Gordon Earle

[Defence Production Act, October 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise today to address Bill S-25, an act to amend the Defence Production Act. At the outset I would reiterate a point made earlier by a colleague that we have some concern about this bill originating from the other place rather than coming through the House, with its duly elected representatives, and then moving on to the other place, which is normally the process. That aside, the NDP will be supporting the bill.

I want to give a bit of background information on the bill for the sake of the people watching and listening to this debate. The bill is an attempt to establish a new regime for regulating access to certain controlled military goods or goods with a military application. Persons involved in this kind of work would have to be registered by the minister or be exempt from registration under the regulations in order to have access to such goods.

Bill S-25 seeks to address a situation that emerged when the United States revoked Canada's special exemption from U.S. arms control regulations. The bill reflects a new Canada-U.S. agreement on co-ordinated legislative measures to strengthen control over trade in defence related goods and technologies.

Historically speaking Canada had been exempt from many of the provisions of the U.S. international trade in arms regulations, known as ITAR. Permits for the export of defence goods and services from the U.S. to Canada traditionally have not been required except for a small category of particularly sensitive goods and technologies, including those pertaining to nuclear weapons, strategic delivery systems, nuclear propulsion systems and submarines.

Most defence technology and unclassified technical data from the U.S. could be exchanged freely between the U.S. and Canadian governments and private sectors. As a result, Canadian and U.S. defence industries have operated more or less as a single market since World War II. Many U.S. companies established subsidiaries in Canada. Companies on both sides of the border frequently bid on contracts in the other country.

On April 12, 1999, the U.S. state department made unilateral changes to ITAR that significantly narrowed Canada's exemption from the licensing of U.S. origin defence goods and services. Until that time Canada was the only country granted an exemption under all but 5 of the 19 categories of goods and services covered by ITAR. The changes required Canadian companies to obtain export licences for 11 of 19 categories, effectively ending the special treatment for the Canadian defence industry.

According to the U.S. government the new measures were necessary because of U.S. companies misusing the Canada exemptions and concerns regarding the effectiveness of Canadian export controls. The Canadian government denied that Washington's concerns were justified.

Beyond the procedural impediments, additions to ITAR caused restricted access to technological data based on citizenship. This is a very important one. Let us take note of what was happening here.

Only personnel holding Canadian or U.S. citizenship to the exclusion of other nationalities could have access to the information or technology in question. The U.S. does not recognize dual citizenship. However, many Canadian high technology firms employ foreign born specialists because of the skill shortages in these areas.

Moreover, our Canadian human rights laws, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, would preclude government restrictions on the hiring of such persons purely on the basis of nationality or country of origin. We certainly would have concerns about that restriction being placed on any relationship between the United States and Canada with respect to defence production and the goods and services involved.

On October 8, 1999, a Canada-U.S. agreement in principle was announced. It recognized a shared commitment by both governments to protect against illegal retransfers of controlled goods and technology from North America and to maintain a strong, integrated North American defence industrial base.

The U.S. provided assurance that it was prepared to reinstate many of the Canadian exemptions and enhance others if Canada harmonized its export control list with the U.S. munitions list and if Canada strengthened controls on these items within Canada and introduced appropriate legal sanctions.

In March 2000 cabinet agreed to the establishment of a strengthened transfer and access control system for certain controlled goods and technologies. It directed the Department of Justice to begin drafting the legislative and regulatory framework conditional on a successful conclusion to bilateral negotiations. On June 16, 2000, the two governments resolved any outstanding issues.

Under the new agreement the U.S. agreed to reinstate most of the pre-April 1999 Canadian exemptions on the transfer of most U.S. origin unclassified defence goods to Canadians, including to Canadians of dual nationality and permanent residents with third country nationality.

For its part Canada agreed to establish a new regime that would require persons having access to controlled goods to be registered with Public Works and Government Services or to qualify for an exemption from registration as set out in the regulations. The new access control provisions include significant penalties for breaches.

This is what Bill S-25 is all about. It is a system of regulation and legislation that sets forth conditions to better control the export and re-export of defence goods and technology, particularly those of U.S. origin.

