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 57 of 73.
“That was all tossed aside because the Conservatives were more interested in their own political fortunes than they were in the victims. If we take a look at the legislation, it was actually introduced as Bill C-66 back in September of last year. They had the opportunity to provide comment on it. They did in part, but then they came up with that game because they were more interested in having an election. They will have to excuse me for not being overly sympathetic when they try to give the false impression that, as a government, we ignored the situation. Nothing could be further from the truth. At the end of the day, we had taken action to ensure that victims of sexual abuse and harassment within the military were going through the civil system. That is the fact, but they deny that.”
“That is the purpose of Bill C-11 . It would then put us in full compliance with that particular recommendation. Then we hear the Conservatives again trying to give the false impression that we are sitting on it and not respecting the principles of recommendation 5. (1800) What is worse is that, if a political entity in the House has prevented the legislation from becoming law, it is the Conservative Party of Canada; the Conservatives just do not realize it. Seriously, do they not remember what was taking place last year? Do members remember when they were jumping up and down, demanding their privileges and points of order and saying they were going to shut down Parliament? I remember the hours and days, going into weeks and weeks, when the Conservatives refused to get anything passed. Where was that caring attitude for the victims then?”
“Where the offence takes place outside of Canada, the [military police] may act in the first instance to safeguard evidence and commence an investigation, but should liaise with civilian law enforcement at the earliest possible opportunity. That is the recommendation. It is the only recommendation that compels the government to bring in legislation. Ultimately, we did not wait for the legislation to appear before us. We actually took action within a year of the interim report to ensure that we had prosecutions and investigations taking place in a civilian setting. That is how important it was for us. I do not recall any of the Conservatives pointing out that this is the case. Rather, they amplified that nothing has been done. In fact, hundreds have actually gone in that direction. The legislation is to put it into law permanently.”
“Let there be absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the government has not only taken the issue seriously but is also taking specific actions to deal with it. The best example I could give is the fact that, as of right now, there is a very real chance that all 48 recommendations will be dealt with before the end of this year. The one that is causing the problem is one that I believe every member in the chamber actually supports, at least in principle. I will read the actual recommendation from the former chief justice: Criminal Code sexual offences should be removed from the jurisdiction of the CAF. They should be prosecuted exclusively in civilian criminal courts in all cases. Where the offence takes place in Canada, it should be investigated by civilian police forces at the earliest opportunity.”
“I actually printed off all the recommendations. I want to read recommendation 5 so that people who are following the debate will get a really good understanding of why we have the legislation before us. These 48 recommendations are recommendations that the government has been proactively working on, virtually from day one after they were brought into being. On budgetary expenditures, in the 2022 budget, I believe there was somewhere in the neighbourhood of close to $100 million over a number of years that was actually allocated. On legislative actions, today we have Bill C-11 dealing with recommendation 5. It is important to recognize, contrary to the misinformation coming from the other side, that the government has been taking action.”
“As I know my colleagues have and as all of us should have, I have an immense amount of respect for the work done by the personnel who make up our Canadian Forces. When I think about why this is an important piece of legislation, it provides a very strong message to members in the forces today. As much as we value and appreciate what they do for Canadians day in and day out, we too appreciate their need for certainty. We want changes so that every member of the Canadian Forces can feel safe in their environment. I heard a number of members talk about specific files where there was sexual abuse or sexual harassment. We know that takes place. That is the reason we have had studies take place. (1755) The number of recommendations from former chief justice Arbour was 48. Bill C-11 deals specifically with recommendation 5.”
“I was an air traffic control assistant posted in Edmonton, and I had wonderful opportunities to serve in our forces for just over three years. Whether they are marching with World War II veterans or sitting in a tower in Lancaster Park, I have the deepest amount of respect for the men and women who have served in many different capacities. In many ways, we are the envy of the world because of our Canadian Forces and the many contributions they have provided, whether through peacekeeping abroad, participating in protecting our freedoms and the rule of law, being in countries abroad during world wars, fighting the mighty Red River when it was flooding the city of Winnipeg, fighting forest fires or stepping up during the pandemic.”
