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 61 of 73.
“I could not think of a better place. I might have suggested Winnipeg, had I been asked, but that is for another debate. The bottom line is that the office is there to facilitate, ensure and support quick action so that we see that project get off the ground in a very tangible way and get finalized, doubling production. It is a very incredible project. Let us talk about the Darlington nuclear project. When we talk about energy and the issue of emissions, my Ontario colleagues are very proactive on this particular file because they see the value of nuclear energy. The commitment that is being made here will have an impact around the world. Let me give members an example. (1310) Last year, I happened to be in the Philippines as part of a government mission.”
“Again, we are talking about billions of dollars' worth of investment. In that particular project that the Prime Minister has highlighted, indigenous people are directly involved, the province is directly involved, and obviously, Ottawa is directly involved, as well as many other different stakeholders. Many jobs will be created. A natural resource here in Canada will be utilized around the world because we have a system in place through the passage of Bill C-5 , which was a priority piece of legislation from the Prime Minister, to ensure that it actually happens. We have even established an office, which happens to be located in Calgary. I see that as a positive thing. When we think of all the national projects we are talking about, where is that head office going to be? It will be in Calgary, Alberta. I think it is the appropriate place.”
“I can say that the Prime Minister and the entire Liberal caucus see Canadians as our board members, and we are committed to working hard to deliver for our board members. That is what those five major projects are all about in terms of Bill C-5 . I will go through those projects. There will be another coming out just before the Grey Cup game, or in and around that time. I will expand on that because I have some things I would like to see as part of the grander national plan. I have heard many Conservatives stand in the chamber and talk about LNG and how important LNG is to the nation. The first project listed was the expansion of LNG. We are looking at doubling Canada's production of LNG. Canada's LNG is world-class liquefied gas that is going to make a difference and make our environment, in the long run, that much better.”
“(1305) This year, Imperial Oil donated a $37-million research lab facility to the Southern Alberta Institute of Technology in Calgary, establishing the Imperial Energy Innovation Centre. This is the largest corporate gift ever to an Alberta post-secondary institution, and it aims to advance energy research. Further, the company's Cold Lake operation is piloting next-generation solvent technologies to improve production and reduce emissions. This is one corporation, albeit a very important corporation, that is contributing to the larger picture. As Imperial Oil makes these types of investments, it is looking for certain types of returns. It is trying to please its board and its investors.”
“They are substantial projects. We know the private sector has money and is prepared to invest. I was talking with the Minister of Agriculture a couple of hours ago. He was telling me about Imperial Oil and what it, as a private company, is doing. I printed off a few things I was able to pick up from the Internet about what Imperial Oil is doing. This year, over the summer, it completed a $720-million Strathcona renewable diesel facility. That is an incredible project. It is Canada's largest renewable diesel facility. It will produce somewhere in the neighbourhood of a billion litres of fuel. That is virtually on an annual basis. It is converting biofuel feedstock-type stuff, like canola as an example. It is investing in carbon capture and storage. It is investing $16.5 billion as part of a consortium of oil sands companies.”
“When we think of the big projects that are out there, we must think of the investments. For the first five projects, if memory serves me correctly, it is around 60 billion dollars' worth of investment. For those five projects, there was a consensus; different levels of government came together to say this is what we need as a nation, to build these projects. We brought in the legislation in a very short time frame. Earlier, we were criticized by the Bloc because we brought in time allocation on it, but believe me, had we not brought in time allocation on it, and not gotten some support from the Conservatives, that legislation never would have passed. The economy matters. The Prime Minister wants to see action. That is why we had to bring in time allocation on that legislation, so that we could get those projects on the table.”
“The Prime Minister made it very clear that we want to build one Canadian economy as a way to have more independence as a nation and be more sovereign, in good part because of what we are witnessing south of the border. One of the very first initiatives we brought forward was legislation to build major projects in Canada. The Prime Minister met and had discussions with premiers of all political stripes, with territorial leaders and indigenous community members, to talk about identifying projects together and getting behind some projects that will ultimately help advance Canada's one economy. That was the big push. What we saw was a great sense of co-operation, and that is what we need to see. However, it is not only government that needs to play the role; we have to look for other stakeholders.”
