Kevin Lamoureux
Winnipeg North, Manitoba · Liberal · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, when we take a look at this particular legislation, or any other piece of legislation or budgetary measures that the government has brought in since the last election, when Canadians elected a new Prime Minister and a new government, we will find that listening to Canadians is the top priority.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want the member to recognize the degree to which the Conservative Party always wants to talk down the economy. It brings me to yesterday, when we found out that the Prime Minister went to the G7 and that 13 new deals were signed off, with countries such as Japan, Italy, Denmark, France, Germany, Netherlands and Portugal, fi…”
“Mr. Speaker, since the last election, just over a year ago, when Canadians voted for our current Prime Minister and a new government, we have been listening to the people of Canada. Members will see that listening in every aspect of our legislative agenda and our budgetary measures.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on my friend's comment that we live in the real world. The real world is looking pretty good in terms of where Canada has been since the last federal election. We have a Prime Minister who has been out and about, attracting literally billions of dollars in commitments of investment.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciated to a certain degree the member's comments when he made reference to the issue of the process. However, I would ask him to realize that, over the years, things have changed considerably. We saw time allocation used during Stephen Harper's government a record number of times.”
“Mr. Speaker, today I am tabling a petition from a number of individuals. Actually, over 1,000 people have signed the petition. The petitioners are looking for a sense, from both the provincial Government of Manitoba and Ottawa, of working together to try to come up with a solution to deal with Manitoba's unique situation related to our wo…”
The complete record
Every one of 3,647 lines we hold for Kevin Lamoureux, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 20 of 73.
“It is important to recognize that public policy has always enabled individuals interested in putting their name forward, getting material out, knocking on doors and meeting with the voters. This is something we want to and will protect. Let there be no doubt about that. However, one thing we have experienced is a long list of names being submitted in order to prove a political point, to a certain degree. As a result, it has brought a great deal of confusion to the process. What we are suggesting in this legislation is that two specific actions be taken. The first action is to say that voters will now be able to sign only one nomination form for a candidate, and each candidate in the riding will need a unique official agent.”
“Having said that, I mention it in part because I understand the many dynamics of an election and what occurs during an election. One thing that is nice about this legislation is that it does not just deal with the election period. There are all sorts of activities that take place year-round that we need to at least be aware of. Bill C-25 , which is before us today, deals with a number of issues. I know some have more of a public interest, if I can put it that way, for example the issue of counting unduly long ballots. That has been an issue in by-elections and in the last couple of general elections, and justifiably so. We do not want to do anything to discourage candidates who, generally speaking, want to represent a constituency. I ran against many of them over the years.”
“For five provincial elections, I represented the wonderful constituency of Inkster, and for six federal elections, I have represented Winnipeg North. I have been a candidate more than a dozen times. Obviously, not every election was successful, but I truly appreciate the efforts and support I received, whether it is from family, volunteers or, most importantly, the residents of Winnipeg North. That is why, in all circumstances, I like to believe that I put the residents of Winnipeg North first and foremost in making sure they are represented, whether it is in the city of Winnipeg or here in Ottawa. I want to give a special shout-out of appreciation and express my gratitude in being the member of Parliament for Winnipeg North.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to an important piece of legislation that I know Canadians, as a whole, what to see enacted for the upcoming election, whenever that might be. There are significant changes to reinforce Canada's democracy in a very positive way. One of the gravest mistakes we can make as parliamentarians is to take our democracy for granted. That is something this government will not do. We understand and appreciate the need for changing the Elections Act, ensuring the security and protection of our future elections, and even what takes place between elections. First, I approach this issue from a personal perspective of having been blessed by the residents of Winnipeg North in many ways.”
“I disagree with the member opposite when he talks about how the government has diminished it. We have invested. In Red River College alone, there are a number of projects with millions of dollars to enhance skill opportunities and work directly with apprenticeship programs and unions. Collectively, we can make a difference. We can build a stronger, healthier economy if we are prepared to work more collaboratively with provinces and other stakeholders and recognize the lead role that provinces in particular have to play, along with indigenous communities.”
