Debates of June 17th, 2026

Spectrum Policy Framework for Canada Act

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to take a moment to thank a couple of people who have been part of my office this session and who will be moving on shortly.

First I want to recognize Oliver Batchilder, who has been with my office as an intern through the parliamentary internship program. Oliver is sharp, diligent and very hard-working. In fact, I have told him he works harder than most full-time paid staff I have known around this place. We are going to miss having him around, and Parliament is lucky to have young people such as Oliver coming through its doors, but I know he is going to do great things and his future is very bright.

I also want to recognize Brenda Birch, my constituency assistant in Neepawa, who will be retiring in the coming weeks. Brenda actually lived in Ottawa for a number of years, but she likes to joke that she had to move back home to find a job in politics. Since then, she has been the friendly face and the steady hand for so many people back home in my constituency who needed help to navigate the federal government. She has done that work with an incredible amount of care and patience, and I know how much constituents noticed and appreciated her work. On behalf of my constituents, I wish Brenda all the best in her retirement, and I thank her for her years of service.

With that, let me turn to the legislation before us today. On the night of April 14, 1912, a wireless operator aboard the Titanic tapped out a distress call into the dark Atlantic. Some ships caught it. One that might have reached the Titanic in time did not, because nobody was at the radio and because airwaves in those days were more like the Wild West. At the time, wireless communication was still new. The rules were incomplete, and channels were crowded. More than 1,500 people lost their life that night, and the inquiry that followed revealed that wireless communication was a matter of life and death. That is why, in the years after the disaster, countries agreed that the airwaves needed to be better managed in the public interest.

I start there purposely, because more than a century later, we are still arguing about the same basic resource. Today we call it “spectrum”, and the importance of it has, if anything, only grown. Today we manage spectrum mostly through auctions, where the government sells telecommunications companies the right to use these public airwaves. That is a reasonable way to assign spectrum, but selling a spectrum licence is not the same as solving a problem of coverage.

We cannot see spectrum and cannot touch it, but it is behind almost everything we do. It is the call that connects, or does not. It is the alert that reaches our phone, the card reader at a small-town shop and the radio a volunteer firefighter uses on a gravel road. In the city, Canadians barely notice any of this, but in rural Canada, it is the line between being part of the country's economy and being shut out of it. Right now, rural Canada is too often on the losing end of that line.

Let us look at a recent example. In the government's recent 3,800‑megahertz spectrum auction, the licensing decision set a deployment requirement of just 5% population coverage within seven years for the Gander and Grand Falls-Windsor service area in Newfoundland, a region covering more than 144,000 people. Compare that 5% to the deployment requirement in a major city, where a provider has to reach 30% within five years and 70% over the long run.

That information is public. It is outlined in ISED's own licensing decision, for anyone who wants to check it out. That means a telecom provider can buy up the rights to serve rural Canada, let that spectrum sit there doing nothing for years, and clear a bar that is low, and the government calls that a mission accomplished. That is not good enough. Rural Canadians know it is not, because they are the ones living in the dead zone.

If the legislation makes it to committee, I strongly recommend that the committee review the large discrepancies between rural and urban tiers for spectrum deployment requirements. Long timelines for deployment of spectrum in rural areas result in the lack of priority given to deploying connectivity in rural regions. Telecommunications providers purchase this spectrum and slowly deploy it after they prioritize urban regions, where there is more revenue to be generated.

I have often asked myself why the deployment requirements are not equal between rural and urban regions, if we really want to close the digital divide. Any policy on this front must consider the spectrum that has already been licensed under weaker deployment requirements, because those terms and conditions were already agreed to and were reflected in the purchase price. Obviously, the telecommunications companies will oppose any accelerated deployment requirements. However, I will note that Telus, in recent government consultations, supported increased deployment requirements, so there is hope.

There is a revenue side to the story too, and it is worth being honest about it. Spectrum auctions have turned into a cash cow for the finance department, and all funds raised through an auction go into general revenues. A recent spectrum auction brought nearly $9 billion into the federal coffers, with three large carriers accounting for the overwhelming majority of these funds. I have no objection to the government's raising money, but raising money and actually connecting people are two different things, and we keep treating them as if they were the same.

There is a real policy contradiction in this. If the government's main objective is to raise as much revenue as possible for spectrum auctions, that can come at the expense of connecting more Canadians. When the government sells a telecom company a spectrum license and allows the company to never deploy it, or to deploy it very slowly, the public loses. This is a principle I have raised in the House before.

