Gordon Earle

[Human Rights, December 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is international human rights day. However, there is little to celebrate after this government's shameful performance at the APEC summit last month.

We learned this week that Musqueam Chief Gail Sparrow's address to APEC representatives was cancelled at the last minute, not because of the length of her speech as government officials stated, but because of her intention to raise the human rights question.

Will the Prime Minister come clean and apologize for the government's blatant and unjustified censorship of Chief Sparrow's speech?

[Business Of The House, December 3rd, 1997]

Madam Speaker, on October 7 I questioned the Minister of Health regarding concrete action the government needs to take to address the dramatic situation of aboriginal health as highlighted by a recent report from the auditor general.

Health is a matter of great concern for all Canadians. As Tom Irons, fourth vice-chief of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations, stated: “I firmly believe that no other issue so fundamentally relates to the survival of our people than health”.

The 1996 report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples refers to the health status of aboriginal people as both a tragedy and a crisis. Health Canada statistics illustrate the extent of this tragedy.

Infant mortality for first nations is 1.7 times higher than the Canadian average. Life expectancy is seven to eight years lower on reserves than anywhere else in Canada. Infectious diseases like tuberculosis are 6.6 times more common among aboriginal peoples. The suicide rate among young people is up to eight times higher than the Canadian average.

These numbers are just the tip of the iceberg. Health and social conditions in aboriginal communities are disastrous and clearly unacceptable under Canadian standards.

The auditor general's report talks of abuses of prescription drugs having caused high dependency and even death among some aboriginal people. We may add to this list the ongoing lack of resources and medical staff in remote communities.

What is our government's response to this crisis? We hear a lot of words, talk of partnership and new programs, but little action. If aboriginal health is a matter of concern for this government, maybe the minister could explain why the federal government is reducing its budget allocation to health services on reserves.

The June 1997 expenditure plan from Health Canada shows a reduction of 2.9% of direct spending on aboriginal health programs between 1995 and 1996. Is the government hoping to improve the situation by reducing already scarce resources? As the auditor general rightly points out, it is necessary to establish a closer relationship between the government and aboriginal administrations in order to put forward solutions that address the specific realities of each community.

Aboriginal peoples have shown great energy and imagination in tackling health and social problems. Projects linking traditional healing practices and medical services have often proven very successful. Collaboration and partnership based on action between governments and aboriginal peoples is the first step toward addressing the dramatic situation in many aboriginal communities.

As the royal commission stated in its final report, this situation is the result of years of abuses and of paternalistic attitude that seriously damaged aboriginal self-esteem and sense of belonging, but transferring programs must not be done in a dump and run style so often employed by this government. It must be done in true collaboration with aboriginal communities to ensure that programs transferred are actually going to improve the health of aboriginal peoples.

Empowering the people involved is an essential step toward healing and creating conditions for a better future. I thus strongly urge the government to act on this and closely examine the royal commission and the auditor general recommendations regarding aboriginal health.

[Immigration, December 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the auditor general's report states that this government does not quickly grant Canada's protection to refugee claimants who genuinely need it.

The Liberal head tax presents a huge barrier to many of those refugees and families who genuinely need access to Canada. The so-called success of the loans program does not take into account all of those who do not even apply, and the reduction in applications since the implementation of the tax underscores this.

Will the government join with every other country in the world and remove this offensive tax?

[Westray, December 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, 26 miners lost their lives in the Westray mine disaster and I know all members of this House recognize the suffering of the families and communities involved.

Will this government immediately follow up on the recommendation of Westray inquiry chair Justice Peter Richard that the Government of Canada should institute a study of the accountability of corporate executives and directors for the wrongful or negligent acts of the corporation and should introduce amendments to legislation to ensure that corporate executives and directors are held properly accountable for workplace safety?

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, December 1st, 1997]

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I will return to Group No. 6.

I brought that forward because when my hon. colleague was speaking earlier, he made reference to the fraud element.

