Fraser Tolmie
Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, Saskatchewan · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the aisle mentioned the former leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, Mr. Joe Clark. I actually have interactions with a former Liberal minister, Mr. Dan McTeague, who said that he did not leave the Liberal Party but that the Liberal Party left him. I think there is some give and take here.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I missed my root canal today. I want to talk about my colleague across the aisle's saying that he has recognized the economy. The Liberal Party has failed Canadian people for far too long. The Liberals had this opportunity 10 years ago, but they are just recognizing it now.”
“I feel like we have done a great disservice to Canadians and to veterans, who just want some basic, simple things like care, and we are failing in our duty to support them. I witness that every single day, whether they are reservists or full-time veterans.”
“That is the whole point of having an independent military review board, to recognize the bravery and the sacrifice of our Canadian soldiers. Not only is this important to my family, but it is important to my riding.”
“Our sacrifices made overseas are something Europeans witness every single day. It is hard for Canadians to reconcile that. That is why we have to make that extra effort within the House of Commons to recognize those who have advocated on our behalf and made that sacrifice.”
“Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to this motion. It is a very important subject, not only to my riding but to me personally, and I would like to share the reason.”
The complete record
Every one of 155 lines we hold for Fraser Tolmie, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 4.
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the aisle mentioned the former leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, Mr. Joe Clark. I actually have interactions with a former Liberal minister, Mr. Dan McTeague, who said that he did not leave the Liberal Party but that the Liberal Party left him. I think there is some give and take here. I would like to know what my colleague from Winnipeg North's opinions are on Mr. McTeague. I feel as if the Liberal Party has lost its compass. It is way off and seems to be getting into everybody else's business instead of looking after the business of looking after Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member has the heaviest suitcases and the best laugh. I just wanted to say that she may not have been a veteran, but she had the heart of a veteran. Truly, I respect her and love her, and I will miss her. I will miss our cappuccinos.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I missed my root canal today. I want to talk about my colleague across the aisle's saying that he has recognized the economy. The Liberal Party has failed Canadian people for far too long. The Liberals had this opportunity 10 years ago, but they are just recognizing it now. The failures have prevented Canadians from being insulated from the challenges we are facing globally. I have just never heard such drivel in my entire life. The Liberal government has failed and has missed opportunities, and it is like a brand new thing to them. It is unbelievable. This should have been done 10 years ago. Canadians would not be in food lines. In my own riding, people are now being interviewed to go to the food bank. How has the government insulated and prevented Canadians from going through that? It is an economic mess.”
“Madam Speaker, I have interacted with veterans within my the member's riding who were facing some challenges, and I know that he is very passionate about people who have served. It is also very important to recognize how we can attract new recruits, and it is by being—”
“Madam Speaker, I have to point out that I have not seen my colleague in the gym for a while, so hopefully I will see him next week. We as Canadians are very humble in the way we carry ourselves, so it is very hard for us to accept recognition for the sacrifices we have made. However, it is so important now, when we are being challenged globally, that we recognize the sacrifice made by the people who are willing to leave their family and to miss birthdays, weddings and anniversaries to go help someone else. The sacrifice is not just by the person who is going overseas. It is also by the family, and we have to recognize that. What makes our nation such a strong and powerful nation is that we are willing to make those sacrifices, and one cannot put a recognition on that.”
“Madam Speaker, I have to say that sometimes we get things wrong, and we witnessed that recently. We witnessed the Liberal government's parading out the Snowbirds and then basically telling the pilots that they are going to be losing their jobs. Then, at the Afghan monument, there was no, or very little, presence of our veterans. We have to reverse the roles. We have to recognize when it is due and treat our military properly. I think the committee makeup has to be of people who actually recognize and understand the sacrifices made by our vets and have an inside perspective but who are also very neutral, so their own passions are not—”
“When we erode these things, we do a disservice not only to our nation but to our ally nations around the world that rely on a strong partner in times of need. We have always been there, but when we cut these things, we are sending a message that we are weakening our position. We are weakening ourselves, and we are not being there for our allies and neighbours. I am speaking in support of the motion. This independent review board is necessary. It is necessary not only for our nation but for the people in my riding, because they believe in it.”
