National Framework for Food Price Transparency Act (Bill C-226) — Second Reading Debate

House Publications

The Debates are the report—transcribed, edited, and corrected—of what is said in the House. The Journals are the official record of the decisions and other transactions of the House. The Order Paper and Notice Paper contains the listing of all items that may be brought forward on a particular sitting day, and notices for upcoming items.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

April 20, 2026
- Order Paper and Notice Paper
- Journals
- Debates (Hansard)
Status of House Business User Guide XML PDF

45th PARLIAMENT,

1st SESSION

EDITED HANSARD • No. 106

CONTENTS

Monday, April 20, 2026

House of Commons Debates Volume 152 No. 106 1st SESSION 45th PARLIAMENT OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

Monday, April 20, 2026

Speaker: The Honourable Francis Scarpaleggia

The House met at 11 a.m. Prayer

Private Members' Business

[Private Members' Business]

(1100) [English ]

National Framework for Food Price Transparency Act

The House resumed from January 27 consideration of the motion that Bill C-226, An Act to establish a national framework to improve food price transparency, be read the second time and referred to a committee. [Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be back and be able to provide some comments on a very important piece of private member's legislation. I want to start by complimenting the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells for recognizing just how important it is to be there for constituents in a very real and tangible way. I appreciate that it is not about just his constituents. In fact, this is something that would be of great interest to all Canadians. As I look across the way, I would suggest that the Conservatives, Bloc members, New Democrats and even the leader of the Green Party give serious consideration to passing Bill C-226. I say that because, especially over the last number of years, virtually since COVID, the profile of consumer awareness of food products and groceries has increased dramatically. For the first time, the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells has brought forward a piece of legislation that could have a very positive outcome for consumers in every region of the country. It is all about consumer education and looking at the ways in which we can ensure more accountability and transparency in purchasing groceries. There are a number of things that come to my mind, but in essence, the principle of the bill recognizes a very real and tangible need. It could make a real difference for Canadians at the grocery store and beyond. It comes up with a solution, which is to say to the Minister of Industry, upon the legislation passing, that we would like to see, within a year and a half, a national framework that supports communities across the country. I know the Bloc members might have some concerns with regard to the legislation, but the Province of Quebec actually has something in place, from what I understand. It would be wonderful for other provinces to do what Quebec is doing with regard to this particular issue. With any given issue, we might often find one province doing a bit more than another province. That is why I believe the motion that has been brought forward by the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells is very positive. Bill C-226 would ensure that the national government could play a leadership role in ensuring that there is more transparency and accountability regarding our grocery products. By having a national framework, we would be providing the provinces and territories the opportunity to piggyback onto or look at what the national government is proposing. If the federal government were able to establish that, nothing would prevent a province from going beyond it, but at least let us try to get something on the books that provides strong, national leadership. I do not quite follow why members opposite would not want to see something of that nature. All we need to do is reflect on some of the things we hear about in dealing with grocery stores. Shrinkflation was often talked about just a few years back, and it is actually still talked about to a certain degree today. People are paying just as much, but the packaging is smaller, and those sizes vary. Through packaging, we can ultimately be deceived. Knowing the actual size in grams and litres and the ability to have those types of price comparisons is good for consumers, who are the people we represent. (1105) Why would we not take a look at what it is and how we might be able to provide support for this particular private member's bill? Giving the minister 's department a mandate so that it becomes a reality would, I believe, set the bill on the right track in actually producing something with a tangible result. The member talks about working with other jurisdictions and provincial jurisdictions. At the committee stage, we could listen to what some of those stakeholders have to say about the legislation. Private members' legislation affords members to come up with ideas, bring them forward and ultimately see if we can get them passed for the betterment of society. I would suggest that this is a sound public policy that is in the best interest of consumers. I applaud the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells for taking the initiative and representing his constituents by bringing forward legislation that would protect their interests and ensure more transparency and accountability in our groceries and purchasing. I see that as a positive thing. By bringing it forward as a private member's bill, he is thinking not only about about his constituents, but about a national perspective. The whole issue of groceries has been greatly debated inside the House. It is one of the reasons why the Prime Minister brought forward a new program that is going to reshape our GST rebate. Not only are we are now converting it into the groceries and essentials benefit for Canadians, but there are going to be substantial increases taking effect in the next couple of months, which will end up putting more disposable income into millions of Canadians' pockets. Why are we doing that? As a government, we are concerned about the issue of affordability. It is important to all Canadians. I can tell the House it is important to every member of the Liberal caucus. That is why, when I look at this legislation, I see something that continues to advocate for the consumer and the protection of Canadians when it comes to groceries. With that, I conclude my remarks, and I applaud the member for bringing forward the legislation. (1110) [Expand] Helena Konanz (Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to private member's bill, Bill C-226, which has been brought forward to this House by the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells. Before I begin my speech, I would like to quickly congratulate two of my local hockey teams. The first is the Penticton Vees, which will be advancing to the next round of playoffs in its first year of the WHL. The second is the Princeton Posse, which is currently playing in the championship series and truly defines how small towns make for big hockey. Returning to the legislation at hand, I would like to congratulate the member on bringing forward this legislation. It is an opportunity that not every parliamentarian has so early on in the House. I know, because I am currently working on my own legislation, so I understand the challenge in bringing a bill to fruition. The member is bringing forward legislation related to a subject that, no doubt, is raised in his riding as much as it is in mine: grocery prices. Typical for a Liberal bill, this is not going to get the member where he would like to be, which is lowering grocery prices. Grocery prices are one of the biggest topics in my riding. Wherever I go in my region of the country, whether it is Hedley, Naramata, Oliver, Rock Creek, Greenwood, Rossland or Penticton, I hear the same story: “I can't believe how big my grocery bill is.” When I talk with colleagues here in Ottawa, the same story emerges. Whenever someone picks up a carton of milk, a package of beef or a bag of carrots, they cannot believe the sticker price. I think all parliamentarians would welcome legislation to tackle grocery prices, but we have to ensure that it actually actually works to stabilize the price of the essentials that all families rely on. Any bill before us should be judged not by its intentions, but by whether it will, in fact, allow families to create an affordable budget to fill the fridge. For those watching at home, this legislation, if enacted, would create the following regulations. It would require the Minister of Industry, in consultation with the provinces, to create a national framework on grocery pricing and unit price display, emphasizing accuracy, usability and accessibility of unit pricing, transparency on price increases and consumer education on unit pricing. The framework would need to be delivered within 18 months, and it would be followed by an effectiveness report after five years. I believe the member's intention with this system is to create greater transparency in pricing for consumers, which I appreciate, of course, but the creation of a government report is not the enactment of a report or its recommendations. Ultimately, while the minister 's office would be asked to create a report outlining standards, there would be no enforcement mechanism. We have seen in multiple files departmental reports whose recommendations were not followed through by ministers. As just one example, the federal Competition Bureau studied grocery sector concentration and pricing practices three years ago and made several recommendations to improve competition and consumer options. It is important to note that very few of those recommendations have been enacted, either by the former industry minister who requested that report or by the present industry minister who succeeded him. There is also the fact that the federal government lacks jurisdiction over grocery pricing, which is ultimately the provinces' territory. There is nothing here in this legislation that lends an understanding of how that gap would be bridged. Ultimately, though, if these challenges could be overcome, I would ask how transparent the Liberal government is willing to be about the added costs to grocery pricing. (1115) Families in my riding understand that global events like COVID, tariffs or the wars in Ukraine, Iran and Iraq can affect food prices, but they see less of the government agricultural red tape, the domestic plastic packaging rules or the domestic fuel standards tax. These are all choices of the government that add unnecessary costs, cent by cent, to a family's grocery bills. Is the Liberal government willing to make it clear how its own policies raise the price of Canadian-made food? Considering this is the Liberal government that championed carbon taxes for years while ignoring the impact on families, I have my doubts. Working to undo these unnecessary taxes, fees and red tape would enable this Parliament to act in ways that let families actually see savings. All of the Liberal policies I referenced are a necessary added cost to the price on the shelf or in the freezer of the local grocery store. I recently surveyed rural communities across my riding about their experiences with grocery prices. I would like to take an opportunity to bring some of their voices to this debate as well. Norma from Greenwood wrote to me saying that, as a senior with celiac disease, it is ever more expensive for food, and pensions are not keeping pace with the increase in food, gas and power. Norma raises a good point here that, with the costs of groceries certainly impacting young families with many mouths to feed, those on fixed incomes or who live with dietary requirements or limitations on working ability find it equally difficult to ensure an affordable and nutritious meal is something they can put part of a paycheque toward and not a credit card. Dee in Princeton wrote that people should be encouraged to shop at local producers and grow their own food. Having just been to the opening of our farmers' market and to a hunters' fundraiser this past weekend, I could not agree more. Reducing costs for farmers, growers, hunters and anglers to create more local fruits, vegetables, meat and fish is a point raised often on this side of the House and is especially important in rural Canada. Lastly, Simon in Castlegar wrote to me saying that breaking down monopolistic entities that have an oversized level of control over the food supply chain might be a better way to reduce the costs. Finding ways to reduce market dominance of the five major grocery chains and spur more competition and smaller-sized operations were also part of the Competition Bureau's report that I mentioned earlier, which the government has still not acted on three years later. As a former small business owner, I always want to see us paving the way for more options for residents to buy healthy, local, affordable food. If this legislation provided a path forward to remove unnecessary taxes, fees and red tape that push up domestic food costs, I have no doubt this House would swiftly support it, but relying on reporting mechanisms is not the guarantee we need to spur real action on food prices. I will continue to follow the debate in this House on Bill C-226 and, should it advance, will look to ensure it is rigorously studied at committee. [Translation ]

