Gordon Earle

[Points Of Order, October 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order about a very grave matter, indeed. Racism has no place in the House, as I am sure you will agree, Mr. Speaker.

During debate last night I made the comment, and I quote “we see that one has been in chains for years and years”. One MP from the Reform Party benches immediately said “Like him”, referring to me. The official record of the House, Hansard , has recorded those words forever.

Racism is no laughing matter. Certainly the suffering of black slaves in chains is a terrible thing. I raise this point of order not only as a black MP but on behalf of the dignity of the House and all Canadians fighting racism.

Disreputable and unparliamentary language has no place in the House. As we set an example for children and families throughout the country, racism can neither be overlooked or condoned, especially within the House of Commons.

I call on the MP who said those words to set a positive example for our youth and for all of us. I call on the MP to have the conscience and fortitude to admit his words, withdraw his comments and set an example by apologizing to people of colour, to his colleagues in the House, and to all Canadians.

Finally, through this we can move forward and use this as a example of how to fight racism in our workplace. I hope through this point of order to have some good come out of something very bad.

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, October 27th, 1999]

—and has not had the opportunity to train. I heard that racist remark but I will ignore it.

The other person has had the opportunity to train and all the advantages that come with that. Suddenly the chains are taken off the person who has been bound and inhibited and the person is declared equal and ready to run a race with the person who has had all the opportunities over the years.

For people to be considered equal and have equal opportunity there quite often has to be differential treatment which makes the ground rules fair and gives a level playing field for all. Anyone who is familiar with sports will see how on a circular track runners are staggered so that there is equality. People have opportunity to train.

What we are really getting at in the treaty is how as Canadians we can fulfil our obligations to our fellow human beings in a way that will be fair, equal and just. This whole issue is very important because as people say it has ramifications right across the country and not just for the people in British Columbia.

It also has lessons for those of us in other parts of the country. It has lesson for those of us in the fishery as mentioned by my hon. colleague from Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore. If the government had been seriously negotiating and dealing with the aboriginal people, as indicated in the Delgamuukw decision and in other decisions, we would not be in the situation we are in now with respect to the fisheries. It waited for a decision to come down that caused people to have a knee-jerk reaction.

I must compliment the aboriginal people and many non-aboriginal people in my area for the calmness they have shown with regard to this decision and the respect they have to shown to one another. The media portrayed the few hotheads on both sides who are taking advantage of the situation, not the majority of people who want to peacefully negotiate a settlement. I give praise to the people who looked at the decision as a way to move forward together with respect for each other and to learn to share the resources in a way that would benefit all of us collectively.

It is an honour to have had the opportunity to speak to this matter. When all members of the House consider the issue, I sincerely urge them to vote with their hearts, not with some statistical information, not with some fear they have flamed up about how some things will be disadvantageous to them and to people in British Columbia. British Columbians will benefit from the treaty as will Canadians and all of us who want to see justice and equality for our citizens.

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, October 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to rise today to speak to this issue. Indeed we are dealing with a very historic occasion. We are in fact creating history as we discuss this very important topic.

The hon. member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys spoke quite eloquently with respect to the situation concerning the Indian Act and how that has crippled a people for many years. We are at a point where we can now start to rectify some of the wrongs that have been done over the historic period of time when we have been living side by side with the aboriginal people in Canada.

We have heard a lot of objections being raised as to why the treaty should not be supported. Many of them have come from the Reform Party. In many instances the objections have been centred on things that are not accurate in terms of what the treaty actually says.

Concerns about individual property rights were raised. Yet, if we look at and understand the treaty, there is provision whereby the Nisga'a can organize and arrange for people to have individual property rights. It is a question of self-determination and self-governance.

Why should someone outside the Nisga'a community be overly concerned about the property rights of individual members of that community? We have to ask ourselves what attitude is prevalent that is raising that concern. The Nisga'a people have approved the treaty. They understand the principles involved with respect to property rights and they have made decisions in their interest.

We talk about self-government for a people. Yet, when it comes right down to it, a lot of people do not really want to adhere to that principle. Self-government is okay as long as they can dictate what that means to a people.

We are looking at very important principles with respect to the support of the treaty. When we support the treaty we support the right of the aboriginal people to determine their destiny, to make laws and to deal with issues of importance to them as a people. Some people may ask right off the bat why that should be.

All we have to do is look at the history of what has taken place. Under the other system, as my hon. colleague from Kamloops indicated, the Indian Act treated people with disrespect rather than with respect. It is the only piece of legislation that determines who people are and spells out that they are or are not Indian, no matter what their blood lines may be. Certainly the rest of the people living in Canada have not been subjected to such legislation.

Now we have a situation where we can rectify some of the wrongs. Yet we hear people crying out and saying how terrible it is and how it ought not be supported.

He heard statistical information from surveys that were conducted. We all know that we can make surveys say what we want. I would be quite interested in seeing the householder that was sent out and the information that was put forth to inflame the attitudes that might come back through those surveys. Certainly we can make any kind of statistical analysis, but the proof of the pudding is what resides within our hearts when we are dealing with these issues, not what is written down on a piece of paper in terms of a statistical answer.

