Fraser Tolmie

Mr. Speaker, I spent the summer travelling the communities of Moose Jaw, Lanigan, Watrous and Outlook and everywhere in between, listening to the people I am honoured to represent. In those conversations, I heard the same thing over and over again: Canadians are tired of watching Liberals spend on insiders and pet projects while families struggle to make ends meet. Farmers are struggling just to break even. I am back in the House, ready to fight for the communities of Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan. That means standing up for the agriculture sector, which feeds this country. It means demanding that the Liberals focus on what matters to Canada, and it means defending the institutions that are important to Canadians, like the iconic Snowbirds, grounded by the Liberals, who are spending on everything but our nation's priorities. I will keep fighting for the best interests of my people and their communities and demanding better for our country.

Mr. Speaker, I think what is being lost on the Liberal side is the compounding taxes that happen and how they translate to the consumer when they either go to the grocery store or buy everyday products. I would like my colleague to expand on that, because explaining it another time might help the Liberals understand.

Mr. Speaker, I know that this is not only questions, it is also comments. I would like to make a comment regarding my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands. I thank her for her intervention. I know she is not a millionaire. I know she is not a billionaire, but she does have a heart of gold. I thank her for the words that she brought forward.

Mr. Speaker, one thing I have noticed is that some of the policies the Liberals are bringing out now are obviously Conservative policies, but the difference is that when Conservatives were conceiving these policies, they were for a vision to insulate us from the issues and challenges that we are facing today. Would my colleague agree that it is too little too late from the Liberals, whereas if a Conservative government had been voted in, we would have solved these problems before they were even on our plate?

Mr. Speaker, the member has the heaviest suitcases and the best laugh. I just wanted to say that she may not have been a veteran, but she had the heart of a veteran. Truly, I respect her and love her, and I will miss her. I will miss our cappuccinos.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the aisle mentioned the former leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, Mr. Joe Clark. I actually have interactions with a former Liberal minister, Mr. Dan McTeague, who said that he did not leave the Liberal Party but that the Liberal Party left him. I think there is some give and take here. I would like to know what my colleague from Winnipeg North's opinions are on Mr. McTeague. I feel as if the Liberal Party has lost its compass. It is way off and seems to be getting into everybody else's business instead of looking after the business of looking after Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I missed my root canal today. I want to talk about my colleague across the aisle's saying that he has recognized the economy. The Liberal Party has failed Canadian people for far too long. The Liberals had this opportunity 10 years ago, but they are just recognizing it now. The failures have prevented Canadians from being insulated from the challenges we are facing globally. I have just never heard such drivel in my entire life. The Liberal government has failed and has missed opportunities, and it is like a brand new thing to them. It is unbelievable. This should have been done 10 years ago. Canadians would not be in food lines. In my own riding, people are now being interviewed to go to the food bank. How has the government insulated and prevented Canadians from going through that? It is an economic mess.

