Bill C-2

Strong Borders Act

An Act respecting certain measures relating to the security of the border between Canada and the United States and respecting other related security measures

Part 1 amends the Customs Act to provide the Canada Border Services Agency with facilities free of charge for carrying out any purpose related to the administration or enforcement of that Act and other Acts of Parliament and to provide officers of that Agency with access at certain locations to goods destined for export. It also includes transitional provisions.
Part 2 amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to create a new temporary accelerated scheduling pathway that allows the Minister of Health to add precursor chemicals to Schedule V to that Act. It also makes related amendments to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (Police Enforcement) Regulations and the Precursor Control Regulations .
Part 3 amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Cannabis Act to confirm that the Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, make regulations exempting members of law enforcement from the application of any provision of the Criminal Code that creates drug-related inchoate offences when they are undertaking lawful investigations.
Part 4 amends the Canada Post Corporation Act to permit the demand, seizure, detention or retention of anything in the course of post only in accordance with an Act of Parliament. It also amends that Act to expand the Canada Post Corporation’s authority to open mail in certain circumstances to include the authority to open letters.
Part 5 amends the Oceans Act to provide that coast guard services include activities related to security and to authorize the responsible minister to collect, analyze and disclose information and intelligence.
Part 6 amends the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act to authorize the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to disclose, for certain purposes and subject to any regulations, personal information under the control of the Department within the Department and to certain other federal and provincial government entities.
It also amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to authorize the making of regulations relating to the disclosure of information collected for the purposes of that Act to federal departments and agencies.
Part 7 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to, among other things,
(a) eliminate the designated countries of origin regime;
(b) authorize the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to specify the information and documents that are required in support of a claim for refugee protection;
(c) authorize the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board to determine that claims for refugee protection that have not yet been referred to the Refugee Protection Division have been abandoned in certain circumstances;
(d) provide the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration with the power to determine that claims for refugee protection that have not yet been referred to the Refugee Protection Division have been withdrawn in certain circumstances;
(e) require the Refugee Protection Division and the Refugee Appeal Division to suspend certain proceedings respecting a claim for refugee protection if the claimant is not present in Canada;
(f) clarify that decisions of the Immigration and Refugee Board must be rendered, and reasons for those decisions must be given, in the manner specified by its Chairperson; and
(g) authorize regulations to be made setting out the circumstances in which the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration or the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness must designate, in relation to certain proceedings or applications, a representative for persons who are under 18 years of age or who are unable to appreciate the nature of the proceeding or application.
It also includes transitional provisions.
Part 8 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to, among other things,
(a) authorize the Governor in Council to make an order specifying that certain applications made under that Act are not to be accepted for processing, or that the processing of those applications is to be suspended or terminated, when the Governor in Council is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so;
(b) authorize the Governor in Council to make an order to cancel, suspend or vary certain documents issued under that Act, or to impose or vary conditions, when the Governor in Council is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so;
(c) for the application of an order referred to in paragraph (b), require a person to appear for an examination, answer questions truthfully and produce all relevant documents or evidence that an officer requires; and
(d) authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations prescribing circumstances in which a document issued under that Act can be cancelled, suspended or varied, and in which officers may terminate the processing of certain applications made under that Act.
Part 9 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to add two new grounds of ineligibility for claims for refugee protection as well as powers to make regulations respecting exceptions to those new grounds. It also includes a transitional provision respecting the retroactive application of those new grounds.
Part 10 amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to, among other things,
(a) increase the maximum administrative monetary penalties that may be imposed for certain violations and the maximum punishments that may be imposed for certain criminal offences under that Act;
(b) replace the existing optional compliance agreement regime with a new mandatory compliance agreement regime that, among other things,
(i) requires every person or entity that receives an administrative monetary penalty for a prescribed violation to enter into a compliance agreement with the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (the Centre),
(ii) requires the Director of the Centre to make a compliance order if the person or entity refuses to enter into a compliance agreement or fails to comply with such an agreement, and
(iii) designates the contravention of a compliance order as a new violation under that Act;
(c) require persons or entities referred to in section 5 of that Act, other than those already required to register, to enroll with the Centre; and
(d) authorize the Centre to disclose certain information to the Commissioner of Canada Elections, subject to certain conditions.
It also makes consequential and related amendments to other Acts and the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Administrative Monetary Penalties Regulations and includes transitional provisions.
Part 11 amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to prohibit certain entities from accepting cash deposits from third parties and certain persons or entities from accepting cash payments, donations or deposits of $10,000 or more. It also makes a related amendment to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Administrative Monetary Penalties Regulations .
Part 12 amends the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act to make the Director of the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada a member of the committee established under subsection 18(1) of that Act. It also amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to enable the Director to exchange information with the other members of that committee.
Part 13 amends the Sex Offender Information Registration Act to, among other things,
(a) make certain changes to a sex offender’s reporting obligations, including the circumstances in which they are required to report, the information that must be provided and the time within which it is to be provided;
(b) provide that any of a sex offender’s physical characteristics that may assist in their identification may be recorded when they report to a registration centre;
(c) clarify what may constitute a reasonable excuse for a sex offender’s non-compliance with the requirement to give at least 14 days’ notice prior to a departure from their residence for seven or more consecutive days;
(d) authorize the Canada Border Services Agency to disclose certain information relating to a sex offender’s arrival in and departure from Canada to law enforcement agencies for the purposes of the administration and enforcement of that Act;
(e) authorize, in certain circumstances, the disclosure of information collected under that Act if there are reasonable grounds to believe that it will assist in the prevention or investigation of a crime of a sexual nature; and
(f) clarify that a person who discloses information under section 16 of that Act with the belief that they are acting in accordance with that section is not guilty of an offence under section 17 of that Act.
It also makes a related amendment to the Customs Act .
Part 14 amends various Acts to modernize certain provisions respecting the timely gathering and production of data and information during an investigation. It, among other things,
(a) amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,
(i) facilitate access to basic information that will assist in the investigation of federal offences through an information demand or a judicial production order to persons who provide services to the public,
(ii) clarify the response time for production orders and the ability of peace officers and public officers to receive and act on certain information that is voluntarily provided to them and on certain information that is publicly available,
(iii) specify certain circumstances in which peace officers and public officers may obtain evidence, including subscriber information, in exigent circumstances,
(iv) allow a justice or judge to authorize, in a warrant, a peace officer or public officer to obtain tracking data or transmission data that relates to any thing that is similar to a thing in relation to which data is authorized to be obtained under the warrant and that is unknown at the time the warrant is issued,
(v) provide and clarify authorities by which computer data may be examined, and
(vi) allow a justice or judge to authorize a peace officer or public officer to make a request to a foreign entity that provides telecommunications services to the public to produce transmission data or subscriber information that is in its possession or control;
(b) makes a consequential amendment to the Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act ;
(c) amends the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act to allow the Minister of Justice to authorize a competent authority to make arrangements for the enforcement of a decision made by an authority of a state or entity that is empowered to compel the production of transmission data or subscriber information that is in the possession or control of a person in Canada;
(d) amends the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act to, among other things,
(i) facilitate access to basic information that will assist the Canadian Security Intelligence Service in the performance of its duties and functions under section 12 or 16 of that Act through information demands given to persons or entities that provide services to the public and judicial information orders against such persons and entities, and
(ii) clarify the response time for production orders; and
(e) amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Cannabis Act to provide and clarify authorities by which computer data may be examined.
Part 15 enacts the Supporting Authorized Access to Information Act . That Act establishes a framework for ensuring that electronic service providers can facilitate the exercise, by authorized persons, of authorities to access information conferred under the Criminal Code or the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act .
Part 16 amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to permit a person or entity referred to in section 5 of that Act to collect and use an individual’s personal information without that individual’s knowledge or consent if
(a) the information is disclosed to the person or entity by a government department, institution or agency or law enforcement agency; and
(b) the collection and use are for the purposes of detecting or deterring money laundering, terrorist activity financing or sanctions evasion or for a consistent purpose.
It also makes related amendments to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act .

Offender Rehabilitation Act

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and address the member for Kitchener Centre's private member's bill. We could see around the chamber when the member was speaking that a great deal of attention was given. I do believe the member should be given full credit for having the courage to share her personal story. Over the years as a parliamentarian, what I have found, especially when it comes to social issues, is that when we have members who are prepared to share a personal story, it really does have an impact.

While I was listening and observing what was taking place in the chamber, I was reminded a lot about the MAID debate we had. We could see how the debate influenced the minds of members and how they expressed in their own ways, in different ways, how much they cared about the individual who had shared their experience.

