House of Commons Hansard #106 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.
National Framework for Food Price Transparency Act Second reading of Bill C-226. The bill proposes a national framework to increase grocery pricing transparency through standardized unit pricing. Liberal supporters praise it as a practical consumer protection measure, while Conservatives criticize the lack of enforcement and argue it distracts from affordability roots. The Bloc Québécois opposes the bill, citing federal overreach into provincial jurisdiction over consumer protection and retail trade. 5900 words, 45 minutes.
Lawful Access Act, 2026 Second reading of Bill C-22. The bill seeks to modernize Canada’s lawful access regime, enabling law enforcement to access digital evidence. Supporters argue the changes are vital to combat modern crime. Conversely, the Opposition warns against government overreach and broad surveillance, citing insufficient consultation with privacy officials. While agreeing on the need for effective police tools, parliamentarians emphasize that the legislation requires rigorous committee scrutiny to adequately protect civil liberties and Charter rights. 39600 words, 5 hours in 2 segments: 1 2.
Citizenship Act First reading of Bill C-274. The bill mandates the government to automatically apply for Canadian citizenship for children in the child protection system who immigrated to Canada as minors, preventing them from facing deportation upon aging out of care. 300 words.
Admissibility of Committee Amendments to Bill C-11 James Bezan and Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay argue that parliamentary procedural challenges against amendments to Bill C-11, which addresses sexual misconduct in the military, are unfounded. They contend the changes—previously supported by committee members, including Liberals—align with the bill's scope and expert testimony, urging the Speaker to reject the government's challenge and confirm the legitimacy of the amendments regarding military judicial independence and oversight. 2500 words, 10 minutes.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I want to put a comment on the record. The Green Party of Canada is 100% in agreement with the summary of what has happened with this bill that was just given by the hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.
Kerry Diotte Conservative Edmonton Griesbach, AB
Mr. Speaker, we will take the support. It is great.
The bill needs a great deal of work yet. Again, we believe in giving police the tools, but we do not want to rob people of their freedoms and rights under the charter.
Alex Ruff Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Mr. Speaker, I will ask the chamber's indulgence, before I get into the crux of my speech, to just acknowledge the passing of a long-time family friend back in my riding, Marie Christie, who passed away on the 13th of this month in her 97th year.
Her family settled in my neck of the woods, just a few kilometres from my home farm, back in 1856. She was part of the Arran Tara Fall Fair board as a director for over 55 years. She was a 40-plus-year member of the Royal Canadian Legion Ladies Auxiliary and a life member of the Legion Branch 144 (Chesley). Marie's legacy of kindness, love and spark will live on in our memories for generations. A celebration of life is ongoing this afternoon, and I want to pass on my deepest condolences to the whole extended Christie family. Marie made a difference and she will be missed by each and every person that ever had the privilege to meet her.
We are here today to talk about Bill C-22. I am going to primarily focus my speech on why this piece of legislation around lawful access is so important. I am going to then spend a lot of time talking about key concerns around the terminology, especially around the concept of back doors. I am going to do this primarily by leveraging the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians' report on lawful access that was submitted to the Prime Minister back on March 4 last year. Unfortunately, it was not tabled in Parliament until September 15.
Finally, I am going to talk about why I believe the Liberal government is failing on communicating on this important piece of legislation. Bill C-22 has three parts: Part 1 provides new tools for law enforcement to access digital information; part 2 provides a framework that ensures electronic service providers establish and maintain a system capable of providing the information that law enforcement is authorized to access; and part 3 mandates a review of the act three years after the provisions come into force.
For those wanting a good explanation of the breakdown of all three parts, I encourage everyone to review the speeches by my Conservative colleagues for Parkland, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola and Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, and even the Minister of Justice's intervention on Bill C-22.
Why do we need lawful access in Canada? The NSICOP report, paragraph 198, states:
Lawful access represents one of the most intrusive powers of the state in the protection of national security. Accordingly, Canadians expect strong safeguards for its use, including that it be prescribed by law, serve a legitimate purpose, and be necessary and proportionate. Canadians rightfully want to understand any proposals for new tools and authorities to security and intelligence organizations that have implications for their privacy. However, Canadians also expect security and intelligence organizations to have the tools, policies, and lawful authorities in place to conduct lawful access techniques. The Committee thinks Canadians would be surprised to learn how difficult it actually is for security and intelligence agencies to do so.