“Jeff Zabudsky, the president of BCIT, had to say: Canada’s future prosperity is being shaped by large-scale priorities that rely heavily on a strong trades workforce. Whether it be building affordable and climate-resilient housing or infrastructure to strengthen national security, these national priorities all require a job-ready and adaptable trades workforce. For decades, [BCIT along with other colleges and polytechnics across Canada] have powered this progress—producing job-ready graduates and bridging academia, industry and government. When we work together, we don’t just respond to change, we drive it. This is coming from one of Canada's premier institutions, and that is why I say it is more than just one level of government. We have stakeholders who have a lot to contribute to the potential of having a national framework.”
“It would provide direct action. It does not just say, “Okay, we want the framework a year from now, and then everything sets and that is it.” There would be reporting back to Parliament to ensure that we are making some progress on the issue. There would be an opportunity for review. These are the types of built-in measures from within, and based on the comments from the member for Richmond East—Steveston , they are there so that we can feel assured over the coming years that in fact we are moving forward and that it is tracked in a very serious way. The member provided me with some quotes, and I was impressed. I know BCIT is a very important institution to my colleague. Here is what Dr.”
“There are post-secondary facilities, secondary facilities, the private sector for people who are working already, unions and apprenticeship programs. I can tell members that the amount of effort, energy and investment put into the system in one way or another is significant. However, I like the idea of some form of national framework being established to reinforce just how important it is that we look at the issue of mobility. We can look at the discussion we are already having. In good part, some premiers are advancing it more than others, recognizing, as we talk about building the one Canada economy, that our constituents do not say, “Well, this is provincial and this is federal.” They want politicians of different political stripes and different levels of government to act where we can, and that is what this legislation would do.”
“Let us work with the different jurisdictions, whether it is the territories, provinces or indigenous communities, and see where we could actually help real people who have acquired skill sets that provide them the type of income they require to meet their personal needs or their family's needs. (1810) What I liked in the member's comments is that he made reference to having a national framework, and there is a time set for it. If we give this thing royal assent and the clock starts ticking, we will get something tangible back, and there is an obligation to collaborate and work with provinces. Obviously, the provinces have to play a critical role. Years ago, I was the education critic in the province of Manitoba.”
“Some jurisdictions or provinces, especially when we factor in indigenous communities as this legislation does, recognize the value of enabling some sort of a national framework. We are probably talking about 300‑plus positions, employing millions of Canadians. Affording an opportunity through the establishment of a national framework would not have to take anything away from provinces. This is not about federal overreach. I would classify this as an opportunity to show that, as a national government, we can work collaboratively with provinces. A minister responsible for labour can look at the legislation, and if there is a need for some changes, then let us make the changes. However, the principle of the legislation is good. Let us see the list.”
“Obviously the member is listening his constituents, because this is a reflection of what we heard in virtually every region of our nation, recognizing that Canada can do so much more if we invest in Canadians. The advice of some is that this is provincial jurisdiction and the federal government does not have a role to play. I disagree with that wholeheartedly. I was a representative in the Manitoba legislature for almost 20 years, back in the late eighties, the nineties and at the turn of the century, and credentials and recognizing skill sets were of the utmost importance. That was back then. That is taken out of the context of where we find ourselves today. Individuals acquire skill sets in one jurisdiction.”
“Some provinces do a better job of recognizing skills than other provinces. In many ways, Quebec leads the way. I do not question that. However, what is being proposed here does not take away from Quebec at all. This is something we should be looking at in a very serious way. In fact, if we go back to the last federal election, we will find that Canadians were genuinely concerned with the three Ts: Trump, tariffs and trade. They were very concerned. The Prime Minister and candidates talked about how we could build one economy. Before us today, we have an actual piece of legislation that adds to the value of building one Canadian economy.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to private member's bill, Bill C-266 , brought forward by the member for Richmond East—Steveston . It is quite encouraging to see a member of Parliament recognize an issue that has been around for many years. I am not too sure which individuals he consulted in regard to bringing this bill forward. I have been looking at this particular issue for a number of years. The whole idea of labour mobility, recognizing skills and so forth, is the right thing to do, especially at this time. I thank the member for bringing forward such wonderful legislation. I am not sure what the Conservatives are going to do. I think they will be somewhat grudgingly supportive of it. I am a little disappointed in the Bloc. Quebec does a lot of wonderful things.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is not about power at all costs. It is, as the Prime Minister has indicated, about delivering for Canadians, building Canada strong for all. That is what we are advocating for. The principle and parliamentary tradition are very clear. Even our Standing Orders state that when a party has a majority of seats in the House, it has a majority of seats in our standing committees. Does the member believe that the opposition can work collaboratively with the government on trying to pass important legislation and on other matters?”
