Mr. Speaker, as always, it is a privilege and honour to speak on behalf of the great citizens of my riding, particularly on an important bill such as this. As a former member of the justice system, I know the great difficulty that law enforcement has had. Unfortunately, Canada has been an outlier in how efficiently law enforcement can gain access to information. Ultimately, the bill is a step in the right direction, but certainly much improvement is required.
I will start off with the general notion that Canadians expect their government to do two things well. Canadians expect it to, number one, keep them safe and, number two, protect their fundamental rights and freedoms. In today's world, that balance is becoming increasingly complex. We know that crime is evolving, technology is advancing and law enforcement is facing new challenges in accessing the evidence it needs to investigate serious offences.
No one in the House disputes that reality, but Canadians also expect that, when governments respond to those challenges, they do so carefully and not in a rushed manner. They will do it responsibly and with a clear understanding of the consequences. Unfortunately, that has not been the standard approach of the government. Time and again over the last 11 years, we have seen legislation from the Liberal government that is rushed, is poorly thought out and ultimately fails to strike the right balance between public safety and individual liberties.
Conservatives have always believed, and will always believe, in law and order. We have always stood for measures that keep Canadians safe while respecting the fundamental rights and freedoms that are enshrined in our charter and define our country. I know that Liberals often talk about being the only party that stands on behalf of the charter, but that is not the case. For nearly a decade now, we have been urging the government to get this balance right.
Unfortunately, what Canadians have seen instead is a pattern of failure, a pattern where the government lags behind evolving threats, introduces flawed legislation, and then expects Parliament to clean up its mess. We saw that just last fall when it introduced Bill C-2. That piece of legislation fell well short of protecting Canadians, while at the same time it overreached into areas that raise serious concerns about individual freedoms and privacy. Conservatives did our job. We pushed back, and we forced the government to reconsider that flawed piece of legislation. We successfully blocked provisions that would have infringed on the rights of law-abiding Canadians.
Now, with Bill C-22, we are once again being asked to consider a lawful access framework. Let me be abundantly clear that there is a real issue here. As someone who has spent close to two decades in the legal system, I understand first-hand how critical timely access to digital evidence is in modern investigations. Today's criminals do not operate in the same world as they did 20 or 30 years ago. They are always several steps ahead of law enforcement. As a result, our law enforcement agencies must have the appropriate tools they need to keep pace.
We know that delays in accessing basic subscriber information will often stall investigations. Quite often that is the difference between making an arrest and not. We know that gaps in international co-operation can allow serious offenders to evade accountability. We know that technological limitations can prevent police from acting on leads that protect victims.
These are the real challenges, and they deserve real solutions. The question before us is not whether action is needed. The question is whether the Liberal government can be trusted to get it right, because over the last 11 years its track record suggests otherwise. As I have indicated, we have seen legislation that is rushed, overly broad and insufficiently thought through. We have seen measures that go either too far, risking Canadians' rights, or simply not far enough, failing to deliver real public safety concerns.
Bill C-22 reintroduces elements from Bill C-2, and that alone demands careful scrutiny. Conservatives will not simply take the government at its word. We will examine the details, test the assumptions and ensure that any new powers are justified, targeted and subject to proper oversight, because Canadians have already seen what happens when the Liberal government rushes ahead without regard for Canadians' privacy. The invocation of the Emergencies Act is but one example.
In Bill C-2, the Liberals tried to give themselves sweeping, unjustified access to personal information without the appropriate safeguards and without respect for the fundamental rights of law-abiding Canadians. In fact, the Privacy Commissioner confirmed that the government did not even consult his office before attempting to grant itself these sweeping new powers to access Canadians' personal information from service providers like banks and telecommunications companies without a warrant. Conservatives stood up, pushed back and forced the Liberals to retreat.
Now, with Bill C-22, Canadians are right to be cautious. Any expansion of state power, whether through lower legal thresholds, new data demands or broad retention requirements, must be tightly limited, clearly justified and subject to real oversight. We will never accept a repeat of the same overreach simply dressed up in new language. We must ensure that any lowering of legal thresholds does not come at the expense of Canadians' fundamental rights. We must ensure that data retention requirements, particularly those that apply broadly, are necessary, proportionate and consistent with the charter. We also must ensure that any obligations placed on service providers are clear and reasonable and do not create any unintended consequences for innovation or privacy.
This is especially important given the scope of this bill, which creates a new framework governing how electronic service providers must support lawful access. These provisions raise complex legal and technical questions. They involve requirements for data retention, technical capabilities and compliance mechanisms that could have far-reaching implications. While the government argues that this is necessary to modernize our investigative framework, we must ensure that we are not creating a system that overreaches or lacks sufficient accountability.
At the same time, we simply cannot ignore the broader context. Public safety and, I would add, trust in our federal institutions and in our democracy have been deteriorating.