During the 44th Parliament, I introduced Bill C-288, which was passed. It was aimed at making broadband service information more accurate. This was because Canadians were being sold one story about the Internet but were buying and living an entirely different one. That same idea belongs in this debate on spectrum policy. The coverage maps tell one story, but the people who live on those roads tell another. The map will colour an entire municipality green and call it served, while the people in that municipality can tell us, down to the bend in the road, exactly where the call drops every time.

There is also the matter of spectrum that goes unused. We have had stretches in this country's history where a frequency has sat idle in rural and remote regions for years, serving no one, and the demand for connectivity has kept growing. Therefore, it is worth Parliament's asking whether our current rules put any real pressure on licence-holders to actually deploy, or whether smaller licensing areas, tougher deployment conditions and more enforcement might finally get that spectrum working for the people it is supposed to serve.

Underneath all this debate sits the question of safety. A dropped call in downtown Ottawa is an inconvenience, but a dropped call on a rural highway in a Manitoba blizzard, with a vehicle off the road and the temperature dropping to -40°C, can be the difference between life and death. That is the same lesson the Titanic taught us over a century ago. We should not need to relearn this in 2026.

This brings me to the legislation that is in front of us. Bill C-268 asks two fairly reasonable things: that mobile coverage data actually be verified for accuracy, and that this framework be reviewed on a regular schedule rather than being left to gather dust for another 20 years. I will not pretend that the bill would solve the whole problem, because it would not, but it would open the door and give the House a chance to ask questions that have been long overdue.

In the end, the question is a simple one: When we hand a company a piece of the public's airwaves, does it actually serve the public? It belongs to Canadians, and Canadians are entitled to know whether it is going to work for them. These are questions Parliament should take seriously, because Canadians, rural Canadians in particular, deserve action.

[Paul Connors, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today on behalf of the people of Avalon to speak to Bill C-268, the spectrum policy framework for Canada act.

I would like to begin by thanking the member for Compton—Stanstead for bringing this legislation forward. Her work highlights an issue that affects Canadians in every region of the country, especially those living in rural and remote areas.

Cellular connectivity in Canada is no longer a luxury. It is essential. It connects us to our families and friends, it connects businesses to their customers, it connects students to their education and it connects Canadians to vital services, including emergency services. Quite simply, cellular connectivity connects Canadians to opportunity, yet many Canadians still do not have access to reliable cellular service. I do not mean just access on paper, but a real, dependable, working service in their everyday lives. This is especially true for rural and remote communities, like many of the communities I represent in Avalon.

I want to take a moment to make this real. Imagine that someone is at home and a wildfire suddenly breaks out nearby. They gather their loved ones and prepare to leave. They reach for their phone to call their neighbours, family, friends or emergency services, and there is no signal. They get in their car and drive away, but there is still no signal. They drive 10, 15 or 20 minutes, until, finally, they get a signal, but there is only one bar. This is not hypothetical. This was the reality for many residents across the Avalon Peninsula during the summer wildfires last year.

In moments of crisis, cellular connectivity is not about convenience. It is about safety. It can be the difference between getting help and being cut off. In remote and rural regions with long distances between towns or during harsh weather, reliable cellular service is not optional. It is essential to protecting lives.

This brings us to a critical point. We often hear that 97%, 98% or 99% of Canadians have access to cellular service, but we must ask what access really means. Does it mean just one bar? Does it mean a strong, reliable service? Does it mean being able to make a call without it dropping? Does it mean running a business, attending school or calling 911 without interruptions? In my hometown of Conception Bay South and throughout many communities in my riding, connectivity exists on paper. We are told we are fully covered and connected, but in reality, residents experience dropped calls, dead zones and unreliable service daily. In some homes, people have to walk from room to room to try to find a signal. This is not connectivity.

We need to rethink how we define and measure cellular connectivity in Canada. It is not enough to say a community is covered. We must ensure that the service is reliable, dependable and high-quality. This is exactly what Bill C-268 would play a key role in doing. This bill would help establish a framework to measure cellular connectivity across Canada. It would give us data to guide us in decision-making as we work to close the connectivity gap. That matters, because without accurate information, we cannot build effective solutions.

Improving connectivity is also about economic opportunities. In today's economy, nearly every business relies on reliable Internet and cellular service. Small businesses in rural communities are especially vulnerable. When connectivity fails, payment systems stop, debit and ATM machines do not work and online orders do not get processed. In many cases, customers no longer carry cash. If the system is down, the sales are lost. For seasonal businesses, like those in the tourism sector, any Internet or cellular downtime means a loss in revenue, and it does not take long for those losses to build up.

