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 55 of 73.
“Mr. Speaker, while the Conservatives go around telling people that Canada is broken, when Canada is the best place in the world to call home, here are the facts: We have a Prime Minister who is committed to major developments, five major projects and 60 billion dollars' worth of investments in all regions of Canada. We are building Canada strong, and we are going to wait until we can get the best deal for Canadians. We are not on the Conservatives' agenda. We are on Canadians' agenda, and that means building our country.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives need a reality check. At the end of the day, there were 60,000 jobs created. Almost half of those are in the manufacturing industry. When the leader of the Conservative Party sat with Stephen Harper, the manufacturing industry was devastated in the province of Ontario. Conservatives should not try to give us a lesson when we have a Prime Minister who understands the needs of Canadians. That is why we are building Canada strong.”
“The Prime Minister has demonstrated that by the commitment to having this legislation before us. Would the member not agree?”
“Mr. Speaker, when I look at what has been taking place over the last number of years, I believe there has been significant movement forward. It is one of the reasons that today we see sexual assaults being tried in the civil process as opposed to the military courts. Bill C-11 , in essence, would put that into criminal law to ensure there is further clarity on the issue. This Prime Minister , understanding the impact on the Canadian Forces, has ensured that we have this bill before us today, and he has been the Prime Minister for less than six months. We are hoping to see the legislation get to committee so that we can listen to what Canadians have to say about it. I agree that all members have a role to play on this, but I would also argue that all members are concerned about victims.”
“I would concur, and I would ask the member this: Does he not agree that to get into that kind of detail, sometimes it is best to do that at the committee stage?”
“Mr. Speaker, I concur with the member in the sense that I believe it is virtually unanimous in the House that the principle in the bill of taking the cases, including the investigations, from the military courts and putting them into the civilian courts, is the right step forward. We all agree with that. The member raises valid concerns with respect to the transition. He is right; bringing cases over to the civilian system has been taking place for the last few years now. I would ultimately argue that the principles of the legislation are fairly well accepted. With respect to the details, I too share some of the concerns. I think there are variations between the different provinces and territories. The federal government has been working with the different stakeholders to try to iron out details of some of the situations.”
“Mr. Speaker, on the point of justice, I disagree with Conservatives. We do not advocate for an American-style criminal justice system. It is very different in terms of the whole “three strikes and you're out” thing. Under the Prime Minister , again, through consultations, we have made a pledge to bring in bail reform. That means working with the different stakeholders. Given the extent of consultations that have taken place and given that he knows we are going to receive bail reform legislation this fall, does the member concur that the Conservatives should get behind this type of legislation and, at the very least, when we do present it, allow it to get to committee stage so Canadians have the opportunity to provide direct—”
“We hope to get support from the Conservatives, but let us remember it has already been in process, in reality, for the last few years. Would he not agree that—”
“Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that there has been no prime minister in the last 50 or 60 years who has done more for the Canadian Forces than the current Prime Minister , who was just elected a few months back, whether it is giving pay raises to members of our forces, the commitment of 2% of the GDP or looking at the true value of having this legislation brought in this fall and his commitment to trying to get it passed. The biggest stumbling block, of course, on all three measures is getting the Conservatives on side and voting in favour of the types of initiatives the Prime Minister and the new government have put in place. When we look at Bill C-11 , taking this from military into civilian courts is a good thing.”
“Mr. Speaker, Bill C-11 is transformative in the sense that sexual assault and harassment will be put in civil court as opposed to the military court process. This is, as the member put it, a very strong step forward. However, it is also important to recognize that after the reforms came forward, we had already started the shift to do that. That has been happening for the last couple of years. Passing the legislation is the right thing to do, and we look forward to its going to committee. I would ask the member for her thoughts on the importance of the bill's going through the system.”
“Mr. Speaker, I could not believe what the member said. I said that Canada was the best in terms of GDP-to-deficit ratio in the G7. The member came back and asked why we would take any sort of happiness in the fact that we are the best of the worst. If the United States, Germany, France and the United Kingdom are the worst in the world, we are in a lot of trouble, a lot more than one could possibly imagine. I am wondering whether the member would apologize for making such a bizarre statement. Is he trying to say that the United States and the G7 countries are on a downward trend, which would mean that the whole world is broken?”