“They get to witness that every single day. As I have said, we do not have that recognition of the sacrifice here, but we do get to see the professionalism of our serving members when we witness the Snowbirds. That is why I find it disappointing that the Liberal government wants to cancel the Snowbirds after this season. For Canadians who do not get the chance to go overseas or witness the sacrifices by Canadians, it is a way for us to see the professionalism, excellence and unity of our Canadian Armed Forces. People in Canada now have a connection with their military. They have a connection with the history of our military and the sacrifices that our military has made. It is so important.”
“I feel like we have done a great disservice to Canadians and to veterans, who just want some basic, simple things like care, and we are failing in our duty to support them. I witness that every single day, whether they are reservists or full-time veterans. We do not understand sometimes what they have gone through and the sacrifices they have made, but they deserve better. That is the whole point of having this independent review board. It would recognize people who have slipped through the cracks. It is so important for us to pause, have a reset and make sure things do not slip through the cracks for our veterans. I also want to go back, while I have the opportunity, to the recognition of veterans who served but did not come back. Europeans can drive by gravestones and see the maple leaf on them.”
“Our sacrifices made overseas are something Europeans witness every single day. It is hard for Canadians to reconcile that. That is why we have to make that extra effort within the House of Commons to recognize those who have advocated on our behalf and made that sacrifice. They have gone overseas and said, “Yes, I'm going to go,” not just to save the democracy within this country but to preserve democracy around the world. I am passionate about this subject. I am passionate about our military, and I am passionate about our veterans, who deserve more. We keep failing them. There is a continual failure to support our veterans, those who have said, “Yes, send me. I will go.” Madam Speaker, you will have to give me a second here because sometimes, in my passion, I have to kind of chill out a bit.”
“That is the whole point of having an independent military review board, to recognize the bravery and the sacrifice of our Canadian soldiers. Not only is this important to my family, but it is important to my riding. I know that MLA Blaine McLeod has been here, to Ottawa, advocating for recognition for Jess Larochelle and the bravery he displayed while he was overseas. He was doing what the soldiers in World War II were doing, in Afghanistan. (1020) Our foreign policy and our international recognition are based on the blood and sacrifice of Canadian soldiers overseas. Those in Europe get to see the gravestones every single day when they drive by, because our soldiers went overseas. Fortunately, we have not had that much conflict here in Canada. We had little skirmishes very early on in our history.”
“My grandfather went up a Canadian sergeant and asked, “What are you doing?” The Canadian soldier looked at him and said, “If we're not drinking it, they're not drinking it.” My Scottish grandfather fell in love with Canadians. What he witnessed was the bravery of those soldiers overseas, which was so important. At home, my grandmother and my mother, who was a very small child, witnessed the generosity of the Canadian soldiers. These soldiers came overseas, volunteered, and brought with them things my grandmother could not get, like baked goods, and shared them with generosity. That was why my family decided to move to Canada. It was because of what they witnessed at home and what they witnessed overseas, the bravery. We cannot forget that.”
“He was drinking, having a few libations with his fellow British soldiers. All of a sudden, Canadian soldiers came rushing in and started screaming “retreat, retreat, retreat”. There was a German offensive, and they did not have enough firepower to have a counteroffensive, so the British soldiers started throwing on all their gear. While they were doing that, the Canadian soldiers looked at the wall that had all these bottles of booze and started shooting at them, like it was a western. My Scottish grandfather, who liked his odd tipple, was horrified and started screaming “ceasefire, ceasefire, ceasefire”. Finally, the Canadians stopped.”
“Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to this motion. It is a very important subject, not only to my riding but to me personally, and I would like to share the reason. Before I kick off my speech, I would like to thank my colleague from Airdrie—Cochrane for his speech and for his passion and leadership as the critic for veterans affairs. I have learned quite a bit from him. I appreciate his dedication to veterans and what he wants to do with this particular board. I would like to to give a bit of background about why I am so passionate about this, and why I am here. My family, as I have shared numerous times, came from Scotland, but during World War II, they were living in Scotland. My grandfather, who was on the offensive during World War II, was in a café.”
“Mr. Speaker, if they are safe to fly now, why are they not safe to fly next year? The Liberal government took over a decade to sign the F-35 contract, which is now under review and delayed. If the Snowbird replacement follows that timeline, the team will not fly again until the 2040s. For 55 years, the Snowbirds have been a jet team. The replacement the minister has announced is a propeller aircraft. Who made the decision not to pick jets?”
