Tamara Kronis
Nanaimo—Ladysmith, British Columbia · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, here is the thing: The Cowichan Tribe decision introduced uncertainty around how aboriginal title interacts with private property in B.C. While the Supreme Court declined an appeal in Wolastoqey, a refusal of leave is not a decision on the merits and does not create binding national precedent.”
“In Parliament, members and senators have brought forward several health-related bills on rare disease access, forced and coerced sterilization, heart failure, fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, food allergies, women's health, brain injuries, ADHD, medical assistance in dying, natural health products, living organ donors, supervised consumpt…”
“Mr. Speaker, we have heard a variety of arguments from this side of the House as to why cutting debate off on this bill is short-sighted, but perhaps one of the most important reasons is because, as my hon. colleague explained, it does not just cut off debate in the House; it also means this bill will never go to committee.”
“The framework would cover training for health care professionals, a national research network and registry, evidence-based national standards, universal neonatal screening, public awareness, blood donation promotion, analysis of a possible tax credit, inclusion in existing disability benefits, and an analysis of whether treatments should…”
“I will be the last speaker on the bill, not because members of Parliament have nothing left to say, not because the concerns of the groups that have come to the committee to meet with members of Parliament have had their concerns answered and not because the communities that are so worried that they will be affected by the bill have been…”
“We support practical steps that help patients and families, especially when those steps are shaped by evidence and by the people most affected. At the same time, Parliament has a duty to get the details right. As we know, health care delivery is provincial.”
The complete record
Every one of 572 lines we hold for Tamara Kronis, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 9 of 12.
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have introduced the most costly and largest budget deficit in history outside COVID. It will drive up the cost of food, housing and everything else that Canadians buy. In Nanaimo—Ladysmith, food bank use is up and donations are down, in part because the people who formerly supported these services now increasingly need to use them to make ends meet. Liberals had the chance to lower food costs for Canadians by scrapping the industrial carbon tax, but they increased it instead, driving up the cost of everything needed to grow our food. Why is the Prime Minister making food more expensive?”
“In Nanaimo, we need funding for local treatment and recovery beds. Our frontline workers need support, and our communities need a real path to healing.”
“Mr. Speaker, families grieve, addicts struggle and communities do their best to backfill for government failure, and the Liberal government's transformational budget has nothing for us. The word “addiction” appears only once, on page 247, to remind us that $1.2 billion in provincial transfers to support not only addictions, but home and community care and mental health services will vanish after the 2026-27 fiscal year. Today, I am standing up and saying what the 20 Liberal MPs from British Columbia do not have the guts to say, even though Pandora Avenue and the Downtown Eastside are both in Liberal ridings. With this budget, the Liberal government has abandoned us. There is no national strategy, no support for local treatment and recovery and no recognition of the crisis that is unfolding in towns and cities like mine.”
“Mr. Speaker, the budget spends a lot of money on some things, but it also promises to cut spending, including on services that Canadians value. I asked a question about this earlier this morning and was supposed to be reassured by an answer from my colleagues that the CRA would be stepping in to improve efficiencies by filing tax returns presumptively for a number of Canadians. With the CRA's accuracy rate below 20% in the case of humans and only at a third in the case of its chatbots, I am wondering if the hon. member could comment on the importance of these services to Canadians and improving government services, especially at this critical time for our country.”
“Mr. Speaker, I asked one of the members earlier about service cuts to places like my riding, which is very, very far away from Ottawa and where we really rely on our services. He answered by saying that the CRA would improve efficiencies by pre-filling applications and tax filings for Canadians. Given the extremely low accuracy of the CRA in answering questions, as I believe the CRA is answering questions accurately only about 17% of the time right now, I wonder if my colleague would comment on the service cuts to her riding and to Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, my riding, of course, is very far away from Ottawa, and we rely heavily on the services the federal government provides locally to be able to do things such as file taxes and figure out eligibility for various government programs. This is a budget that is going to make major cuts. I am wondering if the hon. member can share what services are going to be lost to the people in my riding.”
“My colleagues and I share that desire, but, as legislators, we have a duty to pass laws that are workable. Bill C-238 is not a workable law. It creates false hope, complexity and cost without achieving its goals. Unfortunately, it would not help victims. It would not help fund community organizations. It would mostly benefit consultants, accountants and the professional expert witness class while adding cost and workload to our already overburdened courts. For those reasons, but with real respect and appreciation for the intentions with which the bill was crafted, regrettably, we will not be supporting Bill C-238 . I would be happy to sit down with the member any time and work on better solutions.”