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to this motion. It is a very important subject, not only to my riding but to me personally, and I would like to share the reason. Before I kick off my speech, I would like to thank my colleague from Airdrie—Cochrane for his speech and for his passion and leadership as the critic for veterans affairs. I have learned quite a bit from him. I appreciate his dedication to veterans and what he wants to do with this particular board. I would like to to give a bit of background about why I am so passionate about this, and why I am here. My family, as I have shared numerous times, came from Scotland, but during World War II, they were living in Scotland. My grandfather, who was on the offensive during World War II, was in a café. He was drinking, having a few libations with his fellow British soldiers. All of a sudden, Canadian soldiers came rushing in and started screaming “retreat, retreat, retreat”. There was a German offensive, and they did not have enough firepower to have a counteroffensive, so the British soldiers started throwing on all their gear. While they were doing that, the Canadian soldiers looked at the wall that had all these bottles of booze and started shooting at them, like it was a western. My Scottish grandfather, who liked his odd tipple, was horrified and started screaming “ceasefire, ceasefire, ceasefire”. Finally, the Canadians stopped. My grandfather went up a Canadian sergeant and asked, “What are you doing?” The Canadian soldier looked at him and said, “If we're not drinking it, they're not drinking it.” My Scottish grandfather fell in love with Canadians. What he witnessed was the bravery of those soldiers overseas, which was so important. At home, my grandmother and my mother, who was a very small child, witnessed the generosity of the Canadian soldiers. These soldiers came overseas, volunteered, and brought with them things my grandmother could not get, like baked goods, and shared them with generosity. That was why my family decided to move to Canada. It was because of what they witnessed at home and what they witnessed overseas, the bravery. We cannot forget that. That is the whole point of having an independent military review board, to recognize the bravery and the sacrifice of our Canadian soldiers. Not only is this important to my family, but it is important to my riding. I know that MLA Blaine McLeod has been here, to Ottawa, advocating for recognition for Jess Larochelle and the bravery he displayed while he was overseas. He was doing what the soldiers in World War II were doing, in Afghanistan. Our foreign policy and our international recognition are based on the blood and sacrifice of Canadian soldiers overseas. Those in Europe get to see the gravestones every single day when they drive by, because our soldiers went overseas. Fortunately, we have not had that much conflict here in Canada. We had little skirmishes very early on in our history. Our sacrifices made overseas are something Europeans witness every single day. It is hard for Canadians to reconcile that. That is why we have to make that extra effort within the House of Commons to recognize those who have advocated on our behalf and made that sacrifice. They have gone overseas and said, “Yes, I'm going to go,” not just to save the democracy within this country but to preserve democracy around the world. I am passionate about this subject. I am passionate about our military, and I am passionate about our veterans, who deserve more. We keep failing them. There is a continual failure to support our veterans, those who have said, “Yes, send me. I will go.” Madam Speaker, you will have to give me a second here because sometimes, in my passion, I have to kind of chill out a bit. I feel like we have done a great disservice to Canadians and to veterans, who just want some basic, simple things like care, and we are failing in our duty to support them. I witness that every single day, whether they are reservists or full-time veterans. We do not understand sometimes what they have gone through and the sacrifices they have made, but they deserve better. That is the whole point of having this independent review board. It would recognize people who have slipped through the cracks. It is so important for us to pause, have a reset and make sure things do not slip through the cracks for our veterans. I also want to go back, while I have the opportunity, to the recognition of veterans who served but did not come back. Europeans can drive by gravestones and see the maple leaf on them. They get to witness that every single day. As I have said, we do not have that recognition of the sacrifice here, but we do get to see the professionalism of our serving members when we witness the Snowbirds. That is why I find it disappointing that the Liberal government wants to cancel the Snowbirds after this season. For Canadians who do not get the chance to go overseas or witness the sacrifices by Canadians, it is a way for us to see the professionalism, excellence and unity of our Canadian Armed Forces. People in Canada now have a connection with their military. They have a connection with the history of our military and the sacrifices that our military has made. It is so important. When we erode these things, we do a disservice not only to our nation but to our ally nations around the world that rely on a strong partner in times of need. We have always been there, but when we cut these things, we are sending a message that we are weakening our position. We are weakening ourselves, and we are not being there for our allies and neighbours. I am speaking in support of the motion. This independent review board is necessary. It is necessary not only for our nation but for the people in my riding, because they believe in it.

Madam Speaker, I have to say that sometimes we get things wrong, and we witnessed that recently. We witnessed the Liberal government's parading out the Snowbirds and then basically telling the pilots that they are going to be losing their jobs. Then, at the Afghan monument, there was no, or very little, presence of our veterans. We have to reverse the roles. We have to recognize when it is due and treat our military properly. I think the committee makeup has to be of people who actually recognize and understand the sacrifices made by our vets and have an inside perspective but who are also very neutral, so their own passions are not—

Madam Speaker, I have to point out that I have not seen my colleague in the gym for a while, so hopefully I will see him next week. We as Canadians are very humble in the way we carry ourselves, so it is very hard for us to accept recognition for the sacrifices we have made. However, it is so important now, when we are being challenged globally, that we recognize the sacrifice made by the people who are willing to leave their family and to miss birthdays, weddings and anniversaries to go help someone else. The sacrifice is not just by the person who is going overseas. It is also by the family, and we have to recognize that. What makes our nation such a strong and powerful nation is that we are willing to make those sacrifices, and one cannot put a recognition on that.

Madam Speaker, I have interacted with veterans within my the member's riding who were facing some challenges, and I know that he is very passionate about people who have served. It is also very important to recognize how we can attract new recruits, and it is by being—

Mr. Speaker, after much hype, the Minister of National Defence paraded the Snowbirds in front of the media for all of Canada to see. He then shamefully announced that the Snowbird team was grounded after the 2026 season and that the people behind them were losing their jobs. Which Liberal government was wrong, the one that spent $30 million to keep them flying or the one that is prematurely grounding them? Both L3Harris and Magellan Aerospace, who inspected the jets, say the Tutors are safe to fly until 2030. Was the squadron ever asked if the team could fly until 2030?