Under this legislation, by virtue of proposed section 36, the new regime would not apply to most Canadian public sector employees when acting in good faith in the course of their employment duties or to any member of a class of persons to be prescribed in the regulations. Proposed section 37 would make it an offence for a non-registered and non-exempt person to knowingly examine or possess controlled goods or to transfer controlled goods to another person.

I understand that representatives from the affected industries in Canada, in particular the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada, have spoken out in favour of quick passage of Bill S-25 and the implementation of a new agreement between the U.S. and Canada to ensure continued Canadian access to the U.S. defence market and related technology.

While I have indicated that we will be supporting the legislation, I want to make it clear that we are supporting the legislation because we recognize that certain aspects of defence production have spinoff effects beyond simple defence applications, such as various satellite communications, rockets, aircraft engines and navigational, gyroscopic, chemical and biological applications. Quite often in the research and development around these items there is a spinoff benefit that goes beyond a military application.

I want to add another dimension to this debate. While we support the legislation, I have grave concerns that when we look at the whole issue of defence production and the production of goods geared toward defence we sometimes are talking about nuclear weapons and other systems of mass destruction.

We know there is a lot of money in the defence industry. Earlier an hon. member on the other side of the House talked about the importance of defence production to business and the economy in Canada and thus the importance of good relations. I sometimes become very concerned that we might allow our concern about business and economy to overshadow the need to work hard toward a peaceful society that does not engage in guns and arms and the production of those types of goods.

It disturbs me to read in the paper or to see on television a boy of 12 years old being shielded by his father's arms to avoid bullets and in the end being shot dead because of the conflict between two nations. There is so much of this happening worldwide. There is so much conflict, destruction and death. A lot of it is tied into and enabled by the arms involved. That boy did not die because someone was handling a toy. It was a deadly weapon. It was probably from some arms trade or part of defence production in some way or another.

So much of this is happening around the world. We have to concentrate on building a society that looks at all the money spent on defence production, that big industry found worldwide, and on asking ourselves what kinds of things that money could do if we applied it to help the homeless who sleep outside, without any shelter overhead. How much good would that money do if we applied it to child poverty, which is a curse in our society but has existed for so long and continues to exist? How much good would that money do if we applied it to training and other programs to help the unemployed? How much good would it do if we applied it to our aboriginal communities, which quite often have a lower social and economic status than the rest of our communities?

There is a lot of money involved in the arms trade and the defence industry. I am in no way taking away from the fact that every country must have an adequately resourced military to protect its borders and engage in domestic activities to assist its citizens. I am saying, however, that sometimes we allow the economic interests associated with some of these industries to overshadow and overpower the need to get to the human and social concerns within our society.

I make that point strongly because I think it quite often gets lost in the midst of debate. We want things to go smoothly so that we can have greater trade, greater economic stability, and more money flowing in. However, what is happening with all the money flowing in? Where is it going?

I read a piece in the paper a couple of days ago, probably the plane when I was coming here, about the fact that the term millionaire no longer means what it meant 30 or 40 years ago. If one was a millionaire then one was a member of an exclusive club. Now more and more people, numbering in the thousands, can claim to be millionaires, a lot of them at a very young age. The article also mentioned that there are 300 billionaires in the world.

We should look at where that concentration of wealth is going. Much wealth and prosperity exists today but remains concentrated in the hands of a few. A lot of that wealth comes from such things as defence production industries and various other industries where the money flows through big corporate interests from one country to the other.

Arms are getting into the hands of children and women. I talked to the Eritrean ambassador last night. She told me something I was unaware of. A large number of the Eritrean soldiers fighting in the war between Eritrea and Ethiopia were women. I asked specifically if there were any child soldiers involved and was told no, they protect their children. However, women are fighting on the frontlines, laying down their lives in a conflict between nations. What are they using? They are using guns and arms off which someone has made money.

I raise it here in the House because we are elected people. We are elected to represent our constituents. We are elected with a responsibility to try to build a better society, to try to do something to elevate ourselves beyond the realm of the killing and fighting we see day by day.

