Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would suggest that we take a 15 minute break.

Thank you, Mr. Ootes. We will now take a 15 minute break. Thank you.

-- Break

I now call the committee back to order. Perhaps Mr. Ootes should give me some direction as to how we plan to proceed here with Minister's statement 77-13(4)?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would suggest that we proceed with consideration of the Minister's statement by asking the Members if they have any comments and questions for the Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Ootes. I then open the floor to comments and questions to the Minister on Minister's statement 77-13(4). Are there any questions or comments? Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My comments on the Northern Employment Strategy that has just been presented in the House are that it is a good strategy and that the government is going in the right direction on this. However, I am somewhat concerned about the need for this government to take a coordinated approach to what they are doing. Ever since the first time that the Premier and the Finance Minister stood up and talked about the northern economy, they have been talking about reducing the presence of the government and increasing support to the private sector, which is where they believe the jobs will be created. I believe that to be true. I am somewhat amazed when I listen to the questions received by some of the federal candidates in the election coming up on Monday and the apparent belief by the people and the general public that it is the government's job to create jobs. They think that the government is going to have a large impact on the unemployment statistics. However, it is the government's role to create a climate and environment for job creation, but I do not believe it is the government's role to create jobs. That is what I am hearing from this government and that is good to hear.

However, when I had an opportunity to spend two months in my riding, when I go back to my community I hear entrepreneurial private sector individuals talking to me about initiatives and actions of the government which are scaring them and hurting their businesses. This is where this coordinated approach that I am talking about needs to be kept in mind. I hear from a local Internet provider that he has not heard definitively that his investment in the community is going to be protected when this new government funded service comes into place. He is still concerned. I hear contractors that are worried about getting business because of the non-competitive contracting that they see going on around them. I hear about the government competing with the private sector in areas of supply. In one instance, where two individuals have gone together and invested considerable money in a company and set up a business and now somebody in the civil service gets a bright idea to play business for a while and decides they will go on a power buying trip and start redistributing product to government agencies in the western Arctic. That, to me, is part of the problem. It is uncoordinated.

I also see initiatives that the government has taken and has spent considerable money on, have gone a long ways down the road on something and then changes direction mid-stream on things, as opposed to following through with them when they knew that it would take a certain amount of time to get something off the ground.

I am concerned about cuts to core funding for sectors that we already know could be and have in the past been viable, that do create jobs.

Although this is a new initiative, perhaps in our deficit reduction exercise we took away some of the underpinnings of some of the viable sectors where there is a considerable amount of employment and now we are, in a sense, replacing this under this new initiative. I have no problem with the various areas that the government is stating, community futures, infrastructure programs, training, education, and the coordination of the departments, but I do find, when you actually get right down to the grass roots level where the people live and work, there are some contradictory things that are happening. That is an area we need to address.

Some of the viable sectors in my community are the service and supply, harvesting and primary production. If we are going to have sustainable jobs in those sectors, we as a government need to continue to find ways to support those areas. The government should only be generating government jobs to the extent that they are required to efficiently deliver programs and services that cannot be sensibly and reasonably carried out by the private sector.

We look at some of the mega projects that we have our hopes pinned on here in the west, at least, with the mineral sector. We look at the big mega projects like BHP, we look at rejuvenation of the oil and gas exploration in the Beaufort Delta and these are good, but on a smaller scale, the same is true in the north as is true across Canada. Jobs are created by small and medium sized business. That has been the beauty of the economy in Hay River over the years. We do have our large employers like the Power Corporation, NTCL, Kingland Ford, we have those larger employers, but what we have is a whole lot of people who employ six, eight, and ten people. They find their market niche and they create that employment in the private sector.

I agree with the government's approach that we know we cannot afford the same degree of government jobs we have had in the past. So that is lessening. Now we want the private sector to step in, but we have to make sure that we provide assurances and as much support as we reasonably can to see that happen and not be taking actions which contradict that position. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Madam Groenewegen. I presume the Minister will respond after we have heard all comments, rather than on an individual basis. Therefore, I recognize Mr. Picco.

Thank you, Mr. Picco. I would just like to remind Members that the chair will not tolerate unparliamentary noises in the committee of the whole, Mr. O'Brien. I have on the list Mr. Steen.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I suppose it could be said that it would be hard for any Member to come out and actually criticize the government for coming out with an employment strategy that identifies the expenditure of $16 million. Having said that though, it depends, I believe, on where the money is spent and on what regions and whether or not it actually addresses the shortage of job opportunities and the opportunities for people to better themselves through permanent employment.

