Debates of April 20th, 2026

Lawful Access Act, 2026

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when we speak to constituents in my riding and right across Canada, public safety is paramount, and lawful access is something that we keep hearing is necessary to keep Canadians safe. As such, this is not an abstract notion. This is not theoretical. It reflects the reality of Canadians, like our families, seniors, newcomers and young people, while they are going about their daily lives with growing concern about what is happening in their community. In my riding of Mississauga East—Cooksville, I hear this directly. People want to feel safe. At the same time, they want to know that their rights are protected. They expect both of these things, and they are right to expect both.

Over the past year, our government has advanced a clear and comprehensive framework to address public safety in Canada, one that rests on three key pillars. First is stronger laws. This includes reforms to bail and sentencing, measures to combat hate, and stronger protections against gender-based violence and exploitation of children, especially online. Second is supporting the front line. This includes investments in law enforcement, with 1,000 new RCMP officers and 1,000 new border officers, but also ensuring police have the tools they need to do their jobs effectively. Third is upstream investments, because safer communities are built not only through enforcement, but through prevention and investments in housing, mental health, addiction supports and programs for at-risk youth.

It is important to emphasize that these pillars are not isolated; they reinforce one another. Strong laws mean little without enforcement. Enforcement alone is insufficient without prevention, and prevention must be paired with accountability. Today's legislation, Bill C-22, sits squarely within that second pillar. Let me be clear that supporting the front line is not just about adding more officers, but it is about equipping them with tools that reflect the world that we live in today, because that world has changed. We all know that.

Technology has transformed how we live and, unfortunately, how crime is committed. We all carry powerful devices in our pockets. We communicate instantly across borders. While these tools serve very positive purposes, we cannot ignore that criminal organizations are using them as well. In conversations I have had with law enforcement, one message comes through clearly: Crime today is increasingly digital, organized and transnational.

We are seeing sophisticated extortion schemes coordinated online, auto theft rings operating across jurisdictions, home invasions tied to organized networks and, most disturbingly, the online exploitation of children. These are not isolated incidents. They are coordinated operations, often directed in real time through encrypted communications.

In Mississauga East—Cooksville, we are not immune to these trends. We are seeing online fraud targeting seniors and newcomers, exploitation facilitated through digital platforms and organized crime leveraging technology to evade detection. What is particularly troubling is the speed at which these crimes unfold. A scam can empty a bank account in minutes. An online interaction can put a young person at risk almost instantly.

Our local police, especially Peel Regional Police, are doing exceptional work, but they have been very clear that the tools available to them must keep pace with the threats that they face. One of the greatest challenges in modern policing is anonymity. Police cannot arrest an IP address. They cannot prosecute a phone number. Behind every digital identifier is a human being. Too often, that individual is shielded by outdated laws, creating a troubling imbalance. Criminals can act quickly, anonymously and across borders. Law enforcement, meanwhile, is slowed by processes that were designed for a different era. If we are serious about public safety, we must ensure our legal framework reflects modern realities.

This is where Bill C-22 comes in. At its core, this legislation is about lawful access, or giving the police the ability to access critical information in a targeted, lawful and timely way.

Let me be clear about what this bill would do and what it would not do. It would not provide unrestricted access to personal data. It would not allow surveillance without oversight. Instead, it would introduce a carefully structured, step-by-step process.

First, where there is an active investigation, police could request confirmation of whether a phone number or IP address is linked to a particular service provider. This would not be content. It would not be private communications. It would simply be identifying the network. Today, the process can take months to determine where to even begin. During those months, evidence can disappear, victims can be further harmed and criminal networks can continue to operate without interruption. This is unacceptable.

Once a link is confirmed, police would then need to seek judicial authorization to access subscriber information such as name and address. This would ensure every step is grounded in legal oversight. This is information that was publicly available in the past. I remember in the 1980s, and I am one of the older guys here, we could open up a phone book and get all this information. Today, that is not accessible to law enforcement, so this needs to get done. In today's digital world, this is not accessible without legal authority. Only in urgent, time-sensitive situations, such as active child exploitation, can access occur without prior authorization. Even then, strict safeguards apply, including accountability measures after the fact.

