Debates of Feb. 4th, 2020

Opposition Motion — Instruction to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand today and speak to such an important matter. Today's motion is extremely important. It is calling for justice for Marylène Levesque.

I will be asking for justice for many victims of crime and violence as it pertains to my riding of Cariboo—Prince George. If we cannot be the voice for victims of violence and crime, who will be? In many cases their voices are silenced, as in the case of Marylène Levesque.

I have stood in this House time and again over the last five years and talked about cases such as Canada's youngest serial killer, Cody Legebokoff, who heinously murdered four young women in my riding: Jill Stuchenko, Cynthia Maas, Loren Leslie and Natasha Montgomery. Sadly, in the previous Parliament we would see the minister stand up and merely pay lip service.

I have been listening to this debate today and I am heartened to hear words about doing a full investigation into the incident of the heinous murder of Marylène Levesque.

Over the last five years, the previous minister could not even say the word “murder”. It was a bad practice. How far have we fallen when discussing murder becomes a bad practice?

We have seen a convicted terrorist, one who waged war against Canadians and American soldiers, shamefully paid $10 million.

We have seen a man who murdered an off-duty police officer in Nova Scotia claim he suffered from PTSD from committing that murder. He was then catapulted to the front of the line to receive services before our first responders, military members and veterans, with little action from our colleagues across the way.

Unfortunately, my riding of Cariboo—Prince George is not immune to this inaction. As I mentioned, Cody Legebokoff, who is Canada's youngest serial killer, brutally murdered four young women in 2009 and 2010. I will say their names again, because their names should be repeated time and again. They are Natasha Montgomery, Jill Stuchenko, Cynthia Maas and, Mr. Legebokoff's final victim, Loren Leslie, who was just 15.

He was convicted on all four counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison with no parole for 25 years. However, what we found out early last year was that he was transferred from a maximum-security prison to a medium-security prison just up the road from here. The Correctional Service of Canada's own words were that the transfer and redesignation of some of our most serious criminals is not an exact science.

The case we have before us today is about Marylène Levesque, the Parole Board and the instructions the parole officer gave her murderer. That is what leads us to the cause of our concern with Cody Legebokoff being transferred from a maximum-security to a medium-security prison. The families are wondering what is next. Will Cody Legebokoff be walking the streets?

B.C. Supreme Court Justice Glen Parrett decided that, given the sexual assaults committed as part of the murders and Legebokoff's apparent degradation of the victims' bodies, he was adding him to the national sex offender registry. In his decision to add Legebokoff to the national sex offender registry, Justice Parrett said that Legebokoff “lacks any shred of empathy or remorse” and “he should never be allowed to walk among us again.”

The remains of one of his victims, Natasha Montgomery, have never been found. Mr. Legebokoff still continues to negotiate and uses that as a bargaining chip with the families in an effort to get favourable treatment while in prison.

Brendan Fitzpatrick was the RCMP E Division major crime section superintendent in charge of operations during Mr. Legebokoff’s murder spree.

Mr. Fitzpatrick called it “absolutely unconscionable” that Cody Legebokoff was transferred from a maximum-security prison to medium-security prison.

He wrote to me early last year, and in his letter to me he said, “On behalf of all of Mr. Legebokoff’s victims, their surviving families and the investigators whose blood sweat and tears went into the arrest and conviction of this individual, I reach out to you to bring this issue to the public’s attention and demand answers of the Public Safety portfolio why this convicted killer is being given this generous benefit.”

We challenged the minister of the day to please look into this. Again, Mr. Speaker, I stand before you and I challenge the minister of this day to look into this case, just as he has pledged to look into Marylène Levesque's case.

The government needs to account for why the victims' families were not consulted and why the police had no input into this placement. It needs to account for why the youngest serial murderer in Canadian history is provided the luxury of a new, less secure environment.

Another case that is just as recent is that of Fribjon Bjornson. Fribjon Bjornson was a young man who had just come in from a logging camp, cashed his cheque, went to party with some of his friends, as many do on Friday evenings and weekends, and ended up being murdered. He was decapitated. One of his murderers was James David Junior Charlie, and his first-degree murder conviction was recently overturned by B.C.'s highest court, citing an error by the trial judge.

Mrs. Bjornson is a friend of ours. She told me the whole family is devastated. Once again, victims' families are being victimized over and over again throughout the process. Where are the voices for the victims? Who is standing up for the victims?

Mrs. Bjornson told me that they knew there would be an appeal as there always is unless a plea deal is given. That is one of the reasons they agreed when a plea deal was offered to Wesley Duncan and Jesse Bird. They pleaded guilty to second-degree murder after hearing what happened to Frib during James Charlie's trial. Mrs. Bjornson was certain they would have been found guilty of first-degree murder.

