Gordon Earle

[Speech From The Throne, October 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I was quite pleased to hear the hon. member's remarks concerning education for our young people because we know this is a very important issue that has to be dealt with in our country.

I would like the hon. member to elaborate a bit upon what the government is doing to make it easier for young people through cuts in tuition or something similar which would make their debt load easier as they struggle through university.

[Special Debate, October 13th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, we have a very serious situation on our hands. As everybody can appreciate, it is very serious for those of us who live in coastal communities and for those of us who live along the sea.

It always disturbs me when I hear the situation presented as the hon. member who just spoke presented it, to rehear the case. It reminds me of people tossing a coin to see who goes first. If they do not get the right answer they go for the best two out of three. If they still do not get the right answer they go for the best three out of five. They want to keep going until they get it the way they want it.

It seems very unusual to talk about rehearing a supreme court decision. I wonder if the hon. member would have taken the same position if the decision had come down not in favour of the aboriginal treaties.

We have a very serious situation. The court has ruled. It has made a decision. We should now be focusing our attention on giving a practical application to the decision that will be beneficial to all who are involved, to all the stakeholders in the industry. We have to do that through negotiation, which is where the government has fallen down. It waited until the decision came down before it looked at the prospect of negotiation despite the fact that Delgamuukw had talked about negotiation and the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples had spoken about negotiation.

We have known for a long time that there must be a sharing of resources and that it must be done in a way that will maintain peace and harmony but we wait until a very crucial decision comes and now it comes down to one side against the other side, communities being divided against communities.

I have heard a lot of goodwill spoken on this issue by people on all sides, by the aboriginal people and by non-aboriginal people who want to resolve this issue in a favourable way. This is where the minister and the government must take the lead and show leadership. They must not wait and see whether the negotiations have broken down. They must not wait and see if the traps have been pulled. Rather, they must initiate leadership and do something now. It is great to hear about the long term plans but we have an immediate situation that must be dealt with now. It is a matter of getting the priorities around the table now to deal with the crisis that is facing us.

[Canadian Forces, June 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the way backward is the Liberal government's response thus far to the 200 page report entitled “The Way Forward” given to the Minister of National Defence by Canada's new Canadian forces ombudsman. Over 135 days later the minister sits silent.

With well over 350 complaints waiting and over 8,000 expected, when will the government respond to the report and let the ombudsman begin his work? Or is the minister being silenced by the top military brass?

[Merchant Navy, June 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, one of the many communications I received on this government's demeaning and atrocious failure to compensate Canada's merchant marine said:

I believe this is absolutely appalling after they were assured that they would finally be compensated for their services as they so richly deserve.

Will the government commit to redressing its vile decision not to offer financial compensation to Canada's merchant marine, or is it really content simply to spit in the collective faces of these Canadian war heroes?

[Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act, June 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to make a few comments concerning Bill C-55. This is a very important issue for all of us. What we are debating embodies some very important principles.

The House of Commons, with the support of the NDP caucus, passed the Canadian version of Bill C-55. I say Canadian version because we know that what we are looking at now has a slightly different approach to it. When we passed this bill a few months back we gave our support because of the protection this bill offered to Canadian magazines from new split-run editions of American magazines. That was the reason for our lukewarm support. We had a lot of concerns about this bill but we did stick with the government and we did support the bill.

At that time we expressed frustration because the bill seemed to be the subject of bargaining behind closed doors with the Americans. This concerned us greatly. The minister gave us her assurance that the spirit of Bill C-55 would be respected in any deal that was worked out. How wrong we were to have believed that.

Let us look for a moment at the contents of what we call the Canadian bill. What did it provide?

Bill C-55 would make it an offence for a publisher to provide advertising services aimed at the Canadian market to be placed in foreign periodical publications, except for those currently receiving Canadian advertising. They could continue at the current level of Canadian advertising under the grandparenting provision.

An offence was enforceable by a Canadian court in any Canadian jurisdiction chosen by the crown after an investigation ordered by the minister using powers of investigation borrowed from the Criminal Code. The penalties ranged from a maximum of $20,000 for an individual first offence on a summary conviction to $250,000 for a corporate offender on indictment. There were also provisions for jail terms.

Offences that took place outside Canada by foreign individuals or corporations were deemed to have taken place in Canada for the purpose of enforcement of this act. The government could collect unpaid fines levied upon conviction in the same manner as a civil judgment.

