Debates of April 20th, 2026

Questions on the Order Paper

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

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand at this time.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

[For text of questions and responses, see Written Questions website]

Admissibility of Committee Amendments to Bill C-11

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to respond to the point of order raised on Friday afternoon by the deputy government House leader concerning certain amendments made by the Standing Committee on National Defence to Bill C-11.

The six amendments contested by the honourable member for London West, almost 10 weeks after they were reported by the committee, have one thing in common: They were originally ruled out of order by the committee's chair. Let me remind the House that a committee chair's ruling on the admissibility of an amendment is not infallible.

Mr. Speaker, in a ruling on November 3, 2025, at page 3327 of the Debates, on an amendment that the committee had made to Bill C-4, you reached a different conclusion from that that the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance had reached concerning the need for a royal recommendation. Similarly, on December 2, 2025, you reached a different conclusion from that of the chair of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security concerning the application of the so-called parent act rule to an amendment to Bill C-12 in a ruling found on page 4435 of the Debates.

The test for the Speaker's intervention in committee reports concerning bills does not rest simply on whether a committee chair's ruling was overturned, but rather on whether the committee, in adopting the impugned amendment, exceeded its authority.

Bill C-11, as introduced, makes provision for the appointment, when necessary, of an acting provost marshal general, an acting director of military prosecutions and an acting director of defence counsel services. Moreover, Bill C-11 makes provision related to the responsibility of the judge advocate general and the chief military judge.

Amendment CPC-1 would make provision of a similar effect concerning vacancies in the office of the judge advocate general. In these respects, I would argue that the amendment is consistent with the scope and principle of Bill C-11, as the role of the judge advocate general is integral to the scope of the bill. To illustrate the importance, it was included in the summary of the legislation. Additionally, the importance of legislation allowing for acting roles in the Canadian Armed Forces' chains of command were addressed with the provision for an acting provost marshal general, an acting director of military prosecutions and an acting director of defence counsel services. Not only is this within the scope of the study, it fixes an unintended omission of the Liberals in the drafting phase and would ensure accountability for a role that has been vacant for extended periods of time in the past. This amendment would ensure consistency across all leaders within the military justice system.

As the deputy government House leader observed, this would require the amendment of a provision of the National Defence Act, which was not subject to other amendments in Bill C-11. While she argued that that would breach the parent act rule, I would disagree with her on this point and refer the Chair to the ruling of Mr. Speaker Regan, delivered October 24, 2018, where he explained, starting on page 22797 of the Debates:

The Parent Act rule, the idea that an amendment should not amend an act or a section not already amended by a bill, rests on a presumption that such an amendment would not be relevant to the bill. This can be true. Often, such amendments attempt to deal with matters not referenced in the bill, and this is improper.

However, there are also occasions when an amendment is relevant to the subject matter of a bill and in keeping with its scope but can only be accomplished by modifying a section of the parent act not originally touched by the bill or even an entirely different act not originally touched by the bill....

The parent act rule was never intended to be applied blindly as a substitute for proper judgment as to the relevance of an amendment.

Along similar lines, amendment CPC-16 would add a timeline for the designation of a chief military judge when the office becomes vacant. What is interesting here is that the 120-day time frame in amendment CPC-16 is a product of a Liberal subamendment, and that amendment, as amended, was unanimously adopted, including by the Liberal members present voting for it that day.

Elsewhere, Bill C-11 makes provision for the appointment of a victim's liaison officer, who would have the responsibility of, in the words of the chief of the defence staff at committee, “ensuring they have the appropriate support to navigate the justice system”.

Amendment CPC-10 would make similar provision for the appointment of a liaison officer for the accused. This would be consistent with Bill C-11's proposal to ensure that individuals from outside the justice system who find themselves interacting with that system have the appropriate support to navigate it, which the chief of the defence staff testified about herself. As such, I would submit that this amendment is within the scope and principle of Bill C-11.

Next, there is amendment BQ-2, concerning an inspector general for sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces. Not to put too fine a point on it, but Bill C-11 is largely about addressing sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces. Measures such as an inspector general for military sexual misconduct would, I respectfully submit, fall within the scope and principle of a bill that addresses military sexual misconduct. It too was unanimously supported by committee.