She went on to say that as parents, waiting six years to find out the story is cruel and unusual punishment. Now eight years later, and this is just this past fall, they are faced with the dilemma of having to go through the whole trial again.

This government, and any government, needs to do more for victims and their families. Sadly, we just continue to get lip service.

We saw this in the case of young Tori Stafford when her murderer was given access to a healing lodge. I will go back and say this again: Healing lodges were not on trial there. It is the fact that a convicted murderer, an offender of one of society's most heinous crimes, essentially was given a free pass to come and go as she pleased in this type of institution.

I started off by saying that I am heartened to hear some of the language from across the way, in terms of the parliamentary secretary and the minister saying that they are going to investigate this to its fullest extent. I would offer that the two cases I brought up from Prince George also deserve a new set of eyes on their cases and a renewed investigation. I would implore our colleagues across the way to do more than just lip service. I hope that their words are true.

Sadly, what we have seen over the course of the previous four years and up to this point has really just been lip service. The victims and their families deserve better. We can always do better. If we lead with our hearts and put ourselves in the place of the victims' families, the first responders and those who do the investigations, we will always lead by putting our best foot forward.

I would challenge our colleagues across the way to do that. I know my colleagues in opposition are here to help wherever we can.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member spoke a lot about victims and victims' families. Bill C-83 included a clause that would allow victims' families access to audio recordings of Parole Board hearings. This was something victims' families asked us for and we put it in the legislation. The party opposite actually voted against that bill.

When it comes to healing lodges, they are not a free pass. These are minimum-security institutions. We need to clarify the record on those two things.

The motion is about the appointments to the Parole Board, the importance of the independence of the Parole Board and also the independence of this investigation into what happened, and the tragic loss of life in this case. Does the hon. member not feel that the Parole Board needs to be independent?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, whether it is independent or not, they must be competent and there must be oversight. The case of Marylène Levesque proves that there has to be oversight by a minister who is able to review those cases that come forward which are over and above the normal, everyday cases that we would see. Cases such as that of Marylène Levesque are a horrendous abuse of authority. The instruction by the parole officer to this convicted murder, we can all agree, is shameful. It does require some oversight.

The member asked me if I think that the boards should be independent. They should be independent but there should be review and they should be competent. It should remain in the purview of a minister's file to necessitate that a review take place.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the review will be done by a five-member panel from within the Parole Board of Canada. Would the member not agree that the information the panel will be able to attain will be of great assistance in getting a better understanding of exactly what has taken place? What sort of independence does the member believe the Parole Board should have? He makes reference to the minister having that kind of oversight. To what degree should MPs be raising those individual cases?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I started my intervention by saying that we are the voices of victims. Often, we are the only voices of victims. We are the voices of the electors. This House does not belong to me and it does not belong to you, Mr. Speaker, it does not belong to my hon. colleague across the way, it does not belong to the Prime Minister; it belongs to the electors who elected the 338 members of Parliament to this place. That is who we are accountable to.

In terms of oversight, from time to time the Parole Board should be called before parliamentary committees to have a review. That is in the purview as well. It is important. Again, that is a reasonable question, but given the cases that we are dealing with and the information that I have garnered over the last four years in dealing with those two very serious cases in my riding, there needs to be some oversight. We need to be able to task our ministers, whether the existing minister or ministers in the future, to be able to review their files.

Often in the committees that I have sat on, I say that our files are run by the bureaucrats. More often, our ministers need to take more of a handle on their files and make sure they are managing their files accordingly.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg North.

I will start today by acknowledging that we are meeting on the traditional territory of the Algonquin people.

I will take this opportunity to join my colleagues in sharing my sympathy with the family and friends of Marylène Levesque. The loss of her life was a senseless tragedy that did not need to happen. I am pleased that a thorough investigation has been initiated and that it includes the participation of two external advisers. The investigation and review that is currently taking place will determine the circumstances that preceded this awful situation. The results will be made public so that we can all learn from this horrendous incident and make the necessary changes to ensure that it does not happen again.

The loss of Marylène Levesque has brought forward questions about the safety of the female body that we often ask on this side of the House. We know that many Canadians face violence every day because of their sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression or perceived gender. To get an idea of how large this problem really is, we funded a survey of safety in public and private spaces through the gender-based violence strategy. The findings were upsetting. Women were found to be nearly four times more likely to have experienced unwanted sexual behaviour in public. Thirty per cent of women were sexually assaulted at least once since the age of 15 and 29% of women experienced inappropriate sexual behaviour in the workplace. We see this time and time again. We know that young women, students, bisexual and lesbian women, indigenous women and women with a disability are at an increased risk.