I do commend the member for having the courage to bless this House by sharing her personal story. I think it does make a difference in terms of the tone and the potential carrying of the legislation. In the discussions I have had with respect to her private member's bill, Bill C-240, I think it has been encouraging that the principle of the issue is such an urgent matter that there is an openness to see if, in fact, the legislation could potentially be amended so that we could get a broader sense of support for the legislation. The principle of extending and trying to help is of critical importance. After listening to the member, there is no doubt that having first-hand experience and, as I said, the courage to be able to share it today is second to nothing, virtually, in terms of having the issue elevated.

However, I think there is a great deal that needs to be talked about. When I was in opposition, I can recall discussions that took place in Vancouver a number of years ago in terms of how first responders and many other stakeholders were talking about safe injection sites. I mention that because, at the very tail end of the member's comments, it was interesting to hear her response to a question. I think maybe it is necessary at times to have the ability to be engaged with and hear from different stakeholders. I appreciate what she said, but I do want to get a better sense of what other professionals are saying, some of the others who have gone through that lived experience. It seems to me that we have had provinces, administrations, first responders and some individual survivors who have gone through that experience, and we want to make sure that we take it all into consideration.

The issue of the drug crisis is not being questioned whatsoever. I do believe that we need to recognize that it is a shared responsibility. The member bringing forward the legislation has provided the opportunity for Ottawa to potentially take some tangible action. For that, I do appreciate it. When I think of the shared responsibilities, I think in terms of the departments of health, family services, education and housing, all of which I have personally had the opportunity to be directly involved in. I think of the impact that it has had on our communities, the communities we represent. For many years, I would drive down McPhillips going toward Salter, and down Salter to the Manitoba legislative building. The devastation in our communities is very significant.

There is a great cost. That is why I believe we need to see how the broader community and different levels of government can contribute. Over the last number of years, much like what has taken place in the United States, we have seen a severe increase and too many losses of lives. Fentanyl is a very serious issue. I remember talking about fentanyl when we were debating Bill C-2 and how it could be put into an envelope and mailed anywhere in Canada. There are things we can do to try to minimize the damage that is caused by some of these harsh, addictive drugs.

I look to the community to provide some ideas and thoughts. There are some outstanding groups. I have referred to first responders and the numbers of lives they have saved by responding as quickly as they do and having the proper equipment. I think of the Bear Clan Patrol, which has done an outstanding job in being there in a very real way for many individuals who have drug addictions, some of whom are on the verge of breaking out of that addiction. These addictions are very real, and we need to look at ways to provide the programs and supports so there can be recovery.

At the end of the day, substance abuse involves education. There is a treatment component to it. There is follow-up and a need for support groups. Much like we want to ensure that we take can take corrective actions in a non-partisan way, that has not always been the case. Asserting blame is unfair at times, and we need to look at ways to improve the system.

There is homelessness. Homelessness is a very serious issue for which there is a great deal of effort and government initiatives, and not just federal government initiatives. The federal government works very closely with other jurisdictions, in particular, the provinces, often municipalities and non-profit support groups, such as Main Street Project and Siloam Mission in my home city, that support these organizations, where many individuals have had to deal first-hand on a daily basis with individuals who are trying to overcome their addiction.

The government has taken a number of actions, and it is making a difference. Is it going far enough? There is always room for improvement, and that is one of the reasons I said at the outset of my comments that it is important to look at the legislation. If there are ways it could be amended so it could receive broader support, I believe the government would be open to that.

I do not think it is that some members care more about the issue than others. We see the deaths that occur, the impacts on families and the impacts all around. Having a caring heart and wanting to do the right thing is something that I believe all members on all sides of the House would like to see.

Spring Economic Update 2026

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague talks about what the NDP did last Parliament. I think we stand in this place, and in our communities, with great pride. With the caucus of 2025, we brought in dental care to nine million Canadians. In the House, the NDP brought pharmacare to over 10 million Canadians and established the first public delivery of diabetes and contraceptive medications. There are people today in this country who are walking into pharmacies and walking out with their diabetes meds, using only their health care card, because of what the NDP did in the House. The NDP also brought an anti-scab law to this place, finally protecting workers who risk violence on the picket line.

I cannot point to a single accomplishment of the Conservatives. With their vaunted official opposition last Parliament, they cannot point to a single thing, not one, that they delivered for Canadians.

What I will say concerning the support of the Liberals is that it was not the NDP that voted for the government's throne speech. That was the Conservatives. It was not the NDP that voted for Bill C-2 and Bill C-5 and helped the government pass major economic programs in the House. It was the Conservatives who voted with the Liberals. There is only one coalition that I see in the House, which is the far-right Conservative Party sitting to my right and the progressive conservative party I see across the aisle.

Canadian Space Launch Act

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed my colleague's clear and precise remarks. He takes care to explain things well using concrete examples.

This government has a tendency to define terms in regulations. That is what happened with Bill C‑2. It happened with Bill C‑22. Now it is happening with Bill C‑28. It tends to nail down definitions in regulations instead of bills. Can my colleague explain what reasons the government might have for doing that?

Government Business No. 9—Changes to the Standing Orders

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying that is very appropriate for what we are about to go through in the House of Commons and something I want all Canadians to think about. It is that when they show us who they are, we should believe them. One hour into the debate to give the Liberals a majority on all committees, a majority which was not obtained through the results of the last election, they brought forward a closure motion. A closure motion is used to close down debate.

Why am I talking about closing down debate? It is because the Liberal government has a strong authoritarian streak. It has been found guilty of invoking the Emergencies Act. It has used parliamentary overreach at every single opportunity it has. In fact, earlier in the week, we were conducting a debate on Bill C-22 about lawful access, a very serious piece of legislation that sets the parameters for which police and other authorities can access Canadians' digital footprint. Every time a Conservative member got up in this chamber to debate the issue and make points about the problems with the legislation, the Liberal deputy House leader got up and accused them of filibustering and obstruction.

If that is not bad enough, right after he would accuse Conservatives of engaging in filibuster and obstruction, a Liberal member would get up and speak. We can see the authoritarian streak in the Liberal Party every single day when we engage in debate in the House of Commons. If a Conservative member or an opposition member from the Bloc or the NDP gets up to speak, that is obstruction and filibustering. However, if a Liberal member gets up, it is somehow a wonderful thing that is happening in this place. This is how Liberals engage. This is the respect they have for the democratically elected opposition parties.

While they were in a minority status, we were able to keep that in check, and we did that in many ways. For example, Bill C-22 came from a piece of legislation, Bill C-2, which contained all kinds of Liberal authoritarian overreach. Through opposition to that, the bill was split. Now that they are going to reorganize committees, the opportunity to do that would get significantly smaller. It would almost not exist because they could do such things as what they have just done. This is a motion to radically change the composition of committees. It would not just be adding one extra Liberal member, as would be appropriate; they would be adding two. They would not just be adding two extra members to the committees that they say are the ones to get things done, such as finance or others; they would be taking control of the oversight committees.

Why is that important? Why would I say this is something that Canadians should be very concerned about? I will give a couple of examples. Right now, at the ethics committee, which is one of the oversight committees, the Liberals have been filibustering for I do not know how many days. What are they filibustering over? Is it something important, a critical piece of legislation, a bill they think the opposition parties are going to use to destroy Canada? No. What they are filibustering and preventing from happening is the finance minister's going to committee to testify on his clear conflict of interest with respect to the Alto project. It is a clear conflict of interest. He has voted on issues that deal with Alto. Alto was in the budget, and the finance minister's partner is an executive at Alto. This is a clear ethical violation.

The minister should be held to account and go to committee, but the Liberals have been filibustering for days to prevent that from happening. Now what are they doing? They are giving themselves a majority on that committee so they do not have to filibuster away accountability anymore. No, they do not have to bother with that because now they have the votes. They just say the minister clearly violated the conflict of interest laws and too bad, he is not going to committee to testify because they have the votes.

Right now, on my committee, the HUMA committee, they have been filibustering, for two days, a document production order. Why do we want documents? We want documents to look into the cost overruns of another Liberal technology project. Everybody remembers ArriveCAN, the tiny project that went massively over budget. This is another IT project that has gone wildly bad under the Liberal government. All we have asked for is for the Liberals to produce some documents. They have spent the last two meetings filibustering that document request. Guess what. If the motion passes, they do not have to filibuster any more. They will have the votes to deny accountability, to deny transparency and to do whatever they want. That is the real reason why we are having changes to committees. They do not like the scrutiny that committees provide.

