Ethel Blondin-Andrew

[Supply, March 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am really quite pleasantly surprised to hear the member opposite speaking about the rights of aboriginal people.

It is no secret that I have been very outspoken on the rights of aboriginal people. I am also quite pleased, as was the rest of the country and the House, that the only department that is experiencing growth, even though it is not enough to meet the increase in demand and need, is the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

I am also quite pleased, on behalf of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, to note that there is a major devolution and dismantling process under way. Something is definitely happening. As an example, an agreement was signed in Manitoba. That is just one area but there are other sources of self-empowerment.

The government has a whole section on self-government. There have been major comprehensive land claim deals signed with the Yukon, a number in the Northwest Territories and also in the province of Quebec. Those are the real empowering sources on which the government has taken an initiative. It is not just this government but other governments as well.

We are not turning away from the people who are the most vulnerable, at risk and disadvantaged. We are there for those people.

We understand that we can do business in a much more effective and efficient way. The Canadian public agrees and is ready for that. In a sense, we are catching up with public thinking on this. I am sure the hon. member will recognize that in doing so we will not turn our back on the people who really need our help.

[Supply, March 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, there is no way I would expect this hon. member and the opposition to come forward and endorse and kiss the budget that we presented. I do not believe that.

However, she suggests that in the budget we put forward the provinces have no responsibility. I dare say not. The province she is from is preparing a budget that will have an impact. She is fearful that it will not all be good.

These are tough times and we have taken the directions we believe are necessary in order to get our house in order. We are doing what we feel we do best and we are leaving to others what we feel they can do better. That is the way in which we are conducting our business.

There are different levels of taxation. I cannot speak to all of them but clearly there is a responsibility. We have made our move and the next step is up to the provinces.

[Supply, March 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that they are confused. On the one hand in dealing with the opposition we find that every time we raise an issue, no matter what it is, women, employment or child care, we are told it is in the purview of provincial jurisdiction, that we have to confer with our provincial counterparts.

The hon. member is suggesting that I make suggestions about specific projects, specific initiatives even though she knows full well we have not had the opportunity to discuss such issues as child care with the provinces, which Quebec feels very strongly about.

There is not a vacuum. The government has undertaken a number of initiatives. Program review and evaluation is one of them. Under that guise we have also looked at women's programs. Change is not a bad thing. What is wrong with change in the name of effectiveness and efficiency? That is what the country wants. Canadians are telling us it is not how much we have, it is what we do with it. They are also telling us change is not such a bad thing. To make change in the name of efficiency and effectiveness is a good thing for this country as a whole, not just women.

It is true we are consolidating the women's programs but it is all in the name of removing duplication, eliminating a number of unnecessary allocations. We need to do that to make it more cost effective and to deliver services to the individual rather than build administrative bureaucracies.

[Supply, March 16th, 1995]

Look out world is right. Those young people are going to be a huge factor not in just the empowerment of their specific gender, but of this country. If we use that 52 per cent resource to its maximum, we can help to abate a lot of the social problems. We can help to abate a lot of the economic woes that befall our communities.

In this country we are so good at building infrastructure. If we need a road, we build it. If we need a hospital, we build it. If we need banks, we build them. If we need airports, we build them. The one thing that is critical and has not happened over different levels of successive governments is building that firm human foundation, that firm human infrastructure that is spiritual, social, cultural and linguistic which will result in children staying in school and will not drop out.

That is not always the result because we have a disempowerment somewhere along this infrastructure path we have taken. I am not saying that we should not have infrastructure. I am saying that if we have it, it should work for us. It should give us the results we need.

We should be producing. We have skating rinks and curling rinks. We have these other kinds of institutions and infrastructure. They should be producing better athletes. They should be producing children who will be able to set their goals and reach them with their families and their instructors.

Somehow we have to get back to the basics of making those things work for people, not just women, all people in this country. We need to say real empowerment is not the empowerment of one individual. Real empowerment is the empowerment of our families, of our children, of our communities and of our country.

A country is not about one person. A country is about a collective, all the people who live here, all the people who come here from other parts of the world who believe we still have the best country in the world. I certainly believe that.

I am not turning a blind eye and saying we do not have problems. We have problems, but at least we have the democratic right, the equality of opportunity to be able to deal with those problems, to make a better tomorrow for ourselves and for our children.

If all the government did was rely on the market, as some in the House would prefer, we would see only a glacial change in the labour force situation of women. This government believes it can do better. It recognizes the continuing need to help women move into new growth areas. It recognizes its own programs and services can help to bring us closer to that goal. That is important in terms of the government's employment programs.

