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 35 of 73.
“Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear. The Conservatives have not been supportive of getting legislation passed. I will give us the ideal example of Bill C-14 . The Prime Minister and 70 new Liberal members were elected. The government said that bail reform legislation was critically important. We did the consultations, and the provinces, law enforcement and other stakeholders brought forward the legislation. The Conservative Party of Canada is the reason it has never passed. It is as simple as that. We are now talking about Bill C-16 , which is, again, important crime legislation. The Conservatives are coming up with excuses as to why they do not want to see it pass. Will the member opposite agree that it is time for the Conservative Party to allow Canadians' crime agenda to pass?”
“Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear. I at one time asked if we could sit for a couple extra weeks until midnight, and the Conservatives said no. The Conservative Party of Canada is the reason we do not have bail reform or bail legislation today. Will the member apologize for misleading Canadians on that point?”
“Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, what we have witnessed from the Conservatives is their not responding to what Canadians are asking them to do, including Canadians in Conservative ridings. What we have witnessed over the last number of months is a Conservative Party that continues to want to filibuster. Interestingly enough, they finally say they are going to pass Bill C-14 , the bail reform legislation, which is a very important part of the government's agenda. We could have passed it in December. Fingers are crossed; hopefully they will pass it. Does the member not recognize this as an important part of the whole crime package? Canadians want it. Can he give his personal assurance that he would like the legislation to pass before the end of February?”
“Could he give his personal opinion and maybe even reflect on how the Conservative Party of Canada views the success of that particular mission by the premier?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to change the topic but still deal with the issue of trade. I have become very much interested in where the Conservative Party lies. The Prime Minister went to China, along with the Premier of Saskatchewan and others. There has been a fairly well-established irritant in some trade dealing with, for example, canola, which is so critically important to the prairie provinces. I suspect that is one of the reasons the Premier of Saskatchewan went. We were able to come up with some arrangements with China to deal with those irritants. I am very curious about this, given that the member is from the Prairies and, no doubt, very familiar with just how important it was to make those arrangements.”
“Mr. Speaker, I wanted to first provide a comment. It is important to note that the Bloc legislation that was being introduced was actually defeated by both the Liberals and the Conservatives, ultimately for good reason, and there was a good, healthy debate on that particular piece of legislation. I want to go back to the issue of agriculture. The Prime Minister was in China with a team of individuals. I represent a riding in the province of Manitoba. The issue of canola and other cereal crops was being discussed. There were also other issues like, for example, our Atlantic fisheries and fisheries in other areas where there were outstanding issues with China, and we were able to come up with a compromise that ultimately takes away some of those irritants.”
“Madam Speaker, when we look at Bill C-18 , it is important we put it in the perspective of a commitment in an election platform the Liberal Party presented to Canadians. We have to take a look at the whole issue of the relationship between Canada and the U.S.A. and how critically important it is. Without abandoning our values, we need to look at ways we can increase export opportunities for businesses of all sizes here in Canada and see where we can get that additional investment, again, without abandoning the principles or values Canadians have. This is a piece of legislation that would ultimately continue to advance an important issue of trade. We can put it in this perspective: Canada makes up 0.5% of the population of the world, yet we participate in 2.5% of world trade.”
“Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today to present a petition from people in Winnipeg North, in particular, who emphasize that Canada's Indo-Canadian community has grown and has a high interest in being able to travel to India. Petitioners are asking to increase the number of international flights that go directly from Canada, and in particular from Winnipeg, to Europe. Whether it is the government or the airport authorities, petitioners are asking for them to do what they can to increase the number of international flights from Canada.”