“Mr. Speaker, after much hype, the Minister of National Defence paraded the Snowbirds in front of the media for all of Canada to see. He then shamefully announced that the Snowbird team was grounded after the 2026 season and that the people behind them were losing their jobs. Which Liberal government was wrong, the one that spent $30 million to keep them flying or the one that is prematurely grounding them? Both L3Harris and Magellan Aerospace, who inspected the jets, say the Tutors are safe to fly until 2030. Was the squadron ever asked if the team could fly until 2030?”
“The Snowbirds Alumni Association calls this profoundly disappointing. So does Moose Jaw, and so does Canada. Canadians deserve a jet team. The Prime Minister can make this happen by reversing his decision.”
“Mr. Speaker, on May 19, the Minister of National Defence came to Moose Jaw, home of Canada's Snowbirds. He paraded the Snowbirds team out in front of the media and used them as his backdrop. Then he announced that the team were now losing their jobs. This is one of the most un‑Canadian things the people of Canada have ever witnessed happen to our military, and Canadians are disappointed with this behaviour. The Liberals have sat on this file for over a decade. The Tutors are being grounded after $30 million was spent to keep the jets flying until 2030. Both L3Harris and Magellan Aerospace have said the Tutors are safe to fly. Now, out of nowhere, the minister has announced a replacement aircraft that has propellers but with no timeline, no number of planes, no in-service date.”
“Mr. Speaker, well, the question comes up. Is that never? We never got an answer. Why not answer now? Why do you not answer right now? Are you keeping the Snowbirds flying? Canadians from coast to coast to coast have been inspired by the Snowbirds, an incredible symbol of strength and sovereignty. Now, more than ever, we need them. On what date will the iconic Snowbirds return to the Canadian skies?”
“Mr. Speaker, CTV has confirmed from two sources that the Snowbirds are not scheduled for their 2027 shows. For generations, the Snowbirds have been inspiring and uniting Canadians. The minister said Canadians will enjoy the Snowbirds “for generations to come”, but how many generations will it take to revive the iconic Snowbirds after the Liberals cancel them? How many generations will miss out being inspired by looking to our skies?”
“Mr. Speaker, jet noise is the sound of freedom, not white noise. Canadians want to be inspired by other Canadians. Do members know how we got the second female Snowbird pilot? It is because a flame was planted in her heart at the age of 12 when she saw the first female Snowbird pilot. Why are the Liberals hiding the fact that they plan to cancel the Snowbirds after the season, and why will they not immediately reverse this terrible decision? It is SOS time: Save our Snowbirds.”
“Mr. Speaker, air show organizers across North America are quietly being told that this is the final season of the iconic Snowbirds. I wrote the Minister of National Defence almost six months ago, asking about the future of the Snowbirds. There was no reply. Senator Batters did the same in the Senate. Crickets. Tomorrow is the Snowbirds “acceptance show” in Comox. Why will the Liberals not come clean about their decision to cancel the iconic Snowbirds and when will they reverse this terrible decision?”
“Mr. Speaker, I went to Moose Jaw the way a lot of people do, through the Royal Canadian Air Force, and I decided to plant my roots and build my life in that community. The men and women I served alongside understood something fundamental: Discipline, sacrifice and excellence are not words on a page, but daily choices. Today, we welcome the Royal Canadian Air Force to Parliament Hill for Air Force Day on the Hill. I think of the instructors, technicians, aircrews, medics and support personnel at 15 Wing who keep our proud nation alive. NATO allies have sent their pilots there because Canada's training standard is considered the best in the world. Our air force is one of Canada's most vital national institutions, and the people who serve in it are among the best this country has to offer.”
“Mr. Speaker, it comes down to victims' having the choice. They need to feel safe. They feel betrayed. They want to have options, because they want to be heard. This is what I am saying: The Liberal government is ignoring and shutting them out, and they have already been traumatized. We have seen that time and time again, not only in the defence committee but also in the veterans affairs committee. It is not time to shut people out. It is time to give them options. It is time to let them be heard.”
“Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes. [ English ] Yes, absolutely, we need to go through this with a fine-tooth comb. My colleagues have already done the heavy lifting. They have already come forward with recommendations that are being ignored, and that is how the victims feel. They feel ignored. That is what the Liberal government is doing to them: ignoring their pleas and the challenges they have faced. It is unacceptable.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague from across the aisle ran out of time and did not get to ask a question, which is surprising. Here is what I have seen in the last year. The Liberals are pounding their chests, saying that the forces have had over 7,000 applications, but that does not show how many have not made it through. It does not show the failure rate that has happened within the military, nor what the Liberals are doing to fail women who need options and choices when travesty happens to them in the military.”
