Gordon Earle

[Veterans Affairs, June 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this Liberal government has yet to take action and seek reparations for the 26 RCAF officers condemned by the Nazis to Buchenwald concentration camp.

Governments of 19 other countries have taken action, yet this Liberal government sits alone and silent still, assessing after so many years.

My question is to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Will this government take action now on behalf of these men who served Canada, yes or no? Justice delayed is justice denied.

[Veterans Affairs, June 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, 26 Royal Canadian Air Force officers were condemned to the Buchenwald concentration camp by the Nazi Gestapo in 1944. One of these was a constituent of mine, Mr. William R. Gibson.

Five months ago, I wrote to the Minister of Foreign Affairs demanding that the Canadian government seek reparations from Germany. Five months later it appears no action is being taken. These veterans are not getting any younger. Each day this Liberal government does not take action is a day it further disgraces itself to these veterans and all Canadians.

The German government has already made similar reparations to Britain. The United States is also actively dealing with this matter. I understand in all that veterans from 19 other countries who suffered the same fate have received some action from their governments. Australia and New Zealand have provided their own compensation for veterans in similar positions.

These veterans deserve justice today. Over half a century is an obscene amount of time to wait. Justice delayed is justice denied.

[Nunavut Act, May 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured today to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-39 to facilitate the creation of Nunavut. On behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party I would like to indicate at the outset our strong and unequivocal support for the bill.

In less than one year Canada's third territory will come into being, thanks to the passage of the Nunavut Act on June 10, 1993. This legislation would pave the way for Nunavut's first general election. The creation of Nunavut and the unfolding of aboriginal self-government through public government in this new territory will be watched closely throughout the world.

It is unfortunate that the Reform Party earlier in discussion of the bill opted for using the creation of Nunavut as an inappropriate political opportunity to deal with other issues and is even today continuing in its failure to support the bill. It is yet another example of the Reform Party putting its own selfish political interests ahead of the interests of the aboriginal peoples and the people of the north who themselves want to move ahead with the creation of Nunavut and the concept of self-government.

The bill, which my colleagues and I hope soon becomes law, is not primarily the result of the efforts of members of the Chamber. It merely represents a short segment in the long process reflecting the hopes, dreams, plans and tireless effort of many Inuit and others in the momentous task of giving birth to the new territory.

I applaud their efforts with all sincerity. Not only have they made history in the soon to be Nunavut but throughout Canada and indeed throughout the world. Central to the success thus far, the historic effort that is the creation of Nunavut, has been the careful negotiations among Inuit negotiators, government and others.

I congratulate all Inuit who have worked on and participated in this effort over the last 22 years and even before. The tireless efforts of the Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., formerly the Tunngavik Federation of Nunavut, deserve recognition at this stage of dealing with the bill.

Support for the bill will be an important part of the effort to move ahead with aboriginal self-government in this region. This will allow for province type powers essential to the development of the social, cultural, economic and political well-being of Inuit.

Nunavut comprises 1.9 million square kilometres, roughly one-fifth of the entire Canadian land mass or almost the size of Greenland. This clearly represents a tremendous opportunity for Inuit to manage wildlife and resources in a formal fashion in government, having already managed them for so many thousands of years before Canada came into being. This will seek to formalize inherent Inuit rights to fish, wildlife and land that have been their right since time immemorial.

With a population of roughly 24,600, Inuit will comprise over four out of every five people in the territory to be. The representatives elected to bring this new territory into being would be accountable to a largely aboriginal electorate. The land claims agreement already passed recognizes Inuit title to 350,000 square kilometres of land and includes provisions for joint management and resource revenue sharing.

While the minority population of Nunavut currently pervades the territorial administration, the challenge in part will be to see how the majority culture of Nunavut can be knit together with the culture of the minority population as the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples suggested.

Once again I commend the Inuit involved in all aspects of the negotiations which led to the bill and to the development of Nunavut as a whole. This extends not only to the chief negotiators but also to all those involved at every level and their families who so often had to endure long absences during the varied steps of the process.

As well I recognize the efforts of the standing committee, the committee clerk, the staff and those within the ministry who have worked in a positive way to assist with bringing this new territory into being.

Just last week I had the opportunity of travelling north and visiting some of the aboriginal communities in northern Quebec as well as Iqaluit, the capital of the newly created territory of Nunavut. This trip to the north was quite an eye opener for me. It was very interesting to see the beautiful yet rugged terrain of the north.

It also brought to light many of the very serious problems that people in the north face in their day to day living: the very high cost of living because everything has to be transported in by either ship or air; the housing situation of the people in the north quite often involving a lot of overcrowding and inadequate housing; and the employment opportunities, or perhaps I should say the lack of employment opportunities, in many cases. There are many challenges to be faced by the people in the north.

