Bill C-22

Lawful Access Act, 2026

An Act respecting lawful access

Part 1 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 confirmation of service demands given to telecommunications service providers or judicial production orders for the production of subscriber information,
(ii) expedite the response to production orders by shortening the review process and clarify the ability of peace officers and public officers to receive and act on certain information that is voluntarily provided to them and to obtain and act on 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 — or that provides services by a means of telecommunication — 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 confirmation of service demands given to telecommunications service providers and judicial orders against those providers, 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 2 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 . It also makes related and consequential amendments to the Intelligence Commissioner Act .
Part 3 provides for the parliamentary review of Parts 1 and 2.

Lawful Access Act, 2026

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, for the Minister of Public Safety]

moved that Bill C-22, An Act respecting lawful access, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to thank everyone for being here to take part in this important debate.

First of all, I believe it is essential to understand the context of this debate and the importance of this bill.

It is no secret that public safety and crime in Canada are major political concerns for the government, and of course that reflects the reality that they are major political concerns for Canadians who go about their lives day to day concerned about the reality in their communities. Over the course of the past year now, we have been advancing a framework to address public safety in this country that rests on three key pillars. The first is to adopt stronger laws, including laws that would reform bail and sentencing in this country, laws that would combat hate, and laws that would more forcefully defend Canadians against gender-based violence and, in particular, the exploitation of Canadian children, particularly in an online environment.

The second pillar involves supporting the front line. This includes 1,000 new RCMP officers and 1,000 new officers at our borders, but also support for community organizations that help keep communities safe or support victims. It also includes providing law enforcement with the tools they need to keep our communities safe. The third pillar, which I would suggest is among the most important, is to make upstream investments to help build safer communities and healthier people in the long term, including investments in affordable housing, mental health and addictions, and programs that particularly target at-risk youth, among other things.

Today's bill arises in the context of the second pillar that I mentioned. That pillar, again, is to support the front line. It is easy for us, when we think about support for the front line, to think that it simply means more officers, which it must, as I pointed out, with significant investments in the federal aspect of both the RCMP and the CBSA, but importantly, it requires us to give law enforcement the tools they need.

Our strategy rests on three pillars. First, we are introducing legislation to strengthen criminal law across the country. Second, we are providing support to police officers and others who protect our communities. Third, we are making investments to build safe communities.

I want to focus specifically on this second pillar of giving the tools to law enforcement to help keep our communities safe. It will come as absolutely no surprise to anyone sitting in this chamber or those who live in our communities across Canada that the world we live in has changed over time and continues to change. In particular, the rapid pace of technological change demands that governments take actions to ensure that our laws reflect the reality in which we live today, not simply positioning us to address threats that existed during our childhood.

When we think about the way the world has modernized, we quickly come to understand that so, too, have criminal organizations. The use of technology is so prevalent that it has become a primary way in which crimes are committed across borders, often in a digital environment. All of us are walking around with powerful phones in our pockets that allow us to engage with people in a moment around the world. We have access to networks of people we can keep in touch with, primarily for ordinary purposes, but we cannot be blind to the fact that there are criminal actors in this country and around the world who use that technology for unsavoury purposes.

We think about the ability of organized crime not simply to use digital communications but to communicate across borders in real time to facilitate the commission of very serious crimes. In my many conversations with law enforcement over the past year, they have pointed to the fact that this technology is often being used at a prolific rate when it comes to the commission of crimes relating to extortion in this country, often violent extortion in this country. We are being told repeatedly that home invasions and auto thefts are not simply one-off examples of isolated actors who are simply behaving badly on a particular day, but the result of sophisticated criminal organizations that have established a network and are using technology to communicate with those who are committing crimes on the ground.

We also know that when it comes to the very serious, most heinous crimes in Canada, sexual exploitation and abuse material are being committed against children. We know that the digital environment has caused the number of instances of this absolutely horrific criminal behaviour to increase dramatically in the number of examples we can find. One thing that is particularly challenging when it comes to the use of technology to commit these different kinds of atrocious criminal acts is the anonymity of the person who is doing wrong. It is not possible for the police to arrest an IP address or to investigate a phone number and bring it to prosecution. We have to understand that there are human beings who are willing to do bad things for their own personal gain and hide behind the anonymity that this technology can provide. If we want to keep Canadians safe, we must advance the law in a way that reflects the changes to technology.

I often speak with police officers and representatives of organizations that protect our communities. They tell me that as technology changes, the laws need to change along with it. Right now, criminal organizations can use technology to commit crimes with complete anonymity. It is not okay to simply accept these problems. We need to tackle these challenges by changing the laws, specifically the Criminal Code.

That is where this particular piece of legislation comes in. If we want the law to keep up with crime, we have to realize where we have fallen behind. This is where the concept of lawful access comes in, in the appropriately named lawful access act. Over the last number of years, countries around the world have been advancing their laws in a way that allows them to gain access to critical information, where a criminal investigation is taking place, to ensure that they are actually able to move forward with that investigation in order to stop crime and to prevent it, in the best case, or, when a criminal act is committed, to have the ability to bring the perpetrator to justice through a full and expeditious investigation, followed by a prosecution.

When I look around the world, it is clear that Canada needs to catch up. Every other G7 partner has established a lawful access regime. Each of our other Five Eyes partners has established a similar regime, and it is time for Canada to do the same.

The result of our current laws having failed to keep up with these rapidly changing technologies is that the investigations, although they still do take place, become cumbersome, difficult and time-consuming. When we are dealing with threats playing out in real time, it is important to understand that the ability to bring a perpetrator to justice depends upon police being able to do their job in real time as well.

This debate started not today, although it is formally under this piece of legislation, but in fact in one of the very first pieces of legislation we brought forward in this Parliament. At the time, it was Bill C-2, the strong borders act. We took that bill to this House. We consulted broadly, not only with law enforcement but with privacy experts, security experts and, importantly, members of Parliament from different parties. I want to give full credit to my colleague, the hon. Minister of Public Safety, for the extraordinary level of engagement he undertook to get this bill in a better place.

During those consultations, we heard that it is absolutely essential that Canada create the framework that will allow us to move forward with these kinds of investigations, but that we do so in a way that respects the privacy rights of Canadians and ensures that the state does not commit some overreach in its investigations seeking to stop these heinous criminal acts, which people unanimously agree we must change the law to address.

This particular bill would achieve that balance, in my view, in precisely the correct way. The first feature of this bill that I want to draw attention to is that it would establish a process through which law enforcement could make a request for very basic information of electronic service providers. We are not talking about privileged information. We are not talking about advice from lawyers. We are not talking about health care details. In the first instance, where there is an existing criminal investigation and the police believe a crime has been or will be committed, this bill would enable the police to make a request that would confirm the service of an Internet service provider or a cellphone company that is tied to a particular phone number or IP address. This is not asking about the content of particular messages that may have been sent, but only whether a particular number or IP address exists on a particular network. Let me explain why this piece is of particular importance.

When a police officer is charged with investigating a heinous crime, looking into extortion rings or the distribution of child sexual exploitation and abuse material, they frequently receive tips from foreign law enforcement agencies or come to understand through tools that we have here in Canada that there are specific phone numbers or IP addresses that lead law enforcement to believe that a crime has been or will be committed. However, we do not have the ability to act swiftly in Canada to deal with the threats that we do know exist, including when we receive these tips from foreign law enforcement agencies.

Let us think about the position this puts law enforcement in. When they are seeking to look into an IP address just to determine which network it may be on, the current process could take months. It requires production orders where someone would go before the court only to establish whether a particular IP address belongs to one network over another. If they got it wrong on the first one, the process would of course begin again with the second and third. This would provide for an expeditious pathway for law enforcement to request whether a particular phone number or IP address is tied to a particular service provider.

In the event that the service provider responds affirmatively and says that IP address, which is part of an existing criminal investigation, is in fact on their network, the next step would allow law enforcement to apply to the court, based on a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been or will be committed, to have the network share the subscriber information, the name and address, that would be tied to that phone number or IP address.

When we think about this law simply keeping pace with changes to technology, we are not dealing with a broad-based overreach of information. This is the same information that used to be in our phone books. We do not see them around these days anymore, perhaps for obvious reasons. However, as a kid I remember it was common for a particular phone number to be listed next to a name and address. That information is not present when it comes to a person's IP address or modern cellphone numbers.

However, when the police believe that a particular IP address, through reasonably obtained information, is tied to criminal activity, we need to have the ability to understand what network that information rests upon and who the subscriber behind it is, which would allow the police to not only investigate who may be involved with the crime but, at the early stage of the investigation, save enormous law enforcement resources by ruling out certain actors from criminal investigations.

Let us keep in mind that throughout this process, even just to get the subscriber information, we are still requiring that law enforcement, under most circumstances, obtain judicial authorization before that information is shared. It is only where there are exigent circumstances, for example, where there is child exploitation being livestreamed, that there would be some provision for law enforcement to obtain this kind of information without first receiving judicial authorization.

This process I have laid out would position Canada as the jurisdiction amongst G7 counterparts, for example, that would contain the most serious privacy protections within a lawful access regime that comes to exist. It is important that, if we are going to ask this information of service providers, we also ensure that they maintain that information. One part of this bill is dedicated to the kind of information that those service providers would be required to hold. Now, we are mainly focused on large-scale networks to ensure that we understand the metadata behind messages. Again, we are not specifically requiring the individual content of every message, but only trying to identify what messages may have been sent at what time, for example. This information would help ground a police investigation that could lead, obviously, to the prevention of crime, or perhaps to the investigation and prosecution of a crime.

There are other elements of this bill that would also facilitate the co-operation of international criminal investigations when it comes to organized crime. The ability to operate seamlessly across borders creates opportunities for criminal organizations and puts obstacles in place for the states that are seeking to combat their heinous activity. This bill would create a clear legal pathway for Canada to make requests of its international partners, should we believe that foreign networks may have the same kind of information that I have described that would allow us to dig more deeply into investigations. It would also allow other states that are concerned about information that may be held in Canada to co-operate, through agreements that we reach with our allies, to ensure that we are doing our part to help protect the security interests of our closest friends and allies.

Let us just think about what this means for law enforcement. It means that they are going to have more streamlined investigations. It means that they are going to be able to more quickly deal with threats that are playing out in real time. It means they are going to be able to do a better job at preventing crime from taking place in the first place and at conducting full investigations, should a crime be committed, to ensure that the bad actors are indeed brought to justice at the end of the day.

It struck me, when I was speaking to law enforcement, when the bill was first tabled, just how seriously they treated this issue. We were joined by the deputy commissioner of the RCMP, the head of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the chief of police here in Ottawa. They not only described the urgency with which this issue must be addressed but lamented the decades-long process that it has taken successive governments of different parties to get here.

I want to read a quote from the head of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and commissioner of the OPP, Thomas Carrique. He said, “I engaged in the first conversation on lawful access in 1996—”

I was still in elementary school when this conversation began.

—when police leaders said we were at risk of going dark for access to digital evidence. We are now here, 30 years later, with the support of this government. This is a non-partisan issue. This is a public safety issue. From Internet child exploitation to extortions, to home invasions, to carjackings, to drive-by shootings, to hate motivated crime, to extremism. Lawful access is absolutely required and it's required now. So, on behalf of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, my thanks to this government and my hope that all parliamentarians will work together to ensure the safety and security of this country.

I want to give my thanks in particular to Murray Rankin, a former colleague in the House, for his engagement on this issue and for consulting with stakeholders to ensure we had a broad base of perspectives to understand what changes needed to be made. I want to thank Leah West, a professor with unique expertise in security and privacy issues, who helped guide some of this work and provided invaluable feedback to get the bill in the shape that it is today. I want to thank the many stakeholders and parliamentarians who shared their perspectives to help us refine the initial version of the bill that was put forward into one that does a better job of advancing both security and privacy interests at the same time.

We must continue to introduce criminal laws if we want to fight crime in our communities. It is also essential to work with everyone so that the government understands the perspectives of the various people who have contributed to the solutions proposed to improve the bill.

We have an opportunity to do something in the House this week that has been 30 years in the making, and that is to bring Canada's laws in accordance with a modern standard that would give law enforcement the tools they need to keep our community safe. It is hard to imagine a more important outcome to pursue than that.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. I take great interest in this subject matter, both as a lawyer who practised in this area and as the chief critic for the bill.

One of the things that is very important, I think, to the people who are looking at the bill, to the people who are scrutinizing the bill and to the people who have looked at the bill from an expert point of view is part 2. That is with respect to the retention of data.

I am coming at this from a legitimate point of inquiry. This is not meant to be a gotcha or anything. What I would like the minister to explain is this. The bill would require third parties, as in businesses and service providers, to retain certain information and to do things with that information.

Does he think that this is constitutionally compliant? How do we know that the government simply is not going too far here?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I take the question in the spirit in which it was intended. The question is an important one. The first element is whether the bill is constitutionally compliant. I believe it is. I am happy to discuss, in public or off-line, the details of my constitutional assessment of the bill.

I also think it is functionally necessary, and let me explain why. The core of the bill is to provide an opportunity for law enforcement to request particular information that would allow them to investigate criminal activity. They can only obtain that information if it exists. We can imagine the futility of the exercise in empowering law enforcement to make a request of a third-party service provider that would normally hold this information if there was no obligation for that information to be held in the first place. If the protections that we are seeking to include in the bill are not realized in the community, the bill will not be worth the paper on which it is written.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his speech. The Bloc Québécois has a question about the budget cuts. Of course, we agree that the government should give intelligence services and the police more power so that they can do their jobs, but at the same time, it is cutting the budget of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, or NSIRA, by 15%.

That seems rather inconsistent to us. On one hand, the government wants to grant more power, but on the other, it is cutting necessary funding for organizations such as the NSIRA, funding that may already be insufficient to carry out the work that these organizations need to do. I would like to hear the minister's thoughts on that.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her question. I would like to speak to that concern. I have a different perspective on the issue.

We proposed the bill and at the same time we invested in increasing the number of federal police officers in Canada. Last year's budget, for example, included investments to increase the RCMP workforce by 1,000 and border security staff by 1,000 as well.

We can make investments and ensure that police have the resources they need to enforce the law as it exists now. However, we also need to change the law to ensure that Canada is equipped to protect our communities. I am very pleased to keep the conversation going.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime came to Winnipeg and met with some interested individual community members where we talked about the issue of extortion. We also then met with the Winnipeg chief of police and members of the Winnipeg Police Association. All of them seemed to be of the opinion that we needed to get lawful access passed, and extortion was the issue that was constantly being raised at all three of those meetings.

From a personal perspective, I feel somewhat frustrated, in the sense that we could have had this legislation, in the form of Bill C-2, pass last year, but because of Conservative obstruction we were not able to do that. I am wondering if the minister could provide his thoughts in regards to the degree to which this legislation is necessary and wanted in our communities across Canada.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, my colleague pointed to members of a number of policing organizations whom he has met with in his community who have supported this bill. However, to be clear, it includes not only his local police forces but the National Police Federation, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the British Columbia Association of Chiefs of Police, the Vancouver Police Department, the Toronto Police Service, the Peel Regional Police and the Ottawa Police Service. I think people get the idea. One of the reasons that we see such strong support from law enforcement organizations is they are living with the reality of communities that could be made safer if this bill were passed in its current form.

When it comes to extortion in particular, we are hearing timelines to get through this process that sometimes stretch into months, 11 or 12 weeks, when in fact we can shrink that timeline to days or, in some instances, even hours to get the information they need. How that translates into better safety outcomes, which is what the law enforcement sector is really working towards, is that tougher criminal laws can punish bad actors after something has happened and this bill would sometimes allow agencies to prevent that bad act from taking place in the first instance.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this bill regarding lawful access certainly includes many improvements. I would like to see more, but I will speak to that later.

It occurs to me today, and I am sure the Minister of Justice has this on his mind, that in five days we mark six years since the largest mass killings in Canada, in Portapique, Nova Scotia. In the resulting inquiry, the Mass Casualty Commission report called for many critical measures to be pursued. When the Minister of Justice says we are going to hire 1,000 new RCMP officers, what springs to my mind is that they would all be inadequately trained, according to the Mass Casualty Commission. The commission called for an overhaul of the way that RCMP officers are trained. We are talking about a preventable tragedy.

Will the government implement the report from the Mass Casualty Commission?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has a deep history with and love for my home province of Nova Scotia.

I remember like it was yesterday, locking my family inside my basement for fear that there was an active shooter in my community. There are families I know personally that lost their loved ones that day, and we must heed the advice of the Mass Casualty Commission, which was led by one of the most esteemed justices in my lifetime, Chief Justice Michael MacDonald, who did exemplary work.

There are a number of recommendations that came out of that process, some of which have already been implemented or are being implemented, including through different pieces of criminal legislation I have tabled in the House since I have had the opportunity to serve in this particular position.

With respect to RCMP training, obviously that engages the responsibilities of one of my colleagues. I will continue to be an advocate for improving the quality of the training RCMP officers receive, particularly as we add additional personnel to help keep our communities safe. There are no easy solutions, but we should start with the work that has been done to inform those solutions, including the recommendations of the Mass Casualty Commission.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have four points that I am looking for reassurance on from the minister.

Number one, the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians did a whole report on lawful access. Of its findings, finding one found that the security and intelligence organizations in Canada do not systematically track the challenges they have with lawful access. Is there anything in this bill that would deal with that and the reporting aspects?

Number two, can the minister reassure Canadians, because, as per the NSICOP report, nobody wants a back door to this bill, that the bill would in no way enable a back door into encrypted communications here in Canada?

Number three, referring to finding seven, I see nothing in this bill that would address the intelligence and evidence dilemma. This is something we still need to fix. I assure the minister that I want the government to do more.

Finally, in recommendation six, NSICOP talks about a compensation model, if we are going to force CSPs to comply—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I need to interrupt the member to give the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada a chance to respond.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I expect I am going to run out of time in my response. I will offer a conversation to my colleague to ensure we can work together to advance the best version of this bill and the associated supports that would allow it to function in practice.

To address some of his concerns about a back door, this was a concern I heard about during the consultations. I believe that, with the ring-fencing of the information that can be provided and the combined strategy of GIC regulations and ministerial orders, with the oversight of the intelligence officer, we would actually be able to prevent that kind of harm. We will work with service providers to identify the best way of ensuring that they would be able to share this information. For large service providers, I do not think it is going to be too onerous of a responsibility.

I completely agree with the member on the intelligence and evidence divide. I am happy to work with my colleague on that. Given that I am out of time, I will make good of my commitment to finish this conversation off-line.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

We are only about an hour and a half into today, and this is my third time rising. What an honour it is to speak in the House of Commons, not only so frequently but also on matters of such import. We are dealing with really important issues today. Sometimes we deal with things that are quite performative in the House, but I can candidly say that, today, this is an issue of fairly significant importance.

Before I start, I want to recognize one of my very good friends, who is celebrating a birthday. Philip Lee is 48 years old. He is somebody I went to high school with and have known for the past 36 years now. We have had the opportunity to travel together, and he has been a wonderful friend. I would like to wish Phil all the best in the upcoming year.

I also want to recognize two people from Kamloops who accomplished something really significant. Johnny Hicks and Brady Milburn are part of the Denver Pioneers hockey club. That club is part of the NCAA. This weekend, the team was crowned the men's NCAA champion. I congratulate Johnny and Brady, who are both Kamloops products, and the whole Denver Pioneers team. Winning the NCAA championship is a tremendous accomplishment.

What brings us here today is Bill C-22, but we have to look at the past to inform how we got here. Bill C-2 was heralded as a cure-all, a panacea, if we will, to all the things that ailed the justice system. If only we could pass Bill C-2, everything would be fine.

Unfortunately, we have heard that before in the House. For years, we were told there were no issues with bail and sentencing, yet here we are now with a so-called new government, with many of the same cabinet ministers as the old government, and we are still dealing with the same issues.

I believe the minister referenced Commissioner Carrique talking about this type of legislation going way back to 1997. In fact, Conservatives put forward legislation on lawful access and were roundly mocked by Liberals. There is a famous quote, which I will not repeat here today, that stemmed from that very debate, and now we hear there is a rush to pass this legislation. I understand why lawful access is so important, but if there was a rush, then why were the Liberals opposed to it in the last decade? If there was a rush, then why has it taken the Liberal government 11 years to bring this bill forward? If there was a rush, then why was Bill C-2 so clumsily drafted?

We are here because of Bill C-2. In fact, if we look at portions of Bill C-2, we can see that we now have two bills that stem from it: Bill C-12 and Bill C-22. Both of those bills have dramatically remodelled what was contained in Bill C-2. In fact, Bill C-12 renovated so much of the text of Bill C-2 that it underwent further amendments at committee. I believe that my colleague, the shadow minister for immigration, the member for Calgary Nose Hill, did a great deal of work and produced a number of amendments at committee that were supported by the government or the Bloc and ultimately made it into the bill. That bill was a substantially better version of portions of Bill C-2. What do we have in Bill C-22? We have parts 14 and 15 of Bill C-2.

One of the things that always strikes me is how, in the past, Conservatives heard criticisms of omnibus bills. Bill C-2 is about as omnibus as it gets. I think it would have impacted something like 11 pieces of legislation. I do not want to be quoted on that because I cannot remember, but it would have impacted so many pieces of legislation and created pieces of legislation. It is well over 100 pages. It is an omnibus bill to the point where we now have two bills that have stemmed from it, and I think we probably have three or four distinct subject matters that are contained within Bill C-2 that still have not been addressed. The part of Bill C-2 we have before us now is the notion of lawful access.

I am going to focus on what is in Bill C-2, but I will also focus on some of the concerns I have. My hope is that the government will take these concerns legitimately and that we can proceed in the spirit of open and constructive dialogue.

My colleague for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound asked a question. He sits on the national security committee, commonly known as NSICOP, which provides secret and confidential advice to the Prime Minister. Those who are on the committee are not permitted to speak about anything that is discussed in committee, and would be subject to very significant penalties under criminal law if they did, but one thing my colleague and friend for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound spoke about was not only the necessity, from NSICOP's point of view, of lawful access, but also what should be in that legislation.

As Conservatives, we will always take the position that initiatives to help law enforcement, initiatives that allow those in law enforcement to do their jobs more easily, is something we will always be open to, but we have to make sure that those revisions to the law are both charter-compliant and consistent with the rights of privacy that we believe all Canadians should enjoy.

In my view, the government has, in the past, tried to overstep its boundaries at times. Bill C-2, in parts 14 and 15, is an example, as it goes so far as to use language like any threat or “any action”. We saw that in Bill C-8 as well. Bill C-2 essentially wants the government to have access to “any information”. Well, that goes quite too far. I was happy to see that the government, at the very least, went back to the drawing board.

Previously, a question from the government was about how the Conservatives could have just passed this in Bill C-2. Well, no, Conservatives would not have passed this in Bill C-2 because Bill C-2 is a poorly written piece of legislation. If Conservatives should have passed it in Bill C-2, then the government should have put forward a better piece of legislation, and I would go so far as to say that the government is admitting such because it has put forward Bill C-22. If Bill C-2 had no issues, if it did not, in the eyes of experts throughout the country, take significant liberties with privacy rights and things like that, then we would not be here today. The fact that the government has put forward Bill C-22 is itself an admission that Bill C-2, in its omnibus form, is, unfortunately, poorly drafted. That is what brings us here today.

What are some of the things in Bill C-2? There are three parts. The first part we are looking at is on tools for law enforcement to access digital information. I do not believe this is going to be a controversial part of the bill. Right now, based on decisions from the Supreme Court of Canada over roughly the last 12 years, law enforcement has to write a great number of court orders, which is how I would put it. Another way to put it is “judicial authorizations”, and some people call them “warrants”. They often take the form of a warrant or a production order, such as an order to a business saying, “Is Frank Caputo your subscriber, yes or no?” Then it would say, “Please produce all the Frank Caputo subscriber information.” Those might be two distinct questions. The problem is that this takes time.

Every time somebody has to go and get a court order, somebody has to write up that court order. They have to swear an affidavit in support of that court order. That takes time. As Conservatives, we recognize that when there are inefficiencies in the law, we need to address them. That is something that I do not think people take a great deal of issue with, but sometimes the devil is in the details and we need to ask further questions about those things.

The current process in regard to subscriber information is informed by the decision of Regina v. Spencer. Now, that decision came out in 2014. Spencer impacted the obtaining of production orders, just to put it colloquially. I am sure somebody is going to be looking at the headnote of Spencer and will compare my words. I am just talking generally here, not with the legal precision that I would in court. We are looking at getting production orders for just about everything for which a subscriber may have an expectation of privacy. That would change with Bill C-22.

Bykovets was another really key decision of the court, 10 years after Spencer. I believe Bykovets was about the expectation of privacy in a person's IP address. This was significant because most people do not know their IP address. A lot of people do not even know that they have an IP address. If they do know they have an IP address, they might not even know how they get it. When Bykovets said there is an expectation of privacy in that, I believe some legal scholars said, “Okay, that's interesting.”

I am not here to take potshots at decisions. I am here to recognize what the issue is. Whenever there is an expectation of privacy, then we need a search that is authorized by law through a court order. That meant a court order was required to get an IP address, even though finding an IP address was essentially akin to finding a phone number in the phone book. That was the analogy, as I recall. Most of us in the House will remember phone books. The member for Kenora—Kiiwetinoong probably does not, but he is probably the only one. The rest of us remember what it was like to get phone books. Let us face it, phone books were everywhere. Anybody could find anything. Anybody, as I understand it, with some semblance of digital acumen would be able to get an IP address, but nonetheless, the courts said there is an expectation of privacy.

These are all issues we are dealing with right now, within the current framework, that part 1 would address. As well, let us not forget that these are often offences against children and terrorist offences. Those are the two offences that are probably of the most interest to the legislators in the House, as in how we address those things.

Let us get into part 2 a little bit. I have skipped over some of part 1 because I want to give part 2 what it requires in terms of debate. Part 2 talks about ministerial orders. I am mindful of the fact that the Intelligence Commissioner now has a role to play within these ministerial orders.

The thing that I think we need to look at or that I would want more information on, as I craft my position and Conservatives craft our position on this, is that when there is a ministerial order that is secret, the government should be prepared to substantiate why it is secret and if it should be secret in every single instance. For instance, we spoke about NSICOP recently and how everything that is about national security will be top secret. There may be a place to say yes, if it is going to impact national security, but does that mean that every single ministerial order is going to be secret or should be secret?

Furthermore, when it comes to the Intelligence Commissioner, precisely what role would that person play, and how would their independent oversight impact a number of the concerns? One of the key areas that part 2 of Bill C-22 impacts is that it compels third parties to keep information. I want to be very clear here that the information, in my reading of the bill, would still require a warrant. I believe the way the minister explained it was that the information would be kept and then could be accessed. That is, the government does not simply receive the information, but it is present in order to be accessed.

It is my view that whenever the government tells anybody, including electronic service providers, that they must keep something, including metadata, it is something we need to ask questions about. This is probably one of the biggest issues. As I understand it, the bill's intent is to require that metadata be kept. That can include location services, but it is not meant to include the content. That is my reading of the bill. I think this needs to be closely scrutinized, and I look forward to asking more questions in the next two days of debate here on that very issue.

First, I would love to hear about the constitutionality of the requirement to have a third party keep something so the government can access it. I am not going to stand here and say whether that is or is not constitutional as it is not something I have studied thus far, but I think it is a question Canadians may have.

Second, on the idea of the requirement that a person's location be kept, who is going to keep that? Where is the data going to be stored? In my riding, we have a huge data storage facility. Are there going to be requirements as to how and where that data is stored and things like that?

This is a very complicated piece of legislation. I think somebody could read Bill C-22 three times and think they are starting to get a sense of what it actually says. When we deal with pieces of legislation that are quite intricate, obviously we need to develop our positions not only in a careful way but in a way that is sound. That is what I hope to do and what we as Conservatives hope to do.

Is there a mechanism by which web browsing history can be captured under Bill C-22? I think a lot of people would be alarmed if that were the case, from a privacy point of view. The issue of data retention is not a new one. One of the principal issues that I went up against, as somebody who prosecuted Internet offences against kids, was data retention. I was speaking with police officers today, and ISP addresses, in some cases, can actually disappear within as little as 30 days. I am not saying we should not be looking at that. We should absolutely be looking at that, but perhaps there should be limits.

If we are going to impact privacy rights, maybe that should be based on the offence. If we are looking at a sexual offence, perhaps the terminology we could look at is “an offence against the person”. All sexual offences are, by their very nature, violent, and I do not mean to dichotomize there. However, with respect to sexual offences, sexual offences against children or investigations into violence against the person, if there are concerns, perhaps there could be a narrowing so there would not be simply a fishing expedition to try to find an offence. Rather, we would be looking at all offences.

I see my time is coming to a close. Before I end, I want to acknowledge three people: Kelly Hunter, a baseball and softball umpire who was inducted into the Kamloops Sports Hall of Fame this weekend; Jessica Hewitt, a speed skater who was inducted into the Kamloops Sports Hall of Fame this weekend; and Glenn Armstrong, a football coach who was also inducted into the Kamloops Sports Hall of Fame. These three individuals have made dynamic contributions to the Kamloops area in sport, and I congratulate them.

With that, I will enjoy any questions.

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

Mr. Speaker, within the legislation we will find substantive aspects that would protect the privacy of Canadians.

It was interesting when the member made reference to phone books. I remember the phone books quite well. In fact, the Who Called? book was based on addresses. One could go into an area with a list of addresses followed by a phone number and find out who was in a home.

We have advanced with the Internet and the digital era, and the need for law enforcement officers to have this important tool is absolutely critical.

Does the member agree that we need to modernize, and can we anticipate that the Conservative Party will be supporting Bill C-22?

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we always need to modernize in law. I actually spoke about it this morning when I was speaking to my private member's bill. The moment we stop pushing here and are complacent, in any law but especially in the criminal law, we have an issue. The law is often years behind when it comes to technology. The member will have heard me reference Spencer, which was a decision from 2014.

As Conservatives, we will always be open to the modernization of law. Right now, what we are doing and what we are evaluating in debate with respect to this bill is whether this is the right way to modernize the law. There is no issue that we all want less crime and that we all want the police to be able to do their jobs. The question that I have, and that we have, is whether Bill C-22 is the appropriate mechanism to do so.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier, I listened to the Minister of Justice talk about Bill C‑22 and say that he had carried out consultations. Bill C‑22 is a second attempt at legislation, following Bill C‑2. Observers say, however, that it only fixes some of the problems for which last year's bill was widely criticized.

Lastly, many observers and experts were not consulted. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would agree. Sometimes we get legislation before us in the House and we say that we can all agree to it or that some tweaks need to be made. This Parliament has worked a lot better than the last Parliament did in terms of moving forward things on which we can all agree.

In specific response to my colleague's question, there are certainly a number of questions that arise within this bill, particularly on part 2. If we are going to address this and develop our positions, I do not think it is a bad thing to ask the questions in debate and to develop our positions from there.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my hon. colleague to build upon what he mentioned in his speech about his own experience as a public prosecutor, specifically around this data bit.

On the NSICOP committee, we found that without a general requirement for these CSPs to retain metadata, i.e., the address book, for a specific time, when a warrant is then sought, there is a possibility that that data is no longer available, which makes it very difficult with some of these very heinous crimes to put the alleged perpetrators away.

I do not want to get into the challenges of the bill as much as the requirement that we, as a Parliament, need to address this important piece of public safety here in Canada.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for this very important question. Evidence is required in any sort of prosecution. What my colleague is asking about, in my view, is how we deal with the gaps in evidence that exists now but may not exist tomorrow. That is essentially what I take his question to be.

NSICOP has said there is a gap. For instance, I just mentioned that 30-day gap between ISP addresses and how long they go. This is clearly something that Canadian law has to address. It is an issue that we often have to overcome in prosecuting anything: Where is the data or the evidence now? It is crucially important for us, as a House, to consider that. What is the correct form, though?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there are many issues on which the member and I do not agree, but I think we do agree that there has never been anything like this not only in this Parliament but in any Parliament of Canada. A single bill, originally Bill C-2, the strong borders act, was so universally panned and attacked by so many civil society groups, a coalition of more than 300, that the bill then had to morph from Bill C-2 to Bill C-12 and now, to try to get to warrantless access, to Bill C-22. There has never been a course of legislation like this.

I would ask my hon. colleague, with whom I agreed on many of his attempts to improve the bill in committee, does he think we are getting closer? We have at least gotten rid of the original provisions that post office employees could open the mail without a warrant. The member for Winnipeg North may be the only member in this place who laments Bill C-2—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I am going to interrupt the member.

Before I go to the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, I think it is incumbent on all members when they are joining the chamber using Zoom to ensure that they are in a place where there is nobody else on camera or visible in the background for the dignity and decorum of this place.

With that being said, I will turn it over to the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands referenced my colleague from Winnipeg North and how much we have debated whether Canada Post can open people's mail, so I am not going to get into that for what would probably be the 32nd time or so.

I do agree with my colleague on the point of Bill C-2 morphing into Bill C-12 and now morphing into Bill C-22, and this tacit acknowledgement of, “Wow, we really got it wrong. Not only did we get it wrong on one thing, but we got it wrong on multiple things because we are not even pursuing Bill C-2 as a government.” This is the Liberals' point of view. “We got Bill C-12 right enough for it to pass and now we are trying to get Bill C-22 right enough for it to pass.”

When it comes to part 1 of this bill, what I do notice is that, for instance, the police or a state actor cannot go and get information from just anybody, a general practitioner, Facebook or groups like that. It is strictly restricted to telecoms, so we can see the government really pulling back on what it was seeking from this. I think that is an acknowledgement that Bill C-2 really did miss the mark.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to my original question that I asked the member because I think it is important.

The member and the Conservatives have now had a couple of weeks to look at the legislation itself, but a lot of it originates out of Bill C-2. They have had the opportunity to really get a good understanding of the direction the government is going on lawful access.

Can we expect the Conservative Party of Canada to support lawful access?

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-22 is a complicated bill. Bill C-2 was a dog's breakfast, to put it mildly. I do not know that I would be saying that we should build on anything from it.

We are looking at the bill and the member will know when we have our position. We are going to scrutinize this bill and give it the scrutiny it deserves on behalf of Canadians.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when NSICOP studied this bill, one of the recommendations the committee discovered was that there should be a national authority established and identified for lawful access and intercept initiatives across Canada because obviously, we have multiple police jurisdictions, CSIS and different organizations.

Is the member aware of anywhere in the legislation where that requirement is identified, yes or no?

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge, we have a review period that is required after three years, which is part 3 of the legislation. I would have to go back and look through this very lengthy bill to see whether there is something like that. Perhaps that is something that could be addressed through amendments.

I look forward to hearing my colleagues speak on this bill as well.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was rather pleased when I reviewed Bill C-22, because I think it is better than what was proposed in Bill C-2 last year. However, I am not sure that it meets all of the necessary conditions for it to come into force.

It will come as no surprise that the Bloc Québécois is also not sure whether this bill should come into force. Honestly, I cannot tell my colleagues this morning what position the Bloc will take when it comes time to vote. We are still thinking about it and taking into consideration the comments, suggestions and criticisms we are hearing from civil society and others. While many people recognize the merits of many of the provisions of Bill C-22, others are concerned about other aspects of the bill.

This weekend, I read a New York Times article that a colleague sent to me about a recently developed software program that can hack into the databases of banks, governments and businesses. This software or AI could be put up for sale and sold to the highest bidder. We learned about this a few weeks ago, and the situation is constantly evolving, day by day.

Access to personal information is a major issue. It may well be the most important issue that this honourable House will have to address during the 45th Parliament. However, at this point, there is not a lot of data available to us. As I said, the situation is evolving day by day. What seemed impossible six months ago has now been a reality for months, and we are now grappling with what has existed for just a few weeks. Needless to say, we have no idea what will exist in six months or a year.

Despite all that, we are about to pass a bill that purports to regulate what will happen in six months, a year or 10 years. It is going to be quite difficult to draft a bill that includes sufficient measures to protect the entire population against various problems. It will also need to include sufficient regulations to protect individuals' right to privacy and all the rights recognized by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In saying all of that, I still have not really said anything; I know that and I am fully aware of it. However, I want everyone to recognize the gravity of the situation, the importance of this bill and our lack of tools in the face of all the objections that are being raised.

In this context, we must keep a watchful eye on the process we are about to implement. I am thinking in particular of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency. That agency is a good thing. However, when I read the bill, I noted that the agency will only receive unredacted reports after the redacted reports are tabled. That means decisions will be made and regulations will be adopted by the government without the House having a say and without the agency, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and all the other organizations that exist to protect people's rights and freedoms being able to look at them.

Will we not end up making matters worse? I am not saying that is the case, but I would say it is one of our main concerns regarding Bill C-22. Part 3 stipulates that Bill C-22 must be studied in committee and reviewed after three years. That is good news. The question is whether a review after three years is sufficient, given how quickly these situations evolve. I am not convinced that it is. If Bill C-22 is referred to committee, this is something that will need to be examined. Will the government be open enough to discussing the matter with the opposition parties and agree on a safeguard mechanism that is sufficiently well defined? That is the question.

I just want to digress for a moment. Today, by-elections are being held in three ridings, two in Toronto and the other in the riding of Terrebonne, Quebec. What will the results of those by-elections be? I do not want to make any assumptions and no one has a crystal ball, but one thing is certain: The situation of the current government, which until now has been a minority government, could be very different as of tomorrow. What impact will that have on the safeguards that we are working on? Will the government still be as open to their political opponents when they are in a minority situation as it was when they had the upper hand over the government? I do not know.

Until now, one committee member, regardless of their party affiliation, could tip the balance one way or the other, since the committees are often, although not always, made up of a Liberal chair, with four Liberals on one side, four Conservatives on the other and a Bloc member. That means that the Bloc member could hold the balance of power in committee and could decide between the Liberals' position and the Conservatives' position. Will this situation continue after tomorrow, once the by-elections are over and we know the results? I do not know.

I do not recall whether it was in the news today or yesterday, but I have to say that I was pleased to read that, according to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, the government would continue to work closely with the opposition, or at least respect the positions taken by the opposition, and that this would continue. I appreciated that openness. I just hope that that is what will actually happen, because if we end up with a majority government that plans to ignore the positions advocated by the opposition parties, then the situation could become very troubling, especially since we have already passed bills such as Bill C-15, which, in my humble opinion, granted the government excessive powers, and we have before us today Bill C-22, which could be similar in nature.

Is it wise to pass Bill C-22? Perhaps, perhaps not. As I was saying, there are some positive aspects. We need to address the issue of access to information. I understand that we need to get up to speed with what is being done elsewhere in the world. That is an argument that has come up a few times. However, when we take a closer look, it is not necessarily clear that Canada is in such a bad position compared to what is being done in the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom or elsewhere in the world. We therefore need to examine this closely. Would Bill C-22 not put us in a position that is abusive—or at the very least excessive—compared to what is being done elsewhere? That may or may not be the case.

One thing is certain: No matter what side of the fine line we stand on, mechanisms for protecting every person's rights and freedoms are vital. In my opinion, Bill C‑22 does not place a high priority on that.

The powers conferred on the agency, which I believe are largely cosmetic at this point, require careful examination. It might be nice to see words like “protection agency” in the bill, but in reality, if this agency is informed of what was done—right or wrong—only after the fact, what can it really do besides say that it would have disagreed had it been consulted? A fat lot of good that will do.

It might be a good idea to do the review before things happen, not after. The regulations that will be made should be examined, if not by the House as a whole, then at least by independent agencies responsible for protecting the rights of all citizens. I think these issues deserve to be studied.

The bill also sets a threshold of “reasonable grounds to suspect,” rather than “reasonable grounds to believe”, which would need to be met before certain investigations can be authorized. This distinction may seem semantic, but it is actually quite significant, since “reasonable grounds to suspect” represents a significantly lower threshold than “reasonable grounds to believe.” Granting investigative powers based on mere suspicion could amount to a blank check. The threshold for “reasonable grounds to believe” was already relatively low. Lowering it further is cause for concern. If the bill is considered in committee, I look forward to hearing what organizations responsible for protecting rights and freedoms have to say about this. For my part, I find this issue troubling.

The Intelligence Commissioner's approval of regulations is also an important factor. However, will the commissioner be allowed to intervene at an early stage? A veto power might be excessive, but at the very least, the authority to observe, critique and make recommendations would be essential. However, I do not believe that the current version of Bill C-22 offers much hope in this regard.

In my view, both the agency and the Intelligence Commissioner, which are essentially the only two independent bodies with the power to reassure the public and protect each individual's rights and freedoms, should be consulted before decisions are made to avoid jeopardizing everyone's rights and freedoms.

Personally, I have nothing to hide. However, the idea that the authorities might be able to access my emails or financial information strikes me as intrusive and makes me feel uncomfortable and unsafe. No one is completely comfortable with that level of surveillance. Everyone is concerned about an Orwellian dictator, even though some say that we reached that point some time ago and that we have to stop being afraid of that. That may be true, but Bill C-22 proposes giving such a dictator even more power, which may alarm many.

We need to focus on how we are going to protect individual rights and freedoms. We all know that our lives are already quite public. Almost everyone is on social media in one way or another. These platforms contain a lot of information that would otherwise be personal and confidential. Every individual chooses to post pictures, text or documents on those social networks. They choose that kind of exposure, and that is perfectly fine. I understand that.

Bill C-22 goes even further, however. When we start talking about banking information, emails, and all that, it becomes a cause for concern. Although I believe that law enforcement and government agencies must be given the means to protect us from malicious intrusions by foreign agents or organized crime, or from all kinds of attacks that may be launched against our bank accounts or other assets, and although I believe that the government must take measures to protect us from this, I also believe that the government must take steps to ensure that, in doing so, it does not infringe on our right to privacy. This is the fine and delicate balance we are currently trying to strike: the balance between protecting ourselves from organized crime and foreign interference and protecting ourselves from potentially abusive intrusions into our privacy without any safeguards in place.

I would also like to hear from the Ethics Commissioner. We will see what he has to say if the bill is referred to committee. The Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service are all institutions that must take a close look at Bill C‑22. While it may be an improvement over, or more acceptable than, Bill C‑2, Bill C‑22 is nonetheless questionable and troubling. It must be examined thoroughly. I will leave it at that and say that we in the Bloc Québécois are continuing our reflection in the hope that we will be able to find a sound position to take on these serious issues.

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

Mr. Speaker, in his comments, the member made me reflect on some of the debate we had on Bill C-9. One of the issues we had when dealing with the hate legislation was the fact that the official opposition, through social media and emails, providing information that was definitely misleading, which ultimately took away from the true value of Bill C-9.

When we talk about this particular bill on lawful access, Bill C-22, it is important to recognize that what we are really talking about is confirmation of service. It is not like the police can go to Rogers and say that they want to know how much money a person has in their bank account or ask for email information. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on making sure information is accurate.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I must say that I have doubts about the premise. I share his concern. Bill C‑22 should not be used to embark on a witch hunt and make false claims. However, I do not agree that Bill C‑22 could not ultimately be used to allow individuals or organizations to gain access to our bank accounts. I think that that is already a reality, with or without Bill C‑22. That is already possible.

I am concerned about the passage of the bill. Once again, I agree with his statements about how it is important to not vilify Bill C‑22 and engage in a false debate. However, it is also important to not naively close our eyes and let things go.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yet another impressive speech. He mentioned in his remarks that one of the factors being cited is that Canada is lagging behind internationally, particularly in comparison to countries such as the United States, New Zealand, Australia, the United Kingdom, France and Italy.

Can my colleague talk about what could have been done or whether there are good practices elsewhere that Canada could have emulated instead of potentially violating people's privacy?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Shefford, who always has excellent questions, although they are often tricky. I am not entirely sure if I am answering correctly, but yes, this has to do with the so-called Five Eyes. Canada must not rely solely on information obtained from other countries. We also need to produce information. We also need to take the lead and be able to take action on various issues. Is what is being done elsewhere better than what is being done here in Canada? For some countries, the answer is yes. For others, it is no.

That is the challenge we face with Bill C-22. We need to examine it and ask ourselves how far we should go, or not go, to ensure we strike the right balance between protecting privacy and keeping all Quebeckers and Canadians safe.

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to recognize Vaisakhi, a time of renewal, gratitude and community for Sikhs and Punjabis here in Canada and around the world. It marks the founding of the Sikh faith and reminds us of the enduring values of service, equality and courage. With that spirit in mind, I will turn to my question.

Let us say a municipal police service flags a suspected trafficker, but that information does not fully reach federal partners like the RCMP or CSIS, or perhaps even provincial partners like the OPP. What good is more data if it is still stuck in separate systems? My experience as a police officer has been that there are silos and those silos do not necessarily talk to each other at all.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that my colleague is raising a concern that I also share, in a number of ways. I have been a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for a number of years now and, all too often, police officers tell us that police services do not all have access to the same information, which significantly impacts their efforts to fight crime.

Indeed, information must be shared among the various police services. That is important. We share the same concern about privacy and the measures that should be implemented to regulate these powers. Police services must work together and share information, but it must all be done in accordance with clear and well-defined standards.

That is why the work we are doing right now on Bill C‑22 is so important. It will ensure better communication and more efficient service delivery without compromising privacy rights.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's answer to my first question. This one is more dealing with the issue of process.

Given the very nature of how we have been trying to get lawful access as part of our Criminal Code, it is important for this government to respond and provide the necessary legislation in the form of a tool that can be used by law enforcement agencies across the country and CSIS by providing this tool that agencies want brought in. Does the Bloc party support the principle of the legislation and is it prepared to see it go to committee sometime soon?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are not that far apart on this issue. We really need to give law enforcement and government agencies the tools they need to adapt to the realities of 2026, 2027 and so on. I agree on that point.

However, does that mean that we agree to pass Bill C-22? I do not know. As I said at the outset, we are still considering it. There are arguments in favour that are being countered by arguments against, and they all make sense. All of the arguments are reasonable. All of the concerns are, in my opinion, justified. However, the demands and requirements regarding the fight against organized crime are indeed a concern for the Bloc Québécois, and always have been.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, originally this legislation was presented in Bill C-2, and there were lots and lots of problems with Bill C-2. It has been reintroduced now as Bill C-22. Does the member find that the concerns that were addressed with Bill C-2 have been adequately addressed in this legislation?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question gives me the opportunity to say that we are pleased that, with Bill C‑22, the government has proposed a piece of legislation that is better than Bill C‑2. I acknowledge that and am grateful for it.

However, as I said earlier, just because it is better does not mean it is perfect. That does not even mean that we should spend time studying it in committee. Maybe we should, and maybe we should not. That is something we are currently considering. Unfortunately, I am not in a position to say today whether we will be voting for or against referring it to committee. We will have to decide what position to take in the coming days.

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I get to my question, I would like to wish my good friends, Shanti Ramachandran and Anthony Norohna, a happy birthday. They are fantastic friends and fantastic people.

When I was in policing, if I wanted subscriber information tied to a phone used in a fraud case, say, I had to go before a judge and justify that before I could get the production order. Why are we now saying that reasonable suspicion alone is enough? Are we lowering the bar for accessing personal information?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, that issue is debatable. The government wants to change the threshold from reasonable grounds to fear to reasonable grounds to suspect. The threshold is being lowered to such an extent that, ultimately, there is hardly any threshold at all. It is important to think about that. We need to be careful. It has been said that the perfect is often the enemy of the good. We will have to see. If we go too far, we might do more harm than good, so we need to look at this carefully.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to start off by commenting on a question I posed to the minister who introduced the legislation. In my question, I talked about how the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime came to Winnipeg, and we met with some interested citizens with regard to lawful access and dealing with the issue of extortion. We then met with the Winnipeg police chief and the Winnipeg Police Association, all of whom were exceptionally encouraging and very supportive of the principle of lawful access. That is what this entire piece of legislation is about, in essence. That is why I believe it is so very important that we take the opportunity to recognize the legislation for what it is, an effective tool that can be used in the tool belt for law enforcement officers and CSIS, and I am concerned with some of the responses that I received.

When I posed the question to the minister, he commented that it is not just the Winnipeg police department or the chief of police, both of whom I met with, but it is throughout Canada. Law enforcement agencies in every region of the country have seen the benefits of lawful access. If we were to canvass every member of the Liberal caucus today, we would find that there is a desire to see Bill C-22 pass.

It has been less than a year since Canadians elected a new Prime Minister, and he made it very clear that he wanted to establish a suite of legislative initiatives that would deal with the issue of crime. It is interesting that we now have Bill C-2, Bill C-9, Bill C-14, Bill C-16 and today Bill C-22, and I will provide a brief comment on each of those. It demonstrates the degree to which we want substantive changes to our Criminal Code and other legislation so we can provide safer homes, communities and nation.

That is what Bill C-2 set out to do right from the get-go. Let us remember that Bill C-2 was introduced last June, within a couple of months after the election. The election was at the end of April, and the legislation was introduced in June. Bill C-2 incorporated lawful access. It incorporated things such as stabilizing immigration and strengthening Canada's borders. Unfortunately, the opposition made the decision to go all out in opposing Bill C-2. As a direct result, a lot of the initiatives that Bill C-2 would have supported were obstructed by the Conservative Party of Canada, and it is unfortunate. It is not the only piece of legislation that the Conservatives obstructed.

When we think of lawful access, I would encourage members opposite to talk to their local law enforcement agencies and the constituents they represent who feel concerned about the issue of extortion. When the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime was in Winnipeg, that was the issue that the group we met with wanted to talk about, the issue of extortion. Whether they had already gotten a phone call or they realized that a phone call could be made, there was a genuine concern. We talked about that for a good 45 minutes to an hour.

That was followed by a meeting with the law enforcement agency. The chief of police and the Winnipeg Police Association both talked about the need for Bill C-22, which was actually incorporated in Bill C-2, which could have been passed long ago, and how it would in fact have an impact on issues like extortion. Flash back to four, five, six months ago, when we had Conservatives standing up and talking about the issue of extortion. They were criticizing the government for not doing enough, when we had legislation before the House and the Conservatives were obstructing it from being able to pass. We witnessed that all of last year.

I make reference to Bill C-2 because that is where Bill C-22 comes out of. We also had Bill C-9, the hate legislation, and Bill C-14, the bail reform legislation. Let us remember the bail reform legislation and how long we had to wait for that. I was standing in this very spot back in November, saying to the opposition, “Let us pass bail reform legislation. We could actually pass it before the end of the year.” That was at the end of 2025. However, the Conservatives were obstructing the passage of that legislation.

We also have Bill C-16 before the House today. We have no sense of where the official opposition is going to land on that legislation. Is it going to be their intent to oppose and prevent its passage? It is a legitimate question. That is the question I asked the Conservative critic today when he made his presentation on Bill C-22. Not once but twice I asked him that question. At the end of the day, Bill C-22 has been out there for the last couple of weeks in terms of the actual legislation, but the issue itself has been debated for months, and not necessarily just inside the House. It has been talked about inside and outside Ottawa, and in our communities. I think it was fair for me to ask the Conservative shadow minister if the Conservatives would be supporting the legislation. When I asked the question, not once but twice, there was no indication whatsoever that we could anticipate support from the Conservative Party of Canada. That is concerning. It should be concerning to all of us.

The Prime Minister has made it very clear that at times there is a need for us to work collectively and to put some of the partisan politics to the side to see if we can actually pass legislation.

All we need to do is take a look at what happened this morning. Bailey's law actually passed through the concurrence stage and is now in third reading. It has one more hour of debate, and then I expect it will pass. At the committee stage, the government moved a number of amendments, and fortunately the opposition was in agreement with those amendments. We were actually able to pass a substantive piece of legislation that I anticipate all members are now going to support.

I wish the same attitude and sense of co-operation that have been shown by the government on a Conservative private member's piece of legislation would also apply to government legislation.

That is why I would suggest to us that it is discouraging, in the sense that Bill C-2 was actually very clear. The Conservatives were not going to support it in any fashion whatsoever. It ultimately led to two other pieces of legislation having to come out as a direct result, Bill C-12 and now Bill C-22.

If we look at it, Bill C-12 has actually now passed through. That was to do with what the Prime Minister and this government committed to Canadians, which was to look at stabilizing the immigration file. It is going to go a long way in being able to assist with that. It also dealt with some border security issues that came out of Bill C-2.

We now go to Bill C-22, lawful access. We have law enforcement agencies from across our nation supporting the legislation and lawful access. Did members know that Canada is the only country in the Five Eyes that does not have lawful access? In fact, we are the only country in the G7 that does not have lawful access. Already today, in listening to the debate, I am concerned.

When, for example, the member from the Bloc spoke about it, he said that he does not know if it is overreach. This is what the Bloc is saying, that it could be overreach, where the government is going to be able to look into a person's bank account or read emails.

I raised the issue with the member opposite when it came time for a question. My concern is that we are going to see, with Bill C-22, the same thing we witnessed on Bill C-9.

Bill C-9 dealt with hate crimes. It actually put in protections for churches, mosques, gurdwaras and temples. Misinformation that flowed out about that legislation created a fear that many of my constituents and Canadians had, not based on fact but based on misinformation. We have to counter that.

I would hope that Bill C-22 would not be one of those pieces of legislation, once again, where we will see the Conservative Party putting its own interests ahead of good, sound public policy that is in the best interest of Canadians. For anyone to even imply, in any fashion whatsoever, that the government wants to read one's emails or know how much one has in one's bank account, I think, does a great disservice to the chamber.

I believe that the decision should be based on facts. There is absolutely no merit whatsoever to that argument. Remember, what we are talking about is a confirmation of service, finding out whether a particular individual or home has an IP service location. If the answer to that is yes, there is then a process to go through that incorporates our courts. There is no information provided other than a yes on an IP address.

I think that is an essential aspect to policing today. If members do not believe me, they should ask law enforcement agencies and many of the different stakeholders out there.

This is something that I believe is absolutely necessary. Those who would ask, “Is it really?” should ask themselves why it is that every other G7 country has lawful access, but not Canada. That has been a part of the frustration of minority governments over the last number of years.

Here we have good public policy to help equip law enforcement officers to do the types of things that they need to do in order to protect the public, but we have opposition members who will oppose in many ways for the sake of opposing.

I want to highlight that when we talk about enabling law enforcement, we are talking about Canadian Security Intelligence Service, RCMP and local law enforcement officers who will often take a look and have investigations that are ongoing. It would enable those to enforce legally obtaining certain information, such as data and communications, from an electronic service provider. That is what the bill is proposing to do. It would update critical investigation tools.

Earlier, there was reference to phone books, and I provided a comment on that. Things change over time. When I first was elected, it was pretty easy to identify who was in a house. People have made reference to phone books. There was also a thing called the “who called me” book. I loved it because it was just like a voters list and anyone could access it. One could take a street and it would have the phone number and the name of individual living there. One could probably identify up to 90% of a population, where they were living, their phone number and name. People had to specifically ask to have their number taken out of a phone book or the “who called me” book, and they had to pay for that service.