Paragraph 200 states:
The Committee is equally concerned that, if left unaddressed, these challenges will undermine Canada’s national security in the long term by increasingly hampering the ability of CSIS and the RCMP to fulfil their respective mandates. The failure to respond to these challenges may also impede Canada’s continued ability to benefit from Five Eyes efforts to detect and respond to security threats if it cannot meaningfully contribute to this partnership.
Paragraph 202 of the report states:
It is critical, however, that the government approach these issues proactively. There are examples internationally of like minded democracies having hurriedly passed controversial lawful access legislation in response to serious national security events. Parliamentarians should have the opportunity to debate new legislation about lawful access with clear eyes and careful consideration, not in a rushed, emotional debate in reaction to a national tragedy. The longer these issues are kept on the backburner, the more the government opens itself up to the risk of following a similar path.
Now I want to get to the idea of intercept capability and the issue of back doors.
Paragraph 104 states:
Policy debates about how to respond to the challenge of encryption have included proposals that the government could require companies to create exceptional access to encryption programs, or backdoors, for security and intelligence organizations. CCCS defines a backdoor as an “undocumented, private, or less detectable-way of gaining remote access to a computer, bypassing authentication measures, and obtaining access to plaintext.” The Citizen Lab states, “[o]nce a backdoor is created, there is no practical guarantee that only state agencies will walk through it. This fundamental flaw makes exceptional access systems an inherent threat to persons who rely on encrypted communications products.” This view is echoed by many cybersecurity experts.
Continuing on in the report:
CSE told the Committee that it also has a concern with backdoors. While it noted that “there are means of creating technical solutions which are currently considered secure,” it stated that it would have a concern with legislation compelling CSPs or software providers to implement backdoors, which could compromise the cybersecurity more generally.
According to the RCMP, backdoors “create vulnerabilities and can weaken the overall security of a network; they create valid security concerns given the potential for these vulnerabilities to be exploited by criminals or other hostile actors. Recognizing the need to protect sensitive information and maintain individuals’ right to privacy, the RCMP does not advocate for the creation of ‘backdoors’ into CSPs’ networks. Instead, it would be safer and more beneficial for law enforcement and national security agencies to be able to leverage the information already accessible by CSPs.”
Some cybersecurity experts and privacy advocates, however, consider lawful intercept capability a backdoor, citing that there is “no such thing as a security backdoor that is only for the ‘good guys.’” Others similarly contend that while it might be argued that “surveillance technology can be built securely and without risk of penetration by hostile forces,” the “track record is not encouraging.”
Neither CSIS or RCMP view intercept capability as a backdoor, because it does not compromise encryption platforms or software. They instead regard the judicially authorized practice of using tools built into a CSP’s system, which are encryption neutral, as using the “front door.”
From paragraph 172, “Importantly, the committee did not hear any government official call for legislation to compel the creation of exceptional access or 'backdoors' to get around encryption.”
Long-winded, but that is all from the report.
This is where I want to get to the issues that I am hearing from constituents and even during debate here in the House, and where the Liberal government is failing.
First off, I talked about this a bit earlier, the Liberals tabled omnibus Bill C-2, which included a few clauses on lawful access. However, the bill was focused on everything from border security and immigration to banning cash transactions, and was doomed to fail from the start. Both Bill C-12 and Bill C-22 are the appropriate compromises as a result. Again, I mentioned this earlier.
Unfortunately, the government's delay of the NSICOP report on lawful access hindered the ability to fully leverage the extensive work done by this bicameral, all-recognized-party committee that only includes findings and recommendations that have unanimous support of all its members. Again, I mentioned this was given to the Prime Minister on March 4, but not tabled here in Parliament until September 15, despite my encouraging a number of the Liberal government ministers to table it back in June.
Here is a key paragraph from the report that will highlight the ongoing challenges around debate. Paragraph 175:
The Committee also observed that privacy and cybersecurity advocates and national security practitioners appear to be talking past one another in debates about encryption and exceptional access for law enforcement and intelligence organizations. As stakeholders debate policy initiatives or legislation, it will be critical for both sides to ensure a common understanding of key concepts. For the government, the Committee suggests that a robust, transparent communication strategy, which explains technical concepts in detail, is fundamental.
