Kevin Lamoureux
Winnipeg North, Manitoba · Liberal · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, when we take a look at this particular legislation, or any other piece of legislation or budgetary measures that the government has brought in since the last election, when Canadians elected a new Prime Minister and a new government, we will find that listening to Canadians is the top priority.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want the member to recognize the degree to which the Conservative Party always wants to talk down the economy. It brings me to yesterday, when we found out that the Prime Minister went to the G7 and that 13 new deals were signed off, with countries such as Japan, Italy, Denmark, France, Germany, Netherlands and Portugal, fi…”
“Mr. Speaker, since the last election, just over a year ago, when Canadians voted for our current Prime Minister and a new government, we have been listening to the people of Canada. Members will see that listening in every aspect of our legislative agenda and our budgetary measures.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on my friend's comment that we live in the real world. The real world is looking pretty good in terms of where Canada has been since the last federal election. We have a Prime Minister who has been out and about, attracting literally billions of dollars in commitments of investment.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciated to a certain degree the member's comments when he made reference to the issue of the process. However, I would ask him to realize that, over the years, things have changed considerably. We saw time allocation used during Stephen Harper's government a record number of times.”
“Mr. Speaker, today I am tabling a petition from a number of individuals. Actually, over 1,000 people have signed the petition. The petitioners are looking for a sense, from both the provincial Government of Manitoba and Ottawa, of working together to try to come up with a solution to deal with Manitoba's unique situation related to our wo…”
The complete record
Every one of 3,647 lines we hold for Kevin Lamoureux, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 28 of 73.
“Mr. Speaker, I know that the member opposite is very pleased I have taken the opportunity to rise to address this piece of legislation, even though with his presence in the chamber one has to question his level of alertness. If he were actually following the debate today, he would know that numerous Liberal members of Parliament stood up not only to address the issues of the day but also to ask questions. An. hon. member: Oh, oh! Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr Speaker, if the member maybe just paid a bit more attention, for example, right now as he is heckling across the way, he would probably have a better understanding of what actually is taking place inside the House. Let me make a suggestion. I believe the member was making reference to taking instructions from the people who sent us here.”
“Mr. Speaker, it was not that long ago that we had a Conservative member bring forward Bill C-351 , which is, in essence, the same as Bill C-232 . At that time, there was a debate and ultimately a vote. We saw members of the Liberal Party, the Bloc Party, the New Democratic Party and, I believe, even the member from the Green Party vote against the legislation. Can the member give a clear indication as to what the actual difference is between the two pieces of legislation? Has he received support from any of those political entities with respect to this current version?”
“Mr. Speaker, when we look at Bill C-9 , it is important to recognize that there is nothing within the bill that actually threatens freedom of religion. In fact, the Charter of Rights guarantees it. It was a Liberal government, back in the 1970s, that brought in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. What is happening today in our mosques, gurdwaras, churches and temples is going to continue to happen. There is no change. My question for the member is this: What does the member believe, from his personal perspective, about individuals or groups that would promote misinformation on this particular important piece of legislation?”
“Mr. Speaker, I do not think I have ever quoted the Toronto Sun. This will be the first time. I would like to quote from an article that was published, by Joseph Neuberger, that was special to the Toronto Sun. He says, “I write as a criminal lawyer with more than 32 years of experience, and as the chair of the Canadian Jewish Law Association.... I also write as a supporter of political campaigns, including the Conservatives in the last election, and I want to be clear that the real danger is not that religious freedom will be curtailed.” The headline is “Bill C-9 doesn't threaten religious freedom. It draws a necessary line”. I wonder if the member would be interested in reading the full article, which ultimately says that what the Conservatives are promoting is just wrong.”
