Melissa Lantsman
Thornhill, Ontario · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the secretary of state confirmed what many Canadians already feared. A foreign government is funding and directing attacks on synagogues, businesses and the U.S. Consulate, and now the murder of a Toronto police officer. This government has known for years; they did nothing.”
“Mr. Speaker, one thing is clear, which is that the families of those police officers deserve better answers than that. The Liberals are in government. They have been there for 11 years. They are not bystanders in any of this. They let terrorists flood our country. They built a catch-and-release bail system.”
“I think this bill deserves to be debated and the House should give it that. Instead, the Liberals have rammed it through with what is called the programming motion to sweep this away right before they take their summer break. Let us go back to the member for Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong .”
“That has never been done in this place except with Bill C-9 , the last bill the government passed through the House. My colleague mentioned that she had never seen that happen in her 15 years in this place, which is longer than I have been here.”
“In a previous life, she sat on this side of the House as the Conservative shadow minister for civil liberties. She participated in nearly every civil liberties debate in this chamber. Every single time, she told Canadians the truth, which was that the government could not be trusted with privacy.”
“Let me say this to anybody watching at home at this late hour: The Liberals' argument in this debate is completely disingenuous, and they know it. I appreciate the police chief of York Regional Police. We have an enormously good relationship, a great one. I have also met with the commissioner of the OPP and with the Toronto police chief.”
The complete record
Every one of 465 lines we hold for Melissa Lantsman, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 10.
“Mr. Speaker, one thing is clear, which is that the families of those police officers deserve better answers than that. The Liberals are in government. They have been there for 11 years. They are not bystanders in any of this. They let terrorists flood our country. They built a catch-and-release bail system. They allowed judges to ignore almost every mandatory minimum, including for drive-by shootings. One of these shooters was out on bail, the other one was out on probation, and now the minister told everybody that a foreign regime did it. Is that really her answer?”
“Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the secretary of state confirmed what many Canadians already feared. A foreign government is funding and directing attacks on synagogues, businesses and the U.S. Consulate, and now the murder of a Toronto police officer. This government has known for years; they did nothing. The Liberals imported terror, they weakened criminal justice laws, they slashed penalties and they offered zero accountability to foreign actors operating on our soil. Eleven years of this Liberal government and foreign regimes are paying hitmen to shoot up our cities. Canadians deserve an answer. Who knew, when did they know and why did they not do anything about it?”
“Mr. Speaker, we have heard from various members on that side of the House that it is 25 hours. There is no number of hours that will replace democracy in this place. That is what we are arguing tonight. We are going to stay as long as we can and as long as Canadians have sent us here to pass legislation. We offered them part 1. They said no, and that is on them.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if my colleague is arguing for this motion or against it. This is about scrutiny on this and any piece of legislation in the House. We are never going to be for turning off cameras and shutting down debate the way that this programming motion has, being brought to the floor of the House of Commons. It has not happened in 15 years, except for the last piece of legislation that they did it with, Bill C-9 .”
“Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary knows full well that law enforcement did not ask for anything in part 2 of this legislation. We offered to pass part 1. We offered to pass it weeks ago and we offered to pass it today. We will still make that offer if he wants to put that on the table, but that is not really what this is about.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think it is yet another erosion of the rights of Canadians. The same that we see in bills like this, in Bill C-11 , Bill C-18 , Bill C-9 , Bill C-8 and Bill C-34 to some extent, although we are still studying it. This is an erosion of democracy, and it limits the participation of many in democracy. We hear every single day from our constituents, asking why we cannot do something about it. It is because they shut down debate, they shut off the cameras and they shut down committees.”
“We are certainly not going to do that with no debate, no witnesses at committee, no ability to propose amendments, no oversight mechanisms and no answers from the people who will actually be responsible for implementing the legislation. The reason that we are talking about this motion in the House is because of the public safety minister 's inability to defend his own legislation in here, out there, at committee and everywhere else across the country. The government is programming this motion to save that minister, and Canadians deserve better than that. They deserve a debate, and they deserve scrutiny on this legislation.”
“Police unions and police chiefs did not ask for their members to be handed these broad, sweeping powers; they asked for lawful access. We are ready to give it to them in part 1 of this bill. We asked for that and the Liberals said no. That is the conversation today. We are not prepared to write a blank cheque to the government. I do not think that anybody is. We, the members of the opposition, certainly are not prepared to do that as we watch the government of the day erode not only the rights of Canadians but also the ability to debate those rights in the House and the ability to scrutinize a bill that is deeply problematic. This is a bill that civil liberties associations, social media platforms and all kinds of private companies have raised the alarm bells on.”