We have had all kinds of Liberal members wax poetic about the wonders of committee and the work that committees do. Guess what. They do amazing work when there is a minority government and the government can be held to account. We can get the documents that we need. We can have the ministers who have engaged in unethical conduct come before committee and answer for that unethical conduct. We can look at pieces of legislation that have terrible government overreach and we can say that they will not pass without amendment. All of that will now be gone.

As if that is not bad enough, I will go back to what we did earlier today. It was one hour into the debate, a debate about these Liberals taking control of all of the committees so they can ram through their legislative agenda any way they want, with little or no scrutiny. I say that because they can do very simple things. They can bring a programming motion when they put a piece of legislation in the House of Commons, and they can program the amount of time it will spend at committee and have it brought back. They can vote down every single amendment the opposition might want to do. This is a very important debate. This should be debated. They should have extended hours in the House to have this debate. Instead, what did they do? They moved closure.

After one hour, they said they have had enough of the debate. It goes back to what I said when I first opened this speech. When someone says who they are, believe them. They do not believe in an opposition that can hold them to account. They do not, or they would not be resetting the numbers on the accountability committees. If they wanted to, they could say that they are taking control of committees to get their legislative agenda passed. I could maybe understand that, especially if it were six members instead of seven. The committees would then be where they should be and the chair would have to break the tie. It is a Liberal chair. The Liberal chair would break the tie in their favour.

They are going to seven, which reduces the opportunity for opposition members to speak at committee. They are also doing this for the accountability committees: public accounts, access to information, ethics and government operations. We wonder why they are doing it? We do not have to wonder. They are doing it to avoid scrutiny. They are doing it to avoid accountability. They are not Liberals who believe in any of those things.

I am saying this very clearly right now and I am talking directly to Canadians: Watch what happens over the next year with the Liberals and watch what happens at committee. There will be constant motions to shut down investigations at committee. There will be constant motions in the chamber to shut down debate. There will be programming motions so that things barely go to committee at all. They will not be held to account for ethical violations.

We know that where there is a Liberal government, there are ethical violations. We all remember the ad scam, the green slush fund, arrive scam, name it. When there is money involved, the Liberals get their hands involved and all of that will be silenced by the Liberals.

I think it is an outrage that they would use a closure motion on a motion to take control of committees. It tells us exactly what they are going to do and exactly the kind of government they will be, and it is not what Canadians wanted.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Grande Prairie.

I said in my maiden speech, when I got to this august chamber, that this seat does not belong to me. Indeed, it belongs to the people of Elgin—St. Thomas—London South. I am a mere custodian of it. I say that to make the point that Parliament itself, this House of Commons, these institutions, are bigger than any of us as individuals. They are bigger than all of us even as a collective. These institutions matter more. This place matters more than the political ambitions, motivations and decisions of the people who get to come here every election.

I have always venerated this institution. Indeed, I have always been fascinated by it. Even going back to when I was a university student involved in politics, I loved partaking in model parliament. I loved taking the opportunity to learn more. Perhaps it is why I have never been reprimanded for not addressing my comments through the chair or not doing some of those other conventions: I have been a student of parliamentary history.

It was an honour the first day I walked into this chamber, and it remains the honour of a lifetime to be here.

It has been saddening in that same vein to see how, for the Liberal government and specifically the Prime Minister, Parliament is a mere annoyance. We have seen the ignorance in this place: the fact that the Prime Minister has a question period attendance rating that is a fraction of that of his predecessors; the fact that he loves “showboating”, to use a word he is fond of, with fake executive orders that have no legal standing in our country; and the fact that he has been doing everything but governing in this place, governing in this chamber.

To govern in this chamber is to be held accountable to Parliament as the collective body representing the will of the Canadian people. Parliament is a body comprising fellow custodians of this chamber, who are sent here with very similar mandates from each of their respective constituencies and constituents. However, we see in the motion before us today that the government does not believe it can win the game, so to speak, so it is changing the rules. It is changing the rules to suit its political ambitions, irrespective of the will of the Canadian people and irrespective of the norms, conventions and traditions of this place.

It should be known to everyone here that Canadians do not, in fact, elect a government; they elect a Parliament. Tomorrow marks the one-year anniversary since Canadians elected me, alongside all of my colleagues from all parties. Canadians elected a minority Parliament. The message Canadians sent in doing that was that they were prepared to give the Liberals a fourth term. I question why they would do that. However, while they were prepared to give the Liberals a fourth term, Canadians wanted their power to be checked by a strong, robust opposition.

Now, my Conservative colleagues and I have held up our end of the bargain as His Majesty's loyal opposition. We supported and improved legislation such as Bill C-5, Bill C-14 and Bill C-16, which is before the justice committee right now. We opposed dangerous bills, such as Bill C-2 and Bill C-9, which the Liberals wanted to wave through without scrutiny and accountability. We worked collaboratively across party lines. We represented the will of Canadians, who elected MPs to champion, for those of us on the Conservative side of the aisle, the values of liberty, personal responsibility and, yes, fiscal discipline.

However, what we have seen over the last year is that when the Liberals do not get their way, they scream obstruction. Opposition is not obstruction. We have seen this in a minority Parliament. I recall when Stephen Harper and the Conservatives had one just a few years ago. A minority Parliament requires the government to find dance partners, so to speak, to find collaboration and earn collaboration from opposition parties. The idea of holding opposition parties hostage to support bad legislation, which is what the Liberal government has tried to do, is not what a minority Parliament is supposed to be.

We have seen under this arrangement, specifically at committees, a situation in which the Bloc has held the balance of power. I have seen votes in which Bloc and Conservative support was enough to pass a motion against the will of the Liberals. I have seen Liberal and Bloc members pass motions against the will of Conservatives. On a rare occasion, I might have even seen Liberals and Conservatives vote together, with the Bloc being the odd party out.

Even when we have lost a vote, frustrating as that may be, I can take comfort in the knowledge that the Liberals were forced to co-operate with someone. They had a check, however modest, on their power. Today, the Liberals would enshrine their desire for a legislative blank cheque, stacking parliamentary committees to reflect their morally illegitimate majority. I say illegitimate majority because it was crafted not by the democratic will of Canadians but by the Prime Minister sending out his cabinet ministers to peel away the unscrupulous and the shameless opposition MPs who hold the will of the Canadian people in as little esteem as the Liberals do.

This morally illegitimate majority is the consequence of that which they now seek to ratify by stacking the deck on committees. Committees are not the property of the government. They are creatures of Parliament. In many ways, they are where the real work happens, where scrutiny can happen, where amendments can happen and where real vigorous debates on the merits or lack thereof of legislation happen.

If the government can manufacture a majority at will, scrutiny is merely choreography. They are seeking to not have a check on their power and to not have scrutiny of their legislation but rather to have a rubber stamp on anything they want to do.

I am reminded of a quote from John Diefenbaker. In April 1957, he was speaking at Massey Hall in Toronto, and he said, “The sovereignty of the people is delegated to Parliament, not to the Executive.”

The Prime Minister could learn a great many things from John Diefenbaker. One of the lessons is that government is about accountability, not control. Another lesson is that parliamentary scrutiny should be welcomed and not scorned. As evidence that these Liberals are uninterested in accountability and collaboration, one need only look at how they rejected our modest amendment to the very motion we are debating today, which would have preserved the status quo on oversight committees such as ethics, government operations and estimates, among others, committees that are not responsible for reviewing legislation but are tasked with being a watchdog on the government.

Why the Liberals do not want to cede control on a committee overseeing ethics, I think, is becoming more apparent by the day. That is precisely what we are looking at here: a government that does not wish to engage in Parliament, a Prime Minister who holds this institution in contempt and a government that does not want to engage in something so seemingly beneath it as seeking and preserving the will of the Canadian people to enact its legislative agenda.

The motion that we have before us today, which I will be opposing, does not strengthen Parliament. It sidelines it. That is something that every member of the House should reject.

I go back to the comment I made earlier about when the Liberals try to invoke obstruction as a narrative. We have given them much of what they asked for when they sought permission to do things that will build the country up. Bill C-5 is a great example of this. They said they wanted monumental, sweeping authority to approve major projects. We said we would love to see major projects. We gave them permission to do this and the framework to do it. No major projects have materialized. Here we are a year later: The Liberal government has promised much and has delivered little.

