House of Commons Hansard #106 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was c-22.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
National Framework for Food Price Transparency Act Second reading of Bill C-226. The bill proposes a national framework to increase grocery pricing transparency through standardized unit pricing. Liberal supporters praise it as a practical consumer protection measure, while Conservatives criticize the lack of enforcement and argue it distracts from affordability roots. The Bloc Québécois opposes the bill, citing federal overreach into provincial jurisdiction over consumer protection and retail trade. 5900 words, 45 minutes.
Lawful Access Act, 2026 Second reading of Bill C-22. The bill seeks to modernize Canada’s lawful access regime, enabling law enforcement to access digital evidence. Supporters argue the changes are vital to combat modern crime. Conversely, the Opposition warns against government overreach and broad surveillance, citing insufficient consultation with privacy officials. While agreeing on the need for effective police tools, parliamentarians emphasize that the legislation requires rigorous committee scrutiny to adequately protect civil liberties and Charter rights. 39600 words, 5 hours in 2 segments: 1 2.
Citizenship Act First reading of Bill C-274. The bill mandates the government to automatically apply for Canadian citizenship for children in the child protection system who immigrated to Canada as minors, preventing them from facing deportation upon aging out of care. 300 words.
Admissibility of Committee Amendments to Bill C-11 James Bezan and Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay argue that parliamentary procedural challenges against amendments to Bill C-11, which addresses sexual misconduct in the military, are unfounded. They contend the changes—previously supported by committee members, including Liberals—align with the bill's scope and expert testimony, urging the Speaker to reject the government's challenge and confirm the legitimacy of the amendments regarding military judicial independence and oversight. 2500 words, 10 minutes.
Sima Acan Liberal Oakville West, ON
Mr. Speaker, I want to be very clear on the ministerial powers. The ministerial orders in part 2 would be subject to approval by the intelligence commissioner. Privacy and cybersecurity are the considerations when issuing orders. Judges have discretion to include conditions to protect any person's privacy interests when issuing a warrant. This strikes the right balance.
I am looking forward to working with my colleague across the aisle on this bill at committee.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to recognize that the legislation would protect the interests and the privacy of Canadians, and it would complement many aspects of other legislation we have, including things such as the Charter of Rights. It is important to recognize that Canada is the only Five Eyes country that does not have lawful access.
Lawful access, in turn, would protect Canadians' national security in dealing with issues like terrorism. It would protect children from sexual exploitation. It would help protect our communities from extortion. These are all very important issues that lawful access addresses, while at the same time protecting the privacy of Canadians. Both can be done at the same time. The issue of having that ongoing discussion, looking for ways it can be improved, can be done in standing committee.
Does the member not agree that law enforcement agencies as a whole are supportive of this legislation, and we—
Sima Acan Liberal Oakville West, ON
Mr. Speaker, yes, Canada is the only country in the G7, as well as the Five Eyes, that does not have lawful access.
It has been almost a year that I have been working with law enforcement, which includes my local police organization, Halton Regional Police Service. I learned, through many hours of consultation, that they do agree and they want this legislation. They are thirsty for this legislation and have been for decades. They are in full support of this legislation, just like those on this side of the House are.
Harb Gill Conservative Windsor West, ON
Mr. Speaker, in principle, I am in favour of the bill, but when we speak to Canadians, they expect us to protect both their safety and their rights.
What changes would my colleague opposite suggest to reinforce that value that Canadians hold dear to them?
Sima Acan Liberal Oakville West, ON
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his support. We have repeatedly said that this bill does not touch the privacy of Canadians; it is built to protect Canadians. We are open to working with our Conservative colleagues at the committee level to improve the bill if it is necessary.
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-22, the so-called lawful access act, is being presented as a necessary modernization of investigative powers in the digital age. To be clear, there is some truth in that framing. We do need to modernize.