With respect to the deputy government House leader's concern that amendment BQ-2 would require a royal recommendation, I would argue that the amendment was carefully drawn up to impose an obligation on the Minister of National Defence to prepare and table a report concerning a plan to establish such an office. To be clear, while this amendment would get the wheels turning in this direction, it would not directly cause the appointment of, or the expenditure involved with, an inspector general. This approach is consistent with any number of private member's bills in recent years concerning frameworks, strategies and plans that have not offended the financial prerogative of the Crown.

Amendment BQ-3, meanwhile, would amend clause 18 with a view to increasing the pool of potential military judges, something that clause 18 of the bill was drafted to do in the first place. Furthermore, the amendment would see a serving officer or non-commissioned member appointed as a military judge released from the forces to enhance their independence. Bill C-11 contains other measures to enhance the independence of military justice system actors and to vouchsafe this independence relative to the judge advocate general. In my view, this amendment is entirely consistent with the spirit, scope and principle of Bill C-11.

Turning to amendment NDP-4, sponsored by someone who now sits in the Liberal caucus, this amendment would ensure that everyone involved in the investigation or prosecution of the offences spelled out in subclause 70(2) of Bill C-11 has training or experience in trauma-informed approaches. I would point the Chair to the committee testimony of the Attorney General of Canada in an answer to a Liberal colleague's question. He stated the following:

We need to make sure that there are systems that are ready with people who are trauma-informed, with people who have appropriate training and with people who have safeguards in place to ensure that people can share their stories, know that they're going to be taken seriously and know that they'll be given whatever testimonial aids may be necessary for them to fully share their perspective.

A now Liberal MP brought forward an amendment voted for by Liberal MPs to give effect to the Liberal minister's views, which were offered in response to a Liberal caucus colleague's concerns, and now we have the deputy House leader of the Liberals trying to throw the whole thing in the recycling bin.

What is actually going on over there? Is the Prime Minister trying to use a stolen majority to force Liberals to swallow whole the very ideas they backed mere months ago? Is this a sign of what Canadians should expect from the Prime Minister, who has shown little regard for Parliament now that he is flexing power? However, I digress.

In summary, the Liberal deputy House leader is seeking your intervention to undo key portions of the national defence committee's good work on Bill C‑11, much of which her own Liberal colleagues have supported, on the premise that the committee chair's ruling has been overturned. However, as I have laid out, a committee chair's rulings are not infallible, and in the present circumstances, the amendments concerned satisfy the necessary procedural requirements.

I would ask you to find the defence committee's third report to be entirely in order and to reject the Liberal government's challenge to usurp the work that was done by committee members in good faith for all survivors of military sexual assault and misconduct.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague just did, I want to get back to the government's challenge regarding the admissibility of amendments BQ‑2 and BQ‑3, which were moved by the Bloc Québécois—me in this case—in the context of the study of Bill C-11 at the Standing Committee on National Defence. We oppose the government's argument that these amendments should be ruled out of order by the Chair at report stage.

Amendment BQ-2 calls on the government to table in Parliament, within six months of royal assent of Bill C‑11, a plan for the establishment of an office of the inspector general for sexual misconduct. Contrary to the government's assertions, the amendment does not force the government to create such a position or generate any new spending because the amendment does not create any new positions. We believe that, after hearing some of the testimony at the Standing Committee on National Defence, committee members came to realize that Bill C-11 could be improved by asking the government to study the option of creating an office of the inspector general for sexual misconduct.

This amendment was tabled following the testimony of retired colonel Michel Drapeau, who told committee members the following at the November 6, 2025, meeting:

Yes, Canada should appoint an inspector general who can take charge of the situation. This person would listen to victims and would have an open mandate. The person could do whatever seems necessary to investigate. The person would also be mandated to report to various individuals, including members of Parliament, as needed.

A number of countries in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, have a similar position. As Justice Létourneau recommended during the commission of inquiry into the deployment of Canadian Forces to Somalia, specifically with regard to the Canadian Airborne Regiment in Somalia, I believe that an inspector general position should definitely be created.

If it were up to me, I would implement this today.

All members of the committee voted in favour of this amendment, which is directly in line with the intent of the bill, which is to address sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces. We are of the opinion that this amendment does not go beyond the scope of the bill and does not generate any new spending.