“We could work with the provinces to expand funding for victim services and trauma counselling. We could provide stable, predictable funding to frontline organizations so that they can plan ahead and deliver services without worrying about whether they will get restitution from a convicted offender who may not have any money. These solutions would make a real difference. These solutions would ensure that the money actually reached the people doing the work without having to prove direct causation related to a specific case, without the need for participation in litigation and without creating an additional burden on our already overtaxed criminal justice system. I have no doubt that the member who brought forward the bill did so out of a genuine desire to make the system better.”
“member sponsoring the bill spoke about in her remarks. However, that hope is almost certain to be false hope, embodying the illusion of accountability without the reality of it. What should we do? Conservatives believe strongly in victim-centred justice. We believe offenders should be held accountable for the harm they cause. We believe in supporting the people and organizations that keep our communities safe. We also believe that there are better ways to achieve this than what the bill is trying to do. We believe in mandatory minimum sentences for the offenders who traffic in drugs and create havoc in our communities. We would try fentanyl dealers as murderers. We could strengthen our asset forfeiture laws so that the proceeds of trafficking and drug crimes are seized and directed more directly to community recovery programs.”
“However, the costs that community organizations face are linked to crime in general, and most criminals do not have regular bank accounts that courts can garnishee. What would happen if an organization successfully cleared the causation hurdle? The court would issue a restitution order that will almost certainly never be collected, as my colleagues who have also spoken to the bill have explained. The organization would look well funded on paper and may cease to be eligible for grants because, in theory, it has a judgment it can collect on. It would usually have 10 years to collect on that judgment even though it will realistically never see the money. That does not help anyone. Unrealistic restitution orders feel great on judgment day. They sound good, and they create the kind of hope that the hon.”
“The bill would turn sentencing hearings into mini-civil trials in which defence lawyers and prosecutors bicker back and forth over spreadsheets and receipts, arguing about which costs count and which costs do not. Documents would need a witness to put them into evidence, diverting more resources from the community organizations we are trying to help. In the end, expert witnesses, consultants and lawyers will be the only ones who make any money. This brings me to enforceability. Restitution is not meant to be a fine or a punishment. It is meant to put victims in the position they would have been in but for the offence. It is not linked to crime in general. It is linked to a specific crime and a specific offender.”
“How does a judge decide how much of an emergency room's budget is related to or how many doses of naloxone were used because of one particular dealer's drugs? The bill tries to help by listing examples of eligible costs, but that would not solve the problem. The issue is not defining what the costs are; it is proving that those costs were caused by a specific offence committed by a specific offender. That comes at the sentencing phase, which could be years after the arrest. (1200) Pulling that evidence together means a mountain of paperwork that would eat at the valuable time of frontline workers and ultimately hurt the very communities the bill seeks to help. It also means more time in court.”
“The idea is that we should not make one person pay for another person's crime, or make one person, no matter how bad we might think they are, pay for something the organization would still have had to pay for if the crime had not been committed. Restitution works really well for direct victims, but by casting this broadly, the problems would mount until they become insurmountable. Take a shelter that helps victims of trafficking. It has rent, utilities, salaries, security costs, food costs and counselling costs. How do we tie those costs to a single trafficker's actions? What percentage is this one responsible for, as opposed to that one? Think about a hospital that treats overdose victims.”
“In the case of a broken window or theft of property, the costs could be the expenses of the local neighbourhood watch and community associations or the costs to the municipality of increased police patrols in that neighbourhood. In the case of drug trafficking, the costs could include the increased costs of medical care, harm reduction supplies, security equipment, counselling for staff and so on. I genuinely appreciate and support these goals, but causation is a problem. If a community organization wants to recover its costs from an offender, causation requires it to link those specific costs to the specific offender by showing that, but for the offender's crime, the organization would not have had that cost.”
“Our hospitals, our shelters, our police, our paramedics and our families are all left to deal with the aftermath, and this aftermath is one we see and deal with every day in Nanaimo—Ladysmith. Under the current law, judges can already order restitution when losses are clear and can be easily proven. For example, if someone breaks a window or steals property and the offender is caught, the loss can be connected to the offender, the cost can be easily quantified and the offender can be ordered to pay it back to the victim. What Bill C-238 would do is cast a wider net, allowing community organizations and others to claim their costs, reflecting the real costs to society of those crimes. That is what it would do in theory.”