Things have changed a great deal. There is a default position that we have to protect the privacy of Canadians. This is a government that very much understands that and is focused on the protection of those rights.

It was the Liberal Party back in the 1980s that brought in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The privacy of individuals is protected under this legislation.

The shadow minister, in criticizing the legislation, knows full well that if we allow the legislation to go to committee, the Conservatives will be afforded the opportunity to ask all forms of questions. The issues they have can be addressed in great detail.

Second reading is a debate on the substance and the principle of the legislation; it is not necessarily designed to go into the great details. Nothing prevents us from being able to allow legislation to get to committee stage, much like how we had two hours of debate on the private member's bill, it went to committee, amendments were made and then it came here.

We are going to have a lot more than two hours of debate on this legislation. It will go to committee, and people will be afforded the opportunity to have that dialogue. We are open to improving the legislation if the need is there.

I would encourage members of the Conservative Party to support Bill C-22. It is good, it is sound and it is in the public's interest.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member on becoming a grandfather.

Is there a time when the Liberal Party would think it appropriate to use the notwithstanding clause? Some of the things around the IP address could have been addressed by the government just using the notwithstanding clause. I am just wondering if there is ever a time that the Liberal Party would use the notwithstanding clause.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate, from all sides of the House, the congratulatory comments in regards to the birth of my fourth grandson just last Wednesday. He is a healthy baby boy. The oldest grandson is Benjamin, then Andrew, Hudson and now Rhys.

I cannot envision a situation where we would be using the notwithstanding clause. One should never say never, I guess, but I cannot envision it.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is from Winnipeg, which is home to the Canadian Centre for Child Protection. I was wondering if he can discuss conversations he had with its representatives, and how this bill would aid their work in protecting children and the police who aid them as well.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out, when I asked the Minister of Justice earlier today about the Winnipeg police, the chief of police and a particular group of individuals I met with, his response was that it is not only in Winnipeg. There are community-interest stakeholders throughout the country who are genuinely interested. They are following this issue and want to see lawful access become a part of our Canadian law to join the other Five Eyes countries, and in fact the G7 countries, in having lawful access. It is a very important, critical tool to be able to deal with anything from child exploitation to extortion and terrorism. It is something that Canada needs for public safety reasons.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

I listened with great interest to my colleague's speech. I find where we really part company is on this idea that we should simply pass the bill because the Liberals think it is good legislation. It is not that there should not be scrutiny, because there is a great deal of scrutiny. Here is a quote: “Part 2 of C-22 enables secret ministerial orders to any digital service Canadians rely on, with no public registry, no parliamentary approval, and no right for Canadians to even know it's happening.” This is not to say that every piece of legislation here is wonderful or every piece of legislation is bad, but we scrutinize legislation.

The member points to law enforcement. Where were those sentiments on the jail not bail act? Law enforcement wanted the jail not bail act. He stood up repeatedly and voted against it. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, law enforcement and Canadians as a whole wanted bail reform legislation. I remember, just last fall, when the Conservative Party of Canada was obstructing it and refused to allow it to pass. I literally begged and pleaded with the Conservatives here in this very spot to allow bail reform legislation to pass before the end of last year.

At the end of the day, I think we want to see more co-operation among parliamentarians to deal with the Canadian first agenda. It is time that we look at the whole crime package. The Prime Minister has brought forward to the House substantial pieces of legislation, and we need to start working together.

Conservative filibustering has not been in the public interest. It might have been in the Conservative Party of Canada's interest, but it has not been in the interest of Canadians, and we need to stop that and start focusing on Canadians.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am a resident of Peel, from Brampton South. Can my hon. colleague tell me how Bill C-22 could support law enforcement with the modern tools it needs to investigate digital crimes, especially in extortion cases?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate that I had the opportunity to meet with my colleague in Brampton, where we had a discussion about extortion. I also met with representatives from Peel Regional Police. At the time, it was in regard to Bill C-2, because Bill C-2 also included lawful access, which is an effective tool. Members do not have to believe me. They should believe what our law enforcement agencies are telling us, which is that this bill would help us in dealing with issues like extortion and so many others. The time to pass the legislation is past due. Lawful access was in Bill C-2 but was taken out. We need to have lawful access.

I look forward to the Conservative Party's eventually taking a position on it. In the meantime, as opposed to filibustering the bill in any fashion, Conservatives should allow it to go to committee, allow Canadians to have it in committee and get their questions answered. The Conservatives can still filibuster afterward if they so choose, I guess.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North seemed to be lamenting, in his extensive speech, that the Conservatives were not automatically co-operating. He went on to list a number of bills that, as my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola said, faced scrutiny in the House, which I believe is our job.

What the member neglected to mention is the fact that Bill C-5 was passed in five parliamentary sitting days, giving the Prime Minister extraordinary powers. Bill C-4 was brought in through a ways and means motion first, and the government waited six months to bring it to the chamber. We passed it and co-operated on it all the way through.

What is so difficult to understand? When good legislation is brought before the chamber, this side of the House co-operates and moves it through. When there are issues with legislation, we do His Majesty's loyal work and oppose it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that this is just not true. We have a suite of legislation dealing with the issue of crime. I make reference to lawful access, number one, in Bill C-2, which dealt with border security. Also, there is Bill C-9, on hate propaganda; Bill C-14, which is bail reform legislation; and Bill C-16, which would restore things like mandatory minimum sentences. Bill C-12 is another important aspect in the stabilization of immigration and securing Canada's borders.

There is a substantial amount of legislation. All one needs to do is read some of the debate that was taking place at the end of 2025. They will find that the Conservative Party members then, the far-right Conservative Party members I must add, were in opposition and preventing legislation from passing. The only reason we do not have lawful access today in Canada is the Conservative Party of Canada.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet, I want to wish a happy birthday to Wesley Padbury.

The Conservative members were excited to ask a question about the notwithstanding clause, the suspending of rights for Canadians. This is something they talk about frequently and is something they would do with religious freedoms and freedoms before the courts. It is shocking that they would come forward to do that.

I was wondering if the hon. member could comment on how easy it is for the Conservatives to want to suspend the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I have recognized in my parliamentary career is the importance of things such as judicial independence, the respect of the rule of law and understanding how important our Charter of Rights is. I have never to date seen a situation where I could support the use of the notwithstanding clause. It terrifies me at times when we hear the Conservative Party say that it would use it as a preventive measure. It is a distortion of what was actually intended when the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was introduced to Canada. This is one of the reasons I think a change within the Conservative leadership is needed: to change the mentality of using the notwithstanding clause.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am always honoured to rise in this place to represent the amazing people of Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner.

Today's debate on Bill C-22, an act respecting lawful access, is important and timely, as Parliament again aims to modernize Canada's lawful access framework. I am hopeful this time that our efforts on the issue will have some measure of success.

In Canada, “lawful access” refers to the ability of law enforcement and national security agencies to legally obtain information from electronic service providers or to intercept communications with judicial authorization. This authorized interception and the search and seizure of documents, computer data and other information is a tool frequently used by law enforcement agencies to investigate serious crimes like the illegal trafficking of weapons, drugs and people; money laundering; child pornography; Internet fraud; cybercrime; homicide and organized crime.

National security agencies also use lawful access to investigate terrorist groups that threaten Canada's national security.

Unfortunately, Canada's current lawful access framework is outdated and ineffective in the face of the rapid changes in technology being exploited by criminals. Gaps in legislation render Canadians increasingly vulnerable as wireless communication technology continues to advance, making it difficult for our law enforcement and national security apparatus to get the information needed to investigate serious crimes or security threats in a timely manner and to be able to prosecute them effectively.

Technologies like the Internet, email, cellphones, wireless data networks and encryption all add additional layers of complexity and present serious technological challenges and delays for obtaining critical evidence. The growing global nature of crime increases this vulnerability, as terrorist networks, organized criminal groups and human traffickers all use modern technology to perpetrate crimes and avoid detection.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-22, An Act respecting lawful access, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will continue on with the lawful access speech I was providing.

Basically, the growing global nature of crime increases vulnerability as terrorist networks, organized criminal groups and human traffickers all use modern technology to perpetrate crimes and avoid detection. Many criminal organizations are using communication technologies that cannot be easily or lawfully accessed by Canadian law enforcement and national security agencies. Communication networks themselves have become more complex through the rise of mobile and Internet communications, encrypted messaging services, international roaming, service resellers and ever faster network technologies. Generally, these new types of communication services are developed with consumer protection and security in mind, not lawful access, which has created tremendous challenges for investigators. As new technologies shape the way criminals operate, we must ensure that our law enforcement and national security apparatus have the tools and resources necessary to keep up with this changed and changing technical landscape.

In 2009, 2011 and 2012, successive attempts by Conservative governments to modernize Canada's lawful access legislation did not succeed. Over the last 10 years, Liberal governments ignored the issue, which allowed the problem to fester and organized criminals to take over our streets. Canada is currently the only Five Eyes nation without a clear lawful access framework for modern communication. Decades of successive governments have not only let down but actively hindered our law enforcement and national security agencies by failing to provide them with the required legislation to allow for adequate investigative tools and resources needed to keep Canadians safe.

The country's police chiefs have been calling for modernization of Canada's lawful access framework for many years, since as early as 2001. Canada's security and intelligence organizations continue to face significant challenges in successfully obtaining lawful access to communications due to the growing gap between the lawful authority to collect information and the technical capability to do so. In fact, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has urged elected officials to “recognise the critical need for amendments to Canada's laws, to address the widening gap between ever-evolving technology and the outdated legislative framework that Canada's policing services must work within.”

Our judicial system is constrained by investigative hurdles, outdated statutes, protracted pretrial and trial litigation and a lack of clarity. In 2018, the director of CSIS described lawful access problems as one of the most significant challenges he had identified to the government.

Three core factors contribute to the challenges faced by law enforcement: the effects of advances in technology, the absence of legislation for intercept capability and the jurisdictional issues arising due to the cross-border nature of digital data.

Our current legislation means police face barriers around seizure authorities, causing investigative delays, sometimes with no way to get access to the information they need. Modernizing Canada's lawful access framework is necessary to remove ambiguity and provide predictability and consistency for police and prosecutors while strengthening transparency and public trust. For these reasons, I personally am very pleased to see this legislation being brought forward as a stand-alone bill, and I support Bill C-22 being sent to committee, where it can be carefully studied, scrutinized and reviewed.

Part 1 of Bill C-22 aims to facilitate quicker evidence gathering by allowing police officers to demand a yes-or-no answer from telecommunications providers as to whether they provide service to a specific account. It would also create a specific judicial order to compel electronic service providers to give basic identifying information, such as a names, addresses and emails, and would introduce a new mechanism for Canadian judges to authorize requests for subscriber information held by foreign entities. This addition would be an important tool for law enforcement, as cyberspace is not constrained by Canada's domestic border.

In fact, a recent report by the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians found that many, if not most, Canadians use digital services from third party companies based outside of Canada. This report also noted that most online child sexual abuse cases involve offshore tech companies. Under current legislation, if digital information is required from a company based outside of Canada, the RCMP may request that information through a mutual legal assistance treaty, commonly known as an MLAT, where one is in place.

For example, if the RCMP requires information from, say, Facebook or Apple, it sends a request to Canada's Department of Justice, which sends the request on to the U.S. Department of Justice. After that request is accepted by the U.S. Department of Justice, an assistant U.S. attorney makes an application before a U.S. judge to obtain a warrant for the information. The FBI can only execute that warrant after it is issued by a U.S. judge. Once the company provides the FBI with the information, it eventually makes its way back to the RCMP via the two justice departments.

Now, even if the legal process is successful, if a company does not have a data retention policy, the content sought by an investigator may be deleted before the investigation request even arrives. According to the RCMP, the MLAT process can take three to six months, delaying investigations while Canadians remain at risk. For example, if someone reports to police a case of extortion occurring, say, on Instagram, it is currently a very lengthy and complicated process for police to obtain the alleged perpetrator's name or IP address because Instagram is a U.S.-based company. Part 1 of Bill C-22 would allow police to obtain a warrant to request the IP address from Instagram; then identify which Canadian provider services that IP address, through a yes-or-no response; and finally compel that specific provider to disclose the name, phone number and address linked to the IP address with judicial authorization: a warrant.

By creating a mechanism to authorize these information requests from foreign entities, Bill C-22 would provide police with an important tool to seek judicial approval to obtain IP addresses and subscriber names linked to criminal communications routed through international platforms. It would also create a new tool of international co-operation in criminal matters to facilitate obtaining the court-ordered production of specific electronic data at the request of Canada's foreign partners, allowing for better co-operation with our allies. Even with these new production orders and judicial authorizations, these investigative processes often entail extensive work and time. In some cases, the time required to produce information exceeds the length of time that the service provider retains the information, meaning evidence is being purged before police can get the legal authorization to obtain it. Part 1 of Bill C-22 would expedite the response to production orders by changing the review period to 10 days, because having prompt access to these telecommunication records is a necessity for investigations.

Part 1 of Bill C-22 would also provide clarifications on the ability of police officers to receive and act on certain information that is voluntarily provided to them or publicly available. For example, if a parent discovers that their child is being sexually exploited online and finds explicit messages, the perpetrator's username and IP address may be visible directly within the chat logs. Under current law, police may hesitate to act immediately on this voluntarily provided information due to uncertainty around privacy laws and liability, potentially delaying intervention and allowing harm to continue. This clarification is important to ensure that police can lawfully and promptly use such voluntarily provided information, enabling faster identification of the service provider and quicker protection of the child.

However, this new lawful access framework is only useful if telecommunications providers have the ability to respond to these demands. Currently, Canada is the only Western democracy that does not have a legal framework requiring electronic service providers to develop and maintain certain technical capabilities. This means that even if law enforcement obtains a warrant for information to, for example, track the movements of a terrorist group through one of its members' cellphones, the electronic provider may not be able to give that information as it is not required to retain it. Some telecommunications companies' and social media platforms' policies simply do not involve tracking or saving the kind of data that police might require as evidence unless they are legislated to do so.

In addition to data storage, Canada currently has no comprehensive legislative or regulatory mechanism that obligates communications service providers to develop or deploy systems that provide intercept capabilities. When a new technology or communications service is introduced, law enforcement and national security agencies often have to research and develop new methods to gain lawful access to those networks. The lack of a technical solution, or a delay in the ability to use it, hampers investigations and prevents law enforcement and national security agencies from effectively acting on serious crimes or threats to national security in a timely manner.

Part 2 of Bill C-22 would require electronic service providers to develop and maintain the technological capacity necessary to respond to lawful access requests and would establish a monetary penalty for non-compliance. It would also empower the Minister of Public Safety to issue flexible and targeted ministerial orders compelling an electronic service provider to develop and maintain specific capabilities. These ministerial orders would be subject to approval by the Intelligence Commissioner, as privacy and cybersecurity are explicit factors that need to be considered. With the establishment of legal obligations for service providers, when law enforcement agencies obtain a search warrant, they could be assured that the information they need to combat terrorism, organized crime or human trafficking, for example, would be provided quickly and accurately.

Finally, part 3 of the bill would mandate a comprehensive review of the entire act by Parliament three years after all provisions came into force to assess its effectiveness and impact. I personally believe it would be of significant assistance to law enforcement, national security agencies and prosecutors if the public safety committee, when it does this study, also undertook to discuss and recommend amendments to sections 37 and 38 of the Canada Evidence Act, which deal with what information must be disclosed in court and what can remain protected. Currently, when police officers develop and use certain investigative techniques, they may be required to disclose how those tactics work in court, which can expose sensitive methods and undermine future investigations. Previous committee testimony by the commander of the Provincial Operations Intelligence Bureau of the Ontario Provincial Police discussed how amendments to the Canada Evidence Act are necessary to maintain confidentiality regarding the way in which investigative tools are developed and how they operate, function or are deployed to protect ongoing and future investigations. I hope that at committee, serious consideration will be given to these issues to ensure that police and our national security apparatus have the tools needed to prevent, investigate and prosecute serious and organized crimes, terrorism and other such offences.

Coming from a law enforcement background, I have witnessed first-hand the growing gap between what Canada's law allows and what technologies make possible for criminals. Conservatives believe in law and order and have always stood for common-sense measures to keep Canadians safe. With that said, I am also aware of concerns raised by Canadians about the implications of this bill on their individual freedoms and privacy. I want to clarify that lawful access does not mean expanded access to private information. Rather, it means more timely and consistent lawful access to information related to specific individuals suspected of being engaged in criminal activity. Law enforcement authorities are not interested in the millions of devices used by everyday Canadians. The framework in Bill C-22 is intended to target those devices or communications that are being used to plan or execute criminal or terrorist activities. We must remember that without judicial authorization, law enforcement cannot intercept communications or request information and data.

Lawful access does not allow access to private communications without a warrant, and interception can be carried out only with lawful authority, for targeted communications, for a specific period of time. Lawful access legislation does not allow law enforcement and intelligence investigators to simply monitor anyone's Internet use, email content or social media activity.

Conservatives have been and will continue to be unequivocal in our commitment to protecting the freedom, privacy and safety of Canadians. At committee, we will scrutinize, debate and propose amendments to improve this legislation and stand firm against unnecessary infringements on the rights of Canadians.

I remain optimistic that the government is open to non-partisan co-operation in assuring that Bill C-22 achieves its stated goal of strengthening Canada's public safety and national security, as well as safeguarding the rights and freedoms of all Canadians.

[Sima Acan, Liberal, Oakville West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his constructive comments about our committee's hard work, and I thank him for the time he put into the committee's work and for joining us during those studies. He also supported the sponsored event I had on the Hill on this matter, with the National Police Federation as well as other law enforcement and some lawyers.

As a former police officer, could my colleague emphasize the importance of this legislation and how it gives our law enforcement the expediency to respond to often complex and heinous digital crimes, which he also mentioned in his speech, such as child sexual exploitation?

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I left policing in 2015, and I can say that in the decade and a half or more before that, there were serious restrictions and limitations on the ability of law enforcement, and certainly our national security apparatus, to lawfully gather information and then be able to use it in court.

I can say that the chiefs of police, as I indicated in my remarks, said as early as 2001 that one of the biggest gaps that they have in bringing criminals to justice is the change in legislation for lawful access. Criminals are using the latest technology available, and law enforcement cannot keep up because our legislation has not kept up. I think it is critical, if we want to, regardless of some of the laws that I think could be changed—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to interrupt the member to continue.

The hon. member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will give my colleague the opportunity to finish his answer, but first I want to tell him that I appreciated his speech. I think he touched on an important question: How can we help law enforcement be more effective while respecting privacy? My colleague mentioned the importance of seeking a warrant before getting information. However, the threshold set out in Bill C‑22 is very low. Authorities will be able to obtain a warrant as long as they have reasonable grounds to suspect that there is something illegal going on that requires the transmission of information.

Does my colleague think that the bar is set high enough to ensure that warrants are not issued to just about anyone for just about anything?

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was getting wound up on my last question. I will answer my colleague from the Bloc first.

I do not think the threshold, to be honest, would be any lower. Law enforcement would still require reasonable, probable grounds to believe an offence has been or is about to be committed in order for the threshold to be met to obtain a warrant. The only thing that would be adjusted is that a service provider would be answering a basic yes or no question, with no details. “Does person X have an account? Are you the service provider for person X or for this account?” Once law enforcement knows that, the idea is that they would go to a judge to present this additional information. “Yes, Bell has this account, and this account is part of our investigation.” Then they could ask the judge for a warrant for that specific account.

Right now, law enforcement is on a fishing trip, trying to find out what service provider that IP address is attached to.

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to ask my hon. colleague this: Considering how the Liberals froze bank accounts for people donating to the “freedom convoy”, how confident is he that they would not abuse Bill C-22?

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the difference here for the House and my colleagues to understand is that the courts found that during the “freedom convoy”, the government and the Governor in Council acted illegally. They circumvented the law. They basically broke the law, in my opinion and the opinion of the courts.

The difference here is that there is legislation that allows for this to occur. This gives me pause to believe that the government is not able to circumvent the authorities here because of the law. It acted under the Emergencies Act during the “freedom convoy”. It made the decision as cabinet, with no law to protect Canadians. It just did it on its own, trying to quell what it did not like to have happen.

This is why I have confidence to believe that with this legislation, being it is legislation and a statute, the law enforcement and the national security apparatus would operate within that statute.

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, for a very thorough analysis. I salute the depth of his analysis. As a retired policeman and investigator, he obviously knows this subject well. I am especially pleased with his endorsement of lawful access.

I noticed that he retired after the Spencer decision by the Supreme Court in 2014. Bill C-2 is directly in response to the Bykovets and Spencer decisions. I wonder if the member would care to elaborate on why his party's stance went from opposing lawful access in Bill C-2 to now recommending it in Bill C-22.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to remember that Bill C-2 had a number of things that distracted Canadians and gave us pause as legislators. It tried to lump everything together. It was suggested to the government that if we are going to deal with a subject as critical as this to law enforcement and the protection of our national security, and to CSIS and other national security investigators, we need to have a stand-alone bill. It needs to be clearly laid out and allow the government to be able to accept amendments and recommendations from opposition parties to strengthen the bill. This would allow law enforcement and our national security apparatus to both do the job we as Canadians have asked them to do for us and protect the privacy rights and concerns of Canadians. Having a stand-alone bill that can clearly articulate the authorities with which law enforcement can act would clear up a lot of ambiguity and get support across—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I must interrupt the hon. member so that we may proceed with questions and comments.

The hon. member for Drummond.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to congratulate my colleague on his speech, his knowledge and his mastery of this issue. He clearly knows what he is talking about.

Bill C-22 gives law enforcement greater authority to access sensitive information, often personal data, which is concerning in some cases, but may be necessary. We can discuss that. In short, that is the subject of the current discussion and debate.

Ironically, however, the Liberal federal government has cut funding for the agency responsible for overseeing these organizations. In fact, the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency has had its budget slashed by 15%, which represents a substantial sum of $2.7 million. Does my colleague agree that the government should establish oversight mechanisms to reassure the public, rather than cutting funding for an agency that is essential to the work we are discussing today?

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if the government is going to have a robust lawful access regime in this country, it needs to have the necessary resources, not only in law enforcement and the national security apparatus, but also in prosecutions, to make sure we can follow through and hold accountable those who would do us harm as a country, like those who prey on the vulnerable, and organized crime individuals. Law enforcement needs not only the resources to do its job well, but also laws that ensure that those who commit crimes are held responsible and that we take seriously the issue of national security and the public safety of Canadians.

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Eglinton—Lawrence.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-22. Since my time is limited, I will focus on part 2 of the bill, which deals with the technical capabilities of electronic service providers, while part 1 deals with the legal framework for obtaining information.

It is widely accepted that most crimes committed today leave a digital footprint. No matter what crime is committed, there is almost always a trace that enables investigators to track the perpetrator and understand how it was done. In the case of organized crime, the digital footprint helps shed light on its ramifications. These criminals and individuals who pose a threat to Canada's security exploit the digital environment to carry out a wide range of malicious activities. It is also an open secret that our laws on lawful access have not kept pace with advances in modern technology. Canada is the only G7 and Five Eyes country that does not have a modern lawful access regime requiring electronic service providers to establish ways to ensure authorized and timely access to information.

That is where the paradox lies. Currently, law enforcement agencies and CSIS already have the legal authority to obtain information from electronic service providers. However, there is no law requiring these providers to maintain a system that enables them to respond effectively to lawful access requests. This means that even if a provider has the requested information in its systems, it does not necessarily have the ability to retrieve that information and provide it to law enforcement agencies with a valid warrant, because it is not required to do so.

Without a modernized framework, law enforcement wastes valuable time and potential leads and misses out on crucial information. This can even lead to investigations being abandoned, particularly since the Jordan decision. Above all, these delays result in an increase in the number of crimes and victims. That is important, and it is worth reiterating. Take, for example, the wave of extortion cases observed in British Columbia and Ontario. The same individuals, likely affiliated with organized crime, are behind multiple attacks.

As things stand, even with the proper authority, if electronic service providers are unable to quickly extract the metadata needed, investigations can run into significant delays. Arrests that take several weeks result in a much larger number of victims than arrests made within days of the initial offence. The same applies to cybercrime, sextortion or Internet fraud cases. Being able to conduct investigations quickly can make a huge difference.

Apart from its impact on our ability to conduct investigations, this situation also prevents us from fully participating in security-related international co-operation activities and thereby benefiting from our partners' information and support at a time when transnational gangs and terrorists are especially active. Bill C‑22, especially part 2, entitled “Supporting Authorized Access to Information Act”, will correct these problems and establish a modern framework for lawful technical access while continuing to safeguard the privacy of Canadians.

It is important to note that part 2 of Bill C-22 does not create any new surveillance powers, either for law enforcement agencies or for the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. There will be no surveillance of social media content, web browsing history or text message content. I would like to correct the record on something my colleague, the member for Rivière-du-Nord, said this morning. He claimed that this would be the case, but that is not accurate. This is only about the metadata transmitted by electronic service providers. The production of such transmission data has already been approved by the courts, with a valid search warrant.

Imagine that a missing teenage girl, 16 years old, makes an emergency call 10 days after her disappearance. Although the telecommunications service provider is able to confirm the call and the antenna used, it cannot precisely identify the last known location of the phone before it was disconnected, because it is not required to have that capability.

Bill C‑22 will correct this situation by requiring that these suppliers, considered essential suppliers, maintain consistent and reliable technical capabilities nationwide. Let me remind the House that these capabilities are already the norm in Europe and in Five Eyes countries. Under this bill, a supplier could be required to develop and maintain technical capabilities in two ways: based on specific requirements for major suppliers or, in other cases, pursuant to a ministerial order based on operational needs as new technologies emerge.

Instead of requiring entire industries, including small businesses, to develop the same capabilities, the proposed framework takes a more targeted approach by providing for the necessary capability development through ministerial orders based on strict criteria. Let me be clear. As an additional safeguard and external oversight mechanism, the bill requires the Minister of Public Safety to first consult with the relevant provider and then obtain approval from the intelligence commissioner before an order becomes valid. In addition, if the order is approved by the intelligence commissioner, the electronic service provider in question still has the option of challenging the order before a judge.

We have done our homework. We are talking about protecting the public and our country from bad actors in the digital world as we already do in the physical world, while protecting the privacy of Canadians and the rights enshrined in the charter. Criminals are constantly adapting to new technologies and finding new ways to commit crimes. We must ensure that our law enforcement and intelligence agencies can adapt as well. Our government is committed to doing everything it can to prevent criminals from threatening the security of Canadians.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member opposite could carefully explain to us what assurances Canadians have that their privacy would, indeed, be protected with Bill C-22 and that there would not be government overreach. This is a common concern that I get all the time, and I would really like for the member opposite to speak directly to that.

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, La Prairie—Atateken, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is referring to part I of the bill, which clearly outlines the information that may be requested. Bill C-22 does not expand existing powers. In fact, it narrows the scope within which investigators can seek information. What the bill does, however, is speed up the process so that this information can be obtained within the prescribed time frames, allowing investigations to move forward quickly.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate my colleague opposite, as well as his knowledge of the file. From his remarks, it is clear that he has taken the time to study the issue carefully.

We live in an age when people are worried about their personal data. The Quebec National Assembly has passed Bill 25, which regulates the sharing of personal information and data. Bill C-22 is currently causing a great deal of concern among the public. Members of Parliament, including my colleague, I believe, are receiving dozens of emails from people who are concerned about the potential implementation of this legislation. However, I am not hearing anything reassuring here, and that is what concerns us a bit and makes the Bloc Québécois wary of Bill C-22. We support the principle, but we feel it lacks sufficient measures. I mentioned earlier that funding for the review agency was cut to allow for a little more security.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the measures that need to be put in place to reassure people that their personal data will be protected, which is missing from Bill C-22.

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, La Prairie—Atateken, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in an ideal world, of course, the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency would have all the resources it needs.

You know as well as I do, sir, that this is not the case. The government has—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I must interrupt the member to remind him that the Standing Orders require that remarks be addressed through the Chair and not directly to other members.

The member may continue.

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, La Prairie—Atateken, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, in an ideal world, the agency would have all the resources it needs. However, it has had to comply with the rules being applied across the entire government, particularly with regard to budget cuts. That said, this analysis was conducted with a view to ensuring that the agency can continue to fulfill its mandate, and we are confident that it will be able to carry it out as required.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the King’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I wanted to say that I have had an opportunity to review Bill C-22. It is critical that it does pass, so I would be remiss if I did not take this opportunity to ask the parliamentary secretary how this came about. I recall sitting in committee, and regrettably members opposite were very much dead set against lawful access. This was despite the fact that we were hearing from witness after witness as to how crucially important it was. As such, if the parliamentary secretary could tell us what is responsible for that sea change in attitude, I would be most grateful.

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, La Prairie—Atateken, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in committee, we heard witnesses say that they have been wanting this measure for more than 20 years. This is not new. It is something that is constantly evolving.

We have also heard law enforcement officials tell us, time and again, that they are unable to conduct their investigations effectively, that there are delays and that more crimes are being committed.

It is in this context that we have put forward this proposal. The hon. member across the way mentioned that some people wanted a specific bill. As far as I am concerned, what matters is that we have—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime.

[Vince Gasparro, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to speak in support of our new government's latest piece of legislation designed to keep Canadians safe and to ensure that our law enforcement and national security apparatus have modern lawful tools they need to carry out their vital responsibilities.

Bill C-22, an act respecting lawful access, is our new government's seventh piece of legislation dedicated to enhancing our country's public safety and protecting Canadians. It builds on the broader suite of measures that include legislative action to combat hate and extremism, meaningful reforms to the bail system, stronger protections to address intimate partner violence, and steps to strengthen the integrity and effectiveness of Canada's immigration system. Together, these initiatives respond to evolving public safety threats while reinforcing the rule of law.

It is clear that public safety is a priority for our government, and we will continue to do everything we can at the federal level to keep Canadians safe. Bill C-22 was developed through extensive round tables and consultations with law enforcement, telecommunications providers and privacy experts.

Importantly, the scope of the bill has been carefully narrowed to strategically target telecommunication service providers while retaining the long-standing and well-understood legal threshold of reasonable grounds to suspect. This ensures that investigators could act swiftly when necessary while maintaining appropriate limits.

To be abundantly clear, there is nothing in this bill that would grant the capability or authority to conduct mass tracking or generalized surveillance of Canadians. As part of their normal operations, telecommunications providers already maintain technical information that shows which cellphones connect to which network or tower.

Bill C-22 would not expand that technical capability. It would simply establish a clear and lawful process to ensure that in the context of an imminent threat and/or legally authorized investigation, service providers could share specific information with law enforcement promptly and responsibly. During time-sensitive investigations that involve child exploitation, organized crime, terrorism or imminent threats to life, delays in accessing basic technical information can mean the difference between prevention and tragedy.

Bill C-22 would not give police new investigative powers. It would update how powers that already exist under Canadian law are used so they work in today's digital world. The same legal standards would apply and the same court oversight would remain firmly in place. This means there would be no additional access to the content of Canadians' communications without proper judicial authorization. Law enforcement could not read emails or text messages, listen to phone calls, view photos or access personal files without a warrant issued by a court. Through lawful access, there would be no access to an individual's browsing history or search history and no authority to monitor people indiscriminately or in real time.

The legislation is deliberately narrow. It would be limited to confirming whether a service exists, identifying the type of service being provided and obtaining the technical identifiers necessary to link activity to a specific service provider in the context of lawful investigation. This is about modernizing a process to make it timely in the 21st century.

Before this legislation, whenever police needed information to stop a serious threat like a child abduction, police had to go telecom provider by telecom provider and ask each one individually, with a warrant, in order to obtain basic information. That process takes way too long in a globalized world. When a threat to life is unfolding, time is the difference between life and death.

Here is the reality we are dealing with. When there is a serious threat to national security like a terrorist attack, our police and security agencies need to move fast. Every minute counts, but right now, even when the law says police can get information, there is a big problem.

Online service providers do not always have the basic technical tools to actually deliver the information. Sometimes the company does not have a secure way to send it. Sometimes they cannot retrieve it quickly enough, and sometimes they cannot guarantee it is accurate or complete. Because of that, police work is delayed or never even started. That is not acceptable when Canadian safety is on the line. This legislation would allow for a ministerial order during a serious national security event at the request of CSIS and other law enforcement agencies. It would require providers to have the basic technical capabilities to co-operate with law enforcement on demand.

Let me give another real-world example of why this matters. CSIS was investigating a suspected terrorist network and had received a court-approved warrant to track the cellphone of a person of interest. Even when the legal authorization was in place, the service provider did not have the technical ability to support the request because it was not required to maintain that capability. As a result, CSIS could not track the device digitally and had to rely on human intelligence and surveillance instead. That approach was slower, more expensive and carried a greater risk to the investigator and the public. Valuable time was lost, not because the law was missing, but because the system was not built to respond when it needed to.

Bill C-22 has robust guardrails to protect Canadians' rights and privacy. These safeguards include independent approval by the intelligence commissioner, enhanced oversight mechanisms and mandatory annual public reporting. In addition, Bill C-22 contains a statutory parliamentary review clause that would require the act to be reviewed during the third year after all of its provisions were put in force.

As technology continues to advance, so too do the methods used by organized crime, hostile state actors and individuals who wish to do our country harm. Our law enforcement and national security agencies must be equipped to keep pace with these 21st-century developments.

This legislation has the support of law enforcement and stakeholders from across the country, such as the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police president Mark Campbell, who said, “Technology has changed the way criminals operate. We need 21st-century tools to investigate 21st century crimes—always with strong judicial oversight and respect for Canadians’ privacy rights.” Similarly, CSIS indicated publicly in October that the absence of modern lawful access legislation is placing national security investigations at risk. Canada remains the only western democracy without a comprehensive legal framework governing lawful access.

Outside of an outdated licensing regime dating back to the 1990s, co-operation between police services, CSIS and electronic service providers has relied largely on voluntary arrangements. These are slow and no longer relevant in a dangerous and fractious world. Bill C-22 would change that and finally align Canada with our Five Eyes allies and closest partners, including New Zealand, the U.K., Australia and France, by establishing a clear, lawful and accountable framework for access to essential digital information. Without these tools, Canadian investigators have at times been excluded from international investigations simply because it takes too long for us to obtain critical information.

If we are serious about strengthening our sovereignty, we must also strengthen our national security. Sovereignty requires that law enforcement and our national security apparatus be able to do their jobs effectively and operate on a level playing field with our allies on the world stage. Bill C-22 is a necessary and measured step toward ensuring that Canada remains secure, resilient and fully engaged in protecting its citizens in the 21st century.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-22 comes as an answer to two Supreme Court decisions about requiring a warrant to get IP addresses. There were a number of ways the government could have reinstated the ability of law enforcement to get access to IP addresses, and it seems to have developed quite a cumbersome one in Bill C-22, so I am a little concerned about that.

We have also heard a number of other things about Bill C-22 when it comes to lawful access, and I am hoping we can get a bit of clarity on this. Bill C-2 was originally introduced, and I am wondering why the government chose to pick some of the pieces from Bill C-2 and put them in Bill C-22.

[Vince Gasparro, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that we were unable to get the support from the necessary opposition parties in order to pass Bill C-2. After further consultation with law enforcement and our national security apparatus, we chose specific pieces of the bill that they said were absolutely critical and needed to combat crime in the 21st century, so we took the advice of the professionals. That is why we chose specific pieces from Bill C-2 and placed them into Bill C-22.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and for the explanations he provided.

I have a question for him. I do not want to go into too much detail, but I think he is knowledgeable enough to answer my question. I understand that law enforcement first contacts a service provider and that, without a warrant, the provider must state whether or not the individual is receiving services from that company. What I also see in the bill is that, at that point, the service provider has 24 hours to respond and five days to challenge the order before a judge if they so desire.

If my colleague was involved in this, I would like to ask him how those deadlines were determined.

[Vince Gasparro, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there had to be reasonable time provided to the service providers to provide our police and national security apparatus with the necessary information.

The member is absolutely right. The current system is incredibly cumbersome, where warrants are needed to get a yes-or-no answer on whether an ISP is providing services to a specific national security threat or potential national security threat. We had to give the companies the necessary time to get back to us, and it was through some consultation with police and our national security apparatus, which were saying that this was an appropriate amount of time. Again, we took instruction from our police and public safety officials on the timing.

[Sima Acan, Liberal, Oakville West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our colleague opposite, who is from the riding of Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner and is a former police officer, correctly stated that lawful access is not access to private information. Can my colleague, the parliamentary secretary for combatting crime, expand upon the safeguards in this bill that would ensure that Canadians' privacy would be protected while we provide the tools the police need to get the evidence they need to put the bad guys in jail?

[Vince Gasparro, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for the work she does on committee. That question is a testament to all the great work she has done.

The fact of the matter is that we would not be expanding any police rules here. This is about modernizing a process to ensure that police and our national security apparatus can move at the speed of the 21st century. We cannot be held up by cumbersome rules that have been in place since the 1990s.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is a privilege and honour to speak on behalf of the great citizens of my riding, particularly on an important bill such as this. As a former member of the justice system, I know the great difficulty that law enforcement has had. Unfortunately, Canada has been an outlier in how efficiently law enforcement can gain access to information. Ultimately, the bill is a step in the right direction, but certainly much improvement is required.

I will start off with the general notion that Canadians expect their government to do two things well. Canadians expect it to, number one, keep them safe and, number two, protect their fundamental rights and freedoms. In today's world, that balance is becoming increasingly complex. We know that crime is evolving, technology is advancing and law enforcement is facing new challenges in accessing the evidence it needs to investigate serious offences.

No one in the House disputes that reality, but Canadians also expect that, when governments respond to those challenges, they do so carefully and not in a rushed manner. They will do it responsibly and with a clear understanding of the consequences. Unfortunately, that has not been the standard approach of the government. Time and again over the last 11 years, we have seen legislation from the Liberal government that is rushed, is poorly thought out and ultimately fails to strike the right balance between public safety and individual liberties.

Conservatives have always believed, and will always believe, in law and order. We have always stood for measures that keep Canadians safe while respecting the fundamental rights and freedoms that are enshrined in our charter and define our country. I know that Liberals often talk about being the only party that stands on behalf of the charter, but that is not the case. For nearly a decade now, we have been urging the government to get this balance right.

Unfortunately, what Canadians have seen instead is a pattern of failure, a pattern where the government lags behind evolving threats, introduces flawed legislation, and then expects Parliament to clean up its mess. We saw that just last fall when it introduced Bill C-2. That piece of legislation fell well short of protecting Canadians, while at the same time it overreached into areas that raise serious concerns about individual freedoms and privacy. Conservatives did our job. We pushed back, and we forced the government to reconsider that flawed piece of legislation. We successfully blocked provisions that would have infringed on the rights of law-abiding Canadians.

Now, with Bill C-22, we are once again being asked to consider a lawful access framework. Let me be abundantly clear that there is a real issue here. As someone who has spent close to two decades in the legal system, I understand first-hand how critical timely access to digital evidence is in modern investigations. Today's criminals do not operate in the same world as they did 20 or 30 years ago. They are always several steps ahead of law enforcement. As a result, our law enforcement agencies must have the appropriate tools they need to keep pace.

We know that delays in accessing basic subscriber information will often stall investigations. Quite often that is the difference between making an arrest and not. We know that gaps in international co-operation can allow serious offenders to evade accountability. We know that technological limitations can prevent police from acting on leads that protect victims.

These are the real challenges, and they deserve real solutions. The question before us is not whether action is needed. The question is whether the Liberal government can be trusted to get it right, because over the last 11 years its track record suggests otherwise. As I have indicated, we have seen legislation that is rushed, overly broad and insufficiently thought through. We have seen measures that go either too far, risking Canadians' rights, or simply not far enough, failing to deliver real public safety concerns.

Bill C-22 reintroduces elements from Bill C-2, and that alone demands careful scrutiny. Conservatives will not simply take the government at its word. We will examine the details, test the assumptions and ensure that any new powers are justified, targeted and subject to proper oversight, because Canadians have already seen what happens when the Liberal government rushes ahead without regard for Canadians' privacy. The invocation of the Emergencies Act is but one example.

In Bill C-2, the Liberals tried to give themselves sweeping, unjustified access to personal information without the appropriate safeguards and without respect for the fundamental rights of law-abiding Canadians. In fact, the Privacy Commissioner confirmed that the government did not even consult his office before attempting to grant itself these sweeping new powers to access Canadians' personal information from service providers like banks and telecommunications companies without a warrant. Conservatives stood up, pushed back and forced the Liberals to retreat.

Now, with Bill C-22, Canadians are right to be cautious. Any expansion of state power, whether through lower legal thresholds, new data demands or broad retention requirements, must be tightly limited, clearly justified and subject to real oversight. We will never accept a repeat of the same overreach simply dressed up in new language. We must ensure that any lowering of legal thresholds does not come at the expense of Canadians' fundamental rights. We must ensure that data retention requirements, particularly those that apply broadly, are necessary, proportionate and consistent with the charter. We also must ensure that any obligations placed on service providers are clear and reasonable and do not create any unintended consequences for innovation or privacy.

This is especially important given the scope of this bill, which creates a new framework governing how electronic service providers must support lawful access. These provisions raise complex legal and technical questions. They involve requirements for data retention, technical capabilities and compliance mechanisms that could have far-reaching implications. While the government argues that this is necessary to modernize our investigative framework, we must ensure that we are not creating a system that overreaches or lacks sufficient accountability.

At the same time, we simply cannot ignore the broader context. Public safety and, I would add, trust in our federal institutions and in our democracy have been deteriorating.

Canadians are seeing rising violent crime, repeat offenders cycling through the system and a growing sense that the justice system is not working for them. In fact, many victims do not even refer anymore to “the Canadian justice system”. They do not see it as justice for them, as they have been ignored for over 11 years. They see it simply as a legal system. At the same time, we have seen failures in basic areas of law enforcement capacity. We have all read and seen reports that the RCMP has struggled to recruit enough officers to meet operational needs. We have seen gaps in resources, coordination and leadership.

Therefore, when the government brings forward legislation like Bill C-22, Canadians are right to ask if this is part of a coherent plan to improve public safety or if it is another isolated measure that fails to address the root problems. Tools alone are not enough. We need the people, the resources and the leadership to make those tools effective.

Conservatives believe in giving police the tools they need, but we also believe in accountability. We believe in getting that balance right, and we believe that any legislation must be clear, targeted and respectful of Canadian rights. That is why we will be carefully reviewing the bill. We will listen to experts. We will hear from law enforcement and consider the views of civil liberty organizations. We will do the work necessary to ensure that any final legislation reflects the interests of Canadians, not the political priorities of the Liberal government.

Canadians deserve to be safe. They deserve a justice system that works, and they deserve a government that gets it right the first time. Unfortunately, that has not been the trademark of the Liberal government. That is why it falls to this House to do the necessary hard work of scrutiny, accountability and improvement. Conservatives will continue to stand for common-sense solutions that protect Canadians' safety, their privacy and their fundamental freedoms. We will scrutinize the legislation carefully. We will insist on the right balance, one that protects public safety while safeguarding the privacy and freedoms of law-abiding Canadians, because Canadians should never have to choose between being safe and being free.

I want to highlight some of the stakeholder reactions that I have been able to access so far with respect to Bill C-22.

Law enforcement clearly welcomes Bill C-22 as a needed change to the legal frameworks for warrants and searches in Canada, for timely information gathering. The legal profession is skeptical of the bill. While they welcome the amendments from Bill C-2, they are doubtful of its efficacy and of the charter compliance contained in part 2. The business community acknowledges the need for modern law enforcement but is wary of higher regulatory burdens and the impact on innovation and encryption. Civil liberty groups strongly oppose the bill.

This is by no means an exhaustive list. Some examples of groups that support the bill would be the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the BC Association of Chiefs of Police, and the B.C. public safety minister, Nina Krieger. Those who have mixed opinions on the bill and who seek amendment include the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, Dr. Michael Geist, the Canadian Bar Association and Dr. Robert Diab, professor of law at Thompson Rivers University.

Those who flat out oppose this piece of legislation include the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, the BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association, the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms and the Yanik Guillemette technology and entrepreneurship industry.

I will give members a flavour of some of the comments from these three groups. A passage from the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, which opposes the bill, reads, “This legislation presents one of the greatest threats to privacy in Canada of the past two decades.” The changes from Bill C-2 to Bill C-22 do not go “far enough” in addressing the charter compliance concerns with Bill C-2. Bill C-22 adds a “data retention provision...that raises...additional privacy concerns.”

Those who support the bill include the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, which sees this legislation as “intended to modernize Canada's lawful access regime” and improve its “ability to investigate crime and protect the public in the digital age.”

It continues:

...investigators often rely on digital evidence to identify suspects, locate victims, and prevent further harm. Today, many of these crimes are...committed using digital platforms or encrypted communications.

Canada's legal framework governing warrants, searches, and seizures was created [for an analog] world [and] allows offenders to [evade] accountability.

...The results [of Bill C-22] will be more investigations solved in a timely manner, a less cumbersome process, and a strong lawful access framework that maintains the data privacy of Canadians.

Those with mixed opinion include the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. Businesses understand that “Canada needs modern tools to fight crime”, but they recognize that “strong encryption and consumer privacy are fundamental for our economic and national security.” They want to see Bill C-22 provide “surgical, proportionate” tools to law enforcement.

Another mixed opinion is from Dr. Michael Geist. He says that Bill C-22 significantly improves the timely access to data and information, which was in part 1 of Bill C-2, while worsening the privacy concerns in part 2 of the new bill, but transforming the way that governments will interact with digital platforms and communication providers. He also says that the new “confirmation of service” demand power in part 1 addresses a long-standing police complaint regarding timely access to information, and part 2 covers “new requirements for communications providers to actively work with law enforcement on their surveillance and monitoring capabilities.... The government will point to increased oversight [through the Intelligence Commissioner], but the concerns regarding surveillance capabilities, security vulnerabilities, secrecy, and cross-border data sharing remain.”

A mixed opinion comes from the Canadian Bar Association, which says that while Bill C-22 “narrows the...powers from C-2 and increases some oversight, it also expands international cooperation in law enforcement.” Part 2 of the bill is seen as disastrous in their opinion, opening back doors for CSIS and the police to “get real-time access to their information”. Further, “systematic vulnerabilities are not defined [as specifically] as they are in Australia”, despite the bill including language that requires that the government not introduce “systemic vulnerabilities into these systems”.

I see I am almost out of time, so I will end at this point.

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, New Tecumseth—Gwillimbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is a Liberal government bill. I am shocked today that, with the importance of this bill, there is really no one in the House. I call quorum.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I will ask the clerk to count the members present.

And the count having been taken:

We have quorum.

Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan, Finance; the hon. member for Cloverdale—Langley City, Housing; the hon. member for York—Durham, Housing.

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question. In policing, there is often an issue with missed connections. I have seen cases where one agency had information on a suspect and another agency had information on associates, but the information never got shared with either one. What in the bill would actually fix that breakdown of communication? Could it break down the information silos that exist? That is what the Canadian public needs to know.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Windsor West, for his decades of service in law enforcement. He is absolutely correct. The time has come, in the modern digital age and where we stand as a nation in the 21st century, to recognize that the sharing of information among agencies is crucial. I do not think that Bill C-22 goes far enough. I do not believe I read any specific provision in Bill C-22 that would alleviate the concerns of my colleague.

This is an opportunity for us to get the bill to committee to listen to subject matter experts, particularly from the policing field, and to correct this glaring oversight. I thank my colleague for the important observation.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member for Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations from our previous careers as prosecutor and journalist.

Something I noticed in the last several years is that a lot of the really important cases, murder cases, were solved by police using tools in the digital world. Perhaps the member can respond to that.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I fondly remember our past careers. I would usually take an opportunity to invite my colleague, who worked for a Hamilton news agency, because there was a lack of resources in my community. One of the frustrating aspects of my job as a prosecutor was how I was going to telegraph a message to the community by way of general deterrence if the press was not picking up on the stories. I always welcomed the opportunity for my friend and colleague to come to Brantford to report on them.

The member is absolutely correct. Policing generally has to rely upon tools to gather the necessary information. As I have indicated, one of the criticisms of the bill is that we are lagging behind in terms of providing the police with the necessary tools.

All our laws right now have been built around an analog society. We are no longer in an analog society. We are in a digital society, so we need to find the right balance that gives the police the authority to obtain information while still maintaining the privacy rights of Canadians. We have to get that balance right.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier, my colleague from Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj asked a government representative a question. He wanted to know who had been consulted on the decision regarding the timelines for responding to a request and the timelines for companies subject to this type of request to challenge the decision. The answer was that a consultation was carried out with police representatives and officials from the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. I think that is reasonable.

However, does my colleague not think that it would also be a good idea to consult representatives from the community to determine whether these timelines are reasonable for the companies being asked to comply with a request?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy the work my Bloc colleague and I do together on the justice committee. He raises a very important point. It is emblematic of the approach the Liberal government usually takes, most recently with any criminal justice policy, which is that there is a very select focus on whom it receives information from. There is not broad consideration, which there should be. My colleague raises the point that a lot of other groups, a lot of other entities, that have a stake in this discussion were never consulted.

We will ensure that, when the bill gets to the justice committee, we provide the necessary window of opportunity for those stakeholders to provide their necessary input to strengthen the bill, while still providing the necessary oversights and ensuring that the privacy rights of Canadians are always protected.

[Sima Acan, Liberal, Oakville West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is concerned that the legislation is being rushed or not being adequately reviewed, but he also mentioned that the legislation would address the gaps and delays for the information that law enforcement needs in order to catch criminals. Also, law enforcement has publicly supported the legislation, and the member's colleagues have repeatedly mentioned that lawful access does not mean an expansion of or access to private information. I wonder, which is it?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if my colleague from the government side listened to my entire speech. I was talking generally about the approach the Liberal government has taken toward justice and public safety bills. In my view, it tends to be rushed. It tends to be only after the fact, after there is an outpouring of concern. A case in point is the whole issue regarding bail. I have been addressing this ever since I became an elected member for my riding. I know that my colleague from British Columbia has done the same. In fact, pretty much every member of the Conservative Party has been raising issues surrounding public safety and bail.

It was only after there was an outpouring of concern from premiers, police chiefs, presidents of police associations, and victim advocacy groups that the government walked back its approach. Its approach was that there was nothing wrong with public safety in this country and that it was all an illusion in our mind. That was from the former attorney general, Arif Virani, literally minutes after being sworn in as our Attorney General. I use that as a framework to describe how the government is always reactive as opposed to being proactive.

On the issue of Bill C-22, it is all about finding the right balance, and that was the theme of my speech.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

I took great joy in my colleague's speech. One would think that we once held the same job. In hearing my colleague speak, one of the things that was brought to mind, and particularly when we heard questions and comments, is that law enforcement is asking for the legislation. The government uses this as an appeal to the House to do something.

Law enforcement also asked for the jail not bail act, and I wonder if my colleague could update the House as to how the government acted when law enforcement asked for that.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is an absolutely excellent question, because it shows the hypocrisy of the government when it claims it is exercising its number one responsibility, which is to keep Canadians safe. Its members routinely turn a blind eye, or they vote down every common-sense justice initiative because it comes from the Conservative bench. A case in point is the abysmal, absolutely disgusting vote results of two weeks ago for common-sense justice bills, private members' bills presented to the House to be voted on, which would have made a fundamental impact in the lives of victims and the way criminals are dealt with in this country. Every member of the failed Liberal government voted them down.

Every member of the government continually said that bail is not an issue. Again, they said that it was in our minds or that it had never been their responsibility. Although they are responsible for the creation of the Criminal Code of Canada, they say that it is the province's fault, the judge's fault or law enforcement's fault.

It literally took major stakeholders' kicking and screaming at the government for it to wake up and realize that it is the author of the misfortune in which we find ourselves in this nation: 11 years of significant rising crime. The Liberals have themselves to blame for that.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour, as always, to rise on behalf of the people of Elgin—St. Thomas—London South.

This is an incredibly important issue, and it is one that, as lawmakers, we cannot afford to get wrong. On one hand, we are talking about ensuring that the people enforcing the laws that we set out in this place have the tools, resources and laws in place to do their jobs. On the other hand, it is about being a guardian of the most fundamental rights and freedoms Canadians have: the right to due process, the right to privacy and the right to freedom from search and seizure. I am someone who understands and greatly values both of these things.

I have the great privilege of sitting on the justice committee, where Conservative colleagues and I worked vigorously to ensure that real, tangible reforms to the bail system were put forward in the government's bail bill, Bill C-14, not so long ago. The bill was inadequate, but it did something. In fact, law enforcement officials had been telling us that they wanted more. They had been telling us that the Liberal government had actually caused the bail problems in this country and that they wanted more to fix them. We were happy to do that.

I have also been, as many people would know, very vocal, even before I was elected to the House, in calling out decisions and bills by the current government that would erode not only trust in institutions but also civil liberties of Canadians. I have seen this first-hand since I had the great privilege of being elected, just shy of one year ago.

The government's very first bill was presented to Canadians and to the House, Bill C-2, as a border security bill. Again, I have been among the people talking for years about how the government has allowed the borders of this country to become a joke. I welcomed the Liberals' recognizing that there was a problem, but when we looked into the bill, we saw that lawful access provisions had actually been snuck in.

We also saw that the bill, which, again, was presented to Canadians as being an answer to the border crisis, inexplicably had a proposed ban on transacting in cash above a certain amount. That is not something Canadians wanted and is actually something that Canadians rejected so vociferously that the Liberals, thankfully, decided to, among other things, pull it aside and not proceed with it.

Bill C-2 also would have given the ability to, without a warrant, inspect Canadians' letter mail. Even letters that Canadians send to us as members of Parliament and letters that someone might send to a loved one across the country would have been subject to warrantless scrutiny by Canada Post. Therefore, we had to look into the details of Bill C-2, and in doing so we found that it could not be supported.

Then there was Bill C-8, which, again, on the surface is something we want and welcome. It is legislation that would deal with very real threats to cybersecurity infrastructure that companies and countries face. This was something that, again, I thought we would be able to find common ground on across party lines, but the devil, as always, is in the details.

We looked at Bill C-8, and I thank my colleague from Kitchener South—Hespeler and my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola for their work on this. We saw that the bill would actually give the Minister of Industry and cabinet members of the Liberal government incredible power to take people or companies off-line, with no oversight and no scrutiny.

I am so proud to be part of a team that understood that enforcing the law and protecting Canada from threats cannot and need not come at the expense of fundamental rights and freedoms and at the expense of civil liberties. Conservatives worked collaboratively with our colleagues in the Bloc, and we put forward amendments that would deal with these challenges.

However, now there is Bill C-22, a bill that repackages a lot of what was already in Bill C-2, a lot of what had already been rejected by Canadians, and it puts it forward for review. Fortunately, the Liberals have finally understood the essence of some of these challenges. I am very grateful that in part 1 of the bill, they have eliminated some of the most problematic components. I will give credit where it is due. Again, the Liberals should have been more keenly aware of these things from the get-go, but there have actually been significant improvements.