There were a lot of things in this bill that perhaps merited some consideration. But what happened to this bill? The Americans became concerned and they threatened a trade war. Canadian trade experts both inside and outside government stated repeatedly that the Canadian version of Bill C-55 was WTO proof and that the cultural exclusion in NAFTA would also protect Canada in any trade war. Yet after months of behind closed door negotiations the Prime Minister directly intervened and Canada gave in. We surrendered. We caved in.

An hon. member mentioned earlier that we are all Americans, but we know full well that there is quite a difference between Canadian culture and American culture. Even though we all are part of the North American continent, there is quite a difference in approach and in cultural identity and so forth between our two countries.

Quite often we see that Canada gives in to the Americans. We give in on matters that involve our environment. We allow substances to be put into our environment because the Americans will sue us if we do not allow those substances to be used. We give in to big brother so to speak.

The heritage minister had the Senate introduce amendments which we now see in this bill in order to implement our capitulation to the Americans. After using time allocation in the Senate, the Senate passed the bill and it is before the House today.

What exactly did Canada give away? Let us look at the definitions of Canadian content, editorial content or non-advertising. It is considered Canadian as long as it is original to the magazine and aimed exclusively at a Canadian market; not if it was written by a Canadian, but as long as it is original and aimed at the Canadian market.

The precedent is now set for the Americans to challenge the definitions of Canadian content under the WTO and NAFTA. This could have a profound impact on our protections in broadcasting, book publishing, films and even our protections in all cultural institutions.

An hon. member from the Reform Party made some reference to the NDP critic's description of culture and the use of the term soul. I am proud that we in the NDP are concerned with issues that relate to the soul. We are concerned about things that are meaningful to us. We go beyond the dollar and cents value that quite often is placed upon things by so many others. Quite often that dominates and determines what the end policy is going to be, rather than the heart and soul having some role to play in terms of our Canadian culture.

With respect to control of our own market, the original Bill C-55 made it illegal for the new split-run magazines to accept Canadian advertising. Under the American deal we will allow new split runs to be created to invade our market with up to 18% Canadian advertising phased in over three years. Canadian advertisers can now write off on their taxes a portion of their ad expenses spent on Canadian magazines. In a sense the government is making the taxpayers subsidize the American industry.

The original bill grandfathered existing split runs such as Reader's Digest , Time , Sports Illustrated and so forth, but the new bill allows for new split runs and that is the real threat to our magazine industry.

I could go on at some length about some of the problems with this deal, but it is a cave-in by the Canadian government. Often the Liberal government caves in, sells out and gives up on the basic values that are important to us.

I could go through a number of examples of how this happens. I look, for example, at the need for a national shipbuilding policy. Again this is an issue on which the government has caved in. It is afraid to face up to the fact that we need a national shipbuilding policy to enable many skilled people who are looking for work in this area to pursue that work in a meaningful way.

The government constantly says that it has a policy. It gives one or two examples of a few concessions here or there but nothing that sets any sense of direction for a national shipbuilding policy.

Let us look at the most recent issue of the treatment of merchant mariners. These honourable veterans served their country well. Yet after the war they ended up being mistreated. They were not given the opportunities that were given to the regular military. These men have been fighting for years to be recognized as having contributed in a meaningful way to the protection and well-being of their country.

We get to a point where finally some recognition is given through legislation. However they are saying they want some compensation for lost opportunities. They want the government to show in a symbolic way that it understands what they went through and what they suffered, not at the hands of the enemy so much but at the hands of their own government.

The government had the opportunity to correct the situation. An all party committee listened to witnesses from across the country who felt that these men should be adequately rewarded. What did the government do when there was the opportunity to correct the situation? Again it looked at the bottom line of the dollar figure and caved in.

We receive letters from many constituents on this matter. One letter was from a navy veteran in the province of New Brunswick and concerned the article in the Times transcript today. He did not agree with the chairman of the committee that most veterans did not think they should get the $20,000 payment. He did not know to whom the chairman had been been talking but he knew the way veterans felt about it and that they did not feel that way. He wanted something to be done to ensure that the actual feelings of the veterans were heard. We feel that these merchant mariners should get this compensation.

Other veterans are speaking out on behalf of merchant mariners. People from all across the country are speaking out. Yet the government caves in.