“I am hopeful about the way our new Prime Minister talks about making Canada an energy superpower, as opposed to taking the negative side of things, as the Conservatives have continuously done over the years. They have actually ramped that up. We have a Prime Minister who is going out to make a special extra effort for our Prairies, yet I have seen prairie MPs standing up to criticize the approach he has brought forward. (1300) Whether it is discussions in meetings with the Prime Minister and other ministers in Calgary and Edmonton or our national caucus going to Edmonton and reaching out, we want to better understand the needs not only of Albertans but of all Canadians so that we can get this right. Five or six months ago, we had a national election.”
“We can talk about Atlantic Canada and how, in particular, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador are looking at offshore wind. Do members remember the Atlantic accords, in which two provinces worked with Ottawa to have mirror legislation that would ultimately advance green energy? I recall it for the simple reason that not only was it good for their respective economies, but the federal government was working with provincial governments on an idea and legislation that was going to have a seriously positive impact on renewable energy in Atlantic Canada. I was shocked to see Conservative members of Parliament vote against it, as many of my Atlantic colleagues were.”
“The Conservatives cannot take credit for that. Being from the Prairies, I understand that in Manitoba, my home province, hydro development is the best energy source we have, which we are promoting. We still have oil and so forth, but there is no doubt that it is about hydro development. We have other resources there that we want to see being utilized in one fashion or another. I lived in Saskatchewan. When I think of Saskatchewan, it is in terms of everything from potash to oil, copper and so much more. When I was serving in the military, I was actually posted in Edmonton. I think of Strathcona, the oil sands and the opportunities there. We can talk about LNG out in British Columbia. We can talk about nuclear in the province of Ontario. Many of my Ontario colleagues talk a great deal about that.”
“My colleague, the deputy House leader , put a question to the leader of the Conservative Party , challenging him to say what pipeline he actually built. We can remember that the current leader of the Conservative Party sat in the Stephen Harper cabinet. Reflecting on the Harper days, we can see that they were unable to build an inch of pipeline that was direct to coastal waters. As much as the Conservatives like to jump up and down, saying all these wonderful words about the development and promotion of our energy, I question the degree to which they were actually effective at doing so in the past. The most recent generational pipeline to coastal waters, if I can put it that way, was in fact the Trans Mountain pipeline. I remind members opposite that this was not a Stephen Harper initiative, but a Justin Trudeau initiative.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to a very important issue. Being from the Prairies, having grown up or lived in all three of our prairie provinces, I understand the importance of our commodities, such as oil, and their potential. I am actually fairly excited about the future. I look forward to seeing how Canada will continue to evolve to be an energy superpower. That is something we hear a lot of coming from the Prime Minister of Canada today. I believe he truly understands the needs of western Canada and the desire of people living in the Prairies and beyond; we want to see our commodities and energy being developed in an environmentally responsible fashion. It has been interesting to follow this debate over the years.”
“Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate the concerns the Conservatives have today with regard to the issue of pipelines. It is interesting. What we have heard from the Prime Minister are nothing but positive, encouraging signs, for the Prairies in particular, in the energy field. We have to provide the Prime Minister the opportunity to demonstrate how well he has been working with the premiers of the different provinces. We need to be a bit more optimistic. If we contrast the Prime Minister with the results that Stephen Harper had while he was prime minister, it would be best for members of the Conservative Party to co-operate a little more and maybe be a little more optimistic.”
“Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Prime Minister has actually been very clear to Canadians and to members opposite about how Canada is going to continue to build a strong economic economy that, at the end of the day, factors in energy. I would like to contrast even just the beginning of what the current Prime Minister did with what Stephen Harper did when the member was sitting in the Speaker's chair. During that period under Stephen Harper and the Conservative government, it is important for Canadians to realize, not even one inch of pipeline was built that led to tidewaters. An hon. member: That's not true. Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, that is the reality. The member opposite might say that is not true, so then he should give us the pipeline that went directly from Alberta to B.C., Churchill or Atlantic Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, given that debate on Bill C-3 was able to conclude this morning, I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent at this time to see the clock at 2:30 p.m. so the House may adjourn.”
