Gordon Earle

[Health, June 9th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his answer. It sounds like that is a very positive move.

I would indicate that the city of Halifax is planning to assist its children to live in a healthy, safe community by looking at a bylaw which hopefully will be passed to ban the use of pesticides near playgrounds, hospitals and sources of drinking water.

Last month the House of Commons environment committee asked for a phase-out of cosmetic use. The minister's own party policy is to ban cosmetic use of pesticides. Has the minister any further plans to reduce any chemicals other than this one?

[Health, June 9th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the U.S. announced plans to phase out Dursban, a widely used household pesticide, because it is a known threat to children's health. The government would rather wait and hope the chemical company that makes millions in sales will volunteer to stop production on its own accord.

Does the Minister of Health not think Canadian children deserve the same kind of protection from their government as the U.S. has given to its children?

[Crimes Against Humanity Act, June 9th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to this group of motions. Generally speaking we would be supportive of this group of motions, although we find that Motion No. 5 could perhaps be worded a little better. Generally speaking we agree with the intent of that motion.

As I mentioned earlier, the whole bill is one that is extremely important. Even though it was in July 1998 that the nations agreed to this international criminal court, we realize that the UN General Assembly recognized the need for an international criminal court as early as 1948 in the aftermath of the second world war and the subsequent Nuremberg and Tokyo trials. The U.S., France, Russia and China have argued for a court with circumscribed powers. A Canadian led group of like minded nations supported a strong international criminal court, including the U.K., Croatia, Singapore and Egypt.

When we look at home at how this concept has developed, we realize that the international criminal court and Bill C-19 do not really have a high profile in Canada. We have to elevate that profile and bring to people's attention how important this kind of process is. The limited opposition has been focused on minor issues without putting forward the question of the principle of the court. That is a very important principle that has to be looked at.

Within the non-governmental organization community we know that the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development has established a wide network of supporters in Canada and internationally, including groups such as Amnesty International, the U.S. based Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Human Rights Watch and Human Rights Internet. Certainly our party is supportive of the idea of this court.

As I said earlier, we have to look at a broader aspect when we deal with the whole issue of war crimes. One very serious issue that is taking place right now, and if it were to unfold we could certainly say it would lay the groundwork for further war and war crimes, is the national missile defence system which the United States is proposing.

Just recently the President of the United States journeyed to Russia to try to convince the Russian president and the Russian Duma that his system was something they should be unconcerned about and that they should perhaps support. We realize that mission fell flat on its face and now we notice that the Russian president has travelled to North Korea to try to sort out questions and concerns around that whole issue with the North Koreans.

This is a very serious issue. It is something that ties into the topic that we are looking at today when we talk about war and war crimes. Right now, if we look seriously at the issue, Canada could be a leader in this whole area. We could perhaps be calling for a solution to the problem the U.S. feels it faces and would give rise to the need for such a national missile defence system and the whole question of ballistic missiles.

We should be leading the fight to call for an international ban on test missile flights. The whole issue of missiles could be tackled from a different perspective, a preventive perspective, in the same way as we did with land mines. We could be the leaders in dealing with the issue in a proactive, preventive way as opposed to the reactionary way in which the U.S. is dealing with it that is tending to lead to arms augmentation and more build-up rather than disarmament.

I just tie that into the issue because it is very important. We know the outcome of any further activity in that area could certainly lead to many serious cases of war crimes being looked at.

[Crimes Against Humanity Act, June 9th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-19 and the various amendments.

This bill is very important for all of us. As has been indicated it relates to the implementation of Canada's obligations under the Rome statute regarding the international criminal court. This bill would certainly make it an offence to commit genocide, a crime against humanity, or a war crime.

When we look around today we see so many examples of war crimes and atrocities being committed that this is a certainly an area we have to pay strict attention to. Human life is our most valuable resource and asset. We see crimes being committed against humanity, against children, women and quite often innocent bystanders of war. This is an area that we have to seriously look at.

