Debates of April 20th, 2026

The House resumed from January 27 consideration of the motion that Bill C-226, An Act to establish a national framework to improve food price transparency, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

National Framework for Food Price Transparency Act

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be back and be able to provide some comments on a very important piece of private member's legislation.

I want to start by complimenting the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells for recognizing just how important it is to be there for constituents in a very real and tangible way. I appreciate that it is not about just his constituents. In fact, this is something that would be of great interest to all Canadians.

As I look across the way, I would suggest that the Conservatives, Bloc members, New Democrats and even the leader of the Green Party give serious consideration to passing Bill C-226. I say that because, especially over the last number of years, virtually since COVID, the profile of consumer awareness of food products and groceries has increased dramatically. For the first time, the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells has brought forward a piece of legislation that could have a very positive outcome for consumers in every region of the country. It is all about consumer education and looking at the ways in which we can ensure more accountability and transparency in purchasing groceries.

There are a number of things that come to my mind, but in essence, the principle of the bill recognizes a very real and tangible need. It could make a real difference for Canadians at the grocery store and beyond. It comes up with a solution, which is to say to the Minister of Industry, upon the legislation passing, that we would like to see, within a year and a half, a national framework that supports communities across the country.

I know the Bloc members might have some concerns with regard to the legislation, but the Province of Quebec actually has something in place, from what I understand. It would be wonderful for other provinces to do what Quebec is doing with regard to this particular issue. With any given issue, we might often find one province doing a bit more than another province. That is why I believe the motion that has been brought forward by the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells is very positive.

Bill C-226 would ensure that the national government could play a leadership role in ensuring that there is more transparency and accountability regarding our grocery products. By having a national framework, we would be providing the provinces and territories the opportunity to piggyback onto or look at what the national government is proposing. If the federal government were able to establish that, nothing would prevent a province from going beyond it, but at least let us try to get something on the books that provides strong, national leadership.

I do not quite follow why members opposite would not want to see something of that nature. All we need to do is reflect on some of the things we hear about in dealing with grocery stores. Shrinkflation was often talked about just a few years back, and it is actually still talked about to a certain degree today. People are paying just as much, but the packaging is smaller, and those sizes vary. Through packaging, we can ultimately be deceived. Knowing the actual size in grams and litres and the ability to have those types of price comparisons is good for consumers, who are the people we represent.

Why would we not take a look at what it is and how we might be able to provide support for this particular private member's bill? Giving the minister's department a mandate so that it becomes a reality would, I believe, set the bill on the right track in actually producing something with a tangible result.

The member talks about working with other jurisdictions and provincial jurisdictions. At the committee stage, we could listen to what some of those stakeholders have to say about the legislation.

Private members' legislation affords members to come up with ideas, bring them forward and ultimately see if we can get them passed for the betterment of society. I would suggest that this is a sound public policy that is in the best interest of consumers. I applaud the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells for taking the initiative and representing his constituents by bringing forward legislation that would protect their interests and ensure more transparency and accountability in our groceries and purchasing. I see that as a positive thing. By bringing it forward as a private member's bill, he is thinking not only about about his constituents, but about a national perspective.

The whole issue of groceries has been greatly debated inside the House. It is one of the reasons why the Prime Minister brought forward a new program that is going to reshape our GST rebate. Not only are we are now converting it into the groceries and essentials benefit for Canadians, but there are going to be substantial increases taking effect in the next couple of months, which will end up putting more disposable income into millions of Canadians' pockets.

Why are we doing that? As a government, we are concerned about the issue of affordability. It is important to all Canadians. I can tell the House it is important to every member of the Liberal caucus. That is why, when I look at this legislation, I see something that continues to advocate for the consumer and the protection of Canadians when it comes to groceries.

With that, I conclude my remarks, and I applaud the member for bringing forward the legislation.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to private member's bill, Bill C-226, which has been brought forward to this House by the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells.

Before I begin my speech, I would like to quickly congratulate two of my local hockey teams. The first is the Penticton Vees, which will be advancing to the next round of playoffs in its first year of the WHL. The second is the Princeton Posse, which is currently playing in the championship series and truly defines how small towns make for big hockey.

Returning to the legislation at hand, I would like to congratulate the member on bringing forward this legislation. It is an opportunity that not every parliamentarian has so early on in the House. I know, because I am currently working on my own legislation, so I understand the challenge in bringing a bill to fruition.

The member is bringing forward legislation related to a subject that, no doubt, is raised in his riding as much as it is in mine: grocery prices. Typical for a Liberal bill, this is not going to get the member where he would like to be, which is lowering grocery prices. Grocery prices are one of the biggest topics in my riding. Wherever I go in my region of the country, whether it is Hedley, Naramata, Oliver, Rock Creek, Greenwood, Rossland or Penticton, I hear the same story: “I can't believe how big my grocery bill is.” When I talk with colleagues here in Ottawa, the same story emerges. Whenever someone picks up a carton of milk, a package of beef or a bag of carrots, they cannot believe the sticker price.

