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 56 of 73.
“Mr. Speaker, I think of Bill C-10 as definitely warranted. It is before us today because of a great deal of effort by indigenous community leaders in response to needing modernized treaties, which will ultimately build a stronger and healthier social and economic society. I see having an agent of Parliament that reports to Parliament as a positive thing. I wonder if my colleague can provide his thoughts on how important it is that we recognize the true value of these agreements. They help us build a stronger Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, again, what I am looking at is the idea of an investment. One of the criticisms of the legislation from the Conservatives is the cost factor. I would ultimately argue that the cost is easily justified by looking at what the commissioner is going to be able to do, not only from within indigenous communities, but in Canada as a whole, especially if we factor in the need for reconciliation.”
“Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could provide her thoughts on this idea of having a commissioner, someone who is appointed for seven years. When we look at the appointment process itself, I suspect we are going to see someone with an immense amount of real-life experience, who brings a lot of knowledge to the table that even the Auditor General would not be able to reflect on when it comes time to present a report. I wonder if she could provide her thoughts on the potential of the individual taking the position and the many attributes he or she might be able to bring to the table in coming up with recommendations.”
“There are another six agreements that are getting closer to being signed off on. My question is related to Bill C-10 : Why will the Conservatives not support an independent agent of Parliament to take care of and advocate on behalf of the agreements?”
“Mr. Speaker, we have consistently heard the spreading of false information, with opposition member after opposition member trying to give the impression that, for example, the Whitecap Dakota Nation does not have a treaty agreement. One just needs to take a look at the Manitoba Métis Federation. There are also three treaties that are waiting for consent in the province of British Columbia, the member's home province. When the member talks about the five Harper agreements, 2006 was the year Harper became prime minister, and that was the first agreement, so I can assure the member that Paul Martin had a lot more to do with it than Stephen Harper did. That is not to mention the other two treaty agreements that were signed off on just a couple of years later. The member knows full well that it takes time to get the agreements in place.”
“Mr. Speaker, one thing I take issue with is that Conservatives do not recognize the true value of having an agent of Parliament who would be appointed for seven years based on the expertise and intelligence brought to that position. Instead, they somewhat believe that we should not worry; the Auditor General can cover it all, marginalizing the desire of indigenous leaders who are advocating for this. I wonder if my colleague could provide her thoughts in regard to that. At the end of the day, the community would like to see this and other opposition parties are in support of it. It is only the Conservatives who seem to be in opposition to it.”
“Mr. Speaker, could the member provide his thoughts in regard to why Stephen Harper, for example, refused to support the Kelowna accord, which provided many of the things the member just finished talking about. The member is not talking about Bill C-10 , so maybe he could provide a specific answer on why the Conservative Party continues to put up roadblocks, in terms of development and support for health, education and other activities within indigenous communities by working with indigenous community leaders.”
“Mr. Speaker, the position of the Conservative Party on the legislation is somewhat disappointing. As the day proceeds, it is becoming more evident that its members will not support Bill C-10 . Modern treaties have provided and afforded social and economic development. This has really had a very positive outcome for the whole issue of reconciliation. The legislation is being led by indigenous community leaders who see the benefit of having a commissioner, an agent of Parliament, who has the experience and the ability to reflect on the many desires that are there within the indigenous community. My question for the member opposite is this: Does he, at the very least, recognize that there would be some value in allowing the bill to go to committee at some point in time?”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's advocacy. She is a very powerful speaker, I must say, and has taken a responsible position on Bill C-10 . Let us be very clear. There is an opposing viewpoint. The Conservatives tend to believe that the Auditor General of Canada will suffice, and that we do not need this legislation. Would having an independent agent who has background experience in dealing with the whole issue of reconciliation and these modern treaties be of great value to Parliament? By establishing the commissioner, all of Canada would benefit from having an advocate who has a special focus on this issue. Would she not agree?”