[Expand] Maxime Blanchette-Joncas (Rimouski—La Matapédia, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today we are debating Bill C‑226, the bill introduced by the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells to establish a national framework for food price transparency at the grocery store. To begin, the Bloc Québécois is sensitive to the economic reality that Quebec and Canadian families are facing. We know full well that the rising cost of groceries is forcing a growing number of households to monitor and compare prices more closely. That said, Quebeckers want more than just a better understanding of their grocery bill. They want grocery prices to come down. It is true that certain price display practices sometimes make it more difficult to compare items, but we also must be honest. Displaying a price by litre or by kilogram does not change the amount paid at the cash register. The problem is not how the price is displayed, but the price itself. The bill is giving the impression that it is addressing the cost of living, but it fails to address the real causes of price increases. While families struggle to make ends meet, the government is once again choosing to focus on the price tag rather than on the grocery bill as a whole. The real problem is market concentration, the power of the big chains and the fact that the bill has no effect on those factors. Basically, the bill is focusing on the prices displayed in store, meaning what retailers are doing. It is not getting at what really influences prices. The Bloc Québécois is against the bill because it seeks to establish a national strategy with accountability requirements for Quebec and the provinces in a sector that falls under their jurisdiction. As we know, agriculture and agri-food are shared jurisdictions. However, retail, domestic marketing and consumer protection fall under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. It is not a grey area. In this case, when a customer buys a product at the grocery store, it is a transaction between a consumer and a merchant. That is unmistakably a matter of private law that falls under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. What is more, Quebec did not wait for the federal government to take action. Quebec is the only place in Canada that already regulates unit pricing. Unit pricing is not even mandatory anywhere else in the country. Quebec is already committed to protecting consumers in accordance with its own laws and within its own areas of jurisdiction. That is why we find it very difficult to accept the fact that Ottawa wants to impose a national framework in an area where Quebec is already taking action. The federal government sees rising food prices as an opportunity to talk about removing barriers to interprovincial trade. It is trying to use this bill to lump together all sorts of rules that are not directly related to that objective, including unit price labelling. However, it is important to be clear. Unit price labelling is not a barrier or hindrance to trade, nor does it impede the flow of goods between provinces. Once again, the federal government is failing to take the right approach and actually help Quebeckers and Canadians keep money in their pockets. How will this bill lower families' grocery bills? The answer is that it will not. Instead, this bill simply adds another layer of bureaucracy and accountability in a sector that does not fall under federal jurisdiction. If this were to move forward on national level, then it would be best if Quebec and the provinces discussed the matter amongst themselves, agreed on the requirements, and jointly established a course of action that respects their jurisdictions. Discussions on internal trade may provide a forum for this, but certainly not at the cost of federal encroachment. Accepting this today also means accepting a precedent. It opens the door to further federal interference tomorrow in areas that are the sole responsibility of Quebec. I would also like to point out that the Competition Bureau's June 2023 report on food prices did not propose imposing a uniform federal standard. On the contrary, it spoke of collaboration between the provinces. None of the recommendations called on the federal government to intervene directly in this way. It is the provinces that must reach an agreement. This is important because it confirms that, even when we are talking about improving practices, the way forward remains negotiation, not imposition. (1120) The problem is that the federal government too often acts as though Canada were a unitary state. It wants to harmonize policies across the country without accounting for existing realities, choices already made or jurisdictions. The reality is that Quebec is often ahead of the curve. This is true on a lot of issues. Once again, Quebec is already working on a problem, and the government comes along and tries to force it to adopt a Canadian standard that disregards everything Quebec is doing. We are getting a little fed up with seeing Ottawa step in when Quebec is already doing something. The government has been pushing the idea of a national unit pricing standard for a long time. After realizing that it lacks the leverage to force the provinces' hand, the government is dialing up the pressure. The government can tout the advantages of this kind of policy all it wants, but two simple facts remain: The federal government has no authority to impose that, and it will not lower food prices anyway. In short, everything has been set up to federalize an issue that is actually the responsibility of Quebec and the provinces. We need to let the appropriate governments handle this and negotiate among themselves. They have already demonstrated that they can work together when necessary. We saw that with the grocery sector code of conduct, for instance. It can all work out when governments collaborate. When Ottawa imposes its will, it mainly causes unnecessary tension. What we are asking for is simple: genuine negotiations that respect jurisdictional boundaries. The federal government can facilitate everything, but it cannot impose a one-size-fits-all standard in a sector that falls outside its purview. Quebeckers are not looking for empty measures. They want meaningful action that will truly lower their bills and respect Quebec's jurisdiction. For all the reasons I have just listed, the Bloc Québécois will vote against this bill. (1125) [English ]