I want to take a moment to emphasize something that is fundamental to this legislation, and that is trust. Canadians must have confidence that their rights are protected. That is why this bill includes clear legal thresholds before any information could be accessed, judicial oversight for sensitive information, defined limits on what could and could not be requested, and accountability mechanisms to ensure proper use. This is not about expanding state power without limits. It is about ensuring that when power is used, it would be used responsibly, proportionately and transparently.

In fact, this legislation reflects the guidance of our courts and incorporates lessons from past debates. This bill is about balance. It would ensure judicial oversight, clear legal thresholds and independent accountability. In fact, it would establish one of the strongest privacy-protected lawful access regimes in the G7. I would argue this balance is precisely what Canadians expect. They do not want a false choice between safety and privacy. They want both, and this bill would deliver both.

Let us be honest: Canada is behind. Every other G7 country has a lawful access framework. All our Five Eyes partners do as well. Without it, our investigations are slower, more cumbersome and less effective. When crime happens in real time, delays have consequences.

This legislation did not emerge overnight. It builds on years of consultation with law enforcement, privacy experts, legal scholars and parliamentarians from all parties. The result is a bill that is more targeted, more accountable and more transparent. This is what responsible law-making looks like.

When we talk about public safety, we must remember the people on the front lines, the officers, the investigators and the professionals, working every day to keep Canadians safe. They are not asking for unlimited powers. They are asking for modern tools to match modern crime. When we give them those tools with proper safeguards, we are not only supporting law enforcement, we are supporting victims. This issue has been discussed for decades. Law enforcement leaders have warned that we are at risk of “going dark” and losing access to critical digital evidence. We now have an opportunity to act, and with that opportunity comes responsibility.

Before I conclude, I want to share a quick story that underscores why this matters. A constituent in Mississauga East—Cooksville reached out to my office not long ago and said he was defrauded because of a cryptocurrency scam online. For that individual and many across our country, we need to pass this bill, move quickly—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I am afraid we have to move on to questions and comments.

The hon. member for Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if my colleague across the aisle could explain whether he believes Bill C-22 is better than Bill C-2, given that Bill C-2 wanted to limit the use of cash for Canadians.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, good governance is about learning, improving, consultations and listening to those who have brought concerns forward in this House, but also across our country. That is what we have done. We have struck the right balance and brought forward improved legislation that I am very proud of, and I hope we move expeditiously on this.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with the introduction of Bill C‑22, one of the issues is what powers will be granted to the minister by allowing them to order service providers to keep metadata for a year.

One of the concerns that this raises is that businesses that may not currently track users will now be required to do so. This will create a fairly substantial amount of information that law enforcement can access. Some Canadians might fear that their telephone will become a tracking device.

What can my colleague say to reassure these individuals?

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-22 balances the ability of law enforcement to have a tool they require. We see this with our G7 partners and the Five Eyes. They have been able to do it with their service providers. We need to move on this. I know the service providers in Canada will be able to bolster their systems to provide the information that is required.

In the end, this is about protecting Canadians, which is paramount, and we need to move on this.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I really want to emphasize that what the member is talking about is the need to modernize the law. When we look at what has been taking place over the last period of time, we have witnessed issues such as national security, terrorism, child sexual exploitation and repeat violent crimes. For me personally, another big issue has been extortion. All of those crimes are taking place. Law enforcement officers across the country are saying they need lawful access in order to deal with these crimes in a more timely fashion. The security of privacy of information is in the legislation.

I would ask the member to amplify his thoughts on why it is so important that we pass the legislation.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the opportunity to speak to this in a very personal way. As I was finishing up my remarks, I said I have had constituents come to my office, and one, in particular, was a victim of a cryptocurrency scam online. He thought he did everything right. This has exhausted his life savings, which have been taken from him. He said he did everything right. He was looking for help. He went to the police, and the police told him they did not have the resources, the ability or the tools to address this.

With this legislation, the police would be able to help this individual. That is what we are working for here, as parliamentarians, together: to make sure we can safeguard our citizens.

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a quick moment to wish a good friend of mine, Gurwinder Ruprai, a happy birthday. She is a teacher and a great friend from the member opposite's riding in Mississauga.

We have all seen cases where information was not shared among police agencies, so are there any provisions in this bill that would provide not just access but also sharing with other police agencies that get the information?

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will take this opportunity to also wish Gurwinder Ruprai a happy birthday.

