Gordon Earle

[National Horse Of Canada Act, May 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, this Liberal government has committed an injustice to black Nova Scotians and all Canadians.

This government has also done a grave injustice to justice itself. “If justice is fairness to all, then justice has not prevailed in Nova Scotia”. These words wrap up the Donald Marshall commission. These words have unfortunately never been more true than today.

The commission recognized that black people in Nova Scotia have been systematically excluded from the legal profession. The commission recommended that “governments consider the needs of visible minorities by appointing qualified visible minority judges and administrative board members whenever possible”.

One scant month after spouting nice words and lovely sentiments during Black History Month, the Liberal government turned back the clock on racial equality.

The Liberal government did a grave injustice to all when it overlooked Nova Scotia's most senior female judge and the only black family court judge when making appointments to the province's new unified family court.

Judge Corrine Sparks was passed over and ignored in a conscious decision by the government to appoint judges who have sat on the bench in Nova Scotia for less time. Judge Sparks was appointed in 1987. The government overlooked her in favour of judges appointed in 1995, 1993 and 1991 among others. As Lincoln Alexander, chairperson of the Canada Race Relations Foundation stated, this is a “major slap in the face to the black community” and suggests this government's actions “smack of racism”.

I first raised this issue in the House of Commons on April 14. The government buried its head in the sand and hoped the problem would go away, as governments in this country have so often hoped when it comes to issues of fairness for blacks and other Canadians of colour.

Then on April 26 I listened with incredulity to the justice minister's answer to my question on this issue. She responded by telling me that the government had appointed a black judge in Alberta. Well stop the presses. The government has appointed a black judge. Clearly, enough is enough for the government and one black judge must somehow ease the Liberal government's conscience. I suppose the government is now quite comfortable and pleased with itself that it has done all it can in the fight against the oppression of visible minorities.

The minister seems to be suggesting on behalf of the Liberal government that one black judge is more than enough to appease blacks and Canadians of colour in this country from coast to coast and to keep us quiet and thankful. The appointment she refers to is over 3,000 kilometres from the blacks in my riding.

The issue is that Judge Sparks seems more than qualified to have received one of these appointments. The fact that a black judge was appointed elsewhere has no relevance whatsoever to Judge Sparks' situation. The minister seems to suggest that Judge Sparks is not qualified enough to receive this appointment. Is it the fact that she is the most senior woman judge in the province that does not qualify her? Is it the fact that she is the only black family court judge in the province that does not qualify her? Or does she not qualify because she has many more years experience than others who were appointed?

The government went from ashamed to shameful when it went so far to avoid appointing a black judge that it ignored Judge Sparks in favour of appointing someone who is not even a judge. In my riding alone there are the predominantly black communities of Beechville, Lucasville and Upper Hammonds Plains. Also in Nova Scotia are North Preston, East Preston, Sackville, Cherrybrook, Lake Loon, Westphal, Dartmouth, Halifax, and several other areas all with large black populations.

When sitting as a supreme court judge, Bertha Wilson remarked in a lecture at Osgoode: “If women lawyers and women judges through differing perspectives on life can bring new humanity to bear on the decision making process, perhaps they will make a difference. Perhaps they will succeed in infusing the law with an understanding of what it means to be fully human”.

I join with the Black Lawyers Association of Nova Scotia, the African United Baptist Association of Nova Scotia, the Canada Race Relations Foundation and the Nova Scotia Federation of Labour in telling the government to correct this grievous wrong now. Canadians, and especially black Canadians, are watching and waiting for the government's response.

The Quebec government recently appointed Juanita Westmoreland-Traore to the Quebec provincial court.

Let the Liberal government show some courage and a sincere effort to fight racism.

[Public Service Pension Plan, May 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, while Canada goes to war, the Liberal government sits at home bombing the troops' pension fund.

Will the government tell Canadians today that it will cease its plan to grab surplus pension funds belonging to Canadian forces troops, public sector workers, the RCMP and others, which is little more than a transparent ploy to cook its own financial books?

[Budget Implementation Act, 1999, May 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this particular motion.

I should say at the outset that we oppose this motion. We oppose this motion because it deals with certain provisions of the budget and it introduces provisions which are contrary to the priorities and values of the New Democratic Party. We recognize that the Liberals' political choices are certainly not the choices of our party.

This budget was touted as a health budget. The government put forth this health budget on the basis that it was injecting $11.5 billion to health care funds. We have to look very closely at what this really means.

We note that this money is spread out over a five year span. It will only bring health care spending back to 1995 levels in five years, and even then only back to 1995 levels. This budget is not attached to any comprehensive long term planning. Rather it allows the pressure for two tier American style health care to grow. There is no delivery on the Liberal promise to build national home care programs or a pharmacare program. In reality it provides only a perception that health care needs are being addressed.

