Ethel Blondin-Andrew

[Supply, October 29th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I think was very clear in the position that I put forward. I used the American example only to show where we should not go and what we should not do. I did not in any way consider the fact that I was promoting those views.

In fact what we have already works. The procedures and the information that we have gathered have worked their way into the Standing Orders and they work very well.

I will not get into the kind of political mischievousness that appears to be occurring over there right now. We have the serious business at hand of dealing with those appointments, and I have stated the reasons why.

My riding is one that is steeped in development and it depends on having those people in place. We cannot wait for or waste time on cheap political shots like that to get the process in place that we need to deliver the goods. For 25 years we have been doing billions of dollars worth of development in my area, which depends on these regulatory boards. We do not need this kind of nonsense.

[Supply, October 29th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for York West.

The motion calls upon the government to refer most appointments to Commons committees for detailed scrutiny. At first glance the proposal does seem attractive. After all, which of us does not want to remove even the slightest hint of patronage or cronyism in the appointment process? Which of us would not support the extension of greater democracy or expanding the powers of MPs in committees?

However, as they say, the devil is in the details, and so it is with this motion.

The motion that originally was brought forward would actually weaken our standing orders concerning government appointments. Our standing orders require that all non-judicial order in council appointments be tabled in the House so that committees can review the person's qualifications and competencies if they choose to do so. This applies to all deputy ministers, ambassadors, consul generals and the heads of crown corporations and most regulatory boards such as the CRTC.

By the way, we have for the first time in the history of the CRTC an aboriginal person by the name of Ron Williams sitting on the board. He is a Métis and a former entrepreneur who owned a cable company. He has all the competencies needed and required to be totally qualified to sit on the CRTC. That created a balance that was needed on that regulatory board. We have tried to achieve that with all of the others. I highly recommend the process.

Appointments to the National Energy Board, the Canadian Transportation Agency and even some quasi-judicial appointments are tabled in the House on the basis of House precedent, such as the appointments to the Immigration and Refugee Board.

I want to talk about the regulatory boards. I come from an area steeped in resource development. We have great need for the work of these regulatory boards. We need those appointments to be made efficiently and quickly because industry does not wait for the government system or machinery to come into place or the bodies to fall into place in order to do what they have to do. I will give an example.

On the land and water boards and the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board we have the capacity to do what is needed for many of the industry partners that want to move ahead with development. One example is the huge move in the diamond resource development area. Two mines went through an environmental process and they needed to do that in concert with those regulatory boards. The land and water boards issue water licences. They cannot wait for us to go through a machinery of government process here to appoint people to do the work they need to do. They also issue land permits. They cannot wait for that purpose either.

We have been able to achieve a certain balance in gender and regional appointments, including those target groups that would never otherwise get a chance: aboriginal people, minorities, and women. We also have to create a balance so that we do not have a board totally full of lawyers or scientists. This is the way in which we see the process bear out the facts of what is needed.

The standing orders are more comprehensive than what the Bloc proposed in its motion yesterday. The Bloc motion does not include the appointments of deputy ministers or any quasi-judicial bodies. The Bloc motion put on notice yesterday did not go as far as others on the opposition's side might wish. For example, it did not recommend requiring parliamentary review of judicial appointments nor did it require parliamentary approval of appointments.

I have concerns with such proposals as they could result in an American-style approach to reviewing appointments; basically a witch hunt, a muckraking process mired in irrelevant, unnecessary details, and investigations of those unnecessary details.

I want to ask members of the House if this is what they want, especially having spent any time at all watching the nomination hearings in the United States that often are used simply to score political points. It is very politically driven.

Sadly, such hearings send important messages to ordinary citizens, but not the ones legislators might wish. The main message is this: Let a person's name stand for an important appointment and the person and his or her family may suffer public humiliation and embarrassment in front of millions of fellow citizens for wanting to do a public service, for wanting to contribute to one's country and its citizens. These are well-intended motives. As a result, many highly qualified candidates are discouraged from letting their names stand for consideration. What a terrible loss of potential talent.

I ask the House, is this what we want in our country? Of course I am not the first to ask this question, It was studied in some detail by the McGrath committee, which investigated ways of increasing the involvement of MPs in the appointment process.

