Gordon Earle

[Supply, April 27th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I must admit that I do not have all the details of that particular effort, but we certainly feel that any and all efforts should be considered. It is also very important to get as much information as possible on all these efforts.

Certainly from my own perspective I would be more than pleased to offer any assistance in terms of discussing any of these issues directly with our ministers who are involved in trying to promote these plans. It is an important issue and all of us must contribute as much as possible to bring this kind of peace about.

[Supply, April 27th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments.

The example of my son being involved in a conflict addresses that issue. He came upon a very serious and dangerous situation where the human rights of a person were being violated. He diplomatically used every effort to bring that particular conflict to a conclusion, to the point where one of the parties actually left the conflict through his persuasion.

Strength comes in many ways and through various means. There is nothing weak about diplomacy if it is used properly. There is nothing weak about exploring all those diplomatic avenues. I feel that we have not explored all of them to their fullest. There is no harm in doing that in order to bring an end to this very serious situation.

[Supply, April 27th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to this very, very important motion.

Last Thursday I had the occasion to visit Winnipeg to attend a funeral which was held for a very close relative who had passed away. Funerals have a way of bringing to light the stark reality of life and death, what it is all about to be here on earth and what we accomplish while we are here.

While I was in Winnipeg I also had the opportunity to visit with my son who is living there. My son is a fine young man. I am not saying that just because he is my son, he is a very fine young man. He is a very peace loving young man and I am very proud of him.

We were sitting in a restaurant having a bite to eat and he said “Dad, I got in a fight not too long ago”. I was very surprised. I said “You got in a fight?” He said “Yeah. I was walking home and I saw this fellow who was drenched in blood. He was covered with blood. Another person, quite a bit larger, was standing over this person, beating him. I went over to talk to the aggressor. I said `This is not necessary. Calm down. Relax. Go home. It is all over”.

He was trying to bring peace to the situation. Then he turned to the fellow who had been beaten up and he told him there was no point in continuing with this, that he should just go on home. The person who had been beaten up listened and decided to go. Then my son turned around to leave because he thought the issue was over. However, the aggressor, accompanied by two other people, all charged him. One came at him from one side and one came at him from the other side, and the three of them were holding him. He looked at them and said “So it takes three of you”. He must have touched a chord with their kind of macho image. One fellow said “Let him go and we will fight one on one”. The aggressor who had beaten up the other fellow went after my son. My son, with his Judo instincts from his training days when he was younger, very quickly took over, pinned this fellow to the ground and held him so that he could not move. The others were quite surprised. They said “Let him get up and we will go”, and they backed off.

I was torn with conflicting opinions on the situation. I said to him “Jamie, I am proud of you. You did something that was good. You stepped in to try to help someone who was obviously in distress”. However, I also said “It was kind of an interesting situation. You were lucky because who knows what could have happened. Those people could have had weapons and they could have attacked you while you were down holding this fellow”. There were a lot of risks involved.

The bottom line was that he had to make a choice. He made a choice to take some risk to try to help someone who was in distress, who was at a disadvantage, who was being bruised and beaten.

I tell that story because it has similarities to the conflict in Kosovo, where people have had to make hard choices which involve risk. That was done at the beginning of this conflict. I do not think anyone questions the motive for becoming involved in the conflict. We were trying to assist people who were being taken advantage of and we were trying to end the suffering and the bloodshed. That was the motivation for becoming involved and for remaining involved in this conflict.

However, we are at a point now where we have to very seriously look at what this motion proposes, and that is intensifying and accelerating our efforts to find a diplomatic solution—and I emphasize the word diplomatic—to the crisis in Kosovo.

We know that in diplomacy there is always give and take on all sides. We cannot have it so that someone can say “This is exactly what I want and unless I get that I will not give anything in return”. Diplomacy always involves a matter of give and take. People involved in the labour movement know this. At the negotiating table there is give and take.

There are certain principles beyond which we do not go. For example, in this case we know that there are certain principles at stake; the principle of self-determination and so forth. We re-affirm our support for that basic principle. However, in negotiations and in diplomacy there is always give and take.

We are urging very strongly that the government take the lead in finding a diplomatic solution, involving Russia and the United Nations, to this very serious crisis. None of us can doubt the seriousness of this crisis. All we have to do is look at our televisions to see the images of the people who are suffering on both sides of the conflict. We see the suffering that is taking place and we know that the bottom line is that the conflict must end.

As I said earlier, when we attend a funeral it comes home very quickly that after all is said and done we all end up in that same position, lying in a coffin with the life gone from us. What people remember afterwards are the good deeds that we have done, the way we have influenced someone's life as we passed through.

I am reminded of a spiritual phrase which says that if I have helped somebody as I pass this way then my living would not be in vain. That is the goal which we must all strive toward, to not have our living be in vain and to try to do what we can to help people.

In this case we must help to bring about a diplomatic solution to this problem, to make sure that no action is taken which expands the conflict and makes it worse because we see that sort of thing happening quite often. It could very well have happened in the situation involving my son. He could very well have become involved in a situation where the action he took could have escalated things. Fortunately, he was able to take action to calm the situation and to use the appropriate amount of force necessary to bring an end to it.