“Speaker, I was just heckled that we had 10 years, and I plan on addressing that head-on. Hopefully we will see the official opposition at least acknowledge the reality, as opposed to trying to continue to mislead. That is what we have witnessed today. Individuals trying to follow the debate would have a false impression after listening to Conservative after Conservative stand up to speak. Some speeches I really enjoyed, especially certain aspects of the speeches, for example when members opposite stand up and talk about victims. That is truly why the government, for years now, has been moving forward on dealing with the recommendations. It is all about the victims. I have had the opportunity, privilege and honour to serve in the Canadian military.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to such an important piece of legislation. I have listened to the entire debate thus far on this legislation, and I must say that it is a little disappointing. All members of this House really need to recognize the essence of why we have Bill C-11 before us. I have heard many comments with regard to individuals. I have heard many comments with regard to members' opinions about what the government is or is not doing. I have heard a lot of misinformation being put on the record. I had thought this legislation would be well received, and to such a degree that we would be talking more about the victims and why it is important that the House of Commons pass this legislation. An hon. member: You had 10 years. Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member can provide her thoughts with regard to the recommendations. There were 48 specific recommendations brought forward, and 47 of those are well under way, and hopefully, will in fact be dealt with before the end of the year. The one there is a lot of hesitancy about is Bill C-11 . Bill C-11 is recommendation number 5, and it is what we are debating today. I will be able to provide more detail on it. Would the member not agree that at the very least, the Conservative Party of Canada should commit to getting that legislation, in whatever form, passed before the end of the year?”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate many of the words my colleague has put on the record. One of the things I want to recognize is Bill C-11 comes out of recommendation number five. Recommendation five says we need to take the issue and put it into our civil judicial system, as opposed to the military system. For the last number of years, the government and the military have already moved in that direction, but passing this law will enable us to meet the 48 recommendations that were advanced by Justice Arbour. I am wondering if he can just provide his thoughts on achieving those 48 recommendations.”
“Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to address some of the issues the member talked about that were outside of the legislation. For the very first time in generations, we have a newly elected Prime Minister who is committed to 2% of GDP. Let us compare that to either the former government or the Harper government. The Harper government was one of the largest disgraces in terms of commitments to our military in generations, and that is a fact; we cannot change history. In regard to Bill C-11 , I would suggest that the member take a look at the 48 recommendations. Forty-seven of them are on the way to being finished this year, with legislation on transferring complaints from military courts to civil courts being the one we want to pass.”
“Mr. Speaker, I do believe that we owe it to those who are serving our Canadian Forces and even those who have left the Canadian Forces who still have grievances within the system. The first nine minutes of the member's comments are hard to dispute as they justified why the government needs to act. When we take a look at the 48 recommendations, they are virtually all in place. Moving forward, we will hit 47 of them, with the exception of the passage of Bill C-11 , the only one that actually requires a legislative change to transfer it to the civil judicial system. Just so the member is aware, that directive was given years ago so that we would actually start to see our civil judicial system dealing with these cases. Can the member provide her thoughts in regard to why that was an important thing to do?”
“Mr. Speaker, the minister referenced the 48 recommendations. We anticipate we will be able to complete 47 of those as early as before the end of this year. If we had a sense of co-operation in working with the opposition parties, we could pass Bill C-11 , which would then mean we could hit the target of completing all 48 recommendations. Even though the bill puts it into law, I think it is important that we recognize that military sexual harassment is currently being deferred to the civilian court system. It is not that we are lagging behind, but this would allow us to put into law what is already, at least in part, being done.”