I think all parliamentarians would welcome legislation to tackle grocery prices, but we have to ensure that it actually actually works to stabilize the price of the essentials that all families rely on. Any bill before us should be judged not by its intentions, but by whether it will, in fact, allow families to create an affordable budget to fill the fridge.

For those watching at home, this legislation, if enacted, would create the following regulations. It would require the Minister of Industry, in consultation with the provinces, to create a national framework on grocery pricing and unit price display, emphasizing accuracy, usability and accessibility of unit pricing, transparency on price increases and consumer education on unit pricing. The framework would need to be delivered within 18 months, and it would be followed by an effectiveness report after five years.

I believe the member's intention with this system is to create greater transparency in pricing for consumers, which I appreciate, of course, but the creation of a government report is not the enactment of a report or its recommendations. Ultimately, while the minister's office would be asked to create a report outlining standards, there would be no enforcement mechanism.

We have seen in multiple files departmental reports whose recommendations were not followed through by ministers. As just one example, the federal Competition Bureau studied grocery sector concentration and pricing practices three years ago and made several recommendations to improve competition and consumer options. It is important to note that very few of those recommendations have been enacted, either by the former industry minister who requested that report or by the present industry minister who succeeded him.

There is also the fact that the federal government lacks jurisdiction over grocery pricing, which is ultimately the provinces' territory. There is nothing here in this legislation that lends an understanding of how that gap would be bridged. Ultimately, though, if these challenges could be overcome, I would ask how transparent the Liberal government is willing to be about the added costs to grocery pricing.

Families in my riding understand that global events like COVID, tariffs or the wars in Ukraine, Iran and Iraq can affect food prices, but they see less of the government agricultural red tape, the domestic plastic packaging rules or the domestic fuel standards tax. These are all choices of the government that add unnecessary costs, cent by cent, to a family's grocery bills. Is the Liberal government willing to make it clear how its own policies raise the price of Canadian-made food? Considering this is the Liberal government that championed carbon taxes for years while ignoring the impact on families, I have my doubts. Working to undo these unnecessary taxes, fees and red tape would enable this Parliament to act in ways that let families actually see savings.

All of the Liberal policies I referenced are a necessary added cost to the price on the shelf or in the freezer of the local grocery store. I recently surveyed rural communities across my riding about their experiences with grocery prices. I would like to take an opportunity to bring some of their voices to this debate as well. Norma from Greenwood wrote to me saying that, as a senior with celiac disease, it is ever more expensive for food, and pensions are not keeping pace with the increase in food, gas and power. Norma raises a good point here that, with the costs of groceries certainly impacting young families with many mouths to feed, those on fixed incomes or who live with dietary requirements or limitations on working ability find it equally difficult to ensure an affordable and nutritious meal is something they can put part of a paycheque toward and not a credit card.

Dee in Princeton wrote that people should be encouraged to shop at local producers and grow their own food. Having just been to the opening of our farmers' market and to a hunters' fundraiser this past weekend, I could not agree more. Reducing costs for farmers, growers, hunters and anglers to create more local fruits, vegetables, meat and fish is a point raised often on this side of the House and is especially important in rural Canada.

Lastly, Simon in Castlegar wrote to me saying that breaking down monopolistic entities that have an oversized level of control over the food supply chain might be a better way to reduce the costs.

Finding ways to reduce market dominance of the five major grocery chains and spur more competition and smaller-sized operations were also part of the Competition Bureau's report that I mentioned earlier, which the government has still not acted on three years later. As a former small business owner, I always want to see us paving the way for more options for residents to buy healthy, local, affordable food. If this legislation provided a path forward to remove unnecessary taxes, fees and red tape that push up domestic food costs, I have no doubt this House would swiftly support it, but relying on reporting mechanisms is not the guarantee we need to spur real action on food prices.

I will continue to follow the debate in this House on Bill C-226 and, should it advance, will look to ensure it is rigorously studied at committee.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating Bill C‑226, the bill introduced by the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells to establish a national framework for food price transparency at the grocery store.

To begin, the Bloc Québécois is sensitive to the economic reality that Quebec and Canadian families are facing. We know full well that the rising cost of groceries is forcing a growing number of households to monitor and compare prices more closely. That said, Quebeckers want more than just a better understanding of their grocery bill. They want grocery prices to come down.

It is true that certain price display practices sometimes make it more difficult to compare items, but we also must be honest. Displaying a price by litre or by kilogram does not change the amount paid at the cash register. The problem is not how the price is displayed, but the price itself. The bill is giving the impression that it is addressing the cost of living, but it fails to address the real causes of price increases.

While families struggle to make ends meet, the government is once again choosing to focus on the price tag rather than on the grocery bill as a whole. The real problem is market concentration, the power of the big chains and the fact that the bill has no effect on those factors. Basically, the bill is focusing on the prices displayed in store, meaning what retailers are doing. It is not getting at what really influences prices.

The Bloc Québécois is against the bill because it seeks to establish a national strategy with accountability requirements for Quebec and the provinces in a sector that falls under their jurisdiction. As we know, agriculture and agri-food are shared jurisdictions. However, retail, domestic marketing and consumer protection fall under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. It is not a grey area. In this case, when a customer buys a product at the grocery store, it is a transaction between a consumer and a merchant. That is unmistakably a matter of private law that falls under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces.

