Gordon Earle

[Canada Evidence Act, February 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add a comment to the remarks that have already been made in respect of the bill, an act to amend the Canada Evidence Act and the Criminal Code and an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act. The topic that is being discussed is very important, particularly with respect to persons with disabilities.

My hon. colleague mentioned earlier in his remarks the work of Senator Kinsella with respect the bill. I have known Senator Kinsella for many years, going back to when I was first with the Human Rights Commission in Nova Scotia. At that time Senator Noel Kinsella was one of the leading people in the field of human rights in New Brunswick. I think he was the chairperson of the New Brunswick Human Rights Commission for a number of years.

It is very good at a time when we often hear negative remarks about senators to know that we should not jump too quickly to paint everybody with the same brush and to see that people like Senator Kinsella is carrying forth an interest in which he has been involved for many years in a way that is producing some positive results.

I add my support to the bill. The remark made by my hon. colleague about members of the board being required to be lawyers is a very valid concern. I have been involved for many years with administrative law and was not a lawyer. I have known many people who have been involved in tribunals and administrative boards. It is very important to recognize that another perspective can come to issues from people who are not lawyers. Quite often that perspective that is very useful in determining issues of importance.

With that reservation I my support to the remarks made by both the preceding speaker and the hon. member for Dartmouth.

[Supply, February 10th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I pleased to rise this afternoon to add my voice to the debate on this motion.

I thank you for allowing me to speak on a subject so important for everyone as self-determination.

Surely the issue of people determining their own future is one of importance for all Canadians and one I strongly support in principle. It is the particular application of this principle that we must now take time to explore.

When a member of a family decides on a plan of action that will have significant impact on other members of the family, it is of course essential that such impact be weighed carefully. I appreciate the opportunity given us here today to develop that exploration.

Having had the opportunity to explore issues affecting aboriginal peoples, I am particularly concerned about this motion in general and the notion of consensus in particular.

What about the aboriginal peoples of Quebec? Much of northern Quebec is the traditional land of the Cree and Inuit. Roughly 15,000 square kilometres of the province's north are exclusively dedicated to aboriginal peoples. Quebec's aboriginal peoples include Inuit, Cree, Micmac, Malecites, Algonquin, Huron, Montagnais, Abenakis, Attikameks, Naskapis and Mohawk people.

These people need to know what plans the hon. member and his party have in store for the traditional peoples of these lands. The wording of the motion is very general and ambiguous. What plans are there for negotiations and discussions with these peoples before and during this “decision of their own future?”

The Quebec boundaries extension act of 1912 stated that the province would recognize the rights of Indians to the same extent as the Government of Canada had recognized such rights. It also provided that the trusteeship of Indians in the territory and management of lands reserved for their use would remain within the Government of Canada. Does the Bloc still plan on upholding the principles outlined here or is it planning to try to deny the rights of aboriginal peoples in northern Quebec?

What about the position taken by the Cree people in Quebec? Their position during the last referendum was that they had the right to maintain their territory in Canada. This cuts to the heart of one of the difficulties with this motion. While it supports the right of self-determination for Quebeckers, surely the same must be true for aboriginal peoples within Quebec.

To support self-determination for Quebec in general but then to deny that same provision for the aboriginal peoples living within the boundaries of Quebec is not only contradictory but sets back the tone of relations with aboriginal peoples to a time to which surely none of the members in this House would wish to return.

The motion refers to the ambiguous concept of consensus.

How does the hon. member reconcile this with the notion of self-government? The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples stated:

The right of self-determination is vested in all aboriginal peoples of Canada including First Nations, Inuit and Metis. It is founded on emerging norms of international laws and basic principles of public morality. Self-determination entitles aboriginal peoples to negotiate the terms of their relationship with Canada and to establish governmental structures that they consider appropriate for their needs.

How does this notion take into account self-determination for aboriginals?

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this afternoon to say a few words about the motions in Group No. 4, Motions Nos. 4 to 19.

An hon. colleague in the Reform Party mentioned earlier that it is the only party which is fighting for farmers. I wish to make it very clear that is not the case. New Democrats have always been supportive of farmers. We are proud to stand and fight for farmers.

We have always strongly supported the wheat board because it works in the best interests of farmers. For 60 years the wheat board as a crown agency has done an admirable job for farmers.

The government is suggesting a 15 member board of directors, 10 of whom will be elected by producers. We recognize that the government must continue to have some influence on the wheat board if Ottawa is to continue to guarantee initial prices for grains.