“Mr. Speaker, first off, I think it is important that we do not necessarily recognize the Conservatives as throwing the AI industry in Canada under the bus, when in fact the AI industry in Canada is doing exceptionally well. The potential to grow is there. It is very real and tangible. The Conservatives consistently try to give a false impression with respect to Canada's debt situation and deficit. When we look at the G7 countries, which include countries like the United States, Germany, and the United Kingdom, we see that we are actually doing better than they are with respect to debt-to-GDP. My question for the member is this: Does he believe that all those other countries around the world are in fact broken too?”
“Mr. Speaker, no one in Canada has travelled Canada more to tell Canadians that Canada is broken than the leader of the Conservative Party. I challenge the leader's comments today. Think of the deficit. Canada has the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio out of any of the G7 countries. The G7 includes the U.S., the United Kingdom, Germany and others. We are the lowest. Would he argue that all of those other countries are broken too?”
“Mr. Speaker, we could use that iceberg analogy for Canada, as the member just did, the United States, England or any of the G7 countries. What we find is that, when it comes to net debt-to-GDP ratio, Canada has the lowest in the entire G7. The member kind of makes the point that I was trying to make earlier. Conservatives try to make Canada look as if it is broken. Canadians sent us a very strong message back in April that they want us to work together to build a strong Canada. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on the other G7 countries' debt compared to the iceberg.”
“Mr. Speaker, in recent months, we have seen a cozying up in the relationship between the Conservatives and the Bloc. The fact that the Bloc is voting with the Conservatives does not necessarily surprise me, but it does disappoint me. The member made reference to disposable income. We have a new government and a new Prime Minister who provided significant tax breaks to Canadians in every region. Some 22 million Canadians will benefit from them. We saw the cancellation of the carbon tax, which provides more disposable income for Canadians. I am wondering if my friend could explain to the people of Quebec, and all Canadians, how the Bloc has already decided to vote against the federal budget despite not having seen it.”
“Mr. Speaker, yes, absolutely I agree with the sentiments that have been expressed by my colleague. The global economy is changing. Whether the Conservatives want to stay in the past and continue to talk down Canada or not, we as a government, whether the Prime Minister , cabinet or the entire Liberal caucus, will continue to reflect the interests of the constituents whom we represent and of Canadians as a whole, because we understand and appreciate the importance of the changing world today. That is why the major projects are so important, why maintaining our social programs where we can is critically important, and why we are going to table a budget on November 4.”
“Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, the government, in particular the Prime Minister , has been very much focused on the issue of affordability. We do care very much about what is taking place in our communities. The issue of disposable income is something that we take very seriously, and that is why the Prime Minister actually got rid of the carbon tax. That is why we gave the tax cut for 22 million Canadians. That is all increasing the disposable income for Canadians. The Prime Minister, in a very short window, has already demonstrated compassion and a caring attitude in providing supports for Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, the members opposite, when they start questioning the major projects, have to realize that the federal government has played the lead role in working with, in this case, the Province of British Columbia, indigenous community leaders and many other stakeholders and has put together a package that ultimately is going to see the extension and, I would suggest, the growth of LNG for the province of B.C. In fact, all of Canada will benefit by it. That is the—”
“Premiers of different political stripes and Canadians of all stripes are working together in order to recognize that these types of investments mean something: $60 billion. (1050) Yesterday in question period, the Conservatives were talking about foreign investment. More countries invested in Canada in 2023; according to the last numbers I saw, we were number one in terms of foreign investment coming into Canada. There is a private sector that the Prime Minister referenced. Look at what is actually happening; there are a lot of good things taking place in Canada. We just need the Conservatives to open their eyes, or, I would suggest, if they have not learned anything from the last federal election, they will continue to be in opposition for many years to come. I will say that they are good in opposition—”
“They said that they want the agreement and that we had said we would have an agreement, and so on. They will just fold, capitulate and do whatever they want. We are not going to do that. We believe we have to be there and get the best deal for Canadians. If that means we have to wait an extra week, two weeks or a month or two, whatever it takes, we are going to achieve the best deal for Canadians. That is what the negotiations are all about. On building our economy, let us take a look at the projects we have brought forward: LNG in B.C., copper in the prairie provinces, nuclear energy in Ontario, the port in Quebec, and a very aggressive, proactive Atlantic caucus pushing on a number of different projects, just like in Manitoba where we are trying to get into the second round of major projects.”
