Gordon Earle

[National Defence, February 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, official navy plans reveal that the Minister of National Defence submerged the real costs of acquiring four British Upholder submarines.

Now additional costs have resurfaced totalling at least $1.27 billion. If we add that to the listed price, the submarines will cost Canadians over $2 billion. Canadians are forced to budget in their own lives but the minister evidently cannot find his own periscope.

When will the minister provide the House with an accurate accounting of the price of this purchase?

[Division No. 316, February 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member in his dissertation on equalization touched on tuition and expressed his concerns about the effect that equalization may have on tuition fees for students.

I ask the hon. member if he would have as much concern for the recent change in government policy which prevents students who are hard pressed and who are experiencing extreme financial difficulty from declaring bankruptcy until after 10 years has expired. This really works to discriminate against youth.

When we talk about encouraging students to go to university certainly this policy has an adverse effect further down the road. Does the member have any concern about that policy?

[Code Of Ethics, February 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this motion. Like some of my colleagues, I was a bit confused with the motion when I read it because it reads:

That a humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of the Prime Minister's ethics code for ministers.

The code I have seen is a conflict of interest and post-employment code for public office holders. This was produced in June 1994. This document is available. If we are talking about that, I do not see a need to have it laid before the House.

I gather from the discussion and from the comments being made that one is looking for more than this document. One is looking for perhaps guidelines or directives that may have been issued by the Prime Minister specifically and apart from this document.

I will address my remarks to the document since I do not have anything else before me in terms of any other document. This document has some good points in it but there is a serious problem with it. The preamble talks about ethical standards, public scrutiny, decision making and a lot of very important issues for our democratic society. For example, under ethical standards it talks about how public office holders shall act with honesty and uphold the highest ethical standards so that public confidence and trust in the integrity of the activity and impartiality of government are conserved and enhanced. No one would disagree with that. It is a very important principle.

The difficulty with this document is the manner by which it goes about to enforce this code and to try to follow up on the principles stated in this code. It appoints an ethics counsellor. There is nothing wrong with appointing an ethics counsellor, but the difficulty is that when we real about the ethics counsellor it states that under the general direction of the clerk of the privy council the ethics counsellor is charged with the administration of this code and the application of the conflict of interest compliance measures set out in this part as they apply to public office holders.

It does not put the ethics counsellor in an independent position. The ethics counsellor in essence ends up reporting to the Prime Minister in secret, and that is wrong for our democratic system.

One of the things that is very important is openness and accountability to the public if we are to carry on the functions we are elected to on behalf of the public. It is very important that if there is any code of ethics set up or any kind of code of conduct that there be an independent ethics counsellor, someone who is accountable to parliament, to the elected representatives of the people.

This is very important. If we read further in this code we see where it talks about compliance arrangements. It states arrangements being made by public office holders to comply with the conflict of interest compliance measures set out in this part. They shall be approved in the case of ministers of the crown by the Prime Minister and in the case of all other public office holders by the ethics counsellor. We see that the ministers of the crown are above this scrutiny by the ethics counsellor. In terms of this kind of accountability, they account only to their boss, the Prime Minister.

This is something that is really deplorable when talking about openness and integrity for government. There was a release on June 16, 1994 by the Prime Minister, announcing the appointment of the first ethics counsellor.

It sounds quite admirable when listening to the words: “The Prime Minister today appointed Howard Wilson as Canada's first ethics counsellor. The Prime Minister also announced a comprehensive package of measures to help promote public trust in national institutions including tough new restrictions on lobbying”.

Yet we see a lot of the lobbying that takes place and we see a lot of things happening that cause us to wonder exactly what kind of accountability there is in the government structure and who can scrutinize when things go wrong.

We look at the APEC affair and what happened there. We see that the Prime Minister does not want to be held accountable for any role he may have played in that incident. We have seen various other incidents of things happening right across the country where people have called out for accountability and always it comes right back to the Prime Minister, but there is no independent body looking at the activities of what is taking place.

