Gordon Earle

[Kosovo, April 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have received confirmation from the office of the Minister of National Defence that the U.S. does in fact use depleted uranium in their chain gun on their A-10s.

I want to read a quote by Sara Flounders, co-director of the International Action Centre and a contributing author of a book entitled Medal of Dishonor: How the Pentagon Radiates Soldiers and Civilians with DU Weapons . She states, “The use of A-10 Warthogs with DU shells threaten to make a nuclear wasteland of Kosovo. The Pentagon is laying waste the very people along with their children that they claim to be saving. This is another reason for fighting to end the attack on Yugoslavia”.

Does the hon. member have any concerns about the fact that depleted uranium is being used on the weapons that are currently being deployed in Kosovo?

[Kosovo, April 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on the first question, I agree 100% that it is very important that people be able to determine their own future. It is for that very reason I deplore the term ethnic cleansing. As I mentioned during my speech, that term implies superiority and inferiority, where something has to be cleansed because one is better than the other.

That gets to the very heart of the principle of self-determination. Even here in Canada we can look at that principle and apply it to our aboriginal peoples. We should be looking at that same concept of self-determination and the right to determine one's future when we talk about our aboriginal people.

On the rapid reaction force, I certainly agree that we have to strengthen the United Nations to be able to respond quickly and efficiently to these kinds of crises. With each day that goes by, more and more lives are lost. Every life is precious. Every time a person dies, a bit of you and me dies. We should see the common bond of humanity and try to end the suffering. Every time a person dies, we lose.

[Kosovo, April 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I agree those are the important people we should be concerned about. They have already lost so much that it would be difficult to say that they will come out winners. Many of them will be coming out violated, traumatised or have lost their families. The men have been taken, put in places and in many cases shot. In a lot of cases they are still losers, but they would certainly be much further ahead if we could bring this to a conclusion as quickly as possible.

[Kosovo, April 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, initially everyone had the intention and the hope that the matter would be quickly resolved but this has not happened.

Quite honestly at this point I have questions as to how effective the bombing campaign is. That is why we are calling for a reassessment of the situation and a serious look at what strategy can be utilized to bring an end to it.

I agree with the many people who have already spoken about the role it is felt Russia should play. We should be making every concrete effort to get a commitment from Russia to try to lend its influence with its Slavic brothers to end this conflict.

I certainly feel we have to branch away from what NATO is doing and move beyond it because it certainly has not accomplished the goal we hoped would be accomplished.

[Kosovo, April 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the very important subject of today's debate.

I believe I can truthfully say that in all my 35 years of public service this is one of the most difficult issues I have ever had to grapple with. It was a struggle. We were basically taking a position and making a decision around an issue to which I am fundamentally opposed, the use of violence. It is violent. Bombing is violent. No matter how smart we say these bombs are, it is a violent approach to this problem.

However, we concluded that because of seriousness of the atrocities and the senseless slaughter taking place, which we saw coming across our TV screens with men, women and children suffering, with young children crying and being separated from their families, we would lend our support to try to bring this senseless slaughter to an end. That has been the thrust of the NDP throughout this whole business, to bring an end to the terrible situation we are faced with.

Last Friday I attended a peace rally in Halifax organized by the Voice of Women and some other organizations. One of the people primarily responsible for organizing it was a women over 90 years of age, Maria Duckworth who worked all her life for peace and harmony. The people at that rally made it very clear that they were opposed to bombing Yugoslavia. They talked about the legality of the action being taken. They stressed their concerns about the innocent people who were being slaughtered in the whole process. I assured them that we would certainly carry forward their voice and their concerns into the debate tonight.

We talk about ethnic cleansing. I would like to say right off the bat how very much I abhor that phrase. I know many members use that phrase, including members of my caucus. I suggest that we are not dealing with ethnic cleansing. When we talk about cleansing we know that when we clean something it is because something is dirty. We wash our cars because they are dirty. We scrub our floors because they are dirty. We wash our hands because they are dirty. We try to cleanse these things. When we talk about a people being purged and driven from their country and being slaughtered because someone is not content with the ethnic background of the particular group of people, that is not a cleansing process. Let us call it what it is. It is genocide. It is war. It is crime against humanity. That is what it is so we should call it that.

We see the results of that. We see countless numbers of refugees fleeing their homes. We see young children coming across the border on bicycles so traumatised that they cannot talk about what is happening.

On the way here today I read in the paper about women, young girls being taken from the caravans as they were trying to cross the border, being stripped publicly, taken back into fields and raped. People could hear the screams, many of them never to be seen again. These are the things that are happening and we must come to grips with them.

