House of Commons Hansard #101 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was information.

Topics

line drawing of robot

This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.

An Act to Amend the Criminal Code Report stage of Bill C-225. The bill, commonly known as Bailey's Law, amends the Criminal Code to address intimate partner violence. It proposes that intimate partner homicide occurring within a pattern of coercive control constitutes first-degree murder. Members from all parties express their support for the bill following productive committee amendments, emphasizing a collective commitment to protecting victims and strengthening legal responses to domestic abuse. 7900 words, 1 hour.

Lawful Access Act, 2026 Second reading of Bill C-22. The bill proposes a modernized lawful access framework to help police investigate digital crimes. Liberals argue these tools are essential for protecting Canadian communities, while Conservative critics express concerns regarding privacy and constitutional reach. The Bloc Québécois questions if the legislation sufficiently protects individual rights, specifically noting potential oversight deficiencies. While all parties acknowledge the need to combat digital crime, contentious debate remains regarding the balance between enhanced investigative powers and citizen privacy. 40400 words, 5 hours in 2 segments: 1 2.

Statements by Members

Question Period

The Conservatives call on the government to suspend gas taxes to address rising fuel costs and provide relief for farmers. They criticize the Liberals for profiting from a generational windfall while Canadians struggle. They also demand protections for private property rights, raise a conflict of interest regarding rail investments, and highlight wasteful spending.
The Liberals emphasize lowering taxes for millions of Canadians while highlighting support for dental care and a groceries benefit. They focus on high-speed rail and a historic $51-billion infrastructure fund. Furthermore, they defend reconciliation efforts, asserting they maintain private property rights, and promote tax relief for local breweries and wineries.
The Bloc condemns the Finance Minister’s personal ties to Alto, criticizing Bill C-15 for granting the corporation special expropriation powers in Terrebonne. They argue the government is threatening property rights and undermining residents' confidence.
The NDP calls for a ban on predatory surveillance pricing to lower food costs for Canadians.

Petitions

Adjournment Debate - Housing Tamara Jansen and Jacob Mantle criticize the government’s failure to meet housing targets, arguing that skyrocketing costs and empty promises leave young Canadians behind. Wade Grant defends the Liberal record, citing billions in multi-year investments, new infrastructure projects, and the launch of the Build Canada Homes agency. 2600 words, 15 minutes.

Was this summary helpful and accurate?

Bill C-22 Lawful Access Act, 2026Government Orders

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

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?

Bill C-22 Lawful Access Act, 2026Government Orders

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

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—

Bill C-22 Lawful Access Act, 2026Government Orders

3:35 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker Tom Kmiec

I have to interrupt the member to continue.

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

Bill C-22 Lawful Access Act, 2026Government Orders

3:35 p.m.

Bloc

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?

Bill C-22 Lawful Access Act, 2026Government Orders

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

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.

Bill C-22 Lawful Access Act, 2026Government Orders

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

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?

Bill C-22 Lawful Access Act, 2026Government Orders

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

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.

Bill C-22 Lawful Access Act, 2026Government Orders

3:40 p.m.

La Prairie—Atateken Québec

Liberal

Jacques Ramsay LiberalParliamentary 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.

Bill C-22 Lawful Access Act, 2026Government Orders

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

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—

Bill C-22 Lawful Access Act, 2026Government Orders

3:40 p.m.

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.

Bill C-22 Lawful Access Act, 2026Government Orders

3:40 p.m.

Bloc

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?

Bill C-22 Lawful Access Act, 2026Government Orders

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

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.

Bill C-22 Lawful Access Act, 2026Government Orders

3:40 p.m.

La Prairie—Atateken Québec

Liberal

Jacques Ramsay LiberalParliamentary 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.

Bill C-22 Lawful Access Act, 2026Government Orders

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

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.

Bill C-22 Lawful Access Act, 2026Government Orders

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

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.

Bill C-22 Lawful Access Act, 2026Government Orders

3:50 p.m.

Bloc

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.

Bill C-22 Lawful Access Act, 2026Government Orders

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

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—

Bill C-22 Lawful Access Act, 2026Government Orders

3:50 p.m.

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.

Bill C-22 Lawful Access Act, 2026Government Orders

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

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.

Bill C-22 Lawful Access Act, 2026Government Orders

3:55 p.m.

Willowdale Ontario

Liberal

Ali Ehsassi LiberalParliamentary 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.

Bill C-22 Lawful Access Act, 2026Government Orders

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

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—

Bill C-22 Lawful Access Act, 2026Government Orders

3:55 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker Tom Kmiec

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

Bill C-22 Lawful Access Act, 2026Government Orders

3:55 p.m.

Eglinton—Lawrence Ontario

Liberal

Vince Gasparro LiberalParliamentary 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.

Bill C-22 Lawful Access Act, 2026Government Orders

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

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.

Bill C-22 Lawful Access Act, 2026Government Orders

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

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.