“It is the Government of Canada's approach at making life more affordable for Canadians and will make a positive difference for over 10 million Canadians. Every region of the country will be affected by this one policy. When we take a look at the bigger picture of food security and how important it is to all Canadians, at the very least, we should be open-minded in terms of what the member is hoping to get across. I appreciate the Bloc's positioning to support the legislation, because in a minority situation we obviously have to have that support. I take it that the Conservatives are not going to be supporting it, even private members. They will decide, and I will be able to conclude my remarks when it comes back up for debate.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to my colleague's legislation. This type of legislation is very difficult at times, as we all know. It is done through a draw, and my colleague has been provided the opportunity to bring forward an important piece of legislation, which he has identified as something that not only is important to his constituents but also deals with the national perspective. I respect that the issue of affordability in groceries, the cost of groceries and what is inside our large grocery stores has been an issue that is top of mind for many Canadians. In fact, yesterday, as members will know, the Prime Minister had a wonderful announcement in regard to the groceries and essentials benefit, which is going to take effect on July 1.”
“Madam Speaker, I know the member does not necessarily want to talk about the past, but sometimes the past is a reflection of the current leader of the Conservative Party and what his mentality is. The Conservative Party, back in the day, did not progress the Canadian economy to the degree of recognizing that government involvement can make a positive difference and a positive outcome. Can the member identify to me one provincial government that has adopted the principle that the Conservative leader has, which is for the government to just get out of the way? Does she not believe in national programs?”
“Madam Speaker, obviously, I would disagree wholeheartedly on most of the points the member has expressed. What she just finished talking about was a Conservative election platform that Canadians rejected outright in the last election. Contrary to the misinformation, we have a Prime Minister who has been aggressively looking at expanding trade opportunities and exports for Canadian businesses, small, medium and large. At the same time, he is literally bringing in hundreds of millions of dollars, going into billions of dollars, of investment. He has been the Prime Minister since April 28, when we had the last election, along with 70 new members of Parliament. This government is committed to building Canada strong. Our actions, whether in legislation or budgetary measures, are fulfilling our campaign platform.”
“Madam Speaker, the motion today is in essence the Conservative platform from the last election. We know how Canadians voted in the last election. Could the member give his thoughts on a comparison of the Liberal platform versus the Conservative platform?”
“Mr. Speaker, let us be really clear. What we have before us today is nothing more than the Conservative election platform from last year. Canadians made a decision back then that the Conservative platform would not build a stronger, healthier Canada. We have a Prime Minister who has taken a number of initiatives, along with the government, to build the country and build Canada strong. The member made reference to trade. We have two pieces of trade legislation before the House today, numerous agreements in the making and a Prime Minister who is bringing hundreds of millions in investments into Canada. Would the member not recognize that the greatest asset to and ambassador for Canada in increasing exports and bringing in investments is a Prime Minister who—”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the efforts that my good friend has made in Manitoba, in particular with the whole concept of the Churchill port. Recently, we were at a press conference at the Manitoba legislature where we saw three important entities coming together to advance the interest of the Port of Churchill, which has a profound, positive impact on all of Canada. Could the member provide her thoughts on the Port of Churchill and explain, from her perspective, why that is such an important project?”
“Madam Speaker, the Conservatives are trying to raise the issue of affordability with this motion. The Prime Minister , along with the Minister of Finance , made a wonderful announcement yesterday, introducing the grocery and essentials benefit for Canadians, which will take effect on July 1. This is an initiative that is ultimately going to see hundreds of dollars going into the pockets of Canadians to help them at a time when there is a great deal of concern around grocery prices. Can the government anticipate that the Bloc will support that initiative?”
“Madam Speaker, it would have been better if the member had asked about the demand and the price points for our oil, which are greatest in Asia. That means we want a pipeline that goes to Asia, to tidewaters. The answer to the member's question is “absolutely zero”; not one inch of pipeline, in over 10 years of governance, took oil directly to the west coast. All the Conservatives' pipeline activity went directly to the States, and now they are criticizing us because we ship all our oil there. Go figure.”