“Mr. Speaker, let us take a look at some of the comments. We have the principle of a majority government, which should also apply to the standing committees, and that is within our rules, and we have the Conservative and Bloc members saying no. A compromise, to the Bloc and the Conservatives, is to say the Liberals cannot have a majority on committees. Is there another suggestion the member would like to make?”
“Mr. Speaker, I think it might be more of a reflection of how the member opposite handles himself in a standing committee. If the member genuinely believes that all standing committees are dysfunctional, I would invite him to attend different standing committee meetings. I have been in committees when there have been majorities, and it does change the optics; I will give him that much. However, I will also suggest to the member that there is a higher sense of co-operation, which I have witnessed first-hand. Giving a false impression does a disservice to the parliamentary process. Let us remember, we have had majority governments throughout the years here in Canada, and typically, they work relatively well. Why would we not allow that to continue?”
“Mr. Speaker, in the last federal election, Canadians gave a very clear indication that they want to see more collaboration, and we are going to see that collaboration. Since the last federal election, the Government of Canada has done what it can to advance a legislative agenda that truly reflects what we heard from the electors on platform issues in that election. I have had to stand in this very place and shame Conservatives into allowing some of those issues to get through second reading and to the committee stage. I am very aware of the games that take place. The member is not going to fool me on that issue. We have an opportunity, through the mandate that was given to us, to continue to work for Canadians and materialize in a very real and tangible way—”
“Mr. Speaker, I truly appreciate the question. I think that is the core of it for me, personally. We have had discussions related to lawful access virtually since last June. It was a priority for the Prime Minister . It deals with things like child sexual exploitation, severe repeat crimes and organized crime. It deals with issues like extortion, public safety and terrorism. There is absolutely no reason we could not have had that healthy discussion in committees and seen the legislation passed out of committee, even in some sort of an amended form, but that was not possible because the Conservatives refused to allow it to proceed.”
“Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate the member's question, I do not necessarily agree with his overall assessment. If members look at the legislative agenda of the government, there is a very limited amount of time for debate under government business. There is no programming in place. Over the last 15-plus years, there may have been an argument to start talking about programming. I would like to see changes to the Standing Orders. I would be happy to work with members of the Bloc and others, in a co-operative way, to look at ways in which we can improve upon the system. What we have been afforded, I think, is a good opportunity today to reset the dial and, hopefully, to see more people working to build a stronger Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, I do not have a problem with saying my desire is to be collaborative. I want to be able to see the advancement of good, sound public policy. Two examples come to mind right offhand. The first is Bill C-14 , the bail reform legislation. There was absolutely no reason whatsoever that we could not have passed that legislation at the end of last year. There was absolutely no reason. The reason, ultimately, I would argue, was that the opposition would not let us do so. A second example is lawful access. I have often heard opposition talk about the issue of extortion, yet we have the lawful access bill before us. There is absolutely no reason that lawful access legislation could not have been amended in some form, again, long ago.”
“The motion we are debating today does not take away the rights of members of Parliament. It reinforces our heritage and parliamentary history within the Commonwealth. I would like to think that there is an opportunity for everyone to see the value of legislation from a government perspective, at the very least, such as the suite of crime bills we have, which is such a high priority for Canadians, and we will be able to deliver on those.”
“I would like to think that parliamentary committees, and I have argued this in the past, can be the backbone of Parliament Hill and the work that many members do. The opposition House leader talked at length about them with respect to the importance of things like legislation, financial matters, policy-related issues and the opportunity to understand and appreciate those issues that are critically important to Canadians. It is a wonderful opportunity. Personally, I want to look at what is good, sound public policy, as I know every member of the Liberal Party wants to do, and take the actions necessary to support that, whether it is a budgetary measure, of a legislative nature or anything else. Canadians want us to work more co-operatively. Let us collaborate where we can.”
“Because we have a majority situation, we are now in a better position to be able to pass it, as opposed to compromising on it, because we are listening to the victims. If we look at why it is important, historically, for Parliaments to have a majority, that is one of the reasons. It is not that we are disregarding opposition ideas and amendments. I would compare amendments we have accepted from opposition in a minority situation. I am not talking about Bill C‑11 , so members should not get too excited. I am not talking about Conservative and Bloc amendments, only those in a minority situation. If an amendment adds strength and value to the legislation, by all means it should be brought forward.”