That being said, the lack of oversight on some parts of Bill C-2 very much warrants scrutiny here. Why I bring this up and why it is so important is that the reason there has been such push-back with respect to Bill C-22 so far, from civil liberties groups in particular, on the left and on the right, is that the Liberal government has squandered the trust that Canadians have and can have in government, specifically in the current government, due to the way that it has eroded civil liberties in the past.

Again, as I say this, I am reminded of the fact that a few weeks ago the Liberals filed an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada on their Emergencies Act usage just over four years ago. That is relevant because what the Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal found is that the government violated the charter rights of Canadians not only by unlawfully invoking the Emergencies Act but by using the fake emergency to justify freezing people's bank accounts.

Now, this was one of the reasons that our amendments in Bill C-8 included conscience and speech protections, because recent Liberal government history has revealed precisely why those protections are necessary, and why, when people come up with scenarios, we do not actually take the Liberals seriously when they try to dismiss those scenarios by saying that would never happen and it would never get there. We have seen them go there already. We have seen them go down roads that most people never would have thought possible, using plain language that we must take at its word and at face value.

The Liberal government has not been constrained by the charter, and it has not been constrained by norms. That is why Canadians from the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group to the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms have raised concerns about Bill C-22.

That being said, I do have to acknowledge the very real demands that law enforcement have made. I have taken on the responsibility, not just as a member of the justice committee but as the member of Parliament for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, to talk to law enforcement and to speak to them exactly about the shortcomings they feel exist in the current system. Now, one thing I will point out is that they welcome having expanded powers and clear authority. They welcome a lot of what is in Bill C-22.

Last week I spoke to Chief Thai Truong of the London Police Service. It is a very large police service given London's size. I also spoke to Chief Marc Roskamp of the St. Thomas Police Service. I have spoken to other frontline officers and I am happy to continue doing this work because, unlike the Liberal government, this party has a history of listening to law enforcement when they say they do not want anything to do with the Liberal government's gun confiscation scheme, when they say they need real bail reform so they are not arresting the same people over and over again, and when they say there are tools and clarifications they need to do their jobs. We will continue to do that.

The men and women of law enforcement in my riding and across the country want to take bad guys off the streets. We, as a party, want to make sure they have the tools and resources to do that. It is not entirely accurate to say that Canada has no lawful access regime. Police have been able to access subscriber data, they have been able to access electronic materials and they have been able to get warrants to search people's computers, phones and accounts. The issue is the speed they need when dealing with it. We welcome anything that provides an opportunity, lawfully and with judicial oversight, to access the type of information at play here.

We cannot look at any of these things in isolation. We cannot look at simply being able to confirm subscriber data, perhaps for an offender or a suspected offender who is possessing, producing or disseminating child sexual exploitation and abuse material, and say that that will solve the overall problems.

We have to look at lawful access in the same vein as we look at other things in the criminal justice system that would interact with that suspected offender, such as the sentence they are going to get. This week the justice committee is reviewing Bill C-16. We are saying that the Liberal government is jeopardizing mandatory minimum sentences for people who peddle in child sexual exploitation and abuse material. We believe wholeheartedly that the government needs to have robust punishments to vigorously go after these heinous predators.

What the Liberal government has been doing, and not just on lawful access but on other justice bills that have come before them, is selectively deciding when they want to listen to law enforcement and when they do not, selectively deciding when they want to hide behind this stakeholder or that stakeholder and when they do not.

We are the lawmakers in this chamber. It is an honour I do not take lightly. We have to listen to all stakeholders and come to a reasoned constitutional position that balances the rights and needs of a free citizenry in this country with the practical expectations and needs of law enforcement to effectively discharge their duties. That is a balance that we need to get right, not only because it is simply our duty but also because the last thing we want to do is pass a law that we will have to somehow find a way to fix years later if a court finds it to be unconstitutional. This is the tricky thing we have to deal with here. We cannot pass law that will not withstand charter scrutiny.

Interestingly, with regard to Bill C-8, I mentioned the tremendous work of my colleagues on the public safety committee and other colleagues in caucus. Bill C-8 had been amended by Conservative efforts, with the support of the Bloc, to have judicial oversight for some decisions that the minister would make, and that was so important. In the end, it was unfortunate that this was ruled out of scope when it came back to the House because that would have been an incredibly important safeguard that would have told Canadians we are not giving unchecked power to cabinet ministers representing a government that, by the way, does not have a great track record on upholding civil liberties and that when cabinet ministers say to just trust them, we might as well play the laugh track from a 1990s sitcom because that is about as much as it is worth. We are always going to approach anything that looks like surveillance or a violation of privacy rights with a level of skepticism. When the Liberals bring forward bills that touch on these issues, they should not dismiss these very real and, I would say, good-faith concerns that people across this country are making because of that lack of distrust that I was talking about.

When we look at some of the details, there is a blanket retention of metadata, but so much of our personal information is captured and so much of what is in metadata is not as anonymized as people may think. For example, in comparing this to other jurisdictions, in the United States, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act allows for preservation of metadata on demand, but it does not require blanket retention. It does not even allow blanket retention. The Court of Justice of the European Union has declared that blanket retention of metadata is incompatible with the fundamental rights that Europeans have, especially when it comes to privacy.

When we look at electronic service providers, specifically the applications in part 2 of the bill, we do not have a definition of what a service provider is. We only have the expectation that the government will come up with a definition down the road. This category could actually include email providers. It could include messaging apps. It could include other cloud services and storage systems. It is not just about whether one has a Telus account or a Rogers account. It could extend to the accounts that have content. That is where accessing someone's electronic information is truly accessing a window into their lives, their most intimate experiences, thoughts, conversations and photos. Therefore, we cannot afford to not get this right.

I would much rather see a cohesive definition of what that category would be, not something that could be redefined based on the whims of not just the current government but future governments. As we well know, if we are talking about any legislated power for government, for cabinet, for law enforcement, we have to imagine what that power will look like in the hands of another government that comes beyond. This is not a partisan issue. It is where I look beyond the left versus right on this. I do not want my colleagues on the left to be concerned about how a theoretical Conservative government would abuse civil liberties, which is certainly not the Conservative governments that we are putting forward for Canadians to choose, but how another government might use it.

That is why we must always constrain government power to protect the vital privacy rights and autonomy of individual citizens, and the lack of oversight remains a very key problem in Bill C-22. It would enable secret ministerial orders to any digital service Canadians rely on, with no public registry, no parliamentary approval and no right for Canadians to even know it is happening. That is the architecture of a surveillance state. That is something that we must always protect against.

I believe we must all come to an agreement on where we go forward, because we are being told by the Liberals that this is all fine and to just pass the bill through. We have been down that road before, and again, I do support, if the bill gets to committee, vigorously scrutinizing it, debating it, calling witnesses, looking at the ins and outs and going through it line by line, but there is a very real challenge, especially if I situate my remarks today in the broader political context of our time, in that bills can go into committee and come out worse than they went in.

The government can expand its power. We saw this recently with Bill C-9, where a flawed bill went into committee and an outright dangerous one came out, so we have to be very mindful of whether the Liberals have signalled an intention that goes beyond the text of the bill. That is why we cannot look at Bill C-22 without looking at things that the Liberals failed to advance in Bill C-8 and Bill C-2. Those have actually been pretty good indicators of where the Liberals want to go, where they think they can go and perhaps, if they have unchecked majority power in this House of Commons, where they are likely to go.

I go back to the comments I have made about law enforcement and how I am fully committed to listening to the perspectives of frontline officers and the perspectives of police leadership. I actually have a meeting coming up with the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, which as timing worked out, I wish I had done before I had the opportunity to speak today, but it did not work out that way. However, I will listen to law enforcement, not just on lawful access, but on the whole suite of reforms to fix the last 11 years of Liberal justice legislation, which the police have been demanding, to make communities safer.

I will just end on why this is so important. I was speaking to a grade 10 class a few weeks ago about my job and about the work that we all do in Ottawa, and like anyone else speaking to a group of grade 10 students, it is not always as engaging to talk about politics. I choose to believe it was politics that was boring them and not me, but nevertheless, I was trying to make politics relatable to them. I was trying to actually come up with a way to provide them a window into why the work we do here matters to them, and I brought up two things. I brought up employment. I asked how many of them were having trouble getting a job, and every hand went up. Then I asked them how many of them feel safe walking around downtown, and they all laughed. They all laughed, truly. To them, safe streets are a punchline, and that is the record of Liberal so-called justice laws over the last 11 years.

If we are going to listen to law enforcement, let us actually listen to law enforcement and let us start opening up the door to undoing the harmful reforms that have gotten us to where we are. If the Liberals want to know why people are so skeptical of lawful access regimes coming from the government, they need to look in the mirror and see why Canadians do not trust them to not abuse power, abuse authority and violate the rights of Canadians.

We will always stand firmly behind that. We will support law enforcement, but not at the expense of the charter, as the Liberals have a record of doing.

[Sima Acan, Liberal, Oakville West, ON]

Mr. Speaker. I was in the room for weeks studying Bill C-8 clause by clause. Every amendment that was tabled by the Conservatives was a great threat, technically, to this country and to Canadians. I was defending every technicality on those bills, and I am happy that they could not move most of those amendments.

Coming back to Bill C-22, can my colleague tell this House if he knows what the cost of inaction to Canadians would be if we did not pass this crucial legislation that law enforcement is asking for and that relates to a rapidly evolving threat environment? I wonder if he will be comfortable voting against it when his own colleagues are supporting it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I never said I was voting against it. In fact, I acknowledged the parts of the bill that law enforcement officials want while cautioning the problem with not acknowledging the civil liberties concerns raised by the bill.

Again, if there is the urgency to this that the member suggests, I would question why this bill is numbered Bill C-22. The government could have presented the bill at any point in the last year, so the idea that we are holding it up when the Liberal government waited so long to introduce it is a weird accusation that I do not think holds water.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. I appreciate my colleague's passion and nuanced approach. I did not take him to say in his comments that we Conservatives want to stymie law enforcement. I think it is quite the opposite: We want to have a system that is built on efficiency, has laws that are charter-compliant and gives us the best bill possible.

Thus far, we have heard far too often, in my view, that if we oppose this bill, we oppose law enforcement and the gathering of information lawfully and appropriately. I simply disagree with that assessment. I wonder if he could provide his thoughts.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his tremendous work on this and on Bill C-8 as our shadow minister for public safety.

In fact, as soon as Bill C-22 was tabled, I printed it off and started going through it with a highlighter. I then made time to ask law enforcement officials in my riding about the very real situation they face now, what they think would be improved or not by Bill C-22, and what else they would like to see that is not in the bill. The fact that my first calls were to law enforcement officials affected by this, I think, to my colleague's point, speaks to the fact that we take law enforcement's concerns very seriously.

The point I have raised is that the government has given itself power. Ministerial authority does not mean giving power to law enforcement or tools to law enforcement that are subject to judicial oversight. It is quite the contrary: It means arbitrary ministerial capabilities.

We have seen the record: In Bill C-2, Bill C-8 and now potentially Bill C-22, there are these poison pills hidden that detract, in our view, from the overall objective of the bill. That is what we are being very mindful of and ensuring that we do not support, but I absolutely stand with law enforcement.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are living in an era where people are really quite concerned about protecting their personal data. We see what is happening in the United States, where the White House is demanding that Internet service providers and tech giants be completely transparent about the information they retain on their customers and service users, regardless of where in the world those services are used. That is causing a great deal of concern. Meanwhile, the Liberal government is introducing a bill that is worrying to people. They are not confident that the government is serious about protecting their personal data.

I understand the work of law enforcement, and I fully agree that they should be given the tools they need to fight crime effectively, but does my colleague think the government is doing enough? Are there enough safeguards in Bill C-22 to reassure Quebeckers and Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure that law enforcement officers have the tools they need to do their job. However, we cannot accept violations of Canadians' right to privacy by the government, which has refused to respect basic civil liberties. That is why Canadians have responded to this bill and others with a lot of skepticism, and why it is important to examine and study it in detail.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member did a very interesting job skating through his argument about who will stand up and protect the rights of terrorists, sexual offenders and whatnot, which is interesting, because everyone is protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I think the hon. member made a case about that. At the same time, an hour or so earlier, the hon. member for Peace River—Westlock got up and asked why we do not just invoke the notwithstanding clause to suspend rights under these types of provisions.

I was wondering if the hon. member could stand up and either defend the member from Peace River or explain why charter rights should be protected, even in cases like this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no interest in standing up for the rights of criminals or terrorists, which is why I am not crossing the floor.

What I would point out to my hon. colleague is that when we look at the government, which claims that everyone is protected by the charter, it neglects the fact that it has a demonstrable record of not doing that. Therefore, the question I have for my colleague would be this: If the Liberals are so convinced that Canadians are protected by the charter, would he apologize for the government's having invoked the Emergencies Act and call on the Prime Minister to drop the appeal to the Supreme Court?

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I go ahead with a question, I would like to acknowledge the death of Hassan Haidar, a resident of Windsor, who passed away in Lebanon last week. He was a father of five, a husband and a business owner. His death is a solemn reminder of the human cost of conflict. Our thoughts are with his family, his loved ones and all those who are grieving at this rather difficult time.

The question I have for my friend is this. As a police officer, I have personally been involved in cases where evidence was excluded because proper legal steps were not followed or there was an overreach by certain officers. That directly reflects on the point of there being consistency and clarity in the law. If parts of this law are challenged through the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the evidence gets thrown out, what do we say to the victims who came to us and asked us to do something about this? These are not hypothetical concerns but things that actually happen. I would like to know from my friend what is in this bill that would prevent that from happening.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Windsor West, not just for his great question but also for his service to the people of Windsor and Canada. As with all law enforcement agencies, I cannot stress enough that I support them and want them to have the tools they need to do the work of keeping Canadians safe, but why it is so important, as my colleague touched on here, is that no one is protected by unconstitutional laws. No one is protected by a framework that does not withstand legal and judicial scrutiny.

That is why my view, wholeheartedly, is that we have to get this right. If the Liberals are so dismissive of civil liberty concerns, is that self-revealing? That is why I want to make sure we strike that balance. I am committed to getting that, which is why I will continue to consult not just with civil liberties advocates but also with the law enforcement agencies that want the ability to go after the bad guys effectively.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

As the member spoke about Bill C-8 and Bill C-9, I wonder how those bills, having meandered their way through this House and committee, have informed his position on the issues he is raising with respect to this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, it means we need to truly read every single line and provide, as lawmakers, the necessary scrutiny and, yes, skepticism on bills that even touch charter rights and freedoms. That is what we will do with respect to Bill C-22. It is what we have done and will continue to do with respect to other bills.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Richmond Centre—Marpole.

It is an honour to rise on behalf of my neighbours in Oshawa to speak to Bill C-22.

Over the past couple of weeks, like all of us in the House, I was fortunate to spend time at home, where I had the opportunity to meet with many proud and resilient Oshawa residents, community leaders and local organizations. Those conversations are always meaningful. They are sobering, though, because again and again, I keep hearing one concern raised, and that is safety.

Canadians are worried about safety in their communities and about the never-ending crimes taking place in Oshawa. They are worried about violent repeat offenders who are continually being caught and released again. They are worried that the system is not working the way it should. This is the context in which we are debating the bill before us today. It is not just about lawful access or technical authorities. It is about trust in our justice system. For many Canadians, that trust has been shaken over the past 11 years of the Liberal government.

In recent weeks, the self-proclaimed, so-called “new” Liberal government, which has been in power for over a decade, has asked Canadians to trust it on public safety. At the same time, Liberals voted against four solution-oriented Conservative public safety bills that were all focused on one thing, protecting Canadians.

For example, Bill C-220 would have ended the practice of courts considering a non-citizen's immigration status when issuing a sentence. We saw that happen again recently, this time in New Brunswick, where a judge reduced a man's sentence so he would not be deported from Canada, just 10 days after that man was charged with assaulting his former partner.

Bill C-242 would have ensured tougher bail rules, fewer release loopholes for violent repeat offenders and real protection for victims and communities.

Bill C-243, if passed, would have ended annual parole hearings for murderers, a practice that retraumatizes and revictimizes survivors over and over again.

Lastly, Bill C-246 would have ensured an end to sentence stacking for sexual predators, so that every crime would carry its own penalty.

These proposals were supported by police associations, victim organizations, victim services and advocacy groups across Canada, yet every single one of them was voted down by the Liberal government.

As the member of Parliament for Oshawa, I cannot fathom how every single Liberal MP representing a constituency in the Durham region, for instance, could vote against these bills. This is specifically difficult to understand given the clear calls from our own community. The Durham Regional Police Service, the Durham Regional Police Association and local victim organizations have all spoken out on the need for more solutions to strengthen our justice system. Andrew Tummonds, the president of the Durham Regional Police Association, said it clearly after Bill C-242 was defeated:

Yesterday Bill C-242 was voted down in the House of Commons. This Bill was supported by Police Associations and Victim Organizations and presented common sense solutions to ongoing problems within our Criminal Justice System. This non partisan Bill focused on the need for tougher bail conditions and allowed for the closing of loopholes that resulted in dangerous offenders being released.

Each and every day in the Region of Durham the Members of the DRPA work to keep violent repeat offenders off our streets. We are disheartened that much needed change was voted down and believe that community safety and the protection of victims should supersede partisan politics.

Those are not partisan words. They are the voices of those who serve and protect on the front lines. All of this is happening while our community faces very real and immediate concerns, including just a few weeks ago, when a convicted first-degree murderer and child rapist was granted an unescorted, 72-hour release in Oshawa.

When the Liberal government now brings forward Bill C-22 and asks Canadians to trust it with new powers over their digital lives, I am sure it will excuse us from wondering if this is a good idea. We have the right to question. In fact, it is our job to question. We have the responsibility to take a step back, take a look, ask the hard questions and ensure that we get this right for every Canadian who expects that their private life will remain private.

Part 1 of this bill focuses on giving law enforcement faster and more effective access to information, and we all understand that matters. Crime has changed; we get that. Criminals operate online, often anonymously. They use encrypted platforms and operate across borders in ways that make investigations so much more complex. Law enforcement has told us this has created some real challenges. In some cases, investigations into serious crimes can stall because authorities cannot quickly identify who is behind an account.

This bill attempts to respond to those challenges by allowing police to ask telecommunication providers to confirm whether they provide service to a specific account or identifier, which would create judicial mechanisms to obtain basic subscriber information such as a name, an address or an email; and clarifying how officers could search and examine computer data during an investigation.

Bill C-22 would also allow, for urgent situations, for certain information to be obtained without a warrant when time is critical and would enable Canadian authorities to work with international partners when data is held outside the country. These are meaningful tools, absolutely, and in the right circumstances they could help prevent harm and bring criminals to justice. However, we have to proceed with care, because when we expand powers, we must also make sure we are strengthening safeguards. When we act in urgency, we still must protect rights, and when we grant authority, we must also ensure accountability in that authority.

Part 2 of the bill raises another important set of issues. It would create a framework requiring electronic service providers to ensure they can support lawful access when authorized. In some cases, companies could be required to build and maintain systems that allow authorities to access information under legal authority. It would also allow the Minister of Public Safety to issue confidential orders requiring specific technical capabilities, subject to review by the intelligence commissioner.

It raises serious questions, though, about privacy, transparency and about how far government should go in shaping digital systems. It is up to us as the official opposition to ask those questions. In fact, it is a role that we take very seriously, and it is an important role that makes this Parliament work.

We have been told that Canada is behind other countries in adopting a lawful access regime. However, Canadians not only are asking us to move quickly but want us to move carefully and with great accountability and care in taking a look at what exactly is going on. They are asking us to get this right and ensure that any system we create reflects our values.

This bill would include a parliamentary review after three years. That is a positive step, but our responsibility to Canadians is to get this right from the start. Conservatives are the party of law and order. We believe in supporting law enforcement and protecting victims, but we also believe that freedom matters. That is why we are carefully reviewing the legislation. We are listening. We are asking serious questions. We are doing the work necessary to ensure that this bill strikes the right balance, because Canadians should not have to choose between safety and freedom. They deserve both.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. I feel that has been a common refrain here today. My hon. colleague has been a tireless advocate, especially when it comes to making sure that our government functions the way it should. She has done excellent work on the public safety committee, in particular when it comes to CBSA.

One of the things we have repeatedly heard from the government is that we are with it or against it when it comes to this legislation. Can my colleague comment on the difficulty with that type of proposition when our job is not to look at it in terms of black and white, but to look at it in terms of whether we are getting this right or not?

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's leadership on the public safety committee. It is a pleasure to work with him. He brings up a very important piece of information regarding the job of the official opposition. I touched on it in my speech. It is not our job to simply rubber-stamp what looks good on the surface. If we did that, this Parliament would not be operating the way it was intended. Our job is to look closely at legislation, not just to move things quickly, but to move things carefully, as I said before. I am proud to be a member not only of the Conservative caucus but also of the official opposition. My position as a member of the official opposition is important. There is work to do. We want to get to work. It is time we did so.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. I will give some background here. My colleague and I both sit on the public safety committee. Bill C-8 came to us at the public safety committee. I felt it was a deeply flawed bill. There were, I would like to say, probably 30 amendments that we went through at committee. I believe the committee process is an important one. We may not always agree with the Bloc, but in this case, the Bloc shared a number of our concerns. The NDP shared a number of our concerns, though it does not actually have standing at the committee. One has to think, when the NDP and the Bloc start sharing concerns with the Conservatives, maybe there is actually something to this. Bill C-8 went through committee and it was long. It was a bit tedious at times, but it was very important for us to address that bill.

Can my colleague comment on Bill C-8 and her experience with that, and how it informs what she believes we should be doing with this bill and how we should be scrutinizing it?

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been a member of the House for almost a year, and seeing the process in committee is very important for me as a newer member. The truth is, we did that work on Bill C-8. We had similar concerns, as the member said, to the NDP members and the Bloc members. He is right. When all the members of the opposition parties, including the Green Party, realize there is an issue with the bill, and we present solutions and recommendations, and they are ruled out of order or out of scope, in the end, are we getting what Canadians need or are we just getting what the Liberals want?

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear my colleague's comments on a point that seems to be generating debate. If Bill C‑22 passes, it will change the burden of proof required to obtain a search warrant. Law enforcement officers will have to prove that they had reasonable grounds to suspect, rather than believe, that something illegal had occurred. Some university professors, among others, are concerned that the burden of proof is not stringent enough, and that personal data will be too easy for law enforcement to access. What are my colleague's thoughts on that?

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, well, the simple answer to that is that this is where we need to take a look in committee. We need to look at the thresholds and see if this threshold is too low and ask whether we should be making those thresholds higher. I hope we can work with the Bloc again and with the Liberals, and see if we can actually get a bill we can all agree on. Let us work together on this. We need lawful access. There is no doubt about it.

[Chak Au, Conservative, Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-22, the lawful access act. Let me be clear from the start. Canada needs lawful access, but Canada must get it right.

Conservatives believe in law and order. We believe that police must be given the tools to stop criminals, dismantle organized crime and protect the most vulnerable, especially in a digital world. Today, this is a real problem. Our laws have not kept up with technology. The investigations are stalling. Evidence exists but cannot be accessed in time, and criminals take advantage of the gap. Bill C-22 is trying to fix this and that goal is necessary, but we must be prudent and use good judgment. In fixing one problem, we must not create another. We must not weaken the rights that we have and that we are trying to protect.

My office has heard from many people in my riding of Richmond Centre—Marpole. They understand the need for safety. They understand the threat of organized crime. They are asking for something simple: balance, accountability and restraint.

One concern raised by my community is the requirement for companies to build surveillance capabilities into their systems. That concern is straightforward. If we create access points into secure systems, we must be absolutely sure they cannot be abused. If they are, we do not just create tools for law enforcement; we create targets for bad actors.

We have already seen what can happen. In 2024, a major cyber-attack known as Salt Typhoon targeted telecommunications infrastructure and compromised sensitive communications systems. That operation has been widely reported as having involved highly sophisticated state-backed actors. This is the environment we are operating in today.

The question is not whether we need lawful access; the question is how we implement it safely and without introducing new risks.

Another concern raised by people in my riding is data retention. Bill C-22 would require certain providers to keep metadata for up to one year. The intent is clear. When police have legal authority, the data is there to help investigations. That makes sense.

People in my community are asking what the limits are. What are the safeguards? Even metadata can reveal a good deal about a person's life, where they go, who they contact and when those interactions happen. To be fair, this data is not freely available to the government. Law enforcement still requires proper authorization, including warrants in most cases. The bill does not allow the collection of content such as messages, browsing history or social media activity under these provisions. That distinction matters, but concerns remain. How do we ensure this stays targeted? How do we prevent this from expanding beyond its original intent?

Conservatives will be ready to hold the government accountable for any overreach. There are also serious questions about oversight. The bill allows for ministerial orders that can require companies to develop specific technical capabilities. These orders require approval from the intelligence commissioner but there is a clear gap. The Privacy Commissioner of Canada has no formal role in this oversight process. That raises a fundamental concern. If these powers affect the data and the digital lives of Canadians, why is privacy not formally embedded in the oversight structure?

Oversight must be balanced. Security considerations cannot come at the expense of privacy protections. Both must be present, and both must be strong.

Another concern is the scope of the bill. Part 2 would apply broadly to electronic service providers. This does not just mean large telecommunications companies. It could include messaging platforms, cloud service providers and email services. In other words, it could apply across the entire digital ecosystem that Canadians rely on every day. This is a very wide scope, and with a wide scope, the safeguards must be stronger. People I represent are asking for clarity. Who is covered? What exactly is required of them? Where are the limits? Without that clarity, there is a real risk of overreach, intended or otherwise.

A third concern is transparency. Under this bill, ministerial orders could be issued confidentially. There would be no public registry, no direct parliamentary approval and no guarantee that Canadians would ever know when those powers were used. That is a serious issue because lawful access in a democracy must not only be lawful but also be transparent and accountable. When significant powers operate behind closed doors, public trust begins to erode, and once that trust is lost, it is very difficult to rebuild. We should be careful not to move from a system grounded in reasonable grounds and judicial oversight to one where information is collected first and justified later. This would not be a small shift. There would be a fundamental change in the relationship between citizens and the state. Many Canadians are concerned that this bill could enable further surveillance architecture if not properly constrained.

We must also consider the burden placed on companies. They would be required to build and maintain systems, comply with strict technical requirements and face penalties for non-compliance. This would affect not only large telecommunications providers but also smaller and emerging companies. We must ensure that this would not discourage innovation or create barriers to entry in Canada's digital economy.

Now, there are strong parts in the bill. It would give law enforcement agencies faster access to basic information, clearer legal tools for digital evidence, emergency powers when time is critical and improved co-operation with international partners. These are tools that police have been asking for, for many years, and we recognize that. However, supporting these objectives does not mean we ignore legitimate concerns. It does not mean we stop asking questions. One resident wrote to me about Bill C-22, saying, “Privacy is the shield of free people.” Another resident wrote, “A free society should not treat everyone like a suspect.” These are not extreme views. They are common sense.

Our approach is clear. Conservatives will focus on ensuring that data retention is limited, justified and proportionate; strengthening safeguards around technical requirements; clarifying the scope and application of the bill; and ensuring strong, transparent and balanced oversight, including the role of privacy protection. If this bill is to move forward, it must earn the trust of Canadians. Canadians want safety. They want police to succeed. They want criminals held accountable. However, they also want their rights respected, their data protected and their government to act with restraint.

This bill would include a review after three years. That is a step in the right direction, but we should not wait three years to fix what we can improve today. The choice is not—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member's time has expired.

The hon. member for Drummond.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleagues on their enthusiasm for participating in this debate. I also commend my colleague from the Richmond area on his speech.

We are discussing a rather sensitive and important topic. Even though it is late in the day, I think we should still give it some attention, because people are watching us.

Many people are writing to us about Bill C-22 because they are concerned about what we do with their personal data and what we allow the authorities to do with it. This is obviously a matter of trust. When we do business with a company, whether it is a telephone or Internet service provider, we expect our personal data to be respected. However, people are worried about what law enforcement agencies might be able to do without necessarily obtaining a warrant, based solely on suspicions or grounds to believe that criminal acts may be committed. There is a great deal of concern about this.

Added to this is the fact that the government has cut the budget of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, even though this agency is specifically supposed to reassure Quebeckers and Canadians about the use of their personal data.

I would like to know if my colleague thinks that Bill C-22 includes the necessary measures to reassure the public about what the authorities will be permitted to do regarding the disclosure of consumers' personal information.

[Chak Au, Conservative, Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC]

Mr Speaker, I totally agree with my colleague that this is a very sensitive subject, certainly to Canadians who care about their safety and at the same time care about the protection of their privacy.

As I mentioned in my speech, there are some parts of the bill that are very useful and would move us forward in protecting our safety. However, at the same time, it is the duty of the House to very carefully scrutinize the other parts of the proposed bill so that we can make sure that Canadians' privacy is being protected.

Canadians want clear rules, they want strong limits, and they want real oversight and meaningful accountability.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, building on the Bloc question, given the history of overreach by the Liberal government, where does my colleague's confidence come from that the Liberals will hold their tendencies in check at committee and actually be open to reasonable amendments so that the privacy of our citizens is properly protected?

[Chak Au, Conservative, Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are facing a problem, which is a lack of confidence in the government to protect their privacy and their constitutional rights.

Time and again we have seen the Liberal government abuse its power. I hope that in committee, we can have meaningful debate and careful scrutiny of the proposed bill and, again, just like when we talked about Bill C-8, be able to work with our Bloc colleagues and also come to some kind of agreement or consensus that we could improve this bill, so that we can rebuild the trust of the Canadian people in our government.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague for his question. I agree with my colleague from Drummond about the importance of these debates.

We know that there have been tough debates on certain bills in the past. Does my colleague think that we would be able to reach an agreement on Bill C-22, if it were to be studied in committee, and come up with a version that would protect everyone's rights and freedoms, while guaranteeing access to the information needed to ensure security?

[Chak Au, Conservative, Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the comments made by my colleague. It is really a tough debate, but it is worthwhile because we are here to work for Canadians and to safeguard their safety and privacy.

I am sure that when we debate this in committee, we will do our best to work together so that we can achieve the common goal, which is the betterment of our community and the safety of Canadians.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to be splitting my time with the member for Montmorency—Charlevoix.

A big part of the conversation around this legislation, coming from the government, seems to be about why the Conservatives are doing their job. Why are we studying this bill? Why are we fulfilling our role as the official opposition? Why do we not just trust the government with criminal justice legislation? That is something on which one could write volumes. Suffice it to say that when all of us, as members of Parliament, were in our ridings over the last couple of weeks, what we heard was that there is a crisis when it comes to our criminal justice system. I know I heard this loud and clear in my riding of Fundy Royal, which stretches from suburban areas to rural areas outside of cities.

Having sat on the justice committee at one time, I was impacted by the testimony of one witness who said to our committee members that in Canada, we do not have a justice system anymore. We have a legal system, but not a justice system. Why is that? It is because this is a system that has failed victims over and over again.

Why would we not just trust the Liberals when it comes to criminal justice legislation? Well, over the last 11 years that they have been in government, there are some things they have been very good at. When it comes to making a grandiose promise or coming up with an expensive and wasteful program, they can knock those out of the park. However, when it comes to things like staying on budget, controlling costs, criminal justice legislation and keeping us safe, one of the most fundamental values we should have as an institution, the government has demonstrably failed Canadians.

I have to look at some of the stats to back up what I am saying. Since 2015, violent crime in Canada is up 50%, homicides are up 30%, and sexual assaults are up 75%. This is a party that loves to talk about firearms, so one would think that maybe the Liberals have done some good things, but no, violent firearms offences are up 116% since the Liberals took government. Extortion is up 357%. It does not matter which part of the country or which province one is in, whether in urban or rural areas; every one of us who owns a vehicle and pays insurance is impacted by auto theft, which is up 50% in Canada since the Liberals took government.

We might ask why, over the last 11 years, we have seen this. How has this possibly happened? Why have we seen such a spike? It is a spike that, if we are honest, in talking to our constituents, every one of us is hearing of.

If we were to ask Canadians if they feel as safe as they did 10 years ago sending their child to run an errand in the community on their bike or walking, or walking through one of their community parks, or going out to dinner uptown, they would say they do not. It is not just a feeling. It is the reality. Canadians are not as safe as they were 10 years ago. Why? It is because we have a government that created this crisis through the deliberate actions it was warned would result in the kind of chaos we are experiencing right now.

Here are just a couple of examples, but I could go on.

Bill C-5 eliminated mandatory jail time for violent gun crimes like robbery or extortion with a firearm. It eliminated mandatory jail time for criminals charged with importing, exporting or producing dangerous drugs like meth and fentanyl.

Bill C-75, which created the revolving-door justice system, introduced a principle of restraint that all judges are forced to abide by. That essentially means that someone who is arrested and brought before a judge is going to be let back out on the street on bail. We heard testimony at the justice committee of individuals who were caught and brought before a judge for a gun crime. They were out on bail for when they were caught for a previous gun crime, and they were allowed out on bail again.

No matter what legislation the government brings forward, if we are going to allow repeat and violent offenders, property crime offenders and drug dealers to continue to be back out on the street, then all the legislation in the world is not going to help, and we are going to continue to see the rise in crime that I just listed.

What have Conservatives been doing? We have been listening to our communities and law enforcement. We introduced the protection against extortion act to restore mandatory jail time for the offence of extortion with a firearm. The Liberals voted against it. We introduced the combatting motor vehicle theft act so that convicted car thieves could no longer serve their time from the comfort of their own home. The Liberals voted against it.

In the last Parliament, I introduced the stronger sentences for safer streets act. It would have reversed what was introduced in Bill C-5 when it comes to sentences for those who produce, import and export dangerous schedule I drugs such as fentanyl, heroin, cocaine and meth. Of course, the Liberals were against that. When Conservatives have stood up for our constituents and brought forward common-sense legislation, the government failed, again, to take appropriate action.

We have all read, and I heard the reference of one of the previous speakers, a decision out of New Brunswick in which an individual from Nigeria had their sentence reduced so that they would not be deported back to Nigeria. An offender had a judge reduce their sentence so it would not impact their claim to stay here in Canada.

We, on this side of the House, are not going to take lessons when it comes to criminal justice. We are listening to our constituents and the experts, and we are going to take the time to study legislation. Time and time again, the government has brought in legislation that, rather than helping Canadians be safer, has put Canadians directly in the crosshairs of those criminals.

When it comes to gun crime, rather than focusing on the border, law enforcement, cracking down on repeat violent gun offenders and putting them behind bars where they belong, the government is currently spending hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars to buy back guns from law-abiding Canadians. These individuals are licensed, legally bought their firearms and are legal owners of their firearms. They are not the problem. We are focusing hundreds of millions of dollars of Canadians' resources to go after individuals who are not the problem, all the while turning a deliberate blind eye to repeat offenders, reducing sentences for offenders, or not having them sentenced at all, and releasing people on bail who have no business being out on bail.

We are going to study this legislation, listen to law enforcement and our communities and continue to stand up for laws that actually restore the word “justice” to our justice system. It is on that basis that we will continue to do our job as the official opposition, with our priority always being to keep Canadians safe.

[Sima Acan, Liberal, Oakville West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, law enforcement, child protection agencies and national security experts have already clearly stated that the current laws are outdated and that Bill C-22 includes strong judicial oversight and no back doors. Can my colleague clarify which specific safeguards in this bill the Conservatives believe are insufficient and why they are prepared to delay tools for law enforcement that would protect Canadians? Will they delay Bill C-22 like they did Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, there they go again, criticizing us for doing our jobs and with the selective quoting of law enforcement. I could show members page after page of police associations and police services across this country that are saying it is a waste of their time and resources to try to participate in the Liberal gun confiscation program, but the Liberals do not want to talk about that. I could talk about the police organizations that supported our jail not bail bill for repeat violent offenders. They do not want to talk about that, so we will do our job. We will study this legislation, and we will act in accordance with what is in the best interests of the safety of Canadians.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on one part of the bill that concerns me, specifically part 1. The bill allows law enforcement officials to obtain information voluntarily provided by service providers without judicial authorization. I am trying to understand what that might mean, and I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

Normally, a warrant is obtained and the provider is forced to hand over the information. However, if providers are allowed to disclose information voluntarily, that puts them in a situation where they will be told that they have to provide it because they can do so voluntarily. People have a right to privacy and the protection of their personal information. I will just throw that over to my colleague to see whether he has an opinion on the matter.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is correct, and that is precisely why we need to bring in experts, study this legislation and listen to those who are impacted by the legislation.

Of course, legislation like this involves privacy concerns, and why would we, on this side of the House, want to deeply study these things? It is because at every opportunity this government has had to trample on the rights of law-abiding citizens, it has done so. The original version of the bill included many outrageous items, including banning cash transactions, which is something that would have impacted the right of individuals in my riding of Fundy Royal to use Canadian currency to buy something. Absolutely, it illustrates why we will do our job, we will study this legislation, we will listen to experts and we will continue to stand up for the privacy rights of all Canadians.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments that were made. I want to reflect again on the comments and the question from the Liberal member who sits on the public safety committee with me. She made it sound as though the job of the opposition is to simply rubber-stamp legislation and move things along. If I am not mistaken, I believe we are on the first day of debate on this legislation. I wonder if the member could talk a little about the job of the official opposition and why the Liberals want us to simply say yes and not look properly and closely at legislation, as is our job.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, our role as elected members is to stand in this place, debate legislation and study how it is going to impact our constituents. I listed a couple of previous Liberal bills, Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, which have had a tremendous impact on all of our constituents. There is not a Canadian who has not been impacted by that legislation. Every Canadian who feels less safe than they did 10 years ago has been impacted by the legislation of this government.

We are not going to take lessons from the Liberals on criminal justice, on studying legislation or on doing our job as the official opposition to make sure that we give this legislation the scrutiny that Canadians deserve for it to have.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in an interview last week, the Prime Minister was asked a question that I think is very clear and straightforward. How can it be called democracy when a minority government effectively becomes a majority government through backroom deals? That is a good question. The journalist asked him if that is truly what a democracy is. I will give the Prime Minister's response. He said that it is indeed a democracy, that members find working with the government appealing and that it was their choice. He said that the Liberal Party is the party that defends the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In my view, that is exactly where the problem begins. Apparently, it all comes down to people's understanding and perspective, because democracy is not simply a matter of procedure. Respecting Canadians means more than just making nice announcements and keeping Canadians happy. It means more than doing what is allowed. It is extremely important to keep ethics in the picture.

It is a matter of respect, actually: respect for each Canadian's vote, respect for the member's role and respect for the balance between powers and freedoms. Members will soon see where I am going with all this. When Canadians vote, they put their trust in a party and its values. They elect members who will serve the community and the common good. Members are not there for themselves. They are there for their constituents. That is our democracy. The government does not have all the power. That is only natural, as the government must not have all the power. It is important to have a counterbalance, an opposition. This is precisely what the opposition is for. It is not there simply to oppose and block everything.

The opposition exists to improve and test proposals, and to ensure that opinions contrary to the opinions of decision-makers are generally represented, and that proposals can be improved, always keeping in mind that they are there for their constituents. Decision-makers work for them. Whether in everyday life or here, in Parliament, we improve when people challenge our ideas. It forces us to become better and in the end, that is better for everyone.

When the Liberals say that the Conservatives vote against everything and that they are not happy, what they are actually saying is that they want us to let them do whatever they want. They want us to let them implement their ideas however they see fit. They say that their vision and their plan are what matter. I think that is a serious problem. That is not what democracy is about.

The reason I am talking about all this today is that we are debating the balance of powers, the limits of those powers and public trust. That is exactly what lies at the heart of Bill C-22. The bill directly addresses something profoundly fundamental: the relationship between security and freedom.

Obviously, as we know, times are changing, technology is evolving and criminals are taking advantage of that technology. They use the Internet, they hide behind fake accounts and they exploit technology. Yes, our police officers definitely need access to more modern tools. However, the real question is this: How far can the government go without infringing on citizens' rights? Citizens' rights are something the Liberals seem to have taken rather lightly over the past 11 years. This is where it is important to learn from the past. In life, it is important to learn and adjust course in order to improve.

Not so long ago, the government introduced Bill C-2. According to the same Liberal government, everything had been carefully thought out, it was a good solution, and every angle and every aspect had been thoroughly analyzed. The government told us to trust them and said that this new bill was truly in the best interests of the public. They told the Conservatives to stop opposing it. In reality, we realized that the bill went too far. It granted powers that were far too broad and vague.

I will give a few examples. Both the police and Canada Post could open letters without a warrant. Cash payments over $10,000 could be banned without taking into account the fact that, in some communities, cash is still used on a daily basis. Access to information was too broad, and there were no clear limits. A wide range of personal information could be accessed. There were therefore insufficient safeguards in place. This created an imbalance and posed a potential threat to individual rights and freedoms.

This caused concern among Canadians. The Conservatives did their job then, just as we are doing today. We asked questions and pushed back on things that we did not think were in the best interest of Canadian taxpayers. When things went too far, we spoke up and said that they had to change. We spoke out against excesses, and guess what happened? The government was forced to back down and introduce a new bill, which is now Bill C-22.

Accepting that bill without question would have been a serious mistake. Today, we are seeing the result of what I was talking about. We are improving things precisely because we are able to challenge the status quo, explore other perspectives and approaches, and ultimately ensure that citizens have access to laws that meet their expectations. Today, the government is taking a new approach through Bill C-22, and let me be honest: Certain elements are actually better.

I will give some examples, because I am not just here to say that everything the Liberals do is wrong. When they do something right, we should support them. The bill is much more targeted and precise. It primarily targets telecommunications and Internet service providers, not all services. It introduces a form of oversight for ministerial orders. What a minister is or is not allowed to do is therefore clearer. Most importantly, people's browser history, social media activity and personal communications are off-limits. This was extremely important to taxpayers, who reached out to us to say how concerned they were about the former Bill C-2.

Improvements deserve to be acknowledged. However, that does not mean that everything is settled and done. Central to this bill is one extremely important question that keeps cropping up: Can we trust the government to use these powers responsibly? I think this is a perfectly valid question.

The bill makes it possible to obtain information without a warrant in some cases. Well, that raises a question. The bill makes it possible to obtain personal information in some cases. That raises another question. Even so-called “basic” information can reveal a lot about someone. Once these powers in place, the government will say they are there for the right reasons and that they are intended to keep Canadians and Quebeckers safe. However, once they are in place, to what extent will they be used even after the public no longer supports them?

There is another issue that I consider extremely important as an entrepreneur: the impact on businesses. The bill will require providers to put systems in place to store and transmit certain data. For large corporations, which could have big firms and many consultants—much like the Liberals, who use them regularly—things may be fine because they have the money to do so. However, this could place significant financial strain on SMEs, which account for 99% of the businesses in Montmorency—Charlevoix and across Quebec. It could be a major burden.

The fact is, every new regulation has an impact on businesses. It is easy to write things into laws and come up with brilliant ideas, but it is important to stay in touch with the real world and the impact these changes will have on people's lives. That should always be at the root of why we make laws. The goal must always be to serve the public. There is also a key issue concerning Quebec, and I think it is important for us to bring it up: respect for provincial jurisdiction. Issues related to privacy and digital technology fall under Quebec's jurisdiction. For Conservatives, it is very important that Ottawa not interfere in these areas, and that it manage its own affairs. Ottawa should focus on managing only a few key areas and leave the rest to the provinces, because they are the ones who truly understand their day-to-day realities.

In closing, I want to come back to something extremely important: trust in our institutions, trust in democracy and trust in rights and freedoms. A law like this one only works if citizens believe in it and if citizens agree with the decisions made by elected officials. If citizens believe that their rights and freedoms are respected, they will comply. If citizens believe that abuse will be punished, they will support what is happening here. After almost 11 years of Liberal governance, years of poorly balanced bills and decisions made without consensus, it is normal for Canadians to wonder whether things will be different this time.

We, the Conservatives, will continue to work in the interest of Canadians. We are going to study this bill seriously. We are going to propose improvements because our role is not to filibuster. Our role is to ensure that laws are better for everyone.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank our colleague for his speech. He is always very interesting. As I mentioned earlier, this bill really deserves our attention because it is important and could change the lives of many Quebeckers and Canadians.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the trend we have been seeing over the past year or so with the new Liberal government. In various ways, both economically and in terms of information, there has been a push to give the government greater control. The Liberals want to allow the government to disregard the various laws in effect that provide some protection for citizens' rights. We are seeing this with the high-speed rail project, with the possibility of expropriations being carried out in a rather haphazard manner. Quebec's Expropriation Act and the federal Expropriation Act are being set aside, and things are being handled casually, according to the government's whims.

Is my colleague not concerned that Bill C-22 is taking a similar approach by expanding the government's power and limiting the oversight authority of the various agencies responsible for monitoring these matters?

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. I must first point out that this is not a new government. It is the same old government with all the same ministers, so its decisions are similar. We have indeed been seeing this trend for a year now, but in fact, for the past 10 years, almost 11, the Liberals have been doing as they please and consistently putting their ideology first. They think that they know better than Canadians what Canadians should want. They think that their plans are better for everyone and must never be challenged.

What is really important today is to provide a counterbalance when bills are introduced so that we can query the proposal and explore approaches that were not considered. That is the opposition's role. Canadians need to know that the members elected to represent them here in Parliament are doing their job and are here to represent them and to protect their rights and freedoms.

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his input to improve the legislation that we are discussing today.

We all know that the Liberals' catch-and-release policies, whether Bill C-5 or Bill C-75, have created chaos in cities, neighbourhoods and streets.

Could the member explain why it is important to have a justice system that works for Canadians, and at the same time, how Bill C-22 lacks safeguards and accountability? Why does the member believe Canadians deserve stronger protection for their personal information?

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question. I believe it is important that we return to a solid foundation for our rights. Police officers need to know that we stand behind them and that once a law is enacted, they do not need to start interpreting it, understanding it or thinking about how they might apply it. No, the law is there to protect public order. Personal property or interests are not the priority; public order is.

However, in the current context, arresting criminals only to release them later puts people's safety at risk. We have seen how many murders and crimes have been committed by people who were supposed to be in prison. We need stricter laws and laws that respect citizens.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his contribution to the debate. He mentioned his concern, as a business owner, about placing a greater burden on Internet service providers. This bill does include this requirement, which will be added to ensure that businesses can comply with production orders and that they can also preserve their data.

What is my colleague's solution: providing financial support to businesses or reducing the requirements in this bill?

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. I think that business owners have the answer to that. They are already dealing with a lot of laws, standards and red tape. Every time standards are added, whether for business owners, cities or others, the ideas are great but no one ever assesses what is really going to happen on the ground. I think that the first thing we need to do to ensure that we respect business owners' ability to meet expectations is to meet with them, listen to their opinions and work with them to find solutions to respect the law and the public's safety and also be safe.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today, I will speak on Bill C-22, the lawful access act, which asks Canadians to accept something very significant. It asks telecommunications providers across this country to build and maintain systems that would allow government-authorized access to their networks. It would expand expectations around the collection and retention of so-called metadata: the time, the location, the connection, details attached to the messages and the Internet activity. It would give ministers the authority to shape how those systems are designed and enforced. This is not a small technical change. It is structural in nature. It is a structural shift in how digital infrastructure is designed and who ultimately controls it.

Let me speak plainly. Before this bill, if a government wanted to access people's private communications, listen to their telephone calls or read their messages, they had to go to court. They had to make their case to a judge. They had to show why it was necessary. Judges and our judicial system were and are a critical safeguard to our privacy. This is a foundation of our democracy.

This bill would change the system around that process. It would require telecommunications companies to build this network that is ready for access, a lawful access network. It would allow governments and government ministers to set the rules of that lawful access network. Also, it would set how this system operates. It would do that not through a parliamentary process, but backdoor channels in regulation. Instead of access being something that happens only after a judge carefully considers it, we would now be building a system where that capability is always ready to access. The system of access would be largely created not by Parliament, but by ministers behind closed doors.

I want to bring members back to Bill C-2. Colleagues should remember the uproar over the concern Canadians had, which was raised over the real issues about how governments could access their personal, private, confidential, most intimate and personal communications. Now what the government has done instead is to take a particular section out of Bill C-2 and put it in Bill C-22. It deals with the same issue of access to information.

To be fair, there have been some changes made to Bill C-22 from Bill C-2. The government could no longer directly obtain consumer information. That is something I am proud of. Canadians stood up and fought for that because it is important. The government now could only ask a narrow question to telecommunications providers, "Does this consumer have an account with your company?" If they wanted more information, then they would have to go to court to obtain a production order.

Here is what Canadians also need to understand about Bill C-22. This bill is not just about whether the data can be accessed. It is about who designed the system that made the access possible. How has the system been designed? Right now too much of that system has been designed and built behind closed doors, through regulations and without parliamentary oversight.

However, there is also a deeper issue here. Bill C-22 does not operate in a vacuum. It is arriving in a country that has deeply unequal infrastructure when it comes to digital infrastructure.

Nowhere is this more evident than in rural Canada. In many urban centres there are millions of people who share dense networks, which are layered on top of each other. Thousands of users are connected through the same infrastructure at any given time in a large city. Metadata, in that context, is spread across large populations, so it is harder to isolate and attribute specific data to a specific individual.

However, that is not the case in rural areas like mine. In Haldimand—Norfolk we would face a new and different reality from the legislation. We have a population approaching 130,000 people, spread across more than 2,900 square kilometres. That is a density of roughly 40 people per square kilometre. In Toronto, for example, the number is over 4,500. That is 4,500 people spread over a square kilometre versus 40 people spread over a square kilometre. That is a difference in density of 100 times.

That difference matters when it comes to privacy, because data collected in rural Canada is not diluted across thousands of users. It is concentrated. In many parts of my community, a single tower or wireless node may serve only a few dozen or a few hundred households. When it is connected and when the connection is logged in a rural area at a certain time, it does not point to a crowd per se; it can point to a handful of homes, the privacy of which is then compromised, especially in low-density rural areas. Over time, that could also reveal patterns, such as when someone is home, when work on a farm begins or when a small business is operating.

When the government tells Canadians that metadata is not personal, this may be true in theory, but in rural Canada it is easier to identify which data is connected with which particular user.

There is something else fundamentally out of order. The government is moving to ensure that every network can be accessed, but ensuring that every Canadian can have access to the network was not a priority. In rural Canada, people are still struggling with basic Internet access and connectivity. In my community of Haldimand—Norfolk, students are still trying to complete their homework with unstable Internet. Seniors are being pushed into digital systems they cannot reliably access. Small businesses are competing in an economy that assumes connectivity, while they are still waiting for it.

However, instead of focusing on closing that gap between rural and urban Internet access, the government would be creating new obligations on top of systems that are already uneven. Bill C-22 would apply the same rules across the country, but the impact would be greater in rural communities, where fewer users share the network, as I previously said. Costs are higher per household, privacy risks are greater and infrastructure is still incomplete. When the government says the bill is about balance, rural Canada has to ask, “balance for whom?” The law that ignores the realities of rural Canada is not balanced. It is blind to those realities.

I recognize that we need modern and responsive systems in the digital era; however, we must ensure that the systems we build do not create unintended harm, especially in rural communities that are already underserviced.

I have searched high and low, and I could not find a rural impact assessment that addresses Bill C-22. Without an impact study, we need to ask a deeper question: Who is this system being built for? Bill C-22 needs to address proportional requirements of smaller providers. If we take the rural Canada situation, we will see that in rural Canada, Internet providers are much smaller and they do not have deep pockets. Imposing this system on them is going to cause undue financial hardship.

I must state that we also need commitment from the government that infrastructure expansion, not surveillance capability, is going to be the priority and that infrastructure expansion comes first, before the surveillance capability of the government. Canadians should not have to choose between being connected and being protected. Rural Canadians should not have to carry a disproportionate burden for a system designed without their reality in mind.

It is not enough to say that Parliament will review the system later. Under the bill, the review would happen after three years. By that time, the system is already built. What is the point? The regulations would already be in force. What is the point of reviewing a system that could cause privacy issues after it is built? Let us do it right the first time. The system and the practices would already be entrenched after three years.

There need to be checks on the system. There need to be checks on government encroachment on our freedoms. The same way that we raised concerns about Bill C-2, concerns need to be raised about Bill C-22, if it is encroaching on freedoms. We need to ensure that whatever system is built for lawful access, it does not encroach on privacy. We cannot accept lax rules around the government being able to access our phone or our messages. These are things that we have grown, in Canadian society, to see as sacred, and now this bill would allow governments to have access to this.

Clear oversight after the system is in place is not real oversight. It is confirmation, and that is not acceptable. In a free and democratic society, it is not enough to ask whether the state can access our data. We must also ask who decided that the data should exist and be retained in the first place. Who is accountable for that decision? If the government is going to design a system that governs Canadians' data, then Parliament must be involved before those decisions are made, not after. This is only logical.

This is not just about access to data. It is about control over the system that defines our lives. Once these systems are built, they do not just respond to decisions. They shape decisions. They determine who has access, who has ownership and who benefits. It is very important, because the system that is constructed is going to be what informs the judges and what the judges look at when they say what data could be applied to the order that is being sought. It is very important that we understand that it is not just about data. It is about power.

The question before us is simple: Will Canadians have a stake in the system that defines their lives, or will they simply be surveilled and managed by this system?

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will keep it short and quick. There have been a lot of concerns about government interfering with personal information and data, and it is losing a lot of confidence.

My colleague highlighted the heightened impact on rural communities. I am wondering what the member believes is needed to ensure that Canadians in those communities have confidence in how these powers of government are used.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are so many issues that I think are very, very important. Let me start by saying that our concern is how the system behind the access is designed, that it should be through regulations, not parliamentary oversight. That is one major concern.

We also have concerns about the shifts in key decisions about the system design and the data collection. As the member mentioned, being in a rural community, the breakdown of people within a certain range is far less sparse. Therefore, the access and infringement would be greater in rural communities. There are a number of issues, such as parliamentary oversight and review of the regulations, that are very important. Limits on ministerial orders are also very important. It is also important to recognize that in the three years it will take for us to review the system, it will be too late. The system will already be in place. We need parliamentary review before the system is implemented.

The House resumed from April 13 consideration of the motion that Bill C-22, An Act respecting lawful access, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime.

Bill C-22, an act respecting lawful access, is a tool that law enforcement has been asking for for many decades, in fact, over three decades. Canada is the only Five Eyes and G7 country not to have a formalized lawful access regime. We have had a couple of court decisions that spoke to the limits of this very important issue of lawful access that people have been asking for.

Over the past 10 months or so, the Minister of Justice, the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime and I have been going around the country meeting with police chiefs, as well as those in unions, law enforcement and, across the board, individuals who have direct experience with the impediments that the inability to have a lawful access regime poses to the safety and security of Canadians.

