House of Commons Hansard #116 of the 38th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was inuit.
Pierre Pettigrew LiberalMinister of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, we never lose any opportunity to have discussions with Chinese officials here in this country. We will always ensure that the rights of citizens to express themselves in whatever way they choose will always be respected in Canada.
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Mr. Speaker, in response to my question yesterday concerning agent orange testing in Gagetown, New Brunswick during the 1960s, the Minister of National Defence said that what the department is trying to do today is reconstruct the facts, establish the connections, and look at the type of compensation that could be offered those affected.
How can the minister explain that the government is still engaged in fact finding when there have been claims for compensation for the past 15 years, and when the highly toxic nature of agent orange has been well known and documented in a number of studies since its use in Vietnam?
Bill Graham LiberalMinister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, as I explained yesterday in the House, these events and the use of these products date back 45 years. We are trying to reconstruct the facts and the consequences. We will be contacting all those affected in order to determine how we can ensure that justice and equity are served in this matter, as we have in numerous other similar cases. We just need the time to see that this is done properly and scientifically.
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Mr. Speaker, as soon as the government was aware of the hazards relating to the use of agent orange, ought it not to have warned the public of the danger it was exposed to, instead of trying to buy time, as the minister is still trying to do, while knowing full well, as in all such cases, that time is never on the side of the victims?
Bill Graham LiberalMinister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, we have never tried to cover up what happened. We are trying to find out exactly what did happen. As you know, and as I said in the House yesterday, during the nine years the Conservatives were in power, those same facts and the same knowledge of the consequences of past use of those same products were available. We are making a very honest effort at this time to find solutions to an old problem, one that is very significant for members of the forces and of the public. We will do so properly and scientifically.
Guy Côté Bloc Portneuf, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence dodges my question and repeats himself whenever we ask him about the contamination of water in the town of Shannon. He says that drinking water is now available, that the facts need to be determined and responsibility established. However, what the public wants is access to the report the government is keeping under wraps.
Will the minister stop hedging and give the public what it wants by making this secret report public? Will he make it public without delay?
Bill Graham LiberalMinister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, we have taken action with regard to the town of Shannon. We have transferred over $34 million to this community. We have provided a number of houses with direct access to safe drinking water. We are continuing our efforts and working closely with the community in order to determine, first, the source of the contamination and, second, those responsible.
The member is well aware that there are a number of sources. We must do what needs to be done, properly and scientifically.
Guy Côté Bloc Portneuf, QC
Mr. Speaker, we know what the government does when it is the one responsible for this kind of thing: it tries to bury it. We do not want another Gagetown.
Does the minister understand that the people of Shannon want access to the report now, because they do not want to be told in 20 years that no one knew?
Bill Graham LiberalMinister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, how can the member say that we are trying to bury this when we connected 161 houses to safe drinking water?
Furthermore, we have transferred over $34 million to the community. We are working closely with the community and examining all the factors in order to determine the facts and find a solution that is appropriate and fair for the entire community.
Joe Preston Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago the government misled the House by denying the existence of a secret arrangement with Jean Chrétien.
Yesterday the Prime Minister misled the House about the contents of this arrangement. He incorrectly said that the letter read, “We fiercely oppose anything that could delay the report”. That statement is not in the letter to Mr. Chrétien's lawyers.
Why does the Prime Minister continue to mislead the House?
Scott Brison LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, the June 9 letter in fact does say, “The Attorney General's principal position in the memorandum was that Mr. Chrétien's allegation of bias was without merit and that Mr. Chrétien's right to procedural fairness had at all times been respected”.
Further, today's Ottawa Citizen said this about the Conservative Party's position:
The notion, retailed by [the Leader of the Opposition], that this correspondence reveals a plot between [the Prime Minister] and his predecessor to delay Gomery's report, and, hence, the date of the next election, is beyond absurd.
Joe Preston Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
Mr. Speaker, what is absurd is that answer.
Yesterday the Prime Minister misled the House about the contents of a letter outlining the secret arrangements between Mr. Chrétien and the Liberal government. He claimed it defended Gomery. This is not the case.
Why does the government's letter in fact give Mr. Chrétien the green light to prevent Mr. Justice Gomery from reporting his findings?
Scott Brison LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister read from a June 9 letter that was tabled at the Gomery commission yesterday and has been tabled in the House. The letter said, and I will speak very slowly so that the hon. member can understand it. Once again, “The Attorney General's principal position in the memorandum was that Mr. Chrétien's allegation of bias was without merit and that Mr. Chrétien's right to procedural fairness had at all times been respected”.
