Debates of April 17th, 2026

The House resumed from April 15 consideration of the motion that Bill C-22, An Act respecting lawful access, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Lawful Access Act, 2026

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives believe in law and order, and have always stood for common-sense measures to keep Canadians safe. For the past decade, we have been urging the Liberal government to reverse its failed policies and restore safety to our communities. Instead, the Liberals have let the situation get out of control.

Last fall, the Liberals put forward Bill C-2, which fell well short of protecting Canadians while overreaching in other cases. Conservatives forced the government to back down from Bill C-2, successfully blocking the Liberals' infringement on individual freedoms and privacy.

Now, they have introduced new legislation, Bill C-22, the lawful access act, which reintroduces some parts of Bill C-2. Canada is the only Five Eyes country that does not have a lawful access regime in place. Our investigative laws have failed to keep pace with the rapid growth of the digital ecosystem.

The Liberals, and some in law enforcement, argue that this gap has created an investigative stall where critical leads in cases of child sexual exploitation, human trafficking and organized crime are abandoned because authorities cannot quickly identify suspects behind IP addresses or burner phones. Even when police have legal authority to obtain data, service providers may lack the technical infrastructure to retrieve it or transfer it into a usable format, resulting in failed investigations. That is definitely a problem that needs to be addressed.

This proposed legislation is a definite improvement over its predecessor. It creates a new legal framework, enabling faster and lower-threshold access to basic data, clear emergency powers, structured international requests and mandatory provider compliance, including built-in surveillance capabilities, metadata retention and a required parliamentary review after three years.

While police agencies have expressed their support for this bill and for lawful access, civil liberties organizations still have issues with parts of this bill. It is up to us to carefully review this legislation to ensure the Liberals do not repeat past failures.

I am hearing regularly from constituents concerned about this legislation. They want me to call on the government to withdraw Bill C-22. One of their biggest concerns is privacy and protection of their information. Bill C-22 would require Internet providers and other online services to facilitate access to basic information that would assist in the investigation of federal offences. That sounds reasonable.

The problem, though, is that would require those platforms to build and maintain surveillance capabilities inside their own systems. How secure would those systems be? How safe would those systems be? This new method of doing things would impose a financial burden on suppliers. They would be expected to develop and maintain technical surveillance capabilities at their own expense. I wonder how many would be willing to spend extra for robust data protection of something that does not add to their bottom line.

Conservatives believe police should have the tools necessary to stop criminals. Our concern with Bill C-2 was that the powers given to law enforcement and ministers were too broad. Bill C-22 is far narrower in the powers it gives to law enforcement and to the minister.

Bill C-22 focuses on telecommunications and Internet service providers, not any service providers. It would create oversight for ministerial orders and has explicit provisions in it that would prohibit the government from requiring the retention of web browsing history, social media activities or the actual content of communications. One could argue that this is a reasonable compromise as we attempt to balance the needs of society along with the rights of individuals.

We live in a world where it seems the only constant is change. All of us in this House, from the oldest to the youngest, have witnessed huge technological changes in our lifetime.

In an increasingly digital world, our old-fashioned policing is not always suited to dealing with crimes committed online. We all understand the need to provide new tools for law enforcement officers to access digital information. We can see the desire for the framework that ensures that electronic service providers establish and maintain a system capable of providing the information that law enforcement officers are authorized to access, and that is key. Law enforcement officers must have a lawful reason to be given access to citizens' online information.

One of the things I appreciate about this bill before us is that it would mandate an automatic review three years after its provisions come into force. In these days of rapid change, that provision would ensure that not only would we get this legislation right today, but that we would have built in a way to ensure that it would not quickly become out of date. The purpose of Bill C-22 is to ensure that investigators can skip preliminary investigative requirements regarding information that is easily obtainable. Thus far, Canadian courts have stated that warrants or court orders are required for even the most basic of information even if only remotely private, such as whether someone is a subscriber of a telecom company. I am a strong proponent of individual rights, including the right to privacy. I also believe in our Constitution, including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I understand as well that there are times when we need to balance individual and collective rights, and sometimes the collective rights are seen as being more important.