“I am certain that the intent behind this bill is to recognize that reality and help these organizations be better funded as a result, but good intentions do not always make good law. While what this bill seeks to create sounds wonderful in theory, as a former litigator and adjudicator, I can tell members that, in practice, all this law would deliver is more legal complexity, higher costs, more parties with standing to intervene in cases and, ultimately, longer delays in a criminal justice system that is already stretched well beyond its limits. I truly appreciate that this bill recognizes that the costs of crime do not stop with the direct victim. When traffickers exploit vulnerable people or drug dealers poison our streets with fentanyl, we all suffer.”
“Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-238 . This bill would amend section 738 of the Criminal Code so that courts could make offenders pay back community organizations, like shelters, emergency services and victim support groups, that have faced rising costs because of human trafficking and serious drug offences under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. This is a worthy idea, and I applaud the member for grappling with it. These organizations deal with the damage caused by crime every single day. They are the ones that respond to overdoses, find safe beds for victims and support survivors through trauma in my community and across Canada. When crime rises, their workload rises and costs go up.”
“Mr. Speaker, Conservatives worked hard to repeal Liberal bail. We introduced legislation weeks ago. Unfortunately, the Liberals refuses to work with us. They refused to propose amendments, and ultimately, they defeated our bill because it was put forward by us, not them. Now the Liberals have introduced their own bill and are calling for co-operation. I want to be clear that we will work with anyone and everyone to protect Canadians, but there have been several victims of crimes perpetuated by people out on bail in the interim. Will the member admit that Liberal bail was a failure and apologize to those victims? Will he admit that the Liberals played politics with Canadians' safety?”
“Mr. Speaker, the member should tell that to the 700,000 kids lined up at food banks. How much more do they have to sacrifice for Liberal insiders? Canadians need a government that puts ordinary families first. While Canadians are sacrificing, the Prime Minister is handing out $700,000 salaries to his high-flying buddies like Halloween candy. When will the Prime Minister stop using taxpayer dollars to line his friends' pockets and finally give Canadians an affordable budget for an affordable life?”
“Mr. Speaker, after 10 years of the Liberal government, Liberal elites and insiders have never had it so good. The Prime Minister told Canadians they need to sacrifice. He promised he would spend less, but instead he spends more. The latest example is that the head of the Prime Minister's new defence investment agency, who has never served, will draw a $700,000 salary. Meanwhile, rent has doubled, food banks are breaking records and seniors are living in their cars. How much more do young Canadians have to sacrifice so that the Prime Minister can hire his buddies?”
“Mr. Speaker, I have two teenagers, so when it comes to young people and their future, it is on my mind as a parent, as it is on the minds of parents in our communities. The current generation of youth is working so hard and facing so many obstacles. If we want to keep them out of gangs and out of trouble, we have to provide them with opportunity. That is one of the things that drives me.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a good reminder that I have naloxone in my truck, in my car and in my house. We have it in our community offices. It is ubiquitous in our lives. When it comes to the CBSA officers whom the government has promised more times than I can count, not only has it not hired those officers but there is also no money in the main estimates or the supplementary estimates (A) for those CBSA officers, and the departmental plans for the next three years show cutting both dollars and positions. I have no idea where the buck stops, but something needs to change.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member opposite talks about the Liberal Party's receiving more votes in the last election than it has ever received before. Well, the Conservatives also received more votes in the election than we have ever received before. When it comes to transformational change, the Prime Minister will make that change for his buddies, but there is no minister of mental health and addictions in the government, and people in my riding are dying because of it.”
“He talks a good game about collaboration, but he does not collaborate. He talks about transformational change, but he is not even having the conversations that would allow him to make it. Bill C-12 is proof of that. The Conservatives forced the Liberals to back down from the worst parts of Bill C-2 , and we will continue to hold them to account on Bill C-12 , because Canadians do not want more photo-ops, press releases or the seventh announcement of the 1,000 border officers the CBSA has never heard of and has not been given actual instructions to hire. They want real change. They want safe streets, healthy communities and a government that values their lives more than it fear losing an election. Grandmothers want to stop raising their grandchildren. Addicts want hope, and communities want to stop living in fear.”
