Debates of April 15th, 2026

Lawful Access Act, 2026

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the work he has put in, and for his advocacy on behalf of his citizens and, of course, all Canadians when it comes to matters of public safety.

The reality is that this bill works precisely within the limitations of the law. It works within the instructions of the court and ensures that the rights of Canadians are protected. That includes their privacy rights. It includes ensuring that the appropriate information is or is not disclosed within the bounds of what is acceptable in this country.

I would argue that one of the challenges we will always have in dealing with legislation like this is the question of whether seeking perfection is preventing us from getting done what is necessary and right in this moment. I believe this bill addresses those concerns and the concerns of my friend across. He should feel confident, as should Canadians, in this response from the government.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a very simple question. Upon reading the bill, some lawyers who specialize in privacy protection said that they had a bit of a problem with the definition of essential service providers, who may be subject to injunctions relating to technical capabilities for lawful access. That would be done through regulation, which is a major problem.

Does my colleague agree that we need to carefully review the definition of essential service providers?

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the law is clear in that regard. We need to create an environment where service providers must work with and help law enforcement in a way that respects the law.

As the member opposite knows, it is important to make sure these definitions are clear and correct. This bill does that. It makes sure that the folks who are in the positions to provide that information, the service providers, know exactly what their responsibilities are and, within the constructs, are able to do the work and have the capacity to do what is required to address the needs of local police.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this bill represents progress. First, Bill C-2 was introduced. Then, in light of the feedback we received from members, we went back to the drawing board to redraft the proposed legislation, seeking as much consensus as possible. Consultations were then held with all political parties in an effort to reach that consensus.

Does my colleague believe that Bill C-22 accurately reflects the discussions that we had with all parliamentarians?

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, this bill represents exactly that. It reflects the changing reality that we are currently facing. This bill is designed to protect rights while providing responsible support to law enforcement in a digital environment that has become very complex. It reflects both the desire and the need to take significant yet responsible action for Canadians.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to this bill, which is very important for the safety of Canadians and for Canada's role on the international stage.

Usually, when I give a speech, I like to speak off the cuff, relying on only a few notes. However, I will not do that today for two reasons. First, as a member of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, I have several obligations, including the obligation not to disclose certain information that I am made aware of in the course of my work. Second, this issue is very relevant to the work of the committee of parliamentarians, which is made up of parliamentarians from all political parties in the House and the Senate. I am therefore going to be very focused and read my speech just to make sure that I do say anything that I should not.

The world around us is becoming increasingly digital and networked, and much of our day-to-day business, means of communication and overall lives relies on the Internet. I do not have to tell my colleagues about all of our different devices, which I will not use as a prop, such as smart phones, emails and the like, and instant messaging applications. All these things easily and instantly transcend provincial, national and international borders.

Unfortunately, this equally means that malicious actors like organized crime groups and violent extremists can explore this borderless nature of cyberspace for their own benefit. Canada's law enforcement agencies and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service need modern tools to help keep communities and Canadians safe. Therefore, we must close the capability gap in current legislation that prevents law enforcement's and CSIS's lawful access to data and ensure they can properly execute their mandates and protect Canadians.

Canada maintains an international reputation as a safe and peaceful country. To sustain this reputation, we must ensure that our legislation keeps pace with modern threats and technologies used in criminal and malicious activities.

“Lawful access” is a term we will hear a lot in association with this bill, and let us be very clear about what it means. Lawful access includes the tools and authorities to legally obtain certain information, data or communication during investigations. This information is often essential to generating leads on serious criminal activities and national security threats, as well as identifying and prosecuting those involved.

For decades, law enforcement and CSIS have had to operate without a legal framework requiring electronic service providers, or, as I will refer to them, ESPs, to develop and maintain lawful access capabilities. The current legal framework has not kept up with rapid advances in technology. Frankly, our laws are very much like me: They are analog in a digital world. This is the reason we have developed Bill C-22, which aims to facilitate law enforcement's and CSIS's timely access to basic subscriber information. I would like to make sure we understand it would be basic information. This is important because law enforcement and intelligence investigators need basic subscriber information, like a legal name or an address, to identify or exclude suspects, particularly during the preliminary stages of an investigation.

Bill C-22 would also establish a general legal framework to require electronic service providers to have the capability to respond to legally authorized requests, like a warrant or a production order, while respecting and protecting privacy interests and fundamental rights that all Canadians expect.

