Ethel Blondin-Andrew

[Ways And Means, June 21st, 1995]

moved that a ways and means motion to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Income Tax Act be concurred in.

[Ways And Means, June 21st, 1995]

moved that a ways and means motion to amend the Customs Act and the Customs Tariff and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts be concurred in.

[Youth Services Canada, June 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to respond to my colleague from Oxford.

We have the start up of 63 new projects under Youth Services Canada. These projects will allow over 850 young Canadians across the country to gain valuable skills while helping out in

their communities. Whether it is opening up a second hand store for the needy in Montreal, setting up crime awareness programs in Winnipeg or preserving native culture in Yukon, projects are geared to help both the kids and their communities.

Unemployed youth who participate in Youth Services Canada are breaking the cycle of dependency and learning good, solid job skills.

The announcement underlies once again the government's commitment to the youth of the country and its determination to take action on it.

[Supply, May 30th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, it is most unfortunate. I expect much more from the New Democratic Party members in dealing with this very important piece of legislation than to piggyback their own personal political party agendas on this really important piece of legislation. I am amazed that the hon. member would not only mix in his own personal political party agenda but also would drag in the whole issue of the provinces and the particular arrangements they have.

I expect support from the New Democrats. After all the years of singing the praises of employment equity, I expect the member to support us on this bill. That is what New Democrats say they believe. He should lay aside his own personal agenda and negotiate that in the procedures that are available to him through the Speaker's chambers.

[Supply, May 30th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, through the political process, I have gone through a metamorphosis from a neophyte to a second term member of Parliament now. More than that, I am a human being who literally sits with my constituents. In the north we have very small confines. I live with my constituents. I cannot disappear into a city as one might in cities like Ottawa and Calgary. I live with my constituents.

We did have a poll and it was a great poll. It was won poll by poll. I did have a poll and I have the utmost confidence. I won my election in a landslide in 1988. When I won my election employment equity was part of the red book. In 1993 I won every single poll in my riding, advanced polls, special polls, every poll. Those are the polls that count.

I do not believe we can have a 1-900 democracy or 1-900 governments. That is not the way to run this country. That is being a chicken because they cannot face up to it and make the decisions people elected them to make. They elected me to make the tough decisions. I am here and I will make them with this government.

If the people are afraid in that city, I do believe the member has made it intrusive. He has talked about this legislation as intrusive, as abusive and as discriminatory as Reformers have done with almost every other piece of legislation that has come forward that people have supported.

If the people of Canada did not like employment equity they would not have voted for us. They read about it in the red book in 1993 and we were elected with a full majority. It was clear and it gets clearer by the day what we intend to do.

We are making the federal contractors program and this employment equity legislation as broad, as fair and as all inclusive as possible. It is not intrusive, discriminatory or abusive. It is anything but that. It will be inclusive. It will create for once in the 125 year history of this country the kind of equity that is needed so that all members in this House can participate, all members of this country can participate. For God's sake, even Reform Party members can participate. That is how inclusive it is.

[Supply, May 30th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I take this opportunity to speak to the Reform Party's motion which I believe to be predicated on a lot of misinformation, half truths and generally misdirected with a great deal of pomposity. Some rather unfortunate ethnocentric views are being perpetrated on the basis of what is a very logical piece of legislation with very reasonable goals being set by the government to deal with overwhelming inequities that already exist.

I welcome this opportunity to clear up the confusion surrounding Bill C-64 created by some ill informed members of the opposition. I am anxious to explain how this made in Canada legislation will respond to the country's unique workplace needs to ensure fairness for all Canadians.

I have been told repeatedly by Canadians that communications and education are essential to the success of employment equity. It is within this context that I frame my comments today. I believe it is critical for Canadians to understand what Bill C-64 will and will not do. They should be fully aware that Canada is charting its own course with this progressive piece of legislation.

The suggestion has been made by some members of the Reform Party that the United States experience with affirmative action proves workplace equality is unworkable. It is not fair to compare apples with oranges. This is Canada and that is the United States.