“We are also doing better than most countries in the G7 on interest rates. The Conservatives talk about debt. We have the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the entire G7, and the Conservatives know that. They know some of the economic indicators. However, they still go around saying that things are so bad in Canada, and then they criticize the Liberals if we try to portray things in a little more of a positive light, accusing us of trying to pat ourselves on the back. We are expressing the reality of the situation: Canadians of all political stripes outside the chamber are coming together and working together to build one strong Canada. We have a Prime Minister who went to the United States of America to meet with President Trump to begin negotiations in a very tangible way so we can be there for Canadians. What did the Conservatives say?”
“We can look at some of the very basic, fundamental stats. Let us take a look at the labour force participation and contrast it to that of the United States. Canada's labour force participation is far greater than it is in the United States. That does not mean we are not sympathetic to people who are losing jobs; of course we are. That is the reason we have developed five major projects, with more to come before the Grey Cup game. Of course we are sensitive to the people who are losing jobs, just like we are concerned with the issue of affordability. Let us look at the reality of affordability, year over year. From July to July, inflation was 1.9%. That is well within the markers set up by the Governor of the Bank of Canada. That is why interest rates have gone down. That is why we are in the lower half.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives like to take the stats and give the impression that everything is still broken in Canada. Let us look at the types of things done, coming out of the last election, by the Prime Minister and the government, whether it was getting rid of the carbon tax, something that was initiated virtually when the Prime Minister became the Leader of the Liberal Party, or the first substantial pieces of legislation brought in after the election, Bill C-4 and Bill C-5 . Bill C-4 gave 22 million Canadians a tax break. We also then brought in Bill C-5 to build one Canadian economy. On this side of the House, within the Liberal caucus, there is a build Canada strong mentality. We are determined to make Canada the strongest economy in the G7, contrary to what the Conservatives say day after day.”
“I look at that, and I take that as a responsibility for all of us, not only government but also opposition, to recognize that we all have a responsibility to Canadians, the people whom we represent. The year prior, we had the leader of the Conservative Party going all over Canada, from coast to coast to coast, saying that Canada was broken. That was the message the Conservatives were sending out. That was their bumper sticker. They insulted Canadians in every region of the country. At the end of the day, we would think they learned something from that. However, once again, we have the Conservative Party, particularly the leader of the Conservative Party, being like the Prince of Darkness, casting a dark shadow over Canada as a whole. Nothing but the negatives is what it is all—”
“What they saw in the leader of the Liberal Party was someone who was a former governor of the Bank of Canada, a former governor of the Bank of England, an economist and someone who understands the economy. They contrasted that to the leader of the Conservative Party . What did they see? Not much. He is a politician. I have been a politician virtually just as long, maybe even a bit longer than he has. It is an honourable profession. However, at the end of the day, even I have more outside-of-politics experience than the leader of the official opposition does. I can say that when Canadians looked at the environment we were in, they voted for the leader of the Liberal Party and the Liberal Party in record numbers. Never before has the Liberal Party of Canada received as many votes as they did in the last election.”