Amendment BQ-3 was adopted based on the Barreau du Québec's specific recommendation regarding Bill C-11, which can be found in the brief it submitted to the Standing Committee on National Defence. The Barreau du Québec based its recommendations to the committee directly on recommendation 1 of the Fish report. Here is what the Barreau said in its brief:

The Barreau du Québec welcomes these amendments, which address certain recommendations of the Fish Report aimed at ensuring the impartiality and independence of military judges in relation to the chain of command:

Recommendation #1: Military judges should cease to be members of the Canadian Armed Forces, and therefore become civilian. Members of the Canadian Armed Forces appointed by the Governor in Council as military judges should, at the time of their appointment, be released from the Canadian Armed Forces and renounce their military rank.

The National Defence Act should be amended to provide that military judges are never subject to the Code of Service Discipline, and may never be charged, dealt with and tried under the Code of Service Discipline for service offences allegedly committed by them while formerly subject to the Code of Service Discipline, if applicable....

However, a key passage of the first recommendation of the Fish Report is missing from the bill, namely that military judges cease to be members of the CAF upon appointment....

Therefore, the Barreau du Québec recommends that military judges cease to be members of the CAF at the time of their appointment in order to maintain their institutional independence from the executive and to avoid creating a reasonable apprehension of bias.

In addition, here is what the current Minister of National Defence said in the House of Commons at second reading of the bill:

Second, Bill C-11 would act on eight key recommendations outlined by former Supreme Court justice Fish in his third independent review.

Prior to the amendment, however, contrary to the minister's statements and as shown by the Barreau du Québec, Bill C-11 was missing an important component of the Fish report's recommendation 1. The Bloc Québécois, like all parliamentarians, voted in favour of the bill in principle at second reading without knowing all of the details of the bill, because we thought we were going to study it more exhaustively in committee.

Both officials and the government have presented the bill as being faithful to the recommendations of other reports, including the Fish report. The Bloc Québécois believes that parliamentarians did not have all the details of the bill before it was studied in committee and that, as a result, they had to rely on the statements made by both the minister and officials during the vote at second reading. Amendment BQ‑3 improves the bill by bringing it more in line with Justice Fish's recommendation 1 and the intent of the bill, which was to implement the remaining legislation flowing from the recommendations in reports like the Fish report.

Lastly, the recommendation to expand the pool of veteran candidates comes from the brief submitted by Afton Brooke David, senior legal advisor for the study of Bill C-11. Here is what she said in her brief: That said, I would suggest taking it one step further and including current and former members of the CAF with at least 10 years’ service. An argument could be made that this is a matter of interpretation of the existing proposed language; I nevertheless suggest this subtle change could explicitly expand the talent pool and solicit candidates with well-rounded legal experience in and out of the CAF.

The broadened eligibility pool is perhaps implied, as military judges appointed under amendment BQ‑3 are considered to be released from the CAF. However, amendment BQ‑3 clarifies eligibility to avoid any confusion.

For all these reasons, we believe that the Chair should rule the amendments in order.

The House resumed 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

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to join the debate around Bill C-22, the lawful access act, 2026.

To figure out where we are at, we have to figure out how we got here. I think any conversation around giving law enforcement agencies better tools to be better able to fight crime is a good thing. However, the devil is always in the details, as people say. With respect to this bill, there are some concerns coming from our side that we would like to flesh out at committee.

At first blush, there are some important aspects we need to ensure are in the bill. I have had conversations with some of our colleagues on NSICOP and the people looking into cybersecurity. Canada is somewhat behind when it comes to giving our police officers those tools, so the bill is timely.

Conservatives believe in law and order and have always stood for common-sense measures to keep Canadians safe. For the past decade, we have been urging the Liberals to reverse their failed policies and restore safety to our communities. I can say that, in many cases, in my home city of Regina, crime comes up very often when we are on the doorsteps or at events. Crime has continued to skyrocket under the Liberals, whether that be violent crimes, sexual assaults or gun crimes. Despite all of their failed attempts when it comes to the gun grab, gun crime continues to rise in this country, and that is because of failed Liberal policies. They have had chances over the last 11 years to implement different policies, but they continued to implement policies that have failed.