Bill C-22 would introduce provisions to support law enforcement agencies as they crack down on crime in an increasingly complex technological landscape, where the vast majority of evidence is online and in an electronic format. Law enforcement groups have sounded the alarm on the obstacles they encounter during investigations. They have sounded this alarm for years. Currently, law enforcement faces many challenges in obtaining the information it needs. Often, law enforcement does not know which service provider holds the customer account associated with the subscriber information, which also means it does not know who to serve with a production order. This challenge presently stalls and delays real-world investigations.

In many cases, law enforcement is required to seek multiple judicial authorizations to seek very basic information from different service providers, solely to confirm which provider services a phone number or an IP address. The current framework causes significant, unnecessary and harmful delays. Timely access to this basic information is crucial in all stages of an investigation and can spell the difference between securing key evidence and allowing criminals to slip through our fingers.

As another example, police could be aware that a provider holds certain information, but the company is unable to provide it because its systems do not possess the capability to do so and there is no legal requirement to carry such capabilities. We have heard many stories of law enforcement tracking a missing child or attempting to stop a terrorist attack, knowing which ESP to obtain the information from but being stonewalled by the provider's lack of lawful access capabilities. We cannot hope to fully protect Canadians and our communities if law enforcement and CSIS are unable to do their jobs. What is more, Canada may not be able to contribute meaningfully to joint investigations with its international partners or fully benefit from the support that our international partners provide to us. My colleague the parliamentary secretary spoke at length about this.

For this reason, Bill C-22 introduces new legislation to close this gap, whereby certain electronic service providers would need to develop and maintain the technological capabilities to respond to production orders. To be clear, this aspect of the legislation intentionally and explicitly would not allow for a so-called back door or any direct access for law enforcement or CSIS into electronic service providers' systems, and the legal authority to access that information would still always be required.

Bill C-22 proposes two ways by which an ESP could be asked to develop and maintain lawful access capabilities. First, those designated as core providers, such as traditional telecommunications companies, would have to abide by specific requirements set out in the regulations. Second, the Minister of Public Safety could issue a ministerial order to develop specific capabilities based on operational needs as new technologies develop.

We have heard the concerns from parliamentarians and stakeholders around privacy and oversight, and I want to reassure Canadians. I am actually very proud of the fact that the government took back this bill, listened carefully and amended it in ways to address the concerns that were raised. Bill C-22 now includes safeguards so that ESPs would not have to abide by any demands that would introduce systemic vulnerabilities in electronic protections, such as encryption breaking or what I called a “back door”. The bill would also require that the Minister of Public Safety obtain the approval of the intelligence commissioner before a ministerial order is valid, and it could be subject to further review by the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, or NSIRA.

Bill C-22 is about removing harmful barriers that impede active investigations, delay justice and put Canadians in harm's way. This is about bringing our legislation up to date, finally, with modern technologies and with that of our closest allies. This is about ensuring that extortionists, child predators, cybercriminals, hostile state actors and organized criminal networks would have nowhere to hide.

This is a responsible bill that would make the necessary changes, and I hope all members can see their way to support it.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intent of the bill and what the government is trying to accomplish, but there are a lot of concerns from Canadians about, perhaps, overreach by the government and about privacy.

I brought this up previously. There is a provision in the bill for parliamentary review after three years. We have an Order Paper question that just came back a couple of months ago that shows the government is behind on 106 legislative reviews. I have mentioned some of them. It appears the government is not actually performing the legislative reviews.

I am wondering if my colleague opposite can advise the House and Canadians on what would be done to ensure that this review would be done within the three years, as would be mandated.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member from the Edmonton area for raising this issue. It is a very important issue and one that I fully support, and I understand what he is bringing up.

I know, for example, that the NSICOP Act is behind in its five-year review. I can assure the hon. member that I would be happy to work in partnership with him and others to ensure that this review does happen. I will also commit to working with the member on these issues. This is not easily arrived at, in terms of Bill C-22. To ensure that Canadians have confidence in it, we do have to make sure that it has those reviews in that time. I would be happy to work with the member, and he has my full commitment to do so.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since my colleague serves on the national security committee, can he tell me why the government is granting our law enforcement and intelligence agencies more power in this bill while also cutting the budget of the agency responsible for overseeing them?

The National Security and Intelligence Review Agency's budget was slashed by 15% in the name of cost-cutting measures that can only be described as penny-pinching, when this is a very important issue.

Can my colleague from Hull—Aylmer explain that?

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Shefford for her very relevant question. We introduced this bill to give our national security and intelligence agencies new tools, modern tools, they could use to conduct investigations and protect Canadians.