Listening to many of the witnesses and others, we have heard about transnational crimes that are happening. Many times, our G7 partners and our Five Eyes partners come to Canada and we do not have the tools to actually support them in addressing crimes that are taking place. We need to be able to do that so we can have the sharing of information that is necessary.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is a real pleasure to rise in the House on behalf of the residents of my riding of Davenport to speak in support of Bill C-22, the lawful access act, 2026.

When I talk to Davenport residents, the issues they raise with me most often are affordability, housing and jobs. Those remain the top concerns, and I want to be honest about that, but when the conversation turns to safety, what I hear has me worried. Davenport residents tell me they feel uneasy when they see drugs on our streets. They worry about encampments down the block. They are worried about watching another storefront on our main streets board up its windows after a break-in. They have heard of a neighbour's car stolen off the street in the middle of the night. They are unsettled by a number of stories about safety in our community. They are also telling me that they are worried about online scams, which keep getting more sophisticated, the ones that are aimed at their parents, at newcomers, at anyone who answers the phone. They may not always call it public safety, but they feel it and they expect their government to respond.

This is exactly what Bill C-22 is about. Under the Mark Carney Liberal government, our approach to keeping Canadians safe rests on three pillars.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I will just remind members that they cannot use the Prime Minister's proper name.

The hon. member has the floor.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, under our federal government, our approach to keeping Canadians safe rests on three pillars: stronger laws; stronger support for the front line, including 1,000 new RCMP officers and 1,000 new officers at our borders; and stronger upstream investments in housing, mental health and programs for at-risk youth. Bill C-22 sits inside the first two pillars. It would modernize our laws and give our police the tools they have been asking Parliament for, not for years but for decades.

Let me speak plainly about why we need this legislation. Today, the most serious crime does not happen only on our streets. It also happens on our phones and on our apps. It is planned in chat groups. It is carried out across borders, and it is all done in seconds. With child sexual exploitation, human trafficking, extortion, money laundering, auto theft rings, hate-motivated violence and foreign interference, criminals have moved online, and our laws have not yet kept up.

Canada is currently the only country in the Five Eyes and the only country in the G7 without a modern lawful access framework. Every one of our closest allies has legal tools that let their police, with judicial oversight, obtain basic digital information during a criminal investigation. Canadian police do not. That gap is not theoretical. It means that Canadian investigations stall. It means that tips from foreign agencies sit unused. It means, in the worst cases, that investigations are simply abandoned before they begin.

The Canadian Centre for Child Protection has reported that police-reported online child sexual exploitation incidents rose 374% between 2014 and 2024. In 2024 alone, 94% of online child sexual abuse material did not result in charges, often because police simply could not identify the person behind the screen name, and that is unacceptable. Bill C-22 would help to change that.

Let me walk through, in plain language, what Bill C-22 actually does and, just as importantly, what it does not do. I think that when people understand the mechanics, a lot of the worry might fall away.

First, the bill would create a simple yes-or-no tool called a confirmation of service demand. Here is how it works. Say police are investigating an extortion case and they have a phone number. They need to know which telephone company, whether it is Rogers, Bell, Telus or anyone else, actually services that number so they know where to send a court order. Under Bill C-22, they can ask that single question: “Do you or do you not service this number?” That is it. There is no name, no address, no content, just yes or no. Today, without this tool, police can spend weeks or months in court, company by company, just to figure out whom to serve. Bill C-22 would let them skip that guessing game and get on with the real investigative work.

Second, and this is the critical privacy safeguard, once police know which provider to go to, they still have to go to a judge. A judge has to independently authorize what is called a subscriber information production order before police can get the name and address behind that account. That is judicial oversight. That is the charter at work. This is not police walking away with someone's name on their own say-so. It is police going before a court, making their case, and a judge deciding whether the threshold has been met. Frankly, this is the same kind of information that used to sit in the phone books on our kitchen counters, but because digital identifiers now reveal so much more about us, the Supreme Court has said, rightly, that accessing them requires a warrant, and Bill C-22 respects that.

Third, the bill would require our major electronic service providers to actually be capable of responding to a valid court order. This sounds almost unbelievable, but under current Canadian law, there is no such requirement. A judge can issue an order, and a company can simply reply that it is not technically able to provide the information. Bill C-22 would fix that with requirements tailored to each class of provider and with oversight from the independent intelligence commissioner.

