Marc Dalton
Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, British Columbia · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, I see that the member for Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong has certainly been drinking the Liberal Kool‑Aid, with her jargon, “build Canada strong” and “investment”. One important industry she did not really refer to is the automobile industry and how it has dropped from over 2.5 million units to, now, under one million.”
“Mr. Speaker, crime has gone out of control under the Liberals with violent crime, extortion and those out on bail. They make it seem as if they are the bearers of truth and justice and getting things done when they are the reason we are in the situation we are now. They are closing down debate. We have a role to play.”
“It was part of the member for Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford 's riding until the last election. It is in the Ruskin Dam. That light bulb is almost 100 years old. It has not gone out in 100 years. That is amazing. If we had light bulbs like that, we could almost put them in our will. Planned obsolescence is not new.”
“My wife, whom I have been pretty impressed with, has come up with some fixes for our dryer and our microwave, and we did a little patch. Guess what? They are still working after all these years. Those are some good stories about appliances, but not all appliances in our household have happy stories. Take our stove.”
“This is another issue to keep in mind. Canada is a small market, compared to Europe and the United States. As it was mentioned previously by my colleague from British Columbia, most of the manufacturing is done in other countries. That is a problem, because they are not going to bend for Canada.”
“What does it mean to have a national framework? It means 50 full-time bureaucrats talking and talking. Maybe it is 500 or 5,000. I do not know. The minister must confer with the provinces on possible future legislation, industry obligations, inspections and penalties every 18 months and must report to Parliament.”
The complete record
Every one of 209 lines we hold for Marc Dalton, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 5.
“Mr. Speaker, crime has gone out of control under the Liberals with violent crime, extortion and those out on bail. They make it seem as if they are the bearers of truth and justice and getting things done when they are the reason we are in the situation we are now. They are closing down debate. We have a role to play. I am sure the Liberals would prefer there not be an opposition. We have a responsibility to bring forward amendments as the opposition on behalf of Canadians, because almost all the time the Liberals get it wrong.”
“Mr. Speaker, I see that the member for Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong has certainly been drinking the Liberal Kool‑Aid, with her jargon, “build Canada strong” and “investment”. One important industry she did not really refer to is the automobile industry and how it has dropped from over 2.5 million units to, now, under one million. There has been a free fall there. That is one sector. There is also EV manufacturing. I think of the different companies. Honda's $15‑billion EV and battery complex has been scrapped. Northvolt has been cut. It has been a free fall. I wonder if the member would agree with me that these Liberal investments have actually been very dubious and unfruitful.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his passionate speech and for his very clearly thought-out presentation and understanding of the bill. I certainly hope that the Liberals will follow through with his amendment. My wife and I received a call a couple of days ago from a relative of the pastor of the church I have been going to for about 25 years. She was very upset about this bill. I wanted to soothe her, so I told her, “I do not believe they are going to be taking people in the next few days or few weeks and bringing them to prison.” I was just trying to calm her down. At the same time, I said, “This is leading somewhere. We do not know where it is going to go. It is going to be interpreted.” I wonder if the member could tell us how this would impact the human rights courts—”
“It would risk consumer choice by reducing lower-cost product options and discouraging manufacturers from offering certain products in the Canadian market. It sounds like a great idea, but there are a lot of problems and pitfalls in this bill. The Conservatives will be voting against it, and I encourage the government to go back to the table and follow the Conservatives' plan.”
“Bill C-294 , which we supported, would have made it easier for Canadian businesses and innovators to create products that work with existing technologies, giving consumers more choice and encouraging competition. It was a common-sense measure that would have supported innovation, helped grow our economy and benefited Canadians without taking away copyright protections. This bill, despite its title, does not display common sense. This bill would present risks around federal intrusion into areas of provincial jurisdiction. The Liberals do not have a problem with that. It would introduce the potential for increased regulatory burden on businesses. The Liberals do not have a problem with that, either.”
“This is another issue to keep in mind. Canada is a small market, compared to Europe and the United States. As it was mentioned previously by my colleague from British Columbia, most of the manufacturing is done in other countries. That is a problem, because they are not going to bend for Canada. Basically, what will end up happening is there will be a reduction in the number of products for Canadians. This will certainly increase costs for Canadian consumers, who the Liberals are saying they are trying to help. At the same time, the Internet has made it easier than ever for consumers to see how long things last, based on honest reviews. They may be honest. We may have to pick through them. The Conservatives are opposing this bill. Why? It is because it moves away from previous Conservative-supported right-to-repair measures.”
