Gordon Earle

[Aboriginal Affairs, May 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, when in opposition the present finance minister called on the federal government to honour the tax immunity of aboriginal Canadians.

Now this justice minister has intervened on the side of the Government of New Brunswick to appeal a lower court ruling exempting aboriginal people from sales tax.

Could the justice minister explain how this action is consistent with the finance minister's previous statement, let alone the government's goal of working in partnership with aboriginal peoples?

[Aboriginal Affairs, May 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, successive supreme court decisions reinforce the obligation of the federal government to uphold a fiduciary or trust responsibility toward aboriginal peoples.

The honour of the crown is the standard to which the courts hold all governments. Does the Liberal government still believe it has a fiduciary responsibility toward aboriginal peoples and does it still honour the crown when it intercedes in court cases?

[Canada Student Loans, May 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the multinational agreement on investment is a bad deal for the people in my riding of Halifax West and it is a bad deal for Nova Scotians.

On February 13, I challenged both the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Industry about the impact of this mega deal. Neither was willing to tell the real story to Canadians. This deal has been cooked up by the cream of the financial elite, by some super rich people and mega corporations, many making more in a year than some entire third world countries. This agreement would arm Goliath with missiles while handcuffing and blindfolding David.

Mega corporations did not elect this government, people did. But the MAI which this government is so keen on will protect those mega corporations at the expense of the taxpayers who elected this government. The MAI would tie the hands of our own government. It would elevate the special status of investors at the expense of our environment, labour standards and public safety.

We should be taking the lead by working to forge international agreements which include at their root the banning of child and forced labour, the protection of our threatened environment for our children, the banning of discrimination which hurts those who have the most to lose and free collective bargaining with equal footing for all partners.

Under the North American Free Trade Agreement Ethyl Corporation in the United States was enabled to sue the Canadian government for $350 million for banning the dangerous and toxic substance MMT from gasoline. Ethyl Corporation wants Canadian taxpayers to foot the bill for over one third of a billion dollars simply because we want to ban a toxic substance and the NAFTA paves the way for this type of corporate rule over the voter.

If NAFTA is a leaky dory then the MAI is the Titanic going down. NAFTA has provisions for six months notice of termination while the MAI would bind Canadian parliaments for 20 years. If the MAI were passed today it would tie the hands of this elected government and the ones after that.

Voters would have as much chance of eluding the 20 year storm clouds of the MAI as our Atlantic fisheries have of becoming healthy again under this Liberal government. This agreement would pave the way for huge multinational corporations to sue Canadians through our government for doing no more wrong than taking measures to protect ourselves. We could be prevented from confronting threats to our children's health that we do not even know of yet.

Corporations that are not elected would be able to use MAI muscle to protect their short term profit margins by preventing our elected governments from successfully taking legislative steps to protect our health, culture, democracy and working conditions.

Would my constituents be given similar rights to protect us from the impact of the operation of these corporations? No. On one hand, could the Sierra Club use provisions of the MAI to prevent deadly chemicals from eating holes in the ozone? No. On the other hand, could multinational corporations find ammunition with the MAI to continue working to produce these chemicals? Yes.

This new corporate stealth rule is like creating a whole level of super government without any voters and without any accountability. The MAI is all about providing 20 years of protection for this new corporate rule. Fortunately many political leaders are now showing common sense.

In March of this year European parliamentarians from 15 nations voted an overwhelming 437 to 8 against these undemocratic negotiations. Just last week the ministers of 29 OECD countries announced they have decided not to sign or set a new deadline for this much criticized agreement.

Our Liberal government still seems to be deep in the pockets of large corporations. We must remember that large corporations did so much to bankroll the election of the Liberal government. However, the government now has the choice of saying yes to the people Halifax West and to Nova Scotians and no to the selfish interests of the super rich.

I ask the government which choice it will make. The MAI is now sleeping, thanks to the work of those who opposed it. Let us ensure that the government does not wake it up.

[Supply, May 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments. I certainly wish to assure him that my remarks are more than rhetoric. My remarks come from the heart, as I am sure his do.

I also take comfort from his remarks where he indicated that the government had involved the victims up to this point. If that is the case, it certainly lends support to the fact that he will see fit to support our motion. The motion simply calls for a further involvement of the victims by bringing them together at the table so they can have a say in their future.

Also the motion is very clear with respect to the fact that the meeting involve federal, provincial and territorial health ministers. It will involve all parties as well. I thank the hon. member for his comments. I certainly urge him to support the motion because it will further underscore what he said about the involvement of the victims.

