Gordon Earle

[Speech From The Throne, November 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear the hon. member mention that our society needs a dynamic economy. He spoke about more money being in one's hands after taxes, which is very important, but in order for people to have more money they must have jobs.

I want to direct the hon. member's attention to an issue that is very important to those of us who live in the maritimes, the issue of a national shipbuilding policy. The throne speech made no mention of that issue whatsoever and yet it is an issue that has been brought forward on many occasions and presented to the federal government as a very pressing concern for those living in coastal areas. Management, workers and many people are supporting the idea of a national shipbuilding policy, a policy that is aimed at bringing about some very productive employment for the people who have the skills and training necessary to perform that work.

Did the hon. member see anything in the throne speech that gives any hope or any promise for a national shipbuilding policy for Canada?

[Speech From The Throne, November 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the hon. member on making some very good points with respect to children and the importance of caring and nurturing children and investing in children. He touched upon some very important issues, breast feeding, proper nurturing of the child, the bonding between parent and child, and so forth.

I seek his comments on another topic which is very closely related and that is homelessness. Today we saw on the Hill what in my view was a very sad commentary upon the state of our society. Numerous homeless people and people supporting them came to the Hill to make their concerns known to the nation's capital and to those who are leading this country. There were riot police lined up in riot gear, dogs, and police with batons. There was even the use of pepper spray against these unfortunate people.

This is a very serious problem. What does the hon. member see in the throne speech that addresses that issue? We know a minister was appointed to deal with the homelessness issue. She has been travelling across the country and gathering information, but it is time now to stop travelling and stop studying. The answers are there.

It is very clear that the federal government needs to reinvest in the social housing program, reinvest in support services for those who are released from institutions and so forth, yet the throne speech did not address those issues. Does the hon. member have any comments on that problem?

[Speech From The Throne, November 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to hear the hon. member's comments with respect to a healthy and clean environment. We know this is very important for the future of our society and, as has been mentioned, for our children and our children's children.

I wonder if the hon. member could give me her views with respect to her government's decision to move ahead with the transportation and burning of nuclear waste in Canada when there has been clear indication that many citizens in Canada are opposed to it. The U.S. has indicated it is no longer interested. Yet, the government seems to want to persist with this potentially dangerous environmental action in our country.

Could the member please give her comments on that matter?

[Speech From The Throne, November 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to hear the minister's comments this afternoon, in particular his comments concerning human security and the role of the Canadian forces in ensuring human security right across the globe.

The minister mentioned, in particular, that acts of mass murder are morally repugnant. They are things that we should all be concerned about and our Canadian forces play a very important role in dealing with them.

One of the worst instances I can think of involving mass murder was the recent slaughter of 800,000 people in Rwanda. This was certainly of moral repugnance to all of us. When we find that kind of situation taking place, certainly we want to do what we can to prevent it from taking place in the future.

I want to ask the minister whether what was recently reported—and he can comment as to whether the report is correct—would support our troops as they attempt to combat these morally repugnant deeds.

It seems that there was a conference being held, which finished yesterday, to deal with the genocide in Rwanda and to look at means of trying to prevent this from happening in the future. It has been reported that Lieutenant General Roméo Dallaire was due to speak at this conference. However, according to the report, he was called out or not allowed to speak, reportedly on instructions from the minister and/or the justice department.

I want to ask the minister how that kind of action, if it did take place, is supporting our troops, because the minister said that our troops must have the support of people back home and their families. I would say that the troops also need the support of the political leaders of our country if they are going to make a meaningful impact in dealing with these issues. We need to have the truth come out in instances such as this. We need to have those instances examined in the fullest so that we can prevent those kinds of disasters in the future.

[Civil International Space Station Agreement Implementation Act, November 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

I too would have concerns about the possibility that a space station could lead to another space station and that some rivalry could take place in space. Many of us have watched Star Trek and Star Wars . We would certainly hope that this kind of development does not reach the point where we are not only carrying on wars here on Earth but we are carrying on wars in space or using the technology that has been learned through these programs to further devastate ourselves on Earth. We have to be vigilant about that.

It is for that reason I commented that it would be nice if we could put energy into finding peaceful solutions here on Earth. If we find peaceful solutions among the countries here on Earth, then whatever we develop beyond should be guided by the same principles. If we have wars going on here among countries and we cannot come to some solution on those issues, then the member is quite right in being concerned that perhaps the development of more technology might lead to further disaster.

[Civil International Space Station Agreement Implementation Act, November 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has indicated, projects of this nature keep money within our communities and they do generate economic activity. I believe I did cover that point in my comments by mentioning that for this very reason we support the project.

We also have to look at priorities in terms of our communities. We have to use the same kind of energy and enthusiasm to tackle some of the problems which are very evident in our society such as the homeless, the lack of opportunities for some of our young people and the concerns they have around education and so forth.

I am not disagreeing with the member's comments. They are well taken. We did touch upon that and we do agree with that.

[Civil International Space Station Agreement Implementation Act, November 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-4, the civil international space station agreement implementation act. I should say at the outset that the NDP supports this legislation. Let me give a little background on the legislation.