We know when we look at our health care system that there is a lot of pressure. People are overworked. People are underpaid. More and more is demanded of the system. There are long waiting lists in various hospitals. This budget does very little to address those issues.

The finance minister has given the wrong prescription for the health care crisis. The dosage is too low and the recovery is too slow. This was supposed to be a health care budget, yet we see no real leadership when it comes to health care.

Let us put this budget in perspective. We note that the Liberal cuts to the Canada health and social transfers, that is, the entire social program funding envelope, since 1995 now amount to $21.5 billion and more than half of that has been in health care. This year's budget puts back only $2 billion, not quite the cause for celebration that we have been led to believe.

Members of the government keep repeating $11.5 billion, $11.5 billion. In reality they have not emphasized the amount that has been cut from this budget. What they want us to believe and to forget is that the $11.5 billion will be spread over five years.

This budget also failed to address a number of very important issues. It failed to help the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who are still looking for work. It failed to improve benefits for the unemployed. In fact what we have seen take place in the past is just the opposite of helping the unemployed. We have seen the government seize funds belonging to the unemployed. It wants to put these funds into the general account to pay down the debt.

This budget has failed to combat the homeless crisis. All we have to do is walk down our streets. Even as we walk from the House of Commons down Rideau Street we see many homeless people who are sitting by the side of the road. Yet this budget does not really deal in any concrete fashion with that particular problem.

It has failed to reduce the GST. It has failed to provide federal funding for our highways. In many parts of our country the highways are in severe need of repair. In my home province of Nova Scotia there is a need for highway work. We know that if the highways are not in good shape it reflects upon the potential for tourism. Tourists do not want to come to a province or to a part of the country to drive on poor highways. The government has failed to address that particular issue in its budget.

It has failed to provide proper tax relief. Instead it has eliminated the 3% surtax for people earning $50,000 to $65,000. It addresses the concerns of those who perhaps least need it, whereas the poorest in our country do not receive any real relief from this budget.

One very important issue which has not been addressed by the budget is infrastructure money. The government had a program, which has now come to an end, whereby infrastructure money could be shared among the federal government, the provinces and the municipal governments. This program certainly aided in providing much need infrastructure in many of the small communities throughout our province.

I can tell the House of a need in my riding, a need that is felt by a small black community. The families do not have adequate water. We may think that in this day and age how is it possible that people do not have an adequate water supply? What makes it even more striking is the fact that this community lives and borders the lake that supplies water to Halifax and Dartmouth.

The main water supply is directly adjacent to this small community, yet it is not hooked into the water supply. The people are drinking from wells where the water has been deemed to be unsafe and lacks the proper aesthetics that drinking water should have. People have wells that run dry in the summertime. Quite often they have to call upon the local fire department to deliver water to them. They live next to this large, pure lake which boasts the best treated water in North America and they are not hooked up to it.

These people have been attempting to obtain a hook up to the main water supply. Unfortunately, because they did not come in on time under the previous infrastructure program, they now do not have access to that kind of money to assist them with this project. The cost of the project is very difficult for people who are living on fixed incomes, many who are widows, older people, people with only a small income. To hook up to the water supply may cost many of them $20,000 or $30,000 because of the frontage charges for their properties.

It comes down to a matter of priorities. I have been pursuing this issue on the federal level. I have tried to seek whatever funds might be available from any of the programs that the federal government might have in the area of health, the environment and so forth. However, I have been unable to secure any meaningful funding from the federal government to assist in this project going ahead.

Where does the government put its priorities? Where are the priorities when it comes to serving the needs of people? When I see projects being approved under the millennium partnership program, such as projects to fund a dumb blond joke book, projects to establish mermaids for western towns which are not even near the sea and various other projects, I question the validity of the priorities of the government in meeting the real needs of people.

People can be without water, yet we can find funds to create books which poke fun at various segments of our society. This, to me, is wrong. The government has the whole process of its priorities wrong and this budget simply illustrates that fact. We have to start getting back to the meaningful things in a budget, the things that will assist those people who are unemployed, that will give aid to people who are in need of health care, that will provide home care for people who need it, medicare and so forth. These are the kinds of issues that must be dealt with in a realistic way in our budget.

It is for this reason that I find it very difficult to stand and support a motion which calls for CHST payments to be made to any province because the CHST payments are not being directed in the proper direction and they are not being used to help people. We must get back to the real root causes of helping people to accomplish the things that must be accomplished to enable them to lead full and productive lives.

We see right across our country all kinds of examples of things going wrong in our society. A lot of these things stem from the quality of life within our communities and homes. It is incumbent upon the federal government to provide the kind of financial support and programs that make it possible to have a good quality of life in our homes, communities and throughout our country.