Law enforcement and national security agencies are operating in a rapidly evolving technology-driven environment. Serious crimes, from human trafficking to foreign interference, are increasingly digitally distributed and difficult to detect. Human trafficking networks now rely on encrypted messaging, anonymous accounts and constantly shifting online identities. Foreign interference operations depend on coordinated digital campaigns, pseudonymous actors and infrastructure that crosses borders in seconds. In both cases, the central challenge is attribution, identifying who is behind an account or activity, quickly enough to act.
Parliamentary findings have confirmed that agencies like the RCMP and CSIS face real difficulties accessing communications data and that, without some form of data retention, information sought under warrant may no longer exist, so the problem is real and the need for tools is real. New Democrats recognize that law enforcement officers must have the ability to investigate serious crimes and protect public safety, whether that is child exploitation, human trafficking, terrorist threats or foreign interference. However, those powers must always be balanced with strong protections for privacy, civil liberties, cybersecurity and meaningful consultation. That is the test before us. We have seen what happens when the balance is lost.
The government's previous attempt under Bill C-2, the so-called safe borders act, an omnibus bill, was widely rejected by over 300 organizations and tens of thousands of Canadians because it would have been an attack on civil liberties, on privacy rights, on due process and on the rights of asylum seekers.
Bill C-2 has now come back in different parts. The attack for asylum seekers lives on under Bill C-12, which the NDP vehemently opposed. The part about lawful access continues in Bill C-22, and I would say it does include some improvements. The removal of blanket warrantless “information demand” powers matters. Replacing that with a more limited “confirmation of service” tool based on reasonable grounds and restricted to a yes or no response would be a step in the right direction. The requirement of judicial authorization for further access would remain, which is essential. Therefore, yes, there has been some movement.
However, we should also be clear about what this legislation would do. This is not simply a modest update. It is a significant restructuring of how the state, private companies and individuals would interact in the digital space. There are serious concerns, particularly in part 2 of this bill. Part 2 would require electronic service providers to build and maintain interception capacities within their systems, and would introduce the possibility of mandatory metadata retention, potentially requiring the storage of location data, device identifiers and communication metadata on all users for extended periods. It would allow the government to require companies to retain metadata for up to one year.
Metadata may not include the content of communications, but it reveals patterns of behaviour, who we talk to, when we talk to them, where we are and how often we interact and for how long. In the digital era, metadata is often more revealing than content. It is the skeleton of a person's private life. Under this bill, that data could be retained, not because it is needed for a specific investigation but because it might become useful in the future. This would be a profound invasion of privacy law. It would replace targeted suspicion with generalized collection.
In addition, the Minister of Public Safety would be granted authority to issue secret orders requiring providers to modify their systems to facilitate access to user information. These orders would not require judicial authorization. They would not be subject to public scrutiny and in, many cases, they may never be disclosed. Instead, they would be approved through an administrative process involving the intelligence commissioner. Now, while that office plays an important role in oversight, it is not equivalent to independent judicial authorization in open court.
We are told this is necessary to ensure that data exists when investigators need it to reconstruct networks, identify victims or attribute foreign interference. Those are legitimate objectives. The question is not whether those objectives matter, but whether the approach is proportionate. Bulk indiscriminate data retention risks treating every Canadian as a potential suspect rather than focusing on targeted investigations. Metadata is not benign. It can review deeply personal information, patterns of movement, associations and behaviours.
Mandating its large-scale retention also creates cybersecurity risks. Concentrating secret, sensitive data makes systems more vulnerable to breaches, misuse and exploitation by malicious actors. We should be cautious about requiring companies to build surveillance capabilities into their systems. Even where the intention is lawful access, these kinds of systemic access points can introduce vulnerabilities. Experts have repeatedly warned that there is no such thing as a perfectly secure back door that only works for one purpose. It exists for everyone.