At the time, the committee took a long, hard look at the American experience and found problems with it. There was considerable variation from committee to committee in the intensity and thoroughness of the review that existed. It was very arbitrary. There were almost no written standards. There was a wide variation in the documentation required for a nomination and the staff resources available to study it. The committee found that while a large number of appointments potentially could be subjected to public hearings and scrutiny, the reality was that committees often devoted most of their time to those nominations most likely to garner the greatest publicity.

We must think of that. That is abhorrent. In effect, the system was weighted in favour of media circuses, high profile media circuses that can take on a life of their own and where we lose the essence of what the process is all about in the first place.

For these reasons and many more, the committee recommended that we not follow the U.S. example. We are a country. We have our own ways.

Instead, smaller steps were recommended, some of which have found their way into our Standing Orders. As a result, MPs and committees now have wider powers to examine appointments and nominations of interest to them. For example, Standing Order 110 requires that all non-judicial order in council appointments be tabled within five sitting days following their appearance in the Canada Gazette , and appointments are deemed to have been referred to the appropriate standing committee for review. Standing Order 111 gives committees up to 30 sitting days to review the “qualifications and competence” of appointees or nominees and requires ministers to provide to committee members the curriculum vitae, that is, the CVs or resumés, of the appointees should they be requested.

As members can see, the House of Commons already has many procedures in place allowing MPs to undertake detailed scrutiny of appointments.

Finally, we need to ask ourselves why we should fix a system that is not broken: “it ain't broke, don't fix it”. After all, the reality is that Canada's system for making appointments has worked admirably, by anyone's standards. In this regard we would do well to note the comments of Transparency International, the world's leading international organization dedicated to rooting out corruption in government and business.

Since issuing its first report in 1995, it has ranked Canada as the G-8 nation with the lowest level of perceived corruption, and among the seven best in the world. Clearly we are doing something right, so we need to ask ourselves if this is the time to take an entirely new and unnecessary approach. I think not. This is particularly true of judicial appointments, which would run the risk of degenerating into fiascos if we followed the U.S. approach.

What would this do to our system of justice and the respect it is held in by Canadians for its impartiality? Would it improve the already high quality of persons serving on our highest court? Would it expose nominees to cheap political shots that would discourage those well-qualified individuals unable to stomach the thought of a public inquisition, which is so unnecessary? Of course, we could probably make some improvements to our current procedure. After all, democracy is a work in progress. Members should work with the government so that we can make existing procedures work even better.

[Aboriginal Affairs, October 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in the Speech from the Throne the Government of Canada committed to improving the lives of aboriginal children by expanding aboriginal head start, establishing early childhood development for first nations, improving parental supports, providing communities with the tools to address fetal alcohol syndrome, improving educational outcomes for first nations children and taking steps to help special needs first nations children.

It also committed to helping families and children out of poverty by increasing the national child benefit, increasing access to early learning opportunities and quality child care and helping children with special needs and--

[Health Care System, October 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have been in cabinet for nine years and over those nine years most of the programs we undertake with young people are preventive and early intervention. These programs are geared to give children a healthier start. The national child benefit is one of those, prenatal nutrition, aboriginal head start, Inuit and first nations child care. All of those programs are designed to provide an earlier and a healthier start for children.

We know we have to be at the front end delivering the kinds of services to ensure a healthy start by building a foundation. Most if not all of the government programs are geared to that end. I think we are heading in the right direction and we will continue to do that.

[Health Care System, October 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague should know that we have a problem globally with recruitment and retention of professional health workers, be they doctors, nurses or in other categories. This is a global phenomena.

We are challenged and I suppose in days to come we will receive more reports that will help us to better focus on where we should go. It is not necessarily the issue of resources, it is the issue of priorities and this is definitely a priority.

Canadians should know that other organizations can speak to this better than us here in the House, one being the aboriginal physicians association. I have met with that organization since I became a member of Parliament 14 years ago.

It is true that many professional aboriginals have entered the field but more are needed. We need more health professionals in the mainstream, not just aboriginal professionals.

There was definitely a focus in previous budgets as well in the throne speech. I am presuming that the reports that have been put out and the ones that will come later will put greater emphasis on the need for health professionals.