“We have the debate today in the chamber, and they have made it very clear they do not support a change to the civil justice system. Both the Bloc and the Conservative Party have made it very clear. Here is a flashback to two years ago, when the veterans affairs committee was meeting. Representatives from the Bloc and the Conservative Party sat on that committee and actually came up with a recommendation on the very issue that Bill C‑11 deals with. It said to transfer the jurisdiction for investigating sexual misconduct, and prosecuting its perpetrators, to civilian authorities. Today, the opposition has changed its opinion, but the government still believes in the inquiry that was done and the 40‑some recommendations, of which I think close to three dozen have been implemented. The key one is this legislation.”
“If someone wants to google Justice Arbour, they will see she has an incredible background in dealing with sexual harassment and all forms of sexual offences. She sat on the Supreme Court and was recognized worldwide, to a certain degree, on issues dealing with human rights. She did a report for the House of Commons after working with and meeting with people publicly, and off the record, no doubt, talking to thousands of individuals. In that report, her recommendation was that we, as a Parliament, establish the changeover from a military justice system to a civil justice system when it came to sexual assaults. (1655) The Conservatives and the Bloc members united as one and told us what they wanted to see, and it goes against what the government believes is important with respect to listening to what Justice Arbour had to say.”
“The Prime Minister made the decision early on that we were going to invest in our Canadian Forces. We have already committed 2% of the GDP to this. We had 7,000 people apply to be members of the Canadian Forces in the last fiscal year. This is not to mention the drive to build an industrial military regime that complements Canada's security. Part of dealing with the military issue is addressed in Bill C-11 . It is why we have brought it forward. What would Bill C-11 do and why is it important to recognize this? It is because, when Bill C-11 went to committee, the opposition made substantial changes to the legislation. Before Bill C-11 went to committee, things were clear. There was the Justice Arbour report.”
“Even in a majority situation, we have accepted amendments. Obviously, we have had amendments in minority situations in a standing committee. It is not the party that dictates whether the idea is ultimately going to pass. As the opposition party would say, it should be the majority of the House of Commons, which now passes on to the standing committees. If it makes sense to bring forward an amendment, and the majority feels that is the way to go, then it will pass. I want to give a specific example. The reason I want to use this example is that we were talking about it earlier today, and it is with regard to Bill C-11 . The government has been working on trying to get sexual assaults out of the military court system and into the civil justice system for a number of years.”
“(1650) I can assure members that, whether there is a minority or a majority in the chamber or elsewhere, we are still going to see political tactics such as the official opposition standing up to move for someone to speak, which would then cause the bells to ring. I believe we are still going to see members opposite stand up to attempt to move adjournment for the day. There are all sorts of tools. The only change we would see from today would be to recognize our parliamentary heritage and tradition. That is the only thing that would be affected today. I hope it would ultimately lead to more opportunities to build on relationships between parliamentarians. I have personally found that we often get relationships that develop in a different way in majority situations at standing committees.”
“Opposition days provide the official opposition and other political parties the opportunity to bring forward opposition motions on the issues of the day. Now, I disagreed with a lot of the issues, as there were a lot of more relevant issues that they might have brought forward, but that is my opinion. I respect the fact that they often have an opinion that is different from mine. At the end of the day, we are not looking to ban concurrence of reports with this motion. I am anticipating that we are going to see concurrence of reports. Whether it is a majority in the committee, a majority in the House, or a minority, that is not going to change. I might prefer to see that debate occur the odd time outside of Government Orders so that we can have more debate on government bills, but again, that is a personal preference.”
“I was a part of the House leadership team, and we ensured that it happened. We can go back to when it was being discussed, the discussions that were taking place and the concerns, whether it was in the province of Quebec or Manitoba. I am passionate about supply management. I was glad to see the motion. The Prime Minister did not say, “Well, it's a Bloc initiative. We don't want anything to do with it.” At the end of the day, we were able to come together, in a collaborative way, and get the legislation passed, but that is somewhat rare. I hope we will see more collaboration in the future. The motion before us would not take away any of the fundamental rights that any opposition party has been using for the last 15-plus years I have been here. There would be no effect on things like opposition days.”