“We need treatment spaces, recovery centres, sober-living houses and long-term maintenance programs. We need real treatment and recovery options so people can come home to their families, clean and healthy, and we needed it a decade ago. The Prime Minister started his tenure in the House with lofty comments about Athens and Rome, but now he seems content to fiddle while Nanaimo burns. The Prime Minister is absolutely right. We need transformative change, but he is unwilling to deliver it. I challenge the Prime Minister to come down from his ivory tower and engage with us in Nanaimo. I know he comes to my riding. He has family there, but I challenge him to spend less time jogging around beautiful Westwood Lake and more time talking with the people who deal with the addictions crisis on the front lines on our streets.”
“For those following Nanaimo's news, $442,000 is barely enough to build a fence around city hall. It is nowhere near enough to meet the need in a community that has been devastated by the addictions crisis. In Nanaimo, we need the government to spend less and invest more. We need hundreds of millions of dollars in investment for real solutions, not a few thousand dollars of spending for a press release. If someone gets diagnosed with cancer, they get a full continuum of care: a diagnosis, a prognosis, surgery, chemo, radiation and follow-up for life. If someone gets diagnosed with addiction, they get Narcan. They might get patched up, if they are lucky, and then they get dropped off on the curb. This is not a system of care; it is abandonment. We need triage beds. We need detox beds.”
“Productivity in Canada is down, and we have a massive wage gap with the United States, except for criminals. Organized crime has set up an innovation sandbox in Canada that boggles the mind. The criminals know how to use AI, how to improve efficiencies and how to find synergies, and they are eating the government's lunch. Why? It is because the Liberal government, for all the Prime Minister 's rhetoric, only seems willing to tinker around the margins with tiny pilot projects and token funding announcements. Yesterday, we had another one of these, with the Liberals proudly announcing $4.3 million in funding, including $442,000 and change for the city of Nanaimo, to address these issues. I will take their money, but I will vote with my conscience.”
“Superlabs in Canada are now producing massive amounts of fentanyl. These are not small operations pressing pills in basements. These are industrial labs producing drugs on a massive scale. (1235) In a country of 41 million people, it is simply disingenuous to argue that with the multiple drug busts in the 96 million dose range, these drugs are meant for domestic consumption. We have to face the reality that drugs are being produced in Canada for both domestic consumption and export. Bust after bust is described as the largest, most sophisticated illicit drug lab in the country. Police seize kilograms of fentanyl; kilograms of meth; illegal unregistered firearms, many of them loaded; silencers; explosives; and millions of dollars in cash. This is what we are up against.”
“She would not rule out approving more of these sites, even after acknowledging that they are now repositories for rampant fentanyl usage. Last night, the Prime Minister looked Canadians in the eye and spoke yet again of the need for transformational change. He spoke of a rupture, of sacrifice, of responsible choice and of generational investments. Well, the addictions crisis is still in full bloom in Nanaimo, and the numbers are still staggering across Canada. There were more than 50,000 deaths in the last decade. There are more victims of the addictions crisis than there were Canadian deaths in the Second World War. Some 79% of accidental opioid deaths in 2024 involved fentanyl, up 40% since the Liberal government came into power. The number of emergency department visits linked to fentanyl has more than doubled since 2018.”
“Criminals who traffic in fentanyl and firearms will continue to use our porous border to victimize Canadians, and they will continue to walk free soon after being arrested. I will give the government credit where it is due. Bill C-12 is way better than Bill C-2 , but let us be honest. These measures fall far short of what Canadians deserve. The Liberals continue to permit drug consumption sites near schools and day cares. Last week, I had a call from a constituent about a proposed wet housing site that would back onto a kindergarten in my riding. At the health committee, my Conservative colleagues called on the government to shut down fentanyl consumption sites near the places where kids learn and play. The Minister of Health refused to do so.”
“It would not do what British Columbians need it to do, and it would not do what grandmothers across the country who are raising their grandchildren because of fentanyl need it to do. It would not actually secure our borders. It would not actually treat those in our communities who are in the thrall of fentanyl. It would not actually bring safety back to our communities. While the bill would fill a loophole by banning precursor chemicals used to make fentanyl, it fails to address the sentencing of those who traffic in it. There are still no mandatory prison sentences for fentanyl dealers. There are still no serious penalties for those who profit from destroying our lives and our communities. Bill C-12 would make some incremental improvements, but they are beyond insufficient.”
