Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-22, an act respecting lawful access.
Before entering politics, I spent nearly three decades working in information technology, and one of the things that I learned very quickly in that field is that technology does not stand still. The systems, tools and threats of 10 years ago rarely resemble those of today. Unfortunately, criminals understand that reality just as well as anyone else. They adapt quickly. They use encrypted applications, anonymous accounts, rapidly changing digital identities and increasingly sophisticated digital tools to conceal their activities and evade law enforcement.
Meanwhile, our legal framework has often struggled to keep pace. Let me be clear at the outset. Conservatives recognize that law enforcement must have the lawful tools necessary to investigate serious crime in the digital age. When police are pursuing child predators, human traffickers, terrorists and organized criminal networks, they should not be hindered by outdated laws built for a predigital world. That is a legitimate problem, and Parliament has a responsibility to address it.
Parliament also has a responsibility to ensure that in modernizing our laws, we do not grant powers that are broader than necessary, weaker in oversight than appropriate or more intrusive than justified, because history has repeatedly shown that once a government is granted extraordinary powers, those powers rarely remain confined to their narrowest intended use unless Parliament is vigilant.
The House has been down this road before. The lawful access provisions now before us appeared in Bill C-2, where they generated substantial concern among privacy advocates, experts and parliamentarians alike. The government has now separated those provisions out and returned with Bill C-22, a narrower stand-alone version in some respects. It is an acknowledgement that the earlier approach required reconsideration, and while this version is improved in certain areas, legitimate concerns remain that warrant careful study at committee.
Part of the challenge in debating legislation like this is that many of the terms involved can sound desperately benign. Words like “subscriber information” or “metadata” may sound minor, but anyone with experience in digital systems understands otherwise. Metadata can reveal a tremendous amount about an individual. It can reveal who—