It is because of our concern that nothing be done to expand or prolong this conflict that I move:

That the motion be amended by replacing the words “to take actions” with the following:

“to impose a naval blockade or take any other actions”

[Justice, April 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the government has attempted to explain away the question of racism which surfaced during its recent judicial appointments when it overlooked Corrine Sparks, a senior black female judge, by claiming that there were more judges than positions available, but then appointed one person who was not even a judge.

Will the Liberal government now send a positive message of hope to Canadians of colour by committing to a full review of this decision or is the government aiming to condemn black judges to the back seat of the judicial bus?

[Canadian Armed Forces, April 21st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this motion. We see it as an initiative to begin the huge job of cleaning up the mess in this government's defence ministry.

The auditor general pointed out in his report last year that national defence plans to spend $6.5 billion over the next five years to purchase equipment for the Canadian forces. The auditor general was scathing in his report. All Canadians deserve an open and fair defence procurement procedure. They are not receiving the quality they deserve from their taxes.

Canada's auditor general had these words to say about this Liberal government's defence procurement practices:

We are concerned at the extent to which the Department relies on professional judgment in making complex purchase decisions. Management did not conduct adequate analyses to justify its spending decisions for most of the projects we examined. Tactical studies often did not reflect the way officials said they actually planned to employ equipment, were done too late to influence decisions, produced results that contradicted the purchase decision, were undertaken by contractors who had an interest in the Department's decision, or were not done at all.

In three cases, the Department considered only a single option. In other cases, the options analyses were inadequate.

This is simply not good enough. Furthermore this is not news to this government. The auditor general has been sounding the alarm bells on the government's procurement policies for years. The auditor general reminded the government of the following:

In 1992, we reported that DND had recognized the need to simplify and streamline its major capital acquisition process, which had become unnecessarily complex, process-driven, costly and no longer appropriate for the management of the defence capital program. Our 1994 chapters on Information Technology and Infrastructure Management pointed to continuing problems with the Department's project and program management systems, despite attempts to improve them. Our 1994 follow-up chapter also noted that while the Department has generally concurred with our recommendations, it has been slow to implement improvements. We also expressed our concern that the actions it has taken may be inadequate to address the problems with the project and program management systems.

Many of the problems associated with the purchase of major capital equipment that we found in our 1984, 1987 and 1992 audits continue to affect today's defence capital acquisition projects.

Just how bad is this situation? Following is a partial list of the disastrous mishandling of the Canadian taxpayers' money by this Liberal government's defence spenders courtesy of the auditor general: excessively complex and labour intensive acquisition process; inadequately trained project managers; insufficient resources and underestimation of supportability costs; an ineffective and untimely staffing of project management offices; gaps and overlaps in project management responsibilities; poor procurement practices; poor application of program and project risk evaluation and risk management principles; lack of an integrated information system; and inadequate project management information.

Housing and pay conditions for our forces personnel still demand attention. Recent announcements to improve pay, particularly for the lowest paid defence personnel, helps but it is not enough.

If the government were not guilty of wasting the taxpayers' money, I wonder how much we would be able to improve housing for our forces personnel. I wonder if we would be facing the safety crisis posed by our obsolete Labrador and Sea King helicopters. All Canadians deserve to have these very serious issues resolved.

The motion before us proposes to hold public hearings on every expenditure over $100 million. The sentiment lying behind the motion is good. It raises a very important question. At the crux of this issue is the extent to which the Liberal government is wasting untold millions of dollars. I can say that the people of my riding of Halifax West and throughout the province of Nova Scotia do not want the government to continue to waste their money.

I want to know, and I am quite sure that Canadians would want to know, what military hardware is currently mothballed in warehouses and elsewhere throughout the land. There must be big ticket items that are neither currently being used nor intended for use. Let us see an inventory of unused hardware that might be sold to other allied countries.

I am concerned that the government may be reluctant to provide this information so as not to be embarrassed by the amount or value of equipment purchased that was never used or used only for a short period of time before becoming obsolete or incompatible with other equipment.

In the standing committee we are currently reviewing the procurement process. It is true that one of the things that comes to mind is the complexity of this process and the length of time involved from deciding that a piece of equipment is required to the time that equipment is acquired. Perhaps part of the problem could be resolved if there was more public transparency.

The public should be aware of what is happening, the amounts of money that are being spent and how they are being spent. The previous speaker argued that public involvement might further complicate the problem. However, I would think that perhaps the threat and the involvement of public scrutiny would be a very positive thing. As things become more transparent it places more responsibility upon us to make sure that things are done properly, adequately and more effectively.

In this instance we could argue very strongly that with such huge amounts of money being expended, public scrutiny and transparency is a very important factor and would assist in the process. Anything that can assist in this procurement process to bring fairness and justice to the system and to bring good value for the money being spent is something that we would support.

On behalf of the New Democratic Party I am pleased to indicate our support for this motion.