What is more, Quebec did not wait for the federal government to take action. Quebec is the only place in Canada that already regulates unit pricing. Unit pricing is not even mandatory anywhere else in the country. Quebec is already committed to protecting consumers in accordance with its own laws and within its own areas of jurisdiction. That is why we find it very difficult to accept the fact that Ottawa wants to impose a national framework in an area where Quebec is already taking action.

The federal government sees rising food prices as an opportunity to talk about removing barriers to interprovincial trade. It is trying to use this bill to lump together all sorts of rules that are not directly related to that objective, including unit price labelling. However, it is important to be clear. Unit price labelling is not a barrier or hindrance to trade, nor does it impede the flow of goods between provinces.

Once again, the federal government is failing to take the right approach and actually help Quebeckers and Canadians keep money in their pockets. How will this bill lower families' grocery bills? The answer is that it will not. Instead, this bill simply adds another layer of bureaucracy and accountability in a sector that does not fall under federal jurisdiction.

If this were to move forward on national level, then it would be best if Quebec and the provinces discussed the matter amongst themselves, agreed on the requirements, and jointly established a course of action that respects their jurisdictions. Discussions on internal trade may provide a forum for this, but certainly not at the cost of federal encroachment. Accepting this today also means accepting a precedent. It opens the door to further federal interference tomorrow in areas that are the sole responsibility of Quebec.

I would also like to point out that the Competition Bureau's June 2023 report on food prices did not propose imposing a uniform federal standard. On the contrary, it spoke of collaboration between the provinces. None of the recommendations called on the federal government to intervene directly in this way. It is the provinces that must reach an agreement. This is important because it confirms that, even when we are talking about improving practices, the way forward remains negotiation, not imposition.

The problem is that the federal government too often acts as though Canada were a unitary state. It wants to harmonize policies across the country without accounting for existing realities, choices already made or jurisdictions.

The reality is that Quebec is often ahead of the curve. This is true on a lot of issues. Once again, Quebec is already working on a problem, and the government comes along and tries to force it to adopt a Canadian standard that disregards everything Quebec is doing. We are getting a little fed up with seeing Ottawa step in when Quebec is already doing something. The government has been pushing the idea of a national unit pricing standard for a long time. After realizing that it lacks the leverage to force the provinces' hand, the government is dialing up the pressure. The government can tout the advantages of this kind of policy all it wants, but two simple facts remain: The federal government has no authority to impose that, and it will not lower food prices anyway.

In short, everything has been set up to federalize an issue that is actually the responsibility of Quebec and the provinces. We need to let the appropriate governments handle this and negotiate among themselves. They have already demonstrated that they can work together when necessary. We saw that with the grocery sector code of conduct, for instance. It can all work out when governments collaborate. When Ottawa imposes its will, it mainly causes unnecessary tension. What we are asking for is simple: genuine negotiations that respect jurisdictional boundaries. The federal government can facilitate everything, but it cannot impose a one-size-fits-all standard in a sector that falls outside its purview.

Quebeckers are not looking for empty measures. They want meaningful action that will truly lower their bills and respect Quebec's jurisdiction. For all the reasons I have just listed, the Bloc Québécois will vote against this bill.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear about what is happening in this country right now. Canadian families are making impossible choices at grocery stores. Parents are skipping meals so their children can eat. Seniors on fixed income are choosing between food and medication. Food banks usage has reached historic highs, and people using them are not just unemployed Canadians. They are working people, people with jobs who still cannot afford to feed their family.

Meanwhile, Canada's grocery giants have posted record profits. Billions of dollars are flowing to shareholders and executives, while ordinary Canadians struggle to put food on the table. This is not a supply chain problem anymore. This is a greed problem. Increasingly, it is also about a transparency problem, because new technologies are making pricing even more opaque and harder for Canadians to trust. Bill C-226, the national framework for food price transparency act, is one step, a modest but necessary step, toward restoring fairness and transparency in our grocery sector.

I want to acknowledge and thank the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells for bringing the bill forward in the current Parliament. I also want to thank my former colleague Alistair MacGregor, the former member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, as Bill C-226 is a carbon copy of Bill C-406, which was introduced by Alistair because the NDP wanted legislation to establish a national framework to improve food price transparency through standardized unit pricing and public awareness for consumers about shrinkflation practices.

Right now, grocery pricing in Canada operates like a black box. Prices go up, and Canadians are told it is because of inflation, supply costs or global pressures, but when those input costs come down, do prices follow? They rarely do, and consumers have no way to verify what they are being told. Anyone who has tried to compare products at the grocery store knows the shell game that is being played. Is a 750-gram box a better deal than the 1.2‑kilogram bag? Is the sale price actually a saving, or has the package quietly shrunk? Shrinkflation is real. Canadians are paying the same or more for less product, and without clear unit pricing, it is nearly impossible to catch.