I think that if we look at this strategy as to what it hopes to attain as a major point, we would have to look at page two where it says "It is specifically targeted to young people and those out of work, people out of hope." Now, I wonder if the government in fact is going to accomplish what they hope to do here. My concern is that this program no doubt makes opportunities, funding available for people to enter into small business if the business opportunities are there. It also makes funding available for businesses that are established to hire students and young people and people out of work if the job opportunity is there. I do not see how this thing works towards accomplishing this if there are no job opportunities in the first place.

Let us take, for instance as examples my communities, if there are no summer work programs there is no other work. So if the government does not come forward with capital projects then there are no business opportunities, there are no job opportunities. I believe, based on observations and studies already done, the only real opportunities for expansion in my region would be at this point in time probably considered tourism. Again, it just depends on how much or how far you can expect something like tourism to be able to be developed. I believe that this incentive has been going on for four or five years at least, so therefore those business opportunities in tourism have basically been identified and fulfilled to some degree.

So we come back to the question of, if there is no government sponsored incentives like capital infrastructure programs, what is left for the local people to do? How do you have business opportunities if there is no business? How do you have job creation if there is nothing to do? How do you sponsor a student if you, yourself, are not doing anything? That is the whole question. We can only paint the buildings so many times. You can only shovel snow in the winter, so how is a student ever going to get summer work? There is no opportunity. The argument could be used then that well, a student has to leave home and go look for work somewhere else. Well, that is fine but is there funding available for that student to travel to other regions that have work? Is there funding available for them to be able to look after themselves, room and board in the other community that they have to go to? I do not see it. So, really we are suggesting here that summer student work is going to be local. Fine. I have 100 per cent support for finding work for summer students, but it has been my experience that hamlets can only do so much towards hiring students. They can only paint the graveyard and the buildings so many times until it becomes ridiculous.

What I am looking at here is, is this government really addressing those areas that have not, the have not areas? Or is this money, as the Minister suggested yesterday, going to be divided equally across the territories regardless of what is already being put forward in those areas? Let us take for instance, the Yellowknife area, the Southern Mackenzie area. There are all kinds of job opportunities there during the summer which is not sponsored directly by government. They could be mining. Then you could have exploration work towards the mining industry. There are a lot of opportunities there in the south where definitely businesses are going to be attracted to this program, they are going to take access to the program, they are going to hire summer students because it is going to save them money. They are going to make work for young people because it would be sponsored through this program. People who have access to this program will definitely benefit if the opportunities are there.

If we put on top of that the government programs that are being put in place, like highway construction, tourism parks construction, there again we have opportunities for students, young people and the unemployed to get work. But this is not going on in my region. None of this is happening. we cannot even get money for an access road. It is not even suggested in here that the low areas of the territories, where there is not much happening, that there will be some kind of preference towards more dollars in those areas. Now I have identified here the southern Mackenzie and the Yellowknife area, but let us take Nunavut now. Let us take all the infrastructure money that is going to Nunavut. Obviously there are going to be job creation opportunities there and business opportunities. Those guys are going to have opportunities to expand, get in business, hire these people and have access to this program. So therefore the opportunity was there already. Is it really necessary that this government throw some more money over there?

The federal government is throwing $150 million that way towards infrastructure, job creation, job training, $39 million for job training. Okay? Is it really necessary that we throw some more that way or should we address those areas that do not have anything happening? Now let us take this Investing in People. Again we are going to train our adults. Well I must say that in my region I have seen so much adult training that some of those guys qualify as elders now and they still have not found a job. There is nothing. There is no job. There has to be a limit to this business of adult training, training programs with no end result, no job to go to. In the past two years, I have seen cooking programs in my community. We are training people to cook. Well these women are 30 to 40 years old. If they do not know how to cook by now, they have no place in the business, but they go because there is nothing else for them to do. They are going there presumably to train to cook in the construction industry, in construction camps but in fact there are no construction camps for them to work after they finish training. So what are they going to do this winter? They are going to go back there and cook some more. That is what they are going to do. They are going to take the opportunity of this.

