Gordon Earle

[Fair Wages And Hours Of Labour Act, October 28th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak on Motion No. 9 and in so doing I say shame on the member and shame on the Reform Party for introducing this motion.

The Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act was initially crafted in 1935 to protect employees from substandard wages and to create a level playing field for contractors bidding on federal contracts. The government then stopped posting fair wages in 1987. On April 24 of this year the concept of the fair wages schedule was restored.

Tomorrow in Edmonton all of the major players in the construction industry in that province will be sitting down to work out a fair wages schedule for federal construction work for that province. They will look at all of the classifications of the workers involved, the fair wage rates for those classifications and the geographic areas they apply to.

This Reform motion is an attack on the taxpayer. It is an attack on fairness and an attack on youth employment opportunities. I will tell the House why.

The underground construction economy costs taxpayers billions of dollars. This issue of fair wage schedules is an issue of quality, of ensuring that the taxpayer gets full value for the dollar. It is an issue of honesty, accountability and fair play. What does the hon. member fear about fairness and about ensuring quality control over the use of taxpayers' dollars?

This motion sets out to scuttle a process that is just gearing up, a process aimed at establishing a level playing field for all contractors. Without establishing these wages, there would not be a level playing field for contractors.

This motion supports the underground economy in the construction industry. This is where fair-minded contractors lose out. This is where Canadians simply wanting a fair and decent wage for their work lose out. This is where the taxpayer loses. With cash paid for the job at the bottom of the subcontracting ladder, tax revenues are lost, EI contributions are lost and CPP contributions go unpaid.

The timing of this motion seeks to subvert an important set of negotiations occurring this week. It seeks to subvert similar negotiations that will follow in months to come in other provinces.

Keeping federal construction contracts above aboard helps ensure taxpayers' dollars are not misused. It helps to get the best value out of every dollar spent. It helps to support fair-minded contractors. It works toward the health and safety of all Canadian construction workers.

I know that my colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre wants it on record that the NDP will be watching these negotiations very closely, not only the ones in Alberta this week, but in other provinces over the months to come to ensure that fairness and just wages triumph.

This motion deserves to be soundly defeated. In fact the government should go one step further and ensure that in all federally tendered contract documents the following language is put in place: “Contractors must hire qualified journey persons and indentured apprentices only”. This language would go a long way to ensure that fair wages are paid, that improved health and safety is the practice and not the exception, and that youth are supported through apprenticeship programs.

If the Department of Public Works and Government Services were to ensure that all contracts had this language, it would go a long way to supporting good, solid apprenticeships for youth, job opportunities for young Canadians, support for those who support this invaluable education and skills training for young workers.

[Shipbuilding, October 28th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.

Highly skilled Canadian workers on both coasts sit idle as the government turns a blind eye to Canadian shipping companies investing in shipbuilding jobs in Asia where exploited labour is cheaper and environmental standards are even worse than here.

The government's neglect is threatening to torpedo the entire industry and jettison a whole generation of trained shipyard workers.

Will the minister honour his 1992 promise to the Halifax workers and commit to a national shipbuilding policy that includes—

[Petitions, October 28th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present. These petitions call for a public inquiry of Ipperwash.

The petitioners request of the House of Commons of Canada that a full public inquiry be held into the events surrounding the fatal shooting of Dudley George on September 6, 1995 to eliminate all misconceptions held by and about governments, the OPP and the Stony Point people.

[Aboriginal Affairs, October 23rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's aboriginal peoples are used to hearing a lot of words but seeing very little action from the government which stressed the importance of partnership in the throne speech. Almost one full year after the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples the government has yet to respond. Is that what partnership means to the government?

My question is for the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs. Will the government end its silence and commit to a full and complete public response to the recommendations before the November 21 anniversary of the release of the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples?

[Supply, October 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my comment focuses on the fact that the member opposite spent a lot of time debating the NDP opposition motion and yet said very little with respect to it.

All day members opposite have had very little to say about what our motion actually entails. The message in the motion is very simple. The federal government has failed miserably in dealing with the real problem. By attacking the deficit it has not dealt with the issue of setting targets for unemployment. Our motion is very clear on that point.

A previous speaker asked us to consider this motion for what it really is and then proceeded to talk without even dealing with the motion.

Another member opposite was educating the “dinosaurs” on this side of the House on the difference between fiscal and monetary policy.

When I campaigned during the federal election I spoke to one of my constituents. It was interesting because, again, a speaker on the other side—

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, October 7th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak for a few moments on Bill C-2, an act to establish the Canada pension plan investment board and to amend the Canada Pension Plan and Old Age Security Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts. What a title and what a problem the government is creating with this bill.

