Gordon Earle

[Aboriginal Affairs, February 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, to be or not to be, a surplus or a deficit? That is the question to be answered next Tuesday with the release of the federal budget.

Whether there will be a financial surplus or not, the fact remains that there is in this country a human deficit evidenced by high unemployment, high student debtload, high cost of health care, environmental problems and high rates of suicide and other problems among youth, and the crisis around national unity.

While these human deficit problems impact on all communities, they impact most severely on aboriginal communities. Whereas national unity and a deficit free Canada require strong partnerships and whereas the government has recognized aboriginal peoples' right to self-government and has expressed a willingness to work in partnership, will the Prime Minister guarantee that aboriginal peoples will have their rightful place at future first ministers conferences and constitutional discussions?

Such is a must to have a truly unified and deficit free country.

[Division No. 89, February 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned the maritimes. I want to thank him for giving me that lead-in to say that we in the maritimes are very supportive of anything that will assist the marine works and shipping industry.

This bill is aimed at dealing with the financial aspect of catastrophes that may take place. There is an important point to be made on preventive action. It has recently been mentioned that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is going to be cutting back or terminating a lot of the lighthouses in the maritime region.

In my constituency concern has been expressed to me about the safety issues that are presented with that move. We would see that as an important aspect which has to be considered when we talk about marine safety, the preventive aspect as well as the response afterwards. We hope that would be taken into consideration.

One final comment with respect to the terms of endearment used for my hon. colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore, as I have said in this House before, we need to use respect for each other when we are in this House. The fewer terms of endearment used, the better. That way we will accomplish things in the interests of all.

[Small Business Loans Act, February 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned in his comments that we should take our hats off to small business. I agree 100% with him on that statement. It is very important for us to recognize the contributions being made by small business to our social fabric.

In my riding of Halifax West there are numerous small businesses. Many are experiencing difficulties. All we can do to try to offset those difficulties should be welcomed. We must do more than just take our hats off to small business. We must be sure to support measures designed to assist small business because that is very important.

I support this bill. Although much more needs to be done, this is certainly a step in the right direction. Like my hon. colleague, I too take my hat off to small business people who are working very hard to create the kind of society we need. They are employing people and struggling against many bureaucratic obstacles while still maintaining a very important function.

[National Defence, February 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this government has downsized the Department of National Defence, hurting both civilian and military employees. Since 1993 the civilian work force has been cut by over 11,000.

The threat now facing DND employees is the government's alternative service delivery which will be used to cut another 3,800 workers; 600 to 800 job losses in the Halifax area alone.

The government argues the ASD process will find workers who can provide support service for the best price. Yet when civilian military workers successfully beat the ASD contract bids of private companies, the government changed the rules in favour of the large corporations. What is the real agenda here, an efficient military or a privatized military?

The devastation of the ASD is evident at CFB Goose Bay in Newfoundland where support services were recently privatized to a foreign corporation which is now slashing jobs and reducing the leftover wages by 20% to 30%. The impacts on the community have been dire, with everyone from DND workers to the local chamber of commerce denouncing the privatization deal.

[Division No. 86, February 16th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, something has to be done to create a much more competitive shipbuilding industry. The government should now, as it should have done long ago and as it promised to do, take steps to alleviate the problems. These were not my words but those of the prime minister back in 1990.

Has this government made a decision to let the industry die rather than develop a shipbuilding policy, thus casting adrift the hope and future of so many coastal communities, the people who have depended on the industry and their families? By refusing to address the needs of a sinking industry, even though it criticized the former Conservative government for the same callous disregard, this government condemns many Atlantic Canadians to continued chronic unemployment and their communities to entrenched economic stagnation.

Canada Steamship Lines, owned by the Minister of Finance and others, continues to pour megabucks into foreign economies where labour is cheap and environmental standards are often poor or absent.

Over 7,000 Canadian shipyard jobs were lost between 1990 and 1996, over half the number of jobs in all. Total nominal sales were down almost half from over $1.5 billion in 1991 to under $800 million in 1986. Other countries, including the U.S., provide assistance in some form such as generous loan guarantees.

The Jones act in the United States provides that ships carrying cargo between U.S. ports must be U.S. ships, ships which are built, registered, owned, crewed, repaired and serviced in the U.S. The one-two punch of the Jones act and the free trade deal hits Canadian coastal communities where it hurts most, in their employment possibilities. U.S. companies have the right to sell duty free to the Canadian market while their market remains protected from Canadian shipbuilders.

Will this government say yes to jobs in Atlantic Canada by saying yes to a national shipbuilding policy?

I would be willing to assist in bringing together labour and business representatives in the Halifax area if the government were serious about providing hope for Atlantic Canadians and developing a national shipbuilding policy.

Why will the government not examine a managed trade approach like the auto pact for the shipbuilding industry? Countries could agree to a gradual elimination of subsidies and specialize in relative areas of expertise. The most important part of such a forward thinking agreement would be to balance overall shipbuilding trade flows to the mutual benefit of shipbuilders in the countries involved. The overall volume of new orders could match a certain agreed upon minimum level of shipbuilding requirements for each country's industry.