A good part of that will come about if we start to look honestly at some of the things involved which we take for granted as being a natural part of our economy. We can have a thriving economy but we can have an economy that is based on things other than weapons of destruction.

I make that point even though we are supporting the legislation to enable a smoother relationship between Canada and the U.S. It is better to have some controls around this kind of technology rather than no controls at all. I really would implore us to work for the day when the ultimate goal will be that we put less emphasis on the production of arms and weapons of destruction and things that kill people and more emphasis on the kinds of things that breathe life into our society and give our society a sense of purpose, meaning, and a true sense of destiny.

[Canada Health Care, Early Childhood Development And Other Social Services Funding Act, October 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, despite the protestations I hear from the other side that my hon. colleague's notes are wrong, my research indicates accordance with his notes that the federal government is currently down to a low of around 13% in terms of the health care. It wants to talk about tax points and other things to try to accommodate that but we know full well that it falls far short of what is required to provide the kind of health care, home care and preventive measures which are so necessary today.

It is one thing to try to put a band-aid on a cut when it is bleeding and festering. It is another thing to try to get at the root cause and to prevent the illness in the first place. This is what adequate funding will do. We are calling upon the government to provide the kind of funding it used to, which was at least 50% of the cost of health care, and make a meaningful contribution to the well-being of our citizens.

[Canada Health Care, Early Childhood Development And Other Social Services Funding Act, October 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand as the member for Halifax West and speak on behalf of my constituents to Bill C-45. I should indicate at the outset that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys.

Bill C-45 is an act respecting the provision of increased funding for health care services, medical equipment, health information and communications technologies, early childhood development and other social services, and to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act.

The bill came about as a result of the September 11 health deal that was reached between the federal government and the provinces. The bill is in two parts. The first part provides authority to make expenditures into a special $1 billion medical equipment trust, as well as a $500 million fund for information technology.

The second part of the bill authorizes an increase in transfer payments through the Canadian health and social transfer for social programs which are defined in the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act as programs in respect of health, post-secondary education, social assistance and social services, and early childhood education.

While the September 11 health deal is a step forward, and we admit that it is a small step forward, it really does not go far enough. When I say that it does not go far enough, I am not just giving my opinion on this. I have knocked on well over 1,000 doors within the past few months talking to the constituents of Halifax West. Many of the people to whom I have spoken have indicated to me that health care is still the number one issue for them. They feel that the present agreement of restoring the kind of funding that has been put back in does not go far enough to deal with the kinds of concerns and problems they have. They do not see any immediate relief to the many problems that they are facing: waiting for needed surgery, long line-ups, trying to obtain needed medications and so forth. They do not see any immediate relief to those problems in the deal that was worked out between the federal government and the provinces.

As an example of this I will tell the story about what happened at one of the doors that I knocked on. It was on a beautiful day just last week. The sun was shining and there was beautiful colour in the leaves in the maritime provinces. It was a nice day to go around getting to know the people within the riding of Halifax West. Up until the point when I knocked on that door, I was feeling pretty good.

After I had knocked on the door, a young man answered. I asked him if he had any special issues he wanted to discuss that related to the federal government or its programs. He said “Yes. Step inside for a minute”. I entered and right off the bat he started to tell me about his concerns with the health care system. He introduced me to his wife who was lying there. This young man was probably no more 30 years of age and his wife was probably around the same age. When he introduced his wife I saw this lady lying on a couch and the look of her belied her age. She looked much older than I knew she was. This was because the woman was dying of cancer at such a young age.

To hear this young man tell his story about his involvement with the health care system, about the trials and tribulations that he has gone through and about his concerns for his wife, just about brought tears to my eyes.

The interesting thing about this young man's story was that he was telling me his story not so much because he thought it would help his wife, as he knew her days were limited, but in the hope that it might help other people who find themselves in a situation where they need health care.

These are the kinds of things that we are seeing right across the country, the kinds of problems that we see coming because of the short-sightedness of the government in dealing with our health care system.

