Todd Doherty

[Alleged Interference in Justice System, February 28th, 2019]

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for asking me to toe the line, but this truly is one for the ages.

As I said before, it is a moment in time in our nation's history that we are all a part of. We all have a duty. We were all elected to be the voices of Canadians. We were all elected to protect the rule of law and the sanctity of this place. We must be able to trust that our Prime Minister and the agents around him are doing the right thing, and doing the right thing means doing the right thing at all times, not just when the cameras are on. Just because he is the Prime Minister does not give him free rein to make up the rules. As a matter of fact, I have one other quote I would to give, which is that it was a law that Harper brought in and they did not like it. Seriously?

We get heated in this place. I am sad. Canadians deserve better and Conservatives' will always fight for better.

[Alleged Interference in Justice System, February 28th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I take pleasure in being here today, but the honest truth is that I take no pleasure in being here today.

I rode down in an elevator with one of our colleagues this morning at our apartment building, and he started off our conversation by saying, “Yesterday was a great day for the Conservatives.”

Yesterday was a sad day for Canada. I take no pleasure in being here. This is not about partisan politics.

I am not a lawyer. In Cariboo—Prince George, we speak from the heart, and Canadians from coast to coast to coast are tuning in today. Colleagues from the government side and from the Bloc side want to turn this into being about the jobs in Quebec that could be lost. No one wants to see anyone lose their job, but the blame falls squarely on the executives who broke the rules for those jobs.

I do not want to turn this into Quebec versus Alberta versus B.C. This is Canada, and yesterday was a sad day. February 27, 2019, will be a date referenced by Canadians for generations. It is going to go down in history as one of those “where were you when” days.

I have said this before and I will say it again throughout this speech: It was a sad day. Regardless of partisan politics, we must always respect the office of the Prime Minister, but what we have witnessed over the last four weeks has shaken the confidence of Canadians. We have seen corruption that has permeated our highest office. This is not a story about jobs; this is a story of a strong, measured first nations woman who spoke truth to power.

I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Perth—Wellington.

Yesterday, for three hours and 40 minutes, the former attorney general took questions from all sides. Her former colleagues tried their very best to soil her character. She was stoic. She was straightforward. In the face of all that, we saw incredible strength.

Her opening line was, “I experienced a consistent and sustained effort by many people within the government to seek to politically interfere in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion”. Time and time again, over the course of the weeks and months after she said no and had made her decision, there was pressure put on her to change her mind. As a matter of fact, at one point the Clerk of the Privy Council said that the Prime Minister was going to “find a way to get it done one way or another.”

She told the agents of the Prime Minister's Office no multiple times. She told the Minister of Finance no multiple times. However, “no” does not mean no when it comes to the Prime Minister and his cabinet.

What happened? She paid for it. She was shuffled, demoted. There was a smear campaign.

I will tell another point that was absolutely shameful.

We all know how the Prime Minister's story has changed from day one when he first claimed it did not happen: Deny, deny, deny. Then he said he had a conversation with the former attorney general but he reminded her it was her responsibility. Then, standing before a bus, he said if she did not like it, she should have said so. This is unbelievable. Now we know she did.

It was just mere days into this session when a minister of the government was caught using a limo within her riding. Then there was the famous elbowgate incident just a few feet down from where I am standing. Then for the first time in the history of our country the Prime Minister was found guilty of an ethics violation. That was the Aga Khan trip. The finance minister seemingly forgot about a French villa. This is a finance minister who regulates the sector, putting forth legislation that would benefit one of his family's companies. Then just this past summer, allegations came forward about our Prime Minister being involved in inappropriate groping. Then the former fisheries minister was involved in a “clam scam”.

Every time the Prime Minister stands here, hand on heart, saying nothing to see here, claiming it is the same old Conservatives just playing divisive politics.

Now we have the SNC-Lavalin matter, where people tried to pressure the former attorney general to change the course of a legal action to benefit friends and family of the Prime Minister. When is enough enough? Seriously.

