make accessible employment opportunities and training in other labour market related areas available for aboriginal peoples. There is nothing wrong with that.

Indian band councils that employ more than 100 workers are subject to the Employment Equity Act. I want to be clear that this provision does not relieve aboriginal employers of the obligation to hire aboriginal women and/or persons with disabilities.

I remind the House that aboriginal peoples of Canada have a unique constitutional status affirmed in section 35. These agreements are done through the British parliamentary system as we have it here. These agreements are recognized nationally and internationally. This status demands special consideration for measures aimed at enhancing their cultural, economic and political autonomy. It rejects no one.

Historically, as I have stated, many aboriginal communities and populations have been served by non-aboriginal people, and well in many cases. There have been problems but that is not the issue. The issue is fairness.

Perhaps most important, this motion goes against the very grain of the Liberal commitment to self-government. We are determined to give greater autonomy to aboriginal communities and to put the running of aboriginal affairs in aboriginal peoples' hands. Why not? We have struggled with it as governments for 125 years. There

are many problems. The aboriginal people should have the opportunity to serve themselves and to serve themselves well. They should at least have the opportunity to make their own decisions.

Clause 7 of Bill C-64 supports the aspirations of aboriginal communities for economic self-sufficiency and self-determination. It simply confirms that aboriginal organizations may hire only aboriginals, provided such a hiring is justified under the Canadian Human Rights Act.

I must confess that I am very surprised that the Reform Party would take the position it has on Motion No. 6. One can only assume it is based on a profound lack of awareness of the plight of aboriginal peoples in the country. It is no secret that members on the opposite side of the Chamber are not in favour of employment equity. We know that. However, from my reading of their minority report, it appears that they still believe the Canadian Human Rights Commission has an important role to play.

There is a certain irony in the Reform's proposition. First is the fact that the commission's chair, Max Yalden, expressed his support for clause 7 when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons. In response to a specific question about the exemption he said:

I think that aboriginal groups are a particularly disadvantaged group, a special group. The idea that native groups would, in their very special and particular situation, have a preferential hiring policy is not unreasonable.

There is another technical reason why clause 7 cannot be removed from the act. It is to ensure consistency with the Canadian Human Rights Act. I can only conclude, as did the commissioners in the Canadian Human Rights Commission annual report last year, that occasionally the tone of the opposition to employment equity seems more than a little shrill.

Thus far I have outlined the logical and legal arguments to reject the Reform Party's proposal. Far more potent are the facts of everyday life for the aboriginal peoples of the country. Discrimination is not an abstract, philosophical concept for disadvantaged Canadians. Abuse of power by a privileged few is the daily reality for members of the designated groups, particularly if they are aboriginal.

I challenge the hon. member to test the merits of his motion on members of aboriginal communities, especially those who are unemployed. Unemployment is very high. On some reserves where there are few employment opportunities the unemployment rate can rise as high as 95 per cent.

Tragically, aboriginal peoples account for the most disturbing rate of suicide. It is five times the national average. Let us think of the communities of Pangnirtung, the Whitedog reserve and Shamattawa, some communities in which we have seen many young people commit suicide. Not only do my people have the highest rates of suicide in the country but they are the highest in the world.

At the other end of the scale aboriginal people have the lowest incomes in Canada. Almost one-half of all aboriginal adults have incomes of less than $10,000. Not coincidentally they face far more crowded housing conditions. Twenty-nine per cent of non-reserve aboriginals live in housing with more than one person per room, compared with just 2 per cent of the general population. The rate is 31 per cent for Inuit people.

There is a corresponding high welfare dependency rate as well. It is 43 per cent on reserves, or almost five times the national population, and over 50 per cent among the off reserve population.

I am sure the Reform Party knows we share its view that it is better for people to be working. It is better for aboriginal people to become independent and self-sustaining than to be on welfare. It is better that we make these opportunities available than to slam doors in their faces so that progress cannot be made where help is needed.

Young aboriginal people are the most likely to drop out of school, to become teenage parents and to abuse substances such as alcohol, drugs and even solvents. With only 3 per cent of aboriginal teens completing high school, they have the highest illiteracy rates and lowest incomes in the country. Not surprisingly, more graduate from juvenile courts than from colleges or universities.

I would never deny the successes. We have made some progress. I am willing to stand here and admit there has been progress. However it is not enough, not at this point.

We have many graduates coming out of universities and colleges. For those who manage to rise above the daunting disadvantages, the thousands of aboriginal men and women who acquire university degrees and professional skills each year, employment opportunities still do not match their availability. The unemployment rate of aboriginal peoples with university degrees is nearly double that of white males with university educations.

That is a fact. That is the truth. It is undeniable. Those highly skilled and highly trained individuals are desperately needed in their communities. That is why the act exempts aboriginal organizations from provisions which might prohibit them from hiring these invaluable employees.

In conclusion, it is a lamentable commentary on Canadian society that the odds are stacked against far too many aboriginal people. With Bill C-64 we can start to turn the statistics around. Centuries of inappropriate and damaging policies developed and administered predominantly by non-aboriginals have taught us that

it is time to let the Indian, Inuit and Metis people take control of their own destiny.

That is why we need clause 7 in Bill C-64. The focus of federal policies is on seizing opportunities. The agents of change are individuals, because we are convinced that with the right support individuals can help themselves. That philosophy is at the heart of the aboriginal employers' exemption clause. A majority of Canadians recognize-

[Business Development Bank Of Canada Act, June 21st, 1995]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That the title of Bill C-91 be amended by substituting the following for "Small Business Bank of Canada":

"Business Development Bank of Canada".

Motion No. 3

That section 1 of Bill C-91 be amended by substituting the following for "Small Business Bank of Canada":

"Business Development Bank of Canada".

Motion No. 4

That section 2 of Bill C-91 be amended by substituting the following for "Small Business Bank of Canada":

"Business Development Bank of Canada".

Motion No. 6

That section 3(1) of Bill C-91 be amended by substituting the following for "Small Business Bank of Canada":

"Business Development Bank of Canada".

Motion No. 26

That section 43 of Bill C-91 be amended by substituting the following for "Small Business Bank of Canada":

"Business Development Bank of Canada".

Motion No. 27

That section 44 of Bill C-91 be amended by substituting the following for "Small Business Bank of Canada":

"Business Development Bank of Canada".

Motion No. 28

That section 45 of Bill C-91 be amended by substituting the following for "Small Business Bank of Canada":

"Business Development Bank of Canada".

Motion No. 29

That section 47 of Bill C-91 be amended by substituting the following for "Small Business Bank of Canada":

"Business Development Bank of Canada".

Motion No. 30

That section 49 of Bill C-91 be amended by substituting the following for "Small Business Bank of Canada":

"Business Development Bank of Canada".

Motion No. 31

That section 51 of Bill C-91 be amended by substituting the following for "Small Business Bank of Canada":

"Business Development Bank of Canada".

Motion No. 32

That section 53 of Bill C-91 be amended by substituting the following for "Small Business Bank of Canada":

"Business Development Bank of Canada".

Motion No. 33

That the Schedule to Bill C-91 be amended by substituting the following for "Small Business Bank of Canada":

"Business Development Bank of Canada".