“Civilian capacity must be resourced before jurisdiction is transferred. Survivors who came forward twice, who trusted twice, deserve better than this. We can do better than this. (1615) As I said, I am the father of two daughters, and I hope and pray that the work we have put in to make their lives better would be heard by members on the other side of the aisle. We can do better. We owe it to the next generation. We owe it to those who want to join.”
“When I spoke to the bill at an earlier stage, I said that I hoped that by the time my daughters are adults, parliamentarians would not still be debating how to get this right for people assaulted in the forces in which they choose to serve. I am standing here at report stage, and nothing has changed. If anything, I am less optimistic than I was then. However, I have not stopped believing it is possible. The committee did the work. The result was something worth passing. What the minister tabled last week is not an improvement. It is the government's substituting its own preference for that of survivors. That is paternalistic. It is further disenfranchisement of the people who have already been rendered powerless once. Conservatives will continue to fight to restore the amendments. The provisions about choice must stand.”
“There are real consequences to getting this wrong, and they are playing out right now. A decade ago, the Canadian Armed Forces set a target of 25% women in uniform by 2026. Today, after 10 years of stated commitment, the number sits at 16.7%. The recruitment commander said last week that the target is now impossible to reach. In the past fiscal year alone, 1,070 women left the military, the highest rate in five years, despite pay increases. We cannot recruit and retain women in an institution where they know before they sign up that if something happens to them, the system will not put their choice at the centre. That is precisely what Bill C-11 , as the minister has now amended it, would fail to do. The government set a target of 25% women. It could not reach a force of 67,000. What exactly is its plan for half a million?”
“The people who would be executing this mandate said it would not work. The minister made his amendments anyway. It is worth noting what the minister acknowledged at committee: He has not spoken to Justice Arbour, Justice Fish or Justice Deschamps on this file. When asked how many victims his office consulted when drafting the bill, he said that he would have to get back to the committee. He had not spoken to any provincial justice ministers since taking the portfolio. Jordan framework delays were not in his briefings. He would be implementing a mandatory jurisdictional transfer into a system he has not even consulted, without the resources to support it and over the explicit objection of survivors, the director of military prosecutions and the chiefs of police.”
“These are real people making an informed choice. The minister 's amendments would eliminate choice entirely. Regarding civilian capacity, the picture is equally concerning. Sexual assault cases exceeding the Jordan framework deadline limits rose from just over 15% in 2016-17 to more than 30% in 2022-23. Nearly half of those cases were stayed or the files withdrawn. The civilian system is struggling with its existing caseload. (1610) The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police was direct in its written submission. It said that the proposed provisions would deny victims the ability to express a preference as to how their complaint is investigated. This departs from the victim-centred and trauma-informed principles that underpin best practices in policing. CACP recommended maintaining concurrent jurisdiction.”
“The cross-party amendments to clauses 7 and 8 would give survivors the right to choose which justice system handled their case, military or civilian. That reflected what witnesses asked for directly. Donna Van Leusden told the committee: For many years, survivors in the Canadian Forces had limited or flawed options, but they still had options. Under this bill...survivors are given none. Everything has to go directly to civilian police and civilian courts, regardless of what the survivor needs, prefers or feels safe with. That is not trauma-informed, and that is not survivor‑centred. She is right, and she is not alone. The provost marshal general testified that over the last five years, 270 out of 735 files stayed with the military police because victims specifically asked for them to stay there. That is more than one-third of all cases.”
“As part of both studies, the committee undertook dedicated work on trauma-informed practices, what trauma does to memory, to reporting and to the way survivors present themselves in institutional settings. I do not raise this to claim expertise. I raise it because I find myself wondering whether the officials who drafted these report stage amendments, or the members now standing to defend them, have spent comparable time in those rooms. Many of the women who spent months testifying before the veterans affairs committee later came before the national defence committee to speak directly to the bill. They showed up twice. They made themselves vulnerable twice. The minister 's amendments are his response.”