Mr. Speaker, if they are safe to fly now, why are they not safe to fly next year? The Liberal government took over a decade to sign the F-35 contract, which is now under review and delayed. If the Snowbird replacement follows that timeline, the team will not fly again until the 2040s. For 55 years, the Snowbirds have been a jet team. The replacement the minister has announced is a propeller aircraft. Who made the decision not to pick jets?

Mr. Speaker, on May 19, the Minister of National Defence came to Moose Jaw, home of Canada's Snowbirds. He paraded the Snowbirds team out in front of the media and used them as his backdrop. Then he announced that the team were now losing their jobs. This is one of the most un‑Canadian things the people of Canada have ever witnessed happen to our military, and Canadians are disappointed with this behaviour. The Liberals have sat on this file for over a decade. The Tutors are being grounded after $30 million was spent to keep the jets flying until 2030. Both L3Harris and Magellan Aerospace have said the Tutors are safe to fly. Now, out of nowhere, the minister has announced a replacement aircraft that has propellers but with no timeline, no number of planes, no in-service date. The Snowbirds Alumni Association calls this profoundly disappointing. So does Moose Jaw, and so does Canada. Canadians deserve a jet team. The Prime Minister can make this happen by reversing his decision.

Mr. Speaker, CTV has confirmed from two sources that the Snowbirds are not scheduled for their 2027 shows. For generations, the Snowbirds have been inspiring and uniting Canadians. The minister said Canadians will enjoy the Snowbirds “for generations to come”, but how many generations will it take to revive the iconic Snowbirds after the Liberals cancel them? How many generations will miss out being inspired by looking to our skies?

Mr. Speaker, well, the question comes up. Is that never? We never got an answer. Why not answer now? Why do you not answer right now? Are you keeping the Snowbirds flying? Canadians from coast to coast to coast have been inspired by the Snowbirds, an incredible symbol of strength and sovereignty. Now, more than ever, we need them. On what date will the iconic Snowbirds return to the Canadian skies?

Mr. Speaker, air show organizers across North America are quietly being told that this is the final season of the iconic Snowbirds. I wrote the Minister of National Defence almost six months ago, asking about the future of the Snowbirds. There was no reply. Senator Batters did the same in the Senate. Crickets. Tomorrow is the Snowbirds “acceptance show” in Comox. Why will the Liberals not come clean about their decision to cancel the iconic Snowbirds and when will they reverse this terrible decision?

Mr. Speaker, jet noise is the sound of freedom, not white noise. Canadians want to be inspired by other Canadians. Do members know how we got the second female Snowbird pilot? It is because a flame was planted in her heart at the age of 12 when she saw the first female Snowbird pilot. Why are the Liberals hiding the fact that they plan to cancel the Snowbirds after the season, and why will they not immediately reverse this terrible decision? It is SOS time: Save our Snowbirds.

Mr. Speaker, I went to Moose Jaw the way a lot of people do, through the Royal Canadian Air Force, and I decided to plant my roots and build my life in that community. The men and women I served alongside understood something fundamental: Discipline, sacrifice and excellence are not words on a page, but daily choices. Today, we welcome the Royal Canadian Air Force to Parliament Hill for Air Force Day on the Hill. I think of the instructors, technicians, aircrews, medics and support personnel at 15 Wing who keep our proud nation alive. NATO allies have sent their pilots there because Canada's training standard is considered the best in the world. Our air force is one of Canada's most vital national institutions, and the people who serve in it are among the best this country has to offer. To everyone serving, past and present, we see them and we are grateful. Per ardua ad astra.