We also saw a number of very positive things happening. We were able to visit the Arctic college to see the steps that were being taken for Inuit people to maintain their language and to move ahead with courses that will be relevant to their way of life and to their existence.

There is a lot of excitement around the creation of Nunavut. There is a lot of expectation in the air. The people who have worked long and hard to create this territory and to become a part of the Canadian society in a meaningful way deserve our support. They deserve much better than haggling over the bill around the point of a senate and a senator.

The bill should move ahead with the support of every member of the House. As we support this initiative we are supporting the right of a people to determine their destiny, to take part in shaping their lives and to lead meaningful lives within the context of Canadian society.

In conclusion, I am very pleased to be able to support the bill. I urge every member of the House to support it at third reading.

[Conditional Sentencing, May 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on March 20 the story broke in the Calgary Herald about the government's responsibility for radiation death and sickness in the Dene community of Deline. Sixty-eight days later and the community still waits for written confirmation of a meeting with this government.

On March 30, I called on the ministers of health, Indian affairs and natural resources to meet with the community to immediately address this crisis. Fifty-six days later continuing silence. Speaking with the community representatives, as of noon today this meeting had not been arranged.

A gentleman diagnosed with bone and lung cancer last week has just died. The community has already laid out its plan. This government should immediately respond with actions, not words, to the plan for essential response and necessary redress outlined by Chief Raymond Tutcho of the Dene First Nation. This plan calls for immediate crisis assistance, comprehensive environment and social assistance, full public disclosure, clean-up and monitoring, acknowledgement of government responsibility, community healing and cultural regeneration. Immediate crisis assistance, yet 68 days of government silence on this request.

Since 1939 what has this community received from the government? Nothing. Yet a federal crown company profited from this obscenity while it served to fuel the atomic arms race.

The Dene had a community meeting arranged on this issue for tomorrow and Thursday. That meeting was cancelled and replaced by a funeral for the community member who died of bone and lung cancer. The minister knows bone cancer is linked to exposure to radioactive dust and particles. What is even more sickening is the government has known about this since the early 1930s, over 65 years.

The Sahtugot'ine, the Bear Lake people, made this clear in a statement showing a government official in 1932 claimed: “The ingestion of radioactive dust will cause a build-up of radioactive material in the body. Lung cancer, bone necrosis, and rapid anaemia are possible”.

While the community buries its dead the government tries to bury the tragedy. How can this government state it must examine more history? Why are the ministers of health, Indian affairs and natural resources not there right now dealing with this catastrophe? There are literally millions of tonnes of this poison buried in the region. It is in the water and the food chain. Is this government through its inaction willing to consciously condemn yet another generation of children, women and men to radiation death? While whites were told to shower, the Dene children played with radioactive dust. This community is now losing its elders to this tragedy.

The minister stated in her interview with CBC on May 17 that she is under the impression that the clean-up at Sawmill Bay employed current radiation standards and implementation measures. This suggests the minister is disregarding out of hand the testimony of the Dene record and the oral history of the clean-up crew.

Does the minister consider the provision of federal dollars for radioactive clean-ups, where even dust masks are not provided, as meeting radiation standards? The minister responded to my questions with comments like “it behooves us to understand the circumstances and we will act to include the Dene people in our review”.

While the government may be content looking at the history, the death and illness toll from this obscenity continues to mount. Where is the Minister of Health while people are dying? Immediate crisis assistance? Will this government commit right now that all three ministers will meet this community and lay out an action plan before this House recesses for the summer, yes or no?

[Supply, May 14th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I always find questions a bit amusing when people point to something in the past and try to justify exactly what is happening today. The hon. member can look to his own party. He can look to positions that were taken at one point in time and then subsequently changed for whatever reason.

We are concerned about the present situation with respect to our Canadian forces. We are supportive of the concerns they brought forward. We want to work in the best interest of resolving those issues. I do not want to dwell upon past history which has no meaning to what we are concerned about today.

[Supply, May 14th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, rather than answering why we did or why we did not I would like to emphasize some of the things we in fact did.

One of our members travelled to Goose Bay, Labrador, to see firsthand the situation involving the downsizing of services there. Many members of our party have been involved directly with military personnel and with civilian personnel and hearing their concerns firsthand.

We may not have been in the same places as the hon. member but we have been there. We have always been there and we will continue to be there.

