House of Commons Hansard #105 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was c-22.
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 proposes a lawful access framework meant to modernize investigative tools for law enforcement in the digital age. Liberals argue the legislation is essential for combating modern crimes, while Conservatives contend it is an improved version of the failed Bill C-2. Members across party lines debate the balance between public safety and privacy, with opposition parties specifically highlighting concerns regarding regulatory overreach, data retention, and the legal thresholds for accessing information, urging thorough committee review. 16300 words, 2 hours in 2 segments: 1 2.
Admissibility of Committee Amendments to Bill C-11 Liberal MP Arielle Kayabaga argues that six amendments adopted by the Standing Committee on National Defence regarding Bill C-11 are inadmissible, claiming they exceed the bill's scope or violate the parent act rule. 900 words.
National Framework on Sickle Cell Disease Act Second reading of Bill S-201. The bill proposes a framework to coordinate research, improve clinical care, and increase awareness regarding sickle cell disease. While Liberals argue the legislation addresses critical health inequities, opposition members express concerns about potential jurisdictional overreach into provincial health systems and possible program duplication. All parties agree to study the proposal further at committee to address these concerns and clarify costs. 8000 words, 1 hour.
Scott Anderson Conservative Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC
Mr. Speaker, I notice the Liberals are tending to characterize this as obstructionism. We are here in Parliament to do a job, and that job is to question the other side and improve any bill that comes through committee.
I wonder if my hon. colleague could speak to whether he thinks Conservatives are obstructing or improving this bill.
Kurt Holman Conservative London—Fanshawe, ON
Mr. Speaker, I feel that this bill should go back to committee, based on my technical expertise and my concerns about metadata, storing information on where someone has been on the Internet, location services, etc. I am not including messaging, just metadata itself. There is some concern because, again, it is a balancing act: tools that would be utilized by law enforcement, even with a warrant, and privacy that Canadians cherish under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
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.
I feel there is a refrain being heard frequently in the House today, the welcoming of another member from the government to their seat. That is wonderful.
It is always great to speak in the House. I wish we would have more questions from members of the government. For those watching at home, normally the government would have some questions for my hon. colleague on his speech. It is almost like we are shouting into the Grand Canyon. Hello, hello, hello. Is there anybody there, there, there?
Why is it that we, as Conservatives, are carrying this debate?
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC
Oh, I hear the hon. member for Hull—Aylmer saying hello back, back, back.
How seriously can we take the government when its members are not even getting up to ask questions on a bill this important?
Kurt Holman Conservative London—Fanshawe, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate the members of the government are not asking questions, because this bill is very important, especially with respect to the balancing of law enforcement with civil liberties.
Another reason this bill is important is the economic impact. Yes, maybe large Internet service providers can absorb the cost of the request within this bill of storing metadata for one year, but it would also affect the economy of Internet service providers because the ability of small and medium-sized Internet service providers or new Internet service providers to offer competition to the Internet industry would be hindered by this—
Bill C-22 Lawful Access Act, 2026Government Orders
David McGuinty LiberalMinister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that the opposition day designated for Thursday, April 23, has been undesignated and that the business for that day shall be Bill C-11, an act to amend the National Defence Act and other acts.
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.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to speak virtually, since a situation came up that prevented me from participating in person. Those are the rules of the House.
I am grateful for the chance to speak to Bill C-22. I do not have lengthy parliamentarian experience compared to other members, but I have been a member of Parliament for nearly 15 years, and I have never seen anything like what the government has done in the area of the legislation that we now have before us. It initially came to us in June as Bill C-2, and in that bill there were provisions for access and warrantless access that were combined with “strong borders” provisions, as they were then called.
I just want to draw attention to the process of the legislation, because it is highly unusual. Again, obviously there are people who have more experience. The member for Vancouver Centre, for example, has served far longer than I have, but I have never seen anything like this, for what it is worth. We started with Bill C-2, which was not withdrawn. It remained there, and then it was largely replaced, although it was not withdrawn, by Bill C-12. Now we have Bill C-22, picking up on elements of what was unacceptable in Bill C-2.
