Debates of June 9th, 2026

Instruction to Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

moved:

That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security that, during its consideration of Bill C-22, An Act respecting lawful access:

(a) the committee be granted the power to divide the bill into two pieces of legislation:

(i) Bill C-22A, An Act respecting Timely Access to Data and Information, containing Part 1,

(ii) Bill C-22B, An Act respecting lawful access, containing the remaining parts of Bill C-22; and

(b) that Bill C-22A be reported back to the House no later than five sitting days following the adoption of this motion.

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

I just learned that if I pause for a brief second before it is time to talk, my colleagues will clap. I feel like a professional wrestler who pauses for people to cheer them on. I thank my colleagues for clapping. I wish I had that power when I was out on the street. I would simply pause, wait and listen, and people would clap. I thank my colleagues for edifying me in that way.

It is always a pleasure to rise in this House, but it is a particular pleasure to rise with respect to this motion. I am going to read my motion into the record and expand on it for the next few minutes, because I believe it is an important motion. The motion states:

That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security that, during its consideration of Bill C-22, An Act respecting lawful access:

(a) the committee be granted the power to divide the bill into two pieces of legislation:

(i) Bill C-22A, An Act respecting Timely Access to Data and Information, containing Part 1,

(ii) Bill C-22B, An Act respecting lawful access, containing the remaining parts of Bill C-22; and

(b) that Bill C-22A be reported back to the House no later than five sitting days following the adoption of this motion.

Before I begin, I want to recognize that my niece was recently engaged. I want to give a shout-out to my niece, Juliana Bradley, and her new fiancé, Dayton Vidovich. I wish them happy nuptials as they set a date. I am very proud to be an uncle to Juliana. We are very proud of the young woman she has become. She is a force in her world as she navigates adulthood, and she is doing so well. We are so proud of her and Dayton, and I wish them all the best in their engagement.

I am going to begin my remarks by speaking to law enforcement and Canadians generally. Conservatives believe law enforcement has not had the appropriate tools to fight crime. I look back on Bill C-5, for instance, which was passed here when then Minister Lametti justified people getting house arrest for drive-by shootings. That was just last Parliament. The Liberals will come in here and say they are tough on crime, yet that law still stands. For extortions with a firearm, drive-by shootings and robberies with a firearm, a person can serve their sentence on house arrest. This narrative the Liberals are pushing about how they are tough on crime and the Conservatives are not is simply untrue.

It has always given me great pleasure to speak in the House. Speaking for the next few minutes on a bill I have devoted substantial time to is something I have looked forward to. With that, I know there is another colleague of mine who has spent a fair amount of time on this. That is the member for York—Durham, with whom I will be splitting my time.

Where does that leave us? It leaves us needing to have an appropriate lawful access regime that gives law enforcement the tools it needs and also, and this is the big also, respects the charter rights and privacy rights of Canadians. I believe that needle can be threaded. It is the government that drafts this legislation. It is the government that has to convince Canadians that the needle has been threaded. Thus far, when it comes to the committee, the government, to be very candid, has failed.

For those who do not know a lot about this bill, there are two parts. Part 1 is not all that contentious. Part 1 looks at a confirmation of subscriber information and a streamlined mechanism to get production orders.

There is a bit of controversy around whether that should be on the threshold of what is called reasonable grounds to believe or of what is called reasonable grounds to suspect. Reasonable grounds to believe is when a police officer has reasonable grounds to believe a crime has been committed and there is evidence present in the records or the place. Reasonable grounds to suspect is, I believe, above a hunch but below that belief, which we call a subjective belief in law. Witnesses have said there are charter considerations under section 8, and if we go to the reasonable grounds to suspect, it might be too low of a threshold. The government has attempted to make the case that there is a limited body of information that would be produced, hence the lower threshold.

I believe we will get through this at committee. The Conservatives have put forward a number of amendments. My colleagues from the NDP and the Bloc have also put forward a number of amendments. That is not the contentious issue. I believe this would be very helpful to law enforcement. Law enforcement has told us this. Right now, law enforcement often has to go on a fishing expedition, going to provider after provider.

I will be very clear. I will be sending a letter to the public safety minister very shortly, saying the Conservatives are prepared to pass part 1 once we get through clause-by-clause. I hope that is sufficiently clear.

My exhortation to the government is to take what we have so far and give it to law enforcement, because part 2 is highly contentious. I understand that law enforcement has asked for part 2, but in the committee's clause-by-clause process of part 2, the government has failed to convince Canadians that the lawful access regime it has put forward would balance the tools that are required with the charter and privacy rights of Canadians. That is where we stand.