“It is true that refrigerators, washers and dryers were simpler and easier to repair, and parts were more robust and less dependent on electronics. They were also heavier, with more metal components. Now, electronic control boards, sensors, touch screens and smart features introduce more failure points. Manufacturers are also feeling the pressure to keep prices competitive, which leads to lighter construction and lower-cost components. Before we run headlong into bureaucracy and regulations, we need to also recognize that modern appliances use much less electricity and water. That is a significant cost savings. They have more features and conveniences, and they meet stricter environmental standards. The trade-off has been lower purchase prices and better efficiency versus durability and ease of repair.”
“What does it mean to have a national framework? It means 50 full-time bureaucrats talking and talking. Maybe it is 500 or 5,000. I do not know. The minister must confer with the provinces on possible future legislation, industry obligations, inspections and penalties every 18 months and must report to Parliament. There would be report after report, more bureaucracy and more expense to the taxpayer. We have seen this playing out over and over again. We were recently discussing Build Canada Homes, which is a fourth bureaucracy. The Liberals have a terrible record. My staff tell me how hard it is becoming to deal with the Canada Revenue Agency, immigration and the government. It is getting slower and slower. It is hard. We need to also consider the prices for appliances that were stable and have been declining for many years.”
“I just ordered a fourth shaver a couple days ago from Amazon. They used to last a decade or more. This is what we are seeing. We need to dig a little deeper into this bill. What would it actually do? It would force the minister to make a bureaucracy. It would force the minister to make a national framework. Liberals love the words “national framework”. The framework must address the minimum useful life and labelling, the repair via accessible parts, tools and information, replacement part availability periods, technical documentation, software support duration, consumer education and the responsibilities of manufacturers, importers and distributors. It is a massive bureaucratic undertaking. I can see the Liberals being gleeful about this bureaucracy. (1805) Frameworks are nebulous and vaporous.”
“It was part of the member for Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford 's riding until the last election. It is in the Ruskin Dam. That light bulb is almost 100 years old. It has not gone out in 100 years. That is amazing. If we had light bulbs like that, we could almost put them in our will. Planned obsolescence is not new. In the 1920s, GM introduced the annual model year. Alfred Sloan pioneered dynamic obsolescence. He restyled the cars every year so that the previous year looked aged. This is what happened to the Model T. That sank it for Ford and the Model T. It was about fashion. We see present-day obsolescence in software updates, incompatible chargers, glued-in batteries and printer cartridges with kill chips. This is frustrating. I would agree that the industry can do better. We can get products that last. Canadians would welcome this.”
“That was a frustrating and expensive experience. Toasters nowadays seem to be just as useless, compared to half a century ago. The list goes on and on. There is a history of planned obsolescence. Have members ever heard about the Phoebus cartel? I had never heard about the Phoebus cartel before I did the preparation for this speech. It was made up of the world's major light bulb manufacturers. In 1924, we had Osram, which I had never heard of, and Philips, which I have heard of, as well as GE and others. These companies secretly agreed to cap bulb lifespans at about 1,000 hours. They were at about 2,500 hours at that time. They fined members whose bulbs lasted too long. They saw, rightly, that having bulbs that never went out was not good for business. There is a light bulb in my riding.”
“My wife, whom I have been pretty impressed with, has come up with some fixes for our dryer and our microwave, and we did a little patch. Guess what? They are still working after all these years. Those are some good stories about appliances, but not all appliances in our household have happy stories. Take our stove. It did not have a knob, like they used to. I guess some of them still do, but the one we had did not. It had a plastic top. Anyway, one of the little plastic pieces behind broke. It was about 50¢ for the piece, so I thought it would be no problem to get this little repair job done. I thought it was going to keep up with my freezer, but it apparently needed a whole new control panel. They did not make the replacement for that little piece, and a new control panel would have cost almost the same as buying a new a stove.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-267 , an act to establish a national framework to promote the durability of electronic products and essential home appliances. The legislation proposes a federal framework to improve product durability, repairability and transparency for consumers. It sounds really good. Everyone has stories about appliances and their longevity, or the lack thereof. I bought a second-hand freezer 35 years ago. It is still humming away in our basement. It needs some defrosting. It has almost become a member of the family. I do not know how many more years it has, but it will probably outlive us. There is also my microwave. It is 23 years old today. It celebrated its birthday. About 10 years ago, it had a little problem. It started sparking.”