I have heard the Prime Minister in press comments talk about the ways the new Liberal majority plans to change our committee composition. Somehow there is a lot of showboating going on, the Prime Minister said, a lot of grandstanding, but honestly, the process of studying legislation has some precedents and parliamentary tradition that really do matter. One is to give a bill proper study. This is interrupted by the innovation of the government in never admitting it has made a mistake or in not amending a bill that is on the Order Paper but rather replacing it with a series of repeated starts and stops.
I am sure the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, whose humour I enjoyed earlier, might make a comment on this. It is bizarre and certainly unusual. We started with Bill C-2, and then we had Bill C-12, which continued the anti-refugee rights provisions that were in Bill C-2. Now we have moved to Bill C-22, on access, and the bill of course is dealing with access to information that is important for law enforcement.
This is an unusual process, to put it mildly. Today I want to focus on what is in Bill C-22 and on the reasons that I certainly hope the government will go to a more normal parliamentary procedure, which would be to amend Bill C-22 to achieve the kind of consensus that would allow me, as a Green Party member of Parliament, to vote for it. I cannot vote for it as it is now on the Order Paper.
Again, let me step back and say, as I have said in the House before, on the record, that Bill C-22 represents improvements over the portions that were originally put forward in Bill C-2. The original access legislation would have allowed, for instance, postal workers to open our mail, and it would have allowed access to subscriber information from telecommunications companies without notice to the user.
However, while there has been much improvement in requiring warrants, the warrants would still be required to meet a threshold that the hon member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith referred to earlier in debate today. It is a completely unprecedented threshold for a warrant to obtain information and access to information: “reasonable grounds to suspect”. We find that language in proposed subsection 487.0142(2).
“Reasonable grounds to believe” is a well-understood concept. There is much jurisprudence on what is required to have reasonable grounds to believe. There is zero jurisprudence on what it means to have reasonable grounds to suspect. It is a lower threshold. It does not make sense to put legal terms in that have no foundation in law. It would undoubtedly create confusion in how the legislation would be used by law enforcement.
I note that the Liberals have changed the definition of who would be able to access, from police officer to public officer, which would mean that the same terminology could apply to a CSIS agent or a police officer. The judge issuing a warrant, under many of these sections, would merely have to determine if there are reasonable grounds to suspect. Again, there is no background in law for this.
When I say “jurisprudence”, to break that down to common sense, that just means we can go back and look up legal decisions where courts have struggled with what a word means, so the court dealing with the matter before it has somewhere to go to see what the previous judges said. The court can see the record of court cases on this matter so it knows what it is looking for. In this case, with the use of novel terminology, “reasonable grounds to suspect”, people do not know what they are looking for. A judge would have to deal with the issue for the first time, and I think we could say, at a minimum, that this is unwise in drafting.
Where does this leave us now with Bill C-22? There are many improvements, particularly in part one, but there are some concerns with part two, as has been noted by numerous commentators, from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association to a group called OpenMedia. By the way, I pay a lot of attention to OpenMedia, because it is a very impressive organization as a small non-government organization that worries about Internet access and public policy. It also happens to be headed by an executive director who is one of my constituents. I thank Matt Hatfield from Salt Spring Island for his diligence in working with an organization that represents the concerns of thousands of Canadians.
However, the concerns we have with Bill C-22 continue. The concerns are largely in the one area, and I asked the hon. Minister for Public Safety to entertain amendments on this matter, amendments to understand that if what the bill would require is surveillance capacity from Internet providers, it would mean they would have to permanently insert spyware into the platforms that Canadians use.
This would create access to information about Canadians that would be accessible not only by Canadian public officers and by Canadian intelligence officers, such as from CSIS, but could also potentially be open to surveillance, and that data could be accessed, by foreign governments, including the United States government. A number of Canadians would have concerns about having their personal Internet information accessed by foreign governments. I think that is an unintentional consequence of the way the bill is drafted that needs to be repaired. We do not want surveillance built into the permanent collection of data, which would be required under the terms of the act as it is currently drafted.