The member is correct in saying that we share that concern. I know there will be a focus on that. I know we are doing a good job but we will continue to work harder for all Canadians.

[Health Care System, October 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this important debate today. I am very excited by the government's renewed commitment in the Speech from the Throne to close the gap in life chances between aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians.

In consideration of the debate I want to focus on aboriginal health issues. This is an approach that I have been advocating over my many years as a member of Parliament. I am thrilled to have the opportunity to work with the Minister of Health and her department in their commitment to close the health gap for our first nations and Inuit people. We know there is still a long way to go in closing this gap and, although progress is slow, it is being made.

Mortality and morbidity rates have fallen and the gap in life expectancy between aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians has decreased in the past 25 years. The life expectancy of status first nations women on and off reserve, for example, rose from about 66 years of age to 77 years of age. However that is still five years less than the Canadian average of 82 years of age for women nationally.

The health status of aboriginal people, particularly those living on reserve, still remains much poorer than that of other Canadians. Aboriginal people are still at greater risk of chronic disease. The rate of diabetes is four times higher, arthritis is three times higher and suicide is six times higher, especially among young people. Those are astonishing rates.

On some reserves conditions are such that the challenge of improving health outcomes is very complex. We are mindful that any long term solution requires an integrated and complementary approach. Factors, such as education and income, environmental factors like housing and water supply, and lifestyle factors like diet, exercise, smoking and alcohol intake, all influence the health status of first nations people and Inuit.

Work in improving the health of aboriginal people at Health Canada and with its partners is not just part of the government's broader commitment to improve life chances for aboriginal people. It is dependent upon the work of other federal departments and agencies, provincial and territorial governments and aboriginal communities to act on the broader determinants of health.

In my riding of the Western Arctic the health and social services department of the government of the Northwest Territories has put in place an action plan of commitments under the leadership of Minister Michael Miltenberger. This plan includes five areas and all residents of the Northwest Territories.

The first area improves the services to people. The second area improves the services to staff. This includes human resource development and planning. The third is improvements to system of wide management which will see a joint leadership council to provide leadership to the health and social services system and a system wide planning and reporting model. The fourth improves support to trustees of the leadership model for health and social services. The fifth improves system wide accountability by establishing clear accountability and action reporting.

We all have work to do and I am encouraged that the Speech from the Throne makes a number of specific commitments to take further action to close the gap in health status between aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians. These commitments are forward looking and positive and will work to support first nations people in laying the foundation for good health.

By putting in place the first nations health promotion and disease prevention strategy, the government will work to reduce the incidence of disease and mitigate the life threatening and disabling consequences of disease. A targeted immunization program that will ensure first nations' children on reserve have access to early childhood vaccinations will be an important part of disease prevention.

The first nations and Inuit health system delivered through Health Canada is the foundation for the federal government's delivery of health services to first nations and Inuit. Health Canada operates this large and dynamic health system providing a wide range of health care services. In the Speech from the Throne the government also specifically committed itself to working with its partners to improve health care delivery on reserve.

The first nations and Inuit health system provides services including nursing services, prenatal and children's programs, public health disease prevention, addiction services and environmental health services in over 600 first nations and Inuit communities.

In addition, Health Canada provides supplemental health benefits to over 700,000 first nations and Inuit individuals both on and off reserve in order cover the costs of prescription drugs, dental services, vision care and other benefits, including medical transportation to access medical services away from their home communities.

The federal government currently spends $1.3 billion per year to address the health care needs of first nations and Inuit. As well, provinces and territories cover the costs of physicians and hospital care. Greater coordination of the provincial and territorial governments to ensure efficient and seamless service delivery is the priority.

The government's goal is to work with first nations and Inuit communities and with the provinces and territories to renew, improve and close gaps in health services on reserve.

As for the broader health system, Health Canada recognizes that change and renewal are needed to provide high quality services to first nations and Inuit in the most efficient and effective way possible. This task has many challenges.