Unfortunately, this is where the Liberals' current communications strategy is failing to address this need and needs to be rectified.
In conclusion, Canada absolutely needs updated legislation around lawful access. There have been been calls for this for decades and former governments have tried to, unfortunately, no success.
In my opinion, Bill C-22 is the initial step to get us there. However, I fully believe that Bill C-22 needs full scrutiny at committee and that we, parliamentarians, need to be sure we are talking the same language and addressing the same concerns. In my opinion, the Liberal government is absolutely failing at addressing “a common understanding of key concepts” with respect to Bill C-22. It still has time to fix this.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time that the member opposite has put on the NSICOP committee. No doubt, it gives him a fair amount of insight. I also appreciate the members' emphasis on the standing committee.
Ultimately, it would be wonderful to be able to see Bill C-22 get to that committee stage. This way, there would be no rush per se, as we could go into the details and look at ways it could be strengthened and have some of the concerns addressed. The desire, I believe, is to see lawful access brought into law so that we would not be the only country of the Five Eyes not to have it.
Would the member not agree, in principle, that Canada needs to have lawful access?
Alex Ruff Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Mr. Speaker, absolutely. Actually, the member can just read the report that I quoted extensively. This is something we absolutely need to address. The point, though, is that everybody ultimately, as I mentioned during my speech, thinks this should not be rushed. It needs to be done properly. As I have said countless times in response to this member, everybody in this chamber should have the exact same amount of time to speak to every bill as the member for Winnipeg North.
Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Bloc Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC
Mr. Speaker, we would like some clarification from the Conservative Party.
I would like him to explain his party's position. Where is the line between public safety and respect for privacy? I would like my colleague to share his and his party's views on that.
Alex Ruff Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Mr. Speaker, I actually cannot share my party's perspective writ large. That is a great question for the shadow minister for public safety or the shadow minister for justice on my side. I can share my own personal take on it, which is that we do have to balance it correctly. We talked about it. I quoted about it extensively in my speech.
This is something I think absolutely needs to get fleshed out at committee. We need to have the same access to experts on this topic that the other members of the NSICOP committee and I had the privilege of having, in order to look at how we balance this. Again, I will reiterate what the report states. If the member read it, he would see it states clearly that privacy and public safety and public security are complementary even when it comes around lawful access. They can both work together, not be opposed to each other.
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree with the member that the government screwed up the tabling of Bill C-2 in trying to force through an omnibus bill that was resoundingly, as a result, rejected by the Canadian public.
Here we are now with Bill C-22. The government says it has consulted widely and has learned from its lesson, yet it has deliberately excluded the privacy commissioner in that consultation.
Does the member think the government should have included the privacy commissioner on the development of Bill C-22?
Rhonda Kirkland Conservative Oshawa, ON
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the succinct answers my colleague gives in the House. There are few colleagues in the House who I respect more than this member, and his insight into this bill has been very important to help me understand it, as I sit on the public safety committee. I wonder if he would take another few moments to comment on how important it is to take a look at and dissect this bill, as well as what it going to look like when we are done with it and if it is a good bill when it is finished.
Alex Ruff Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is so important we do this right. I mentioned this earlier, and countless other members have highlighted it, but this has been attempted at least three times or four times over the last 25 or 30 years. Unfortunately, because balancing public safety and privacy rights is such a controversial issue, we need to get this right. This can only be done through deliberate, careful and very wide consultation with every stakeholder who has any sort of foot in this game when it comes to lawful access.
Kyle Seeback Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to have the opportunity today to talk a bit about Bill C-22, which deals with lawful access.
Lawful access is, of course, critically important in the modern era with respect to the investigation and prosecution of crime. It is encouraging that we are talking about lawful access here in the House of Commons today. However, I would be remiss if I did not talk about a few things before dealing with the substance of the bill.
First of all, I will talk about how we got here, which many colleagues in the opposition have done. They have talked about how the Liberal government tried to force the bill through in an earlier version, Bill C-2, which was a gigantic, omnibus piece of legislation. That piece of legislation had many flaws, and a huge number of problems and issues were raised. There were so many that, under the pressure of the opposition parties, the government was forced to split the bill into parts that could be studied and supported, and the rest is coming now in Bill C-22.