[Supply, May 14th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate those two very interesting questions. Certainly it is very important for the standing committee to hear stories directly from members of the Canadian forces about what they are experiencing. Even more important than hearing them would be for the government to show strong political leadership to follow up on the concerns in a meaningful way to address the issues.

With respect to declaring a given day as Canadian armed forces day, we always have to be careful that when we declare any given day as a special day we do not lose sight of the fact that every day of our lives should be special for those issues. We cannot weaken our obligation in that way by just having a special day where we highlight certain things. It is important to concentrate each day of our lives upon the concerns of our Canadian forces.

[Supply, May 14th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am very honored to speak to this motion, which reads:

That this House condemn the government for its failure to provide strong political leadership to Her Majesty's Canadian Forces.

In speaking on this motion, it is very important to note the words “provide strong political leadership”. Note that the motion does not simply say provide leadership, but political leadership. This puts the emphasis on the elected representatives which is where I believe it firmly belongs.

Also, when we speak of the Canadian forces we are speaking about the civilian and the military components, a fact which often escapes the public. Sometimes when the public think about the Canadian forces, they think solely about those men and women in uniform. We must remember that there is also an important contingent of men and women working side by side those men and women in uniform. They are the civilian workers who team up to provide Canada with an excellent, proud and professional service.

Also when we think about the Canadian forces, we have to remember that the people working for the Canadian forces sometimes find themselves in a category of occupation which is often overlooked by the public except in times of emergencies, such as policemen, firefighters and emergency workers. These are people with jobs we would not normally want to do ourselves but we are certainly happy to have them there when the occasion and the need arises. Perhaps politicians fall in that category as well.

I am talking about the category of workers who sometimes find themselves in a thankless job. People are their friends as long as they are doing exactly what they want them to do but the minute that is not the case they seem to forget about them. We have to remember that sometimes the public do not give as much recognition and as much honour as they should to the people in our Canadian forces. Because of the nature of this occupation it is very important that we have good leadership, not only leadership within the services, but also good political leadership.

The other thing the public sometimes fail to remember is that a job in the military today, even though we talk about peacekeeping, is still very dangerous. It is not a job to be taken lightly. In an article in Maclean's magazine Sergeant Dale Lyne in speaking about his work in Bosnia talked about the fact that his engineer regiment dodged booby traps to defuse land mines. They survived having guns held to their heads by the local combatants. They retrieved body parts of soldiers blown up by mines. This is certainly not a job a lot of us would aspire to. Because of the nature of this job, we feel it is important that there be adequate political leadership.

What makes us feel that today there is not that quality of leadership? Already the member opposite has mentioned many of the problems that would support the fact that there is need for good strong political leadership.

We have heard about low morale because of frozen pay levels and lack of promotions. There are a lot of problems around family life and inadequate housing. Many spouses find themselves unable to meet their daily expenses and struggle while their spouses are away. We hear stories about soldiers having to buy their own boots to serve in Bosnia. There are many instances which we read about or hear about which lead us to feel that there is just cause for the low morale which exists within the military.

I think of military members who have families. We are told that the long absences can be devastating for those who are left behind. I read in a magazine article about Andrea Grant who has two children and is married to a leading seaman at CFB Halifax. She lives in a cramped apartment in the city's north end. She said that she sometimes cries herself to sleep when her husband is at sea. Not too many of us can relate to the feeling of having to cry oneself to sleep because their loved one is away.

I personally can empathize to a certain point with the aspect of someone being away that you care about. My father worked on the railway. He was away from home at least three or four days each week. As a young boy growing up I can well remember how much we missed his presence in the home and how happy we were when we would hear the doorbell ring when he returned home from his trip on the train. He had a special ring on the doorbell and we automatically knew it was him. Even the family dog recognized that ring of the doorbell and would jump up and run to the door before any of us.

My father was not in any danger when he was away. He was working on the train and unless there was a train accident he was quite safe. But our armed services personnel are quite often away in a foreign land in a different culture. They are faced with unknown things that may occur, for example land mines. We can therefore understand why someone like Andrea would cry herself to sleep while her loved one was away. These are some of the things which our armed services personnel are faced with.

Then we read stories, one as recently as in today's paper, reportedly, and I say reportedly because all the facts are not in yet, but reportedly about a $2 million party for the top brass in the military. When we look at this kind of expense, whether it be $2 million or $300,000 as the minister said today in question period, it is still a fairly major expense for a celebration when people are faced with an inadequate amount of money perhaps to buy medicine for their children.

