Ethel Blondin-Andrew

[The Budget, March 27th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague, the Minister for Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and I have worked together for almost 12 years. I have the utmost respect for his judgment and thinking.

With regard to this situation, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is seized with his officials and officials of another department in finding a solution and not looking at blame. We are trying to find a solution so that these people do not have the gap that will be created and will receive full pensions. We are working on that. We are not looking to blame someone. If we do that we could do an historical chronology and many fingers could be pointed elsewhere. We are not into that. We want to find solutions.

I am from that riding and I not only support those workers but I support the workers across the country who may be in the same situation. I feel that their story has to be told. Most of the workers are older workers and I support them wholeheartedly in their attempts to get a full pension.

[The Budget, March 27th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I do not profess to be a specialist in taxation but I can say that I come from an area of very high need. Unemployment is very high. I am very pleased we have made the investment in HRDC, putting aside all of the other administrative difficulties that have befallen the programs. I stand by the initiatives that we have undertaken in my riding and across Canada that have created two million jobs. They are two million jobs for two million Canadians who needed good permanent jobs.

I also applaud the fact that we went from 11.5% to 6.8% unemployment. Youth unemployment is going down but we are still seized with that.

I come from an area where we must diversify the economy. We do not need a hand out; we need a hand up. Northerners take good advantage. I know there are other hon. members in the Chamber who live in areas that are not as well served as those on the industrial grid. We do not have huge industries. Jobs have to be devised and opportunities have to be created for these people, such as in tourism and the mining industry. We have to invest in training and development.

As it is today, the majority of our workers are coming from outside the territories. It is good for the hon. member's riding and others as well, for Manitoba, Saskatchewan, British Columbia and as far as the Atlantic. Workers are coming to the north to work at these mines because we have invested in the opportunities for them to do so. On the other hand, we have to train people and we need the funds to do that.

I will not deal with all the other issues because we would need more time. However, I want the hon. member to know that I stand by the funding that my riding in particular has received. This was much needed funding and it was used very well. It has created opportunities where there would be none.

[The Budget, March 27th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am splitting my time with my hon. colleague the secretary of state for parks and rural development. I should not forget rural development. We know how important that issue is to all the rural regions of Canada, my constituency being one of them.

Budget 2000 is an achievement of historic proportions. The third successive balanced budget of this government is a feat not seen since the days of C. D. Howe. We have tackled the burdensome and ballooning deficit left by the previous government. We have increased job creation. We have launched a strategy to invest in Canadians.

Canadians now have every reason to feel confident and secure about the economy. A bright future lies ahead for all thanks to the sound fiscal management of this government.

In relation to my riding, it has been an extremely interesting time in the Northwest Territories. We have a new government. We have a new premier, Premier Kakfwi who is of aboriginal descent. We have a cabinet the majority of whom I believe are aboriginal, as well as the MLAs from the various parts of the territory.

The new commissioner is to be sworn in at 3.30 p.m. this coming Friday. This Inuvialuit woman is a widow who has been very much a community activist on health and social issues and educational issues. She is raising four daughters on her own. She was a very steady companion of her husband who passed away from cancer a couple of years ago. It was a very long and tough journey for both of them.

This is the way through which I have become familiar with the circumstances of these individuals who take the lead in our territory.

We also have a new senator, the first ever to make the history books for the Northwest Territories, Senator Nick Sibbeston. He also is of aboriginal descent and is a Dene speaking individual from the Deh Cho region.

We have many unsung heroes in the north who work toward the development in the most exciting time in the north.

This budget is not separate from that. We look to a strong partnership with the federal government. We have major issues to bring together for the benefit of all of Canada including the north.

The national unemployment rate is at its lowest level in 24 years. Inflation remains in check. The debt burden is dropping. The Canadian economy is growing. These are facts that not even the opposition can deny.

It is precisely in the hope of achieving such impressive results that Canadians elected us to office. Our government followed up on its commitments and will pursue its efforts to continue to improve the tax situation of all Canadians.

This record of achievement is what Canadians elected us to do.

Under this budget Canadians will reap the rewards of sound fiscal management through tax savings and investments in our children through increased investments in health care and education.

The government is committed to invest in social and economic development for all Canadians. We recognize regional inequities in opportunities. We will not leave anyone behind as we move forward in this new century. We do not believe in leaving the most vulnerable in our society to fend for themselves. We believe in access of opportunity.

We do not believe in setting one Canadian against another. We believe in pulling together as Canadians by investing in all Canadians. Above all, investing in our children will secure a better future for all Canadians.

The government is committed to work with our provincial and territorial partners to develop an action plan by December 2000 to support early childhood development. We have identified six priority areas: strengthening the family; early childhood development; economic security; readiness to learn; adolescent development; and support of communities. These speak loudly to my constituents.