“This irresponsible and destructive force, which is better known as the Conservative Party, here on the floor of the House of Commons is the only—”
“Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is so wrong in so many ways that I do not know where to begin. Maybe the member should realize that when we take a look at Justice Arbour's 48 recommendations, the goal is to achieve success on 47 of those before the end of this year. Many of the things the legislation would put in place through criminal law are already being administered, in part because of the government's drive to move and shift from military to civil court processes. The member is just wrong on so many points. Will the Conservative brain thrust recognize that if Conservatives want that 48th recommendation done before the end of this year, they need to get onside? They have to allow the legislation to go to committee.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is really important to recognize that in the report we are talking about, there are 48 recommendations, and the government is on track to get 47 of those 48 passed by the end of the year. The wild card is actually Bill C-11 . All political entities in the House seem to support the essence of that legislation. Much of that legislation, such as the transfer over to the civil justice system, is already being incorporated in an informal way through the Canadian Armed Forces. We are all waiting to see the legislation get to the committee stage. Would the member not agree, out of respect for the Canadian Forces and the women and men who serve this country so well, that we should try to get this thing passed before the end of the year?”
“Mr. Speaker, in 2021, the interim report had 48 recommendations, many of which have already been completed. We are hoping to complete others before the end of the year. That is the goal, and that includes the passage of this particular piece of legislation. The member is trying to give the false impression that nothing is moving forward. Within a year of the interim report being brought forward, we have seen cases shifted over to the civilian justice system. That is a very strong positive. Does the member not agree that we can collectively send a very strong message to the members of our armed forces by sending this legislation to committee stage? The committee is best suited to listen to the feedback. It seems to me we should try to get this done before the end of the year. Would the member not agree?”
“Mr. Speaker, Madam Arbour had 48 recommendations in total. Many of those recommendations have already been put in place. We are hoping to see the others passed this year. We hear criticism about why it is taking this long. It is important to recognize that in 2021, we received the interim report, and within the year, we were already seeing cases being shuffled over through the civil system. The legislation we are debating today would put the process into law. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on that. Would it not be nice to see the law in place before the end of the year so that we can say all 48 recommendations have been adhered to by—”
“Mr. Speaker, there are many issues the member has raised that I take exception to, especially when he talks about support for the Canadian Forces. In fact, when he was a parliamentary secretary and his current leader was part of the Harper cabinet, Canada was most in danger of not financially supporting our Canadian Forces, to the degree where it came to 1% of Canada's GDP. In contrast, the Prime Minister 's commitment is to achieve 2%. The Conservatives failed in comparison. Having said that, I think it is important, when we look at the legislation, that the jurisdiction over criminal prosecutions and investigations for sexual offences be the essence and principle of this legislation. That is what Arbour's recommendation number five was all about. Does the Conservative Party support it?”
“Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Leaders' Debates Commission report, entitled “Debates - Democratic Exercises Serving the Voting Public: A report on the Leaders' Debates Commission 2025 federal election experience”.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting to hear Conservatives make extreme, outlandish claims. The member opposite tries to say that the Liberal Party is going to take away the Internet, take away cellphones and deny people the opportunity to do their banking. The Conservatives have come up with a whole conspiracy theory on how big government is going to take everything away, when the legislation is all about protecting Canadians and protecting the economy. Does the member see any merit in having cybersecurity legislation that would ensure that the interests of Canadians are being served? This includes our economy and economic transactions that take place every day by the thousands. Does he not see the merit in protecting that?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am not too sure if the member supports the legislation. It comes across that she has some concerns for individuals like Sarah. I think the minister has been fairly clear as we have gone through this legislation that Bill C-8 is important for many different reasons. I recently highlighted that we need to protect the consumers of our economy through cybersecurity. It is not optional for the government to do it; it has to be done. Would the member not, at the very least, agree that having cybersecurity to protect the Canadian economy is absolutely critical and that we need to have legislation? Maybe it is just a question of having some amendments to address some of the concerns the member has put forward.”
“Mr. Speaker, protecting the critical systems we have in place is ultimately protecting the Canadian economy, among many other things. Yes, we need to be concerned about the whole issue of privacy and so forth, but not moving legislation of this nature forward would have a very negative impact on cybersecurity and our economy. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on how important it is for the Canadian economy as a whole that we have legislation of this nature.”