In outlining the many merits of Canada's approach to employment equity I intend to demonstrate how, despite misleading comments to the contrary, in Canada we got the legislation right. Let me outline the key differences between the American's affirmative action approach and Canada's employment equity legislation.

With all due respect for our neighbours, the U.S. approach is characterized by a confusing and sometimes contradictory multitude of federal, state and municipal laws, policies and programs.

We also have to understand there is a great deal of competition for jobs. The pressure is great with two million jobs being lost annually in the U.S. As an example of how this pressure is generated in the U.S., look at the global picture and see where the pressure points are.

An article in the Utne Reader , the May-June 1995 issue, states: ``In the 1950s, 33 per cent of U.S. workers were employed in manufacturing. Today less than 17 per cent of the workforce is engaged in blue collar work. Management consultant Peter Drucker estimates that employment in manufacturing is going to continue dropping to less than 12 per cent of the workforce in the next decade. Although the number of blue collar workers continues to decline, manufacturing productivity is soaring''.

Another factor to consider is that changes have also been dramatic in the wholesale and retail sectors. There are pressures there and competitions for jobs. There are a lot of pressures on businesses, on government and on individuals. For instance, typical of the trend of retail giant Sears Roebuck, Sears eliminated a staggering 50,000 jobs from its merchandising division in 1993, reducing employment by 14 per cent.

Intelligent machines is also another issue invading professional disciplines, encroaching on education and the arts, long considered immune to the pressure of mechanization. A robot that will perform hip replacement surgery is being developed in California. Some firms now use computerized hiring systems to screen job applications. Not only are we competing with other humans, we are competing with robotics, new technologies and the mechanization of the workplace.

What do we do? Do we outlaw new and intelligent machines that will help to improve the economy and provide efficiency and effectiveness? With all of our discontent and malcontent we could devise laws and legislation that would discriminate against those and eliminate them, as is being suggested here.

Another interesting factor to consider because of the pressures being generated is that from 1983 to 1993 banks eliminated in the States 179,000 human tellers, 30 per cent of its workforce with automated teller machines.

This is a whole phenomenon far too complicated. I do not believe one can win the argument as the members of the opposition are proposing by taking a single, narrow example of how a university sets up a program or a course and use that to build a case against employment equity. That is very narrow and unjustified. It does not have much validity.

This profusion of legislation we talk about in the States gives rights, protections and remedies to different groups. Understandably this has created problems. Critics point to abuses and growing disenchantment with quotas in the U.S. which have led federal legislators to re-examine affirmative action.

By contrast, Canada has a streamlined legislative framework. Bill C-64 creates a single approach to employment equity at the federal level with clear responsibilities and duties assigned to employers and government agencies. With a few exceptions the approach to employment equity and the groups covered are essentially the same in most jurisdictions with mandatory employment equity in Canada.

Another crucial distinction is the role of the courts. Employment equity in Canada is proactive in nature. The legislation focuses on negotiated solutions arrived at through co-operative employer-employee relations. It does not require prior presumption of discrimination.

Consequently the Employment Equity Act creates an efficient and cost effective framework that minimizes the role of courts. We have a federal contractors program which a lot of regulated businesses participate in. It has become a state of mind. It is good business for those people to have women, visible minorities and disabled people working for them.

I have attended ceremonies at which we award federal contractors' awards. I have done that over the year and it has been very much applauded by the participants. They set an example many federally regulated businesses want to participate in. That includes universities as well as a variety of different private sector businesses.

The affirmative action program south of the border is rooted in executive order and civil rights law. Its objective is to eliminate discrimination against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, colour, religion, sex or national origin. The U.S. approach is characterized by court ordered quotas, preferential treatment to minority owned companies for government contracts and tax incentives to encourage ownership by minority populations.

The American system is also adversarial and litigious, doing little to advance harmony at the work site. It is frequently criticized as a slow and expensive way of achieving equality in the workforce.