That may be the case with this legislation, though I understand there have been some issues raised as to whether it would survive a constitutional test. My hope is those problems can be fixed at the committee stage. For example, civil liberties groups have suggested that the blanket retention of metadata is too broad. They point out that the Electronic Communications Privacy Act in the U.S., for example, allows preservation on demand but does not allow blanket retention. In the European Union, the Court of Justice declared that blanket retention is incompatible with EU fundamental rights. As well, ministerial orders only require approval by intelligence commissioners. Not giving any oversight role to the Privacy Commissioner of Canada suggests that privacy is at best a secondary consideration. I am sure this was not the government's intention, and I expect this would be strengthened in committee.

Conservatives forced the Liberals to back down from Bill C-2, successfully blocking the government's attempt to infringe on individual freedoms and privacy. We stopped the Liberals from limiting the use of cash; opening mail without oversight; and demanding that any service provider, including hospitals, financial institutions and even dry cleaners, disclose user data without judicial oversight.

Bill C-22 would be an improvement, but still needs work. We support giving law enforcement agencies the tools they need to combat crime and keep communities safe, particularly as threats become more sophisticated in the digital age. At the same time, these powers must be accompanied by strong safeguards, clear limits and independent oversight to protect Canadians' rights and freedoms. Conservatives will continue to stand for common-sense solutions that protect Canadians' individual freedom, privacy and safety.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech and I wanted to ask him whether he is at all concerned about the fact that Bill C-22 does not give the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency a very big role to play compared to its Australian counterpart. The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation is informed the moment the order is issued, not one year after the fact.

Does my colleague think it might be a good idea to amend Bill C-22 accordingly?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned in my speech that Canada is the only country in the Five Eyes that does not have a system in place to begin with. I also mentioned that this bill must go to committee to be examined, to be strengthened and to give Canadians and the authorities all the tools so Canadians can be protected while their privacy laws or privacy rights cannot be infringed upon.

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

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

One of the things my colleague mentioned was Bill C-2. Let us not be naive. We know that the Liberals achieved their majority through a number of deals in the background. What concerns me as a member of Parliament and as a citizen is the fact that we would have been saddled with Bill C-2, a bill that we as Conservatives successfully fought against, and rightly so. There is a time to oppose in this place and a time to support. That was clearly the time to oppose.

I would like the member's opinion on why Bill C-2 failed and whether the Liberals appear to have learned any lessons from that, because we may be in a position where they just force these things through in the future.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for telling us about these bills and what he does to handle such cases and such bills in the House of Commons, representing our party.

Bill C-2 would have been a huge infringement on the privacy rights of Canadians. I am still receiving emails from constituents asking me to block Bill C-2; they think Bill C-2 is still in place. That infringement of Canadian laws and Canadians' rights is the greatest concern. We have to protect the privacy rights of Canadians. In the meantime, we have to find ways to protect them in the age of a digital world.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thomson—Nicola, apparently back-to-back today.

One of the things I appreciated about my hon. colleague's speech was the balanced nature of it. I would like to ask him to comment on his role as a legislator here and as somebody who does not blindly accept things. He talked about how we have to recognize things at committee, see things at committee and question things at committee. I am proud to be part of a party that does that. I would ask for his comments on that as well.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the role of opposition is to really stand up for Canadians, fight for Canadians and make sure the government does not overreach on the rights of Canadians at any level, regardless of whether it is at the economic level, the human rights level or the privacy rights level. That is where the opposition stands in this House strongly to make sure that, when we oppose, we oppose for the benefit of Canadians. When we co-operate, it is also for the benefit of Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to tell me about the threshold that the government has set for obtaining information, which is the lowest possible threshold. Does my colleague agree with that or does he think that we should be more stringent and raise the threshold for obtaining information?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree. I think we need tougher access to provide information. The laws have to protect Canadians first and foremost, and there is a way to do that without having to infringe on their rights.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, it an honour for me to take the floor today and to speak on behalf of Bill C-22. I rise as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, in support of our government's bill on lawful access. The legislation is really about one simple thing: keeping Canadians safe in a digital world that criminals are increasingly exploiting.