“Madam Speaker, first of all, no one laughs at or mocks, in any way, inside this chamber, individual victims or the individuals the member mentioned. However, I do call into question statements that this particular member has made. For example, when he says our communities are like war zones, I believe most Canadians would disagree. That is extreme. When we have the MP for Oxford saying, “We are now living in a war zone in Canada”, I disagree. The member himself said a community had “a state of emergency [declared] because of five or six prolific offenders”. I would challenge the member on that particular issue. I believe the Conservatives ratchet up this issue to justify a motivation that puts their party ahead of Canadians. When are they going to start putting Canadians and Canadian interests ahead of their own political interests?”
“Madam Speaker, I truly appreciate the approach of my colleague and friend in dealing with the legislation in general and his position on the motion. The question I have for the member is in relation to the issue of crime and safety in our communities. If we want a good example of the Conservatives' behaviour on this issue, all we need to do is take a look at Bill C-2 , which would provide a stronger sense of security and tangible actions for Canadians to be safer in their homes. On that legislation, the Conservatives have now debated 18 plus hours, and they are not allowing it to go to committee. On the other hand, they say that crime and safety is important. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on that contradiction.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In no way would I want to mislead the House in any fashion. I did not imply that we pass the motion. I was referring to potential bail reform legislation that would be brought in by the government.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member for Bourassa has been a very strong advocate for his constituents. Looking at the need for bail reform, members such as him, alongside the Prime Minister , have done a great deal of work from within trying to reflect the interests of their constituents. I am wondering if he could provide his thoughts, from his constituents' perspective, as to why it is important that members co-operate in getting this legislation passed.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts on Bill C-48 , bail reform legislation that was passed. It was supported in virtually every corner of Canada. The only ones who dragged their feet on it were the Conservatives. I would ask the member to provide his thoughts on that bail reform legislation.”
“Mr. Speaker, when we think of Bill C-75 , something that the Conservatives have brought up a lot today, we should think in terms of what it actually did. It abolished peremptory challenges to the jurors and modified the process of challenging a juror for cause, introducing judicial standby. It enhanced measures to better respond to intimate partner violence, provided additional measures to reduce criminal justice system delays and to make the criminal law and the criminal justice system clearer and more efficient, facilitated human trafficking prosecutions and allowed for the possibility of property forfeiture. I am wonder if the member could indicate whether or not the Conservative Party would actually repeal Bill C-75 .”
“We will continue to remain focused on my colleague's constituents and Canadians as a whole to ensure we get the bail reform that Canadians want and deserve.”
“Mr. Speaker, the thing that comes to mind with that particular question is this: If we take a look at Bill C-242 , the bill being proposed in this motion, I suspect that no legal opinion would give any sense of comfort that it is compliant with our Constitution or the Charter of Rights. In fact, I would argue that it would not be found compliant if allowed to proceed. It also raises a question. We can remember the Conservative policy of “three strikes and you're out,” the American-style policy we debated a little over a week ago. Why did they not include that policy in Bill C-242 ? Have they changed their attitudes toward it? Do they see it as another form of legislation they can generate more funds on? Who knows?”
“Mr. Speaker, the member highlights the fact that our judicial system requires multiple levels of government to be involved in one way or another. Ultimately, even if a province makes a decision, it has an impact in terms of federal responsibilities and vice versa. We need to see more coordination. I think most Canadians would be very surprised to hear that we do not even have the bail data to make the types of decisions that would be good to see. Provinces need to accumulate more data on the issue of bail and who is getting released. That would be very beneficial. More coordination is something we are interested in. This is why the minister and parliamentary secretary are meeting with all the different stakeholders, in particular, our provinces and territories.”
“Mr. Speaker, time is the greatest resource one has, and I want to be very careful in how I spend my time. I would welcome the opportunity to have a debate with the member opposite. Having said that, I would suggest that maybe we could meet at the University of Winnipeg or the University of Manitoba, which has a law department. I am more than happy to assist the member in setting something up. I welcome that debate, and I hope he actually follows through and connects with me. I look forward to seeing him at the University of Manitoba or the University of Winnipeg.”