Looking at the background of this situation, it was in July 1998 that 160 nations decided in Rome to establish a permanent international criminal court. This was a big move forward in terms of looking after the interests of mankind and protecting humanity.

The bill deals with the implementation of Canada's obligations and indeed is very important. Canada has been a strong proponent for the establishment of the international criminal court. It has often been suggested that our poor record at home in prosecuting suspected war criminals is something to look at closely.

We certainly support implementing our obligations. With respect to the amendments, I support my hon. colleague from the Bloc Quebecois concerning the necessity of an annual report. I believe that is in Motion No. 7. An annual report is important because it brings about accountability and transparency. It is the record and way of informing the public as to what we are doing on issues. We know how very important annual reports are so we support the motion.

I will not speak to the amendments tabled today because we have not had the opportunity to study them. However, certainly we would support anything that helps or alleviates some of the suffering we see as a result of war crimes, and brings about a fair process to deal with that kind of situation.

As an aside, we talk about war crimes and define them in terms of genocide and various acts and atrocities. In the whole process of war and our involvement, when we send our troops abroad into the battlefield, we have to have a much broader definition of what is criminal, what really can be “criminal” when it comes to how we treat our own people who defend our shores. In a lot of instances we have to draw our attention to what we ourselves do by way of supporting or not supporting our troops when they are on missions.

There is one thing which I think is a very serious “crime”. When a soldier who has dedicated and devoted his life to our country goes off to war and he is concerned about taking a vaccine that could harm him because of problems with that vaccine, he faces a court martial. The individual has to go through the strain, stress and turmoil of a court martial. It places stress on him, his family and others close to him. There are the costs involved. When he is successful and a judge pronounces that something has been done wrong and his rights have been violated, then the government sees fit to institute an appeal against that decision and the individual is put through further turmoil, strife, pain and suffering. This to me is a crime in itself and is something we have to look at.

We cannot talk about being concerned about war crimes and what happens in other parts of the world when here at home we put our own people through what can be truly described as a criminal experience.

With those comments I conclude my remarks. When we look at these things I urge that we truly consider what we are saying and where we are coming from in our own hearts and minds.

[Nova Scotia Ecology Action Centre, June 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Nova Scotia Ecology Action Centre is the oldest environmental organization in my home province. Every year its Environment and Development Committee searches the province to find a community or community organization that has shown leadership and commitment to the principles of sustainable development.

Former recipients of the award are the Mi'Kmaq Fish and Wildlife Commission and the community of Sambro. These communities and this year's recipient have been recognized for their work in creating healthy communities with a vision of a balanced environmental, economic, social and cultural well-being.

It is with great pride and honour that I stand today to report to my colleagues that the community of Spryfield, where my constituency office is located, is this year's recipient of the Ecology Action Centre's Sustainable Communities Award.

There are a number of community based groups which, working together and on separate projects, have made Spryfield the active, vibrant, well organized and now recognized as the environmentally conscious community that it is today. According to the Ecology Action Centre, such work has helped to address local environmental concerns, create a positive and cohesive community atmosphere and promote local economic development.

[National Defence, May 31st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. The minister indicated to the House that the file on the maritime helicopter project is moving. The file seems to be in such constant motion that I am afraid it will never come to rest for a decision.

Could the hon. minister tell the House where the mobile file is at the moment and when exactly he will announce a contract for replacement of the aging and oftentimes malfunctioning Sea Kings?

[International Organizations, May 19th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand today on behalf of the New Democratic Party of Canada to indicate that we support Motion No. 30. In essence it calls upon the government to continue and intensify efforts with other nations to further develop multilateral initiatives to strengthen the capacity of international organizations, for example the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the United Nations, to enable them to identify the precursors to conflict and improve their conflict prevention capabilities.

The motion is very important and contains a number of very valuable words and thoughts. I want to focus a bit on some of the clauses that are quite important. For example, when we talk about multilateral initiatives that in itself says a lot. It talks about co-operation with other nations rather than a unilateral initiative.