Let us be clear about the reality we are facing. In 2024 alone, police reported more than 16 cases of child pornography, exploitation and abuse. In 94% of those cases, they could not identify a suspect or gather enough evidence to proceed. Right now, criminals hide behind anonymous usernames, burner phones and IP addresses. Meanwhile, our police are stuck navigating systems that were never designed for today's digital threats. By the time officers get the information they need, it is often too late, evidence is gone and victims are left without justice. Police need modern tools to properly investigate crimes and keep Canadians safe, and that is exactly why our new Liberal government has introduced Bill C-22.

In the Spencer case, the Supreme Court of Canada said that the police need some type of legal authority, such as a legislative authority or prior judicial authorization, to obtain subscriber information linked to specific online activity. Bill C-22 would provide the police not just with the authority they need in order to address a particular criminal activity considered in the Spencer decision regarding accessing and storing child sexual exploitation and abuse material but also with a broader way in circumstances where law enforcement needs to quickly identify suspects but does not have the necessary legal tools to do so.

To borrow the words of the head of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and commissioner of the OPP, Thomas Carrique, “From Internet child exploitation to extortions, to home invasions, to carjackings, to drive-by shootings, to hate motivated crime, to extremism, lawful access is absolutely required and it's required now.” We know that current trends in crimes like fraud, extortion and auto theft are increasingly linked to sophisticated global crime networks. Organized crime is a multi-billion-dollar business that is taking full advantage of digital technologies, which is why it is imperative that we give police services the measures they need to stop these crimes.

When criminals target our most vulnerable people online by stealing their identity and using digital tools to hide their tracks, Canadians expect the law to give police the tools they need to respond quickly, lawfully and with respect for the privacy of Canadians. Bill C-22 would do just that. Among other things, the bill would provide timely access to data and information to support the investigation of crime in the digital age. The bill also focuses on modernizing the Criminal Code to give law enforcement agencies the tools they need to investigate crime and protect Canadians in 2026.

One of these proposed new tools is confirmation of service demand. The new confirmation of service demand tool would provide a new lawful authority to enable police to confirm with a telecommunications service provider, such as Bell or Rogers, whether or not they provide telecommunications services to a specific subscriber, client, account or identifier, like an IP address or a phone number.

This new tool would typically be used to help police identify which provider provides services to a phone number or an IP address. I will explain in plain language: This would allow police to ask the simple question to a telecom provider such Bell or Rogers, “Do you service this phone number or IP address, yes or no?” That is it. There would be no content and no personal details, just basic confirmation to help investigators take the next step and seek proper judicial authorization when and where required.

The objective of the tool is to assist police in determining which telecommunications service provider has in their possession or control data relevant to an investigation and may be served with a production order to compel the production of this data. Law enforcement would be authorized to make this demand only if it has reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence has been or will be committed, and that the confirmation of service would assist in the investigation of the offence. As a safeguard against inappropriate use, the service provider would be able to challenge the demand in a court with no obligation to provide the information or confirmation until a final decision is made by the court.

The bill also proposes to clarify in the Criminal Code that law enforcement would continue to be permitted to ask a telecommunications service provider or anyone else, including other types of service providers such as banks, hotels or car rental companies, to provide information voluntarily, including the confirmation of service I referenced earlier. This clarification is very important to preserve the ability of police to engage in online policing activities, such as asking questions to seek basic information that does not raise a reasonable expectation of privacy. Our government believes that Canadians should be safe online and that police should have the tools they need to act quickly when people are in danger.

The legislation would make something very clear in the law: If information is voluntarily provided to police, such as an IP address from a victim's complaint, a tip from a member of the public or information shared by trusted international partners such as the U.S. National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, law enforcement would be able to receive that information and act on it without having to first seek a court order. It would also clarify that police would be able to rely on the information that is readily and publicly available, and that they would not be required to issue a formal demand if a service provider chooses to provide that information voluntarily.