[Expand] Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, let us be clear about what is happening in this country right now. Canadian families are making impossible choices at grocery stores. Parents are skipping meals so their children can eat. Seniors on fixed income are choosing between food and medication. Food banks usage has reached historic highs, and people using them are not just unemployed Canadians. They are working people, people with jobs who still cannot afford to feed their family. Meanwhile, Canada's grocery giants have posted record profits. Billions of dollars are flowing to shareholders and executives, while ordinary Canadians struggle to put food on the table. This is not a supply chain problem anymore. This is a greed problem. Increasingly, it is also about a transparency problem, because new technologies are making pricing even more opaque and harder for Canadians to trust. Bill C-226, the national framework for food price transparency act, is one step, a modest but necessary step, toward restoring fairness and transparency in our grocery sector. I want to acknowledge and thank the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells for bringing the bill forward in the current Parliament. I also want to thank my former colleague Alistair MacGregor, the former member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, as Bill C-226 is a carbon copy of Bill C-406, which was introduced by Alistair because the NDP wanted legislation to establish a national framework to improve food price transparency through standardized unit pricing and public awareness for consumers about shrinkflation practices. Right now, grocery pricing in Canada operates like a black box. Prices go up, and Canadians are told it is because of inflation, supply costs or global pressures, but when those input costs come down, do prices follow? They rarely do, and consumers have no way to verify what they are being told. Anyone who has tried to compare products at the grocery store knows the shell game that is being played. Is a 750-gram box a better deal than the 1.2‑kilogram bag? Is the sale price actually a saving, or has the package quietly shrunk? Shrinkflation is real. Canadians are paying the same or more for less product, and without clear unit pricing, it is nearly impossible to catch. The bill would establish national standards for unit pricing displays, making them accurate, usable and accessible. That means clear, consistent labelling that lets a working parent on a tight budget quickly identify the best value. It means accessibility for seniors, for people with disabilities and for anyone who deserves to shop with dignity and clarity. This is consumer protection 101, and frankly it is long overdue in Canada. Many European countries and Australian states have had mandatory unit pricing for years. We are playing catch-up. Food affordability is a national crisis that requires a national response, and the framework would create a structure for that collaboration. In addition to addressing pricing transparency, there is also a new and deeply troubling layer being added to this lack of transparency: surveillance pricing. Retailers are increasingly able to use personal data, such as person's postal code, their purchase history and even their online behaviour, to estimate what they might be willing to pay, and to adjust prices accordingly. This means that two people could buy exactly the same product at exactly the same store and pay different prices, not because of a sale and not because of cost differences but because an algorithm has decided that one of them can be charged more. This undermines a basic assumption Canadians have always relied on: that the price on the shelf is the price everyone pays. It also makes comparison shopping nearly impossible. If prices are being personalized behind the scenes, how can Canadians make informed choices? How can markets function fairly when the rules are hidden? The United Food and Commercial Workers Union has already raised concerns, noting that these systems are beginning to roll out in real time with little transparency and no accountability. We know who will be most affected: seniors on fixed income, working families, people in rural and underserved communities, and anyone an algorithm determines has fewer options. That is not a fair market. That is digital age price gouging. (1130) Surveillance pricing needs to be banned in Canada. Our leader, Avi Lewis, has called for clear guardrails to ensure that personal data is not used to squeeze more money out of the pockets of people who are already stretched thin. In Canada we are already seeing leadership in Manitoba on this under Premier Wab Kinew, who has taken steps to ban surveillance pricing practices outright, recognizing the risks they pose to consumers. Innovation should serve people, not exploit them. It is about setting boundaries. The Liberals should bring in a national initiative to ban surveillance pricing from coast to coast to coast. Meanwhile, Bill C-226 would address part of the broader problem by requiring transparency on price increases, adjustments and fluctuations. This is not about the government's setting prices. It is about ensuring that Canadians have the information they need to make informed decisions and to hold corporations accountable. When grocery chains know their pricing practices will be scrutinized, when they know Canadians can see when and why prices change, they will think twice before padding their margins on the backs of struggling families. Would the bill single-handedly solve the affordability crisis? No, it would not. New Democrats have called for much bolder action: excess profit taxes on grocery giants, stronger competition enforcement, measures to break up corporate concentration in the food supply chain and a public option for groceries such as what Avi Lewis has long argued for. However, the bill is a beginning. It would give Canadians tools and information. It would establish the principle that transparency is non-negotiable in our grocery sector, especially as pricing practices become more complex and less visible. We should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. We can pass the legislation while continuing to fight for deeper structural reforms. This comes down to a simple question: Whose side are we on? Are we on the side of grocery executives and shareholders, who have enriched themselves during a cost of living crisis, or are we on the side of the single mother comparing prices at 10 p.m. after her shift, the pensioner stretched thin on a fixed income and the family choosing between groceries and rent? Canadians deserve to know that the price on the tag is the price that everyone pays, not a number quietly adjusted based on their personal data. Bill C-226 is a vote for transparency, a vote for fairness and a vote for Canadian families. New Democrats will be supporting the bill, and we urge all members of the House to do the same. [Expand] Rhonda Kirkland (Oshawa, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise on behalf of Oshawa residents. My neighbours speak about this issue, which is very important to them. It weighs heavily on workers, families, seniors and youth across our community. Bill C-226 is a bill to establish a national framework to improve food price transparency. The legislation would require the Minister of Industry, in consultation with provinces, to develop a framework focused on grocery pricing practices, unit price display and consumer education. It would also require a report to Parliament within 18 months, followed by a review of its effectiveness within five years. At first glance that sounds reasonable. Transparency matters, and Canadians deserve clear and accurate information when they are making decisions at the grocery store. However, in Oshawa, that conversation goes far beyond transparency. It is about whether people can afford to put food on the table at all. In my recent surveys in Oshawa, of more than 8,000 people, 73% said that the self-proclaimed new Liberal government has not significantly eased their household's cost of living challenges over the past year. What stood out even more was that 40% of those Oshawa respondents also said they were, in general, Liberal supporters. That tells me something important: People are not approaching this as a political debate. They are looking at their grocery bills, their bank accounts and their ability to get through the month, and they are worried. Of my constituents who responded, 53% said they are living paycheque to paycheque. These are not just people on the margins. They are dual-income working families, young workers trying to get ahead and seniors who are doing everything they can to make their savings last. They are