Gordon Earle

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, March 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the hon. member for her remarks on the shipbuilding policy because we too in Atlantic Canada feel there is a strong need for a national shipbuilding policy, something that will enable all workers who are out of work in the maritimes to get busy, be productive in the shipbuilding industry and not have to compete with foreign shipbuilders and compete with the United States which has its workers protected by legislation. We feel there is a need for the government to take a lead in the shipbuilding industry and to put people in Atlantic Canada and right across this country back to work.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, March 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party likes to talk about tax relief for ordinary Canadians. However, when we take a careful look at their proposals we see that the Reform Party actually wants to give much bigger tax breaks to the very wealthy than to the average taxpayer.

For example, its election campaign proposal to have the taxes owing on capital gains would give the stockbrokers working out of Bay Street and earning $250,000 a tax break of over $85,000.

Does the member agree with his party's platform that it is a priority to give someone earning $250,000 a tax refund of $85,000? Is he not afraid that as his party tries to win seats in Toronto it will be catering to Bay Street rather than paying attention to the grassroots in its own communities?

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, March 26th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member mentioned in his remarks the fact that the federal cutbacks to provinces lead to social injustices. I would like to underscore that comment. I agree 100% that is the case.

As we talk about taxes, we cannot help but be drawn to the serious problems of the health care system, unemployment and the economic opportunities within our small communities.

I think in particular of some small communities in Nova Scotia where small businesses are finding it very difficult to operate because of a business occupancy tax that is being levied upon them by the municipality. It is so serious that many of these small businesses are reaching the point of closing out due to this unfair tax system.

I would like to underscore that it is very important as we deal with taxation, whether it be income tax or other types of taxes, we always keep in mind the citizens who are going to be affected by the changes we make.

[Hobby Farmers, March 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, over the last few months I have had the chance to familiarize myself with the reality of immigrants and refugees trying to settle in Canada in hope of a new life.

Without a doubt, starting a new life again in an often entirely different social and cultural environment is a long and difficult process. I thus believe it is our collective role to facilitate the adaptation of newcomers who wish to participate fully in our society.

Let us not forget that most of us are immigrants or descend from people who decided to settle here two years or two centuries ago. Canada, as we all know, is a country of immigration. We are all immigrants except for the aboriginal peoples.

Over past decades immigrants have made enormous contributions to the success of our economy. The mix of people of various ethnic origins has enriched our national life tremendously.

Following the release of a report from an advisory group in January 1998, the minister announced her intention to review the Immigration Act. We agree that our immigration policy and practices need some refreshment. People seeking protection in Canada are often waiting more than two years before their case is settled.

I recently had someone calling me, saying that her family was separated since 1991 because of complications in the sponsorship procedures.

Another dramatic example of the limits of the system is a case I was personally touched by, a drama that took place in my own city of Halifax. I am referring to the four Filipino seamen who courageously reported an incident of three Romanian stowaways while their ship, the Maresk Dubai , sailed toward Halifax. These four courageous men asked for Canada's protection after their families in the Philippines were harassed and intimidated due to their testimony against the captain and five other crew members who allegedly forced the Romanian stowaways overboard.

Although going back to the Philippines appeared to be a threat to these people and their family security, they were denied refugee status by the Immigration Refugee Board. The board's two member panel concluded that the harassment was not sufficient to be considered persecution. Now their only chance is through a request to the minister for exceptional humanitarian consideration, but that same minister refused to allow the seamen's family members to come and testify during the refugee board hearings. What chance do they have? Under basic justice principles these men and their families truly deserve our protection.

This is the kind of example that makes me worry about the changes coming to the Immigration Act. The government seems to think of immigration as an economic tool with people seeking protection as a secondary category.

We will also remember this Liberal government as the government that imposed the infamous head tax on newcomers. This $975 right of landing fee imposed on all adults becoming permanent residents is reminiscent of the head tax that was used to prevent the establishment of Chinese Canadian families at the beginning of this century.

The new head tax is disproportionately affecting refugees and families immigrating through sponsorship. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees raised some concerns that refugee access to protection might be affected since many are coming to Canada with limited financial resources.

When I asked the minister to remove this offensive tax she responded: “According to our studies we have penalized no one wishing to settle in this country”. When I asked her for those studies I was informed they did not exist. People working closely with immigrants clearly told me that there was an impact on low income families. It is time for the minister to realize this tax, the resource from which does not even serve to help newcomers settle in Canada, was a mistake.

The current review process is a good time for this government to give some indication of the future direction of our immigration policy. Will that direction be toward a restricted view based on cold economics and fear of differences or rather toward an open policy that recognizes both the positive impact newcomers have on our collective life and the humane dimensions of immigration?

The Canadian government must live up to its commitment and change its current policy of giving priority to investors and economic immigration over family reunification and humanitarian cases such as the case of the seamen from the Maresk Dubai . Removing the head tax would be the first step in that—

[Petitions, March 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present 11 petitions representing hundreds of Canadian citizens across the country.

They are also objecting to the MAI. They are requesting the government to reject the current framework and to establish an appropriate rules based trading agreement which will protect the environment, social welfare programs and so forth.

[Aboriginal Affairs, March 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has said many times that she wants to work in partnership with aboriginal peoples. Two days ago I met with the chief of the Millbrook First Nation in Nova Scotia. He has requested to meet with the minister regarding a project that will create jobs and economic development. The minister has indicated she is unable to attend.

Whereas $900,000 may cease to be available for this project unless the federal government acts before the end of this fiscal year, will the minister reconsider and in a spirit of true partnership meet immediately with Chief Lawrence Paul?

[Supply, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it saddens me somewhat to even address this issue because I feel it should not even be discussed today. We must look realistically at how the issue commenced in the House. I emphasize in the House because members are free to do what they want outside. If people have concerns, they should be dealt with outside.