“Mr. Speaker, on his first comments, I would refer the member to the Paul Martin Kelowna Accord, in which there were solid commitments that dealt with education, employment and living conditions. A lot of consultations were done then. With regard to the other part of the member's question, I would, in return, ask a question: Was there unanimous consent among indigenous community leaders in B.C. that the ban was not the appropriate thing to do?”
“Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, as I said at the outset of my comments, this legislation is before us today because of the immense amount of work done over the years on identifying how we can further advance indigenous reconciliation. Having an agent of Parliament is something that indigenous community leaders and others, like me, believe will have a very profound and positive impact. It is a seven-year appointment of an individual who has incredible experience. Through that experience and knowledge, someone could make a difference, as Murray Sinclair did.”
“Mr. Speaker, one of the most prominent individuals I have had the pleasure of representing, who I believe has moved out of Winnipeg North, is the current national chief, Cindy Woodhouse, someone I classify as a personal family friend. She is a very powerful, strong voice for indigenous community members throughout the country. I have learned a great deal from her. It is one of the reasons I am an advocate for ensuring that we continue to push the envelope in dealing with reconciliation and getting the job done on certain projects, like the Shoal Lake 40 First Nation's Freedom Road. Do members know how long it waited for that to happen? There is also the water treatment plant at Shoal Lake to get rid of the boil water advisories. We want to continue to advocate for good, healthy policy and budgetary measures.”
“That is a really good question, Mr. Speaker. I have often thought that myself. When I talk to indigenous leaders and non-indigenous people who are trying to move that file forward, it is often raised. I believe it is a fairly complicated issue, so I am not prepared to answer at this time. I do not have that level of expertise, but it is something that I too, from what I hear, would like to see disposed of. I wish it were that simple.”
“Mr. Speaker, as the minister who introduced the legislation explained, it takes years to get a modernization project. I suspect that many of the modernization treaties that were signed by Stephen Harper began under Paul Martin. All one needs to do is look at Paul Martin's impact on the Kelowna Accord, something Stephen Harper opposed. Had Stephen Harper supported it, we would have seen a lot more support on the issues of housing, education and health, which really— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars back in 2005. At the end of the day, I do not have a problem comparing records. All one needs to do is to look at the calls to action and look at our record.”
“Mr. Speaker, I spent a great deal of my time noting how, from an economic and social point of view, it is in our best interests collectively as parliamentarians, representing all of Canada, to ensure that we continue to make progress on indigenous relationships, nation to nation. I believe this legislation further advances that by ensuring that we have an official agent of Parliament to assist in pushing the government to take necessary actions. I wanted to talk about Shoal Lake 40 First Nation, and I hope to get another opportunity to do so.”
“Mr. Speaker, one thing I am always cognizant of is that at times there are political entities in the chamber that provide misinformation. We are close to having 20 of the recommendations completed. Not all 94 recommendations are federal responsibilities. For example, the Pope gave an apology. The federal government may have tried to influence the Pope, but it was the Catholic Church that ultimately had to deal with that particular recommendation. Of the recommendations the federal government is responsible for, at least 80% are under process. We cannot just click our feet, wave a magic wand and have them completed. Many of the recommendations take years to complete.”
“The purpose of my standing today is to show the Conservative Party that the merits of this legislation, at the very least, deserve to be brought to the committee stage, where the Conservatives can then deal in more detail with their concerns. Let us recognize that this legislation is good, solid and should pass—”
“At the same time, Murray Sinclair made it very clear that these 94 calls to action were of the utmost importance in dealing with reconciliation. Even though Bill C-10 technically is not one of those calls to action, I believe that if Murray Sinclair could have a 95th, this would likely be it, because it is about accountability and transparency. If it were not for Murray Sinclair, his life experiences and the knowledge he brought to the table, we would not be where we are today. I would suggest to the Conservatives to take a look at the type of individual who will be filling this particular position. This commissioner, an independent agent of Parliament with an incredible background who is appointed for seven years, cannot be replaced by the Auditor General of Canada. Murray Sinclair demonstrated that very clearly.”