Under the Canadian approach to employment equity, employers set their own numerical targets, often reached through consultation with workers and their unions. Bill C-64 specifically prohibits the use of quotas and there are certainly no provisions for preferential treatment to minority owned companies.

It is also good news that the Reform Party elected quite a few women. It might not have been a bad idea to have elected more there. That is an aside and I am sure the Reform member across the way will agree with that.

Merit is still paramount. A vicious rumour is being perpetrated that meritorious applicants, meritorious individuals meritorious successful candidates under employment equity are being maligned as not capable, as having been selected because they are disabled, women or of a visible minority. That is not so. This legislation has merit as its foundation. That remains paramount.

The intent of the Employment Equity Act is not to provide preferential treatment; it is designed to ensure equal treatment of all qualified work ready Canadians regardless of race, physical attributes or gender. It is about removing not erecting barriers to employment. It is about creating equity not inequality and not preferential treatment. It is about improving a system so downtrodden with inequity.

If the Reform Party is willing to do the research it will know the employment figures year after year have on the bottom of the list the disabled, women, aboriginal people and visible minorities. The Reform Party can find a few examples where that is not the case but the government does not build good policy and good legislation on a few examples. The exception is not the rule. That is not the way good policy is developed. That is not the way democracy works best.

It is about removing inequities not erecting barriers to employment. Canada is very fortunate that its legal meaning of equality is unlike that of the U.S. Ours is based on a constitutional guarantee of equality far broader than the U.S. equivalent. In Canada every individual has the right to equality before and under the law and equal protection and benefit of the law. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in section 15(2) recognizes special consideration and the accommodation of differences is sometimes necessary in achieving true equality.

Special treatment is not a departure from equality, it is essential in achieving it. Employment equity has come about because of the overwhelming inequities in the labour market, in all fields of employment. That is what it is based on.

It is unique to Canada. The U.S. constitution has no similar provision. In the United States there is a constitutional right to equal protection of the law only. Historically it has been interpreted by U.S. courts to require identical treatment, thus the development of colour blind and sex blind laws.

Members of Parliament who have participated in committees have learned by that valuable process. I have learned through the constitutional process that same treatment does not necessarily express equality. That is a simplistic view and a view which should have gone out with the dark ages. We are into futuristic and very straightforward issues and views about equality which apply to all Canadians.

Canada's approach to equality is progressive and far sighted. Equality means recognizing differences not just identical treatment. This has led to a greater partnership among groups pursuing fair access to employment opportunities and has resulted in far greater success. The wisdom of the Canadian strategy is proven in our progress. The record shows that while Canadians still have some concentrations of under-representation, advances have been significant under the existing Employment Equity Act and will only increase with the improvements provided in Bill C-64.

That speaks volumes about the Canadian approach. We are not interested in overloading the courts with employment equity challenges. We are looking for equal employment opportunities for Canadian women, aboriginal peoples, visible minorities and persons with disabilities.

We want to ensure fairness for all Canadians by assuring everyone has equal access to a job because we all know Canadians will benefit when we do. The best long term investment we can make as a country is in the creation of a more productive economy that fully capitalizes on the wealth of knowledge and skills of all members of society.

I can assure members of this House and reassure all Canadians that this government has no intention of repealing or weakening its employment equity legislation. We will continue to work diligently in the proud tradition of this great nation to assure the dignity of each and every member of our communities and our country. Canadians expect no less. With this in mind, I urge all members of this House to vote against the Reform Party's motion.

[Committees Of The House, May 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, the report of the committee on disability issues of the Canada Pension Plan Advisory Board.

[Job Creation, May 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Outremont for making the announcement in Quebec several weeks ago.

We are putting in place 70 pilot projects across Canada, 11 of which are in Quebec. These are new, innovative CECs that will deliver a simplified and more flexible set of re-employment measures. This is an indication of where this government wants to go with the new human resources investment fund.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995, March 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-69, an act to provide for the establishment of electoral boundaries commissions and the readjustment of electoral boundaries.