In the Northwest Territories we are in the midst of the biggest development my territory has realized in the last number of decades. Two diamond mines are in operation. Within six years the exponential rate of return to the federal government from those mines including the others that are potentially to come onstream is going to be very high. Presently we get $19,000 per capita for the individuals in my riding.

With the generation of revenue from these various industries, including the development of a major pipeline down the Mackenzie Valley which is now being studied, a number of options are being proposed. The potential performance of that major pipeline perhaps will make us a have territory some day. We will be able to carry our own weight by virtue of the fact that we we will be taking these resources out of our own area.

We hope to develop a partnership with the federal government on devolution. That means a sharing of the revenues, a sharing of the authorities, powers and responsibilities. This is what the government in my territory is proposing to do. This partnership is a sound approach for prosperity, for participation and for equity.

The aboriginal people at one point many decades ago were opposed to building the pipeline for their own reasons. Now the aboriginal people are saying they want this development. Not only do they want to build it, they want to own it. They want equity ownership. That means a great deal of self-sustainability for our community.

The budget is not separate from that. This all comes together. We do not pretend we are a region onto ourselves, that we can do it on our own. We believe we can do best in partnership.

In addition, the budget will increase the Canada child tax benefit by $2.5 billion a year by 2004. This is a significant investment. We cannot separate those things that are child specific from the other fiscal issues and say they do not have an impact. That is not the way in which governments or economies work.

Our five year tax reduction plan will ease the tax burden for low and middle income families with children beginning with the current fiscal year. The maximum leave period for employment insurance maternity and parental leave will be doubled to one year. There will be $29 million allocated for family law related services to support parenting information programs.

This budget will increase support and tax initiatives for persons with disabilities and their families. That is of particular concern to me. I have a great deal of concern for young people with disabilities, those young people who are the most vulnerable, those who need that hand up.

This budget also speaks to an issue of great importance to the north, the environment. Global environmental changes have a special impact in the western Arctic and northerners have a special relationship to that land. This budget will now support new environmental initiatives.

I have a delegation in town from the community of Deline who are seized with the issue of uranium contamination from the mine at Port Radium. There is contamination of the community and its environment through the waterways all the way down the Mackenzie through the Great Bear Lake and the Bear River.

These people are looking at the incidence of deaths related to cancer. They are concerned not only about the people but also the environment, the fish, the animals, the caribou, all of these issues combined. They have a deep and abiding concern about the wellness and the health of their people. This working group and others have shown a great deal of concern and initiative.

In Yellowknife 270,000 tonnes of arsenic is sitting under the city in silos from a mine that is still plagued with labour issues as well as other things.

An hon. member from the other side presented a petition today. I support that petition. I cannot put forward a petition as a minister, but I agree that those people's views should be heard. I support that.

In future when people who have worked under the condition of being guaranteed a pension, I hope we can create the conditions so that their pensions are protected and their conditions of employment are respected.

There is much more I could say but I am sharing my time with my colleague. In light of that I want to say that we are in an exciting period in the area which I come from. We do not separate ourselves from this budget. This budget is very relevant to the things we want to do. We are proud to be part of the government and in partnership with it to do what has to be done to make a better country and a better community for our people.

[Supply, March 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I resent the comment that we are hiding behind the Privacy Act. The system in place has allowed them on February 21 to get 16 binders of information, five and a half inches thick and containing 10,000 pages. Once members have sifted through them and if they are not satisfied that is another question. I would like to have more specific references than that. I believe we could not be much more transparent and much more open than we have been.

There is a process that is fairly public. The standing committee has members from all sides. There too they have access to all the officials who could give them the information if they have specific questions. We are not hiding behind anything. There has been complete disclosure. Not everyone agreed that disclosure was the best thing but there it is. There is the information. How they use it and if they use it is entirely up to them.

[Supply, March 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps my words were a little harsh. Nevertheless, better use could have been made of their time to review the information we made available to them. They are on the presiding committee. We are making a concerted effort to have all the information available to them. How they use it is entirely up to them.

[Supply, March 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, members opposite could have taken the two days they wasted in the House voting on all those useless amendments to the clarity bill to look at all the information we released on February 21. There were 10,000 pages of hard copy.

[Supply, March 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure it is no secret to my hon. colleague that I too have been to most of the 600 reserves across the country. I too have contact on a daily basis with the chiefs and the national leaders of those organizations.

I, along with the minister, was responsible for overseeing the development of a $1.6 billion training program for aboriginal people from which his reserve benefits. In turn that program allowed over 25,000 aboriginal people to get jobs. As well there was a saving of $25 million in social assistance funding.

There is no way we could even begin to think of the benefits that would accrue to aboriginal people if members opposite put their complete support behind this program and ensured the line they have taken would not jeopardize the funding for aboriginal people.

[Supply, March 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, we suspect that members opposite are more interested in playing politics with this call for an inquiry than they are in getting on with the facts. There is clearly no need for the inquiry the motion proposes.