“He was the most devastating prime minister when it came to the manufacturing industry in the province of Ontario. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, the member should look into it. The biggest devastation to ever take place in our manufacturing industry over the last number of generations was when Stephen Harper was the prime minister. I can be political too, but at the end of the day, when I look at Canada I see that it is a country we should all be very proud of—”
“Madam Speaker, the member asked if I would say that the country is not doing well. No, I believe the country is doing well. I do not believe what the Conservatives say when they try to mislead people. They travel the country saying that Canada is broken. Canada is not broken; it is a very healthy nation with great opportunities and capabilities. I am not looking at the glass as being half empty; I am looking at it from the point of view that we have a government that is very proactive in promoting Canada, bringing in investments and allowing more exports to take place. We have a lot to be proud of as Canadians, and we should not be downgrading or downplaying our nation. Are there areas we can improve upon? Of course there are. Do members remember the days of Stephen Harper?”
“Madam Speaker, like my colleague, I genuinely believe in sustainable development. The development opportunities are there; for example, the technology that our oil industry brings forward is fairly world-leading. I think the EV industry and the potential for the manufacturing of electric vehicles continues to grow. There are many ways we can grow our economy and be respectful of the environment; they go hand in hand in sustainable development. I believe Bill C-5 further advances good governance along with sustainable development. It enables those projects in the nation's best interest to move forward in a faster fashion. It protects the environment while at the same time ensuring that the proper consultations are being conducted.”
“Madam Speaker, it will be an interesting vote. I am going to vote against it. Most of the people in my riding voted against the Conservative Party and the political platform it presented in the last election. The government is on the right track. We are in fact building a stronger and healthier Canada. The proof is in the pudding; we have accomplished a great deal, and we continue to want to do more to support Canadians, whether it is building the economy, providing and protecting our social services or working with different provinces and stakeholders to bring forward good legislation, like the crime bills we have presented to the House of Commons. Every member will have a choice. Do they support the Conservative agenda, or do they support the government agenda? It is a very clear choice. I support the government agenda.”
“It is because the new government and the Prime Minister understand the importance of the Canadian Forces and the important role it plays going forward.”
“Madam Speaker, first of all, if the member was listening, he would know I talked about Crown Royal. I even referred to the member. He might want to do a retake on that. When the member was the parliamentary secretary to the minister of national defence, the GDP level of financing for the military was just below 1%, likely the lowest in the history of Canada. The new Prime Minister has already brought it up to 2%, and we have made a commitment to bring it up to 5% in the coming years. Why? It is because it makes sense. Whether it is industrialization for military purposes, protecting our sovereignty or meeting the commitments of our allied forces, we are investing in members of the Canadian Forces, we are providing the necessary equipment and we are going to be meeting our future obligations. Why?”
“I can tell the House that there are Canadians in Conservative ridings who want the Conservative members to vote for many of the initiatives we are putting forward. I think it is time for Conservatives to start putting the Canadian agenda ahead of their own Conservative Party of Canada agenda.”
“That means, for example, supporting the initiative that the Prime Minister announced yesterday: a grocery and essentials benefit for Canadians that would take effect on July 1, putting money in the pockets of Canadians. Members should support that initiative. They should be clear and concise. They should not dither. It is just like when we made a commitment to make the national school food program permanent in our schools. We had one Conservative say it was garbage. We had other Conservatives mock the program. It is actually feeding hundreds of thousands of children. We have an agenda before us with probably the largest pieces of crime legislation that we have seen in generations. It could make a difference. Unfortunately, the Conservatives are filibustering it.”
“For the first time, we have a premier and I believe a Prime Minister who really want to make that happen if it is at all possible. I believe it is possible to develop that port. That could help all of Canada. Major projects include things such as what is taking place in, again, B.C. with copper and gold, or with copper in the province of Saskatchewan. These projects are all part of the platform we presented to Canadians. What the Conservatives are actually proposing today is a Conservative agenda. They want to replace the Liberal agenda with it. I would suggest that, at the end of the day, Canadians have already made that decision. What we should be working on is how we can meet what Canadians want this Parliament to do.”