As has already been indicated by previous speakers, this bill attempts to do a number of things, namely to discontinue the Canada pension plan advisory board and establish a Canada pension plan investment board, the main function of which will be to manage and invest Canada pension plan funds, to amend the contribution, benefit and funding provisions of the Canada pension plan, to tighten the eligibility for disability benefits and the rules for combining survivor and disability benefits and survivor and retirement benefits. It reduces the death benefit, it reduces the maximum CPP retirement pension through its formula for calculating retirement pensions.

Another thing this bill attempts to do involves harmonizing. We in Nova Scotia know that dreaded word, harmonizing, very well because we have the harmonized sales tax. This bill attempts to harmonize the CPP disability benefits with provincial workers compensation benefits and various other benefits, including those received from municipalities and private insurers.

As well Bill C-2 amends the Canada Pension Plan and Old Age Security Act with respect to information sharing, investigations and penalties. Indeed some of the clauses regarding information sharing and investigations require close scrutiny but that will be done at a later time.

Suffice it to say for now that we are opposed to this bill because it erodes the public pension system and the universality of that system. It erodes the system that was established in 1966 to provide all members of the paid labour force in Canada a base upon which to build their retirement income, as well as provide benefits in the case of serious disability or death.

The changes to the public pension system as proposed by this bill continue the trend of the Liberal government of penalizing the most vulnerable members of our society: low income workers, many of whom are women, the disabled and seniors. Again with respect to seniors, the changes proposed by this bill regarding OAS and GIS have profound implications for seniors and the income they can look forward to under the new seniors benefit proposal.

The government is creating more difficulties for people by introducing a bill that will force low income workers to pay more in contributions, that will cause fewer people to obtain benefits by tightening the eligibility for disability, that will create greater clawbacks on seniors' incomes, that will take away a person's right to have his or her own benefit by consolidating the income of both spouses. Rather than creating these kinds of difficulties through Bill C-2, we believe the government would be better advised to spend its time correcting the problems which already exist in the Canada pension plan rather than creating new problems.

I am referring specifically to the kinds of problems which we see every day in our constituency offices. By far the largest volume of case work in Halifax West concerns Canada pension plan disability. The same I believe is true in other NDP metro ridings and I am sure across the province and perhaps even across the country.

The main complaint is the lengthy process and red tape which applicants must go through before a final decision is rendered. First is the initial application with numerous forms and medical reports to assess eligibility. Apparently almost everyone is now rejected at this initial level in keeping with a decision over the last few years to apply the definition of severe and prolonged disability more strictly for eligibility purposes, and Bill C-2 would put further restrictions on eligibility.

Following a rejection at the first level there is an appeal by way of a request for reconsideration which must be filed with the minister within 90 days. Then there is a second level of appeal to an independent, note the word independent, review tribunal. This must be filed within 90 days but may be extended at the discretion of the minister. Finally, applicants or the minister may appeal a decision of the review tribunal to the pension appeals board within another 90 days. Claimants dissatisfied with the board's decision may then ask for a reconsideration within 90 days but this would entail more waiting and would likely be to no avail.

The administrative procedures and hearings involved in all of these are long. It is not uncommon to have applicants waiting for years before a final decision is rendered, sometimes with sad consequences.

A constituent applied four years ago and has since developed terminal cancer. Last month he was told his application had been approved but even now it appears that the department is backtracking and wants more clarification on a range of items. This person is suffering with terminal cancer and is still unable to get disability benefits.

My constituency assistant had a meeting with two CPP officials last Thursday. He was informed that there has been an attempt, which started last June, to speed up the process by regionalizing the services somewhat. However there is still a backlog at the pension appeals board level. The board is backlogged and is unable to hear cases expeditiously.

Figures that we have obtained from Human Resources Development Canada suggest a trend starting in 1995 to reject most of the applications for CPP disability. In 1993 they approved 69%. This was down to 44% in 1995 and sank to 33% in 1996. I am told that Nova Scotia has the highest per capita CPP disability claimants. If that is the case, this trend of rejecting applications is particularly harsh in our province.

A major problem with this program is that the minister can and often does automatically appeal any decision below the appeals board level. When the independent review tribunal has ruled in favour of an applicant the minister can appeal that decision, and the matter becomes bogged down in a time consuming process. No doubt the primary reason for this tactic is to save money, but this is being achieved on the backs of the disabled.