“Mr. Speaker, I take it that all these points of order are deducted and that I get a bonus minute for every time the opposition stands up. The opposition talks about change. They say there is no change. That is just not true. The reality is that we had an election just a few months back. I will remind my friends on the opposite side of what happened during that election. The leader of the Conservative Party and the leader of the Liberal Party had the opportunity to present to Canadians what they had to offer given the circumstances. There were many circumstances. We had the Trump tariffs and trade issues. We had issues surrounding crime and safety in our communities. Canadians actually did a comparison. I believe, from when I was knocking on doors, that the people of Canada were looking at the background of those leaders.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is no surprise for members on this side that the Conservatives have somehow come up with another opposition day motion in which they want to say that we are different. I will be splitting my time with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister . I appreciate the reminder although it is much to the disappointment of members opposite, I am sure. The Conservatives have come up with a heck of an opposition motion that, once again, tries to portray the government in a false, negative light. I think they need a reality check. One of my colleagues said the Conservative Party is like a professional opposition party.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is encouraging, in a sense, that the Conservatives support this piece of legislation. I am wondering if the member sees the benefit of having the bill go to committee at this stage. We would have much more time at committee to deal with it, as opposed to holding it up indefinitely. Maybe that would allow for more debate on Bill C-10 or another piece of legislation the Conservatives oppose. Would the member not agree that the sooner this bill goes to committee, the more opportunity there would be for other bills, especially if we want it passed before the end of the year?”
“Mr. Speaker, one thing that is important to recognize in the debate is that the legislation would reinforce and put into law what has been happening for the last few years: Allegations of sexual assault and harassment are being transferred over to the civilian judicial system. Passing the legislation would ultimately be a significant step toward putting into law what we have attempted to put into practice. Hundreds of cases have already gone through the civilian justice system. It is also important that we continue to work with our provincial and territorial stakeholders to ensure that the proper resources are in order. I am thinking specifically of the timing of charges and court proceedings.”
“Mr. Speaker, earlier, I referred to the principles of the bill in terms of transferring the process from military courts into the civilian court process. There are many different forms of support, and it seems to me that all members are supporting that particular principle. Discussions have also been taking place with our partners. After all, judicial responsibilities are not only federal; they are provincial, federal and municipal. All three play a very important role. Does the member not believe, overall, that the transferring of sexual assault cases out of the military courts and into the civilian courts is a positive thing? Does she have confidence in the independence of the judicial system to make sure the victims are, in fact, being treated appropriately?”
“Mr. Speaker, the member said that victims deserve progress. I agree. We have a new Prime Minister , who was elected less than six months ago, and we already have before us Bill C-11 . Every member, it would appear, supports this legislation in principle. Allowing it to go to committee does not stop debate; it allows progress, something the member himself is asking for. Would the member not agree that we should allow the bill to go to committee, continue the debate there and then have it come back for third reading with more debate? Would he not recommend to his House leadership team that progress is important on this legislation, as the Prime Minister has asked for this to get passed?”
“Mr. Speaker, in principle, what we have heard from all sides of this House is support for the legislation. A previous Conservative speaker summed it up quite well in saying that the principle is there and we need to get it to committee. I agree with that member. We have now exceeded the five-hour mark. If we allow the bill to go to committee, many questions, like the one just asked, could be answered, because there is just reason for them. I am sure if the member really wants an answer, we can provide it to him. If he wants to come across the way, I would be more than happy to talk to him off to the side. I wonder if the member could provide her thoughts on getting this bill passed so it can go to committee.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is important for all of us to realize that we have substantive legislation before us that would take cases out of military jurisdiction and put them in civilian jurisdiction. We have been waiting a long time for this. We have a new Prime Minister who was just elected a number of months ago, and he has made this a high priority. Would the member not agree that we can continue to have the debates and discussions at committee, and that if there is a need for amendments, at least there is an opportunity to propose those amendments? After all, it will come back to the House for third reading, where we can continue to debate it. Would she not agree that timely passage to committee would be helpful in dealing with this issue?”
“Mr. Speaker, just six months ago, we had a new Prime Minister elected here in Canada, with a new government. He has brought forward this legislation, so I think it is good timing. With that as background, would the member not agree that, in principle, if we support it, we should get it to committee stage, where it can be thoroughly discussed? Ultimately, we can get it back for third reading, when we can have a lot more debate.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate some of the comments the member has made not only just now but also when he introduced his comments the other day. As the member just said, the principle of the legislation, which takes sexual harassment and assault out of the military court system and puts it into the civil system, is something that, it would appear when listening to all the debate, everyone inside the House wants to support. If he supports the principle of it, would the member not agree to get into some of the details? This is not to prevent debate, but, in order to get into some of the details, it might be a good thing to see it go to committee, where we will have ample time for more debate. After that, there will be more debate once it gets to third reading.”