I greet this bill from a different perspective than has been presented to the House before. I would like to speak specifically to clause 30(a) which directly impacts on my riding of Western Arctic.

Once this legislation is enacted, four more communities will be added to my riding. The population of my riding will increase by over 1,700 people. The land mass will be increased by approximately 200,000 square kilometres. The increase in land to the Western Arctic is larger than many of the ridings in Canada. This makes my riding the second largest in terms of land mass.

It is a riding with very few roads. As a matter of fact, 90 per cent of my riding is not accessible by road. In the summer people can commute by boat along the Mackenzie River, but in the long winter the only forms of travel are by plane or on a sometimes rather treacherous winter road in very inclement conditions.

I am not here today to speak on the enormity of my riding and the difficulty in travelling from one area to another. Those concerns go without saying. It is what people would call part of the turf.

However, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the four communities of Sachs Harbour, Holman Island, Paulatuk and Tuktoyaktuk into my riding and to encourage greater participation by aboriginal people, women and youth in the electoral process in both the north and in Ottawa.

The four communities which will be entering Western Arctic are Inuvialuit communities. They are represented by the premier of the Northwest Territories in the legislature. The riding is named Nunakput. It is with great enthusiasm that I will be working closer with her to best represent these areas. All four of these communities are on the coast of the Arctic Ocean, the third great ocean in Canada.

These communities are currently within Nunatsiaq. Once the redistricting is done they will be within Western Arctic riding. However, they have been well served by my colleague, the member for Nunatsiaq, who has served the communities since 1988 when he was first elected to Parliament.

The population of these four communities is composed largely of Inuvialuit people. Inuvialuit are western Inuit. They are distinct from the Inuit of the eastern Arctic. The Inuvialuit are descendants of the Karngmalit or Mackenzie Inuit who lived in a rich hunting territory containing woods, barrens and seas. This area contains much of the original Thule culture with its emphasis on the beluga as the main source of food, bone, fuel and hide.

Young people make up at least one-third of the population in all of these communities. They are a very young, growing set of communities. The cost of living in these communities, as with all northern communities, is very high. The living cost differential between Edmonton, Alberta in the south and these communities is between 185 and 190. This means that an item of food which costs $1 in Edmonton will cost between $1.85 and $1.90 in these communities.

Although there are many similarities between the four Inuvialuit communities, each has its own distinctive history. One of these communities, Sachs Harbour or Ikaahuk, is located on the most westerly island of the Canadian Arctic archipelago, Banks Island. Archaeologists have found Thule house ruins in several places on Banks Island, indicating that Inuit lived on those islands for hundreds and hundreds of years.

Sachs Harbour was named after the ship Mary Sachs of the Canadian Arctic expedition in 1913. Permanent occupation did not begin until 1929 when three Delta Inuit families sailed in their schooners to Sachs Harbour. The major attraction of the island was white fox. For more than 50 years the island has been considered one of the best trapping areas in the entire North American Arctic. The Banks Island people were particularly well off and well educated during the Delta fur trade boom of the thirties. The first Inuk doctor was a member of the well known Banks Island Carpenter family. Education has remained a powerful source in Sachs Harbour.

According to the 1991 census, with a population of 85 people over the age of 15, 30 had a university education or non-university education with a diploma. The people of Sachs Harbour have remained very self-sufficient in comparison to many Arctic communities. They have continued to trap. Outfitting for big game hunts for polar bear and musk ox also takes place. Sachs Harbour has an 88 per cent participation rate in the labour force and has the largest average income of the four communities which in 1991 was $25,000 plus.

Holman Island, another community to be added to my riding, is situated on the Diamond Jenness Peninsula on the western side of Victoria Island. Victoria Island was the ancestral homeland of the Copper Inuit. During the winter they hunted on Banks Island and in the summer travelled to the centre of Victoria Island to hunt caribou. The people of Holman were taught print making by Reverend Henri Tardi, who came from Viviers, France to the settlement as an Oblate missionary in 1939.