In fact, the government thought it could just ram this through committee. One of my greatest issues with this is how little time there has been. The Liberals may say we have studied this for quite some time, but here is the problem. This is a very contentious and technical bill. We had panels of experts, sometimes with three experts per panel, who gave five-minute opening statements, and then we were all expected to question these experts over a one-hour period. We had literally 45 minutes with three experts. That meant we were not really able to flesh out the details.

So far, the government has said we need this bill because it wants to catch people who are committing nefarious acts. No one will ever hear me saying we do not want to catch terrorists or child predators. I have spent much of my life on the latter issue. However, we need to catch them in a way that is constitutional, whereby the government does not ask us to give it this, “just because”. The government failed to come to the committee table, say precisely what we need and why, and tell us how it is going to balance those charter rights.

Let us pass part 1 to give law enforcement those powers.

At the end of the day, we have spent a great deal of time on this, but we need more time on Bill C-22. I think we should be recalling witnesses. The fact is that we had so little time. We often had three experts on a panel. I would maybe get six minutes, and I am the lead critic on this. That was not enough.

I see my time has come to an end. I will now take questions and comments from my colleagues.

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

Madam Speaker, it is somewhat shameful that the Conservative Party likes to talk as if they are tough on crime. In reality, we have witnessed the Conservative Party bend at the knees, not recognizing the importance of action.

This government, under this Prime Minister, just over a year ago, was elected with a substantial legislative agenda to deal with getting tough on crime, and the Conservative Party has been the biggest barrier to that happening. It needs to take responsibility.

Why will the Conservative Party not recognize what law enforcement agencies across this nation are asking for? They are asking for lawful access, which is something other Five Eyes countries have. Only Canada does not have it.

Why is the Conservative Party continuing to filibuster on lawful access?

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I wish I could take the member to law school for one seminar, because he pontificates like a lawyer and tries to sound like a lawyer, but—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Oh, he is smarter than a lawyer. Okay, great. Thanks for that heckle from across the way.

Madam Speaker, even the member does not agree. Anybody watching at home cannot hear this, but the member is saying, “I am?”

The government members cannot sit here and say that they have been tough on crime. Someone could still get house arrest for a drive-by shooting, I will remind the member.

What the member did not talk about is what is in the bill. This is exactly the trap the Liberals have fallen into: Give us this, and to heck with the charter and with concerns of Canadians. This is the arrogance of the Liberal Party, and that is why Bill C‑22 is where it is at.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, we just heard from the member for Winnipeg North, who has sat in the House, in government, for 11 years but has done nothing to crack down on crime. The Liberals brought in Bill C‑5 and Bill C‑75, which do everything within their power to put violent criminals back out on the streets, yet now he hectors Conservatives for not doing enough for the Liberals while they are in government.

What does the member think of the government's pontificating again about being tough on crime?

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, let us talk about Bill C‑75. The member across the way from Winnipeg talks about being tough on crime as Liberals, but there is more. If someone is accused of an offence, Bill C‑75 says they get bail on the least restrictive conditions at the earliest possible opportunity. Why will the member not rise—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, he said that was pre-this government.

Who is in power now? It is the current Liberal government. Who is not acting on Bill C‑75? It is the Liberal government. Who is allowing the status quo to be maintained on Bill C‑75 with a majority? It is the Liberal government. Spare us the rhetoric on Bill C‑75's being tough on crime, until the government is prepared to deal with the least onerous measures bail provisions in Bill C‑75.

The member should take a seat, because we put forward legislation on this, the jail not bail act. The Liberals voted against it.

[Madeleine Chenette, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages and to the Secretary of State (Sport)]

Madam Speaker, I am rather surprised by the member's comments and by the fact that he is proposing to delay the passage of this bill by failing to abide by our rules. The member gave a good description of the process in committee, where there are five‑minute speeches and then time for questions. That said, we also have the opportunity to hear from experts who present briefs, so we take all the time we need to really benefit from the informed perspectives provided by experts. There is no challenge when it comes to decision-making, and we need to act now.

Can we move forward with this bill now?

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am so glad to have received that comment, because, get this, amendments were due on Bill C‑22, but we did not have briefings. There were actually multiple briefings that were not provided to the committee. Witnesses came to committee, for my hon. colleague's edification, saying that they had submitted a brief days ago. We looked around, and I asked my staff, “Did we get that?” They said no. Then I asked the clerk if we had received it, and the answer was no.

The member talks about briefings, but we did not even have those briefings. It speaks to how quickly this was rushed. We need to slow it down, pass part 1 and leave part 2.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C‑22 again. I spoke about it at second reading, raising my significant concerns with the Liberals' latest attempt at lawful access legislation here in Canada. In that speech, I focused on part 2, but I want to focus this morning on part 1 and, in particular, our motion to split the bill between part 1 and part 2. Part 1 has largely been referred to as the confirmation of service portion of Bill C‑22, and part 2 is about the new lawful access, government surveillance architecture that is quite problematic, but we will leave part 2 for most of this morning.