“Mr. Speaker, if we are to talk about the motion before us today that is being debated, the fact is that we have been debating Bill C-9 for many months now. It has been at committee for endless hours. I think it is over 30 hours now. We have a majority of members of Parliament who ultimately want to see the advancement of the legislation. I understand the Conservative Party members do not want to see the legislation pass. They could talk indefinitely, which would guarantee it would never pass. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on why it is important that we respect the majority of the members of Parliament.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on two points very quickly. One is the motivation issue. I have received an email that has been shared with literally thousands of Canadians, sent by the Conservative Party of Canada, that is clearly meant to do two things. One is to raise money, because it is asking for a donation. The second is to plant fear in the minds of individuals concerned about faith. The legislation and the Charter of Rights protect freedom of religion. It is time for the legislation to proceed. A majority of MPs want the legislation to continue. A smaller number of MPs, in the Conservative Party alone, want to prevent it, and they can stop it by just continuing to talk endlessly. That is why the motion is necessary, and I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on that.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member needs to have a reality check. Quite frankly, I would love and the government would love to see unanimous support for the legislation. In fact, prior to the election, under a standing committee, we had Conservative members working with Liberals in the previous administration, saying that hate legislation was something that was necessary. We then fast-forward to today. I make reference to the Conservative email sent out from the Conservative Party. It says, referring to the government, that the goal is to “expose people of faith to criminal prosecution for the simple act of quoting from their own sacred texts.” It is loaded with misinformation. That is what we hear from the Conservative Party. If they really believe in dealing with hate crimes, then maybe they should—”
“Mr. Speaker, just to be perfectly clear, the Conservative Party of Canada is literally sending out thousands of emails, spreading misinformation and using fear in order to raise additional money for its political party. I would argue that the Conservatives have taken the position that under no circumstances are they going to allow the legislation to pass, even though a majority, which means the Liberals and other parties, have said that we want to see progress. We want to see the legislation ultimately pass. As a result, because of the Conservatives' ongoing filibustering, the only way to get the legislation to pass is to bring in the motion that we are debating today. Could the member could pick up on her point that it is time for us to move forward with the legislation?”
“Mr. Speaker, Bill C-9 is a very serious piece of legislation that deals with combatting hate. The Conservative misinformation that gets pumped out through social media is very harmful. Today, whether it is with respect to a church, a mosque, a gurdwara or a synagogue, nothing that is taking place today would be prevented in any fashion whatsoever with the passage of Bill C-9 . That is an absolute truth. The Charter of Rights guarantees religious freedoms. I wonder if my colleague could provide his thoughts on the damage caused by the misleading information that is coming out of the Conservative caucus.”
“Mr. Speaker, there has been a great deal of misinformation with respect to Bill C-9 . When I look at Bill C-9, I see it as a very positive piece of legislation dealing with hate crime, but let us be very clear. There is nothing that is taking place in the Sikh gurdwaras, Christian churches, mosques or synagogues that would be impacted by the passage of Bill C-9. Bill C-9 is there to protect. I appreciate what the member has been saying, and I am wondering if he could provide his personal assurance, given his background, as to why people of faith have nothing to worry about in terms of restricting religions, in particular with the Canadian Charter of Rights.”
“Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate what the secretary of state has put on the record, which in a very significant way reflects the reality of how the Conservative Party has really changed and moved further to the right. We can compare the Conservative Party of just a couple of years ago, when they were supporting initiatives of this nature, to the party under the current leadership that appears to oppose it. I really questioned the motivation, at least until I received an email. In that email, they were spreading misinformation and using “donate here” buttons in order to generate funds. It seems to me that the motivating factor for the Conservative Party is more about the Conservative Party than the public interest of Canada.”
“The only party that is being anti-democratic on this issue is the Conservative Party, because its members refuse to accept the legislation in terms of allowing it to go through the process when a majority of MPs want to see it go through the process.”
“Madam Speaker, less than a year ago, Canadians elected a new Prime Minister . A part of the Liberal election platform was that we would deal with the issue of hate, which is very real and tangible. We brought in legislation months ago, and the Conservatives have made the decision that they do not want to see the hate legislation. The Conservative Party does not make up the majority of the members of Parliament. The Conservative Party's intention is to never let the legislation pass, even though it was a campaign commitment. Another opposition party has decided that it is time we allow this legislation to pass. Therefore, we have a majority of members of Parliament saying that it is time. How is that anti-democratic?”
“Madam Speaker, the member was a part of the Doug Ford government at one point, and the Doug Ford government would have had the opportunity to do some of the things that he is advocating for here. Can the member give a clear indication as to why he was so ineffective in getting the Doug Ford government to take some of the actions he is telling the government to do? I find his assertions to be absolutely ridiculous. At a time when we have communities across the country looking at initiatives, such as this bill, that will make a difference, and it was a part of an election platform, why is it that the member, whom I would maybe characterize as being a little over to the right and maybe even possibly to the far right, feels fundamentally that legislation of this nature is bad for freedom?”
