Bill C-8

An Act respecting cyber security, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts

Part 1 amends the Telecommunications Act to add the promotion of the security of the Canadian telecommunications system as an objective of the Canadian telecommunications policy and to authorize the Governor in Council and the Minister of Industry to direct telecommunications service providers to do anything, or refrain from doing anything, that is necessary to secure the Canadian telecommunications system. It also establishes an administrative monetary penalty scheme to promote compliance with orders and regulations made by the Governor in Council and the Minister of Industry to secure the Canadian telecommunications system as well as rules for judicial review of those orders and regulations.
Part 2 enacts the Critical Cyber Systems Protection Act to provide a framework for the protection of the critical cyber systems of services and systems that are vital to national security or public safety and that are delivered or operated as part of a work, undertaking or business that is within the legislative authority of Parliament. It also, among other things,
(a) authorizes the Governor in Council to designate any service or system as a vital service or vital system;
(b) authorizes the Governor in Council to establish classes of operators in respect of a vital service or vital system;
(c) requires designated operators to, among other things, establish and implement cyber security programs, mitigate supply-chain and third-party risks, report cyber security incidents and comply with cyber security directions;
(d) provides for the exchange of information between relevant parties and the disposal of personal information; and
(e) authorizes the enforcement of the obligations under the Act and imposes consequences for non-compliance.
This Part also makes consequential amendments to certain Acts.
Part 3 provides for a five-year review of the provisions enacted or amended by this Act.

Lawful Access Act, 2026

[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?

[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, 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.

[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, 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.

[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.

Addressing the Continuing Victimization of Homicide Victims' Families Act

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, first and foremost, it is important for me to express my full support tonight for “Le communautaire à boutte” movement. Before becoming an MP, I served as executive director of the Hautes-Laurentides community development corporation for over five years. I worked closely with more than 50 organizations that provide services that government agencies cannot. These are dedicated people. I commend the organizations that have been around for 40 years. I will name a few: La Griffe d'Alpha, Maison Lyse-Beauchamp for the homeless, L'Arche du Nord, La Petite Mission, and Maison de la Famille du Nord. There are so many of them and they are part of our social fabric. Our regions need them, and this is a unique model that Quebec has developed over the decades. I stand with them wholeheartedly in ensuring that services for the vulnerable are not interrupted in the future.

Today, we are discussing Bill C-236. The Bloc Québécois will be voting in favour of the bill because we want to study it in committee. It is a Conservative Party bill that is at second reading stage. I should mention, however, that the bill may be unnecessary. Let me explain. The case cited by the Conservative Party to justify this bill shows that the Parole Board of Canada already takes account of refusals to disclose the location of a victim's body and refusals to admit guilt.

In fact, Australia since 2015, the United Kingdom since 2019 and the United States since 2021 have had similar legislation in some of their federated states, although studies suggest that these laws are unnecessary and even violate certain rights of inmates, in addition to transforming the goal of the parole system from rehabilitation to punishment.

As is always the case when the Conservative Party introduces bills related to the justice system, the Conservatives' vision of justice is not justice in the noble sense of the word. All too often, the official opposition wants Canada's justice system to be about revenge.

Not only that, but the parole system already takes certain criteria into account when making its decisions. Once again, the Conservative Party wants the legislative branch to play a role in the administration of justice. Once again, the Conservative Party wants to severely restrict the discretion of the members of the Parole Board of Canada. Once again, the party of law and order wants to control the law.

Nevertheless, setting aside partisan considerations, I want to say that, despite these reservations, I recognize that victims' loved ones deserve answers and that this bill deserves to be studied in committee. This actually allows me to point out that parliamentary committee work is fundamental to demystifying complex issues. My colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon just talked about this in the context of Bill C-8.

It is easy to introduce bills to pander to one's base, but the bill has to pass the smell test and that is what parliamentary committees are for. It is an opportunity to hear from academics and experts on the issues at hand. In this case, that will include families, loved ones, and the Parole Board of Canada, to learn in detail exactly how things work in practice. We need to challenge assumptions and sit down to ensure that the system is working as it should.

That is why the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of the bill, because this matter deserves to be addressed with all the seriousness, diligence, and impartiality that the issue of justice demands.