Another troubling issue is that recipients of CPP disability benefits who try to work are penalized. Benefits are withdrawn if they work for over three months. This is most discouraging to the disabled who usually have to go through considerable personal sacrifices to supplement meagre benefits with a meagre income. The system should be working to improve the lives of the disabled, not to penalize them for trying to seek a more active and productive life.

In conclusion, we cannot support Bill C-2 as it does nothing to correct the problems that are currently experienced, but rather introduces measures to make life even more difficult for low wage workers, women, young people, seniors and the disabled.

I wish to move a subamendment. I move:

That the amendment be modified by inserting after the words “young Canadians” the following: “and more particularly, to women, the disabled, those eligible for survivors' benefits, and low income Canadians”.

[Health Care, October 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the auditor general's report raises the horror of death and illness of aboriginal people due to over prescription of drugs through the non-insured health benefits program. The auditor general also states that the department has known about this problem for 10 years.

Will the minister now move, in consultation with aboriginal peoples, to transfer this program to the First Nations people as a way to ensure that the issue of over prescription is actually dealt with instead of the department's poor response to the report when it says it will deal with the problem simply by giving aboriginal people more to read about the dangers of prescription—

[Health Care, October 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.

The auditor general raises a serious issue when the report states about Health Canada that the department is not fulfilling its responsibilities to manage in a way which helps First Nations establish programs and services likely to improve their health.

What action will the minister take to ensure that rather than the dump and run style of program transfer often currently employed, the department will work in partnership with aboriginal communities to ensure that programs transferred are actually going to improve the health of aboriginal people?

[Speech From The Throne, October 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am deeply honoured, as I rise today in humility, to present a few remarks on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.

I dedicate my remarks to my parents, Katherine Earle and the late Maurice Earle, both of whom taught me the importance of a belief in God our creator, a belief in oneself and a belief in and respect for one's fellow human beings.

I also pay homage to my wife and children for the immeasurable love and support that they have given me over the years and particularly during this venture into what for me is a new, exciting and challenging world of politics.

As well, I extend my heartfelt thanks to the constituents of Halifax West who expressed their faith and confidence in me that I will work for and represent them in the House of Commons during this 36th Parliament.

During my election campaign I made it very clear to the voters that I would not make any promises that I could not keep and that in fact the only promise I would make was that to the best of my abilities I would work hard both with and on behalf of my constituents to ensure that their voice is heard in Ottawa in this great Chamber, the hallmark of our democratic system of government.

I also campaigned on the personal commitment to bring a new face to politics. As I went from door to door, from community to community, from urban areas to rural areas I found, as I am sure many other candidates did, an immense degree of apathy and cynicism among both young and old alike, so much so that many had moved to the point of deciding that they were not going to vote at all.

It disturbed me greatly then, as it does now, that so many of our citizens have become so discouraged with our politicians and our political system that they have chosen not to exercise the basic rights for which our forefathers fought and died.

Why are so many moved to such a state of apathy and cynicism? If one wishes to open one's eyes the answer is clear. We have a high degree of unemployment in one of the most developed countries in the world. We have a high cost of post-secondary education in a country where wealth abounds. We have an ever increasing number of homeless people that we can see as we walk down the streets of Ottawa in a highly industrial and technological society.

We have health care concerns and epidemics developing in a land where we have access to the latest scientific and medical knowledge. We have seniors concerned about their future socioeconomic well-being, despite their many years of solid contributions to our society. We have immigrant groups struggling for fair and equitable treatment under the immigration laws of our country. We have the disabled suffering unconscionable bureaucratic delays as they attempt to obtain disability pensions under the Canada pension plan.

We have women, minority groups, individuals of differing sexual orientation all struggling to be accorded their basic human rights. We have our francophone brothers and sisters fighting an uphill battle to have their language, culture and heritage recognized as a distinctive element of our Canadian society. And we have the plight of our aboriginal brothers and sisters being ignored as they attempt to heal and rebuild their communities through self-determination and self-government.

I could go on and on citing the ills of our society as the reasons why so many people have become apathetic and cynical. However, the real question is where does the politician fit into all of this? The plain truth of the matter is that citizens look to their political leaders for a cure to these ills of our society. We look to those whom we have elected to represent and govern us to provide a measure of leadership to help us to meet the challenges of the day.

But the sad reality is, and it came across loudly and clearly to me during the election campaign, that many citizens have lost faith in their politicians. Politicians were described to me as not really caring, being in it only for themselves or for the money, being dishonest or full of empty promises. Perhaps the most hurtful statement of all was “you politicians are all the same”.