Then we have the issue concerning the military ombudsman. Well over a year ago the government put in place a system designed to facilitate men and women in the armed forces in obtaining an independent means of redress of their concerns. Even then the government did not make it truly independent. Rather than the ombudsman being accountable to parliament, he ends up being accountable to the Minister of National Defence.

We thought we should give it a try and see how it would work. Well after a year the military ombudsman is sitting powerless. He produced a report which he called The Way Forward . He sent it on to the minister for a response. That report has been sitting on the minister's desk for over 150 days. The minister is sitting silent. He has caved in again, perhaps to the top military brass. We do not know. With hundreds of complaints waiting and thousands expected, the minister has not yet responded to the military ombudsman's report to enable him to begin his work.

There is clearly a need for the government to look seriously at accountability and fairness and how these concepts can be enhanced through an ombudsman concept for the military and perhaps even for the federal government as a whole.

Again it is an example of caving in, an example of looking at the dollars and not giving any consideration to the other principles involved in trying to help people resolve their problems.

Then again we look at employment insurance and the employment insurance grab that took place, another example of grabbing the dollars and forgetting about the unemployed men and women out there who could benefit from those funds in a meaningful way.

Recently with Bill C-78, the pension surplus grab, the pension funds of the Canadian military, the RCMP and public servants were being grabbed for the government's coffers without any consideration of how best to improve the benefits being received by survivors and contributors to the pension funds. Again it is a cave-in by the government. We could also look at pay equity, another big example of a cave-in by the government.

I return to one example that is very dear to my heart and very important to me. I am referring to a small community in my riding that is without a good, clean, healthy, drinking water supply. One might ask in this day and age how it could be possible that a community is drawing water from wells that is not suitable for drinking and not suitable for washing clothes. There are young children and older people in that community. These people are living next to the main water supply for the city of Halifax. It passes them by. It is unbelievable in this day and age.

We have been struggling to get funds to enable the project to move ahead to get these people hooked up to the central water system. We are only asking for a small contribution from the federal government for that project, a contribution which could have well been handled under the Canada infrastructure works program. Because of a slight mix-up the project did not get in under that program. Even money that had been committed by the federal government has been taken off the books. We are struggling to get some money to assist with the project.

Where are the government's priorities? Cave-in, cave-in, cave-in. That is what is happening with Bill C-55. The changes that have been made to the bill are a cave-in by the government. It is an attempt to try to avoid protecting Canadian culture. If we are to be seen as truly proud Canadians, at some point we must stand up and be counted.

I spoke to an hon. member from the government side who said to me just yesterday that it was awful to have to do something one does not want to do. I asked him if he was referring to the merchant marines and he said that was right. I told him that I thought it was time he stood and was counted and that he did not have to do something he did not want to do.

When I was campaigning I said very clearly to my constituents that I did not want politics to change me. If it ever get to a point where I will not stand up for what I believe to be right and make a decision based upon my conscience and upon what I know to be right, I will be ineffective in politics and it is the time for me to get out.

Whenever we are considering changes to legislation hon. members should remember that we have to stand and be counted. We have to base our stand upon the principles we believe in as individuals. We have to be true to ourselves if we are to be true at all in forming legislation that will be meaningful.

With those remarks I would say the amendments and changes to the bill do nothing to enhance Canadian culture. They do nothing to secure or protect our magazine industry. I urge all hon. members to consider this point, to reject what we call the American deal, and to promote a truly positive deal for Canadians.

[Supply, June 7th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government's grab of the pension surplus was not only offensive but pathetic and embarrassing. The pension belongs to Canadian forces troops, public sector workers, the RCMP and others.

The Liberal government decided that cooking its own books was important enough to loot its employees' pension funds. This fund belongs to the members of the plan. Any surplus should be used for the benefit of the members and others affiliated with the plan such as retirees and widows.

Some 670,000 members of the pension plan are affected. The allocation of any surplus should address the contributions of those over half million Canadians.

Under the employees' pension benefits act a principle was established that surpluses do not belong to anyone and that allocation of surpluses need to be approved by a two-thirds majority of the plan members.

One legitimate reason exists. What reason exists to differentiate between a noble action and the simple cash grab we have seen by the Liberal government? What reason would the government have for not using the surplus to improve the benefits accruing to the members of the plan who created that surplus?