Just two weeks ago, when I rose here to speak to a Conservative Party justice bill, I said that the justice system is under attack throughout the west. It is a tactic employed by the far right and various fringe groups. I have said this on several occasions since becoming a member of Parliament, and that concerns me.

Using the justice system and judges as political tools is a road to nowhere, except to inflate dubious theories. Do we want an American-style system, with all the problems that come with it, or do we want a justice system worthy of the name? I believe and hope that we can all agree on the answer.

Populism is on the rise all over the world. It is a troubling trend. As a member of Parliament, I have made it my mission to stand as a bulwark against populism and to always focus on the facts. I urge my colleagues from all parties to do the same. Let us send this bill to committee and have it studied thoroughly to ensure that it meets our legal principles.

That is why I am saying here today that we need to look at the facts and send the bill to committee.

Amendments to Bill C-8—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I am now ready to rule on the point of order raised on March 23 by the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader concerning amendments adopted at committee to Bill C-8, an act respecting cybersecurity, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments to other acts.

In his intervention, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader contended that, during clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, three amendments, CPC-2, CPC-5 and CPC-15, were adopted by the committee after having been ruled inadmissible by the chair. He argued that the three amendments were inadmissible on the grounds that they exceeded the scope of the bill as adopted by the House at second reading, and requested that the Speaker review the amendments and, if found to be out of order, that they be struck from the bill.

The member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, in her intervention on the matter, suggested that the Speaker should reject the arguments of the parliamentary secretary on the basis that no reasoning was offered to support that the amendments were inadmissible. She then stated that the amendments in question should not be viewed as beyond the scope of the bill because they seek to impose conditions on executive decision-making by requiring prior judicial authorization for certain orders. Citing several precedents, she contended that this type of limitation to the authority of ministers has been found to be acceptable and within the scope of bills in the past.

The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands also intervened briefly on the matter, questioning the validity of the point of order, suggesting that determinations about amendments are ordinarily made by the committee chair and are not subject to review by the House.

While the Speaker generally refrains from intervening in matters that fall within a committee's authority, once a bill is reported back to the House, members may challenge the procedural admissibility of amendments adopted in committee. As is explained in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, fourth edition, section 16.96:

Since a committee may appeal the decision of its Chair and reverse that decision, it may happen that a committee will report a bill with amendments that were initially ruled out of order by its Chair. The admissibility of those amendments, and of any other amendments made by a committee, may therefore be challenged on procedural grounds when the House resumes its consideration of the bill at report stage. The admissibility of the amendments is then determined by the Speaker of the House, whether in response to a point of order or on the Speaker's own initiative.

When specific amendments are brought to its attention, the Chair considers whether the committee acted beyond its authority in adopting the amendments and assesses amendments against the established rules governing their admissibility.

The member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake is quite right in pointing out the importance of providing sufficient context when raising a point of order concerning amendments in a committee report. While the Chair is obliged to review the matter once it is raised, explanations as to why the amendments fall outside the scope of the bill assist the Chair in conducting a thorough and accurate review.

In the present case, the amendments in question were initially found by the committee chair to be inadmissible on the grounds that they exceeded the scope of the bill. As explained in section 16.74 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, fourth edition:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

The Chair has therefore carefully reviewed Bill C-8 as adopted by the House at second reading and the amendments in question to ascertain how they relate to the bill's principle and scope. The principle or main legislative objectives of the bill include strengthening Canada's national cybersecurity and providing new legal authorities to protect critical cyber systems and secure the telecommunications sector. The amendments in question relate to part 1 of the bill, which amends the Telecommunications Act.

Whereas the bill as introduced would give the minister or Governor in Council new authority to make orders to accomplish the bill's legislative objectives, CPC-2 modifies the bill by requiring the Governor in Council or the minister to first obtain authorization from a Federal Court judge before issuing orders under sections 15.1 and 15.2 of the act. The amendment would also allow the judge to attach any conditions to the order that they consider appropriate.