[Supply, April 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Halifax Herald ran a cartoon in February 1999 of a T-shirt with a slogan “I survived Buchenwald and all I got was this lousy T-shirt”. The caption below refers to the latest efforts from veterans affairs.

Although the experience of 26 prisoners of war is certainly no laughing matter, their treatment by this callous Liberal government is a joke. On February 12, 1999 I asked the Minister of Veterans Affairs to offer these survivors of Buchenwald concentration camp a just and honest settlement. I pointed out to the minister at that time that the compensation paid by this government of barely over $1,000 each was an insult in itself.

The pathetic inability of this government to succeed where others have failed in securing just reparations from the German government is a testament to this government's misplaced priorities.

The minister had the gall to respond that these survivors were delighted. Then he seemed to contradict himself with the next statement, saying that the Canadian government had raised it again with the German chancellor.

A constituent of mine who survived the horrors of the Buchenwald concentration camp sent the cheque back to the Liberal government with the word “refused” across the insulting payoff of $1,098.

The governments of Australia and New Zealand reached a satisfactory settlement with their veterans who faced similar horrors.

These veterans were interned in the Nazi Buchenwald concentration camp instead of a prisoner of war camp where they should have been sent under the Geneva convention. Other governments have had the the ability to convince the German government to provide an appropriate reparation. Our government has failed itself and failed these brave Canadians miserably.

I do not understand the inability of the government to secure a just settlement for these Canadians. Is it a matter of incompetence or simply that the government cares little for the plight of a small handful of 26 veterans?

The Government of the United States recently arrived at an enviable settlement with Germany for United States veterans in a similar position to our veterans. In his letter to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, my constituent William R. Gibson expressed the following sentiments:

I am hopeful that the Government of Canada can still come up with a just and honourable settlement. You may be interested to see that the American government has negotiated a settlement with Germany for its veterans ranging in benefits from $10,000 to $200,000.

Perhaps even more insulting than the cheque to these Canadians from the government were the words of the Minister of Veterans Affairs in his accompanying letter. He said: “I am delighted to be able to close the chapter on this longstanding issue”.

Delighted indeed. It is now over eight years since the plight of these veterans was discussed in the January 1991 report of the subcommittee on veterans affairs entitled “It's Almost Too Late”. Over eight years later I should say that it is almost too late.

This issue was raised again in committee in August 1994 and in letters to the ministers of veterans affairs, defence and foreign affairs in 1997. I have raised this issue time after time for over a year now and the government still admits defeat where other governments have succeeded.

A letter from the office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs to my office admits failure with these words “Canada has embarked on several démarches requesting prisoner of war compensation from Germany, but we have had no success”.

When I attempted to get to the root of the matter in the interest of these veterans, I was told that the Liberal government abjectly refused to make public its correspondence with Germany on this issue. Why is the government afraid of exposing its ineptitude where others have succeeded?

The Liberal government should take this opportunity right now to do the honourable thing and agree before the House and all Canadians that it will immediately begin to negotiate a just settlement with these veterans and commit to succeed in finalizing appropriate negotiations with the German government.

[Supply, April 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister mentioned that the only vote before was to endorse a UN resolution. We would certainly welcome that. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I would ask the minister if he would use Canada's seat on the security council to formally present a uniting for peace resolution to get this matter before the General Assembly of the United Nations. Then we might have something to vote on by way of endorsing that resolution.

[Supply, April 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Reform member undoubtedly heard the hon. Liberal member who spoke before him quote my words, in which I indicated that we felt very strongly that every avenue should be pursued to try to bring an end to the useless bloodshed. One of the avenues we have been pursuing quite rigorously in light of that is the uniting for peace resolution. We feel that it is important to get this issue before the general assembly of the United Nations. That seems to be constantly shoved aside by the government. It is almost as if it does not want to bring the matter before a larger international body other than NATO.

I would ask the hon. member what his views are with respect to that suggestion.

[Supply, April 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have an excerpt from a letter sent to me by a constituent. There is a poem in it which talks about the day the war started. I thought the poem very eloquently summarized the need for a vote in this House. It states:

The day the war started the first green shoots of spring pushed through the thick carpets of leaves into mid-afternoon sun.

The day the war started a Norfolk and Southern diesel pulled cars of immaculate pine destined for hundreds of new homes.

The day the war started couples were married at city hall, school children learned the beauty of prairies, the beauty of snow on faraway mountains.

And on that day, too far away to notice, other children learned the beauty of flames, the beauty of the planes so high in their white sky that no one aboard could notice —that no one could even hear— the roar of wind drawn into vast fields of immaculate flames that once were schools, homes, families.

Does the hon. member not feel that this is a cause which gives support to having a vote on such an important issue?

[Kosovo, April 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I asked the foreign affairs minister the other day about a uniting for peace resolution. He indicated that this resolution would not be appropriate unless there was an agreement by Milosevic. He talks about getting the agreement first. Perhaps the reason Milosevic is refusing to agree is because of the venue by which the agreement is being sought. That is NATO, the party that is bombing him.

Would the minister not agree that it would be worth trying another venue and seeking a uniting for peace resolution through the general assembly of the United Nations?