“Bloc and Conservative members of the Standing Committee on National Defence sat together, listened to witnesses and built something worth passing. The minister swept it away. Not satisfied with tabling the amendments last week, the government has now moved time allocation to limit how long the House can even discuss them. Survivors came forward twice and made themselves vulnerable twice. I have been asked to speak to the bill because of the work I have done on the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. In the last Parliament, ACVA undertook the largest study in its history. It held 23 meetings, with nearly 100 witnesses, with respect to the experience of women veterans. In Parliament we are studying suicide prevention, and in many meetings, MST surfaces as a driver for suicide. The two files are not separate.”
“Mr. Speaker, I was actually going to ask my colleague a question there. I did my officer training in her riding of Saint-Jean. It is a beloved area in my life. Some of that I wanted to forget, because of the gruelling training, but I do appreciate my colleague's speech, her passion for our military and her passion for Quebec. [ Translation ] The motto of la belle province is Je me souviens or I remember. [ English ] I apologize about my French, but I am practising and I have to overcome my own fear. I will do that by speaking with my French colleagues. I want to talk about what the Minister of National Defence tabled last week, and why it matters to people who trusted the House to get it right. The minister tabled report stage amendments that would undo months not just of Conservative work but of committee work.”
“Regulatory compliance costs Canadian businesses $51.5 billion annually, with nearly $18 billion of that attributed to pure red tape. About 87% of small business owners say that excessive regulation significantly reduces their ability to grow. This week, leading Canadian industry groups told the Financial Times that federal red tape is costing the country more than Trump's tariffs. Nutrien, headquartered in Saskatchewan, chose to build a $1-billion port in Washington state over Canada's west coast, citing Canadian regulation as a key factor in that decision. This is not the moment to add another federal framework to the pile. I cannot support this bill. It is not because the right to repair is wrong, as it is not. It is not because the member for Bourassa 's concern is misplaced, as it is not.”
“It would be a new federal regulatory layer over a broad category of consumer products on top of provincial consumer protection regimes that are already moving on this file. Quebec's Bill 29 is active. Ontario is advancing its own legislation. The provinces are acting. Ottawa adding a parallel federal durability standards framework on top of that provincial action is not simplification. It is duplication. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business just released its report entitled “Canada's Entrepreneurial Drought”. Canada is in a sustained period where business exits outpace new entries every single quarter. In Saskatchewan specifically, net business creation has been negative for most of the past decade.”
“The first is what the bill fails to do and the second is what the bill would do. On the first point, the bill's scope is explicitly for electronic products and essential home appliances, defined as devices intended for regular household use. That definition closes the door entirely on agricultural equipment. A framework covering dishwashers and smart phones but not combines is not a right-to-repair framework for the producers who feed this country. On the second point, this bill would not just address repairability. It would establish minimum durability standards and a federal regulatory framework over consumer product design and manufacturing. I understand the consumer appeal of that. Canadians are right to be frustrated when products are built to fail, but we need to be honest about what this bill would be.”
“The National Cattle Feeders' Association told ISED directly that farmers face an uncompetitive scenario and are forced to accept the costs and repair schedules of manufacturers. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture called for legislation compelling manufacturers to provide access. Alberta Grains, representing over 18,000 wheat and barley farmers, submitted that producers were so frustrated with repair monopolies that some would rather operate less advanced equipment they could actually fix. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada held its own targeted round tables specifically on farm equipment and interoperability. The sector showed up. The government ran dedicated round tables on the exact gap this bill would leave open, and the bill before the House today does not contain the word “agriculture”. The bill before us has two problems.”
“This bill would not give the farmers in my riding any. I want to be clear this is not a criticism of equipment dealers. They serve their customers well and are part of the communities I represent. They play a vital role. The problem is the software lock. A farmer near Craik or Tugaske cannot hand their local mechanic the diagnostic tool they need because the manufacturer controls access to it. If someone has the right software, the repair takes an afternoon. Without it, they wait for the one authorized technician who has the key. In Saskatchewan, harvest windows are measured in days, not weeks. A two-day repair delay is not an inconvenience; it can be a crop. (1810) The agriculture sector made exactly this case during the government's own right-to-repair consultations in 2024.”
“Prairie producers are already carrying cost pressures their American competitors do not face in the same way: industrial carbon pricing, fertilizer costs, higher fuel costs and input costs that cannot be passed down to a buyer who sets the price on global commodity markets. Canadian farmers are price-takers. They absorb every additional cost at the farm gate. This is one more structural disadvantage stacking up. My riding of Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan is bigger than Switzerland. It is five square kilometres bigger than Switzerland, with 41,290 square kilometres of agricultural land, rural communities and some of the most productive grain and canola in Canada. Across the entire riding, there are three authorized John Deere service locations. Colorado figured out how to give its farmers real options.”