“Mr. Speaker, my question for the member is with regard to the importance of the legislation, in particular with respect to lost Canadians. Lost Canadians should have Canadian citizenship, which I think all members agree on; at least I believe that to be the case. I would ask him to comment on the importance of passing the legislation so those individuals in particular would be able to get their citizenship.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to the hypothetical example that I gave to the member. Often, when we look at legislation, we reflect on the need for that legislation based on what is happening abroad or in our communities. I have a legitimate question and I ask the member for, at the very least, his own personal opinion. In the case that I raised about Anna, should her grandson or granddaughter be allowed to have Canadian citizenship? She should not have to go to a court to make that determination. We are saying, yes, Anna's granddaughter or grandson would in fact be able to have Canadian citizenship. Does the member believe that should be the case?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to give a hypothetical example that reflects the reality in many ways. Let us say we have Anna, a member of the Canadian Forces posted overseas. During her posting overseas, she has a child. Then she comes back to Canada with her child. As the years go by, her child gets a job opportunity in Europe. As a direct result of that, if her daughter has a child, questions about citizenship would be raised. Does the member believe the grandchild of Anna, a member of the Canadian Forces who had the posting overseas, is a Canadian?”
“Mr. Speaker, that is just factually incorrect. I was the critic at the time. If the member was there, he would know that, actually, the waiting times to get a spouse through was years in the Harper era. The Harper government literally cancelled the parent and grandparent sponsorship program. The reason they cancelled it is that it was such a disaster that it took up to seven years to sponsor a parent or grandparent to come to Canada. Harper was a disaster on immigration as a whole. Would the member not confess to the reality of the situation? After all, he was there and I am sure he can recall that.”
“Mr. Speaker, the hon. member cited immigration in 2002 as being really good. I acknowledge that. What he does not do is cite the many years in which Harper's administration was a disaster for immigration. They, for example, deleted applications, with literally hundreds of thousands of individuals who were in the process of coming to Canada. They had seven-year waiting times to sponsor a parent, and they cancelled the parents and grandparents program. There were serious problems that we were able to rectify. Today's issue is more about the temporary visas. The current Prime Minister has indicated that we are going to get on the right track. We are working aggressively to do that. In the example of Anna in the forces, she goes abroad, has a child and comes back; her child then goes abroad to work.”
“Mr. Speaker, I take exception to that. At every opportunity I get, I advocate for recognizing the credentials that immigrants bring to Canada. The member and the Conservative Party need to realize that we cannot just say we will have a blue seal program. There is no depth whatsoever to that program. This is something we have to get the provinces to agree to and participate in. Has the Conservative Party done any engagement with the provinces to give any legitimacy at all to their blue seal program?”
“Mr. Speaker, provinces need to do a better job of recognizing the skills that immigrants bring to the country, in particular in health care. That has been a chronic problem since I was first elected back in 1988. Provinces must take the lead. The member made reference to immigration and tried to blame immigration for the capacity problem in health care today. Some of the greatest shortages among doctors in Canada today are in the province of Manitoba, and both the premier and the Minister of Immigration in Manitoba want the current immigration levels to stay. They want everyone who is in Manitoba to stay in Manitoba. They want to increase the numbers. Does that not conflict with what the member is saying? Does he believe the home province we share is wrong on its immigration request?”
“I wonder if the member can comment on that aspect and condemn her colleague, the member for Oxford , who stated, “We are now living in a war zone in Canada.” That is absolutely ridiculous, and I am sure she would agree.”
“Mr. Speaker, as we get closer to the conclusion of the debate, let us be very clear that whether it is the Prime Minister of Canada or the Liberal members of Parliament, Canadians can be assured that we have been listening to what they have said. It comes out of the last federal election. There has been a solid commitment from our Prime Minister to ensure that we have bail reform legislation well before the end of the year. That is important to Canadians. It is important to the many different stakeholders. We hope only that the Conservative Party of Canada will respond positively by allowing us to take it to the next step. That is going to be critically important for the safety of Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Conservative member for Oxford stated, “We are now living in a war zone in Canada.” That sort of rhetoric, which we hear from members of the Conservative Party, is, I believe, very damaging. We have a Prime Minister who has recognized the need for bail reform and has made a commitment to delivering bail reform this fall. I am wondering if the member can provide her thoughts on the importance of that commitment.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member for Oxford , this member's seatmate, said, “We are now living in a war zone in Canada.” That is the kind of extreme statement we are hearing from Conservatives. Does the member agree with her colleague?”
“Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to a quote. I want to go right to that quote. I have heard a couple of what I would classify as weird comments from Conservatives today. The first one I heard was when the MP for Cariboo—Prince George made this statement: “in my riding, 98% of the crime is created by five or six prolific offenders. When they are in jail, the crime rate goes down.” Then, as the member made reference, there was a quote by the member for Oxford that we are “now living in a war zone in Canada.” How ridiculous a comment that is to make. This is a type of behaviour that we often see from the Conservative Party. They take these extreme positions. I would argue that they are using the issue of crime and safety in our communities—”
“Mr. Speaker, if I were to answer the specific question that the member asked, that would require me to say something indicating that I have privy information, and if I did that, then tomorrow he would stand up on a question of privilege, asking how the member for Winnipeg North knew this. Then we would get every member of the Conservative caucus talking about their privilege having been breached, and they would have another way to prevent legislation from—”
“Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, from a personal perspective, if members of the Bloc want to come talk to me about the issue, I am open to doing that, but I do stand by my earlier comment that the issue is something that, if I were a member of the Bloc, would be an excellent opportunity to set as an agenda item at the Standing Committee on Justice, and that would involve more parliamentarians. However, if the member would like to have further discussions with me with respect to it, I would be more than happy to do that.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member is asking what I personally would do, in terms of a sense of commitment. I would be more than happy to talk with any member of the Bloc party if they are prepared to explain to me what they are talking about. As I say, I think the more appropriate place for that discussion to take place is probably the justice standing committee. I do not know whether the Bloc has had the opportunity to have that discussion there, but I would suggest that could be a good starting point in itself. However, I always welcome talking to members of the Bloc.”
“The member might disagree with me, but it is important that the Prime Minister and the cabinet consult before we bring substantive legislation on the issue of bail reform, for the simple reason that it has been a major issue coming out of the last federal election, and the Prime Minister has made a commitment to Canadians to deal with it by bringing forward bail legislation. I think the Conservatives have to at least provide a few months to ensure that we get the bail reforms that are going to reflect what Canadians and the different stakeholders want to see, as well as the expectation of the new Prime Minister .”
“Mr. Speaker, the member was an MLA for seven years; I was an MLA for just under 20 years. I understand the provincial system, no doubt, as well as he understands it. He should also understand and acknowledge that both levels of government have a very important role. The member talked about what has happened over the last 10 years. The Speaker will not give me enough time to be able to expand on that, but I need to remind the member that the Prime Minister was elected just a few months ago.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Jordan case was addressed in part when the former government brought in legislation. I know the Conservatives oppose certain aspects of that legislation, which means, at least from what I understand, they are going to reintroduce the stuff that was actually struck down by the Supreme Court, but that helps them in terms of their fundraising efforts. At the end of the day, during the nineties in Manitoba, at the provincial level, we thought it was advantageous to focus on gang activities, identifying them and putting extra resources into dealing with them. It did make a difference. What the member opposite is proposing, some sort of organized crime registry, I think would be something that would be great to hear more discussion about at the appropriate standing committee.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity, not once but on a couple of occasions, to talk to Mayor Gillingham in regard to the issue of crime in the city of Winnipeg, and it is very serious. At the end of the day, as I have explained to the House, it is not just Ottawa. In four or five months, Ottawa, and in particular the Prime Minister , has done the work necessary in terms of the consultations, reaching out, getting the feedback that is so critically important, and then putting together substantial legislation that will be coming out this fall. I think you have to provide the new government the opportunity to do the work necessary in order to table the legislation. I can assure you that the mayor of Winnipeg and many others—”
“If the Conservatives really do care about the issue of bail reform or issues that are encompassed by Bill C-2 , they need to recognize that at some point they have to allow legislation to get to the committee stage. That is why, at the beginning, when the leader of the Conservative Party stood in this place and spoke today, I made the accusation that the Conservative Party needs to be less focused on raising money for the Conservative Party, using crime and safety as a mechanism to do that, and more focused on addressing the needs of Canadians, which is what the Prime Minister has actually done. We are anticipating that there will be substantial bail reform legislation. Hopefully the Conservatives will do the right thing when that happens and will get behind it, at least get it to committee where they could potentially make amendments.”