This becomes especially important when we look at where we are today. We are now on the cusp of a Liberal majority government, with which the Liberals may choose to ram through pieces of legislation like this without any scrutiny.
Why do I raise this concern right now, at this moment? It is because it has been interesting to listen today to the Liberal parliamentary secretary to the House leader denigrate the Conservatives who have the audacity to get up and speak about this particular piece of legislation. He is suggesting that we are filibustering this piece of legislation, when I have listened to many opposition colleagues get up today and give well-reasoned arguments for why this piece of legislation is problematic and why it deserves additional study.
We know debate is part of the way in which we bring issues forward. The Liberal parliamentary secretary to the House leader seems to find it inconvenient and unsettling that opposition members of Parliament can get up in this chamber and identify significant and serious issues with a piece of government legislation. His view seems to be that we should be just a rubber-stamp chamber, where everything the Liberals decide to put forward is perfectly crafted and we should just move it along. That seems to be his argument all the time. It is almost as though he believes this chamber serves no purpose other than for him to get up and speak to every single piece of legislation, which he does, and then ask questions of every opposition member who has the audacity to stand up and try to exercise the same right.
Why is this deeply concerning? It is deeply concerning because Canadians might be looking at the dystopian future of that kind of attitude being brought forward into the entire House of Commons as the Liberals move toward a majority government.
It looks likely that the Liberals will reorganize committees to have a majority so that, once again, they can ram through pieces of legislation without any study. They can use all kinds of procedural tricks to do that. They can use a programming motion that limits the amount of debate on legislation and the amount of time it spends at committee, deems it adopted at certain stages and passes it on to the Senate. They can do that. They can use time allocation to end debate. They can use closure motions to end debate. They can take committee meetings in camera whenever they want, because they have the votes.
Imagine if the Liberals had had this power back in the fall, when they tried to bring Bill C-2 forward. The opposition would not have had the power to get that bill split so that we could take out the problematic sections for it to be debated and further studied.
The attitude being displayed by the Liberal parliamentary secretary to the House leader and many members of the Liberal caucus is that any time an opposition member has the audacity to stand in their seat, to which they were democratically elected, and raise issues about a piece of legislation. it is is obstruction or a filibuster, yet we have watched Liberal members get up today to speak to this particular bill immediately after the parliamentary secretary to the House leader accused a Conservative member of filibustering by daring to stand in his place to speak on this particular piece of legislation.
Canadians should be listening very carefully to this, because it tells us what is about to happen. The government is going to ram through pieces of legislation because it thinks it can do nothing wrong.
Let me tell this House something. The government has done a lot of things wrong in this Parliament, and did a lot of things wrong in the previous Parliament. For example, it was found to have illegally invoked the Emergencies Act. It is a government that has a tendency to use heavy-handed approaches, overreach and trample over Canadians' charter rights and freedoms.
Now the government is going to have a majority in this House, and potentially a majority on committees, and it is going to use that to stifle debate. We know that because of the questions the Liberals ask and how they answer questions in question period. A day does not go by when the Liberals do not get up to say, “The opposition is obstructing what we are trying to do,” so we know what they are going to try to do when we get to their majority government.
That is deeply troubling with a bill about lawful access, because lawful access is going to determine the extent to which the police and other security agencies can access Canadians' data. Let us be very clear about this. Most Canadians now have extraordinary digital footprints. With that comes the extraordinary need to maintain Canadians' privacy. This is not a government that has shown itself to be shy about overusing or abusing its powers. We have had members of the Conservative caucus get up and very clearly state how much scrutiny this legislation is going to need in order to safeguard the rights of Canadians. A huge part of that is debating right here in this chamber, much to the chagrin of the parliamentary secretary to the House leader, who would like us all to just sit down and let the Liberals continue to have their own speakers get up and speak to this.
I want to make it abundantly clear that Conservatives, when they speak to particular pieces of legislation, are not filibustering. They have been duly elected by millions of Canadians from coast to coast to coast to fight for their rights. That includes their right to privacy.
As we look at this lawful access bill, there are all kinds of things that Canadians should be concerned about, including access to metadata. I remember being a litigation lawyer 20 years ago, talking about preserving and using metadata during discovery. It was quite new 20 years ago. It is not new now. In fact, the amount of metadata the average Canadian has is enormous, and the potential abuse of that is deeply problematic.