Hon. members will be aware of many of the programs and services provided by Human Resources Development Canada. I am sure almost all of us have Employment Canada centres in our ridings. These offices have made real efforts to reach out to women, to make programs and services more accessible, to break down the stereotypes and the barriers to full participation by women.

In the last full fiscal year, 1993-94, more than one-quarter of a million Canadian women, 262,392, participated in HRDC employment programs and services of all kinds. That figure was fully 28,555 more than in the previous year. This is so absolutely important.

There is a lot of technical information I have here which I have not shared with the House. It takes co-operation. It takes true partnership. It takes true dignity and respect to really empower the individual and to empower a community, a family, a country. It can be done by respecting and recognizing the power and the real empowerment of women.

[Supply, March 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thank opposition members for bringing forward this debate. I rise in the House today to express my deep pride in the government's record in promoting social justice and economic parity for the women of Canada.

I am encouraged by the interest shown by the hon. member of the opposition in the issues of women's economic equality, for what could be more important to Canada than the welfare of more than half its population. I believe it is 52 per cent. It is only when women and families thrive that our country will be renewed.

I welcome the invitation to demonstrate to my colleagues that the federal government can be counted on to keep its promises. We said we would and we are reshaping the country, making it economically strong, socially just and proud of the rich diversity of its people.

Our plan for Canada outlined in "Creating Opportunity" is firmly anchored in the principle that governing is about people. The motion before the House raises an important question: What has the track record of the government been on issues that affect the economic status of women? The short answer is that the government has done a great deal. The government made commitments in the last election campaign and is living up to them.

In the few minutes available to me today I want to discuss the actions we have taken in the important area of employment programs. I want to look briefly at the record in unemployment insurance and I want to talk about the child care issue. I will finish with some comments on the government's proposal for changes to the Employment Equity Act. The document is an empowering document not just for women but for the disabled, for aboriginals and for visible minorities.

First let me establish the context. It has become a truism that the best social program is a job. That point has been made by people from both the right and left of the political spectrum. Therefore well over 400,000 people can say that they have taken part in the greatest social program of all since the government took office in October 1993. There is every evidence that the record will continue strongly and that these are predominantly good jobs and full time work. Women are claiming their full share of the growth.

Let me give a personal view of what it is to be a woman and what it is to be a woman in an area that used to be exclusively male in the number of areas I have occupied in my career. I was in the civil service for many years before I entered politics. My experience was that I never had a problem working with men because those were the people to whom I had the most exposure in the levels I occupied in senior management. It gave me a great deal of opportunity to build human relationships that had a certain dynamic and express co-operation and a bit of a positive attitude about working with other people.

However the real experience I have as a woman comes from the fact that the most influential people in my life have been women. My grandmother was a medicine woman. She was an orator. She was the anchor in my family. She was the leader in my family. There are many strong men in my family. The women in my family are very strong women. They see the opportunity for greatness in almost every opportunity that comes their way.

Another most influential woman in my life has been my stepmother who adopted me when I was three months old. She took the opportunity to teach me good things. I cannot think of a thing women have gained that has just been given to them. I cannot see an empowerment process that women have not fought hard for. Women are truly the instrument of their own empowerment. We are 52 per cent of the population. If women use that

instrument, if women use that power device sincerely, it will be the essence of how great our accomplishment can be.

I have travelled around the world. I have seen other societies, other groups across different nations. It sort of sets a stage for what we have in Canada. In our party we have the whole idea of equality of opportunity and I really believe in it. It is interesting when we think about people like Eleanor Roosevelt, the wife of a former president of the United States, who said: "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent". I feel that way about being a woman.

I feel that women have certain natural talents. That does not make us better than men. It just makes us as good as we can be. It gives us the capacity for nurturing, the capacity for co-operation, the capacity for vision, and the capacity for sharing. We are not keeping the power to ourselves but we are sharing the power. The use of a power in a very positive way is a dynamic that women bring to politics, to business and to social development. It is a different style. It is not better. It does not create inequity. It creates the greatest opportunity for women.

If we look back through history to when women in Canada received the right to vote, no one handed it to them. No one made us persons without the struggle of women. Women themselves went out and put up the fight to gain that right, to gain that recognition. We have fought some big battles. They are not battles between the sexes. They are battles for human dignity. They are battles of the individual fitting in society in a way that expresses true human rights and dignity: the right to work, the right to raise children in an environment that is safe and clean, and the right to raise our heads among others without feeling shame or disgrace even when there are problems. That is the kind of country we live in. That is the kind of democracy for which people fight and in fact in some countries for which people have died.