What we are trying to do with the motion is salvage a huge mess the government has created. The government presented a bill in the fall, I believe it was Bill C‑2, with a whole host of problems. Thankfully we were able to prevent its passage. Then, instead of going back to the drawing board and coming back to Parliament with a proposal on lawful access that would be reasonable and proportionate, and that would balance the needs of law enforcement to catch the bad guys, which we all want to do, with protecting Canadians' reasonable expectation of privacy on things that are important to them, such as their location data, their metadata, whom they visit and whom they send emails and text messages to, we got Bill C‑22.

Bill C‑22 would create a whole new part 2 architecture on surveillance, which industry, technology companies and any people who know anything about tech have uniformly come out and opposed. We have not been able to hear from all those voices, because it seems to be the intent of the government to push the bill forward. We are trying to salvage a mess the government has created with Bill C‑22, because we think there are parts of part 1 that could be salvaged.

I am going to try to explain some of the problems that exist with part 1 that I think we could amend in committee. Some of those amendments are before the committee right now and will be discussed later today. If we make those amendments, then I think part 1 would be more amenable to this side of the House. We will see how interested the government is in passing a piece of the legislation, but I think the government quite clearly understands that part 2 is a problem.

Part 1 and part 2 both have problems. Let us start with the part 1 problem. Within part 1, there are, I think, three problems we want to try to solve. Part 1 would allow police to ask a whole host of providers, “Do you offer services or provide services to this particular Canadian?” Unfortunately, the type of information that police would be allowed to request, with no judicial authorization, I will note, which is different from the new production request that I will get to in a moment, also in part 1, includes a whole host of personally identifying information.

That information includes more than just someone's name. It can also include the types of services that are being offered by companies. It may be what one might, in a common-sense way, think the police are asking for, such as “Does this person have Internet with Bell or Rogers?” However, it could be far more expansive than that.

What we are proposing to do is narrow the range of the types of information that could be requested. If the Liberals are serious about the police just needing confirmation of service, okay, that is great. Let us narrow it to names and perhaps certain types of addresses, and keep the list very narrow. Right now the list is open-ended, which creates a possibility that the types of information police could get under part 1 would actually be pretty broad.

This is a point that was raised by the Privacy Commissioner in their submission to the public safety committee and the Minister of Public Safety. In fact, it was a recommendation by the Privacy Commissioner that the range of information under this provision of part 1 be narrowed, so, I believe, both the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois proposed an amendment to do that. Unfortunately, it has not yet been accepted by the Liberals.

Worse than that, not only are the Liberals refusing to accept good-faith amendments about our concerns, but the amendment itself was proposed by the Privacy Commissioner, and they are refusing to allow the Privacy Commissioner to be present at committee when these amendments are being discussed. The Privacy Commissioner made several amendments. I just mentioned the first one. I will mention two more with respect to part 1.

During debate on this, Conservatives requested that the Privacy Commissioner be granted the same opportunity as other government-related officials who are, in the normal course, permitted to attend and to provide information to committee members and answer their questions. We asked for it as a motion. We asked for it on unanimous consent. Every time, it was denied. I have not heard a good reason why the Privacy Commissioner should not be permitted to attend committee and be available to parliamentarians, whether Conservative, Bloc, or Liberal, to answer questions about the amendments to part 1.

The second problem with part 2 is the range of providers that can be requested to provide confirmation of service. Right now, it is anyone who provides telecommunications services. That is not very well defined in the act, so it could encompass a whole host of providers beyond the normal telcos. That could include, say, a lawyer, a grocery store or the hotel someone stayed at.

Again, we have suggested an amendment, which was originally proposed by the Privacy Commissioner, to narrow to just telcos the range of who could receive this confirmation request, because that is the first thing law enforcement wants to know: Are they providing a telecom or Internet service to a particular person? Again, the Privacy Commissioner was denied the opportunity to be present at committee to answer questions on the amendment of narrowing the range of who could receive this request.

The third amendment, which I hope we will get to in committee, but I do not believe we have yet, is that once this request is made and once information is provided to law enforcement, the person who has provided the information to law enforcement should be required to produce a document that sets out what information was provided. This is so that, in case something goes wrong and we need to know what was provided, we have a document that says what they provided. Again, this is a recommendation from the Privacy Commissioner that Liberals have refused.

Those are three critical problems on the substantive side with part 1, and I will add one more to that. This is the threshold issue on the production order request, which is the second part of part 1. We have conservation of service, and then production order. The Liberals have proposed to lower the threshold for obtaining a production order, to reasonable suspicion. This would be lowered from the traditional grounds for obtaining a production order, which is reasonable grounds to believe. In this case, it would have judicial oversight of some manner, which would not necessarily have to be a judge. It could be another judicial official, such as a peace officer who is not a judge. It would not even have to be a lawyer.