There is another side of the issue that we do not hear about. I want to read briefly from a letter from a person in Belgrade who wrote:

I wish to point out a special side effect of the bombing of which little has been said: the actions of the NATO pact are so wide, that in the first phase they can already be characterized as absolute war which means the destruction preconceptions—cultural, spiritual and natural lives of millions of people in our country.

The toxic nature of the 19,200 tons of explosives (equal to the amount used in the Nagasaki bombing) used is well known to you. We warn you that Serbia is one of the greatest sources of underground waters in Europe and that the contamination will be felt in the whole surrounding area all the way to the Black Sea.

It then goes on to talk about the national parks and the various factories that were hit:

The village of Gracanica was shelled; there is situated one of the most important monasteries of the medieval orthodox culture and the candidate for the UNESCO heritage list. Numerous civil targets in other cities were hit—schools, hospitals, the sites considered as cultural monuments.

Especially worrying are the latest news saying that, in the next phases of their bombing, NATO will use the airplanes B1 and A10 which are carrying missiles with depleted uranium previously used in Iraq and Bosnia. The use of these will bring about the vast dangerous consequences to the health not only of the soldiers, but also of the whole population, and you know that the toxins and the radioactivity know no nationality or borders.

This person went on to describe some of the things being experienced by the people in Serbia.

In reality war has no winners. Someone may end up victorious but in reality there is no winner. Everyone suffers as is evident by this conflict. It emphasizes that we need to have as impartial a body as possible to deal with the international conflicts and the conflicts within sovereign states. We need to strengthen the UN for this purpose. It will not happen overnight, but it will never happen as long as we keep ceding power to NATO and not looking directly at where we should be focusing our attention in terms of strengthening the security council and the UN. Canada should be taking a leading in role in this measure.

I am very pleased that Canada responded so favourably when it appeared that we were to have many refugees coming here.

I think of the small town of Greenwood, Nova Scotia, and how the people rallied around, got all kinds of supplies and got ready to receive refugees they thought were coming. In times of crises like this one it shows what Canadians are really made of when we open our hearts to other people. This is key to the whole thing, opening our hearts to other people.

As we debate the issue tonight it should not be a we and they kind of issue. I feel very strongly that it should not be us against them. It should be all of us together using our collective wisdom and using our collective will to bring an end to this situation. We should be working together to try to find a solution. I am sure that every member of the House wants this tragedy to end as quickly and as peacefully as possible.

I encourage us to work together in the spirit of love and the spirit of harmony to try to bring all our collective thoughts to bear on the issue and to use every means possible to bring about a peaceful negotiation.

Many suggestions have been made as to how this might be done and I will not repeat them. At this time I would like to say in conclusion that my thoughts and prayers go out to all who are suffering, the many people in Kosovo who have been forced to flee from their homes, who have been separated from their families, and all the people in Serbia who are experiencing terrible bombing. It must be terrible to have bombs falling around them as they try to lead their daily lives. Our men and women in the military are working hard to try to deal with the situation. The people in immigration are working hard with the refugees as are the people providing international aid. All these people are in our thoughts and our prayers as we work together to try to resolve this problem.

[Kosovo, April 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. minister if he could check and inform the House if the U.S. or any NATO partner is using A-10 Warthog jets with depleted uranium shells.

[Kosovo, April 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, there has been some indication that weapons involving depleted uranium are being deployed by NATO forces in Kosovo presenting a danger to the people and to the environment of the entire Balkans.

Will the minister advise this House as to whether depleted uranium is being used, in what capacity and by whom?

[Canadian Forces, March 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the government has tabled its response to the SCONDVA report on quality of life in the Canadian forces. That report had a number of recommendations concerning the housing crisis.

While recommendations concerning pay and allowances have been accepted and are being implemented, many of the housing recommendations have only been accepted in principle, subject to operational or training imperatives.

Will the minister advise the House as to why the housing recommendations are not being given top priority in the best interest of military families?

[Foreign Affairs, March 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, our military is actively engaged by way of air strikes in the conflict in Kosovo. Concern has been expressed that this present action may not achieve its goal and the conflict may escalate to require ground troops.

Will the minister assure the House that, should NATO make a formal request of Canada for an expanded commitment, this request will be brought before parliament for a debate and a vote?

We spent all night long debating the government's legislation to send public servants back to work. Surely we can and should debate any expanded commitment of military action in Kosovo.

[Government Services Act, 1999, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to have the opportunity tonight to address this issue. We are dealing with a motion concerning the disposition of a bill regarding the resumption of government services.

The motion speaks about Bill C-76 which in essence is back to work legislation that takes away from employees their legal right to strike. We are very concerned about this kind of legislation. Over the years employees have fought long and hard for ways to enhance their situation to make sure they are not dealt with unfairly. One of those ways is the right to strike if they are not being treated fairly. Now the legislation forces them to abandon that particular avenue of redress.