The bill would establish national standards for unit pricing displays, making them accurate, usable and accessible. That means clear, consistent labelling that lets a working parent on a tight budget quickly identify the best value. It means accessibility for seniors, for people with disabilities and for anyone who deserves to shop with dignity and clarity. This is consumer protection 101, and frankly it is long overdue in Canada. Many European countries and Australian states have had mandatory unit pricing for years. We are playing catch-up.

Food affordability is a national crisis that requires a national response, and the framework would create a structure for that collaboration. In addition to addressing pricing transparency, there is also a new and deeply troubling layer being added to this lack of transparency: surveillance pricing. Retailers are increasingly able to use personal data, such as person's postal code, their purchase history and even their online behaviour, to estimate what they might be willing to pay, and to adjust prices accordingly.

This means that two people could buy exactly the same product at exactly the same store and pay different prices, not because of a sale and not because of cost differences but because an algorithm has decided that one of them can be charged more. This undermines a basic assumption Canadians have always relied on: that the price on the shelf is the price everyone pays. It also makes comparison shopping nearly impossible. If prices are being personalized behind the scenes, how can Canadians make informed choices? How can markets function fairly when the rules are hidden?

The United Food and Commercial Workers Union has already raised concerns, noting that these systems are beginning to roll out in real time with little transparency and no accountability. We know who will be most affected: seniors on fixed income, working families, people in rural and underserved communities, and anyone an algorithm determines has fewer options. That is not a fair market. That is digital age price gouging.

Surveillance pricing needs to be banned in Canada. Our leader, Avi Lewis, has called for clear guardrails to ensure that personal data is not used to squeeze more money out of the pockets of people who are already stretched thin. In Canada we are already seeing leadership in Manitoba on this under Premier Wab Kinew, who has taken steps to ban surveillance pricing practices outright, recognizing the risks they pose to consumers. Innovation should serve people, not exploit them. It is about setting boundaries. The Liberals should bring in a national initiative to ban surveillance pricing from coast to coast to coast.

Meanwhile, Bill C-226 would address part of the broader problem by requiring transparency on price increases, adjustments and fluctuations. This is not about the government's setting prices. It is about ensuring that Canadians have the information they need to make informed decisions and to hold corporations accountable. When grocery chains know their pricing practices will be scrutinized, when they know Canadians can see when and why prices change, they will think twice before padding their margins on the backs of struggling families.

Would the bill single-handedly solve the affordability crisis? No, it would not. New Democrats have called for much bolder action: excess profit taxes on grocery giants, stronger competition enforcement, measures to break up corporate concentration in the food supply chain and a public option for groceries such as what Avi Lewis has long argued for. However, the bill is a beginning. It would give Canadians tools and information. It would establish the principle that transparency is non-negotiable in our grocery sector, especially as pricing practices become more complex and less visible. We should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. We can pass the legislation while continuing to fight for deeper structural reforms.

This comes down to a simple question: Whose side are we on? Are we on the side of grocery executives and shareholders, who have enriched themselves during a cost of living crisis, or are we on the side of the single mother comparing prices at 10 p.m. after her shift, the pensioner stretched thin on a fixed income and the family choosing between groceries and rent?

Canadians deserve to know that the price on the tag is the price that everyone pays, not a number quietly adjusted based on their personal data. Bill C-226 is a vote for transparency, a vote for fairness and a vote for Canadian families. New Democrats will be supporting the bill, and we urge all members of the House to do the same.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise on behalf of Oshawa residents. My neighbours speak about this issue, which is very important to them. It weighs heavily on workers, families, seniors and youth across our community.

Bill C-226 is a bill to establish a national framework to improve food price transparency. The legislation would require the Minister of Industry, in consultation with provinces, to develop a framework focused on grocery pricing practices, unit price display and consumer education. It would also require a report to Parliament within 18 months, followed by a review of its effectiveness within five years. At first glance that sounds reasonable. Transparency matters, and Canadians deserve clear and accurate information when they are making decisions at the grocery store.

However, in Oshawa, that conversation goes far beyond transparency. It is about whether people can afford to put food on the table at all. In my recent surveys in Oshawa, of more than 8,000 people, 73% said that the self-proclaimed new Liberal government has not significantly eased their household's cost of living challenges over the past year. What stood out even more was that 40% of those Oshawa respondents also said they were, in general, Liberal supporters.

That tells me something important: People are not approaching this as a political debate. They are looking at their grocery bills, their bank accounts and their ability to get through the month, and they are worried. Of my constituents who responded, 53% said they are living paycheque to paycheque. These are not just people on the margins. They are dual-income working families, young workers trying to get ahead and seniors who are doing everything they can to make their savings last. They are doing everything right, but it is still not enough.

Affordability is now the top issue for over 57% of the people in Oshawa who answered my surveys. Affordability is ahead of health care, ahead of crime, ahead of tariffs and even ahead of jobs. That speaks to how serious the situation has become. It is not just what people are telling me. It is also what we are seeing. Food banks in Oshawa and across the Durham region are facing record demand. Organizations like Simcoe Hall Settlement House, local churches with food bank, and Feed the Need in Durham are having more working families than ever walk through their doors.