In 1961 the Holman Inuit Cooperative was formed to retail the output and print making is now a major source of the community's income. Among the Holman artists the late Helen Kalvak is the most well known. Holman has a participation rate in the labour force of only 59 per cent.

Paulatuk is another community. This is interesting for all Canadians. Canadians seldom ask questions about the north. This is a great opportunity to let them know the constituency in which we exercise a democratic franchise is one that includes these wonderful communities. Paulatuk, the other community to be added to my riding after the redistricting, is located between the seashore and an inland lake on the Arctic coast. The name Paulatuk derives from the Inuktitut term for soot of coal. Coal is found in the vicinity and was used by the Inuvialuit inhabitants for heating.

The original inhabitants of the Paulatuk area suffered greatly from the effects of many of the outside influences brought in by some of the outside whalers. However, the early and extensive contact the people had with many of the European cultures meant they were more independent of trader and missionary influence than Inuit to the east. Many could do business in English and read and write their own language in Roman script.

Paulatuk is known for its carvers. The largest segment of the population in Paulatuk is between zero and fourteen years of age. There is a 14 per cent rate of participation in the labour

force. Of those who are in the labour force 30 per cent are unemployed. The average income in Paulatuk is about $17,000.

The fourth community is Tuktoyaktuk. It is the final community which will be added to my riding. Tuktoyaktuk means resembling a caribou. Legend has it that when caribou were plentiful a woman looked on them as they waded into the water and the caribou were petrified. Reefs resembling caribou have been seen at low tide.

Tuktoyaktuk was traditionally the home of the whale hunting Mackenzie Inuit. This community is the largest of the four communities and the most ethnically diverse, although the Inuvialuit make up almost 90 per cent of the population.

Tuktoyaktuk is now the sea edge base for oil and gas exploration in in the Beaufort Sea. I have many fond memories of Tuktoyaktuk. As a young teacher in the early seventies I spend three years teaching there. Over half of the population, 15 years and over, have not completed secondary education.

These communities are diverse. The land around those communities is awesome, serene and wonderful. The sea life, the animal life and the marine make-up and the ecosystem of that area are a tourist's dream. It is actually an eco-tourist dream. It is something that people from all around the world pay a lot of money to see. It is worth every penny.

In winter and late fall we can see the aureole borealis that everyone talks about. In the summer we can stand in some of the communities and see beluga whales from houses facing the Arctic Ocean. It really is quite a sight to behold. In winter the land is covered with snow and people go out throughout that season to enjoy the community.

The member of Parliament who represents the area, the hon. member for Nunatsiaq, has been very honoured and very gracious in representing the area. I look forward to having these additional communities added to the western Arctic riding once the whole issue of redistribution and readjustment has been completed.

Historically the electoral boundaries were drawn without any consideration of how they would impact on the aboriginal communities in the area. The western Arctic was no different. The Inuvialuit who lived in the most northwestern area of Canada were split between two federal electoral districts. In 1984 the Inuvialuit became the first aboriginal group north of the 60th parallel to sign a comprehensive land claim agreement.

However, the Inuvialuit who reside in the six coastal communities remain split in two different federal electoral districts. After recently having celebrated the 10th anniversary of the signing of the historic final agreement and the passage of Bill C-69, the Inuvialuit will finally all be included in the same electoral district.

There is a very interesting point in the documents put forward about the impediments to electoral participation. They noted the Inuit did not receive the right to vote until 1950. No ballot boxes were placed in Inuit hamlets until 1962. That was unfortunate. It is unthinkable in this day in age that any citizen of this country would not be able to exercise the right to vote in a democracy such as we have, in future elections. However, that was the case.

These communities will provide a positive contribution to the already diverse riding of the western Arctic. Now the Inuvialuit people from Inuvik and Aklavik will be together with the other four Inuvialuit communities of Sachs Harbour, Paulatuk, Holman Island and Tuktoyaktuk. They will be together in one federal riding of the western Arctic.