Moving back to Group No. 6, we are very concerned about the fact that the definitions outlined in Bill C-2 will end up reducing benefits. With the amendments we have put forward in Group No. 6 we want to counter that effect.

We do not believe that in today's society it benefits anybody to reduce the amount of benefit that someone receives. Rather, by doing that we end up paying in the long run because those people then have to seek other means to try to compensate their income. Therefore it is very important that the level and the integrity of the plan be maintained.

In conclusion, I support the motions we have put forward under Group No. 6. We feel that those motions should be adopted in order to keep the plan effective.

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, December 1st, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to join in this debate on Bill C-2, the Canada pension plan.

The Canada pension plan is a very important part of our society. This universal plan, I believe, is under attack by the Liberal government. This plan, which guarantees benefits for people when they reach their senior years, is facing a great amount of difficulty by the proposals in Bill C-2.

I want to talk particularly today about the disability provisions. I stand in support of the motions that were made by our party, the NDP, concerning this aspect of the Canada pension plan. These motions we made are designed to offset the provisions in the bill which alter the rules for calculating disability benefits and which make it harder to be eligible for benefits.

We know that the people applying for these pensions have enough difficulty now when they try to obtain what they are entitled to obtain; some of the bureaucratic delays that they have to go through, some of the difficulties while they are experiencing pain and disability. It is very degrading for many people.

Now we have a bill which proposes to make it even more difficult for people to obtain their benefits.

The proposed bill is very hard on those who are self-employed, on seniors and on women. By deindexing the year's basic exemption by freezing it at $3,500 beginning in 1998, this downloads the burden of pension hikes on the low income earners. We know that low income people are experiencing enough difficulty now without having to pay more in order to obtain benefits.

Another concern is that the effect of adding the definition of maximum pensionable earnings average alters the benefit formula for calculation with a net effect again of reducing benefits. Reducing benefits is all we need to hear about today. Pensions themselves are so low right now that when we talk about reducing them even further we realize that we are creating extreme difficulty for people.

Just this past weekend I was at a function where a constituent was telling me that he receives a $560 disability pension. Out of that he has to pay a mortgage of $400. That leaves him with $160 to pay his lights, heat, telephone and buy groceries to feed himself and his family. Imagine $160 a month. Now we are talking about looking at the Canada pension plan so that we end up reducing people's benefits.

The changes proposed regarding the minimum contributory requirements for a disability pension result in a reduction to disability benefits and further hardship, requiring recipients to work and contribute in four of the last six years instead of two of the last three or five of the last ten. We want clause 69 which provides for that to be deleted altogether. Let us not make things more difficult for people.

Another concern is that Canada pension plan premiums are collected from only the first $35,800 of income. The effect of this is that those who make over the maximum pensionable earnings pay a lesser percentage than those who make less. We need to make sure that as one earns more, one contributes accordingly rather than having the low income workers always bearing the brunt.

An hon. member of the Bloc Quebecois mentioned earlier that the NDP wanted to remove elements of the legislation relating to fraud. I believe some reference was being made to our motions where we want to amend Bill C-2 by deleting clauses 87 and 107. These are the clauses which spell out massive new powers for the minister responsible to conduct investigations into the viability of claimants.

These clauses go so far as to talk about being able to enter people's dwellings with a warrant to enforce penalties, to gather information, to request information from third parties. What third parties, I ask. Your neighbours, your friends? These clauses also talk about investigating Canada pension plan claims and imposing penalties for infractions. Who is imposing penalties for the infractions that the government administration causes with respect to the administration of this plan right now?

I draw the House's attention to a case where someone applied for benefits, was refused, appealed to the review board tribunal, a favourable decision was rendered and then the minister through the department appealed that favourable decision. Here is someone who is unable to work, is suffering, is going through all kinds of mental anguish, wins at the tribunal level and then it is appealed by the department.