Many of these organizations have had to limit how often people can come. This is not because the need has gone down but because they simply cannot keep up with the demand. I saw this first-hand in Oshawa when the leader of the official opposition joined us at Simcoe Hall Settlement House. Together we helped deliver donations collected through my constituency office's drive, made possible by the generosity of my neighbours in Oshawa, in addition to the generous donations made personally by the member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

We had the chance to speak with the hard-working Simcoe Hall staff and volunteers who are on the front lines every day, doing everything they can to support families in need. What stayed with me most was how much demand has grown and how many of the people relying on these services today are from working families and never expected to be in the position they are in.

I also asked, when I was at Simcoe Hall in December, about the national school food program. The Liberals are constantly telling us that it is the answer to help with food insecurity and affordability. The folks at Simcoe Hall said it is not doing anything. In fact, I do not know of any school in my region that has the national school food program. Again, it is not working, it is not helping and we need better answers.

I have also heard from more than 5,000 Oshawa residents who have signed petitions calling for immediate action to bring down the cost of food. They are asking for relief from the hidden costs that drive up prices on everything from fuel to packaging and fertilizers. They are asking for practical solutions that would make a difference in their daily lives. They are not asking for yet another framework. “Framework” is a beautiful word that just means more bureaucracy.

Bill C-226 may help consumers compare prices. It may affect how information is displayed. It may help some households understand what they are paying for. However, it would not do what we in Oshawa and all Canadians need. It would not lower the cost of groceries, period.

We must also consider the broader impact. The bill would introduce a federal framework in an area that has traditionally been managed by the provinces. Retail pricing and consumer protection are areas where the provinces already play a significant role. We need to be mindful not to create yet another overlap that simply adds complexity without delivering meaningful results because, guess what, those added costs do not stay within the system but are passed on to the consumer, exacerbating the problem we currently have.

We also know that the Competition Bureau has already studied the grocery sector and highlighted the need for stronger competition. That is where we should be focused: on creating an environment where new competitors can enter the market, on reducing barriers that drive up costs and on ensuring Canadians have real choice.

In my conversations across Oshawa, I have heard something very concerning. Families are changing what they eat. Some have stopped buying meat altogether. My friend Nathan said earlier that we need more red meat, not more red tape. Others are cutting back on even the most basic resources of protein just to make their budgets work. As a result, this is not just an affordability crisis but also a health crisis. This is not what Canadian people expect. This is not what families should be facing after working hard and doing their part.

My neighbours in Oshawa are not asking for more reports. They are not asking for more strategies, more frameworks or more plans. They are tired. They are concerned. They are asking for something very simple. They want to be able to afford to feed their own families. They want dignity. They want to take care of themselves without having to rely on a food bank or other government supports and programs. They want to feed their own families.

After nearly a decade of rising costs and 11 years of Liberal promises that have not delivered relief, 62% of my constituents in Oshawa who responded believe that our country is headed in the wrong direction. That is not something we can ignore. Therefore, while I respect the intent of Bill C-226, there are serious concerns. Transparency matters, but it is not enough. Canadians need action that lowers costs and policies that address the real drivers of food prices. They need relief now, not in 18 months, and not years down the road.

This is a serious moment. We have a responsibility to respond with solutions that reflect what Canadians are actually going through. Above all, we have a responsibility to listen, to understand and to act in a way that brings real relief to the people we represent.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I now call upon the hon. member for Fleetwood—Port Kells, who has five minutes for his right of reply.

[Gurbux Saini, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise once again in support of Bill C-226, an act to establish a national framework to improve food price transparency.

Let me begin by acknowledging that our government has already taken important steps to support Canadians through a challenging period of global inflation and rising food costs, from strengthening competition in the grocery sector to supporting households directly. We recognize that affordability remains one of the most pressing concerns for Canadians today. These are important steps. They show that our government is taking concrete steps to better understand pricing practices and ensure that markets remain fair and competitive.

However, we also recognize that more can and should be done. Bill C-226 builds on these efforts in a constructive and collaborative way. It does not seek to replace existing measures, nor does it place undue burden on provinces, territories or retailers. Instead, it proposes a practical framework that complements current initiatives by focusing on one key principle: transparency. Canadians want to make informed choices, yet too often they are faced with unclear or inconsistent pricing practices. Without standardized unit pricing, such as the cost per gram or per litre, it becomes unnecessarily difficult to compare products and determine their true value.

It is important to note that this bill aims to foster a shared approach to clarity and consistency across the country in partnership with provinces and territories, without infringing on their jurisdictions or authorities. It is also important to emphasize that this legislation is measured and realistic. It does not claim to solve all aspects of food affordability; rather, it represents a thoughtful step forward that empowers consumers without imposing heavy-handed regulations.

At a time when Canadians are carefully managing their household budgets, even small improvements in transparency can make a meaningful difference. When people can easily compare prices, they are better equipped to stretch their dollars and make choices that suit their needs.

This bill is also about trust. Transparency strengthens confidence in the marketplace. It reassures Canadians that the system is fair, that information is accessible and that they are not at a disadvantage when making everyday purchases. This is a balanced proposal. It aligns with the work our government is already doing, and it reflects our commitment to supporting Canadians in a practical, responsible way.