“Mr. Speaker, Conservatives are a bit disappointed that the Liberals voted against some of our amendments. I think that will affect how we will vote. I would like to know what the Bloc Québécois member thinks of some of these amendments, particularly those aimed at strengthening the security of ballot boxes, as well as the measures designed to close loopholes that allow third parties to advertise on behalf of one party or another.”
“Over the decades, thousands have been touched by Mel and Wendy's belief that barriers should never prevent a child from thriving. Mel Zajac leaves behind a legacy of philanthropy and compassion. On behalf of the House, I extend my deepest condolences to Wendy, his family and the entire Zajac community.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour the life of an extraordinary British Columbian philanthropist and community builder, Mel Zajac, who passed away at the age of 98. I had the privilege of knowing Mel and visited Zajac Ranch in Mission on several occasions, including just last month. It is an amazing place, and it is constantly improving. What always struck me was that, right to the very end, Mel remained passionately committed to helping youth with disabilities. After the heartbreaking loss of two sons, Mel transformed personal tragedy into a remarkable legacy of hope. His vision gave life to Zajac Ranch, which is a fully accessible camp where children and young adults with complex medical conditions can experience joy, friendship, confidence and the sense of belonging that every child needs.”
“Mr. Speaker, after a decade of Liberal inflation and economic mismanagement, Canadians are the ones who are paying the price. A new United Way survey found that 60% of them are anxious about their finances and 40% are losing sleep trying to make ends meet. More than two million Canadians relied on food banks every month last year, and in Maple Ridge, food bank use has doubled in the past five years. How much worse must it get before the Liberal Prime Minister reverses the costly policies driving Canadians into hardship?”
“Mr. Speaker, to capsulize Bill C-20, I would say it is more bureaucracy, it is more regulation and it is more cost to the taxpayer, but it is great for Liberal insiders and friends. We are probably going to find out more and more as time goes on.”
“This is not just numbers; it is diminished paycheques, fewer jobs and strained households. Canadians deserve better than a Liberal government that has lost its way.”
“Madam Speaker, last year Canadians thought they were electing someone with exceptional economic skills who could strengthen our economy and quickly negotiate a deal with the United States. Well, it is becoming increasingly evident that we have been duped. Under the Liberals, Canada has the only recession in the G20. We have now suffered economic decline in three of the last four quarters. The Parliamentary Budget Officer paints a grim picture, saying there is only a 1% chance the Liberals will meet their own fiscal targets. As for businesses, they are retreating from investment amid soaring uncertainty. The Liberals claim to be cutting costs, but they plan to hike personnel expenses from $69 billion to $86 billion by 2031. Then there is the $72 billion in deficit borrowing this year alone.”
“Madam Speaker, I did not hear my colleague's question. If he is wondering if there is a role for private companies, the answer is yes. It is important. Canada needs to be unleashed. This is what is happening. Companies, individuals, Canadians are being held back, and they need to be unleashed from all these regulations.”
“Madam Speaker, how we do it is we move building more into the private sector, as opposed to keeping it in government hands and government bureaucracies, where it gives jobs to friendly insiders and goes nowhere. That is the problem. The government has just been building bureaucracy. It has become a disaster for Canada.”
“Madam Speaker, I want to apologize for the fact that I will probably be too nice in my remarks to the Liberal member. This is madness, and it actually proves the point that the Liberals might see a slight change and then blow the horn about how wonderful they are. It has been a disaster, and now they are saying that immigration is down, but it is down from historic highs. The Liberals tweak it down just a little and say how great they are doing. They have made a total mess of things. Under the Conservatives, we built two and a half million homes during a time of population increase that was less than the increase over the past few years. I hold onto that F for failure for the Liberals.”
“Conservatives have a plan: Cut the GST on all new homes under $1.3 million, saving families up to $65,000 and unleashing new building; tie federal infrastructure dollars to homebuilding, with municipalities having to permit at least 15% more homebuilding each year to get things done; cut development charges by 50%, because the number one cost of construction is all the regulations and permitting; and end the capital gains tax on reinvestments in new housing in Canada and unlock billions of dollars of investment in the country's homebuilding sector. Canadians should be able to earn a strong paycheque in a thriving economy to buy an affordable home. It used to be this way, and it can be this way again.”