“With that kind of testimony at committee, does anybody in this place not think that this deserves more scrutiny and more study? That is not a talking point. They actually said that. That is a business decision that they are planning to make because of this legislation, and that tells us everything we need to know about how deeply flawed part 2 is and how it strikes at Canadian privacy rights. Normally, I might wonder out loud what the people of Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong think of all of this, but in this case, I already know because I went there. Just like Canadians across the country did not vote for the construction of a surveillance state, the people of Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong did not vote for her to erode their rights in this place.”
“I think this bill deserves to be debated and the House should give it that. Instead, the Liberals have rammed it through with what is called the programming motion to sweep this away right before they take their summer break. Let us go back to the member for Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong . She also told the House, and I remember it, that members of the Liberal caucus wanted to see her jailed over the views that she held on these exact kinds of topics. Now she is voting with those same people. She is handing them unprecedented power to conscript private business as instruments of state surveillance and potentially break the encryption that millions of Canadians rely on every single day. This is not hyperbole. Signal, NordVPN and DuckDuckGo have all publicly said that this kind of bill would force them to leave the country entirely.”
“In a previous life, she sat on this side of the House as the Conservative shadow minister for civil liberties. She participated in nearly every civil liberties debate in this chamber. Every single time, she told Canadians the truth, which was that the government could not be trusted with privacy. I agreed with her then, and I agree with her now. This is what we are talking about. This is a bill that would lower the constitutional bar. This is where it gets serious. It would create secret ministerial orders with no sunlight. It would open back doors for bad actors who would mandate metadata retention as a direct precursor to AI-driven mass surveillance, and it would weaken the encryption that protects Canadians' private communications, even with their financial institutions. That is the problem.”
“That has never been done in this place except with Bill C-9 , the last bill the government passed through the House. My colleague mentioned that she had never seen that happen in her 15 years in this place, which is longer than I have been here. (2125) This is not procedural housekeeping, but that is what the Liberals are going to make it sound like. It is a very real, very clear threat to the rights and freedoms of all Canadians from coast to coast to coast. The government has heard this loud and clear. That is exactly why it is ramming this bill through, because its members cannot go off on a summer break and have Canadians raise the alarm bells on it. They want to get it through the House. One of the members opposite supporting this motion, and we need to talk about this, is the member for Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong .”
“If he did know the contents of the bill, he would admit that it is part 1 that police officers were asking for to protect people. When the Liberals stand up and say that Conservatives are blocking lawful access, that is simply false. Every member of the House should know that. The culprit is the government's own stubbornness, its refusal to listen to anyone outside of its caucus, and, of course, it is the minister who is incapable of defending his own bill. What is the Liberals' response to that refusal? It is a motion to cut off debate, to limit how long the bill is discussed, to limit committee study and, in an unprecedented move, to retroactively pass the bill through committee without ever hearing the remaining amendments that were in committee.”
“We want to fix it by hearing from the civil liberties advocates who raised concerns in committee, from the private companies and from ordinary Canadians who have every right to be heard by every member of Parliament, every member of the House, because the legislation would affect them directly. They all sounded the alarm bells at committee. Making this go away would not protect Canadians. It would protect the Liberals. The government said no to us, because the minister presenting the bill cannot even defend it. If we put him in front of a microphone, we will see. He would be blundering all over the place, not answering questions, and giving entirely wrong answers, because he does not know the contents of the bill.”
“That is all in part 2, and that is exactly what the problem is. The Liberals' trying to ram it through is a disgrace to the House. The Liberals say the police are demanding it, and I think that is as much of an insult to the police as the last 10 years of their leadership on this file has been, full stop. I do not think they can find anybody who says they need every provision in this bill, because it is just not true. We came to the government with a straightforward proposal: Pass part 1 now, give the police chiefs what they are asking for, and we will support it through the House, every part of it; then take time to properly fix part 2 instead of programming a motion that would ram it through the House without any debate.”
“Let me say this to anybody watching at home at this late hour: The Liberals' argument in this debate is completely disingenuous, and they know it. I appreciate the police chief of York Regional Police. We have an enormously good relationship, a great one. I have also met with the commissioner of the OPP and with the Toronto police chief. They have all asked us to help pass lawful access, and we told them we would. Everything they asked for was in part 1 of the bill. We support that and are ready to pass that today. We were ready to pass that long ago. It is the Liberals who said no. However, not one of these police chiefs asked for the unprecedented expansion of government surveillance powers, secret ministerial orders, no oversight and a massive erosion of Canadians' privacy protections.”