Bill C-22 would also address an important gap when it comes to urgent situations. These circumstances are rare, but they do occur. Every minute matters. In cases where there is an immediate threat to someone's life or safety, or where critical evidence could disappear, police may need to act quickly to obtain basic subscriber information linked to an IP address. Think about situations where officers are trying to locate a child who has been abducted, using their cellphone signal to trace the source of a credible threat of imminent violence or to determine where a livestream of child sexual abuse is taking place, so they can rescue the victim and stop the abuse. In those moments, speed can mean the difference between life and death.

Our laws already recognize that in true emergencies police may act without prior judicial authorization, as long as the legal grounds for doing so exist. The bill would simply provide clarity so officers would be able to respond quickly to protect victims while respecting the rule of law. Bill C-22 is about ensuring that when Canadians are in danger, the law would give police the clarity and the tools they need in order to help, stop the crime and keep people safe. The bill would make it crystal clear that this exception for urgent circumstances would apply to the seizure of subscriber information by amending the existing “exigent circumstances” provided in the Criminal Code.

Particularly in the context of global crime networks, equipping police services with these capabilities is critical in placing Canada in line with our Five Eyes partners, and it would respond to the recommendations made in the “Special Report on the Lawful Access to Communications by Security and Intelligence Organizations” by the non-partisan members of the National Security Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, NSICOP, which I had the honour of serving on and chairing.

Other meaningful purposes in the bill would better equip police to deal with situations involving organized crime tools, such as temporary phones, burner phones and vehicle switches, as ways of avoiding police surveillance and detection. It would also provide a new search warrant framework to govern the unique nature of computer searches so police would be able to properly examine digital devices and data in a manner that is compliant with Supreme Court rulings. The proposed tools and modernization amendments included in the bill are critically needed, and these amendments would have a concrete impact on victims and on the safety of our communities.

I encourage members from across the floor and across the aisle to join us in heeding the call of police organizations across the country to support this much-needed legislation.

[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.

My colleague has been involved in the justice portfolio, which is really the opposite side of the coin to the public safety portfolio. There is obviously a difference. There is one thing I really would like her to comment on because she has ardently expressed support for this piece of legislation.

I am sure my colleague spoke to Bill C-2 as well, so my question is this: Did she speak on Bill C-2, and is she prepared now to acknowledge the colossal failure it was, which is why we are now here with Bill C-22 in a much more reasonable form?

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I did not speak to Bill C-2, but I am taking the opportunity this morning, as the member opposite rightly pointed out, to state that I am in total favour of Bill C-22. Although we work through legislation in the House, nothing is perfect. No bill is perfect in its format nor sometimes even in its content, and that is why we have committees, where members from across the aisle from all parties have an opportunity to weigh in, as well as to hear from experts and stakeholders.

This is an important piece of legislation. I do hope that Bill C-22 will be adopted so we can send it to the public safety committee and members will have the opportunity to delve into the details that may require fine tuning.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed my colleague's speech. She always explains her opinions in such a calm manner.

I have a question. I am wondering why the government chose the lowest possible threshold for obtaining information, that of reasonable grounds to suspect, rather than the more stringent threshold of reasonable grounds to believe.

Can my colleague explain why the government chose to go that route? I do not understand that and I would like a clear answer.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will give my answer in English this time because I am more familiar with the English terminology.

We already have in the Criminal Code the threshold of “reasonable grounds to suspect”.

It can be found in several sections of the Criminal Code, including section 487.017. This already exists in the Criminal Code.

We also think that “reasonable grounds to suspect” is higher than the threshold of mere suspicion.

[Madeleine Chenette, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages and to the Secretary of State (Sport)]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for her hard work and her leadership. I want to add that my constituents in Thérèse-De Blainville urgently want this bill to pass.

The bill must be referred to the Standing Committee on National Security. Does my colleague have confidence that we will be able to move forward quickly?

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that all Canadians want this bill to be sent quickly to the Standing Committee on National Security so that it can be studied there and then passed.