But let us be serious about this thing. It becomes laughable after awhile where some people have the ability to make a career out of adult training. It becomes ridiculous. Now like everything else, there is good to it and I definitely support it because it is needed. But now all of a sudden we hear the industry themselves saying that they are sick and tired of waiting for government to build that highway north. They are going to do it themselves. Well, that is good news. There again, you see, I believe like Mrs. Groenewegen said earlier, it is not the government's responsibility to create jobs and to create a workforce, everybody relying on government. I believe that to some degree. I also believe it is the government's responsibility to supply the infrastructure to attract industry that would in turn supply the jobs. I believe that, I strongly believe that and I strongly believe that this territory would be far more developed if this government would get into the business of constructing infrastructure so the oil and gas industry, so the mining industry could come into the territories and create jobs but there is nothing here.

I am not even sure the Inuvialuit Petroleum Corporation which in fact supplied jobs this year for the Inuvialuit in my region as well as other people, I am not even sure if they would qualify under this thing because it seems like every time the government comes up with a program such as this, there is a small little clause in there that says that if you own an oil company or if you own a mining outfit you do not qualify. You know there are always those clauses, so I will be asking the Minister about that later on. It is the responsibility, I believe, of the government to address those slow areas in the territory when nothing is happening there versus what is happening in other areas. It is the responsibility of this government to ensure that each and every person has opportunities for jobs, not just to support ongoing programs already. This is what I feel is happening here, is that those areas that have the job opportunities, have the business opportunists, will in fact benefit from this program. I fail to see, for instance, how the people in Sachs Harbour, the people in Holman Island would have opportunity to gain from this program to the extent that would be available to a person in Yellowknife, a person in Nunavut. I have already heard rumblings that the capital projects plan for Sachs Harbour and Holman Island are on the shelf for this year. Now if that is not bad enough, we come along with this and they say, well, we will support those job creation programs. Fine. In order for the people to take advantage of this program, they would have to have the capital project first. If the capital projects do not go ahead, there is nothing in those communities. There is nothing else.

My point, Madam Chair, is that I feel there is a shortage here, by this government, to do something about promoting something in the Mackenzie Delta for there is no more work, to do something about promoting some infrastructure work, whatever, in the Beaufort region, rather than using the argument that we are spreading the money equally across the territories. You are not. You are spreading the money where the opportunities are already there. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Steen. I have Mr. Miltenberger and Mr. Ootes. Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I was quite surprised to hear the comments from my colleague from Iqaluit. It sounded like he was reading a ministerial press release on this program. It was nice to hear that he is supportive of it since, as he indicated, we did work on this with Cabinet.

Madam Chair, we have just come through 18 months, as has already noted by some Members, of deficit reduction and a bleak, sort of black time in terms of the north, having to do things that have never had to be done before and the pressures and stress that is causing communities and the economies in communities. I see this Northern Employment Strategy as a good first step. Very clearly, it is targeted as a short term program, but it is a start. We have to clearly recognize that unless we address some of the fundamental drivers that are effecting us, we are never going to be able to do the things that people want, which is to develop a strong private economy that creates real jobs. Until we come to grips with issues like the birth rate and the alcohol problems, the other social problems, the housing issues, the education issues, then we are going to be, in my opinion always, doomed to an endless cycle of short term job strategies. While this is a start to move from the negative dark side of trying to balance our books and deficit reduction to the stronger, more positive side of economic development, this is not the final answer. I think that is recognized.

I support the contents of this. I think the focus on business and employment outside of government is critical. And, in my opinion while it may not do it perfectly, it does recognize the regional differences when you look at the breakdown of the regions and the money. It may not be done as well as it possibly could have been or to have all the money go to where the greatest need is, but there is need everywhere, it is just a matter of scale. So, Madam Chair, I think this is a good start, but we have to maintain the focus on the strong, non-government based economy that creates real jobs. As Mr. Steen said, it is not just a case of constantly repainting the same building or shovelling snow in the winter time. Until we take the time as a government, and I do not know if this government will have time in its life to significantly address the fundamental drivers that I have already mentioned, we are going to have a tough time doing more than short term job strategy. This is a good step to get us towards division, and then the onus falls on the two new legislatures, east and west, to try to do the significant restructuring and economic development that each territory is going to require if they are going to survive as viable entities. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Mr. Ootes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. As has already been said, the northern labour market is very gloomy and we have a lot of unemployment, specifically in all the communities throughout the territories and I do not see that this government is going to be the generator itself of a lot of employment over the next couple of years. We are holding the line on our employment possibilities. Hopefully we have come to the end of our layoffs. But the fact that we are not creating jobs as a government employer and the fact that our population is growing substantially is creating a real conundrum for young people and for those who are out of work and looking for work. So far, of course, we are going to be remembered by people for our cutback efforts. I hope that this particular program can set us on the road to changing peoples minds a bit about what we are going to be noted for. I think there is a need for a dual program in my mind to generate a more positive outlook. Certainly, one is an infrastructure program where short term jobs can be created, especially in the communities, because it is very true, how do you create permanent employment in a community? It is extremely difficult because there is no economy there. Nothing for people to do there. But by the same token, we also have to remember that we need to have sustainable jobs. We cannot just put 100 percent into jobs that are short term. We have to try and build, in this whole program, a long term outlook as well.