“Lawful access is a tool that every police officer in this country needs, and we are ready to give them that bill, but Bill C-22 would not stop there, and that is exactly where the government has lost the plot on all this. Tonight, instead of a serious debate on a serious bill, we are listening to the Liberals mount an obnoxiously loud defence of the indefensible. They want to debate whether we should ignore the rights of the House, the will of our constituents and the basic principles of good governance that everybody came here to carry out. The government abandoned those a long time ago, but I know a lot of members of the House come here every day to scrutinize the very legislation that the Liberals are trying to ram through tonight.”
“Madam Speaker, before we can even talk about this bill in Parliament, we have to talk about whether members of Parliament are even allowed to talk at all anymore. That is what the motion is about. A government that claims to defend Canadian rights is using every tool at its disposal to make sure those things cannot even be debated on the floor of the House of Commons. That is what people are seeing tonight. The Liberals are pushing the House to ram through legislation in its current form that nobody asked for, nobody wants and nobody thinks is a good idea, according to the testimony at the committee that they have just shut down. Let me be clear about what this debate is actually about, because it is not about the bill. It is about whether lawful access matters. It does.”
“The platforms hosting the content know it is there, and the bill would hold them accountable. It would require digital platforms to actively remove fraudulent content. It would require them to notify users who have already been exposed. It would add a Criminal Code aggravating factor when scammers deliberately target the most vulnerable people, such as with a grandmother's life savings. That is not even fraud. It is predatory. The U.S., Australia, the EU and the U.K. have already moved on this. Canada cannot be the last one at the table. We regulate what happens on our streets. It is long past time we regulate for the people who are getting scammed online, so I urge members of this House to support this piece of legislation. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)”
“Bill C‑288. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C‑288, An Act to enact the Protection Against Online Fraud Act and to amend the Criminal Code . She said: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are being robbed at home on their keyboards, and the platforms where it is happening are profiting from the traffic. Today, I introduce the protection against online fraud act. In 2024, Canadians reported $643 million stolen through fraud. That is nearly 300% more than in 2020 and about 5% or 10% of what is actually happening. These are seniors losing their retirements and families losing their homes. It is happening to people in every riding right across the country. AI is making scams faster, cheaper and nearly indistinguishable from the real thing.”
“Mr. Speaker, the story is the same, same and not different with this bill and all of the other money that has flowed through provinces where housing starts did not increase and the price has not gone down. In fact, it has gone up. Earlier today, we asked the Minister of Housing how many houses the $1.7 billion would build. We even asked the parliamentary secretary , who had a slightly better answer than the minister, but there is still no answer at all about how many houses the $1.7 billion of taxpayers' money would build. I ask my hon. colleague if he knows how many houses the $1.7 billion the House is being asked to approve right now will build.”
“Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot about process from the minister and in the House as to why this bill should be closed for debate. However, what we and the industry have not heard from the minister is how many homes the $1.7 billion that he wants to spend of taxpayer dollars is going to build. He has not answered that question, which is why we should continue to debate this.”
“Mr. Speaker, for the last 45 minutes, Canadians watching at home have known that this is not answer period. The Liberals do not have a single answer, and the ministers are out of their depth. Some are reading off their cellphones, and the President of the Treasury Board is still flipping through his binder, looking for an answer to the question. This is serious. Canadians at home are going hungry. Seniors are living on the side of the highway because they cannot afford a home. When will the government reverse its disastrous policies that got us here in the first place?”
“Mr. Speaker, we know, indeed, that it is a difficult time. We know that this is the second officer killed in the line of duty this week. That number is too high. Constable Pinizzotto was executing a warrant linked to several shootings, including one targeting the U.S. consulate in Toronto. With an attack on a diplomatic mission on Canadian soil, a police officer now dead and a suspect at large, can the minister please tell the House whether security agencies are engaged and what the government is specifically doing to support the investigation and keep Canadians from coast to coast safe?”
“Mr. Speaker, this morning, I am sure every member of this House was devastated to learn of the Toronto police officer who was shot and killed in the line of duty. We grieve alongside the family, friends and colleagues of Constable Marc Pinizzotto, an 18-year veteran of the force who served his city with courage and devotion until his very final moments. To his loved ones and the men and women in uniform right across this country who put their lives on the line every single day, our gratitude is beyond measure. In the wake of this tragic loss, will the Minister of Public Safety please update the House on the government's response?”
