“I want the House to pass this bill to help police get data during investigations. Police across Canada need these tools to keep communities safe. Conservatives are delaying this bill just to raise money and score political points.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to Bill C-22 and to just how important lawful access is to our country. Bill C-22 is important legislation. I say that to members across the way, in particular, and those who have been following the whole debate and discussions that have been taking place in the House of Commons not only since the last election but also during the last election, when people at the doors raised the issue of safe communities. I believe all members of the House would have heard that at the doors. I genuinely believe that. The Prime Minister took a position during the election that we wanted to say to Canadians, in the form of an election platform, that we would be bringing in laws to make our communities safer. That was an important aspect of the last election campaign. When the Prime Minister or any Liberal member of Parliament talks about building Canada strong, it is not only the economy that we are talking about. We are talking about the health and well-being of the communities we represent. When they think of it with that lens on it, members should understand and appreciate why it is so very important that we deal with the issue of crime. I have a fairly long history of dealing with the issue of justice and crime. In fact, back in the day when I was in the Manitoba legislature, I was the justice critic for the Province of Manitoba. During that time, understanding the issue of community safety was of the utmost importance. For example, I believe in community policing. It was something the City of Winnipeg moved toward at one time but then backed away from. I honestly believe that community policing makes a difference. It is the City of Winnipeg that plays that role, in terms of policing our communities. We can look at it from a provincial perspective, and there is a very strong role that provinces play, including the appointments of Crown attorneys and judges. There are provincial laws, and there are municipal bylaws. Then we can look at Ottawa and our criminal justice system. Obviously, Ottawa also plays an important role, from the Criminal Code to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I say all that because we need to push the issue of collaboration, of working with the different levels of government, in order to deliver safer communities. We understand the role that Ottawa has to play in that. I would argue that no prime minister in generations has recognized it to the degree that this Prime Minister and this government has. Since the last election, just over a year ago, when Canadians made the decision to elect a new Prime Minister, we have had a commitment to bring forward a series of legislative initiatives. That is exactly what Bill C-22 is. As a government, we recognize that the national government has to play that important role in demonstrating goodwill, work collaboratively with other jurisdictions and deliver safer communities to Canadians. Before I get into some of the details of the legislative agenda, I believe it is important for us to recognize that fact. A Free Press editorial, and I will not quote the entire article, from September 9, 2025, reads, “But those measures mean little if there are not enough prosecutors to move cases through the courts in a timely manner.” Further down, it reads, “The cost of inaction is far greater than the cost of investment. Failing to fund the Crown’s office means risking collapsed trials, emboldened criminals and disillusioned victims. It means communities losing confidence in the courts’ ability to protect them. Ultimately, it means eroding the very rule of law.” I only quote from this to highlight the fact that if we are going to build and have stronger and healthier communities that incorporate safety, and our constituents want consequences for crimes and want safer communities, it cannot be delivered just by the federal government. However, the Prime Minister and every Liberal member of Parliament recognize that Ottawa has to play a strong leadership role. That is why, when we look at Bill C-22, we need to look at the legislative package the Prime Minister and this government have put before the House of Commons in hopes that the legislative initiatives would be passed. Unfortunately, we have seen a great deal of resistance and outright opposition to that. The government House leader made reference to this today in question period when he talked about the old Conservative Party, the Progressive Conservative Party. When law enforcement agencies across Canada came to the House of Commons, the Conservatives would respond positively, but that it is not the case today. The Conservative Party today is far different from what it used to be. It is a good thing that the national Liberal Party, under the leadership of this Prime Minister, has picked up the slack. Not only that, but we have taken actions to show that Ottawa is prepared to lead, even if it means bringing in things such as time allocation to get our legislation through. Not only do Conservatives oppose many of the measures we are bringing forward to make our communities safer, but they have intentionally made the decision to prevent the legislation from passing. We have seen that in the last week. Bill C-22 is on lawful access, and we have been talking about this since the summertime of last year. The House will remember Bill C-2, which had lawful access in it. Part of the problem is, as I understand it, that the Conservative Party is split all over the place on