In its health delivery system role for first nations-Inuit, Health Canada faces many of the same pressures that are currently being felt by the provinces and territories. This includes nursing shortages in my riding and doctor shortages, rapidly increasing costs of prescription drugs and expensive new technologies. We also face challenges posed by such factors as remoteness, lower health status and a first nations and Inuit population growth rate more than twice the national average. Many of the communities in my riding are accessible only by air travel and people only have access to a doctor once a week, perhaps less than that, and a nursing station with one nurse the remainder of the time.

Amid considerable cost pressures, Health Canada has made progress in controlling expenditure growth. For example, the non-insured health benefits program has been successful in reducing its rate from 20% in 1991 to 5% and 8% in recent years. This does not go without challenges. There are many things to consider under the first nations non-insured health benefits system for aboriginal people. I must say that there are challenges and those are the things that we struggle with.

In collaboration with the Assembly of First Nations and the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, the national first nations-Inuit organizations, Health Canada has been working to develop and implement an overarching accountability framework. This framework is intended to ensure the most effective and efficient use of resources and better health programs and outcomes for first nations and Inuit people.

However our focus has not only been delivering our fundamental programs effectively and sustainably. We have also looked to improving and building upon that foundation.

Recently the government developed a home and community care program to provide core home care services on first nation reserves and in Inuit communities. Seventy-seven per cent of eligible communities have completed initial program planning activities and 37% of communities are already accessing home and community care services with over 180,000 clients.

Canada's aboriginal population is young. Thirty-five per cent of aboriginal people are under the age of 15. This means that aboriginal health care must have a strong focus on children. Childhood development from birth to age six lays the foundation for lifelong health and well-being. The focus on children and youth becomes more and more important as we see an increasing incidence of childhood diabetes and as we also work to combat tuberculosis in our communities.

Speaking of children, I welcome the commitment in the throne speech to put in place early childhood development programs for first nations, including an expansion of aboriginal head start. Aboriginal head start has proven to be a very successful program in first nations communities. It teaches our children simple life skills at an early age that will carry them through their school years.

In addition, the government has committed to improving parental supports and providing aboriginal communities with the tools they need to address fetal alcohol syndrome and its effects. FAS and FAE are disabilities caused by drinking during pregnancy. It is a completely preventable cause of birth defects and developmental delays that leave these children and their families with a legacy of profound and lasting challenges.

Consistent with the government's commitment in the Speech from the Throne, Health Canada is actively building partnerships with first nations and Inuit organizations and communities. We are moving toward the development of strategies to improve the effectiveness and sustainability of first nations and Inuit health.

Together we are working at finding solutions to these challenges and we are continuing our efforts to close the gap in the health status between aboriginal people and non-aboriginal Canadians.

There is no higher priority than the health of our citizens across Canada. As members can see from the statistics, we have a major challenge in dealing with the health of aboriginal people across the country.

I submit to the House that this debate is important in dealing with the health care of aboriginal people.

[Supply, October 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is noted around the world that new environmental technologies create not only jobs but create opportunities for business and many people in the private sector. It is an opportunity to be looked at.

If we want to be on the cutting edge in the new economy, if we want to work with the knowledge economy and get at the environmental issues in some of those innovative ways, we have to go there. We are not talking about a proliferation of government. We are talking about bringing the partnerships together that will allow industry to have ownership, to have participation, to have active engagement on these issues that it can do best.

We are not talking about government going in as storm troopers and doing for industry what industry can do for itself or for other stakeholders. It is a collaborative approach, a partnership we are looking for that will be efficient and effective.

[Supply, October 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, rather than blaming or picking sides, I believe there is a great deal to be had by collaboration. I will not go through the history of world evolution and how we went through various stages and ages. I would like to deal with the issue that we have right now.

There has been irreversible damage done to our environment in various parts of the world. There is the whole issue of climate change to deal with. We as Canadian citizens, and especially as representatives of all Canadians, are very challenged to find ways to work together to come to some resolve on reversing those effects.

What we need to do is not look at the people who are vitriolically opposed to each other and who are so divergent in their views that they cannot come together. I believe there are more who would like to come together to collaborate, to mull over those partnerships that will allow the stakeholders to take ownership and responsibility for what has happened and help carve out an implementation plan that is workable for everyone. There is a possibility of doing that.

If we think that by offering explanations we can avoid our responsibility, we are sadly mistaken. We have to work together and collaborate. There is room for that. I think industry wants to play that role. There are many in industry who are responsible.