I hope he gets it now because Canadians get it. Canadians know that the Prime Minister and the government support the work of Justice Gomery.
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Mr. Speaker, day after day the Minister of Public Works has stood in the House pretending to defend Justice Gomery.
We now know that the minister's director of communications, Ms. Susan Murray, falsely advised members of the media that the cost of Gomery was over $70 million. We also know that she made these false allegations on the same day that Jean Chrétien filed his motion to quash Justice Gomery. Clearly, there is a coordinated effort between the government and Jean Chrétien to discredit Justice Gomery.
Why is the government doing everything in its power to discredit Justice Gomery and why is it not wanting to find out the truth?
Scott Brison LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, the costs of Justice Gomery are in fact in the range of $69 million to $70 million. Those costs include not just the direct costs of Justice Gomery but also the costs involved with the departments cooperating fully with Justice Gomery and the coordination of, for instance, 20 million pages of documents that have been provided to Gomery.
We are absolutely committed to working with Justice Gomery. We want Justice Gomery to succeed. That is one of the reasons why Canadians support the Liberals and not the Conservatives. Canadians want Justice Gomery to succeed as well and they trust our government and our Prime Minister to ensure that Gomery succeeds.
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Mr. Speaker, I am totally amazed at the ability of the minister to give that answer with a straight face. Justice Gomery himself has confirmed that the cost of his inquiry will only be $30 million or in that range. The rest of the money is money that the government spent on a war room.
Will the minister, however, confirm that his director of communications placed phone calls to the media stating that the cost of Gomery was $70 million? Will he further confirm that she made these phone calls on the same day Mr. Chrétien filed his motion to quash Gomery? Members of the media who received those phone calls will be very interested in the minister's response.
Scott Brison LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, I would hope that all Canadians are always interested in the response of any minister of the government because Canadians know that when ministers of the government rise to give answers in the House of Commons, we do so seriously, in the interests of Canadians, and based on facts, unlike the opposition.
Justice Gomery's direct costs and the costs involved with government departments cooperating fully with Justice Gomery, and coordinating over 20 million pages of documents, including cabinet documents going back to 1994, will reach the $70 million range. That is well worth the cost. Changing the culture of government for generations is worth the cost.
Françoise Boivin Liberal Gatineau, QC
Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Bloc Québécois joined with the Conservatives to delete all the clauses of Bill C-48. In voting with the Conservatives against C-48, the Bloc voted against additional funding for Quebec in areas that are very important to many Quebeckers.
Can the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs clarify for the House how Quebec stands to benefit from Bill C-48?
Lucienne Robillard LiberalPresident of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc's position on Bill C-48 is not only incomprehensible but indefensible, because it will deprive individuals and institutions in Quebec of the support they need.
How will students be told there will be no extra help for them with post-secondary education? How will FRAPRU be told that it will no longer get additional support for affordable housing? How will Transport 2000 be told that it will get no extra help?
The Liberal Government of Canada will help—
Bill C-48Oral Question Period
The Speaker
The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the Minister of National Defence of his obligation to the people of the James Bay coast. Forty years is a long time for the Mushkegowuk Cree to wait for the government to come back and clean up the mess it left on the radar bases. I have met with the families who live with badly contaminated hunting grounds. Nobody told them of the danger and nobody did anything to clean up the mess. The Cree leadership is demanding action.
We have the provincial government at the table willing to pay 50% of the cost of the federal government's mess. It is waiting on the minister. Is he going to show up?
Bill Graham LiberalMinister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member refers to lands that were transferred to the province of Ontario in 1965 and have been managed by the province since 1965, not by this department and not by the federal government but by the province of Ontario.
At the request of the province, we are working with it to deal with specific environmental cleanup activities at the sites. We are discussing with the province how we can deal with this matter, but it is totally erroneous to suggest to the House that we are not working on this. The House must bear in mind that these lands were transferred to the province for its responsibility in 1965.
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Mr. Speaker, a Senate committee report today once again condemns the Liberal government's inaction on our borders. In particular, it noted many of the problems in the Windsor-Detroit corridor and the fact that national security and economic prosperity has been compromised by government dithering.
This year alone, the Ambassador Bridge is going to receive $13 million in subsidization for customs officers and staffing. Meanwhile, just a kilometre down the river, the government is denying a border ferry service, with a similar small operation, the same treatment. It also is denying the community a solution to many of the problems we have.
This has been in the courts for five years. Will the Deputy Prime Minister--