It seems to me as if the Liberal government has made a political decision to set a precedent for pension plan comptrollers to take the money and run. The government tried to use cheap political game playing to make it look as if the outcry against this near larceny was from a small fringe of one union. That cheap political trick was nonsense.

An advertisement placed in the Ottawa Citizen against this cash grab was signed by many, including Canadian Military College Faculty Association, Council of Graphic Artists, Canadian Merchant Service Guild, and the list goes on and on.

However the government wants to grab the money, put it in its coffers and say that it has wrestled down the debt, but it will have done so on the backs of those who need the plan, those who have contributed and worked hard. It will be done in the same way the EI fund was grabbed and taken away from those who are unemployed.

We realize over 670,000 members of the plan are affected. The allocation of the surplus needs to address the contribution of these members who have contributed to the plan.

We often hear the government say that the taxpayer owns this money and that it is the taxpayer it must protect. The people who contributed to the plan are also taxpayers. We must look at their benefits and their rights. This is a democratic principle. People should have the right to say what they feel should be done with the surpluses in their pension plans.

Who are we affecting with the legislation? We are affecting the Canadian military, the people who are fighting over in Kosovo. While they are away fighting the government is back here grabbing the surplus from their pension funds.

We are also affecting the RCMP, the people we entrust to keep law and order, to put their lives on the line fighting crime, and to do all kinds of things to protect society. While they are protecting society, who is protecting their pension fund? It is certainly not the government.

A grave injustice has been done. I am pleased to provide the government with this opportunity to apologize, to set the record straight and to ensure that every cent of funds dedicated to this plan is left in the pension fund or put to direct use to improve the benefits of the plan in a way that is acceptable to the plan's contributors.

[Supply, June 7th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that sports and amateur sports in particular is very important. It is a very essential part of our society and something which certainly builds character in our young people.

There is one thing I would like some clarification on by the hon. member. He spoke quite a bit about investment in high performance athletes, high performance coaching, high performance training and so forth, about the top level. While that is important, sometimes there is tremendous pressure for our young people to always be on top. People have gotten past the stage where they can enjoy sports, have fun, relax and build character that way. Sometimes there is so much pressure on young people to always be at the top, to be at a high level and of top quality. It creates more stress and concern for them than if they could just enjoy the sport.

The member talked about the funding that has been provided and the investment being made in our young people. What form of funding or investment is available for families? Perhaps the children are in one parent families and they cannot afford the latest high quality equipment that would make them look professional. They would like to just go out, have fun and be encouraged in sports in that way. What is the government doing in that regard?

[Petitions, June 7th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to present one petition.

The petition concerns mandatory labelling and thorough testing of all genetically engineered foods. It is signed by a number of constituents right across the country.

The petitioners are calling on parliament to legislate clear labelling of all genetically engineered foods and their byproducts available in Canada; and furthermore, to ensure that these products are banned from the market until they have been rigorously tested to prove their safety when consumed by humans.

[Health, June 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, a scientist at the Pacific Science Congress in Vancouver in 1974 had the following words to say. “A scientist has as much luck in communicating with the federal bureaucracy as you would have reciting Gaelic poetry to a deaf seagull”.

Recent events have served to prove these words. The government seems to be favouring the narrow, short term, cash interests of a few huge multinational corporations over the health of Canadians.

Canada's scientists have been gagged, muted, silenced and ignored by this Liberal government. They have been pressured to approve drugs and overridden by bureaucrats.

This is a very serious matter, and I believe the health of Canadians to be threatened. The disease is misplaced government priorities. The symptoms include muzzling scientists and heavy-handed government intimidation tactics. The prognosis is a festering, politically motivated plague on health prevention and the prescription is for this Liberal government to clean up its act where the health of Canadians is concerned.

In 1996 senior health protection regulator Dr. Michelle Brill-Edwards resigned, charging that the interests of pharmaceutical companies were being put ahead of those of the public.

Health protection scientists have revealed outside pressure to approve drugs aimed at increasing milk production in cows. The biggest multinational pressuring the Liberal government to approve their drugs for this use is Monsanto who, according to Elections Canada, during the last federal election donated to one candidate, the Liberal member for Mississauga Centre, and to one federal party in 1997, the federal Liberal Party.

The file on rBST, a drug to increase milk production, was placed off limits. A notice was sent out by the then director, Dr. Lachance, stating:

Please be advised that starting immediately, January 11, 1999, the following files cannot be obtained by anyone prior to my approval: rBST,...