For example, BP Amoco has undertaken numerous steps to deal with the reduction of emissions. It plants trees. It has a huge project on that. There are many environmentally friendly industry stakeholders that want to be part of the process.

I do not think that being divergent in views and putting our best arguments forward is what it is all about. It is about putting our ideas forward that will work for the environment.

[Supply, October 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I come from a riding in an area of Canada that depends on cold weather. We are very challenged in terms of infrastructure, unlike my colleague from the Yukon whose communities, all except for one, are accessible by road. We do not have that kind of infrastructure. Most of our communities are isolated and we depend on a winter road structure.

With the melting of the permafrost, our winter road season is becoming shorter. It is a very difficult problem for the north. The north is probably most graphic in its illustration of how we are the repository of all things bad in terms of the environment, not because we do not have a beautiful environment, but because we are an area that is very vulnerable. We receive the persistent organic pollutants from around the world. The heavy metals from around the world wherever those industrialized countries are collect in the colder climate areas, that being northern Canada.

We could be compared to the canary in the mine when it comes to the environment. We are the warning sound. We are the warning bell, and very graphically so, for other parts of the world if things go wrong.

People can question how is it that Inuit mothers have pesticides or chemicals in their breast milk that they pass on to their children. How is it that many of our animals will be affected? For instance, if we have warmer climates, or if we have hot and cold climates that run up against one another, our animals will not be able to feed properly. The caribou depend on lichen. They can only get to lichen when there is light snow. If there is a melting of the snow and a freezing of the snow, they cannot get to their food. It affects the every essence of how people live traditionally in the north.

Having said that, many members will know that I am a huge fan and a proponent of oil and gas development in the north. I consider myself a friend of the industry but I am also a friend of the environment. I want to see a northern gas pipeline develop. I believe it is not a carbon intensive activity in the sense that oil would be. I believe it is less polluting than other sources and it is possible. I also think in my position as a northern representative that we can have both.

If we think we can have a clean environment without having a strategy and without setting a target like we have in Kyoto, it is impossible. There is a price to pay. We will not regain the cleanliness and the pureness of our environment no matter where we live in the world without a price. It is ridiculous to think that we will. It will cost money.

My colleague across the way talked about consumer behaviour. He belittled such aspects as making sure the clothes dryer is full. As in health care, the only way to really affect the health care of people is to change the behaviour of people. Consumer behaviour is a big part of what we do in terms of the environment as it would be with our health.

We have to change the way human beings behave. In some countries around the world recycling is a way of life. It is a consumer behaviour that has been endorsed and people do it. It was never thought of before. In some places we still struggle with it but if we have that kind of attitude, things will never change. It will cost money. It will take a bit of effort. It will take compromise but we need to care. What could be more important than the environment that our children and our grandchildren are going to live in? In my area it is absolutely important.

People generally accept what the intergovernmental panel on climate change and its more than 3,000 scientists from around the world have to say. People accept it when that panel says that most of the warming observed over the past 50 years is attributable to human activities; that human induced climate change will accelerate in the years ahead; and that extreme weather events will be more frequent and more severe due to climate change. They should accept it.

There are 17 national academies of science from around the world that have independently reviewed this work and endorsed its conclusions. I am sorry if some people do not like good science. Certainly I, and everyone in the House who has spoken, accept that there is an issue that merits action and of course the Government of Canada accepts it and has done so for many years.

Our elders in the Northwest Territories have been talking about climate change for years. It is not a new thing. It is not as abrupt and as comic as some people would refer to it as. This is a very serious issue and we all have a stake in it, including the members opposite.

It has been just over a decade that the rest of us have clued in basically. In the Northwest Territories we are feeling the effects of climate change on a daily basis with our warmer and somewhat shorter winters and our wetter and hotter summers. This does not sound like a bad thing but the north is built on the premise that it is cold. Special construction techniques have been used on all our infrastructure to accommodate the permafrost below the surface ensuring that it remains frozen.

I am sharing my time, Mr. Speaker, with the hon. member for Davenport and I am honoured to do so.