“So are the Liberals, but the Conservatives are being very critical of the government for not doing enough. Bill C-2 would enable law enforcement agencies to open a letter if they get a warrant from a court because they suspect that there could be fentanyl in the envelope. The Conservatives do not even support it. We heard that yesterday. Why would the Conservatives not support an RCMP officer, for example, who gets a warrant to be able to search an envelope for something like fentanyl? Fentanyl and other drugs are actually being distributed through Canada Post. We need the legislation to enable our RCMP officers to open those envelopes if they get the warrant.”
“Extortion is a very serious issue in Canada. By enabling the legislation at the very least to get to committee, we would be able to have more debate on it. Stakeholders from across Canada could come to provide opinions and address concerns. The Conservatives say they have some amendments. They would be able to propose amendments to the bill and continue to debate it. After second reading, if it goes into third reading, they could debate it as long as they like there too. Let them just realize one thing: If they are serious about dealing with crime, they should not just talk about it but also allow things to take place. With respect to Bill C-2 , extortion is just one aspect of it. If we were to do a Hansard search for the word “fentanyl”, we would find that the Conservatives are talking a lot about the issue of fentanyl.”
“The Conservative critic introduced for first reading today a bill that talks about massive changes to our justice system and is guaranteed only two hours of debate, not to mention limits in committee plus limits in third reading. With respect to the massive change that he is proposing to the justice system, he would consider that as being done. What kind of consultation did he conduct? What kind of debate did he allow for? I will assure members that we will guarantee more debate than he would have had during the private member's bill debate, if that is all it takes to get Conservatives to get legislation ultimately passed. They can say they do not have the legislation, and stick to that line, but then I will go back to Bill C-2 . What would Bill C-2 actually do? In part, it would enable RCMP to share data.”
“(1340) However, if they recognize what we have recognized in terms of what Canadians and the many different stakeholders are saying on the issues, I would hope that the leader of the Conservative Party , to whom I asked the question, would be open to, at the very least, allowing bail reform legislation to hit the committee stage before the end of the year. That does not mean they have to pass it; it just means that they are prepared to allow it to get to committee stage. That is a reasonable request. The Conservatives will say they have not even seen the legislation yet, which is a valid point. It is much like their wanting us to vote on a motion today, when we have not seen any legislation on it yet. We have no sense of what consultation was done on it, but they will expect us to vote.”
“Speaker, we can talk about misinformation and slogans. They have turned crime and safety into nothing more than the creation of slogans, propaganda and bumper stickers just to feed a certain element of their party to generate funds. That is what it has come down to. That is why they criticize Liberals constantly on crime. At the end of the day, we need to look at the actions Conservatives have taken to date on the issue. We will wait to see what happens when the bail reform legislation comes forward. I am somewhat of an optimist at times, even though I have been discouraged in recent years with how the Conservatives have dealt with federal legislation.”
“Petty thefts were not happening to anywhere near the same degree as in the early 1990s. As the chair, I discussed it with the provincial parole officer responsible for our justice committee. Apparently, there was a decision made between the province and the city that it was better for the city police to deal with young offenders as opposed to a youth justice committee. There were a number of them in the province. I use that example to highlight that we need to recognize, and I will continue to amplify this, that the issue of crime and safety is a shared responsibility. However, we would not know that if we listened to the Conservatives. Looking at their fundraising emails, and I have seen many of them— An hon. member: Are you donating? Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: No, I have not donated, and I do not plan to, either. Mr.”
“I understand how jurisdictional responsibility is not necessarily the most efficient way to deal with problems at times, but that is part of our Canadian system, and I respect that. During the early 1990s, I assisted in forming what we call the youth justice committees. One was the Keewatin youth justice committee, and after a few years, I became the chair. It was interesting to see how things changed over time. A youth justice committee, I should say for members who are not familiar with them, was composed of individuals who live in the community and volunteer to deal with young offenders who commit a crime, typically the first offence. In the first few years, we dealt with quite a few crimes. They were primarily petty theft, such as shoplifting crimes and things of that nature, but as the years went by, things started to change.”