“My home province is Manitoba, the birthplace of Murray Sinclair. I have been an MLA and am now a member of Parliament, and I have been in politics since 1988. I got to know the late Murray Sinclair and saw first-hand the impact that this individual had on our nation in whatever role he played. I especially got to know him a little better when he was appointed a senator. Let me suggest why I raise Murray Sinclair. It is because across Canada, from coast to coast to coast, Murray Sinclair's report on the state of indigenous people in Canada and the relationship between the different levels of government has been widely accepted and supported. When Murray Sinclair made the report back in 2015, with its 94 calls to action, I was sitting in the third party. This was back in 2014, going into 2015, a few years ago.”
“I made reference to building an economy and how, through reconciliation and having agreements, we are able to achieve an economic success we might not have if we did not have that sort of relationship. (1155) When we think of the agent of Parliament, let me suggest that it is well worth the few millions of dollars that it would cost to put it into place. The other argument being used is about the issue of expertise. As the critic for the Conservative Party made reference to, we have the Auditor General and the Auditor General should suffice. I would ultimately argue that this is not the case. Having the agent of Parliament being proposed through Bill C-10 is very different from having the Auditor General deal with the situation. Let me give members an example of that. I am a very big fan of Murray Sinclair.”
“It states: Whereas the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples states that Indigenous peoples have the right to the recognition, observance and enforcement of treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements concluded with States or their successors and to have States honour and respect such treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements; I want to highlight those aspects because I genuinely believe that Bill C-10 is all about the creation of an agent of Parliament who is there to recognize the obligations of Parliament. The two primary concerns, it seems to me, that the Conservatives have about the bill are with respect to the cost factor. The critic said that, when dealing with the costs, we are talking about several million dollars.”
“It is about dealing with opportunities, remembering the past and going forward to build a stronger and healthier economy for all people in Canada. We can talk about the copper mines we are expanding through the five megaprojects. There are particular projects in western Canada where I focus that are critically important to all of us. Continuing on with the preamble of the legislation, there is one last area I would like to quote.”
“We are talking about 60 billion dollars' worth of economic opportunities. That is “billions” with a “b”. If we factor in the indirect contributions, it is a whole lot more. I can tell members that if it was not for indigenous leadership, a number of those projects would not be possible. Indigenous leaders, businesses and entrepreneurs are at the table, along with others, to ensure that we build a stronger, healthier economy and social fabric in our nation. It might have been encouraged through some of the actions of President Trump, but I can say that these are real projects. Let us look, for example, at LNG in British Columbia and who the proponents are for that particular project. Reconciliation is about a lot more than just saying, “Sorry”.”
“It also states that “modern treaties are intended to establish a mutually agreed-upon and enduring framework for reconciliation and ongoing relationships between the Government of Canada and Indigenous peoples”. (1150) It goes on. I am not going to read all of it, but I want to emphasize a couple more points, which members should refer to. It states: Whereas modern treaties are intended to strengthen the health, dignity, well-being and resilience of Indigenous peoples, to create enduring relationships between modern treaty partners and to advance national socio-economic objectives that benefit all Canadians; I want to emphasize that one because the Prime Minister has been pushing to build one Canadian economy. Earlier in September, we had an indication of five major projects.”
“We need to recognize that it takes time to make these modern treaties a part of reality. Let us look at the preamble of the legislation. I do not often refer directly to the legislation, but I think it is worth noting what is stated in the preamble. It is relevant to what we should be talking about today. It states, “Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to achieving reconciliation with First Nations, Inuit and the Métis through renewed nation-to-nation, Inuit-Crown and government-to-government relationships based on the recognition of rights, respect, cooperation and partnership”. It also states that “modern treaties are part of the constitutional framework,” which is something I have already made reference to, “and represent a distinct expression of that reconciliation”.”