We ran into that problem on another issue concerning national sovereignty and how a question should be worded, what it should say. In reality we know what people want. We know that the Nisga'a people want self-government. We know that we want to support self-government. We know that we want to support the treaty because it is good for the Nisga'a people. It is good for Canada. It creates a sense of certainty. It rectifies many of the wrongs that have been done. We have to be cautious when we hear people putting forth strong objections based upon their culture, their background and their perception of equality.

People say that we should all be equal. When we think of equality we should realize that being equal does not mean everybody being the same. I must point out to hon. members who put forth the concept of equality that two people can be standing side by side, toe to toe on a line, about to run a race. Some would say they are equal because they are both standing at the starting point and will go to the same finishing point. However, if we look at the history of the two competitors we see that one has been in chains for years and years—

[National Marine Day, October 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, today is National Marine Day, a day of pride and hope for major carriers, shippers and port organizations.

Canada's marine trade touches many aspects of our development and future. Our ports move over half of Canada's international cargo trade. However, National Marine Day is a day of great shame and disgrace for a Liberal government which does not seem able to see beyond the city of Ottawa, much less to our coasts. The Liberal government could be brave and creative and it could bring us in line with advantages held by marine industries and workers in other countries.

The Liberal government could move forward with a valid national shipbuilding policy. We are a maritime nation with the skilled workers to do the job and the business would bring Canada's shipbuilding industry proudly into the new millennium. Handouts are not the issue; sound policy is.

The Liberal government could ensure that the proper links exist between CN Rail and our ports. The government could take action to recognize the importance of our major Canadian ports, including Halifax, Churchill, Vancouver and Thunder Bay. It could recognize and take action to support the importance of Halifax as a major container port.

[Equality, October 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the throne speech stated that our diversity was a source of strength and creativity.

The government overlooked an experienced and qualified black judge in Her Honour Judge Corrine Sparks during a recent appointment in Nova Scotia. The government has fanned the flames of racism with its inept handling of the Nova Scotia fisheries dispute. The government has failed miserably to promote visible minorities within the federal public service.

What is the government doing to address racial inequities both in its own policies and racism within the ranks of hiring of the public service?

[National Defence, October 21st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the government may be party to a conspiracy to cover up use of toxic and lethal depleted uranium in Kosovo.

The chair of the UN-Balkans environmental task force says NATO is refusing to co-operate with its investigation into DU use which has been linked to stillbirths, children born with defects, childhood leukaemia and other cancers, and the gulf war syndrome.

Is the minister aware of this NATO coverup and will he commit to Canadians that he will do everything in his power to ensure NATO fully complies with the investigation into depleted uranium use in Kosovo?

[Speech From The Throne, October 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I listened quite intently to the hon. member's very eloquent speech. I commend him on pointing out the importance of the rich diversity of our country.

I was somewhat disappointed with the throne speech. While it speaks about Canada as being a bilingual country in which both men and women of many different cultures, races and religions participate in economic, social and political life and our diversity is a source of strength and creativity making us modern and forward-looking, that seems to be where it stops. The words are good but I think most of us would agree that words without action do not really mean a lot.

It saddened me during the last session when I had to approach the government to explain to the House why the appointment of a black female judge to a unified court in Nova Scotia did not take place. To this day I have not yet received a response to satisfactorily explain what took place in that situation.

What we really say to people in our society comes through by our actions more so than the words that are written in a speech. If this speech is to be meaningful as we move forward into the 21st century, if we are to give more substance to these words, then the actions have to prove and bear out that we really mean what we are talking about in terms of the diversity of our country making us strong and people having equal opportunities.

When the hon. member mentioned the military, I thought about our veteran merchant mariners who are still fighting for justice, still seeking some form of compensation to make up for the injustice that was done to them following the war. Those kinds of actions or lack of action by the government say more to people than words in a throne speech talking about being supportive.

Does the hon. member have any comments to make on those particular instances? Could he also perhaps indicate how he sees his government moving forward in a real positive way to give some substance to the words that are in the throne speech?

[Speech From The Throne, October 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder, with the minister's consent and the consent of the House, if we could extend the minister's time for questions by about 10 minutes.

[Parliamentarians' Code Of Conduct Act, October 18th, 1999]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-226, parliamentarians' code of conduct.

Mr. Speaker, I am very please to introduce this bill which is essentially the same bill that was introduced in the last parliament as Bill C-488.

The purpose of this enactment is to establish a code of conduct for members of the Senate and the House of Commons and to provide for an officer of parliament to be known as the ethics counsellor to advise members, administer disclosures of interest and carry out investigations of complaints under the direction of a joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons.

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

[Speech From The Throne, October 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member spoke about the problem of homelessness.

She made a very eloquent and good case for concern for the homeless. It is a very important issue that must be dealt with. She also mentioned that she is pleased to be part of a government that made the statement in the throne speech that it would continue working with its partners in all sectors to address the root causes of homelessness and to help communities respond to the needs of their members for shelter and other support. Other than that sentence I did not see anything concrete to tell me what the government is actually doing to help those people who are living on the streets and who were so aptly described by my hon. colleague.

Would the member comment on what practical steps she sees the government taking to provide a housing program, or something which will address the issue in a very concrete fashion?