the issue of lawful access, and it should not be. There is a united Liberal Party that recognizes what law enforcement agencies across Canada are saying. Every region of our nation is talking about how important it is for Canada to have lawful access, and the Conservative Party has been turning a blind eye to law enforcement agencies in Canada. It is not just law enforcement officers— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: No, I am not kidding. It is true. Mr. Speaker, we see that, and I will give a good example. Last week, the Conservatives finally, after years, agreed that they would sit late. A few hours later, they moved a motion to adjourn the House, and it was not the first time. It is not about wanting more time to debate. It is more about preventing the legislation from passing. I can say to the members opposite that, whether it is this Prime Minister specifically, the government as a whole or every Liberal member of Parliament, we are prepared to use the tools available to the government in order to pass the legislation. This is what Canadians expect and want, and this government will deliver. It was part of our election platform. It is what communities want to see happen. If we look at lawful access, yes, the Conservatives were destructive. They are in opposition to it. Let us look at what we had to do for Bill C-9. That was really a grassroots movement that we witnessed in the last federal election, and we made it a part of our platform to deal with the issue of hate. We brought in legislation and set up new aspects to the criminal law that would deal with hatred directly. Not only has the Conservative Party voted against it, but it continues to spread misinformation in regard to it. It is so unfortunate, because racism hurts to the core. The Conservatives had the opportunity to stand up and do something on the hatred file to fight racism. If we look at Bill C-14, the bail reform legislation, once again, much like Bill C-22, we have law enforcement officers across our nation saying they want it. We have prosecutors who have been demanding bail reform. I have been holding this piece of paper in my hand, which is a press release from 10 municipal cities in Manitoba saying that they want bail reform legislation, as did the mayor of Winnipeg. I only highlight these cities because they are in my home province. I can assure members that of the law enforcement agencies in every region, province, municipality and rural community, and the many different people we all represent, I cannot point to one who has told me we do not need bail reform. Our constituents want a government that is going to deal with the issues before us. When we talk about building Canada strong, that includes bringing in legislation that is going to make our communities stronger, healthier and safer, yet we see resistance. Yes, we are trying to push Bill C-22 through. The Conservatives cannot try to tell me they have not had enough time to debate the issue. It has been there since September 2025 in one form or another. That is the reality, but the Conservatives have made the decision that they do not want this legislation passed because they have a divided caucus, and the extreme right within the Conservative Party, the ones who wear the tin hats, are saying they do not want it. We say to them that it is time they look at what past Conservatives would say about it. There is no reason whatsoever that today’s Conservative Party should be in opposition. We are the only Five Eyes country that does not have lawful access. An hon. member: What would Joe Clark say? Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, one of my colleagues asked what Joe Clark would do. Do members remember what Joe Clark, the former Progressive Conservative prime minister of Canada, said? He said that he never left the party; the party left him. Since he said that, the party has gone even further. That is fine. The Conservatives are the ones who will determine their future. However, for me, when the actions of the Conservative Party, Canada’s official opposition, play a detrimental role in good, sound public policy, I think we should all be standing up and holding its members to account for the types of things they are doing. When I look at what the Conservatives say on the crime file, I see that they like to talk a lot about crime, but when it comes down to it, they use the issue more as a fundraising mechanism. They see that, by talking about it, they can actually mine data and raise money. However, when it comes time to actually pass legislation and support budgetary measures, they are found wanting. There is a list of emails I have acquired over the last year from the Conservative Party. There are many of them. Here are some quotes of what these emails state: “More criminals loose on the streets to terrorize our people”, “Donate now”, “The cause of this VIOLENT uptick in crime? The Liberals’ radical catch-and-release policies”, and “Criminals are WREAKING HAVOC across the country.” Another says, “DEFEND YOUR HOME.” I have some that ask for money. One states, “Crime is out of control—and it’s only going to get worse.” They are calling us radical, I guess. There is something that says, “Sign here”. That is a petition. I have some other things here that are truly amazing in terms of the press releases that come from the Conservative Party. I like this one: “The Liberals and Bloc want to prosecute people for quoting scripture.” Imagine that. That is truly amazing. It says, “They are trying to push laws that could criminalize passages from the Bible, the Quran, the Torah, and other sacred texts.” In that one, they are mining data. There is one that goes directly toward raising funds.”