Canadians are seeing rising violent crime, repeat offenders cycling through the system and a growing sense that the justice system is not working for them. In fact, many victims do not even refer anymore to “the Canadian justice system”. They do not see it as justice for them, as they have been ignored for over 11 years. They see it simply as a legal system. At the same time, we have seen failures in basic areas of law enforcement capacity. We have all read and seen reports that the RCMP has struggled to recruit enough officers to meet operational needs. We have seen gaps in resources, coordination and leadership.
Therefore, when the government brings forward legislation like Bill C-22, Canadians are right to ask if this is part of a coherent plan to improve public safety or if it is another isolated measure that fails to address the root problems. Tools alone are not enough. We need the people, the resources and the leadership to make those tools effective.
Conservatives believe in giving police the tools they need, but we also believe in accountability. We believe in getting that balance right, and we believe that any legislation must be clear, targeted and respectful of Canadian rights. That is why we will be carefully reviewing the bill. We will listen to experts. We will hear from law enforcement and consider the views of civil liberty organizations. We will do the work necessary to ensure that any final legislation reflects the interests of Canadians, not the political priorities of the Liberal government.
Canadians deserve to be safe. They deserve a justice system that works, and they deserve a government that gets it right the first time. Unfortunately, that has not been the trademark of the Liberal government. That is why it falls to this House to do the necessary hard work of scrutiny, accountability and improvement. Conservatives will continue to stand for common-sense solutions that protect Canadians' safety, their privacy and their fundamental freedoms. We will scrutinize the legislation carefully. We will insist on the right balance, one that protects public safety while safeguarding the privacy and freedoms of law-abiding Canadians, because Canadians should never have to choose between being safe and being free.
I want to highlight some of the stakeholder reactions that I have been able to access so far with respect to Bill C-22.
Law enforcement clearly welcomes Bill C-22 as a needed change to the legal frameworks for warrants and searches in Canada, for timely information gathering. The legal profession is skeptical of the bill. While they welcome the amendments from Bill C-2, they are doubtful of its efficacy and of the charter compliance contained in part 2. The business community acknowledges the need for modern law enforcement but is wary of higher regulatory burdens and the impact on innovation and encryption. Civil liberty groups strongly oppose the bill.
This is by no means an exhaustive list. Some examples of groups that support the bill would be the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the BC Association of Chiefs of Police, and the B.C. public safety minister, Nina Krieger. Those who have mixed opinions on the bill and who seek amendment include the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, Dr. Michael Geist, the Canadian Bar Association and Dr. Robert Diab, professor of law at Thompson Rivers University.
Those who flat out oppose this piece of legislation include the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, the BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association, the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms and the Yanik Guillemette technology and entrepreneurship industry.
I will give members a flavour of some of the comments from these three groups. A passage from the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, which opposes the bill, reads, “This legislation presents one of the greatest threats to privacy in Canada of the past two decades.” The changes from Bill C-2 to Bill C-22 do not go “far enough” in addressing the charter compliance concerns with Bill C-2. Bill C-22 adds a “data retention provision...that raises...additional privacy concerns.”
Those who support the bill include the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, which sees this legislation as “intended to modernize Canada's lawful access regime” and improve its “ability to investigate crime and protect the public in the digital age.”
It continues:
...investigators often rely on digital evidence to identify suspects, locate victims, and prevent further harm. Today, many of these crimes are...committed using digital platforms or encrypted communications.
Canada's legal framework governing warrants, searches, and seizures was created [for an analog] world [and] allows offenders to [evade] accountability.
...The results [of Bill C-22] will be more investigations solved in a timely manner, a less cumbersome process, and a strong lawful access framework that maintains the data privacy of Canadians.
Those with mixed opinion include the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. Businesses understand that “Canada needs modern tools to fight crime”, but they recognize that “strong encryption and consumer privacy are fundamental for our economic and national security.” They want to see Bill C-22 provide “surgical, proportionate” tools to law enforcement.
Another mixed opinion is from Dr. Michael Geist. He says that Bill C-22 significantly improves the timely access to data and information, which was in part 1 of Bill C-2, while worsening the privacy concerns in part 2 of the new bill, but transforming the way that governments will interact with digital platforms and communication providers. He also says that the new “confirmation of service” demand power in part 1 addresses a long-standing police complaint regarding timely access to information, and part 2 covers “new requirements for communications providers to actively work with law enforcement on their surveillance and monitoring capabilities.... The government will point to increased oversight [through the Intelligence Commissioner], but the concerns regarding surveillance capabilities, security vulnerabilities, secrecy, and cross-border data sharing remain.”
A mixed opinion comes from the Canadian Bar Association, which says that while Bill C-22 “narrows the...powers from C-2 and increases some oversight, it also expands international cooperation in law enforcement.” Part 2 of the bill is seen as disastrous in their opinion, opening back doors for CSIS and the police to “get real-time access to their information”. Further, “systematic vulnerabilities are not defined [as specifically] as they are in Australia”, despite the bill including language that requires that the government not introduce “systemic vulnerabilities into these systems”.
I see I am almost out of time, so I will end at this point.