[Supply, May 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured to rise to speak on our motion. I will read the motion again because it is very important to understand exactly what we are debating and exactly what this motion is asking. It reads:

That this House strongly urge the government to press for the invitation of representatives of the Hepatitis C Society of Canada to the upcoming meeting of federal, provincial and territorial Health Ministers in order to provide advice on how to address the financial needs of all those who contracted Hepatitis C from the federally-regulated blood system.

While I am honoured to speak to this motion, at the same time I am somewhat saddened. I am saddened that we in this day and age, we in this country of Canada, we in this House of Commons have come to the point where we have to debate something which we would expect would be a normal thing to do for those who have compassion and caring. It is sad we have to debate something that should automatically follow, fairness to our fellow human beings.

Before I entered politics, when I was approached to become a politician, I had to think long and hard about it. I shared with so many Canadians a cynicism about the political process and what we can really do within that process. I received wise counsel from my wife, my children and people close to me. They said “We need people like you in politics. We need people who care about other people. We need people who will not sacrifice or compromise their values. We need people who will not put money or themselves first, but who will put others first”.

The more I thought about that the more I realized it is important that if we feel we have something to contribute to society we should move forward. We should put that forth in such a way that politics will not change us, but that we may have a changing effect upon politics. That is the reason I chose to enter politics. Since then I have constantly said to people that if they ever see me changing from the kind of person I am, to remind me so that I may always remember from whence I came and the primary purpose for being here, which is to serve others.

There are two principles that seem to be working at odds in the issue of hepatitis C: the principle of economics versus the principle of compassion and caring for others. The principle of economics is ruled by the head. We figure out how many dollars we have, we think about our bank accounts and we concentrate on that bottom line in our budgets. But the principle of caring for other people is ruled by the heart. It comes from the heart.

It is very important on this issue that we allow our hearts to rule our heads instead of the other way around. We have heard arguments in this House in which the rule of economics has become the bottom line. We have heard that we cannot afford to compensate all victims, yet we know that the auditor general has found a $2.5 billion surplus. So we can rule that out right away. We need not be concerned with the economics. We should now be looking at doing what is right. We should be looking at what our hearts tell us as we deal with this issue.

It is important for us to remember that we are indeed building the future for our children. We are making history today. We are setting a stage that generations down the road will look back upon. They will look at us and judge us by what we have done with respect to this issue. We want to build a future that our children can be proud of.

Our motion calls for an invitation. There may be a lot of argument today about the cost and about setting precedents, but our motion calls primarily for one thing. We are asking that the victims, through their representatives, have an invitation to the table so that they may be there to address the issue and be part of a decision that will certainly impact upon their lives.

The motion emphasizes and underlines the need for communication, the idea of people having a say in decisions that affect them. We see far too often today that one of the problems of our society is that we do not communicate with people about the decisions that affect their lives.

We see it with respect to young people and the decisions we make around scholarships, the millennium fund and so forth. Quite often decisions are made without input from those who are to be affected by these decisions. We see it with respect to our aboriginal peoples. Decisions are being made at tables and first ministers conferences when the aboriginal people are excluded from those meetings. We see it so often in many aspects of our lives. We see decisions being made about programs that affect fishermen and people who are struggling to find a way to earn income but they are not invited to the table.

Today we are emphasizing the importance of communication on a very important issue. We are saying those victims should be invited to the table so they may have a say in this matter.

Halifax West constituents care about this issue. Many of them have approached me and asked my stand on the issue. They have expressed full support. They feel that the victims should be compensated and compensated fairly.

Two things have struck me since I have come to the House of Commons, two things that kind of stand out for me, two things I find hard to get used to because they do not seem to balance one with the other.

The first is how we approach question period. I have spoken about this matter before. When we are doing the nation's business quite often it is very confrontational but also quite often very disrespectful. We do not respect the opinions of other people. We do not listen properly. We are constantly yelling while people are trying to talk and express their views. That bothers me. I hope it will continue to bother me because the minute it stops bothering me is when I have started to let politics change me rather than bring the change to politics I hope to bring to politics.

Another thing that impresses me favourably is that we open each session of the House with a prayer. The Speaker says a prayer. I am not sure how many people listen to the words of that prayer, but it asks for God's guidance as we do our deliberations on the nation's business. The stark contrast is how we then proceed to move into question period and everything that takes place there seems to fly in the face of the prayer that has been said in terms of what we hope to do in the House.