That does not mean that we are going to be spending money the same way as before. We can take advantage of these new tools. Rather than using paper and sorting through paper files, we can use modern tools to do the work, making it much more efficient and effective.

I think that is one way of making sure that we are protecting Canadians.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his great speech on Bill C-22. There are two aspects of this bill that my constituents have raised with me. One is about acknowledging that law enforcement agencies need to have these tools in order to conduct themselves effectively to protect our communities and society. The second aspect of it is about privacy and ensuring that persons like me, and the member as well, have the opportunity to just be a Canadian citizen and not be targeted based on what they look like or the religion they practise.

Perhaps the member can help reinforce that this would be a fair bill and a fair opportunity, in the tools that would be presented to law enforcement, while also making sure that people's constitutional rights and their privacy would be protected.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member has done work in this field, and I thank her for her work.

The best way to make sure that she is protected, I am protected and everyone here is protected is to not cast a wide net. This is why there are some safeguards in this bill, for example, making sure that there would be judicial reviews of these orders and having ministerial orders approved by an officer of Parliament, the intelligence commissioner. These are safeguards that are built into this bill to ensure that there would not be any excesses, as the member rightfully would be concerned about.

I have great confidence that people doing their jobs properly will make sure that we avoid, as we say in French, des débordements.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, every time I rise to speak when you are in the chair, I know you have some fun pronouncing the name of my riding, as it is quite a mouthful for any chair occupant. You did a great job of pronouncing it.

As the Bloc Québécois critic for public safety and emergency preparedness, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-22. It is important to note that the government already tried once to introduce a bill on lawful access. That was Bill C-2, which was introduced last June, nearly a year ago. Bill C-2 was severely criticized, not only by civil society, but also by major organizations, which argued that the bill made no sense.

I understand that the government worked very quickly, although perhaps not responsibly enough, because it also wanted to please the American government, especially President Trump, who was threatening Canada at the time. To respond quickly, the government drafted a bill hastily without conducting all of the consultations necessary to produce a high-quality piece of legislation.

Today we are debating Bill C-22, which builds on the principles of Bill C-2 but is much more comprehensive and much better crafted, because the government sat down at the table with various groups and consulted with them. There are some groups that say they were not consulted and would have liked to be, but it does seem like the work got done. However, there is still more to do.

We cannot necessarily oppose Bill C-22, because we know that as soon as it gets its majority, the government will take steps to have Bill C-22 studied in committee and passed. I am well aware of that. However, I was truly delighted with the minister's response today. I was satisfied. He told me that he was still open to amendments. We have ideas stemming from our own consultations, and it is still possible to improve Bill C-22. I was really pleased to hear the Minister of Public Safety answer yes to my question about whether he was open to amendments. That is to his credit, because I believe he really wants the best possible bill to achieve his objectives, namely public safety and privacy protection.

I could not help but say “mon Dieu”. I was tempted to say “my God” but I will not say that. It occurs to me that, if the government had been in a majority position last June, Bill C‑2 would have passed, which would have been very bad. That brings me to what the opposition can offer whether the government has a minority or a majority. When the work is taken seriously and is carried out professionally and diligently, our role is to help improve a bill by listening to experts and asking questions.

Bill C‑22 does have some privacy safeguards that were missing from Bill C‑2. However, are they enough? We are going to be asking questions about that. We still have a lot of questions on this matter.

As a reminder, “Part 1 amends various Acts to modernize certain provisions respecting the timely gathering and production of data and information during an investigation.” It amends the Criminal Code and the Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act. It amends the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act to allow the Minister of Justice to authorize the enforcement in Canada of foreign orders requiring the disclosure of transmission data or information. It amends the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Cannabis Act.

In other words, this bill amends quite a few existing statutes, so an in-depth study is needed. I have no doubt the bill will go to committee, and I am eager to see how it will be handled now that the government has a majority. I heard the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons call for collaboration and openness. I heard the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety talk about how open they are. I look forward to witnessing that if the bill gets the support it needs to go to committee.

Part 2 of the bill provides further details on how access to information will be granted and regulated, and so it creates a new law. Naturally, Part 3, as is almost always the case in bills from this Parliament, indicates that Parliament must review the legislation three years after the law comes into force. It is true: Parliament will need to take the time, take this seriously and review this legislation three years after it receives royal assent. In fact, the Bloc Québécois proposed such a review for Bill C-8 on cybersecurity. We made that proposal because cybersecurity, cyber-attacks and basically the entire digital landscape are evolving so rapidly that bills can quickly become outdated given the circumstances, the technologies involved and the ingenuity of unscrupulous individuals seeking to attack our critical systems. This is therefore a task that will require collaboration, and I look forward to our work in committee.