Fourth, the bill would create a clear legal pathway for Canadian police to work with our allies when crime crosses borders. In 2026, organized crime does not stop at the 49th parallel, and our law enforcement has to be able to move just as quickly.

I am very blessed to represent one of the most engaged and most thoughtful communities in this country. Davenport residents care deeply about privacy and the charter. I want them to know their federal government has listened. This is not the first version of the bill. An earlier version was part of Bill C-2 last year. We heard the concerns raised by privacy experts, civil liberties groups and members of all parties. We took those concerns seriously, we consulted broadly, and we came back with a better, narrower and more carefully built bill.

Here is what changed. Warrantless access to subscriber information is gone, and judicial authorization would be the rule. The definition of “subscriber information” has been narrowed to the basics. The bill would also explicitly protect solicitor-client privilege and medical information. Ministerial orders would require approval by the independent intelligence commissioner. Data retention would be strictly limited to metadata, for a maximum of one year, and not content, not web browsing history and not social media activity. As well, the whole act would come back before Parliament for mandatory review three years after it comes into force.

To be absolutely clear, there are no back doors in this bill. Police would not get direct access to anyone's communications. Service providers themselves would retrieve the information, and only after a court has authorized it. This is lawful access, with the emphasis on “lawful”.

Last month I had the privilege, as chair of the Toronto Liberal caucus, of joining the federal Minister of Public Safety and Toronto police chief Myron Demkiw at Toronto police headquarters, where the minister spoke about the legislation. Standing with the chief, hearing directly from him about what Toronto police officers face every single day, such as the extortion cases hitting families across the city, the auto theft rings and the online exploitation of our children, one understands very quickly why the bill matters and why the delay has real costs, and it is not just Toronto. There is also support for this bill from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Police Federation and the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police.

In closing, to my constituents in Davenport and to the families that have been scammed, the parents worried about their children online and the small business owners who have been threatened with extortion, the bill is for them. To those across Davenport who care fiercely about privacy in the charter, I want them to know that the bill has been built carefully, with judicial oversight at its core and independent accountability layered throughout. It is not a choice between safety and rights. It is both, together, the way Canadians expect.

Crime has modernized. It is long past time our laws did too. I urge all members of the House, from every party, to send Bill C-22 to committee, to study it, to strengthen it where they can and to get it passed. Canadians have waited many years. They should not have to wait any longer.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Davenport mentioned that this is a better bill than before. In fact, this is the third attempt the Liberals have made to introduce a bill that is similar to this, each one a little less intrusive than the last one. My concern, if we let the bill go to committee, is around whether the Liberals would actually respect the amendments we make in it, because I have just come out of a committee with Bill C-11 where we had made some very important amendments to the bill, and on Friday the Liberal Minister of National Defence simply attempted to strip all the amendments away.

I wonder if the Liberals intend to actually respect the amendments we make in committee.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is an important question. My colleague who gave the last speech said this, and I think he was right. We introduced Bill C-2. It had much more comprehensive legislation in it, but we came across a lot of concerns, so we pulled back this section of Bill C-2. Then we decided we were going to consult and listen further. We then went to privacy experts, civil liberties groups and members of all parties. We took all the concerns seriously, and we came back with a better, narrower and more carefully built bill.

I think we know it is always much better, if we get bills to committee and if we all work with the right intention, that we are open to listening. We want to make sure the bill is as strong as possible.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are living in a time when people are worried and are increasingly aware of the need to protect their personal information. The public is becoming more vigilant about these issues, which is something we support.

However, Bill C‑22 is worrisome for these people, who are concerned. While the government is asking for easier access to the public's information, it is also cutting $2.7 million from the budget of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency. This budget should in fact be strengthened in order to reassure people about the government's request in this matter.

Can my colleague explain her understanding of this logic? Cuts are being made to an oversight body at a time when people are worried and when the government is asking citizens for easier access to their information.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on privacy, the first thing I would say is that we really spent the time over the last year to get this right. As I mentioned in my earlier answer, we met with constitutional experts, privacy groups and members from all parties in the House to try to make sure that we got this legislation right, that we were honouring our charter rights. However, we were also moving forward and making sure that we provided law enforcement, the police and CSIS with the tools they need to be able to counter today's crime. That is the first thing I would say.

