Debates of April 13th, 2026

Lawful Access Act, 2026

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

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

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

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

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

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

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

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

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

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

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

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

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member's time has expired.

The hon. member for Drummond.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sima Acan, Liberal, Oakville West, ON]

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

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

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

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

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

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

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

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

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