I can assure you that, if the bill makes it to committee, we in the Bloc Québécois will work on it with the utmost seriousness and rigour. That is why I was a little offended when the Prime Minister said that now that the Liberals have a majority, it is time to get serious. I have always taken my role as an opposition member seriously and have always taken a constructive approach. Quite frankly, I do not really fit the mould of someone who obstructs or refuses to co-operate, and I have plenty of examples to prove it.

I think the members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security are exemplary. We studied Bill C-12 and Bill C-8, important government bills that required significant and professional contributions from the opposition parties. I will say it again: It bothered me when the Prime Minister said that now that the Liberals have a majority, the serious work can begin. It is a nice sound bite, but it could be offensive to certain members who take their work very seriously.

We do have some minor concerns about Bill C‑22. Some concerns are more significant than others. In particular, there is the whole issue of the definition of essential services. I think that needs to be clarified. We also have a problem with everything that can be changed by way of regulation. We look forward to hearing from experts, if the bill is ever sent to committee, to see how we can limit those elements that will be set through regulation and establish them in the legislation instead. I look forward to hearing the arguments.

I want to raise another point. When we compare ourselves to the Five Eyes, people always say that Canada lags behind. There was plenty of testimony at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to this effect, and I believe it too. However, some aspects of Bill C‑22 are more invasive than they are in the other Five Eyes countries. For example, Australia has an organization similar to the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, or the NSIRA. However, the Australian organization has a more important role than the role given to the NSIRA in the context of Bill C‑22.

I hope my colleagues understand that it is with a constructive approach that we will continue to debate Bill C‑22 and try to understand how we can improve it. Accordingly, I think the minister and his team can count on the usual co-operation from the Bloc Québécois.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear that my colleague sees Bill C-22 as a step in the right direction. I understand that she expects it to be referred to committee soon for the next steps in the legislative process. I also see that she has studied the bill thoroughly and understands it very well.

I would like my colleague to tell us what she thinks are the main improvements in this new legislative framework that is going to be implemented.

She mentioned that Canada is the only Five Eyes country that does not have a legal framework governing access for our law enforcement agencies. This was a request made by various police forces. I would like her to explain how this constitutes a step forward for keeping Canadians safer, especially given that we know today's criminals use many different technologies.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would say that one of the biggest improvements has been the introduction of guardrails, since Bill C‑2 had none. There is a process to follow in order to access data. That process is what may be open to criticism. Some people think it is sufficient, but others do not. I imagine that the issue will be debated further here in the House. If the bill passes this stage and gets to committee, experts will have provide their input on the matter.

What we have a hard time understanding is the fact that the minister and law enforcement are being given more authority. It surprises me that the only agency whose primary mission is to monitor the RCMP and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service is being weakened. As things stand, eight positions have already been eliminated after 15% of its budget was slashed. In my opinion, this seems a little inconsistent with things the government is telling us about lawful access to information.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague and friend for her extremely thorough speech. It highlights her deep dedication to her work.

She brought up comparisons to the Five Eyes and to things being done in other countries. She also said that there would be some leeway for the committee to improve this bill. She touched on a few topics.

Can she give us a few ideas, other than the ones she mentioned in her speech, about possible improvements to this bill?

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, who always asks such good, pertinent questions. I have great respect for my colleague from Joliette—Manawan.

I would say that if we were to suggest one thing, it would be that the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency should be notified in real time of any orders to access private information. Right now, the plan is for it to receive the report one year after the fact. This would make it difficult for the agency to investigate in real time. In Australia, this type of oversight body is notified in real time, as is the privacy commissioner.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think we all share the genuine desire to ensure that law enforcement has the appropriate tools to deal with crime and criminals in the digital age. That Canada is behind its peers, who are doing this, is really an indictment of the government. The Liberals have been in power 10 years and they have chosen not to address this issue until now.

That said, just because we are in the digital age and it presents challenges, that does not mean we must abandon the liberties and freedoms that this House is meant to protect, and Bill C-22, in my view, presents many concerns in that respect. I am particularly concerned about the government's ability to compel private enterprise to build systems, maintain information about Canadians and do so in secret.

I would like to ask my colleague whether she shares any of those concerns from Canadians and how she proposes to deal with them.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yes, we share some of those concerns.