One very important principle of being an internal or external investigator, or external complaint handler, is independence. As a former ombudsman this is a principle that we as ombudsmen held very dearly, the idea that we must be independent of the system and must be able to report independently. The findings should be objective, clear and when the report is made it should be made in a manner that people know they have had a fair hearing.

Certainly if someone has a complaint against a minister and feels the minister is not operating in accordance with proper ethics that person will not be comforted by the Prime Minister saying it's okay. They might have more confidence if an independent ethics counsellor were to review the matter and report independently to parliament.

It is important that independence be there in a very real and meaningful way. Another section of the code talks about various permissible activities under the code. Where the Prime Minister or a person designated by the Prime Minister is of the opinion that it is in the public interest, full time governor in council appointees to crown corporations, as defined in the Financial Administration Act, may retain or accept directorships or offices in a financial or commercial operation and accept remuneration therefore in accordance with the compensation policies for governor in council appointees as determined from time to time.

Again, the Prime Minister can decide that his friends or whoever can have directorships in these corporations while they are still carrying on public duties which may or may not conflict.

There is a need to really go through this code, to see what it says and to see where the ultimate responsibility lies. The biggest problem with this code is that there is no real independent method to enforce it or to ensure that the noble values outlined in it are properly protected.

Another example of the same sort of thing comes from the military. We recently saw a military ombudsman appointed, but who is that person accountable to? The ombudsman is certainly not independent. That person is accountable to the minister. How can someone objectively review and make recommendations if that person is accountable to the minister responsible for the exact organization that is being investigated?

If the government is serious about accountability it would know that if something is being done right there is nothing wrong with scrutinizing it. Far too often we do our public servants a disservice by hiding things, by saying we cannot give this information, that it is secret and confidential. Far too often we do a disservice because if the information is given quite often it clarifies what is being done, why it is being done and a reasonable person will accept and understand that.

That is one of the biggest things we found in the ombudsman business. A lot of the complaints from the public were because people did not know what was being done. When an impartial investigation revealed what was being done quite often members of the public were willing to accept that the government had done right once it was clarified. It is this fear of the unknown that people are concerned about. Because there is not openness and accountability it leads to problems.

I will not dwell much longer on this code because it is in need of severe fixing. I see I only have one minute remaining and I cannot fix it in one minute. The biggest point is that there must be an independent ethics counsellor.

I appreciate the spirit of the motion and would certainly support it because it intends to get at the secrecy of the government and the fact that it will not hold itself accountable in a very real and meaningful way.

[War Veterans Allowance Act, February 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to have the opportunity today to speak to Bill C-61.

I rise in support of Bill C-61 on behalf of the federal New Democratic Party caucus.

While this bill does have some shortcomings, and a very serious one which I will get to a bit later, the legislation does represent a step forward.

This bill, as has been mentioned, is an omnibus bill which touches upon many aspects of veterans affairs. It touches upon benefits for prisoners of war and benefits for widows of pensioners. It touches upon the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, the Halifax Relief Commission and so forth.

One very important aspect of this bill is that it seeks to put merchant marine veterans on an equal footing with regular forces veterans.

I was quite interested in hearing the hon. member opposite referring to that aspect of the bill as being symbolic only. It is a very important aspect of this bill. Perhaps because of the omission concerning compensation for past grievances it does become symbolic within the framework of this legislation.

However, I want to commend the merchant marine veterans, their organizations, families, activists and supporters for bringing this bill into being. It is only through their efforts and hard work that we are able to discuss this bill today.

At the outset, let me make it very clear that my comments and this bill in itself do not in any way take away from regular forces veterans, but seek to bring the merchant marine veterans up to an equal footing.

The monster Adolph Hitler issued a directive in 1941 which included the following: “Attack shipping, especially when homeward bound, by all methods. The sinking of merchantmen is more important than attacking enemy warships”.

These brave Canadians who sailed the corridors of hell played a central role in our war effort, as central a role as the regular forces.