“At least we have a government that is concerned and cares about Canadians and the issue of affordability, and yes, we will do better.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member wants to use a contrast. He should contrast the last number of years, particularly the last six months, to when the leader of the Conservative Party had the hands and the ability to use tools to do more and chose to do absolutely nothing. Had the Conservatives done something back then, maybe we would not have the current situation we have. It is as if it was okay for the Harper government to do absolutely nothing and leave it up to the provinces and municipalities to do all the work and give government assistance. Contrast that to a federal government today that recognizes that not just the cities and provinces have a role; it also has a role. I will use that contrast any day.”
“I would suggest to the member to take a look at the condos in the city of Winnipeg. Depending on the region and depending on the marketplace, if there is a surplus of condo development, which has been acknowledged in Toronto, I suspect that has something to do with the stats. In some areas, it might be weaker. In other areas, it should be greater. If we talk about Toronto's downtown versus what is happening in other communities around the city of Toronto or even in Toronto, we have seen some downward direction taking place in the prices of homes in Canada. There is a genuine concern. We are concerned. It is not to downplay it. We will continue to be on top of this particular file of housing affordability.”
“I would actually contrast the type of housing that we have been able to put together, working with municipalities and working with provinces to ensure that we could increase the housing stock, not to mention the many non-profit housing organizations that are out there that we are trying to support. We have support for housing co-ops and so much more. We recognize and, in particular, the Prime Minister recognizes, that the federal government does have a role to play in encouraging and being in the housing sector. Contrast that to when the leader of the Conservative Party sat in government and sat around the cabinet table. In fact, when he was the minister of housing, there was virtually nothing. When I say virtually nothing, I am being generous. At the end of the day, the member makes reference to the condos in Toronto.”
“We could do a contrast, not only in terms of the actions to date of this government and this Prime Minister but also including the last 20 years, taking a look at Justin Trudeau or Stephen Harper. Actually, we could go even further back. We could talk about Jean Chrétien. We could even talk about Brian Mulroney. The worst government in the last 40 or 50 years, to deal with the issue of housing was actually the government in which the leader of the Conservative Party served. He sat around in cabinet when the Conservatives did absolutely nothing on the issue of housing. In fact, when the leader of the Conservative Party was the minister responsible for housing, get this, he built six houses, six.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we recognize, as the government and the Prime Minister have, the needs that Canadians actually have, in a very real and tangible way. In fact, the Prime Minister, who was just elected six months ago, has taken a number of initiatives to support home ownership into the future. We could talk about the legislation that has enabled first-time homebuyers to be exempt from having to pay the GST. We can talk about the Build Canada Homes agency, which is going to be there to ensure that we are able to meet the future demands on housing. It is in a relatively short time span that we have seen initiatives of this nature.”
“Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the Liberal Party, in particular the Prime Minister , sees the issue of crime and safety in our communities as an issue on which we need to reflect the interests of Canadians. We are putting Canadians first. That is our motivation. We will bring forward that bail reform legislation. Unfortunately, it would appear, and I can clearly demonstrate it if members would give me leave to provide more detail, that the Conservative Party of Canada is motivated by political, partisan reasons. One of them is to generate funds. Another one is to be able to portray this false impression that the Government of Canada, in particular the Prime Minister , is not doing anything, but nothing could be further from the truth. We will continue to pursue and present that legislation—”
“We will bring in the legislation to change the Criminal Code to ensure that we have the bail reform that is going to make our communities safer. This is a commitment our newly elected Prime Minister made, and I can assure the member that we will deliver on that commitment. I hope he and his caucus will get behind it—”
“That means we have to wait for the legislation to get here, and once it is here, I hope we will get the same enthusiasm that the Conservatives like to portray to Canadians on the issue in the form of their wanting to see the legislation actually pass. When we have provided legislation, such as Bill C-2 , which would make communities safer in Canada, the Conservatives' response has been to filibuster. We are still debating Bill C-2, and it was introduced weeks ago. Now we have the Conservatives jumping up, saying they want bail reform legislation, and the government and the Prime Minister are doing the background work to ensure that we have bail reform that is widely accepted and that we have a consensus based on the feedback we are getting from provinces, municipalities and other stakeholders, because it is a shared responsibility.”