I come from a family in which women play a very predominate role. The men play an equal role in their own area, but I am talking about women today. I am not saying it is just our day. In fact all the men here today can have the honour of being honorary women if they so desire.

The whole issue of economic empowerment is a different dynamic. Many would say that business is a man's world. That is changing. We no longer have a single income society. We have a double income society. People are working, partnering and sharing. There are children to look after and there are competitive forces that impact on families, communities, regions and the country as a whole. Women are major contributors. Not only do women see the necessity of their positive participation. Men also see the positive contributions made by women. It is necessary. It is absolutely necessary.

Women make up 52 per cent of the population. I was in Copenhagen. Empowerment to me is reaching out and having the human experience of realizing the differences, of building tolerance, of building acceptance and of approving of people's differences linguistically, culturally, socially and economically. We are all people.

I was empowered by seeing other women. I had the opportunity to listen to female leaders and male leaders from around the world. On International Women's Day there was much mention that despite the fact women make up 52 per cent of the population they account for 70 per cent of the world's poor. If women account for 70 per cent of the world's poor, implicit in that is that children are involved. There are more women in female centred living circumstances or families than there are males.

We realize the imperative of empowering women. For instance, the government in making its appointments to boards and commissions is constantly vigilant and balancing the number of women appointed to boards and commissions, as are other members of this caucus and other members of the House. There is a balance. It is definitely a commitment of the Prime Minister and the cabinet.

There is still a greater opportunity for us to look at some of the most economically related boards, to look at the financial institutions and to be able to appoint women. There are women who are qualified, woman who have years of experience. I have met them, as have other members of the House. They are women with a lot of experience and equality of education, who have two or three degrees. They are women who are not bilingual, but multilingual.

They are multi-faceted women who have a whole range of talents to bring forward to the process, not only empowering their families and themselves but their communities and this country. There is definitely a role for ensuring that women get to the top in partnership with men. It is not either/or. It is better when they work together.

We also understand the right to be recognized as persons was not conferred on us by a special men's club that thought it was time to make women persons. That did not happen. Women took up the fight. Women won that right.

It is a powerful feeling on Persons day every year watching the women being recognized, outstanding citizens in this country, who have contributed not only to themselves but to their communities and to their country and maybe to the world in a sense by setting an example.

The right to vote was not conferred on women because someone decided. It was a hard fought battle. It was something women felt strongly about and they finally won the right to vote.

Around the world democratic rights is one of the most powerful tools. Look at South Africa. It is a prime example. The right to vote, the right of assembly, the right to speak, the right of mobility are things women have to make work for themselves. That is the basis of a firm foundation on which to build economic empowerment. That makes it a powerful tool.

At this time the government is aware economic growth by itself is not enough. Women still remain clustered in traditionally female occupations such as teaching, nursing, clerical or sales and service work.

I was so pleased when I went to Montreal two months ago and met with a group of young girls in a classroom dedicated to teaching math and sciences to these young women. I want to see these young girls 20 years form now. I want to see them when they are in high school and university. I told one young girl her seat is waiting for her in the House of Commons.

[The Budget, March 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I was not speaking just to aboriginal issues. I was speaking to those within the department that I work in. I was not speaking to the ones in the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs or Industry. I am not ashamed to speak to those issues. I am not afraid and I am not reluctant. I just did not mention it.

There was a 25 per cent cut. Part of the effort in the program review and looking at the way we deliver services to people is to make these programs more efficient, more effective, more directly related to delivering services to the individuals, to the

people they serve rather than developing an administrative bureaucracy which would tend to serve the industry itself rather than its clients.

Yes, we have made cuts. I just finished saying in my speech that every Canadian is going to share the responsibility in this exercise. I know. I am no stranger to the poverty of those people. Those are my people. I understand that.

Every Canadian is going to share the responsibility. Let us weigh things fairly. The Department of Indian and Northern Affairs which serves aboriginal people was the only department that has an $8 billion budget that is going to have an increase of I believe 6 per cent when all other departments were cut.

I acknowledge that there have been cuts to some aboriginal programs but there have been cuts to almost every program and service across the board in every department and crown corporation.