The one mechanism that could be preserved to ensure that Parliament remains in keeping with what Canadians elected was a committee structure that would force members of Parliament and would force government members to do what the Liberals claim they have wanted this whole time, which is collaboration. No, they are laying their demands bare today with the motion. They do not want collaboration. They do not want co-operation. All they want is capitulation. We say no.

Government Business No. 9—Changes to Standing Orders

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the last thing the government House leader said, because I think this is the nub of the misleading nature of what the government is doing here. He said that they could not find an example where the makeup of committees did not reflect the makeup of the House. Yes, that is precisely because there has never before been a situation where a government has changed the fundamental nature of itself through floor crossings and backroom deals. Every other time, the makeup of committees reflected the makeup of the House, because that was what happened at the election. The makeup of committees reflects the democratic expression that the Canadian people provide through the ballot box.

It is very telling that the very first thing this government has done with its newfound majority powers is not to make life more affordable for Canadians, not to fully lift gas taxes, not to stop inflationary money printing or repeal anti-development laws that chase away investment and block jobs from being created here in Canada. No, instead, the very first thing they did was to make life easier for the government itself. Those are not just my words. They are words that Liberals have said as to the justification for why they are doing this. This means that they will have an easier time getting their agenda through and, most importantly, they will not have to face the type of scrutiny that opposition parties are able to provide for Canadians when the opposition makes up a majority in the House.

The committee makeup reflects the makeup of the House as the Canadian people elected it. No Canadian has been able to pass judgment on the floor crossings or endorse the deals that were offered those members who changed parties so soon after an election. These are all individuals who looked their voters in the eye, ran on a platform, a party and a leader, and then, for their own personal gain, again, their words not mine, made a decision to join the government. Again, Canadians have had no opportunity to examine what those negotiations or those talks were all about or what promises may have been made to entice members to cross the floor.

The government has made so many false statements. The government House leader says that there is no such thing as two-tiered committees. The context of that is what my colleague from Barrie South—Innisfil, with whom I am sharing my time, is going to do in a few moments. He is going to propose an amendment that would at least preserve the oversight capabilities of three very important committees: the public accounts committee, which is tasked with poring through, line by line, every dollar that the government spends; the government operations committee, which examines all kinds of government operations, making sure that Canadians understand who is getting paid, why contracts are being given and why funding decisions are made or not made, again, a very important oversight committee; and, of course, the ethics committee. This is the committee that is tasked with investigating government corruption, and this is the true reason why the government is not going to agree with our request.

Every other committee deals with legislation. If we have a bill to change the airports act, that would go to the transportation committee. If we have a bill to change the way natural resources are developed, that bill would go to the natural resources committee. Legislation does not go through those three oversight committees. All this talk about getting results for Canadians, getting things done and working in a collaborative manner does not apply to those oversight committees. We know what happens when Liberals get majority on these committees.

Another falsehood that the government House leader has said is that members of Parliament still have the power to send for documents, compel departments to hand over information and compel testimony. That is false. Members of Parliament do not have that right individually. They only have that right when a committee or the House passes a motion. Should the Liberals have a majority on those committees, we already know that they would block those efforts. We know this because that is what they have done in the past.

When the Liberals had a majority in the 2015‑19 Parliament, it took a whistle-blower, Jody Wilson-Raybould, to shine a light on what Justin Trudeau was doing, trying to inappropriately pressure her to intervene in a criminal court proceeding. After just two meetings, we had heard from Jody Wilson-Raybould and the then prime minister's chief of staff, and then committee members wanted to hear from Jody Wilson-Raybould again so she could respond to what Gerry Butts had said. What was the first thing the Liberals did when they got the floor on March 13, 2019? They moved to adjourn. They had the votes, because they had a majority, and they shut down that investigation.

There was the WE Charity scandal. This is where the Liberals gave a sole-sourced $912-million contract to an organization that had paid Trudeau family members through speaking events. The Liberals filibustered for dozens of hours and voted to shut down the investigation and stop documents from seeing the light of day.

There was the arrive scam app. This app, initially budgeted at $80,000, ballooned to an estimated $60 million. The Liberals tried to block committee investigations and hide their connections to their favourite Liberal IT contractors, GC Strategies.

Let us think of all the corruption this House has unearthed just in the last few years of the Liberal government precisely because the Liberals could not block those investigations. Because the opposition parties collectively had a majority, we could compel that kind of information. Had the Liberals had a majority on the ethics committee, the public accounts committee and the government operations committee in the last Parliament, there is no way we would have seen the head of GC Strategies in this House at the bar being admonished for the misappropriation of taxpayer money.

There was the Winnipeg lab scandal. Again, the Liberals blocked document production orders and even took the Speaker to court to try to block information from being released to parliamentarians.

There was the Liberal green slush fund with its widespread Liberal corruption. This is where Liberal insiders were sitting around as an entity that allocated tax dollars the government had collected. Liberal insiders were placed on that board. Do members know what they did once they were on that board? They funnelled money to their own companies. They wrote themselves cheques off the backs of taxpayers. When the Conservatives led the charge to shine a light on this kind of corruption, the Liberals blocked it. They voted against it.

That is what this is all about. The Liberals do not enjoy transparency. They do not enjoy when Canadians find out the truth about how they are running the government. That is why they are pushing this motion through. All the arguments about collaboration are totally false.

Our party, after the last election, said that we are facing a lot of global challenges, but we are also facing a lot of terrible Liberal policies that are driving up costs and inflation, making our country weaker when it comes to dealing with global threats. We said we would roll up our sleeves and get to work. Where we have had agreement, where there has been common ground, members have seen the opposition co-operate and ensure that things that, at the very least, do not do any further harm to the Canadian people get passed.

We have also helped fix terrible Liberal legislation. Do members remember Bill C-2, the very first bill that the current government brought to the House? It was because the government did not have a majority that it was not able to ram that bill through. It was because opposition parties got together and said that there were many things in the bill that should pass, but also many things that were huge government overreaches, such as the invasion of people's privacy, the ability to open people's mail, the banning of cash transactions and all kinds of things that empowered the state and infringed on individual liberties. We were able to block that and force the government to abandon those aspects that were huge government overreaches while at the same time passing the common-sense parts that the Conservatives have long been calling for.

This is a solution to a problem that does not exist. If the government is looking for obstruction and game playing, it need look no further than its own benches. The Liberals have filibustered for the last two weeks at the ethics committee to prevent an investigation into the finance minister's potential conflict of interest. They filibustered their own legislation at the justice committee by insisting on debating a bill that was dividing parliamentarians and was very divisive for the Canadian public, while we were calling on the justice committee to focus on real measures to make Canada safer.

At the end of the day, what the Liberals call “silly games”, Canadians call “transparency and accountability”. Every time parliamentarians tell them that there is a conflict of interest and that they have shovelled money into their own friends' pockets and their own companies, they say that it is partisanship. Any time a light is shone on their nefarious activities, they have to project and they have to demean and insult those individuals who are trying to get to the bottom of what happened to Canadian tax dollars. We make no apologies for fighting for transparency and for respecting that taxpayer dollar.

I am urging the government to rethink its rejection of our amendment. When my colleague proposes it, I hope the Liberals will get on board so they can show the Canadian people that it is not about using their power to shut down investigations.

Motions in Amendment

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by saying that I was a member of the Canadian Forces for 22 years. I witnessed military justice being applied in various cases. Later, when I became a major, I was trained to preside over summary trials and, as a unit commander, I had to administer military justice. I tried some cases by summary trial. There were some situations and some problems related to sexual misconduct.

That is why, on the Conservative side, we are very aware of the situation. We do not talk just for the sake of talking. There are people here who have experienced the system first-hand. Our defence critic has been watching what has been going on for years. We are not just talking for the sake of talking. We are proposing meaningful change.

Let us get back to Bill C-11. Yes, we believe that changes are needed regarding sexual misconduct. However, once again, the Liberal government has missed an opportunity. It has completely missed the opportunity to do the right thing. Instead of addressing the issues in a rigorous, balanced way, it is adopting a rigid approach that is inappropriate and out of touch with the realities on the ground. The result is a bill that ignores critical testimony, rejects reasonable improvements and risks exacerbating the very problems it purports to address.

Today I will be speaking to Bill C-11, and I want to be clear from the outset that we are not just talking about technical adjustments. We are talking about a fundamental question that all Canadians can understand: When a victim comes forward, do we listen to them, or do we impose a solution on them? That is important. In committee, we heard some powerful testimony. Survivors courageously came and talked to us. They shared their experiences, their realities and their concerns. Experts on the military justice system also testified. These are people who understand both its strengths and its weaknesses. Despite these differing perspectives, one message kept coming up: People want to have a choice. They want to choose the system, the process and what works best. They do not want a decision imposed from on high. They do not want a rigid mechanism decided without their input.