“Mr. Speaker, they are speaking notes, but I could table the document, if they like, which clearly shows that the motivating factor for the Conservative Party is to raise money by spreading misinformation. Is the minister concerned about misinformation being spread by political entities in the House of Commons?”
“Mr. Speaker, the intentional spreading of misinformation is what we continue to witness from the Conservatives. The motivating factor behind their opposition to Bill C-9 is that of fundraising. I could table, if they wanted, an email in which the Conservative Party is attempting to raise money by spreading misinformation and asking the recipients to donate to the party.”
“Mr. Speaker, in recognizing the very serious nature of what is happening in the Middle East, the Minister of Foreign Affairs made very clear the government's actual position on what is taking place. It seems to me that the Conservatives have the motivation of trying to portray misinformation to Canadians, when in fact the government is being clear. Does the leader of the official opposition recognize that the Conservative Party of Canada does have a role to play and that providing misinformation at times does more harm to a very serious issue that we are having to face today in the Middle East?”
“Mr. Speaker, here is the bottom line. Less than a year ago, Canada elected a new Prime Minister and a government that made the commitment to achieve 500,000 homes being built per year within the next 10 years, to get to that goal. We are working with provinces of all political stripes, from Progressive Conservative governments to New Democratic governments. We are working together in order to be able to achieve a goal that will provide the hope that Canadians want to see, and that includes working with the many different stakeholders out there. Bill C-20 is a critical component in dealing with affordable housing. It seems, once again, that the official opposition, the Conservative right, has made the determination that the government has no place in affordable housing. Does the member believe that the government has any place at all—”
“Would the member opposite not agree that maybe, in certain situations, there is a role for government to play in housing?”
“Mr. Speaker, I must say that I always enjoy listening to the member opposite. I know she puts a great deal of effort into her speeches, and I suspect there are many Conservatives in the back room who take note of what she says so they can add it to the Conservative spin they put out on a daily basis. Let us get down to the very root of the difference. I remember when I was the housing critic in Manitoba back in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and there were 20,000 non-profit housing units, many houses built by government, with co-operation. That would not have happened if there had not been a federal government presence in the housing area. We have a Prime Minister who has recognized the importance of affordable housing, including issues such as disabilities, seniors and so forth.”
“Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the member in general, but I like his first comment about providing hope. We have a newly elected Prime Minister , from less than a year ago, and we have been working with different levels of government. We have been working with many different stakeholders. We have a substantial piece of legislation to support Canadians in every region of the country. It is not a duplication. It would ensure that houses are more affordable in many different ways. I do not understand. Is there not a progressive element within the Conservatives? Are there not red Tories within the Conservative caucus who recognize there is value for the federal government to do what it is doing? I would think that members want all of us to be working together on the housing—”
“Mr. Speaker, from my perspective and the way that I look at it is that it does not matter what region of the nation one is coming from. I truly believe that people want to see opposition and government members working together, not only here in Ottawa but working with other jurisdictions in order to be able to deal with the serious issues that we have to face. The Province of Quebec has signed off with a memorandum of understanding, and the member made reference to it. The Government of Quebec is working with Ottawa, and Ottawa is working with the Government of Quebec and other stakeholders to increase affordable housing. Does the member feel any compulsion whatsoever to respect the memorandum of understanding that has been signed by the two levels of government?”
“Mr. Speaker, just to show some contrast, we have the mayor of Winnipeg, the premier of Manitoba and different stakeholders in Winnipeg all recognizing the valuable contributions that the federal government is making in terms of expanding affordable housing. It is all public information. Would the member not at least recognize that we do have a government that is working with the different stakeholders, and that the stakeholders are responding positively to the program?”
“Mr. Speaker, I agree with one thing, which is that Canadians would love to have hope. We have a Prime Minister who was elected less than a year ago. Take a look at the number of initiatives that this new Prime Minister, along with the government as a whole, has taken in order to provide that hope. There are number of initiatives and thousands of homes. It is a plan that is accepted by other jurisdictions across the land, including stakeholders. Does the member opposite not agree that the government has a role to play in providing the leadership that we have seen by this government, recognizing that in order to build homes we need co-operation from the different stakeholders? That is exactly what we have, and why I would suggest that the Conservative Party needs to revisit its policy decision and vote in favour.”
“Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague understands the benefits of the Province of Quebec and Ottawa working together. I just want to read from a press release, if I may. We were talking about it a little earlier. This was done in January, when we had both the Province of Quebec and the Government of Canada sitting at a table. This is the press release: “In order to ensure the harmonized deployment of Build Canada Homes in Quebec, in line with its priorities and jurisdictions, the governments of Canada and Quebec have signed a memorandum of understanding to guide their collaboration.” I am wondering if my colleague and good friend would reinforce just how important it is. Not only does the federal government have a role to play in housing, but it is absolutely critical that we work with our partners.”
“What gives the member opposite any sense that the Conservative Party has any concept of how to build affordable homes when the member's leader , when he was the minister of housing, was an absolute failure who only had six homes built?”
“Mr. Speaker, I ask members to imagine, if they will, a new Prime Minister , elected less than a year ago, and thousands and thousands of homes, from non-profit to affordable housing, being built. We have a government, a Prime Minister and a Liberal caucus committed to support and care about, as much as possible, more homes being built at rates we have never witnessed before in Canada. The Conservative Party's position is to stand back, do nothing and ultimately cross fingers in hopes that homes will be built. My confidence is in a government that understands it has an important role. That is what the Prime Minister and the government have demonstrated.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a contrast, if I may, to when the leader of the Conservative Party was the minister responsible for housing. He will likely go down in Canadian history as the worst minister for housing. He contributed to six homes being constructed. Having said that, we have seen, within a year, significant progress in terms of affordable housing. We have seen stakeholders of all forms actually get on board and support the government. The only ones who seem to not recognize the value of this legislation in particular are members of the Conservative Party. Why is that?”
“Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could just reflect on how important the issue has been for the government, which is the primary reason for bringing this legislation forward. In contrast to the Conservatives, we believe that the national government does play a strong leadership role in making housing more affordable in Canada and in working with our partners.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize that this is substantial legislation designed and meant to support Canadians in all regions of the nation in regard to housing by working with different levels of government and the many stakeholders out there in an attempt to increase Canada's housing stock and make it more affordable in many different ways. I wonder if the member opposite would not concede that it is important that the national government play a significant role in this. That is what our new Prime Minister and the government has done by bringing forward Bill C-20 .”
“Madam Speaker, upon reflection, it was the Liberal Party of Pierre Elliott Trudeau that brought in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, freedom of religion and its practice are very clear. We are not going to censor people sitting in a Bible club or practising their faith. The arguments the Conservative Party has brought to the floor on Bill C-9 are absolutely ridiculous. I would ultimately argue that the Conservatives are being motivated by the idea of raising money as opposed to protecting the interests of Canadians. Hate crime is a serious issue. The government is going to deal with—”
“Madam Speaker, that is a tough question. The best way for me to answer that would be to recognize what the Conservative Party is today and contrast that to a Progressive Conservative Prime Minister, Joe Clark. Joe Clark has indicated that he never left the party, but the Conservatives left him, in essence. We have witnessed through the current leadership of the Conservative Party that there is a very far right Conservative attitude. We have already seen that in some of the comments this morning and in some of the propaganda that they pump out. It is indeed a far right Conservative Party, to the degree that there are many progressive Conservative voters in the past who are now coming over to support different political entities because of how far the Conservative Party today has shifted to the right.”
“Madam Speaker, I do care about what they think, and that is one of the reasons I have to dispel many of the untruths that are put out through social media by the Conservative Party of Canada. At the end of the day, I suspect that once all the filibustering comes to an end, and it will, because of the motion, there are going to be a lot of Conservatives voting in favour of the legislation. We will have to wait and see. I remember what happened with Bill C-14 . For weeks, the Conservative Party, and maybe some of the criminals, were the only entity in Canada that was actually opposing the passing of Bill C-14. We finally shamed them into allowing it to pass, and when it actually came to its third and final reading, I do not think any Conservatives voted against it.”
“If they want to do what is in the interest of Canadians as a whole and in the public interest, as opposed to the Conservative Party's best interests, I believe they would recognize the value of legislation and at least allow it to come to a vote. It does not take much to filibuster legislation, and that is what we have witnessed, day in and day out, coming from the Conservative Party of Canada, sadly.”