Last fall, the Liberals put forward a bill similar to this, Bill C-2, which fell short when we looked at protecting Canadians, while it overreached in other areas. I think that is one thing we will come back to time and again when it comes to Bill C-22. There are three parts to the bill. With respect to the first part, I think there is some agreement it is needed for law enforcement. However, the second and third parts come into question. The fact is the government has shown government overreach time and again. We need look no further than the implementation of the Emergencies Act, when bank accounts were frozen. I gave a speech when the act came into effect; I talked a lot about government overreach. That is one of the concerns we would have when reviewing this bill at committee.

Bill C-2, to give a bit of reference to the people watching in TV land, had to do with limiting the use of cash and opening mail without oversight. It demanded that any service provider, including hospitals, financial institutions and even dry cleaners, disclose user data without judicial overview. Therefore, I would say the parent bill to Bill C-22 is Bill C-2. The Liberals have taken some of those very poor policies out of C-22.

We support giving law enforcement agencies the tools they need to combat crime and keep communities safe, particularly as threats become more sophisticated in the digital age. At the same time, these powers must be accompanied by strong safeguards, clear limits and independent oversight to protect the rights and freedoms of Canadians. We are carefully reviewing the legislation we have talked about to ensure the Liberals do not repeat past failures when it come to government oversight. At committee, Conservatives would be able to hear from many experts to further evaluate and improve this legislation. We will continue to stand for common-sense solutions that protect the individual freedoms, privacy and safety of Canadians.

I have listened to some my colleagues talk about some of the concerns they have with respect to Bill C-22. I think one of my colleagues talked about what modernization and privacy objectives should be in the bill. The world has changed how Canadians live, communicate, bank, work and raise families. That has all moved online rapidly and permanently, but our laws have not kept pace with that reality. That is why it is important to be clear about what this debate is and what it is not. We are not here to debate legislation that allows law enforcement to spy on innocent, law-abiding Canadians without oversight; that is not what the bill proposes. The core issue before us is how Parliament protects Canadians in an increasingly digital country while respecting the rights and freedoms that define us.

Public safety is the most obvious concern. Canadians are being targeted every day by online fraud, identity theft, extortion and exploitation. Seniors have lost life savings. Families have had their identities stolen. Children have been coerced and harmed in many ways made possible by anonymity and speed online.

In the communities we live in, we have conversations about online activity with our children. The Internet child exploitation, ICE, unit comes into schools across Saskatchewan to explain why it is so very important to be careful with anything online, making sure that our children know that there are some real safety concerns when it comes to online material and people trying to get their information online.

On the first day of school, we hear police officers comment to never take a picture of one's kid in front of their school or say what grade they are in or where they go to school. That has changed a lot in our country; it is important to be safe when we are online. Those conversations happen often in my house. Hopefully they happen in many houses, so that children are very careful with what they are doing online and are making sure they know who they are talking to when they are online.

I will reference a couple of news articles about some of the concerns that are out there when it comes to Bill C-22: “Canada's lawful access bill risks making Canada's telecoms and internet providers, as well as phones and laptops, more vulnerable to hackers, including foreign intelligence services with malevolent intent, tech and legal specialists are warning.”

That is from The Globe and Mail, dated March 16, 2026, by Marie Woolf. I think that this is something we can review when it comes to online protections. When it comes to the bill, when it goes to committee, we can very definitely review what there is for government oversight when it comes to warrants and things like that.

The article reads, “Bill C-22, introduced by Public Safety Minister...last week, would require telecoms, internet companies and other digital service providers to make changes to their systems to give surveillance and monitoring capabilities to the police....” That would potentially give hackers the opportunity to access that information.

That is what we are concerned about when it comes to housing Canadians' data and information and where that is going to be housed. We want to make sure that this is secure. Hackers can get more data if it is located in one spot.

What it comes down to is that the Conservative point of view is that we understand that there are some tools that law enforcement need to make Canadians safer online. We are just making sure that there is that proper oversight, so that it does not allow for hackers to access that information more quickly when it comes to people's online information.

There are some civil liberties groups that do have concerns. Michael Geist, the University of Ottawa's Canada research chair in Internet and e-commerce law, said that “concerns regarding vulnerabilities and scope creep are real.” He said, “Without greater precision, this could be used to target user devices or ultimately make networks less secure”, as we have mentioned before.