In January 1998 Canada, Japan, Russia, the U.S. and 11 European countries signed the civil international space station agreement. Bill C-4 provides the legislation needed for Canada to meet its commitments for ratification by all signatories before January 2000.

The lifespan of the station we are told is 10 years, from 2005 to 2014, and it will house seven astronauts. The purpose of the station is to do research in the areas of biotechnology, engineering, Earth observation and telecommunications.

Canada's contribution to the international space station is the next generation of the Canadarm, the space station robotic manipulator system. This system plays a crucial role in assembling and maintaining the international space station while in orbit. It will be used to move equipment in space, help astronauts during space walks and it will manipulate the various instruments and experiments docked on the ISS. We are all very proud of this Canadian invention and the role it has played thus far in the whole area of space development.

What rewards are there for Canada? The cost of Canada's participation over a 20 year period is approximately $1.4 billion. Ninety percent of that investment is being spent in Canadian industry and universities. Indeed we know the importance of our universities to our society and to our young people.

Since 1987 the Canadian Space Agency has allocated 150 contracts for robotics development technology to firms and universities from British Columbia right through to Newfoundland. Already the technology is being used in such diverse areas as prosthetics, the deployment of airbags in vehicles, and in a digital imaging system for medical radiology.

Firms have landed international contracts based on the expertise they have acquired through their work with the Canadian Space Agency or by supplying equipment and expertise to some of the other signatory countries to the agreement.

From our participation in the international space station we received one rack, or what is known as a laboratory shelf, per year for science and technological experiments. These shelves will allow Canada to expand its research in the microgravity field which will aid research carried out here in areas such as osteoporosis. It is very important to have this kind of research in our society. Certainly the benefits of this technology will be great for our nation.

I also noticed that the bill talks about establishing an international space station for peaceful purposes. I want to take a moment to comment on that. I certainly support the concept of a space station, but I find it somewhat disturbing that we can spend lots of money and move forward with great urgency and a certain sense of determination on things that are outside of this Earth, the space element.

It would be good if we could put as much energy into finding peace here on Earth and working toward establishing peace within the many troubled countries throughout the world. If countries across the world would put the same effort that is being put into the development of the space agency into establishing peaceful negotiations and peaceful relationships between countries, the world would certainly be a much better place. If ultimately we have an elaborate space station in outer space but we are killing each other off here on Earth, what good does it do us in the long run?

The space station will house seven astronauts. The term house draws to my attention that here on Earth on the streets within our communities many people are homeless, yet we are providing very elaborate and costly facilities to advance the cause of science and business industries. I am not saying it should not be done; I am saying that we should devote as much attention to looking after the kinds of concerns that we see as we walk out of our doors and down our streets.

I am sure many people living in constituencies right across the country have more concern about putting bread on their tables and about providing the homeless with shelter than they do with proceeding with space development. That is not to say it should not be done and I emphasize that. People will probably want to say I am putting down that effort. I am not putting down that effort. What I am saying is let us bring other efforts up to that same level of advancement.

Finally, this project emphasizes industrial development and economic development. It is very important that we as a nation move forward in those areas. But again I would say that we must also move forward in the area of social development and meet the social concerns that face many of us. It would certainly be good to see the kind of money that is being put into space development being put into many of the problems that confront our young people and the citizens of this nation.

With those remarks and that footnote about balancing the kinds of priorities we deal with, I would say that I am pleased to support this legislation.

[Visible Minorities, October 29th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Human Rights Commission points out that there was a decrease of 501 visible minorities in permanent public service jobs in 1998. Out of 28 executive positions filled from outside the public service, a grand total of zero were visible minorities.

Earlier this week the treasury board president told me that she is responding to the crisis by setting up yet another board. More bureaucracy, less action.

Why not simply hire more qualified visible minority Canadians at all levels of the public service and begin to rectify the situation today?

[Visible Minorities, October 29th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the hiring of visible minorities within the federal public service has been at crisis proportions for some time. But is it improving? No. This Liberal government, for all of its good words, seems to be intent on making matters worse for Canadians of colour.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission's analysis of this government's performance in 1998 shows an abysmal record. Out of 12,420 term staff positions filled last year, only 418 were visible minorities. That is only 3%. Out of 2,800 permanent jobs filled, only 184 were visible minorities. But with 685 visible minority positions lost, the Liberal government has had a net loss of 501 employees, or a decrease of 18%.

This is a slap in the face to all Canadians of colour. It flies in the face of the throne speech's words of support for diversity. It is yet another invisible barrier thrown up to prevent visible minority youth from aspiring to serve their community and country in the federal public service.

Finally, what is the government's response? More task forces, more boards, more inquiries and less visible minorities in the public service. Shame, shame.

[Points Of Order, October 28th, 1999]

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I was in the midst of a very important speech and did not look at the member who said it. I know it was a Reform member. The fact that it is recorded means that the individual doing the recording must know who this person is. More importantly, I believe the member himself knows who he is and what he said and I would hope that he, in good conscience, would come forward, admit and apologize.