In years past we had the Lortie commission look at a number of issues regarding electoral reform. One I was much seized with, along with some of my colleagues, was in the names of Senator Len Marchand, former member of Parliament Gene Rheaume, and someone who is very capable and who has helped us, Mr. Marc LeClair, who worked with the aboriginal Liberal commission in looking at the impediments that faced aboriginal people systemically and structurally in terms of the districts and the distribution of seats in the House, and in looking at some of the historical impediments. It made for a very interesting exercise.

We undertook a subcommittee for the royal commission and were successful in meeting a number of groups across the country that spoke to the issues. It was quite extensive.

In the world wars aboriginal people were able to fight for their country. They loved this country and wanted to contribute. They made a great sacrifice. Upon their return to this country they did not have the right to vote until the 1960s. They could lay their life down for their country, they could honour their country, but they were not given the opportunity as other Canadians to exercise their democratic right to vote.

That was a great inequity. These were some of the things we dealt with. It should be of interest to some of the people in the House that there have been 13 self-identifying aboriginal people elected to the House of Commons, including myself, the member for Nunatsiaq and the member for Churchill.

These 13 out of over 11,000 members have been elected since Confederation. Ten of the aboriginal people were elected this century. Only three have been elected in districts where aboriginal people do not constitute a majority.

Six have come from my part of the territory where aboriginal people are a majority, in the Northwest Territories. The selection came from Churchill with an aboriginal population of 42 per cent.

It is astounding to think only 11 out of 11,000 people have been aboriginal. This is the home of the first peoples along with all other Canadians.

It is an esteemed privilege as a member of Parliament to be able to speak on behalf of the people who put us here, to come forward with a conglomeration of their views, with their convictions, their passion, their vision, their beliefs about this country.

Only 13 people of aboriginal descent have been able to do that since Confederation. One of those people was Louis Riel and that is a whole other story. We will not get into that. It is quite an interesting set of circumstances to think about.

My reason for standing is to address Bill C-69 and encourage more aboriginal people, more women and more youth to get actively involved in the electoral process.

Aboriginal people make up to 16 of the 24 seats in the Northwest Territory legislature. Unfortunately the representation of people in the House of Commons is not nearly anywhere as representative. There are only three members, ironically. They are all in the Liberal Party.

That does not stop the other parties from including aboriginal people. Look at the membership of the opposition. It has huge aboriginal populations in the north of its province. In James Bay there are some of the most outstanding aboriginal leaders in the name of Billy Diamond, Matthew Coon-Come, Ted Moses and Chief Violet Pachanos.

A lot of aboriginal people in that area could stand with any other member of Parliament from that province and be proud. In other areas, northern B.C., we have predominant members from the Liberal Party as well as from the Reform Party. We have many New Democrats. We could easily elect in those areas, in the upper places where we have the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en and where we could have aboriginal people represent not just themselves and their people but non-aboriginal people.

There cannot be a false assumption that because one is of this race or this background one cannot represent fairly other people from other races as well. The doors are open. The opportunities are there.

I encourage the participation of youth, women, people from ethnic minorities, the disabled. There is in this House of democracy, in this community of communities, in this home for true democratic practices and vision a home and a seat for everyone who wants to put their name forward who is capable of being able to come here and speak on behalf of the people who elect them.

Women who make up 52 per cent of the population are not representative in either the territorial legislature or the House of Commons. In the Northwest Territories there are only three female members of the legislature, one of whom is the premier. What a premier, what an outstanding member of the government we have in the name of the premier of the Northwest Territories.

We in the Northwest Territories are proud of the premier when she goes around the world, when she goes to parliament or wherever she represents us. There is no gender barrier to the competence of an individual who thinks well, who speaks well, who presents her views and who has a passion to represent people.

There are only 53 women members of Parliament or 18 per cent of the MPs in Ottawa. The way to ensure greater representation of women and aboriginal people is to become involved in the process. I urge all aboriginal people, in particular the people of the four new communities that will be added to the western riding, to get involved in the political process to ensure that there are good people who will bring the issues that concern them to Ottawa or to Yellowknife, whatever level of government they want representation at.