David Pierce, vice-president of government relations at the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, said that “his members, which include Canadian telecoms, understand the need for law enforcement to have a lawful access regime. But he said ensuring that encryption is not compromised, and data are not made vulnerable are key concerns of the business community.”

We do have some concerns out there when it comes to the bill. That is why it will be incumbent on us to have thorough witnesses and have a lot of time dedicated to the bill in committee, so that people come forward who do have concerns regarding the scope creep and the storing of data, making sure that it is not a vulnerability, and so that hackers cannot have access to that. We have been far behind on bills like this because of inaction by the Liberal government. That is why, over the last 11 years, we have seen skyrocketing crime rates. Hopefully, the bill can help give some of the tools to police officers, tools that they have asked for.

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

Mr. Speaker, I disagree wholeheartedly with the member. We had an election and a new Prime Minister less than a year ago. Literally weeks after that, we introduced Bill C-2, which brought to the House lawful access. Canada is the only country of the Five Eyes that does not have lawful access. It has been a priority for the government. We have been trying to push it through, just like we did with the bail reform legislation and so forth. I believe it has the checks in place to ensure privacy while, at the same time, dealing with national security, child sexual exploitation, issues like extortion and violent crime. This is all good stuff within the legislation.

I would like to ask a very straightforward question. Does the member support the principle of lawful access?

I am encouraged to see that he seems to be—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Regina—Lewvan.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, there are a few things I disagree with. First of all, the government is a tired, old government, an 11-year-old one. It is not one year old. It has the same faces in the same places. Changing one person does not make a different government.

I would say that, yes, if members listened to my speech, they would realize there are some things in the bill we do agree on. I have been listening to law enforcement, which has asked for parts of the bill. My only fear, which we have seen time and time again with the tired, 11-year-old government, is government overreach. It wants big government and small citizens, and that is not something I can agree with.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell my colleague that it is a good thing the government did not have a majority when it introduced Bill C‑2 because that bill was a disaster. Everyone agreed on this. People from all kinds of industries agreed that privacy protection was an issue.

Now, as far as Bill C‑22 is concerned, yes, we see an improvement and, yes, the government has finally held consultations. Still, there is something that is bothering me. The National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, or NSIRA, was given a secondary role. Australia gives its oversight agency a leading role, yet Canada has decided to notify NSIRA 12 months after the fact, when it submits its report. What is more, the government has three months to submit that report. This means that some events will not be reviewed by NSIRA until a year and a half has passed.

Does my colleague think that giving more power to NSIRA, whose mandate is to monitor compliance with legislation, would be a good amendment?

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more with the member. The government would be a total disaster if it had a majority more often.

NSICOP is a very important committee, and the committee members it has would do a very good job of reviewing and getting material in a more timely fashion. That is a very good suggestion.

When it comes to reviewing this bill at committee, I hope every party takes a serious look at it and brings forward good amendments to make it stronger. This could ensure that we have the best bill possible going forward and that there is not scope creep and government overreach, so Canadians and their data can be protected and law enforcement agencies can have the tools they need to make sure they are finding the criminal factor online.

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we all know that Liberals' soft-on-crime bills have given a free pass to criminals, and Canadians are suffering every day. We all agree on keeping Canadians safe, but not at the expense of their freedoms.

Could the member explain why Bill C-22 would not strike the right balance between public safety and the fundamental right to privacy?

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we have to take the bill to committee to make sure that people's privacy is protected. We have heard time and time again, as I have mentioned, from law enforcement agencies that they need more tools to ensure they can catch the online criminal element faster and make sure they can protect citizens and their data when they are online.

My big fear, and the fear of many people on this side of the House and in other parties, is continual government overreach and making sure that citizens' privacy is protected. We will fight day and night to make sure that it happens.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of security conscious Canadians in the vigilant riding of Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke to speak to Bill C-22, a bill respecting lawful access.

The Conservatives support giving law enforcement the tools it needs to combat crime and keep communities safe. At the same time, these powers must be accompanied by strong safeguards, clear limits and independent oversight to protect Canadians' rights and freedoms. Conservatives support sending the bill to committee for careful review.

The bill represents a major test for the Prime Minister and his ill-gotten majority. Had Canadians collectively decided to actually elect a majority government last year, we would not even be debating this bill. The Liberals would have used their majority to force through Bill C-2, which was the Liberals' first attempt at a lawful access bill. It was only because of a minority government that the Conservatives were able to prevent the Liberals from passing it.