For the non-lawyers or people who are not initiated in these two thresholds, I will explain that this would be an important change, because the first one, reasonable suspicion, is simply someone's subjective view that they think something bad has happened. They think a crime has been committed, so they need some information to see if they are right. That is a very low threshold. It is like a hunch. It is as if I have a hunch that someone committed a crime, so I am going to get the government to give me all their personal information. I do not think that sounds like a good idea.

What should be approved through amendment to the bill is bringing that standard back up to the standard that has been used for production orders in the Criminal Code for decades, which is reasonable grounds to believe. This means that not only would someone have to have a hunch, but they would also have to have an objective belief that there is going to be some evidence. It is not enough that someone thinks someone has committed a crime. They have to know that there is some evidence or have a good belief that there is evidence.

Through decades of jurisprudence from the Supreme Court and all common-law jurisdictions, the court has said it is not enough to just have a hunch. In the common law and now under the charter, we must have more than a hunch to invade someone's privacy and demand information about them. If the Liberals will not change that standard, then we will oppose part 1 as well.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Madam Speaker, it is really rich to hear the Conservatives talking about the Supreme Court and upholding a Supreme Court decision because generally what I have heard in debate over the last several months is, “Just don't listen to the Supreme Court. Do everything to oppose their decisions in the past.”

I would also like to say that many of the members get up and ask about organized crime in question period every day. The only way to fight organized crime is to make sure we give police the tools so that they can get evidence. Criminal organizations are using modern tools. They are using technology.

Why have the Conservatives been supporting the big tech companies instead of supporting Canadians and their public safety?

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

Madam Speaker, everything we do on this side of the House is for the benefit of Canadians, and that includes striking a balance between their privacy and the needs of law enforcement. I have tried to make very reasonable and sensible arguments here, not hyperbole.

To clarify to the member, it is the strength of the Supreme Court's reasons that is important. It does not matter that the court sits on high. It is the strength of its reasons that we look to. In this case, its reasoning on section 8 and unreasonable search and seizure has a long history, and I support it. It is not just because Supreme Court justices sit in robes that we listen to them. It is because of the strength of their reasons. That is very important, and the member misses that.

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

Madam Speaker, I know that my colleague is very concerned about the issues raised by Bill C-22, and I understand that the purpose of today's motion is to split the bill, but I would like to hear my colleague's views on the substance of the matter.

One of the concerns he raised is that, if Bill C-22 is passed, it will allow people's personal information to be retained for one year. He touched on the issue briefly, but what is his interpretation of the type of information that could be retained under Bill C-22, as presently worded? Does it include geolocation data?

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

Madam Speaker, I would describe Bill C-22 right now as a big, fat dumpster fire. This is the government's dumpster fire, which this motion is trying to fix. What the member quite rightly points out is that in part 2, there is a metadata retention requirement, and that includes one's location services.

That means that law enforcement, or any other part of government, can choose to get this information later. We have seen in other countries that it does not stop at law enforcement. Other government agencies look for that information. They will know who someone had coffee with because they will be able to see two iPhones at the same location. They will know if someone goes to church on Sunday because they will see a pattern. All of that reveals very private information, which is exactly why, in the EU, the European Court of Justice said that this information is very private, and it struck down the very same metadata retention requirements that Bill C-22 includes.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned that this includes any organization or any company that transmits electronic data on behalf of a client.

Would this include physicians, the medical field, where they either fax or email prescriptions to the drugstore? They are transmitting electronically on behalf of a client. Would that be subject to part 1 of Bill C-22?

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

Madam Speaker, that is a good question. There are certain carve-outs in the bill that are attempting to address this issue, on medical records and solicitor-client privilege, I believe. The problem is that this is very vague, in part 1 especially, and the Privacy Commissioner makes this point. The list of entities that could be requested to provide information is very broad, so it would include more than just telecoms. The information that they would be requested to provide is non-exhaustive. It could go beyond just what it says in the bill.

We are trying to fix that in part 1 so that we do not get in a situation. It would not be a doctor, because that is carved out, but there are a lot of other health care providers in there who may touch on someone's information. That is private. That should be protected. We need to fix that in part 1. If we fix that in part 1, I think we have a path forward. Right now, we do not have a path forward.

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

Madam Speaker, I move:

That the House do now proceed to orders of the day.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, we request a recorded vote, please.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #141

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I declare the motion carried.

Bill C‑20—Time Allocation Motion

[Gregor Robertson, Liberal, Minister of Housing and Infrastructure and Minister responsible for Pacific Economic Development Canada]

moved:

That in relation to Bill C-20, an act respecting the establishment of Build Canada Homes, not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration at the third reading stage of the said bill; and

That, at the expiry of the five hours provided for consideration at the third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.