The Conservatives did their job. We listened and took action alongside the Bloc Québécois. I would like to thank my Bloc colleagues. Excellent parliamentary work was carried out in the Standing Committee on National Defence. As I said earlier, our critic has been there for a long time. He knows his job, as do our other colleagues on the committee. Former lieutenant-colonels sit on the committee. These are people who have experienced the military system and witnessed the problems with military justice. As I said at the start, I myself have seen victims. There have been trials, and we have experienced the situation first-hand.

The proposals, both those from the Bloc Québécois and those from the Conservative Party, made sense. The aim was really to address the shortcomings of the bill and put victims back at the centre of the process. For example, there is a problem with clauses 7 and 8. In its current form, the bill completely removes the military justice system's jurisdiction over sexual offences committed in Canada. It mandates an automatic transfer to the civilian system. There are no nuances, there is no flexibility and there is no room to adapt.

We put forward a simple solution: give the court martial jurisdiction if that is what the victim wants. That is essential. There is a system. It can be done. The victim can choose. It seems to me that it does not take a genius to understand that. What matters is recognizing that every situation is different. Judgment must be exercised and victims must be respected.

We also put forward sound oversight mechanisms: a five-year sunset clause providing for a mandatory statutory review to examine how well the system is working. We also proposed measures to avoid delays in transferring evidence because delays can compromise the truth.

All too often, justice delayed becomes justice denied. Take the Jordan decision, for example. So many cases drag on, stall, and make no progress. Ultimately, the Jordan decision applies, but it does not work. We end up with a system meant to handle sexual misconduct. Victims, most of them women, end up going through a civilian process that drags on forever. In our view, if the military system can continue to do its job and the victim wants to keep the matter in the military system, that should be allowed. Why not? We do not understand why the Liberals are against this.

Everything we did was done in collaboration with our Bloc Québécois colleagues, as well as our NDP colleague who has since crossed the floor to become a Liberal. Back then, her thoughts were with the victims. Now, her thoughts are with her Liberal team, which sees things differently.

Our proposals were reasonable, balanced and based on witness testimony. However, all of it was thrown out and rejected, with a big red X over top. All the important work accomplished by the Standing Senate Committee on National Defence was dismissed out of hand.

The government does not even have its majority yet, but it managed to knock us back anyway. Imagine what will happen when the government has a majority on committees and in the House. It is going to steamroll right over the work of opposition members who are working to improve bills.

It would have been a different matter if all the opposition parties had joined forces to demolish the bill. Sometimes that happens. For example, we defeated Bill C‑2. However, we supported this bill. We agreed with it; it simply needed to be improved. What no one can wrap their heads around is the government's refusal to improve it.

I have been here for 10 years. Often, the Conservatives, and often with the support of the Bloc Québécois, make proposals that the government rejects. A few years later, a problematic situation arises, and we say “we told you so”. However, people quickly forget.

The bill will pass and, in five years, we may talk about it again. We are going to say that we said in 2026 that it would not work, and we are going to ask why they did not listen to us at the time. Now is the time to do the right thing. We are here now. Why not listen to intelligent proposals from the opposition parties?

Another key issue is political interference. We can see that political interference in the process is possible. In fact, the bill would allow the Minister of National Defence to issue directives in the context of specific proceedings. Politics could interfere in the directives. This is an important power that must be exercised with care, and that is why we proposed giving this responsibility to the judge advocate general, known in military terms as JAG. This person is an independent expert. Justice must never be politicized. Once again, the government rejected this proposal. Why?

We even proposed what is known as a principled amendment. The bill states that a military judge cannot be charged with a service infraction. We disagreed. We said that, in a state governed by the rule of law, no one is above the law. To be clear, we said that if a military judge commits an offence, they should be tried like anyone else. It seems to me that this makes sense. Just because someone is a judge does not mean they are not subject to the law, but the Liberals refuse to accept that. Why?

The pattern is very clear: We make proposals, and the Liberals shut us down. Victims ask for something, and the government imposes something else. Experts make recommendations, and the government ignores them. The Liberals have chosen to impose systematic transfers to the civilian system. This is a system that is already overburdened, a system that is often ill suited to military realities. This is not a solution; it simply shifts the problem.

The bill could have been improved. It could have been balanced, more respectful of victims and certainly more faithful to the recommendations heard in committee, but the government made a choice to be stubborn and to dictate rather than listening. On this side of the House, we will continue to defend a clear approach. The Liberals talk about listening to victims and respecting their autonomy, but they do the opposite. If they are asked whether they want to strengthen the independence of the system and ensure fairness for everyone, they will say yes, but with this bill and their refusal to accept the amendments, they are showing their contempt for victims.

Those who serve our country deserve better. They deserve a system that works, that is credible and that can be trusted.

Public Safety

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Mr. Speaker, it is about time that the Conservatives wake up. The second bill that we introduced in Parliament was Bill C-2, which included lawful access. However, after many, many months of Conservative delay, we have had to bring that bill back to Parliament as Bill C-22. Just yesterday, members of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police were on the Hill, and they were commending the work that has been done to bring lawful access forward because they know that this is exactly what is needed to help solve extortion cases.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would love to give that example. Hopefully, there will not be another point of order to prevent it.

There is a suite of legislative initiatives to deal with an important issue in the member opposite's riding, my riding and ridings across the country. The Government of Canada has been pushing hard for this since day one following the election, and that was to deal with the issue of crime. We brought forward Bill C-2, Bill C-9, Bill C-12, Bill C-14, Bill C-16 and Bill C-22. This is all legislation to make our communities safer, and the Conservatives, through their filibustering tactics, have denied important reforms such as bail reform, which has been supported across the country by stakeholders, law enforcement, mayors, premiers and others.

They have also prevented lawful access from being put into place, with Canada being the one and only Five Eyes nation that does not have it. That, I suggest, would deal with issues such as child sexual exploitation, extortion and repeat violent offenders. These are the types of actions that the Prime Minister and the Liberal government have been pushing for since the last federal election, and the Conservatives have played political games, putting the Conservative Party's interests ahead of Canadians' best interests. As a direct result, we have lost out greatly.

Talking strictly about funds to help young people acquire skill sets, $594.7 million over two years went to Employment and Social Development Canada for the Canada summer jobs program to support 100,000 summer jobs in 2026. Members can think about that. I referred to it earlier in my comments. It is for youth to acquire skill sets. Members opposite might want to minimize that program, but there is not a Liberal member of Parliament who does not recognize the true value of what that program is. It is such a valuable asset to not only the communities we serve but also the communities that Conservatives serve. Every region of the nation benefits from that program, and the Conservatives mock it today, which does not surprise me because it was Stephen Harper who cut a lot of the funding to the program. He did not cut the program, but he did cut the funding.

It has taken the Prime Minister and the government to recognize the value, understand the need for it and support it. That is why we will have close to 100,000 young people, and the types of jobs they will get will allow them to enhance their skill sets in many different ways, possibly opening doors to them for future jobs.

I think of the types of jobs that come to Winnipeg North, such as child care. I amplify the importance of child care. Many summer students who have gone through this program are working in child care today. I think of places such as Stanley Knowles School using the lunch program. There is another $307 million over two years for the horizontal evaluation of the youth employment and skills strategy to provide employment, training and wraparound supports. There is mentorship, transportation and mental health counselling. It is estimated that there are literally thousands of youth who will benefit from it, somewhere in the neighbourhood of 20,000.

There is $40 million over two years going to Employment and Social Development Canada to create the youth climate corps and to provide paid skills training for young Canadians. They will be trained to quickly respond to climate emergencies, support recovery and strengthen resilience in communities across the nation. We are thinking of training the next generation of Canadian builders by providing $75 million over three years, starting in 2026-27, to Employment and Social Development Canada to expand the union training and innovation program, which supports union-based apprenticeship training in the Red Seal trades.

That gives us a sense of what it is and how the government is dealing with young people today. We recognize the importance of the issue, but the difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives is that we recognize it year-round. We are focused on building a strong economy that works for all Canadians. That is our goal, and we will achieve that. We will get the strongest and healthiest economy in the G7. I believe that is an admirable goal.