On the priority of our resources, the attention we are giving to law enforcement, and funding, I would say we are spending a lot of time and money on ensuring public safety in this country. We have introduced a number of pieces of legislation for that cause. We have also put a substantial amount of money into hiring more CBSA agents and more law enforcement agents across the country. The resources are there, and the priority is there as well.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I like the comment the member made, that it is not about choosing between public safety and personal privacy. The legislation covers both.

Can the member provide her thoughts on why it was important for the legislation to cover both?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what the member has raised is exactly what was raised by Davenport residents. The bill has been built carefully with judicial oversight at its core and with independent accountability layered throughout. It is not a choice between safety and rights. It is both, and it is the way Canadians expect us to work, by respecting their rights while allowing us to make the laws, enforce the laws and keep our communities right across the country safe.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives believe in law and order, real law and order, not the kind the Liberals talk about at election time and forget about the moment the votes are counted. Real law and order means keeping Canadians safe and making sure the justice system actually works.

Today we are talking about Bill C-22, a bill that deals with how law enforcement investigates crime in the digital world. Crime has changed. The drug dealer who once operated on a street corner now operates through encrypted apps. The fraudster who once passed bad cheques now steals credit cards online. The predator who once lurked in a park now targets children on the Internet.

If Parliament does not give law enforcement the tools to follow crime in a digital world, criminals will keep winning. Conservatives understand that. We support giving law enforcement the modern tools it needs to do its job, but we also understand something else: The government does not get a free pass from scrutiny when it comes to the personal information of Canadians.

Let me tell members about a case that shows exactly what Parliament is dealing with here. In the Supreme Court case of R. v. Bykovets, police were investigating online fraud by a fraudster who was using stolen credit card information to purchase gift cards online. Investigators traced the activity back to an IP address and obtained subscriber information, and charges followed. However, the case was decided not by what evidence was found but by how that evidence was obtained. That information could reveal personal details about a person's online activity. Investigators can only move forward when that data can be tied to a real person. Because the IP address was accessed without a warrant, the evidence was thrown out.

That is the reality of what Parliament is dealing with today. In a digital investigation, it is not enough to find the evidence. The law must allow law enforcement to get it in the right way. If that step is mishandled, the case can fall apart, and justice may not be served. That is why Parliament must get this legislation right.

Before I say more about Bill C-22, we need to look at how the legislation came to be here today, because this is not the first time the Liberal government has tried to expand access to the personal information of Canadians. Last fall, the Liberals introduced Bill C-2. It proposed a sweeping expansion of government surveillance that alarmed many Canadians, including many of my constituents. It would have given the government access to personal data across a broad range of service providers with little jurisdictional oversight. It included broad ministerial powers with almost no independent accountability. It applied obligations far beyond the communications sector.

Conservatives pushed back. We forced the Liberals to remove provisions that would have allowed access to postal mail without a warrant. We forced them to remove provisions that would have enabled broad demands for personal data without defined legal thresholds. After all of that, they came back with Bill C-22. When a government has to rewrite its own legislation twice because it went too far, it raises many concerns. That is exactly why Parliament must examine this bill with care.

Let us be honest about the government's record on crime. For 10 years, the Liberals let crime get out of control. Violent crime is up, auto theft is up, and bail has become a revolving door. Canadians are less safe today than they were when the Liberals took office. What has been the Liberals' response? Absolutely nothing.

Canadians will not be fooled. They have watched the government talk tough on crime while criminals walk free on bail the same day they are arrested. They have watched the government lecture Canadians about safety while gutting the tools that keep them safe. Now the same government wants Parliament to trust it with expanded access to the personal data of Canadians.

What would Bill C-22 actually do? Part 1 would lower the threshold for accessing subscriber information. It would allow investigators to move from an IP address to an identifiable person more quickly and without a warrant.

Part 2 would require electronic service providers to retain data, including IP addresses and location information, so it is available for future access. The bill would also also give ministers the power to impose technical requirements on service providers through confidential orders. I think that is the most important part. I personally think that is probably one of the bigger sticking points. Those orders would be reviewed by the intelligence commissioner.