The bill as introduced also provides that an order made under section 15.1 by the Governor in Council may include a provision prohibiting the disclosure of its existence or of its contents. CPC-5 amends the bill to require that the Governor in Council make an application to the Federal Court should the Governor in Council wish to prohibit the disclosure of the content of an order made under section 15.1. Where the bill would allow the Governor in Council to determine the necessity of such a prohibition, the amendment transfers the actual ability to prohibit to the Federal Court, instead of it being part of the order made by the Governor in Council.

CPC-15 effects the same transfer of authority to a Federal Court judge, but in cases where the minister is seeking to include non-disclosure provisions to orders made under section 15.2.

In the Chair's view, these amendments relate to the overall objective, broadly stated, of strengthening Canada's national cybersecurity systems. The question, therefore, is whether they exceed the scope of the bill.

While the concept of judicial oversight appears in the bill, its purpose is to review decisions already taken by the Governor in Council. The three amendments instead transfer the authority to make certain orders, or to prohibit the disclosure of the content of certain orders, from the executive branch to the Federal Court. In doing so, they confer new powers on the judicial branch that were not contemplated in the bill as adopted at second reading.

The Chair finds there to be important distinctions between this case and the precedents raised by the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake. In the case cited from 2006, the amendment in question did not affect the Minister's power to act; rather it introduced a power to appeal after the fact. In the more recent example relating to Bill C‑483, the amendments to the bill maintained the role for the National Parole Board already conceived of in the legislation, but in a more limited form than was originally proposed. Both of these cases can accurately be viewed as a constraint on decision-making authority already found in each bill. In the current case, the Chair views the amendments as going beyond the imposition of a condition on the exercise of authority by the minister or Governor in Council, transforming what were ministerial powers into judicial powers instead.

Consequently, the amendments proposed appear to the Chair to contain new concepts that are beyond the scope of the bill and lead the Chair to conclude that the amendments were correctly ruled inadmissible by the chair of the committee.

Therefore, I order that the aforementioned amendments, CPC-2, CPC-5 and CPC-15, be declared null and void and no longer form part of the bill as reported to the House. Furthermore, I am ordering a reprint of Bill C-8 with the removal of the inadmissible amendments. This reprinted version will stand as the official version of the bill for consideration at report stage.

I thank all members for their attention.

Amendments to Bill C-8

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would argue that this is a very important point of order, and I would recommend that everyone stop to listen.

Standing Order 117 says, “The Chair of a standing, special or legislative committee shall maintain order in the committee, deciding all questions of order subject to an appeal to the committee”.

Secondly, a committee chair's ruling on the admissibility of an amendment is not infallible. Mr. Speaker, in a ruling on November 3, 2025, at page 3,327 of the Debates, you yourself reached a different conclusion than the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance had concerning the need for royal recommendation for an amendment that the committee made to Bill C-4. The test for the Speaker's intervention in committee reports concerning bills does not rest simply on whether a committee chair's ruling was overturned, but rather on whether the committee, in adopting the impugned amendment, exceeded its authority.

The parliamentary secretary referred the Chair to paragraph 16.74 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, fourth edition, which provides that an amendment to a bill is out of order “if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.” The parliamentary secretary, however, did not offer any argument or reasoning for the amendments being allegedly beyond the scope of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I think you should reject the government's argument on that basis alone, since it is asking you to overturn a committee decision without any true procedural justification. As Janse and LeBlanc wrote at paragraph 16.96, “The admissibility of those amendments, and of any other amendments made by a committee, may therefore be challenged on procedural grounds when the House resumes its consideration of the bill at report stage.”

Indeed, as Speaker Milliken mentioned on March 14, 2008, at page 4182 of the Debates, “successive Speakers have been reluctant to intervene in the proceedings of committees except in highly exceptional circumstances.” That is, in fact, a commonly understood principle in this House, but the parliamentary secretary failed to offer any justification meeting that threshold of exceptional circumstances. Indeed, the same former Speaker explained on November 27, 2002, at page 1950 of the Debates, “it is true as well that committees are permitted a greater latitude in the conduct of their proceedings than might be allowed in the House. It may not always be clear in a particular set of circumstances how best to proceed and so the ultimate decision is left to the committee itself.”