“That is the way it was done previously, and that is the way it needs to be done, because the judicial system is a shared responsibility. Ottawa has a role to play, the provinces have a role to play, and municipalities have a role to play. Before we can actually present the legislation, it is critically important to work with the other stakeholders, along with the provinces, municipalities, territories and indigenous communities. The Conservative Party knows full well that the legislation is coming this fall. Yes, there is no hard and fast date, because the commitment from the Prime Minister was to give that legislation and present it this fall.”
“Mr. Speaker, in dealing with the issue of crime and safety in our communities, we have a new Prime Minister who has made a solemn commitment to Canadians. Along with the Prime Minister, we had 340-plus candidates canvassing the entire country, dealing with important issues for Canadians. The issue of crime and safety was a priority. That is the reason the Prime Minister of Canada made that solemn commitment in the last election to bring forward bail reform legislation. I listened to what the member is saying, and he is of the impression that we should have brought forward the legislation the moment after the election. There is an obligation of the Prime Minister and the government to work with the different stakeholders who are out there to build consensus in terms of how and in what form that bail legislation should be presented.”
“Mr. Speaker, as we start to wind down the debate today, it has become apparently clear and somewhat sad that the Conservative Party has taken the position to vote against Bill C-10 . This is legislation that puts into place an independent agent of Parliament that will be a strong voice in dealing with modern treaties. The Conservatives, for political and partisan reasons, have decided that only they believe this is a bad idea. We have indigenous leaders from coast to coast to coast who want to see the legislation pass. We have every other political entity inside Parliament wanting to see legislation of this nature, but the Conservatives have made their decision: They do not like the legislation. Does the member feel any guilt at all in terms of rejecting what indigenous leaders across Canada want to see made into law?”
“Mr. Speaker, the temptation is to challenge the Conservatives when they say, “zero”. I suggest that the Whitecap Dakota Nation is one they might want to do a little research on, not to mention things such as the Manitoba Métis Federation, which, technically, is signed off. They can talk to President Chartrand, and I am sure he would be more than happy to give a full update on it. There are others, as well, where consultations with indigenous leadership in terms of reserves and other things need to be approved before it can be brought in. The essence of what we should be talking about here is the fact that we have indigenous community leaders from coast to coast to coast who recognize the value of Bill C-10 and want it to be passed. It is only the Conservative Party in Parliament that seems to not value Bill C-10 .”
“Mr. Speaker, throughout the day, we have heard a lot of misrepresentation of reality, if I can put it that way. The Conservatives say that Harper signed five treaties. Well, he was elected prime minister in 2006, and one of the treaties was signed in 2006. He does get the credit; technically, he did sign it. Then the Conservatives say that the Liberals have not done any. That is not true. We have signed treaties. The Conservatives just have not done their homework, or they are intentionally trying to mislead the House. I suspect they have not done their homework. My question to the member is this: Would he not agree that having an independent agent of Parliament who is supported by indigenous community leaders is something that all members should be supporting? It appears that just the Conservatives in the House are opposing it.”
“Mr. Speaker, I respect what the member is saying and wanted to amplify that having a commissioner to deal with modern treaties is something that has been desired for a number of years now. We have the legislation before us. It would have a very positive impact to have an agent of Parliament who reports to Parliament in terms of the modern treaties and how modern treaties benefit Canadian society. I see it as a win-win-win. I wonder if my friend can just comment on why he believes it is important for us as parliamentarians, on no matter what side of the House, to recognize the value of legislation and at least support the legislation going to committee and beyond.”