In light of the debates that took place in the House this week on this fine bill, I see that there is goodwill on the part of members, who want to discuss it and address this issue. I appreciate that.

It is a very important bill. For too long now, police officers have lacked the tools they need to access the information necessary to prevent crime. I am therefore eager for this bill to pass and I am confident that members will vote for it.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the King’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for permitting me to speak to Bill C-22, an act respecting lawful access.

It is always a great pleasure to speak in this chamber on behalf of the constituents of Willowdale. In this particular case, I should say that in Willowdale, we are very well served by 32 Division of the Toronto Police Service. I recently had the opportunity, once again, to visit with them and to be guided by the wisdom of the officers, who are doing so much for all the residents of my riding and beyond.

Today, I should also say that I am speaking as a member of the public safety committee. It gives me great pleasure to speak on new legislation that is timely and would allow our police and law enforcement agencies to undertake their work with renewed vigour.

As members know, this piece of legislation is the product of 10 months of diligent joint work by the Minister of Public Safety, the Minister of Justice and the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime. It is important to emphasize that this legislation would fill a very significant gap that had previously handcuffed the investigative powers of our law enforcement officials. It is also important to underscore that Canada was the only member of the Five Eyes and the G7 countries that was lagging by not having devised a legal framework or regime for lawful access.

At a time when extortion, child exploitation, human trafficking and cybercrimes that target all Canadians, in particular our seniors, are on the rise, it is imperative that we update our approach and strengthen our legal capacity to ensure that we are supporting our law enforcement agencies in their important investigative work. Given the speed at which certain crimes are now occurring, it is important to keep up with the times and to ensure that our officials do not hit a wall and can deal with serious crimes more expeditiously and on a timely basis.

The substance of the bill and the layers of legal guardrails in the system have been adequately explained by those who have spoken before me, in particular the Minister of Public Safety and the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime. In addition, we had the great pleasure of hearing from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice earlier this morning.

We are a country that should not have to choose between safety and crime. As the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime eloquently put it before this very chamber, “The alternative to this bill is not privacy. The alternative is impunity.”

Rather than focus on the substance of this bill, because, as I indicated, many others have risen before me and spoken about the layers of protection that exist in this bill, I want to highlight the extent to which this bill has truly benefited from cross-partisan contributions. When we work together, all members of this chamber, or when we reach out and are informed by the perspective of individuals from all across the political spectrum, I have every confidence that we can come up with better legislation.

As members know, the Minister of Public Safety, in his wisdom, tasked a former distinguished member of this chamber and a former minister from B.C. to undertake the initial consultations before this bill was devised. He had the difficult task of meeting with individuals and associations with differing views. This bill certainly benefited greatly from the early work that Murray Rankin is responsible for. He had the opportunity to speak to a number of civil society organizations, academics, and law enforcement and industry groups as well, so that is on one end of the political spectrum. On the other end, I also think it is incredibly important to give credit to the member opposite, the member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, who is a distinguished former police officer himself and also has contributed to this great legislative effort.

I can say, given that I am on the public safety committee, I remember that many, many months ago we started chatting about how incredibly important lawful access was. This, of course, was because we were hearing from a wide variety of witnesses who indicated to us how critically important it was. Those discussions with the member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner eventually led to many meetings he had with our Minister of Public Safety. Those two are real examples of how, when we come together in this chamber, we are capable of producing much better legislation.

In addition to that, I think it also bears repeating that NSICOP, which is our parliamentary committee comprising members from all parties and from both chambers, has also said that it is critically important that this legislation be adopted. I certainly hope, in that cross-partisan spirit, that the fact that many individuals inside this chamber and others outside have been consulted widely on this will mean that all members will understand the critical importance of voting in favour of this legislation.

[Scott Anderson, Conservative, Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Liberal catch-and-release policies have actually caused this crime. Before Trudeau came along 10 years ago, we did not have a crime wave; now we do. We also did not have Bill C-22. The difference here is actually the catch-and-release problems, the catch-and-release policies we are suffering under.