Many unilateral initiatives take place where one nation will decide something on its own and move forward. Far too often those kinds of initiatives are based on the narrow economic greed of a nation or on its own particular agenda. Very often they are based upon intimidation, where a nation intends to intimidate other nations to go along with its will.

Yesterday I read in the paper, and I sure others read the same article, about an initiative that was considered by the United States to explode an atom bomb on the moon back in the 1950s to intimidate the Russians. This has just come to light now. That kind of initiative was based upon intimidation and an attempt to display that it was omnipotent, all powerful and could do what it wanted. That is not the kind of thing that leads to peaceful relations between nations.

Many years later we are seeing these things happening again. The United States is attempting to intimidate others to go along with its unilateral move to put up a national defence missile system. Concern has been expressed by nations across the world and by many citizens about it. Even people in Canada have expressed concern about it. Yet we see these intimidation tactics whereby the United States says that it will move ahead anyway and if we do not co-operate we will suffer as a result.

Those are the kind of threats that neighbouring nation is making to Canada. We have to get away from that kind of approach if we want to move forward, if we want to look at preventing conflicts and if we want to work together for a peaceful world and society.

The motion also talks about strengthening the capacity of international organizations. We must agree that the international organizations today are quite weak. For example, let us look at the United Nations. It was very clear during the Kosovo crisis that the United Nations was weak in terms of being able to cope with that situation. It was a NATO led movement that dealt with that situation when in reality it should have been the United Nations that took the led. We know the United Nations has to be strengthened to enable it to cope with the many conflicts that come up today.

Let us also look at the situation regarding Sierra Leone. A number of peacekeepers have been taken prisoner. That does not bode well for the strength of the United Nations, an international organization. We have to seriously look at strengthening these organizations so they may fulfil the kind of role that we determined they should fulfil.

In order to strengthen any of the international organizations such as the United Nations they need to be properly resourced. That brings back the responsibility of each country that is a part of the United Nations to pay its dues and to contribute do the things it is supposed to do as a member of that organization.

We need people of like mind. I think the original motion talked about bringing together like minded people. Indeed this is very important. We need people who are concentrating upon and desirous of obtaining world peace rather than simply preserving their own national identity or their own particular national interests. This is very important when we talk about strengthening the capacity of international organizations.

The third idea that is brought out in the motion, again a very important idea, is enabling the identification of precursors to conflict and to improve conflict prevention capability. This is where it is very important. We must look at bringing about situations that prevent rather than always end up reacting to crises.

Far too often we find ourselves at a stage where something terrible or drastic is happening in the world. We then react and try to correct the situation, but many times we know that if we keep our eyes and ears open, if we are at all interested in what is happening around us, there are many signs that conflict is developing. There are many indications that problems are brewing on the international scene.

Certainly we have to be able to detect that kind of information and to move to prevent these things from escalating to a point where we are sweeping up afterward. With today's technology we should be able to do that. We should be able to clearly identify and know when trouble is brewing.

When we look at our military there is talk about revolutionary and military affairs where we are being presented with the concept of modern warfare based upon technology and based upon the ability to have smart bombs. Ultimately I guess the goal is to have war with very few casualties because everything could be so precise according to the technology. If the technology is precise enough to enable us to conduct that kind of warfare, it should be precise enough to enable us to detect when problems are brewing and developing and to step in to do something before they become a crisis.

When we talk about international organizations, one of the key factors we have to recognize is that no matter how great the technology is today, no matter how advanced the technology is, the human factor must always be dominant. The human factor must remain. Technology is only going to be as useful and good as we as human beings enable it to be. If we put it to the proper use then it can be quite helpful to us. Otherwise it can be very damaging.

That calls for a certain mindset among people who are governing nations and working together for international peace. They must have a mindset or an attitude that is predisposed toward peace rather than toward aggression and war.