doing everything right, but it is still not enough. Affordability is now the top issue for over 57% of the people in Oshawa who answered my surveys. Affordability is ahead of health care, ahead of crime, ahead of tariffs and even ahead of jobs. That speaks to how serious the situation has become. It is not just what people are telling me. It is also what we are seeing. Food banks in Oshawa and across the Durham region are facing record demand. Organizations like Simcoe Hall Settlement House, local churches with food bank, and Feed the Need in Durham are having more working families than ever walk through their doors. Many of these organizations have had to limit how often people can come. This is not because the need has gone down but because they simply cannot keep up with the demand. I saw this first-hand in Oshawa when the leader of the official opposition joined us at Simcoe Hall Settlement House. Together we helped deliver donations collected through my constituency office's drive, made possible by the generosity of my neighbours in Oshawa, in addition to the generous donations made personally by the member for Battle River—Crowfoot. We had the chance to speak with the hard-working Simcoe Hall staff and volunteers who are on the front lines every day, doing everything they can to support families in need. What stayed with me most was how much demand has grown and how many of the people relying on these services today are from working families and never expected to be in the position they are in. I also asked, when I was at Simcoe Hall in December, about the national school food program. The Liberals are constantly telling us that it is the answer to help with food insecurity and affordability. The folks at Simcoe Hall said it is not doing anything. In fact, I do not know of any school in my region that has the national school food program. Again, it is not working, it is not helping and we need better answers. I have also heard from more than 5,000 Oshawa residents who have signed petitions calling for immediate action to bring down the cost of food. They are asking for relief from the hidden costs that drive up prices on everything from fuel to packaging and fertilizers. They are asking for practical solutions that would make a difference in their daily lives. They are not asking for yet another framework. “Framework” is a beautiful word that just means more bureaucracy. (1135) Bill C-226 may help consumers compare prices. It may affect how information is displayed. It may help some households understand what they are paying for. However, it would not do what we in Oshawa and all Canadians need. It would not lower the cost of groceries, period. We must also consider the broader impact. The bill would introduce a federal framework in an area that has traditionally been managed by the provinces. Retail pricing and consumer protection are areas where the provinces already play a significant role. We need to be mindful not to create yet another overlap that simply adds complexity without delivering meaningful results because, guess what, those added costs do not stay within the system but are passed on to the consumer, exacerbating the problem we currently have. We also know that the Competition Bureau has already studied the grocery sector and highlighted the need for stronger competition. That is where we should be focused: on creating an environment where new competitors can enter the market, on reducing barriers that drive up costs and on ensuring Canadians have real choice. In my conversations across Oshawa, I have heard something very concerning. Families are changing what they eat. Some have stopped buying meat altogether. My friend Nathan said earlier that we need more red meat, not more red tape. Others are cutting back on even the most basic resources of protein just to make their budgets work. As a result, this is not just an affordability crisis but also a health crisis. This is not what Canadian people expect. This is not what families should be facing after working hard and doing their part. My neighbours in Oshawa are not asking for more reports. They are not asking for more strategies, more frameworks or more plans. They are tired. They are concerned. They are asking for something very simple. They want to be able to afford to feed their own families. They want dignity. They want to take care of themselves without having to rely on a food bank or other government supports and programs. They want to feed their own families. After nearly a decade of rising costs and 11 years of Liberal promises that have not delivered relief, 62% of my constituents in Oshawa who responded believe that our country is headed in the wrong direction. That is not something we can ignore. Therefore, while I respect the intent of Bill C-226, there are serious concerns. Transparency matters, but it is not enough. Canadians need action that lowers costs and policies that address the real drivers of food prices. They need relief now, not in 18 months, and not years down the road. This is a serious moment. We have a responsibility to respond with solutions that reflect what Canadians are actually going through. Above all, we have a responsibility to listen, to understand and to act in a way that brings real relief to the people we represent. (1140) [Expand] The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): I now call upon the hon. member for Fleetwood—Port Kells, who has five minutes for his right of reply. [Expand] Gurbux Saini (Fleetwood—Port Kells, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise once again in support of Bill C-226, an act to establish a national framework to improve food price transparency. Let me begin by acknowledging that our government has already taken important steps to support Canadians through a challenging period of global inflation and rising food costs, from strengthening competition in the grocery sector to supporting households directly. We recognize that affordability remains one of the most pressing concerns for Canadians today. These are important steps. They show that our government is taking concrete steps to better understand pricing practices and ensure that markets remain fair and competitive. However, we also recognize that more can and should be done. Bill C-226 builds on these efforts in a constructive and collaborative way. It does not seek to replace existing measures, nor does it place undue burden on provinces, territories or retailers. Instead, it proposes a practical framework that complements current initiatives by focusing on one key principle: transparency. Canadians want to make informed choices, yet too often they are faced with unclear or inconsistent pricing practices. Without standardized unit pricing, such as the cost per gram or per litre, it becomes unnecessarily difficult to compare products and determine their true value. It is important to note that this bill aims to foster a shared approach to clarity and consistency across the country in partnership with provinces and territories, without infringing on their jurisdictions or authorities. It is also important to emphasize that this legislation is measured and realistic. It does not claim to solve all aspects of food affordability; rather, it represents a thoughtful step forward that empowers consumers without imposing heavy-handed regulations. At a time when Canadians are carefully managing their household budgets, even small improvements in transparency can make a meaningful difference. When people can easily compare prices, they are better equipped to stretch their dollars and make choices that suit their needs. This bill is also about trust. Transparency strengthens confidence in the marketplace. It reassures Canadians that the system is fair, that information is accessible and that they are not at a disadvantage when making everyday purchases. This is a balanced proposal. It aligns with the work our government is already doing, and it reflects our commitment to supporting Canadians in a practical, responsible way. I invite all members of the House to view Bill C-226 in that spirit, as a collaborative, responsible measure that would complement existing efforts and help Canadians navigate the realities of today's economy. Let us continue working together to improve affordability, strengthen transparency and ensure that our grocery system works for all Canadians. (1145) [Expand] The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): The question is on the motion. If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair. [Expand] Gurbux Saini: Mr. Speaker, I would like to see a recorded vote. [Expand] The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, April 22, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions. Sitting Suspended

