“The Liberals broke their promise to work with us on this surveillance bill. Police need tools to investigate online crime, but this bill goes too far. I want the government to accept our compromise to pass only the parts of the bill we agree on and keep debating the rest.”

“Mr. Speaker, it was all fake, all an illusion. Liberal promises to work together on Bill C-22 were hollow from the start. The Liberals will ram through the largest government surveillance operation in a generation. The Minister of Public Safety promised better. He promised he would work collaboratively, promised he would listen and promised he would take amendments. He is breaking those promises. Police need the tools to catch the bad guys in a digital era, obviously. That is why we proposed a solid compromise: pass the uncontroversial parts of the bill, and continue debating the others. Will they take that offer?”

“Canadians worry this bill gives the government too much power to watch them. Experts say we should pass the first part and study the second part more closely. Why will the government not do that?”

“Mr. Speaker, “this is not how legislation works.” That is what the minister just said. Allow me to tell him something. Canadians do not take their orders from the Liberal Party. Conservatives do not take their orders from the Liberal Party. We will scrutinize legislation as we see fit. We have heard from Canadians concerned about big brother aspects of this bill. We have heard from civil libertarians, experts, law professors who say we should be passing part 1 and scrutinizing part 2. Why will they not pass part 1 and study part 2?”