The interesting part is that we are dealing with a legal strike involving about 14,000 blue collar workers across our country, 1,500 of them being in Atlantic Canada. This is very significant for Atlantic Canadians.

Why are these workers striking in the first place? Many people have spoken about what has taken place and why these workers are striking. It has been mentioned over and over again that regional rates of pay is one of the key issues. It is of particular concern to Atlantic Canadians. Far too often we on the east coast find that we are receiving less than those in other parts of the country. Regional disparity is reinforced by regional rates of pay.

Right from the outset of the strike, members of the public in my constituency were calling and supporting the workers. They could not understand why the government could not see that it was patently unfair to have different rates of pay across the country for basically the same work.

It was interesting to note that the President of the Treasury Board stood on one occasion in the House to mention that MPs had different rates of pay. That was not true. MPs do not have different rates of pay. We all have the same basic pay. We may receive different budgets for operating our offices depending on where the constituency is located, but we all receive the same basic level of pay.

Therefore it is very difficult to understand why the government cannot understand how unfair it is to workers who are working day in and day out to put bread on their tables at a much lower wage than many other people are receiving in the country.

Why are we opposed to closure and time allocation? We are opposed because they take away the right of parliament to fully debate an issue. The government has seen fit on many occasions to use these tactics to draw to a conclusion issues that should be more fully discussed and debated so the public will have the benefit of knowing that its views are put forth through its elected representatives.

The government is not serious about allowing full debate or full examination on a lot of issues. The government is not serious about finding positive solutions to many of the problems facing society. This is particularly true in Atlantic Canada. Quite often we see situations within our constituencies that call for solutions. The solutions are pretty simple if there is a will to get to the answer. Far too often the government is not willing to resolve such issues.

I think for example of the issue of pay equity. We see people who are owed money because they have not been paid fairly. It has gone through several levels of adjudication and rulings have been made. Yet the government is not hurrying to end the issue. The government seems to be in a great haste to bring an end to this strike and resolve the issue we are now facing, but there are many issues that it seems to be very slow in bringing to a conclusion. Pay equity is one of them.

I recognize how much Atlantic Canada could benefit from a very positive and constructive national shipbuilding policy. We do not have such a policy and the government is not in any hurry to bring about a policy which will enable the trained labour force in our area to take advantage of its skills and come forth with a strong shipbuilding industry.

Let us look at the replacement of the Sea King helicopters. We see incident after incident where these helicopters are causing people concern. Accidents are taking place yet we are constantly told that it will be dealt with and a strategy will be brought forth in due course. We do not see the haste and urgency being displayed tonight surrounding this strike when it comes to such an important issue for our military and for our country as replacement of these search and rescue helicopters.

We can look at instances where industries are closing down in different areas. Not too long ago in my home riding of Halifax West the Volvo plant closed down, putting many people out of work. I have communicated with the government about trying to assist in finding an answer to the problem and trying to encourage new industry to come in to replace the plant that closed down. However there has been nothing but silence from the other side. We do not see that kind of urgency around problems that should be addressed. Yet we see it when it comes to depriving workers of their right to strike and their right to a fair and decent wage.

We do not see any urgency on the part of the government in dealing with the Devco situation where many miners are out of work or will soon be out of work. They are looking for fairness and a settlement that will enable them to carry on with their lives. We do not see any great plans taking place with respect to economic development for many depressed areas of the country. The government picks and chooses its priorities when it wants to come in full force and find a quick and easy solution.

There is a small black community in the riding in which I live inhabited by a lot of elderly people and a lot of young people. That community does not even have a central water supply to provide them with safe and clean drinking water. I have been struggling now for months on end to try to see what kind of help could be forthcoming from the federal government to assist the community in having a supply of good drinking water. The results are pretty pitiful thus far, but I will not give up.

I will continue pushing on this issue. If the government can move with the kind of haste we see tonight to bring an end to a legal strike and to bring an end to legitimate action that workers have taken to try to resolve their situation, it can move with the same kind of speed, interest and willingness to resolve an issue facing a community that has struggled for years and years to overcome discrimination. It has fought to maintain its place in society and it cannot even get hooked up to a water supply in an adjacent community.

That kind of thing causes me to wonder where government priorities are. It gives me great concern when I see grants being given to organizations to produce senseless books with jokes about females and such activities taking place and being supported by the government. That is tied in with the same concern I have about the action being taken here.

It is very important as we deal with these issues to deal with them from the point of view of asking ourselves whether we are treating people in the manner that we would like people to treat us. If we use that rule in our dealings with other people we will always find the right answer. We should treat other people in the same way we would want them to treat us. That should be our guide no matter what we are doing. Whether we are passing back to work legislation or looking for solutions to other problems, we should always ask ourselves if this is the way we would want to be treated ourselves and use that as a guide as we move forward.