House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 57% of the vote.
National Defence June 21st, 2012
Mr. Speaker, we are still investing in the military, including in its infrastructure across Canada. At the same time, we need to ensure our economy is balanced, while making important decisions that respect Canadian taxpayers. For every decision that is made, we work with the public service in order to find fair solutions that are necessary to maintain support for our soldiers as well as local communities.
National Defence June 21st, 2012
Mr. Speaker, rather than respond to this comedy routine, I want to remind the member opposite and members of his party that this government believes strongly in investment for the Canadian Forces, and for the Canadian economy, giving them the protective equipment they need to do the important work at home and abroad.
I am extremely proud of the work of the Canadian Forces. I am proud to be part of a government that has brought the Canadian Forces out of decade of darkness under the previous Liberal government to a decade of delivery under a caring, compassionate, Conservative government.
National Defence June 21st, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I can say who is not supporting the military and it is that member and his party.
While our party has spent up to $1 billion annually to replace equipment, support programs, to make our forces better and ready to respond and to support the men and women in uniform, what we get is claptrap and insults.
The member from Winnipeg referred to war toys. However, C-17s brought compassionate aid to Haiti. Those are not war toys. There has been a lot of work that has been done in Afghanistan to protect those men and women's lives who are doing so much for Canada. That is an insult to our soldiers.
Committees of the House June 20th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, to revert to tabling of documents, I have the pleasure, pursuant to Standing Order 109, to table in both official languages, the government's response to the 6th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts on chapter 3—Reserve Force Pension Plan of the Spring 2011 Report of the Auditor General.
National Defence June 20th, 2012
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?
National Defence June 20th, 2012
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 June 20th, 2012
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 June 19th, 2012
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.
National Defence June 19th, 2012
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--
CANADA-PANAMA ECONOMIC GROWTH AND PROSPERITY ACT June 19th, 2012
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question. It is obviously important to have opportunities in agriculture and other industries.
What I can tell my hon. friend is that the elimination of tariffs is what the free trade agreement would accomplish. That certainly has implications for the Quebec hog industry, for the forest industry in my own region of Atlantic Canada and, in fact, across the country.
I am told that the pharmaceutical industry, the aerospace industry and all of these are just a few examples of industries that would benefit from the reduction or the elimination of tariffs.
We also, as I mentioned in my remarks, would see companies like SNC-Lavalin and engineering firms have the ability to compete on a more level playing field for construction and projects such as the Panama Canal.
I would encourage my colleague and all my colleagues opposite to support the free trade agreement. There has been significant debate in this Parliament and the last Parliament. Time is of the essence and time is wasting.
For our economy, this is important. We need to move forward productively.