“Mr. Speaker, those ministers must know that if someone is inadmissible, they are not allowed into the country. The Minister of Immigration admitted to the House that her government let people with ties to the IRGC into this country and she admitted that thousands of visas have been or needed to be reviewed since the beginning of this year, but she will not admit how many people with ties to the IRGC are actually here. Can the minister stand up now, from her seat, and finally tell the House if more than one IRGC agent has been deported from this country?”
“Mr. Speaker, earlier today, the Liberals actually compared the salaries and offices and the economy-class flights of the Leader of the Opposition to the Prime Minister 's $835 on orange juice on one trip or the $3,800 he spent on chocolate mousse on a flight. That is on top of the $250 million he spends on his personal office. That is 30 times more than the Leader of the Opposition. While families are forced to tighten their belts because he is the only leader in the G20 that plunged us into a recession, should he not tighten his own?”
“Mr. Speaker, that minister should ask anyone in Canada, or even the hundred Liberal donors who were in that room last night, if they feel safer today. The answer is no, because what we heard yesterday was hollow. It was reviewing previous reviews and studying studies on a crisis that the government presided over, funded and fuelled. That is not a plan. Nothing he said will stop the bullets from entering the member's own synagogue or the genocidal slogans that are uttered in the streets every single day against Canadians. Will the Prime Minister finally stand up in the House and meet the moment he so spectacularly failed—”
“Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister delivered a speech on anti-Semitism so neutered that an anti-Semite would have given it a standing ovation. His solution was a council that includes a lawyer who went to court defending illegal encampments and a former minister whose organization lost federal funding for supporting Hamas and Hezbollah and who then lobbied the former government to keep them off the terror list. The council is led now by a minister who wants to ban passages from the Bible and funded these same anti-Semites in his own department. Jewish Canadians are being attacked on the streets, and the Liberals are giving the keys to the very people that fuelled the crisis. I have one question for the Prime Minister : Is he serious?”
“It is not just a supplement to public safety, but an essential pillar of it, and we should recognize that. Shomrim Toronto deserves the full recognition of the House. This year, it will receive a community heroes award. Those who know Shomrim's value understand it is as sacred as the life and universe it helped save this time and every time before it.”
“Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize an extraordinary demonstration of community strength right here in Canada. When a young girl went missing in north Toronto, Shomrim Toronto, a volunteer community safety and security organization, mobilized immediately. Shomrim coordinated its members alongside local law enforcement, community organizations and thousands of residents who answered the call without hesitation. They were strangers who dropped everything to help. The young girl was found safe, and we send our deepest thanks to everyone who helped. What unfolded over those first critical hours, days and weeks is a testament to their professionalism and compassion. They are ordinary people working around the clock for days and weeks. That is a testament to their professionalism.”
“Mr. Speaker, we all know the laws exist. The member opposite knows full well that Bill C-9 and anything he mentioned would not have stopped a single thing that happened in the streets. We already know the Prime Minister will not act because he has not acted. In fact, he did not say a thing last week. More effigies will be hung, more firebombs will be thrown into synagogues and more Liberal MPs will pose for pictures with those who glorify terrorism. The question is not whether the government will finally call this a crisis. We know they will not. The question is how much more needs to happen in order for anybody to do anything.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government spent years ignoring and enabling anti-Semitism in Canada. We are now watching the consequences unfold in real time. In a single week in the country, effigies of Jews were hung in Montreal in the streets, while genocidal slogans were chanted. Government-funded organizations openly discussed a Jew-free Canada. Posters of a missing 14-year-old girl were torn down because she was Jewish. That is in just one week in Canada. Will any member on that side of the House get up and admit that we are in a full-blown crisis?”
“Mr. Chair, I want the minister to answer this question: If the security checks were not done for thousands who were reviewed by the department, is it now reviewing those, yes or no? It is a very simple yes or no.”
“Mr. Chair, I would ask the minister to stop reading the talking points and just answer the question. Her department is now reviewing those who did not have security checks, is that true or not true, for everybody listening from that community?”
“Mr. Chair, they got into Canada, and it made headlines. The department has now been reviewing thousands of previously granted visas to non-citizens from Iran because it suspects the security checks were not done before they entered Canada. Can the minister confirm whether that is correct?”