The Conservative Party continues to want to play games on the floor of the House of Commons, not deal with the issues that are a priority for Canadians. They only want to deal with what is a priority for the Conservatives. That is fine. We will be focused on delivering tangible results for Canadians because that is the right thing to do. A part of that means encouraging my opposition friends to stop playing games and be more creative. They can be a critic of the government and be more cooperative. That is what Canadians want—

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

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that I have to rise today to speak to a motion brought forward by the Conservative Party, which is not to take away from the importance of young people in Canada. However, before I get into this, I think it is important to recognize the issues that young people face in Canada today. This Prime Minister, this government and all members of the Liberal caucus are keen to take necessary action to support our young people.

I want to amplify that. Just yesterday, we had the summer youth program and job bank kickoff. This program is critically important to our nation. It has provided all forms of training in many different applications for future employment for young people. It has been there for generations. We have seen, at the very least, Liberal members of Parliament talk about the value of the program because of the different levels of skill sets that can be developed through those summer jobs.

When the leader of the Conservative Party sat around the cabinet table along with Stephen Harper, they cut that program. That is why it is somewhat interesting that we have the Conservatives pretending that this is the issue they are so concerned about and want to have that debate on today. Why did they not come up with the thought for an opposition day? Why did they not think about young people and provide a specific motion with respect to reinforcing programs like the summer youth program as opposed to playing a game with the young people of Canada by trying to say that they care about them and that this is the reason they are bringing forward this motion?

I think that there are bad actors, as the previous speaker from the Conservative Party just said, and we will find a number of them within the Conservative caucus, led by the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada. It is unfortunate, because there are some issues here that are real and tangible, which the government is focused on trying to elevate and give attention to, whether with respect to financial resources or other forms of resources.

Prior to coming to the House today, I met some wonderful young entrepreneurs who told me about the entrepreneurship program for small businesses that the minister responsible for small business brought forward and how this government renewed the program for young entrepreneurs. Two outstanding indigenous individuals were taking advantage of a national program that is providing skill sets with respect to becoming entrepreneurs, providing mentorship and so forth. Less than an hour ago, I was standing in this very spot with those outstanding entrepreneurs. These are the types of programs that the government not only initiated but continues to support that were not there when the Conservative Party was in power.

We understand the need for increasing skill sets. If we look at some of the numbers, there was just under $600 million designated for Employment and Social Development Canada. I will go a bit more in depth on these issues, but first I want to deal with the motivation of what we are seeing here today.

Yesterday afternoon I gave the opposition a compliment, and it was a little too premature, obviously. I said I was encouraged that they were actually allowing a piece of legislation go to committee, Bill C-22, on lawful access. We have been debating lawful access since June of last year, shortly after Canadians elected a new Prime Minister. They finally allowed it to go to committee. First it came forward in the form of Bill C-2. The Conservatives made it known that there was no way they would allow Bill C-2 to pass, so we had to break it into a couple of bills. Bill C-22 was one of those bills. After hours of debate, they finally allowed it go to committee, and I gave them a compliment. What a mistake; I gave them the benefit of the doubt. I said it was nice to see that they were finally allowing something to go through, because the Conservatives were being a little sensitive when I was accusing them of filibustering yesterday morning.

Fast-forward to less than 24 hours later, and we are actually supposed to be having a vote on the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer. I would think that the Conservatives would want that to take place. It was disappointing after we heard the Conservatives yelping from their seats last fall that we needed to appoint a permanent Parliamentary Budget Officer. Then when it came time to actually do something and to take some action, what did they do? We can talk about an irresponsible opposition. Once again, we have witnessed it first-hand.

I started my comments off by talking about young people, to make it very clear that, whether it is the Prime Minister or any Liberal member of Parliament, we are focused on young people and enhancing their skill sets where we can. However, at the end of the day, we are also very concerned about the tactics that the Conservative Party is using. Yesterday, we made it very clear, and the opposition knew, that the government wanted to have Motion No. 359 debated and voted on. We wanted to deal with the issue of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Annette Ryan. What is causing the Conservatives to have this violent reaction to the appointment of an incredible woman, someone who has the experience and is going to be able to make a difference serving Canadians?

Annette Ryan has demonstrated her abilities exceptionally well. She has incredible credentials and a good background. The Conservatives were yelping about wanting to have a budget officer last fall. We now have one ready for a formal appointment, and they bring in this particular motion. Technically, because we said we were going to do it yesterday, the leadership group within the Conservative Party, which is actually the leader of the Conservative Party, made the decision that they did not want her appointed. They did not want to have that vote, so they brought in a concurrence motion.

The Conservatives looked at the numbers, knowing that Motion No. 359 was on the Parliamentary Budget Officer, and decided to introduce one lower than that. They thought that in that way they could prevent the Liberals from bringing in this particular motion.

Then they look, and they come up with Motion No. 321 to single out the issue of young people and say, “Well, young people are really important to us today, so that is what we are going to debate. This way, we can say the Liberals are bad because they do not want to debate that particular issue,” which is a bunch of hogwash.

At the end of the day, I will match the initiatives that have been taken by Liberal administrations, in particular our new Prime Minister and this new government, which was elected less than a year ago, and the commitment that the 170-plus Liberal members of Parliament bring to Parliament every day to deal with a wide spectrum of issues, including the young people of Canada, and recognize that we want the strongest economy in the G7, a strong economy that works for all Canadians. That is, in fact, our priority.

That is why it is so disappointing to see the games that continue to be played by the official opposition members. It is what we are going to continue to see, unfortunately. It is unfortunate and destructive. There are opportunities for opposition parties to actually critique the government. They do not have to agree with everything that the government is saying. At the very least, as opposed to reflecting on what is in the Conservative Party's and, more specifically, the leader of the Conservative Party's best interest, they could start focusing more on what is in Canadians' best interest. If they started to do that, I believe that we would actually see a higher sense of co-operation within the House of Commons and more tangible results being delivered to Canadians.

I can say that over the last nine or 10 months, the games that have been played by the official opposition have been at a significant cost. The Conservative Party of Canada, under its current leadership and with the games that the Conservatives play inside the House, have cost our society in very significant ways.

Lawful Access Act, 2026

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always great to get up in the House and represent the fine people of Ponoka—Didsbury. I consider myself fairly right-wing, but my colleague from Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee is making me look like a moderate in the House today. I unfortunately do not have time to go back and alter my speech in order to keep pace with my new-found best friend. We are going to be spending a lot more time together, based on my assessment of what he had to say about the government across the way.

It is important to speak to this piece of legislation, Bill C-22, the lawful access act. It is a bit weird to stand here, because it feels like we were just talking about this last fall. This is the second kick at the cat for this piece of legislation for the government. The Liberals tried to have a similar set of laws passed in a sweeping omnibus bill, Bill C-2, but that bill did not pass, and now it seems it is being reintroduced by the government. We know that it is coming on the heels of what was a minority Parliament and is going to turn into a majority Parliament here soon. One always has to keep that in mind. If this bill is crafted the same way that the majority government here was crafted, there is no reason at all to think that this is not a sneaky piece of legislation.

The Liberals laud their talking points and their PMO comms lines that this bill would help keep Canadians safe and get crime under control. The only reason crime is not under control is that we have had 11 years of Liberals across the way. If Bill C-22 were really about law and order, limiting crime or protecting victims, Conservatives would be wholly in support of this piece of legislation, but it is actually not about any of that. It is about power, it is about control, and it has a very deeply Orwellian feel to it.

Conservatives in this country have always believed in law and order. A vital and fundamental pillar of what it means to be a Conservative is to believe in and respect the rule of law in this country. We used to actually have governments that followed the laws as well. It would be nice if we got back to that at some point in time.

The governing Liberals have had many opportunities over the last 11 years to show us that they also want to see a reduction in crime, but every chance that we put in front of this Parliament, they seem to vote against. The Liberals have an ardent history of refusing bail reform and embracing catch-and-release style legislation. Now, after a decade, they expect the opposition members to believe that they are actually serious about cracking down on crime. Well, I am not buying it.

Last week, we debated Bill C-25, which would amend the Canada Elections Act. One of the objectives of that bill is to prevent foreign interference. During debate of that bill, I used the example of the 700 Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps members who are freely living in Canada today. The government will not deport them and will not put them in jail. They are here fundraising, conducting business and harming our country every single day. The Liberals cannot say that they are serious about dealing with foreign interference if they do not deport the terrorists and criminals living in our country. They cannot say they are serious about crime and protecting Canadians without deporting these same terrorists or criminals from the country as well. They cannot have it both ways. That is because the Liberals are not serious about crime.