We need to think in terms of the heart. That is very applicable to the issue we are dealing with. We need to think in terms of the prayer when we open each session.

I pray that as we deal with this issue all members of the House may give thought to doing what is right in the eyes of their Creator, in the eyes of the God who put us on this earth to serve Him and to serve our fellow man, so that we may let our hearts rule as we deal with this issue.

The money element is not that terribly important. For example, when I first started to work many years ago I worked as a welfare officer. I was responsible for assessing applications from single parent families, from the disabled, from many people in circumstances beyond their control.

I was told on the first day on the job “When you go out to do an application, make sure you never, ever give any one of your clients money out of your own pocket because you will be setting a precedent”. We have heard that word quite often during this debate.

Armed with my rules and regulations I went out on my first case. The first case I had was one young lady who came to the door with three children, a baby in her arms and two children clinging on to her legs. She looked at me and said “Mr. Earle, can you lend me some money because I don't have any money to buy milk to feed my baby. I can't feed the children”.

She took me to show me her cupboards and her cupboards were bare. Her refrigerator was bare. I looked at this woman, at the baby crying in her arms and at her hungry children standing there, and right away the first rule went out the window. I reached into my back pocket and gave the woman some money. As I walked away from her home I thought I may never see that money again, but the feeling I got in my heart far outweighed any concerns I had about losing the money.

The reassuring part was that about a month later I received a phone call in my office from this woman. She wanted me to come and visit her. I went to visit her and the very first thing she did as I walked through the door was to repay the money she had borrowed to get food for her family.

The money will take care of itself. We have to let the heart rule in this matter.

[Petitions, May 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to present a petition calling for a public inquiry of Ipperwash. This petition is signed by many residents of the province of Ontario. It indicates that because of the serious and many unanswered questions around the fatal shooting of Anthony Dudley George on September 6, 1995 at Ipperwash Provincial Park, the petitioners are calling for a full public inquiry to be held to eliminate all misconceptions held by and about the government, the OPP and the Stoney Point people.

[Criminal Code, May 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-251, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. This enactment provides for the imposition of consecutive sentences where a person commits sexual assault and another offence arising out of the same events or where the person is already serving another sentence at the time.

The enactment also provides that a person sentenced to life imprisonment for first or second degree murder is not eligible for parole until the person has served, in addition to the portion of the sentence that the person must serve for murder, one-third or a maximum of seven years of any other sentence imposed on the person in respect of an offence arising out of the same events or that the person is already serving. The mandatory portion of each life sentence imposed on a person who is convicted of a second murder must be served consecutively before the person is eligible for parole.

There are two main parts to this private members' bill. The first section deals with consecutive sentencing for those who commit sexual assault and another offence arising out of the same events, for example, sexual assault and a break and enter, or where the person is already serving time for another sentence at the time.

Sentencing in Canada is a relatively complex matter. Sentencing principles are set out in section 718.1 and section 718.2 of the Criminal Code. Degrees of punishment are set out in section 718.3.

There are two types of sentencing in penitentiary: consecutive and concurrent. Concurrent is when the time runs together. For example, in a case of eight months for break and enter and four months for theft, the offender would serve eight months. Consecutive is when the sentences are cumulative. In this case the offender would have the two sentences added together for a total of 12 months.

Judges can currently impose consecutive sentences under section 718.03 of the Criminal Code, but not for life imprisonment. Sentencing is complicated by the principle of totality which says that the total sentence, that is combined sentences, is “just and appropriate” and will rarely exceed the harshest sentence for the most serious crime of all those being considered at the time of sentencing. This is a common law principle and is well entrenched in law. Consequently with regard to the first section of this bill, Bill C-251 provisions already exist which address consecutive sentencing.

The second aspect of the bill provides for a consecutive portion of another sentence to be served upon an offender who is serving time for murder. Thus someone who is serving 25 years for murder and who is also found guilty of sexual assault and sentenced to nine years would have three years added to any parole eligibility requirements.

This section of the bill recognizes the nature and severity of certain crimes and imposes additional penalties to serious offenders and deals with public safety concerns. In that area I would support this part of the bill.

Having said that, while I could support the second part of the bill and appreciate the intent of the first part, the first section of the bill complicates existing law and is contrary to the principles in common law. Consequently we find we cannot support the bill in its present form.

