Bill Graham

[Points of Order, June 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, this has now become a matter of debate, but I would like to respectfully suggest to the hon. members and to the House that if we can have debate with some civil conduct with one another, I would be happy to look into this and I will get back to the hon. members with the facts.

My understanding, as I said to the House, is that there was no suggestion of any spraying of agent orange over 4,000 acres. That is not testimony that I have ever heard before.

I will consult with my officials and I will correspond with the hon. members to exact facts about what I have said and what has been said by my deputy minister to ensure that the facts are entirely clear. We will do our best to get--

[Points of Order, June 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I did not quite digest entirely everything the hon. member had to say, but I understood the thrust of her comment to be that there was confusion between what I had said in the House and what Ms. Ellis, who was the assistant deputy minister, had said to the committee. She said that agent orange and agent purple, which is a matter of concern before the House, were sprayed on a limited area in Gagetown in 1967 and 1966 over a total period of seven days, three days in one year and four days in the other year.

I have tried my best to make the House understand that. If the hon. member has not understood that and chosen to interpret that as seven days a week for two years, I am sorry for her. I have tried to make it very clear to the House and it is consistent with what the assistant deputy minister said, that this was a matter of seven days total spraying over two years in a limited area of Gagetown.

We are working with all those concerned to find out the facts so we can get the proper response to this terrible problem. We will ensure we do that, but let us get the facts straight first. That is all I ask of the House, that we get the facts.

[Veterans Affairs, June 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, what the public interest would be best served by is hon. members in the House restricting their comments to the facts. The hon. member knows very well that agent orange and agent purple were tested in Gagetown over a small acreage during two years.

The member suggested to the public and others that it expanded over another period of time. In fact, there were only seven days involved over two years during a limited time.

We in the department will be looking at that. We will be doing soil tests. I will be working with other members of the government to ensure that we find the facts. We will work with the Canadian public to ensure that all people get proper treatment of--

[Veterans Affairs, June 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is deliberately, and I say again, deliberately, seeking to mix up the question of chemical warfare experiments and the use of defoliants on bases, which are entirely different propositions.

It is an irresponsible suggestion on her part. She represents the military in her riding. It is a disgraceful attempt to sow fear in the military. It is not true. There never was chemical warfare related testing on our forces in connection with the defoliants agent orange or others. We will get to the bottom of this. We are working on it. Let us work together to help the Canadian public, not sow discord of this kind.

[Justice, June 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, let me tell the hon. member that the military's justice system is covered by the National Defence Act, not the Criminal Code, and there is a reason for that. There is a specific national justice system that governs the military. I can assure the hon. member that the military will be covered by the sex offender registry in the same way as civilians but they will be covered in a way that is consistent with the way in which the military can do its job.

The member knows that. The bill is clear about that. There will be no exemption. It is not two tier. It is about creating a system that works for the military as well as civilians.

[National Defence, June 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, we will take measures similar to those we have already taken, in other words, we will continue to work with the community and everyone else to identify the source and nature of the contamination and the measures that need to be taken in order to protect the public.

We have already spent over $21 million in the community. We have provided homes with drinking water. We are continuing to do our job to protect the community and ensure that all contamination problems are resolved.

[National Defence, June 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as I have already assured the hon. member countless times in this House, we are sharing with the public and the community all the information in our possession about the water contamination in Shannon and the work that has been done. The report the member has referred to a number of times in the House does not exist as such. There is only computer data, and we are sharing that data with the community.

[National Defence, June 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. He is extremely knowledgeable in military matters. He comes from a country in the region. He knows, and hon. members of the House know full well, that our members of the Canadian Forces have extraordinary experience in the country of Afghanistan.

I can assure him and other hon. members in the House that under the leadership of General Hillier, who was the ISAF commander in Afghanistan and is a recognized expert in the area, that our forces will be trained, they will be equipped and they will acquit themselves well in what will be a dangerous but ultimately successful mission for this country and for the development of peace in the world.

[Health, June 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that the Canadian Forces have had a proud tradition of being able to make sure that they give the medical services necessary to our armed forces, our men and women in uniform, so that they can do their jobs.

The forces have always been called upon to do that. In recognition of that, they are called upon to do it outside the normal procedures of the Canada Health Act. That is required by operational necessity. It is required for the well-being of our troops. It is required for the well-being of our country. I think everybody on this side of the House recognizes that.

[Health, June 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as I have explained in the House on several occasions, the defence department, for reasons of operational needs of the defence department, is not subject to the Canada Health Act. When our troops are in Afghanistan or when they are in Bosnia, they do not check into a local provincial hospital. They need to have the services of medical care for themselves when they need it.

They are putting their lives on the line for their country. Let us support them rather than attacking them, as in this absolutely ridiculous way by the member.