I want to make it clear that I would be very pleased to vote for the legislation. I will be preparing amendments and taking them before committee. Although, under the bizarre terms in which I operate on committees, I am not allowed to vote on my own amendments, I hope that other members of the House and members of the committee will show support, and I hope the Minister for Public Safety will improve the bill to bring it to a state where people can vote for it and get it over the finish line.
Kurt Holman Conservative London—Fanshawe, ON
Mr. Speaker. I rise today just to add clarification to a question I asked earlier regarding Bill C-22. Outside the concerns with regard to the tools used by law enforcement, and also balancing privacy that Canadians feel is important with regard to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, another concern is the collection of data. Part of Bill C-22 is the collection of metadata over one year. Large Internet service providers might be able to take the cost of storing metadata, but for medium to small Internet service providers, it might be a hindrance to their operations. There are also new Internet providers that want to be part of the Internet provider economy. Thus, it might limit competition. This is a concern.
Does the member opposite feel a similar concern?
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I think it is the first time my hon. colleague the member for London—Fanshawe and I have had an exchange. I did hear his speech as well. I agree with his concern. For smaller service providers, this could indeed be a burden, so I will just say that I agree.
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC
Mr. Speaker, does my colleague intend to propose any amendments? If so, can she tell us which parts of the bill would be affected? Is there a part of the bill that she thinks needs improvement?
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I will be proposing amendments, particularly with respect to part 2. The best thing would be to remove part 2 as a whole, but in anticipation of the committee's work, I will be preparing amendments to that part.
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC
Mr. Speaker, I just received a message about my earlier Grand Canyon overture, wherein I said, ”Hello, hello, hello. Is there anybody there, there, there?” That was because, yet again, the Liberals are not asking any questions on a bill that is of critical importance.
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC
Mr. Speaker, one of my Liberal friends said I should get credit for special effects. I believe that was what he said from across the way.
I share some of the concerns of my hon. colleague, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, about the bill. It is certainly better than Bill C-2, which was a far overreach. I wonder if she would be prepared to comment on how much of a failure Bill C-2 was and how the bill before us is better but still requires amendments, and if she would be prepared to share where those amendments would come from.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I have a good record. In 15 years, I have never heckled in this place, but I had a very strong temptation to respond and to encourage the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, to inject levity, and say, “Hello, hello, hello” back to him when he made the Grand Canyon comment, which may go down in the annals of parliamentary history as a good way of not breaking our rule of not pointing out who may or may not be present in the Chamber.
The member asked what kind of failure I thought Bill C-2 was. It was a catastrophic failure. It was a bill I never saw over the course of the summer. It was tabled in June. Over the course of last summer, I think 400 different organizations from various points of view, from refugee rights and civil liberties to how to control the Internet and rights to privacy, had a breadth of pulling together a massive coalition to oppose the bill.
On that ground alone, perhaps the Liberal government should be congratulated for never before having launched a bill so bad that 400 civil society groups banded together to stop it. The government, while stopping Bill C-2, never admitted it had made a mistake, again, by using a novel method of ignoring the opposition, except to table in September 2025 Bill C-12 and then to table Bill C-22. They all dealt with largely the same subject matter.
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this place on behalf of the good people of Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna.
A part of me wants to say that we really should not be here, again, having this debate today. It is not just because it is a Friday and not because the debate is unimportant. It is. On the contrary, it is absolutely essential.
Sometimes, in the House, we are our own worst enemy. I say that candidly because this is not the first time Parliament has debated efforts to modernize lawful access legislation. More than 14 years ago, when I sat on the government side of the House, I supported similar initiatives. Before that, the previous Liberal government under Paul Martin attempted and also failed to move this work forward. Each time Parliament fails to act, the cost is not political. The cost is borne by Canadians.