Let us finish with the easiest of all requests. Will the minister agree to sit down with shipbuilding workers in Halifax to discuss these issues, or will he continue to ignore their repeated request for a meeting? Does the government not have the decency to meet with these workers to discuss their very extensive reasoned and researched suggestions about the future of shipbuilding?

The government must realize that simply ignoring a problem will not make it go away. I ask the Minister of Industry to have the integrity to meet face to face with these people who have very real fears and concerns about their future and that of their families and communities. By working together we can develop realistic workable solutions for our shipbuilding industry so that we do not run aground on the shoals of government disinterest.

I am sincere in offering my assistance in working to develop a national shipbuilding policy.

[Louis Riel Day, February 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this motion.

The history of the Metis treatment by the Canadian government is appalling. While we generally support the concept of this motion, and I want to commend the hon. member for bringing forth a motion concerning the recognition of Louis Riel, we would have preferred a much stronger and differently worded motion.

This motion specifically addresses the verdict of high treason pronounced on Louis Riel on August 1, 1885. In effect what this motion would do by revoking the verdict of guilty of high treason would be to pardon the federal government for its abominable treatment of Louis Riel.

Unfortunately what the motion fails to do is to address the substantive issues which continue to oppress Metis today and continue to threaten their children tomorrow. This motion would in effect pardon the federal government by removing the blot on the government's own record while doing nothing concrete to change the lives of the Metis.

The First Nations peoples continue to be treated by government as second class citizens and that would place the Metis families at an even lower caste in the government's eyes. The federal government, even after the release of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples report, continues to do its very best to ignore Metis and place their concerns far on the back burner.

Whether or not Louis Riel day is proclaimed, the government should commit to several fundamentals.

First and foremost this government should recognize that the Metis nation is entitled legally, morally and politically to have access to land bases and land use rights sufficient to fulfil the Metis nation's legitimate aspirations as aboriginal peoples.

Furthermore as my colleague the hon. member for Churchill River who himself is Metis would argue, one of the first steps the government should take is to bring all aboriginal peoples, including the Metis, under section 91(24) of the Constitution Act. Such a move on behalf of this government would truly show to the Metis that the government is sincere in supporting a bright future for these people instead of trying to deny them both their history and their future.

Instead of treating the Metis as an afterthought, the government should negotiate self-government and land claims with the Metis nation on a nation to nation basis. Furthermore why does the government not negotiate with the Metis how they will exercise their aboriginal rights to harvest fish and wildlife? Why has this government not chosen to ensure the Metis have the benefits of programs and services which governments now allocate to First Nations peoples?

As long as this government tries to deny Metis their historic and moral rights, this government will continue to actively condemn Metis to poverty and to the back of the legislative bus.

During the negotiation of Manitoba's entry into Confederation, a grant of 1.4 million acres of land was reserved for the exclusive use of the Metis. The full creation of a Metis land base was undermined by systemic government delays and neglect.

The points that I have called for are not new. Indeed it is a fact that these very proposals sit before this government even as this government sits silent. These proposals from the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples offer a new dawn. This government chooses not to even have the dignity to respond to these solutions, but sits quiet.

The Metis are not asking for special status. They are not seeking some gift from the government, nor are they asking for anything but what is their historic and moral due. They want to be treated as the equals they are and negotiate with government as other natives negotiate.

But what is a people without a land base? If history has shown us and taught us anything, it is true that a land base with all the access to resources that accompany it is an absolute, uncontroversial precondition for nationhood. Where does this government stand on Metis nationhood?

Who are these people that Louis Riel led at one time? Is the government afraid to act because it has difficulty identifying just who among us are these Metis who deserve better treatment from this government?

The royal commission has made it easy for us. It recommends that every person who identifies himself or herself as Metis and is accepted as such by the nation of the Metis should be recognized by that nation.

While these negotiations go on, the government should work with the Metis and provincial and territorial governments to enter into temporary land use agreements with the Metis nation.

Just as no nation can exist without land, no nation can exist without language and culture. What of Metis education and culture?

Certainly as the motion indicates, Louis Riel played a crucial role in Metis culture. But this government has a responsibility to negotiate with the Metis full-fledged post-secondary education. Great care must be exercised to assure the development of Metis culture.

I strongly suggest should Louis Riel day come into force, the government use that day to examine the following issues laid out in the report by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, a report to which the government has yet to respond in any meaningful way.

First, consultation with Metis elders when educational programs are planned. Second, establishment and funding of Metis schools where numbers warrant. Third, assisted access to post-secondary education in some form. Finally, support for a college or faculty of Metis study.

The Metis are involved in every facet of our society and represent an enormously varied cross-section of Canada, whether economically, geographically, in terms of professions and education, and certainly in terms of hopes, dreams and support for family and community. What they do not have is support from this government for the preservation of their culture and traditions.