“Madam Speaker, with the exception of that last statement, I am in concurrence with the leader of the Green Party. Having said that, if we were to do what the leader of the Green Party is saying, we would not be able to pass any legislation. Bill C-9 would die. There is no reason Bill C-9 could not have passed at the end of last year. We could have passed it. It could be the law today. The reason it has not passed is that the Conservative Party refuses in many ways to pass legislation, and ironically they will then go out in the media and say that we Liberals cannot pass our own legislation and cannot deal with our own legislative agenda. My Conservative friends should look in the mirror.”
“Madam Speaker, to the credit of members of the Bloc, they have recognized the true value of Bill C-9 . They have recognized that the Minister of Justice was serious when he said that he is open to making the legislation stronger and working with opposition members or faith leaders so that we have good legislation here in Canada. A vast majority of the members of Parliament in today's Parliament actually support us moving forward and ultimately passing the legislation. The reason we are having this debate on Motion No. 6 is that the Conservatives have absolutely made it a mission of theirs to continue to raise more money, spread more misinformation and prevent Bill C-9 from passing. The only way we can get it passed is if we have support from some opposition members, and I appreciate that the Bloc has stepped up to the plate.”
“Madam Speaker, I have had the opportunity to challenge Conservative members and to have debates in different areas. I would be more than happy to have a debate in Winnipeg on this and on how Conservatives filibuster the crime agenda, which would include this. I look forward to the member opposite accepting that challenge. I would be happy to work with the member and make the arrangements necessary in Winnipeg, where we can have that debate. I can assure him that there are many people of faith in Winnipeg too.”
“However, it is time for the Conservatives to realize that we should not need to bring in motions of this nature in order to pass legislation that is for the good of and in the best interest of the public.”
“The minister met with representatives of the different faiths, and more, and that ultimately led to an amendment being proposed in committee by the government. An hon. member: That is false. Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: No, it is true. Madam Speaker, what happens now is that the amendment is sitting in committee, yet we still see the Conservatives wanting to continue the filibuster, even though there is a general consensus that we are moving forward in addressing the issues that have been raised. True to form in terms of what the justice minister has indicated from the beginning of the debate is that if there are ways we can improve the legislation, we are prepared to do that.”
“We could actually have lawful access today, but that is just another example of the filibustering that takes place in the Conservative Party today, because they do not want to see legislation pass. (1340) If the Conservatives are serious about the issue of extortion, then why would they not allow for lawful access to become part of Canadian law? To those from the far right, let me suggest that there are all forms of stakeholders who agree to it. This is just like when the Conservative Party members say that something is their primary concern. The Minister of Justice , in introducing the legislation, made reference to the fact that we want to work with members. This is a serious issue, and we want to work with members. Ultimately, there was a great deal of consultation. Yes, there were concerns raised by faith communities.”
“Here in Ottawa today, in a minority government, a majority of MPs want to see this legislation ultimately pass through. That indeed is what is being proposed here before us today, recognizing the value and importance of the legislation and saying to the Conservative Party that enough is enough already. We finally have an opposition party that is actually onside and prepared to see this bill ultimately become law. I would suggest that in many ways there are other pieces of legislation as well. Extortion, as an example, is a very serious issue, whether for the Prime Minister or for every member of the Liberal caucus. The police, law enforcement agencies and security agencies of Canada want to have lawful access. They are asking for lawful access.”
“Show me something regarding a leader within a church, a mosque or a synagogue. Of course, they are not going to be able to do that, because, at the end of the day, when we listen to what they are saying, they want to give the sense that a person who belongs to a Bible club or wants to sit around in a small group and talk about their faith could end up going to jail. An hon. member: Yes they could, under your law. Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, someone says, from across the way, “Yes, they could.” That is absolutely ridiculous, and this is the type of propaganda that we get coming from the Conservative Party. They talk about the chamber. It is only a faction within the Conservative Party. I would like to believe, at least I hope, it is not all of the Conservative Party.”
“Then, we have the Conservatives, who say, “Well, we want to stick to the issue of being able to quote scriptures, from whatever faith it might be.” I stood and spoke to this at second reading, and I quoted from the Charter of Rights. Do members remember one of the emails that I read out? The Conservatives try to say that they are the defenders of the Charter of Rights. It was the Liberal Party in government, years ago, that brought in the Canadian Charter of Rights. We are the party of the Charter of Rights. If we look at the beginning of the Charter of Rights, we see that it guarantees religious freedom. It is in our charter. Show me a Supreme Court ruling that has actually not allowed what many members of the Conservative Party are telling people that their party would change.”