I can tell another story, about an elderly woman. She is the widow of a veteran who served our country proudly. On one occasion my wife and I visited this lady. We had a wonderful time having a cup of tea and chatting with her. Not too long ago I decided to call her up to see how she was doing. She told me “I am not doing too badly. I just came back from the hospital. I had been in the hospital for a while but now I need to have permanent nursing care on a daily basis. I need someone in my home with me on a daily basis”. Up to that point this lady had lived by herself in her home, a beautiful home in the Bedford area along the shore. She said “I do not know what I am going to do because I cannot afford this kind of care. I wonder if there is any way I can get any help”.

Since she was the spouse of a veteran I thought I could refer her to the veterans independence program under which she may qualify for some assistance. I gave her the name and the phone number and asked her to call. I asked her to let me know how she made out. Some time later I had not heard from her so I gave her a call just to see how things had worked out. She said “Well, the news is not so good. Unfortunately, my income is just beyond the threshold at which they cut people off for such assistance.” That is not a very high threshold. She then told me that she did not know what she was going to do. She said that she needed to pay for the service but that she would probably end up losing her home because she could not really afford the service.

When we look at Bill C-45 we see that it does not really deal with the kinds of concerns that Canadians have in the health care system. It does very little to address an overall plan for health care, and specifically, there are no initiatives pertaining to national home care, which is what this lady would benefit from, and pharmacare, which so many of our seniors are in need of.

When we talk about home care, I must say that even though the current government has gutted the health system and has not really put back the amount of money that is required, the amount of money that is being put back is less that it was in 1994, and this is the year 2000.

With that kind of gutting of the system, I must take my hat off to the people who are working in the system day in and day out with commitment and dedication and working against adverse circumstances to try to provide health care for their fellow human beings.

When I think about home care workers, I am honoured to indicate that Nova Scotia has dedicated this week as Home Support Workers' Week. Many people are recognizing and expressing their appreciation to the home care workers who help thousands of Nova Scotians get the quality of care service that they need in the comfort of their home and close to their family and friends. Home support workers are an essential part of the fabric of the health care in Canada.

As we look to reshape health care in Canada and hopefully begin to undo the damage wrought by years of health care cuts administered by Liberal and Conservative governments, we need to ensure that home care is properly funded, that the workers are properly supported and paid properly, and that they work in decent conditions.

The financial support for those needing home care—and I think of the lady I mentioned—must be made available. Home care workers offer experienced care, support, compassion and dignity to people within our communities. They are an integral part of the health care system, taking a lot of the responsibility and the weight off much needed hospital beds in today's system.

Those are some of the areas that Bill C-45 does not address. Those are some of the things that we must give attention to if we are going to make this health care system one of which we can continue to be proud.

While the bill is necessary, I guess, in the final analysis, and while the NDP does support the bill as a step in the right direction, it is really a small step forward in light of the giant steps backward taken by the Liberal government. Let me also make it perfectly clear that we feel the Liberal government has missed a golden opportunity to present a vision for the future of medicare and to advance a plan that would preserve and strengthen universal public health care.

[Clean Internet Act, October 17th, 2000]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-507, an act to prevent the use of the Internet to distribute material that advocates, promotes or incites racial hatred, violence against women or child pornography.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to introduce this bill which, as indicated, is a bill to prevent the use of the Internet to distribute material that advocates, promotes or incites racial hatred, violence against women or child pornography.

If this legislation is eventually adopted, it will be a giant step forward in dealing with a social ill that is fast pervading our country and one that all of us would like to see dealt with in a way that will make this society a much better place for us to live in.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Questions Passed As Orders For Returns, October 16th, 2000]

What funds, grants, loans and loan guarantees has the federal government issued in the constituency of Halifax West from June 2, 1998 to June 1, 1999 and, in each case where applicable: ( a ) the department or agency responsible; ( b ) the program under which the payment was made; ( c ) the names of the recipients, if they were groups or organizations; ( d ) the monetary value of the payment made; and ( e ) the percentage of program funding covered by the payment received?