As the Halifax-Dartmouth branch of the Merchant Navy Veterans Association for my region put it in a submission to the provincial legislature in July 1998, “The ships carried explosives, fuel, food, oil, gasoline, tanks, airplanes, iron ore for the hungry British smelters, butter and flour, bacon and beans”. Yet they were fitted with often obsolete breech guns, castoffs, antiquities better suited for military museums than defending the lives of Canadians at sea. In short, these Canadians risked their lives and often gave their lives to support our war efforts.

The tragedy of the matter is that when I say they often gave their lives, the figures speak for themselves. It has been estimated that a full 13% of merchant mariners who played an active role in our war effort were killed.

Last fall I went on a pilgrimage of remembrance to honour our war dead in Belgium and France. I was struck deeply and irrevocably by what I saw and what I learned. To have had the opportunity to see the trenches and the remnants of artillery and war equipment, and having felt the cold and damp biting winds blowing across the fields of Flanders, eating into one's very bones, certainly gave me an appreciation in part of what our Canadian young men who fought and died experienced.

Having stood in cemeteries where there were tombstones, row upon row, as far as the eye could see and knowing that thousands of bodies lay in those graves and many more lay unaccounted for in the surrounding farms and fields left me with the haunting image of man's inhumanity to man. The question still rings in my mind as to how we can do this to one another. Even worse is the knowledge that we are still doing it today throughout various parts of our world. As human beings, all of us must do our part to bring an end to the senseless slaughter of war.

As a start we must remember those who fought and died for freedom, those who sacrificed themselves so that succeeding generations might live in peace and harmony, free from oppression and tyranny. While many of those who we remember and honour today are those who served in the regular military, we must not forget the many others who served their country in an unique yet important way as special construction battalions or merchant marines. That is why the Liberal government's apparent unwillingness to negotiate a fair compensation package for Canadian merchant marine veterans is so unacceptable.

The current treatment of merchant mariner veterans is one that I personally and as the federal NDP spokesperson for veterans affairs find deeply disheartening. When it came time to serve their country Canada's merchant marines did so with dedication and courage equal to their military comrades. Why then are the merchant marines not receiving equal treatment in terms of compensation?

While the bill seeks to establish current equality, which my caucus colleagues and I support, it does nothing to compensate for all the lost opportunities suffered as a result this discrimination. There is no reason to continue to deny merchant marines the full compensation due them. I urge the government to let the second reading of Bill C-61, which in words grants full equality, be a springboard to action, negotiation, compensation and hence real reparation.

The Liberal government has a choice. The government has the capacity to choose to set matters right and get negotiations for just compensation back on track. While the federal government was finally prodded into introducing the bill, others acted sooner, in some cases much sooner. Britain accorded full veteran status to merchant mariners in 1940. In the United States these veterans were realized as having the same status as regular forces veterans in 1988. Australia recognized full equality in 1995.

How many merchant mariners have passed away in Canada who would have appreciated this gesture from the government at an earlier stage?

In a letter I received from George Conway-Brown in January of this year he quotes Canada's Rear Admiral Leonard W. Murray, who served as commander in chief, northwest Atlantic, from 1943 to 1945: “The battle of the Atlantic was not won by any navy or air force. It was won by the courage, fortitude and determination of the British and allied merchant navy”.

These mariners often encountered the Nazi Donitz U-boats, the grey wolves that deprived so many Canadian families of their loved ones. Closer to Europe merchant mariners were attacked by Germany's FW-200 Condor air force.

But what happened to Canadian merchant mariners upon their return to Canada? In Britain they returned as full and equal veterans with equal access to post-war programs, services and benefits.

In Canada they returned to virtually no support. They were denied upgrading courses at technical, vocational and high schools offered to regular force veterans. There were denied health support and employment opportunities available to army, navy and air force personnel.

This discrimination weighed heavily on so many merchant marine veterans. I mentioned earlier that I am glad to see the bill being brought forward, even though it is too late for many deceased merchant marine veterans. That is what makes the actions of this government concerning compensation for these brave Canadians all the more odious.

The government saw fit to provide an ex gratia payment to Hong Kong veterans who were Japanese prisoners of war of $23,950 each. This payment was promised just this past December.

