Greg Thompson

[Points of Order, June 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, on that same point of order, the minister is inconsistent in the testimony that he provides compared to the testimony that we heard at committee and what the people in Gagetown heard in the community when DND took their travelling road show to Base Gagetown.

The point I simply want to make is this. When the Minister of National Defence talks about a limited test area, he fails to mention the broader spray program of those years where they used agent orange and agent purple over 4,000 acres and hundreds of gallons of the defoliant in those same years that he selectively refers to as the test period.

I believe the member is correct in the sense that the minister is operating on information which is inconsistent with the documents that his department has provided and it inconsistent with the evidence that we heard at committee by some of his officials.

[Veterans Affairs, June 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the controversial spray program at CFB Gagetown ran from 1956 to 1984 with casualties all over the place.

Last week DND confirmed an in-house investigation would take place, but it would be restricted to a small scale test area in 1966-67. Would the public interest not be best served with an independent public inquiry, removed from the influence of senior politicians in Ottawa, an inquiry that would focus on the entire spray period program?

[Request for Emergency Debate, June 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I seek an emergency debate on the use of chemical sprays, specifically defoliants, used at Canadian Forces Base Gagetown from 1956 to 1984.

Hundreds of civilians and military personnel were exposed to these deadly chemicals, chemicals like agent orange, agent purple and many others which are deadly dioxins.

The government has neglected these people and their communities and has not taken responsibility for this tragedy. The effects of these deadly chemical compounds have lingered and will continue to linger for decades.

As a result of this indiscriminate use of defoliants, there are cancer and cancer related diseases and deaths to prove the point that we are making. These chemicals are deadly. The devastation continues to this day. They simply linger in the ground and in the water supply for decades.

Only a public inquiry will bring out the complete story, all the facts and a level of transparency which so far has been missing. This is not about pointing fingers at government or punishing government. It is simply about righting a wrong.

Mr. Speaker, the only place where that debate can happen is in the House of Commons. I hope you will look favourably upon this request.

[Veterans Affairs, June 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Defence continues to downplay the effects of agent orange on our military personnel and completely dismisses the impact on surrounding communities and civilians. DND has already prejudged the outcome of any future investigations, suggesting nothing new will be found.

How can the minister claim any legitimacy on this file when his officials have already predetermined the outcome?

[Veterans Affairs, June 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the minister still denies the cause and effect. In fact, he ignores his own information. The record will show that 300,000 gallons of defoliant were sprayed on Camp Gagetown in the period of which we are speaking. He continues to ignore medical evidence.

They are suggesting that in the new studies they are going to come up with, these ongoing studies, nothing new is going to be found. How can he ignore medical science, especially medical science that comes from the United States on this issue? The minister is not making himself very clear.

[Veterans Affairs, June 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence continues to deny any link between agent orange and cancer related diseases. I refer to yesterday's testimony by his officials. In fact, they dismiss medical evidence from the United States and other jurisdictions which acknowledge that link.

Having awarded two compensation packages in at least two cases, the Minister of Veterans Affairs recognizes that link. Why does the Minister of National Defence continually deny that link? Why is there the disagreement between the two ministers?

[Veterans Affairs, June 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the government has known about this file since 1981 and has done nothing. It has been in power, I want to remind members, for 12 years. We want action, not platitudes.

This minister is the master of platitudes. We want action on this file. Never once has she ever mentioned the word civilian either, in addition to the military files out there. When is she going to do something?

[Veterans Affairs, June 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in typical Liberal fashion, the government speaks out of both sides of its mouth on agent orange. On the one hand it blames other jurisdictions, other governments and agencies. On top of this, it suggests more study and more consultation, in the meantime quietly compensating at least two victims.

Is the government now indicating that due diligence was not followed in these cases? Where does this leave the 300 or more outstanding claims presently on the minister's desk, in addition to the civilian cases?

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think we need to have some clarification here. The member is talking about an amendment to a bill, and he is absolutely correct on that, but I just want to remind him that the amendment was placed to make a bad bill better.

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, there are lots of good things in Bill C-48, provided the government can afford it. One thing one has to remember in this place is that people very seldom argue with spending money on particular programs. There are always a lot of self-interest groups. I guess we are part of them because a lot of that money will be spent in areas we like.

It comes down to corrupting the process of budget making in the House. Remember, we supported the original budget, Bill C-43, brought in by the finance minister. We believe in a minority government we have to do the best we can, put a little water in our wine and hope we can allow the government, which is about a year old, to proceed and not defeat it.

That goodwill was thrown out the window when the whole process was corrupted. After the finance minister delivered his budget, the Prime Minister flew to Toronto three or four weeks later. He made a side deal with the NDP to the tune of $4.5 billion and the finance minister was left completely out of the loop. In most cases like this a finance minister, with any backbone or integrity, would have simply resigned because the entire process was corrupted. That is the point I am attempting to make.