“Members should take a look at those major projects, whether it is the LNG tube coming out of British Columbia, working with a New Democratic government, or the Darlington project in Ontario dealing with nuclear energy and the potential that is there, working with a Progressive Conservative government. In Montreal, we are expanding the port, which will create tens of thousands of jobs while supporting the jobs and infrastructure that are currently there. The impact of that on the community of Montreal and beyond is great. These are the types of major nation-building projects that this government has realized in co-operation with other stakeholders, including our provinces. I know the Province of Manitoba wants to see the port of Churchill get off the ground.”
“Contrary to the member opposite who stood in her place to introduce the motion and be critical of the government on energy, the Prime Minister and the government recognize that we will be a superpower on both clean energy and all forms of energy. We can be, and we have demonstrated that, more so than Stephen Harper did. (1055) When I asked the member to tell me how many inches of pipeline the Conservatives built directly to tidewater through B.C., she sidestepped the question. She said we built some that went down to the States. Four, I believe, is what she said. The leader of the Conservative Party can take credit for the four pipelines that he built down to the States. However, the market is to Asia. That is something we have been able to accomplish.”
“When we talk about other aspects of the platform, building Canada strong is more than just trade, international trade and bringing down provincial barriers. We need to build Canada's infrastructure in a very real and tangible way. We got Bill C-5 passed last June. I would point out that the leader of the Conservative Party was not elected at that time, but we were able to get support from the Conservative Party in order to get that legislation through. Thank goodness we got it done in June, because it enabled the government to move forward, pushing and advocating for these major projects. I would also note that the Major Projects Office is located in the Prairies. That in itself provides an additional incentive. Having that local office says something.”
“We contribute 2.5% of world trade because we have a government that is looking for more markets and more investment. We can look at what happened when the Prime Minister went to the Middle East. There were commitments of literally billions of dollars of additional investment coming to Canada. These types of investments matter, because they are going to make a difference for all of Canada. The Conservatives are starting to criticize, saying that the Prime Minister does a lot of international flying. The Prime Minister is the single greatest asset ambassador that Canada has and will enable doors to open and allow us to get into these markets. We should not be discouraging it. We should be recognizing the true value of it and encouraging it if we continue to see the types of results that we are getting. That was a major part of our platform.”
“I want to see a trade agreement between these two great nations. The potential is there. It is real, and the Prime Minister actually met with President Marcos and talked about how we should work towards getting a free trade agreement in 2026. However, it is not only the Philippines but also India. Again, we have a commitment from two world leaders to talk about the importance of trade and, in this situation, whether Canada can get a trade agreement with India. The government is committed to doing what it can, upholding Canadian values and making sure that we are expanding our markets in a very tangible way, a way that is going to deliver for Canadians. Trade matters. As I indicated yesterday, Canada's population is about 0.5% of the world population. We can contrast that to the amount of trade we do.”
“There are premiers, mayors and stakeholders recognizing the value of a team Canada approach, and the government is aggressively looking outside of the Canada-U.S.A. border to improve exports. (1050) We have legislation before us that would increase trade. We can look at Indonesia. Legislation is there. We have legislation regarding Northern Ireland and England before us. The Prime Minister travelled abroad with a contingency of ministers, including the Premier of Saskatchewan, to deal with some irritants that China had with Canada, and we were able to resolve them, at least in good part. Whether it is the canola farmers from the Prairies or seafood products from Atlantic Canada, dealing with these issues is going to provide opportunities, jobs and investment. I am very proud of what is happening between Canada and the Philippines.”
“The Prime Minister and numerous ministers are travelling abroad, opening up opportunities for small and medium-sized businesses to export their products, while at the same time attracting billions of dollars of investment into Canada. This is because the Prime Minister and the ministers are aggressively looking for markets that go beyond the Canada-U.S.A. border, and we have already seen tangible results. When we talk about the last election campaign and the platform issues, the number one issue was providing a sense of comfort related to trade, President Trump and the actions that have been taking place in the south, and the need to be able to bring Canada together. We have been very successful as a government because of that team Canada approach.”