It is unconscionable and meanspirited that this government has betrayed Canada's merchant marines by refusing to compensate them for the discrimination they faced upon their return home from serving in Canada's war effort.

It has been estimated that merchant mariners are dying at the rate of about 12 per month. A St. Albert veteran said in an interview earlier this month in the Edmonton Sun : “The whole thing is a run around. We figure [the federal government] is waiting for us to die of old age”.

On November 24, 1998 in response to a question I put to him, the minister said concerning compensation negotiations for merchant mariners: “I am there to listen”.

Debating Bill C-61 before the House surely signals the time to act, not just listen.

Justice delayed is justice denied, particularly when the death rate among these veterans who served Canada so nobly is so high.

As merchant navy Captain Hill Wilson wrote in a letter in January of this year, other countries have made reparations for these veterans. He refers to a veteran living on Vancouver Island who sailed on Norwegian ships during World War II and receives a pension of over $2,000 a month from Norway for his merchant navy service. He also cites examples from the French government and the United States government for Vietnam war merchant navy veterans.

While on the issues implied in Bill C-61, it is essential to refer to another atrocious act of negligence and outright scandal perpetrated by this Liberal government on Canadian veterans who were sent to concentration camps by the Nazi government. These men, survivors of the horrors of Buchenwald, were recently sent cheques in the amount of $1,098 to supposedly compensate them for the horrors faced in Buchenwald.

My constituent, William Gibson, returned the cheque, a comment on this government's sad failure to successfully negotiate reparations from the German government.

The U.S.A. has recently negotiated an enviable settlement from the German government. This Liberal government has failed so miserably where others have succeeded and may be trying to hide its shame by offering these paltry sums to Canadian forces survivors of the Buchenwald concentration camp.

I will conclude my comments on the second reading of Bill C-61 with an anonymous poem which pays homage to Canadian merchant navy veterans:

All hail to our soldiers, our airmen, our tars, Who in these dark days are the victims of War, All hail to these heroes who flash on the screen, But what of the men of the Merchant Marine?

No halo, no glimmer, just duty that's all, Day in and day out through the heat or a squall Grit, courage, endurance and bearing serene, These are the men of the Merchant Marine.

How much do we need them, these sons of the sea, Without their devotion, how could we be free? For one vital cog in the great machine Is filled by the men of the Merchant Marine.

And so if the cares of these days dark and clear, Weigh down your spirits and cause you to fear, Remember the hardships and dangers unseen, And pray for the men of the Merchant Marine.

[Veterans Affairs, February 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, 26 Canadian prisoners of war held by the Nazis in the notorious Buchenwald concentration camp have been insulted by the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the Government of Canada.

After years of presenting their case for compensation to deaf ears in Ottawa, these veterans were presented cheques of barely over $1,000 each. This compensation is nothing short of a disgrace. My constituent, Bill Gibson, wrote “refused” across the cheque and sent it back.

Will the minister do the right thing by offering our veterans a just and honourable settlement?

[Black History Month, February 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, as the first ever black member of parliament elected from Nova Scotia I am especially proud to celebrate Black History Month.

The history of Nova Scotia and all of Canada reflects the tremendous contributions by black Canadians from all walks of life and often against incredible odds.

Black History Month, also known as African Heritage Month, has been celebrated in North America since 1926. These celebrations mark the contributions made by black Canadians through exhibits, informative lectures, cultural events, political activities, recognition ceremonies for distinguished black Canadians and many other events.

I encourage as many people as possible to participate in black history and African heritage events whenever they occur throughout the country. There are over 160 events planned in the greater Halifax metropolitan area alone. I am especially proud the opening night for this year's celebrations in Halifax were held at Hammonds Plains Consolidated School in my riding.

I encourage all Canadians not only to honour this event but use it as an opportunity to—

[Division No. 307, December 7th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, the following is from the October 1988 report of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs entitled “Moving Forward: A Strategic Plan for Quality of Life Improvements in the Canadian Forces”:

Members of the Canadian Forces must be fairly and equitably compensated for the work they do and the risks they take. Members and their families should never have to suffer the indignity of substandard housing, nor should they be reduced to charity in order to feed their families.