I invite all members of the House to view Bill C-226 in that spirit, as a collaborative, responsible measure that would complement existing efforts and help Canadians navigate the realities of today's economy. Let us continue working together to improve affordability, strengthen transparency and ensure that our grocery system works for all Canadians.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Gurbux Saini, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to see a recorded vote.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, April 22, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

Sitting Suspended

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The sitting is suspended to the call of the Chair.

(The sitting of the House was suspended at 11:49 a.m.)

(The House resumed at 12:02 p.m.)

The House resumed from April 17 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

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy this morning to be here to add my comments to what I think is a really important piece of legislation for our country.

I speak in strong support of Bill C-22. It is a piece of legislation that modernizes Canada's lawful access framework so our police and national security agencies can do their jobs effectively in a digital world, which is what we are clearly all living in, while fully respecting Canadians' charter rights and privacy.

It is extremely important to be able to craft legislation that meets the very basics that are important to all of us when it comes to our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that we move forward in that direction in a positive way in crafting this piece of legislation.

The context of why this bill is necessary is that crime has changed. I think we are all seeing it in our communities, streets, phones and computers. Things have changed immensely on how crime is delivered. It is not just, I say this randomly, shooting someone. It is now accessing someone's private details and so many other things that need new legislation to keep up with the change in criminal activity.

We have been hearing about a lot of effort going into dealing with organized crime. Whether we are talking about B.C. or Brampton, Ontario, organized crime has infiltrated a tremendous number of areas in our country and the laws we were able to use previously do not meet the requirements for our police officers and RCMP officers today.

Child exploitation is another extremely important issue that is happening. When we ask the police to do their job, it is very difficult for them to do it with their hands handcuffed behind their backs to get the access that they need to be able to make a case and find out who the guilty parties are. Bill C-22 would help with that.

Foreign interference, extortion, terrorism and auto theft are also things that Bill C-22 would help.

We hear a lot about financial crimes in our day-to-day activity with our constituents and with others, and the different ways that the criminal element is able to access things. They increasingly operate online, using encrypted platforms and move data across borders in seconds, not minutes, yet Canada's lawful access laws were largely written for a pre-smart phone, pre-cloud era. When we talk to some seniors, in particular, they know very little about this, yet it is happening in their own instruments.

It is very difficult for police to get access. Investigations can stall because police cannot determine which service provider holds the relevant data. Is it an Apple? Is it Rogers? Who is the service provider? Our agencies are forced to rely on voluntary disclosure, foreign partners or legal workarounds. I think the police already have a difficult enough time getting the information to build a case. When they have to appear before a judge and get judicial permission, it hampers the whole investigation.

As proud as we are of Canada, we are now the only Five Eyes or G7 country without a modern lawful access regime. This is not a sustainable position for public safety nor Canadian sovereignty. Bill C-22 would be the beginning of creating the lawful regime needed to be able to give more support to our law enforcement officers.

What Bill C-22 would do, in very plain terms, is provide a measured, Canadian solution built on three pillars: clarity, constitutionality and accountability. All three are extremely important for our law enforcement officers to be able to do the job that we ask them to do.

Timely, court-authorized access—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I apologize, but I am going to interrupt the member to ask that she take her phone and place it on the chair or somewhere further away from the live microphone.

The hon. member may resume.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, point one is that Bill C-22 would give police and CSIS clear, court-authorized tools aligned with Supreme Court decisions such as Spencer and Bykovets. Two key tools worth highlighting in those decisions were, first, confirmation of service, or a simple yes-or-no confirmation of which service provider holds a specific identifier. This does not reveal personal information and does not replace judicial authorization. Second is subscriber information production orders. These allow police, with a judge's approval, to obtain basic identifying information, nothing more, so investigations can actually proceed.

The bill would also clarify the ability to accept voluntarily provided information, such as tips or victim reports. It would codify exigent circumstances so police could act quickly in genuine emergencies. It would also create smarter tools for international co-operation, reflecting that data does not stop at borders.

Point two is technical capability. It would not be new powers as only technical capabilities would be expanded. Bill C-22 would ensure that electronic service providers have the technical ability to comply with existing warrants and court orders. That is critical. The bill would create no new surveillance powers, which is very important, as this was crafted to ensure that it would not be giving police access to something that would jeopardize people's constitutional rights. It would not allow warrantless access, nor mass surveillance, direct access or back doors. Access to content, browsing history or social media activity would not allowed with Bill C-22.

Every disclosure would require lawful authorization. Providers themselves would supply the information. If a cybersecurity concern arises, judicial review for this would be built in to Bill C-22. There would also the strong oversight and accountability I mentioned. Bill C-22 would embed judicial oversight, intelligence commissioner approval for ministerial orders and public annual reporting. A mandatory parliamentary review after three years would be essential to see if the goals of Bill C-22 are being achieved or if changes are needed in one way or the other.

This is how responsible legislation is done. The privacy and the charter I mentioned earlier are extremely important. In Bill C-22, privacy and public safety would not be opposing values. They would be mutually reinforcing. Bill C-22 would narrow definitions of subscriber information and explicitly exclude content. It would limit data retention to metadata for a maximum of one year, respond directly to Supreme Court jurisprudence and add more transparency than exists today.