However, should you disagree with me on the ending of your inquiry here, Mr. Speaker, allow me to offer submissions about how these Conservative amendments are actually within the scope of this bill. Let us get our bearings. First, footnote 164 on page 63 of Janse and LeBlanc refers to the scope of a bill as “meaning the schemes by which the principles of the bill are achieved.”

Paragraph 28.81 of Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, 25th edition, expands upon the concept. It states:

The scope of a bill represents the reasonable limits of its collective purposes, as defined by its existing clauses and schedules. In particular cases, difficult questions of judgment may arise. The scope of a bill, particularly of a bill with several purposes, may be wider than its long title, although the long title may help to determine the scope.

The same authority continues, explaining the United Kingdom's practice:

Standing Order No 65 gives a general authority to any committee on a bill to amend the bill as it sees fit (even if this entails amending the bill's long title in consequence), provided that the amendments are relevant to the subject-matter of the bill, that is to say, within the scope of the bill.

Bill C-8 is a broad bill, touching on a number of facets of the digital world. For our purposes, let us focus on part 1, containing amendments to the Telecommunications Act and making provisions for a variety of measures, including empowering the Governor in Council and the Minister of Industry, respectively, to make orders and give direction regarding the security of Canada's telecommunications system. What amendments CPC-2, CPC-5 and CPC-15 do collectively is require prior judicial authorization for certain of those orders, including for decisions of the cabinet or the minister to impose a gag order on Canadians.

I would submit that nothing about this changes or expands the scope of Bill C-8. Instead, they oppose conditions on executive decision-making, without changing the nature or scope of the decisions that might be made under the authorities proposed in the bill. In a ruling given on October 26, 2006, Mr. Speaker Milliken held at page 4308 of the Debates, that:

I cannot conclude that an amendment which provides for an appeal of a decision by the minister is contrary to the principle of the bill. As I see it, such an amendment places a condition on how decisions of the minister are exercised, but the principle of the bill remains intact.

Another precedent concerns a former bill, Bill C-483, which proposed to transfer decision-making authority over the temporary escorted absences of convicted murderers from penitentiary wardens, who are officials of the executive branch, to the quasi-judicial national Parole Board. The public safety committee reported that bill back to the House with amendments that would instead have had the decision-making responsibilities shared between institution heads and the Parole Board.

Mr. Speaker, your predecessor found the committee's amendments to have been in order, commenting on May 2, 2014, at page 4880 of the Debates, that:

I can see nothing in the bill as amended by the committee which would alter the aims and intent of the bill, namely the limiting of the power of institutional heads to grant escorted temporary absences and providing a role for the National Parole Board in the granting of such absences.

In the present case before you, Mr. Speaker, the government itself contemplates a rule for the federal court elsewhere in clause 2 of Bill C-8, namely, in its proposed section 15.9 of the Telecommunications Act, making provisions for the judicial review of the cabinet and ministers' orders. The amendments to Bill C-8, challenged by the parliamentary secretary, are like the 2006 precedent. This is the simple creation of a condition on how the decisions of a minister are exercised without changing the types of decisions that could be made and, like the 2014 precedent, simply adjusting to the responsibilities of the decision-makers who each already have assigned roles within the proposed statutory scheme.

To sum up, the parliamentary secretary's point of order should simply be dismissed for its failure to advance any procedural grounds for why the public safety committee's third report might be procedurally flawed. In the alternative, the impugned amendments are all, I submit, within the scope of the bill and have a nature consistent with committee amendments, which your predecessors have found to be within the scope of the bills concerned.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising in response to the point of order raised yesterday by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons concerning certain amendments made by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to Bill C-8, concerning cybersecurity and telecommunications. In his intervention, the parliamentary secretary referred to three amendments that the committee had agreed to consider despite the committee chair ruling the amendments inadmissible, which it subsequently adopted.

Firstly, I would like to remind the House that appeals of committee chairs' rulings are simply part of the routine practice of this place. Standing Order 117 says so. It says, “The Chair of a standing, special or legislative committee shall maintain order in the committee—

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

Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I do not think I have seen this before, so perhaps the hon. parliamentary secretary, at some point later in debate, or the Speaker can answer the question I have.