Would it not make more sense to stop shooting down Conservative bills, anti-crime bills, and leave the privacy of Canadians alone?

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the member opposite is likely aware, today we are here to debate Bill C-22, which is a very significant piece of legislation. As I have indicated, this government has always benefited greatly from the views and the perspectives of individuals throughout this chamber. We are always willing to welcome any input that anyone has. This bill, as I indicated, has also benefited from that. I have no doubt that, once it is adopted, our law enforcement agencies and individuals who are working around the clock in this country will benefit greatly from the adoption of this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my colleague's speech. We serve on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security together. I listened to him carefully, but I want to ask him a brief question to ensure I have understood correctly.

According to the bill, the definition of essential service providers, which may be subject to injunctions when it comes to lawful access to information, is to be determined by regulation. I wonder whether it is appropriate for this to be determined by the executive branch. Why should such an important definition in this bill be established by regulation rather than by legislation?

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite and I have had the great benefit of working closely together on the public safety committee. The point she raises is certainly a valid one, but as we know, this particular bill will be referred to committee, and that would be an exceptional opportunity for us all to weigh in and make sure this is as robust and as good a piece of legislation as possible. I have no doubt that the member will be a very big part of that exercise.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the legislation is extremely important, because it is giving law enforcement the necessary tools that they need in order to protect Canadians. I understand that Canada is the only one of the Five Eyes counties that does not have lawful access legislation in place in order to give law enforcement those tools. I am wondering if the member can expand on why it is important, given the context of the Five Eyes and Canada's position there.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has rightly indicated, there was a big gap in terms of making sure that our law enforcement agencies have all the necessary tools to do a thorough job when they are investigating a wide variety of crimes. We certainly live in an era when the speed and the pace at which such crimes are taking place are very different from what they were previously.

It was certainly high time for us to listen to those law enforcement agencies and to look at the experience that the other Five Eyes and indeed the other G7 countries had on this. We looked at that to make sure we would come up with a robust system that was balanced and that would have legal safeguards, and that is why I think the product of this entire exercise is a very good piece of legislation.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is an old story about a traveller in the desert. Night had fallen and the air had turned bitterly cold. The traveller had just enough space and warmth in the tent to get through the night, but then a camel approached and asked if it could put its nose inside just to stay warm. The traveller agreed. It seemed harmless. However, then the camel asked to bring in its head and then its shoulders, and before long, the entire camel was inside the tent, leaving the traveller out in the cold.

It is a simple story, but it carries an important lesson: When we allow something small without thinking through where it could lead, we can often end up somewhere very different from where we intended. That is the caution we should keep in mind as we debate Bill C-22, because this bill is about expanding the powers of the state into the digital lives of Canadians. While each individual step may seem reasonable on its own, we have to ask ourselves where the path we are taking leads.

There is no disagreement in this House about the goal. We all want law enforcement to have the tools they need to go after child predators, organized crime, human traffickers and terrorists. We all recognize that criminals are using modern technology to hide their activities and that the law must keep pace. Conservatives are always open to modernizing the law. The question before us today is not whether to modernize. The question is whether Bill C-22 gets the balance right. Modernization should not come and need not come at the cost of accountability, and it cannot come at the cost of the freedoms that Canadians expect us to protect.

We have been here before in this parliamentary session. The government tried to legislate for lawful access earlier in this session when Bill C-2 was introduced as a sweeping solution. It was broad, it was rushed and it raised serious concerns across the board. The fact that we are now debating Bill C-22 is, in itself, an acknowledgement that the first attempt missed the mark. This bill is an improvement in many respects. It narrows certain provisions. It introduces some safeguards. However, improvements do not mean that we have it right. There are still real concerns that we need to work through in committee as this bill wends its way through Parliament.

To start, I want to talk about accountability. The National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians found that our agencies do not systematically track the challenges they face with lawful access. Let us think about that. We are being asked to expand powers in an area where we do not even have consistent data on what is not working today. Where in this bill, then, is the requirement to track those challenges and report them clearly to Parliament? If we do not measure the problem, how can we claim to solve it?