[Supply, March 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, while I am pleased to participate in this debate, I do not think that debating this question is a very productive use of House time. The motion introduced by the member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques is not the best use of public resources and our time. It will end up costing taxpayers far more than it is worth.

There has been an ongoing barrage of questions on this issue for a sustained period of time. The issue has been recycled time and time again, day after day, to no useful end. Members of the Bloc have already shown how little they care for the time and effort that should be put into productive issues when they kept the House sitting, around the clock, for two days of voting on meaningless amendments to the clarity bill, a bill which members of every other party in the House supported. Nevertheless, our friends opposite are entitled to bring issues like this. That is one of the advantages of being part of the Canadian system. For our part, we are willing to discuss the motion and to look at their concerns from a broader perspective.

The motion suggests that the government does not take the management of public funds seriously. I want to reassure the hon. member that the government takes the management of public funds very seriously. I want to remind him that the government has made every effort possible to ensure responsible public sector financial management.

Shortly after we took office the government undertook a comprehensive review of federal spending programs. We showed our determination to ask the hard questions about the money the federal government was spending. We made the tough decisions to cut back in some areas and to redirect funds to other uses when necessary.

Program review was one of the government's toughest and most comprehensive programs. It was one of many. As a result, we have been successful. We took a $42 billion deficit and turned it around for the benefit of all Canadians. Members of the government acted decisively. There is no doubt in my mind that the government and the Minister of Human Resources Development are acting decisively now.

The minister has already told the House about her six point plan to improve the management and administration of grants and contributions in her department. It is a good plan and it is a solid plan. It includes improved reviews of administrative procedures. It has been reviewed by the auditor general and the Treasury Board, as well as accounting experts in the private sector. The plan will work, but we must give it time to work.

There is no point in looking yet again at the management processes at HRDC. We have done that and we have identified some areas that need to be fixed. We are fixing them. We should let the minister and her staff in the department get on with the business of implementing the action plan and serving the clients who need their help.

A second issue which the member opposite raised is a concern that HRDC funds are being used for political ends. I am glad the member raised this issue because it gives us a chance to put some facts on the record.

First, politics is not the criteria by which we determine HRDC funding. The money goes where it is most needed. Indeed, a good portion of HRDC program funds have gone to the member's home province of Quebec. That is because Quebec is a province with a large population and a comparatively high unemployment rate. The people of that province need federal program support. The unemployment rate in Quebec in 1997 was 11.4%. In 1999 the rate was down to 9.3%. We have a ways to go.

Quebec received more transitional jobs funding and Canada jobs funding than any other province because the need was greater. In the period from January 1995 to the present, the number of unemployed people in Quebec declined from 430,000 to 311,000; that is, 119,000 less unemployed people in five years with the help of HRDC programs.

I doubt if the member opposite would seriously complain about receiving support from a federal program that helped to create so many jobs in Quebec. Does he feel there has been political interference on party lines? If so, he will be reassured to know that according to our figures Liberals represent 53% of the population and 52% of the ridings and we have received 52% of the HRDC funding. The numbers speak for themselves. When we look at the facts it is pretty hard to see any political favouritism. Let us take British Columbia as an example. Most members opposite receive a huge part of the funding.

What about the need to inquire into the way HRDC programs operate? Again, probably that is a big waste of time and money. It is not only that, but it is a bit like reinventing the wheel. There are at least three other ongoing HRDC reviews at this time. First, the auditor general is conducting a government-wide audit of the department's grants and contributions and will report in the fall. HRDC will be an active participant.

Second, the standing committee of the House on human resources development is holding hearings on these issues. The former deputy minister, the deputy minister, the minister and the officials have all appeared before the committee. That committee includes members from all parties in the House. The committee can call the witnesses it feels would add useful information. That includes departmental officials and members of the House who can participate in the committee and obtain information.

Third, a special unit has been set up inside HRDC to track and report publicly on the department's grants and contributions. After seven years in that department I know those individuals. I know their competence and their expertise, and that is the reason they have been chosen for this unit. I know that being headed by an official they will do an outstanding job to this end.

In addition to these review activities the minister of HRDC continues to be responsive to parliament. Indeed the minister has earned high public praise for her willingness to stand and answer questions in the House. Canadians from coast to coast to coast support the minister of HRDC in implementing the new administrative system. They believe in these programs. They know there is a role for government and they want the problems fixed. That is what HRDC is doing.

In addition, the department has set up special inquiry lines to answer questions from members of parliament. It seems however that not too many MPs are really serious about getting the facts. Departmental officials tell us they have received very few calls from MPs seeking factual information.

[Standing Committee On Finance, December 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I am deeply offended by the references made to me in a personal way. If my mandate and duties are being called into question in a professional way, that is one thing, but to be slandered by the member who has done nothing for native people but use them for their votes is unacceptable.