Without reliable service, businesses struggle to grow, attract customers and compete. This is one of the reasons why people are often pushed toward the urban centres. It is not because they want to leave their communities, but because the infrastructure they need is simply not there.

Connectivity also plays a critical role in education. In recent years, we have seen a major expansion of online and hybrid learning. Students can now attend classes, complete assignments and access resources from anywhere if they have reliable connectivity, but in rural communities, students face difficult challenges. Students may be forced to leave their hometown to pursue their education. Others may fall behind simply because they cannot access their coursework all the time. Schools may lack the infrastructure needed to fully integrate technology into the classroom. Beyond learning, there are also safety concerns. In rural areas, students often travel long distances by bus. Sometimes, they travel for more than an hour. If an emergency occurs, whether it is weather-related, medical or otherwise, reliable communication is essential. We cannot accept a situation where schools or families cannot connect when it matters most.

Part of the broader challenge we face relates to how we manage and allocate the communications spectrum in this country. The spectrum is the invisible infrastructure that powers wireless communication. It is the foundation of cellular networks. Decisions about spectrum, how it is allocated, who can access it and under what conditions have a direct impact on connectivity outcomes.

Too often, the development of the spectrum is prioritized in densely populated urban areas, where returns on investment are highest. That is understandable from a market perspective, but it leaves rural communities behind. We need to ensure that the communications spectrum policy in Canada supports equitable access, not just profitable access. That means encouraging deployment in underserved areas, improving rural coverage obligations and making sure that carriers are accountable for delivering real service.

Satellite-based connectivity has made some considerable progress in recent years and helped bring services to some remote areas, but these solutions are still evolving and the costs can be high for individuals and families. Technology will be part of the solution, but it cannot replace the need for strong and reliable wireless infrastructure.

For too long, rural Canadians have felt like they are at the back of the line. They do not expect to be first, but they expect to be included. Right now, too many feel like they are still waiting to be part of it. Urban Canada has seen major improvements in connectivity. Now it is time to ensure that rural Canada is not left behind. That requires commitment and it requires a clear understanding of where the gaps truly are.

That is why Bill C-268 is so important. It is not the final solution, but it is a necessary step forward. It would help us better understand the reality on the ground and help us measure what truly matters. It would guide us toward more effective policies and investments. Most importantly, it would allow us to reaffirm a simple but powerful message. When we say we are connecting Canadians, we mean all Canadians, no matter where they live, no matter how remote their community is and no matter the challenges they face.

Canadians deserve reliable connectivity, not just in cities, but in every town, every community and every region in the country, because in today's world, connectivity is not optional. It is essential to safety, it is essential to opportunities and it is essential to ensuring that no community is left behind.

I am proud to support this bill.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege, as always, to rise and speak on behalf of the people of Elgin—St. Thomas—London South. It is a particular privilege to speak to a bill such as this one, which speaks directly to one of the most persistent concerns I hear from people in the rural communities in my riding, scattered across Elgin County from Rodney to West Lorne, Straffordville, Vienna and Port Burwell. Oftentimes, they do not have dropped calls because they live in dead zones where they cannot even make a call. They cannot so much as send a text message or load a web page on their phone.

Obviously, we cannot have coverage everywhere we go in the country, but we look on the coverage maps that are published by many of the large telecoms companies and realize that much of what is on those maps is pure fiction. They will claim full coverage, as we see across southwestern Ontario in particular, when everyone who lives there knows that is just a joke.

I thank my colleague across the aisle from Compton—Stanstead for introducing this very important discussion. I have actually spent some time in her riding in the past, and I know it is very rural. Parts of it are very similar to my own riding. I know her constituents see many of the same challenges that mine do and that members across the aisle have seen in their own communities. It is something we encounter.

One of the things I love the most about my role is getting to criss-cross all of these different parts of these ridings and communities where people have to be on the go. Sometimes, it is a great privilege to be in areas where no one can call me. That is sometimes a convenience. Sometimes, it is an inconvenience. I am sure that we have all had periods when the whip could not get a hold of us because we were in an area without cell coverage. Still, for a lot of Canadians, that is incredibly important.