Is it at all normal that we would have a point of order to review amendments after committee work has closed on Bill C-8 to ask if it is within scope? Those questions are usually taken up at the moment when the amendments are brought forward. The clerk of the committee and the chair of the committee judge whether the amendment proposed is within scope.

I know retroactivity seems to be a big thing these days, and we just passed Bill C-4, which came into effect 26 years ago, but I question the validity of this point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to raise a point of order respecting three amendments that were adopted in a committee during clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-8, an act respecting cybersecurity, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments to other acts.

The three amendments include CPC-2, CPC-5 and CPC-15. When these amendments were moved at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, the chair ruled these three amendments out of order. The report respecting the bill was tabled in the House on March 11. I submit that the committee, in adopting these three amendments, exceeded the scope of the bill, which was determined by the second reading vote on October 3, 2025.

Page 649 of the fourth edition of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, at section 16.74, sets the limitation of amendments moved in committee to a bill that is adopted after second reading. This limitation, which deals with the scope and principle of the bill, states:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

In each of the aforementioned three amendments, the chair of the committee ruled CPC-2, CPC-5 and CPC-15 inadmissible because they would be proposed concepts that go beyond the scope of the bill. The CPC challenged the ruling of the chair for each of these amendments. The Bloc supported overturning the decision of the chair, and these three amendments were adopted.

Now that the bill is back before the House, I would request that the Speaker review the bill as amended and decide whether the amendments proposed through CPC-2, CPC-5 and CPC-15 exceed the scope and the principle of Bill C-8. Should this be the case, I would request that the Speaker order that the bill be reprinted without the offending amendments for the House's consideration at report stage.

Business of the House

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I think we will have to ask CPAC which of the two of us more people tune in to see, because both of us, as the member well knows, tend to be very lovable and appreciated by all Canadians as we talk about the Thursday question.

I will say, in response to my hon. friend, that we will be coming back next sitting week to Bill C-9, which I know was a solemn election commitment by his party as well as mine. I know we all look forward to protecting community centres, temples, synagogues and mosques in Canada. These are obviously important things, especially as we watch the conflict in the Middle East.

We will continue the debate at third reading of Bill C‑13, an act to implement the protocol on the accession of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Tomorrow, we will resume debate at second reading of Bill C‑20, an act respecting the establishment of Build Canada Homes.

As I said, when we return from our constituency week, on Monday, March 23, priority will be given to the very important Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, and of course Bill C-8, the cybersecurity legislation, which is essential for Canada in these days of online risks.

Finally, Tuesday, March 24, shall be an allotted day.

Public Safety and National Security

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security in relation to Bill C-8, an act respecting cyber security, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments to other acts.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

Government Business No. 6—Proceedings on Bill C-9

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to speak in this incredible House on behalf of the good people of Calgary Midnapore. I cannot believe that this spring it is nine years that I have been in this chamber. I want to thank you so much for your support, Mr. Speaker, as I began this journey so long ago.

I have to say that it has been several years of wonder being here every day and not being able to believe that I am in this great House where so many incredible people have come before me. I am surrounded by outstanding individuals, and I am so excited about the future parliamentarians who will come after me.

However, within that time, as well as wonder, there has been some disappointment. Here today is a piece of that disappointment, because we are discussing closure. Closure is always disturbing and disappointing because it means that my voice is being silenced in speaking on behalf of the citizens of Calgary Midnapore. It also means that there are other members in the House who will not have the opportunity to speak on behalf of their constituents.

I have had many citizens reach out to me on Bill C-9 with their most grave concerns. It is quite sad that these expressions will not get the opportunity to come to light and to be expressed fully in the House. Unfortunately, this is a trend with the current government.

Another trend that I see with the government is that it can never seem to present a good piece of legislation without a poison pill.

The crux of Bill C-9 is that we are talking about obstructing access to religious institutions. Who could be opposed to the safety, welfare and well-being of those who want to practise their religious freedom at this time? There is a 67% increase in crimes targeting religion in 2023 compared to 2022. In 2024, 1,342 police-reported incidents were motivated by religion, which included 900 incidents against the Jewish population and 211 incidents against the Muslim population, and over 100 Christian churches have been burned or vandalized since 2021.