The committee report on lawful access is instructive here. It acknowledges the operational challenges, gaps in data availability, coordination issues and the need for lawful intercept capability. It also makes clear that any framework must be grounded in necessity, proportionality and legitimacy. It found no support for requiring back doors to encryption. It highlighted a lack of clarity in the government's overall approach. It raised concerns about the absence of a coherent, transparent strategy. That raises another important question. Why was there no more meaningful consultation with the Privacy Commissioner and the independent officer tasked with safeguarding the rights of Canadians? At a time when trust in digital governance is already fragile, that omission matters.
We should also look internationally. Broad data retention regimes have faced legal challenges in other jurisdictions. More targeted alternatives, such as quick-freeze models, have been explored, preserving data tied to specific investigations rather than requiring ongoing generalized collection. Again, the issue is not whether tools are needed. In fast-moving cases, whether it is locating a trafficking victim or identifying a coordinated foreign interference network, timely access to data can make a real difference. The issue is whether this bill strikes the right balance between effectiveness and rights. Does it provide law enforcement with the tools it needs without overreaching? Does it maintain robust judicial oversight? Does it avoid creating systemic cybersecurity risks? Does it respect the charter principles of necessity and proportionality? More importantly, will it withstand constitutional scrutiny? If that balance is not right, the consequences are not just legal, but democratic.
Privacy is not an abstract concept. It is what allows people to speak freely, organize and participate in public life without fear of constant monitoring. When surveillance becomes more expansive and less constrained, it has a chilling effect. That is well documented. Therefore, the question before us is not whether we act, but how we act.
Bill C-22 reflects an attempt to respond to real and evolving threats. It includes improvements over what came before, but it also raises serious, unresolved questions, particularly around the scope of data retention, the role of executive authority, the risks of cybersecurity and the adequacy of oversight. Those are questions this House must examine carefully because effective policing intelligence work can and should operate within robust legal frameworks that preserve judicial oversight and limit data collection to what is strictly necessary. Getting this wrong would not just impact investigations, but it would reshape the relationship between Canadians and the state in the digital age.
Advocates for civil liberties and privacy have very real civil liberties concerns that the bill represents one of the most serious proposed threats to privacy rights in Canada in the past two decades. That is not something we should take lightly because our civil liberties are the cornerstone of our democracy.
John-Paul Danko Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member opposite raising the issue of privacy concerns and the right of Canadians to maintain access to their data and know it is secure. However, as has been noted, law enforcement across the country has been overwhelmingly in favour of this bill. We have been talking to members of the Hamilton Police Service and the Hamilton Police Association. This is their number one ask, because criminals are using electronic tools to commit crimes and police need the correct tools in their tool box to stop those crimes from happening and to hold criminals responsible.
Would the member opposite agree that it is our obligation as a government to protect Canadians from crime and to support police and law enforcement?
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Mr. Speaker, as I have noted before, the government keeps saying that it got the balance right. If it is so certain about that, why did the government not ensure that the Privacy Commissioner is incorporated in the consultation process with the development of Bill C-22?
Why did the government deliberately exclude an independent officer who would give Canadians the assurance that it has got the balance right? Perhaps the government could actually bring in an amendment to ensure that this takes place and that this bill does not become law until that happens.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I do believe there are checks and balances.
The government is looking at the importance of lawful access and sees the benefits, in terms of protecting the national interest and national security around things like terrorism. It also deals with child exploitation, sexual exploitation and issues like extortion. All of these are critically important public issues.
It also provides the checks that are necessary to provide assurances that Canadians' privacy is also protected. It is on both sides. The critical thing for me is looking at it from the point of view that we have now been waiting for just under a year. There has been a lot of debate about lawful access.
Could the member share her own personal opinion as to why it is important? Maybe we could have a further discussion at the committee stage to make sure that it is done properly.
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Mr. Speaker, to that point, if the government was so sure that it got the balance right, why did it not ensure the Privacy Commissioner could provide their views and recommendations on Bill C-22?