[Mi'Kmaq Education Act, May 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would applaud you for referring to my riding correctly as Halifax West. It is not St. John's East, as my hon. colleague has indicated. One of the problems in our society is that quite often we do not get things straight.

In response to the question, I would like to comment first upon my hon. colleague's remarks about the general society. Part of the problem is that many times we do not recognize that aboriginal people are a part of the general society.

By that very terminology we are excluding aboriginal people. We are isolating and doing the very thing that he is trying to purport he is not doing, which is segregating and separating.

Aboriginal people are a part of the general society. It is just that they have not been afforded within that context the opportunities that have been afforded to other people. One of those opportunities should be to allow people to have their own culture, heritage and form of education. There is nothing wrong with that.

There are many systems of education today which are quite different. There is no one common system for Canadian society. There are public schools and private schools. There distance education via computers. There is home schooling. Are people who teach their children at home less a part of the general Canadian society than someone who sends their children to the public system?

Why would someone who is pursuing education within the confines of the Mi'kmaq community be any different from someone who is pursuing a home education course?

We must be careful not to apply our standards to other people and feel that because their standards do not apply or conform with our standards that they are not a part of the general society.

In so far as my own schooling goes, I grew up in the north end of Halifax. The school I attended had people from various races and that in itself does not necessarily support the member's contention that I would have done any better or any worse.

What made me do well, and I emphasized this during my speech, was the support I received within the confines of my home environment, which can be accomplished by aboriginal people in the confines of their home environment within the context of self-education controlled by the Mi'kmaq community. The two do not conflict.

I fail to see the point the hon. member is getting at. I feel it is very important that this bill be supported and I stand on that.

[Mi'Kmaq Education Act, May 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-30, an act respecting the powers of the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia in relation to education.

It has been said by some that the Mi'kmaq should blend in with the rest of society and become a part of the rest of the Canadian society. I think interface was a word that was used.

History has recorded very well the results of the attempt to assimilate and have first nations people blend in through the residential school system which robbed them of their culture, history, dignity and heritage. It is time for a change, to face the reality of today's situation.

This bill will be the first of its kind in transferring jurisdiction for education to first nations communities. The royal commission on aboriginal peoples argues strongly that education in all its dimensions be placed under the control of aboriginal people.

On February 14, 1997 the chiefs of nine Nova Scotia bands signed an agreement concerning jurisdiction for education. I emphasize that the chiefs represent their communities. Bill C-30 would allow for the transfer to occur.

The chiefs of Eskasoni, Membertou, Chapel Island, Whycocomagh, Wagmatcook, Pictou Landing, Shubenacadie, Annapolis Valley and Acadia signed the agreement to transfer jurisdiction for education on reserve.

This development is not a new idea. Mi'kmaq have been struggling to preserve and develop their education for a very long time. Marie Battiste, a Mi'kmaq, stated as cultural curriculum co-ordinator for the Eskasoni school board in 1992:

In Eskasoni we do have language instruction going on in the school. We do provide cultural integration into the curriculum and we do a lot of things toward cultural enhancement, enrichment and appreciation. And those have many kinds of positive outcomes.

Throughout the royal commission hearings presenters told the commission and wrote in their reports that education must in part develop children and youth:

As aboriginal citizens, linguistically and culturally competent to assume the responsibilities of their nations. Youth that emerge from school must be grounded in a strong, positive aboriginal identity. Consistent with aboriginal traditions, education must develop the whole of the child, intellectually, spiritually, emotionally and physically.

I extend my congratulations and those of my caucus colleagues to all those involved in the negotiations and discussions that have brought us to this point.

The final agreement, signed less than three months ago, sets out the powers, duties, functions and structures of the Mi'kmaq Kina'matnewey, or the Mi'kmaq Education Corporation.

This agreement provides for the corporation to have the ability to pass laws for primary, elementary and secondary education on reserve for band members only. However, the Mi'kmaq under this agreement are obligated to provide equivalent education for primary, elementary and secondary education to non-members. This point will need to be discussed in committee because Mi'kmaq must provide education to non-band members on the reserve under this agreement but there is no capacity to cover Mi'kmaq not on reserve.

One of the highlights of the agreement is that an education standard is transferable between the Mi'kmaq nation and any other education system in the country. If we are concerned about addressing the interface and the reality of Canadian society, this is provided for in the bill.

Bill C-30 will give effect to that final agreement. It is about time. Since schools have been operated by religious missions for over 300 years much of the history of aboriginal formal education has been about so-called educating the spirit, culture and being out of aboriginal youth. One description given to the royal commission is that it has been tantamount to beating the Indian out of the child.