[Expand] The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): The sitting is suspended to the call of the Chair. (The sitting of the House was suspended at 11:49 a.m.)

Sitting Resumed

(The House resumed at 12:02 p.m.)

Government Orders

[Government Orders]

(1200) [English ]

Lawful Access Act, 2026

The House resumed from April 17 consideration of the motion that Bill C‑22, An Act respecting lawful access, be read the second time and referred to a committee. [Expand] Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am happy this morning to be here to add my comments to what I think is a really important piece of legislation for our country. I speak in strong support of Bill C-22. It is a piece of legislation that modernizes Canada's lawful access framework so our police and national security agencies can do their jobs effectively in a digital world, which is what we are clearly all living in, while fully respecting Canadians' charter rights and privacy. It is extremely important to be able to craft legislation that meets the very basics that are important to all of us when it comes to our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that we move forward in that direction in a positive way in crafting this piece of legislation. The context of why this bill is necessary is that crime has changed. I think we are all seeing it in our communities, streets, phones and computers. Things have changed immensely on how crime is delivered. It is not just, I say this randomly, shooting someone. It is now accessing someone's private details and so many other things that need new legislation to keep up with the change in criminal activity. We have been hearing about a lot of effort going into dealing with organized crime. Whether we are talking about B.C. or Brampton, Ontario, organized crime has infiltrated a tremendous number of areas in our country and the laws we were able to use previously do not meet the requirements for our police officers and RCMP officers today. Child exploitation is another extremely important issue that is happening. When we ask the police to do their job, it is very difficult for them to do it with their hands handcuffed behind their backs to get the access that they need to be able to make a case and find out who the guilty parties are. Bill C-22 would help with that. Foreign interference, extortion, terrorism and auto theft are also things that Bill C-22 would help. We hear a lot about financial crimes in our day-to-day activity with our constituents and with others, and the different ways that the criminal element is able to access things. They increasingly operate online, using encrypted platforms and move data across borders in seconds, not minutes, yet Canada's lawful access laws were largely written for a pre-smart phone, pre-cloud era. When we talk to some seniors, in particular, they know very little about this, yet it is happening in their own instruments. It is very difficult for police to get access. Investigations can stall because police cannot determine which service provider holds the relevant data. Is it an Apple? Is it Rogers? Who is the service provider? Our agencies are forced to rely on voluntary disclosure, foreign partners or legal workarounds. I think the police already have a difficult enough time getting the information to build a case. When they have to appear before a judge and get judicial permission, it hampers the whole investigation. As proud as we are of Canada, we are now the only Five Eyes or G7 country without a modern lawful access regime. This is not a sustainable position for public safety nor Canadian sovereignty. Bill C-22 would be the beginning of creating the lawful regime needed to be able to give more support to our law enforcement officers. What Bill C-22 would do, in very plain terms, is provide a measured, Canadian solution built on three pillars: clarity, constitutionality and accountability. All three are extremely important for our law enforcement officers to be able to do the job that we ask them to do. Timely, court-authorized access— (1205) [Expand] The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): I apologize, but I am going to interrupt the member to ask that she take her phone and place it on the chair or somewhere further away from the live microphone. The hon. member may resume. [Expand] Hon. Judy A. Sgro: Mr. Speaker, point one is that Bill C-22 would give police and CSIS clear, court-authorized tools aligned with Supreme Court decisions such as Spencer and Bykovets. Two key tools worth highlighting in those decisions were, first, confirmation of service, or a simple yes-or-no confirmation of which service provider holds a specific identifier. This does not reveal personal information and does not replace judicial authorization. Second is subscriber information production orders. These allow police, with a judge's approval, to obtain basic identifying information, nothing more, so investigations can actually proceed. The bill would also clarify the ability to accept voluntarily provided information, such as tips or victim reports. It would codify exigent circumstances so police could act quickly in genuine emergencies. It would also create smarter tools for international co-operation, reflecting that data does not stop at borders. Point two is technical capability. It would not be new powers as only technical capabilities would be expanded. Bill C-22 would ensure that electronic service providers have the technical ability to comply with existing warrants and court orders. That is critical. The bill would create no new surveillance powers, which is very important, as this was crafted to ensure that it would not be giving police access to something that would jeopardize people's constitutional rights. It would not allow warrantless access, nor mass surveillance, direct access or back doors. Access to content, browsing history or social media activity would not allowed with Bill C-22. Every disclosure would require lawful authorization. Providers themselves would supply the information. If a cybersecurity concern arises, judicial review for this would be built in to Bill C-22. There would also the strong oversight and accountability I mentioned. Bill C-22 would embed judicial oversight, intelligence commissioner approval for ministerial orders and public annual reporting. A mandatory parliamentary review after three years would be essential to see if the goals of Bill C-22 are being achieved or if changes are needed in one way or the other. This is how responsible legislation is done. The privacy and the charter I mentioned earlier are extremely important. In Bill C-22, privacy and public safety would not be opposing values. They would be mutually reinforcing. Bill C-22 would narrow definitions of subscriber information and explicitly exclude content. It would limit data retention to metadata for a maximum of one year, respond directly to Supreme Court jurisprudence and add more transparency than exists today. This bill would not lower constitutional standards, as I mentioned earlier. It would clarify them so police, providers and courts all operate with certainty and consistency. If we do nothing, we leave investigations in a grey zone, where they are today, and where accountability is weaker and not stronger. Some have suggested that this bill would go too far. Others claim it would not go far enough. This tells me this legislation is carefully balanced. To be clear, Bill C-22 would not authorize access to emails, content or web browsing history. It would not create secret surveillance powers. It would respond to real operational gaps identified by police, child protection experts and national security professionals. I am thankful for the opportunity to speak on Bill C-22. It is an important bill that is endorsed by police chiefs, frontline officers and child protection organizations. We have been very clear: Digital evidence is essential, and today it is far too often out of reach to help accomplish the goals we have today. (1210) [Expand] Ted Falk (Provencher, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I agree with the fact that law enforcement need to have the tools to do their job and do it effectively so that we can put criminals behind bars where they belong. However, from a civil liberties perspective, can the member talk a little more about the protections for individual privacy that would be looked after in this bill? [Expand] Hon. Judy A. Sgro: Mr. Speaker, as I said, Bill C-22 would not authorize access to emails, content or web browsing history. The whole goal of Bill C-22 is to take the handcuffs off our police enforcement, give them the tools they need to find out who has access to a particular phone number that is viewing child pornography or that has other law-breaking schemes going on. I believe the hon. member was at an event a few months ago on the Hill with the RCMP, who talked about how difficult it is for them to get the basic information they need while still protecting Canadians' privacy. [Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in terms of lawful access, this Prime Minister and the government brought forward the whole debate on lawful access back in June, shortly after the federal election last year. It is a little frustrating to see the resistance that we are getting from the Conservative Party with regard to lawful access, given that law enforcement officers across the nation want to see lawful access implemented. I am wondering if the member could provide her thoughts on the importance of stopping the filibustering on legislation that is denying lawful access in Canada. [Expand] Hon. Judy A. Sgro: Mr. Speaker, many of the issues in Bill C-22, I expect, will be fully supported by my Conservative colleagues, the Bloc, the NDP and so on. We all have the same intent to protect families, people and our individual rights and freedoms. I expect that they will be front and centre in supporting Bill C-22, helping us to get it through as quickly as possible. If we can make it stronger, if there is an area where we can agree to reinforce something, we all have the same intent, and that is starting to protect people in this new digital world we are living in. (1215) [Expand] Rhonda Kirkland (Oshawa, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments in response to the question and comment from the member for Winnipeg North, and I wonder if she could take a minute to talk about the role of the official opposition. It is an important role in our parliamentary system, and it is debate that we are having here today, not filibustering. I take exception when the member for Winnipeg North constantly talks about debate as filibustering. I know the member might disagree, and I would love her comments on that. [Expand] Hon. Judy A. Sgro: Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely a debate that we are having today, and we will have debates at committee as well. I am a Canadian parliamentarian who is very concerned with the issue of safety and law and order. I wish this legislation had been enacted two years or five years ago. Things have moved so quickly in this digital economy, and we are always so far behind. I hope my colleagues across the aisle will work extensively with this side of the House to make sure we have done the best we can in