Members will be aware that over the last several months, I tasked a former minister from British Columbia, Murray Rankin, to engage with different parties, oftentimes those with competing or differing views, to build an element of consensus on what a lawful access regime should look like. The parties included those in civil society, academics, law enforcement, and industry. Mr. Rankin had a number of engagements between the four groups and made some recommendations to the Minister of Justice and me. I thank him for his work.

Based on that, and based on additional consultation, we put forward Bill C-22, which, in my opinion, balances the critical need for protection of individual privacy as well as ensuring that law enforcement has the necessary tools to do its work. I want to thank many colleagues, on both sides, who have been instrumental in helping us get to this point.

There are essentially three major parts to this bill. The first part, and I want to frame this—

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I believe when the minister introduced the motion on Monday, he would have been deemed to have spoken on this. I wonder if he is eligible to speak again, seeing as he has already spoken on it.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have consulted with several clerks extensively. The minister moved the motion for another minister, and so he is deemed to have spoken. However, if the minister now seeks unanimous consent to continue speaking, he can do so.

I invite the Minister of Public Safety to determine whether he wishes to move the unanimous consent motion so that he can continue speaking.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do seek unanimous consent.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Does the House agree to the unanimous consent motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The Minister of Public Safety can continue speaking.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very important intervention. I will get back to the substance of Bill C-22.

The different parties came together on what is essential for law enforcement to protect Canadians, and there are three major parts to the bill. I want to frame where the first one comes from. Twenty-five years ago, there were phone books that every household had. Bell Canada would deliver phone books to virtually every household. In that phone book, we could look up somebody's name and actually find a phone number. Similarly, there is a book that was a reverse lookup. We could essentially go to that phone book and, if we had a phone number, we could seek even the address of the individual whose address is attached to that phone number.

Technology has evolved extensively in the last three decades, and right now, we are at a point where that type of information is not readily available. Part 1 of the bill would essentially enable law enforcement to have basic, timely access to data and information. It would essentially be a confirmation-of-service demand, which means that law enforcement could go to an electronic service provider and ask it if an individual phone number is associated with the company. It would be a simple answer of yes or no. There is nothing beyond it. There are no other aspects. It is a very simple yes-or-no question.

For example, in a case of extortion, where there may be a number of telephone numbers attached to an extortion threat, very simply, the individual law enforcement agency could canvass a multitude of service providers to seek confirmation of service. It is a demand that would enable law enforcement to know which company is a service provider for that particular phone number or, in this case, ISP.

The second element is about taking subscriber information, which is also part of part 1. This would enable, again, law enforcement to get basic information about the individual. This would be email addresses, an address, perhaps, or a name that corresponds to the individual phone number or ISP, the Internet service, that would allow law enforcement to further the investigation.

Right now, what happens is that, from the time the phone number is received to the time there is the required production order to get the information, it could sometimes be eight, 10 or 12 months before that information is obtained. This is essentially handcuffing the work of law enforcement.

From there, law enforcement would be able to access additional information as the bill seeks for the ESP, for example, to have the technical capability to offer information on the subscribers' use. This is a critical component of it that is essentially part of the supporting authorized access to information act or SAAIA. It would ensure that ESPs and telecommunication companies can comply with requests to produce certain types of information, data and communications that law enforcement may seek.

From there, for law enforcement to get additional information on a particular case, situation or a set of circumstances, it would require warrants. Warrants are judicially authorized, judicially reviewed and subject to preparation by law enforcement agencies.

The third major component of this bill is a review process, because we know that the pace of progress and the pace of technology is moving at a speed that really is beyond what humans expect. With AI, we know there are enormous challenges and changes about to come forward. As a result, we have a review provision that would enable Parliament to do a statutory review of the legislation and be able to make necessary amendments as required.

Let me highlight some very important components of the support we have. First and foremost, NSICOP, which has members from the House as well as from the Senate, had a unanimous report to have a lawful access regime embedded in Canadian law.

I will quote the former police officer and investigator, the member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner. It is rare for me to quote him, but I am super impressed with his depth of knowledge on this subject. He said, “Our current legislation means police face barriers around seizure authorities, causing investigative delays, sometimes with no way to get access to the information they need.”

This is an important piece of legislation, one that law enforcement demands and one that Canadians need for their safety and security. I would ask all parties to support this bill.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

There are a lot of issues in this bill that I look forward to addressing at committee. One of the questions I have is about the role of ministerial orders. I am mindful of the fact that ministerial orders require approval from the intelligence commissioner, but then they then go into what I call a “vacuum” because they are kept confidential. I understand why they may need to be confidential.

Would the minister be open to discussing amendments that would require or enable some sort of transparency, whether it be that it is reviewed by a committee or somebody else, so it is not put into this vacuum that lacks transparency when these orders are made in confidence?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will say, at the outset, that we have consulted the intelligence commissioner and the provisions in this bill reflect what is required, in our opinion, for that transparency and accountability to take place. Of course, as I have always said, we look forward to this bill proceeding to committee and a more robust conversation taking place at the committee stage.

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

Mr. Speaker, yes, we agree with the minister that this bill is important.

My question is rather simple. Bill C-22 is much better than Bill C-2, and it includes more protections. That proves one thing: Bill C-2 was hastily thrown together without consultation. It is a good thing the government only had a minority. That meant that we did not have to pass that bill and that we are now able to debate Bill C-22, which is much better.

Is the minister willing to agree to amendments to further improve Bill C-22?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to commend the minister for his leadership in preparing this bill, which is another example of how our government is taking Canadians' safety seriously and acting accordingly.

As members know, law enforcement has long been asking us to modernize Canada's lawful access capabilities and powers. Bill C‑22 has been very well received by a number of organizations that represent law enforcement. I am thinking in particular of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, which is encouraging all members to work together to pass the bill quickly.

My question for the minister is, how were the various organizations representing law enforcement consulted in the drafting of Bill C‑22?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question and for his work.

We did extensive consultations, on an individual basis, with the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime, the Minister of Justice, me and other colleagues. For example, we were in Halton, where we met with the regional police. I want to thank the member of Parliament for Oakville West for her advocacy.

We have gone across Canada and consulted with law enforcement agencies. This is a critical tool that they have asked to be made part of Canadian law.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know the telecom sector is very concerned about the costs of complying with this legislation. I wonder what sort of compensation schemes, if any, the government anticipates putting into place to ensure this legislation can be complied with.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we expect compliance from telecommunication companies and other service providers. We are not contemplating compensation. This is part of the CRTC's licensing. As members are aware, these are licences that are provided to the public, and in the public interest, it is important there is compliance from those service providers, which are essentially governed by Canadian law.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-22, An Act respecting lawful access, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, in an increasingly and rapidly evolving digital world, law enforcement services are having to mitigate new challenges in the face of a rising tide of criminal activity using technology. Let me give some examples that we have been hearing. Cases of extortion are on the rise, including with arson and with shootings. Pedophiles are exploiting children online, which often leads to sextortion or human trafficking. Just in 2024, we lost over $600 million to fraud and cybercrime, and often the victims of these crimes are our most vulnerable seniors.

This bill, in fact, would help law enforcement to be able to tackle these challenges. These new challenges have created a gap in ensuring the safety and security of Canadians. This gap is between what our investigators know and what our legal framework allows them to do about it. I am pleased to say that Bill C-22 would close the gap that currently exists.

When an investigator receives a tip, a phone number linked to an extortion ring or a child exploitation case, or information about a human trafficking network, they have the grounds to investigate. They are ready to move, but before they can seek a production order from a judge, they need the answer to one foundational question: Which telecom company services the number? Under our current law, there is no clear legal tool to get that answer. Police must rely on voluntary co-operation, which may come in days or weeks, or not at all. Investigators may have to spend considerable time and resources pursuing a provider, only to learn that the phone number was never that of the suspect, and then they have to start all over again. In some cases, this completely stalls the investigation, not because the officers failed, but because the law did.

Peel Regional Police has described cases where quick confirmation from a telecom company, a simple yes-or-no answer about whether a phone number is theirs, was the centre point of an entire investigation. That confirmation allowed them to seek a production order, identify a suspect and locate the victim quickly, but that outcome depended entirely on the provider choosing to co-operate voluntarily, as there was no legal framework requiring it. The victim was found because of goodwill, not because of the law, and goodwill does not always come. Goodwill is not what the justice system should rely on.

What does Bill C-22 actually do? Let me describe the following tools that would aid law enforcement officials.

The first tool is the confirmation of service demand. Police can ask a telecom or an Internet service provider one question: “Do you service this number or IP address?” It is a yes or no only. That is all: no content, no personal information, no communications. This question alone does not require a warrant, because the Supreme Court has recognized that a yes-or-no confirmation does not carry the same privacy weight as subscriber details or content.

The second tool is a new, faster, narrower production order specifically for subscriber information, which means name, address and account details. This would require a judge and require reasonable grounds. This process would be court-supervised at every step. It would provide a more direct path to that basic identifying information so that investigators can act quickly at the start of a case without waiting on a process designed for other, far more sensitive data.

The third tool requires core electronic service providers to actually have the technical capability to respond to lawful orders. Right now, and this is the part that is almost impossible to believe, a provider may receive a court order and be genuinely unable to comply, not unwilling but unable, because they have never built the infrastructure to respond. Investigations have stalled and in some cases gone cold for this reason alone.

Canada is currently the only Five Eyes G7 country without a lawful access regime. The United Kingdom has one. The United States has one. Australia and New Zealand also have them. We are not proposing something radical. We are proposing something long overdue.

The OPP commissioner and president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, Thomas Carrique, told reporters that he and many of Canada's police leaders have been sounding the alarm about the need for lawful access for the last 30 years, before smart phones and before the modern Internet.

I want to now speak directly to those who have raised concerns about this legislation, those who believe, as I do, that protecting the privacy of Canadians is a fundamental function of government. They are not wrong to ask the hard questions. They are not wrong to be skeptical. That is what democracy is all about. This is why I want to tell them how we are balancing bringing investigative capacity into the modern era while at the same time protecting the privacy rights of Canadians.

Every ministerial order requiring a provider to build lawful access capabilities must be reviewed and approved by the independent federal intelligence commissioner before it takes effect. Annual public reports would be required under this bill. The new subscriber production order would cover basic subscriber information and nothing more: no browsing history, no content and no communications without a separate and higher judicial threshold.

This bill was shaped directly by feedback from numerous consultations with law enforcement, civil liberties groups, telecoms and Internet service providers. It is also shaped by Supreme Court rulings that tell us precisely where the constitutional lines are. We drew those lines, built in oversight and narrowed the scope from what was proposed before, because we understand that we cannot afford to get this wrong. Technology continues to evolve, and this is the moment. We must act now. Victims and investigators cannot wait any longer for action.

This is what I need everyone in the House to understand: The alternative to this bill is not privacy. The alternative is impunity. A legal framework where investigators cannot confirm which telecom or Internet service provider to approach, and where the first step of an investigation depends on voluntary goodwill, is not a framework that protects rights. It is a framework that currently protects criminals.

Canada was built on a promise. We are not a country that chooses between safety and freedom. We built the charter because we believe we can have both. We built our courts because we believe oversight is strength and not weakness. That is exactly what this bill reflects: not surveillance, but accountability; not a back door, but a courthouse door, one that finally works in the digital world.

Every day we delay is another day an investigator hits a wall at the very first step of a case. Every day we delay, another victim waits, while police chase down voluntary confirmations that may never come. Every day the police have to wait, victims multiply. Every day we delay, there are families somewhere in the country waiting for answers that exist but that we choose not to allow investigators to reach.

I have heard it said that we cannot let security compromise freedom. I agree completely, and that is precisely why I am standing here today. Freedom without justice is not freedom. It is a promise we made and did not keep. The law, not the gaps in it, not the limitations of outdated legislation and not the absence of a framework that our allies have had for years, is the supreme authority of this country. It is time we made that mean something in the digital age.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

One question I really hope the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime can answer right here and right now is a very clear question that relates to encrypted communications: Would this bill be going after encrypted communications, yes or no?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the bill as it is right now does not provide for encrypted communications. I know that after the bill passes, there is a regulatory framework that is going to take place, but that, too, does not envision receiving the content of encrypted, detailed messages. What it does is connect who is sending those messages, and that is what is really important to law enforcement, so that they can catch those who are involved in criminal activity.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have been told that all police services across Canada want this. They are demanding it. We understand them. This is a tool they need, but questions have been raised. For instance, lawyers who specialize in privacy protection want to know why the government set such a low threshold for collecting information.

Perhaps the secretary of state can explain to me why the government feels that reasonable grounds to suspect a crime will be committed—rather than reasonable grounds to believe that a crime will be committed—is sufficient to make a demand for information.

In law, there is a big difference between those two thresholds for demanding information.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, reasonable grounds to suspect have been used in other places in the Criminal Code. I think that is completely appropriate in this case, since these are the initial steps in an investigation.

Confirmation and subscriber information provide the police the ability to eliminate or narrow down suspects, so these are the first, initial steps of an investigation. At that point, having reasonable grounds to believe would be too high of a burden and would hinder investigations and us getting to the bottom of catching criminals.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been fortunate to have a good working relationship with Hamilton police and the Hamilton Police Association. One of the things they bring up on a regular basis is the need for the tools that are in this bill to properly investigate crimes.

The secretary of state mentioned in her speech the discussions that she has had with OPP and law enforcement. I was wondering if she could expand on that and the response that she has had from law enforcement across Canada.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been really pleased with the response. Law enforcement, from the beginning of Bill C-2 to now, has been actively involved in providing recommendations and assistance on making sure that this bill is tabled so that they can see it passing.

As I have said before, it has been decades in the works. Many governments and different Parliaments have brought a version of this bill forward. It is time that we get it passed, because we are falling far behind.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions.

I know that law enforcement has been asking for this for quite some time, and I know they are generally pleased with the start of this. I am wondering whether my colleague has heard any feedback from law enforcement that is encouraging Parliament to go further with this legislation, some specific things they are asking for that are not yet in this bill.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his years of service, as well as his contributions. I know that the member cares greatly about getting this legislation right and making sure that, hopefully, it passes through the House.

I think law enforcement would be in agreement for maybe even a broader scope, but that is something we can work on, with this as a first step. We need to get this passed in order to take those other steps in the future. I would be open to going further in the future as well.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-22, an act respecting lawful access. I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague from Kitchener Centre.

I want to give a shout-out to my excellent staff here in Ottawa, Harry McGuire, Aidan Plesa and Andrew Gelok, for their great work in helping me research, both in committee and in the House, this important legislation.

Conservatives recognize that we need to ensure that law enforcement and national security agencies have the tools required to investigate serious crime in this increasingly digital age, but as members of His Majesty's loyal opposition, our job is to hold the government accountable to ensure that we can get the best legislation for Canadians. That means holding government accountable when we are talking about important issues such as expanding state powers in relation to increased surveillance. It is our responsibility as an official opposition to scrutinize, to challenge, and to ensure that any new authority is absolutely necessary, proportionate and consistent with the rights and freedoms of Canadians.

This legislation has evolved from the original Bill C-2 legislation that was brought forward in the fall. It is important to give a bit of background on that legislation and why we are here today. The first substantive piece of legislation introduced in the sitting of the current Parliament was Bill C-2, which proposed a number of significant legal changes regarding Canada's national security, to disrupt organized crime and secure the border.

Conservatives were and remain supportive of any efforts to provide law enforcement with the tools necessary to keep Canadians safe, but we could not support Bill C-2 in its original form. We know that civil liberties organizations and all opposition parties in the House felt that Bill C-2, in particular the lawful access regime in parts 14 and 15, fell short of what was needed. Bill C-22 represents the government's second attempt at enacting lawful access legislation. While I would say that there are improvements, particularly in narrowing certain provisions, some of the structural issues remain and have to be looked into further.

Law enforcement and CSIS need modern tools to deal with modern threats. The issue that the bill is attempting to address is real. Law enforcement and national security experts have long argued that they do not have the tools to effectively go after terrorists, organized criminals and child predators, who are coordinating a lot of their activity online.

Part 1 of the bill focuses on investigative authorities, and in many respects it is an improvement over what was previously proposed in Bill C-2. That said, while the direction in this legislation is more measured than Bill C-2, concerns remain, particularly with respect to the legal thresholds, scope and the adequacy of any safeguards.

I want to talk about the new powers and authorities proposed in the legislation. Part 1 proposes a number of changes that are clearly aimed at improving the efficiency of investigations in a digital environment. It would amend existing search warrant provisions to permit the examination of computer data during the execution of a warrant, and it would also introduce new information demands and production orders that could be used both by police forces and by CSIS. In addition, it would create mechanisms to facilitate access to data held by foreign-based service providers, which reflects the reality that much of the information that law enforcement and security agencies need in this country is not even being stored within our own borders.

These would be very practical changes, and they would respond to real challenges faced by investigators. However, the details of how these powers would be structured, and the limits that would be placed on them, remain critically important.

I want to talk about the confirmation of service demands. One of the proposed powers outlined in part 1 is the confirmation of service demands. This would allow authorities to ask a telecommunications provider a very narrow question, which is whether or not it provides service to a particular person or subscriber. The response would be limited to a simple yes or no. Compared to what was proposed in Bill C-2, this is a much more restrained approach. In Bill C-2, information demands could be issued to any person who provides services to the public. This would now be limited to telecom providers.

One of the more concerning elements of Bill C-2 was other subscriber data. For example, there was concern that people's medical records could be accessed. Thankfully, I believe that this has been clarified and the scope has been narrowed with the new legislation.

I want to talk about foreign data requests. Another significant element of part 1 of the bill is the introduction of a mechanism that would allow Canadian judges to authorize requests for data held by foreign entities. This reflects a very real challenge to modern investigation, as data is frequently being stored outside of Canada, often by companies that operate in multiple jurisdictions. Providing a judicially authorized pathway for these requests may improve co-operation and provide greater legal certainty for foreign service providers. However, it is important to recognize that this would not fully resolve the challenges associated with cross-border data access and whether there would be any way to compel foreign service providers to comply with the requests.

There is also a section on publicly available and voluntary information. The bill clarifies that law enforcement would be able to receive and act upon information that is either voluntarily provided or publicly available, without the need for a warrant or a production order. This appears to be a reasonable clarification, but I do wonder if it raises questions about scope, because what exactly qualifies as publicly available information? Does it include information that has been exposed through data breaches or leaks? Without clear definitions, there is a risk that this provision could be interpreted much more broadly than seems to have been intended. This is something that needs to be addressed.

I want to talk about one of the reasons the legislation was brought forward. It was partially in response to the Bykovets decision of the Supreme Court. In 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that IP addresses have a reasonable expectation of privacy. In that case, police had received an IP address voluntarily from a financial company that had flagged suspected fraudulent transactions to the police. However, since the IP address was not acquired using a production order, this evidence could not be used. Privacy experts have raised concerns that the provisions in the bill may not actually address the issues created by the Supreme Court of Canada's decision. That is concerning.

Part 2 of the bill would enact the supporting authorized access to information act. It is in this section of the legislation that privacy experts seem to have raised the most concerns. It would require electronic service providers to build and maintain systems capable of supporting the lawful access regime, including real-time interception when authorized. In practical terms, this means that companies would be required to design their systems in such a way that law enforcement could access communications once the appropriate legal authorization has been obtained.

With respect to the scope of the application, one of the key concerns with part 2 is the breadth and the definition of what an electronic service provider is. As the bill is currently drafted, this is not limited to traditional telecommunications companies and could extend to a very wide range of entities, including digital platforms, messaging and cloud services, and potentially businesses where communications are only an incidental part of the business.

This could create both practical and legal challenges, as well as uncertainty about who is captured by the legislation, because almost all businesses these days have some sort of electronic recording or storage. There is a possibility that smaller or non-traditional actors would be subject to complex obligations that they are, frankly, not equipped or cannot afford to meet. If the objective is targeted modernization, then the definition needs to be more clear. Unfortunately, as was recently the case with Bill C-8, many of these specific details were left blank and have been left to regulations.

Another area of significant concern in part 2 is the retention of metadata. Under the act, ESPs could be required to retain metadata for a reasonable period of time of up to one year. This is particularly concerning since that data may reveal a person's location. While there are provisions on the retention of information that could reveal private communications and web browsing history, experts have raised concerns that Canadians who are not accused of any wrongdoing may still have their data retained that could reveal their location. It is important to note that similar provisions that were put in place in the EU were actually found disproportionate and unlawful.

In his analysis of the legislation, privacy lawyer David Fraser explained that requiring companies to create capabilities that do not currently exist within their systems to assist law enforcement could lead to creating vulnerabilities within the systems themselves. This can include the development of interception tools that resemble traditional wiretap capabilities adapted for modern environments.

In 2023 and 2024, multiple U.S. telecom companies were compromised, and hackers were able to access data from millions of customers and obtain audio recordings of calls made by senior government and elected officials. I raise this example because U.S. officials subsequently reported that the hackers exploited vulnerabilities that the companies had installed in order to comply with lawful access requests from law enforcement. We need to be very aware that we could be creating a risk if this is not done properly.

The legislation would also have practical cost considerations that cannot be ignored. We know that the compliance costs could be significant, and we do not want those costs to be borne by taxpayers.

In conclusion, I believe that Bill C-22 addresses some real and pressing challenges. It contains provisions that can include the effectiveness of investigations, but at the same time we need to ensure that these new powers would be effective and necessary, and that they would not unnecessarily infringe on the freedoms of Canadians.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the comments from the member for Parkland were a very thoughtful review of the legislation that is before us. He brought up some really important points on the rights of privacy and freedoms, as well as the issue of cross-border data, which is something that could require additional investigation.

Of course, the purpose of the legislation is to identify, investigate and prosecute threats, including drug trafficking, terrorism and violent crimes, etc. I think we all see a priority to hold criminals responsible and to give police the tools that they need to investigate crimes and to stop crimes before they happen.

Would the member opposite agree that the discussion could continue at committee and that additional changes could be made to make the legislation before us even stronger and more effective?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think committee is a great place to hash out legislation and to hear from experts on civil liberties, privacy and law enforcement. When we have all those voices, as we saw with Bill C-8 at the public safety committee, we are able to put forward proposals to fix things.

When I was talking, in the wake of the Bykovets decision in 2024, to local integrated child exploitation teams, they were so disappointed, because a lot of the tips we receive in Canada actually come from the FBI. A lot of the child sexual abuse material being circulated is coming from Canada, but they are finding it only on computers in the United States. Under the Bykovets decision, that information could not be used, because it was not being obtained by a production order and a warrant. We need to ensure that our system is stronger so we can ensure that Canada is not a safe haven for people who produce child sexual abuse material.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on the comment and question raised earlier by my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon.

Although Bill C-22 corrects certain aspects of last year's Bill C-2, according to the Canadian Bar Association, it falls far short of addressing all the gaps and issues raised during the study of Bill C-2. Several issues still need to be examined and addressed during the study of Bill C-22.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is second reading of the legislation that has been put forward. If the legislation does move forward to committee, I think that will be an excellent opportunity to hear from witnesses, possibly the Canadian Bar Association, to hear their concerns. I know that we are meeting with many different stakeholder groups to talk about various concerns with the legislation that is before us today. I think the ultimate goal is to ensure that we have the best piece of legislation, one that balances the freedoms of Canadians with the digital tools that law enforcement needs to keep Canadians safe and to keep our country a place that criminals cannot treat like their own backyard.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether my colleague would share the concerns that some Canadians have already expressed with respect to ministerial orders, requiring only the approval of the intelligence commissioner, rather than maybe adding the Privacy Commissioner or even judicial oversight onto those ministerial orders. I wonder if he shares the concerns of people who have raised that issue.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, ministerial orders are very powerful tools. I think we need to ensure that they are the appropriate tools and that they are the necessary tools. I do note that an improvement to the legislation is that it is very clear that judicial authorizations would be needed in the vast majority of the cases that are dealing with the legislation. I think it should give Canadians some relief to know that this would be added, but we need to ensure that these measures would be proportionate and that they would actually be effective in getting the job done in the way that we want it to get done.

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House to speak on behalf of Kitchener Centre residents. Today, I will be speaking to Bill C-22, an act respecting lawful access.

Let me start with the principle that has guided Conservatives for generations, which is that Canadians deserve to feel safe in their homes, their communities and their daily lives. They deserve a justice system that reflects the same values they hold, one that protects their freedoms and keeps the focus where it belongs, which is on keeping criminals accountable and victims protected. Conservatives believe in law and order. We have always stood for practical measures that keep our streets safe, protect our victims and respect the rights of Canadians. That is not new.

For the past decade, we have been warning the government that its approach to public safety and justice has been failing Canadians by putting dangerous criminals on bail and allowing them to walk on our streets, often to just reoffend again. We have been repeatedly asking the Liberals to reverse the policies that weaken the consequences for crime and leave communities feeling less safe. Instead, the current government has doubled down and allowed the situation to worsen.

This is not just theatrics. In my community of Kitchener Centre, officers are dealing with repeat calls. The Waterloo Regional Police Service has reported that a small number of repeat offenders are responsible for a large share of the calls that they get. The same names come up again and again while officers are pulled from other emergencies. Members can think about what that means. The same person can be arrested and released on bail, sometimes even on the same day, only for the police to rearrest them all over again.

Instead of strengthening enforcement and ensuring our frontline police officers and first responders have the resources they need, the government has gone to bat for policies that do not always reflect the realities on the ground, and Canadians can see the results in their communities. They see them in rising crime rates and in their local police forces that are stretched thin. As His Majesty's loyal opposition, it is our role to see if legislation has gone too far. It is not only our role to say so, but also our responsibility.

That is the context in which we find Bill C-22.

Nobody understands more than Canadians that our police services need the necessary tools to do their jobs and be able to keep up with the modern world. They deal with real threats and emergencies. They deserve a system that supports their work. That is not the issue. What Canadians expect and what they deserve is a respect for their privacy and freedom at the same time. However, these tools must be carefully balanced with the rights of Canadians. Public safety and civil liberties do not actually oppose one another; they work hand in hand. That is why Conservatives are approaching this with such caution.

These tools must be able to withstand scrutiny over time. Everyone benefits from clarity. For those in public safety and the general public, clarity reduces uncertainty, because once the government gains access to more of Canadians' personal information, it is not just a question of what it will do with it today, but what it will do with it tomorrow and then the day after that as well. That is why Canadians are paying attention, and the questions they are asking are about trust. They should not be difficult ones for the government to answer. Who has access to this information? Under what conditions can it be accessed? How is that access controlled? What safeguards exist to ensure it is not misused? Where is the line drawn? I think Canadians deserve to know.

When Canadians hear about lawful access, most of them are not thinking about legal definitions and technical terms. What it really boils down to is who can see their information, and why and how that data would be used. If those answers are not clear in the law itself, then it leaves too much room for interpretation and confusion later on what the law is being applied to in real situations.

So much of our lives take place online. We communicate online and bank online, some of us work online, and we store information online. We shop online, and we watch our favourite shows online. More and more of what we do in our daily lives leaves a digital trace. That does not automatically create a problem, but it does mean that the laws around access to digital information now reach further into ordinary activities than they once did.

For example, simple data, such as if someone sends a message, where they are or what device they are on, can reveal a lot about their daily life, even if the actual content of the message is never read aloud. Even something as simple as linking a name to an IP address can reveal where a person goes online, what they look at, their habits or who they talk to.

Good legislation is not just about intent. It is about whether the rules are clear enough that they cannot be misinterpreted. It is about whether the safeguards in place are strong enough that Canadians' rights are protected. Once information is shared in a digital system, it can move quickly between organizations.

That is what Canadians want and, frankly, deserve to know. It is not just who can access their information, but how it is tracked and how it will be protected once accessed. If Canadians cannot see that process clearly, it becomes harder for them to trust how the system is going to work. Once they start to believe that their personal information is not fully protected, it changes things as they know it. It changes how they interact with technology, how they communicate and how confident they feel in their institutions.

We can also not ignore a particularly vulnerable group in this conversation: children and young Canadians. They are now growing up in a world where sharing information is automatic, not deliberate. Many of them do not fully understand what happens to their data once it is shared, who can access it or how long it is stored. That is precisely why the law must be written with them in mind.

Research from the Canadian Centre for Child Protection highlights that young people are more likely to make privacy decisions online without fully understanding the long-term implications of how their personal information may be collected, stored or used. Similarly, Pew Research Centre research shows that teenagers often underestimate how visible and permanent their online activity is. This falls not only under privacy legislation in general but also under what the definition of lawful access means.

The risks do not fall to everyone equally. They cling to those who are the least equipped to understand how their information is being used. We must also recognize that consent in a digital environment is not always meaningful when users do not fully understand what they are agreeing to. Conservatives want to protect kids, which is why clear rules, strict limits on access and strong accountability matters.

Canadians outside this chamber are not reading every clause of the bill, but they know that government decisions impact their daily lives. They understand what it means when privacy is weakened. They have seen before what happens when government powers grow without transparency and accountability. Really, it all comes down to trust, and right now, that trust is fragile.

A poll from Ipsos, as reported by Global News, shows that Canadians are increasingly worried about how their personal data is being collected and used, especially in private industry and by government. Canadians need to be able to trust that, when government is given access to sensitive personal information, it will use that authority carefully and only within clear limits set out by the law. They need to trust that those limits are not flexible or open to interpretation, but firm enough to protect Canadians in practice, not just in principle. They need to trust that, over time, these powers will not quietly expand beyond what was originally approved. Once that trust is lost, it is very difficult to rebuild. That is why clarity, restraint and accountability matter just as much as the intent behind the text itself.

Conservatives are not interested in rushing this process. We are not interested in opposing the bill just to oppose it. We are interested in getting this right for Canadians. They should not have to choose between being safe and being free. They deserve both. Conservatives will stand for both as we review Bill C-22.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague expressed some concerns about public safety, and I want to reassure her. On this side of the House, we take these commitments to make our communities safer seriously. The purpose of Bill C-14 is to ensure tougher sentences for repeat violent offenders, while Bill C-16 seeks to better protect victims. Finally, the purpose of Bill C-22 is to provide law enforcement with the tools they need to properly investigate various crimes being committed using more modern technology.

Her colleague, the member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, even said that the bill would better assist law enforcement in their investigations and that he welcomed this legislation. He urged us to send Bill C-22 to committee. I would like to know whether the member agrees with her Conservative colleague that the bill is a step in the right direction for law enforcement in this country. Does she also agree that it should be sent to committee?

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully disagree that the Liberals are taking it seriously to act on public safety.

In Ontario, violent firearms offences increased by 98% last year, and instead of addressing illegal firearms or border control, the government tried to do a failed gun buy-back program, which is not taking those illegal firearms off the street and is not actually protecting Canadians. There have been other measures showing that whatever the Liberals tried to do, they failed over and over again.

While Bill C-22 is moving in the right direction, there is work to do here. We will be scrutinizing the bill, as the Conservative Party, to make sure that we get it right for Canadians.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her detailed speech, which provided a thorough analysis of the situation. It was very interesting. I understand that there has been some criticism.

Since the minister just said that he was open to making improvements in committee, I have the same question as the member who spoke before me. I would like to know whether my colleague thinks that this bill is worth debating and examining in committee.

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do think that it is worth reviewing in committee.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I used to live in my colleague from Kitchener Centre's riding. It is a wonderful area. I am very glad that she is representing it.

The member brought up the point of a lack of trust in the government and a fear of a lack of transparency and accountability. The government will argue not to worry because inside the bill is a mandated comprehensive review of the legislation in three years. However, we have the same thing for the Access to Information Act, which the government has blown off; the Environmental Protection Act, which the government has blown off; the Lobbying Act, which the government has not done a review on; the Conflict of Interest Act; the Proceeds of Crime and Terrorist Financing Act; the CSIS Act; the Anti-terrorism Act; and the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act. For all of these acts, the government has blown off the legislative review.

Does my colleague trust that the government is going to do the review as mandated, or will it be just another broken promise from the Liberal government?

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, truthfully, I do not trust the Liberal government right now to handle crime and what is happening in our communities. I will share a very personal reason why that is.

Homicide is up almost 51% in Ontario, and that is not just a statistic for me. A very close and dear friend of mine was murdered and was part of these numbers last year. She was murdered by someone who had committed repeat violent offences, including stabbing, and that is how my friend died. She was stabbed to death.

The revolving door that is our justice system is a piece that has been ignored. We have put opposition motions forward to try to reverse what is happening in this country. No, I do not have faith in this coming forward with the Liberal government, and I do not trust that it will keep its promise on this. We will continue to hold the government accountable, and we will do this right.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Hull—Aylmer.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-22, an act respecting lawful access.

I want to start by asking two questions that I think Canadians are rightly asking.

The first is this: Are we meeting the moment when it comes to investigating crimes in a digital world? The tools that criminals use today, including encrypted communications, cryptocurrency and transnational digital networks, did not exist five years ago the way that they do now and certainly not at the scale at which they exist now. The crimes have not changed. Child exploitation is real and still exists in our world. Organized crime has not changed, and fentanyl trafficking is still there. What has changed, however, is how these crimes are carried out and the degree to which our existing investigative tools simply cannot keep pace.

The second question is just as important: Are we doing this in a way that protects the privacy of Canadians? If the answer to the first question comes at the expense of the second, then we have not done our job.

Bill C-22 seeks to answer both questions.

I think it is important to walk through what the legislation would do because there has been a lot of confusion and misinformation about what is being proposed. Bill C-22 has two parts that would work together. Part 1 would modernize legal authorities that law enforcement and CSIS need to investigate crimes in a digital environment. Part 2, the supporting authorized access to information act, would establish the technical requirements for electronic service providers, companies like our major telcos, to be able to comply with existing court-authorized processes. I want to emphasize the word “existing”. The bill would not create new surveillance powers, new intercept authorities or back doors into any one system. It would make the court-authorized processes that we already have, warrants and production orders, which are tools that have always required judicial oversight, functional in a world that has moved online.

Right now, if a judge were to issue a production order for evidence held by a service provider, there is no regulatory framework in Canada that requires the provider to have the technical capability to comply. I would ask us all to think about that for a moment. A judge can authorize access to evidence, but the system to carry that out may not exist. That is the gap this bill seeks to close.

Folks may ask, “Why now?” The answer is simple: The gap between criminal capability and law enforcement capability is widening, not narrowing. Two Supreme Court decisions, R. v. Spencer and R. v. Bykovets, have brought important clarity to the legal landscape around digital investigations. In Spencer, the court confirmed that police need a warrant to obtain basic subscriber information. In Bykovets, the court extended that principle to IP addresses. These rulings affirmed something important: Canadians have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their digital lives. This bill would respect that.

Those decisions also made clear how outdated our existing legislative framework really is. The law as it stands was not built to function in a world where, rightly, judicial authorization is required at these stages. Without the proper tools to operate within that reality efficiently, investigations are slowing at precisely the moments when timeliness matters the most.

Here is a practical reality. When police are investigating a serious crime, such as a child exploitation case, an extortion ring or an active threat, and have a court-authorized production order in hand, they still need to know which service provider holds the relevant data. Under the current framework, they cannot even ask that question. They cannot confirm whether a provider services a particular IP address, not the subscriber's identity, just whether the provider has any connection to that address at all. If they serve the order on the wrong provider, they have to start all over again. Meanwhile, evidence degrades, trails go cold and, in some cases, kids remain at risk.

That is the gap I am talking about. It is not hypothetical; it is playing out in investigations across the country, and it is costing us time that we simply do not have.

We are the only Five Eyes country and the only G7 member without a modernized lawful access framework. What that means practically is that Canadian law enforcement has had to rely on international partners to do what we should have been able to do ourselves. That is simply not a sustainable position for a country that takes both public safety and sovereignty seriously.

We also need to have the conversation about whatever concerns exist about privacy.

I would ask members to look carefully at how this bill is structured, because I think that when we do, we see something that should give Canadians confidence. The principle at the heart of this bill is proportionality. The level of oversight is calibrated to the level of intrusion. The more information one is seeking and the more it touches the privacy of an individual, the higher the bar that has to be cleared. Most Canadians, I believe, would agree with that instinct.

Let us walk through what that might look like in practice. At the most basic level, there is confirmation of service demand, which is a threshold question. It asks, does this particular provider service this IP address or phone number, yes or no? There are no subscriber details, no content, no further information. This simply tells investigators whether they are knocking on the door of the right service provider. Because it reveals so little, it does not require a warrant. We are not learning anything about a person. We are learning whether a company has a connection to an identifier.

The next step is the subscriber information production order. Now we are asking for something that starts to identify a person, such as a name, an address, a phone number or an email address. This is more intrusive, so, appropriately, it requires the consent or the authorization of a justice or a judge. However, it is still narrower than a general production order, because we are not seeking content or communications, just the basic identifiers that allow an investigation to proceed. Then, when an investigator needs access to the content of communication or more detailed data, the full weight of the existing production order and warrant process applies, such as judicial authorization and full oversight. These are the same protections that have always existed under Canadian law.

Each step up in what the police ask for comes with a corresponding step up in the scrutiny that is applied. The oversight is proportionate to the invasiveness. I would suggest that this is not just good policy. It is in line with what the courts have told us about privacy and privacy interests in a digital context. The courts have said that these things engage privacy. This bill seeks to address the instructions of the court. It builds a system where the protections match the intrusions.

I want to speak briefly to the safeguards, because they reflect something important about how this bill came together. Earlier proposals around lawful access raised legitimate questions. The government's members heard those concerns. We went back and refined our approach. The definition of subscriber information was narrowed to basic identifiers. Ministerial orders under part 2 are now subject to approval by the intelligence commissioner. Data retention requirements are limited to metadata only and for a maximum of one year, and the bill explicitly excludes content, web browsing history and social media activity.

These are not small refinements. They are the product of careful work to get the balance right. The bill also includes mandatory public reporting in a parliamentary review three years after royal assent. I think we have an obligation to build that kind of transparency into any legislation that touches on investigative power, and this bill does exactly that.

I would like to end with what matters to me as a dad, what should matter to all of us, because what matters is at stake. The crimes that depend most heavily on digital infrastructure, such as child exploitation, extortion, human trafficking and money laundering, are precisely the crimes where law enforcement currently lack the tools to investigate effectively.

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has called for the modernization of our lawful access regime. The Canadian Centre for Child Protection has supported the advancement of this bill. The National Police Federation has recognized that this legislation is a long-overdue modernization that protects the rights of Canadians while keeping them safe. When law enforcement and child protection organizations are telling us the same thing, we have a responsibility to act, not recklessly, but deliberately, and with the kind of care that this bill reflects. Responsible governance means modernizing our tools while respecting the rights of Canadians, not one at the expense of the other, but both together.

Bill C-22 gives law enforcement the investigative tools that they need to combat serious crimes, while ensuring that the privacy of Canadians is protected through judicial oversight, proportioned authorities and robust accountability. It is built within the charter. It responds to the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, and it closes a gap that has left Canada behind every one of its Five Eyes allies and G7 partners. This is how we keep Canadians safe, not by standing still while the world moves forward, but by keeping pace with the threats and the values that define us.

I urge all members to support this bill.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. When it comes to getting it right, there is no doubt that we need to address loopholes when it comes to access and when it comes to ensuring that information is available. The question is, how do we get it right? I am approaching this debate with that lens. We have ministerial orders that will not necessarily be transparent under this legislation. They will be in secret.

Does my hon. colleague have a position on that, namely whether they should all be in secret, or whether some should be in secret in order to protect vulnerabilities?

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the work he has put in, and for his advocacy on behalf of his citizens and, of course, all Canadians when it comes to matters of public safety.

The reality is that this bill works precisely within the limitations of the law. It works within the instructions of the court and ensures that the rights of Canadians are protected. That includes their privacy rights. It includes ensuring that the appropriate information is or is not disclosed within the bounds of what is acceptable in this country.

I would argue that one of the challenges we will always have in dealing with legislation like this is the question of whether seeking perfection is preventing us from getting done what is necessary and right in this moment. I believe this bill addresses those concerns and the concerns of my friend across. He should feel confident, as should Canadians, in this response from the government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a very simple question. Upon reading the bill, some lawyers who specialize in privacy protection said that they had a bit of a problem with the definition of essential service providers, who may be subject to injunctions relating to technical capabilities for lawful access. That would be done through regulation, which is a major problem.

Does my colleague agree that we need to carefully review the definition of essential service providers?

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the law is clear in that regard. We need to create an environment where service providers must work with and help law enforcement in a way that respects the law.

As the member opposite knows, it is important to make sure these definitions are clear and correct. This bill does that. It makes sure that the folks who are in the positions to provide that information, the service providers, know exactly what their responsibilities are and, within the constructs, are able to do the work and have the capacity to do what is required to address the needs of local police.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this bill represents progress. First, Bill C-2 was introduced. Then, in light of the feedback we received from members, we went back to the drawing board to redraft the proposed legislation, seeking as much consensus as possible. Consultations were then held with all political parties in an effort to reach that consensus.

Does my colleague believe that Bill C-22 accurately reflects the discussions that we had with all parliamentarians?

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, this bill represents exactly that. It reflects the changing reality that we are currently facing. This bill is designed to protect rights while providing responsible support to law enforcement in a digital environment that has become very complex. It reflects both the desire and the need to take significant yet responsible action for Canadians.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to this bill, which is very important for the safety of Canadians and for Canada's role on the international stage.

Usually, when I give a speech, I like to speak off the cuff, relying on only a few notes. However, I will not do that today for two reasons. First, as a member of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, I have several obligations, including the obligation not to disclose certain information that I am made aware of in the course of my work. Second, this issue is very relevant to the work of the committee of parliamentarians, which is made up of parliamentarians from all political parties in the House and the Senate. I am therefore going to be very focused and read my speech just to make sure that I do say anything that I should not.

The world around us is becoming increasingly digital and networked, and much of our day-to-day business, means of communication and overall lives relies on the Internet. I do not have to tell my colleagues about all of our different devices, which I will not use as a prop, such as smart phones, emails and the like, and instant messaging applications. All these things easily and instantly transcend provincial, national and international borders.

Unfortunately, this equally means that malicious actors like organized crime groups and violent extremists can explore this borderless nature of cyberspace for their own benefit. Canada's law enforcement agencies and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service need modern tools to help keep communities and Canadians safe. Therefore, we must close the capability gap in current legislation that prevents law enforcement's and CSIS's lawful access to data and ensure they can properly execute their mandates and protect Canadians.

Canada maintains an international reputation as a safe and peaceful country. To sustain this reputation, we must ensure that our legislation keeps pace with modern threats and technologies used in criminal and malicious activities.

“Lawful access” is a term we will hear a lot in association with this bill, and let us be very clear about what it means. Lawful access includes the tools and authorities to legally obtain certain information, data or communication during investigations. This information is often essential to generating leads on serious criminal activities and national security threats, as well as identifying and prosecuting those involved.

For decades, law enforcement and CSIS have had to operate without a legal framework requiring electronic service providers, or, as I will refer to them, ESPs, to develop and maintain lawful access capabilities. The current legal framework has not kept up with rapid advances in technology. Frankly, our laws are very much like me: They are analog in a digital world. This is the reason we have developed Bill C-22, which aims to facilitate law enforcement's and CSIS's timely access to basic subscriber information. I would like to make sure we understand it would be basic information. This is important because law enforcement and intelligence investigators need basic subscriber information, like a legal name or an address, to identify or exclude suspects, particularly during the preliminary stages of an investigation.

Bill C-22 would also establish a general legal framework to require electronic service providers to have the capability to respond to legally authorized requests, like a warrant or a production order, while respecting and protecting privacy interests and fundamental rights that all Canadians expect.

Bill C-22 would introduce provisions to support law enforcement agencies as they crack down on crime in an increasingly complex technological landscape, where the vast majority of evidence is online and in an electronic format. Law enforcement groups have sounded the alarm on the obstacles they encounter during investigations. They have sounded this alarm for years. Currently, law enforcement faces many challenges in obtaining the information it needs. Often, law enforcement does not know which service provider holds the customer account associated with the subscriber information, which also means it does not know who to serve with a production order. This challenge presently stalls and delays real-world investigations.

In many cases, law enforcement is required to seek multiple judicial authorizations to seek very basic information from different service providers, solely to confirm which provider services a phone number or an IP address. The current framework causes significant, unnecessary and harmful delays. Timely access to this basic information is crucial in all stages of an investigation and can spell the difference between securing key evidence and allowing criminals to slip through our fingers.

As another example, police could be aware that a provider holds certain information, but the company is unable to provide it because its systems do not possess the capability to do so and there is no legal requirement to carry such capabilities. We have heard many stories of law enforcement tracking a missing child or attempting to stop a terrorist attack, knowing which ESP to obtain the information from but being stonewalled by the provider's lack of lawful access capabilities. We cannot hope to fully protect Canadians and our communities if law enforcement and CSIS are unable to do their jobs. What is more, Canada may not be able to contribute meaningfully to joint investigations with its international partners or fully benefit from the support that our international partners provide to us. My colleague the parliamentary secretary spoke at length about this.

For this reason, Bill C-22 introduces new legislation to close this gap, whereby certain electronic service providers would need to develop and maintain the technological capabilities to respond to production orders. To be clear, this aspect of the legislation intentionally and explicitly would not allow for a so-called back door or any direct access for law enforcement or CSIS into electronic service providers' systems, and the legal authority to access that information would still always be required.

Bill C-22 proposes two ways by which an ESP could be asked to develop and maintain lawful access capabilities. First, those designated as core providers, such as traditional telecommunications companies, would have to abide by specific requirements set out in the regulations. Second, the Minister of Public Safety could issue a ministerial order to develop specific capabilities based on operational needs as new technologies develop.

We have heard the concerns from parliamentarians and stakeholders around privacy and oversight, and I want to reassure Canadians. I am actually very proud of the fact that the government took back this bill, listened carefully and amended it in ways to address the concerns that were raised. Bill C-22 now includes safeguards so that ESPs would not have to abide by any demands that would introduce systemic vulnerabilities in electronic protections, such as encryption breaking or what I called a “back door”. The bill would also require that the Minister of Public Safety obtain the approval of the intelligence commissioner before a ministerial order is valid, and it could be subject to further review by the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, or NSIRA.

Bill C-22 is about removing harmful barriers that impede active investigations, delay justice and put Canadians in harm's way. This is about bringing our legislation up to date, finally, with modern technologies and with that of our closest allies. This is about ensuring that extortionists, child predators, cybercriminals, hostile state actors and organized criminal networks would have nowhere to hide.

This is a responsible bill that would make the necessary changes, and I hope all members can see their way to support it.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intent of the bill and what the government is trying to accomplish, but there are a lot of concerns from Canadians about, perhaps, overreach by the government and about privacy.

I brought this up previously. There is a provision in the bill for parliamentary review after three years. We have an Order Paper question that just came back a couple of months ago that shows the government is behind on 106 legislative reviews. I have mentioned some of them. It appears the government is not actually performing the legislative reviews.

I am wondering if my colleague opposite can advise the House and Canadians on what would be done to ensure that this review would be done within the three years, as would be mandated.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member from the Edmonton area for raising this issue. It is a very important issue and one that I fully support, and I understand what he is bringing up.

I know, for example, that the NSICOP Act is behind in its five-year review. I can assure the hon. member that I would be happy to work in partnership with him and others to ensure that this review does happen. I will also commit to working with the member on these issues. This is not easily arrived at, in terms of Bill C-22. To ensure that Canadians have confidence in it, we do have to make sure that it has those reviews in that time. I would be happy to work with the member, and he has my full commitment to do so.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since my colleague serves on the national security committee, can he tell me why the government is granting our law enforcement and intelligence agencies more power in this bill while also cutting the budget of the agency responsible for overseeing them?

The National Security and Intelligence Review Agency's budget was slashed by 15% in the name of cost-cutting measures that can only be described as penny-pinching, when this is a very important issue.

Can my colleague from Hull—Aylmer explain that?

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Shefford for her very relevant question. We introduced this bill to give our national security and intelligence agencies new tools, modern tools, they could use to conduct investigations and protect Canadians.

That does not mean that we are going to be spending money the same way as before. We can take advantage of these new tools. Rather than using paper and sorting through paper files, we can use modern tools to do the work, making it much more efficient and effective.

I think that is one way of making sure that we are protecting Canadians.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his great speech on Bill C-22. There are two aspects of this bill that my constituents have raised with me. One is about acknowledging that law enforcement agencies need to have these tools in order to conduct themselves effectively to protect our communities and society. The second aspect of it is about privacy and ensuring that persons like me, and the member as well, have the opportunity to just be a Canadian citizen and not be targeted based on what they look like or the religion they practise.

Perhaps the member can help reinforce that this would be a fair bill and a fair opportunity, in the tools that would be presented to law enforcement, while also making sure that people's constitutional rights and their privacy would be protected.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member has done work in this field, and I thank her for her work.

The best way to make sure that she is protected, I am protected and everyone here is protected is to not cast a wide net. This is why there are some safeguards in this bill, for example, making sure that there would be judicial reviews of these orders and having ministerial orders approved by an officer of Parliament, the intelligence commissioner. These are safeguards that are built into this bill to ensure that there would not be any excesses, as the member rightfully would be concerned about.

I have great confidence that people doing their jobs properly will make sure that we avoid, as we say in French, des débordements.

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

Mr. Speaker, every time I rise to speak when you are in the chair, I know you have some fun pronouncing the name of my riding, as it is quite a mouthful for any chair occupant. You did a great job of pronouncing it.

As the Bloc Québécois critic for public safety and emergency preparedness, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-22. It is important to note that the government already tried once to introduce a bill on lawful access. That was Bill C-2, which was introduced last June, nearly a year ago. Bill C-2 was severely criticized, not only by civil society, but also by major organizations, which argued that the bill made no sense.

I understand that the government worked very quickly, although perhaps not responsibly enough, because it also wanted to please the American government, especially President Trump, who was threatening Canada at the time. To respond quickly, the government drafted a bill hastily without conducting all of the consultations necessary to produce a high-quality piece of legislation.

Today we are debating Bill C-22, which builds on the principles of Bill C-2 but is much more comprehensive and much better crafted, because the government sat down at the table with various groups and consulted with them. There are some groups that say they were not consulted and would have liked to be, but it does seem like the work got done. However, there is still more to do.

We cannot necessarily oppose Bill C-22, because we know that as soon as it gets its majority, the government will take steps to have Bill C-22 studied in committee and passed. I am well aware of that. However, I was truly delighted with the minister's response today. I was satisfied. He told me that he was still open to amendments. We have ideas stemming from our own consultations, and it is still possible to improve Bill C-22. I was really pleased to hear the Minister of Public Safety answer yes to my question about whether he was open to amendments. That is to his credit, because I believe he really wants the best possible bill to achieve his objectives, namely public safety and privacy protection.

I could not help but say “mon Dieu”. I was tempted to say “my God” but I will not say that. It occurs to me that, if the government had been in a majority position last June, Bill C‑2 would have passed, which would have been very bad. That brings me to what the opposition can offer whether the government has a minority or a majority. When the work is taken seriously and is carried out professionally and diligently, our role is to help improve a bill by listening to experts and asking questions.

Bill C‑22 does have some privacy safeguards that were missing from Bill C‑2. However, are they enough? We are going to be asking questions about that. We still have a lot of questions on this matter.

As a reminder, “Part 1 amends various Acts to modernize certain provisions respecting the timely gathering and production of data and information during an investigation.” It amends the Criminal Code and the Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act. It amends the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act to allow the Minister of Justice to authorize the enforcement in Canada of foreign orders requiring the disclosure of transmission data or information. It amends the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Cannabis Act.

In other words, this bill amends quite a few existing statutes, so an in-depth study is needed. I have no doubt the bill will go to committee, and I am eager to see how it will be handled now that the government has a majority. I heard the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons call for collaboration and openness. I heard the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety talk about how open they are. I look forward to witnessing that if the bill gets the support it needs to go to committee.

Part 2 of the bill provides further details on how access to information will be granted and regulated, and so it creates a new law. Naturally, Part 3, as is almost always the case in bills from this Parliament, indicates that Parliament must review the legislation three years after the law comes into force. It is true: Parliament will need to take the time, take this seriously and review this legislation three years after it receives royal assent. In fact, the Bloc Québécois proposed such a review for Bill C-8 on cybersecurity. We made that proposal because cybersecurity, cyber-attacks and basically the entire digital landscape are evolving so rapidly that bills can quickly become outdated given the circumstances, the technologies involved and the ingenuity of unscrupulous individuals seeking to attack our critical systems. This is therefore a task that will require collaboration, and I look forward to our work in committee.

I can assure you that, if the bill makes it to committee, we in the Bloc Québécois will work on it with the utmost seriousness and rigour. That is why I was a little offended when the Prime Minister said that now that the Liberals have a majority, it is time to get serious. I have always taken my role as an opposition member seriously and have always taken a constructive approach. Quite frankly, I do not really fit the mould of someone who obstructs or refuses to co-operate, and I have plenty of examples to prove it.

I think the members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security are exemplary. We studied Bill C-12 and Bill C-8, important government bills that required significant and professional contributions from the opposition parties. I will say it again: It bothered me when the Prime Minister said that now that the Liberals have a majority, the serious work can begin. It is a nice sound bite, but it could be offensive to certain members who take their work very seriously.

We do have some minor concerns about Bill C‑22. Some concerns are more significant than others. In particular, there is the whole issue of the definition of essential services. I think that needs to be clarified. We also have a problem with everything that can be changed by way of regulation. We look forward to hearing from experts, if the bill is ever sent to committee, to see how we can limit those elements that will be set through regulation and establish them in the legislation instead. I look forward to hearing the arguments.

I want to raise another point. When we compare ourselves to the Five Eyes, people always say that Canada lags behind. There was plenty of testimony at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to this effect, and I believe it too. However, some aspects of Bill C‑22 are more invasive than they are in the other Five Eyes countries. For example, Australia has an organization similar to the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, or the NSIRA. However, the Australian organization has a more important role than the role given to the NSIRA in the context of Bill C‑22.

I hope my colleagues understand that it is with a constructive approach that we will continue to debate Bill C‑22 and try to understand how we can improve it. Accordingly, I think the minister and his team can count on the usual co-operation from the Bloc Québécois.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear that my colleague sees Bill C-22 as a step in the right direction. I understand that she expects it to be referred to committee soon for the next steps in the legislative process. I also see that she has studied the bill thoroughly and understands it very well.

I would like my colleague to tell us what she thinks are the main improvements in this new legislative framework that is going to be implemented.

She mentioned that Canada is the only Five Eyes country that does not have a legal framework governing access for our law enforcement agencies. This was a request made by various police forces. I would like her to explain how this constitutes a step forward for keeping Canadians safer, especially given that we know today's criminals use many different technologies.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would say that one of the biggest improvements has been the introduction of guardrails, since Bill C‑2 had none. There is a process to follow in order to access data. That process is what may be open to criticism. Some people think it is sufficient, but others do not. I imagine that the issue will be debated further here in the House. If the bill passes this stage and gets to committee, experts will have provide their input on the matter.