There is a stark contrast between our approach to addressing gender-based violence and that of my colleagues who introduced this motion. They have pushed forward a tough-on-crime agenda around sex work, hoping that it would diminish demand and eradicate prostitution, though many critics have warned and continue to tell us that in reality it makes the work more dangerous and drives it further underground.

Recently reported by Molly Hayes in The Globe and Mail, Sandra Wesley, executive director of Stella, a Montreal-based sex work organization, said, “'We know firsthand how frequently men are violent toward sex workers, and criminalization prevents us from doing anything about it',” she said. 'If we report something with the police, the immediate outcome tends to be that our workplaces get shut down. Our co-workers get arrested, our clients get arrested, we lose our income.'” Jenny Duffy, board chair of Maggie's Toronto Sex Workers Action Project, said in an email on Thursday that she was pleased that this case will be investigated, but added that it will not keep sex workers safe.

My colleague, the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, spoke eloquently on sex work and the need for Parliament to do more on this issue to keep these women safe. I thank him for his wise words.

We need to ensure that our laws meet their objectives and promote safety and security that is consistent with our rights and freedoms. Parliament is in the process of establishing a committee that can review this matter. This will be a complex and hard conversation to have, but while we discuss it, we have to remember Marylène Levesque and the hundreds of sex workers who have lost their lives. Let us be clear that there is a distinction between sex work and human trafficking.

Under the Harper Conservative government, important programs available to parole officers, like a specialized family violence program and access to a world-renowned sex researcher, were cut. The men and women who work as parole officers do extraordinary work in our community to ensure our public safety. I have met many of them who do their utmost with the tools that they have to rehabilitate and reintegrate offenders. The Harper Conservatives slashed the community correction liaison officer that paired police with parole officers to support their work in community.

These were not the only cuts made by the Harper government. When the members opposite were in government, they shut down 12 of 16 Status of Women Canada regional offices and barred any funding from women's groups that were involved in advocacy. Their recent platform was eerily quiet about policy and programs to help survivors, even though they understand that successful policy has to be more than just tougher laws. We need wraparound, culturally sensitive programming that empowers survivors to regain self-confidence and control over their lives. The government is laying the foundation to provide just that.

At the end of the day, gender-based violence must not be tolerated in Canada. I am proud that our government has launched the first federal strategy to prevent gender-based violence. Our strategy includes prevention programs, support for survivors and their families, and the promotion of responsible legal and justice systems.

This strategy includes over $200 million in new investments, including for prevention in teen and youth dating violence, support for victims, and innovative interventions and campaigns to raise awareness of survivors' rights and sexual assault myths. Our strategy does this while also improving capacity to respond in a culturally safe manner. As well, we have passed legislation that clarified and strengthened the law on sexual assault to make it fairer and more compassionate toward survivors of sexual violence.

Importantly, we have extended firearms background checks to consider an applicant's entire life and not just the previous five years. I am particularly proud to have worked on this legislation and have added an amendment that ensures that gender-based violence must be considered during the firearms licence application process. This will start to ensure that abusive partners do not have firearms. There was a study done in Atlantic Canada that showed that 70% of those surveyed were less likely to come forward to report intimate partner violence when there was a firearm in the home. The Minister of Public Safety is working to expand on this concept further.

Both of these important steps forward were voted against by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who brought forward today's motion.

On this side of the House, we are making gains in our criminal justice system so that it is fairer and more compassionate to the survivors of sexual assault, and I will list a few.

We have clarified consent provisions, expanding rape shield provisions and establishing procedures for third party record applications. We amended the Criminal Code to prohibit discrimination based on gender identity and making violence motivated by gender identity a hate crime. We listened to the concerns of survivors at a recent knowledge exchange. This event allowed survivors' voices to be heard alongside criminology and legal experts, community organizations and law enforcement. Their voices were heard, and we have learned from their experience with the justice system.

However, the work is not done. We must do more to prevent gender-based violence. The Minister for Women and Gender Equality continues to work tirelessly with the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to ensure that anyone facing gender-based violence has reliable and timely access to protection and services.

We are all saddened to learn of the loss of Marylène Levesque. We need to make changes to our laws and protocols to make Canada a safer place for all Canadians, including sex workers like her. I believe that real solutions are being brought forward by our government, while the other side lacks any policy or substance. I eagerly anticipate the findings of the investigation to ensure that the lessons learned are used to make better laws to keep all women safe.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, fundamentally, this is the question: Are there two classes of women in this country? Are there women in this country who need to be protected and are there women in this country who can be bought and sold? I would like the member opposite to answer that question.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find it rich that the hon. member would ask a question like that when it was the Harper government that had put sex workers in the position that they are in, where their lives are in danger.