Mr. Speaker, I was actually going to ask my colleague a question there. I did my officer training in her riding of Saint-Jean. It is a beloved area in my life. Some of that I wanted to forget, because of the gruelling training, but I do appreciate my colleague's speech, her passion for our military and her passion for Quebec. The motto of la belle province is Je me souviens or I remember. I apologize about my French, but I am practising and I have to overcome my own fear. I will do that by speaking with my French colleagues. I want to talk about what the Minister of National Defence tabled last week, and why it matters to people who trusted the House to get it right. The minister tabled report stage amendments that would undo months not just of Conservative work but of committee work. Bloc and Conservative members of the Standing Committee on National Defence sat together, listened to witnesses and built something worth passing. The minister swept it away. Not satisfied with tabling the amendments last week, the government has now moved time allocation to limit how long the House can even discuss them. Survivors came forward twice and made themselves vulnerable twice. I have been asked to speak to the bill because of the work I have done on the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. In the last Parliament, ACVA undertook the largest study in its history. It held 23 meetings, with nearly 100 witnesses, with respect to the experience of women veterans. In Parliament we are studying suicide prevention, and in many meetings, MST surfaces as a driver for suicide. The two files are not separate. As part of both studies, the committee undertook dedicated work on trauma-informed practices, what trauma does to memory, to reporting and to the way survivors present themselves in institutional settings. I do not raise this to claim expertise. I raise it because I find myself wondering whether the officials who drafted these report stage amendments, or the members now standing to defend them, have spent comparable time in those rooms. Many of the women who spent months testifying before the veterans affairs committee later came before the national defence committee to speak directly to the bill. They showed up twice. They made themselves vulnerable twice. The minister's amendments are his response. The cross-party amendments to clauses 7 and 8 would give survivors the right to choose which justice system handled their case, military or civilian. That reflected what witnesses asked for directly. Donna Van Leusden told the committee: For many years, survivors in the Canadian Forces had limited or flawed options, but they still had options. Under this bill...survivors are given none. Everything has to go directly to civilian police and civilian courts, regardless of what the survivor needs, prefers or feels safe with. That is not trauma-informed, and that is not survivor‑centred. She is right, and she is not alone. The provost marshal general testified that over the last five years, 270 out of 735 files stayed with the military police because victims specifically asked for them to stay there. That is more than one-third of all cases. These are real people making an informed choice. The minister's amendments would eliminate choice entirely. Regarding civilian capacity, the picture is equally concerning. Sexual assault cases exceeding the Jordan framework deadline limits rose from just over 15% in 2016-17 to more than 30% in 2022-23. Nearly half of those cases were stayed or the files withdrawn. The civilian system is struggling with its existing caseload. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police was direct in its written submission. It said that the proposed provisions would deny victims the ability to express a preference as to how their complaint is investigated. This departs from the victim-centred and trauma-informed principles that underpin best practices in policing. CACP recommended maintaining concurrent jurisdiction. The people who would be executing this mandate said it would not work. The minister made his amendments anyway. It is worth noting what the minister acknowledged at committee: He has not spoken to Justice Arbour, Justice Fish or Justice Deschamps on this file. When asked how many victims his office consulted when drafting the bill, he said that he would have to get back to the committee. He had not spoken to any provincial justice ministers since taking the portfolio. Jordan framework delays were not in his briefings. He would be implementing a mandatory jurisdictional transfer into a system he has not even consulted, without the resources to support it and over the explicit objection of survivors, the director of military prosecutions and the chiefs of police. There are real consequences to getting this wrong, and they are playing out right now. A decade ago, the Canadian Armed Forces set a target of 25% women in uniform by 2026. Today, after 10 years of stated commitment, the number sits at 16.7%. The recruitment commander said last week that the target is now impossible to reach. In the past fiscal year alone, 1,070 women left the military, the highest rate in five years, despite pay increases. We cannot recruit and retain women in an institution where they know before they sign up that if something happens to them, the system will not put their choice at the centre. That is precisely what Bill C-11, as the minister has now amended it, would fail to do. The government set a target of 25% women. It could not reach a force of 67,000. What exactly is its plan for half a million? When I spoke to the bill at an earlier stage, I said that I hoped that by the time my daughters are adults, parliamentarians would not still be debating how to get this right for people assaulted in the forces in which they choose to serve. I am standing here at report stage, and nothing has changed. If anything, I am less optimistic than I was then. However, I have not stopped believing it is possible. The committee did the work. The result was something worth passing. What the minister tabled last week is not an improvement. It is the government's substituting its own preference for that of survivors. That is paternalistic. It is further disenfranchisement of the people who have already been rendered powerless once. Conservatives will continue to fight to restore the amendments. The provisions about choice must stand. Civilian capacity must be resourced before jurisdiction is transferred. Survivors who came forward twice, who trusted twice, deserve better than this. We can do better than this. As I said, I am the father of two daughters, and I hope and pray that the work we have put in to make their lives better would be heard by members on the other side of the aisle. We can do better. We owe it to the next generation. We owe it to those who want to join.