[The Budget, March 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell my colleague that anything I said certainly was not prejudicial to the people who are poor or people in different wage categories. We understand we have equality of opportunity. Everyone has the opportunity to participate. Everyone has the opportunity of freedom of speech, to be mobile, to move, to look for the opportunities. Sometimes it is more difficult. I agree that can be a problem.

When I talked about innovation I was not just talking about the consumers of government programs or people looking for jobs. I was talking about all sectors of society. It is a process where government will participate but sometimes people or organizations can do it better so we will defer to them because it will be more cost efficient and more effective.

As for opportunities for people, we cannot step back and be ashamed of the fact that we have managed to create 400,000 jobs. One hundred thousand of those were directly related to government initiatives. Many of those jobs were in Quebec. We are not ashamed of that. We are quite happy to recognize that and affirm that we have a commitment to continue helping people.

It is not just government's responsibility. People want us to change the way in which government works so that they will have the opportunity to be active participants rather than to have a passive role. They are dying for the opportunities. We want to make those available to them.

[The Budget, March 15th, 1995]

I thank hon. gentlemen on the other side for observing the decorum accorded each speaker on such an important issue as the budget debate. I hope I did not lose any time.

We tackled the issues head on and made job creation, economic growth and fiscal responsibility our top priorities. The new budget is the latest step in our ongoing drive to restore Canada's fiscal health and reinforce investor confidence. When completed this drive will make Canada a magnet for investment, which will in turn encourage economic growth and create the jobs and training opportunities Canadians need to cope with the technological revolution under way.

The measures announced by the government on budget day were more than a cost cutting exercise. They represent a major restructuring that will redefine the way government operates and what role government will play in people's daily lives. The budget represents a basic restructuring of Canadian society as a whole.

As the Minister of Finance stated in his budget speech, government must only do what it does best and leave the rest for those who can do it better. This presents Canadians with an incredible opportunity to step forward and have a direct impact on the way their lives are shaped and the way their communities develop.

As we debate the merits of the budget today and the necessary actions the government must take to get its fiscal house in order, we must remember we are not in a unique position in Canada. Other countries have waited too long before taking adequate measures and have in a sense hit the wall, while others have taken strong and affirmative actions and as a result have positioned their economies to compete aggressively in the new global marketplace.

We can learn a lot from those examples. New Zealand is a case in point of a country that found itself with debt and deficit that became too large for its economy to sustain. Over the course of the past eight years New Zealand has gone through a dramatic and painful restructuring that saw whole government programs cut, eliminated or commercialized, user fees introduced for many aspects of government services, and the introduction of new tax measures such as the GST.

As a result of these measures New Zealand has drastically restructured its government and improved its fiscal health to the point where it posted a deficit of 1 per cent surplus of deficit to GDP ratio. However the painful lesson learned by New Zealanders and one we must not ignore is what happens when we wait too long to take these measures and what happens when we essentially hit the wall. When this happens countries quickly discover that decisions on social spending are no longer theirs to make but instead made for them by investors and international agencies.

Sweden, a country that has been long looked at as a successful model of society with a highly successful social safety net is on the verge of hitting the wall. In 1994 Sweden's debt to GDP ratio was an alarming 93 per cent while its deficit to GDP ratio was at 11.2 per cent. The year before, Sweden's deficit to GDP ratio was at an all-time high of 13 per cent.

The government there is facing enormous obstacles to overcome and put its fiscal house in order. Because Sweden has waited so long to restructure how its government operates, the very social programs that are the envy of the world are threatened simply because it has lost many of its options to manoeuvre.

This is a situation we must avoid in Canada. On the other hand, there are shining examples of countries that have identified the need to reform before it is too late.

Australia has taken a systematic and measured approach to restructuring how its government operates. It has been done in a way that not only brings down the expenses of government but also makes its programs more efficient, more effective and more relevant to the people who really need help and support. In 1994 Australia posted a 34.4 per cent debt to GDP ratio and a deficit to GDP ratio of 4 per cent.

That is why we have to act now. Our debt to GDP ratio has consistently been rising from 17 per cent in the mid-1970s to more than 71 per cent today. In order to ensure that we remain the masters of our own destiny, of our own ship, we must change. We must adapt.

Last year the government spent nearly $58 billion on social programs. During that same period $38 billion went to pay for interest on the public debt. If we do not get our fiscal house in order now, these interest payments on the debt will be greater than what we spend on social programs. If unchecked, we as other countries have, will hit the wall.

That is what this budget is all about. It is a major step in restructuring the government so that it can give us the kind of strong foundation we need upon which we can build strong social reforms which truly reflect and address the needs and priorities of Canadians in the 1990s.