I want to explain what cellular service is, fundamentally. We can often trivialize the idea of being connected, and for good reason. In this world, we are overconnected sometimes, but we are not talking about the ability to download a game. We are not talking about the ability to idly scroll the Internet. For people in rural communities, the ability to connect to a cellular network is absolutely critical. As technology evolves, we see farmers incorporating more and more technology into their work that requires cellular connectivity, especially if they are out in the field, far from the Wi-Fi routers they may have in their homes or, increasingly, in their barns.

In our work on the justice committee, we heard from Liz Brown of Valora Place, which is an abused women's centre in St. Thomas, about how domestic and intimate partner violence in rural communities can be aggravated by not having the cell signal to make emergency calls. I do not wish to be overly dramatic or alarmist, but sometimes, a lack of cellular connectivity is literally a life-or-death issue if a person cannot get a signal to make a call. That is the case not just in an intimate partner violence situation, but in any emergency. If a person cannot call 911, they cannot get the help they may need in a crisis.

We also have, in general, the economic needs of travelling around rural communities. Stores increasingly want to use QR codes to load a menu at a restaurant, for example, or to redeem a coupon someone may have found. These rely on cellular connectivity that, increasingly in rural communities, is not available.

One important point I will raise here is that rural communities have, for much of the last 10 years, felt very ignored by the Liberal government. We see announcement after announcement devoted to big cities. We have people in rural communities truly feeling left behind. While there has been leadership from provincial governments and, in some cases, from the federal government over the past years on rural broadband, this idea of rural cellular connectivity seems to have been almost entirely ignored.

I go back to two things that I believe need to change fundamentally. One is something that I hope and am optimistic this bill could address, which is the accuracy of coverage maps. The bill would require the CRTC to establish a process to ensure the accuracy of mobile network coverage data provided by Canadian carriers. This means that when people in Sparta, Iona, Iona Station or Dutton look at the coverage areas for a company that might want their business as a cellular customer, there has to be accuracy in those maps.

It is important to note that I am not talking about situations where, every once in a while, a call drops in an area. I am talking about perennial dead zones, where the telecoms companies are claiming they offer coverage, but the people attempting to use their phones there are not receiving it. That is a very important distinction.

We know that there are always going to be glitches and down points. We know that there are going to be slight variances and variations in coverage from day to day. We know that the weather can affect this. We know that there are going to be technical issues on the coverage maps. However, we are talking about establishing, as a baseline, an expectation that a lot of Canadians have that they are not going to pay for a service they are not receiving, and that they are not going to pay for a service that is not available to them at all points, especially when they may need it most.

It is interesting that the bill happened to come up today. Last week, I rose in the House and asked a question in question period about this very issue, which was about what the industry minister would do to ensure accuracy in telecom maps. I was very pleased that the parliamentary secretary to the industry minister rose to answer my question, but he did not actually address the substance of the issue. He talked about affordability, which again is a very important issue, but I would love to see concrete action from the government on the actual question of accuracy in the coverage maps.

Here is where I hope we can go if Bill C-268 is referred to committee. The bill requires a process for ensuring accuracy, but that is only the first step. We also have to be able to expand that coverage. In that sense, I hope this can be the beginning of a longer-term discussion about not just identifying where these dead zones are, but also fixing them.

I do not wish to be biased, but actually I do wish to be biased towards my part of the country, because it is a beautiful place. However, the regions I am talking about are not even insanely rural and remote areas. We are sometimes talking about communities that are 15 to 20 minutes outside of very large cities, like London or St. Thomas, which are still seeing these coverage dead zones. If we cannot have full coverage in an area as densely populated as southwestern Ontario, we are certainly not going to have it in areas of the country that are far more sparsely populated and far more rural.

We know that the telecom companies have tried to respond to some of these concerns by saying that we can move ahead with satellite technology. We have seen Rogers, in particular, Bell as well, advance satellite phones as an answer to some of these problems, but again, if people are near the Canada-U.S. border, as the vast majority of Canadians are, this satellite technology is not available to them. We still have the same problem, which is that we have people looking to a new technology, but that not solving the problem, which is applicable to not just the farmers in my riding, but all the people who live in these rural communities who want to work in these communities, want to study in these communities and, as my colleague for Avalon said a few moments ago, hopefully want to stay in these communities. We do not want people having to leave the place they call home because they feel they do not have the technical capabilities they need to live their lives there, to feel secure there and to feel like they can be on the go and run their businesses there.

