Is that agreed?
House of Commons Hansard #103 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was enforcement.
House of Commons Hansard #103 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was enforcement.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Lawful Access Act, 2026 Second reading of Bill C-22. The bill seeks to modernize law enforcement investigative capabilities for digital crimes. Liberal MPs argue these authorities are vital to combat rising digital threats. Conservative members fear potential ministerial overreach and privacy infringements. While highlighting the need to tackle child exploitation, opposition MPs emphasize the necessity of rigorous committee review to balance public safety with civil liberties. 15400 words, 2 hours.
National Framework on Sports Betting Advertising Act Second reading of Bill S-211. The bill S-211 proposes a national framework to regulate sports betting advertisements. Supporters express concern that ubiquitous advertising harms youth and vulnerable populations. Conversely, the Bloc Québécois argues this area falls under provincial jurisdiction, contending that federal intervention constitutes an unnecessary, clumsy intrusion into established provincial gaming management responsibilities. 7300 words, 1 hour.
Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
Mike Kelloway LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport and Internal Trade
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.
The House resumed from April 13 consideration of the motion that Bill C-22, An Act respecting lawful access, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Gary Anandasangaree LiberalMinister of Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime.
Bill C-22, an act respecting lawful access, is a tool that law enforcement has been asking for for many decades, in fact, over three decades. Canada is the only Five Eyes and G7 country not to have a formalized lawful access regime. We have had a couple of court decisions that spoke to the limits of this very important issue of lawful access that people have been asking for.
Over the past 10 months or so, the Minister of Justice, the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime and I have been going around the country meeting with police chiefs, as well as those in unions, law enforcement and, across the board, individuals who have direct experience with the impediments that the inability to have a lawful access regime poses to the safety and security of Canadians.
Members will be aware that over the last several months, I tasked a former minister from British Columbia, Murray Rankin, to engage with different parties, oftentimes those with competing or differing views, to build an element of consensus on what a lawful access regime should look like. The parties included those in civil society, academics, law enforcement, and industry. Mr. Rankin had a number of engagements between the four groups and made some recommendations to the Minister of Justice and me. I thank him for his work.
Based on that, and based on additional consultation, we put forward Bill C-22, which, in my opinion, balances the critical need for protection of individual privacy as well as ensuring that law enforcement has the necessary tools to do its work. I want to thank many colleagues, on both sides, who have been instrumental in helping us get to this point.
There are essentially three major parts to this bill. The first part, and I want to frame this—
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I believe when the minister introduced the motion on Monday, he would have been deemed to have spoken on this. I wonder if he is eligible to speak again, seeing as he has already spoken on it.
The Deputy Speaker Tom Kmiec
I have consulted with several clerks extensively. The minister moved the motion for another minister, and so he is deemed to have spoken. However, if the minister now seeks unanimous consent to continue speaking, he can do so.
I invite the Minister of Public Safety to determine whether he wishes to move the unanimous consent motion so that he can continue speaking.
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON
Mr. Speaker, I do seek unanimous consent.
The Deputy Speaker Tom Kmiec
The House has heard the terms of the motion. Does the House agree to the unanimous consent motion?
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very important intervention. I will get back to the substance of Bill C-22.
The different parties came together on what is essential for law enforcement to protect Canadians, and there are three major parts to the bill. I want to frame where the first one comes from. Twenty-five years ago, there were phone books that every household had. Bell Canada would deliver phone books to virtually every household. In that phone book, we could look up somebody's name and actually find a phone number. Similarly, there is a book that was a reverse lookup. We could essentially go to that phone book and, if we had a phone number, we could seek even the address of the individual whose address is attached to that phone number.
Technology has evolved extensively in the last three decades, and right now, we are at a point where that type of information is not readily available. Part 1 of the bill would essentially enable law enforcement to have basic, timely access to data and information. It would essentially be a confirmation-of-service demand, which means that law enforcement could go to an electronic service provider and ask it if an individual phone number is associated with the company. It would be a simple answer of yes or no. There is nothing beyond it. There are no other aspects. It is a very simple yes-or-no question.
For example, in a case of extortion, where there may be a number of telephone numbers attached to an extortion threat, very simply, the individual law enforcement agency could canvass a multitude of service providers to seek confirmation of service. It is a demand that would enable law enforcement to know which company is a service provider for that particular phone number or, in this case, ISP.
The second element is about taking subscriber information, which is also part of part 1. This would enable, again, law enforcement to get basic information about the individual. This would be email addresses, an address, perhaps, or a name that corresponds to the individual phone number or ISP, the Internet service, that would allow law enforcement to further the investigation.