One concern I would like to highlight involves the government's decision to lower the threshold for obtaining information. It opted for the least stringent threshold. Access would be granted if there are reasonable grounds to suspect, rather than the higher threshold of reasonable grounds to believe. That may be worth amending or, at the very least, seriously discussing here in the House.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-22 is the federal government's attempt to finally establish a Canadian lawful access regime after years of inaction. There is no doubt that law enforcement and national security agencies face real challenges in the digital world. Criminals involved in organized crime, child exploitation and human trafficking increasingly use encrypted services, burner phones and foreign-based platforms to hide their identities and evade justice. Conservatives have long recognized the need to give police the tools required to pursue criminals effectively.

However, while Bill C-22 addresses some genuine operational gaps, it also raises serious concerns about civil liberties, proportionality and ministerial overreach. As drafted, the bill risks trading Canadians' privacy and constitutional protections for administrative convenience while failing to meaningfully address the most urgent public safety issues facing the country.

My first point is that faster access comes at the cost of lower thresholds. At the heart of Bill C-22 is a deliberate shift toward faster and easier access to digital information. The bill introduces new confirmation of service demands, production orders for subscriber information and clarified emergency seizure powers, many of which operate on the low standard of “reasonable grounds to suspect” rather than “reasonable grounds to believe”. Subscriber information under this bill is defined broadly, including names, addresses, email accounts, device identifiers and service history. In the modern context, this information can reveal detailed personal profiles and social connections. Lowering the evidentiary threshold for accessing this data risks normalizing surveillance at early investigative stages without sufficient justification or safeguards. While judicial oversight technically remains in place for most tools, the cumulative effect is a system where access is easier, quicker and more routine, even when the intrusion into privacy could be significant.

My second point is about the expansion of warrantless and voluntary disclosure powers. Bill C-22 codifies and expands the ability of police and public officers to obtain information without warrants in exigent circumstances. While true emergencies justify flexibility, the bill's language does risk stretching “impracticability” beyond genuine urgency and into administrative expediency.

Even more concerning is the bill's broad reliance on voluntary disclosure. Telecommunications companies and other service providers are explicitly encouraged to hand over information voluntarily, including unsolicited information or data required under foreign law, with full immunity from civil or criminal liability. This effectively creates, or could create, a parallel system of access outside traditional judiciary scrutiny. Canadians should not have their personal information transferred to the state simply because a company decides it is expedient or risk-free to comply in certain circumstances.

My third concern is that secrecy and delayed notice could weaken accountability. Bill C-22 entrenches secrecy as a core feature of lawful access. Non-disclosure orders can prevent service providers from revealing that they have been compelled to co-operate. In some cases, notice to affected individuals may be delayed for up to three years, with possible extensions. This erosion of transparency undermines meaningful accountability. Canadians whose data is accessed may never know it happened, making charter challenges or judicial remedies largely theoretical. Oversight that occurs only after the fact and primarily within government institutions cannot substitute for timely notice and real recourse.

My fourth point is about ministerial powers and burdens on service providers. Part 2 of the bill, the supporting authorized access to information act, introduces a new regulatory regime imposing obligations on electronic service providers. The government may designate core providers, such as a cellphone company, and require them to build and maintain technical surveillance capabilities, retain metadata for up to one year, and assist in testing access systems, all at their own expense. While the bill claims to prohibit mandatory back doors and systematic vulnerabilities, the scope of ministerial discretion remains extremely broad. Individualized ministerial orders are confidential, shielded from public scrutiny, and only reviewed for reasonableness by the intelligence commissioner. This framework risks imposing compliance costs, stifling innovation and concentrating powers in the hands of our executive.

My fifth point is that the bill fails to address Canada's real public safety crisis. Perhaps most troubling is what Bill C-22 would not do: It would do nothing to address catch-and-release bail, sentencing leniency or the lack of mandatory prison time for fentanyl traffickers and violent gang members. Canadians continue to face rising violent crime, organized theft and drug trafficking, problems driven not by lack of data but by judicial and policy failures. The government's focus on digital access powers, while ignoring these other key aspects of our criminal justice system, reflects, in some cases, a few misplaced priorities.

Bill C-22 contains elements that Conservatives can support in principle and that I will be voting in favour of, particularly the goal of modernizing investigative tools, but as drafted, the bill would overreach in ways that could threaten civil liberties, weaken transparency and expand ministerial power, while failing to deliver real improvements to public safety in certain cases.