“Mr. Chair, for all of those who are watching at home, who have been terrorized by IRGC officials who are still here, one of whom has been deported, this man, a FIFA official, was allowed to come to Canada because somebody in her department allowed him to. I have asked the minister a simple question. Is she satisfied with that outcome, yes or no, for everybody watching at home?”
“Mr. Chair, the minister did not answer the question, so I am going to ask her one more time. Why was Mehdi Taj, the FIFA official, to whom she granted, or her department granted, a visa, allowed to come to Canada? It is a very simple question.”
“Mr. Chair, the minister cannot cast aspersions on any members of the House and what they want. I am talking about the fraud in her department. Of those flagged applicants, 21,000 filed asylum claims at the taxpayer's expense. The minister's department confirmed 800 fraud cases. Why are there so few prosecutions?”
“Mr. Chair, temporary foreign workers are up. Let the record show it. The minister cannot mislead the House by saying otherwise. However, let us talk about study permits for a second. The minister's department can investigate 2,000 fraud cases a year. The Auditor General flagged that there are 153,000 cases. At that pace, it is going to take 76 years. That is probably longer than I am going to be here and probably longer than she is going to be here. Is that acceptable to her?”
“Mr. Chair, the minister is failing to answer the question. She is failing to acknowledge that she has actually let in more temporary foreign workers. The TFW permits have gone from 72,000 in 2015 to 190,000 in 2024. That is a 163% increase, all while youth unemployment is at 15%. The Prime Minister himself called this a failure of execution. Does she agree with that statement, at least?”
“Mr. Chair, let us compare 2026 to 2025. There were 33,500 TFW permits in the first two months of 2026, and there were 24,000 in the same period last year. Does she know that 33,000 is more than 24,000, and why on earth is she accelerating the TFW program?”
“Mr. Chair, the minister said earlier in her exchange that the temporary foreign worker program was down from 2024 to 2026, but I want to bring to the attention of the House that the minister activated 33,500 TFW permits in the first two months of 2026, compared to 24,000 in the same period last year. Why?”
“Mr. Chair, there are thousands and thousands of youth who cannot find jobs, that is for sure, but should we be approving visas for low-wage temporary foreign workers at a time when youth unemployment is at a recession-level high, no matter what program she talks about?”
“Mr. Chair, I am going to split my time. I want to thank the minister for being here tonight. I want to thank the officials for joining in. I want to go back to something that the minister spoke about. The youth unemployment rate in this country stands at almost 15% right now. Does she believe it is a crisis?”
“Madam Speaker, I think the Liberals often confuse spending and protecting. The Weeknd, James Carroll, Lorne Michaels and Saturday Night Live did not come from the CRTC content fund. What protects Canadian culture and talent is the freedom to compete. We will continue standing up for Canadian creators and their freedom to compete and express themselves.”
“Madam Speaker, I am not sure where the member was going with that question, but I will highlight what he highlighted. The Prime Minister went to Washington last year and rescinded a 3% digital sales tax, getting nothing in return. Now we see the Liberal government imposing a 15% tax, many more times than 3%, on Canadian families for watching streaming services that the CRTC does not even count as Canadian content. It makes no sense. It makes no sense in our negotiations—”
“Madam Speaker, I think the member opposite knows that the position of the Conservatives is very clear on the funding to the CBC. We are talking about what the Prime Minister does and does not have control over. That is very simple. We have a motion in the House right now to ask the government to rescind its decision. While we are at it, it can rescind the decisions on Bill C-11 , which has not worked, and Bill C-18 , which has taken news out of the hands of Canadians and blocked them from local journalism. We can do all of that with this motion and with future motions. There is no regulatory problem for the government here. It is imposing a tax on Canadians, and the exact thing we are arguing today is that it should take that tax off of Canadian families.”
“The Conservative position, Madam Speaker, is often for the Liberals to get out of the way and let Canadians decide. The member opposite and the government are saying that the CRTC is an independent decision-maker, which is where this is all going, and that its hands are tied. That is simply not true. The government has the power today to issue a directive. It can set the decision to the side entirely by an order in council. The Prime Minister does not have a regulatory problem with the CRTC. He has a spending and a taxing problem with respect to Canadian families. He can hide behind the CRTC all he wants, but what Canadians ought to know is that they are getting a new tax and the Liberals are controlling that.”
“This means we will say no to yet another misguided attempt by the government to overreach into our media markets on the backs of Canadian families and charge them a brand new Netflix tax they simply cannot afford. We say not today, and not ever.”