Herb Gray

[Aboriginal Affairs, June 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have already pointed out that in 70% of the cases the victims are suing both the federal government and the churches directly. With respect to the remaining 30%, in about 16% of the cases where there has been evidence that servants or employees of churches have been involved, the federal government feels there is an obligation to have this information before the court.

With respect to the remaining 15%, I do not think there has been any determination as to whether there is possible church involvement. I think we should concentrate on working to find a settlement of this matter in a way that is fair to all parties.

[Religious Organizations, June 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the native claimants in 70% of the cases are suing directly both the churches and the federal government at the same time.

My hon. friend is wrong when he said there has been some final determination of responsibility. He mentioned one case. There are other cases where the judges have said there is shared responsibility.

I am working to see if we can resolve the matter outside the lengthy and costly litigation process. Instead of trying to unfairly politicize the matter, I think the hon. member should work with me in doing something that is fair to the victims as well as to the churches and the taxpayers.

[Religious Organizations, June 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is way off base. The government recognizes the churches as valuable social institutions. We do not want to see any church or church organization driven into bankruptcy over any residential school issue.

However there is a matter of shared responsibility. We are carrying out discussions with the churches and eventually with the victims to bring about a fair resolution of the matter much quicker than would otherwise be the case. We do not want to see all the funds of either the government or the churches eaten up in legal fees. I ask my hon. friend to work with me in this regard and not try to politicize this issue.

[Natural Resources, June 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is starting off, as usual, on the wrong premise. There is no table contemplated at which there would be negotiations for a new continental energy agreement.

We in Canada will be working on behalf of the entire country. For this purpose we will be fully consulting with the provinces. Each of us has our respective jurisdictions under the constitution. These jurisdictions will be respected and at the same time we will be working on behalf of all Canadians.

[Agriculture, June 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the government wants to work with Canadians in every part of our country. It has been working with farmers in the west and in the rest of the country.

Proof of that is what the hon. member referred to, our close to $500 million emergency aid program for farmers. I thank the hon. member for mentioning that.

[The Environment, June 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Alberta tar sands, their development involves provincial jurisdiction. There may be a federal issue. Certainly we will apply the relevant laws in co-operation with our Alberta counterparts.

With respect to foreign ownership, there are laws on the books. They will be followed.

[The Environment, June 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it would have been appropriate for the hon. member to give me notice of this question. I have not seen the Suzuki report. We will certainly look into it. I reiterate that the government has said that it intends to meet its Kyoto commitments and that continues to be the case.

[National Defence, June 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's premise is totally wrong. We are responding to the military's own statement of requirements.

I would think that a member of the Alliance Party is the last person in the world to talk about “screw-ups” unless he is looking at himself in the mirror.

[National Defence, June 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the chief of maritime staff made it perfectly clear in his testimony before the parliamentary committee that “Canada's navy is more combat capable today than it was a decade ago during the Persian war conflict”, and the vice-admiral made it clear in his testimony that “the navy has been provided the resources it needs to fulfil its mandate and maintain combat capability”.

[National Defence, June 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, there has been no so-called political interference. The military developed a statement of requirements. The government accepted the statement of requirements. Under the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Public Works and Government Services the procurement process is now under way.