As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, it is important for all members who want to be productive and instructive for all who are watching this debate to give a sense of direction and focus as to which aspects of what I have just described as the avenues available for all victims they object to.
I have pointed out that the legal route is always there. Nobody wants to curb those rights. There have been none diminished. Second, the social safety net which we have worked hard to reinforce, restructure and solidify is there for each and everyone and will be enhanced in these cases. Third, one very specific component is the disability function of the CPP which will address a most urgent and immediate need for those who precede that first option.
The offer we have on the table I might remind all members that came after much discussion and debate with all partners is one that must in the end be supported by an independent arbitrator, i.e. the courts.
If members on the other side of the House are objecting to people coming forward and in the spirit of co-operation trying to resolve the most urgent problem that is directed to the period in time when governments could have acted differently and did not, then I think they should identify those and say so. They should do that rather than engage in what has become the prattle of what will happen on procedural motions in this House.