This bill would not lower constitutional standards, as I mentioned earlier. It would clarify them so police, providers and courts all operate with certainty and consistency. If we do nothing, we leave investigations in a grey zone, where they are today, and where accountability is weaker and not stronger.

Some have suggested that this bill would go too far. Others claim it would not go far enough. This tells me this legislation is carefully balanced. To be clear, Bill C-22 would not authorize access to emails, content or web browsing history. It would not create secret surveillance powers. It would respond to real operational gaps identified by police, child protection experts and national security professionals.

I am thankful for the opportunity to speak on Bill C-22. It is an important bill that is endorsed by police chiefs, frontline officers and child protection organizations. We have been very clear: Digital evidence is essential, and today it is far too often out of reach to help accomplish the goals we have today.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the fact that law enforcement need to have the tools to do their job and do it effectively so that we can put criminals behind bars where they belong.

However, from a civil liberties perspective, can the member talk a little more about the protections for individual privacy that would be looked after in this bill?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, Bill C-22 would not authorize access to emails, content or web browsing history. The whole goal of Bill C-22 is to take the handcuffs off our police enforcement, give them the tools they need to find out who has access to a particular phone number that is viewing child pornography or that has other law-breaking schemes going on.

I believe the hon. member was at an event a few months ago on the Hill with the RCMP, who talked about how difficult it is for them to get the basic information they need while still protecting Canadians' privacy.

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

Mr. Speaker, in terms of lawful access, this Prime Minister and the government brought forward the whole debate on lawful access back in June, shortly after the federal election last year. It is a little frustrating to see the resistance that we are getting from the Conservative Party with regard to lawful access, given that law enforcement officers across the nation want to see lawful access implemented.

I am wondering if the member could provide her thoughts on the importance of stopping the filibustering on legislation that is denying lawful access in Canada.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, many of the issues in Bill C-22, I expect, will be fully supported by my Conservative colleagues, the Bloc, the NDP and so on. We all have the same intent to protect families, people and our individual rights and freedoms. I expect that they will be front and centre in supporting Bill C-22, helping us to get it through as quickly as possible.

If we can make it stronger, if there is an area where we can agree to reinforce something, we all have the same intent, and that is starting to protect people in this new digital world we are living in.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments in response to the question and comment from the member for Winnipeg North, and I wonder if she could take a minute to talk about the role of the official opposition.

It is an important role in our parliamentary system, and it is debate that we are having here today, not filibustering. I take exception when the member for Winnipeg North constantly talks about debate as filibustering. I know the member might disagree, and I would love her comments on that.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely a debate that we are having today, and we will have debates at committee as well.

I am a Canadian parliamentarian who is very concerned with the issue of safety and law and order. I wish this legislation had been enacted two years or five years ago. Things have moved so quickly in this digital economy, and we are always so far behind. I hope my colleagues across the aisle will work extensively with this side of the House to make sure we have done the best we can in strengthening this piece of legislation and getting it through as quickly as possible.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about aspects of Bill C-22, things that continue to include unacceptable elements from Bill C-2.

I could not agree more with the hon. member for Oshawa that the hon. member for Winnipeg North has assumed that people are filibustering when we are merely insisting that the legislation be acceptable. Bill C-22 is an improvement, but could the hon. member for Humber River—Black Creek let us know if the government will be open to amending it to deal with the problems in part 2 of the bill?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think we all anticipate hearing further comments from other parties, so that we can make this legislation go through quickly and so that we can make it the best it can possibly be.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the focus of my remarks today on Bill C-22 will be on part 2, which is the so-called lawful access proposal, and specifically what the bill as written actually does and why Canadians should be deeply concerned about it.

There are two competing interests at play here, in this so-called lawful access proposal. On the one hand, there is the public interest in safety, security and the effective suppression of crime. On the other hand, there are the privacy interests of all Canadians: the right to be left alone, free from unwanted intrusion by the government or its agents. In my view, the Liberal government bears the burden of demonstrating, one, why these new powers are necessary; two, why our current system is inadequate; and three, that the measures in Bill C-22 strike the right balance between the protection of privacy and public safety.

In my view, the Liberals have failed on all accounts. They have failed because Bill C-22 is overbroad and disproportionately interferes with the privacy interests of all Canadians. It does this by forcing what are known in the bill as “electronic service providers”, who provide to Canadians what is called in the bill “electronic service”, to build into their systems interception and monitoring capabilities to collect and retain data about Canadians. As I will show, there are almost no guardrails respecting who will be caught by this proposal, nor are there sufficient limits on the data that it proposes to capture. Perhaps most troubling is that the data includes location data, effectively turning every connected device into a government-spying device. On top of it all, the minister is given power to do all of this in secret.