The lifestyle faced by military personnel often makes it well nigh impossible to support a dual income lifestyle. Due to compulsory posting of Canadian forces personnel, spouses must often forego their own careers or any reasonable hope of having a regular, well paying job.

Working alongside civilians and the RCMP, many armed forces personnel working to counter the savaging effects of the great ice storm of 1998 found themselves being paid less for the same work and facing harsher living conditions than their non-military co-workers.

The first recommendation in “Moving Forward” is:

That the base pay gap between non-commissioned members and their public service equivalents be closed no later than April 1st 1999.

That is less than four months away.

I very much hope this government will not risk the health, safety and even lives of Canadian forces personnel by taking these funds from purchases which would otherwise be made to guarantee the safety of military and civilian workers.

When I asked my question in the House on November 4 of this year, the minister chose not to answer the question. I hope the government will produce the information requested in response to my comments at this time.

Specifically, I would like to know, and I am quite sure Canadians would want to know, what military hardware is currently mothballed in warehouses and elsewhere throughout our land. There must be big ticket items that are neither currently be used nor intended for use. I know the government recently sold Chinook helicopters to the Netherlands after paying to refit them at a high cost to the Canadian taxpayer.

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 the equipment purchased that was never used or used for a short period of time before becoming obsolete or incompatible with other equipment.

Are there CF-18s in storage in Bagotville and Cold Lake which could be sold to NATO partners to generate revenues? What about ADATs, air defence anti-tank systems? Are these mothballed in storage somewhere outside Montreal and could revenues be generated from their sale to NATO partners? What about any plans to mothball frigates? Is there some way equipment can be turned into revenue to deal with pay and living conditions for service personnel?

Is part of the problem that the Canadian military has too many top level brass for the number of lower ranking service personnel? Is the balance between upper ranking officers and lower ranking personnel on par with that of other NATO countries or is there a real imbalance in Canada?

The government has the responsibility to ensure that both civilian and military personnel are properly paid and housed. It also has the obligation to minimize waste in the military. This is a challenge I expect the government to meet.

[Canada-United States Days Of Peace And Friendship, December 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, are the Sea King and Labrador helicopters safe? Was the tragic crash on October 2 avoidable? Are any enlisted personnel or civilians currently at risk because of the state of the Sea King and Labrador helicopters?

These are some of the questions the Liberal government owes it to Canadians to answer completely and publicly.

On October 2, 1998 a Labrador helicopter crashed near Marsoui in Gaspé, Quebec killing all six of its crew. Apparently this helicopter burst into flames and broke into three pieces.

In 1992 another helicopter crashed near Bella Coola, B.C., killing Corporal Phil Young from my home province of Nova Scotia.

On April 28, 1994 Major Wally Sweetman and co-pilot Major Bob Henderson were killed when the fuel line of a Sea King helicopter failed. In May 1995 another Labrador crashed at Margaretsville, Nova Scotia. In all, 12 Sea King helicopters have crashed, killing seven Canadians.

Both the Sea King and the Labrador helicopters were first put into service over a third of a century ago, in 1963. At the beginning of the year these helicopters went into service, John Diefenbaker was prime minister, 19 current members of parliament had yet to be born, Medgar Evers was still alive and Martin Luther King had yet to give his famous speech.

The newly ordered Cormorant search and rescue helicopters will not be delivered and put into service until the next millennium.

In the meantime, the Liberal government, largely due to its own decisions, may now be in the position of deciding between the health and safety of military personnel and the search and rescue need of civilians at risk.

The Liberal government assured Canadians there would be no cost to cancelling Mulroney's helicopter deal. That no cost turned into $484 million of Canadian taxpayer money.

In 1994 the government issued a defence white paper with its strategy for the military. Instead of moving ahead and issuing tenders immediately for a new helicopter, it waited three years until 1997. To top it off, the government then ordered basically the same helicopter it had just wasted nearly half a billion dollars of taxpayer money to cancel. Here are a few questions the government owes it to Canadians to answer. Why did the government cancel the original contract when there was a demonstrated need for new helicopters? Why, after assuming office, did it wait a further four years to order the new helicopters? Why, having derided the Mulroney government's original choice, did it opt for the same craft?