strengthening this piece of legislation and getting it through as quickly as possible. [Expand] Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about aspects of Bill C-22, things that continue to include unacceptable elements from Bill C-2. I could not agree more with the hon. member for Oshawa that the hon. member for Winnipeg North has assumed that people are filibustering when we are merely insisting that the legislation be acceptable. Bill C-22 is an improvement, but could the hon. member for Humber River—Black Creek let us know if the government will be open to amending it to deal with the problems in part 2 of the bill? [Expand] Hon. Judy A. Sgro: Mr. Speaker, I think we all anticipate hearing further comments from other parties, so that we can make this legislation go through quickly and so that we can make it the best it can possibly be. [Expand] Jacob Mantle (York—Durham, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the focus of my remarks today on Bill C-22 will be on part 2, which is the so-called lawful access proposal, and specifically what the bill as written actually does and why Canadians should be deeply concerned about it. There are two competing interests at play here, in this so-called lawful access proposal. On the one hand, there is the public interest in safety, security and the effective suppression of crime. On the other hand, there are the privacy interests of all Canadians: the right to be left alone, free from unwanted intrusion by the government or its agents. In my view, the Liberal government bears the burden of demonstrating, one, why these new powers are necessary; two, why our current system is inadequate; and three, that the measures in Bill C-22 strike the right balance between the protection of privacy and public safety. In my view, the Liberals have failed on all accounts. They have failed because Bill C-22 is overbroad and disproportionately interferes with the privacy interests of all Canadians. It does this by forcing what are known in the bill as “electronic service providers”, who provide to Canadians what is called in the bill “electronic service”, to build into their systems interception and monitoring capabilities to collect and retain data about Canadians. As I will show, there are almost no guardrails respecting who will be caught by this proposal, nor are there sufficient limits on the data that it proposes to capture. Perhaps most troubling is that the data includes location data, effectively turning every connected device into a government-spying device. On top of it all, the minister is given power to do all of this in secret. Part 2 of Bill C-22 will require a wide range of electronic service providers to build interception and monitoring capabilities into their system. A plain reading of this proposal leads to the conclusion that nearly any entity providing electronic services to Canadians will be caught. Let me unpack two key definitions to show just how broad the proposal really is. The first is “electronic service provider”, and the second is “electronic service”. An electronic service provider is defined in the relevant part of the act as a person who “provides an electronic service, including for the purpose of enabling communications”. The keywords here are “electronic service” and the phrase “including for the purpose of enabling communications”. The Liberals would have us believe that this definition targets only telecoms and big tech. The Minister of Justice said so in his speech. He said, “we are mainly focused on large-scale networks to ensure that we understand the metadata behind messages”, but that is not what the bill says. The bill says, “including for the purpose of enabling communications”. The word “including” is a deliberate drafting choice, and it signals a non-exhaustive list. It means that the definition of “electronic service provider” will capture much more than just those who are enabling communications, much more than just big telcos and big tech. That becomes even more clear when we look at the second definition, of electronic service, which reads, in part, as follows: “a service, or a feature of a service, that involves the creation, recording, storage, processing, transmission, reception, emission or making available of information in electronic, digital or any other intangible form”, and the definition goes on. I realize that is a mouthful. Taken together, these definitions create an extraordinarily broad scope. Based on the text as written, I could qualify as an electronic service provider. Banks could qualify, law firms could qualify and news media could qualify. They all create, store and transmit electronic information to Canadians. Where exactly are the boundaries? I have not heard them yet, including from the Minister of Justice. The Liberals, who proposed this, bear the burden of delineating those boundaries clearly and narrowly, and they have failed to do so. This failure becomes problematic when we get to secret orders, which we will do shortly. A subset of these electronic service providers will be designated as core providers. We do not know which companies will fall into this category, because the Liberals have not told Canadians. It will be proposed in regulations sometime in the future. What we do know is that core providers will be required to build technical capabilities into their systems allowing government to access Canadians' data. (1220) The Liberals have attempted to assure Canadians that these obligations will be limited to a narrow subset of metadata. The justice minister reiterated this when he said in his speech that the goal is “not specifically requiring the individual content of every message, but only trying to identify what messages may have been sent at what time”. However, that is not what the bill says. Proposed paragraph 5(2)(a) allows cabinet to make regulations requiring core providers to develop, implement and maintain these technical capabilities. Importantly, regulations may be made “related to extracting and organizing information”. The phrase “extracting information” is extremely broad and goes well beyond metadata. Moreover, proposed paragraph 5(2)(a) is not limited by the restrictions respecting metadata in proposed subsection 5(4). Those are the restrictions around browsing history and social media. Even if the requirements were restricted only to certain metadata, the proposal would still be overbroad. Metadata, including location data, is far more revealing than, as the minister said, what messages were sent at what time. Metadata is a comprehensive record of communications behaviour. Combined with the subscriber data available under part 1 of the bill, it creates a detailed picture of Canadians' daily habits, places of residence, movements, social relationships and private lives. This is exactly why similar blanket retention laws in Europe were struck down as a disproportionate interference in privacy rights. For all electronic services providers, whether they are core providers or otherwise, the government maintains even more sweeping powers. Proposed subsection 7(1) allows the minister to issue an order to any electronic service provider imposing the same obligations that can be required of core providers. All of these powers, whether exercised with respect to core providers or any other electronic service provider, can be exercised in secret. Regulations made by cabinet for core providers are exempt from the Statutory Instruments Act. Ministerial orders for electronic service providers are exempt from the Statutory Instruments Act. That means they would not be published in the Canada Gazette. That means they would be secret. Worse still, electronic service providers would be prohibited from publicly disclosing that they are even subject to such an order. These requirements to build systems into electronic service providers' provision of electronic services to Canadians would create serious vulnerabilities in our infrastructure. Providers would be creating a front door for government access, one that can and likely will be exploited by bad actors or the government itself. That is not my conjecture; that is a demonstrated fact. I have two examples. First, in 2004-05, hackers exploited Vodafone Greece's built-in lawful interception systems to illegally tap the phones of the Prime Minister, cabinet ministers and other senior officials for months. More recently, the China-linked Salt Typhoon hacking group breached lawful intercept systems operated by major U.S. providers, including Verizon and AT&T. In both cases, systems built for authorized government access became gateways for serious abuse, including by Communist-backed hackers. These systems would be abused by government. I do not trust the government to exercise these powers in the public interest, because it has shown itself to be untrustworthy. There is another path. Our current legal framework already provides for police to obtain court authorizations for information, preservation orders and assistance orders. Critics argue that the process is slow and burdensome, and those are serious concerns that deserve serious merit. However, the solution is not blanket authorizations to retain vast amounts of data by an untold number of service providers. In summary, Bill C-22 would create a broad surveillance framework covering vast amounts of Canadians' data, and it would do so largely in secret and without sufficient oversight or remedies for misuse. It would also introduce new vulnerabilities into our digital systems that would make Canadians' data less secure. These are vulnerabilities that bad actors and even governments themselves may abuse. With all these things taken together, the government has failed to demonstrate why these expansive new powers are necessary, why the current system cannot be improved upon, and that Bill C-22 strikes the right balance between public safety and the protection of Canadians' privacy interests. (1225) [Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear. Since June of last year, the government, in one form or another, has been explaining, and asking for, lawful access. Canada is the only country in the Five Eyes that does not have lawful access. The Conservative Party made a commitment to defeat and kill Bill C-2, which had lawful access. Therefore, we have brought forward Bill C-22. There have been a number of hours of debate on this legislation, and that is the reason why I believe the Conservative Party's intent is to filibuster the legislation. If that is not the case, can the member give us an indication as to whether or not he would like to see the bill pass second reading before the end of this— [Expand] The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): The hon. member for York—Durham. [Expand] Jacob Mantle: Mr. Speaker, as I clearly said in my remarks, the goal here is to strike the right balance between the interests of protecting public safety and suppressing crime and the protection of Canadians' right to privacy, the right to not be intruded on by the government or its agents. Contrary to what the hon. member said, the purpose of this place is to debate those issues. We are here, once again, because the government has consistently failed, over 10 years, to bring forward a piece of legislation that adequately balances those rights. [Translation ]