We absolutely believe that all women need to be protected, including sex workers, unlike the other side.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, violence against women is a long-standing issue that has yet to be addressed by successive Liberal and Conservative governments. Will the current government commit to implement the calls for justice in the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls report, which provides many measures that seek to prevent violence against women?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the hon. member to the House. I look forward to working with her on this issue and others as we move forward.

Obviously, the issue around murdered and missing indigenous women concerns all of us in this House. The recommendations from that report are important ones for us to move forward on. I thank the member for her question and look forward to working with her to see those recommendations implemented by our government.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to bring us back to the intent of the motion, which is to review the whole aspect of public safety and the public safety system. This needs to be in the spotlight. We need to look at the release of individuals deemed a threat by the very organization that authorizes their release. The whole purpose around this is this: Is the parole system working in the way it was intended to?

This is not to diminish anything to do with gender-based violence, because that is peripheral issue that is certainly impacted by the tragedy that has happened, and we get that. Can the member tell the House what good things could come of such a motion and how we might be able to strengthen public safety by doing a review of the parole system?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the way my friend and colleague framed the question. I wish the motion were framed in the same way.

If we wanted to look into how to improve the parole system, support parole officers, make changes to the system and make investments to make our communities safer, I think we would find no disagreement among members of the House to do so. However, given the way the motion is framed, it is a direct attack on the Parole Board of Canada. The men and women on the Parole Board have been selected for their positions so they can make independent, unbiased decisions about offenders who come before them.

I hope the hon. member frames the motion in the way he mentioned and looks into the ways we can improve the parole system, as opposed to making an attack on the Parole Board of Canada.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent speech and her informed responses.

Over the past four years, our government has placed a strong emphasis on the importance of addressing gender-based violence by making significant investments. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say on this issue. What does she think can be done, what is working and how important is it to realize that this is an ongoing problem? As we have seen, in Quebec, this has been the focus of a lot of attention lately. We have seen a number of femicides, and I think that we must never stop fighting gender-based violence as long as it continues to exist in our society.

I would like to hear what she thinks about these investments.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the former vice-chair of the status of women committee, I am incredibly proud of the work we have done. However, there is still a lot more work to do.

We have invested in gender-based violence strategies to prevent violence. We have invested in ensuring that men are part of the conversation, because we know that gender-based violence is not only a woman's issue but a human issue, and we need men to be involved.

We have made tremendous strides. I am proud of all members of the government for the work we have done, in particular the work we did at the status of women committee around violence against young women and girls. Many of our recommendations have been brought forward by the government as policy or legislation.

Just today, we supported a private member's bill from former member Rona Ambrose, which would ensure judges get the proper education on judicial assault. This is about working across party lines to make sure we are protecting Canadians.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the system that was designed to protect the public clearly failed in this situation.

First, I would like to extend my condolences to Marylène Levesque's family and friends. Her tragic death obviously should never have happened and it has no doubt caused a great deal of discomfort to them and to Canadians, as we hear a little more information each day about what took place. I believe that anyone who reflects on what took place would want to see some sort of justice on the issue.

To that end, this tragic death cannot and will not go unaccounted for as far as ensuring there is justice. As has been pointed out, a couple of investigations will be taking place: the criminal investigation and the broader internal investigation.

I have been listening to the debate, and four Conservatives have spoken on the issue. Three of them made reference to Tori Stafford. I raise this because I wonder why the Conservatives, at times, tend to put the politics of an issue ahead of what is really important.

I was here when the Conservatives brought up the Tori Stafford incident when Terri-Lynne McClintic was transferred to a healing lodge. The Conservative Party was quite upset over that. I remember listening to more than one member of Parliament give an incredible visual description of what had happened to Tori Stafford. They tried to give the impression that it was the Government of Canada's fault, as if this government had ultimately allowed for the healing lodge placement of Ms. McClintic. I remind Conservatives that as we got more into the debate, we found out that it was actually Stephen Harper's regime that had her transferred to a medium-security facility, which made her eligible to be brought over to a healing lodge. We also found out that under Harper's regime, other child murderers were put into other medium-security facilities.

Why do I bring that up? Another Conservative speaker has said that our system is broken. Now this tragic death is being brought up, and again the Conservatives seem to be more concerned about trying to blame the Government of Canada, as if we are the ones to blame for the tragic death.