“We are prepared to do our job once again with Bill C-12 as the country's loyal official opposition. The Conservatives will examine every clause and every line of the bill to make sure the Liberals do not erode Canadians' rights. After listening to the Prime Minister speak on television last night, on television instead of in the House, in front of an audience that even the Toronto Star described as being made up mostly of Liberal staffers, where he does not have to answer our questions and where he does not have to debate, I realized something else about Bill C-12 : It might be better, but it would not do what the people of Nanaimo—Ladysmith so desperately need it to do.”
“Mr. Speaker, when I heard about Bill C-12 , I was hopeful. I was hopeful because I believed that the Liberals had listened to what both Canadians and Conservatives have been saying about Bill C-2 . On the surface, it looked like there was some reason to hope. Bill C-12 is a repackaged and less offensive version of Bill C-2. It does remove the most egregious of the sweeping new powers that the government sought to grant itself and other government agencies. It no longer proposes to restrict Canadians' use of cash, and it no longer proposes to allow Canada Post to open Canadians' letters. The Conservatives in the House gave voice to Canadians in speech after speech and forced the government to back down from a bill that would have violated Canadians' individual freedoms and privacy.”
“We will watch closely to ensure that this commitment becomes reality. We will also continue to push the government to spend less abroad and more at home during these challenging times, but for now, Motion No. 14 represents a tentative step in the right direction. With the government, I will take it and hope to build on it.”
“Stakeholders in the international development sector understand this. They know that success depends not on the number of announcements made, but on the real difference that programs make in people's lives. From my vantage point, the government makes too many announcements with promises that it does not fulfill. I hope this motion will be different and that it will inspire similar measures across government. This motion does not require new money; it requires a new mindset. lt calls for results, accountability and mutual benefit. lt recognizes that Canada is strongest when we pair compassion with competence, leadership with integrity, and generosity with accountability. Conservatives will support this motion because it sets a standard the government should already have been meeting.”
“When Canadians see tangible results, they are proud to give. Under Conservative governments, accountability and effectiveness were not just words; they were principles. Our more limited assistance abroad will show that disciplined, focused aid saves lives and builds global credibility. That same discipline is sorely needed today. lnstead of sprawling programs that lack oversight, we need targeted initiatives with clear objectives and measurable outcomes. Compassion must be matched with competence. As Conservatives, we will continue to scrutinize every dollar the government spends. Canadians are facing record costs, higher taxes and a deepening affordability crisis. They deserve to know that their contributions are used wisely and that their generosity is respected, because generosity must always come with responsibility.”
“lt should focus on clear priorities: Canadian innovation that leads the world; agriculture and agri-tech, where our farmers and researchers have proven expertise; digital technology, which expands access to education and opportunity wherever it finds itself; and skills training, which helps young people abroad build a future for themselves. Each of these concepts connects compassion abroad with economic security and development here at home. The motion also calls for the Minister for International Development to report annually to Parliament. That requirement is essential. Accountability turns spending into trust. When Canadians can see how their tax dollars are used to benefit both Canada and the world and see real results, their confidence grows. Transparency is not an obstacle to compassion; it strengthens it.”
“The motion also proposes a dedicated economic partnerships window “to support projects that align poverty reduction abroad with economic security at home, and that utilize Canadian economic strengths such as clean energy, agriculture, digital technology, and education”. (1815) Right now, those are just words on a page, but I can see how they represent an idea worth exploring, so long as this concept does not lead to yet another layer of Liberal bureaucracy, where yet another friend of the Prime Minister ends up with yet another a $600,000 salary. The goal should be efficiency, not expansion, and if the minister would like help in developing this concept in a lean and efficient way, my door will always be open to him. The new window should be funded within the existing envelope, not on the backs of taxpayers.”
“They want to know that those tax dollars are saving lives, strengthening economies and building stability both abroad and at home, not disappearing into bureaucracy or ideology. The motion's requirement for new policies to create opportunities for reciprocal economic benefit should allow Canadian expertise and innovation to play a greater role in delivering development goals. When Canadian farmers share their knowledge to improve food security or when educators bring digital learning tools to developing nations in ways that benefit both partners, that is a step in the right direction because teaching and contributing has benefits that we can enjoy back at home. That is how international development should work: projects that lift people out of poverty while also supporting Canadian jobs and Canadian innovation.”
“When he talks about tightening belts, this is one of the places he should begin. In recent years, Canada's international development programming has become increasingly disconnected from its results. The Auditor General found that Global Affairs was not effectively monitoring its funded projects and, in some cases, did not even have a clear idea of what it wanted to achieve. Too many projects have been overly generous, overly ideological and light on accountability. There have even been reports of funds being misused or diverted to organizations that are sympathetic to terrorism, and I find this to be totally unacceptable. What this motion offers is a partial but constructive path forward. Canadians want to know that their tax dollars are making a real difference.”
