Ethel Blondin-Andrew

[Species at Risk Act, February 25th, 2002]

moved:

Motion No. 19

That Bill C-5, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing lines 24 to 26 on page 9 with the following:

“A copy of the agreement must be included in the public registry within 45 days after it is entered into, and a copy of every annual report must be included in the public registry within 45 days after it is received by the delegating minister.”.

Motion No. 30

That Bill C-5, in Clause 15, be amended by replacing lines 23 to 26 on page 13 with the following:

“(c.1) indicate in the assessment whether the wildlife species migrates across Canada's boundary or has a range extending across Canada's boundary;”.

Motion No. 32

That Bill C-5, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing lines 16 to 18 on page 15 with the following:

“knowledge subcommittee must be appointed by the Minister after consultation with any aboriginal organization he or she considers appropriate.”.

Motion No. 34

That Bill C-5, in Clause 25, be amended by replacing, in the French version, lines 35 to 42 on page 16 with the following:

“(3) Dans les quatre-vingt-dix jours suivant la réception de l'évaluation visée au paragraphe (1), le ministre est tenu de mettre dans le registre une déclaration énonçant comment il se propose de réagir à l'évaluation et, dans la mesure du possible, selon quel échéancier.”.

Motion No. 36

That Bill C-5, in Clause 28, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 35 on page 18 with the following:

“its assessment. A copy of the assessment”.

Motion No. 66

That Bill C-5, in Clause 37, be amended by replacing lines 10 to 18 on page 23 with the following:

“(2) If there is more than one competent minister with respect to the wildlife species, they must prepare the”.

Motion No. 68

That Bill C-5, in Clause 41, be amended by replacing, in the English version, lines 13 and 14 on page 25 with the following:

“distribution objectives that will assist the recovery and survival of the species, and”.

Motion No. 69

That Bill C-5, in Clause 42, be amended by replacing line 18 on page 26 with the following:

“listed as a threatened species or an extirpated species.”.

Motion No. 70

That Bill C-5, in Clause 43, be amended by replacing, in the English version, lines 19 and 20 on page 26 with the following:

“43. (1) Within 60 days after the proposed recovery strategy is included in the public”.

Motion No. 71

That Bill C-5, in Clause 44, be amended by

(a) replacing lines 35 to 37 on page 26 with the following:

“by the competent minister as the proposed recovery strategy, he or she must include it in the public registry as the proposed recovery strategy in relation to”

(b) replacing line 3 on page 27 with the following:

“wildlife species into a proposed recovery strategy for”.

Motion No. 73

That Bill C-5, in Clause 46, be amended by replacing lines 20 to 23 on page 27 with the following:

“the public registry and in every subsequent five-year period, until its objectives have been achieved or the species' recovery is no longer feasible. The report must”.

Motion No. 77

That Bill C-5, in Clause 51, be amended by

(a) replacing lines 42 and 43 on page 29 with the following:

“competent minister as a proposed action plan, he or she must include it in the public registry as a proposed”

(b) replacing line 3 on page 30 with the following:

“wildlife species into a proposed action plan for the”.

[Species at Risk Act, February 25th, 2002]

moved:

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-5, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 10 and 11 on page 6 with the following:

“gy included in the public registry under subsection 43(2), and includes any amendment”.

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-5, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 15 on page 6 with the following:

“den, nest or other similar area or place, that”.

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-5, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 11 and 12 on page 7 with the following:

“cies, variety or biologically distinct population of animal, plant or”.

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-5, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 21 and 22 on page 7 with the following:

“cies, subspecies, variety or biologically distinct population is, in the”.

[Species at Risk Act, February 25th, 2002]

moved:

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-5, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 10 on page 3 with the following:

“in the public registry under subsection 50(3)”.

[Species at Risk Act, February 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak on Bill C-5. In Canada's north there is a very close relationship between the people and the wildlife. We know from what has been handed down from generation to generation about the different kinds of species in the north, how they live and thrive and where they live. We depend on wildlife in many ways. They are an important part of our heritage.

In Canada's north we are made up of territories and not provinces. In the overall federal strategy to protect species at risk and in the species at risk act itself we are treated as equal partners. Our heritage and connection to the environment and wildlife are well recognized. What is also recognized in this proposed act is the co-operation based approach we take on many issues affecting the north.