“Mr. Speaker, my preference is to amplify something, because of the Conservative member's question, and answer this member's question indirectly. I cited emails that were actually sent out by the Conservative Party and that emphasized the issue of crime. The party ratchets up the issue in order to generate money to fill its coffers. Otherwise, we can look at some of the statements that have been made. The most outrageous one I heard was from the member of Parliament for Oxford , who said, “We are now living in a war zone in Canada.” That says a lot in itself.”
“Mr. Speaker, during the nineties and still now, to some degree, the whole issue of gangs and their patches was a hot topic in the province of Manitoba, my home province. I would be very careful in what we say a person can and cannot actually put on a jacket. I hope the member will have the opportunity to raise the issue at the standing committee. One has to be very careful with that, because what might be perceived as a gang patch in the eyes of some might not necessarily be that in the eyes of others. A gang can easily adopt a patch that is universally utilized. It is a note of caution, but I encourage the member to raise the issue at committee.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would say to them the same thing I said to any victims during the Harper era. Victims of crime need to be listened to, and where we can support them, we need to support them. To try to give a false impression that terrible crimes are occurring only during a Liberal administration is misleading at best. I would suggest that it is a lot worse, in terms of what the Conservatives are doing. The member accused me of using slander. I supported everything I said with information that I am prepared to share. If she wants to come sit with me, I would be happy to share it with her.”
“Ottawa needs to do its job, and the Prime Minister and the new government that were elected just last April are doing the job that Canadians want us to do on this critically important issue. That is why we see bills like Bill C-2 for our borders, Bill C-9 for hate or the bail reform legislation, which is going to be coming down very shortly.”
“I cited a story in the Winnipeg Free Press from September 9, an editorial. It amplified and tried to say that the province was at fault because of the issue of Crown attorneys. Members can go ahead and look up the story to read it for themselves. I will read one line from it. The bottom line is this: The cost of inaction is far greater than the cost of investment. Failing to fund the Crown’s office means risking collapsed trials, emboldened criminals and disillusioned victims. It means communities losing confidence in the courts’ ability to protect them. This is something that reflects on provincial governments. Municipal governments provide law enforcement officers. To not recognize that law enforcement officers play a role or that provinces play a role is irresponsible. At the end of the day, it is a shared responsibility.”
“There has been extensive consultation, and I think there is a responsibility for all members of Parliament, no matter what side of the House they are on, to recognize the agenda before us and to come down and talk about how we can achieve what all of us say we want to see: safer communities and individuals who are committing these crimes, especially repeat offenders, being held to account. These are all important things, but it is also important for us to recognize that the federal government plays a significant role that we are living up to. When I think of our judicial system, it is not just Ottawa. There are provincial governments and, arguably, municipal governments that also have a significant role to play. We know that. The last time I was speaking on a very similar issue, I referred to the need for more Crown prosecutors.”
“Here is the reason I raise this: We know that Canadians are genuinely concerned about crime and safety in their communities. We know that for a fact. We understand that there needs to be bail reform. There needs to be tougher penalties for repeat violent offenders. Canadians elected the Prime Minister and the Liberal government on a platform of reforming the bail system. We are, in fact, committed to working together to ensure that we can make stronger laws and have safer communities. In these five to six months, we have put into place legislative measures and budgetary measures from a commitment to increase RCMP officers by hundreds and do the same thing in terms of border control.”
“When it comes to their legislation, democracy goes out the door. That is what I witness. If members challenge what I am saying, I invite them to have me go to a public meeting at a university. (1540) Let us see if we can bring in some independent individuals who would take a look at the arguments the Conservatives have. I would take no issue at all. Ideally it would be in Winnipeg North, but I can be flexible; it could be in Ottawa. Including with the member opposite, I would welcome the opportunity to have a good, healthy debate in Ottawa, although we cannot be sitting in session, in terms of the hours. Outside of the hours, I am sure we can arrange something. The bottom line is that the Conservatives apply a double standard.”