When the flags were waved in the House as a prop and the national anthem was sung to silence a member who had the right to speak, that was wrong. It is wrong now to be debating this issue as if it were one about flags. It is not an issue about flags. It is an issue about people wanting to get their way, to prove what they did was right and to justify what they did. I hear people making all kinds of excuses as to why they did it. It was wrong then and it is wrong now. It is not an issue of flags and we should not misinterpret it as being an issue of flags.

I feel very sad because the Canadian public is being taken in by this whole issue. We as parliamentarians who are supposed to be responsible people elected to serve our constituents are here wasting our time, spending taxpayer money debating an issue that ought not to be debated, should never have begun in the first place. The people who started it should be big enough to stand up and agree they were wrong and let it drop at that. Not every member of the House stood and sung O Canada.

[Broadcasting Act, March 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in November I raised a question as to whether the federal government would show leadership concerning aboriginal self-government. The response by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development was in part that the government introduced a policy recognizing the inherent right to self-government and is working in partnership with the first nations.

On the surface this response may appear appropriate, but true recognition of aboriginal self-government and a true working partnership of aboriginal peoples must be more than just words. There must be sincere commitment evidenced by concrete positive action.

The federal government must not remain silent on important issues such as land claims and the sharing of natural resources. These two issues are fundamental to the concept of self-government.

Governments should be taking the lead in resolving these issues through negotiation rather than leaving them to costly and confrontational court action. A true partnership is built not upon confrontation but upon consultation and mutual respect.

How much consultation was there prior to the government's statement of reconciliation on January 7, 1998, at which time four out of five aboriginal leaders expressed disappointment with the process leading to that statement and with the statement itself?

Where was the spirit of partnership and mutual respect when Canada's head of state, the Prime Minister, failed to appear at what was intended to be a very significant response to the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples?

The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples argued that the right of self-determination was vested in all aboriginal peoples of Canada and that this right entitled aboriginal peoples to negotiate the terms of their relationship with Canada and to establish government structures that they considered appropriate for their needs.

The commission further proposed section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, recognizing and affirming aboriginal inherent right to self-government. That right became constitutionally entrenched, thereby providing a basis for aboriginal governments to function as one of three distinct orders of government in Canada.

The commission spoke in favour of negotiations as a means of developing self-government arrangements and clarifying the distribution of powers between governments.

Recent court decisions such as the court decision in New Brunswick concerning the right of aboriginal peoples to harvest trees on crown lands points to the need for negotiations around self-government, the distribution of powers and sharing of natural resources.

The importance of negotiations is also emphasized in one of the most significant cases of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Delgamuukw case. This case involved land claims, aboriginal rights, aboriginal title and self-government.

While reaching many important conclusions around the issue of aboriginal rights, aboriginal title and the importance of oral history in determining such issues, the court ordered a new trial regarding the specific land claims under dispute.

It is important to note that although ordering a new trial the court was not encouraging the parties to settle their dispute through the court but rather through negotiations in the spirit of the self-government principle recognized in the Constitution Act.

The court stated that the best approach in these types of cases is a process of negotiation and reconciliation that properly considers the complex and competing interests at stake.

The court concluded that the crown is under a moral if not a legal duty to enter into and conduct these negotiations in good faith. Ultimately, through such negotiation with give and take on all sides, we will achieve “the reconciliation of the pre-existence of aboriginal societies with the sovereignty of the crown”. The chief justice concluded “let us face it, we are all here to stay”.

In the spirit of that statement I call upon the federal government to negotiate in good faith with aboriginal peoples to resolve issues around land claims, the sharing of natural resources and self-government.

[The Budget, February 25th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member on the opposite side said that members on this side of the House should stand in our place and say that the deficit plan has been successful. I would say that whether or not we determine the deficit plan has been successful depends on how one measures success.

If we measure success by the high number of people who are unemployed, perhaps the plan has been successful. If we measure success by the large number of young people who need help and who will not be able to receive help under the budget, perhaps we can say it has been successful. If we measure success by the large number of people lining the corridors of hospitals trying to get proper health care, by the large number of people who are unable to afford pharmacare and proper medicines, or by the large number of seniors who are concerned about their future, perhaps we can say the budget has been successful. If we are looking at the large number of federal government employees who are still seeking pay equity, not being paid their rightful due, perhaps again the government has been successful. If we look at the large number of people working in shipyards who are not able to have a national shipbuilding policy that will address their concerns, perhaps the government has been successful.

When we look Atlantic Canada and Nova Scotia in particular the budget does very little to address the concerns of the people in that area. There is nothing concrete offered to ease the employment concerns of the fishers on the east coast. No substantial relief is offered to young people currently experiencing high student debt load.

We talk about the millennium fund which will not kick in until the year 2000 and then will only help about 7% of the students in the area. The budget has no new job creation strategies. It has no targets, as has been mentioned. There is no new investment in health care.

The government mentioned choices and talked about them being the choices of Canadians. We could look at the large number of Canadians who have not been consulted or dealt with in a real partnership. I am speaking about our aboriginal communities that year after year are refused admittance at the first ministers tables and constitutional talks. Yet we talk about working in partnership. Have those people been considered and have they been consulted in terms of priorities for people when we say that this is a budget for Canadian people?

We talk about priorities. Yet, when we talk about priorities, we are not really talking about priorities for people but we are talking about the priorities the government determined were its priorities in meeting the budget deficit. It has been done on the backs of the people. When we talk about how successful we are, let us think about those people who have to worry about where their next meal is coming from.

I see that my time is just about up. I throw those remarks out to have them on record for a response by the hon. member.

[Property Rights, February 23rd, 1998]

Not true.