House of Commons Hansard #144 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was aboriginal.

Topics

Search and Rescue
Oral Questions

2:40 p.m.

Fredericton
New Brunswick

Conservative

Keith Ashfield Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier in my previous answer to the member opposite, we are finding efficiencies within the Coast Guard and we are not putting anybody at risk, certainly not our mariners.

This is a top priority of the Canadian Coast Guard and it is something that Canadians want us to do: provide service and save Canadian tax dollars at the same time. We believe we are doing that. I, personally, would never put anybody at risk or in jeopardy through efficiencies gained.

National Defence
Oral Questions

2:40 p.m.

NDP

Christine Moore Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of National Defence totally dismissed a request from the chair of the Military Police Complaints Commission regarding documents related to the suicide of Corporal Langridge. The corporal's family has a right to answers.

I served in the armed forces as a medical assistant. I saw first-hand how psychological distress can take its toll and how our troops are sometimes left on their own.

The minister loves talking about how much he supports the troops. Now he can prove it by handing over all the documents.

National Defence
Oral Questions

2:40 p.m.

Central Nova
Nova Scotia

Conservative

Peter MacKay Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Military Police Complaints Commission, we are supporting it. We have, in fact, provided additional funding.

I have met with Mrs. Fynes on this very tragic case. What is unfortunate is that the member and members of the opposition continue to argue this case on the floor of the House of Commons rather than letting the Military Police Complaints Commission do its important work. We will continue to support that process.

In the meantime, we will continue to work toward doubling the number of mental health professionals that we have in the employment of the Canadian Forces. We will continue to support joint personal support units and make investments in the care and well-being of the members of the military and their families. However, the member and her caucus will vote against it.

National Defence
Oral Questions

2:40 p.m.

NDP

Jack Harris St. John's East, NL

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence made quite a statement yesterday when he said that his own desire to keep information secret trumps the Fynes family's need for closure and the truth and the request from the chair of the Military Police Complaints Commission. What Corporal Langridge saw in Afghanistan was so traumatic--

National Defence
Oral Questions

2:40 p.m.

Some hon. members

Telephone.

Oh, oh!

National Defence
Oral Questions

2:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Andrew Scheer

Order, please. The hon. member for St. John's East has the floor.

National Defence
Oral Questions

2:40 p.m.

NDP

Jack Harris St. John's East, NL

Mr. Speaker, what Corporal Langridge saw in Afghanistan was so traumatic that he could not explain it to his family or his therapist. He self-admitted to hospital. He needed to be on suicide watch but he was not given that protection.

What is it about this case that makes the minister want to hold back information?

National Defence
Oral Questions

2:40 p.m.

Central Nova
Nova Scotia

Conservative

Peter MacKay Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, I think that was the hon. member's truth calling but he is not answering.

None of what he said is actually true. Again, arguing the facts of this case on the floor of the House of Commons is completely inappropriate.

Last night I heard his seatmate, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, say that Mr. Justice LeSage understands the military justice system. He is one of the experts in the country. Just this past week, I tabled a report from the same Mr. Justice LeSage. What did he say in the report? He upheld the solemnity of solicitor-client privilege.

Why does the hon. member so selectively quote from the Supreme Court and Mr. Justice LeSage?

National Defence
Oral Questions

2:40 p.m.

NDP

Jack Harris St. John's East, NL

Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that he has the authority to waive it. The chair of the commission is looking for three things: one, the legal reasoning why a suicide watch was not given to Corporal Langridge; two--

National Defence
Oral Questions

2:40 p.m.

Some hon. members

Telephone.

Oh, oh!

National Defence
Oral Questions

2:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Andrew Scheer

Order, please. I will give the floor back to the hon. member for St. John's East and then we will quickly move on.

National Defence
Oral Questions

2:40 p.m.

NDP

Jack Harris St. John's East, NL

Mr. Speaker, two, who decided to deny the next of kin status to Corporal Langridge's family and why; and three, the rationale behind DND's flawed investigation.

What is it about those three things that threatens and scares the minister so much? Do we need to wait for a new minister to be appointed before we get this disclosure?

National Defence
Oral Questions

2:40 p.m.

Central Nova
Nova Scotia

Conservative

Peter MacKay Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, I repeat, the member is a lawyer. He understands, I am sure, basic law, which is the solicitor–client privilege, which has been upheld repeatedly by the Supreme Court. He knows this is to protect clients, including Canadian Forces members and military police.

Why does he not want to have military police be able to avail themselves of the same protections that are so important in our legal system? Why does he want to interfere with a public hearing by playing out the facts of the case before the House of Commons before the hearing has reached its conclusions?

Ethics
Oral Questions

June 20th, 2012 / 2:45 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Andrews Avalon, NL

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister is an expert in baseless smears against his opponents. However, when it comes time to take accountability for his own actions, the member disappears.

I will be moving a motion tomorrow at the ethics committee to call the parliamentary secretary so he can respond to these very serious allegations of election fraud. Will the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, who sits on the ethics committee, commit here and now to showing up and supporting the motion, or will he step aside while this cloud of Conservative corruption hangs over his head?

Ethics
Oral Questions

2:45 p.m.

Nepean—Carleton
Ontario

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, we all know why this member wants to drag his smears before a parliamentary committee. It is because there he will have the same privilege that he has here, which is to make any allegations, however unproven and counterfactual, without ever having to prove them. That is a privilege to which most Canadians are not entitled and one he claimed he would give up late last week when he bragged that he was going to run outside and repeat his allegations, something he failed to do.