Each of those three things raises serious questions. Subscriber information can reveal identity and patterns of activity. If limits are not clearly defined, the risk of improper use would increase. Data retention creates a standing pool of information that can be accessed later. Without clear rules on storage, duration and security, that data would become vulnerable. Ministerial orders would impose requirements on private systems without public visibility. As I commented before, that is probably one of the more concerning ones. We need public visibility with this bill. It is not clear that the oversight by the intelligence commissioner alone would be sufficient. These are not hypothetical concerns, but the same concerns that forced major changes in Bill C-2; they exist in Bill C-22.

Conservatives want this bill to go to committee. Second reading is about the principle of the bill. Committee is about whether the bill is properly drafted and actually works. This bill needs that scrutiny. It does not clearly define who must keep the retained data, where it would be stored, how long it would be kept or how it would be protected. Those gaps would leave the system exposed to misuse.

The definition of electronic service provider is broad. It can extend well beyond telecommunications to messaging platforms and cloud services. The bill would set limits on excluding content, browsing history and social media activity from retention, but it is not clear those distinctions would hold.

At committee, we will hear from law enforcement officers who can speak to what they need on the ground. It is where privacy experts can explain how these measures would affect Canadians. That is where the work of Parliament is supposed to occur. Conservatives support giving law enforcement agencies the tools they need within a framework that respects the rights of Canadians. Sending it to committee would allow Parliament to fix legislation before it becomes law.

I represent a rural region in western Manitoba. My constituents care deeply about safety and their freedom. They want law enforcement officers to have the tools to protect their communities. They also expect their government to protect their rights. Those two things are not in conflict. Effective law enforcement and strong safeguards for Canadians can and must go together.

The R. v. Bykovets case reminds us that shortcuts in procedure can undermine even the strongest investigation. The history of the Liberal legislation in Bill C-2 reminds us what happens when government reaches too far. Conservatives will not let that happen again. We will make sure this legislation serves both justice and freedom, because Canadians deserve nothing less.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Riding Mountain. I originally hail from Manitoba as well. One thing I can say about it is it is cold and flat and has many mosquitoes. I love it too.

We live in a technological society that is so advanced most of us here do not understand some of the capabilities that are out there, and I do not pretend to know what technologies are employed by criminals around here. On the one hand, we have pure anarchy when we address governance and on the other, we have severe authoritarianism. As my colleague mentioned, there have been several bills and several attempts to do this. I wonder if he thinks this bill comes closest to striking a proper balance between severe authoritarianism on the one hand and pure anarchy on the other.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the truth of the matter is that we really do not know. That is why it so important to get this bill to committee. If we rely on the Liberals' track record and the history of this bill, they obviously must be nervous about what else is going to be wrong with it. Everybody is really suspicious. That is why I do think it is really important that we get this bill to committee and really suss out those potential problems.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am more encouraged this afternoon than I was this morning. We get this feeling that the legislation will, in fact, be going to committee. I think that is a positive. We have had many hours of debate on it. I think some of the Conservatives have at least acknowledged that there is a potential need for lawful access.

There are some serious crimes that are taking place in our communities. I have dealt with issues such as extortion, child sexual exploitation and serious crimes. We talk about fraud. The need to modernize is there.

I would encourage members of the Conservative Party, if they have some ideas going into committee, to share them with the department well in advance. We do want to make this good, solid legislation so that we can join the other four countries of the Five Eyes that already have lawful access.

That was more of a comment than a question.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I guess I do have a question of the government. The member talked about law enforcement and helping out law enforcement. It is quite puzzling when we start talking about how we support law enforcement. By all means, I still cannot understand why the Liberal government is moving forward with the confiscation program for firearms. It is spending billions of dollars on that. Those dollars could actually be going towards helping out bills like this and actually protecting Canadians instead of looking at penalizing firearms owners.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed my colleague's speech.

The government has announced that it will be tabling an economic statement in late April. I believe it will be on April 28. I am asking this question because, under Bill C-22, the intelligence commissioner will have a greater role. Law enforcement agencies will consult him frequently. So far, there has been no mention of increasing his budget. An important role is also being given to the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, or NSIRA, yet the budget includes cuts to this oversight body's funding.

There is something I do not understand, and perhaps my colleague will be able to clarify this for me. They want to give more power to the government, ministers and law enforcement while also cutting the budget of those who are supposed to oversee them.