What we have a hard time understanding is the fact that the minister and law enforcement are being given more authority. It surprises me that the only agency whose primary mission is to monitor the RCMP and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service is being weakened. As things stand, eight positions have already been eliminated after 15% of its budget was slashed. In my opinion, this seems a little inconsistent with things the government is telling us about lawful access to information.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague and friend for her extremely thorough speech. It highlights her deep dedication to her work.

She brought up comparisons to the Five Eyes and to things being done in other countries. She also said that there would be some leeway for the committee to improve this bill. She touched on a few topics.

Can she give us a few ideas, other than the ones she mentioned in her speech, about possible improvements to this bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, who always asks such good, pertinent questions. I have great respect for my colleague from Joliette—Manawan.

I would say that if we were to suggest one thing, it would be that the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency should be notified in real time of any orders to access private information. Right now, the plan is for it to receive the report one year after the fact. This would make it difficult for the agency to investigate in real time. In Australia, this type of oversight body is notified in real time, as is the privacy commissioner.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think we all share the genuine desire to ensure that law enforcement has the appropriate tools to deal with crime and criminals in the digital age. That Canada is behind its peers, who are doing this, is really an indictment of the government. The Liberals have been in power 10 years and they have chosen not to address this issue until now.

That said, just because we are in the digital age and it presents challenges, that does not mean we must abandon the liberties and freedoms that this House is meant to protect, and Bill C-22, in my view, presents many concerns in that respect. I am particularly concerned about the government's ability to compel private enterprise to build systems, maintain information about Canadians and do so in secret.

I would like to ask my colleague whether she shares any of those concerns from Canadians and how she proposes to deal with them.

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

Mr. Speaker, yes, we share some of those concerns.

One concern I would like to highlight involves the government's decision to lower the threshold for obtaining information. It opted for the least stringent threshold. Access would be granted if there are reasonable grounds to suspect, rather than the higher threshold of reasonable grounds to believe. That may be worth amending or, at the very least, seriously discussing here in the House.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-22 is the federal government's attempt to finally establish a Canadian lawful access regime after years of inaction. There is no doubt that law enforcement and national security agencies face real challenges in the digital world. Criminals involved in organized crime, child exploitation and human trafficking increasingly use encrypted services, burner phones and foreign-based platforms to hide their identities and evade justice. Conservatives have long recognized the need to give police the tools required to pursue criminals effectively.

However, while Bill C-22 addresses some genuine operational gaps, it also raises serious concerns about civil liberties, proportionality and ministerial overreach. As drafted, the bill risks trading Canadians' privacy and constitutional protections for administrative convenience while failing to meaningfully address the most urgent public safety issues facing the country.

My first point is that faster access comes at the cost of lower thresholds. At the heart of Bill C-22 is a deliberate shift toward faster and easier access to digital information. The bill introduces new confirmation of service demands, production orders for subscriber information and clarified emergency seizure powers, many of which operate on the low standard of “reasonable grounds to suspect” rather than “reasonable grounds to believe”. Subscriber information under this bill is defined broadly, including names, addresses, email accounts, device identifiers and service history. In the modern context, this information can reveal detailed personal profiles and social connections. Lowering the evidentiary threshold for accessing this data risks normalizing surveillance at early investigative stages without sufficient justification or safeguards. While judicial oversight technically remains in place for most tools, the cumulative effect is a system where access is easier, quicker and more routine, even when the intrusion into privacy could be significant.

My second point is about the expansion of warrantless and voluntary disclosure powers. Bill C-22 codifies and expands the ability of police and public officers to obtain information without warrants in exigent circumstances. While true emergencies justify flexibility, the bill's language does risk stretching “impracticability” beyond genuine urgency and into administrative expediency.

Even more concerning is the bill's broad reliance on voluntary disclosure. Telecommunications companies and other service providers are explicitly encouraged to hand over information voluntarily, including unsolicited information or data required under foreign law, with full immunity from civil or criminal liability. This effectively creates, or could create, a parallel system of access outside traditional judiciary scrutiny. Canadians should not have their personal information transferred to the state simply because a company decides it is expedient or risk-free to comply in certain circumstances.

My third concern is that secrecy and delayed notice could weaken accountability. Bill C-22 entrenches secrecy as a core feature of lawful access. Non-disclosure orders can prevent service providers from revealing that they have been compelled to co-operate. In some cases, notice to affected individuals may be delayed for up to three years, with possible extensions. This erosion of transparency undermines meaningful accountability. Canadians whose data is accessed may never know it happened, making charter challenges or judicial remedies largely theoretical. Oversight that occurs only after the fact and primarily within government institutions cannot substitute for timely notice and real recourse.

My fourth point is about ministerial powers and burdens on service providers. Part 2 of the bill, the supporting authorized access to information act, introduces a new regulatory regime imposing obligations on electronic service providers. The government may designate core providers, such as a cellphone company, and require them to build and maintain technical surveillance capabilities, retain metadata for up to one year, and assist in testing access systems, all at their own expense. While the bill claims to prohibit mandatory back doors and systematic vulnerabilities, the scope of ministerial discretion remains extremely broad. Individualized ministerial orders are confidential, shielded from public scrutiny, and only reviewed for reasonableness by the intelligence commissioner. This framework risks imposing compliance costs, stifling innovation and concentrating powers in the hands of our executive.

My fifth point is that the bill fails to address Canada's real public safety crisis. Perhaps most troubling is what Bill C-22 would not do: It would do nothing to address catch-and-release bail, sentencing leniency or the lack of mandatory prison time for fentanyl traffickers and violent gang members. Canadians continue to face rising violent crime, organized theft and drug trafficking, problems driven not by lack of data but by judicial and policy failures. The government's focus on digital access powers, while ignoring these other key aspects of our criminal justice system, reflects, in some cases, a few misplaced priorities.

Bill C-22 contains elements that Conservatives can support in principle and that I will be voting in favour of, particularly the goal of modernizing investigative tools, but as drafted, the bill would overreach in ways that could threaten civil liberties, weaken transparency and expand ministerial power, while failing to deliver real improvements to public safety in certain cases.

In a digital era, when metadata can be as revealing as content itself, the bill's cumulative effect risks putting Canada on a path to where lawful access becomes pervasive access. A more balanced approach would have raised access thresholds, narrowed voluntary disclosure, strengthened notice obligations and subjected the most privacy-intrusive powers to stricter, not looser, judicial control. For these reasons, I believe Conservatives should support the bill at second reading in order to send it to committee, but only with a clear expectation that amendments are required.

Any lawful access regime must strike a proper balance, equipping police to stop criminals while firmly protecting the rights and freedoms of law-abiding Canadians. I believe we can get there, and this is a step in the right direction, especially as it relates to vulnerable children and victims of human trafficking.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know that my colleague shares this side of the House's desire to equip police officers with tools for the 21st century. He also shares our concern, and it is clear that the other side does not, based on those members' actions, for the protection of civil liberties, including the privacy of Canadians. Of course, Bill C-22 raises severe concerns with respect to the invasion of the privacy of Canadians.

The member recommended it go to committee. Could he explain for me some of the things that we would like to see changed at committee?

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the most concerning thing is the requirement for blanket metadata retention. Under the bill, service providers could be forced to store vast quantities of Canadians' digital footprints for up to a year, regardless of suspicion and regardless of wrongdoing. I know in some cases that metadata can be utilized for nefarious purposes, and we need to make sure that the proper protocols are in place.

The House resumed from April 15 consideration of the motion that Bill C-22, An Act respecting lawful access, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives believe in law and order, and have always stood for common-sense measures to keep Canadians safe. For the past decade, we have been urging the Liberal government to reverse its failed policies and restore safety to our communities. Instead, the Liberals have let the situation get out of control.

Last fall, the Liberals put forward Bill C-2, which fell well short of protecting Canadians while overreaching in other cases. Conservatives forced the government to back down from Bill C-2, successfully blocking the Liberals' infringement on individual freedoms and privacy.

Now, they have introduced new legislation, Bill C-22, the lawful access act, which reintroduces some parts of Bill C-2. Canada is the only Five Eyes country that does not have a lawful access regime in place. Our investigative laws have failed to keep pace with the rapid growth of the digital ecosystem.

The Liberals, and some in law enforcement, argue that this gap has created an investigative stall where critical leads in cases of child sexual exploitation, human trafficking and organized crime are abandoned because authorities cannot quickly identify suspects behind IP addresses or burner phones. Even when police have legal authority to obtain data, service providers may lack the technical infrastructure to retrieve it or transfer it into a usable format, resulting in failed investigations. That is definitely a problem that needs to be addressed.

This proposed legislation is a definite improvement over its predecessor. It creates a new legal framework, enabling faster and lower-threshold access to basic data, clear emergency powers, structured international requests and mandatory provider compliance, including built-in surveillance capabilities, metadata retention and a required parliamentary review after three years.

While police agencies have expressed their support for this bill and for lawful access, civil liberties organizations still have issues with parts of this bill. It is up to us to carefully review this legislation to ensure the Liberals do not repeat past failures.

I am hearing regularly from constituents concerned about this legislation. They want me to call on the government to withdraw Bill C-22. One of their biggest concerns is privacy and protection of their information. Bill C-22 would require Internet providers and other online services to facilitate access to basic information that would assist in the investigation of federal offences. That sounds reasonable.

The problem, though, is that would require those platforms to build and maintain surveillance capabilities inside their own systems. How secure would those systems be? How safe would those systems be? This new method of doing things would impose a financial burden on suppliers. They would be expected to develop and maintain technical surveillance capabilities at their own expense. I wonder how many would be willing to spend extra for robust data protection of something that does not add to their bottom line.

Conservatives believe police should have the tools necessary to stop criminals. Our concern with Bill C-2 was that the powers given to law enforcement and ministers were too broad. Bill C-22 is far narrower in the powers it gives to law enforcement and to the minister.

Bill C-22 focuses on telecommunications and Internet service providers, not any service providers. It would create oversight for ministerial orders and has explicit provisions in it that would prohibit the government from requiring the retention of web browsing history, social media activities or the actual content of communications. One could argue that this is a reasonable compromise as we attempt to balance the needs of society along with the rights of individuals.

We live in a world where it seems the only constant is change. All of us in this House, from the oldest to the youngest, have witnessed huge technological changes in our lifetime.

In an increasingly digital world, our old-fashioned policing is not always suited to dealing with crimes committed online. We all understand the need to provide new tools for law enforcement officers to access digital information. We can see the desire for the framework that ensures that electronic service providers establish and maintain a system capable of providing the information that law enforcement officers are authorized to access, and that is key. Law enforcement officers must have a lawful reason to be given access to citizens' online information.

One of the things I appreciate about this bill before us is that it would mandate an automatic review three years after its provisions come into force. In these days of rapid change, that provision would ensure that not only would we get this legislation right today, but that we would have built in a way to ensure that it would not quickly become out of date. The purpose of Bill C-22 is to ensure that investigators can skip preliminary investigative requirements regarding information that is easily obtainable. Thus far, Canadian courts have stated that warrants or court orders are required for even the most basic of information even if only remotely private, such as whether someone is a subscriber of a telecom company. I am a strong proponent of individual rights, including the right to privacy. I also believe in our Constitution, including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I understand as well that there are times when we need to balance individual and collective rights, and sometimes the collective rights are seen as being more important.

That may be the case with this legislation, though I understand there have been some issues raised as to whether it would survive a constitutional test. My hope is those problems can be fixed at the committee stage. For example, civil liberties groups have suggested that the blanket retention of metadata is too broad. They point out that the Electronic Communications Privacy Act in the U.S., for example, allows preservation on demand but does not allow blanket retention. In the European Union, the Court of Justice declared that blanket retention is incompatible with EU fundamental rights. As well, ministerial orders only require approval by intelligence commissioners. Not giving any oversight role to the Privacy Commissioner of Canada suggests that privacy is at best a secondary consideration. I am sure this was not the government's intention, and I expect this would be strengthened in committee.

Conservatives forced the Liberals to back down from Bill C-2, successfully blocking the government's attempt to infringe on individual freedoms and privacy. We stopped the Liberals from limiting the use of cash; opening mail without oversight; and demanding that any service provider, including hospitals, financial institutions and even dry cleaners, disclose user data without judicial oversight.

Bill C-22 would be an improvement, but still needs work. We support giving law enforcement agencies the tools they need to combat crime and keep communities safe, particularly as threats become more sophisticated in the digital age. At the same time, these powers must be accompanied by strong safeguards, clear limits and independent oversight to protect Canadians' rights and freedoms. Conservatives will continue to stand for common-sense solutions that protect Canadians' individual freedom, privacy and safety.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech and I wanted to ask him whether he is at all concerned about the fact that Bill C-22 does not give the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency a very big role to play compared to its Australian counterpart. The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation is informed the moment the order is issued, not one year after the fact.

Does my colleague think it might be a good idea to amend Bill C-22 accordingly?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned in my speech that Canada is the only country in the Five Eyes that does not have a system in place to begin with. I also mentioned that this bill must go to committee to be examined, to be strengthened and to give Canadians and the authorities all the tools so Canadians can be protected while their privacy laws or privacy rights cannot be infringed upon.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

One of the things my colleague mentioned was Bill C-2. Let us not be naive. We know that the Liberals achieved their majority through a number of deals in the background. What concerns me as a member of Parliament and as a citizen is the fact that we would have been saddled with Bill C-2, a bill that we as Conservatives successfully fought against, and rightly so. There is a time to oppose in this place and a time to support. That was clearly the time to oppose.

I would like the member's opinion on why Bill C-2 failed and whether the Liberals appear to have learned any lessons from that, because we may be in a position where they just force these things through in the future.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for telling us about these bills and what he does to handle such cases and such bills in the House of Commons, representing our party.

Bill C-2 would have been a huge infringement on the privacy rights of Canadians. I am still receiving emails from constituents asking me to block Bill C-2; they think Bill C-2 is still in place. That infringement of Canadian laws and Canadians' rights is the greatest concern. We have to protect the privacy rights of Canadians. In the meantime, we have to find ways to protect them in the age of a digital world.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thomson—Nicola, apparently back-to-back today.

One of the things I appreciated about my hon. colleague's speech was the balanced nature of it. I would like to ask him to comment on his role as a legislator here and as somebody who does not blindly accept things. He talked about how we have to recognize things at committee, see things at committee and question things at committee. I am proud to be part of a party that does that. I would ask for his comments on that as well.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the role of opposition is to really stand up for Canadians, fight for Canadians and make sure the government does not overreach on the rights of Canadians at any level, regardless of whether it is at the economic level, the human rights level or the privacy rights level. That is where the opposition stands in this House strongly to make sure that, when we oppose, we oppose for the benefit of Canadians. When we co-operate, it is also for the benefit of Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to tell me about the threshold that the government has set for obtaining information, which is the lowest possible threshold. Does my colleague agree with that or does he think that we should be more stringent and raise the threshold for obtaining information?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree. I think we need tougher access to provide information. The laws have to protect Canadians first and foremost, and there is a way to do that without having to infringe on their rights.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, it an honour for me to take the floor today and to speak on behalf of Bill C-22. I rise as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, in support of our government's bill on lawful access. The legislation is really about one simple thing: keeping Canadians safe in a digital world that criminals are increasingly exploiting.

Let us be clear about the reality we are facing. In 2024 alone, police reported more than 16 cases of child pornography, exploitation and abuse. In 94% of those cases, they could not identify a suspect or gather enough evidence to proceed. Right now, criminals hide behind anonymous usernames, burner phones and IP addresses. Meanwhile, our police are stuck navigating systems that were never designed for today's digital threats. By the time officers get the information they need, it is often too late, evidence is gone and victims are left without justice. Police need modern tools to properly investigate crimes and keep Canadians safe, and that is exactly why our new Liberal government has introduced Bill C-22.

In the Spencer case, the Supreme Court of Canada said that the police need some type of legal authority, such as a legislative authority or prior judicial authorization, to obtain subscriber information linked to specific online activity. Bill C-22 would provide the police not just with the authority they need in order to address a particular criminal activity considered in the Spencer decision regarding accessing and storing child sexual exploitation and abuse material but also with a broader way in circumstances where law enforcement needs to quickly identify suspects but does not have the necessary legal tools to do so.

To borrow the words of the head of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and commissioner of the OPP, Thomas Carrique, “From Internet child exploitation to extortions, to home invasions, to carjackings, to drive-by shootings, to hate motivated crime, to extremism, lawful access is absolutely required and it's required now.” We know that current trends in crimes like fraud, extortion and auto theft are increasingly linked to sophisticated global crime networks. Organized crime is a multi-billion-dollar business that is taking full advantage of digital technologies, which is why it is imperative that we give police services the measures they need to stop these crimes.

When criminals target our most vulnerable people online by stealing their identity and using digital tools to hide their tracks, Canadians expect the law to give police the tools they need to respond quickly, lawfully and with respect for the privacy of Canadians. Bill C-22 would do just that. Among other things, the bill would provide timely access to data and information to support the investigation of crime in the digital age. The bill also focuses on modernizing the Criminal Code to give law enforcement agencies the tools they need to investigate crime and protect Canadians in 2026.

One of these proposed new tools is confirmation of service demand. The new confirmation of service demand tool would provide a new lawful authority to enable police to confirm with a telecommunications service provider, such as Bell or Rogers, whether or not they provide telecommunications services to a specific subscriber, client, account or identifier, like an IP address or a phone number.

This new tool would typically be used to help police identify which provider provides services to a phone number or an IP address. I will explain in plain language: This would allow police to ask the simple question to a telecom provider such Bell or Rogers, “Do you service this phone number or IP address, yes or no?” That is it. There would be no content and no personal details, just basic confirmation to help investigators take the next step and seek proper judicial authorization when and where required.

The objective of the tool is to assist police in determining which telecommunications service provider has in their possession or control data relevant to an investigation and may be served with a production order to compel the production of this data. Law enforcement would be authorized to make this demand only if it has reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence has been or will be committed, and that the confirmation of service would assist in the investigation of the offence. As a safeguard against inappropriate use, the service provider would be able to challenge the demand in a court with no obligation to provide the information or confirmation until a final decision is made by the court.

The bill also proposes to clarify in the Criminal Code that law enforcement would continue to be permitted to ask a telecommunications service provider or anyone else, including other types of service providers such as banks, hotels or car rental companies, to provide information voluntarily, including the confirmation of service I referenced earlier. This clarification is very important to preserve the ability of police to engage in online policing activities, such as asking questions to seek basic information that does not raise a reasonable expectation of privacy. Our government believes that Canadians should be safe online and that police should have the tools they need to act quickly when people are in danger.

The legislation would make something very clear in the law: If information is voluntarily provided to police, such as an IP address from a victim's complaint, a tip from a member of the public or information shared by trusted international partners such as the U.S. National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, law enforcement would be able to receive that information and act on it without having to first seek a court order. It would also clarify that police would be able to rely on the information that is readily and publicly available, and that they would not be required to issue a formal demand if a service provider chooses to provide that information voluntarily.

Bill C-22 would also address an important gap when it comes to urgent situations. These circumstances are rare, but they do occur. Every minute matters. In cases where there is an immediate threat to someone's life or safety, or where critical evidence could disappear, police may need to act quickly to obtain basic subscriber information linked to an IP address. Think about situations where officers are trying to locate a child who has been abducted, using their cellphone signal to trace the source of a credible threat of imminent violence or to determine where a livestream of child sexual abuse is taking place, so they can rescue the victim and stop the abuse. In those moments, speed can mean the difference between life and death.

Our laws already recognize that in true emergencies police may act without prior judicial authorization, as long as the legal grounds for doing so exist. The bill would simply provide clarity so officers would be able to respond quickly to protect victims while respecting the rule of law. Bill C-22 is about ensuring that when Canadians are in danger, the law would give police the clarity and the tools they need in order to help, stop the crime and keep people safe. The bill would make it crystal clear that this exception for urgent circumstances would apply to the seizure of subscriber information by amending the existing “exigent circumstances” provided in the Criminal Code.

Particularly in the context of global crime networks, equipping police services with these capabilities is critical in placing Canada in line with our Five Eyes partners, and it would respond to the recommendations made in the “Special Report on the Lawful Access to Communications by Security and Intelligence Organizations” by the non-partisan members of the National Security Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, NSICOP, which I had the honour of serving on and chairing.

Other meaningful purposes in the bill would better equip police to deal with situations involving organized crime tools, such as temporary phones, burner phones and vehicle switches, as ways of avoiding police surveillance and detection. It would also provide a new search warrant framework to govern the unique nature of computer searches so police would be able to properly examine digital devices and data in a manner that is compliant with Supreme Court rulings. The proposed tools and modernization amendments included in the bill are critically needed, and these amendments would have a concrete impact on victims and on the safety of our communities.

I encourage members from across the floor and across the aisle to join us in heeding the call of police organizations across the country to support this much-needed legislation.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

My colleague has been involved in the justice portfolio, which is really the opposite side of the coin to the public safety portfolio. There is obviously a difference. There is one thing I really would like her to comment on because she has ardently expressed support for this piece of legislation.

I am sure my colleague spoke to Bill C-2 as well, so my question is this: Did she speak on Bill C-2, and is she prepared now to acknowledge the colossal failure it was, which is why we are now here with Bill C-22 in a much more reasonable form?

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I did not speak to Bill C-2, but I am taking the opportunity this morning, as the member opposite rightly pointed out, to state that I am in total favour of Bill C-22. Although we work through legislation in the House, nothing is perfect. No bill is perfect in its format nor sometimes even in its content, and that is why we have committees, where members from across the aisle from all parties have an opportunity to weigh in, as well as to hear from experts and stakeholders.

This is an important piece of legislation. I do hope that Bill C-22 will be adopted so we can send it to the public safety committee and members will have the opportunity to delve into the details that may require fine tuning.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed my colleague's speech. She always explains her opinions in such a calm manner.

I have a question. I am wondering why the government chose the lowest possible threshold for obtaining information, that of reasonable grounds to suspect, rather than the more stringent threshold of reasonable grounds to believe.

Can my colleague explain why the government chose to go that route? I do not understand that and I would like a clear answer.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will give my answer in English this time because I am more familiar with the English terminology.

We already have in the Criminal Code the threshold of “reasonable grounds to suspect”.

It can be found in several sections of the Criminal Code, including section 487.017. This already exists in the Criminal Code.

We also think that “reasonable grounds to suspect” is higher than the threshold of mere suspicion.

[Madeleine Chenette, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages and to the Secretary of State (Sport)]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for her hard work and her leadership. I want to add that my constituents in Thérèse-De Blainville urgently want this bill to pass.

The bill must be referred to the Standing Committee on National Security. Does my colleague have confidence that we will be able to move forward quickly?

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that all Canadians want this bill to be sent quickly to the Standing Committee on National Security so that it can be studied there and then passed.

In light of the debates that took place in the House this week on this fine bill, I see that there is goodwill on the part of members, who want to discuss it and address this issue. I appreciate that.

It is a very important bill. For too long now, police officers have lacked the tools they need to access the information necessary to prevent crime. I am therefore eager for this bill to pass and I am confident that members will vote for it.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the King’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for permitting me to speak to Bill C-22, an act respecting lawful access.

It is always a great pleasure to speak in this chamber on behalf of the constituents of Willowdale. In this particular case, I should say that in Willowdale, we are very well served by 32 Division of the Toronto Police Service. I recently had the opportunity, once again, to visit with them and to be guided by the wisdom of the officers, who are doing so much for all the residents of my riding and beyond.

Today, I should also say that I am speaking as a member of the public safety committee. It gives me great pleasure to speak on new legislation that is timely and would allow our police and law enforcement agencies to undertake their work with renewed vigour.

As members know, this piece of legislation is the product of 10 months of diligent joint work by the Minister of Public Safety, the Minister of Justice and the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime. It is important to emphasize that this legislation would fill a very significant gap that had previously handcuffed the investigative powers of our law enforcement officials. It is also important to underscore that Canada was the only member of the Five Eyes and the G7 countries that was lagging by not having devised a legal framework or regime for lawful access.

At a time when extortion, child exploitation, human trafficking and cybercrimes that target all Canadians, in particular our seniors, are on the rise, it is imperative that we update our approach and strengthen our legal capacity to ensure that we are supporting our law enforcement agencies in their important investigative work. Given the speed at which certain crimes are now occurring, it is important to keep up with the times and to ensure that our officials do not hit a wall and can deal with serious crimes more expeditiously and on a timely basis.

The substance of the bill and the layers of legal guardrails in the system have been adequately explained by those who have spoken before me, in particular the Minister of Public Safety and the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime. In addition, we had the great pleasure of hearing from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice earlier this morning.

We are a country that should not have to choose between safety and crime. As the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime eloquently put it before this very chamber, “The alternative to this bill is not privacy. The alternative is impunity.”

Rather than focus on the substance of this bill, because, as I indicated, many others have risen before me and spoken about the layers of protection that exist in this bill, I want to highlight the extent to which this bill has truly benefited from cross-partisan contributions. When we work together, all members of this chamber, or when we reach out and are informed by the perspective of individuals from all across the political spectrum, I have every confidence that we can come up with better legislation.

As members know, the Minister of Public Safety, in his wisdom, tasked a former distinguished member of this chamber and a former minister from B.C. to undertake the initial consultations before this bill was devised. He had the difficult task of meeting with individuals and associations with differing views. This bill certainly benefited greatly from the early work that Murray Rankin is responsible for. He had the opportunity to speak to a number of civil society organizations, academics, and law enforcement and industry groups as well, so that is on one end of the political spectrum. On the other end, I also think it is incredibly important to give credit to the member opposite, the member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, who is a distinguished former police officer himself and also has contributed to this great legislative effort.

I can say, given that I am on the public safety committee, I remember that many, many months ago we started chatting about how incredibly important lawful access was. This, of course, was because we were hearing from a wide variety of witnesses who indicated to us how critically important it was. Those discussions with the member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner eventually led to many meetings he had with our Minister of Public Safety. Those two are real examples of how, when we come together in this chamber, we are capable of producing much better legislation.

In addition to that, I think it also bears repeating that NSICOP, which is our parliamentary committee comprising members from all parties and from both chambers, has also said that it is critically important that this legislation be adopted. I certainly hope, in that cross-partisan spirit, that the fact that many individuals inside this chamber and others outside have been consulted widely on this will mean that all members will understand the critical importance of voting in favour of this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, Liberal catch-and-release policies have actually caused this crime. Before Trudeau came along 10 years ago, we did not have a crime wave; now we do. We also did not have Bill C-22. The difference here is actually the catch-and-release problems, the catch-and-release policies we are suffering under.

Would it not make more sense to stop shooting down Conservative bills, anti-crime bills, and leave the privacy of Canadians alone?

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the member opposite is likely aware, today we are here to debate Bill C-22, which is a very significant piece of legislation. As I have indicated, this government has always benefited greatly from the views and the perspectives of individuals throughout this chamber. We are always willing to welcome any input that anyone has. This bill, as I indicated, has also benefited from that. I have no doubt that, once it is adopted, our law enforcement agencies and individuals who are working around the clock in this country will benefit greatly from the adoption of this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my colleague's speech. We serve on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security together. I listened to him carefully, but I want to ask him a brief question to ensure I have understood correctly.

According to the bill, the definition of essential service providers, which may be subject to injunctions when it comes to lawful access to information, is to be determined by regulation. I wonder whether it is appropriate for this to be determined by the executive branch. Why should such an important definition in this bill be established by regulation rather than by legislation?

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite and I have had the great benefit of working closely together on the public safety committee. The point she raises is certainly a valid one, but as we know, this particular bill will be referred to committee, and that would be an exceptional opportunity for us all to weigh in and make sure this is as robust and as good a piece of legislation as possible. I have no doubt that the member will be a very big part of that exercise.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the legislation is extremely important, because it is giving law enforcement the necessary tools that they need in order to protect Canadians. I understand that Canada is the only one of the Five Eyes counties that does not have lawful access legislation in place in order to give law enforcement those tools. I am wondering if the member can expand on why it is important, given the context of the Five Eyes and Canada's position there.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has rightly indicated, there was a big gap in terms of making sure that our law enforcement agencies have all the necessary tools to do a thorough job when they are investigating a wide variety of crimes. We certainly live in an era when the speed and the pace at which such crimes are taking place are very different from what they were previously.

It was certainly high time for us to listen to those law enforcement agencies and to look at the experience that the other Five Eyes and indeed the other G7 countries had on this. We looked at that to make sure we would come up with a robust system that was balanced and that would have legal safeguards, and that is why I think the product of this entire exercise is a very good piece of legislation.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is an old story about a traveller in the desert. Night had fallen and the air had turned bitterly cold. The traveller had just enough space and warmth in the tent to get through the night, but then a camel approached and asked if it could put its nose inside just to stay warm. The traveller agreed. It seemed harmless. However, then the camel asked to bring in its head and then its shoulders, and before long, the entire camel was inside the tent, leaving the traveller out in the cold.

It is a simple story, but it carries an important lesson: When we allow something small without thinking through where it could lead, we can often end up somewhere very different from where we intended. That is the caution we should keep in mind as we debate Bill C-22, because this bill is about expanding the powers of the state into the digital lives of Canadians. While each individual step may seem reasonable on its own, we have to ask ourselves where the path we are taking leads.

There is no disagreement in this House about the goal. We all want law enforcement to have the tools they need to go after child predators, organized crime, human traffickers and terrorists. We all recognize that criminals are using modern technology to hide their activities and that the law must keep pace. Conservatives are always open to modernizing the law. The question before us today is not whether to modernize. The question is whether Bill C-22 gets the balance right. Modernization should not come and need not come at the cost of accountability, and it cannot come at the cost of the freedoms that Canadians expect us to protect.

We have been here before in this parliamentary session. The government tried to legislate for lawful access earlier in this session when Bill C-2 was introduced as a sweeping solution. It was broad, it was rushed and it raised serious concerns across the board. The fact that we are now debating Bill C-22 is, in itself, an acknowledgement that the first attempt missed the mark. This bill is an improvement in many respects. It narrows certain provisions. It introduces some safeguards. However, improvements do not mean that we have it right. There are still real concerns that we need to work through in committee as this bill wends its way through Parliament.

To start, I want to talk about accountability. The National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians found that our agencies do not systematically track the challenges they face with lawful access. Let us think about that. We are being asked to expand powers in an area where we do not even have consistent data on what is not working today. Where in this bill, then, is the requirement to track those challenges and report them clearly to Parliament? If we do not measure the problem, how can we claim to solve it?

We also need to engage with the trust that Canadians have put in us. They are not legal experts. Most Canadians are not reading every clause of this bill, but they still want to feel safe. They want to know who can access their information, under what conditions and with what limits. Right now, those answers are not as clear as they should be.

This bill would lower the threshold in key areas from “reasonable grounds to believe” to “reasonable grounds to suspect”. That may sound like a small change in the legalese, but it is not. It is a real shift that would make it easier for the state to access personal information earlier in an investigation and it needs to be studied carefully to ensure that it is absolutely necessary and minimally impairing of rights. When we combine lower thresholds with broader powers, we have to be very careful and ask whether we are gradually moving that camel further and further into the tent.

I want to move to data retention. This is something a number of speakers have touched on and it is something I have received a lot of correspondence about from members of my community. In serious investigations, especially those involving children or violent crime, data can disappear quickly. In some cases, it is gone within 30 days. That makes it harder to hold offenders accountable. Yes, Parliament absolutely needs to address that, but the solution cannot be to collect and retain large amounts of data on everyone, regardless of suspicion, indefinitely.

This bill would allow for the retention of metadata, including information that can reveal locations and patterns of life in some cases when combined with other information but nonetheless in a way that has a lot of people worried. We need to be asking basic but critical questions about this: Who is holding that data, where is it stored, how long is it kept and why do we need to apply this broadly instead of targeting serious offences? If we are going to impact privacy rights, then we must do it in a targeted, proportionate and justified way that we can explain to the public. Otherwise, we risk casting a wider net than intended, creating all kinds of concerns and worries in our society.

I want to move on to system vulnerability. This bill would require service providers to build and maintain systems that allow for lawful access. The intention is understandable, but we have to be realistic about the risks. Creating access mechanisms can create vulnerabilities. We have seen cases in other jurisdictions where systems built for lawful access were later exploited by hackers. Canadians have a simple expectation. They do not want back doors into their private communications. Even if this bill does not explicitly create one, we need to be absolutely certain that it does not create independent pathways that could be abused.

Again, secrecy and oversight are an issue. This bill would rely somewhat on secret ministerial orders and delayed notice. In some cases, individuals may not know their data was accessed for years, if at all. Oversight that happens after the fact is simply not enough. If we are expanding powers, the safeguards must be strong, independent and timely. Canadians need to know that there are real checks in place, not just internal reviews behind closed doors.

Finally, we need to be honest about the broader picture. This bill addresses some challenges in digital investigations, but it does not address many of the issues Canadians are most concerned about when it comes to crime and public safety. It does not address repeat violent offenders. It does not address gaps in bail or sentencing. It does not solve the broader crisis we are seeing in communities across the country. Therefore, we need to be careful not to overstate what this bill would achieve.

Our discussion and our debate today should not be about choosing between safety and freedom. Canadians deserve both. They deserve laws that allow the police to do their job effectively and they deserve to know their rights are protected at the same time. That is the balance we are trying to strike. The current iteration of Bill C-22 is a step in that direction, but is not there yet. We need clearer accountability. We need stronger safeguards. We need to ensure that in trying to solve the problem we are not quietly creating others, because once these powers are granted they are very difficult to take back. That is why we have to get this right, not just for today but for the future, so Canadians can feel both safe and free, not one at the expense of the other.

When the camel first asked, it did not ask to take over the whole tent. It did not demand. It asked politely. It asked for something small, something temporary, just enough to take the edge off the cold. That is what makes the lesson here so powerful. The traveller did not make a bad decision out of carelessness, but out of compassion and reasonableness. He thought he was in control of the situation, but step by step, decision by decision, the situation changed until he no longer was. If we are not careful, if we do not take the time to examine all the possible angles and unintended consequences of this bill, we risk finding that the balance has shifted against us, not all at once but gradually, in ways that were easy to justify at every stage along the way, but which nonetheless unduly upset the delicate balance between privacy and speedy enforcement.

I look forward to continuing the debate and discussion on this important topic.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois finds it unacceptable that the government is granting greater powers to the police and intelligence services while slashing the budget of the body responsible for overseeing them, namely the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, or NSIRA. Its budget has been cut by 15% as a result of the Liberal government's penny-pinching.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question.

The hon. member has pointed out one of the really difficult issues that we are grappling with, with this government, which is that the Liberals talk, saying things that people want to hear. They talk about making changes that need to be made, but somewhere behind the scenes resources are not following the matter and Canadians are not, in fact, getting what they need.

That is one of the main reasons that we really need to think about this. We need to work hard to get this right.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we recognize the necessity of protecting children online, especially from predators who access unlawful and criminal material.

I am wondering if my friend could tell me why she believes the Liberals refused to adopt the Conservative suggestion and, in response to the Senneville decision that struck down mandatory minimum sentencing for access and possession to materials that violate children, the Liberals decided they will have none of it.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for giving me the opportunity yesterday in the justice committee to ask questions about this very topic.

It is a good example of how the Liberals give with one hand and take away with the other. It is incredibly important to protect children against predation, online and off-line. I hope that the government will see reason and restore the mandatory minimums for child sexual exploitation.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know this may offend people. There are people who think there are too many lawyers in politics, but I do not think there are enough of us. I want to thank the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, whose legal background showed through in the way she put together that critique of Bill C-22.

I am also very concerned about changing “reasonable grounds to believe” to “reasonable grounds to suspect”. I would like the member to expand on whether she found any previous example of that kind of threshold being used. I cannot find a previous example of “reasonable grounds to suspect”.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I really want to thank my colleague for the generosity in her comments. It means a lot to me when one of my colleagues from Vancouver Island recognizes the value that other members bring to this House.

Like the hon. member, I have also looked for examples. The reality is, at the end of the day, suspecting and believing are two different things. The government is creating yet another change that dilutes rights in a way that is unclear, that the courts will have to grapple with, that will add to litigation, that will add to backlogs and that will add to the incredible weighty amount of legal mumbo-jumbo that exists.

I hope the government will think very hard about what we are trying to do here.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have heard much from the Liberals about how we are obstructing their bills and whatnot, even though they are filibustering their own bills in committee. Usually that means that they are trying to create a narrative that we are obstructing.

Do you feel that we are obstructing or debating this bill?

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Before I let the member respond, I would like to remind members to speak through the Chair and not directly to members.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the fact that this bill is coming back to the House on a second attempt to do this shows the contributions that Conservatives in opposition can make to the important work we do in this House.

I want to thank the government for listening to the things we raised the first time around. I look forward to working with them in committee to make this bill even stronger.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-22, an act respecting lawful access.

Before entering politics, I spent nearly three decades working in information technology, and one of the things that I learned very quickly in that field is that technology does not stand still. The systems, tools and threats of 10 years ago rarely resemble those of today. Unfortunately, criminals understand that reality just as well as anyone else. They adapt quickly. They use encrypted applications, anonymous accounts, rapidly changing digital identities and increasingly sophisticated digital tools to conceal their activities and evade law enforcement.

Meanwhile, our legal framework has often struggled to keep pace. Let me be clear at the outset. Conservatives recognize that law enforcement must have the lawful tools necessary to investigate serious crime in the digital age. When police are pursuing child predators, human traffickers, terrorists and organized criminal networks, they should not be hindered by outdated laws built for a predigital world. That is a legitimate problem, and Parliament has a responsibility to address it.

Parliament also has a responsibility to ensure that in modernizing our laws, we do not grant powers that are broader than necessary, weaker in oversight than appropriate or more intrusive than justified, because history has repeatedly shown that once a government is granted extraordinary powers, those powers rarely remain confined to their narrowest intended use unless Parliament is vigilant.

The House has been down this road before. The lawful access provisions now before us appeared in Bill C-2, where they generated substantial concern among privacy advocates, experts and parliamentarians alike. The government has now separated those provisions out and returned with Bill C-22, a narrower stand-alone version in some respects. It is an acknowledgement that the earlier approach required reconsideration, and while this version is improved in certain areas, legitimate concerns remain that warrant careful study at committee.

Part of the challenge in debating legislation like this is that many of the terms involved can sound desperately benign. Words like “subscriber information” or “metadata” may sound minor, but anyone with experience in digital systems understands otherwise. Metadata can reveal a tremendous amount about an individual. It can reveal who—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to interrupt the member for Standing Order 31 statements, Statements by Members.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-22, An Act respecting lawful access, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will continue. Part of the challenge in debating legislation like Bill C-22 is that many of the terms involved can sound deceptively benign. Words like “subscriber information” or “metadata” may sound minor, but anyone with experience in digital systems understands otherwise.

Metadata can reveal a tremendous amount about an individual. It can reveal who someone communicates with, when they communicate, where they are located, what services they use and patterns of behaviour that paint a detailed portrait of their private life. In many cases, aggregated metadata can reveal far more than people assume. Over time, it can expose routine relationships, movement patterns and behavioural habits with remarkable precision, often allowing detailed inferences even without access to message content itself.

It is also worth remembering that digital identifiers do not always map neatly onto individuals. An IP address or subscriber record may identify an account holder or Internet connection but not necessarily the person behind specific content. That is one more reason Parliament must proceed carefully when expanding access to such information. When the government proposes mandatory metadata retention, expanded access powers and technical interception capabilities, Parliament must treat those powers with the seriousness they deserve.

This reminds me of the time when, as a young teenager, I was hired at a local Internet service provider, when I was living in Forest, Ontario. I was going to North Lambton Secondary School, and my job after high school was not working at the local grocery store stocking shelves or at the local gas station pumping gas. My first job was working at the local Internet service provider, back in 1996. As part of that role, I was in charge of web development and tech support, and I had access to all of the data for all of the customers. It was not just customers' accounts. There were times I had administrative access and I could see, in real time, where people were going on the Internet. I asked myself, what are the stipulations in protecting this information?

Again, it was 1996, and even though I was an employee, I had the maturity to tell myself this information should be private, should be kept within the company and should not be shared with my neighbours, including my friends at the local high school. It was interesting, as an employee of the local Internet service provider, to walk through the halls of North Lambton Secondary School back in 1996 at age 16. I would see my friends and my peers at school, and I would know where they went on the Internet and also where their parents went on the Internet. Yes, I knew the dirty laundry of Forest, Ontario, and also of Lambton County.

These are precisely the kinds of questions that must be tested carefully at committee to ensure the right balance is struck. We need to balance law enforcement tools with the privacy that Canadians entrust us with under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is not merely about giving police access to isolated records. It is about creating and mandating digital surveillance infrastructure. That requires caution for two reasons.

The first reason for caution is that governments must never simply be trusted to exercise broad powers perfectly. Parliament must legislate based not on ideal assumptions but on real-world experience. Many Canadians remain concerned whenever governments seek expanded powers touching on privacy and civil liberties. That does not mean such powers are never necessary. It means Parliament has a duty to ensure that they are narrowly drafted, proportionate and subject to proper oversight.

The second reason for caution is technical. Bill C-22 would require certain providers to build and maintain technical interception capabilities and retain metadata for up to one year. Every additional repository of retained data creates a target. Every additional access mechanism creates a vulnerability. In cybersecurity, one of the most basic principles is to minimize unnecessary access pathways. Systems are generally made more secure by reducing points of entry, not by multiplying them. Parliament must be cautious whenever legislation proposes to move in the opposite direction.

Those of us with experience in cybersecurity understand a simple reality: Every access point created for lawful use is also a potential attack surface for unlawful exploitation. That concern is becoming more urgent, not less. Artificial intelligence is dramatically accelerating offensive cyber-capabilities. Anthropic recently declined to publicly release one of its most advanced models after reportedly concluding that its ability to identify and exploit software vulnerabilities posed serious security concerns.

Parliament cannot ignore the reality that the tools available to malicious actors are becoming more powerful at an unprecedented pace, so it must ask itself if it is prudent to mandate the creation of more retained data, more interception infrastructure and more potential vulnerabilities if not absolutely necessary. In trying to improve lawful access for investigators, we must be careful not to weaken the broader security of the systems Canadians rely upon. These are complex, technical considerations, and Parliament should take the time to fully examine them before finalizing this framework.

There is also an economic and innovation dimension to this bill. Canada has already seen how digital regulation can produce unintended consequences when burdens are poorly calibrated. Following the passage of the previous Parliament's Bill C-18, Meta chose to block Canadian news content on its platforms rather than comply with the framework Parliament imposed. That is a reminder that large digital firms can and do make strategic decisions about whether operating under Canadian rules is worth the cost.

Even more importantly, while dominant, multinational firms may have the leverage and resources to absorb significant compliance burdens, smaller Internet providers and emerging competitors often do not. If Parliament imposes overly onerous technical requirements, it risks creating barriers to entry, discouraging innovation and entrenching the very largest incumbents at the expense of competition in Canada's digital economy.

These potential impacts should be carefully considered as this bill moves through committee. None of these concerns mean that lawful access reform should not proceed, only that it must proceed carefully. Conservatives believe police should have modern tools.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Indeed, it is a pleasure to rise both in my capacity as a parliamentarian for that area and as the shadow minister, or critic, for public safety.

My colleague hit on a number of issues that are confronting Parliament in the form of Bill C-22. We have seen a number of pieces of legislation come through that are related to Bill C-22. Bill C-2 came, then we had Bill C-12, and now there is Bill C-22.

Does my colleague agree that the fact that the government has put forward Bill C-22 is a tacit acknowledgement of the failure of Bill C-2, which we were told would be a cure-all for all things ailing Canadian law?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from British Columbia for the question, and yes, I think there is some failure still here. Bill C-22 should go back to committee to balance the tools that law enforcement needs.

Conservatives support law enforcement, but we also have to balance it with the privacy that Canadians expect under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

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

Mr. Speaker, I notice the Liberals are tending to characterize this as obstructionism. We are here in Parliament to do a job, and that job is to question the other side and improve any bill that comes through committee.

I wonder if my hon. colleague could speak to whether he thinks Conservatives are obstructing or improving this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I feel that this bill should go back to committee, based on my technical expertise and my concerns about metadata, storing information on where someone has been on the Internet, location services, etc. I am not including messaging, just metadata itself. There is some concern because, again, it is a balancing act: tools that would be utilized by law enforcement, even with a warrant, and privacy that Canadians cherish under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

I feel there is a refrain being heard frequently in the House today, the welcoming of another member from the government to their seat. That is wonderful.

It is always great to speak in the House. I wish we would have more questions from members of the government. For those watching at home, normally the government would have some questions for my hon. colleague on his speech. It is almost like we are shouting into the Grand Canyon. Hello, hello, hello. Is there anybody there, there, there?

Why is it that we, as Conservatives, are carrying this debate?

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Hello, hello, hello.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Oh, I hear the hon. member for Hull—Aylmer saying hello back, back, back.

How seriously can we take the government when its members are not even getting up to ask questions on a bill this important?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate the members of the government are not asking questions, because this bill is very important, especially with respect to the balancing of law enforcement with civil liberties.

Another reason this bill is important is the economic impact. Yes, maybe large Internet service providers can absorb the cost of the request within this bill of storing metadata for one year, but it would also affect the economy of Internet service providers because the ability of small and medium-sized Internet service providers or new Internet service providers to offer competition to the Internet industry would be hindered by this—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have a point of order from the Minister of National Defence.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-22, An Act respecting lawful access, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to speak virtually, since a situation came up that prevented me from participating in person. Those are the rules of the House.

I am grateful for the chance to speak to Bill C-22. I do not have lengthy parliamentarian experience compared to other members, but I have been a member of Parliament for nearly 15 years, and I have never seen anything like what the government has done in the area of the legislation that we now have before us. It initially came to us in June as Bill C-2, and in that bill there were provisions for access and warrantless access that were combined with “strong borders” provisions, as they were then called.

I just want to draw attention to the process of the legislation, because it is highly unusual. Again, obviously there are people who have more experience. The member for Vancouver Centre, for example, has served far longer than I have, but I have never seen anything like this, for what it is worth. We started with Bill C-2, which was not withdrawn. It remained there, and then it was largely replaced, although it was not withdrawn, by Bill C-12. Now we have Bill C-22, picking up on elements of what was unacceptable in Bill C-2.

I have heard the Prime Minister in press comments talk about the ways the new Liberal majority plans to change our committee composition. Somehow there is a lot of showboating going on, the Prime Minister said, a lot of grandstanding, but honestly, the process of studying legislation has some precedents and parliamentary tradition that really do matter. One is to give a bill proper study. This is interrupted by the innovation of the government in never admitting it has made a mistake or in not amending a bill that is on the Order Paper but rather replacing it with a series of repeated starts and stops.

I am sure the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, whose humour I enjoyed earlier, might make a comment on this. It is bizarre and certainly unusual. We started with Bill C-2, and then we had Bill C-12, which continued the anti-refugee rights provisions that were in Bill C-2. Now we have moved to Bill C-22, on access, and the bill of course is dealing with access to information that is important for law enforcement.

This is an unusual process, to put it mildly. Today I want to focus on what is in Bill C-22 and on the reasons that I certainly hope the government will go to a more normal parliamentary procedure, which would be to amend Bill C-22 to achieve the kind of consensus that would allow me, as a Green Party member of Parliament, to vote for it. I cannot vote for it as it is now on the Order Paper.

Again, let me step back and say, as I have said in the House before, on the record, that Bill C-22 represents improvements over the portions that were originally put forward in Bill C-2. The original access legislation would have allowed, for instance, postal workers to open our mail, and it would have allowed access to subscriber information from telecommunications companies without notice to the user.

However, while there has been much improvement in requiring warrants, the warrants would still be required to meet a threshold that the hon member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith referred to earlier in debate today. It is a completely unprecedented threshold for a warrant to obtain information and access to information: “reasonable grounds to suspect”. We find that language in proposed subsection 487.0142(2).

“Reasonable grounds to believe” is a well-understood concept. There is much jurisprudence on what is required to have reasonable grounds to believe. There is zero jurisprudence on what it means to have reasonable grounds to suspect. It is a lower threshold. It does not make sense to put legal terms in that have no foundation in law. It would undoubtedly create confusion in how the legislation would be used by law enforcement.

I note that the Liberals have changed the definition of who would be able to access, from police officer to public officer, which would mean that the same terminology could apply to a CSIS agent or a police officer. The judge issuing a warrant, under many of these sections, would merely have to determine if there are reasonable grounds to suspect. Again, there is no background in law for this.

When I say “jurisprudence”, to break that down to common sense, that just means we can go back and look up legal decisions where courts have struggled with what a word means, so the court dealing with the matter before it has somewhere to go to see what the previous judges said. The court can see the record of court cases on this matter so it knows what it is looking for. In this case, with the use of novel terminology, “reasonable grounds to suspect”, people do not know what they are looking for. A judge would have to deal with the issue for the first time, and I think we could say, at a minimum, that this is unwise in drafting.

Where does this leave us now with Bill C-22? There are many improvements, particularly in part one, but there are some concerns with part two, as has been noted by numerous commentators, from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association to a group called OpenMedia. By the way, I pay a lot of attention to OpenMedia, because it is a very impressive organization as a small non-government organization that worries about Internet access and public policy. It also happens to be headed by an executive director who is one of my constituents. I thank Matt Hatfield from Salt Spring Island for his diligence in working with an organization that represents the concerns of thousands of Canadians.

However, the concerns we have with Bill C-22 continue. The concerns are largely in the one area, and I asked the hon. Minister for Public Safety to entertain amendments on this matter, amendments to understand that if what the bill would require is surveillance capacity from Internet providers, it would mean they would have to permanently insert spyware into the platforms that Canadians use.

This would create access to information about Canadians that would be accessible not only by Canadian public officers and by Canadian intelligence officers, such as from CSIS, but could also potentially be open to surveillance, and that data could be accessed, by foreign governments, including the United States government. A number of Canadians would have concerns about having their personal Internet information accessed by foreign governments. I think that is an unintentional consequence of the way the bill is drafted that needs to be repaired. We do not want surveillance built into the permanent collection of data, which would be required under the terms of the act as it is currently drafted.

I want to make it clear that I would be very pleased to vote for the legislation. I will be preparing amendments and taking them before committee. Although, under the bizarre terms in which I operate on committees, I am not allowed to vote on my own amendments, I hope that other members of the House and members of the committee will show support, and I hope the Minister for Public Safety will improve the bill to bring it to a state where people can vote for it and get it over the finish line.

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

Mr. Speaker. I rise today just to add clarification to a question I asked earlier regarding Bill C-22. Outside the concerns with regard to the tools used by law enforcement, and also balancing privacy that Canadians feel is important with regard to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, another concern is the collection of data. Part of Bill C-22 is the collection of metadata over one year. Large Internet service providers might be able to take the cost of storing metadata, but for medium to small Internet service providers, it might be a hindrance to their operations. There are also new Internet providers that want to be part of the Internet provider economy. Thus, it might limit competition. This is a concern.

Does the member opposite feel a similar concern?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is the first time my hon. colleague the member for London—Fanshawe and I have had an exchange. I did hear his speech as well. I agree with his concern. For smaller service providers, this could indeed be a burden, so I will just say that I agree.

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

Mr. Speaker, does my colleague intend to propose any amendments? If so, can she tell us which parts of the bill would be affected? Is there a part of the bill that she thinks needs improvement?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be proposing amendments, particularly with respect to part 2. The best thing would be to remove part 2 as a whole, but in anticipation of the committee's work, I will be preparing amendments to that part.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I just received a message about my earlier Grand Canyon overture, wherein I said, ”Hello, hello, hello. Is there anybody there, there, there?” That was because, yet again, the Liberals are not asking any questions on a bill that is of critical importance.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of my Liberal friends said I should get credit for special effects. I believe that was what he said from across the way.

I share some of the concerns of my hon. colleague, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, about the bill. It is certainly better than Bill C-2, which was a far overreach. I wonder if she would be prepared to comment on how much of a failure Bill C-2 was and how the bill before us is better but still requires amendments, and if she would be prepared to share where those amendments would come from.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a good record. In 15 years, I have never heckled in this place, but I had a very strong temptation to respond and to encourage the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, to inject levity, and say, “Hello, hello, hello” back to him when he made the Grand Canyon comment, which may go down in the annals of parliamentary history as a good way of not breaking our rule of not pointing out who may or may not be present in the Chamber.

The member asked what kind of failure I thought Bill C-2 was. It was a catastrophic failure. It was a bill I never saw over the course of the summer. It was tabled in June. Over the course of last summer, I think 400 different organizations from various points of view, from refugee rights and civil liberties to how to control the Internet and rights to privacy, had a breadth of pulling together a massive coalition to oppose the bill.

On that ground alone, perhaps the Liberal government should be congratulated for never before having launched a bill so bad that 400 civil society groups banded together to stop it. The government, while stopping Bill C-2, never admitted it had made a mistake, again, by using a novel method of ignoring the opposition, except to table in September 2025 Bill C-12 and then to table Bill C-22. They all dealt with largely the same subject matter.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this place on behalf of the good people of Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna.

A part of me wants to say that we really should not be here, again, having this debate today. It is not just because it is a Friday and not because the debate is unimportant. It is. On the contrary, it is absolutely essential.

Sometimes, in the House, we are our own worst enemy. I say that candidly because this is not the first time Parliament has debated efforts to modernize lawful access legislation. More than 14 years ago, when I sat on the government side of the House, I supported similar initiatives. Before that, the previous Liberal government under Paul Martin attempted and also failed to move this work forward. Each time Parliament fails to act, the cost is not political. The cost is borne by Canadians.

The world has changed how Canadians live, communicate, bank, work and raise families. That has all moved online, rapidly and permanently, but our laws have not kept pace with that reality. That is why it is important to be clear about what this debate is and what it is not. We are not here to debate legislation that allows law enforcement to spy on innocent, law-abiding Canadians without oversight. That is not what Bill C-22 proposes. The core issue before us is how Parliament protects Canadians in an increasingly digital country while respecting the rights and freedoms that define us. Public safety is the most obvious concern. Canadians are being targeted every day by online fraud, identity theft, extortion and exploitation. Seniors have lost life savings. Families have had their identities stolen. Children have been coerced and harmed in ways made possible by anonymity and speed online.

This issue also goes far beyond individual victims. Canada is not only rich in natural resources. We are rich in research, intellectual property, innovation and data. Where is that value increasingly stored and accessed? It is increasingly stored and accessed online. Essential services, banking, health records, commerce and even the operation of the Parliament now depend on digital infrastructure. This is not ideology. It is reality.