“It was because of that agreement. It enabled the parties at the table to develop an economic opportunity that would never be where it is today were it not for having a modern treaty. That is why I say we get a lot of benefit when we recognize the true value of modern agreements and these treaties. They are critically important. They are part of the Constitution. There is a constitutional mandate that everyone who lives in Canada has to respect and act upon. A modern treaty is like a living document that needs modifications. Yes, it would be wonderful if all first nations were incorporated into a modern-day treaty. I think it is important that we continue to work in that direction. As the minister commented in her introduction, these are not documents that are made overnight.”
“He recognized that, if we are going to grow collectively into the future, we need to have one Canadian economy. That is not possible without indigenous leaders at the table. When we talk about nation-to-nation relationships, having both direct and indirect input is of critical importance. We saw that in a very tangible way after the election. We had ministers and others dealing with many different stakeholders, whether provinces, territories, indigenous leaders or others, in order to see what we can do to build upon one Canadian economy. I do not think it is a coincidence. We can look at the first modern treaty, which has already been cited once or twice now. It was for the James Bay project in northern Quebec. That modern treaty enabled indigenous community members and people living in Quebec to benefit immensely.”
“One is cost and the other is the federal Auditor General. I will deal with the issue of cost. I could probably spend a little while talking about the cost of not taking actions such as this to all of us. All one needs to do is take a look at the last federal election. There was an issue that came up at every other door. If I raised it, it was 95% of the doors I knocked on. It was a concern about trade, Trump and tariffs, if I can put it in the form of the three Ts. It meant a great deal no matter what the person's background, whether they were from a first nation or anywhere else. It had to do with the impact this is going to have on us economically and socially. (1145) That is why I think the position of the Prime Minister was the right position at the time.”
“In the questions and answers that were posed, I believe that maybe there is some flexibility and some room to see potential changes to the legislation that would satisfy the Conservatives, at least in part. I think we need to, at the very least, explore that possibility. I would suggest that one of the ways we can best explore that possibility is this: After hearing a number of hours of debate on the legislation, some would like to see a smaller number of hours of debate and allow it to go to the committee, where we could hear first-hand from indigenous leaders and other stakeholders. We could hear what it is the Conservatives might say that could improve the legislation. Let me start off by addressing what seems to be the primary concern of the Conservatives. Two points come to my mind.”
“We have this legislation before us today in good part because of the commitment to improve that nation-to-nation relationship we often talk about. It is a significant step toward reconciliation. Even though it is not part of Murray Sinclair's calls to action, I believe that, if we capture their principles and essence, this could have very easily been a 95th call to action. It is a very powerful statement that will become reality if, in fact, we can get it passed through the House of Commons. In listening to the comments thus far, I am very much encouraged by those from the Bloc. I have some reservations with regard to the Conservatives, and I would like to address those head-on.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today and speak to yet another very important piece of legislation that the government has presented to members of the House. As with previous legislation, I would encourage members to get on board with recognizing where it is coming from and see the benefit of having legislation of this nature become law. There are a number of things I would like to express. In dealing with the legislation itself, it is important for us to realize how, in essence, it came into being. We did not see bureaucrats sitting around a table ultimately dictating something from the federal government. In fact, there has been extensive work done to ensure it comes from the leadership within the indigenous community. The legislation reflects issues that were ultimately raised by indigenous leaders.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think that as we go through the debate on the legislation, and I will make reference to a specific example momentarily when I stand up to speak to it, for the government, it is about not only the documents that we sign off on but also the reality of how we are supporting indigenous communities. If we take a look, in terms of the last number of years, we will see that the financial support has been there. I will cite a couple of examples shortly, but I am wondering if the member would not recognize that we have provided financial resources and have been moving forward on the whole idea of reconciliation, particularly the 94 calls to action.”