We could almost go back to when we were going through the COVID-19 pandemic, when the Liberals wanted to track our movement data, which is a form of metadata. They would have gotten a lot more data than just where people were moving around. They talked about how they would take that data and randomize it so that even if there was a data breach, no one would be granted access to it, but experts came to committees and said that was absolutely not true. No matter how the data is randomized, someone can put that data back together.
When we look at the kinds of extraordinary powers the government is seeking to give not just police, but security agencies, we have to make sure that our data is protected and that the privacy of Canadians will be protected. This takes us to a deeply troubling thing that my NDP colleague raised several times today, which is the fact that the government did not consult the Privacy Commissioner on the drafting of this legislation. It is is deeply problematic, because the Privacy Commissioner is going to have a lot of concerns about this particular piece of legislation.
Going back to how this is a majority government, and we are back at Bill C-2, which was an omnibus piece of legislation. The government did not consult the Privacy Commissioner. It has a majority. It can do whatever it wants in the House of Commons and at committee. This is deeply troubling for the future of Canadians and the future of Canadians' data.
Whenever Bill C-22 goes to committee, if the government has reconstituted the committees to give itself a majority, which Canadians did not vote for, it will be able to pass this piece of legislation without amendment. In fact, it could pass it after hearing from one or two witnesses. The government could pass it without hearing from any witnesses, because it is going to have complete control of committees. The attitude displayed by the parliamentary secretary to the House leader and the contempt he seems to show for debate give me great concern for what would happen at committee.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of things that I could say with regard to the comments made by the member opposite, but suffice it to say that Canada elected a new Prime Minister under a year ago. We have a legislative agenda. Part of that means working with parliamentarians on all sides of the House. Whether it is the Prime Minister or the Liberal government, and whether it is a minority government or a majority government, we will continue to look for co-operation and to improve legislation.
What I think there is not as much tolerance for is the Conservative Party's continuing to deny lawful access to Canadians. Conservatives have continued to do that ever since June last year. Asking for legislation to go to committee is not that much to ask for, while the Conservatives continue to prevent it from going to committee.
Does the member believe the Conservative Party will—
Kyle Seeback Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Mr. Speaker, the cognitive dissonance of that question is really stunning. Once again, the member is suggesting that the audacity of Conservatives and other members of the opposition to get up and speak to this particular piece of legislation is somehow an affront to democracy. Meanwhile, we had a Liberal minister speaking to this particular piece of legislation literally 15 minutes ago.
If the Liberals really think this bill is so important and that we do not need more debate, why do they continue to put up speakers? That takes us to exactly where we are in this country now. Everything the Liberals do, they think is perfect. Anything that anyone else does is filibustering and not worthy of the House's time. It is a deeply troubling belief that the Liberal government seems to have.
Kelly DeRidder Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, I can already see the narrative starting that the Conservatives are filibustering committees and that we are holding up legislation. What I can see eventually happening is committees being reshuffled.
I would like to ask my colleague why it is important to keep committees the same for Canadians in the face of democracy and ensure that His Majesty's loyal opposition still has a voice within Parliament.
Kyle Seeback Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Mr. Speaker, that is a great question. Let us think about this bill. If it had been brought forward as Bill C-2 in its original form today, on the cusp of a Liberal majority government, there would have been no consultation. There would have been no splitting of the bill. The Liberals would have proceeded forward with this at committee to get it passed through the committee as quickly as possible.
We have seen the attitude of the Liberals with respect to this bill. No one is filibustering this piece of legislation. No one is obstructing this piece of legislation. For goodness' sake, there was just a Liberal minister up, speaking to the bill. If what we are doing is obstruction and a filibuster, then they are filibustering their own piece of legislation.
What is interesting is that the Liberals are actually filibustering at the ethics committee to stop an investigation into the finance minister, whose partner is on the board of directors for Alto. If members want to talk about filibusters and obstruction, they are the professionals.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, do members know what is most amazing? The member opposite sat in the chamber when Stephen Harper was the prime minister. With Stephen Harper, the Conservatives would stand in their place, introduce a bill and then move closure immediately after. There were well over 100 closure motions in some form or another.
How dare the member try to compare the two when we have a government that continues to work with opposition members? It is absolutely ludicrous.