I am very enthusiastic on this issue and I am very resolved to supporting the Kyoto protocol, as are my premier and the people in the Northwest Territories. They too want a pipeline but we understand that we have to care about the environment as well.

Special construction techniques, as I have indicated, have been used on our infrastructure to accommodate the permafrost. Most people who have spoken do not know what frost heave is and how expensive it is. Most people do not understand, except for my colleague from Nunavut who lives with permafrost and has to deal with that sort of condition. The warmer temperatures are now beginning to slowly melt that permafrost. The repercussions of this phenomenon are obvious and expensive.

Because of the long commitment to action, when Canada ratifies the Kyoto protocol, we will not be starting from square one. Over the past few years the Government of Canada has built a record of consistent action on climate change. I want to take a few minutes to point out some of these actions now.

One of the most fundamental points that I have to make about these actions is that they usually are built around partnerships. They are not just Ottawa doing something all by itself. These are actions that are encouraging collaborative approaches to an issue that affects us all. These are actions that are bringing together partners in government, business, communities and more. Indeed a lot of the initial work involved collaboration to examine the issues and identify options for action even before Kyoto. There were many discussions where there was consensus and agreement. Some people have conveniently forgotten that.

For example, much of this work has taken place under the direction of ministers of energy and the environment from the Government of Canada and all the provinces and territories since 1993, including my territorial counterparts in the government of the Northwest Territories who have been actively participating at the table on this issue. These ministers generally have met annually and often more than that. Many of the provincial and territorial ministers have been included in Canada's delegations to international climate change meetings and conferences, including Kyoto in 1997. In fact, there has indeed been a great deal of time and money spent on climate change consultation since 1992. Ten years and $22.3 million has been spent on consultations with provinces alone.

That collaboration set the stage for broader partnerships such as the work of the national climate change task group. This group brought together the Government of Canada, the governments of the provinces and territories, industry and environmental groups. They have looked at climate change and related issues affecting specific sectors and affecting Canada in general. That task group consulted with stakeholders and developed the general report with recommendations.

In 1994-95 it took the report out for public consultation across Canada that led to a summary report. All this work, plus input from ongoing federal-provincial meetings, fed into Canada's action plan on climate change released in 1995. I say this because there are people sitting here now who are not aware of the history of this evolving process. It also helped to identify priorities for other efforts and investments.

There is so much more I could speak to. I have so many other notes, including the announced Government of Canada action plan, a $500 million five year initiative plan, a planned 2,000 targets and key sectors, including initiatives in transportation.

Let me finish by saying I unequivocally support the ratification of the Kyoto protocol with my northern counterparts and with all the people of the north. We know we will feel the effects of it, but we do not walk away from our intent to be progressive and to work on resource development.

[Species at Risk Act, June 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks of my hon. colleague and his inquiry about the whole issue of how the legislation would impact on areas that cover 40% of the geography of Canada and the role that different individuals have played.

Over nine years there have been many people involved. I think of the late Mr. Jim Bourque, one of the best wildlife officers we had in the Northwest Territories who later sat on some of the free trade and export boards because of his expertise. Mr. Bourque was a reflection of many individuals, including my former colleague, Mr. Anawak, and Willie Littlechild, who was a Conservative member from the other side, and others as well.

Many leaders who were not members of parliament had some influence on the process that contributed to it. Two points were always raised: first, there had to be some kind of instrument for representation of aboriginal people, the working group is a reflection of that; and second, the traditional knowledge had to be incorporated. Even if we talked to people on the round table on the environment and the economy, the sustainable development committees, they always referred to traditional knowledge and the importance of place.

This would be vacuous legislation if it did not include a provision for those two things, so there is a lot of gratitude for many of the individuals who have their expertise on polar bear. Canada along with the Northwest Territories has many conventions, including one on polar bears and one on migratory birds. Canada is not new at this. We are good at this. We have a track record to show we are proven conservationists. We are natural at that. We live with habitat that is plentiful, unlike other countries in the world that do not have many of the species we do.

I thank my colleague for his comments. I also thank those individuals out there who will not get the kind of accolades they deserve. I think these are two important elements. I think all those individuals should be thanked. I also want to thank the member for Kitchener Centre for her work. She has done an outstanding job. It has been a perilous road on this bill.