The government was sent packing on Bill C-2 because of overreach, because of the omnibus bill and because Canadian public civil society organizations, civil liberties organizations and privacy advocates all said that the bill was wrong and it was an overreach. The government went back to the drawing board and came back with Bill C-22 on lawful access, but it missed a huge step, making sure the independent officer is incorporated into that consultation process. Why did the government exclude that step?
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear my colleague's opinion about the risk of mistakes or of any issues that this might raise for gender-diverse individuals. Does she have any concerns about abuses by authorities?
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Mr. Speaker, of course I am very concerned that there could be overreach.
That is an alarm bell that civil liberties organizations and privacy advocates have actually rung, saying that this is an overreach. They are very worried that instead of targeting a specific act or a specific investigation, this applies to all Canadians across the board as a generalized collection of metadata, of retention and of it being kept in place for a year, with no specific ties to a potential criminal activity. Those are real concerns.
The government needs to make sure the balance is right, and hence the requirement, in my view, to ensure the Privacy Commissioner's views and recommendations are incorporated into Bill C-22.
Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Vancouver East for sounding the alarm on Bill C-22. As she has mentioned, there are many civil liberties groups speaking out against this bill, like they have done with the majority of Liberal bills that have passed
How urgent is it for the Liberals to amend their bill to make sure that they are upholding the charter rights of people across Canada?
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Mr. Speaker, on the issue around surveillance, indigenous people bear the brunt of it. We just recently learned that there was secret surveillance of indigenous leaders and indigenous community members. This is happening right now, and we are just learning about it. As we talk about expanding surveillance activities and capabilities, we absolutely need to make sure all the checks and balances are in place and that our basic rights enshrined in the charter are protected.
Gurbux Saini Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to note that my private member's bill, Bill C-226, an act to improve food price transparency, will be voted on in the House on Wednesday.
At a time when families are facing high grocery costs, Canadians deserve clear information to make informed choices. Too often, unclear pricing makes it difficult to compare products and find the best value. The bill proposes a practical, balanced federal framework focused on transparency while respecting provincial jurisdiction. It does not claim to solve all aspects of food affordability. Rather, it represents a thoughtful step forward.
I urge all members of the House to support my bill, Bill C-226, on Wednesday.
Clifford Small Conservative Central Newfoundland, NL
Mr. Speaker, more than 9,500 people responded to DFO's food fishery survey, and the overwhelming majority called for a longer season and greater flexibility. These findings reflect exactly what Conservatives have been calling for: Respect our traditions, let us fish when it is safe to do so and provide fair access to the food fishery.
The recent northern cod assessment shows the stock is growing. Therefore, there is enough to go around. The clock is ticking, and many folks back home and those visiting who are planning on taking part in the food fishery want to be ready and have their plans in order.
There is no need to keep fishers in the dark until the last minute as many Liberal fisheries ministers have done over the last 11 years. I call on the minister to stop delaying her decision and announce the details for this summer's food fishery immediately.
Amandeep Sodhi Liberal Brampton Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, this April marks the seventh anniversary of Sikh Heritage Month, a time to honour the incredible contributions Sikh Canadians have made to our country. Canada is home to the second-largest Sikh population in the world. From health care to business, education, public service and even our armed forces, Sikh Canadians have helped build this country in every sense.
Earlier this month, communities across Canada came together to celebrate Vaisakhi, the holiest day of the Sikh calendar. Vaisakhi commemorates the creation of the Khalsa Panth by Guru Gobind Singh Ji in 1699, and it carries with it the timeless teachings of equality, unity and social justice. Seva, the Sikh tradition of selfless service, puts these values into action every single day and reflects the very best of who we are as Canadians.
I wish everyone a happy Sikh Heritage Month and happy Vaisakhi.
Amanpreet S. Gill Conservative Calgary Skyview, AB
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are concerned. The Liberals' uncontrolled immigration policies have divided our communities and led to an increase in discrimination. We are seeing the consequences in real time: housing shortages, strained health care and rising costs for everyday Canadians.