As Canadians move online, our ability to protect them has fallen behind. I often explain it in this way. In the physical world, if there is a hit-and-run accident and a licence plate number is recorded, police can lawfully use that information to identify the registered owner and begin an investigation. That does not give access to private conversations. It simply provides a lawful starting point. Online, even when establishing those basic facts, it can take much longer, while the harm continues.

Bill C-22 is an attempt, imperfect, as all legislation ultimately is, to modernize investigative tools while maintaining judicial oversight. However, I want to pause a moment and address concerns that Canadians have directly raised with me, including constituents who oppose the bill. Some fear that Bill C-22 could require digital service providers to embed surveillance capabilities that may weaken security. Others are concerned about the retention of metadata involving people who are not under investigation. Still others worry that future governments could expand the scope of this law through regulation without sufficient parliamentary scrutiny and oversight.

I understand this mistrust. Too many Canadians feel that governments no longer listen. I did not enter politics to reinforce that cynicism. I entered public life because I believe that trust in our institutions must be earned, and it is only earned through accountability, something that I hope Liberal members of the House also believe in.

As a Conservative, I believe in limited government, in checks and balances, and in a government that thinks of Canadians, not for them. That is why it matters to be very clear about what Bill C-22 does and does not do. It does not authorize warrantless access to private communication. It does not eliminate judicial oversight. It does not give government the power to read the content of Canadians' messages without court approval. Much like wiretap authorities that Canadians have accepted for decades, police must make their case to a judge, meet defined legal thresholds and operate within strict limits. That is not unchecked power. That is the rule of law.

Let me ground this debate in the real experiences Canadians are facing. In my former riding, police investigated a case where a woman was shaken down by scammers claiming to be the Canada Revenue Agency and demanding payment in bitcoin. The officers in Merritt knew a crime had been committed, but they could not quickly determine whether the perpetrators were even in the country. Pursuing charges would have required significant time and resources, resources that many small-town RCMP detachments simply do not have.

In West Kelowna, a retired professional was convinced to install remote access applications on her phone and private computer, unknowingly giving criminals full control over her financial life. She lost more than $100,000. Even more disturbing, she was told that contacting the police or even her member of Parliament would place her in violation of national security laws. Fear and deception did the rest.

Perhaps the most disturbing are the countless cases supported by organizations like the Kelowna Child and Youth Advocacy Centre, where children who have already suffered abuse endure further trauma while authorities work urgently to identify, locate and stop the spread of child sexual exploitation materials.

In each of these cases, time matters. Delay magnifies the harm.

RCMP officers in the Central Okanagan are already carrying the highest caseloads in British Columbia. They are not asking for unchecked authority, they are asking for lawful, court-supervised tools that would allow them to establish basic facts quickly and protect victims sooner.

That brings me back to the role of Parliament. I want to address a broader point about how Parliament must legislate in the digital age, because this bill is not unique in facing these challenges. Technology evolves faster than legislation ever can. That creates real tension between clarity and flexibility, and between certainty and adaptability.

Canadians are right to be cautious when laws rely on regulations and technical definitions that may change over time. That caution is healthy in a free society. As Conservatives, we have always believed the answer to that tension is not blind trust in government but strong parliamentary oversight. It is Parliament, not the executive, that must define limits, ask hard questions and ensure delegated authorities are narrow, justified, proportionate and, above all else, accountable.

That responsibility does not end at second reading. It continues at committee, through expert testimony, proposed amendments and rigorous scrutiny of how these powers would operate in the real world. It also continues after passage, through ongoing review and accountability.

Canadians should expect nothing less. Protecting privacy and protecting public safety are not competing ideals. They are complementary responsibilities. When the law is outdated, vague or unclear, both privacy and safety suffer. Criminal networks exploit legal uncertainty far more effectively than law-abiding citizens ever could.

Our task as legislators is to ensure the law is precise, restrained and grounded in constitutional principles, while still effective enough to protect the people it is meant to serve. Avoiding that challenge altogether is not neutral. It leaves victims exposed, strains already overburdened police services and erodes confidence in the rule of law. That is the biggest challenge we have. When people believe that the justice system is simply catch-and-release, or that if they phone, like the woman in Merritt, and are simply told they do not have the resources, people lose faith in our institutions. That must change, and not just with Bill C-22. We need to see stronger sanctions. We need to see jail, not bail. We need to re-earn the confidence of Canadians who are so disconcerted over the state of our system.

That is why we need to ask the tough questions at committee, get into the weeds and fully understand and weigh the tradeoffs between public safety, privacy and individual liberty. Addressing these concerns transparently is not a flaw in this process; it is Parliament doing its job.

The question before us is whether Parliament will once again allow inaction to become the default or whether we will act carefully, responsibly and within appropriate limits. Our future is undeniably online. If we are serious about protecting Canadians in the future, we must be willing to modernize our laws while respecting people's rights and values.

I believe we can do that. I believe Parliament is capable of getting it right.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like thank my colleague from British Columbia for his measured and nuanced speech. He and I agree that it is important to update the laws that protect us in this digital age rather than relying on a legislative framework that predates the invention of the Internet.

My colleague talked about avenues that he would like to explore in committee to delve deeper into some of the issues that he raised. Can he give a specific example of an amendment that he would like to see made to this bill?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member for Hull—Aylmer's comments. As members of the House of Commons, it is important that we communicate issues clearly and accurately, especially online. There is also an opportunity to make amendments to improve the bill, depending on the nature of the bill, which could be a private member's bill or a government bill. In this case, we are talking about a government bill.

I hope that, if the member participates in the committee study, he will take a closer look at part 2, especially the techniques, equipment and system proposed in the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, the bill states that fundamental terms will be redefined through regulations. We are talking about terms like “encryption” and “systemic vulnerability”. The plan is to change these terms through regulations without any debate. These are fundamental terms that allow law enforcement, but also hackers and malicious actors, to access information.

What does my colleague think about the fact that the government set up its bill in such a way as to allow these definitions to be changed through regulations only?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is essential for the opposition to be able to fulfill the role entrusted to it by Canadians. It is particularly important to demand evidence and ask the government to share its reasoning and thought process, especially that of the minister responsible. It is also important for the opposition to press the government to make improvements and to consider our amendments for the benefit of all Canadians.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think one of the key points of contention that we could see with this legislation is the requirement for telecom providers to retain individuals' data for up to a year. In the European Union, similar legislation has been brought forward that was found to have violated the privacy rights of European Union citizens, but there are other jurisdictions, such as Australia, that have a two-year limit.

I am wondering if the member would share his thoughts on the worries about the one-year limit on retaining data.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak about Internet service providers, ISPs, in general. Obviously, there are going to be some distinctions between other large Internet companies other than ISPs, but I think that for the most part, that is what we are going to be talking about in committee.

Simply, right now it is the Wild West. Some ISPs are retaining data for longer than a year and some are doing it for zero days because there is no particular requirement on them. First of all is having a requirement: We need to decide as parliamentarians what is reasonable. We can look at other jurisdictions to see what they have, but we do need to have rules in place so that we can have the rule of law in this space.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise as the elected representative for the new riding of Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies and the associate shadow minister for fisheries for His Majesty's loyal opposition. Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies is a new riding that was created as of the last election, and I believe it is one of the most majestic ridings across this country, if not the most majestic one. It starts at the Great Divide at the Alberta border, where the last stretches of the CP Rail mainline were completed to connect this country from coast to coast back in 1885. I was a proud employee of CP Rail for a short time in the 1980s and got to see some of those important sections of track.

I want to recognize the importance of all the people who still live in the area and are descendants of employees who built that nation-building railway, which linked us from coast to coast to coast. It is an incredible piece of our history. I am so proud and honoured to represent an area that was so important in being able to complete that link.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-22. This is the third iteration of legislation introduced by the government in this 45th Parliament dealing with this issue. I raise this because it is an obvious indication of the failures of this government and former Liberal governments to recognize what is needed to bring law and order to this country. It is also an obvious indication of the inability of the Liberal government to draft legislation that is effective and properly worded in order to pass the scrutiny of this House. That is the purpose of this House: to scrutinize legislation that is being proposed by the government to make sure that it is the best we can do for Canadians. That is an honourable job we are all elected to do, and we on the Conservative side, as members of His Majesty's loyal opposition, will continue to do everything within our power to make sure legislation introduced by the government is truly the best it can be for Canadians.

The Liberal government first introduced Bill C-2. It has basically been shelved because it was so problematic. Last fall, it introduced Bill C-2, which fell short of protecting Canadians, while overreaching in other areas. Conservatives forced the Liberals to back down on Bill C-2, successfully blocking the Liberals' infringement on individuals' freedom and privacy. We stopped the Liberals from limiting the use of cash, opening mail without oversight and demanding that any service provider, including hospitals, financial institutions and even dry cleaners, disclose user data without judicial oversight. Those are important pieces that have been removed from this bill because we heard from Canadians how important it is that their privacy be respected and, which I would say is the most important piece, that government overreach not be extended to the Liberal government.

Now the Liberals have taken parts out of Bill C-2 and reintroduced them in Bill C-22. Bill C-22 is void of the provisions that Conservatives opposed in parts of Bill C-2. Law enforcement requires the tools they need to combat crime and keep our communities safe, particularly as threats become more sophisticated in the digital age. At the same time, these powers must be accompanied by strong safeguards, clear limits and independent oversight to protect Canadians' rights and freedoms. Conservatives will carefully review this legislation to ensure that the Liberals do not repeat the past failures. We will also ensure that we hear from experts to further evaluate and improve this legislation. There are experts in the field who know best how a bill will be interpreted, how it may be implemented and what unintended consequences may lie ahead if a poorly drafted bill is allowed to pass. We have seen incidents like that in the past.

I want to take a bit of a sidestep right now to talk about some of the crime stats that have been the result of previous poorly legislated bills passed by a former Liberal government. I will talk about highlights and percentages that are increases since 2015, when the Liberal government came to power, through 2023. Total violent crime is up 49.84%. Total homicides are up 27.75%. Gang-related homicides are up 78.35%. All three levels of sexual assaults are up 74.83%, and for sexual assaults, 90% of the victims are women.

This is concerning. The increase in crime is all in the realm of the past 10-plus years of Liberal governments. I am quoting stats from 2015 to 2023. Those increases resulted from bills like Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, from the first Liberal Parliament, when I was first elected to this place.

I will talk about some of the stats in British Columbia. The total number of violent crime violations was 26,062. That is up to 33,926, an increase of 30%. Extortions went from 359 to 1,592, a 343.45% increase in extortion. Just in British Columbia, we have seen how the Liberals' soft-on-crime policies have led to these problems and increasing problems that continue under the Liberal government's realm. Using a firearm or imitation firearm in the commission of an offence was affected by Bill C-5. Bill C-75 rolled back the issues around bail reform.

I want to step back a bit to earlier in the interventions today when my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola referred to the echo chamber that seems to be in this place today. Even though this bill is a government bill, the government members are not rising to speak to it, not even to ask questions of Conservative members during the questions and comments phases of today's interventions. I raise this because I fear that it is what law enforcement authorities may be perceiving while waiting for legislation so they can do their jobs. Empty echo chambers, from a government that has had over 10 years to address the crime, fraud and corruption, are increasing the impact on Canadians after 10 years of inaction, while criminals are treated more leniently than victims are supported by their own government.

I revert back to how our debate today echoes with what witnesses repeatedly tell us at committees. The citizens of this country often provide input and good direction for the government, but the government continues to be an echo chamber.

It is high time the government took what it is being told by Canadians and addressed the crime, fraud and corruption that have become a plague in our communities.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech.

I know the minister generously told the House that he would be open to amendments that could improve the bill. Does my colleague have any ideas for an amendment or something that could improve the bill?

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we will be looking at this legislation very closely, scrutinizing it closely, like we do with every piece of legislation that comes before the House, to make sure that appropriate amendments are proposed, and hopefully passed, at committee.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the member to comment further on this echo chamber, because I find it absolutely fascinating that the government legislation is not receiving any questions or scrutiny from the Liberal members across the way. We have the Speaker looking around the room and only seeing members on this side of the House stand to talk about it. That is important.

We take our job seriously as members of the opposition. What does the member from B.C. think about the Liberals taking their job seriously as members of the government?

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Oshawa for that really interesting question about the echo chamber. I will mimic my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola when he spoke of the echo, echo, echo chamber in here.

I think it is telling that today there are no questions and no interventions coming from the Liberal side. We can only surmise why that might be, but understanding how the Liberal government operates, there are some members in this chamber at times who are the only ones to speak during the intervention process or present speeches from the government side. Its backbench members are basically muzzled. It sounds like the entire government side is muzzled today on these interventions.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to get up a third time to ask a question about this bill.

I am glad to hear that the hon. member feels the bill is an improvement over Bill C-2. I would like to know what specific element of change he would like to see in this bill at committee.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member from the Liberal side for finally being one to stand up. I think he has been the only one in the last while here to present questions.

I am not going to take the liberty to talk about what amendments might be put forward at committee. We will carefully scrutinize the bill. We will listen to the witnesses who are called to committee to testify on the bill, to the stakeholders and to law enforcement, who can hopefully guide all members of the House and the members of the committee on the best way to improve this bill if it needs to be improved.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Scarborough—Woburn, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to add to what the Liberal member on this side was asking.

What ideas does the member have? What amendments would you bring forward? We hear a lot of criticism from the Conservatives constantly. We want to hear what amendments and ideas they would bring forward.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I would just remind members to speak through the Chair. I am not bringing forward amendments.

I invite the member for Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies to offer his comments.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, those amendments would be developed during the scrutiny of the bill.

We can see where the language in the bill needs to be clarified, whether with respect to the definitions or how the bill is going to be interpreted. I spoke about that in my intervention.

We could hear from enforcement authorities and from individuals who have been affected by not having this legislation in place so that we can improve the bill.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when we have the opportunity to discuss, debate and advance legislation that is going to address the real challenges facing Canadians, it is important that we do so in a fulsome way. This system that we have, our Westminster parliamentary democracy, gives us all specific roles to play. The government advances government legislation and the official opposition has a duty to test what the government puts before the House before it comes into force. This bill is an example of why it is so important that we have an official opposition in our system. It demonstrates the effectiveness of Canada's Conservatives in holding the Liberal government to account for over 11 years.

We have seen a history that has not changed since the last election, or with the selection and then election of a new Liberal Prime Minister. When Liberals are given the opportunity, they will try to grab as much power as they can with both hands, and they usually do it in times when Canadians need help the most and we are looking, as parliamentarians, to try and find ways to help them, to help Parliament work and to help Canadians.

What we saw with the evolution of the legislative process that led us to Bill C-22 is only the most recent example of that, but it will not be the last. There have been some signals about what is to come.

If we look back, even at the COVID pandemic, we saw in the House so much uncertainty and so much anxiety about what was going to happen and what the government would need to do. Perhaps there would be runs on banks. The government sought the approval of the House to have the ability to spend without any accountability from this place for a period of time that was without precedence and without limit on the types of things they would spend hundreds of billions of dollars on.

It was a late hour when it was proposed and there was minimal manning in the chamber. There was only a small cadre of government and opposition members from all parties present, and we had to make decisions quickly. The government had the benefit of the full apparatus, including hundreds of thousands of public servants, but the official opposition, without that advantage to give fulsome review to the proposal by the government, pushed back and was able to place limits on the power that the government was looking to grab, which it did not need.

This is an example similar to that. In Bill C-2, we saw, in response to what has been a growing crime problem in our country over the last decade, a solution to problems that we did not have and an effort to suspend the legal rights of Canadians for convenience, I suppose. It would be for the government to justify why it would have needed some of those powers, and it was not able to make the case publicly or in this place, so Bill C-2 did not proceed.

Bill C-12, also known as the Bill C-2 redo, made it through the House and now we have Bill C-22. These are bills born out of that one piece of legislation.

Why did we oppose it? There were provisions on things that the government, as I said, failed to make its case on. Limiting Canadians' ability to use cash in transactions was one of them.

Allowing individuals other than peace officers, without a warrant, to open Canadians' mail was another, as well as having warrantless access to medical records and private electronic communication.

Again, the government did not demonstrate necessity. It did not say that it was born out of a national security imperative or say that the tools we had did not sufficiently solve the problem for which they prescribed this solution. We are looking to get the result that, of course, is going to help with the scourge of crime in our streets. I know that speakers before me have gone through the truly alarming crime statistics. I know that some have offered anecdotes and that some have offered testimony of very real and painful situations for victims of crime.

We could have addressed this many months ago in the way that we are addressing it now, with the bill brought before the House, made better by the opposition who look to, with all parliamentarians, discuss, review, hear from experts, stakeholders and Canadians, and make further improvements and amendments to the bill when it is at committee

What will the scope of those amendments be? I do not sit on the committee where it will be reviewed. If I have the opportunity to take part in those hearings, I do have some areas that I would look to examine, including questions that are not answered in the legislative text but would be resolved by regulation. We need to get certainty around what that would look like because that is outside the purview of Parliament. We want to have certainty on a number of things. Protecting Canadians also means protecting their rights. We also need to be protected from government overreach. We all have a duty to do that. I am pleased that we are examining the bill in its latest form. It sounds like it will have support to advance to committee, including from the opposition who helped to sharpen the iron.

What we want to see, at all times here, is that Canadians have in Parliament a mechanism to make things better, where there is a check against it. The balance in the chamber has changed in the last week, with a majority of members now on the government side. If we had been in that situation many months ago, the bill would have passed unchanged. The government clearly believes this to be an improvement.

I started by talking about how government looks to grab power with both hands. We are going to see, over the next couple of weeks, the government looking to undo what it agreed to for the duration of Parliament, and that is the composition of our committees. I want to take my last minute to implore all members, members in the governing party especially, to consider that we are better collectively when we are able to improve on that legislation through a truly collaborative process, and not just simply by majority rule or by diminishing or eliminating the rights of the minority. We need to protect the rights of Canadians.

I look forward to the study of the bill at committee, so that we can do that, especially at this time, as we have seen, over the last 11 years, the scourge of crime in our streets.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I really did not see a lot of substantive debate on this particular bill, rather than to outline a number of irrelevant facts.

[An hon. member]

Crime is just an irrelevant fact?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate a little bit of intervention because I am being heckled as I am trying to make a very important point.

It is important that the bill get through the different stages. We are looking forward to the committee stage of this process. We have consulted extensively with different stakeholders, including law enforcement, civil society and academics, as well as industry. We are looking forward to a robust debate at committee. I want to know what kinds of recommendations the member opposite would have for amendments.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister would take a minute to reflect on what I said and consider the role he played in bringing forward the failed legislation in Bill C-2 before this House. If it were not for Conservatives, who sharpened their pencils and actually turned the pages, we would be facing laws that infringed on the rights of Canadians, and he would be the author of that.

If the minister wants to talk about substance, why is this bill devoid of substance on areas that are going to be prescribed in regulation instead of being debated in the House, examined and enshrined in law? What is it that needs to be done in the back rooms? Is it the same kind of thing, the same kind of thinking that led to the bill that was Bill C-2, that was such a failure—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

(The House resumed at 12:02 p.m.)

The House resumed from April 17 consideration of the motion that Bill C‑22, An Act respecting lawful access, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy this morning to be here to add my comments to what I think is a really important piece of legislation for our country.

I speak in strong support of Bill C-22. It is a piece of legislation that modernizes Canada's lawful access framework so our police and national security agencies can do their jobs effectively in a digital world, which is what we are clearly all living in, while fully respecting Canadians' charter rights and privacy.

It is extremely important to be able to craft legislation that meets the very basics that are important to all of us when it comes to our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that we move forward in that direction in a positive way in crafting this piece of legislation.

The context of why this bill is necessary is that crime has changed. I think we are all seeing it in our communities, streets, phones and computers. Things have changed immensely on how crime is delivered. It is not just, I say this randomly, shooting someone. It is now accessing someone's private details and so many other things that need new legislation to keep up with the change in criminal activity.

We have been hearing about a lot of effort going into dealing with organized crime. Whether we are talking about B.C. or Brampton, Ontario, organized crime has infiltrated a tremendous number of areas in our country and the laws we were able to use previously do not meet the requirements for our police officers and RCMP officers today.

Child exploitation is another extremely important issue that is happening. When we ask the police to do their job, it is very difficult for them to do it with their hands handcuffed behind their backs to get the access that they need to be able to make a case and find out who the guilty parties are. Bill C-22 would help with that.

Foreign interference, extortion, terrorism and auto theft are also things that Bill C-22 would help.

We hear a lot about financial crimes in our day-to-day activity with our constituents and with others, and the different ways that the criminal element is able to access things. They increasingly operate online, using encrypted platforms and move data across borders in seconds, not minutes, yet Canada's lawful access laws were largely written for a pre-smart phone, pre-cloud era. When we talk to some seniors, in particular, they know very little about this, yet it is happening in their own instruments.

It is very difficult for police to get access. Investigations can stall because police cannot determine which service provider holds the relevant data. Is it an Apple? Is it Rogers? Who is the service provider? Our agencies are forced to rely on voluntary disclosure, foreign partners or legal workarounds. I think the police already have a difficult enough time getting the information to build a case. When they have to appear before a judge and get judicial permission, it hampers the whole investigation.

As proud as we are of Canada, we are now the only Five Eyes or G7 country without a modern lawful access regime. This is not a sustainable position for public safety nor Canadian sovereignty. Bill C-22 would be the beginning of creating the lawful regime needed to be able to give more support to our law enforcement officers.

What Bill C-22 would do, in very plain terms, is provide a measured, Canadian solution built on three pillars: clarity, constitutionality and accountability. All three are extremely important for our law enforcement officers to be able to do the job that we ask them to do.

Timely, court-authorized access—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I apologize, but I am going to interrupt the member to ask that she take her phone and place it on the chair or somewhere further away from the live microphone.

The hon. member may resume.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, point one is that Bill C-22 would give police and CSIS clear, court-authorized tools aligned with Supreme Court decisions such as Spencer and Bykovets. Two key tools worth highlighting in those decisions were, first, confirmation of service, or a simple yes-or-no confirmation of which service provider holds a specific identifier. This does not reveal personal information and does not replace judicial authorization. Second is subscriber information production orders. These allow police, with a judge's approval, to obtain basic identifying information, nothing more, so investigations can actually proceed.

The bill would also clarify the ability to accept voluntarily provided information, such as tips or victim reports. It would codify exigent circumstances so police could act quickly in genuine emergencies. It would also create smarter tools for international co-operation, reflecting that data does not stop at borders.

Point two is technical capability. It would not be new powers as only technical capabilities would be expanded. Bill C-22 would ensure that electronic service providers have the technical ability to comply with existing warrants and court orders. That is critical. The bill would create no new surveillance powers, which is very important, as this was crafted to ensure that it would not be giving police access to something that would jeopardize people's constitutional rights. It would not allow warrantless access, nor mass surveillance, direct access or back doors. Access to content, browsing history or social media activity would not allowed with Bill C-22.

Every disclosure would require lawful authorization. Providers themselves would supply the information. If a cybersecurity concern arises, judicial review for this would be built in to Bill C-22. There would also the strong oversight and accountability I mentioned. Bill C-22 would embed judicial oversight, intelligence commissioner approval for ministerial orders and public annual reporting. A mandatory parliamentary review after three years would be essential to see if the goals of Bill C-22 are being achieved or if changes are needed in one way or the other.

This is how responsible legislation is done. The privacy and the charter I mentioned earlier are extremely important. In Bill C-22, privacy and public safety would not be opposing values. They would be mutually reinforcing. Bill C-22 would narrow definitions of subscriber information and explicitly exclude content. It would limit data retention to metadata for a maximum of one year, respond directly to Supreme Court jurisprudence and add more transparency than exists today.

This bill would not lower constitutional standards, as I mentioned earlier. It would clarify them so police, providers and courts all operate with certainty and consistency. If we do nothing, we leave investigations in a grey zone, where they are today, and where accountability is weaker and not stronger.

Some have suggested that this bill would go too far. Others claim it would not go far enough. This tells me this legislation is carefully balanced. To be clear, Bill C-22 would not authorize access to emails, content or web browsing history. It would not create secret surveillance powers. It would respond to real operational gaps identified by police, child protection experts and national security professionals.

I am thankful for the opportunity to speak on Bill C-22. It is an important bill that is endorsed by police chiefs, frontline officers and child protection organizations. We have been very clear: Digital evidence is essential, and today it is far too often out of reach to help accomplish the goals we have today.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the fact that law enforcement need to have the tools to do their job and do it effectively so that we can put criminals behind bars where they belong.

However, from a civil liberties perspective, can the member talk a little more about the protections for individual privacy that would be looked after in this bill?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, Bill C-22 would not authorize access to emails, content or web browsing history. The whole goal of Bill C-22 is to take the handcuffs off our police enforcement, give them the tools they need to find out who has access to a particular phone number that is viewing child pornography or that has other law-breaking schemes going on.

I believe the hon. member was at an event a few months ago on the Hill with the RCMP, who talked about how difficult it is for them to get the basic information they need while still protecting Canadians' privacy.

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

Mr. Speaker, in terms of lawful access, this Prime Minister and the government brought forward the whole debate on lawful access back in June, shortly after the federal election last year. It is a little frustrating to see the resistance that we are getting from the Conservative Party with regard to lawful access, given that law enforcement officers across the nation want to see lawful access implemented.

I am wondering if the member could provide her thoughts on the importance of stopping the filibustering on legislation that is denying lawful access in Canada.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, many of the issues in Bill C-22, I expect, will be fully supported by my Conservative colleagues, the Bloc, the NDP and so on. We all have the same intent to protect families, people and our individual rights and freedoms. I expect that they will be front and centre in supporting Bill C-22, helping us to get it through as quickly as possible.

If we can make it stronger, if there is an area where we can agree to reinforce something, we all have the same intent, and that is starting to protect people in this new digital world we are living in.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments in response to the question and comment from the member for Winnipeg North, and I wonder if she could take a minute to talk about the role of the official opposition.

It is an important role in our parliamentary system, and it is debate that we are having here today, not filibustering. I take exception when the member for Winnipeg North constantly talks about debate as filibustering. I know the member might disagree, and I would love her comments on that.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely a debate that we are having today, and we will have debates at committee as well.

I am a Canadian parliamentarian who is very concerned with the issue of safety and law and order. I wish this legislation had been enacted two years or five years ago. Things have moved so quickly in this digital economy, and we are always so far behind. I hope my colleagues across the aisle will work extensively with this side of the House to make sure we have done the best we can in strengthening this piece of legislation and getting it through as quickly as possible.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about aspects of Bill C-22, things that continue to include unacceptable elements from Bill C-2.

I could not agree more with the hon. member for Oshawa that the hon. member for Winnipeg North has assumed that people are filibustering when we are merely insisting that the legislation be acceptable. Bill C-22 is an improvement, but could the hon. member for Humber River—Black Creek let us know if the government will be open to amending it to deal with the problems in part 2 of the bill?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think we all anticipate hearing further comments from other parties, so that we can make this legislation go through quickly and so that we can make it the best it can possibly be.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the focus of my remarks today on Bill C-22 will be on part 2, which is the so-called lawful access proposal, and specifically what the bill as written actually does and why Canadians should be deeply concerned about it.

There are two competing interests at play here, in this so-called lawful access proposal. On the one hand, there is the public interest in safety, security and the effective suppression of crime. On the other hand, there are the privacy interests of all Canadians: the right to be left alone, free from unwanted intrusion by the government or its agents. In my view, the Liberal government bears the burden of demonstrating, one, why these new powers are necessary; two, why our current system is inadequate; and three, that the measures in Bill C-22 strike the right balance between the protection of privacy and public safety.

In my view, the Liberals have failed on all accounts. They have failed because Bill C-22 is overbroad and disproportionately interferes with the privacy interests of all Canadians. It does this by forcing what are known in the bill as “electronic service providers”, who provide to Canadians what is called in the bill “electronic service”, to build into their systems interception and monitoring capabilities to collect and retain data about Canadians. As I will show, there are almost no guardrails respecting who will be caught by this proposal, nor are there sufficient limits on the data that it proposes to capture. Perhaps most troubling is that the data includes location data, effectively turning every connected device into a government-spying device. On top of it all, the minister is given power to do all of this in secret.

Part 2 of Bill C-22 will require a wide range of electronic service providers to build interception and monitoring capabilities into their system. A plain reading of this proposal leads to the conclusion that nearly any entity providing electronic services to Canadians will be caught. Let me unpack two key definitions to show just how broad the proposal really is. The first is “electronic service provider”, and the second is “electronic service”. An electronic service provider is defined in the relevant part of the act as a person who “provides an electronic service, including for the purpose of enabling communications”. The keywords here are “electronic service” and the phrase “including for the purpose of enabling communications”.

The Liberals would have us believe that this definition targets only telecoms and big tech. The Minister of Justice said so in his speech. He said, “we are mainly focused on large-scale networks to ensure that we understand the metadata behind messages”, but that is not what the bill says. The bill says, “including for the purpose of enabling communications”. The word “including” is a deliberate drafting choice, and it signals a non-exhaustive list. It means that the definition of “electronic service provider” will capture much more than just those who are enabling communications, much more than just big telcos and big tech.

That becomes even more clear when we look at the second definition, of electronic service, which reads, in part, as follows: “a service, or a feature of a service, that involves the creation, recording, storage, processing, transmission, reception, emission or making available of information in electronic, digital or any other intangible form”, and the definition goes on. I realize that is a mouthful.

Taken together, these definitions create an extraordinarily broad scope. Based on the text as written, I could qualify as an electronic service provider. Banks could qualify, law firms could qualify and news media could qualify. They all create, store and transmit electronic information to Canadians.

Where exactly are the boundaries? I have not heard them yet, including from the Minister of Justice. The Liberals, who proposed this, bear the burden of delineating those boundaries clearly and narrowly, and they have failed to do so. This failure becomes problematic when we get to secret orders, which we will do shortly.

A subset of these electronic service providers will be designated as core providers. We do not know which companies will fall into this category, because the Liberals have not told Canadians. It will be proposed in regulations sometime in the future. What we do know is that core providers will be required to build technical capabilities into their systems allowing government to access Canadians' data.

The Liberals have attempted to assure Canadians that these obligations will be limited to a narrow subset of metadata. The justice minister reiterated this when he said in his speech that the goal is “not specifically requiring the individual content of every message, but only trying to identify what messages may have been sent at what time”. However, that is not what the bill says. Proposed paragraph 5(2)(a) allows cabinet to make regulations requiring core providers to develop, implement and maintain these technical capabilities. Importantly, regulations may be made “related to extracting and organizing information”. The phrase “extracting information” is extremely broad and goes well beyond metadata. Moreover, proposed paragraph 5(2)(a) is not limited by the restrictions respecting metadata in proposed subsection 5(4). Those are the restrictions around browsing history and social media.

Even if the requirements were restricted only to certain metadata, the proposal would still be overbroad. Metadata, including location data, is far more revealing than, as the minister said, what messages were sent at what time. Metadata is a comprehensive record of communications behaviour. Combined with the subscriber data available under part 1 of the bill, it creates a detailed picture of Canadians' daily habits, places of residence, movements, social relationships and private lives. This is exactly why similar blanket retention laws in Europe were struck down as a disproportionate interference in privacy rights.

For all electronic services providers, whether they are core providers or otherwise, the government maintains even more sweeping powers. Proposed subsection 7(1) allows the minister to issue an order to any electronic service provider imposing the same obligations that can be required of core providers.

All of these powers, whether exercised with respect to core providers or any other electronic service provider, can be exercised in secret. Regulations made by cabinet for core providers are exempt from the Statutory Instruments Act. Ministerial orders for electronic service providers are exempt from the Statutory Instruments Act. That means they would not be published in the Canada Gazette. That means they would be secret. Worse still, electronic service providers would be prohibited from publicly disclosing that they are even subject to such an order.

These requirements to build systems into electronic service providers' provision of electronic services to Canadians would create serious vulnerabilities in our infrastructure. Providers would be creating a front door for government access, one that can and likely will be exploited by bad actors or the government itself. That is not my conjecture; that is a demonstrated fact.

I have two examples. First, in 2004-05, hackers exploited Vodafone Greece's built-in lawful interception systems to illegally tap the phones of the Prime Minister, cabinet ministers and other senior officials for months. More recently, the China-linked Salt Typhoon hacking group breached lawful intercept systems operated by major U.S. providers, including Verizon and AT&T. In both cases, systems built for authorized government access became gateways for serious abuse, including by Communist-backed hackers.

These systems would be abused by government. I do not trust the government to exercise these powers in the public interest, because it has shown itself to be untrustworthy.

There is another path. Our current legal framework already provides for police to obtain court authorizations for information, preservation orders and assistance orders. Critics argue that the process is slow and burdensome, and those are serious concerns that deserve serious merit. However, the solution is not blanket authorizations to retain vast amounts of data by an untold number of service providers.

In summary, Bill C-22 would create a broad surveillance framework covering vast amounts of Canadians' data, and it would do so largely in secret and without sufficient oversight or remedies for misuse. It would also introduce new vulnerabilities into our digital systems that would make Canadians' data less secure. These are vulnerabilities that bad actors and even governments themselves may abuse.

With all these things taken together, the government has failed to demonstrate why these expansive new powers are necessary, why the current system cannot be improved upon, and that Bill C-22 strikes the right balance between public safety and the protection of Canadians' privacy interests.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear. Since June of last year, the government, in one form or another, has been explaining, and asking for, lawful access. Canada is the only country in the Five Eyes that does not have lawful access.

The Conservative Party made a commitment to defeat and kill Bill C-2, which had lawful access. Therefore, we have brought forward Bill C-22. There have been a number of hours of debate on this legislation, and that is the reason why I believe the Conservative Party's intent is to filibuster the legislation.

If that is not the case, can the member give us an indication as to whether or not he would like to see the bill pass second reading before the end of this—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for York—Durham.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I clearly said in my remarks, the goal here is to strike the right balance between the interests of protecting public safety and suppressing crime and the protection of Canadians' right to privacy, the right to not be intruded on by the government or its agents.

Contrary to what the hon. member said, the purpose of this place is to debate those issues. We are here, once again, because the government has consistently failed, over 10 years, to bring forward a piece of legislation that adequately balances those rights.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech. He raised some very valid points in many respects.

I would like to know what he thinks of a government that wants to grant more powers to police and intelligence services but that has just slashed the budget of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, which is supposed to monitor those services, to save a few pennies.

How can the government say that those people need more powers while also cutting this agency's funding?

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my Bloc colleague has, of course, pointed out a contradiction in the government's position. I also want to thank the Bloc for pointing out, in their earlier speeches on this, the lower threshold of suspicion in part 1 that the government introduced. This is exactly why we have this debate. That is a question for the government to answer, why they have this contradiction: on the one hand, wanting more power but, on the other hand, reducing law enforcement's resources to exercise those powers.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from York—Durham for his excellent dissection of Bill C-22, part 2.

The Liberals have been trying to assure us that judicial oversight will be an important part of this bill. Does he see that as still being retained inside the bill as it is written?

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the short answer is no. I do not see that as being a robust portion of part 2 of the bill, in part because much of what the minister would do and the regulations that would be made would be done in secret.

Moreover, the provision of sending ministerial orders to the Information Commissioner is, in my view, somewhat misguided. The Information Commissioner deals with national security issues and signals intelligence, among other things. That individual is not tasked with protecting Canadians' privacy rights. That balance is not there in the review.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the government omitted to properly consult the Privacy Commissioner. It is a curious thing, why they did that. Would the member support an amendment to the bill to, prior to it receiving full authority, have the bill brought before the Privacy Commissioner for consultation and recommendations?

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, of course, the opposition is always open to considering all reasonable amendments to the bill. At the very least, I would like to hear what the Privacy Commissioner's view is on the bill. Whether the Privacy Commissioner could provide that via testimony in committee or via a public letter to members of the House of Commons, I would welcome those comments.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Development)]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to speak about Bill C-22, the lawful access bill. There is no issue more pressing in the law enforcement legal framework than lawful access, a tool that is essential for police and prosecution to do the work to expeditiously catch people accused of many violent crimes.

The world around us is becoming increasingly digital and networked. Much of our day-to-day business communication and overall lives relies on the Internet. Smart phones, emails and instant messaging apps easily and instantly transcend provincial and national borders. Unfortunately, this also means that malicious actors, such as organized crime groups and violent extremists, can exploit the borderless nature of cyberspace for their own benefit. Canada's law enforcement agencies and CSIS need modern tools to help keep communities safe. We must close the capacity gap in current legislation that prevents law enforcement and CSIS from having lawful access to data, and must ensure that they can properly execute their mandates and protect Canadians.

“Lawful access” is a term we will hear a lot in association with the bill, but let us be clear what it really means. Lawful access covers the tools and authorities used to legally obtain certain information, data or communication during investigations. This information is often essential to generating leads on national security threats and serious criminal activities, such as extortion and organized crime, as well as to identifying and prosecuting the people involved.

For decades, law enforcement and CSIS have had to operate without a legal framework requiring electronic service providers, ESPs, to develop and maintain lawful access capabilities. The current legal framework dates from before the invention of cellphones and has not kept pace with the rapid advances in technology. This is important because law enforcement and intelligence investigators need basic subscriber information, such as a legal name or an address, to identify or exclude suspects, particularly during preliminary stages.

Bill C-22 would establish a legal framework requiring electronic service providers to have the capability to respond to legally authorized requests, such as a warrant or a production order, while respecting protecting privacy interests and fundamental rights. It would introduce provisions to support law enforcement as it cracks down on crime in an increasingly complex technological landscape where the vast majority of evidence is online or electronic.

Law enforcement groups have sounded the alarm about the obstacles they encounter in their investigations. For instance, imagine a person getting a call from an extortionist demanding money and threatening their family if they do not pay. They call 911, tell the police who called and show them the messages they received. Under the current framework, it would take weeks or even months for the police to find out basic information such as who or where the call came from.

This is just one example of the many challenges law enforcement officials face in obtaining the information they need. Often they do not know which service provider holds the customer account associated with the subscriber information, which also means they do not know whom to serve with a production order. This challenge currently stalls and delays real-world investigations. In many cases, law enforcement is required to seek multiple judicial authorizations to seek very basic information from different service providers, just to confirm which service provider's phone number or IP address the call was made from.

The current framework causes significant, unnecessary and potentially harmful delays. Timely access to the basic information is crucial in all stages of an investigation and can mean the difference between securing evidence and allowing criminals to slip through law enforcement's fingers.

Here is another example. Police are aware that a provider holds certain information, but the company cannot provide it because their systems do not possess the capability to do so, as there is no legal requirement to carry such capabilities. We have heard many stories of law enforcement tracking a missing child or attempting to stop a terrorist attack, knowing which service provider to obtain the information from but being stonewalled by the provider's lack of lawful access capabilities.

We cannot hope to fully protect Canadians and our communities if law enforcement and CSIS are unable to do their jobs. For this reason, Bill C-22 would introduce new legislation to close that gap, whereby certain ESPs would need to develop and maintain the technological capabilities to respond to production orders. To be clear, this aspect of the legislation intentionally and explicitly would not allow for backdoor access or any direct access for law enforcement or CSIS into electronic service provider systems. A legal authority to access that information would still always be required.

Bill C-22 proposes two ways by which an ESP would be asked to develop and maintain lawful access capabilities. First, those designated as core providers, such as traditional telecom companies, would have to abide by specific requirements set out in regulations. Second, the Minister of Public Safety could issue a ministerial order to develop specific capabilities based on operational needs as new technologies develop.

We have heard the concerns from parliamentarians and stakeholders around privacy and oversight. I want to reassure Canadians that Bill C-22 includes safeguards so ESPs would not have to abide by any demands that would introduce systemic vulnerabilities in electronic protections, such as encryption breaking or backdoor access. This would also require that the Minister of Public Safety obtain the approval of the intelligence commissioner before a ministerial order is valid, and it would be subject to further review by the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency.

Bill C-22 is about removing harmful barriers that impede active investigations and delay justice as well as put Canadians in harm's way. It is about bringing our legislation up to date with modern technologies and those of our closest allies and partners. It is about ensuring that alleged extortionists, child predators, cybercriminals, hostile state actors and organized criminal networks have nowhere to hide.

Law enforcement leaders have been very clear with us. I will quote the National Police Federation, which said, “For frontline police officers, the ability to lawfully identify who owns an online account is often the first step in investigating crimes such as extortion, child sexual exploitation, organized crime, violent offences, and national security threats. Bill C-22 will help ensure that longstanding court orders and warrants remain effective in a modern digital environment.” They need us to act now to eliminate these gaps in our legislation. I am urging hon. members to support the bill for the crucial public safety measure it would be.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite mentioned several times that law enforcement agencies are asking for this, that the RCMP and other law enforcement bodies are asking for this, and I would agree that they are. I went to an information session on the Hill that was hosted by the Minister of Public Safety, and those folks said very clearly that the government got it wrong in Bill C-2, that it did not do its proper due diligence, that there were some things that had to be changed, and that the government needed to improve it in Bill C-22. Would the member not agree that vigorous attention to and dissecting of the bill is important and that debate in the House is important as well as in committee?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we could have amended Bill C-2. It was the second bill introduced in the current session of the House, which shows the importance the government places on law enforcement and getting the tools that are needed. It was after those consultations that the government listened to, and that is why we have Bill C-22 now. Therefore, now that those consultations have been done, I urge that we pass the bill as fast as possible so we give the tools to law enforcement agencies.

I also met with the commissioner, the deputy commissioner and the regional police chiefs of all the areas around my riding, and all of them have stated that we need lawful access and need it now.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, members will recall that Bill C‑2 was split, in part because certain aspects of the bill were unacceptable. Today, it is back as Bill C‑22.

One unacceptable part of Bill C‑2 was that it used reasonable suspicion, rather than reasonable belief, to allow authorities to obtain information simply by getting a court order. A number of experts spoke out about this and told us that it could be a slippery slope.

I would like to know why the government is coming back with the same threshold as before and whether the government is open to amendments to perhaps compromise and rethink this threshold.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the threshold is to get subscriber information. The first step when someone gets a call or a threat is to find out who the number belongs to. It used to be very easy. We could pick up a phone book-like thing in the library that had every number in it. It used to be published every year. When somebody called, we could tell where the number came from. The world has changed drastically from that. We are now on VPNs. Even normal office phones are. Land lines do not actually communicate with a direct line. They go over the Internet.

Getting the subscriber information is the first and fundamental step so law enforcement can take subsequent steps to get production orders to tap phones. Those would come after, but the initial step of finding out who is calling, where the information is coming from, is vital.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the secretary of state's comments, and I thank him for coming to Winnipeg North to deal with the issue of extortion. Bill C-22 would deal with it in a significant way. Could he provide further comment on that specific issue?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very valid question. It is a big concern. People facing extortion threats are wondering why it takes the police so long to find out who is responsible, when sometimes in the private sector they may be able to get a private investigation or a digital firm to find out where the call was coming from.

Unfortunately, law enforcement has been handicapped without those capabilities. It has asked for the bill to pass immediately, as fast as possible, as the threat is really hindering people's lives. Normal business people are not able to go out. They live in fear. It is finally coming to fruition, and I am hopeful they will be able to live their lives in a peaceful manner.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think everyone agrees that the modernization of investigative powers in the digital age is required. The question is about getting the right balance.

In the interests of getting the right balance and protecting privacy and civil rights, why did the government not consult with the Privacy Commissioner or ensure that their input was incorporated in the drafting of Bill C-22?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the minister did a very good job in getting consultation from a broad sector of stakeholders, such as from law enforcement and the prosecutor's office. One of our former colleagues, from Victoria, gave the NDP's insight formally. I think there was broad consultation. I am sure if the Privacy Commissioner has some concerns, they are able to table their opinions as well.

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today on behalf of the Edmonton Griesbach riding. I will be using my time to speak to Bill C-22.

Bill C-22 is significant. It touches on public safety, privacy and the fundamental relationship between citizens and the government. That means we absolutely have to get it right.

It goes without saying that Conservatives believe in law and order. We have always stood for common-sense measures to keep Canadians safe. For the past decade, we have been urging the Liberal government to reverse its failed policies and restore safety to our communities. Instead, the Liberals have let the situation get out of control.

Last fall, the Liberals put forward Bill C-2, which would have fallen well short of protecting Canadians while overreaching in other areas. Thanks to the work of our Conservative team, we forced the Liberals to back down from Bill C-2, successfully blocking their infringement of individual freedoms and privacy. We stopped the Liberals from limiting the use of cash. We stopped them from opening mail without oversight. We stopped them from demanding that any service provider, including even dry cleaners, disclose user data without judicial oversight. Now we are presented with Bill C-22. While this bill excludes some provisions that Conservatives opposed, it also reintroduces parts of the failed Bill C-2.

My Conservative colleagues and I continue to carefully review every line of this bill, as lawmakers. This legislation requires the necessary scrutiny and, yes, skepticism. Conservatives take this responsibility seriously. We support law enforcement. We want officers to have the tools they need to keep Canadians safe. That is not in question. It has never been in question. Also, we know these powers must be accompanied by strong safeguards, clear limits and independent oversight to protect Canadians' rights and freedoms. At the same time, we stand for the rights and freedoms of Canadians. We stand for privacy and due process. Those two principles must go hand in hand. We will continue working to ensure that privacy and due process are protected, with this legislation and all future legislation.

Unlike the Liberal government, we believe in listening before legislating. As a result, Conservatives have spoken with law enforcement about Bill C-22. What we heard was clear. Officers want tools, and they want clarity. They want to be able to act quickly when it matters most. Of course, we agree with that. We welcome measures that lawfully, and with proper judicial oversight, allow police to access information needed to stop serious crime.

Here is the concern. Too often with the Liberal government, the devil is in the details. We have seen it before. We saw it in Bill C-2. What was packaged as a so-called border bill actually included proposals to inspect Canadians' mail without a warrant. Canadians rejected that. We saw it again in Bill C-8, a cybersecurity bill that made sense on the surface but also included sweeping ministerial powers with little oversight. Now we have Bill C-22, and serious concerns remain.

One of the biggest concerns I have with this legislation is about oversight. This bill would grant significant authority. In some cases, that authority would rest with ministers, not with the courts or with independent bodies. That is a problem. Ministerial authority is not the same as judicial oversight. It is not the same as accountability. It risks becoming arbitrary.

Canadians have reason to be skeptical of Bill C-22. The government has a track record. Time and time again, it has pushed the limits of government power. Time and time again, the Liberals have asked Canadians to simply trust them, but trust must be earned, and right now it is in short supply.

Civil liberties groups from across the spectrum have raised alarms about Bill C-22. That should tell us something. It tells us we need to slow down and take a closer look. This is not just about technology or policing tools. This is about Canadians' personal information, their data, their communications, their private lives. Metadata alone can reveal a great deal, more than many people realize, yet we are being asked to consider provisions that would involve broad data practices without clear limits or definitions. For example, the bill does not clearly define what constitutes a service provider. That could mean telecom companies. It could mean email providers. It could mean messaging apps or cloud storage. In other words, it could mean access to deeply personal aspects of Canadians' lives.

This is not a small matter. We cannot afford vague definitions because once those powers exist, they do not just apply today. They apply tomorrow. They apply to future governments as well. This is not about partisanship but about principle. We must always ask, “How could this power be used, and how could it be misused?” This is our duty as legislators, and it is a duty Conservatives will uphold as we continue to examine this proposed legislation. As legislators, we cannot look at lawful access in isolation. If we are serious about public safety, we need a system that works from start to finish. This includes bail and sentencing. This includes giving police the support they have been asking for over the past number of years.

Too often, the government has been selective, listening to law enforcement when it suits it and ignoring it when it does not. Conservatives will always stand with those on the front lines, but we will not accept a trade-off when Canadians' rights are weakened in the process. On one hand, we must ensure that those who enforce our laws have the tools they need. On the other, we must protect the fundamental rights and freedoms that define our nation. Conservatives will not sacrifice one for the other. If we get this wrong, the consequences will be serious.

We have seen what happens when legislation is rushed and when concerns are dismissed. This is why we will not rubber-stamp Bill C-22. We will do our job. We will study it, question it and propose amendments where needed. We will listen to experts, law enforcement, civil liberties advocates and Canadians, because that is what responsible lawmakers do. We deeply support the objective of keeping Canadians safe. We support giving police effective tools. However, we will not ignore the risks of government overreach or the need for oversight. We will not ignore the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In closing, Bill C-22 raises serious and complex questions. It shows some progress, true, but it is clearly not there yet. It requires careful examination, detailed study, and scrutiny at committee and beyond. Conservatives will continue to stand for common-sense solutions that protect Canadians' individual freedoms, privacy and safety. That work is still ahead of us.

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

Mr. Speaker, to be very clear, the government is not looking for a rubber stamp from the Conservative Party. What we are looking for is a Conservative opposition that at least acknowledges it has a role that allows legislation to go to committee so we can make the changes, if it wants to see changes take place. We have been talking about lawful access for months now, virtually since June. The issue is about national security, including terrorism. It is about child sexual exploitation. It is about extortion. These are serious issues. Let us allow the legislation to proceed. We have been talking about lawful access since June.

Does the member support the principle of lawful access?

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Of course, Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out in my speech, we support giving the police tools. However, Canadians have a right to be skeptical of the Liberal government. In previous legislation, we stopped the Liberals from limiting the use of cash, opening mail without oversight and demanding that any service provider, including hospitals and dry cleaners, disclose user data without judicial oversight.

Canadians have a right to be skeptical, and Conservatives are going to fight anything in this bill that looks suspicious.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will ask my hon. colleague a follow-up on the question asked by the member for Winnipeg North, who is sort of making the allegation that somehow Conservatives are holding up this important legislation. In fact, the reason we are in this position in the first place is that the Liberals introduced Bill C-2, which had so many poison pills in it. It was an omnibus bill that did not address lawful access. It was just one minor part of that omnibus that had, as he addressed, some of the poison pills in it. The fact that this has taken so long is due to the Liberals' failure to communicate on this important issue properly.

Does my hon. colleague agree with my assessment?

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree 100%. The Liberals talk a good game. I had a private member's bill that would have toughened up parole. We had several private members' bills that would have given police more tools. What happened? They got shut down.

The Liberals talk a good game, but let us see them deliver. Again, Canadians have a right to be skeptical when poison pills are injected into legislation.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will give my colleague a moment to put in his earpiece so that he can understand me properly in one of Canada's official languages.

The Conservative Party claims to defend individual freedoms. I would like to ask my colleague a simple question. Does he support “reasonable suspicion” as the threshold for granting access to Quebeckers' and Canadians' digital lives? That is what this bill does right now.

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, the devil is in the details. When we start going through Bill C-22, there are a lot of details we have to look at. We want to give police the tools they need, but we cannot allow the bill to go over and above what Canadians expect. We believe in giving police power but not in giving away charter rights.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to put a comment on the record. The Green Party of Canada is 100% in agreement with the summary of what has happened with this bill that was just given by the hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we will take the support. It is great.

The bill needs a great deal of work yet. Again, we believe in giving police the tools, but we do not want to rob people of their freedoms and rights under the charter.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will ask the chamber's indulgence, before I get into the crux of my speech, to just acknowledge the passing of a long-time family friend back in my riding, Marie Christie, who passed away on the 13th of this month in her 97th year.

Her family settled in my neck of the woods, just a few kilometres from my home farm, back in 1856. She was part of the Arran Tara Fall Fair board as a director for over 55 years. She was a 40-plus-year member of the Royal Canadian Legion Ladies Auxiliary and a life member of the Legion Branch 144 (Chesley). Marie's legacy of kindness, love and spark will live on in our memories for generations. A celebration of life is ongoing this afternoon, and I want to pass on my deepest condolences to the whole extended Christie family. Marie made a difference and she will be missed by each and every person that ever had the privilege to meet her.

We are here today to talk about Bill C-22. I am going to primarily focus my speech on why this piece of legislation around lawful access is so important. I am going to then spend a lot of time talking about key concerns around the terminology, especially around the concept of back doors. I am going to do this primarily by leveraging the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians' report on lawful access that was submitted to the Prime Minister back on March 4 last year. Unfortunately, it was not tabled in Parliament until September 15.

Finally, I am going to talk about why I believe the Liberal government is failing on communicating on this important piece of legislation. Bill C-22 has three parts: Part 1 provides new tools for law enforcement to access digital information; part 2 provides a framework that ensures electronic service providers establish and maintain a system capable of providing the information that law enforcement is authorized to access; and part 3 mandates a review of the act three years after the provisions come into force.

For those wanting a good explanation of the breakdown of all three parts, I encourage everyone to review the speeches by my Conservative colleagues for Parkland, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola and Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, and even the Minister of Justice's intervention on Bill C-22.

Why do we need lawful access in Canada? The NSICOP report, paragraph 198, states:

Lawful access represents one of the most intrusive powers of the state in the protection of national security. Accordingly, Canadians expect strong safeguards for its use, including that it be prescribed by law, serve a legitimate purpose, and be necessary and proportionate. Canadians rightfully want to understand any proposals for new tools and authorities to security and intelligence organizations that have implications for their privacy. However, Canadians also expect security and intelligence organizations to have the tools, policies, and lawful authorities in place to conduct lawful access techniques. The Committee thinks Canadians would be surprised to learn how difficult it actually is for security and intelligence agencies to do so.

Paragraph 200 states:

The Committee is equally concerned that, if left unaddressed, these challenges will undermine Canada’s national security in the long term by increasingly hampering the ability of CSIS and the RCMP to fulfil their respective mandates. The failure to respond to these challenges may also impede Canada’s continued ability to benefit from Five Eyes efforts to detect and respond to security threats if it cannot meaningfully contribute to this partnership.

Paragraph 202 of the report states:

It is critical, however, that the government approach these issues proactively. There are examples internationally of like minded democracies having hurriedly passed controversial lawful access legislation in response to serious national security events. Parliamentarians should have the opportunity to debate new legislation about lawful access with clear eyes and careful consideration, not in a rushed, emotional debate in reaction to a national tragedy. The longer these issues are kept on the backburner, the more the government opens itself up to the risk of following a similar path.

Now I want to get to the idea of intercept capability and the issue of back doors.

Paragraph 104 states:

Policy debates about how to respond to the challenge of encryption have included proposals that the government could require companies to create exceptional access to encryption programs, or backdoors, for security and intelligence organizations. CCCS defines a backdoor as an “undocumented, private, or less detectable-way of gaining remote access to a computer, bypassing authentication measures, and obtaining access to plaintext.” The Citizen Lab states, “[o]nce a backdoor is created, there is no practical guarantee that only state agencies will walk through it. This fundamental flaw makes exceptional access systems an inherent threat to persons who rely on encrypted communications products.” This view is echoed by many cybersecurity experts.

Continuing on in the report:

CSE told the Committee that it also has a concern with backdoors. While it noted that “there are means of creating technical solutions which are currently considered secure,” it stated that it would have a concern with legislation compelling CSPs or software providers to implement backdoors, which could compromise the cybersecurity more generally.