Initiatives contained in the budget actually support Canada's social policies by creating an economic and fiscal climate conducive to job creation. This budget reflects the sense of balance expressed by a man from the Northwest Territories who responded to the social security reform workbook. He said: "There must be a basic safety net for those who, for whatever reason, are unable to provide the encouragement and the opportunity for people to become self-sufficient".

Some people have been concerned about how the budget might affect Canada's social programs. This is not surprising given the vast amount of speculation and misinformation which

surfaced prior to the release of the budget. No doubt most of this has now been laid to rest by the budget.

For those who might still have some lingering doubts, the best evidence of the government's unwaivering commitment to protecting our social programs comes from the social security reform initiative currently under way.

This initiative seeks to improve our current system by helping Canadians respond to technological and workplace change. It seeks to assure them of the jobs training and security they require. It does this by improving the efficiency of the system, thus guaranteeing its sustainability in the future.

At the same time, our government has no intention of waiting for the benefits that will flow from this budget and social security reform. Instead, we are acting now to ensure that all Canadians have the job and training opportunities they need to enter the mainstream of this country.

Here I think especially of those programs directed toward some of the neediest people in this country, the aboriginal people who have traditionally faced barriers to obtaining access to employment, training and promotions.

Pathways is a program designed for aboriginal people by aboriginal people in partnership with the Government of Canada. It is currently being reviewed to ensure it continues to reflect the needs of the aboriginal people in labour market training.

In addition, the new Canada social transfer, CST, will not affect aboriginal peoples living on reserves since there is no relationship between the CST and funding arrangements for social assistance and services delivered on reserves. This is because the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development provides funding on reserves through arrangements that are separate from the current Canada assistance plan. These arrangements will continue to be separate from the CST.

As well, the CST will not alter the existing responsibilities of the provinces for social assistance services to aboriginal peoples living off reserve. This goes for the government's program review as well.

While the program review will affect all aspects of government operations, the government is committed to providing programs and services to aboriginal peoples. We will continue to live up to our commitments in such areas as human resources development, aboriginal strategic initiatives, First Nations and northern communities child care and the pathways strategy which I mentioned earlier.

In preparing for the budget the government used a series of overarching principles to guide its course.

First, it was critical that government get its own house in order. The budget must focus on cutting spending, not raising taxes.

Second, every dollar counts. Governments do not have money. They are given money and with it they must act like every dollar counts because every dollar does count.

Third, it had to be fair and equitable, fair among our regions and fair among individual Canadians. In this essence the north has not been spared in the budget, but has shared equally and responsibly its burden of fiscal restraint.

As an example, the territorial formula financing payments to the Government of the Northwest Territories will be frozen in 1995-96 and reduced by 5 per cent in 1996-97. This will result in $8 million less in the first year and $58 million less in the second year. It should be noted that the majority of the population of the north is aboriginal.

Weather offices will close in Yellowknife and Inuvik, eliminating seven positions. There too, a bit of innovation and imagination is needed. It opens up an opportunity perhaps for the private sector to look at the possibility of offering this kind of service, maybe in partnership with learning institutions to train the individuals necessary to provide that service.

The Geological Survey of Canada office in Yellowknife will close. Considering the amount of activity in that area with diamond exploration, gold and a whole array of mineral exploration going on, it has been difficult to do that, but I think there is a commitment from the industry itself to pursue interests in that area. It is something we are living with.

The Canada-N.W.T. forestry co-operation agreement will not be renewed when it expires on March 31. The federal excise tax on gasoline and aviation gasoline increased by 1.5 cents, increasing the price of goods and travel in the north. We already have prohibitive costs since for the most part the first choice and option for travel is by air. We do not have a highway system. Most of the isolated communities are off the transportation grid.

The tax on airline travel increased by $5 per flight from $50 to $55, increasing the cost of air travel which is so important to northerners. We do not have the luxury of just getting into our cars or vehicles and driving out onto the highway. The highways we do have are in need of repair and are being repaired constantly by the Government of the Northwest Territories with ever depleting resources.

It shows, that every part of the country was affected, including that part of the country. It is the whole effort of getting back

to basics. People are taking another look at how they do business, how government runs its administration, its bureaucracy and delivers services.

The elimination of the public utilities income tax transfer is not just a problem for Alberta or some of the other provinces. It is a problem for different communities in my area. It will mean the elimination of $700,000 in transfers to consumers of private utility companies.