I would challenge the member to join me at Carleton University and debate the issue of filibustering. Obviously, it is something he knows nothing about or he is an absolute something that I cannot say here.
I would ask the member to give his head a shake and recognize that it is time we work for Canadians. We can work together and have good, solid legislation—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater
I need to give the member time to respond.
The hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon.
Kyle Seeback Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am always happy to engage in an intellectual fight with people, but I refuse to get into an intellectual fight with someone who is unarmed.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater
I think that may have crossed the line into unparliamentary language. I would ask the member to refrain from that.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Oakville West.
Sima Acan Liberal Oakville West, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in strong and unequivocal support for Bill C-22, the lawful access act of 2026.
The legislation represents a vital and long-overdue step in modernizing Canada's legal, technical and investigative frameworks to protect our citizens in an increasingly dangerous digital world. The bill is a cornerstone of our commitment to modernizing Canada's safety framework for the digital age and beyond, ensuring that our investigators have the tools necessary to keep pace with rapidly evolving technology.
As Chief Nishan Duraiappah of Peel Regional Police so powerfully stated during the government's announcement in Peel Region, our current rules and investigative frameworks were written before cell phones were even created. This is a staggering reality. While criminals, human traffickers and organized crime networks have rapidly adapted to new digital platforms and communication tools, the legal and technical framework available to our investigators has fundamentally failed to keep pace and is falling behind.
The Canadian Police Association, an organization representing 60,000 frontline personnel, and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police have been clear. Our current legal framework to access digital evidence is significantly outdated and urgently needs to be revised. Unfortunately, the reality is clear that, while technology has advanced at lighting speed, the laws governing how we investigate the most sophisticated criminals have remained frozen in time. Transnational organized crime groups are currently exploiting this gap to traffic drugs, such as fentanyl; coordinate human trafficking; distribute child sex abuse material; and smuggle firearms across the border.
Canada is the only country among the Five Eyes and the G7 that does not have a modernized lawful access regime. We are falling behind our peers. For too long, our law enforcement agencies have had to rely on the co-operation of international partners to fill in the gaps in our own national security and intelligence investigations. As our public safety minister has emphasized, a strong government delivers for its citizens. It is time for a Canadian solution to go after criminals who threaten our communities. Bill C-22 would provide the targeted, judicially authorized tools needed to combat 21st-century threats.
One of the most important updates is the confirmation of service demand, which would allow investigators and CSIS to quickly confirm, with a simple yes-or-no question, whether a service provider holds information tied to any identifier. This would not grant access to private content. It would simply identify where the evidence may exist so that proper judicial authorization could follow.
The subscriber information production order would allow police with judicial authorization to obtain basic identifying information, such as a name or an email address. This is the digital equivalent of using a phone book and is essential for identifying suspects operating behind anonymity. To be clear, this is the same approach that existed in the predigital age, simply modernized to keep pace with today's changing technological landscape. This modernization is essential for combatting crimes, such as human trafficking, sextortion and child exploitation, as well as auto theft networks and violent organized crime.
For example, with regard to human trafficking and sextortion, these crimes often begin with an anonymous IP address. The new subscriber information production order would allow police with judicial approval to obtain basic identifying info, such as a name or an email address. This is the digital equivalent of a phone book, and it is essential for identifying the predators who are hiding behind pseudonyms.
Organized car theft rings use digital tools to coordinate border-crossing operations. The bill would modernize tracking and transmission data warrants, allowing investigators to follow the digital bread crumbs of these networks, even when the specific devices they use change during the investigation.
The Canadian Centre for Child Protection has fully endorsed these changes, noting that they would reduce the barriers police face when investigating online crimes against children. Without modern tools, criminals, especially predators, can remain hidden for far too long.
Perhaps most importantly, part 1 of the bill would codify the power of police to act in exigent circumstances. In the digital world, every second counts. Members can imagine an active kidnapping, where a predator is communicating via an encrypted app or a terrorist threat, and an attack is imminent. Currently, waiting hours for a formal warrant in the middle of the night could mean the difference between life and death. Bill C-22 would specify circumstances in which officers can obtain evidence, including subscriber information, immediately, to prevent serious injury or the destruction of vital evidence. This would not grant permanent powers. It would ensure that, in a life-or-death emergency, the law would stand on the side of the victims.