According to the RCMP, backdoors “create vulnerabilities and can weaken the overall security of a network; they create valid security concerns given the potential for these vulnerabilities to be exploited by criminals or other hostile actors. Recognizing the need to protect sensitive information and maintain individuals’ right to privacy, the RCMP does not advocate for the creation of ‘backdoors’ into CSPs’ networks. Instead, it would be safer and more beneficial for law enforcement and national security agencies to be able to leverage the information already accessible by CSPs.”

Some cybersecurity experts and privacy advocates, however, consider lawful intercept capability a backdoor, citing that there is “no such thing as a security backdoor that is only for the ‘good guys.’” Others similarly contend that while it might be argued that “surveillance technology can be built securely and without risk of penetration by hostile forces,” the “track record is not encouraging.”

Neither CSIS or RCMP view intercept capability as a backdoor, because it does not compromise encryption platforms or software. They instead regard the judicially authorized practice of using tools built into a CSP’s system, which are encryption neutral, as using the “front door.”

From paragraph 172, “Importantly, the committee did not hear any government official call for legislation to compel the creation of exceptional access or 'backdoors' to get around encryption.”

Long-winded, but that is all from the report.

This is where I want to get to the issues that I am hearing from constituents and even during debate here in the House, and where the Liberal government is failing.

First off, I talked about this a bit earlier, the Liberals tabled omnibus Bill C-2, which included a few clauses on lawful access. However, the bill was focused on everything from border security and immigration to banning cash transactions, and was doomed to fail from the start. Both Bill C-12 and Bill C-22 are the appropriate compromises as a result. Again, I mentioned this earlier.

Unfortunately, the government's delay of the NSICOP report on lawful access hindered the ability to fully leverage the extensive work done by this bicameral, all-recognized-party committee that only includes findings and recommendations that have unanimous support of all its members. Again, I mentioned this was given to the Prime Minister on March 4, but not tabled here in Parliament until September 15, despite my encouraging a number of the Liberal government ministers to table it back in June.

Here is a key paragraph from the report that will highlight the ongoing challenges around debate. Paragraph 175:

The Committee also observed that privacy and cybersecurity advocates and national security practitioners appear to be talking past one another in debates about encryption and exceptional access for law enforcement and intelligence organizations. As stakeholders debate policy initiatives or legislation, it will be critical for both sides to ensure a common understanding of key concepts. For the government, the Committee suggests that a robust, transparent communication strategy, which explains technical concepts in detail, is fundamental.

Unfortunately, this is where the Liberals' current communications strategy is failing to address this need and needs to be rectified.

In conclusion, Canada absolutely needs updated legislation around lawful access. There have been been calls for this for decades and former governments have tried to, unfortunately, no success.

In my opinion, Bill C-22 is the initial step to get us there. However, I fully believe that Bill C-22 needs full scrutiny at committee and that we, parliamentarians, need to be sure we are talking the same language and addressing the same concerns. In my opinion, the Liberal government is absolutely failing at addressing “a common understanding of key concepts” with respect to Bill C-22. It still has time to fix this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time that the member opposite has put on the NSICOP committee. No doubt, it gives him a fair amount of insight. I also appreciate the members' emphasis on the standing committee.

Ultimately, it would be wonderful to be able to see Bill C-22 get to that committee stage. This way, there would be no rush per se, as we could go into the details and look at ways it could be strengthened and have some of the concerns addressed. The desire, I believe, is to see lawful access brought into law so that we would not be the only country of the Five Eyes not to have it.

Would the member not agree, in principle, that Canada needs to have lawful access?

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely. Actually, the member can just read the report that I quoted extensively. This is something we absolutely need to address. The point, though, is that everybody ultimately, as I mentioned during my speech, thinks this should not be rushed. It needs to be done properly. As I have said countless times in response to this member, everybody in this chamber should have the exact same amount of time to speak to every bill as the member for Winnipeg North.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we would like some clarification from the Conservative Party.

I would like him to explain his party's position. Where is the line between public safety and respect for privacy? I would like my colleague to share his and his party's views on that.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I actually cannot share my party's perspective writ large. That is a great question for the shadow minister for public safety or the shadow minister for justice on my side. I can share my own personal take on it, which is that we do have to balance it correctly. We talked about it. I quoted about it extensively in my speech.

This is something I think absolutely needs to get fleshed out at committee. We need to have the same access to experts on this topic that the other members of the NSICOP committee and I had the privilege of having, in order to look at how we balance this. Again, I will reiterate what the report states. If the member read it, he would see it states clearly that privacy and public safety and public security are complementary even when it comes around lawful access. They can both work together, not be opposed to each other.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree with the member that the government screwed up the tabling of Bill C-2 in trying to force through an omnibus bill that was resoundingly, as a result, rejected by the Canadian public.

Here we are now with Bill C-22. The government says it has consulted widely and has learned from its lesson, yet it has deliberately excluded the privacy commissioner in that consultation.

Does the member think the government should have included the privacy commissioner on the development of Bill C-22?

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yes.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the succinct answers my colleague gives in the House. There are few colleagues in the House who I respect more than this member, and his insight into this bill has been very important to help me understand it, as I sit on the public safety committee. I wonder if he would take another few moments to comment on how important it is to take a look at and dissect this bill, as well as what it going to look like when we are done with it and if it is a good bill when it is finished.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is so important we do this right. I mentioned this earlier, and countless other members have highlighted it, but this has been attempted at least three times or four times over the last 25 or 30 years. Unfortunately, because balancing public safety and privacy rights is such a controversial issue, we need to get this right. This can only be done through deliberate, careful and very wide consultation with every stakeholder who has any sort of foot in this game when it comes to lawful access.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to have the opportunity today to talk a bit about Bill C-22, which deals with lawful access.

Lawful access is, of course, critically important in the modern era with respect to the investigation and prosecution of crime. It is encouraging that we are talking about lawful access here in the House of Commons today. However, I would be remiss if I did not talk about a few things before dealing with the substance of the bill.

First of all, I will talk about how we got here, which many colleagues in the opposition have done. They have talked about how the Liberal government tried to force the bill through in an earlier version, Bill C-2, which was a gigantic, omnibus piece of legislation. That piece of legislation had many flaws, and a huge number of problems and issues were raised. There were so many that, under the pressure of the opposition parties, the government was forced to split the bill into parts that could be studied and supported, and the rest is coming now in Bill C-22.

This becomes especially important when we look at where we are today. We are now on the cusp of a Liberal majority government, with which the Liberals may choose to ram through pieces of legislation like this without any scrutiny.

Why do I raise this concern right now, at this moment? It is because it has been interesting to listen today to the Liberal parliamentary secretary to the House leader denigrate the Conservatives who have the audacity to get up and speak about this particular piece of legislation. He is suggesting that we are filibustering this piece of legislation, when I have listened to many opposition colleagues get up today and give well-reasoned arguments for why this piece of legislation is problematic and why it deserves additional study.

We know debate is part of the way in which we bring issues forward. The Liberal parliamentary secretary to the House leader seems to find it inconvenient and unsettling that opposition members of Parliament can get up in this chamber and identify significant and serious issues with a piece of government legislation. His view seems to be that we should be just a rubber-stamp chamber, where everything the Liberals decide to put forward is perfectly crafted and we should just move it along. That seems to be his argument all the time. It is almost as though he believes this chamber serves no purpose other than for him to get up and speak to every single piece of legislation, which he does, and then ask questions of every opposition member who has the audacity to stand up and try to exercise the same right.

Why is this deeply concerning? It is deeply concerning because Canadians might be looking at the dystopian future of that kind of attitude being brought forward into the entire House of Commons as the Liberals move toward a majority government.

It looks likely that the Liberals will reorganize committees to have a majority so that, once again, they can ram through pieces of legislation without any study. They can use all kinds of procedural tricks to do that. They can use a programming motion that limits the amount of debate on legislation and the amount of time it spends at committee, deems it adopted at certain stages and passes it on to the Senate. They can do that. They can use time allocation to end debate. They can use closure motions to end debate. They can take committee meetings in camera whenever they want, because they have the votes.

Imagine if the Liberals had had this power back in the fall, when they tried to bring Bill C-2 forward. The opposition would not have had the power to get that bill split so that we could take out the problematic sections for it to be debated and further studied.

The attitude being displayed by the Liberal parliamentary secretary to the House leader and many members of the Liberal caucus is that any time an opposition member has the audacity to stand in their seat, to which they were democratically elected, and raise issues about a piece of legislation. it is is obstruction or a filibuster, yet we have watched Liberal members get up today to speak to this particular bill immediately after the parliamentary secretary to the House leader accused a Conservative member of filibustering by daring to stand in his place to speak on this particular piece of legislation.

Canadians should be listening very carefully to this, because it tells us what is about to happen. The government is going to ram through pieces of legislation because it thinks it can do nothing wrong.

Let me tell this House something. The government has done a lot of things wrong in this Parliament, and did a lot of things wrong in the previous Parliament. For example, it was found to have illegally invoked the Emergencies Act. It is a government that has a tendency to use heavy-handed approaches, overreach and trample over Canadians' charter rights and freedoms.

Now the government is going to have a majority in this House, and potentially a majority on committees, and it is going to use that to stifle debate. We know that because of the questions the Liberals ask and how they answer questions in question period. A day does not go by when the Liberals do not get up to say, “The opposition is obstructing what we are trying to do,” so we know what they are going to try to do when we get to their majority government.

That is deeply troubling with a bill about lawful access, because lawful access is going to determine the extent to which the police and other security agencies can access Canadians' data. Let us be very clear about this. Most Canadians now have extraordinary digital footprints. With that comes the extraordinary need to maintain Canadians' privacy. This is not a government that has shown itself to be shy about overusing or abusing its powers. We have had members of the Conservative caucus get up and very clearly state how much scrutiny this legislation is going to need in order to safeguard the rights of Canadians. A huge part of that is debating right here in this chamber, much to the chagrin of the parliamentary secretary to the House leader, who would like us all to just sit down and let the Liberals continue to have their own speakers get up and speak to this.

I want to make it abundantly clear that Conservatives, when they speak to particular pieces of legislation, are not filibustering. They have been duly elected by millions of Canadians from coast to coast to coast to fight for their rights. That includes their right to privacy.

As we look at this lawful access bill, there are all kinds of things that Canadians should be concerned about, including access to metadata. I remember being a litigation lawyer 20 years ago, talking about preserving and using metadata during discovery. It was quite new 20 years ago. It is not new now. In fact, the amount of metadata the average Canadian has is enormous, and the potential abuse of that is deeply problematic.

We could almost go back to when we were going through the COVID-19 pandemic, when the Liberals wanted to track our movement data, which is a form of metadata. They would have gotten a lot more data than just where people were moving around. They talked about how they would take that data and randomize it so that even if there was a data breach, no one would be granted access to it, but experts came to committees and said that was absolutely not true. No matter how the data is randomized, someone can put that data back together.

When we look at the kinds of extraordinary powers the government is seeking to give not just police, but security agencies, we have to make sure that our data is protected and that the privacy of Canadians will be protected. This takes us to a deeply troubling thing that my NDP colleague raised several times today, which is the fact that the government did not consult the Privacy Commissioner on the drafting of this legislation. It is is deeply problematic, because the Privacy Commissioner is going to have a lot of concerns about this particular piece of legislation.

Going back to how this is a majority government, and we are back at Bill C-2, which was an omnibus piece of legislation. The government did not consult the Privacy Commissioner. It has a majority. It can do whatever it wants in the House of Commons and at committee. This is deeply troubling for the future of Canadians and the future of Canadians' data.

Whenever Bill C-22 goes to committee, if the government has reconstituted the committees to give itself a majority, which Canadians did not vote for, it will be able to pass this piece of legislation without amendment. In fact, it could pass it after hearing from one or two witnesses. The government could pass it without hearing from any witnesses, because it is going to have complete control of committees. The attitude displayed by the parliamentary secretary to the House leader and the contempt he seems to show for debate give me great concern for what would happen at committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of things that I could say with regard to the comments made by the member opposite, but suffice it to say that Canada elected a new Prime Minister under a year ago. We have a legislative agenda. Part of that means working with parliamentarians on all sides of the House. Whether it is the Prime Minister or the Liberal government, and whether it is a minority government or a majority government, we will continue to look for co-operation and to improve legislation.

What I think there is not as much tolerance for is the Conservative Party's continuing to deny lawful access to Canadians. Conservatives have continued to do that ever since June last year. Asking for legislation to go to committee is not that much to ask for, while the Conservatives continue to prevent it from going to committee.

Does the member believe the Conservative Party will—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon.

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

Mr. Speaker, the cognitive dissonance of that question is really stunning. Once again, the member is suggesting that the audacity of Conservatives and other members of the opposition to get up and speak to this particular piece of legislation is somehow an affront to democracy. Meanwhile, we had a Liberal minister speaking to this particular piece of legislation literally 15 minutes ago.

If the Liberals really think this bill is so important and that we do not need more debate, why do they continue to put up speakers? That takes us to exactly where we are in this country now. Everything the Liberals do, they think is perfect. Anything that anyone else does is filibustering and not worthy of the House's time. It is a deeply troubling belief that the Liberal government seems to have.

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can already see the narrative starting that the Conservatives are filibustering committees and that we are holding up legislation. What I can see eventually happening is committees being reshuffled.

I would like to ask my colleague why it is important to keep committees the same for Canadians in the face of democracy and ensure that His Majesty's loyal opposition still has a voice within Parliament.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question. Let us think about this bill. If it had been brought forward as Bill C-2 in its original form today, on the cusp of a Liberal majority government, there would have been no consultation. There would have been no splitting of the bill. The Liberals would have proceeded forward with this at committee to get it passed through the committee as quickly as possible.

We have seen the attitude of the Liberals with respect to this bill. No one is filibustering this piece of legislation. No one is obstructing this piece of legislation. For goodness' sake, there was just a Liberal minister up, speaking to the bill. If what we are doing is obstruction and a filibuster, then they are filibustering their own piece of legislation.

What is interesting is that the Liberals are actually filibustering at the ethics committee to stop an investigation into the finance minister, whose partner is on the board of directors for Alto. If members want to talk about filibusters and obstruction, they are the professionals.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, do members know what is most amazing? The member opposite sat in the chamber when Stephen Harper was the prime minister. With Stephen Harper, the Conservatives would stand in their place, introduce a bill and then move closure immediately after. There were well over 100 closure motions in some form or another.

How dare the member try to compare the two when we have a government that continues to work with opposition members? It is absolutely ludicrous.

I would challenge the member to join me at Carleton University and debate the issue of filibustering. Obviously, it is something he knows nothing about or he is an absolute something that I cannot say here.

I would ask the member to give his head a shake and recognize that it is time we work for Canadians. We can work together and have good, solid legislation—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I need to give the member time to respond.

The hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am always happy to engage in an intellectual fight with people, but I refuse to get into an intellectual fight with someone who is unarmed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I think that may have crossed the line into unparliamentary language. I would ask the member to refrain from that.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Oakville West.

[Sima Acan, Liberal, Oakville West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in strong and unequivocal support for Bill C-22, the lawful access act of 2026.

The legislation represents a vital and long-overdue step in modernizing Canada's legal, technical and investigative frameworks to protect our citizens in an increasingly dangerous digital world. The bill is a cornerstone of our commitment to modernizing Canada's safety framework for the digital age and beyond, ensuring that our investigators have the tools necessary to keep pace with rapidly evolving technology.

As Chief Nishan Duraiappah of Peel Regional Police so powerfully stated during the government's announcement in Peel Region, our current rules and investigative frameworks were written before cell phones were even created. This is a staggering reality. While criminals, human traffickers and organized crime networks have rapidly adapted to new digital platforms and communication tools, the legal and technical framework available to our investigators has fundamentally failed to keep pace and is falling behind.

The Canadian Police Association, an organization representing 60,000 frontline personnel, and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police have been clear. Our current legal framework to access digital evidence is significantly outdated and urgently needs to be revised. Unfortunately, the reality is clear that, while technology has advanced at lighting speed, the laws governing how we investigate the most sophisticated criminals have remained frozen in time. Transnational organized crime groups are currently exploiting this gap to traffic drugs, such as fentanyl; coordinate human trafficking; distribute child sex abuse material; and smuggle firearms across the border.

Canada is the only country among the Five Eyes and the G7 that does not have a modernized lawful access regime. We are falling behind our peers. For too long, our law enforcement agencies have had to rely on the co-operation of international partners to fill in the gaps in our own national security and intelligence investigations. As our public safety minister has emphasized, a strong government delivers for its citizens. It is time for a Canadian solution to go after criminals who threaten our communities. Bill C-22 would provide the targeted, judicially authorized tools needed to combat 21st-century threats.

One of the most important updates is the confirmation of service demand, which would allow investigators and CSIS to quickly confirm, with a simple yes-or-no question, whether a service provider holds information tied to any identifier. This would not grant access to private content. It would simply identify where the evidence may exist so that proper judicial authorization could follow.

The subscriber information production order would allow police with judicial authorization to obtain basic identifying information, such as a name or an email address. This is the digital equivalent of using a phone book and is essential for identifying suspects operating behind anonymity. To be clear, this is the same approach that existed in the predigital age, simply modernized to keep pace with today's changing technological landscape. This modernization is essential for combatting crimes, such as human trafficking, sextortion and child exploitation, as well as auto theft networks and violent organized crime.

For example, with regard to human trafficking and sextortion, these crimes often begin with an anonymous IP address. The new subscriber information production order would allow police with judicial approval to obtain basic identifying info, such as a name or an email address. This is the digital equivalent of a phone book, and it is essential for identifying the predators who are hiding behind pseudonyms.

Organized car theft rings use digital tools to coordinate border-crossing operations. The bill would modernize tracking and transmission data warrants, allowing investigators to follow the digital bread crumbs of these networks, even when the specific devices they use change during the investigation.

The Canadian Centre for Child Protection has fully endorsed these changes, noting that they would reduce the barriers police face when investigating online crimes against children. Without modern tools, criminals, especially predators, can remain hidden for far too long.

Perhaps most importantly, part 1 of the bill would codify the power of police to act in exigent circumstances. In the digital world, every second counts. Members can imagine an active kidnapping, where a predator is communicating via an encrypted app or a terrorist threat, and an attack is imminent. Currently, waiting hours for a formal warrant in the middle of the night could mean the difference between life and death. Bill C-22 would specify circumstances in which officers can obtain evidence, including subscriber information, immediately, to prevent serious injury or the destruction of vital evidence. This would not grant permanent powers. It would ensure that, in a life-or-death emergency, the law would stand on the side of the victims.

Legal authority is meaningless without technical capacity. Part 2 of the bill, which would enact the supporting authorized access to information act, would ensure that major electronic service providers maintain the technical ability to comply with court orders they are already legally required to follow. Currently, Canada has no regulatory framework requiring service providers to maintain systems capable of responding to lawful court orders in a timely and consistent manner. This bill would address the gap by ensuring core providers can retrieve and produce information when ordered to do so by a court. Importantly, this would not create any back doors. Providers themselves would retrieve the information and disclose it only under judicial authorization, avoiding any systemic vulnerabilities that could be exploited by malicious actors.

I want to be very clear. This legislation would not create unchecked new powers. Strong judicial oversight and privacy would ensure that all powers are exercised under strict court authorization and with robust safeguards to protect Canadians' privacy rights. Judicial authorization ensures that almost every tool in this bill would require prior approval from a judge or justice based on reasonable grounds. No back doors would ensure there would be no covert access mechanism, with systems remaining secure and data only being disclosed under lawful authority. Independent review would ensure that ministerial orders under part 2 must be reviewed and approved by the intelligence commissioner, which would ensure independent oversight and accountability.

To understand why this bill is so vital, we must look at the technical hurdles our officers face every day. I am particularly proud of the collaborative approach we have taken. I recently sponsored a parliamentary breakfast panel on the Hill in collaboration with the National Police Federation. I invited senators and members of Parliament from all parties to engage directly with the experts who work with these systems every day. We heard from Brian Sauvé, president of the National Police Federation, on frontline policing matters; Leah West, a national security law expert from Carleton University; Nick Milinovich, deputy chief of Peel Regional Police and co-chair of the lawful access advisory committee; and Gordon Scott Campbell, a constitutional and criminal lawyer with Supreme Court experience.

Deputy Chief Milinovich and other experts described the trial and error burden that currently cripples investigations. When police have a digital identifier, such as an IP address, tied to a crime, they must send a production order to a service provider to identify the suspect. However, if they send that order to a provider that does not actually service that identifier, the provider can simply not comply. This creates a technical stalemate where police must guess which provider holds the data.

Bill C-22 would solve this through the confirmation of service demand. This tool would allow the investigator to quickly confirm with a simple yes or no if a provider holds information tied to an identifier. It would not grant access to private content, but simply identify where evidence exists so that proper judicial authorization can follow, ending the era of investigative guesswork.

We also heard important questions from our Conservative colleagues about privacy and scope. Those concerns were addressed clearly. This bill would not expand surveillance. It would ensure that, when a judge authorizes access, the information can be obtained effectively and lawfully. The Ontario Association Chiefs of Police has stated that this is about ensuring police can “obtain vital evidence in complex cases”, not “expanding surveillance”.

In conclusion, we can no longer afford to leave our investigators with tools from a predigital era. We cannot remain the only G7 nation without a modern lawful access regime. Bill C-22 is a balanced, necessary and collaborative 21st-century solution to 21st-century crimes. As the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police and multiple national law enforcement bodies have emphasized, this is about ensuring police can obtain vital evidence in complex cases while maintaining strong judicial oversight and charter protections.

I urge all members of the House to support the swift and constructive passage of this legislation so that we can fulfill our primary duty, the safety and security of all Canadians.

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this bill would require core providers to retain categories of metadata, including transmission data, for up to one year, covering all users, regardless of whether anyone is a suspect of anything or not. This is a surveillance database built on every Canadian.

Why is the Liberal government treating everyday citizens as suspects in this bill?

[Sima Acan, Liberal, Oakville West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this legislation makes it very clear that the data retention only captures, as my colleague mentioned, metadata for up to one year, and this metadata would not include content on the Internet, web browser history or even social media information.

Lawful access is about identifying who is committing crimes and providing timely intelligence to investigators and law enforcement.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Riddle me this, Mr. Speaker. The government is asking the public to trust it and saying that it needs more power. That is what the government is asking parliamentarians to approve right now. However, the government is cutting the resources of those that will oversee those new powers. In the most recent budget, the Liberal Party made a 15% cut to the budget of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, the watchdog for the new powers the government is asking for.

Can my colleague explain how the government will do more surveillance with more powers when there will be fewer people responsible for overseeing those new powers?

[Sima Acan, Liberal, Oakville West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to be very clear on the ministerial powers. The ministerial orders in part 2 would be subject to approval by the intelligence commissioner. Privacy and cybersecurity are the considerations when issuing orders. Judges have discretion to include conditions to protect any person's privacy interests when issuing a warrant. This strikes the right balance.

I am looking forward to working with my colleague across the aisle on this bill at committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to recognize that the legislation would protect the interests and the privacy of Canadians, and it would complement many aspects of other legislation we have, including things such as the Charter of Rights. It is important to recognize that Canada is the only Five Eyes country that does not have lawful access.

Lawful access, in turn, would protect Canadians' national security in dealing with issues like terrorism. It would protect children from sexual exploitation. It would help protect our communities from extortion. These are all very important issues that lawful access addresses, while at the same time protecting the privacy of Canadians. Both can be done at the same time. The issue of having that ongoing discussion, looking for ways it can be improved, can be done in standing committee.

Does the member not agree that law enforcement agencies as a whole are supportive of this legislation, and we—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Oakville West.

[Sima Acan, Liberal, Oakville West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yes, Canada is the only country in the G7, as well as the Five Eyes, that does not have lawful access.

It has been almost a year that I have been working with law enforcement, which includes my local police organization, Halton Regional Police Service. I learned, through many hours of consultation, that they do agree and they want this legislation. They are thirsty for this legislation and have been for decades. They are in full support of this legislation, just like those on this side of the House are.

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in principle, I am in favour of the bill, but when we speak to Canadians, they expect us to protect both their safety and their rights.

What changes would my colleague opposite suggest to reinforce that value that Canadians hold dear to them?

[Sima Acan, Liberal, Oakville West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his support. We have repeatedly said that this bill does not touch the privacy of Canadians; it is built to protect Canadians. We are open to working with our Conservative colleagues at the committee level to improve the bill if it is necessary.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-22, the so-called lawful access act, is being presented as a necessary modernization of investigative powers in the digital age. To be clear, there is some truth in that framing. We do need to modernize.

Law enforcement and national security agencies are operating in a rapidly evolving technology-driven environment. Serious crimes, from human trafficking to foreign interference, are increasingly digitally distributed and difficult to detect. Human trafficking networks now rely on encrypted messaging, anonymous accounts and constantly shifting online identities. Foreign interference operations depend on coordinated digital campaigns, pseudonymous actors and infrastructure that crosses borders in seconds. In both cases, the central challenge is attribution, identifying who is behind an account or activity, quickly enough to act.

Parliamentary findings have confirmed that agencies like the RCMP and CSIS face real difficulties accessing communications data and that, without some form of data retention, information sought under warrant may no longer exist, so the problem is real and the need for tools is real. New Democrats recognize that law enforcement officers must have the ability to investigate serious crimes and protect public safety, whether that is child exploitation, human trafficking, terrorist threats or foreign interference. However, those powers must always be balanced with strong protections for privacy, civil liberties, cybersecurity and meaningful consultation. That is the test before us. We have seen what happens when the balance is lost.

The government's previous attempt under Bill C-2, the so-called safe borders act, an omnibus bill, was widely rejected by over 300 organizations and tens of thousands of Canadians because it would have been an attack on civil liberties, on privacy rights, on due process and on the rights of asylum seekers.

Bill C-2 has now come back in different parts. The attack for asylum seekers lives on under Bill C-12, which the NDP vehemently opposed. The part about lawful access continues in Bill C-22, and I would say it does include some improvements. The removal of blanket warrantless “information demand” powers matters. Replacing that with a more limited “confirmation of service” tool based on reasonable grounds and restricted to a yes or no response would be a step in the right direction. The requirement of judicial authorization for further access would remain, which is essential. Therefore, yes, there has been some movement.

However, we should also be clear about what this legislation would do. This is not simply a modest update. It is a significant restructuring of how the state, private companies and individuals would interact in the digital space. There are serious concerns, particularly in part 2 of this bill. Part 2 would require electronic service providers to build and maintain interception capacities within their systems, and would introduce the possibility of mandatory metadata retention, potentially requiring the storage of location data, device identifiers and communication metadata on all users for extended periods. It would allow the government to require companies to retain metadata for up to one year.

Metadata may not include the content of communications, but it reveals patterns of behaviour, who we talk to, when we talk to them, where we are and how often we interact and for how long. In the digital era, metadata is often more revealing than content. It is the skeleton of a person's private life. Under this bill, that data could be retained, not because it is needed for a specific investigation but because it might become useful in the future. This would be a profound invasion of privacy law. It would replace targeted suspicion with generalized collection.

In addition, the Minister of Public Safety would be granted authority to issue secret orders requiring providers to modify their systems to facilitate access to user information. These orders would not require judicial authorization. They would not be subject to public scrutiny and in, many cases, they may never be disclosed. Instead, they would be approved through an administrative process involving the intelligence commissioner. Now, while that office plays an important role in oversight, it is not equivalent to independent judicial authorization in open court.

We are told this is necessary to ensure that data exists when investigators need it to reconstruct networks, identify victims or attribute foreign interference. Those are legitimate objectives. The question is not whether those objectives matter, but whether the approach is proportionate. Bulk indiscriminate data retention risks treating every Canadian as a potential suspect rather than focusing on targeted investigations. Metadata is not benign. It can review deeply personal information, patterns of movement, associations and behaviours.

Mandating its large-scale retention also creates cybersecurity risks. Concentrating secret, sensitive data makes systems more vulnerable to breaches, misuse and exploitation by malicious actors. We should be cautious about requiring companies to build surveillance capabilities into their systems. Even where the intention is lawful access, these kinds of systemic access points can introduce vulnerabilities. Experts have repeatedly warned that there is no such thing as a perfectly secure back door that only works for one purpose. It exists for everyone.

The committee report on lawful access is instructive here. It acknowledges the operational challenges, gaps in data availability, coordination issues and the need for lawful intercept capability. It also makes clear that any framework must be grounded in necessity, proportionality and legitimacy. It found no support for requiring back doors to encryption. It highlighted a lack of clarity in the government's overall approach. It raised concerns about the absence of a coherent, transparent strategy. That raises another important question. Why was there no more meaningful consultation with the Privacy Commissioner and the independent officer tasked with safeguarding the rights of Canadians? At a time when trust in digital governance is already fragile, that omission matters.

We should also look internationally. Broad data retention regimes have faced legal challenges in other jurisdictions. More targeted alternatives, such as quick-freeze models, have been explored, preserving data tied to specific investigations rather than requiring ongoing generalized collection. Again, the issue is not whether tools are needed. In fast-moving cases, whether it is locating a trafficking victim or identifying a coordinated foreign interference network, timely access to data can make a real difference. The issue is whether this bill strikes the right balance between effectiveness and rights. Does it provide law enforcement with the tools it needs without overreaching? Does it maintain robust judicial oversight? Does it avoid creating systemic cybersecurity risks? Does it respect the charter principles of necessity and proportionality? More importantly, will it withstand constitutional scrutiny? If that balance is not right, the consequences are not just legal, but democratic.

Privacy is not an abstract concept. It is what allows people to speak freely, organize and participate in public life without fear of constant monitoring. When surveillance becomes more expansive and less constrained, it has a chilling effect. That is well documented. Therefore, the question before us is not whether we act, but how we act.

Bill C-22 reflects an attempt to respond to real and evolving threats. It includes improvements over what came before, but it also raises serious, unresolved questions, particularly around the scope of data retention, the role of executive authority, the risks of cybersecurity and the adequacy of oversight. Those are questions this House must examine carefully because effective policing intelligence work can and should operate within robust legal frameworks that preserve judicial oversight and limit data collection to what is strictly necessary. Getting this wrong would not just impact investigations, but it would reshape the relationship between Canadians and the state in the digital age.

Advocates for civil liberties and privacy have very real civil liberties concerns that the bill represents one of the most serious proposed threats to privacy rights in Canada in the past two decades. That is not something we should take lightly because our civil liberties are the cornerstone of our democracy.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member opposite raising the issue of privacy concerns and the right of Canadians to maintain access to their data and know it is secure. However, as has been noted, law enforcement across the country has been overwhelmingly in favour of this bill. We have been talking to members of the Hamilton Police Service and the Hamilton Police Association. This is their number one ask, because criminals are using electronic tools to commit crimes and police need the correct tools in their tool box to stop those crimes from happening and to hold criminals responsible.

Would the member opposite agree that it is our obligation as a government to protect Canadians from crime and to support police and law enforcement?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I have noted before, the government keeps saying that it got the balance right. If it is so certain about that, why did the government not ensure that the Privacy Commissioner is incorporated in the consultation process with the development of Bill C-22?

Why did the government deliberately exclude an independent officer who would give Canadians the assurance that it has got the balance right? Perhaps the government could actually bring in an amendment to ensure that this takes place and that this bill does not become law until that happens.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do believe there are checks and balances.

The government is looking at the importance of lawful access and sees the benefits, in terms of protecting the national interest and national security around things like terrorism. It also deals with child exploitation, sexual exploitation and issues like extortion. All of these are critically important public issues.

It also provides the checks that are necessary to provide assurances that Canadians' privacy is also protected. It is on both sides. The critical thing for me is looking at it from the point of view that we have now been waiting for just under a year. There has been a lot of debate about lawful access.

Could the member share her own personal opinion as to why it is important? Maybe we could have a further discussion at the committee stage to make sure that it is done properly.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, to that point, if the government was so sure that it got the balance right, why did it not ensure the Privacy Commissioner could provide their views and recommendations on Bill C-22?

The government was sent packing on Bill C-2 because of overreach, because of the omnibus bill and because Canadian public civil society organizations, civil liberties organizations and privacy advocates all said that the bill was wrong and it was an overreach. The government went back to the drawing board and came back with Bill C-22 on lawful access, but it missed a huge step, making sure the independent officer is incorporated into that consultation process. Why did the government exclude that step?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear my colleague's opinion about the risk of mistakes or of any issues that this might raise for gender-diverse individuals. Does she have any concerns about abuses by authorities?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, of course I am very concerned that there could be overreach.

That is an alarm bell that civil liberties organizations and privacy advocates have actually rung, saying that this is an overreach. They are very worried that instead of targeting a specific act or a specific investigation, this applies to all Canadians across the board as a generalized collection of metadata, of retention and of it being kept in place for a year, with no specific ties to a potential criminal activity. Those are real concerns.

The government needs to make sure the balance is right, and hence the requirement, in my view, to ensure the Privacy Commissioner's views and recommendations are incorporated into Bill C-22.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Vancouver East for sounding the alarm on Bill C-22. As she has mentioned, there are many civil liberties groups speaking out against this bill, like they have done with the majority of Liberal bills that have passed

How urgent is it for the Liberals to amend their bill to make sure that they are upholding the charter rights of people across Canada?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on the issue around surveillance, indigenous people bear the brunt of it. We just recently learned that there was secret surveillance of indigenous leaders and indigenous community members. This is happening right now, and we are just learning about it. As we talk about expanding surveillance activities and capabilities, we absolutely need to make sure all the checks and balances are in place and that our basic rights enshrined in the charter are protected.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-22, An Act respecting lawful access, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to join the debate around Bill C-22, the lawful access act, 2026.

To figure out where we are at, we have to figure out how we got here. I think any conversation around giving law enforcement agencies better tools to be better able to fight crime is a good thing. However, the devil is always in the details, as people say. With respect to this bill, there are some concerns coming from our side that we would like to flesh out at committee.

At first blush, there are some important aspects we need to ensure are in the bill. I have had conversations with some of our colleagues on NSICOP and the people looking into cybersecurity. Canada is somewhat behind when it comes to giving our police officers those tools, so the bill is timely.

Conservatives believe in law and order and have always stood for common-sense measures to keep Canadians safe. For the past decade, we have been urging the Liberals to reverse their failed policies and restore safety to our communities. I can say that, in many cases, in my home city of Regina, crime comes up very often when we are on the doorsteps or at events. Crime has continued to skyrocket under the Liberals, whether that be violent crimes, sexual assaults or gun crimes. Despite all of their failed attempts when it comes to the gun grab, gun crime continues to rise in this country, and that is because of failed Liberal policies. They have had chances over the last 11 years to implement different policies, but they continued to implement policies that have failed.

Last fall, the Liberals put forward a bill similar to this, Bill C-2, which fell short when we looked at protecting Canadians, while it overreached in other areas. I think that is one thing we will come back to time and again when it comes to Bill C-22. There are three parts to the bill. With respect to the first part, I think there is some agreement it is needed for law enforcement. However, the second and third parts come into question. The fact is the government has shown government overreach time and again. We need look no further than the implementation of the Emergencies Act, when bank accounts were frozen. I gave a speech when the act came into effect; I talked a lot about government overreach. That is one of the concerns we would have when reviewing this bill at committee.

Bill C-2, to give a bit of reference to the people watching in TV land, had to do with limiting the use of cash and opening mail without oversight. It demanded that any service provider, including hospitals, financial institutions and even dry cleaners, disclose user data without judicial overview. Therefore, I would say the parent bill to Bill C-22 is Bill C-2. The Liberals have taken some of those very poor policies out of C-22.

We support giving law enforcement agencies the tools they need to combat crime and keep communities safe, particularly as threats become more sophisticated in the digital age. At the same time, these powers must be accompanied by strong safeguards, clear limits and independent oversight to protect the rights and freedoms of Canadians. We are carefully reviewing the legislation we have talked about to ensure the Liberals do not repeat past failures when it come to government oversight. At committee, Conservatives would be able to hear from many experts to further evaluate and improve this legislation. We will continue to stand for common-sense solutions that protect the individual freedoms, privacy and safety of Canadians.

I have listened to some my colleagues talk about some of the concerns they have with respect to Bill C-22. I think one of my colleagues talked about what modernization and privacy objectives should be in the bill. The world has changed how Canadians live, communicate, bank, work and raise families. That has all moved online rapidly and permanently, but our laws have not kept pace with that reality. That is why it is important to be clear about what this debate is and what it is not. We are not here to debate legislation that allows law enforcement to spy on innocent, law-abiding Canadians without oversight; that is not what the bill proposes. The core issue before us is how Parliament protects Canadians in an increasingly digital country while respecting the rights and freedoms that define us.

Public safety is the most obvious concern. Canadians are being targeted every day by online fraud, identity theft, extortion and exploitation. Seniors have lost life savings. Families have had their identities stolen. Children have been coerced and harmed in many ways made possible by anonymity and speed online.

In the communities we live in, we have conversations about online activity with our children. The Internet child exploitation, ICE, unit comes into schools across Saskatchewan to explain why it is so very important to be careful with anything online, making sure that our children know that there are some real safety concerns when it comes to online material and people trying to get their information online.

On the first day of school, we hear police officers comment to never take a picture of one's kid in front of their school or say what grade they are in or where they go to school. That has changed a lot in our country; it is important to be safe when we are online. Those conversations happen often in my house. Hopefully they happen in many houses, so that children are very careful with what they are doing online and are making sure they know who they are talking to when they are online.

I will reference a couple of news articles about some of the concerns that are out there when it comes to Bill C-22: “Canada's lawful access bill risks making Canada's telecoms and internet providers, as well as phones and laptops, more vulnerable to hackers, including foreign intelligence services with malevolent intent, tech and legal specialists are warning.”

That is from The Globe and Mail, dated March 16, 2026, by Marie Woolf. I think that this is something we can review when it comes to online protections. When it comes to the bill, when it goes to committee, we can very definitely review what there is for government oversight when it comes to warrants and things like that.

The article reads, “Bill C-22, introduced by Public Safety Minister...last week, would require telecoms, internet companies and other digital service providers to make changes to their systems to give surveillance and monitoring capabilities to the police....” That would potentially give hackers the opportunity to access that information.

That is what we are concerned about when it comes to housing Canadians' data and information and where that is going to be housed. We want to make sure that this is secure. Hackers can get more data if it is located in one spot.

What it comes down to is that the Conservative point of view is that we understand that there are some tools that law enforcement need to make Canadians safer online. We are just making sure that there is that proper oversight, so that it does not allow for hackers to access that information more quickly when it comes to people's online information.

There are some civil liberties groups that do have concerns. Michael Geist, the University of Ottawa's Canada research chair in Internet and e-commerce law, said that “concerns regarding vulnerabilities and scope creep are real.” He said, “Without greater precision, this could be used to target user devices or ultimately make networks less secure”, as we have mentioned before.

David Pierce, vice-president of government relations at the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, said that “his members, which include Canadian telecoms, understand the need for law enforcement to have a lawful access regime. But he said ensuring that encryption is not compromised, and data are not made vulnerable are key concerns of the business community.”

We do have some concerns out there when it comes to the bill. That is why it will be incumbent on us to have thorough witnesses and have a lot of time dedicated to the bill in committee, so that people come forward who do have concerns regarding the scope creep and the storing of data, making sure that it is not a vulnerability, and so that hackers cannot have access to that. We have been far behind on bills like this because of inaction by the Liberal government. That is why, over the last 11 years, we have seen skyrocketing crime rates. Hopefully, the bill can help give some of the tools to police officers, tools that they have asked for.

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

Mr. Speaker, I disagree wholeheartedly with the member. We had an election and a new Prime Minister less than a year ago. Literally weeks after that, we introduced Bill C-2, which brought to the House lawful access. Canada is the only country of the Five Eyes that does not have lawful access. It has been a priority for the government. We have been trying to push it through, just like we did with the bail reform legislation and so forth. I believe it has the checks in place to ensure privacy while, at the same time, dealing with national security, child sexual exploitation, issues like extortion and violent crime. This is all good stuff within the legislation.

I would like to ask a very straightforward question. Does the member support the principle of lawful access?

I am encouraged to see that he seems to be—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Regina—Lewvan.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, there are a few things I disagree with. First of all, the government is a tired, old government, an 11-year-old one. It is not one year old. It has the same faces in the same places. Changing one person does not make a different government.

I would say that, yes, if members listened to my speech, they would realize there are some things in the bill we do agree on. I have been listening to law enforcement, which has asked for parts of the bill. My only fear, which we have seen time and time again with the tired, 11-year-old government, is government overreach. It wants big government and small citizens, and that is not something I can agree with.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell my colleague that it is a good thing the government did not have a majority when it introduced Bill C‑2 because that bill was a disaster. Everyone agreed on this. People from all kinds of industries agreed that privacy protection was an issue.

Now, as far as Bill C‑22 is concerned, yes, we see an improvement and, yes, the government has finally held consultations. Still, there is something that is bothering me. The National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, or NSIRA, was given a secondary role. Australia gives its oversight agency a leading role, yet Canada has decided to notify NSIRA 12 months after the fact, when it submits its report. What is more, the government has three months to submit that report. This means that some events will not be reviewed by NSIRA until a year and a half has passed.

Does my colleague think that giving more power to NSIRA, whose mandate is to monitor compliance with legislation, would be a good amendment?

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more with the member. The government would be a total disaster if it had a majority more often.

NSICOP is a very important committee, and the committee members it has would do a very good job of reviewing and getting material in a more timely fashion. That is a very good suggestion.

When it comes to reviewing this bill at committee, I hope every party takes a serious look at it and brings forward good amendments to make it stronger. This could ensure that we have the best bill possible going forward and that there is not scope creep and government overreach, so Canadians and their data can be protected and law enforcement agencies can have the tools they need to make sure they are finding the criminal factor online.

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we all know that Liberals' soft-on-crime bills have given a free pass to criminals, and Canadians are suffering every day. We all agree on keeping Canadians safe, but not at the expense of their freedoms.

Could the member explain why Bill C-22 would not strike the right balance between public safety and the fundamental right to privacy?

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we have to take the bill to committee to make sure that people's privacy is protected. We have heard time and time again, as I have mentioned, from law enforcement agencies that they need more tools to ensure they can catch the online criminal element faster and make sure they can protect citizens and their data when they are online.

My big fear, and the fear of many people on this side of the House and in other parties, is continual government overreach and making sure that citizens' privacy is protected. We will fight day and night to make sure that it happens.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of security conscious Canadians in the vigilant riding of Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke to speak to Bill C-22, a bill respecting lawful access.

The Conservatives support giving law enforcement the tools it needs to combat crime and keep communities safe. At the same time, these powers must be accompanied by strong safeguards, clear limits and independent oversight to protect Canadians' rights and freedoms. Conservatives support sending the bill to committee for careful review.

The bill represents a major test for the Prime Minister and his ill-gotten majority. Had Canadians collectively decided to actually elect a majority government last year, we would not even be debating this bill. The Liberals would have used their majority to force through Bill C-2, which was the Liberals' first attempt at a lawful access bill. It was only because of a minority government that the Conservatives were able to prevent the Liberals from passing it.

If the Liberals had gotten their way, they would have had the power to limit Canadians' use of cash. Bill C-2 would have allowed the Liberals to open people's mail without a warrant. The bill would have allowed Liberals to demand any data from any service provider, without a warrant. That would have applied to telecoms and companies, as well as to hospitals and banks. Even Canadian dry cleaners would have been subject to this law. Bill C-2 was an obvious overreach.

The absence of those provisions in the new bill proves only that Conservatives were right. Just as with the first bill, the new version is not perfect. There are troubling issues related to metadata retention and the legal thresholds for asking for Canadians' private information. It may be possible to address or correct those issues in committee. Whether or not the Liberal MPs on the committee will be willing to adopt those corrections is the test. Will this be a typical Liberal majority under a typical Liberal prime minister? How the bill is handled will provide Canadians with the answers.

By the time Jean Chrétien was in his third majority, journalists were writing books with titles such as The Friendly Dictatorship. After Justin Trudeau was given a blank cheque by Jagmeet Singh's NDP to govern as if he had a majority, he illegally invoked the Emergencies Act and violated Canadians' charter rights. The only thing worse than a Liberal prime minister with a majority government is a Liberal prime minister who has convinced himself he is serving in a time of a unique crisis requiring new powers.

Jean Chrétien nearly led us to the breakup of the country. He used that to justify emergency spending on Canadian flags in Quebec. He told himself that he did not need oversight. He was saving the country. When the pandemic finally arrived in North America, Trudeau's first instinct was to seek two years of unlimited spending power without parliamentary approval. He told himself he did not need oversight, because he was saving the country. Now we have a new Prime Minister claiming we have a new crisis. He told himself that only he could solve it by answering fewer questions than any prime minister in history.

Rather than hiding on YouTube, the Prime Minister should be giving his forward guidance advice to Canadians from the floor of the House of Commons. That the Prime Minister's instincts are to hide from the House makes me think he will fail the test the bill represents, but the test falls onto the shoulders of every so-called Liberal member of Parliament. Too often, they seem to think they are Liberal members of government.

During the last election, we knocked on, collectively, hundreds of thousands of doors. Not a single voter told me that their first priority was ensuring that telecoms retain a year of metadata on all their customers. I bet that is true for every Liberal member too, yet even before new MPs had a chance to find the bathrooms, the government was tabling extensive legislation to give the state vast new powers. The bill was tabled for the same reason we have a fentanyl czar: The Liberals thought it would appease the Trump administration.

The former bureaucrat, turned Prime Minister, asked the federal bureaucracy to draft legislation to make America happy again. Before his ministers could staff their offices with the type of people who might ask what stakeholders such as the Canadian Civil Liberties Association would say about the law, it was tabled. It was only the opposition's holding a majority that prevented this first rushed and flawed legislation from becoming law. Thanks to unprecedented acts of self-interest, Liberals have a hair's breadth of a majority.

Will the newly empowered Liberal members use this opportunity to work collaboratively, or will they force the bill through quickly to rack up a political victory? Do the so-called Liberal MPs think provisions in the bill that would require service providers to retain all metadata for a year are justifiable?

Metadata information about the file itself is contained within many computer files. Emails that Canadians send contain extensive metadata, including who sent the email, the time it was sent, the software that was used to send it, the type of hardware used to send it, the sender's IP address and every IP address that every server in an email was routed through. People's cellphone calls create metadata that includes who called, who answered and the time and duration of the call; the cell towers used during the call; and even the GPS coordinates for the caller.

Telecom companies retain this data for billing purposes, but they do not keep it beyond that point. Canadians, collectively, make 100 million cellphone calls every year. Forcing companies to maintain databases containing information on over 36 billion phone calls would present a systemic privacy risk.

Beyond maintaining this vast secret database for the government, the companies would also be required to maintain systems that allow government to easily search and collect this metadata. This is often referred to as a back door. The concern has always been that creating a back door for the government also creates a back door for criminals and hostile foreign states. The Liberals will tell Canadians not to worry. They will point to language in the bill that says the government would not be allowed to ask for any back doors that company officials believe would create a hacking risk.

Unfortunately for the Liberals, they tabled the bill just weeks before the world learned that the AI company Anthropic had built an AI model so advanced and so dangerous that the company has limited the access to it. The danger was that this new AI model had discovered thousands of new vulnerabilities in some of the most popular code. One of the most widely used operating systems for routers had a vulnerability that had been undiscovered for 27 years.

The government is asking Canadians to trust Bell, Rogers and Telus to know in advance if the government is putting our privacy at risk. I should clarify something. I do not know whether Bell, Rogers and Telus would be covered by the bill. It is a reasonable assumption, or in the language of this bill, I have a reasonable suspicion, that the big three telecoms would be included. The actual list of providers can be found under schedule 1 of the bill. That page is currently blank.

It would be left to cabinet to decide which companies would be covered. Cabinet would decide what measures companies would have to take to provide access to the company's information. In making these regulations, cabinet would be required to consider the cost of the regulations, the feasibility of the regulations and the impact of the regulations. However, just in case those factors ended up limiting the government, cabinet would have the power to also consider any other factor cabinet thinks is relevant. How convenient that is for the Liberal cabinet.

That is just one example of one loophole in a substantive bill. This is why Conservatives support moving the bill to committee. The intent of the bill is to allow police and CSIS to do their jobs. The committee must be given the time it needs to hear from witnesses. It needs the time to provide the level of scrutiny that such a bill demands.

We know that the Prime Minister is impatient. He is used to people just following orders. We have already seen how he mis-characterizes legitimate opposition as wasting time. Even the Liberal-friendly Toronto Star is allowing expressions of concern that the Prime Minister has an authoritarian streak. That is why the bill is such an important test for the ill-gotten Liberal majority. It could be an example of parties' listening to each other and to Canadians to improve the bill, or it could be that desperate Liberals grasping for accomplishments will jam it down Canadians' throats.

The Prime Minister has already failed the test he set for himself. There is no comprehensive deal with the U.S. Food prices are the highest in the G7. We do not need forward guidance to tell us the deficit is already higher than he projected six months ago. We need a prime minister who will pass the test of democracy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will stay away from Conservative conspiracy theories for the moment and focus instead on the principle of the legislation, which would bring lawful access to Canada. Canada would not be alone. In fact we are the only Five Eyes nation that does not have lawful access. The concerns of privacy would in fact be dealt with in the legislation.

I am glad the Conservatives are going to allow the legislation to go to committee today. It has taken quite a while. The issue of lawful access has been up for debate since last June, shortly after the Prime Minister was elected by Canadians in the government.

Does the member join with law enforcement agencies in Canada and many other stakeholders who want to see lawful access in place as law here in Canada? Does she support the principle of lawful access?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, whenever a Liberal does not have a reasonable response to a fair and explanatory speech, they always call it a conspiracy theory. What we have learned with recent so-called conspiracy theories is they have all come true.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech and I would like to ask her the following question: In Bill C‑22, the government decided to choose the lowest threshold for obtaining information, that is to say it chose a threshold of reasonable suspicion rather than reasonable belief. The lower standard chosen by the government is raising a lot of questions among experts in Quebec and Canada. What does my colleague think about the government choosing the lowest threshold?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would have to agree with my colleague from the Bloc. In fact, we want to get this bill to committee so we can examine and root out the answers to the questions, just as she asked right now.

[Dalwinder Gill, Conservative, Calgary McKnight, AB]

Mr. Speaker, can the hon. member specify what threshold of suspicion would be required before the authorities could access Canadians' personal data under Bill C-22 and how that threshold would be consistent with our charter rights?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, actually, no, I cannot determine what the lowest threshold would be. It is not specifically mentioned. However, having dealt with the Liberal government for 25 years, I would say that the absolute least amount of suspicion would be required.

[Buckley Belanger, Liberal, Secretary of State (Rural Development)]

Mr. Speaker, when my colleague from Winnipeg North asked a question, the member did not give him an answer. The question was, through the Chair, “Do you support the notion of lawful access?” The response was about conspiracy theories, which is not an answer. I have a simple question: Do you support lawful access, yes or no?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I remind the member he needs to address questions through the Chair.

The hon. member for Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke has the floor.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, now the member opposite who just asked the question understands what the opposition feels every time we are in question period. The Liberals never answer the question.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when we speak to constituents in my riding and right across Canada, public safety is paramount, and lawful access is something that we keep hearing is necessary to keep Canadians safe. As such, this is not an abstract notion. This is not theoretical. It reflects the reality of Canadians, like our families, seniors, newcomers and young people, while they are going about their daily lives with growing concern about what is happening in their community. In my riding of Mississauga East—Cooksville, I hear this directly. People want to feel safe. At the same time, they want to know that their rights are protected. They expect both of these things, and they are right to expect both.

Over the past year, our government has advanced a clear and comprehensive framework to address public safety in Canada, one that rests on three key pillars. First is stronger laws. This includes reforms to bail and sentencing, measures to combat hate, and stronger protections against gender-based violence and exploitation of children, especially online. Second is supporting the front line. This includes investments in law enforcement, with 1,000 new RCMP officers and 1,000 new border officers, but also ensuring police have the tools they need to do their jobs effectively. Third is upstream investments, because safer communities are built not only through enforcement, but through prevention and investments in housing, mental health, addiction supports and programs for at-risk youth.

It is important to emphasize that these pillars are not isolated; they reinforce one another. Strong laws mean little without enforcement. Enforcement alone is insufficient without prevention, and prevention must be paired with accountability. Today's legislation, Bill C-22, sits squarely within that second pillar. Let me be clear that supporting the front line is not just about adding more officers, but it is about equipping them with tools that reflect the world that we live in today, because that world has changed. We all know that.

Technology has transformed how we live and, unfortunately, how crime is committed. We all carry powerful devices in our pockets. We communicate instantly across borders. While these tools serve very positive purposes, we cannot ignore that criminal organizations are using them as well. In conversations I have had with law enforcement, one message comes through clearly: Crime today is increasingly digital, organized and transnational.

We are seeing sophisticated extortion schemes coordinated online, auto theft rings operating across jurisdictions, home invasions tied to organized networks and, most disturbingly, the online exploitation of children. These are not isolated incidents. They are coordinated operations, often directed in real time through encrypted communications.

In Mississauga East—Cooksville, we are not immune to these trends. We are seeing online fraud targeting seniors and newcomers, exploitation facilitated through digital platforms and organized crime leveraging technology to evade detection. What is particularly troubling is the speed at which these crimes unfold. A scam can empty a bank account in minutes. An online interaction can put a young person at risk almost instantly.

Our local police, especially Peel Regional Police, are doing exceptional work, but they have been very clear that the tools available to them must keep pace with the threats that they face. One of the greatest challenges in modern policing is anonymity. Police cannot arrest an IP address. They cannot prosecute a phone number. Behind every digital identifier is a human being. Too often, that individual is shielded by outdated laws, creating a troubling imbalance. Criminals can act quickly, anonymously and across borders. Law enforcement, meanwhile, is slowed by processes that were designed for a different era. If we are serious about public safety, we must ensure our legal framework reflects modern realities.

This is where Bill C-22 comes in. At its core, this legislation is about lawful access, or giving the police the ability to access critical information in a targeted, lawful and timely way.

Let me be clear about what this bill would do and what it would not do. It would not provide unrestricted access to personal data. It would not allow surveillance without oversight. Instead, it would introduce a carefully structured, step-by-step process.

First, where there is an active investigation, police could request confirmation of whether a phone number or IP address is linked to a particular service provider. This would not be content. It would not be private communications. It would simply be identifying the network. Today, the process can take months to determine where to even begin. During those months, evidence can disappear, victims can be further harmed and criminal networks can continue to operate without interruption. This is unacceptable.

Once a link is confirmed, police would then need to seek judicial authorization to access subscriber information such as name and address. This would ensure every step is grounded in legal oversight. This is information that was publicly available in the past. I remember in the 1980s, and I am one of the older guys here, we could open up a phone book and get all this information. Today, that is not accessible to law enforcement, so this needs to get done. In today's digital world, this is not accessible without legal authority. Only in urgent, time-sensitive situations, such as active child exploitation, can access occur without prior authorization. Even then, strict safeguards apply, including accountability measures after the fact.