Part 2 of Bill C-22 will require a wide range of electronic service providers to build interception and monitoring capabilities into their system. A plain reading of this proposal leads to the conclusion that nearly any entity providing electronic services to Canadians will be caught. Let me unpack two key definitions to show just how broad the proposal really is. The first is “electronic service provider”, and the second is “electronic service”. An electronic service provider is defined in the relevant part of the act as a person who “provides an electronic service, including for the purpose of enabling communications”. The keywords here are “electronic service” and the phrase “including for the purpose of enabling communications”.

The Liberals would have us believe that this definition targets only telecoms and big tech. The Minister of Justice said so in his speech. He said, “we are mainly focused on large-scale networks to ensure that we understand the metadata behind messages”, but that is not what the bill says. The bill says, “including for the purpose of enabling communications”. The word “including” is a deliberate drafting choice, and it signals a non-exhaustive list. It means that the definition of “electronic service provider” will capture much more than just those who are enabling communications, much more than just big telcos and big tech.

That becomes even more clear when we look at the second definition, of electronic service, which reads, in part, as follows: “a service, or a feature of a service, that involves the creation, recording, storage, processing, transmission, reception, emission or making available of information in electronic, digital or any other intangible form”, and the definition goes on. I realize that is a mouthful.

Taken together, these definitions create an extraordinarily broad scope. Based on the text as written, I could qualify as an electronic service provider. Banks could qualify, law firms could qualify and news media could qualify. They all create, store and transmit electronic information to Canadians.

Where exactly are the boundaries? I have not heard them yet, including from the Minister of Justice. The Liberals, who proposed this, bear the burden of delineating those boundaries clearly and narrowly, and they have failed to do so. This failure becomes problematic when we get to secret orders, which we will do shortly.

A subset of these electronic service providers will be designated as core providers. We do not know which companies will fall into this category, because the Liberals have not told Canadians. It will be proposed in regulations sometime in the future. What we do know is that core providers will be required to build technical capabilities into their systems allowing government to access Canadians' data.

The Liberals have attempted to assure Canadians that these obligations will be limited to a narrow subset of metadata. The justice minister reiterated this when he said in his speech that the goal is “not specifically requiring the individual content of every message, but only trying to identify what messages may have been sent at what time”. However, that is not what the bill says. Proposed paragraph 5(2)(a) allows cabinet to make regulations requiring core providers to develop, implement and maintain these technical capabilities. Importantly, regulations may be made “related to extracting and organizing information”. The phrase “extracting information” is extremely broad and goes well beyond metadata. Moreover, proposed paragraph 5(2)(a) is not limited by the restrictions respecting metadata in proposed subsection 5(4). Those are the restrictions around browsing history and social media.

Even if the requirements were restricted only to certain metadata, the proposal would still be overbroad. Metadata, including location data, is far more revealing than, as the minister said, what messages were sent at what time. Metadata is a comprehensive record of communications behaviour. Combined with the subscriber data available under part 1 of the bill, it creates a detailed picture of Canadians' daily habits, places of residence, movements, social relationships and private lives. This is exactly why similar blanket retention laws in Europe were struck down as a disproportionate interference in privacy rights.

For all electronic services providers, whether they are core providers or otherwise, the government maintains even more sweeping powers. Proposed subsection 7(1) allows the minister to issue an order to any electronic service provider imposing the same obligations that can be required of core providers.

All of these powers, whether exercised with respect to core providers or any other electronic service provider, can be exercised in secret. Regulations made by cabinet for core providers are exempt from the Statutory Instruments Act. Ministerial orders for electronic service providers are exempt from the Statutory Instruments Act. That means they would not be published in the Canada Gazette. That means they would be secret. Worse still, electronic service providers would be prohibited from publicly disclosing that they are even subject to such an order.

These requirements to build systems into electronic service providers' provision of electronic services to Canadians would create serious vulnerabilities in our infrastructure. Providers would be creating a front door for government access, one that can and likely will be exploited by bad actors or the government itself. That is not my conjecture; that is a demonstrated fact.

I have two examples. First, in 2004-05, hackers exploited Vodafone Greece's built-in lawful interception systems to illegally tap the phones of the Prime Minister, cabinet ministers and other senior officials for months. More recently, the China-linked Salt Typhoon hacking group breached lawful intercept systems operated by major U.S. providers, including Verizon and AT&T. In both cases, systems built for authorized government access became gateways for serious abuse, including by Communist-backed hackers.

These systems would be abused by government. I do not trust the government to exercise these powers in the public interest, because it has shown itself to be untrustworthy.

There is another path. Our current legal framework already provides for police to obtain court authorizations for information, preservation orders and assistance orders. Critics argue that the process is slow and burdensome, and those are serious concerns that deserve serious merit. However, the solution is not blanket authorizations to retain vast amounts of data by an untold number of service providers.

In summary, Bill C-22 would create a broad surveillance framework covering vast amounts of Canadians' data, and it would do so largely in secret and without sufficient oversight or remedies for misuse. It would also introduce new vulnerabilities into our digital systems that would make Canadians' data less secure. These are vulnerabilities that bad actors and even governments themselves may abuse.

With all these things taken together, the government has failed to demonstrate why these expansive new powers are necessary, why the current system cannot be improved upon, and that Bill C-22 strikes the right balance between public safety and the protection of Canadians' privacy interests.