The youth are an integral part of any political process. Youth have the energy and the enthusiasm to bring victory to any individual seeking office including one of their own. We can look at the list of young people elected to the House of Commons over the years. I believe Father Sean O'Sullivan was elected when he was 21 years of age. My baby is 21 years old, the youngest child in my family. It is wonderful someone like that could be elected to the House of Commons.

Richard Cashin was elected when he was 21 years old; the hon. member for Sherbrooke when he was 24 years old; Lorne Nystrom when he was 22 years old; the Hon. Perrin Beatty when he was 22 years old; the hon. member for York North when he was 28 years old; and the Prime Minister when he was 29 years old. They were all young people. They are people who have contributed. They have given the best years of their lives to this honourable process. It is quite possible. Young people out there who are listening should know that this can belong to them, that a seat in the House of Commons can be theirs.

We are here but for a short time. It can be for years or it can be for a lifetime but we are not here forever. Young people, women, disabled people, visible minorities and other capable and competent people have to be encouraged to get involved and participate. The north with its young population has an abundance of vital energy. I encourage Canadian youth to organize and participate in the electoral process to ensure that their concerns are heard.

Over the last while we have heard many concerns about post-secondary education, employment, and programs and services for young people. We have heard the concerns of disabled people. One way of advancing views is by participating, by being here. There is something to be said about being here; about having a voice, a true voice; and about standing in the highest court in the land to represent people. That is one way to advance views.

It is my hope that Bill C-69 will encourage more people to become involved in the electoral process and that in the future, when electoral maps are being drawn, greater care will be given to ensure that aboriginal communities like the Inuvialuit do not have to wait 10 years to be joined together in one federal electoral district.

I should like to take the time remaining to discuss the main components of Bill C-69 which will impact Canadians living south of 60. First, Bill C-69 eliminates unnecessary decennial redistributions in provinces where there has not been a significant population shift which leads to unacceptable deviations from the provincial quotient.

The committee's bill provides that boundary commissions will no longer be established in provinces where as a result of the decennial census the number of seats to which the province is entitled remains the same and where none of the ridings vary by more than 25 per cent from the provincial quotient. This will eliminate unnecessary redistributions and result in savings to the taxpayers.

Bill C-69 also provides for quinquennial readjustments in addition to the current decennial redistribution. Quinquennial redistributions would take place in provinces where following a quinquennial census more than 10 per cent of the constituencies varied by more than 25 per cent from the provincial quotient.

It would not affect the total number of seats, in layman's terms, in the House or the number of seats allotted to the provinces. It would only allow for the boundaries of ridings within the provinces to be redrawn. By allowing for the riding boundaries within a province to be redrawn more than every decade, the effects of major population shifts in certain provinces would be minimized.

The appointment of boundaries commissions will be more transparent. The chair of each commission will continue to be appointed by the chief justice of the province. In appointing the two other commissioners, the Speaker will have to publicize openings, solicit applications for positions, and consult widely before making appointments.

Another change is that the Speaker's appointments can be reviewed and voted down by the House. The new requirements of public notice, solicitation of applications and consultations will make for a more open and transparent process.

The boundary adjustment process will be a more open and transparent process. Bill C-69 requires that at the beginning of the readjustment process commissions publish a notice of population figures and of their work plans and invite submissions from the public. I am certain it will encourage more public participation in the readjustment process.

Bill C-69 will ensure more informed public debate. The committee's bill requires commissions to prepare three alternate maps instead of only one, as is the current process, showing how riding boundaries could be divided within the province. Although commissions would still indicate their preference, they would have to justify their preferred option. The two additional maps would assist members of the public who wish to make submissions. I believe these new requirements will favour more informed public debate and encourage more public participation in the process.