Liberal colleagues across the way are laughing. For those at home who are listening to this, Liberal colleagues think this is a joke. This is not a joke. We have a morally corrupt Prime Minister. This is criminal—

[Alleged Interference in Justice System, February 28th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, I honestly think that our colleague across the way, and I cannot even say “honourable” right now, should be ashamed of himself. This is a company that is not accused of but paid $30,000 for prostitutes for Gadhafi's son and he is okay with that. It is disgraceful.

Our hon. colleague down the way gave a great intervention. I too was saddened by the testimony yesterday. It was a sad day for Canada. As a matter of fact, that date will go down in history. It will be one of those days where the question will be asked, “Where were you when...?”

I want to ask this to our hon. colleague, who represented all of us on the opposite side so extraordinarily. Could he elaborate on what his feelings are regarding the testimony we heard, how stoic our former attorney general was and how wrong our colleague across the way is?

[National Defence Act, February 28th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, I have not had the opportunity to see Bill C-426 in its entirety. I only just heard about it an hour ago from our colleague from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke. It seems well-intended. I imagine that our national defence critic will provide a reasoned approach to it.

I believe our colleague from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman also referenced Bill C-426 in his intervention. While I have not seen the full text of the bill, I look forward to seeing it. I am sure it will have support from all sides of the House.

[National Defence Act, February 28th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, I took a very non-partisan approach to my intervention. My hon. colleagues across the way, as the Liberals do, always has to place blame. I was merely offering that when the committee was studying Bill C-77, our hon. colleague from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, with the best intentions, put forward a motion for us to consider the removal of subsection 98(c). That would have been an opportune time to get Bill C-77 right.

I also have offered that Bill C-77 is being supported by all opposition members on this side of the House. It is almost a carbon copy of Bill C-71, which was put forward by our strong Conservative team in the previous Parliament.

It is unfortunate that our hon. colleague has taken the opportunity to turn things partisan when we are having a reasoned debate and discussion on the merits of Bill C-77 and the opportunities to amend it.

[National Defence Act, February 28th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I will remind the House that I am splitting my time with my hon. colleague from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.

Before question period, I was talking about the intervention by our hon. colleague from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke on Bill C-77. The beauty of the House is that when one pays attention to debate, we can learn things. So many of our colleagues bring expertise and knowledge to the debate. One only has to just pay attention and listen.

My hon. colleague from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke brought up two areas of Bill C-77 that were missing. I want to bring them up as well and address them.

One is the issue of mental illness and injury of those who serve in our Armed Forces and their death by suicide, self-harm, and the fact that section 98(c) is still in military law. The simple act of removing that could do so much to break down the stigma for those who still suffer in the shadows.

I worked tirelessly in getting my Bill C-211 through the House and to royal assent, which took place on June 21 of last year. I am proud to say that the round tables for Bill C-211 are taking place within a month in Ottawa. Stakeholders, representatives from the provinces and territories, ministerial colleagues from across the way as well as military from Veterans Affairs and National Defence are coming together to have that overall discussion on mental health and how we can stem the tide of the epidemic of suicide due to mental illness and mental injury. This is so important.

It is very important that at all times we build trust not only for those who suffer from mental illness and mental injury, but fort hose who suffer from sexual assault as well so they know they will be believed and they can get the services they require. It is very important we build that environment of trust so they feel they can come forward and there will not be that stigma attached to them. Throughout this debate, we have heard that this still remains, because Bill C-77 does not address that.

My hon. colleague talked about his Bill C-426, which could address the removal of section 98(c). Again, it is a simple thing. I do not accept the argument that we need to study it. The wheels of bureaucracy move slowly. We tend to study things to death and then we are victims of our own inaction. We refuse to act when simple things could be done that would have such a major impact. Section 98(c) is one that my hon. colleague from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman mentioned it as well.

This is not my file, but I read some of the amendments put forward by the my colleagues in the official opposition, and this was brought up by a number of colleagues. I did not know that in military law there is no provision for reporting the proceedings of a summary hearing. There is also no provision compelling an officer presiding over a summary hearing to give reasons for his or her findings. I had no knowledge that no notes were taken or recordings of proceedings. I am shocked that there would be not requirements in military legal procedure to take copious notes. That makes it very difficult for the appeal process.