However, we feel very strongly that if the wheat board is to have a board of directors, elections must be fair. They should be elections by and for farmers. We do not want vested corporate interests interfering. We see too much of vested corporate interests nowadays. That is exactly what the MAI is attempting to do, to give free rein to the corporations so they can dictate their will upon others. We feel that with something as important as the wheat board this must not be the case.

Fair elections mean one producer, one vote. The Reform Party suggests that big farmers should have more votes than small farmers. We say that is anti-democratic and we want no part of it.

Fair elections mean a limit on the spending campaign of candidates, just as there is in federal election campaigns, so that wealthy individuals do not have an advantage. Wealth dominates too many things today. Those who are struggling cannot get ahead simply because they do not have money in their pockets. We want to see fair elections and spending limits.

Fair elections mean a strict and transparent limit to what third parties can spend. We want transparency. That is very important today.

The wheat board, as we know, is a $6 billion industry. It is a very big industry. Certain corporate interests would just love to get their hands on it. We do not want them using their deep pockets to influence the elections of the board of directors. We are already seeing too much corporate interference in the wheat board debate. For the past several months the Canadian Wheat Board has come under sustained attack. This attack is orchestrated by certain farm groups, aided by corporate interests, including the Canadian Federation for Independent Business, the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange and Cargo.

The so-called coalition against Bill C-4 is trying to do through the back door what it has failed to do through the democratic process. For example, it is demanding that barley be dropped from the wheat board's jurisdiction. Farmers voted on that very question in 1997 and 63% of them voted in favour of keeping barley under the board's jurisdiction. So we talk about democracy. Again, democracy is where the majority rules.

We say to these corporate interests and to the Reform Party that debate about the wheat board is a debate for farmers, not for corporations for their greed and their self-interest.

We have also witnessed the disgraceful media campaign by the National Citizens' Coalition to discredit the wheat board. This coalition claims to be funded by ordinary Canadians, but we believe it is bank rolled by big business. The coalition is a soulmate to the Reform Party. The head of the coalition is a former Reform MP and a close confident of the Reform Party leader.

Again, we come back to the question of fairness. If there are going to be elections for a board of directors we want them to be fair and not bought by corporate friends of the Reform Party with their deep pockets.

[Investment, February 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, what promises can this government offer to aboriginal people that the multilateral agreement on investment will not give huge multinational corporations like Daishowa and others a very big say in determining aboriginal people's access to natural resources such as fish and forestry?

[African Heritage Month, February 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, February is recognized as African Heritage Month. As the first black member of Parliament from the province of Nova Scotia, I am personally aware of both the challenges and opportunities presented to Canadians of African descent. I am pleased today that my mother, who taught me to be proud of my heritage, is watching on TV.

On behalf of all my colleagues in the federal NDP I wish to honour African Canadians who throughout Canadian history have played their part, large or small, in developing our community.

While the Reform Party introduces motions to deny multiculturalism in Canada, I am proud to strongly support Canada's multicultural heritage.

In particular, I would like to honour a unique and vital institution, the Black Cultural Centre of Nova Scotia which preserves and promotes all facets of black culture.

Recognition of African Heritage Month is at the same time a celebration of all cultures which are essential to making Canada the diverse and vigorous nation it is. Such is what unity is all about.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, February 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned hundreds of millions of dollars leaving our country, escaping taxes and not being available to our economy. I agree with him that it is happening. I think that points to the need for tax reform.

This bill is really only scratching the surface when we talk about tax reform. Although there are some good things in this bill, in reality this bill is an attempt to cover over the massive cuts that have been made affecting our social programs, our educational programs and our health programs.

We need tax reform to meet the education and training needs of our youth. When I say that I mean not just the youth in our affluent societies but I am talking about rural youth and youth in our small fishing villages. I am talking aboriginal youth who through historical wrongs have not been able to obtain the education required to compete in today's society.

Would the hon. member be in favour of tax reform that would incorporate for example an excess profit tax that would get at some of the astronomical profits that are being reaped by the huge bank mergers that we see today and by the large corporations, whereby some of that profit could be reinvested in our communities in a way that would help our young people obtain their education?

Would the member be in support of a true tax reform which would lessen the disparity that we see in society so that some of those tax dollars he talked about that are leaving the country could be reinvested in our youth?

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, February 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member in his remarks spoke about assistance to families to help with education through the changes to the RESPs. While this may be a laudable move, I remind the hon. member that many families cannot afford to have RESPs. There are many families in Canada who are living at a subsistence level, yet their children are worthy of education as well.

