Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Members of the committee, thank you very much for inviting me to appear today. I'm pleased to be here to discuss Bill C‑22.
This is an important, complex and sensitive piece of legislation. It touches on public safety, privacy, cybersecurity, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the actual ability of police officers and members of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service to do their jobs in a digital world.
This debate is not merely technical; it's a societal debate. How do we protect Canadians from child sexual exploitation, fraud, extortion, terrorism and espionage, while safeguarding the fundamental rights that define our democracy? In my view, these objectives are not contradictory; they're complementary. Government access to information must be lawful, necessary, proportionate, clearly authorized and subject to effective accountability.
I served as the first chair of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, and that experience left a deep impression on me. It taught me two things. First, security and law enforcement agencies need modern tools. Second, these tools must be governed by clear legislation, an independent oversight body and Parliament.
That is why I strongly support the need for a lawful access bill. The digital world has changed the nature of investigations. Criminals, hostile states and sophisticated networks use technologies that simply didn't exist when many of our investigative tools were designed. Canada desperately needs a modern legal framework, but it must be a Canadian-made framework. It has to be compliant with our charter, privacy-protective, technologically realistic and subject to meaningful oversight.
I was pleased to assist in the consultation process following Bill C-2. I met separately with stakeholders from law enforcement, national security, industry, civil society, academia and privacy communities. In my view, bringing them together in one room was a very positive experience. People disagreed, sometimes strongly, but the process was meaningful. I believe my report reflects the range of perspectives accurately.
I was also pleased that the vast majority of my recommendations found their way into Bill C-22. The bill is now stand-alone. The information demand has been narrowed and reframed as a confirmation of service demand. The bill includes greater attention to oversight, transparency, cybersecurity and parliamentary review. That does not mean the bill is perfect. No bill ever is. The minister has said he is open to amendments, and I take that seriously. As a former member of Parliament, I have great respect for the work of parliamentary committees like this one. This is where legislation can be improved and made more durable.
In my respectful view, the task before you is not to choose between privacy and public safety; it's to insist on both. The bill should preserve operational effectiveness while protecting privacy, charter values and cybersecurity. It should protect privileged, medical and highly sensitive information. It should ensure that any new powers are used properly, by properly trained officials, and reviewed after a reasonable period.
I would particularly encourage this committee to focus on five issues: the clarity of the confirmation of service demand, the definition of systemic vulnerability, the role of the intelligence commissioner and NSIRA, transparency and annual reporting, and a mandatory parliamentary review after three years.
Finally, I believe the purpose of this legislation should be made plain. State access to information for investigative purposes must be lawful, necessary, proportionate and subject to effective authorization and accountability, consistent with the charter and Canada's privacy laws.
Thank you again for inviting me, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to your questions.