I want to see from this Liberal government a real commitment to rural communities, like the ones I have the great privilege and honour of representing. I want to see us identify ways to ensure accuracy in telecom coverage maps in rural Canada, but I also want to see us fix and expand those areas where we know the coverage is not there. This is a crucial issue, and it is one that has wide-ranging implications for the economy and business, for connectivity and well-being, and yes, even for public safety and justice.

Conservatives will always stand in support of transparency and accountability. I believe that companies have a moral obligation to provide accurate information, and I believe that government, given the manner in which it regulates telecom companies, needs to do its job and ensure this.

My question I would like to leave everyone with is this: We have a framework proposed here. What do we do to turn this into real action? That is what I would like to see.

I appreciate my colleague raising this issue. It is about time we get some attention for rural Canada from the Liberal government.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The hon. member for Compton—Stanstead has five minutes for her right of reply.

[Marianne Dandurand, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today after my colleagues, and after speaking last month in the House, to conclude debate at second reading on Bill C‑268.

I thank all my colleagues who spoke. I am pleased to see that this is not a partisan issue. I want to thank the members for Tobique—Mactaquac, Joliette—Manawan, Egmont, Portage—Lisgar, London—Fanshawe, Brome—Missisquoi, Drummond, Avalon, Riding Mountain and Elgin—St. Thomas—London South for supporting the bill.

My colleague from Elgin—St. Thomas—London South was talking about people who live just outside urban centres and have no Internet connection. I live in a city with a population of nearly 200,000, and I do not get more than one bar of Internet signal inside my home. Members of Parliament from every region of the country and every party have described exactly the same reality: roads with no signal, underserved communities, and citizens who cannot rely on their phones when they need them. That is also my personal experience, as I just mentioned. I am one of those people who has to move closer to a window to get better reception. On the roads in my region, I know exactly where I have to tell the person on the other end of the line that the connection is going to drop and that I will have to call them back in a minute. Sometimes it is even worse: I have to call back in 10 minutes.

As the member for Portage—Lisgar pointed out, people have come to accept a level of service that would be considered unacceptable in any other sector. He gave the following example: No one would agree to buy a car that stops working as soon as they turn onto a certain road. In too many rural regions, people are paying full price for cell service that disappears once they reach a certain road or a certain village. My colleagues from Drummond and Brome—Missisquoi demonstrated what this is like by holding up their phones and pretending to search for a signal. We all do that in the regions. We laughed about it because it is something that we do all the time. However, behind such anecdotes lie much more serious concerns.

My colleagues talked about emergency services, first responders, accidents, serious health problems and women experiencing violence who cannot always rely on the network when they need it. The mayor of Martinville, Michel‑Henri Goyette, was the one who reminded me that this issue goes beyond cellphone call quality. He also reminded me that we should not settle for mediocrity. That is why, as my colleague said, I have tackled this issue head-on. That is why I am bringing it before the House. It is a matter of economic development, public safety and fairness for people in rural areas.

The member for Egmont reminded us that poor connectivity limits access to telehealth, remote learning and new learning opportunities. The digital divide is becoming a social, economic and regional divide. We know where the dead zones are. Constituents know them; mayors know them; paramedics know them; firefighters know them. The problem is not whether they exist. It is having the tools needed to map these areas and guide future decisions.

Bill C‑268 proposes two practical measures. First, it would require a process to verify the accuracy of wireless coverage data. If we want to fix connectivity gaps, we need an accurate picture of where those gaps actually exist. Second, it would modernize Canada's spectrum policy framework, which has not been updated since 2007. Technology has changed immensely since then, and our policy framework must evolve as well.

We do not agree on everything, but there is something we seem to agree on: Doing nothing is not an option. The bill would not be the finish line, but a starting point. The bill would get the ball rolling. It would create a better understanding of the problem, and ensure that rural connectivity is considered as a priority in future spectrum policy decisions.

I urge all members to support Bill C‑268 at second reading and to refer it to committee for further consideration.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Marianne Dandurand, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill C-268 be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill is referred to the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to call it 6:37 p.m.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion, and of the amendment.

Government Business No. 13—Proceedings on Bill C‑22

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

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!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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.

[Kurt Holman, Conservative, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I would just like clarification. Is the member for Winnipeg North utilizing a prop?

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

No, he is not. I have been paying attention to the parliamentary secretary. He has been picking up documents and putting them down as he goes. If he were to use a prop, as I am sure he knows, I would be the first to notice and to call him back to order.

I will let the parliamentary secretary finish.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan.

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)]

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?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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.