The Liberals created this, and Canadians are paying for it. The Canadian dream that I and so many others came here chasing, the promise of opportunity, belonging and a better life, is no longer being fulfilled. The Liberals' reckless mismanagement has not just failed to plan; it has also given hate a place to grow. That is the Liberals' legacy: a country more divided than a decade ago.
Canadians and newcomers deserve better, and the Liberal government must be held accountable for the division and the broken promises, and for the damage it has done to this country's social fabric.
Steeve Lavoie Liberal Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Mr. Speaker, today, I would like to call attention to the 45th anniversary of La Boussole, a vital organization active in the Beauport—Limoilou riding. For 45 years, La Boussole has provided support to people living with mental health disorders and their loved ones. It offers a wide range of services, including a crisis line available in the Quebec City area 7 days a week to anyone who needs it.
All of these services are provided free of charge so that everyone, regardless of their financial circumstances, can obtain personalized, accessible and essential support. Every year, the centre supports over 3,000 people of all ages. La Boussole literally helps save lives by listening and by being there.
I applaud the outstanding work done by La Boussole and thank its entire team for 45 years of dedication to our community.
Richard Bragdon Conservative Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
Mr. Speaker, it has been said that the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world. Mothers play a defining role in shaping our future. When our world falls apart, they hold us together. They care and pray for us. As we approach Mother's Day, I want to thank all mothers who continue to do what only they can. Without them, there is no future.
On a personal note, I want to pay tribute to the mothers in my life who have helped shape me and my family, including my incredible wife, Crystal, the mother of our three children; my mother-in-law, Lillian Cole; my great-grandmother Vada Sullivan; and especially my mom, who recently celebrated her 72nd birthday and is battling a debilitating disease. She raised four children and several grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Her love, resilience, humour and faith are an example to us all. Though her speech is somewhat broken and her steps are now unsteady, her hope is steadfast and her legacy is assured.
From the floor of the people's House, the House of Commons of Canada, I thank my mom. I love her, and I am proud to be called her son. I wish my mom a happy Mother's Day.
John-Paul Danko Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON
Mr. Speaker, Hamilton is Canada's steel city. Hamilton industry and Hamilton workers built Canada, and our industrial base continues to power Canada's economy. Today Hamilton has one of the most diverse economies in Canada. We are a national leader in advanced manufacturing, technology, pharmaceuticals, construction and the skilled trades. Life sciences and health care are currently Hamilton's largest employment sectors.
Recently the International Monetary Fund highlighted that Canada has the strongest fiscal position in the G7, among the highest employment growth, and the second-highest GDP growth, with growing exports and inflation under control, all despite American tariffs and global uncertainty. While there are significant challenges ahead, in no small part due to the Trump administration, Canada remains a global leader, and that is the result of serious, pragmatic leadership, starting with the Prime Minister.
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON
Mr. Speaker, it was the Liberal finance minister who said that he may be in a conflict of interest if he cast a vote or was involved in any discussions or decisions around the $90-billion Alto project, because of his relationship. He has a partner who is a vice president at Alto. However, we have since seen that the minister has done those very things. He did vote on and participate in discussions around the $90-billion Alto project, even saying at a Senate committee that he was delivering the goods with this project. Canadians expect to have confidence in their public institutions and in their elected representatives, but they cannot when they see this risk of a conflict of interest before them.
What we have seen at the ethics committee is Liberal MPs filibustering for 17 hours to block the minister from testifying and from answering questions from Conservative members of Parliament. Will the Liberals end their 17-hour filibuster and allow the finance minister to finally testify on this potential conflict of interest?
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Mr. Speaker, the words “sense of duty”, “tenacity” and “strength of character” are not enough to describe retired captain Hélène Le Scelleur.
For 28 years she served in the Canadian Armed Forces—
I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but it is noisy.
EthicsStatements by Members
The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia
Yes, it is rather noisy. I would ask members to keep their voices down if they need to speak so that our colleagues can make their statements.
I am going to ask the hon. member to start from the top.