“Madam Speaker, let us look at the aspect of the legislation that would enable people to have a higher sense of comfort in knowing that they cannot be denied an opportunity to practise their faith and do not have to worry about issues of intimidation and obstruction, such as blocking an entrance to a church, a mosque or a synagogue. Having a stand-alone hate offence is a positive thing. In terms of stand-alone offences, again, a hate-motivated offence would deal with, for example, assaulting someone because of who they are. That is why I started my comments by saying that no one should feel unsafe because of who they are. This legislation would deal with that particular issue. It is substantive. It means a great deal.”
“That is what its motivation is. Let us take a look at some of the substance of the bill itself, if I could get off the motion and look at what Bill C-9 would do. There are some substantial changes that are being proposed in it. Let us think in terms of obstruction and intimidation that are used in order to prevent individuals from having access. The Conservatives talk about religious freedom. What about having the freedom to be able to go unimpeded to a church, a mosque or a synagogue? They do not understand it. These are stand-alone hate offences that we would be creating. These are offences— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!”
“They talk about how they want to be able to debate things. That is not the reality. The reality is that they want to use the argument in order to justify their poor behaviour in terms of delivering for Canadians. They have to be dragged kicking and screaming for us to actually get Bill C-14 , bail reform legislation, through the House. They have to be shamed into doing it. Let us reflect on what is happening with Bill C-2 . The Conservatives cry about certain issues, but when it comes time to actually do something, such as pass legislation, they want to filibuster. Let us take a look at what is happening with Bill C-2. Again, it is an absolute dead end because the official opposition, the Conservative Party, has made the determination that it does not want to deliver for Canadians. It wants to deliver for the Conservative Party alone.”
“The leadership of the Conservative Party today is an absolute disaster. (1330) When we have good, sound public policy to deal with issues that Canadians want us to be dealing with but we continue to have the type of filibustering that we see coming from the Conservative Party, I say shame on the Conservatives who continue to promote that type of behaviour. They should not try to say that we as a government are trying to be anti-democratic. I stood in my place, as I have highlighted before, and asked for the leave of the House to be able to sit until midnight for weeks. It is the Conservatives who say no to that, even though they will say they want more time. When they are provided with the opportunity for more time, what do they say? They say no, because it would mean they would have to put in a bit of extra work.”
“That is what Bill C-9 is, but it is not alone. For this bill, we finally got the okay by getting an opposition party, in particular the Bloc, onside, which would allow our minority Liberal government to ultimately get it through committee and pass it to become law. All we have to do is read the propaganda that comes out of the Conservative caucus and listen to what the members say inside the House or in committee, and we will understand that the Conservatives have no intention of passing the legislation. Then if we say we have a motion before us that would guarantee its passage, they try to link it to democracy and freedoms and so forth. I sat in opposition for over 20 years. There is a time when the Conservatives have to really reflect on just how effective they are being and question the motivations even within their own leadership.”
“We wonder why we finally got the bill through second reading and to committee, months ago, and the Conservative Party is continuing to filibuster at committee stage. The Conservatives do not want the legislation to pass, even though the essence of the legislation is sound, it would make a difference and it was a part of an election platform from Canada's new Prime Minister and 300-plus Liberal candidates from coast to coast to coast, dealing with the issue of crime. I am not surprised. We have a substantial legislative agenda dealing with crime. If the Conservatives would only recognize what Canadians even in Conservative ridings are hearing, which is that people want legislation. They want action. They want co-operation on the floor of the House of Commons and its standing committees so we can make and pass good, sound public policy.”
“It goes on: “Conservatives will fight tooth and nail to stop this reckless and unprecedented attack on our freedoms and defend the Canadian Charter of Rights.” What a joke this is. This is actually ridiculous. What is the purpose of sending the letter out? It is all about raising money. The Conservatives are sending out thousands of emails across the country, spreading misinformation and fear in order to raise money. That is what that email is, and it is coming from the Conservative Party. Another email says, “The Liberals and Bloc want to prosecute people quoting Scripture. They are trying to push laws that could criminalize passages from the Bible, the Quran, the Torah and other sacred texts.” In this one, they are not looking for money, but rather they are building a data bank.”