“The Prime Minister , who was elected just a few months ago, had to deal with the important issues of building one stronger Canada and bringing forward legislation of that nature. He brought forward legislation to deal with affordability so that 22 million Canadians get a tax break. He had numerous meetings and consultations on a wide spectrum of issues, including crime and safety. He has a responsibility to ensure that the minister responsible for the legislation is getting us into a position to fulfill the commitment he made to Canadians, which was to deliver substantial legislation on bail reform. That is the federal responsibility, and we have a Prime Minister who is committed to doing just that. In the 1990s, I was an MLA, and for a short period of time, I was the justice critic.”
“I will repeat the last part: “Without an adequately staffed Crown’s office, government promises to crack down on violent repeat offenders are little more than political slogans.” It continues: 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. Ultimately, it means eroding the very rule of law. In fairness, it is not just the responsibility of the Province of Manitoba and the federal government. All levels of government have a responsibility. (1335) Let us look at that responsibility and the expectations of the different levels of government.”
“Further: The NDP has spoken frequently about its commitment to safer communities. It has announced more funding for police and has supported federal efforts to tighten bail laws. That means consulting with the new Prime Minister , which is a little off topic, so I will go back to the quote. But those measures mean little if there are not enough prosecutors to move cases through the courts in a timely manner. Without an adequately staffed Crown’s office, government promises to crack down on violent repeat offenders are little more than political slogans. Again, this is an editorial about provincial responsibilities.”
“We need to recognize it is not just Ottawa's responsibility. Some might say I am somewhat biased in my opinions at times, so I thought it would be advantageous to quote a few things from an editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press. This editorial was published on September 9, with the headline “More Crown prosecutors needed—now”. The editorial reads, “The Manitoba Association of Crown Attorneys has filed a formal grievance, saying the office requires at least 20 per cent more prosecutors”. Those are prosecutors that the province is responsible for hiring. Further down it reads, “But blame only goes so far.” This refers to the current government blaming the previous government. I quote: But blame only goes so far. After two years in power, the government of the day owns the problem and the responsibility for fixing it.”
“We will see substantial changes to the system that reflect what we have been hearing at the doors, which is what Liberal members of Parliament have been advocating for, and what the many different stakeholders have been talking about. Whether it is municipalities, the provinces or the federal government, we need to recognize it is not the federal government alone that is responsible for ensuring safe communities and streets. It is a shared responsibility. We all have a responsibility, but at the very least, we need to recognize it is not just Ottawa that is responsible for this. As our newly elected Prime Minister has indicated, Ottawa will step up. We will act where we can, where our responsibilities lie. We will see that legislation tabled this fall. This is a guarantee from the Prime Minister and Liberal members of Parliament.”
“Crime and safety in our communities was an important issue. There is absolutely no doubt about that. The Prime Minister , Canada's newly elected Prime Minister, made a solemn commitment to Canadians that we would in fact bring forward bail legislation and we would see significant changes to bail reform. If we listen to the Conservatives, they are asking why it has not been brought forward and saying they want to see the legislation. Then, if we had brought it forward at this point, they would ask if we had done any consulting. (1330) The Prime Minister made the commitment not only to deliver on bail reform but also to do the consultation necessary so we could encompass within the legislation a true reflection of Canadians' expectations. In essence, this is what we are going to see when the minister tables the legislation.”
“Speaker, but when I hear Conservatives talk tough on crime, their real priority is raising money for the Conservative Party, and that is what it is all about. That is the reason I specifically asked the leader of the Conservative Party earlier today about his commitment to see substantial legislation pass, at least through second reading. It is not that much to ask for. He virtually ignored the question and would not give a commitment. If history has anything to do with the future, with regard to this particular leader and the Conservative caucus, they will talk about it, but when it comes to taking action, unless they are shamed, they are very slow on it. Let us reflect on the last federal election. Every Liberal candidate from all regions of our country knocked on doors and listened to what Canadians had to say.”
“What we have witnessed in the past is that the Conservative Party talks tough on crime, but when it comes time to deliver, Conservatives just want to talk, and that is it. The last time we had bail reform come to the House of Commons, the Conservatives had to be shamed into allowing it to get to committee stage and ultimately to third reading. I know that because I was one of the MPs who had to remind them at the time of the importance of bail reform, which they, in part, said they supported. If we look at the Hansard record, we will see that they actually voted in favour of the legislation, not only at second reading and third reading, but they wanted to see it receive royal assent. It did receive royal assent. There was a consultation process done for that. Excuse me, Mr.”