• Echo ×3

  A repeated line

  “When we talk about building Canada strong?”

  Said 3 times by 3 members since May 29.

  Every time it was said →

“We are trying to pass bills to make our communities safer, but the Conservatives are blocking them to raise money. They are spreading false information instead of supporting good laws that police and local leaders want. Conservative members should look at the bills themselves instead of just listening to their party leaders.”

“Mr. Speaker, these are actually quotes from emails that come from the Conservative Party of Canada. Here is another one, and members will like this one: “the Liberals are waging a war on religious freedom.” Wow, that is truly amazing. It states, “Their goal is to expose people of faith to criminal prosecution for the simple act of quoting their own sacred texts.” It goes on. This one has, “Donate now” on the email. Here is the point: I raise these emails because that is the motivating factor when it comes to the issue of crime and making our communities safer for the Conservative Party of Canada today. The emails kind of demonstrate it. When the Prime Minister, the government and 170-plus Liberal MPs are bringing forward legislation and trying to push legislation through the House that would actually make our communities safer, the Conservative Party is filibustering and trying to prevent the legislation from passing. Even with legislation that has a wide spectrum of support from provinces, municipalities, law enforcement agencies and the constituents we represent, the Conservatives say no. They are trying to prevent legislation from passing that would make our communities safer. I say shame on the Conservatives for not realizing the damage they are causing. I do not blame each and every member of the party, obviously. I believe it is the leadership from within the Conservative Party that is actually driving the Conservative Party’s agenda today. I am telling my friends across the way to look at the legislation. They do not have to believe everything their back room or the leader’s office tells them. The bill is good, sound public policy. I wish I had enough time to talk about Bill C-16. I cannot believe the Conservative Party is going to vote against Bill C-16, which would reinstate mandatory minimums and would bring the issue of femicide onto the table. That is something that other countries around the world have not done. It would also deal with coercive behaviour. There is so much substance that the government is bringing on crime, in order to make our communities safer. The Conservative Party of Canada has been an absolute disaster on the issue. In fact, it has been spreading misinformation to try to mislead Canadians. I say to the Conservatives that it is time at least some of them started rethinking what the leadership of the Conservative Party is saying and—”

“Many people told me they used to vote Conservative, but now vote Liberal. The Liberals got more votes in the last election than ever before because people prefer our Prime Minister to the Conservative leader.”

“Mr. Speaker, I will let the name of Joe Clark, one of Canada’s prime ministers, a Progressive Conservative, stand pretty high. I can tell the member opposite that never before, at the doors, have as many people told me that they voted Conservative in the past but were voting Liberal this time around. I truly believe it was because there is a great deal of contrast between the leader of the Conservative Party and today’s Prime Minister, the leader of the Liberal Party. I can say one thing, which is that never before has the Liberal Party of Canada received as many votes as it did in the last election, under the current leadership. I believe it has a lot to do with today’s Prime Minister.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“Police in my area support our public safety bills, including this one. But the Conservatives wasted 25 hours in committee trying to block it, which also delayed help for the economy. Can the member talk about how the Conservatives are blocking our work?”

“Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to the police chief of Durham Regional Police Service, as well as to members of the association that represents the frontline officers, and they have all supported our government’s legislative agenda on public safety, including lawful access, bail reform, combatting hate, the protecting victims act and more. The member has pointed to all those bills. What I find really challenging is that members of the Conservative Party on the finance committee wasted 25 hours of committee resources to block key economic measures that Canadians are relying on us to deliver. By their own admission, they did it to block lawful access. They admitted that on camera, on the record. Can the member speak to the obstruction that we have seen in the House by the Conservative Party?”

“Conservatives are wasting time in the House and in committees. They voted to let us work late, but then tried to shut down debate over and over. They complain about not having enough time to debate, but their actions take that time away.”

“Mr. Speaker, the question allows me to highlight what we have seen taking place on the floor of the House of Commons over the last week or so. Not only is an excessive amount of filibustering or wasting time taking place in standing committees, as has often been witnessed, but it has also happened here in the House. Last week, a motion was agreed upon by the Conservatives that allows us to sit Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday until midnight, and Friday until 8 p.m. They all voted in favour of it, but an hour and a half later, they moved a motion to adjourn the House. One would think maybe it was just a stupid thing they did, but they did it again and again. Then they had the bells ring at report stage of Bill C-25, a bill they support. All they are doing is taking away debate time, yet they cry that they do not have enough debate time. There really is no logic to what they are doing on the floor of the House of Commons. I suspect that, again, it is probably rooted in the House leadership team.”

“We worked closely with many different groups to make this bill. We consulted with local police organizations, including in Winnipeg, before writing it.”

“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member’s comments. Back home, I am often told that when I am addressing groups, I speak loudly. I tend to speak loudly. That is my normal. I do not mean to cause issues by it. I believe that there has been a great deal of collaboration between the minister’s office and different ministers. We have seen collaboration working with the many different stakeholders in many different communities. The parliamentary secretary posed the question about support from the local police organizations in his own riding. People will find that this sort of consultation and reporting back takes place a great deal. Our Secretary of State for Combatting Crime came to Winnipeg and met with the police association. A lot of consultation and collaboration went into the making of the legislation.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 46 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“We worked with police and other governments to agree on this bill, which helps officers get digital information during investigations. The Conservatives refuse to support it and are blocking it from passing.”

“Mr. Speaker, let us imagine this. The Government of Canada, through its ministries, worked collaboratively with provincial jurisdictions, municipal jurisdictions and law enforcement agencies, and it built a consensus, which is very easy to do, on lawful access. The bill came to the floor of the House of Commons in September year. It was brought to the Conservatives, and they said, “No way. We are not going to support this. We do not like lawful access. We are going to debate this thing endlessly. We are not going to allow it to pass.” Well, it is kind of hard to collaborate, with that kind of an attitude, on the issue of lawful access. It has been made very clear: The Conservative Party of Canada does not support lawful access. We want lawful access, but the Conservatives do not. It is as simple as that.”

“Conservatives voted against listing the noose as a hate symbol. Can you explain why it is important to pass laws against hate and fight these hate symbols in Canada?”

“Mr. Speaker, the member did mention just fighting hate, and he mentioned anti-hate legislation. A proposed change came through the Senate to include the noose as a hate symbol, which the Conservatives have voted against. Can you tell the House why it is important for us to put in place hate legislation and, more specifically, to fight against these hate symbols here in Canada?”

• Off topic
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“We need this bill to help stop hate and harassment, like people threatening others with a noose.”

“Mr. Speaker, I really do appreciate the question. I think it is best answered by recounting what one of our senators said in addressing the bill. She talked about having a wonderful dinner at home and then going for a walk, during which she was harassed by some people in a truck who were saying some fairly harsh things. They actually had a noose in the truck. In order to really appreciate the hatred that, unfortunately, is still out there, we have to understand the impact of something of that nature. I do not deny the fact that the noose sends all sorts of strong, negative messages. It hurts people to the core. It is time that we actually do something about it, and Bill C-9 addresses that particular issue and a whole lot more.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“I am asking the House to agree to end debate and vote on this government motion as soon as people are done speaking.”

“Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions amongst the parties, and if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion: That, notwithstanding any Standing or Special Order or usual practice of the House, with respect to the consideration of Government Business No. 13: (a) when no member rises to speak, all questions necessary to dispose of Government Business No. 13 be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment; (b) if a recorded division is requested, it shall not be deferred and the bells to call in the members shall be sounded for not more than 30 minutes.”

“We did consult with the Privacy Commissioner on this bill, and we used some of his advice. We want to work with the other parties to improve the bill, but the Conservatives are stalling and stopping us from voting on changes.”

“Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned that we have not consulted with the Privacy Commissioner. I want to mention that this is the wrong information, and I believe that my colleague was misinformed before her speech. The Privacy Commissioner said at the committee, “I would not say that we were not consulted in this instance. We made a number of recommendations. A number of them were taken and I’ve highlighted those improvements”. He said that during his witness testimony. I would also like to highlight that the government did its due diligence by getting the Privacy Commissioner’s input for that bill. I also want to mention that, as a Liberal member on the committee, we would like to work with the opposition party members to improve the bill and work on the amendments. However, we heard 10 hours of witness testimonies, plus three hours with the officials. We had over 40 briefs and lots of witnesses on that study. Filibustering, unfortunately, is not allowing us to move on the amendments. The amendments are on the table. We would like to continue with the amendments and working on them, but the Conservatives are not allowing us to.”

“Police in my area and across Canada asked for this bill so they can do their jobs. The Conservatives are blocking it just to waste time.”

“Madam Speaker, I know the member. She and I share a border, being from Oshawa and Durham region, respectively. I know that our chief of police and the Durham Regional Police Service have been asking for lawful access. This is a tool that our government was elected to give police officers, police forces and law enforcement agencies across Canada to be able to do the investigative work they need to do. If the member opposite is truly tough on crime and listens to our police force and law enforcement, then what I want to say is that obstruction is not the same as scrutiny. What we have seen from the Conservative Party is obstruction. I witnessed it on the finance committee just last week, with 25 hours of time wasted, only to be told that it was really about another bill in another committee. The Conservatives held us hostage for ransom. If the member opposite was so concerned about time for debate, then what does she have to say about the waste of time that her colleagues have perpetrated in other committees? Some hon. members: Oh, oh!”

“The member is not saying what I actually said.”

“Madam Speaker, on a point of order, that is not what I said. With all due respect to the member, whom I greatly respect—”

“Every committee member gets the same amount of time to ask questions. The opposition did not run out of time. They just wasted it and delayed their own witnesses.”

“Madam Speaker, I enjoy working with my colleague at committee, as well as with my colleague from Oshawa, who also expressed concern about not having enough time to ask questions at committee. With respect, every member of the committee has the same time allocated. I have difficulty understanding why, while most of the other members of the committee could ask questions, the member was not able to. It is all about using our time wisely, I think. It is like someone’s complaining about the distance they cannot go, when they have waited at the station too long. That was my concern. I am trying to understand how they could not use the time wisely and why they filibustered their own witnesses.”

“We have already studied this bill in committee. I want the Conservatives to explain why they are delaying economic help for Canadians and stopping police from getting the tools they need to fight organized crime.”

“Madam Speaker, my understanding is that the components of Bill C‑22 were in a previous bill that was debated in committee and studied, just as Bill C‑22 was, which was also studied for at least eight or nine hours in committee. As I have mentioned in the House today, I have not gotten one clear answer from any Conservative on why they chose to filibuster a spring economic update implementation act, Bill C‑30, which includes key economic measures, at a time when Canadians need the tax deductions and the support. Why would the Conservatives hold up progress on the economy to block a bill that would give police officers and law enforcement agencies the tools they have been asking for to crack down on organized crime? It does not make any sense to me. Maybe the member can enlighten me.”