Bill C-9 was a piece of legislation that we could support and get behind, but the Liberal government did what it does. It played politics. It put in the poison pill of removing religious defence from the Criminal Code. Why would the Liberals do that? Why would they remove freedom of expression of the most deepest and dearest sentiments of humans in existence?

They would do it for politics. They do not want this bill to pass unanimously. They do not want to see us working with them for Canadians and for the common good of Canada. This is a farce, and it does not elude them. It was planned intentionally for their hopeful political gain. They cannot put forward good legislation for the purpose of us all supporting good legislation. There must always be a poison pill.

My grandfather was from Bucha, Ukraine, which is where they found the mass graves. Ukrainian heritage has been a key part of my life since I was a little girl, whether my mum was making pedaheh and kubasa, or we were admiring the paska at family weddings in the beautiful shape of doves.

War came to Ukraine with tragedy and sadness. After contributing to Putin's war effort in supplying the turbine to export oil, the Liberal government had the good idea of a trade agreement, which was wonderful. It was an opportunity to show our support in the most tangible way possible: the economy. As Conservatives, we became excited at the prospect of supporting the bill. All of us would be working together for peace and democracy against one of the greatest dictators of our time. However, the Liberals placed a carbon tax in the bill, which their own government claimed to reverse, at least in principle, but at the time it was another poison pill. It was another measure deliberately placed by the Liberal government to give us, the Conservative Party of Canada, hesitation in supporting the legislation.

Again, the Liberals say they want us to work together. They claim we are obstructionist, but it is always deliberate and by their design, as I am explaining. They can never just present legislation that is good in its entirety for Canadians. They always have to have a poison pill because they want to play politics and they want to divide.

The Building Canada Act provides powers to get major projects approved in Canada, but it does not repeal Bill C-69 or Bill C-48, which would make it palatable to investors. That would have made it even easier for us as Conservatives to support it, even though we did. We gave them every opportunity to create prosperity in this great nation. In Bill C-8, they say they want to protect Canadians from cyber-threats, but their legislation would ultimately give the government the power to secretly cancel Canadians' Internet accounts. Again, they claim they are doing good, but there is always that poison pill.

In Bill C-2, they tried to give Canada Post sweeping powers to open any piece of mail, any piece of mail in the land, an incredible invasion of privacy, an incredible invasion of communicator to receiver. They tried to do this and to ban cash payments of over $10,000. It is cash, a way in which business has been done in this nation, a way in which commerce has been conducted, for forever. Conservatives forced the government into splitting the bill into two pieces to take out the poison pills.

It is these games that hurt Canadians, in delayed legislation, in amendments, in going back and forth to committees, in discussing these things and, therefore, in delayed outcomes for Canadians on things that would improve, fundamentally, the lives of Canadians. It is all a result of putting these poison pills in pieces of legislation. They really do not want us coming together for the good of Canadians. They want to divide and Bill C-9 is just another example of this. It is intentional.

It is never about 95% of the bill. There are always the good clauses, the positive clauses. We can point to good things being done for Canadians. Rather, it is always about that 5%, that one little hitch, that little poison pill that we simply cannot pass. It is like we are eating a hot dog, and then, all of a sudden, we hit that hard piece, and it just ruins the hot dog, or we are eating an olive and, all of a sudden, we hit that little piece of pit, which just ruins the experience, the item, in its entirety. Most of it is good. It was a really good hot dog or a really good olive. It is that small piece that ruins the item in its entirety. It is the same with Liberal legislation.

Liberals say it is for the good of Canadians. They say they want us to work together. It is not true. There is always, with the Liberal government, a poison pill. We see this as well within Bill C-9. We can support Canadians being safe in their places of worship. We want Canadians to be free to go to their places of worship, to be able to worship who they want, how they want and when they want. We absolutely support that within Bill C-9.

We cannot support the criminalization of merely offensive speech. We cannot leave up for interpretation what is motivated by hatred. We cannot condemn Canadians for speaking their utmost and sacred truths. Apparently, we, the elected representatives, can be silenced for attempting to stand up for and defend those who agree with us in these sentiments. That is shameful.