By glancing down the list of these motions one might get the impression that there is a move afoot to undo the work of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development.

This is not the case at all. In fact the standing committee has made over 100 amendments to Bill C-5, many of which provide additional clarity to the intent of the proposed act. The government supports most of these amendments, although in some cases the text will have to be cleaned up. Approximately 30 government motions deal with what we can call housekeeping matters to ensure consistency in wording throughout the bill while maintaining the intent of the standing committee amendments.

There are however some significant amendments from the standing committee that change the fundamental approach of the legislation, an approach that we have worked on long and hard with provinces and territories in Canada.

I am not here to provide a lecture on federal-provincial-territorial relations. Nor am I planning on instructing my colleagues on the Canadian constitution, however tempting that might be. However members will see, as I discuss several key government motions, that the urge to deliver both lectures is fairly tempting. I am here to speak in favour of the government motions that restore the co-operative approach with provinces and territories.

Unfortunately, standing committee amendments eliminate the incentives for the territories to complete the development of their own species at risk legislation to meet their commitments under the accord. The standing committee's approach, whereby the safety net is only available in the territories for game species, does not fit at all with the way things are done now. It also contradicts ongoing devolution of federal responsibilities to territorial governments.

Under the standing committee's approach, we end up being hypocrites. Here we are devolving authorities to the territories and doing such things as engaging in self-government talks. We promote the empowerment of people so they can sustain themselves economically, politically, socially and otherwise. However, what do we do? We hamstring them with legislation. We are devolving these authorities but we would be taking them away through the species at risk act. I am sure members will agree this does not work and it is not how we want to act.

We all agree that governments have a responsibility to protect species and their critical habitats in their jurisdictions. That is why the government signed the accord for the protection of species at risk with provinces and territories in 1996.

Canada is a large country and we must work together to protect species and habitats. The accord is key to maintaining good relations with other jurisdictions and it is working. Since it was agreed to, most provinces and territories have introduced or amended their legislation to meet their commitments in the accord.

Bill C-5 is intended to be a key component of the government's efforts to meet its commitments under the accord. If the intent of the bill is contrary to the accord, we are certainly not doing our part. More important, we would be seriously jeopardizing relationships that are critical to wildlife management in Canada.

I was born in the north. I have lived in the north in a largely harvesting conservation family for more than one generation. We have lived with the wildlife species in my area and still harvest after generations the same species because we probably have inherited the gift of knowing how important that wildlife isto us.

We did not need legislation to do that. I am not saying we should not have legislation, but we should remember when we empower those people, governments and districts and give them the levels of authority, then we should respect our agreements.

Changes that diminish the incentive for other jurisdictions to strengthen their legislative base consistent with the accord for the protection of species at risk will not work. Nor should the proposed species at risk act contradict our approach to devolution in the territories.

The standing committee amendments fail to recognize that territorial laws cover more than game species. The government agrees with the standing committee that protection should be effective, however we cannot support amendments that make it a legal requirement to reach federal-provincial-territorial agreement on what this constitutes within six months.

Work is ongoing among federal, provincial and territorial governments to develop bilateral agreements and a policy for determining effective protection under the accord.

The tight timeline of six months on such an important matter is impractical and raises serious concerns. It derides the whole issue of consensus building and getting people to buy into the process and understand it fully. The government motions ensure that the policy is developed in a timely and inclusive manner. It would be more effective over the long term to have all governments sign on together to an agreement that outlines commitments for species and habitat protection than it would be for the federal government to try to unilaterally impose criteria on the provinces and territories.

Our relationship with the federal, provincial and territorial governments is a very tricky dance. It is a very delicate and sensitive issue. We must respect that and guard the progress we have made with them.

It is necessary for the governor in council to have the discretion to make decisions related to intergovernmental issues. That is the way it works in Canada. The governor in council also does not want to be put in a position where a province or territory or the endangered species conservation council dictates that action be taken, action such as applying the safety net, that may have a considerable impact on resources.

Think of what it could mean in a case where compensation might be applied. These are important motions. In no way do they negate or discredit the work of the standing committee. However, within the context of many years of federal-provincial-territorial co-operation on species and habitat, we know otherwise and must make these motions for governor in council discretion on the safety net. Legislation cannot guarantee the protection of species at risk and their critical habitat.