In a digital era, when metadata can be as revealing as content itself, the bill's cumulative effect risks putting Canada on a path to where lawful access becomes pervasive access. A more balanced approach would have raised access thresholds, narrowed voluntary disclosure, strengthened notice obligations and subjected the most privacy-intrusive powers to stricter, not looser, judicial control. For these reasons, I believe Conservatives should support the bill at second reading in order to send it to committee, but only with a clear expectation that amendments are required.

Any lawful access regime must strike a proper balance, equipping police to stop criminals while firmly protecting the rights and freedoms of law-abiding Canadians. I believe we can get there, and this is a step in the right direction, especially as it relates to vulnerable children and victims of human trafficking.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know that my colleague shares this side of the House's desire to equip police officers with tools for the 21st century. He also shares our concern, and it is clear that the other side does not, based on those members' actions, for the protection of civil liberties, including the privacy of Canadians. Of course, Bill C-22 raises severe concerns with respect to the invasion of the privacy of Canadians.

The member recommended it go to committee. Could he explain for me some of the things that we would like to see changed at committee?

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the most concerning thing is the requirement for blanket metadata retention. Under the bill, service providers could be forced to store vast quantities of Canadians' digital footprints for up to a year, regardless of suspicion and regardless of wrongdoing. I know in some cases that metadata can be utilized for nefarious purposes, and we need to make sure that the proper protocols are in place.

The House resumed from February 12 consideration of the motion that Bill S‑211, An Act respecting a national framework on sports betting advertising, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

National Framework on Sports Betting Advertising Act

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start my speech by pointing something out.

This is the 12th Senate bill to be debated in the House since the beginning of the 45th Parliament. In the Bloc Québécois's view, legislative work should be done by elected representatives. As such, members of the House of Commons should be the ones introducing bills, debating them and sending them to the Senate, which is how our system is set up. That is my opinion. I find it odd that this is now the 12th Senate bill to be debated in the House, considering that many of the elected members here have ideas for bills that we could debate, that could become law and that could, depending on one's point of view, improve society.

The order of precedence for private members' bills is determined by a draw. I may have a personal stake in this because my bill was the second last to be drawn for this Parliament. I am 258th on the list. If we continue to prioritize Senate bills, there is no chance a bill of mine will ever be studied here. I just wanted to point that out to the House before talking about Bill S‑211, which would regulate sports betting advertising.

The summary of the bill states the following: “This enactment provides for the development of a national framework to regulate sports betting advertising in Canada and to set national standards for the prevention of risk for persons negatively impacted.” It continues with the following: “It also provides for the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission to review its regulations and policies to assess their adequacy and effectiveness in reducing the incidence of harms resulting from the proliferation of sports betting advertising.” That second part is important, and I will come back to that.

The preamble states that “the proliferation of sports betting advertising and other forms of gambling activities has become pervasive in Canadian society”. That is a bit hyperbolic. It also states that “research has shown that increased exposure to advertising for gambling activities leads to increased participation in these gambling activities”.

I have worked in media and marketing for most of my life, and I can confirm that the purpose of advertising is to get people to buy more of the advertised product. It is only natural that the more advertising there is, the more people will be drawn to the product. That is how it works.

Bill S‑211 lists a number of things. Among them, it mentions “measures to regulate sports betting advertising in Canada, with a view to restricting the use of such advertising, limiting...the advertisements” and so on. It also mentions introducing measures to promote research, communication and information-sharing among the provinces related “to the prevention and diagnosis...of harmful gambling”. Quebec and the provinces have jurisdiction over this area, however. It further proposes establishing “national standards for the prevention of risk”. Once again, this involves the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces.

Although we do not support Bill S-211, we do not object to the spirit or intent of this legislation. We recognize the problematic nature of sports betting advertising and its effects on vulnerable clienteles, including the risk of developing a harmful gambling problem. We also recognize that this kind of situation deserves attention.

We also agree that it is up to the government to implement measures to restrict sports betting advertising. Specifically, it is clear to me that youth and minors must be protected from illegal online gaming practices. We completely agree that it is appropriate to regulate online gaming advertising, but we categorically reject the idea that Bill S‑211 will solve a problem or that the federal government is responsible for addressing this problem. Moreover, it is our firm belief that this bill violates the federal-provincial gaming agreement, which has been in effect since 1985 and gets the job done.

It is the provinces that oversee, administer, and regulate legalized gambling. Bill S-211 reflects a desire for standardization, but I think it would be a serious step backward. The current model allows Quebec and the provinces to make choices and implement policies that align with their visions, values, and local priorities.