Right now, what happens is that, from the time the phone number is received to the time there is the required production order to get the information, it could sometimes be eight, 10 or 12 months before that information is obtained. This is essentially handcuffing the work of law enforcement.
From there, law enforcement would be able to access additional information as the bill seeks for the ESP, for example, to have the technical capability to offer information on the subscribers' use. This is a critical component of it that is essentially part of the supporting authorized access to information act or SAAIA. It would ensure that ESPs and telecommunication companies can comply with requests to produce certain types of information, data and communications that law enforcement may seek.
From there, for law enforcement to get additional information on a particular case, situation or a set of circumstances, it would require warrants. Warrants are judicially authorized, judicially reviewed and subject to preparation by law enforcement agencies.
The third major component of this bill is a review process, because we know that the pace of progress and the pace of technology is moving at a speed that really is beyond what humans expect. With AI, we know there are enormous challenges and changes about to come forward. As a result, we have a review provision that would enable Parliament to do a statutory review of the legislation and be able to make necessary amendments as required.
Let me highlight some very important components of the support we have. First and foremost, NSICOP, which has members from the House as well as from the Senate, had a unanimous report to have a lawful access regime embedded in Canadian law.
I will quote the former police officer and investigator, the member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner. It is rare for me to quote him, but I am super impressed with his depth of knowledge on this subject. He said, “Our current legislation means police face barriers around seizure authorities, causing investigative delays, sometimes with no way to get access to the information they need.”
This is an important piece of legislation, one that law enforcement demands and one that Canadians need for their safety and security. I would ask all parties to support this bill.
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.
There are a lot of issues in this bill that I look forward to addressing at committee. One of the questions I have is about the role of ministerial orders. I am mindful of the fact that ministerial orders require approval from the intelligence commissioner, but then they then go into what I call a “vacuum” because they are kept confidential. I understand why they may need to be confidential.
Would the minister be open to discussing amendments that would require or enable some sort of transparency, whether it be that it is reviewed by a committee or somebody else, so it is not put into this vacuum that lacks transparency when these orders are made in confidence?
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON
Mr. Speaker, I will say, at the outset, that we have consulted the intelligence commissioner and the provisions in this bill reflect what is required, in our opinion, for that transparency and accountability to take place. Of course, as I have always said, we look forward to this bill proceeding to committee and a more robust conversation taking place at the committee stage.
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC
Mr. Speaker, yes, we agree with the minister that this bill is important.
My question is rather simple. Bill C-22 is much better than Bill C-2, and it includes more protections. That proves one thing: Bill C-2 was hastily thrown together without consultation. It is a good thing the government only had a minority. That meant that we did not have to pass that bill and that we are now able to debate Bill C-22, which is much better.
Is the minister willing to agree to amendments to further improve Bill C-22?
Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to commend the minister for his leadership in preparing this bill, which is another example of how our government is taking Canadians' safety seriously and acting accordingly.
As members know, law enforcement has long been asking us to modernize Canada's lawful access capabilities and powers. Bill C‑22 has been very well received by a number of organizations that represent law enforcement. I am thinking in particular of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, which is encouraging all members to work together to pass the bill quickly.
My question for the minister is, how were the various organizations representing law enforcement consulted in the drafting of Bill C‑22?
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question and for his work.
We did extensive consultations, on an individual basis, with the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime, the Minister of Justice, me and other colleagues. For example, we were in Halton, where we met with the regional police. I want to thank the member of Parliament for Oakville West for her advocacy.
We have gone across Canada and consulted with law enforcement agencies. This is a critical tool that they have asked to be made part of Canadian law.
Dane Lloyd Conservative Parkland, AB
Mr. Speaker, I know the telecom sector is very concerned about the costs of complying with this legislation. I wonder what sort of compensation schemes, if any, the government anticipates putting into place to ensure this legislation can be complied with.
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON
Mr. Speaker, we expect compliance from telecommunication companies and other service providers. We are not contemplating compensation. This is part of the CRTC's licensing. As members are aware, these are licences that are provided to the public, and in the public interest, it is important there is compliance from those service providers, which are essentially governed by Canadian law.
Message from the SenateGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker Tom Kmiec
I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bill, to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill S-209, an act to restrict young persons' online access to pornographic material.
It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona, Public Service of Canada; the hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, Carbon Pricing.
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-22, An Act respecting lawful access, be read the second time and referred to a committee.