Return tabled.

[Employment Insurance Act, October 5th, 2000]

Again, the hon. member is right, Mr. Speaker. Our employment insurance critic, the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, addressed this issue on many occasions. He even used unparliamentary language—“to steal”—but he was right.

The government has in fact taken money, which we know belongs to the unemployed workers and the employers who have paid into this fund, and used it to augment its budget and build a huge surplus. It is now tossing that money back in little dribs and drabs to the people of Atlantic Canada and telling them they should be grateful for getting a little back.

Again the member is quite right. It comes down to attitude and sensitivity on the part of government. It should be listening to the people. It should do what is right and do it by the standards which Canadians pride themselves in, which demand respect for each other and our government. In turn, the government should have respect for its citizens.

[Employment Insurance Act, October 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for her question. She is right. It is a real problem because the government is not listening to the people.

It is becoming more apparent, when we see the large number of demonstrations in our streets today, that governments are not listening to the people, and they should be. It is disturbing to see women marching in order to put forward to the government their need to be treated fairly. We have aboriginal people blockading roads and so forth to get the government to seriously consider their treaty rights. We have older people taking measures to get their rights.

The hon. member is quite right. This is a problem, not only in Quebec, but right across the country. It is time we had a government that is sensitive to and responds and listens to the people so that we will have a society that is fair, appropriate and just.

[Employment Insurance Act, October 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton.

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-44, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act.

The bill does a number of things. It extends the period for the application of certain provisions of the Employment Insurance Act. It changes the method of calculating the maximum yearly insurable earnings. It exempts persons who receive certain special benefits from being considered as new entrants or re-entrants to the labour force. It removes the reduction of the rate of weekly benefits. It changes the premium rate applicable to insurable earnings. It reduces the number of cases in which benefits have to be repaid and it makes various other consequential amendments.

While I rise to indicate that the NDP supports the bill, the word support almost gets caught in my throat, because we do have some grave reservations around the legislation and what it attempts to do.

While it does take a step toward addressing the critical conditions of Canadian workers, especially those who are working in seasonal industries such as forestry, fishing, tourism, transportation, the auto industry, construction and various other trades, it does not go far enough, and I emphasize this, for the many workers who need help but cannot get any because some provisions of the Employment Insurance Act make them ineligible for EI benefits. While it is a step in the right direction, we feel a lot more has to be done.

The changes that are spelled out in the bill are changes that are important for people living in the Atlantic provinces. I should state right at the outset that people in the Atlantic provinces are not lazy, as the Canadian Alliance would like the public to believe. We are not lazy. We are not unwilling to go where the jobs are. We are not indifferent to the opportunities available to us.

In the Atlantic provinces we are very industrious. People in the Atlantic provinces are hardworking. They are more than willing to go to where the jobs are if the opportunities do not exist in the Atlantic provinces. Unfortunately over the years, because of the treatment of the Atlantic provinces by the Conservative and Liberal regimes, we have not had the opportunities to succeed on our home turf in the same manner that others have had.

However, I am pleased to say that I have travelled to many parts of Canada. Everywhere I go I always run into Nova Scotians, Newfoundlanders and New Brunswickers, people who have gone to where the jobs are because they are determined to care for and look after their families, so much so that they will pull up roots from the Atlantic provinces and move elsewhere to provide a living for their families.

We will dispel the myth being put out there by the Alliance. It indicates that people in Atlantic Canada are looking to the Alliance for guidance and support. That is far from the truth.

To turn to the government, the reason we have concerns about the bill is that we feel the government has not had the desire to make any real substantive changes. It is quite interesting to note that the changes being made are coming on the eve of an election.

The government has not learned yet that people in Atlantic Canada are not naive enough to accept handouts at the time of an election. While it is important to make changes, and these changes are important, let us not delude ourselves as to the timing. The government has had seven years during which it could have paid some very serious attention to unemployment in the Atlantic provinces and to making the situation much better for people who are unemployed.

While there are changes in the legislation that will have a positive effect on the lives of those who are unemployed, we still feel that major changes are required if one is to deal adequately with the problem of unemployment.