“The member who stood up on the point of order spoke about his private member's bill, Bill C-225 , an act to amend the Criminal Code. He said, “This bill is a monumental change.” He continued, “I ask that the House streamline the passing of this bill as quickly as possible.” That is a programmed bill. It gets two hours of debate at second reading. Bill C-2 has already had 18 hours of debate. After two hours, his bill gets to go to committee, yet he is asking us to speed it up even more, just as we saw here today on another private member's bill. The work involved in getting legislation before the House needs to be respected. Oh, how the Conservatives cry if the government applies a bit of pressure or attempts to shame them into doing the right thing, to be there for Canadians by passing legislation.”
“However, let me warn my Conservative friends across the way that there is other legislation before the House that would make our communities safer, that would provide more support for our law enforcement officers and our border control officers. The Conservatives have yet to pass that legislation. I am referring to Bill C-2 . Bill C-2 is substantial legislation. With the very limited amount of time that the House has for debate, the Conservatives continue to talk that legislation out. Bill C-2 would make a difference. It would make our communities safer. If the Conservatives really and truly are genuine in wanting to make our streets safer, why are they holding up the bill at second reading? In fact, the motion we are talking about today is about how we could speed up a private member's bill. It is not the first time.”
“These Conservative fundraising emails are circulating for one purpose, to raise money. Is it any wonder I make the statement that the Conservative Party uses the issue of crime and safety as a mechanism to fill its political coffers? That is the reality. At the end of the day, if we want to look at how to serve Canadians on the crime file, it is first and foremost to reflect, as we have as a new government, as the Prime Minister has in the commitment to bail reform, on what it is Canadians are telling us. We are prepared to accept judgment when the time is right, when we have the bail reform legislation before us.”
“Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the word “hate”, but let us realize that fundraising plays a critical role in why the Conservative Party takes the position it takes. It is all about raising money. Let me give a good example. Here are four emails. These are all emails that the Conservative Party has sent out to literally thousands and thousands of people. Every one of these emails actually has a link to donate to the Conservative Party. One says, “More criminals loose on the streets to terrorize our people.” Another one says, “Criminals are WREAKING HAVOC across our country.” The third one says, “The cause of this VIOLENT uptick in crime? The Liberals' radical catch-and-release policies.” The fourth email says, “Crime is out of control — and it's only going to get worse”.”
“They utilize the issue of crime and safety, I would suggest, to generate funds, money, and ultimately, to promote hate. That is what I believe. They may not like it, but let me give tangible examples of that. For some reason, I actually receive emails, and let me quote, these are email—”
“There is actually a lot of work involved in bringing forward the type of bail reform we are going to be seeing this fall. That gives us a sense of what motivates the Liberal caucus. I have argued and I have seen over the years that the Conservatives love to talk tough about crime. They really do. It is as if there were no horrific crimes when Harper was the Prime Minister of Canada. That is sarcasm. There were a lot of horrific crimes. I can assure members there were. At the end of the day, whether home invasions, murders or whatever type of crime, I can assure members that it took place even under Stephen Harper, even when their leader sat around the cabinet table. (1530) The motivation for the Conservative Party is not Canadians. It is not that Conservatives want reform because of Canadians.”
“The legislation that is ultimately brought forward on bail reform will be a true reflection of their expectations and needs and what Canadians want to see. It is something that is being well taken care of. The Conservatives say he has been Prime Minister for five months and ask where the legislation is. If we are going to have significant bail reform legislation, there is a responsibility to do some consultation. There is a responsibility as a government, and as a minister, to work with the many different stakeholders, whether the police, non-profits, territories or provincial governments, and the list goes on. It is not something where they lock themselves in a room and then come up with a substantial piece of legislation and put it on the table of the House of Commons.”
“I quote from the article: “There would be mass hunger and malnutrition with a tax this high…our seniors would have to turn the heat down to 14 or 13 C just to make it through the winter,” [the leader] said. “Inflation would run rampant and people would not be able to leave their homes or drive anywhere.” This is the type of leadership we see coming out of the Conservative leadership office: extreme positions. Then we wonder why we get members making the statement that we are in a war zone when it comes to crime. It is ridiculous. What motivates the Conservatives on crime? I will contrast what motivates the government, which is, as I pointed out, an electoral mandate and listening to our constituents.”