Bill C-69 provides for the possibility of a second set of public hearings to be held where necessary. When in response to public comments a commission makes changes to the proposed boundaries of a riding that would affect 25 per cent of that riding's population, Bill C-69 provides that a second set of public hearings would have to be held. The change recognizes and reflects the importance of public participation in the process. After all, people are what the electoral process is all about.

Bill C-69 sets out the circumstances in which the boundary commission's current discretion to create exceptional ridings is to be exercised and requires the commission to justify the decision in its reports. This is very critical. Recognizing there may be some need for ridings to vary from the 25 per cent provincial quotient, the committee maintained the boundaries commission authority to create exceptional ridings. The country is diverse. There are exceptional circumstances such as the massive land track in my area that we have to cover; it is huge. It is a very cumbersome exercise for an elected member to traverse the huge land mass, for instance.

However, the committee's bill limits the exercise of that discretion to extraordinary circumstances where the population is more than 25 per cent under the provincial quotient and where the riding is isolated or not readily accessible from the rest of the province. In addition the bill requires the commission to indicate the reasons for this determination in its report. I believe it will favour a responsible and consistent exercise of the discretion.

The bill eliminates the current requirement that the commission's proposals be tabled in the House.

Considering that MPs should participate in public hearings like all other Canadians, the bill does away with added scrutiny by a parliamentary committee of the boundaries commission

proposals. In any event we have seen that the interventions of MPs did not have much of an impact on the commission's final reports. MPs will have the same rights as any other citizen to make representation in the course of public consultation.

This is consistent with the intent of conferring the boundaries readjustment process on independent commissions rather than Parliament and ensures that the boundaries readjustment process remains non-partisan and independent.

Bill C-69 sets out detailed criteria for commissions to consider in drawing constituency boundaries. The committee's bill establishes clear guidelines for commissions in terms of the criteria to be taken into account in drawing constituency boundaries including the community of interest, manageable geographic size and probability of future population growth. Hence the boundaries and finally the boundary commission.

The new boundaries would come into force in less time than under the current act. Under Bill C-69 it is estimated that the boundaries readjustment process will take a total of two and a half years, which is three months shorter than under the current process.

I hope aboriginal people would take advantage of the commission's requirements as would all other people. It is noted that the whole electoral exercise is quite costly. The administration of an election involves 450,000 people and costs approximately $100 million. It is no small or pretty penny to get members of Parliament elected. It is a major undertaking and it should be noted that very few aboriginal people participate in the process.

This is particularly the case with senior positions such as returning officers who are responsible for administering the electoral machinery within the person's electoral district and for subdividing the district into polling divisions. Research was unable to identify any past or present returning officer of aboriginal descent.

The lack of experience is no viable or legitimate excuse. Elections Canada has noted in the impediment to electoral participation that 253 of the 295 returning officers appointed for the 34th general election had no previous experience managing elections. In a sense I am pleading for participation on the part of the government, individuals and communities to organize and get involved in the public process.

The commission is required to publish its plans and hear submissions from the public. This is one way to get involved in the electoral process but, more important, to ensure that electoral boundaries are drawn with more respect to the ties of neighbouring communities. It is my hope that in future aboriginal people will be able to elect members of Parliament from their areas where aboriginal people are the majority.

I congratulate the committee for the hard work it has done in reviewing the current process and in proposing improvements. It could not have been simple.

I also hope that aboriginal people, women and any other group, in particular the youth who are not adequately represented in the House of Commons, will take part in the public consultations on electoral boundaries to ensure that the boundaries are fair and respect the binding ties of neighbouring communities, in particular aboriginal communities but in fact all communities across the country.

[Supply, March 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board is the minister who has that responsibility. I feel he has an eye and an ear to all of the dynamics of balancing on gender the concerns of the people who will be reduced from the work force there. He is considering all the dynamics. I would not even try to improve on the excellent job the minister has done.

I am sure he has a special concern about the view that government has toward the role of women in everything we do. Of course I have support for women in all areas, not just this area, as my colleagues do, some of whom are male.