“We can see the stats here very clearly. Canadians used to be able to buy their first home in their twenties or early thirties. Realtors in Vancouver tell me that it is now an anomaly for new homebuyers to purchase a place without getting significant financial help from their family. This is building a sharp divide in Canadian society between the haves and the have-nots. This is not good. It is becoming dependent upon generational wealth rather than on someone's being able to make it on their own, even with a supposedly great salary.”
“We can do the math on how much is being invested right there and what that equates to as far as cost per unit. It is more bureaucracy, more red tape and more cost. I recently held a round table with builders and developers. They are asking for less government in the homebuilding process, not more. Ever-increasing regulations are killing the market and driving up construction costs. Federal, provincial and municipal regulations and taxes are all adding costs, not just for the builder but also for the home purchaser. If we are to make housing affordable for Canadians, we need to cut the cost of building and to build more, faster. Bill C‑20 would not build, and it would not cut costs for builders. What would it do? It would build a fourth government bureaucracy. That is an F, for “fail”. I was a teacher.”
“Maybe the intention is to make things so bad that when there is a change, and I think there was some positive news with the numbers today, the Liberals will blow the trumpets, bang on the drums and say how they have turned things around, how marvellous things have become. However, this is a fail. It is not a new day. It is not a new government. It is the same old, same old. Instead of a plan to build homes, the Liberals would deliver a fourth housing bureaucracy. Far from building at generational speeds, they have taken a year to introduce legislation that still builds no homes. Even when homes start getting built, the Parliamentary Budget Officer found, Build Canada Homes would add just 5,000 homes per year, 1% of what the Liberals promised.”
“Canada's population has increased by 2.5 million people in the last three years alone, under the Liberals' chaotic handling of immigration. Construction should be skyrocketing, not plummeting. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation says that we need to build 480,000 homes a year for the next decade. We are expected to build only half of that this year and only 212,000 units by 2028. Meanwhile, 131,000 Canadians who used to work in construction are unemployed as of April, and half of home builders and contractors are reporting layoffs in the first quarter of this year. Maybe there is a strategy under this political madness.”
“The Conservatives had their scandals also. One lady, a cabinet minister, resigned for having a $16 glass of orange juice. The Prime Minister promised to double housing construction to half a million homes a year and to move at speeds we have not seen in generations. How has that turned out? More than one year in, the result is the exact opposite: fewer permits, fewer starts, and a housing crisis that keeps getting worse. For example, Toronto has experienced a major housing construction downturn, a crash. Starts are down more than 50% in the last three years. New condo sales in the GTA collapsed to 1,599 units in 2025, the lowest annual total in 35 years and 91% less than the 10-year average. (1050) However, this must be kept in context.”
“The G20 includes nations such as Argentina, which was an economic basket case not so long ago; Australia; Brazil; China; France; Germany; India; Indonesia; Italy; Japan; Mexico, whose number one trading partner is the U.S., as it is for Canada; Russia; Saudi Arabia; South Africa; South Korea; Turkey; the United Kingdom and the United States. I know that the Liberals would like to blame the U.S. for all the problems Canada faces, but all these countries are impacted by U.S. tariffs, and some are in war zones. However, credit must be given where credit is deserved. The Liberals excel, get an A, for building bureaucracy, increasing red tape and doling out money to friends, family and themselves. Since I was elected to the House of Commons in 2019, it has been one scandal after another. We get numb after a while.”
“Between 2006 and 2015, under Stephen Harper, there were two million housing starts in Canada, while the population growth was about 3.2 million. Using household sizes, those starts were enough to accommodate more people than the population during that period. Canada fared the best in the G7. We were a prosperous nation going from strength to strength. Fast-forward to 2026. After 11 long years under the Liberal government and under two Liberal prime ministers, we have gone from boom to gloom and from first to worst. There has been economic stagnation and decline under the Liberals. In three of the last four quarters, we have shrunk. We are in a recession. We are the only country in the G20 with an economy that is shrinking.”
“All throughout British Columbia there was tremendous progress, and I know that this was the same throughout the country. The New York Times, during that period, said that Canada had the richest middle class in the world. We had a dollar at par with the American dollar. I would talk to Americans and others visiting Canada and visiting Victoria, where I often was for my government work. They were amazed by the prosperity they saw in British Columbia and in Canada. Let us keep in mind that between 2007 and mid-2009, the world underwent the great global recession. It was the most severe economic and financial meltdown since the Great Depression in the late twenties and the thirties, impacting housing significantly. Canada weathered this storm very well, and we were number one in growth.”