A co-operative approach backed by broad authorities to step in when necessary comes as close as we can to ensuring we achieve the stated purposes of the bill. We have an excellent bill that is the result of much hard work, many years of study, of steady consultation, good will on the part of provinces and territories and a made in Canada approach.

These motions are in keeping with such an approach, and I urge all members of the House to support them.

[Aboriginal Affairs, February 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, as we develop the skills agenda, we are committed to ensuring that opportunities are created for more aboriginal people. We will be consulting all the appropriate stakeholders.

In addition to that, in the last budget we committed $185 million to help reduce the incidence of fetal alcohol syndrome and its effects, to help with child care, as well as the aboriginal head start initiative, which would aid early childhood development, and to support programs for children who have special needs on reserve. We have also invested $1.5 billion for aboriginal human resource development--

[Employment, January 31st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we know that summer employment is important to students to help them pay for their education and gain valuable work experience.

We also know through the summer career placement program that we expect over 55,000 students to find jobs this year. Through this program we offer wage subsidies to private, public and not for profit employers to create jobs related to student career interests and fields of study. This program is very important for young people.

[The Budget, December 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Egmont. It is with a great deal of pride that I rise before the House to express my enthusiastic support for the budget presented earlier this week by the Minister of Finance.

This prudent and thoughtful document underscores our government's unwavering commitment to build a strong economy and a secure society to improve the quality of life for Canadians. Budget 2001 reinforces that we live in a caring society where opportunity is assured for all, a society where the notion of security extends beyond borders and national economic interests.

This is a strategic budget. The investments that are made are prudent. We cannot pretend things have not changed. We are in a period of cautious optimism. We must be strategic with our investments.

The budget is indicative of a society where, as I indicated, security extends beyond borders and national economic interests to encompass the security needs of the most vulnerable, a society that ensures the full inclusion of all its members. That is why I speak not only as the Secretary of State for Children and Youth but as the member of parliament for Western Arctic.

In my region there is a great need for infrastructure. The $2 billion strategic infrastructure investment foundation that was announced is welcome in my riding because there are a great deal of needs. In a geography as large as we have with over half a million square miles in which 32 communities cover the expanse, over 50% of the aboriginal people are of Metis, Dene or Inuit descent.

We are demographically challenged because we have a young population. Many of the people are under the age of 25. Therefore the $186 million announced over a two year period would hit on the expansion and enhancement of head start. It would also include $60 million for special education needs and early intervention as well as $25 million over a two year period which would include a reduction of the incidence of FAS and FAE. These are areas that would have a great deal of appeal and acceptance among people in the north.

Of course we have other commitments I would like to speak about, in particular the $680 million that has been included for affordable housing. These are areas of particular concern to northerners. We have a great need because we have a harsh environment and we are challenged in terms of providing the kind of accommodation people need to live in. Affordable housing is a huge issue in the north.

We also have the $600 million that was announced in Budget 2000 but was not implemented. It will be implemented for highways. This element has a great deal of appeal for northerners because of the high rate of non-renewable resource development in mining and minerals, especially the diamond industry. We currently have a producing mine, the Ekati mine. We have the Diavik mine which is under construction and we have a third mine under review and assessment, the Snap Lake DeBeers mine.

There are many other opportunities. We have the looming opportunity of oil and gas development. We have the whole discussion of developing a pipeline to bring northern resources to southern markets. That could involve the marrying of American and Canadian resources in the Arctic. Natural oil and gas in the high Arctic would be for the benefit of northerners as well as all Canadians because of the revenues that would accrue from bringing the resource to market for Canada. The exploration and exploitation of the resources would benefit the whole country.

On the heels of that, when we talk about aboriginal communities we also talk about things that were perhaps not in the budget but are a work in progress.

The north is a progressively developing area politically, socially, culturally and economically. It will have opportunities once these developments are onstream. The mines have 25 year lifespans. A pipeline could have the same lifespan. These would be producing and are producing already. The mines are putting money back into federal fiscal coffers.

We now get a $19,000 per capita transfer for each individual in our territory. Once we have all these developments online we should be able to return to fiscal coffers revenues of about $98,000 per person.

