House of Commons Hansard #143 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was trade.

Topics

The Economy
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Saint Boniface
Manitoba

Conservative

Shelly Glover Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, I would say that voting against Canadians is hypocrisy.

The NDP voted against health measures such as increases in Canadian health transfers. The NDP voted against the environmental measures in our bill, which will better protect fish habitats and increase economic opportunities. They voted against jobs. That is hypocrisy.

We will move forward with our plan, create jobs and ensure our prosperity. Our Prime Minister is doing the same thing in Europe.

The Economy
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

NDP

Peggy Nash Parkdale—High Park, ON

Mr. Speaker, there they go again, lecturing and blaming others but refusing to face their own failures.

While the Prime Minister spends his time at the G20 wagging his finger at others, the Conservatives are ramming through their budget cuts that will hurt Canadians.

Will the Conservatives stop making phony accusations against the official opposition, the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the EU, stop muzzling their own MPs and level with Canadians about cuts to services that will hurt Canadian families?

The Economy
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Saint Boniface
Manitoba

Conservative

Shelly Glover Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, I stand very proud with my united caucus, the Conservative Government of Canada, which has put forward a budget that will help to create jobs, will sustain our prosperity and will focus, like the laser, on economic growth here in our country.

With regard to the NDP and the opposition, it is very disappointing for all Canadians to see that they are focused on tearing down this country, and are not focusing enough on raising our profile, which is what our Prime Minister is presently doing at the G20.

International Trade
Oral Questions

2:30 p.m.

NDP

Don Davies Vancouver Kingsway, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is a basic principle of negotiation that one does not communicate desperation to adversaries, and yet that is exactly what the Prime Minister has done in the trans-Pacific partnership.

In their panic, what exactly have the Conservatives given away? Did we agree to have no voice on past decisions and no real power in future negotiations? Did we agree to big pharma's demands that will raise health care costs or changes that sell out dairy, poultry and egg farmers?

Since I cannot ask Nigel Wright, maybe I will ask the minister. Canadians deserve to know, what is the price Canada paid for entry to the TPP?

International Trade
Oral Questions

2:30 p.m.

South Shore—St. Margaret's
Nova Scotia

Conservative

Gerald Keddy Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member continues to amaze me.

International Trade
Oral Questions

2:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

International Trade
Oral Questions

2:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Andrew Scheer

Order, order. We will just wait until the parliamentary secretary finishes the answer and then we can applaud. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

International Trade
Oral Questions

2:30 p.m.

Conservative

Gerald Keddy South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS

Mr. Speaker, I have never had that ability to make a pig's ear out of a silk purse, but the hon. member obviously does.

The reality is that we did not give away anything to get to the table.

International Trade
Oral Questions

2:30 p.m.

NDP

Romeo Saganash Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC

Mr. Speaker, clearly, fair international trade is important for our country's prosperity. The NDP has always recognized this fact.

However, we need agreements that will benefit Canadians, not agreements that will compromise their rights and interests. We cannot trust the Conservatives on this. From the buy American act to the softwood lumber agreement, the Conservatives have failed miserably every time they have had the opportunity to stand up for Canadians' rights and interests.

Will the Conservatives commit to bringing this new agreement before Parliament?

International Trade
Oral Questions

2:30 p.m.

South Shore—St. Margaret's
Nova Scotia

Conservative

Gerald Keddy Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade

Mr. Speaker, NDP members do not support trade. They did not support the free trade agreement with the United States. They did not support NAFTA. They did not support Chile. They did not support Peru. They did not support Puerto Rico. They have not supported Panama and have yet to support Jordan. They never supported the European free trade agreement and have not supported CETA with the European Union.

The NDP's position on trade is very clear. Our side's position on trade is extremely clear. We are pro-trade. We engage in trade in the best interests of all Canadians.

National Defence
Oral Questions

2:30 p.m.

NDP

Jack Harris St. John's East, NL

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the chair of the Military Police Complaints Commission wrote the Minister of National Defence asking him to take a “common sense approach” to the investigation into the death of Corporal Stuart Langridge. He agreed with our understanding of the law of solicitor-client privilege and asked the minister to waive the privilege in the interests of justice. DND lawyers at the commission pointed out that only the minister can grant access to these documents.

Will the minister co-operate with the commission and allow a full and comprehensive inquiry to take place?

National Defence
Oral Questions

2:30 p.m.

Central Nova
Nova Scotia

Conservative

Peter MacKay Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated a number of times, we continue to support this arm's-length process. We have given additional funding.

Parliament has been unequivocal in expressing its intent that the Military Police Complaints Commission can and should accomplish its stated mandate without access to privileged communication between lawyers and their clients. This was restated in the second independent review of the military justice system recently tabled in the House by myself where Mr. Justice Patrick LeSage said, “The jurisprudence on solicitor-client privilege is clear and established. I see no reason to recommend change.”

There is much precedent from the Supreme Court on this issue. The member is a lawyer. He knows full--

National Defence
Oral Questions

2:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Andrew Scheer

The hon. member for St. John's East.

National Defence
Oral Questions

June 19th, 2012 / 2:30 p.m.

NDP

Jack Harris St. John's East, NL

Mr. Speaker, I guess we can take that to mean that the minister does not want to co-operate and will not help this family get to the truth.

These are very simple matters. The commission chair has asked the minister to release information on first, the legal reasoning why a suicide watch was not given to Corporal Langridge; second, who decided to deny next of kin status to Langridge's family and why; third, the rationale behind DND's flawed investigation.

Why is this too much to ask? Why will the minister not allow this civilian oversight to take place? Why will he not let justice be done?

National Defence
Oral Questions

2:35 p.m.

Central Nova
Nova Scotia

Conservative

Peter MacKay Minister of National Defence

We have supported the process, Mr. Speaker. We have given additional funding to see that the process is arm's-length and remains transparent and functional. The pettifogger opposite knows that full well.

Mr. Justice Binnie in the Supreme Court also spoke of this issue, as did Madam Justice Arbour in the case of Lavallee, where she said, “Indeed, solicitor-client privilege must remain as close to absolute as possible if it is to retain relevance.”

There is much precedent on this issue. This issue is currently being heard by an arm's-length hearing. The member opposite wants to interfere with that and bring the matter before the courts.