“Madam Speaker, I was an MLA in British Columbia in the years coinciding with when the Conservatives were in power under former prime minister Stephen Harper. Those were the years when Canada, and more specifically B.C., was moving forward. Projects were getting built under a free enterprise provincial and federal government. In my riding, there is the Golden Ears Bridge, the Pitt River Bridge, the Port Mann Bridge and the expansion of the Trans-Canada Highway. The highway that used to go between Vancouver and Squamish was called the highway of death because of all the fatalities there. That was expanded. There is Kicking Horse Pass. The Olympics happened. There is the Canada Line, the convention centre and a new stadium, new hospitals and new schools.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are ignoring what is happening. Do they think that the business owners and the homeowners are just making things up, saying that they cannot renew their mortgages or that business owners cannot get loans? That is in the law. It is happening. It is the uncertainty. It is what is not in the treaties and the agreements, so it is causing problems. It is causing problems within the Lower Mainland and it is causing problems in other first nations. It is a mess and they can put that on the Liberals.”
“What is going on here for private property owners? What does it mean for municipalities? What does it mean for future land claims and development projects? British Columbia has been an important engine in Confederation and in the economy, but it is not the same. We are struggling here economically and developmentally. When business owners are afraid of expanding, that has an impact on jobs. The lack of jobs impacts taxes and revenues, which impacts health care and everything else.”
“That directive led Ottawa to abandon the argument in defence of fee simple title in British Columbia, including in the Cowichan case. It is still on the government's website today, unless it was taken out this morning, to not encourage the government lawyers to stand up for fee simple property. The Liberals say we are fearmongering. That is not true. They are trying to minimize a very serious situation that British Columbians find themselves in. They say we are being racist. It is not true. Conservatives believe in reconciliation with indigenous people. It is essential. It is a moral obligation, a constitutional responsibility and an opportunity to build a stronger Canada founded on mutual respect and shared prosperity. Reconciliation cannot succeed if it is built on ambiguity, secrecy and legal confusion. What does this all mean?”
“We are going to fight for our communities. We are going to try to wake up the Liberals because they have gotten us into this situation. British Columbians bought their homes, paid their mortgages and followed the law, but because the Liberal government directed its lawyers not to argue for property rights in the Cowichan case, the judge did not protect private property. The government will say it is there and it is fighting for it, but it did not actually intervene. It said it would appeal on the very last day. The government said it had better do that as it might not be very good for it electorally. That is what it is thinking of. It is all electoral; it is all speech. Under the Prime Minister 's leadership, the federal government continues to maintain the same legal directive adopted in 2019: litigation guideline 14.”
“It sets a precedent that can expand. It is already serious enough. This ruling has shaken the foundations of British Columbia's economy and sparked fear among landowners province-wide. As Conservatives, we are bringing this up. We are hearing what communities, like Richmond, and the owners are saying. I have met with farmers who have spent generations on their land, clearing, working and spending money. This is all being threatened and the Liberals pooh-pooh us. They say we are just barking up a tree. We are not barking up a tree. This is serious and they need to take it seriously. They cannot just say it is in the court's hands, that we need to forget about it and just go back to sleep. We are not going to. We are going to fight for this. We are going to fight for landowners. We are going to fight for homeowners.”
“It is not just what the Liberals call “fearmongering”. It is what people are feeling in the community. It is not some bad dream they are having. It is reality. There are things happening, and the Liberals have been asleep at the switch, which is an old expression. The Liberals are more than asleep. Their incompetence is a key reason that we find ourselves in the mess we are in. (1715) Last August, the Cowichan Tribes v. Canada decision of the B.C. Supreme Court threatened the private property rights of landowners in British Columbia and potentially in other provinces. In one act, the judge deemed the aboriginal title had prior and senior rights over fee simple home ownership, like over 800 acres in Richmond worth a billion dollars. It is setting a precedent that other judgments can be made on. That is the concern. That is a big concern.”
“For generations, Canadians have understood a basic principle: If they lawfully purchase a home, if they hold title to their property, if they invest their life savings into a piece of land, and not just their life savings, but their sweat and work, then the law protects that ownership. It is certainly not a privilege. It is one of the cornerstones of democratic society. It is what allows families to build a future. It allows farmers to invest in their land. It allows businesses to create jobs and communities to grow. Where there is uncertainty in property rights, confidence erodes, investment dries up, families hesitate and communities stagnate. This is a big concern. I had a booth at a home show over the past weekend for several days and talked to hundreds of people. The topic of property rights came up over and over again, unsolicited.”