[Expand] Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech. He raised some very valid points in many respects. I would like to know what he thinks of a government that wants to grant more powers to police and intelligence services but that has just slashed the budget of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, which is supposed to monitor those services, to save a few pennies. How can the government say that those people need more powers while also cutting this agency's funding? (1230) [English ]

[Expand] Jacob Mantle: Mr. Speaker, my Bloc colleague has, of course, pointed out a contradiction in the government's position. I also want to thank the Bloc for pointing out, in their earlier speeches on this, the lower threshold of suspicion in part 1 that the government introduced. This is exactly why we have this debate. That is a question for the government to answer, why they have this contradiction: on the one hand, wanting more power but, on the other hand, reducing law enforcement's resources to exercise those powers. [Expand] Ted Falk (Provencher, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from York—Durham for his excellent dissection of Bill C-22, part 2. The Liberals have been trying to assure us that judicial oversight will be an important part of this bill. Does he see that as still being retained inside the bill as it is written? [Expand] Jacob Mantle: Mr. Speaker, the short answer is no. I do not see that as being a robust portion of part 2 of the bill, in part because much of what the minister would do and the regulations that would be made would be done in secret. Moreover, the provision of sending ministerial orders to the Information Commissioner is, in my view, somewhat misguided. The Information Commissioner deals with national security issues and signals intelligence, among other things. That individual is not tasked with protecting Canadians' privacy rights. That balance is not there in the review. [Expand] Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the government omitted to properly consult the Privacy Commissioner. It is a curious thing, why they did that. Would the member support an amendment to the bill to, prior to it receiving full authority, have the bill brought before the Privacy Commissioner for consultation and recommendations? [Expand] Jacob Mantle: Mr. Speaker, of course, the opposition is always open to considering all reasonable amendments to the bill. At the very least, I would like to hear what the Privacy Commissioner's view is on the bill. Whether the Privacy Commissioner could provide that via testimony in committee or via a public letter to members of the House of Commons, I would welcome those comments. [Expand] Hon. Randeep Sarai (Secretary of State (International Development), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to speak about Bill C-22, the lawful access bill. There is no issue more pressing in the law enforcement legal framework than lawful access, a tool that is essential for police and prosecution to do the work to expeditiously catch people accused of many violent crimes. The world around us is becoming increasingly digital and networked. Much of our day-to-day business communication and overall lives relies on the Internet. Smart phones, emails and instant messaging apps easily and instantly transcend provincial and national borders. Unfortunately, this also means that malicious actors, such as organized crime groups and violent extremists, can exploit the borderless nature of cyberspace for their own benefit. Canada's law enforcement agencies and CSIS need modern tools to help keep communities safe. We must close the capacity gap in current legislation that prevents law enforcement and CSIS from having lawful access to data, and must ensure that they can properly execute their mandates and protect Canadians. “Lawful access” is a term we will hear a lot in association with the bill, but let us be clear what it really means. Lawful access covers the tools and authorities used to legally obtain certain information, data or communication during investigations. This information is often essential to generating leads on national security threats and serious criminal activities, such as extortion and organized crime, as well as to identifying and prosecuting the people involved. For decades, law enforcement and CSIS have had to operate without a legal framework requiring electronic service providers, ESPs, to develop and maintain lawful access capabilities. The current legal framework dates from before the invention of cellphones and has not kept pace with the rapid advances in technology. This is important because law enforcement and intelligence investigators need basic subscriber information, such as a legal name or an address, to identify or exclude suspects, particularly during preliminary stages. Bill C-22 would establish a legal framework requiring electronic service providers to have the capability to respond to legally authorized requests, such as a warrant or a production order, while respecting protecting privacy interests and fundamental rights. It would introduce provisions to support law enforcement as it cracks down on crime in an increasingly complex technological landscape where the vast majority of evidence is online or electronic. Law enforcement groups have sounded the alarm about the obstacles they encounter in their investigations. For instance, imagine a person getting a call from an extortionist demanding money and threatening their family if they do not pay. They call 911, tell the police who called and show them the messages they received. Under the current framework, it would take weeks or even months for the police to find out basic information such as who or where the call came from. This is just one example of the many challenges law enforcement officials face in obtaining the information they need. Often they do not know which service provider holds the customer account associated with the subscriber information, which also means they do not know whom to serve with a production order. This challenge currently stalls and delays real-world investigations. In many cases, law enforcement is required to seek multiple judicial authorizations to seek very basic information from different service providers, just to confirm which service provider's phone number or IP address the call was made from. The current framework causes significant, unnecessary and potentially harmful delays. Timely access to the basic information is crucial in all stages of an investigation and can mean the difference between securing evidence and allowing criminals to slip through law enforcement's fingers. Here is another example. Police are aware that a provider holds certain information, but the company cannot provide it because their systems do not possess the capability to do so, as there is no legal requirement to carry such capabilities. We have heard many stories of law enforcement tracking a missing child or attempting to stop a terrorist attack, knowing which service provider to obtain the information from but being stonewalled by the provider's lack of lawful access capabilities. We cannot hope to fully protect Canadians and our communities if law enforcement and CSIS are unable to do their jobs. For this reason, Bill C-22 would introduce new legislation to close that gap, whereby certain ESPs would need to develop and maintain the technological capabilities to respond to production orders. To be clear, this aspect of the legislation intentionally and explicitly would not allow for backdoor access or any direct access for law enforcement or CSIS into electronic service provider systems. A legal authority to access that information would still always be required. (1235) Bill C-22 proposes two ways by which an ESP would be asked to develop and maintain lawful access capabilities. First, those designated as core providers, such as traditional telecom companies, would have to abide by specific requirements set out in regulations. Second, the Minister of Public Safety could issue a ministerial order to develop specific capabilities based on operational needs as new technologies develop. We have heard the concerns from parliamentarians and stakeholders around privacy and oversight. I want to reassure Canadians that Bill C-22 includes safeguards so ESPs would not have to abide by any demands that would introduce systemic vulnerabilities in electronic protections, such as encryption breaking or backdoor access. This would also require that the Minister of Public Safety obtain the approval of the intelligence commissioner before a ministerial order is valid, and it would be subject to further review by the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency. Bill C-22 is about removing harmful barriers that impede active investigations and delay justice as well as put Canadians in harm's way. It is about bringing our legislation up to date with modern technologies and those of our closest allies and partners. It is about ensuring that alleged extortionists, child predators, cybercriminals, hostile state actors and organized criminal networks have nowhere to hide. Law enforcement leaders have been very clear with us. I will quote the National Police Federation, which said, “For frontline police officers, the ability to lawfully identify who owns an online account is often the first step in investigating crimes such as extortion, child sexual exploitation, organized crime, violent offences, and national security threats. Bill C-22 will help ensure that longstanding court orders and warrants remain effective in a modern digital environment.” They need us to act now to eliminate these gaps in our legislation. I am urging hon. members to support the bill for the crucial public safety measure it would be. (1240) [Expand] Rhonda Kirkland (Oshawa, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the member opposite mentioned several times that law enforcement agencies are asking for this, that the RCMP and other law enforcement bodies are asking for this, and I would agree that they are. I went to an information session on the Hill that was hosted by the Minister of Public Safety, and those folks said very clearly that the government got it wrong in Bill C-2, that it did not do its proper due diligence, that there were some things that had to be changed, and that the government needed to improve it in Bill C-22. Would the member not agree that vigorous attention to and dissecting of the bill is important and that debate in the House is important as well as in committee? [Expand] Hon. Randeep Sarai: Mr. Speaker, we could have amended Bill C-2. It was the second bill introduced in the current session of the House, which shows the importance the government places on law enforcement and getting the tools that are needed. It was after those consultations that the government listened to, and that is why we have Bill C-22 now. Therefore, now that those consultations have been done, I urge that we pass the bill as fast as possible so we give the tools to law enforcement agencies. I also met with the commissioner, the deputy commissioner and the regional police chiefs of all the areas around my riding, and all of them have stated that we need lawful access and need it now. [Translation ]