For example, there are differences between Quebec and Ontario. Ontario has established Ontario iGaming, an organization that regulates online gaming and issues operating licenses to private companies.

In Quebec, it is the opposite. In Quebec, the law prohibits these operators from operating, and Loto-Québec runs a program called Mise-o-jeu, which holds a monopoly on online sports betting.

Despite all that, the law still allows bettors to use foreign platforms that are not prohibited, but are not regulated either. That is where the federal government could step in. That is where the federal government could do its job, mind its own business, and regulate what happens on the Internet, because that falls within its jurisdiction.

In 2016, Quebec tried to implement a bill, Bill 74. The idea was to block unauthorized online gambling sites. The bill aimed to force Internet service providers to adopt systems that would block gambling sites operated by foreign companies. However, the case was dismissed in superior court as unconstitutional, or something like that. It encroached on the federal government's jurisdiction. That means that Quebec cannot make laws that encroach on federal jurisdictions, but the federal government is welcome to interfere in Quebec's business as it pleases. At some point, it might be better off looking after its own affairs and minding its own business. I hear a melodious voice saying that this is one more reason for independence. It was none other than my colleague from Joliette—Manawan, and I completely agree.

In short, we are by no means opposed to the federal government amending regulations and getting involved in regulating online gambling, for example by regulating platforms and standing up to the tech giants. It seems as though the federal government is afraid to take action and get involved in this matter, too. Obviously, if Ottawa decides to regulate the presence of these foreign online gaming platforms, that would have to be done in consultation with Quebec and the provinces to ensure once again that it meets the needs of those responsible for regulating online gambling, namely Quebec and the provinces.

There is no one-size-fits-all approach for all of Canada for an issue like this. The system in place has worked well since 1985. The provinces are satisfied, and so is Quebec. The federal government should not get involved. It may have good intentions, but the result is clumsy. That is why we believe that, once again, despite having good intentions to do the right thing and protect young people and vulnerable individuals from the scourge of harmful gambling, the federal government should mind its own business and leave the provinces to deal with this. The federal government should instead focus on regulating matters within its purview, namely foreign platforms and online companies that proliferate in our ecosystem without facing any consequences or regulation. To me, that is the root of the problem.

Once again, health issues such as mental health or gambling addiction are not a federal responsibility. These are matters that fall under provincial jurisdiction. The federal government is going to meddle in this, and that will only complicate the process. The Bloc Québécois will therefore not support Bill S-211.

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the opportunity to speak to the bill, which is the least we can do to tackle this emerging scourge in our public life, in the lives of our kids and teens and young adults, this scourge that affects and has the risk of tainting some of the most joyous activities that we take part in as a country.

It has now been five years since Bill C-218, which allows provinces and territories, through their conduct and managing responsibilities, to enable single sports betting.

Where are we now? What has happened in those five years? We have seen a massive expansion in sports betting and betting generally, gambling generally, enabled by some very potent online tools. Here are some examples of what is happening. I am going to focus my remarks especially on sports betting and the advertising components of that because I think that is the nub of the issue that is emerging at this point in time and that is causing so much public concern. It is a quiet concern at the moment, in households, in high schools, in university and college campuses, but it is starting to spread. We are starting to see the evidence of a real damaging phenomenon, which is being aided and abetted by ubiquitous advertising for online sports betting.

This is maybe a propitious time to have this conversation. We are about to have the NHL playoffs, in which three Canadian teams will be participating. We are about to enjoy and be one of the co-hosts of the FIFA championship. These are fundamentally positive experiences that unify and bring together millions of people around the world, millions of Canadians, especially young Canadians. It is especially pernicious that it is the joy of those activities that is subject to the advertising lure, not the activity itself but the betting on those activities, which I think really demands action.

Where are we in the last five years? Here is some information on young people and their online betting habits. According to a joint report by Greo Evidence Insights, the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction and Mental Health Research Canada, Canadians who reported betting online in 2024 were 45 times more likely to qualify as problem gamblers than those who played the lottery exclusively. It is the toxic combination of the online tools that are available, plus the advertising lure and the great appeal of a fundamental activity that is joyous, that is resulting in some of these concerning trends.

Here is some more information from a study last month in Ontario: “The rate of young men contacting Ontario's mental health helpline for gambling-related problems has increased by more than 300 per cent after the province allowed private online gambling....The study further found that between the dawn of online gambling privatization in April 2022 and August of last year, the number of active player accounts per 100,000 people aged 15 or older increased from roughly 2,160 to more than 7,300, a 239 per cent increase.”