It is important when we are talking about unemployment not to treat unemployment after the fact, not to be coming in when there is a problem and saying that we will fix this and patch it up by doing this, this and this. There is an important connection between unemployment and the attitude that we in society take to preventing unemployment. We should adopt a preventive approach. There is a connection.

In that regard we should be looking at the kinds of training we are providing and the kinds of jobs we are putting forward for our youth. It is very important to invest in the young people of our country in a meaningful way. Yet look at what is happening to a lot of our young people. They are attending university and struggling to obtain an education so that they can become productive members of society, and they find themselves faced with huge tuition fees.

In Nova Scotia I believe we pay the highest tuition fees per capita in the country. Yet we expect our young people to be able to eke out a living for themselves under those conditions. What happens is that they come out of university with high debt loads before they even have an opportunity to have a job. In terms of student debt, they owe anywhere from $25,000 and up. That is one measure the government should be looking at very closely if it is concerned about this cycle of unemployment and this cycle of dependency that comes from unemployment.

We should also be investing in our women, in looking at the kinds of opportunities that should be made available to our women. Regardless of what people may say about how far we have come in terms of gender equality, it is still pretty much a man's world out there when we look at business, industry and various professions. I had the opportunity not too long ago to speak to the Canadian Society of Civil Engineering. The first thing that struck me when I looked around the room was that there was a whole roomful of men with one or two women in that profession.

Yet we know that when it comes to designing infrastructure and looking at what is important for our society, women, who constitute at least 50% of our society, have a very important role to play. Quite often they bring a much different perspective to what the needs are than men do. We must have that balance in our approach.

The government should be looking at the kinds of things that support women in the jobs they are doing, in the professions they are seeking. We had a good example of how that was not done until the government was forced to the wall when we look at the pay equity issue and how hard we had to fight to have it dealt with by the government. All of this ties in with the question of unemployment.

We can look at investing in our minority groups and in the aboriginal people of our country. When we look at the conditions on reserves and in the aboriginal communities we see that the poverty rate is much higher than elsewhere, as are the death rate, the incidence of diabetes and all kinds of things. Also the unemployment level is much higher.

Yet when opportunities come up whereby aboriginal people are desirous of making a living for themselves, when they want to enter into sharing resources and make a living in a very productive way, we see the government taking a hard line rather than sitting down and starting negotiations before a crisis arises, a crisis where we can look out on the water and see small fishing boats being rammed by huge government boats. These things are not right.

This is not right. This all ties in with the attitude that we have when we approach problems and start devising legislation. Is obtaining votes the only motive for devising change in legislation? Do we devise change only at a time when we feel it will be popular to do so?

I suggest that we talk about the high degree of unemployment in our aboriginal communities and that we look at the lack of opportunity that quite often exists for people of minority status. I look at people who have come here from other parts of the world and are driving taxis. All they can do is drive taxis because we have some kind of magic formula which determines that only people born in Canada who have degrees in engineering can be engineers, or that only people born in Canada who have degrees in trades can perform those trades. We have to change our attitudes if we want to make the country work, if we want to produce a society that is fair and just.

I will conclude on that note. We have to be serious about the underlying root causes of the problem and not just tinker around with the symptoms of the disease. Let us deal with the disease itself, bring about a cure for that disease, and work hard to make the country the kind of country of which we all can be proud.

[Petitions, October 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table two petitions on behalf of many Canadians who have expressed ongoing concern about the ever encroaching American style health care system that is moving into Canada.

The petitioners call upon the government to stop the for profit hospitals and in particular to implement a national home care program and a national program for prescription drugs.

[Veterans Affairs, September 27th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Merchant mariners deserve full and prompt payment. Almost eight months after announcing the package not even two-thirds of the claims have been processed. Those who qualify have only received partial payments.

Will the minister clearly make two commitments right now: first, that all qualified merchant mariners receive their full second payment and not just a portion of the funds to which they are eligible and second, that all payments will be made this calendar year, given that every month more merchant mariners die of old age?