“Mr. Speaker, when I think in terms of the legislation, I believe it is ultimately a reality today because of the advocacy of indigenous leaders. This is not something just any political party has been advocating for, but it is something that is long overdue. Ultimately, if we respect the issue of nation to nation relations and indigenous community leaders, this is the type of legislation that will make a positive difference. I wonder if my friend can continue to add to his comments when he makes reference to indigenous partnership, even in the development of the legislation we have today.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think that recognizing the nation-to-nation relationship between indigenous people and the Crown is of critical importance. There is legislation before us today that would ultimately enable an agent of Parliament who would report to Parliament, as opposed to just to the government or the opposition, and the Conservatives are making it very clear today that they oppose that. Is it the Conservative Party's position that it will not support the bill's going to committee?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised by the approach the Conservatives have decided to take on the legislation, but I am somewhat disappointed in their approach with respect to having an agent of Parliament report to Parliament with a certain level of expertise that is understood clearly by indigenous communities and indigenous leaders across this nation, who recognize how valuable an individual of this stature could be. It is unfortunate that the Conservatives do not recognize that. Could the member provide his thoughts as to whether he believes that the Auditor General would have the same background knowledge to bring to the table?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am very interested in getting the member's thoughts in regard to the 48 recommendations. We have been very clear throughout the day that 47 of them are well under way, and we are anticipating that we could have them complete before the end of the year. The recommendation that has a question mark on it is actually Bill C-11 . I wonder whether the member is in a position to provide some assurance to members of the forces and to others that, from her perspective, she would like Bill C-11 passed before the end of the year so we could unanimously say that all 48 recommendations have been complete.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member is right. If we were to take a look at what was being said on the floor of the House of Commons last year, it would be very clear we could have passed Bill C-66 . It did not pass and get royal assent because the Conservative Party had an agenda that was politically self-serving, as opposed to serving Canadians. This is the reality. I would debate that issue anytime, because that is the truth.”
“Mr. Speaker, the legislation and the actions we have taken in the last number of years has ensured victims of sexual abuse or harassment are going though the civilian system today. It is the law enforcement agencies. For example, and I use this as a hypothetical example, if there were an issue that arose in the city of Winnipeg, I suspect it might be the City of Winnipeg police that would do the investigating, and it would be then the province that would do the prosecuting. I know there are some discrepancies, because it still all needs to be worked out, but this is already happening today, at least in part. It is about having faith and confidence in our judicial system.”
“Mr. Speaker, this is what I mean about false impressions, because if we were to listen to what the member just finished saying, one would be of the opinion that nothing has been taking place. For example, I can recall, I believe it was Bill C-77 , where we had the declaration of victims rights. I can remember speaking to that bill years ago. This was a Liberal government initiative. I have talked endlessly today about Bill C-11 , and how it is one of 48 recommendations. Out of those 48 recommendations, we are hoping to achieve 47 of them before the end of this year. If the Conservatives were to get on side, we could do 48, but only if we can pass Bill C-11 .”
“Mr. Speaker, the forces and the military should not be evaluating their own bad behaviour. I appreciate the member's comments. Back in the early 1980s when I was serving, there was a certain mentality there, but I believe it has improved dramatically since those days. I can honestly say that when we pass legislation of this nature, it sends an even stronger message to young women, minorities and all members of the forces so they know they have the backing of the government, because it provides clarity. The more we can provide clarity, the healthier our forces will be.”
“Mr. Speaker, first of all, I recognize that the Bloc has been very supportive of the legislation. I would suggest that Bloc members being as candid about the legislation as they have been sends a very strong message in favour of protecting victims. I appreciate and respect that. We need to look at ways to possibly enhance the legislation. One thing I have heard from Bloc members is that they have some reservations, so I look forward to seeing the bill go to committee and providing Bloc members and others the opportunity to make changes that would give the legislation more strength.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will not go into any details on specific files, but I think it is safe to say that shifting the responsibility from military court procedures to civilian control is a very strong positive, and that is what this legislation would do. It is based on recommendation 5 of Madam Arbour's 48 recommendations. I hope that members of the forces and other interested people following the debate will recognize that not only are we trying to advance legislation, but we have ensured that certain actions have taken place for a number of years to protect victims.”