If the Liberals had gotten their way, they would have had the power to limit Canadians' use of cash. Bill C-2 would have allowed the Liberals to open people's mail without a warrant. The bill would have allowed Liberals to demand any data from any service provider, without a warrant. That would have applied to telecoms and companies, as well as to hospitals and banks. Even Canadian dry cleaners would have been subject to this law. Bill C-2 was an obvious overreach.

The absence of those provisions in the new bill proves only that Conservatives were right. Just as with the first bill, the new version is not perfect. There are troubling issues related to metadata retention and the legal thresholds for asking for Canadians' private information. It may be possible to address or correct those issues in committee. Whether or not the Liberal MPs on the committee will be willing to adopt those corrections is the test. Will this be a typical Liberal majority under a typical Liberal prime minister? How the bill is handled will provide Canadians with the answers.

By the time Jean Chrétien was in his third majority, journalists were writing books with titles such as The Friendly Dictatorship. After Justin Trudeau was given a blank cheque by Jagmeet Singh's NDP to govern as if he had a majority, he illegally invoked the Emergencies Act and violated Canadians' charter rights. The only thing worse than a Liberal prime minister with a majority government is a Liberal prime minister who has convinced himself he is serving in a time of a unique crisis requiring new powers.

Jean Chrétien nearly led us to the breakup of the country. He used that to justify emergency spending on Canadian flags in Quebec. He told himself that he did not need oversight. He was saving the country. When the pandemic finally arrived in North America, Trudeau's first instinct was to seek two years of unlimited spending power without parliamentary approval. He told himself he did not need oversight, because he was saving the country. Now we have a new Prime Minister claiming we have a new crisis. He told himself that only he could solve it by answering fewer questions than any prime minister in history.

Rather than hiding on YouTube, the Prime Minister should be giving his forward guidance advice to Canadians from the floor of the House of Commons. That the Prime Minister's instincts are to hide from the House makes me think he will fail the test the bill represents, but the test falls onto the shoulders of every so-called Liberal member of Parliament. Too often, they seem to think they are Liberal members of government.

During the last election, we knocked on, collectively, hundreds of thousands of doors. Not a single voter told me that their first priority was ensuring that telecoms retain a year of metadata on all their customers. I bet that is true for every Liberal member too, yet even before new MPs had a chance to find the bathrooms, the government was tabling extensive legislation to give the state vast new powers. The bill was tabled for the same reason we have a fentanyl czar: The Liberals thought it would appease the Trump administration.

The former bureaucrat, turned Prime Minister, asked the federal bureaucracy to draft legislation to make America happy again. Before his ministers could staff their offices with the type of people who might ask what stakeholders such as the Canadian Civil Liberties Association would say about the law, it was tabled. It was only the opposition's holding a majority that prevented this first rushed and flawed legislation from becoming law. Thanks to unprecedented acts of self-interest, Liberals have a hair's breadth of a majority.

Will the newly empowered Liberal members use this opportunity to work collaboratively, or will they force the bill through quickly to rack up a political victory? Do the so-called Liberal MPs think provisions in the bill that would require service providers to retain all metadata for a year are justifiable?

Metadata information about the file itself is contained within many computer files. Emails that Canadians send contain extensive metadata, including who sent the email, the time it was sent, the software that was used to send it, the type of hardware used to send it, the sender's IP address and every IP address that every server in an email was routed through. People's cellphone calls create metadata that includes who called, who answered and the time and duration of the call; the cell towers used during the call; and even the GPS coordinates for the caller.

Telecom companies retain this data for billing purposes, but they do not keep it beyond that point. Canadians, collectively, make 100 million cellphone calls every year. Forcing companies to maintain databases containing information on over 36 billion phone calls would present a systemic privacy risk.

Beyond maintaining this vast secret database for the government, the companies would also be required to maintain systems that allow government to easily search and collect this metadata. This is often referred to as a back door. The concern has always been that creating a back door for the government also creates a back door for criminals and hostile foreign states. The Liberals will tell Canadians not to worry. They will point to language in the bill that says the government would not be allowed to ask for any back doors that company officials believe would create a hacking risk.