“We understand how important that relationship is, unlike the Conservatives. When we had the first round of trade agreements with the United States and Donald Trump, I remember that the Conservative Party capitulated and said to sign any agreement. That is not what the Prime Minister is going to do or what this government is going to do. We are going to hold out and get the best deal for Canadians, and if that is going to take more time and cause the Conservatives to be uncomfortable, so be it. We are going to strive to get the best deal for Canadians. In the interim, we are looking outside of the Canada-U.S.A. border.”
“The member across the aisle from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman made reference to Crown Royal. There has been a bit of a discussion. Crown Royal is produced in the province of Manitoba. We do not want the Province of Ontario boycotting Crown Royal. Those are good jobs in Manitoba, and it is a Canadian product. There are all forms of irritants between provinces, and the Prime Minister continues to work with the provinces in an attempt to bring down those irritants and to create, whether it is for labour or otherwise, freer mobility between provinces. However, what I really want to amplify is that when we talk about building Canada strong, Canadians know that there is a difficult relationship today with the United States, and we hope to be able to resolve that in a positive way and have a trade agreement continue on with the United States.”
“I would counter that by looking at our platform from the last election, which was to build Canada strong. That is something that we said that we were going to do, and that is exactly what we are doing. (1045) I take a look at what took place virtually immediately after the last election. We had a proactive Prime Minister who was aggressively working with all provinces, territories and others to take down interprovincial barriers. An hon. member: How is that going? Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, the member across the way asks, “How is that going?” The Prime Minister continues to meet and have dialogue with the provinces. This has had a positive impact on Canadians and our economy. Building Canada strong means trying to get those national trade barriers taken down.”
“We recognize the hardship that many Canadians are facing today. That is the reason, unlike governments in many other nations around the world, this Prime Minister and this government have brought forward that initiative, which was announced yesterday by the Prime Minister. I would like to think that the Conservatives would support that particular initiative. It is hard to say because we have still not passed the budget implementation bill from last year, as the Conservatives have chosen to even delay and filibuster budget legislation, just getting it implemented, from last year. It is interesting. The Conservatives have taken their platform, put it into a package and called it “a Canadian Sovereignty Act”. They would take their platform and put it into law.”
“Let us go back to the last election, when the Conservatives set their agenda on affordability and we put forward our agenda on affordability. Our new Prime Minister got rid of the carbon tax to give Canadians increased disposable income. Affordability was the reason the Prime Minister and the government reduced personal income tax, and 22 million taxpayers benefited from that. Dealing with affordability, we will have to wait to see what the Conservatives are going to do in regard to yesterday's announcement on the groceries and essentials benefit, which is a program that would be there for all Canadians. Over 10 million Canadians would benefit from that. For many of them, it would be hundreds of dollars, going into well over $1,000. I can say that the residents of Winnipeg North would benefit from that when it comes to affordability.”
“This is, for all intents and purposes, a new government with a Prime Minister who has a single focus on building Canada strong, which is something that we can see in the many measures that have been taken since the last federal election. We had an extensive party platform that Canadians understood and supported by voting for us. I will indicate very clearly that, as we all know, this is a minority government. It is a very close minority government, but at the end of the day, this shows the need for the government to work with opposition parties. It equally demonstrates that opposition parties also have to work with the government, but the contrast between the Liberals and the Conservatives is truly amazing. The member who spoke just before me talked about the issue of affordability.”
“Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand to speak on a Conservative opposition day, which is kind of a flashback to the last election. If we take the time to read the motion the Conservatives put forward, we cannot help but think of the last federal election. I will remind my friends across the way that the things the Conservatives are talking about are the things that they incorporated into their last platform. I would like to show some contrasts that will clearly demonstrate why Canadians as a whole rejected the Conservative Party and chose to elect a new Prime Minister and 70 new Liberal members of Parliament.”
“Madam Speaker, one of the things that has been clearly amplified over the last number of months, and why Canada is being so well received by investors in foreign lands, is consistency. Investors do not want to see rules being changed. That is an important aspect, whether it concerns a private corporation or any other sort of investment firm looking to invest in Canada. Does the member realize that parts of the opposition motion promote the sorts of changes that cause uncertainty and could prevent investment from taking place in Canada?”