In closing, I would like to once again stress that this motion, as good as it may be, sets out in effect to pardon the federal government for its historical error and does not address the real, substantive and immediate issues crucial to the Metis today and to their children tomorrow.

However in true democratic spirit, we feel that the members of this House should decide on the merit of this motion and I would ask again that we have unanimous consent to have this motion voted on.

[Supply, February 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add a commentary with respect to the comments made by the previous speaker.

He spoke in detail about connecting Canadians. I would like to inform him that this morning I connected with some Canadians. I connected with some Canadians on the grounds outside this House. They were members of the Ottawa-Carleton Health Coalition.

These people are very concerned about the cuts in health care and the effect on the medicare system. Their theme was to put the heart back into medicare. This gathering was intended to attract members of Parliament, to have them there to hear the concerns. I did not notice too many members of Parliament but certainly those of us who were there did hear the concerns of connecting in a real way with Canadians.

It is all well and good to talk about technology and connecting Canadians through technology. I note that the hon. member mentioned 32,000 hits a day. To me that would certainly illustrate the high degree of unemployment and the high degree of need out there if 32,000 people a day are trying to contact people through this computer system.

I would like to hear the hon. member's comments with respect to connecting with Canadians in a way that deals with restoring medicare funding to the provinces to the previous level, enforcing the provisions of the Canada Health Act and the elimination of C-91 so as to reduce the cost of prescription drugs. How does the government intend to connect with Canadians in that way?

[Multilateral Agreement On Investment, February 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the U.S. protects its shipbuilding workers and their families with the Jones act while over 7,000 shipyard jobs have been lost in Canada recently.

Will the government formally guarantee at the moment that the MAI will not prevent Canada from developing a national shipbuilding policy to put people in Nova Scotia and elsewhere back to work?

[Multilateral Agreement On Investment, February 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it took the Minister for International Trade less than 20 hours to do a complete flip-flop on protecting culture. Yesterday he unequivocally stated to the House that he would walk away from the table unless there was a complete carve-out for culture on the MAI.

This morning he contradicted his comments to the House by stating that he would instead be fine with a country specific reservation, which we all know means little or nothing.

Was the government being up front with Canadians yesterday, or did the minister's comments this morning show what is really in store for Canadian culture?

[Charlotte County Ports, February 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, literary critic Northrop Frye stated: “If Canadian universities are underfunded so badly they can no longer function effectively, Canada would disappear overnight from modern history and become again what it was at first, a blank area of natural resources to be exploited by more advanced countries”.

Our youth deserve a quality, accessible educational system. I will soon be visiting students in my riding at Sir John A. Macdonald high school and I wish I could bring them encouraging news about the future of education.

Our youth are increasingly faced with a deteriorating, less accessible education system. It is a crisis that the people in my riding of Halifax West, people throughout Nova Scotia and people across the country will increasingly suffer from.

This is not a mysterious complex problem with unknown elaborate solutions. This Liberal government has cut federal funding from post-secondary education by $1.5 billion since 1995 alone. The average student debt is $25,000. Shame on this government for trying to dig the country out of debt by dumping the problem on to the backs of our youth.

The Liberal government cannot hide the truth from Canadians, that it is pushing for the privatization of our post-secondary institutions.

I asked the Minister of Finance about this. I informed him that Human Resources Development Canada predicts that by the year 2000 45% of new jobs will require 16 years of education. I also referred him to a government study which shows that since 1980 public transfers for education have been cut in half, from $6.44 for each dollar of student fees in 1980 to less than $3 in 1995.

Perhaps the government thinks that youth today are more wealthy than the youth of the early 1980s. If so, I invite the Minister of Finance and his staff in Halifax to show me where these hoards of youth with excess wealth are hiding.

The minister, in his response to my question, began talking about how parents could save more through RESPs. Then he went on to talk about tax credits to help pay tuition. Again I wish to refer the minister to all of the people in my riding without work who, whether parents or children, cannot bear the thought of mounting $25,000 in student debt.

The youth of Halifax West deserve the opportunity to learn and to develop skills to build a future, as do all the youth of Canada. We cannot afford to risk their future or ours by wasting their talents or by creating more financial barriers to education.

I wish to go on record as challenging the Minister of Finance and the Liberal government to adopt the following principles.

Accessibility should be a new national standard in higher education.

Post-secondary education is a right, not a privilege for the declining number of people who can actually afford it.

The principles of accessibility and affordability should guide any reforms.

Student aid should be based on need rather than merit.

A national system of grants for post-secondary education should be a priority.

Tuition fees should be frozen.

It is high time to move to a system involving grants for post-secondary education and to ensure that eligibility for grants is based solely on need and not the short term demands of mega corporations which are increasingly driving our research and development.

As a first step of goodwill toward the future of our youth, and thus of the country, the government should immediately commit to reinvest in education, starting with this year's drastic and hurtful cut of $550 million.

This reinvestment should be over and above the Canada millennium scholarship fund, which itself should be based on need.

The youth and their families of Halifax West and the rest of Canada deserve no less. It is time to say yes to Canada—