“(1810) However, let us at least acknowledge that, at the end of the day, since having a new Prime Minister , the file on the Canadian Forces has been moving forward, second to no other prime minister in the last 40 to 50 years. I believe the Prime Minister will continue to ensure that the men and women of the Canadian Forces are being looked after in every way, which includes seeing Bill C-11 become the law of the land.”
“Having said all that, I want to provide a very quick comment in regard to the military overall, and the reason I want to do that is that many people kind of went off track in their discussions on it, even me possibly, to a certain degree, but when it comes to the military, our new Prime Minister , the Minister of National Defence and the Liberal caucus have done an incredible job of ensuring that we are going to be able to achieve the 2%, a commitment the Prime Minister has made. I know it would make a difference, but when we talk about victims, or about military expenditures and the many things we are doing for the members who serve in our forces, we know we can always do better, and we will strive to do that.”
“Once we get the bill out of committee, then it is back here in the House, and many members can speak once again to it, but let us at least get it to the committee stage so we can be in a position before the end of the year to actually pass the legislation and have it receive royal assent. Would that not be nice? We have an opportunity to meet all 48 of the recommendations, and I would encourage my colleagues opposite, if they are genuine when they say they want to have further discussions and debates and look at possible amendments to the legislation, to allow it to get to that stage.”
“After all, it can pass only if we get more than one political entity in the House in favour of it, so if they are really convinced on their arguments, or they want to have a good, thorough discussion at the committee stage, why hold off and why wait? They can tell me the justification. I have had a Conservative member say that there is virtually no difference between Bill C-66 and the bill that is before us. The member could be right. I do not know all the details of it, but let me assume that the Conservative member was accurate in the statement he made. If that is the case, Bill C-66 was introduced in January 2024 or March 2024, so the Conservatives have had ample time to deal with what is within the legislation. Surely to goodness, if the Conservatives have some amendments, they should be primed and ready to go.”
“We have had three or four times that already. Then it is going to go to committee, where it is going to be timed, and then it will come back, and that is because it happens to be a private member's bill even though it is proposing to make profound changes to our judicial system. If the political will is there, we all know that the legislation before us could go to committee. What is the advantage of its going to committee now? I would suggest that by allowing the bill to go to committee, members opposite would be able to share their concerns and to look at potential amendments and propose them. If they have a substantial good idea, they should be able to convince other members to support it.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that this might be the first time the member has actually had a valid point of order. I apologize for using the wrong wording, but the facts remain. At the end of the day, we can in fact send a very strong and powerful message on Bill C-11 by allowing the legislation to pass. Some of the members of the Conservatives are going to say, “Whoa, just wait a minute; we brought it in only today, and we have had only eight hours of debate on the bill.” The Conservatives have a shadow minister dealing with justice who introduced a private member's bill, and he is arguing that it should be passed virtually instantly. Fortunately for him, because it is a private member's bill even though it would make substantial changes, there are going to be only two hours of debate for second reading.”
“I can tell that every member who has spoken today, from all political entities, seems to be supporting the principles of Bill C-11 . An hon. member: Right, then sit down. Let's go. Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: I will tell you what: If you agree to pass it, I will sit down right now. Mr. Speaker, I suspect if I did that, the Conservatives would not be done talking. At the end of the day, if everyone supports the principle of the legislation, then why not let it go to committee? Why oppose it going to committee? You had the chance last year and you blew it. You have another chance this year. If you want to give some credibility to some of the comments that Conservatives were putting on the record when they talked about the victims, at the very least, recognize—”
“Then, the Conservatives have the brevity to try to say that the Liberals are the reason the law itself has not been enacted. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: You may be able to heckle something across the way, but all you have to do is read Hansard. Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is factually true and the Conservatives know that. Last year at this time, they were a destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons, refusing to let legislation pass, period, end of story. That was their attitude. It was a minority government back then too. At the end of the day, I appeal to the members, especially the new members, because I can appreciate that the new members were not here during the Conservative debacle to see the destructive force. I can say to those new members that we have an opportunity.”