The world has changed how Canadians live, communicate, bank, work and raise families. That has all moved online, rapidly and permanently, but our laws have not kept pace with that reality. That is why it is important to be clear about what this debate is and what it is not. We are not here to debate legislation that allows law enforcement to spy on innocent, law-abiding Canadians without oversight. That is not what Bill C-22 proposes. The core issue before us is how Parliament protects Canadians in an increasingly digital country while respecting the rights and freedoms that define us. Public safety is the most obvious concern. Canadians are being targeted every day by online fraud, identity theft, extortion and exploitation. Seniors have lost life savings. Families have had their identities stolen. Children have been coerced and harmed in ways made possible by anonymity and speed online.
This issue also goes far beyond individual victims. Canada is not only rich in natural resources. We are rich in research, intellectual property, innovation and data. Where is that value increasingly stored and accessed? It is increasingly stored and accessed online. Essential services, banking, health records, commerce and even the operation of the Parliament now depend on digital infrastructure. This is not ideology. It is reality.
As Canadians move online, our ability to protect them has fallen behind. I often explain it in this way. In the physical world, if there is a hit-and-run accident and a licence plate number is recorded, police can lawfully use that information to identify the registered owner and begin an investigation. That does not give access to private conversations. It simply provides a lawful starting point. Online, even when establishing those basic facts, it can take much longer, while the harm continues.
Bill C-22 is an attempt, imperfect, as all legislation ultimately is, to modernize investigative tools while maintaining judicial oversight. However, I want to pause a moment and address concerns that Canadians have directly raised with me, including constituents who oppose the bill. Some fear that Bill C-22 could require digital service providers to embed surveillance capabilities that may weaken security. Others are concerned about the retention of metadata involving people who are not under investigation. Still others worry that future governments could expand the scope of this law through regulation without sufficient parliamentary scrutiny and oversight.
I understand this mistrust. Too many Canadians feel that governments no longer listen. I did not enter politics to reinforce that cynicism. I entered public life because I believe that trust in our institutions must be earned, and it is only earned through accountability, something that I hope Liberal members of the House also believe in.
As a Conservative, I believe in limited government, in checks and balances, and in a government that thinks of Canadians, not for them. That is why it matters to be very clear about what Bill C-22 does and does not do. It does not authorize warrantless access to private communication. It does not eliminate judicial oversight. It does not give government the power to read the content of Canadians' messages without court approval. Much like wiretap authorities that Canadians have accepted for decades, police must make their case to a judge, meet defined legal thresholds and operate within strict limits. That is not unchecked power. That is the rule of law.
Let me ground this debate in the real experiences Canadians are facing. In my former riding, police investigated a case where a woman was shaken down by scammers claiming to be the Canada Revenue Agency and demanding payment in bitcoin. The officers in Merritt knew a crime had been committed, but they could not quickly determine whether the perpetrators were even in the country. Pursuing charges would have required significant time and resources, resources that many small-town RCMP detachments simply do not have.
In West Kelowna, a retired professional was convinced to install remote access applications on her phone and private computer, unknowingly giving criminals full control over her financial life. She lost more than $100,000. Even more disturbing, she was told that contacting the police or even her member of Parliament would place her in violation of national security laws. Fear and deception did the rest.
Perhaps the most disturbing are the countless cases supported by organizations like the Kelowna Child and Youth Advocacy Centre, where children who have already suffered abuse endure further trauma while authorities work urgently to identify, locate and stop the spread of child sexual exploitation materials.
In each of these cases, time matters. Delay magnifies the harm.
RCMP officers in the Central Okanagan are already carrying the highest caseloads in British Columbia. They are not asking for unchecked authority, they are asking for lawful, court-supervised tools that would allow them to establish basic facts quickly and protect victims sooner.
That brings me back to the role of Parliament. I want to address a broader point about how Parliament must legislate in the digital age, because this bill is not unique in facing these challenges. Technology evolves faster than legislation ever can. That creates real tension between clarity and flexibility, and between certainty and adaptability.
Canadians are right to be cautious when laws rely on regulations and technical definitions that may change over time. That caution is healthy in a free society. As Conservatives, we have always believed the answer to that tension is not blind trust in government but strong parliamentary oversight. It is Parliament, not the executive, that must define limits, ask hard questions and ensure delegated authorities are narrow, justified, proportionate and, above all else, accountable.
