Peter MacKay

[National Defence, June 12th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite the contrary. This is why we have moved, since taking office, to double the number of mental health professionals working within the Department of National Defence. We have on many occasions moved to provide information, as we have with the Military Police Complaints Commission, on this specific case. I have met personally with Sheila Fynes, Corporal Langridge's mother, in this case. We have provided additional funding for the Fynes family throughout this process. We continue to support the process.

The member opposite knows full well, and it is unfortunate that he is trying to score political points on such a serious issue, that this process is still ongoing.

[Privilege, June 11th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is used to being in a court of law. The facts, on their voting record, do speak for themselves.

With respect to the personal attack, I do know, having been here a number of years, the use of the word “hypocrite”. I referred to the hon. member for St. John's East as a hypocrite, and I apologize for calling him a hypocrite, and I reserve the word “hypocrite” in reference to the member for St. John's East.

[G20 Summit, June 11th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I repeat that security issues, security matters and decisions around the G8 and G20 were made by experts, not by the Prime Minister and not by politicians. They were made in close consultation among a number of departments, including Public Safety as well as the Department of National Defence. There were preparations in place for acts of possible disruption, planned violence, civil disobedience and even for some sort of terrorist attack. Those decisions are best made by experts.

[G20 Summit, June 11th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member would know that security decisions around the G8 and G20 summits were made by security experts, not politicians.

In fact, the members of the Canadian Forces, who supported the RCMP and the municipal and provincial police, were there to provide security for Canadians and for our international guests. This was an unprecedented period in our country's history with the G8 and G20 coming back to back.

I am very proud of the work that was done by members of the Canadian Forces.

[National Defence, June 11th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, how ironic and how sad that the member opposite would suggest that military procurement, investments in our brave men and women and investments in our returning soldiers who need treatment that they and their families benefit from somehow depend on a catalogue.

What we are doing is investing in these programs, procurements, and people who need that support. That party and that member continually oppose those investments, to the detriment of the men and women in uniform.

[National Defence, June 11th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is, of course, yes. We are making major investments across the board in procurement, base improvements and programs that support the military, their families and veterans.

The ironic thing about the question from the member opposite is that when we make these investments, in every case he and his colleagues in the no-defence party stand up and oppose those measures. There is one word for the member opposite, and that is “hypocrite”.

[National Defence, June 11th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, as I just said, the public accounts will reflect the year-end adjustments.

Also, The Fiscal Monitor is produced by the Department of Finance and reported on an accrual basis, not actual spending. Although the final expenditures will not be available until the fall of 2012 and cannot be released until tabled in Parliament, it is expected that the department's accrual expenditures will be similar to those in fiscal 2010-11.

I do know that we are not going to take advice from the no-defence party, which opposes everything we spend on the military.

[National Defence, June 11th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, what I do know is that the Department of National Defence has enjoyed a billion-dollar increase in our budget, thanks to the support of the Minister of Finance and our Prime Minister. That has allowed us to embark on new procurements. It has allowed us to put new programming in place to support our men and women in uniform.

The department's spending is reported through public accounts that are tabled in the fall. The public accounts will reflect those year-by-year adjustments.

[National Defence, June 8th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour, pursuant to section 96 of the Statutes of Canada, 1998, C35, to table before the House, in both official languages, the second independent review by the Hon. Patrick J. LeSage, CM, OOnt, QC, of the provisions and operations of Bill C-25, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

I also have the honour to table, in both official languages, a second document entitled, “Comments of the Minister of National Defence on the Report of the Second Independent Review Authority regarding Bills C-25 and C-60”.

[National Defence, June 8th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the member knows that the entire premise of his question is false. He repeatedly puts false information before Parliament and before Canadians.

With respect to protecting clients, the member also should know, being a lawyer, that the Supreme Court has specifically spoken out on this issue. The Blood decision of 2008 said, “Solicitor-client privilege is fundamental to the proper functioning of our legal system”. The decision went on to say, “Without that assurance, access to justice and the quality of justice in this country would be severely compromised”.

The member is the one who is compromising the truth by repeatedly putting false information forward.