The Liberals are serious, however, about seizing control and having more power for themselves and their government. We know that much for sure. On Friday, my colleague from Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes referred to Bill C-22 as “Bill C-2 redo”, and he is exactly right.

Last fall, the Liberals put forward Bill C-2, the strong borders act, which fell short of protecting Canadians while overreaching in many areas of jurisdiction where it did not need to, like authorizing law enforcement to open up people's mail and inspect it without any due process at all. There was severe push-back on this, not only from the opposition but from hundreds of advocacy groups, who stood firmly against this legislation because of the risks it would pose to the civil liberties of the Canadian public. The Conservatives successfully blocked Bill C-2, stopping the Liberals from limiting the use of cash in transactions, opening the mail without any oversight whatsoever, and demanding that any service providers, including hospitals, financial institutions and probably even one's local dry cleaning store, disclose user data without any judicial oversight.

Bill C-22 removed some of these proposed provisions that we opposed, but reintroduced some of the proposed parts of Bill C-2 that were rejected when the Liberals held their rightful minority government. They have since reintroduced this bill, now that they know they are going to have the majority of votes in this place. It seems like an awfully convenient opportunity, does it not?

We Conservatives support giving law enforcement officers the tools they need to combat crime and keep communities safe, particularly as threats and dangers evolve in the digital age, but we also believe that there need to be strong safeguards accompanying these powers.

There also need to be clear limits and independent oversight to protect the rights and freedoms of the people here in Canada. Bill C-2 was a failed piece of legislation that the opposition could not and did not support because not only did it fail to adequately address the criminal element in our society, but it infringed on the freedoms and the rights of Canadians in an unjustifiable way.

Now the Liberals seek to reintroduce many of the rejected measures of Bill C-2 in this bill today. They rebranded their failed legislation as Bill C-22 and have brought it back to this very House with their illegitimately obtained, like I said, soon-to-be majority here in the House. This should alarm Canadians, especially the 11-plus million Canadian voters who did not actually vote for a Liberal candidate in the last election.

Our caucus has been very clear in where we stand on the Liberals' obsession with big, bloated and powerful government: It is unnecessary and is a gross misuse of power.

Bill C-22 focuses specifically on telecommunications and Internet service providers while creating oversight for ministerial orders. The Liberals have already banned news from being reported on Meta. Why do they need access to Canadians' information through the Internet and telecommunications providers? Will the personal information of Canadians be shared with the government through this bill, like it would have been under Bill C-2? The government will not tell us. Can any member sitting on the government benches today give me an answer to that? If they could, they probably would not. If they did have an answer, chances are it would be wrong.

Keeping Canadians safe is just a mere disguise for the folks across the way. The Liberals have had over a decade to keep Canadians safe, and they have continuously let crime get worse. The Liberals say that Bill C-22 is needed to keep up with the rapid growth of our world's digital environment and to help keep Canadians safe, but it makes me wonder if this is actually true. I would say that in some cases it is not. Why is this? It is because the Liberals have voted down every piece of crime-reducing legislation the Conservatives have brought to the House since this Parliament commenced last May.

The Liberals have repeatedly ignored the calls of every single premier in Canada who asked for bail reform. They refused to appoint judges, so violent criminals are having their cases dismissed and timed out. This is not about crime reduction for the Liberals across the way. This is all about having an excuse and a reason to seize power and control.

Even CBC pundit Andrew Coyne, known for his staunch Conservative support, and I am kidding of course, said last week that the Prime Minister has an “autocratic streak a mile wide,” and he is showing that now. Coyne said that during a minority Parliament. How bad will it actually get in a majority parliament? It is all about control, about central control by the central banker.

Bill C-2 was about control by letting law enforcement open our mail. Bill C-9 would control what religious people are allowed to say out loud or how texts are supposed to be read. Bill C-22 would control the privacy rights of Canadians through increased government surveillance and access to information.

We know this because the Liberals have a track record of these power grabs, such as changes they proposed to make to the Standing Orders in 2016. I do not know if there are a lot of people here today who remember that, but I remember it. They were going to basically take control of this place. They did not want an opposition; they wanted an audience.

There was the former prime minister's interference in the SNC-Lavalin scandal in 2019 and subsequent firing of the first indigenous female justice minister in Canadian history. As well, we see the consistent cutting, through time allocation, of debates on important pieces of legislation. There were gag orders on government watchdogs, as well as the unnecessary invocation of the Emergencies Act in 2022, which saw the Liberals freeze the bank accounts of hundreds of Canadians.

There was the expansion of cabinet authority provided in Bill C-5. Bill C-15 gives ministers of the Crown permission to exempt individuals and organizations of their choosing from any federal law they want, including the Criminal Code. Now there is online surveillance and access to Canadians' information.

Every time the Liberals are tasked with solving a problem, they always choose to assert total control and dominance over the situation. They grab power for power's sake. They control people's taxes, finances, what they say, the religious texts they read aloud, the firearms they are allowed to hunt with, the things they need to believe to qualify for Canada's summer jobs money and the salmon they allowed to fish for on the west coast.

It is all about control. It is always overkill. It is always too much. It is always over the top. It never solves the problem. Then again, one cannot be the problem and the solution at the same time. Bill C-22 is of course no different.

The Conservatives have put forward so many pieces of legislation to crack down on crime and protect Canadians, but the Liberals continue to vote us down in favour of their soft-on-crime policies that repeatedly let violent offenders out on bail time and time again.

The government does not need to infringe on the rights of Canadians to solve the problem of surging crime. That problem is solved and Canadians are protected by putting violent offenders in jail, strengthening bail laws and deporting non-citizens who are guilty of committing violent crimes here in Canada. I do not see any of that in this legislation. It is because the Liberals are not serious about fixing the problem. They are only serious about garnering more control for themselves and their friends, and taking Canadians' tax dollars and putting it on their—

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives believe in law and order, real law and order, not the kind the Liberals talk about at election time and forget about the moment the votes are counted. Real law and order means keeping Canadians safe and making sure the justice system actually works.

Today we are talking about Bill C-22, a bill that deals with how law enforcement investigates crime in the digital world. Crime has changed. The drug dealer who once operated on a street corner now operates through encrypted apps. The fraudster who once passed bad cheques now steals credit cards online. The predator who once lurked in a park now targets children on the Internet.

If Parliament does not give law enforcement the tools to follow crime in a digital world, criminals will keep winning. Conservatives understand that. We support giving law enforcement the modern tools it needs to do its job, but we also understand something else: The government does not get a free pass from scrutiny when it comes to the personal information of Canadians.

Let me tell members about a case that shows exactly what Parliament is dealing with here. In the Supreme Court case of R. v. Bykovets, police were investigating online fraud by a fraudster who was using stolen credit card information to purchase gift cards online. Investigators traced the activity back to an IP address and obtained subscriber information, and charges followed. However, the case was decided not by what evidence was found but by how that evidence was obtained. That information could reveal personal details about a person's online activity. Investigators can only move forward when that data can be tied to a real person. Because the IP address was accessed without a warrant, the evidence was thrown out.

That is the reality of what Parliament is dealing with today. In a digital investigation, it is not enough to find the evidence. The law must allow law enforcement to get it in the right way. If that step is mishandled, the case can fall apart, and justice may not be served. That is why Parliament must get this legislation right.

Before I say more about Bill C-22, we need to look at how the legislation came to be here today, because this is not the first time the Liberal government has tried to expand access to the personal information of Canadians. Last fall, the Liberals introduced Bill C-2. It proposed a sweeping expansion of government surveillance that alarmed many Canadians, including many of my constituents. It would have given the government access to personal data across a broad range of service providers with little jurisdictional oversight. It included broad ministerial powers with almost no independent accountability. It applied obligations far beyond the communications sector.

Conservatives pushed back. We forced the Liberals to remove provisions that would have allowed access to postal mail without a warrant. We forced them to remove provisions that would have enabled broad demands for personal data without defined legal thresholds. After all of that, they came back with Bill C-22. When a government has to rewrite its own legislation twice because it went too far, it raises many concerns. That is exactly why Parliament must examine this bill with care.

Let us be honest about the government's record on crime. For 10 years, the Liberals let crime get out of control. Violent crime is up, auto theft is up, and bail has become a revolving door. Canadians are less safe today than they were when the Liberals took office. What has been the Liberals' response? Absolutely nothing.

Canadians will not be fooled. They have watched the government talk tough on crime while criminals walk free on bail the same day they are arrested. They have watched the government lecture Canadians about safety while gutting the tools that keep them safe. Now the same government wants Parliament to trust it with expanded access to the personal data of Canadians.