That responsibility does not end at second reading. It continues at committee, through expert testimony, proposed amendments and rigorous scrutiny of how these powers would operate in the real world. It also continues after passage, through ongoing review and accountability.
Canadians should expect nothing less. Protecting privacy and protecting public safety are not competing ideals. They are complementary responsibilities. When the law is outdated, vague or unclear, both privacy and safety suffer. Criminal networks exploit legal uncertainty far more effectively than law-abiding citizens ever could.
Our task as legislators is to ensure the law is precise, restrained and grounded in constitutional principles, while still effective enough to protect the people it is meant to serve. Avoiding that challenge altogether is not neutral. It leaves victims exposed, strains already overburdened police services and erodes confidence in the rule of law. That is the biggest challenge we have. When people believe that the justice system is simply catch-and-release, or that if they phone, like the woman in Merritt, and are simply told they do not have the resources, people lose faith in our institutions. That must change, and not just with Bill C-22. We need to see stronger sanctions. We need to see jail, not bail. We need to re-earn the confidence of Canadians who are so disconcerted over the state of our system.
That is why we need to ask the tough questions at committee, get into the weeds and fully understand and weigh the tradeoffs between public safety, privacy and individual liberty. Addressing these concerns transparently is not a flaw in this process; it is Parliament doing its job.
The question before us is whether Parliament will once again allow inaction to become the default or whether we will act carefully, responsibly and within appropriate limits. Our future is undeniably online. If we are serious about protecting Canadians in the future, we must be willing to modernize our laws while respecting people's rights and values.
I believe we can do that. I believe Parliament is capable of getting it right.
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Mr. Speaker, first, I would like thank my colleague from British Columbia for his measured and nuanced speech. He and I agree that it is important to update the laws that protect us in this digital age rather than relying on a legislative framework that predates the invention of the Internet.
My colleague talked about avenues that he would like to explore in committee to delve deeper into some of the issues that he raised. Can he give a specific example of an amendment that he would like to see made to this bill?
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member for Hull—Aylmer's comments. As members of the House of Commons, it is important that we communicate issues clearly and accurately, especially online. There is also an opportunity to make amendments to improve the bill, depending on the nature of the bill, which could be a private member's bill or a government bill. In this case, we are talking about a government bill.
I hope that, if the member participates in the committee study, he will take a closer look at part 2, especially the techniques, equipment and system proposed in the bill.
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC
Mr. Speaker, the bill states that fundamental terms will be redefined through regulations. We are talking about terms like “encryption” and “systemic vulnerability”. The plan is to change these terms through regulations without any debate. These are fundamental terms that allow law enforcement, but also hackers and malicious actors, to access information.
What does my colleague think about the fact that the government set up its bill in such a way as to allow these definitions to be changed through regulations only?
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is essential for the opposition to be able to fulfill the role entrusted to it by Canadians. It is particularly important to demand evidence and ask the government to share its reasoning and thought process, especially that of the minister responsible. It is also important for the opposition to press the government to make improvements and to consider our amendments for the benefit of all Canadians.
Dane Lloyd Conservative Parkland, AB
Mr. Speaker, I think one of the key points of contention that we could see with this legislation is the requirement for telecom providers to retain individuals' data for up to a year. In the European Union, similar legislation has been brought forward that was found to have violated the privacy rights of European Union citizens, but there are other jurisdictions, such as Australia, that have a two-year limit.
I am wondering if the member would share his thoughts on the worries about the one-year limit on retaining data.
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak about Internet service providers, ISPs, in general. Obviously, there are going to be some distinctions between other large Internet companies other than ISPs, but I think that for the most part, that is what we are going to be talking about in committee.
Simply, right now it is the Wild West. Some ISPs are retaining data for longer than a year and some are doing it for zero days because there is no particular requirement on them. First of all is having a requirement: We need to decide as parliamentarians what is reasonable. We can look at other jurisdictions to see what they have, but we do need to have rules in place so that we can have the rule of law in this space.