The memo went on to list other files. Then gag orders were placed on the scientists not to discuss this issue publicly. One scientist, who testified early in May before the Senate committee on agriculture, said:

There was pressure to pass drugs, not only rBST, but also antibiotics and other hormones. There were serious problems with hormones that could cause cancer.

Another scientist, who testified before the Senate committee about the situation facing health department scientists, said:

—looking after the health of Canadians who are eating food produced from animals that are receiving dangerous drugs, antibiotics and hormones.

Yet another scientists, Dr. Margaret Haydon of Health Canada, testified that after her research she could not recommend support for a drug that affected the thymus gland of young calves which could in turn affect the immune system. Another evaluator agreed and the two acting chiefs of the section concurred.

All of this was overridden by higher powers closer to this Liberal government and hence closer to the corporate interests of Monsanto.

Even the food and drug administration in the U.S. admits that cows injected with these drugs could suffer from increased udder infections known as mastitis, severe reproductive problems, digestive disorders, persistent sores and lacerations.

Canadians do not want to consume pus in their milk. The government has done a real disservice to the health of Canadians, not to mention scientific integrity.

What will the Liberal government do to convince Canadians that it places their health over the greed of multinational corporate giants?

Finally, to what will the government commit in terms of putting in place processes which will protect the integrity of Canada's scientists and ensure that their research into our safety is given the priority it is due?

[Division No. 542, May 31st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it appears that U.S. A-10 Warthog jets are deploying depleted uranium shells in Kosovo. Since this is being done under the NATO umbrella, to which we are a partner, we bear responsibility for this atrocious act.

Turning a blind eye to the use of depleted uranium in Kosovo is not only unacceptable but also unforgivable.

Depleted uranium is 7.7 times more dense than lead. For this reason it is used in shells fired by the Warthog's Avenger Cannon. The weight allows the rounds to penetrate deeply into concrete, such as bunkers, as well as metal, such as tanks. Jane's Information Group also describes the enhanced “incendiary effects” of depleted uranium since it is a natural agent that ignites on contact with air.

The famous epidemiologist, Dr. Rosalie Bertell, has the following to say about depleted uranium:

DU is highly toxic to humans, both chemically as a heavy metal and radiologically as an alpha particle emitter which is very dangerous when taken internally.

Upon impact, the DU bursts into flames. It produces a toxic and radioactive ceramic aerosol that is much lighter than uranium dust. It can travel in the air tens of kilometres from the point of release, or settle waiting to be stirred up in dust and suspended in the air by human or animal movement.

It is very small and can be breathed by anyone from babies and pregnant women to the elderly and the sick. This radioactive and toxic ceramic can stay in the lungs for years, irradiating the surrounding tissue with powerful alpha particles. It can affect the lungs, gastrointestinal system, liver, kidneys, bone, other tissues and renal system.

The A-10 Warthog is capable of firing 4,200 rounds of this abomination every minute. The U.S. government has suggested that almost one million rounds of this radioactive toxin casing were fired in Iraq during the gulf war. Iraq has witnessed explosive rates of stillbirths, children born with defects, childhood leukemia and other cancers, in particular near the Basara region where these shells were fired.

Dr. Bertell states the following about DU:

It is most likely a major contributor to the Gulf War Syndrome experienced by the veterans and the people of Iraq.

I understand that Pentagon spokesperson Major-General Chuck Wald admitted to the BBC on May 7 of this year that A-10 Warthogs were indeed deploying this evil in Kosovo.

NATO has already launched potentially devastating environmental offensives in Kosovo. It bombed the largest medical factory in Yugoslavia when it bombed the Galenika pharmaceutical complex, releasing highly toxic fumes. On April 15 NATO bombed the petrochemical complex in Pancevo releasing huge amounts of chlorine, ethylene dichloride and vinyl chloride monomer. The same day it hit an ammonia supply company.

NATO is not a foreign power. It is we. It is the people in this House. The Liberal government has not only the power but also the moral, ethical and humane obligation to speak out with force. Using DU is an abominable atrocity. It can be stopped. The Liberal government can do something about it.

Canadians, Yugoslavians and especially pregnant women and children in the region being bombed have the right to know that this government will not stop until it can assure all of us that any and all use of DU is stopped.