“I rise today to support it, while offering some constructive suggestions on how we can work across the aisle to restore accountability, results and value for money in Canada's international development work. Canada currently spends about $8.4 billion a year on foreign aid. Of that, roughly $5.5 billion flows through Global Affairs Canada's grants and contributions programs. Earlier this year, the department promised that 86% of that spending would finally be subject to more rigorous checks. I cannot help but ask what happened to the other 14% and the remaining $2.9 billion. I urge the government and the minister to work toward ensuring that every penny of Canada's foreign aid is properly audited and accounted for. The Prime Minister has ordered all departments to rein in spending.”
“Importantly, the focus of this motion is not on the big companies that often benefit from government largesse, but on the workers, innovators, and small and medium-sized businesses that have long been a priority for Conservatives. All of this is a good start. At a time when so many Canadians are struggling to pay their mortgages, put food on the table and pay their bills, I would have liked to see the government go further. I would have liked a commitment to redirect a portion of the roughly $8.4 billion we spend on foreign aid to be used back home to reduce the deficit and help Canadians with their bills. However, as I said at the outset, this motion is a good start, a welcomed move in the right direction.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to join the debate on Motion No. 14, and I begin by thanking the member for York South—Weston—Etobicoke for bringing it forward. It appears that the minister has been listening to those of us on this side of the House, because the motion speaks to three things. First, it speaks about strengthening the accountability and effectiveness of Canada's international development assistance. Second, it speaks about making sure that our international development efforts bring reciprocal economic benefit to Canada. Third, it speaks about making the minister more accountable to this House by requiring an annual report to Parliament not only on the benefits received by other countries, but also on the economic opportunities created for Canadians.”
“I will be watching this next federal budget closely, and I will be following up with the government to make sure Loaves and Fishes gets every penny.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Loaves and Fishes Community Food Bank, based in Nanaimo, feeds more than 15,000 families up and down the island who cannot afford to keep up with rising grocery prices. They have done everything right, but they are still waiting for the $5 million in federal funding they were promised by the Liberal government. The Prime Minister said he would be judged by the prices Canadians pay at the grocery store, and Canadians are paying the price. Food inflation is double what it should be and beyond what we can afford. Liberal deficits are driving inflation every step of the way. Hidden Liberal taxes on fuel, packaging and production are baked into every grocery bill. Canadians do not see them on their receipts, but they feel them every time they buy food.”
“Mr. Speaker, why did the government choose not to place the new commissioner under the independent oversight of the Office of the Auditor General, where accountability and transparency are already well established? This would give first nations, Métis and Inuit partners greater confidence in the commissioner's impartiality.”
“Mr. Speaker, I especially appreciate the emphasis my colleague has put on Conservative support for the reconciliation process with first nations, Métis and Inuit communities, and also the emphasis he put on the expense of creating another costly bureaucracy when families are struggling so hard to make ends meet. The Auditor General's office is an independent institution that audits federal government operations to ensure accountability, transparency and the effective use of public funds. The proposed commissioner appears to do the same thing, without the concern of effective use of public funds. Can the hon. member elaborate on the duplication?”
“Mr. Speaker, the problem is not as much with the courts as it is with the speed of justice that the government feels they need to pursue. When it comes to the issue of Liberal bail, they Liberals say they have been waiting for that, they are waiting for this, they are waiting for a trade deal. They are waiting and waiting. Canadians are tired of waiting for the Liberals. They use lots of nice words, but it is time to act and it is time to move forward on so many files, including this one.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question. I think he has raised a point that really needs to be addressed. We have gotten to a point on this file where the trust is so low that we need to move these kinds of offences into the criminal justice system. I really cannot help but wonder what would have happened if the Liberal government had acted faster during the 10 years it had to do this. I wonder if we could have gotten to a point where members of our armed forces had an opportunity to work this out internally and were able to build that trust. We cannot go back. We can only move forward, and for as long as this has taken, we hope the government will take our advice and continue to work on this bill.”
“Mr. Speaker, this bill is about the prosecution of serious criminal offences around sexual misconduct. The government has had 10 years and six months to bring this forward. We need to get it right and we need to work together to do that.”