Has the government considered anything very substantial in terms of transfer payments to assist many young people who are in need of help with their education?

We heard earlier and it is well known that many young people are coming out of university with a debtload of $25,000 or more before they even have the opportunity of obtaining a job. We are very concerned about this and we feel that the recent cuts in the transfer payments have seriously affected education and have caused a lot of problems for young people.

Is there anything more substantial that the government plans to assist with education other than helping those who are already able to help themselves?

[Petitions, February 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition concerns fair pensions for Canadians. This petition has over 100 signatures. It calls for the rescinding of Bill C-2. It further petitions the House of Commons for a national review of the retirement income system in Canada to ensure the adequacy of Canada's retirement system today and tomorrow. I take pleasure in presenting this petition.

[Petitions, February 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present two petitions today. The first petition gives the opportunity for this House to give meaning to the government's words of working in partnership with aboriginal people. This is a petition for a public inquiry of Ipperwash.

Whereas many questions concerning the events preceding, during and after the fatal shooting of Anthony Dudley George on September 6, 1995 at Ipperwash provincial park, where over 200 armed officers were sent to control 25 unarmed men and women, have not been answered, and whereas the Constitution of Canada requires that Canada protect Indians and Indian lands, the undersigned petition the House of Commons that a full public inquiry be held into the events surrounding the fatal shooting of Dudley George on September 6, 1995 to eliminate all misconceptions held by and about governments, the OPP and the Stony Point people.

I take pleasure in submitting this on behalf of the signatories whose names cover eight pages.

[Division No. 68, December 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, as the New Democratic Party's aboriginal affairs critic, I am deeply troubled by this government's continuing silence regarding the royal commission's final report and recommendations. Obviously there is a pressing need to radically redefine the relationship between aboriginal peoples and the federal government.

The tragic events of recent years at Oka and Ipperwash prove how urgently action is needed. As time continues to pass, aboriginal peoples and other Canadians are left with the impression that this government has no clear idea of what should be done.

The New Democratic Party has for a long time been calling on the government to put an end to the dependency and marginalization of aboriginal peoples. As the royal commission clearly stated, to recognize our mistakes is the first step toward a new relationship based on mutual respect.

There is compelling information in the royal commission's report about systemic physical, sexual and emotional abuses in residential schools, all in the name of our government's assimilationist policies.

To make sure justice is done to the victims of abuse would be one small remedy which would begin an essential healing process. Formal apologies and compensation were offered to Japanese Canadians for treatment during the second world war. Now is the time for apologies to and the healing of aboriginal peoples.

I strongly believe that a true partnership cannot be achieved without mutual respect and recognition. The royal commission stressed the importance of recognizing that aboriginal peoples in Canada form distinct nations and, as such, have a right to fashion their societies in ways which reflect their values and cultures. I certainly share this vision.

In that sense, both explicit constitutional recognition and concrete actions to implement the inherent right to self-government are essential.

The government finally established a policy regarding self-government negotiations in 1995. These negotiations are a first step to replacing the paternalistic relationship established under the Indian Act, but the unacceptable requirement of exchanging treaty rights for extinguishment of aboriginal rights is still part of the negotiation process. How could we have a relationship based on trust and mutual respect with such a policy?

I also share the view of the royal commission that aboriginal governments must be considered as a third legitimate government, like the provinces and the federal government. Nations are not like municipalities and this should be reflected in these agreements.

Aboriginal nations should be able to decide which power they want to exercise in accordance with the charter of rights and freedoms and the fundamental principles of the Canadian constitution.

Given the dramatic situation regarding health, education, housing and the employment of aboriginal peoples on and off reserve, these are a matter of priority.

Aboriginal peoples are better placed than anyone else to find solutions adapted to their own realities and traditions, but the government must not simply transfer its responsibilities and run. This situation must be addressed in true collaboration.

Another important aspect of restructuring the relationship is to establish a fair base for dispute settlement. The NDP is a long time supporter of an independent land claims commission. Such a commission should have a tribunal-like decision power and report its activities to Parliament.

A land base is essential to the exercise of self-government. The NDP supports the process presently in place for the creation of Nunavut. It is also important that the Métis people, who have been ignored by governments since the last century, be recognized as having full aboriginal rights and a land and resource base to exercise self-government.

I could go on for hours talking about the changes which I believe are necessary to correct centuries of abuses and wrong policies. My colleagues in the NDP certainly share the view that the very principle of a new relationship based on mutual respect lies in our ability to listen to aboriginal peoples. History cannot be forgotten, but we can certainly act on it to create a better future.