[Supply, May 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on February 19, 1999, I expressed concern in the House that the Minister of National Defence indicated during the previously held take note debate on Kosovo that he did not know the details concerning the involvement of Canadian troops in a peacekeeping mission. The minister in fact said that these details would be worked out after the signing of a peace agreement. Then a formal request would be made by NATO, and Canada would have two weeks to respond.

I asked the minister at that time if he would commit to bringing the detailed request before parliament for a debate and a vote so that he might respond to the request with the full and open backing of Canadians through parliament.

The minister made it very clear in his answer, and the government has made it very clear since then, that there will be no vote on that issue. The minister indicated that the government had had a debate and would make a final decision expeditiously as matters unfolded. The minister said they would do so and keep everybody fully informed.

That was the keynote of the day. There would be no vote but everybody would be kept fully informed. We can see as matters have evolved that there has been no vote and that about 800 troops have since been committed. They are on standby for whatever NATO may deem to request of them.

The point is that with no vote Canada has joined the largest allied military assault in Europe since World War II. The phrase “sentence first and verdict afterwards” is from the twisted world of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and it seems the same twisted approach is being used by the government.

The government has seen fit to hold votes on many other pieces of business, on legislation that it has introduced in parliament updating terminology related to the Royal Canadian Mint, Teleglobe Canada legislation, establishing parks, amending the wheat board act, and even legislating workers back to work. Yet the government does not think that Canadians deserve to have their elected representatives vote on Canada's participation in the bloody slaughter of innocents in Yugoslavia and Canada's participation in the devastation of an economy and infrastructure including water, sewage, roads and communications which will take untold generations to rebuild.

The government places expediency before democracy. The Liberal government has acted as if the Liberal Party is at war and not the country of Canada, which is a very scary conclusion. The government suggests that it is at war. We note that the term war is quite often avoided and we talk about a conflict. In reality we have to call it what it is. The government is at war for democratic reasons, the government says, but it has overridden democracy in favour of one party rule to pursue its goals.

Upon what moral authority does the government see fit to send our country to war without a vote? The vote is the key issue. It is very important. When the Prime Minister was in opposition he demanded a vote on Canada's participation in the gulf war of 1991. Yet now he has chosen to hide from democracy in this crisis.

When I was campaigning many people indicated their very serious concerns about government. They were quite pessimistic about the political process, to the point that many had given up their right to vote. I encouraged people that the vote is the keystone of our democracy. It is a key point in our democracy. We must not at any cost give up the right to vote. I urge all members to consider seriously that in this issue the vote is the important issue.

[Supply, May 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have just two quick points.

The hon. member keeps talking, as do others on that side, about the policy, about having a policy and about the minister giving the policy. I have yet to see this policy in writing and to see exactly what it entails.

He mentioned in his speech that we should go to the Americans to see what we can give them in order to get a small piece of this business. I guess I take some offence to this idea of us always going with hat in hand to the Americans. It seems to me this is what we are doing all the time. We did it on the ethanol case. We did it when they would not allow us to launch our satellite. Bill C-55 was another example. We could go on and on with the examples of how we are constantly going with our hat in hand to the Americans.

Why can we not stand up as Canadians, develop a policy for ourselves and put something on the table with strong force rather than going to see what we can give in order that they allow us to have a part of this business?

[Supply, May 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if you would seek unanimous consent of the House to extend the question period by another five minutes.

[Petitions, May 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition has 150 signatures on it.

The petitioners are drawing to the attention of the House the following. The Canadian government has blindly followed a careless and dangerous U.S.-NATO policy of bombing the sovereign country of Yugoslavia and the Serbian people. Because of the dangerous precedent set it could open the door to the bombing of other countries, the interfering with the internal affairs of nations and with other minorities.

The petitioners are calling upon the Government of Canada and parliament to disengage from such policy and bring the troops home.

[Petitions, May 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions. The first one has over 50 signatures.

The petitioners are bringing to the attention of the House of Commons their concerns regarding mandatory labelling and thorough testing of all genetically engineered foods. They want to ensure that there is clear labelling of all genetically engineered foods and their byproducts available in Canada, and to have tests to ensure the safety of these foods when consumed by humans.

[Health, May 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear from the response that the government will continue to silence these scientists, even though there is an ongoing and unresolved international debate on the safety of the bovine growth hormone for human health. Health Canada scientists have expressed fears that this growth hormone may be linked to different forms of cancer.

Why is the minister not allowing Canadians to be informed about potential health risks? Why is he allowing Canadians to eat potentially carcinogenic meat?

[Health, May 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will know that scientists from the health department gave testimony this morning before the Senate agricultural committee.

These scientists spoke about pressures being placed on them to approve a drug. They spoke about gag orders, files being stolen and intimidation. Most importantly, they talked about their inability to perform the moral and ethical duties of their jobs as scientists.

Rather than silencing them, why is the Prime Minister not commending these scientists for their brave actions in the public interest and why will he not allow them to speak out on important health issues?