The stories that come out are sometimes told anonymously and sometimes told in hushed tones. There was a recent Maclean’s article about the growth of online betting and online sports betting in particular, and it very well captures how it is online sports advertising that is part of the key lure. This is a story about an anonymized man named Phil.

I quote from the Maclean's story: “Phil was a fantasy football fan and, suddenly, when he researched players and teams on TSN and other sites, his screen was covered with ads for betting platforms like FanDuel and DraftKings. His friends, with whom he’d dabbled in sports betting, were all switching to the apps. It was more exciting. They could bet not just on wins and losses—”

This was the original idea of the single sports betting.

“—but all sorts of in-game happenings: the number of touchdowns or goals, how many catches a specific player got, a coin flip. They could also bet on obscure sports, like Ping-Pong. Over the next few months, they devoted more of their time and money to betting.”

We know that online advertising. especially for online sports betting, has historically used celebrity likenesses. We are familiar with the use of Wayne Gretzky and Connor McDavid.

The Maclean's article continues: “One analysis by CBC Marketplace and the University of Bristol found that sports viewers in Ontario spent an average of 22 per cent of each game looking at gambling ads in some form, with the vast majority plastered directly on the court, play surface or rink itself. In one Raptors-Bulls broadcast, nearly 40 per cent of the game had sports-betting ads somewhere in frame.”

Sports are joyous activities. They are activities we want our children to participate in. These are people and teams we identify to our children as heroes. At the same time, we are potentially subjecting them to one of the most insidious forms of addiction, which can empty their pocketbooks and destroy their families. They are specifically targeted to young men through algorithmic means and various forms of targeting.

This is something the House cannot allow to stand. I appreciate the concerns of my colleague opposite about jurisdictional issues, but the evidence is too strong. The choice that Parliament made five years ago has, yes, resulted in the growth of an industry, but at that time, we did not have the technological power to identify and lure people in this way.

I want to share a news article from today's New York Times about a police chief in New Haven, Connecticut, who resigned abruptly after his deputies saw red flags, including missing money. He has pleaded not guilty to embezzling city money to gamble on sports. In December, he asked one of his lieutenants for a $500 loan. He took money that was to pay informants and left behind an IOU note.

Three of his deputies confronted him in January. When they gathered in his office, he explained that he was addicted to gambling. The deputies were confused. They had never seen him gambling, one said, according to an arrest warrant. The gentleman tapped his phone on a conference table and said, “It's on the app.” In a year, he had wagered about $4.46 million on DraftKings and FanDuel accounts, according to investigators. His career is over. His life is in shatters.

It is, again, the toxic combination of new technologies and the advertising that is leading to this. These are things we invite our kids to participate in. There is a toxic combination of new technologies and new marketplaces that the choice of the House five years ago opened up. It has resulted in a tsunami of advertising, celebrity figures and others to all be exposed, including outside provinces in which these marketplaces exist.

For instance, although Ontario runs the largest privatized electronic gaming marketplace, young people in provinces outside Ontario also have the potential to be exposed. We need to protect all young people and ourselves from this. We need to preserve and hold as sacred as possible the rituals and passions that make sports beautiful.

With respect to public health spaces, when it comes to online gambling and the prospect of it having an addictive quality, people conjure up restrictions on tobacco and alcohol advertising. Indeed, that is useful guidance. However, this is an even more pernicious issue, because when it comes to advertising gambling or advertising tobacco, we know that these are known vices. Sports is not a vice. Sports is a beautiful thing. We want more participation in sports. We want our young people to actually be inspired by their female and male sports heroes in professional leagues.

It is quite concerning to see the alignment in some cases between sports betting companies, the advertisers, the leagues and the teams, but we can do something about it. We can address the online advertising marketplace and other advertising marketplaces that lure people in.

A few months ago, Jim Bradley, an important person in my life and in the lives of many people in Ontario, passed away. The member for St. Catharines eulogized him very well in a member statement around the time of his passing. Jim Bradley was a lifelong defender of public health and a lifelong opponent of the expansion of gambling. The House has made a decision to honour Jim Bradley, to honour the young people we want to protect and to honour all people who are at risk of this kind of pernicious pull into an activity which can be controlled in a safe way but is not, because of the advertising and the very specific connections through online luring into unrestricted gambling on sports.

This is something we can do. The least we can do right now in the House is to pass the bill, send it to committee and give it the consideration it deserves as we take on this scourge.