“Police need modern tools to get digital information to solve crimes. Conservatives are delaying this bill to stop that from happening. That is why the government has to limit debate to pass it.”

“Madam Speaker, let me start by saying how much I respect the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, for her patience but also for her attempt, always, to operate in good faith. I recognize that with bills like this, it is about striking the right balance, and I think the member mentioned that in her speech. I feel like we are getting the balance right. Maybe she does not feel that way. What was not part of her speech and her story was how much obstruction has become normalized. The hon. member saw it in finance committee. She admitted there was a filibuster going on for 25 hours by the Conservatives, which she sat through and witnessed, just as I was there witnessing it, because they wanted to hold a bill hostage to extract out of the government some compromises on Bill C-22 to limit lawful access. My dad was a police officer for 30 years, and I know they investigate crimes. It is important that we give police the tools to be able to access information in a digital age that can help solve some of these tough crimes. We all want to get criminals off the streets and crack down on organized crime. Can the member opposite at least speak to the obstruction we have seen? That is why the government has to use programming motions, closure and these types of tools in order to get things done for—”

“I disagree with the Green Party leader. Parties do not work together like they used to. If the government cannot limit debate, the Conservatives could block every bill they dislike. We need rules that set debate times so the government can pass its laws.”

“Madam Speaker, I completely disagree with the leader of the Green Party, because I do not think she is reflecting on the reality of change that we have seen over the last 15 years. If we follow the logic of the leader of the Green Party, it would be the Conservative Party of Canada that would determine what legislation passed, because she does not believe that time allocation should be used. The moment that the Conservative Party says they do not like legislation, the government would not be able to pass the legislation. There was a time when there was co-operation, many years ago, but we need programming, in the same way we program opposition days and private members’ bills, in order for the government of the day and future governments to be able to get their legislation across the goal line. I am wondering if the member could provide her thoughts on that change.”

“Conservatives claim to be tough on crime, but they vote against protecting victims and fighting hate crimes. Now they are delaying this bill, which gives police better tools to fight crime. I want the member to explain why his party opposes keeping our communities safe.”

“Madam Speaker, the Conservative Party used to call itself the party of law and order. Unfortunately, today, the Conservatives no longer have any credibility on this issue. When the time comes to better protect victims, what do the Conservatives do? They vote against it. When the time comes to combat hate crimes in our communities, they vote against it. That is not to mention all the disinformation they have been spreading on the matter. When the time comes to debate Bill C‑22 to give the authorities the tools they need to fight crime, what do they do? They filibuster. I would like to hear the thoughts of my colleague opposite. What does he think about the fact that his party no longer has any credibility when it comes to keeping our communities safe and getting tough on crime?”

“Canadians voted for our government in the last election. We introduced crime bills to make communities safer. The Conservatives are the ones blocking these laws.”

“Madam Speaker, the member cannot change what was decided in the last federal election, when Canada elected a new Prime Minister and a new government. Under the administration of the new Prime Minister, we brought forward a legislative suite of crime legislation, and the biggest barrier to passing that legislation, which would make our communities safer, is the Conservative Party of Canada. That is the reality. That is what is happening today. That is what Canadians are concerned about. Why is the Conservative Party today, the extreme right, making the decision to deny Canadians safer communities?”

• Off topic
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Relevance 34 of 100

  None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“We have already debated this bill for a long time. The Conservatives will not let it pass, so we need to limit debate to get it done. We are supporting police officers, but the Conservatives have stopped supporting them.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is unfair for the member to make the kinds of comments that she has. She knows full well that lawful access has been debated and talked about. We brought in legislation back in September of last year. The Conservative Party opposed it; they did not want anything to do with it. That is the reality. If it were up to the opposition, it would never pass. Without time allocation, it would not pass. We are going to respond to law enforcement officers because the Conservatives have abandoned their support of law enforcement officers. Why have they done that?”

• Personal attack
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Respect 83 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “She knows full well”.

  See full analysis →