Legal authority is meaningless without technical capacity. Part 2 of the bill, which would enact the supporting authorized access to information act, would ensure that major electronic service providers maintain the technical ability to comply with court orders they are already legally required to follow. Currently, Canada has no regulatory framework requiring service providers to maintain systems capable of responding to lawful court orders in a timely and consistent manner. This bill would address the gap by ensuring core providers can retrieve and produce information when ordered to do so by a court. Importantly, this would not create any back doors. Providers themselves would retrieve the information and disclose it only under judicial authorization, avoiding any systemic vulnerabilities that could be exploited by malicious actors.
I want to be very clear. This legislation would not create unchecked new powers. Strong judicial oversight and privacy would ensure that all powers are exercised under strict court authorization and with robust safeguards to protect Canadians' privacy rights. Judicial authorization ensures that almost every tool in this bill would require prior approval from a judge or justice based on reasonable grounds. No back doors would ensure there would be no covert access mechanism, with systems remaining secure and data only being disclosed under lawful authority. Independent review would ensure that ministerial orders under part 2 must be reviewed and approved by the intelligence commissioner, which would ensure independent oversight and accountability.
To understand why this bill is so vital, we must look at the technical hurdles our officers face every day. I am particularly proud of the collaborative approach we have taken. I recently sponsored a parliamentary breakfast panel on the Hill in collaboration with the National Police Federation. I invited senators and members of Parliament from all parties to engage directly with the experts who work with these systems every day. We heard from Brian Sauvé, president of the National Police Federation, on frontline policing matters; Leah West, a national security law expert from Carleton University; Nick Milinovich, deputy chief of Peel Regional Police and co-chair of the lawful access advisory committee; and Gordon Scott Campbell, a constitutional and criminal lawyer with Supreme Court experience.
Deputy Chief Milinovich and other experts described the trial and error burden that currently cripples investigations. When police have a digital identifier, such as an IP address, tied to a crime, they must send a production order to a service provider to identify the suspect. However, if they send that order to a provider that does not actually service that identifier, the provider can simply not comply. This creates a technical stalemate where police must guess which provider holds the data.
Bill C-22 would solve this through the confirmation of service demand. This tool would allow the investigator to quickly confirm with a simple yes or no if a provider holds information tied to an identifier. It would not grant access to private content, but simply identify where evidence exists so that proper judicial authorization can follow, ending the era of investigative guesswork.
We also heard important questions from our Conservative colleagues about privacy and scope. Those concerns were addressed clearly. This bill would not expand surveillance. It would ensure that, when a judge authorizes access, the information can be obtained effectively and lawfully. The Ontario Association Chiefs of Police has stated that this is about ensuring police can “obtain vital evidence in complex cases”, not “expanding surveillance”.
In conclusion, we can no longer afford to leave our investigators with tools from a predigital era. We cannot remain the only G7 nation without a modern lawful access regime. Bill C-22 is a balanced, necessary and collaborative 21st-century solution to 21st-century crimes. As the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police and multiple national law enforcement bodies have emphasized, this is about ensuring police can obtain vital evidence in complex cases while maintaining strong judicial oversight and charter protections.
I urge all members of the House to support the swift and constructive passage of this legislation so that we can fulfill our primary duty, the safety and security of all Canadians.
Ned Kuruc Conservative Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
Mr. Speaker, this bill would require core providers to retain categories of metadata, including transmission data, for up to one year, covering all users, regardless of whether anyone is a suspect of anything or not. This is a surveillance database built on every Canadian.
Why is the Liberal government treating everyday citizens as suspects in this bill?
Sima Acan Liberal Oakville West, ON
Mr. Speaker, this legislation makes it very clear that the data retention only captures, as my colleague mentioned, metadata for up to one year, and this metadata would not include content on the Internet, web browser history or even social media information.
Lawful access is about identifying who is committing crimes and providing timely intelligence to investigators and law enforcement.
Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Bloc Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC
Riddle me this, Mr. Speaker. The government is asking the public to trust it and saying that it needs more power. That is what the government is asking parliamentarians to approve right now. However, the government is cutting the resources of those that will oversee those new powers. In the most recent budget, the Liberal Party made a 15% cut to the budget of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, the watchdog for the new powers the government is asking for.
Can my colleague explain how the government will do more surveillance with more powers when there will be fewer people responsible for overseeing those new powers?