We must move away from the idea that everything is controlled by economics. We heard about diamonds being the cause of the conflict in Sierra Leone. In other parts of the world economic advantage has been the moving factor for people. We have to move away from letting economics dominate our lives and start to consider the value of human life in itself. We have to start looking at the lives of those children missing limbs whom we have seen, the victims of a war over economic greed. If we change our mindset we can certainly go a long way toward strengthening these international organizations.

I am reminded of a couple of stories told to me by people who had worked at the United Nations. One young woman who was a lawyer told me how she just quit in discouragement because of the things she saw taking place at the administrative level within the United Nations. Again, it was coming down to personal agendas and people looking toward their own power within the organization rather than looking toward the goals of the organization itself.

I spoke recently to a RCMP officer who had worked through the United Nations in a very high position. He told me about the things that discouraged him on the administrative side of things. When they needed equipment in certain areas in which they were working, they could not get it. They were told there was a lack of resources. Then they would see personal secretaries and people at the top riding in Jeeps and getting the equipment they needed. That kind of approach or attitude is what we have to change if we want to strengthen and create co-operation among our nations and to improve and strengthen our international organizations.

Again the NDP are very pleased to speak in support of this motion. We feel it goes to the heart of what is important when we are dealing with international affairs. People must work together with a proper mindset toward peace and harmony in the world. If we put that behind our efforts, certainly it will go a long way toward improving these international organizations.

[Canadian Forces, May 19th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, recent newspaper headlines read, “Racism alive and well in the forces”. There are 25 racist incidents documented between 1995 and 1999 involving military personnel from coast to coast. These were reportedly after the forces instituted in 1994 zero tolerance regulations concerning racist behaviour.

What is being done today to ensure the enforcement of zero tolerance regulations and to create an appropriate environment for our Canadian forces?

[Parliamentary Ombudsman, May 19th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, for years the legislative provincial ombudsmen and others have been urging the federal government to establish a federal ombudsman's office accountable to parliament.

Such a parliamentary ombudsman would have the legislative mandate to investigate matters of administration by all federal departments as well as agencies or bodies directly or indirectly accountable to the federal crown for the proper performance of their function.

The federal government has resisted this concept and has supported appointing executive ombudsmen or ombudsman-like offices in various areas: corrections, banking, official languages, RCMP, the military, the airline industries, and now it is looking at an ombudsman for the Export Development Corporation.

While these ombudspeople may do good work, they are not accountable to parliament but in many cases are accountable to the executive branch of government or corporate heads.

There would be immense value gained by having a federal ombudsman system accountable to parliament. I am urging this government to establish such an office and to integrate these existing ombudsman offices into that system so that there will be a complete, fully mandated, accountable parliamentary ombudsman system to address the many complaints involving federal government administration.

[Supply, May 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I was quite interested to listen to the member, a fellow Nova Scotian, who spoke about some of the health care problems which we experience in the province of Nova Scotia. He certainly outlined many of them well.

He spoke about the waiting lists in hospitals and delays because of the lack of funding in the health care system. Those illustrations support the motion we put forward because we are suggesting that public funds not be allowed to move out into the private realm and the for profit hospitals. Public funds should be maintained within the public system. We should strengthen, maintain and keep this system of publicly funded health care.

I would be interested in hearing the hon. member's views on another aspect of health care which is very important to this entire picture of the health care system. That is the issue of pharmacare, one thing which we feel is very important.

I have witnessed it in my province and many seniors have spoken to me that quite often they need certain medications but cannot afford them because of their fixed incomes. Sometimes they either go without their medication or stretch it out in a way that is unrealistic according to how it has been prescribed. If they are supposed to take it three times a day, perhaps they will end up taking it once a week. They figure they can make the prescriptions last longer because they just cannot afford their medication.

I am wondering if the hon. member has any comments on that aspect of the health care system. There is a need for the government to put funding into a national pharmacare system to aid our seniors who have given so much of their lives to our communities. It is time that we helped them.

In particular, in our province the provincial government has moved to the extent that it costs the seniors more for their pharmacare program. It has increased the amount that the seniors have to contribute to the program.

Would the hon. member comment on that aspect of the health care system?