“They saw the comparison between the words from the Conservatives, a lot of which were misleading, and what a Liberal government would do, which we are doing. Can the member clearly indicate how many inches of pipeline they constructed between Alberta and B.C.?”
“Madam Speaker, it is interesting. We need to realize that when the leader of the Conservative Party sat in the Conservative cabinet with Stephen Harper, they did not build even one inch of pipeline going to the west coast through B.C. They did not build one inch. That is the reality. They will say they built some pipelines that went down to the States. Yes, that is true. They did build some pipelines going to the States. Having listened to the member opposite, I will provide the opportunity to show the contrast between the Conservative Party's agenda and the Liberal Party's agenda. That contrast is why, in the last federal election, Canadians voted for a new Prime Minister and 70 new Liberal members of Parliament.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member has been a very powerful advocate through the women's caucus, and I applaud that. In terms of femicide being elevated to first-degree murder, that is something relatively unique here in Canada. Could the member provide her thoughts on how Canada could play an important role, setting an example?”
“Mr. Speaker, just to be very clear on the issue, does the member believe that the second reading of the legislation should allow it to go to committee sooner as opposed to later so Canadians would be able to see it and the member would be able to present his arguments at the committee stage?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear from the Conservative member that they are going to prioritize bail and that we will finally get the bail reform legislation passed. It is something that should have passed last year, but I am glad the Conservatives are finally letting loose on that particular aspect. Now we are on Bill C-16 . Even the member who represents Kamloops in British Columbia says that a safety clause is a good thing. He recommended a safety clause in previous legislation. Was the member from Kamloops wrong to have recommended or suggested in any way that a safety clause is actually good? Has the Conservative Party changed its position because it is trying to position itself on this legislation?”
“Mr. Speaker, the far right has spoken. At the end of the day, if there is an issue with any law, they have no problem bringing in the notwithstanding clause. Does the member know that no prime minister has actually used the notwithstanding clause, and it has been there for decades? Now we have the current leader of the Conservative Party saying not to worry and that we can use it any time we want. They do not attach any value to the importance of the Canadian Constitution or the Charter of Rights. If the Conservative Party is so confident of its position, allow the legislation to go to committee. It is a minority government. Get the support that the Conservatives so desire to do what they want, but at least let the legislation go to committee.”
“I would ultimately argue that if we want to serve Canadians and deal with the issue of crime and safety in our communities, and the important issues, such as feminine issues, this is the type of legislation we should be passing and getting to committee, where we could hear what so many others, including law enforcement officers, other jurisdictions, individuals and advocacy groups, are actually saying. They like this legislation and want to see it move forward. The Conservatives need to get on the Canadian agenda as opposed to the Conservative agenda.”
“Mr. Speaker, I respect the position the Bloc has taken on Bill C-16 , recognizing that, in principle, it is legislation they would like to see go to committee. I believe the Minister of Justice was open to listening to the critic from the Bloc in regard to listening and potentially taking action. We look forward to the committee actually dealing with those four core elements of the legislation. There is just not enough time to go into great detail. It tackles gender-based violence, especially intimate partner violence, protects children from predators and strengthening victims' rights. It also addresses court delays. This is substantial legislation.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is a gross way to try to describe it, in such a fashion where a judge would actually just decide to throw it out. There is a parliamentary mandate that is given through the passage of laws. I have confidence that decisions are being made. I want our laws to be constitutional. I recognize this and the Supreme Court of Canada has recognized it; it has thrown out mandatory minimum statements because we did not have a safety valve. I believe we have a responsibility to ensure that the laws we are passing adhere to the Constitution of Canada and the Charter of Rights. I do not have the same sort of fear. There is at least one Conservative member across the way, who I quoted extensively, who believes likewise. A safety valve is something that is absolutely critical.”