Unfortunately for the Liberals, they tabled the bill just weeks before the world learned that the AI company Anthropic had built an AI model so advanced and so dangerous that the company has limited the access to it. The danger was that this new AI model had discovered thousands of new vulnerabilities in some of the most popular code. One of the most widely used operating systems for routers had a vulnerability that had been undiscovered for 27 years.

The government is asking Canadians to trust Bell, Rogers and Telus to know in advance if the government is putting our privacy at risk. I should clarify something. I do not know whether Bell, Rogers and Telus would be covered by the bill. It is a reasonable assumption, or in the language of this bill, I have a reasonable suspicion, that the big three telecoms would be included. The actual list of providers can be found under schedule 1 of the bill. That page is currently blank.

It would be left to cabinet to decide which companies would be covered. Cabinet would decide what measures companies would have to take to provide access to the company's information. In making these regulations, cabinet would be required to consider the cost of the regulations, the feasibility of the regulations and the impact of the regulations. However, just in case those factors ended up limiting the government, cabinet would have the power to also consider any other factor cabinet thinks is relevant. How convenient that is for the Liberal cabinet.

That is just one example of one loophole in a substantive bill. This is why Conservatives support moving the bill to committee. The intent of the bill is to allow police and CSIS to do their jobs. The committee must be given the time it needs to hear from witnesses. It needs the time to provide the level of scrutiny that such a bill demands.

We know that the Prime Minister is impatient. He is used to people just following orders. We have already seen how he mis-characterizes legitimate opposition as wasting time. Even the Liberal-friendly Toronto Star is allowing expressions of concern that the Prime Minister has an authoritarian streak. That is why the bill is such an important test for the ill-gotten Liberal majority. It could be an example of parties' listening to each other and to Canadians to improve the bill, or it could be that desperate Liberals grasping for accomplishments will jam it down Canadians' throats.

The Prime Minister has already failed the test he set for himself. There is no comprehensive deal with the U.S. Food prices are the highest in the G7. We do not need forward guidance to tell us the deficit is already higher than he projected six months ago. We need a prime minister who will pass the test of democracy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will stay away from Conservative conspiracy theories for the moment and focus instead on the principle of the legislation, which would bring lawful access to Canada. Canada would not be alone. In fact we are the only Five Eyes nation that does not have lawful access. The concerns of privacy would in fact be dealt with in the legislation.

I am glad the Conservatives are going to allow the legislation to go to committee today. It has taken quite a while. The issue of lawful access has been up for debate since last June, shortly after the Prime Minister was elected by Canadians in the government.

Does the member join with law enforcement agencies in Canada and many other stakeholders who want to see lawful access in place as law here in Canada? Does she support the principle of lawful access?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, whenever a Liberal does not have a reasonable response to a fair and explanatory speech, they always call it a conspiracy theory. What we have learned with recent so-called conspiracy theories is they have all come true.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech and I would like to ask her the following question: In Bill C‑22, the government decided to choose the lowest threshold for obtaining information, that is to say it chose a threshold of reasonable suspicion rather than reasonable belief. The lower standard chosen by the government is raising a lot of questions among experts in Quebec and Canada. What does my colleague think about the government choosing the lowest threshold?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would have to agree with my colleague from the Bloc. In fact, we want to get this bill to committee so we can examine and root out the answers to the questions, just as she asked right now.

[Dalwinder Gill, Conservative, Calgary McKnight, AB]

Mr. Speaker, can the hon. member specify what threshold of suspicion would be required before the authorities could access Canadians' personal data under Bill C-22 and how that threshold would be consistent with our charter rights?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, actually, no, I cannot determine what the lowest threshold would be. It is not specifically mentioned. However, having dealt with the Liberal government for 25 years, I would say that the absolute least amount of suspicion would be required.

[Buckley Belanger, Liberal, Secretary of State (Rural Development)]

Mr. Speaker, when my colleague from Winnipeg North asked a question, the member did not give him an answer. The question was, through the Chair, “Do you support the notion of lawful access?” The response was about conspiracy theories, which is not an answer. I have a simple question: Do you support lawful access, yes or no?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I remind the member he needs to address questions through the Chair.

The hon. member for Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke has the floor.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, now the member opposite who just asked the question understands what the opposition feels every time we are in question period. The Liberals never answer the question.