While there are some people who would still advocate that today by their policies and philosophies under the guise of mixing and interfacing, it is important that aboriginal people maintain their heritage, their identity and their culture.

Many schools were explicitly used to break down the transmission of culture, language, history and spirit from one generation to the next. Mi'kmaq educator Marie Battiste said:

Cognitive imperialism—is [the attempt to change] a whole way in which people see things. I think it is important at this point to tell you a bit about the Mi'kmaq language. It is a beautiful language. It has many, many ways of expressing things. There are more ways to express things in Mi'kmaq than there are in English and the language is built around relationships—

The language is the cement and the bonds. It provides the moral communion, if you will, of the community. And when we begin to take that language away from the people, when we tear the people away from the very rudiments of that language in terms of the relationships of people to each other, the relationship to their universe, their relationships to the animals and the plants, we take away their interconnectedness and we leave them empty, lost and alone. This is a tremendous loss the people feel—

This bill, thanks to the resolve and creativity of the Mi'kmaq leaders, sets to change the course of education in a significant way.

One of the recommendations of the royal commission report calls for:

—federal, provincial and territorial governments to collaborate with Aboriginal governments, organizations or educational authorities, as appropriate, to support the development of Aboriginally controlled education systems by introducing, adapting or ensuring the flexible application of legislation to facilitate self-starting initiatives by Aboriginal nations and their communities in the field of education.

This bill is a significant first step in that direction. I know my colleague, the hon. member for Bras d'Or, recently spoke with Chief Lindsay Marshall from Chapel Island about these issues, as did I. I am sure the member for Bras d'Or is proud that this history is being made in her riding.

Just before I conclude my remarks I would like to add a personal note with respect to the value of education for all peoples.

My father had probably less than grade six formal education and my mother had about grade nine formal education, but those two people were very well educated, much more educated perhaps than people who had gone through university. They were very wise in their years. They were self-educated and self-taught.

It was due to circumstances beyond their control that they were unable to complete their education in a formal sense. My father's father died when he was quite young and he had to take charge of trying to help support his family. My mother came from a larger family and had to, because of economic circumstances, take part in trying to help support her family.

The one thing that was of great significance to me as a young person growing up in that family setting was the importance that my mother and father stressed upon education. I can remember my father saying to me “Son, never let any man or any person put you down because of the colour of your skin. Get your education. Pursue education, be proud of who you are and what you are, and work hard to become educated so you can compete in this world”. It is because of those words of encouragement and support that I am here today and I am the person I am.

This was not an attempt to mix or interface with the rest of society. This was being proud of who you are based upon your own personal being, your own values and the mores and the values that came as a part of the family in which I grew up.

Many aboriginal people did not have that opportunity. They were torn away from their families, from their homes and from that kind of support. They did not have that advice because they were taken away from their mothers and fathers who cared for them in the same way as my mother and father cared for me.

I can recall my mother and father going to school meetings, discussing our progress with the teachers of the day and taking great pride in our report cards. Many aboriginal children did not have that opportunity because they were torn away from their culture. They did not have the opportunity to discuss their progress with their elders and the people within their community who meant so much to them and who could have provided the kind of support which I received.

When we talk about moving in the direction of giving aboriginal people control over their own affairs, I feel it is time this was done. We know the message that history has given us of non-aboriginal people trying to take control of aboriginal people's lives. So many people are afraid to move to something different and allow people to change.

I would urge very strongly that every member of this House give serious thought to the principle that is involved in this bill and not the technicalities about how much money is going to be involved and how the taxpayer is going to be involved. Those are incidentals that can be worked out in a different forum. It is the principle and the heart of the bill which are important. The bill will enable people to take charge of their own lives. They will be able to do the kinds of things they should be able to do. They will once again have pride in their heritage. They will have control over their own destiny and their own affairs. There is nothing for people to fear about that concept.

I say to all members that we should think seriously about this bill and lend it the support it has been given by the aboriginal communities and by the province of Nova Scotia, which have signed this agreement with the federal government. We should move forward so that every aboriginal person may take their rightful place in Canadian society.

[Aboriginal Affairs, May 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this government is responsible in part for the crisis developing on crown lands in New Brunswick. In the New Brunswick situation what has this government done in response to the recommendations of the royal commission on aboriginal peoples that the federal government work with the provinces and aboriginal communities to improve aboriginal access to forest resources on crown lands?