This is a very hard pill to swallow. In this country we have a partnership with individual Canadians to get our house in order and this is what this is all about.

As difficult and painful as it is, cuts in budgets and programs to aboriginal friendship centres will affect how the friendship centres in the north operate and deliver their programs. However, northerners are resilient people. Like every Canadian, they recognize the importance of getting our fiscal house in order.

Northerners also see opportunity in this budget. Occasions like this one when new arrangements are to be forged and new relationships to be established create positive opportunities for the territorial government to have greater flexibility and for northerners to have a greater say in developing and administering the programs and services which address their needs.

This is an excellent opportunity to see the successful completion of the northern mineral accord. This can give the territorial government along with its other partners the aboriginal groups greater responsibility and autonomy over the economy and fiscal situation in the north. Greater autonomy also means greater flexibility over the programs and services required to meet the needs of northerners.

Every part of this country wants to become self-sustaining and the Northwest Territories is no different with all of its complex diversity of cultures. Its population is not just one race or one group of people, but it is a whole mix of people. Greater autonomy also means there is greater opportunity for co-operation, for consensus building and a whole range of human dynamics that must be considered.

Restructuring through program review, the territorial transfer or the CST also presents the opportunity for constructive dialogue in a process that is inclusive. It is a process which gives a greater voice to all stakeholders and not just government, including community leaders, activists, social workers, youth organizations. It is a comprehensive and inclusive process. It is an opportunity that can lead to greater independence from government, to become increasingly self-sufficient and self-empowering, to become masters of their own destiny and masters of their own ship.

The fourth principle used by the Minister of Finance is that we must have priorities as a country that mirror our needs as a people. These priorities must be reflected in the way government defines its role. It is that principle I would like to expand on and what this will mean on how government will operate in the future, but more important, on what role government will play in the lives of people.

In order to ensure that the needs of Canadians are met, to ensure that programs and services remain relevant and to ensure our continuing economic sovereignty, the budget measures also included a major restructuring of government through program review. Its main objective was to review all categories of federal government spending in order to bring about the most effective and cost efficient way of delivering programs and services to Canadians.

The exercise of program review is not simply a way of bringing down how much government costs. It also makes government more competent and more relevant to the people who really need help and support.

It is time for government to get back to the basics and to reflect the priorities of people. As the Minister of Finance stated in his budget address: "We are acting on the new vision of the role of government in the economy and in society. In many cases that means smaller government. In all cases, it means smarter government".

This government restructuring will have implications on what role government will play in the daily lives of people. To a certain degree government restructuring also means a restructuring of society, and that is where the real opportunity lies in the budget. As government gets back to the basics there are opportunities for Canadians to step forward, to rethink and redefine their values and responsibilities to themselves, their families and their communities.

Governments do not have all the answers and solutions. In redefining its role in Canadian society, the government will need people to step forward and share the burden of responsibility. Where governments have failed in the past, individual Canadians will have to stand up, play positive roles and contribute not only their knowledge but local solutions to local problems and also their sweat equity, their sweat, blood, and tears, to ensure success.

The government is calling on Canadians to participate and to be part of a process that is going to set the future straight for years and generations to come, to ensure a future for our children. This commitment will need to be ongoing even with restructuring; government can only go so far.

I conclude by saying that in the end active participation is the ultimate challenge of the budget. It is a challenge and a

responsibility not only to members of the government and members of the House, but to every person in the country.

As the Prime Minister stated, the key-

[The Budget, March 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House to speak today on a matter of great importance to the economic and social future of the country, namely the budget presented by the Minister of Finance two weeks ago.

In order to fully understand the measures taken by the Minister of Finance, it is useful to recall the fiscal and economic reality that confronted us upon taking power just 16 months ago. Unemployment and interest rates were high. Corporate profitability had plummeted. Business failures were at record levels. Many Canadians had quite literally lost hope. We were confronted with a huge national debt and growing deficit that threatened our economic and social futures.

It was a daunting challenge. However we tackled it head on and made job creation, economic growth and fiscal responsibility our top priorities.

[Firearms Act, February 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I wish the hon. member would not be so suspicious and so cynical. It does not help the whole issue of national unity or anything else for that matter.

The hon. member knows, as all members know, that there is a standing committee. The chairman is sitting in this House today as he well can see. Also, Michell Adkins and a group of officials are travelling across the country. Perhaps the members of the Reform Party will take it upon themselves to ensure that the groups in their ridings have access to both the standing committee as well as to the special group of officials travelling across the country.