There is another story along those lines. Quoting from a magazine, we are told the story of Kathy Couture who had never broken the law in her life until one night in October 1996. She walked into a pharmacy in Victoria, slipped a bottle of children's Tylenol into her pocket and walked back out. She said “I was terrified. I shook for hours when I got home”. Couture's six year old daughter Natasha had a raging fever. It was five days until her husband, sailor Mario Couture, would be paid and the family did not have the $5 to pay for the medicine. They had moved to Victoria from Halifax only weeks before and they knew no one they could ask for the money. “My husband was shocked. I was shocked”, said Couture. “I still cannot believe I did that. But I had to”.

The conclusion of this story talks about the parliamentary committee that travelled to Victoria in January. Her husband chose not to speak. He was afraid he might be too honest and would offend some people, but Kathy did speak out. She did speak out because she had hurt so much. She said it is her friends and neighbours in the military subdivision that kept her going while Mario was at sea. “It is very hard on your self-esteem. I think to myself I am worth more than this”. Kathy can only hope the politicians hear her testimony and agree.

I would say today it is important that we as politicians hear these stories, understand and show some empathy. When we are making decisions concerning our armed forces we should not look at the bottom line as being the dollar but rather look with a compassionate heart to see what we can do to help our military.

The Minister of National Defence said today in question period when he was talking about the forest fires in Alberta that once again the armed forces were coming to the aid of fellow Canadians. I would ask today, who is coming to the aid of our Canadian forces?

[Supply, May 14th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite mentioned that there was good esprit de corps in the armed services. I would like to quote from an April edition of Maclean's magazine:

“To make any unit run, you have to have esprit de corps,” said Warrant Officer George Parrott of Edmonton, who served in Croatia, Bosnia, Germany and Quebec during January's ice storm. “When I joined in '83 they made you feel good about working as hard as you possibly could to achieve the highest level you could. Right now, there is not that feeling of being proud of who you are and what you represent”.

This is by a member of the armed services speaking about the assault on morale. How does the member reconcile his remarks with these comments from an enlisted person?

[Bank Act, May 13th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, both military and civilian employees of the Department of National Defence are under heavy attack from this government. That was evidenced by what the federal standing defence committee heard last week in Halifax.

The committee was told of military families so strapped for money they were forced to knowingly cash bad cheques to pay for their children's medicine. There were also horror stories about people injured while serving their country, only to be thrown on the scrap heap by DND.

Instead of working to maximize the potential of our armed forces, this Liberal government has chosen to treat our defence personnel as second class citizens, sacrificing their jobs and their families' future to the short term selfish economic gains of large corporations.

This Liberal government's ASD allegedly stands for alternate service delivery. It really stands for armed services destruction.

This shortsighted and destructive strategy of cutting the civilian workforce in Halifax, Goose Bay, Shiloh, Gagetown and throughout the country hurts not only those employees sacrificed but also their families and entire communities.

This offensive against Canada's military reads like a well crafted government strategic campaign to attack from two fronts. It was not enough to disrupt the lives and plans of civilian defence employees by forcing them to all of a sudden compete for service bids with mega corporations.

When civilian military workers successfully beat the ASD contract bids of private companies, this government abruptly changed the rules of engagement to favour large corporations. The bundling of bids provides for the awarding of contracts on a national basis, not only a cheap shot at our military but a slap in the face to small businesses throughout this country.

What is this Liberal government's real agenda, an efficient military or a privatized and gutted military where there are enough funds for huge capital purchases but not enough to sustain the dedicated men and women serving Canada in both civilian and military roles?

Before rushing blindly into a minefield, will this government not take time and fully explore what this will mean to the people of Halifax and elsewhere?

The plan to cut 125 jobs at CFB Halifax is structured to allow management favourites to keep their jobs while those with better credentials are fired.

There are close to two and a half thousand civilian defence employees in Nova Scotia, about 90% of them in greater metro Halifax.

In 1994 the federal government cut over 50% of the civilian jobs at CFB Shearwater and has been cutting further through this ASD fiasco. Just what are the government's plans for Shearwater? The people of Halifax deserve to know what this government has up its sleeve for their future.

In Goose Bay, Newfoundland where support services were privatized to a foreign corporation, jobs and wages were slashed. The impact on the local community has been dire, with everyone from the DND workers to the local chamber of commerce denouncing the shortsighted and selfish deal.

The Minister of Defence has suggested that people would be treated humanely as this offensive against Canada's military was deployed. If laying off people and cutting salaries in half is humane, it is a good thing his portfolio does not include human rights.

The people of the Halifax region, throughout the province of Nova Scotia and across Canada deserve answers, answers this Liberal government seems loathe to provide, as if it is afraid to jeopardize this backward strategy of taking wages and jobs from Canada's civilian defence personnel in order to hand over quick cash to large corporations. Not good enough.