I want to take a moment to emphasize something that is fundamental to this legislation, and that is trust. Canadians must have confidence that their rights are protected. That is why this bill includes clear legal thresholds before any information could be accessed, judicial oversight for sensitive information, defined limits on what could and could not be requested, and accountability mechanisms to ensure proper use. This is not about expanding state power without limits. It is about ensuring that when power is used, it would be used responsibly, proportionately and transparently.

In fact, this legislation reflects the guidance of our courts and incorporates lessons from past debates. This bill is about balance. It would ensure judicial oversight, clear legal thresholds and independent accountability. In fact, it would establish one of the strongest privacy-protected lawful access regimes in the G7. I would argue this balance is precisely what Canadians expect. They do not want a false choice between safety and privacy. They want both, and this bill would deliver both.

Let us be honest: Canada is behind. Every other G7 country has a lawful access framework. All our Five Eyes partners do as well. Without it, our investigations are slower, more cumbersome and less effective. When crime happens in real time, delays have consequences.

This legislation did not emerge overnight. It builds on years of consultation with law enforcement, privacy experts, legal scholars and parliamentarians from all parties. The result is a bill that is more targeted, more accountable and more transparent. This is what responsible law-making looks like.

When we talk about public safety, we must remember the people on the front lines, the officers, the investigators and the professionals, working every day to keep Canadians safe. They are not asking for unlimited powers. They are asking for modern tools to match modern crime. When we give them those tools with proper safeguards, we are not only supporting law enforcement, we are supporting victims. This issue has been discussed for decades. Law enforcement leaders have warned that we are at risk of “going dark” and losing access to critical digital evidence. We now have an opportunity to act, and with that opportunity comes responsibility.

Before I conclude, I want to share a quick story that underscores why this matters. A constituent in Mississauga East—Cooksville reached out to my office not long ago and said he was defrauded because of a cryptocurrency scam online. For that individual and many across our country, we need to pass this bill, move quickly—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I am afraid we have to move on to questions and comments.

The hon. member for Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee.

[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.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, good governance is about learning, improving, consultations and listening to those who have brought concerns forward in this House, but also across our country. That is what we have done. We have struck the right balance and brought forward improved legislation that I am very proud of, and I hope we move expeditiously on this.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with the introduction of Bill C‑22, one of the issues is what powers will be granted to the minister by allowing them to order service providers to keep metadata for a year.

One of the concerns that this raises is that businesses that may not currently track users will now be required to do so. This will create a fairly substantial amount of information that law enforcement can access. Some Canadians might fear that their telephone will become a tracking device.

What can my colleague say to reassure these individuals?

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-22 balances the ability of law enforcement to have a tool they require. We see this with our G7 partners and the Five Eyes. They have been able to do it with their service providers. We need to move on this. I know the service providers in Canada will be able to bolster their systems to provide the information that is required.

In the end, this is about protecting Canadians, which is paramount, and we need to move on this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really want to emphasize that what the member is talking about is the need to modernize the law. When we look at what has been taking place over the last period of time, we have witnessed issues such as national security, terrorism, child sexual exploitation and repeat violent crimes. For me personally, another big issue has been extortion. All of those crimes are taking place. Law enforcement officers across the country are saying they need lawful access in order to deal with these crimes in a more timely fashion. The security of privacy of information is in the legislation.

I would ask the member to amplify his thoughts on why it is so important that we pass the legislation.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the opportunity to speak to this in a very personal way. As I was finishing up my remarks, I said I have had constituents come to my office, and one, in particular, was a victim of a cryptocurrency scam online. He thought he did everything right. This has exhausted his life savings, which have been taken from him. He said he did everything right. He was looking for help. He went to the police, and the police told him they did not have the resources, the ability or the tools to address this.

With this legislation, the police would be able to help this individual. That is what we are working for here, as parliamentarians, together: to make sure we can safeguard our citizens.

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a quick moment to wish a good friend of mine, Gurwinder Ruprai, a happy birthday. She is a teacher and a great friend from the member opposite's riding in Mississauga.

We have all seen cases where information was not shared among police agencies, so are there any provisions in this bill that would provide not just access but also sharing with other police agencies that get the information?

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will take this opportunity to also wish Gurwinder Ruprai a happy birthday.

Listening to many of the witnesses and others, we have heard about transnational crimes that are happening. Many times, our G7 partners and our Five Eyes partners come to Canada and we do not have the tools to actually support them in addressing crimes that are taking place. We need to be able to do that so we can have the sharing of information that is necessary.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is a real pleasure to rise in the House on behalf of the residents of my riding of Davenport to speak in support of Bill C-22, the lawful access act, 2026.

When I talk to Davenport residents, the issues they raise with me most often are affordability, housing and jobs. Those remain the top concerns, and I want to be honest about that, but when the conversation turns to safety, what I hear has me worried. Davenport residents tell me they feel uneasy when they see drugs on our streets. They worry about encampments down the block. They are worried about watching another storefront on our main streets board up its windows after a break-in. They have heard of a neighbour's car stolen off the street in the middle of the night. They are unsettled by a number of stories about safety in our community. They are also telling me that they are worried about online scams, which keep getting more sophisticated, the ones that are aimed at their parents, at newcomers, at anyone who answers the phone. They may not always call it public safety, but they feel it and they expect their government to respond.

This is exactly what Bill C-22 is about. Under the Mark Carney Liberal government, our approach to keeping Canadians safe rests on three pillars.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I will just remind members that they cannot use the Prime Minister's proper name.

The hon. member has the floor.

[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, my colleague from Davenport mentioned that this is a better bill than before. In fact, this is the third attempt the Liberals have made to introduce a bill that is similar to this, each one a little less intrusive than the last one. My concern, if we let the bill go to committee, is around whether the Liberals would actually respect the amendments we make in it, because I have just come out of a committee with Bill C-11 where we had made some very important amendments to the bill, and on Friday the Liberal Minister of National Defence simply attempted to strip all the amendments away.

I wonder if the Liberals intend to actually respect the amendments we make in committee.

[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.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are living in a time when people are worried and are increasingly aware of the need to protect their personal information. The public is becoming more vigilant about these issues, which is something we support.

However, Bill C‑22 is worrisome for these people, who are concerned. While the government is asking for easier access to the public's information, it is also cutting $2.7 million from the budget of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency. This budget should in fact be strengthened in order to reassure people about the government's request in this matter.

Can my colleague explain her understanding of this logic? Cuts are being made to an oversight body at a time when people are worried and when the government is asking citizens for easier access to their information.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on privacy, the first thing I would say is that we really spent the time over the last year to get this right. As I mentioned in my earlier answer, we met with constitutional experts, privacy groups and members from all parties in the House to try to make sure that we got this legislation right, that we were honouring our charter rights. However, we were also moving forward and making sure that we provided law enforcement, the police and CSIS with the tools they need to be able to counter today's crime. That is the first thing I would say.

On the priority of our resources, the attention we are giving to law enforcement, and funding, I would say we are spending a lot of time and money on ensuring public safety in this country. We have introduced a number of pieces of legislation for that cause. We have also put a substantial amount of money into hiring more CBSA agents and more law enforcement agents across the country. The resources are there, and the priority is there as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I like the comment the member made, that it is not about choosing between public safety and personal privacy. The legislation covers both.

Can the member provide her thoughts on why it was important for the legislation to cover both?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what the member has raised is exactly what was raised by Davenport residents. The bill has been built carefully with judicial oversight at its core and with independent accountability layered throughout. It is not a choice between safety and rights. It is both, and it is the way Canadians expect us to work, by respecting their rights while allowing us to make the laws, enforce the laws and keep our communities right across the country safe.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Riding Mountain. I originally hail from Manitoba as well. One thing I can say about it is it is cold and flat and has many mosquitoes. I love it too.

We live in a technological society that is so advanced most of us here do not understand some of the capabilities that are out there, and I do not pretend to know what technologies are employed by criminals around here. On the one hand, we have pure anarchy when we address governance and on the other, we have severe authoritarianism. As my colleague mentioned, there have been several bills and several attempts to do this. I wonder if he thinks this bill comes closest to striking a proper balance between severe authoritarianism on the one hand and pure anarchy on the other.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the truth of the matter is that we really do not know. That is why it so important to get this bill to committee. If we rely on the Liberals' track record and the history of this bill, they obviously must be nervous about what else is going to be wrong with it. Everybody is really suspicious. That is why I do think it is really important that we get this bill to committee and really suss out those potential problems.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am more encouraged this afternoon than I was this morning. We get this feeling that the legislation will, in fact, be going to committee. I think that is a positive. We have had many hours of debate on it. I think some of the Conservatives have at least acknowledged that there is a potential need for lawful access.

There are some serious crimes that are taking place in our communities. I have dealt with issues such as extortion, child sexual exploitation and serious crimes. We talk about fraud. The need to modernize is there.

I would encourage members of the Conservative Party, if they have some ideas going into committee, to share them with the department well in advance. We do want to make this good, solid legislation so that we can join the other four countries of the Five Eyes that already have lawful access.

That was more of a comment than a question.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I guess I do have a question of the government. The member talked about law enforcement and helping out law enforcement. It is quite puzzling when we start talking about how we support law enforcement. By all means, I still cannot understand why the Liberal government is moving forward with the confiscation program for firearms. It is spending billions of dollars on that. Those dollars could actually be going towards helping out bills like this and actually protecting Canadians instead of looking at penalizing firearms owners.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed my colleague's speech.

The government has announced that it will be tabling an economic statement in late April. I believe it will be on April 28. I am asking this question because, under Bill C-22, the intelligence commissioner will have a greater role. Law enforcement agencies will consult him frequently. So far, there has been no mention of increasing his budget. An important role is also being given to the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, or NSIRA, yet the budget includes cuts to this oversight body's funding.

There is something I do not understand, and perhaps my colleague will be able to clarify this for me. They want to give more power to the government, ministers and law enforcement while also cutting the budget of those who are supposed to oversee them.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that was another great comment and question from the member from the Bloc. Again, this goes back to money. The Liberals, we know, cannot manage money to save their lives. It seems like instead of trying to support the security community and make sure this program actually works and the bill can work, the Liberals are more interested in protecting slush funds.

Tomorrow, at the health committee, we are going to be investigating why 250 million taxpayer dollars was spent on PrescribeIT, rather than going to help security forces and strengthen this bill. Meanwhile, it was put into a Liberal slush fund.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, Natural Resources; the hon. member for Langley Township—Fraser Heights, Indigenous Affairs; the hon. member for Oxford, The Economy.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Emergency Management and Community Resilience]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I get up to speak to a bill that I think we absolutely need to send to committee. We are already very tardy on lawful access. As my fellow parliamentary secretary mentioned just a moment ago, all of our other Five Eyes partners and all of our other G7 partners have modernized laws with respect to lawful access.

Our government entered office with a couple of main priorities. One of them was being laser-focused on the economy and one of them was instilling a sense of safety in Canadians. In order to instill a sense of safety, we need to make sure that police, CSIS and all of our security community stakeholders have the effective tools they need in order to confront organized crime, threats of terrorism, interference from abroad and all of the other modern threats that exist in today's digital age, which did not exist 20 years ago.

That might have been done with the combatting hate act that was just adopted through the House and is now before the Senate. It would give police the tools they asked for to better combat hate. It was done through a bill we adopted with a significant majority to deal with making it harder for dangerous criminals and repeat offenders to get bail. It is being done with respect to a bill we are now debating at the justice committee that talks about intimate partner violence, femicide and images that are being shared. It is also being done through making sure that police have the necessary tools to deal with threats that are coming across our networks.

I used to have the privilege, before I was elected, of being the general counsel and chief administrative officer of a tech company. I frequently dealt with Internet service providers and telcos. This bill deals with solving the issues we are now having with respect to getting information from telcos and ISPs. That is the core of the bill.

The bill has three parts. I want to talk about the first part of the bill, the core of the bill, which deals with the new measures to help law enforcement deal with obtaining information and combatting crime in the digital age.

The first issue we need to confront is how law enforcement find out which telco or ISP has the needed information for them to then ask for a warrant to obtain more detailed information. The law that we now have, after the Supreme Court case of R. v. Spencer in 2014, means that telecommunications providers are generally only providing information once a court order is obtained. However, if law enforcement cannot figure out which telco has the phone number, the ISP address or the email that is tied to the potential violation or the feared violation of the Criminal Code, then they are stuck in limbo because they need to know who to go to, and have the reasonable grounds to go there, before they can get a court order.

In this bill, we created an amendment called the confirmation of service demand. It basically says that law enforcement can fill out this form and the service provider will have to answer if they are, for example, the provider of a specific number or email address. All that would be provided is a very rudimentary list of things to identify whether they have this information or not. That could be the address associated with the account, the email address, the telephone number, the amount of time the service has been going on and the type of service they provide. There would be no detailed information given without a court order, but this would resolve the issue from the R. v. Spencer case which made it inordinately complex, in my view, to get basic information from a telco.

When I was young, there was something called the White Pages and the Yellow Pages. We could find everyone's telephone numbers, addresses and names there. If the police was looking for a telephone number, they could find it in a phone book.

Those no longer exist now, with the advent of cellphones. Perhaps they still exist somewhere, but they are rarely used. I would not even know where to find one. I know that we can find information in the online 411 service.

If the information is in the public domain, it is not necessary to go to court to get an order to access it, because it is already available online.

We had another judgment of the court that made it confusing as to whether an Internet service provider or a telco could provide information that was available in the public domain without a court order or whether the police could use information that was in the public domain without a court order. There was also confusion as to what would happen if a good Samaritan, a company or anyone voluntarily offered law enforcement information that would touch, for example, what the billing address of a phone number was that was thought to be behind, for example, fraud.

We have all of these people who call us all the time in this country who are attempting to defraud us. I do not know how many times I have been called by Windows, not Microsoft, but Windows, with somebody telling me that my computer was broken, and I should give them my password for them to fix it. They are calling from a phone number and are attempting to defraud me. That same phone number has a senior scam where they call seniors and say it is their grandson or their granddaughter. They say they have been in an accident and need the grandparent to give them money, but no, no, no, they should not tell anyone else in the family.

I have heard from many people who have experienced this grandparents scam. They should be able, if somebody has that information, to give it to police. If the company, the telco, wilfully gives the information to police without a court order, the police should be allowed to use it. This bill clarifies that they can. It would also allow us to deal with information, such as phone numbers, email addresses and other information, that may be located abroad.

I would imagine that many different telephone numbers and email addresses are used to contact Canadians from abroad. We know that a lot of fraud happens in India, including many fraudulent calls directed at Canada. There are also attacks originating from Russia. Until now, it has been very difficult to obtain information from a foreign country under the law. The bill will give us that power and will enable other countries to request information from Canadian courts in a more equitable and fair way. If, for example, France is the victim of fraud committed by a number or person in Canada, then we should also help France obtain information. This is a very good start, in my opinion.

This bill would also clarify the issue of the police's right to use information in the event of an emergency. For example, if there is a terrorist attack, we certainly do not want police to have to get a court order to obtain the information they need to attempt to thwart a terrorist attack on Canada or a cybersecurity threat. These matters are all dealt with in the bill. One of the things I think we have pretty much unanimous agreement on, from all the recognized parties in the House, is that this should go to committee to be studied properly by a parliamentary committee.

I think everyone agrees that a committee should examine this bill, hear from witnesses and determine whether amendments are needed. It is very important to give our law enforcement and security agencies the tools they need.

I will wrap up, and I welcome any questions from colleagues.

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

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary said, quite rightly, that 15 years ago we did not have this problem, and that is absolutely true. Technology has advanced since then. He also said that his new government is laser-focused on crime. I would like to point out that the government is not a new government. It is 11 years old. While technology has advanced, criminality has galloped forward.

I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary would like to explain why, in 11 years, when technology has advanced at a certain pace, crime has galloped ahead at a much faster pace.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let me simply reject the premise of literally everything the hon. member said. The Prime Minister was elected with a new government last April, and that was Canadians' choice, whether the hon. member accepts it or does not accept it, likes it or does not like it, likes the fact that we have a majority or does not like the fact that we have a majority.

We all should be working together to combat crime. Combatting crime is a really serious issue for Canadians across this country. It is something that I think we generally agree with across parties, and we should be working together, not insulting one another on this issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed my colleague's speech. He delivered it in both official languages and I thank him for that.

I have a little question for him, precisely because he is a Quebec member. Quebec has adopted robust legislation to protect privacy, Bill 25. Certain large Quebec institutions have asked me what is going to happen with Bill 25. They have adapted their practices and systems to meet the privacy requirements of Bill 25. Now that Bill C-22 has been introduced, is it going to cause any confusion in Quebec? Companies and institutions have made a lot of investments in response to Quebec's Bill 25.

What is my colleague's reaction to that? What kind of allowances does he propose that his government make?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that we should invite those groups to testify in committee. We should invite the Barreau du Québec, the chambers of commerce and anyone who can tell us about the work that entrepreneurs in Quebec have done to adapt their privacy practices.

In my previous job, I noticed that, even though the laws vary from place to place around the world, companies always find a way to adapt. Of course, I do not think that we should make people do redundant work to achieve what is essentially the same outcome, but I think that is something that can be sorted out in committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to reinforce what the member alluded to, which is that, within the last year, the Prime Minister, the government and Liberal members of Parliament have brought forward a suite of legislation to deal with combatting crime. One would think that all members of the House would see the value of that. This is what Canadians want us to do. Bill C-22 would deal with very serious issues that I have had the opportunity to highlight and the member highlighted, issues like extortion, terrorism and so forth.

I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts as to why it is so important to pass legislation that would reflect what our constituents have been asking for and the commitment that was made in the last election, just under a year ago, by the Prime Minister.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, one of the focuses of the government is crime. It is not only crime, but also making sure all Canadians have a sense of safety. People need not only to feel safe, but also to be safe. That is why we brought forward a robust number of crime bills and worked with the public safety critic of the official opposition on private members' bills, which add to the list of bills.

I think this is something that all members of all parties agree on. We all pretty much agree.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee.

To the viewers at home, the Liberals are coming to regulate the Internet.

This is a very serious moment. The Liberals have introduced a piece of legislation that looks to police activity on the Internet and prosecute crime using the Internet. Obviously, this is going to give rise to a lot of questions about privacy, law and execution. I propose to have a professional discussion about how the Liberals are going to police the Internet while preserving basic charter rights, because we all agree that we must preserve charter rights.

Conservatives support giving law enforcement the tools they need to combat crime and keep communities safe, particularly as threats become more sophisticated in the digital age. At the same time, these powers must be accompanied by strong safeguards, clear limits and independent oversight to protect Canadians' rights and freedoms. Conservatives will always continue to stand for individual freedom, privacy and safety.

Let us begin by talking about some laws. The Liberals want to know if Jane Doe is a customer of Telus. They want law enforcement to have the right to call up an Internet service provider and simply ask if Jane Smith is its customer, without a warrant. I must say that I do not object to that. It is probably public information, and in the interest of security, providers could probably move their privacy policy in a direction where that would be allowable.

I see that my friend from Winnipeg North agrees. I am happy.

I would like to put another proposition to him. Telus or Rogers knows that Jane Smith is a customer, and the police want to seize additional records on Jane Smith, some basic information such as IP address, location, etc. Now we are talking about personal information contained within the records of the company. Like my friend from Winnipeg North says, they are going to go see a judge, hallelujah.

The problem is that, to obtain a warrant, typically a police officer would have to swear to a reasonable belief that criminal activity may have occurred. “Reasonable belief” is an important technical term because it commits the police officer to an affidavit, to a subjective belief that he must swear to. However, in this bill, the Liberals are proposing to lower that threshold to reasonable suspicion.

If a police officer says that they reasonably suspect a crime has occurred, then that would be enough to satisfy the conditions of the warrant and disclose Jane Smith's additional information. We will think about this at committee, and I will want to hear some testimony, but I am not sure that it is prudent to be lowering the threshold of search and seizure, so this is a very problematic provision.

Second, the Liberals are asking Internet service providers to co-operate with them in creating various systems that will help them prosecute crime and find offenders. I do not disagree that that is a noble and necessary goal. They are asking Internet service providers to create systems for the retention of data, back doors where the government would be able to enter encrypted communications and other means to help law enforcement. What is important is that those companies would not be asked by virtue of a court warrant, because a crime has been committed, to say that they now need to create a system.

It would be done by a ministerial order, signed off by the commissioner of intelligence pre-emptively. In other words, while we would not be alleging that any crime has been committed, the minister would now come to the private sector and say that they want it to create a system.

That is fine, but even if that were to happen, the problem is the definition of an electronic service provider, because this order may be very wide. According to the legislation, an electronic service provider “means a person that, individually or as part of a group, provides an electronic service, including for the purpose of enabling communications, and that...provides the service to persons in Canada [and] carries on...its business...in Canada.‍”

If it is Telus, Sprint and Rogers, I understand, but I say to my friend from Winnipeg and to my friend from Mount Royal, who just spoke to this, that I would like to understand very clearly whether this could this also apply to a law firm. Could it apply to an accounting firm? Could it apply to an educational institution? All these folks meet the definition of an electronic service provider as presently articulated by the legislation.

That is a concern on my part. I ask that we study it very carefully at committee. I am sure that even members on the other side of the aisle who lean to the left agree that we have to set some reasonable limits, that we cannot be coming to a law firm and saying that a minister, without a court order, would secretly order them to create a retention system and a back door to look at their clients, with no court order, no judge and no right of appeal. Please, let us be very careful with this.

That brings me to the final point on what is difficult about the bill, and that is the fact that the public safety minister would order the retention of metadata, of all the data, essentially, that goes through an electronic service provider's infrastructure, and they would be mandated to keep it for 365 days. That engages an interesting question about section 8, on arbitrary search and seizure, because the Internet service provider would be ordered by the minister, not by the court, to keep all our data for 365 days, without a warrant. A person may not have committed any offence, but the minister would want the Internet service provider to keep the data in the event that they have committed an offence. That is not how our legal system works.

People will say that it would not be the government seizing the data. That does not matter. If the government were to order another institution, in this case an Internet service provider, to seize it, that Internet service provider would become an agent of the government. The effect is the same, which is a breach of section 8 in that it would be an arbitrary seizure. We need to think about this very carefully. I think I have made a prima facie case that this would violate the charter.

It is important to distinguish this from Snowden. I want to talk about Snowden a little bit. He blew the lid off this in 2013 and said that the government was collecting all sorts of metadata. It was collecting all of it. In order to collect that metadata, one had to go to the FISA court. Even though there are some questions about the FISA court and its efficacy, there was still a court. According to the bill, there would be no court. We would just seize it all.

In fairness to my friends the Liberals, the government would not be able to see the information seized without a court order, without a warrant. The Internet service provider would hold on to all this stuff. If the government wants it, it would get a court order. Nonetheless, the seizure would still happen.

That brings me to my last point: security. It is very clear. According to The Globe and Mail, we are not prepared. We do not have the systems in place to order this sort of metadata catch-all and to create back doors. The article says, “experts are warning that the lawful access regime could allow hackers to exploit architecture inserted into electronic systems”. That is exactly what happened to the United States. The Salt Typhoon hackers out of China, who allegedly have been working for the Chinese state, exploited lawful intercept infrastructure that the U.S. telecoms were required by law to build. They were actually able to breach the White House. Their systems are considerably more advanced than Canadian systems.

We understand the need for lawful access, but we need to make sure we draw the appropriate lines and safeguard civil liberties. The government has a problem with civil liberties.

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

Mr. Speaker, as we get closer to the possible ending of the debate on Bill C-22, it is important to amplify the fact that the legislation would protect personal privacy. Within the legislation, there are checkmarks to do that. Through the legislation, we would also be protecting the public's interest on the issue of safety in a number of different areas. The legislation would do both.

I am encouraged by the Conservatives who were saying this afternoon that the bill will go to committee. The member expressed himself, and though I disagree with a lot of what he expressed, I hope he is able to get some detailed answers at the committee. If he is having issues after the committee, he should not hesitate to bring those concerns to me personally.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Winnipeg is exactly wrong on the privacy issue. In fact, the Privacy Commissioner was not brought into the legislation. Ministerial orders require approval only by intelligence commissioners, and the absence of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada from any oversight role suggests that privacy is at best a second consideration. The Privacy Commissioner is not contemplated within this regime, and the criminal law system that is contemplated in it would override any privacy concerns. It is very concerning that the legislation was, effectively, drafted without any input from the Privacy Commissioner.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague gave an excellent speech.

In interventions from the government side, we have heard that we should be confident that the government intends to do the right thing going forward. I want to ask my hon. colleague what level of confidence he has, given that the Prime Minister committed to having a free trade agreement with our cousins to the south, and to building things at unheard of speeds. In the past we have also heard that the budgets will balance themselves.

What level of confidence does my hon. colleague have that, on its own, the government would do the right thing?

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, obviously I have very little confidence, but I would like to provide a legal answer as opposed to a political answer.

We are still bound and graced by and availed of the presumption of innocence. It is a presumption that the government must overcome. It is important that we do not create a regime that would undermine some of our basic civil liberties. Of course, in the quest of pursuing criminals and defending children, it is not uncommon for police or prosecutors to want to overreach. We cannot have that situation here if we want to preserve our democracy.

We always treat the state with suspicion. It comes from a very basic premise: The state has the power, the legislature, the police, the crown and the lab workers. All there is on the other side is—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Order. We will continue with questions and comments.

The hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon has the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, I see that my colleague enjoys holding forth, and I think we share the same concerns about Bill C‑22. It is a much-needed bill, but there are a lot of passages, especially in part 2, that require amendments to improve the bill, particularly when it comes to the whole issue of definitions. In Bill C‑22, the government gives itself a great deal of leeway to define certain fundamental privacy-related terms, but it chooses to do so through regulation rather than through parliamentary debate. This raises concerns, because the government will have a lot of freedom to change the definitions of fundamental privacy-related terms.

Does my colleague think that reducing the number of things that can be decided by regulation would be good amendment?

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am actually very worried that we are not going to have a lot of opportunity to fix this by way of regulation.

I would point out to my hon. colleague that the most worrisome thing, the greatest expansion of rights and what scares me about part two, is the definition of electronic service provider. The way it reads now, basically anybody who uses email for work would be an electronic service provider if they facilitate communications in Canada. That would include corporations, trusts, partnerships, joint ventures, unincorporated associations, etc. I am very concerned that we would have ministerial orders without judicial oversight targeted at private corporations—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee.

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-22 is like so many other bills that show good promise and strong potential to be shaped into good policy in committee. It is right here in second reading that the problems with Bill C-22 are initially identified, and that is what my colleagues on this side of the chamber have been doing: probing, asking questions and identifying weak spots that could be eliminated or good points that could be strengthened. If after this debate the House agrees, Bill C-22 would go to committee stage where it would be debate and have amendments introduced, and then the amendments would be voted on.

Committees are an exceptional tool in which all parties can take a mediocre bill and shape it into good policy, or they can take a good bill and make it even better. We conduct witness interviews, and we incorporate the concerns of everyone until we have a bill that works for all parties, and by extension, for all Canadians. Unfortunately, this is what the Liberals have recently taken to calling obstruction, but it is not. This is how our Canadian parliamentary democracy is supposed to work. I want to address this manufactured Liberal claim of obstruction, because with the compliant media out there, if I do not tell Canadians in the House, they are not going to find out.

Contrary to the narrative of obstruction the Liberals are trying to create, we Conservatives truly did hope that the Prime Minister would steal another of our platform promises and build the so-called energy corridor he promised. We believed him when he said he would make Canada an energy superpower. We hoped he would move quickly and decisively to get our clean Canadian energy to an energy-starved world. That is why we Conservatives voted for Bill C-5 early in the Prime Minister's tenure, and with it gave him more power than any previous prime minister has ever had to achieve those goals.

The Prime Minister has more jurisdictional power than Prime Minister John A. Macdonald had when he built thousands of miles of continental railway through some of the most inhospitable terrain imaginable. The Prime Minister has technologies that would leave Macdonald in shock. We can do in a day what it took a year to do in Macdonald's day.

The Prime Minister can look down in real time from 100 kilometres above and see right into the earth with lidar. He can view the route. He can model a pipeline. He can even watch it in real time as it is built from the comfort of his airplane seat. He could have a pipeline built in two years if he wanted to, yet a year after Bill C-5, he does not even have a pipeline started. He does not have a plan to build one. He does not have a route, not even a gleam in a surveyor's eye. What would a rational person think about this?

The Prime Minister promised grand projects of great national importance. He promised a deal with the Americans by this time last year. He promised to move at speeds not seen in generations to unleash our Canadian economy. However, he has not landed in Canada long enough to move anything. Instead of an energy corridor, we have silence. Instead of housing, we have an enormously expensive bureaucracy and empty props that are taken down as soon as the photo op is over. Instead of a continental railway from coast to coast, we have a $90-billion boondoggle between two eastern cities that will likely never get built, and even that is mired in scandal and controversy before the land snatch even begins.

Unfortunately, our Prime Minister is usually absent from Ottawa, flitting about the world here and there in no particular direction, at enormous taxpayer expense and with a catering budget that would make Emperor Nero blush, all apparently to avoid hard questions in question period, since nothing much has been produced except an undergrad international relations term paper at Davos.

The reason I bring this up is that there is a problem, and I am troubled by it. If we send Bill C-22 to committee by voting for the legislation, how can we be confident the Liberals will respect the committee process and not try to do an end run around Canadians? Can we be sure that our efforts in committee will be respected by the Liberals? What is supposed to happen is all-party input, all-party witnesses, all-party debate and amendments put forward and voted on, and ultimately the result is a bill modified by the people of Canada through the process of representative democracy. That is what is supposed to happen. It is not what is actually happening, and I want to talk for a minute about what is happening.

I want to talk about a troubling tactic the Liberals are using to subvert that process. I am fearful that what happened to Bill C-11 is going to happen to Bill C-22. I am a member of the national defence committee. We recently studied Bill C-11, a bill whose central purpose is to transfer sexual assault cases from the military to the civilian justice system. I assumed, probably like most of us here, that after listening to the horror stories in the media, this would be a rubber stamp, and we would simply transfer the authority to the civilian system. However, all of us at committee were surprised.

We listened to the defence and the prosecution teams from the military argue that the studies the bill was responding to were a decade old and no longer applied to the current military culture. They argued that they had both the capability and the capacity to address the cases, and that the culture within the CAF had radically changed in those 10 years.

We listened to the civilian police, who told us that, although they had the capability, they no longer had the capacity to absorb yet more work, especially in locations with military bases close by.

Then we listened to victim after victim of sexual assault in the military. It was really the victims who surprised me and I think most of us at committee, the people I thought would have the strongest desire to move out of the military justice system. I thought perhaps one or two might say they would like to have a choice, but it turned out that just about every single witness we talked to wanted a choice between the military justice system and the civilian system.

After numerous victims spoke, it became obvious that the bill needed to be modified, so, with the support of the Bloc member on the committee, we co-operated to amend an outdated Liberal motion into one that every stakeholder, from victim to investigator, wanted. We gave the victims a choice. So far, so good. We took a bill that was okay and made it into a good bill. Late this Friday afternoon, the Minister of National Defence, in defiance of civilian and military lawyers, civilian and military police, and even the victims themselves, came into the House and tabled Bill C-11 at report stage.

He is trying to strip our amendments from the bill. Why are the Liberals doing this? We had a decent bill that we turned into a much better bill. There seems to be no explanation for it at all. Why would the Liberals defy both the military and civilian justice systems and the victims?

There is a reason. The Prime Minister has not, will not and cannot fulfill his campaign promises. The cracks in our economy have become chasms, and he needs an election before Canadians feel the full brunt of his purposeful inaction. He knows Canadians are going to start to notice the growing divide between these grandiose announcements and the cold, grey reality of their pocketbooks, so he needs a majority government, and fast. He trolled the opposition benches and, yes, sure enough, an artificial majority did manage to slither across the aisle, but the Prime Minister is afraid that his majority will unravel, since he now has both far right and far left members in his caucus. He has called this a big tent, but it has become more like a circus tent, so he needs an election.

However, the Prime Minister does not want to be blamed for calling an election, so the Liberals are banging on about obstruction to make it look like the normal processes of Parliament are somehow wrong. If he employs tactics like this now that he has a majority government, he knows it is to create the kinds of division within Parliament that he can point to and claim are obstruction. Bill C-22 may have the potential to be a good bill, if it makes it past second reading and goes to committee. My fear is that it will meet the fate of Bill C-11, be subjected to the scrutiny of experts, be modified into a much clearer, better bill, and then have all the positive changes stripped out once it hits report stage. This is obstruction, to be sure, but not by Conservatives.

Conservatives are doing what we are supposed to be doing for the benefit of Canadians. The Prime Minister and the Liberal Party, on the other hand, are acting on behalf of the Liberal Party. They are attempting to fabricate another election that no one wants by trying to make it look like it is not their fault. This is not order and good government, but devious arrogance by the Liberals. Canadians had better brace themselves.

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

Mr. Speaker, there was a lot in that speech. It was not necessarily related to Bill C-22, but there was definitely a lot in terms of conspiracy theories.

Let me reassure the member. Here is a reality check. The Prime Minister and the government are focusing on building Canada strong for all. There are record amounts, over $70 billion, of foreign investment because of initiatives that the government is talking about abroad. There are all sorts of potential export opportunities. There is a litany of things. The Speaker is not going to give me enough time to expand on it all. The point is that, as we are focused on Canadians with good and sound public policy, the member opposite can focus on whatever he wants.

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

Mr. Speaker, there was not a question there. There was a statement, so I am going to make a statement. Potentialities are not the same thing as actualities. We have MOUs worth whatever amount of money. What we actually have is very little. I could talk about the great mineral exploration we are going to be doing on Saturn, but that does not mean we are going to have it today, tomorrow or ever. I am just talking about it.

That is my statement.

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has a way of really hitting the point home. The Liberals have been in power for 11 years now, and there is a big gap between expectations they set for themselves and for Canada and the experience that Canadians feel. They also have a very long track record of making grandiose statements and of actually overreaching into the affairs of provincial governments and private citizens.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague this: How does he think we should trust this government after all it has done to erode the trust of Canadians for the past 11 years?

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not think we should trust the Liberals at all. We just heard that over 10 years, crime has galloped ahead, and it is being blamed on technology creep. Crime has galloped. Technology has moved. The reason for that is fairly obvious: The Liberals are now playing catch-up to a decade of ignoring crime and hoping that it would go away. Now they are dealing with the actuality. They are scrambling to do it and somehow yelling and screaming that they need to do it quickly.

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the 30 years of policing that I did, getting access to information was a huge challenge for us. Oftentimes the evidence we needed to prosecute an accused person was sitting on a server outside of Canada, and co-operation was voluntary. Does my colleague see any practical solutions in the bill that would help with cross-border access and enforcement?

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

Mr. Speaker, I see a great deal of potential in the bill. I have been talking to people overseas as well. There is absolutely no recourse in our laws, and I certainly think we need that, but we have to draw a balance between, on one hand, the anarchy of pure freedom, and on the other hand, really heavy-handed authoritarianism. I think the bill has the potential to hit the middle ground there, but it must go to committee and have all-party input. I hope that the Liberals abide by that, and I hope that they honour the process of Parliament.

[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—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, in a word, wow. We can talk about conspiracy theories. We can talk about misinformation. When we want to talk about safety in our communities, we have a new Prime Minister from less than a year ago, as well as a new government.

Bill C-9 deals with hate propaganda. Bill C-14 deals with bail reform. Bill C-16 actually restores mandatory minimums. We have Bill C-22 that deals with sensitive issues such as national security, terrorism, extortion and child exploitation. They are all substantive pieces of legislation.

On the other hand, the biggest thing the Conservatives have done to date has been to filibuster and slow down the progress of legislation because, in the minds of some, there is a giant conspiracy that the Government of Canada wants to take over the world.

Does the member support the principle of lawful access?

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

Mr. Speaker, that was a lot of consternation. The member actually did not list a single thing that I said as being untrue or wrong. Is that not funny? Not one thing that I actually said did he disagree with. He just spoke loud, yelled and made a big production, as if he was somehow offended by all of the facts that I presented here in the House today.

Does the lawful access regime in this bill do some good things? Yes, it is going to do some good things. It is going to do some things that law enforcement needs. As a former law enforcement officer, I know that we actually need to give tools to the men and women who protect us and keep us safe every day.

The problem is the Liberals never get it right the first time. Every piece of legislation that he talked about has to do with undoing things or restoring them. Well, he is undoing his own mess. He is restoring things that Conservatives have done. One cannot be the problem and the solution at the same time.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑22 includes a change involving the burden of proof. The government wants to allow police forces and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service to obtain warrants based on suspicions. Previously, it was necessary to prove to a judge that there were reasonable grounds to believe that a crime was committed or that a crime would be committed. From now on, what is required is to prove that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a crime was committed or that a crime will be committed. It is the lowest standard in criminal law, and that is now what is being proposed.

In my colleague's opinion, what are the risks associated with this change?

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

Mr. Speaker, there are some potentially groundbreaking and new precedent-setting provisions in this legislation, but we also have to have some of the tools in place that will allow police to operate in a digital environment. There are lots of laws in the Criminal Code about the things we can and cannot do in real life, in the real and tangible world that we are not allowed to do. We cannot harm each other. We cannot steal property. We cannot do many of those things, yet the online world seems to allow a greater opportunity for these things to happen.

I am looking forward to this bill going to committee. I think that is the place where some of these questions will actually need to be addressed and where we get the proper experts. I think the member who asked me the question is right to have the questions he has. I am sure their member on the committee will flesh this—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to continue with questions and comments.

The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Indian Act, I have a special concern when it comes to civil liberties and the freedoms and rights of Canadians. However, when we are talking about protecting civil liberties, the Liberal government says that is based on conspiracies when, really, all we are trying to do is protect the freedom of Canadians.

Can my colleague give some examples of the Liberal government trying to promote the overreach of government, which nobody wants in this House or in Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, it does not seem to matter what aspect of life in Canada we look at, but if someone had, at any point in time, a disagreement with the policy of the government in the last 11 years, they would be squarely in the crosshairs of the government's mean-spirited implementation of programs. For example, groups running summer camps for kids have to sign an attestation form to go against their own values, in order to access their very own tax dollars from the government. That is just one example of how the Liberals actually only govern for themselves and the people who agree with them, and they—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Kitchener South—Hespeler.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my speech by thanking OpenMedia, the Canadian Constitution Foundation and privacy lawyer David Fraser for their excellent work on Bill C-22. The analysis I am about to offer closely mirrors their own, and if the Liberal government members would simply listen seriously to these civil liberties groups, they would not have to hear from me on this bill, but they have not, so here we are.

At around age 13, I was horrified to read the following excerpt from chapter 1 of George Orwell's 1984:

The telescreen received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound that Winston made...would be picked up by it, moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision...he could be seen as well as heard. There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in...was guesswork.

That gave me a chill down the spine 27 years ago. Could people really live with the government listening to their every utterance, watching their every move? How could the human spirit ever flourish in the utter absence of basic privacy? Even at a much younger age, I knew it was basically wrong for my sister to go through the things in my room or for me to read her diary, not because any authority figure ever told me it was wrong, but because I knew it in my soul. One cannot develop one's thoughts, one's feelings, one's self under prying eyes. That was just respect to my friends and family. What if a power as great as the government or the police violated our privacy? I knew that my mother and her family had escaped a Communist regime in the 1960s, but back then, telescreens were science fiction. Could my family have managed to plan their escape if a telescreen had been in their home?

I knew vaguely that there had been revolutions in East Germany and throughout the U.S.S.R., but even in 1989, when those revolutions started, the telescreen idea remained in the realm of science fiction. Fast-forward to today, I am more horrified today. We now have the technological capability to make telescreens. I have a phone in my pocket and an Apple Watch on my wrist. I am most horrified because, with the legislation before us, the Liberal government is attempting to make possible the 1984 telescreen out of every cell phone, AirPod, Apple Watch, smart TV and automobile, anything that is connected to the Internet. To quote the excerpt from 1984 again, “There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment.”

I know the members opposite will consider my views outlandish, but they are not. Let me please take them through their own law to show them how they are doing the exact thing they swore they would never do.

Proposed subsection 5(2) says:

The Governor in Council [which means the government] may make regulations respecting the obligations of core providers, including regulations respecting

(a) the development, implementation, assessment, testing and maintenance of operational and technical capabilities, including capabilities related to extracting and organizing information that is authorized to be accessed

In plain English, this means a back door. Right now, it is my understanding that my watch listens to everything I say. If I say, “Hey, Siri”, it sends whatever speech follows to the cloud for processing. If I do not say, “Hey, Siri”, nothing goes to the cloud. Proposed paragraph 5(2)(a) allows the minister to require that Apple build in the ability for authorities to listen to my Apple Watch whether I say, “Hey, Siri” or not. The same would go for my phone and my AirPods. Yes, they would need a warrant to actually listen in, but this bill takes the huge first step of building the surveillance architecture in the first place. Once it is built, it will be ripe for abuse either by the government or by hackers. Once it is built, it will not be unbuilt. We are at the stage where the government builds all the telescreens and puts them in our home, but promises to only use them if we have been bad.

What is worse is this bill, as pertains to electronic service providers under proposed section 7, such as Apple, Signal, Telegram or Tinder, may be forced to keep that back door secret. Proposed section 15 says:

An electronic service provider and any person acting on its behalf must not disclose any of the following information

(c) the fact that the electronic service provider is subject to the order;

In plain English, this section sets out the fact that the government has ordered construction of a back door to be kept secret. Once this bill passes, our cell phone manufacturer, our messaging service, our dating app may receive a secret order to build a back door into the service for the government to check in on us, and we might never be alerted. Our excerpt from the 1984 says, “How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in...was guesswork.” Why? Why, if everything here was above board, would the bill include the ability for the public safety minister to build secret back doors? I do not happen to be one of them, but some Canadians might say it is okay to read their Tinder messages, that they do not care, but to at least tell them if the government is going to do that. This bill specifically allows a minister to do it secretly. Why?

Just on these points alone, the construction of a backdoor surveillance architecture and that they intend to keep some parts of this architecture secret, the Liberals should hang their heads in shame. Liberals are supposed to fight against this sort of excessive government reach. They are not supposed to be its source, and it only gets worse.

As set forth in proposed paragraph 5(2)(d), in addition to demanding that secret back doors be constructed, the government's ministers can order all electronic service providers to collect and store all metadata for a year. Metadata means many things, but the most important thing to me is location. This bill goes even further than the telescreens in 1984. It would turn every Internet-connected device into not just a listening device, but a tracking device as well, and it would cause that location data to be admissible in a court of law.

Let me just give a couple of examples for why I find this concerning. We just had a pandemic, in which some governments went way too far restricting human rights in unscientific ways. Do people remember the red zones and the green zones or the six-person bubbles? It may surprise the House to learn that I never broke a single COVID rule, even though I was a strong critic of their unscientific basis, but I know that a lot of people did. I know that some people sitting on the government side of the House did. It is a matter of public record that Justin Trudeau broke COVID rules and broke the Reopening Ontario Act by attending a Black Lives Matter protest here in Ottawa.

If Bill C-22 passes, when there is another pandemic with some silly rules, any police officer could say they suspect that the member for Winnipeg North broke pandemic rules, get a warrant and see his location for every moment of the last 365 days. If he ever stepped into a red zone or ever broke quarantine, it would be game over. This capability would not be merely for COVID laws. It would be for every law. Chrystia Freeland was once found guilty of going 30 kilometres an hour over the limit on the highway to see her dad. Once she was convicted of that, a police officer could check to see her speed for every moment of the 365 days preceding.

Do not ask for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. As the head of Joseph Stalin's secret service said, “Show me the man and I'll show you the crime.” If everyone here is surveilled 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, every one of us will be liable to be found guilty of something. If the government of the day passes this bill in its present form, I fear that the Liberals may live to see the day when its provisions are used against them. I swear it will not be me doing it, but who knows who will be prime minister in 2046. I fear her last name may be Trudeau-Perry.

The Liberals will rue the day they torched all our collective privacy rights. I urge them to correct course. We can catch bad guys without violating the privacy rights of every single Canadian.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful that we are seeing the legislation go to committee. I disagree with much of what the member opposite has said. Within this legislation, the public security and safety issues are being addressed, and privacy concerns are also addressed. We can do both in one piece of legislation. Bill C-22 amplifies both of those. Most importantly, it would protect real Canadians in our communities from organized crime and so many other things that are taking place. The legislation is needed because it is time to modernize. Canada is the only one of the Five Eyes that does not have legislation of this nature.

Does he support the principle?

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is very interesting that the member disagreed with everything I said but failed to point to one specific piece of my analysis that was wrong. Every piece of my analysis was correct.

As to this talking point, I keep hearing that all the Five Eyes are doing it. I am proud to be Canadian. I am proud to have been born in the freest country in the land, and God help me, I am going to keep it that way. Just because the member's friends are all jumping off a cliff, it does not mean that the member should too.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raised some rather serious concerns in his speech, including on the idea of forcing service providers to go further than they do currently and develop capacity to retain metadata for one year, which may include geolocation.

What parameters can my colleague propose to ensure that, if this bill moves forward, we can keep this data as secure as possible?

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the best way to keep a year's worth of surveillance location data secure is to not build a back door or to not save it in the first place. There is some bizarre verbiage in this bill about systemic vulnerabilities, but the point of part 2 of this legislation, as it currently stands, is to build the systemic vulnerabilities that it later says it is not building. It is frankly doublespeak at this point, and it needs to be significantly reworked.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we often hear from the other side that Canada is the only country that does not have this type of law, but what they sometimes forget to talk about are the damages and deleterious effects that have come from creating these back doors or front doors.

Does the member have any examples of bad things happening, either by government abuse or by hackers and bad actors?

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am relying on the video that privacy lawyer David Fraser put together on the topic. I urge every member of the House, particularly those on the government benches, to see it. It is not outlandish. He is a very credible voice. He teaches at Dalhousie University. He speaks about the Salt Typhoon incident in which the Americans, one of those Five Eyes partners that my colleague from Winnipeg North is so eager to emulate, built these sorts of back doors into their messaging services. The first thing that happened was that the Chinese Communist Party hacked into them and got everybody's private conversations.

It is a real threat. If the NSA is subject to this sort of data exploitation by the Chinese Communist Party, I suspect that our country, having just initiated this new security partnership with the Chinese Communist Party, would be even more at risk.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a previous colleague of ours shared the metaphor that one cannot be the problem and the solution at the same time.

I wonder if my hon. colleague could respond to the following metaphor with respect to the government actually behaving itself if this legislation were to pass. A previous assistant deputy minister once said to me that a hog can never slaughter itself.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am a great fan of my colleague who asked the question. I myself am a city boy, and I do not understand the metaphor.

Can I just say what is particularly galling to me about this legislation? Conservatives like law and order. We support the police. We want bad guys in jail. We have put forward dozens, at this point—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

We are resuming debate.

The hon. member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj has the floor.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, how can we ensure that law enforcement and CSIS have the resources they need to access digital data and effectively combat organized crime and threats to national security without descending into an era of widespread, intrusive and excessive surveillance?

That is the question that we are facing today in this debate on Bill C-22. How can we modernize our law enforcement without infringing on people's right to privacy?

Bill C‑22 seeks to strike a balance. I understand that we will likely be able to find out in committee if this balance was struck.

We in the Bloc Québécois have a number of questions about what is being proposed, although we support the goal of properly equipping our law enforcement agencies. We have questions about a number of aspects.

The first question concerns the proposed new orders. The government wants to simplify the work of law enforcement when it comes to conducting investigations. How? It is creating a new order. The order will allow law enforcement to simply ask an Internet or electronic service provider whether or not a person is a subscriber.

All that a police officer needs to make this request is a suspicion, and a suspicion is not much at all. A suspicion is the lowest bar there is in Canadian criminal law. Police officers are often asked to have “reasonable grounds to believe” that a crime has been committed. This remains the current state of the law today.

Why are police officers required to have reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been committed? It is to prevent fishing expeditions and to ensure that police officers have a minimum amount of evidence before obtaining people's personal data.

The other order provided for in Bill C-22 concerns the production of subscriber information. Once again, the burden of proof that law enforcement agencies would be required to meet is low. If they have a phone number, for example, or an IP address, they only need to have a suspicion that a crime has been committed or is about to be committed. That is a very low threshold, and it does not take much. They will be able to go before a court to obtain an order for the production of information. They will be able to obtain the name and address of the person to whom the IP address belongs and track them down. Is it possible to strike a balance with such a measure when the burden of proof is lowered? We will have to ask this question and listen to privacy experts, because a police officer might be strongly tempted to quickly file a request for the production of documents, given that it will now be much easier to do so.

Another point that is quite concerning and that will raise questions is that, under Bill C‑22, the Minister of Public Safety will first have to determine which service providers would be required to develop technical capabilities.

We need to understand where we are going with this. Right now, some telephone or social media service providers do not really keep the data they have because they are not interested in it, since they are only in business for commercial purposes. They might keep some data for the purpose of commercial profiling, but they might not keep it for a very long time or in an orderly fashion, since they have no commercial interest in doing so.

Essentially, however, what the government is proposing with Bill C‑22 is to require service providers to have the technical capability to retain metadata for one year, including the geolocation data of its subscribers. They will also be required to ensure that they can provide this information within a relatively short period of time, on the grounds that law enforcement may need it in order to know where a specific person was on a specific date.

Of course, we understand how incredibly efficient this will be for law enforcement, because as soon as they have reason to suspect that a crime has been committed, they will be able to retrieve location data to determine where a person was on a specific date.

It will help, but it raises some very legitimate concerns, because, as my colleague mentioned, a database will be created containing millions and millions of location data points for each individual. Each one of us has a phone, which means that with data from the past year, it would be possible to determine where we were at any given time.

This is meant to target criminals, of course, but 99.9% of people in Canada are not criminals and their data are going to be captured somewhere. Any time that a large amount of data like that exists somewhere, it can attract organized crime. We know about hackers, but countless other situations come to mind if we think of all the metadata to be stored. I understand that people would be concerned about this. Questions must be asked, because these data banks will not be created by the government, but by businesses. They will be required to conserve these data, but what kind of data protection will be required? There are examples. A few years back, fraud was committed at Desjardins. Sometimes the mechanisms are good, but insiders have bad intentions. A year's worth of geolocation metadata is practically a treasure trove for hackers. The mind reels just thinking about it.

Another concern we have is about the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency. Normally, one would expect this agency to be given more financial and legal authority, as well as material resources, to do its job and to reassure us, at least a little, about this new surveillance system that is being put in place. One of our concerns is that, when interventions are made, the agency will not be notified until 12 months later. There are other countries, such as Australia, where the agency is notified in real time. However, 12 months is already quite far removed from the abuse of authority, if any abuse occurred, so we have a concern on that front.

Next, we have concerns regarding funding. The government has announced across-the-board cuts that will affect this agency in particular. These cuts amount to 15%. If law enforcement agencies are being granted expanded powers and significant amounts of personal data will be stored with service providers, we would at least like to be assured that the agency will have the resources it needs to take action.

I also have questions about the regulatory powers that are being granted. Since April, the government has adopted the unfortunate habit of frequently proposing to proceed by regulatory means, so there are concerns. How will the government determine what exactly constitutes a service provider? Some banks are concerned. Will they be included in that definition? If they provide banking services, will they have to retain that data as well? The minister's power to act through regulatory means and ministerial orders raises some concerns for us, as does this bill's alignment with Quebec's new Bill 25, which seeks to protect personal information and which forced businesses and organizations in Quebec to adapt to protect data. Is the federal government going to add another layer of protection? That will need to be done properly. We need to be careful about this so as not to duplicate legislative protections.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am again encouraged by the Bloc recognizing that there is value to having lawful access. I did not know about the Province of Quebec. I will have to look into that aspect. I would like to think they would be complementary of each other, but I do not know. I believe it is important for the bill to go to committee. The member raises a number of concerns he has with the ministry. If there are things that they can do even in advance, I would encourage him to do likewise.

My understanding is that the Bloc supports the principle of the legislation and wants to see it go to committee. Am I not correct?

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what the Bloc Québécois is asking for is a balanced approach. We want to give law enforcement the ability to act, adapt and modernize its capacity to act while also ensuring that the right to personal information and privacy remains a fundamental right that is protected in Quebec and Canada.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to ask a question to my colleague from Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj. I also want to congratulate him on his speech.

Earlier, my Bloc Québécois colleague asked a question about Bill 25 that was passed by the Quebec National Assembly. Although this legislation was necessary and legitimate, it caused a lot of challenges for Quebec businesses when it was introduced, forcing them to adapt to this new reality in terms of privacy protection. I think the question is very relevant, because the federal government is creating a law that will likely infringe a bit on what has already been implemented in Quebec under Bill 25.

Can my colleague tell us how we could proceed, if Bill C‑22 were to be passed, to ensure that it is seamless for Quebec businesses, which have already gone through quite a bit of hardship as a result of adapting to Bill 25?

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. I think that, when the time comes, we will have to take a closer look at what Bill 25 has accomplished. The idea behind Bill 25 was really to protect personal information in this increasingly digital age.

As for Bill C‑22, I am really concerned about the businesses that will be affected by it. I think it will be important to put in place very specific measures. Service providers will be required to keep data, and we will have to make them ensure that it is the most secure data in the world.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Emergency Management and Community Resilience]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague on his speech. I believe there are exceptions in Bill 25. They have to do with the personal information that can be requested by the police if there are threats or if there is a real reason to believe that someone is violating the Criminal Code.

I want to be sure I understand my colleague. Do we agree that the best way forward is to pass the bill at second reading, study it in committee and hear Quebec groups talk about what they have done and what they think about it?

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill 25 applies to organizations. At present, when police officers in Quebec conduct an investigation, they appear before a judge and must show that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been or will be committed. If officers successfully convince the judge, they obtain a search warrant and may then search cell phones. This is how it is currently done. The question that Bill C‑22 raises is: Should the burden of proof be lowered to make things easier for police officers?

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the government has a long record of abuse of power and overreach into the affairs of provincial governments and private citizens. I wonder if my hon. colleague could elaborate on why he thinks the government cannot be trusted once again with this bill.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, people often say that opportunity makes the thief. When action is taken to give law enforcement more powers, it must be done in such a way that the data are protected to a degree that constitutes a deterrent. The mere thought of holding on to a year's worth of metadata on everyone's movements would definitely seem like an opportunity to a thief. I think that organized crime would be itching to get its hands on these data. The best approach is to seek advice from top experts to ensure that the data are properly protected.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The question is on the motion.

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we would like it to carry on division.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I declare the motion carried on division. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I suspect that if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to call it 6:30 p.m. at this time so we could begin the late show.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.