“There are tremors, foreshocks and aftershocks. The foreshocks around the world sometimes indicate that a big one is coming and should not be ignored. However, with private property rights, there are some shocks happening. The Liberals can just ignore them and say that nothing is happening. “It is the same old, same old” is what we hear from them, but there is something dangerous looming, and it is already here. Private property rights are often considered one of the foundational elements of a free and stable economy. It is important, because it impacts people's economic freedom, their personal security and investment.”
“I remember one worker I spoke to not that long ago telling me that he was working seven days a week, and very long days, just to keep a roof over his family's head and to keep their home. “It is nothing fancy”, he told me. He said that he could not give his body a break. I think of myself when I was a new teacher buying a condo, working long hours, extra hours, for money to go towards the mortgage. I think of seniors who have spent a lifetime paying down their mortgage and want to use their house as a nest egg to provide financial resources and security for their retirement and pass it on to their children and grandchildren. I do not like saying this, but this is being undermined today. In British Columbia, we sometimes have small earthquakes, we have not had a large for probably over 100 years, but I have felt them.”
“Mr. Speaker, we are talking today about a very important issue that is impacting all British Columbians and has implications for all Canadians: property rights. In the 2021 census, two-thirds, about 66.8%, of British Columbian households owned their own home, and it was about the same throughout the country. One-third were renters, and a good many of those renters wanted to eventually own. It has become increasingly difficult during the past decade under the Liberals due to the cost of housing, rising inflation and less and less disposable income to pay for things like groceries, gas and taxes, let alone a down payment on a home. People work hard to pay down their mortgages. It can take decades.”
“Mr. Speaker, British Columbians bought their homes, paid their mortgages and followed the law, but because the Liberal government directed its lawyers not to argue for property rights in the Cowichan case, the judge did not protect private property. In 2019, the Liberal government issued a directive called litigation guideline number 14, which discourages federal lawyers from defending property rights in court. The Liberal Prime Minister has kept that guideline in place. In fact, it is still on the government's website today. Why do the Liberals continue to tell lawyers not to defend homeowners?”
“Mr. Speaker, it was meant as provocation. They put the floor crossers right next to the Prime Minister . We see the people who have crossed the floor. It seems as though the Liberals are showing off their trophies. The floor crossers have no shame, just like the Liberals.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. What the Liberals are doing in such a serious matter is appalling. To protect their own interests, they are putting their politics ahead of the pain of victims and respect for justice. What they are doing is really terrible.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is a rookie error, but I am not a rookie. Madam Arbour was asked to come to committee to testify. She did not come to committee. We wanted her to respond to the reports, to witnesses and to other reports that have also been done, the Deschamps report and the Fish report. She would not respond.”
“Mr. Speaker, we support choice for the victims in where they can see the quickest route to justice. Right now the civilian system is really clogged up. What we believe in is choice, not just for victims in Canada but also internationally in the military. You made reference to the report. You mentioned a few times Madam Arbour—”
“The Liberals would be putting the cases into the civilian courts, but the courts are already clogged up. I was at a home show in Maple Ridge over the weekend and talked to hundreds of people, including police officers and people in justice. They were telling me that people are being arrested and the prosecutors are not moving the cases forward because the courts are jammed full. It is taking so long that they are releasing people. This is what the Liberals' solution is: just to put the matter through into a jammed-up system where they can bury it and protect themselves. This is about self-protection and self-preservation. Shame on them. Let us get a bill that really reflects what has been brought forward by the witnesses, to protect and help our armed forces and those who have suffered sexual assault.”
“This is not what Canadians need, and it is not what the members of the armed forces need. It is a shame. Instead of increasing the independence of military prosecutors, defence counsel and the provost marshal, the minister would ensure that these roles would remain under political and institutional control. This would do nothing to prevent sexual misconduct. It would deepen the mistrust. There is an expression by former British prime minister William Gladstone in which he said, “Justice delayed is justice denied.” Gladstone was a prime minister of the U.K. at the time of the Confederation of Canada, the 1860s. It basically says that if legal remedy comes too late, it means that people are getting no justice at all. That is what is happening.”