I am leading to, of course and as everybody else agrees and has said, we know that business is the area that this employment can be provided in. In order to do that we have to provide the environment for small business and larger businesses to be able to create the jobs. Business and entrepreneurs are going to be the engine for our future economy. It is important that the government, in its process, looks at its particular departments and programs and aligns those programs and services to directly support those private sector initiatives but I want to watch that we do not get into a funding process to business where it interferes with competing businesses.

I have gone through this myself in my past, where government programs are established to provide grants and supports and it is given in a competitive environment where one company gets it and the other company does not get it and one company has to lay off workers, the other company is able to expand. That is a very real fact and it occurs frequently when government establishes its programs so we need to ensure that what we produce is very fair, very accessible to everybody, and that it does not disrupt the private sector portion of our industry. When I looked at this program, on a general basis, I think it is needed. I am glad the government is doing it. I want to compliment the government on one specific area already, and that is the Student Employment Program. I spoke the other day about that and I think the government is on the right track. You are helping private industry to create those summer jobs and I think that is very complimentary.

I would like to hear from the Minister about the Investment Support Program, what is happening in that end? Because, again, I think the Aurora Fund is a very good program and we have raised a lot of money. The Minister also had some other thrusts and perhaps he could tell us a little more about that.

Businesses do need encouragement and support. I do not know right off the top of my head what to suggest, but perhaps there are methodologies by which we could do this. I know our taxes here in the territories are lower than elsewhere in the country, but so they should be. Perhaps we should look at that and say, maybe they should be even lower because our environment is pretty expensive in which to operate, especially when you go outside of areas like Yellowknife.

The answer, in the long run, is that we need more mega projects. We need more mining projects. There is a tremendous spin-off of that. We need more oil and gas projects because they are the ones that provide extensive jobs. Mining alone, over the past 5 years, has provided a lot of operators in the western Arctic with opportunities to do expediting work, provide employment for people. It has been done through the exploration work, exploration camps, geologists get jobs, the local firms here have certainly benefited. Frankly, I do not know what we would have done had we not had this mining activity take place, which started back in 1992. I want to compliment a guy like Chuck Fipke for what he has done because, ladies and gentlemen, he persevered for 10 years to find that source. Look at what it has done for us. Yes, he is a southerner, but we sometimes have to say, southerners are going to play a major, major role with us in developing our territory and we should sometimes welcome the input of southerners.

We also need a large infrastructure program. We need a highways to resources program. It will open up the areas that we are in to, but that ties in with the settlement of treaty rights and land claims and so we have an urgency to encourage the federal government and the aboriginal groups to address these issues. While we do not have a direct hand in that, I think we need to continually support that effort.

I was going to address Mr. Steen's comments, Madam Chair, regarding the division of these assets. Yes, it is true the east has its infrastructure program. I am going to be sensitive as well. The east has needed a lot and they are obviously getting $150 million but I would like us to be sensitive to what Mr. Steen has said, there is perhaps some thought to be put to that. I think that, additionally, in the training end, I feel we do need to put money into training and education. I agree with Mr. Steen. How many times do we send people through programs? The bottom line is job creation, that is what it is all about and that has to be the first thing. I personally feel we have got to do that through mega projects, infrastructure, job creation programs in the communities, short term base if necessary and support ultimately, very good support for our local territorial industries because with those mega projects, we will get the spin off businesses. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Ootes. Would the Minister like to take this opportunity to respond to some of the comments that he has heard?

Thank you, Mr. Todd. For the record, we are on Minister's Statement 77-13(4). Are there any further comments or questions from the Members on this item? Could I receive direction from the committee as to how do we proceed here? Are we to consider this item as finished? Mr. Erasmus.

Thank you, Mr. Erasmus. The motion is in order, not debateable. All those in favour of the motion? All those opposed? Abstaining? The motion is passed. I will now rise and report progress.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, your committee has been considering Minister's Statement 77-13(4) and would like to report progress. Mr. Speaker, I move that the report of the committee of the whole be concurred with.