As Conservatives, we always believe that the rights of victims should come before those of the criminal. We will always stand tall to ensure the rights of victims and their families are considered first and foremost.

Over the course of the last week, and indeed leading up to Christmas, we had a lot of opportunity to talk about victims' rights and ensuring that those who we trusted to protect us and serve our country were armed with the tools to complete their mission. We must ensure they are safe and secure and remain healthy when they come back to their families.

Earlier this week, we were talking about the rights of victims. I brought up Cody Legebokoff, Canada's youngest serial killer and how the families of his victims had been re-victimized time and again. We recently found out that he was transferred from a maximum-security to a medium-security facility.

Our hon. colleague, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, has committed to reviewing that case. It is my hope that he will take swift action to reverse the decision, similar to what he did with Terri-Lynne McClintic. I am not sure why things always have to get to this point.

Going back to my earlier comment about subsection 98(c), I note there are simple things we can do as leaders and elected officials within the House. The 338 members of Parliament have been elected to be the voice of Canadians. There are simple things we could do to make the lives of Canadians better. Rather than overthink things, we should use a little common sense.

Sometimes in this place we get mired under the bubble in which we work. If common sense could prevail, we would be far better off.

[National Defence Act, February 28th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, I want to preface my intervention by letting you know that I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. As they say, “I get by with a little help from my friends”.

It is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-77.

We have such a short time to try to get in all these points. However, the bill really is a carbon copy of the bill from our previous parliament that the strong team of Conservatives put forth, which was Bill C-71.

Having listened to the debate today, I want to congratulate our hon. colleague from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke on his very measured approach. As we have learned, every day we sit in the House there is so much we can learn from all sides. His was an interesting intervention and I want to thank him for it.

I want to focus my intervention on a couple of different areas. However, I imagine I will have to continue after question period, because I would not want to pre-empt that, as we must give question period its full allotted time.

[National Defence Act, February 28th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, it is the Liberal way. They have to study something that is just common sense. It is unbelievable. It is not that studying further is not common sense, but just getting it done, just action, is common sense.

I thank my hon. colleague for bringing up two points that I feel are very important. Everybody in the House knows that I am passionate about doing everything in our power to provide those whom we trust to serve our country and community with the tools to both complete their mission and to come home and remain healthy.

My hon. colleague brought up two valid points. They were on the unreported sexual assault that is taking place or could be taking place within our military, as well as the point on death by suicide, self-harm and post-traumatic stress disorder.

We now know more about post-traumatic stress disorder, mental health injury and the mental illness that can be caused by the sights and sounds experienced by those who have served.

There is so much that we can do, that our forces can do, by building trust at the very beginning, by building and creating more resources so that our new recruits know what they are getting themselves into on all sides. I agree with my hon. colleague that the first step would be removing paragraph 98(c), and the other part is Bill C-211—

[Petitions, February 28th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present petitions from Canadians from coast to coast to coast to recognize the service of the over 60,000 search and rescue volunteers right across the country.

There are over 60,000 volunteers for the search and rescue service, and they are the only volunteer service in our nation without any form of recognition medal. The petitioners are calling on the government to recognize the extreme service that search and rescue volunteers put forth. It is an honour equivalent to what other major first responder organizations are awarded. We are asking that the government follow through with its promise to implement a service recognition medal for search and rescue volunteers.

[Petitions, February 28th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I also rise to table petitions from Canadians from coast to coast to coast who call upon Parliament to restore funding to the salmon enhancement program to support the promotion and conservation of the Pacific salmon fisheries.

The government repeatedly cut funding to the salmon enhancement program in the 2016 and 2017 federal budgets. Since 1977, over 40,000 students in British Columbia have gone through the salmon enhancement program. The program provides funding essential to education and conservation activities benefiting from Pacific salmon fisheries. Funding cuts to the salmon enhancement program will eliminate education and conservation activities supporting Pacific salmon fishers.