“The Federal Trade Commission then filed an antitrust lawsuit against John Deere in January 2025, alleging the company had monopolized the repair market by withholding diagnostic tools. Earlier this month, a class action lawsuit against John Deere settled for $99 million, with a 10-year commitment to make diagnostic tools available to farmers and independent shops. There are now 16 states that have active agricultural right to repair legislation. American farmers running John Deere equipment now have legal tools their Canadian counterparts do not. This is a competitive disadvantage baked into the regulatory gap.”
“He has identified a genuine problem and put in the work to bring it here. The frustration behind this bill is legitimate. Canadians should have better options when the products they own break down, but this bill is not the right answer and I will explain why. When governments get the right to repair right, they act where the need is greatest. They create actual rights, not frameworks and not consultation processes, but rights. In 2023, Colorado became the first American state to pass an agricultural right to repair law, the Consumer Right to Repair Agricultural Equipment Act. It guaranteed farmers and independent mechanics access to the software and repair materials needed to fix tractors and other agricultural equipment. That was a law. It created real rights in one day.”
“Madam Speaker, you are looking well and it is great to have you in the chair. I want to talk about a principle most Canadians would consider common sense: If someone owns something, they should be able to fix it. Canada has already done meaningful work on this file. Bill C-244 and Bill C-294 removed copyright barriers that were being used to block repairs on digital devices. The member for Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley , a close friend of mine, introduced Bill C-294 specifically because he understood what those restrictions were doing to agriculture, mining, construction and forestry industries in Saskatchewan. He named them explicitly. Those bills were real, they targeted action and they deserve credit. I want to thank the member for Bourassa for bringing this bill forward.”
“Mr. Speaker, no one thought it possible to outspend Justin Trudeau. This Liberal Prime Minister has somehow managed to. He has added $90 billion above the Trudeau-era levels in new spending and nearly doubled the deficit. Operating costs are up 9% in under a year. Two-thirds of that new spending goes to day-to-day operations, not investment. The result is the worst grocery inflation in the G7 and Canadians putting their own bills on credit cards are going to food banks. When will this Liberal Prime Minister end his costly credit card budgeting so Canadians can afford to live?”
“Mr. Speaker, I have sat on the veterans affairs committee and heard, during the women's study, the traumas that many have endured. They want justice. When I hear what is being proposed by the Liberals, all I hear is downloading and sending victims to overloaded courts. I ask my colleague from across the aisle, why are you doing this? Why can you not come up with something that is sound and reasonable for the victims and for those who serve in the military?”
“We acknowledge the challenges they faced upon return, and we reaffirm our commitment to never leave those who served and their families behind.”
“Mr. Speaker, in 1991, Canadian men and women in uniform answered the call to defend Kuwait. Operation Friction deployed nearly 4,500 Canadian Forces members to the Persian Gulf. They served with distinction alongside coalition partners to liberate Kuwait from Iraqi occupation. For the first time in our history, women served alongside men in combat roles. Canada would answer that call again after 9/11. There were 158 Canadians who gave their lives in Afghanistan before the combat mission ended in March 2011. For many who returned from both conflicts, the battles continued at home as recognition of service-related illnesses and access to veterans benefits remained an ongoing struggle. On these important anniversaries, we honour every Canadian who served in the Persian Gulf and Afghanistan wars. We remember their sacrifice.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his service. In the four years that I have been here, we have had five ministers of this department, and there have been nine ministers over the last 10 years. The government clearly does not care about veterans. It is time to stop. It is time to thank the veterans, repay them and let them know that we care.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have visited the base in my colleague's riding, and I know there are a lot of veterans who are retiring in his area. I thank them for their service. It is true that Conservatives are getting phone calls. Even the Liberals are getting phone calls about veterans and the way they have been treated. It is being ignored and can no longer be ignored. As the Conservative Party, we need to be raising the standard for veterans and letting them know that we are here to support them and that they deserve the basic rights they are entitled to. They should be allowed to have that money. It should be flowing into their accounts. They should not be getting letters in their mailboxes telling them that they owe $42,000 and that their homes are on the line.”