Bill Graham

[National Defence, June 7th, 2005]

Certainly not, Mr. Speaker. The nature of this fire and the extent of the damage are fortunately not at all the same as what happened on the Chicoutimi . The ship in question was docked. This was an unfortunate incident, but I can assure the House that the Toronto will be seaworthy shortly. There is no problem. There is no reason to keep this ship in the dockyard.

[National Defence, June 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I met with navy officials this afternoon. I can reassure the hon. member and all the members in this House on this matter. A fire broke out on the Toronto and caused some damage. A few people were sent to hospital, but everyone is fine. No extensive damage was done. Everything is now under control.

[Veterans Affairs, June 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is outrageous to try to make a comparison between the United States, when agent orange was used regularly in Vietnam and its soldiers were exposed to this regularly, and what happened in Gagetown, where agent orange was used as a herbicide.

I assure the hon. members of this House that this happened over 40 years ago. We will work with the members of our armed forces to make sure that every single person who has been exposed to agent orange and for which we can trace a problem from the agent orange will be compensated. We have to do it properly. We have to do it in a way that is responsible. That is exactly what we will do.

[Veterans Affairs, June 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I totally reject the suggestion of the hon. member that the department is doing nothing to help those who have been exposed to agent orange. We regard this as a very serious matter. We are working with everybody we can in the Canadian Forces who has been exposed to this. This happened over 45 years ago.

I know that the hon. member and other members in the House want to make sure that the department is spending its money in ways that are responsible. We are doing that. We will help to make sure that anybody affected by this matter in our forces is properly compensated and will work with them to do it.

[National Defence, June 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows full well, there are billions of dollars in procurement money in the budget, which his party refuses to participate in adopting so that we can get the necessary documents through the House to give the money to the armed forces that it will need to proceed.

I ask him to participate with us. Let us get together and solve these procurement policies together instead of retreating into these little games that you are playing to destroy the possibilities for the budget for this country.

[National Defence, June 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, this is a project that will cost the taxpayers of this country approximately $1.3 billion. We are making sure that when the tenders go out they are correct and that we will get the best product for search and rescue in the country.

This is an excellent project. I look forward to it concluding shortly when we will be able to get our tenders out. I know that we will get the best equipment possible to make sure that our armed forces will be able to respond to emergencies in this country, as they have honourably and successfully done in the past.

[National Defence, June 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly would agree with the hon. member, who is knowledgeable about the matter of the forces, that the proportion of base infrastructure spending must be looked at. I have discussed this with my officials. We are making sure this is done in proportion to keep our bases in good shape.

We will always look at our bases to make sure that the footprint we have in this country is that which is necessary for us to do our job and provide security for Canadians. That is how we do it. We will continue to do that job.

[National Defence, June 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, surely all members of the House will agree that members of the House would not go through the appropriations process without first having adopted the budget on which those appropriations were based.

We know very well, and every member of this House knows, that the budget has to go through and the appropriations have to be voted before our men and women will get the money they need to transform themselves and make themselves into an effective force for this century to defend Canada and Canadians. That is what we are going to do on this side of the House. Let us try not to get into this sort of insane type of obscurity about how the process is going to work. It will work because we are going to get the budget through.

[Maher Arar Inquiry, June 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of commenting on the evidence before the Arar inquiry. However, I have to tell the members of the House that I resent very much the allegations regarding members of our civil service. They worked their hearts out to do their best for Mr. Arar. They work around the clock in very difficult circumstances, and are doing their best for the people of Canada. They gave me the best advice they could, and we worked as hard as we could to get Mr. Arar released.

Believe me, I think we can be proud of the actions of our civil servants. We can recognize that we might have done better and we can learn from our mistakes, and we will from the inquiry, but let us not denigrate the work that was done which successfully got Mr. Arar out--

[National Defence, May 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to acknowledge the tremendous support that the chair of the defence committee has given to our men and women in uniform. I would like to assure him that they are waiting anxiously to get the largest increase in the last 20 years, to allow them to recruit new forces, to purchase new equipment and to transform our military.

Let us join in this House in support of the young men and women in our military. Let us urge the members of the opposition to support our men and women in uniform and enable them to get the support they need to do the great job they are doing for Canada.