Under the appeal process when that appeal is made, I believe to the vice-chair of the Canada pension board, that official is supposed to forthwith under the act let the parties know whether that leave to appeal has been granted. What is happening is the applications for appeal are piling up on that official's desk and a year later the person has not even got around to responding as to whether or not that appeal will be allowed, let alone setting up the process to carry through with that appeal.

This kind of bureaucratic delay and infraction of the current plan is of deep concern to me. And now under Bill C-2 we are going to introduce even more powerful mechanisms that will slow down the process and cause indignity to those who need to apply for these pensions. We have to think very carefully about this.

When we talk about safety and we talk about safeguards against fraud, I maintain that that safeguard is already there now. The safeguard is there in the integrity of our seniors, the people who are going to receive these benefits, the people in our society who are going to benefit from the Canada pension plan.

By introducing the kinds of changes that are addressed in this bill, we are automatically implying that our senior citizens and others are not—

[Canadians, November 26th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is with mixed feelings of pleasure and great concern that I rise today in this House to speak about the motion presented by the member from the Reform Party.

I am pleased to have an opportunity to share my views on such an important issue. But at the same time, this motion proposing the creation of a House committee to draft a bill that would prevent any reference to the ethnic, cultural or religious origins of Canadians troubles me deeply.

Let us not be fooled by the wording of this motion. The Reform Party is out to destroy the multicultural policy that stands at the heart of our heritage and this comes as no surprise from a party that is promoting division and exclusion in its policies.

The member from the Reform Party presents his motion as an anti-discrimination measure that will ensure that all Canadians are considered equal in status. He refers to the use of hyphenated identification of Canadians from various origins as a way to create categories of citizens who are not just Canadians or simply Canadian. He argues that no one should be treated differently.

If the member thinks that being different means being less important, it is really sad. Does it mean that we should all forget our diverse origins and become white Anglo-Saxon Protestant Canadians? Does it mean that the only identity acceptable is the one of the majority? Does being Chinese-Canadian, German-Canadian or Italian-Canadian mean being less Canadian? No. It means being ourselves and wanting to be accepted as such.

The very principle of equality so often abused in Reform ideology is itself based on the idea that differences do exist. Being equal does not mean to be all the same. Equality means respecting differences and ensuring these differences will not limit the freedom of opportunity of individuals. This is what multiculturalism is all about.

Multiculturalism is about recognition, acceptance and celebration of differences. I am proud to say that this is the conception of equality promoted by the NDP. Equality means equality of opportunities. It means respecting and appreciating one's particular heritage, differences and characteristics. It also means that the government has an active role in promoting the right to be different and to counter intolerance.

To the contrary, the Reform Party wants multiculturalism to be purged from any government programs. The Reform Party thinks that the government should not participate in promoting multiculturalism because one's heritage is a private and personal matter.

Basically they say it is okay to be Indo-Canadian at home but let us avoid being multicultural in public. Why? Is it a shame to be different? Does it mean that we should all hide our roots in order to live together? Dangerous concepts and for many reasons.

It means that difference is not welcome and must be hidden. It also means that the government should not be active in promoting real equality of opportunities for minorities.

Does the member think the government has no business promoting justice or fighting racism and intolerance? Because multicultural policies are also about educating people on how enriching and powerful working together can be. Why is the Reform Party so terrified of multiple identities?

It is normal for people to cherish their specific heritages. Removing descriptions does not mean removing differences. The names we use to identify ourselves are ways of saying “Here I am. This is the way I am and I want to be respected as such”.

Being Cree, Quebecois, Indo-Canadian or Jewish is a way to express our specific heritage, our roots and a certain sense of collective belonging to a group but it is not a rejection of our common Canadian identity. In fact it is just the reverse. It is a strong statement strengthening the vibrant fabric of Canada.

Reform's rejection of the very idea that people have specific identities beyond their Canadian citizenship is also simplistic nonsense on the eve of the 21st century. When in the same day one can chat on the phone with someone from Rio de Janeiro, send an e-mail to a friend in Berlin, eat Jamaican patties while watching the news from Algeria or Afghanistan with a friend born in East Timor, multicultural we certainly are. To be multicultural we must fully participate in and understand this constantly changing and thriving world.