I believe that all members, no matter their political party, understand exactly what has taken place. All of us are offended that an individual on parole committed the outrageous offence of murder. Ms. Levesque is the victim here. That is why I started off by extending my condolences to her family and friends, as we all try to get a better understanding of the situation. I think the response to date by the government has been very respectful of all sides of the issues that have come before us.

Having this internal review is a good starting point. It is a way for us as legislators to get a better understanding of not only what took place to lead to this particular individual's release, but some of the commentary that was being provided by the case manager with respect to this particular file. I see that as a good, positive step forward.

When I think of the comments I have heard about the appointment process, I have no reservations about doing a comparison. Opposition members have said that it is the government that makes appointments to the Parole Board. They are trying to imply that this is what ultimately led to this tragic incident. Again, I do not believe that for a moment.

In fact, as the parliamentary secretary for public safety pointed out, the regional vice-chair is a Stephen Harper appointment. Any new board member that will be hearing cases has to be approved by that vice-chair. There is an extensive process of training that takes place.

For the Conservatives to imply that somehow this government has either direct or indirect culpability in what has taken place is just wrong. I have heard it from more than one member opposite. They have had four speakers on this issue, and at least three of them have tried to imply that.

If they are genuine in what they are trying to raise today and it is a legitimate concern, then they do not need to go along that line. Yes, there are some important facts that need to be discussed and investigated, but I would suggest that the appointment process today is far superior to what it was under the former Conservative government. All one would need to do is take a look at that.

I am really intrigued by how this debate has been broadened, and I think there is a great deal of merit to that. Years ago, I brought up the issue of violence against women and girls, in particular in our indigenous communities, and called for a public inquiry. I was very happy to see the government act on this initiative. I was also very happy when the former public safety minister brought in legislation to allow victims of rape, for example, to get recordings of parole hearings and be present during them.

I wanted to move what hopefully the official opposition will see as a friendly amendment. Considering that the Parole Board of Canada explicitly opposed permitting the offender to visit a massage parlour, we seek to amend part (a) of the motion.

I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Fleetwood—Port Kells, that the motion be amended by replacing the words “condemn the decision of the Parole Board of Canada that led to a young woman’s death by an inmate during day parole in January of this year” with “condemn the management of this offender, which may have contributed to the murder of a young woman.”

[An hon. member]

Why do you hate women?

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. It is my duty to inform hon. members that an amendment to an opposition motion may be moved only with the consent of the sponsor of the motion. Therefore, I ask the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles if he consents to this amendment being moved.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Since there is no consent, pursuant to Standing Order 85, the amendment cannot be moved at this time.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness on a point of order.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member who just walked in the chamber, and I do not know the riding of the member, shouted across the way that the Liberals hate women.

That is completely inappropriate and I would ask for the member to clarify what she said, and if such is the case, to retract what she said. That is entirely out of line, especially in this debate.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for his point of order. I did not hear the comment as he described it. Certainly we can take that into consideration.

I do not know if the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke wishes to address the point. I would certainly allow that. Points of order include comments that are heard from time to time and can be commented upon. Unless it reached the bar of unparliamentary language, per se, that would be something that would have to be taken into consideration if, in fact, it is a point of order. That would be the part of the Standing Orders that would be deemed to be an infraction in this case.

I see the parliamentary secretary is rising again. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, this is not the kind of language we hear from time to time in the House. This is way out of line. I would ask you to look into the matter and look into the Hansard because I find it offensive. I am sure all my colleagues on this side and in the House find it offensive, as well. This is not the kind of language we use. It is unbecoming of a member of Parliament.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

That being the case, I will take the matter into consideration, as the member has suggested. We will get back to the House, if necessary.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read a quote from the Parole Board that the Liberals brought forward and see if the parliamentary secretary still thinks we need to pin this on the officer. I do not think that the officer is innocent in this case.

The Parole Board said:

Although you are still single and you say you aren't ready to enter into a serious relationship with a woman, you are able to efficiently evaluate your needs and expectations towards women.... During the hearing, your parole officer underlined a strategy that was developed with the goal that would allow you to meet women in order to meet your sexual needs.

The Parole Board knew exactly what was going on. That is why our motion is about the Parole Board. Does the hon. member care to comment on that?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, maybe the best thing is to be very specific. What I indicated prior to moving the motion is that it is really important to consider that the Parole Board of Canada explicitly opposed permitting the offender to visit a massage parlour.

That is the reason I made the amendment I did. I believe it should be more focused on the area that I believe Canadians, as a whole, and parliamentarians are most concerned about.