“I believe the record would show that I made reference to the need for time allocation as a legislative tool to ensure that legislation was able to pass, but it does not mean that we are going to have a default position, which Stephen Harper had with Peter MacKay. While I sat in my chair, he would bring in a bill, open up his desk and read the closure or time allocation motions with absolutely no discussion or debate, and that happened well over a hundred times. The Prime Minister and the government have been very clear. We want to be able to produce in a very real and tangible way for Canadians, and we will work co-operatively with opposition when the collaboration is there to do so. The previous speaker, the member from the Bloc, made reference to the supply management issue. I remember the discussion.”
“I think the Conservatives are trying to diminish the principal argument that I am putting forward, which is that parliamentary tradition and the history of our nation, in fact the Commonwealth, is very clear that a majority of seats in the House dictates a majority of seats in our standing committees. That is exactly what this motion is proposing. As I indicated, while in opposition and in government in the House of Commons, and I remember standing up when we were the third party, I would talk about the frustrations of a filibuster from opposition because of issues such as concurrence back then.”
“We will find that the response Canadians gave the Prime Minister and the government was very encouraging. We won all three of the by-elections. At the end of the day, it put us into the position of having a majority government. I can recall the Conservatives make reference to individuals who, for reasons I would suggest are reasons of building a stronger and healthier nation and wanting to be part of a government that is aggressively taking a team Canada approach in dealing with the important issues our nation is having to face today, made a decision to be part of the government caucus. (1645) It used to be the absolute opposite. Stephen Harper, and even other Conservative leaders post-Stephen Harper, did not have a problem with individuals walking over to their political party.”
“It was interesting listening to a couple of the questions that were posed to the Conservative members when they were asked whether, if at some point in time in the future the Conservative Party across the way or some newly branded Conservative Party was to be in a majority government, it would surrender a majority on the standing committees. We will notice that, on both occasions, they did not even answer the question, because that has been an absolute given. Then, if we take a look at it, I believe Canadians did get an opportunity to speak. Prior to the by-election night, when we had three by-elections, we did not have a majority. We had 171 seats. In order to have a majority in the House of Commons, we needed 172. Had we not won those by-election seats, we would not have a majority today.”
“In the history of our nation, every time there has been a majority government, there has been a majority on our committees. We have not heard the representative from the Bloc or the two members from the Conservatives, one of whom is a former Speaker of the House, provide an example where there was a majority government, a majority in the chamber and a minority in the standing committees. I would pose the question as I did to my friend from the Bloc: Do they support the parliamentary tradition and principle that recognizes that, if a party has a majority of seats in the House, it should continue to have a majority of the seats in the standing committees?”
“I hope to give a couple of good, tangible examples that would maybe assist people who might be following the debate or the discussion in having an understanding, at least from my perspective, as to why it is so important that we continue to move forward with this motion, which has been presented by the government House leader , and in fact, why every member should ultimately be in support of it. I do not say that lightly, because I suspect there will be many MPs on both sides of the House who would say that they are parliamentarians first and foremost, and that they are very passionate about the country we represent here in the House of Commons and the constituents we are here for. If we believe in those two issues, or those two agenda items I just put forward, let me expand on it a bit.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and maybe add some value to the discussion we are having this afternoon on a very important motion. I advise members opposite to not necessarily be too fearful from the perspective of being in opposition. In my political career, I have actually spent more time on the opposition benches. I understand the important role members of the opposition play when it comes to debates, motions and all the things that take place, whether it is in a provincial legislature or here in the country's national Parliament. I understand the value of the tools that are provided.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member can speak to the principle of parliamentary tradition throughout the years where, when there is a majority in the House, there has consistently been a majority on the standing committees. That is what we have seen historically. There is a valid argument for the reason that takes place. Does the member support that principle and would he not agree it would be universally applied, whether it is at the federal or provincial level?”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe the member said we had a known prime minister who was a groper. It is highly inappropriate and definitely unparliamentary to make assertions of that nature, and I would ask that you have the member either apologize or retract the comment, at the very least.”
“Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate that the member is trying to appeal to all members in the strongest way he can. However, the reality is that the government is listening to survivors. The government's actions reinforce reports that have been brought forward. We can talk about the Justice Arbour report. He seemed to be offended that it is the report we reference. In June 2024, the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, which has representation from the Bloc, the Conservatives and the Liberals, recommended the same thing. I would appeal to the Conservatives to listen to all of the victims, like Justice Arbour did, both in confidence and out of confidence. She came up with the recommendation for a reason. Maybe the member could tell us why it is that Conservatives voted—”
“Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the member's comment that a sexual assault is a sexual assault. I think that does need to be reinforced. As parliamentarians, we have an obligation to seek the best advice possible. The Arbour report contained 48 recommendations, I believe, the vast majority of which have been implemented. The essence of its primary recommendation is in the bill, which is to convert from the military system to the civilian system. Given Justice Arbour's efforts, would the member not agree that we should be abiding by that recommendation, as the Conservatives did just two years ago?”
“Mr. Speaker, the legislation does have substance and it does meet the reality. What is absent is any sort of Conservative rationale for what the Conservatives are doing to the bill. Justice Arbour's recommendation five is the essence of the legislation. Justice Arbour worked with literally hundreds, going into thousands, of people, either directly or indirectly, with CAF to ensure that we had the right recommendation. Even the standing committee that the member was referencing earlier came up with another recommendation supporting it. I have never heard the Conservatives, prior to today, question Justice Arbour. Why has the Conservative Party flipped its position and is not listening—”
“Mr. Speaker, I fundamentally disagree with the member's assessment. I think that he undervalues the many discussions that Justice Arbour would have had with victims. We are not talking about a few dozen; we are talking about hundreds, directly, and indirectly through the Canadian Forces, we are talking about thousands. I believe that the Conservative Party has marginalized those victims. There is a reason Justice Arbour came forward with that recommendation. I cannot recall the Conservatives ever asking a question that contradicted the recommendation that Justice Arbour brought forward, and it has been there for four years. Has this member, or any Conservative, asked a question about that?”
“Mr. Speaker, Justice Arbour came up with a recommendation to transfer cases to the civilian process. A previous standing committee of the House put forward a report, which the member indicated that she voted for, that said to do exactly what this legislation purports to do Justice Arbour would have met with literally hundreds of victims. Combined, we are probably talking about well over 1,000 people, directly and indirectly. I believe she did her homework. Based on the expertise she brought to the table and the people she consulted with, she came up with that recommendation. Does the member believe Justice Arbour is wrong in her recommendation?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the Conservatives have really thought the amendments through. What they are doing is making the suggestion that we should have a dual system, one that provides a choice. Justice Arbour would no doubt have reviewed that particular option. She has done her homework in the consultations, in working with literally hundreds of victims and others, to come up with a recommendation that clearly states it should be a civilian system. My question for the Conservative Party, in particular this member, is this: Is Justice Arbour wrong in her recommendation?”
“Mr. Speaker, I believe Justice Arbour has done an excellent job in making a statement that is very simple and easy to understand. At the end of the day, I would ultimately argue that the effort and work that the Canadian Forces did, along with what Justice Arbour did, should be respected within the chamber, and we should be getting behind it.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member stood up on a point of order and interrupted another member. I would like to be able to finish my quote. I notice you are going to another speaker. I would like to be able to finish the quote.”
“Mr. Speaker, the nice thing about standing committees is that everything is recorded. We do not have to physically be there. There is a Hansard. Let me read a quote from a standing committee. This is a quote from Charlotte Duval-Lantoine: I want to underline what Madam Arbour said about recommendation five, which is that giving the choice to victims to choose the jurisdiction in which they find themselves puts them “in an untenable position.” If the case doesn't go their way, then they find themselves retraumatized and with the possible question, “Did I make the wrong choice here?””
“Mr. Speaker, I suggest not only that the member has an obligation to listen to what was said at the standing committee, as the standing committee dealt with the legislation, but that there is also an obligation to look at what has been taking place over the last few years, based on a recommendation by Justice Arbour with regard to this very issue. I can assure the member that she, as a justice, had access to and referenced far more members of the Canadian Forces than the member did. Quite frankly, I have more confidence in her recommendation than I do in his suggestion.”
“We have recognized that we need to build on our military and industrial infrastructure to support the CAF. Today, we have legislation to protect the interests of CAF members. We should be talking about how CAF membership contributes in so many ways to who we are as a nation. We should get behind the members, support them and support the legislation, as it has been suggested by the government.”