Canada has been recognized as a world leader in developing a policy that addresses today's multicultural world. Let us not give away what we have accomplished. Going back to what now seemed like stone age denials of different policies would be a major setback for this country. Sadly, this Liberal government has done little to defend multiculturalism from the unfounded and misleading attack from such groups as the Reform Party. Rather, multiculturalism programs have been whittled down bit by bit since the Liberals took office.

If the Liberals really believe in promoting diversity and participation of all Canadians in public life as a way to consolidate our national unity, maybe they could explain why this government has been following the politics of division and exclusion promoted by the Reform Party. Slashing social programs, cutting public education about multiculturalism and imposing burdens on newcomers like the infamous head tax, officially referred to as the right of landing fee, on permanent residency is not about inclusion. That is about exclusion and marginalization of a growing number of Canadians of all origins.

I and my New Democratic colleagues strongly believe that the state has an essential role in promoting a fair and just society. We think, as do the majority of Canadians, that multiculturalism policies are an important aspect of this role. In times of economic harshness, intolerance is on the rise. This should be a concern for all of us.

I personally think and history tends to confirm that in general when people can be open about and proud of their specific culture and ethnic origin, and when the state is willing to accommodate and promote diversity, there is harmony. It is only when attempts are made to suppress differences that troubles are developing.

I think it is possible, and even desirable, to live together in a spirit of co-operation and openness to one another. Only by recognizing our differences, not only our commons values, but also our distinct historical roots, can we build a Canada that respects our characteristic diversity.

Canada is by definition a country based on diversity: geographic diversity of course, but also the diversity of its people, cultures, languages and faiths. I think that, by emphasizing the role of the founding cultures—aboriginal, French and English—while at the same time promoting and cherishing the new multicultural reality of our country, we will learn to live together.

To recognize our differences, promote our common values and learn from each other and to enrich our cultural and social heritage is the way to a better future for Canada, not the politics of division and denial that we hear more and more from the other parties in this House. I will always rise to promote and defend our shared values of tolerance and inclusiveness that have made Canada such a cherished place to live.

I want to thank all the members for listening to my comments. I hope that I was able to convince some of them that this motion must be rejected.

[Petitions, November 26th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition concerning pay equity. The petition has been signed by several people from various communities in Nova Scotia: Halifax, Dartmouth, Fall River, Beech Hill, Windsor Junction, et cetera.

It points out that the Canadian Human Rights Act includes provision to end pay discrimination against women by making equal pay for work of equal value the law.

The petitioners call upon parliament to put an end to pay discrimination by implementing the results of the joint study through negotiations with the Public Service Alliance of Canada, the union representing the workers that are grieving.

[Aboriginal Youth, November 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the anniversary of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples report to say shame on this Liberal government.

The minister of Indian affairs says they need yet more time to respond. There has been enough time to read 50 compelling and damning pages of systematic and ritualized physical, sexual and emotional abuse of aboriginal children in residential schools.

My question is clear. All else aside, will the government say two words to begin the healing, two words, we're sorry?

[Aboriginal Youth, November 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the historic systematic abuse of aboriginal youth by residential schools goes unanswered by this government. An apology is due.

It appears that lawyers run the department, as this Liberal government has yet to say two simple words: “we're sorry”.

Every day this government remains content to allow the full weight of this horror to burn in the minds and hearts of the countless victims is another day this government shares responsibility for this acts of ritualized abuse.

Aboriginal youth were torn from their families and communities. Their language, culture, customs and values were suppressed. The wounds of this abuse are still open and now is the time for healing.

The royal commission clearly states that recognizing our mistake is the first step toward a new relationship based on mutual respect. An apology from this government would be one small remedy that would begin the healing. Anything less is unconscionable, unforgivable and unacceptable.