The government has said that crews would not be disciplined for refusing to fly the Labradors. By making this offer it seems to me as if the government may be trying to protect itself in the case of a future crash. Clearly there must be concern about the safety of the craft to make that pronouncement.

Former Labrador pilot Lieutenant Colonel Dennis Hopping stated:

It is very difficult as a member of an air crew team to say “No, I won't launch an operational mission to save someone's life”. What a terrible position to put a professional pilot in.

Major Marvin Haagsma, retired, stated:

I have personally experienced engine failure rates that are 500 times higher than those accepted as `normal' by the current generation of helicopters. It is time for people to hear the truth: The Sea King and Labrador fleets are extremely dangerous and ought to be grounded.

I would like to finish with two final questions for the government to answer. Why is the government secure enough about the safety of these helicopters to put them in active service with so many indications to the contrary? What other options have been pursued such as short term leases?

[Division No. 297, December 1st, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I rise to express my sorrow that the Dene of Deline on Great Bear Lake in the Northwest Territories continue to be treated with disrespect and callous disregard by the government. I share the sadness that members of the community feel as their pleas for immediate crisis assistance continue to be ignored by the government.

Since March 20 of this year members of the community felt hope that after decades of neglect their tragic story and the grave injustices inflicted upon their people would be addressed. The Dene of Deline listened as the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development stood in the House on March 30 and stated “the government takes this issue very seriously”.

The country listened to the minister state on CBC National Radio on Saturday, May 17:

We are deeply concerned about potential impacts associated with the historic uranium mining operations in the NWT.

The country listened as the minister further stated her government's position:

—which is making sure that today, and on a go-forward basis, we are protecting the communities and the people.

The potential impacts have occurred. A people are devastated by radiation deaths in Deline and along the route the ore carriers travelled from the north to Fort McMurray. The impacts are the loss of an entire generation of elders who pass on the traditional knowledge and honourable ways to the next generations.

The impacts are the result of a federal government's inexcusable disregard and contempt for not warning the Dene in the early 1930s when the effects of these, to use the government's words, deadly and insidious substances were first identified. With a warning the people could have protected their families and their children. The families travelled with the ore carriers exposing an entire generation to the uranium radiation dangers carried on their backs in burlap sacks.

At the United Nations conference on human rights this past weekend in Edmonton this tragic story was told before representatives from countries around the globe. Six months has passed since the minister issued grand statements of caring and action. Since her empty statements Dene representatives appeared before the House Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. Elder Baton after 30 years told the Deline story. Members were shocked. Some moved to tears.

Dene representatives met with the minister and her colleagues in June and left with hope. They still wait.

A community delegation travelled to Hiroshima in August to express their sorrow and to apologize that they did not know they were assisting in war and would contribute to the nuclear bombs that killed thousands.

I raise today the travesty that continues through the government's inaction.

This community of honour does not deserve the dishonourable treatment meted out by this government before Canadians and the world.

I ask today for the honourable answer. Where is the immediate crisis assistance? Where is the funding for the community's 14 point plan? Or will this government admit today that these past six months have been empty promises and false hopes?

[Brain Injuries, November 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the tragedy of brain injuries affects over 1,200 Nova Scotians every year. The direct impact of these tragedies ranges from severe physical debilitation to cognitive trauma such as memory loss and impaired judgment, as well as tragic behavioural and psychological effects, including depression and dramatic personality change. Of those affected by brain injury, 12% will never be able to be alone or look after themselves. One in five will never be able to return to a job.

This government has a duty and a responsibility to do everything in its power to ensure that it does not compound the trauma. The government must closely examine aspects of its health policies, pension provisions, including the CPP, and justice issues relating to the impact of people struggling to deal with these injuries.

I am pleased to conclude by commending the ongoing efforts of the Brain Injury Association of Nova Scotia.