We also need to engage with the trust that Canadians have put in us. They are not legal experts. Most Canadians are not reading every clause of this bill, but they still want to feel safe. They want to know who can access their information, under what conditions and with what limits. Right now, those answers are not as clear as they should be.

This bill would lower the threshold in key areas from “reasonable grounds to believe” to “reasonable grounds to suspect”. That may sound like a small change in the legalese, but it is not. It is a real shift that would make it easier for the state to access personal information earlier in an investigation and it needs to be studied carefully to ensure that it is absolutely necessary and minimally impairing of rights. When we combine lower thresholds with broader powers, we have to be very careful and ask whether we are gradually moving that camel further and further into the tent.

I want to move to data retention. This is something a number of speakers have touched on and it is something I have received a lot of correspondence about from members of my community. In serious investigations, especially those involving children or violent crime, data can disappear quickly. In some cases, it is gone within 30 days. That makes it harder to hold offenders accountable. Yes, Parliament absolutely needs to address that, but the solution cannot be to collect and retain large amounts of data on everyone, regardless of suspicion, indefinitely.

This bill would allow for the retention of metadata, including information that can reveal locations and patterns of life in some cases when combined with other information but nonetheless in a way that has a lot of people worried. We need to be asking basic but critical questions about this: Who is holding that data, where is it stored, how long is it kept and why do we need to apply this broadly instead of targeting serious offences? If we are going to impact privacy rights, then we must do it in a targeted, proportionate and justified way that we can explain to the public. Otherwise, we risk casting a wider net than intended, creating all kinds of concerns and worries in our society.

I want to move on to system vulnerability. This bill would require service providers to build and maintain systems that allow for lawful access. The intention is understandable, but we have to be realistic about the risks. Creating access mechanisms can create vulnerabilities. We have seen cases in other jurisdictions where systems built for lawful access were later exploited by hackers. Canadians have a simple expectation. They do not want back doors into their private communications. Even if this bill does not explicitly create one, we need to be absolutely certain that it does not create independent pathways that could be abused.

Again, secrecy and oversight are an issue. This bill would rely somewhat on secret ministerial orders and delayed notice. In some cases, individuals may not know their data was accessed for years, if at all. Oversight that happens after the fact is simply not enough. If we are expanding powers, the safeguards must be strong, independent and timely. Canadians need to know that there are real checks in place, not just internal reviews behind closed doors.

Finally, we need to be honest about the broader picture. This bill addresses some challenges in digital investigations, but it does not address many of the issues Canadians are most concerned about when it comes to crime and public safety. It does not address repeat violent offenders. It does not address gaps in bail or sentencing. It does not solve the broader crisis we are seeing in communities across the country. Therefore, we need to be careful not to overstate what this bill would achieve.

Our discussion and our debate today should not be about choosing between safety and freedom. Canadians deserve both. They deserve laws that allow the police to do their job effectively and they deserve to know their rights are protected at the same time. That is the balance we are trying to strike. The current iteration of Bill C-22 is a step in that direction, but is not there yet. We need clearer accountability. We need stronger safeguards. We need to ensure that in trying to solve the problem we are not quietly creating others, because once these powers are granted they are very difficult to take back. That is why we have to get this right, not just for today but for the future, so Canadians can feel both safe and free, not one at the expense of the other.

When the camel first asked, it did not ask to take over the whole tent. It did not demand. It asked politely. It asked for something small, something temporary, just enough to take the edge off the cold. That is what makes the lesson here so powerful. The traveller did not make a bad decision out of carelessness, but out of compassion and reasonableness. He thought he was in control of the situation, but step by step, decision by decision, the situation changed until he no longer was. If we are not careful, if we do not take the time to examine all the possible angles and unintended consequences of this bill, we risk finding that the balance has shifted against us, not all at once but gradually, in ways that were easy to justify at every stage along the way, but which nonetheless unduly upset the delicate balance between privacy and speedy enforcement.

I look forward to continuing the debate and discussion on this important topic.