With half the aboriginal population that exists in the north it would be unprecedented for Canada to have a territory with many provincial-like responsibilities which could become a have territory that sustains itself. This is something we anticipate could happen.

However we need further assistance. Many developments across the country did not happen on their own. Hibernia did not happen on its own. It was listed in the 1998 or 1999 budget that we would get a northern economic development strategy. We still have a need for a pan-northern economic development strategy and we have called for it in previous budgets.

We also need an investment of about $250 million for a non-renewable resource development strategy. This would include capacity building. It would include making sure we have tradespeople and specific skilled individuals such as mechanics, electricians and high pressure welders who would help build the pipeline if we do that, and I anticipate we will.

Everyone knows we are vulnerable. We have two huge border areas in our territory. To the north we have the circumpolar region. We are exposed and vulnerable. We are hard pressed to maintain Arctic sovereignty with the kind of monitoring that goes on. We need to look at part of the $7 billion security package for the north. We also need to beef up the Alaska, U.S. border to the west of the territory which seems to be loosely monitored.

If we are to pay the $12 air safety fee which is $24 return we need to receive that service. Nunavut and the Northwest Territories do not have the kind of air security service other areas have. Northerners are like all other Canadians. They want to contribute. They want to play a significant role in Canada as a whole. We cannot do that if we do not get the same level of service. It becomes impossible for us to justify.

There is only one mode of transportation in the majority of the regions of Nunavut and the Northwest Territories by air. We are captive to air travel. We do not have the choice of train, bus, highway or other ground transportation. We cannot travel by boat because we have four seasons in our region.

We are thrilled with the budget. There is potential in it. We are realistic about it. We accept it and we can work with it. We also believe the work must come both ways. We must understand that the $186 million intended for children on reserves speaks to a northern community where there are no reserves.

We also need to know the $680 million for affordable housing would be equitably distributed to our people. We need to know the $600 million that is there for the highway addresses the issue of the formula that is used. Existing highways are limited and that is what the formula is based on. We need to get around that to give the north what it needs to continue with the development that is happening.

We cannot underscore how important the budget is for us at this time. We need people to know that the north is moving on as a region of Canada. It has unprecedented 19% economic growth.

We need opportunities, investment from the federal government and the partnership. It would be remiss of me not to mention the champions of that road, Chief Cece MacCauley and her women warriors. They have pushed hard to demonstrate the need for that road. I mention them because they are real champions. They help us all along with the leaders and the successive ministers.

[Aboriginal Affairs, December 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, aboriginal youth are facing some very daunting challenges, be they teenage pregnancy, suicide, drug and alcohol abuse or limited access to employment opportunities. These are the challenges they are facing. Therefore, we are engaging our federal, provincial, territorial and aboriginal colleagues and governments and organizations to find solutions to these challenges.

In October we met with 150 aboriginal youth from across Canada to get their views on a national aboriginal youth strategy. We are today furthering these discussions with those leaders who are gathering together to face those challenges and to help aboriginal youth have a brighter future.

[Supply, December 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to get some background information from my hon. colleague who takes great pride in the position he takes on many issues, some of which are controversial and sometimes unfounded.

I would like the hon. member to correct the assumption regarding these agreements with card carrying aboriginal people like myself. Many of them pay taxes, have always paid taxes and have not had the benefit of a status card. I was adopted and lost my status card because the family that adopted me was not status. I paid my way through university. I paid for everything and I have never reclaimed those expenses. Those arrangements are treaty arrangements. I would like my colleague to speak to that.

There is an assumption or at least an intonation that aboriginal people are irresponsible or the government is irresponsible in having struck those agreements. I have no issue with accountability, but I have an issue with the way in which this is expressed. It makes a target out of aboriginal people and I would like him to set correctly the historical basis on which these agreements, programs and services were put in place.

[Aboriginal Affairs, November 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, human resources development administers the five year $1.6 billion human resource development agreement with aboriginals which began in 1999 and is aimed at assisting aboriginal people to prepare for, find and maintain employment.

Under the strategy HRDC has signed 79 aboriginal human resource development agreements with first nations, Inuit, Metis and urban aboriginal organizations across Canada. They are meeting as we speak, from November 29 to December 1, to plan for future strategies and maintain their employment opportunities.