You know and I know that politicians are not all the same. There are good and there are bad politicians, the same as there are good and bad in all professions, and history will attest to this. However, the fact remains that for a good portion of the public, the perception is that politicians are all the same: dishonest, self-serving and without compassion.

I feel it is time to put a new face on politics. It is time to show that politicians can bring truth, integrity, compassion and indeed honour to the profession. It is time to show that we are truly interested in providing jobs for the unemployed, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, sheltering the homeless, caring for the sick, educating our youth, embracing our fellow human beings and allowing for growth, development and self-determination.

I personally believe that a good starting point in putting a new face on politics and showing the world that we mean business is by maintaining proper decorum and respect not just outside the walls of the House of Commons but, more importantly, inside the walls of this place where we conduct the nation's business.

As politicians we are always under the public scrutiny. It is even more so today with the modern means of communications available. We should ever be mindful of the fact that our actions in this House are transmitted by television into the homes of the nation where the impressionable young minds of children witness our respect or our lack of respect for each other as we debate the issues of the day.

It is all well and good to excuse rudeness and lack of common courtesy as part of the political game or as part of parliamentary tradition, but when young children watching parliamentary debates ask their parents why those men and women are so angry at each other, why they are being so rude to each other, why they are fighting with each other, then I ask if this is a tradition that is worth keeping?

Is this the face we want to put on politics? Is this the example we want to set for our young children?

In July this year I had the honour of attending the First Nations convention in Vancouver, where the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations was elected. What struck me as really significant was the high degree of respect and decorum that was present during that convention. Unlike non-aboriginal political conventions where there is a lot of cheering and booing of candidates, at that convention there was a certain solemnity and respect shown to all candidates regardless of whom individuals may have been personally supporting. I believe there is a lesson to be learned here.

One must listen to hear. What I have often observed in watching parliamentary debates is that often individuals are so wrapped up in their own view and in shouting down and heckling others that one does not hear what is being said. One loses the sense of true dialogue and communication, respect and putting a new face on politics.

As I stand here today I pledge that I will do my best to put a new face on politics. While you may get the odd desk thump or applause from me, I pray that I will never sink to the point of being discourteous when others are speaking. If that should ever happen I ask you remind me of this moment so that I may correct myself and offer to others the kind of respect that I would expect to receive from them.

I commend the government for the positive statements in the throne speech, particularly the initiatives regarding aboriginal people. The government's commitment to develop relationships with aboriginal people based on principles of partnership, transparency, predictability and accountability is very important and very significant. I firmly believe Canada will never solve its national unity problem until we have dealt fairly with our aboriginal population.

I urge that the commitments made in the throne speech not become empty words but that the government give real meaning to phrase “moving forward into the 21st century” by tackling in a very substantial way the problems which the people of Canada have identified as being crucial to them, namely jobs, education, health care, fairer taxation, opportunities for youth and so forth.

In conclusion, I extend my congratulations and best wishes to all who have been elected to the House. Although we are of different political stripes and although we hold different viewpoints on various issues, I believe that the one thing we all hold in common is that we deeply believe in the principles for which we are fighting. While our principles may vary somewhat, I am optimistic enough to believe that deep down within most of us, we have one common desire and that is to build a better society for this generation and for the generations to come. May we live up to that expectation, to the expectation of those who elected us, so that together we may work to make Canada a truly great nation.

[Speech From The Throne, October 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned in his remarks the need to resolve the national unity problem. I submit that the national unity problem will never be resolved until we deal adequately and fairly with our aboriginal people.

I was pleased to hear earlier that the government is committed to working in partnership with our aboriginal people. I would submit that there is a very practical opportunity for the government to do this in a very real fashion.

The Pic River First Nation submitted a land claim and this claim was rejected after a legal review by the Department of Justice. The Pic River First Nation feels that this legal review was seriously flawed and they are seeking an independent legal review of their land claim. They have launched a court action but they are quite willing to forgo court action if the government will agree to work together with them in partnership to have an independent legal review of their land claim.

I would submit that this is an opportunity for the government to show and put meaning to the words in the throne speech, to work realistically in partnership with the First Nations, to resolve this outstanding land claim rather than force this First Nations group to go through a lengthy court action. The deadline date for this would be October 9. I would urge the government to move in the direction of resolving this issue before that time.

I further feel that for Canada to resolve the national unity issue we have to deal fairly with all peoples and that means looking at the aboriginal situation in a fair and reasonable way. A first step to admit that we want to obtain national unity would be for Canada to issue an apology to the aboriginal people for the manner in which we have historically treated aboriginal people over the years.