What would Bill C-22 actually do? Part 1 would lower the threshold for accessing subscriber information. It would allow investigators to move from an IP address to an identifiable person more quickly and without a warrant.

Part 2 would require electronic service providers to retain data, including IP addresses and location information, so it is available for future access. The bill would also also give ministers the power to impose technical requirements on service providers through confidential orders. I think that is the most important part. I personally think that is probably one of the bigger sticking points. Those orders would be reviewed by the intelligence commissioner.

Each of those three things raises serious questions. Subscriber information can reveal identity and patterns of activity. If limits are not clearly defined, the risk of improper use would increase. Data retention creates a standing pool of information that can be accessed later. Without clear rules on storage, duration and security, that data would become vulnerable. Ministerial orders would impose requirements on private systems without public visibility. As I commented before, that is probably one of the more concerning ones. We need public visibility with this bill. It is not clear that the oversight by the intelligence commissioner alone would be sufficient. These are not hypothetical concerns, but the same concerns that forced major changes in Bill C-2; they exist in Bill C-22.

Conservatives want this bill to go to committee. Second reading is about the principle of the bill. Committee is about whether the bill is properly drafted and actually works. This bill needs that scrutiny. It does not clearly define who must keep the retained data, where it would be stored, how long it would be kept or how it would be protected. Those gaps would leave the system exposed to misuse.

The definition of electronic service provider is broad. It can extend well beyond telecommunications to messaging platforms and cloud services. The bill would set limits on excluding content, browsing history and social media activity from retention, but it is not clear those distinctions would hold.

At committee, we will hear from law enforcement officers who can speak to what they need on the ground. It is where privacy experts can explain how these measures would affect Canadians. That is where the work of Parliament is supposed to occur. Conservatives support giving law enforcement agencies the tools they need within a framework that respects the rights of Canadians. Sending it to committee would allow Parliament to fix legislation before it becomes law.

I represent a rural region in western Manitoba. My constituents care deeply about safety and their freedom. They want law enforcement officers to have the tools to protect their communities. They also expect their government to protect their rights. Those two things are not in conflict. Effective law enforcement and strong safeguards for Canadians can and must go together.

The R. v. Bykovets case reminds us that shortcuts in procedure can undermine even the strongest investigation. The history of the Liberal legislation in Bill C-2 reminds us what happens when government reaches too far. Conservatives will not let that happen again. We will make sure this legislation serves both justice and freedom, because Canadians deserve nothing less.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is an important question. My colleague who gave the last speech said this, and I think he was right. We introduced Bill C-2. It had much more comprehensive legislation in it, but we came across a lot of concerns, so we pulled back this section of Bill C-2. Then we decided we were going to consult and listen further. We then went to privacy experts, civil liberties groups and members of all parties. We took all the concerns seriously, and we came back with a better, narrower and more carefully built bill.

I think we know it is always much better, if we get bills to committee and if we all work with the right intention, that we are open to listening. We want to make sure the bill is as strong as possible.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, under our federal government, our approach to keeping Canadians safe rests on three pillars: stronger laws; stronger support for the front line, including 1,000 new RCMP officers and 1,000 new officers at our borders; and stronger upstream investments in housing, mental health and programs for at-risk youth. Bill C-22 sits inside the first two pillars. It would modernize our laws and give our police the tools they have been asking Parliament for, not for years but for decades.

Let me speak plainly about why we need this legislation. Today, the most serious crime does not happen only on our streets. It also happens on our phones and on our apps. It is planned in chat groups. It is carried out across borders, and it is all done in seconds. With child sexual exploitation, human trafficking, extortion, money laundering, auto theft rings, hate-motivated violence and foreign interference, criminals have moved online, and our laws have not yet kept up.

Canada is currently the only country in the Five Eyes and the only country in the G7 without a modern lawful access framework. Every one of our closest allies has legal tools that let their police, with judicial oversight, obtain basic digital information during a criminal investigation. Canadian police do not. That gap is not theoretical. It means that Canadian investigations stall. It means that tips from foreign agencies sit unused. It means, in the worst cases, that investigations are simply abandoned before they begin.

The Canadian Centre for Child Protection has reported that police-reported online child sexual exploitation incidents rose 374% between 2014 and 2024. In 2024 alone, 94% of online child sexual abuse material did not result in charges, often because police simply could not identify the person behind the screen name, and that is unacceptable. Bill C-22 would help to change that.

Let me walk through, in plain language, what Bill C-22 actually does and, just as importantly, what it does not do. I think that when people understand the mechanics, a lot of the worry might fall away.

First, the bill would create a simple yes-or-no tool called a confirmation of service demand. Here is how it works. Say police are investigating an extortion case and they have a phone number. They need to know which telephone company, whether it is Rogers, Bell, Telus or anyone else, actually services that number so they know where to send a court order. Under Bill C-22, they can ask that single question: “Do you or do you not service this number?” That is it. There is no name, no address, no content, just yes or no. Today, without this tool, police can spend weeks or months in court, company by company, just to figure out whom to serve. Bill C-22 would let them skip that guessing game and get on with the real investigative work.

Second, and this is the critical privacy safeguard, once police know which provider to go to, they still have to go to a judge. A judge has to independently authorize what is called a subscriber information production order before police can get the name and address behind that account. That is judicial oversight. That is the charter at work. This is not police walking away with someone's name on their own say-so. It is police going before a court, making their case, and a judge deciding whether the threshold has been met. Frankly, this is the same kind of information that used to sit in the phone books on our kitchen counters, but because digital identifiers now reveal so much more about us, the Supreme Court has said, rightly, that accessing them requires a warrant, and Bill C-22 respects that.

Third, the bill would require our major electronic service providers to actually be capable of responding to a valid court order. This sounds almost unbelievable, but under current Canadian law, there is no such requirement. A judge can issue an order, and a company can simply reply that it is not technically able to provide the information. Bill C-22 would fix that with requirements tailored to each class of provider and with oversight from the independent intelligence commissioner.

Fourth, the bill would create a clear legal pathway for Canadian police to work with our allies when crime crosses borders. In 2026, organized crime does not stop at the 49th parallel, and our law enforcement has to be able to move just as quickly.

I am very blessed to represent one of the most engaged and most thoughtful communities in this country. Davenport residents care deeply about privacy and the charter. I want them to know their federal government has listened. This is not the first version of the bill. An earlier version was part of Bill C-2 last year. We heard the concerns raised by privacy experts, civil liberties groups and members of all parties. We took those concerns seriously, we consulted broadly, and we came back with a better, narrower and more carefully built bill.

Here is what changed. Warrantless access to subscriber information is gone, and judicial authorization would be the rule. The definition of “subscriber information” has been narrowed to the basics. The bill would also explicitly protect solicitor-client privilege and medical information. Ministerial orders would require approval by the independent intelligence commissioner. Data retention would be strictly limited to metadata, for a maximum of one year, and not content, not web browsing history and not social media activity. As well, the whole act would come back before Parliament for mandatory review three years after it comes into force.

To be absolutely clear, there are no back doors in this bill. Police would not get direct access to anyone's communications. Service providers themselves would retrieve the information, and only after a court has authorized it. This is lawful access, with the emphasis on “lawful”.

Last month I had the privilege, as chair of the Toronto Liberal caucus, of joining the federal Minister of Public Safety and Toronto police chief Myron Demkiw at Toronto police headquarters, where the minister spoke about the legislation. Standing with the chief, hearing directly from him about what Toronto police officers face every single day, such as the extortion cases hitting families across the city, the auto theft rings and the online exploitation of our children, one understands very quickly why the bill matters and why the delay has real costs, and it is not just Toronto. There is also support for this bill from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Police Federation and the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police.

In closing, to my constituents in Davenport and to the families that have been scammed, the parents worried about their children online and the small business owners who have been threatened with extortion, the bill is for them. To those across Davenport who care fiercely about privacy in the charter, I want them to know that the bill has been built carefully, with judicial oversight at its core and independent accountability layered throughout. It is not a choice between safety and rights. It is both, together, the way Canadians expect.

Crime has modernized. It is long past time our laws did too. I urge all members of the House, from every party, to send Bill C-22 to committee, to study it, to strengthen it where they can and to get it passed. Canadians have waited many years. They should not have to wait any longer.

[Scott Anderson, Conservative, Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if my colleague across the aisle could explain whether he believes Bill C-22 is better than Bill C-2, given that Bill C-2 wanted to limit the use of cash for Canadians.