[Expand] Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker, members will recall that Bill C‑2 was split, in part because certain aspects of the bill were unacceptable. Today, it is back as Bill C‑22. One unacceptable part of Bill C‑2 was that it used reasonable suspicion, rather than reasonable belief, to allow authorities to obtain information simply by getting a court order. A number of experts spoke out about this and told us that it could be a slippery slope. I would like to know why the government is coming back with the same threshold as before and whether the government is open to amendments to perhaps compromise and rethink this threshold. [English ]

[Expand] Hon. Randeep Sarai: Mr. Speaker, the threshold is to get subscriber information. The first step when someone gets a call or a threat is to find out who the number belongs to. It used to be very easy. We could pick up a phone book-like thing in the library that had every number in it. It used to be published every year. When somebody called, we could tell where the number came from. The world has changed drastically from that. We are now on VPNs. Even normal office phones are. Land lines do not actually communicate with a direct line. They go over the Internet. Getting the subscriber information is the first and fundamental step so law enforcement can take subsequent steps to get production orders to tap phones. Those would come after, but the initial step of finding out who is calling, where the information is coming from, is vital. [Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the secretary of state 's comments, and I thank him for coming to Winnipeg North to deal with the issue of extortion. Bill C-22 would deal with it in a significant way. Could he provide further comment on that specific issue? [Expand] Hon. Randeep Sarai: Mr. Speaker, that is a very valid question. It is a big concern. People facing extortion threats are wondering why it takes the police so long to find out who is responsible, when sometimes in the private sector they may be able to get a private investigation or a digital firm to find out where the call was coming from. Unfortunately, law enforcement has been handicapped without those capabilities. It has asked for the bill to pass immediately, as fast as possible, as the threat is really hindering people's lives. Normal business people are not able to go out. They live in fear. It is finally coming to fruition, and I am hopeful they will be able to live their lives in a peaceful manner. [Expand] Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I think everyone agrees that the modernization of investigative powers in the digital age is required. The question is about getting the right balance. In the interests of getting the right balance and protecting privacy and civil rights, why did the government not consult with the Privacy Commissioner or ensure that their input was incorporated in the drafting of Bill C-22? [Expand] Hon. Randeep Sarai: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister did a very good job in getting consultation from a broad sector of stakeholders, such as from law enforcement and the prosecutor's office. One of our former colleagues, from Victoria, gave the NDP's insight formally. I think there was broad consultation. I am sure if the Privacy Commissioner has some concerns, they are able to table their opinions as well. (1245) [Expand] Kerry Diotte (Edmonton Griesbach, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today on behalf of the Edmonton Griesbach riding. I will be using my time to speak to Bill C-22. Bill C-22 is significant. It touches on public safety, privacy and the fundamental relationship between citizens and the government. That means we absolutely have to get it right. It goes without saying that Conservatives believe in law and order. We have always stood for common-sense measures to keep Canadians safe. For the past decade, we have been urging the Liberal government to reverse its failed policies and restore safety to our communities. Instead, the Liberals have let the situation get out of control. Last fall, the Liberals put forward Bill C-2, which would have fallen well short of protecting Canadians while overreaching in other areas. Thanks to the work of our Conservative team, we forced the Liberals to back down from Bill C-2, successfully blocking their infringement of individual freedoms and privacy. We stopped the Liberals from limiting the use of cash. We stopped them from opening mail without oversight. We stopped them from demanding that any service provider, including even dry cleaners, disclose user data without judicial oversight. Now we are presented with Bill C-22. While this bill excludes some provisions that Conservatives opposed, it also reintroduces parts of the failed Bill C-2. My Conservative colleagues and I continue to carefully review every line of this bill, as lawmakers. This legislation requires the necessary scrutiny and, yes, skepticism. Conservatives take this responsibility seriously. We support law enforcement. We want officers to have the tools they need to keep Canadians safe. That is not in question. It has never been in question. Also, we know these powers must be accompanied by strong safeguards, clear limits and independent oversight to protect Canadians' rights and freedoms. At the same time, we stand for the rights and freedoms of Canadians. We stand for privacy and due process. Those two principles must go hand in hand. We will continue working to ensure that privacy and due process are protected, with this legislation and all future legislation. Unlike the Liberal government, we believe in listening before legislating. As a result, Conservatives have spoken with law enforcement about Bill C-22. What we heard was clear. Officers want tools, and they want clarity. They want to be able to act quickly when it matters most. Of course, we agree with that. We welcome measures that lawfully, and with proper judicial oversight, allow police to access information needed to stop serious crime. Here is the concern. Too often with the Liberal government, the devil is in the details. We have seen it before. We saw it in Bill C-2. What was packaged as a so-called border bill actually included proposals to inspect Canadians' mail without a warrant. Canadians rejected that. We saw it again in Bill C-8, a cybersecurity bill that made sense on the surface but also included sweeping ministerial powers with little oversight. Now we have Bill C-22, and serious concerns remain. One of the biggest concerns I have with this legislation is about oversight. This bill would grant significant authority. In some cases, that authority would rest with ministers, not with the courts or with independent bodies. That is a problem. Ministerial authority is not the same as judicial oversight. It is not the same as accountability. It risks becoming arbitrary. Canadians have reason to be skeptical of Bill C-22. The government has a track record. Time and time again, it has pushed the limits of government power. Time and time again, the Liberals have asked Canadians to simply trust them, but trust must be earned, and right now it is in short supply. (1250) Civil liberties groups from across the spectrum have raised alarms about Bill C-22. That should tell us something. It tells us we need to slow down and take a closer look. This is not just about technology or policing tools. This is about Canadians' personal information, their data, their communications, their private lives. Metadata alone can reveal a great deal, more than many people realize, yet we are being asked to consider provisions that would involve broad data practices without clear limits or definitions. For example, the bill does not clearly define what constitutes a service provider. That could mean telecom companies. It could mean email providers. It could mean messaging apps or cloud storage. In other words, it could mean access to deeply personal aspects of Canadians' lives. This is not a small matter. We cannot afford vague definitions because once those powers exist, they do not just apply today. They apply tomorrow. They apply to future governments as well. This is not about partisanship but about principle. We must always ask, “How could this power be used, and how could it be misused?” This is our duty as legislators, and it is a duty Conservatives will uphold as we continue to examine this proposed legislation. As legislators, we cannot look at lawful access in isolation. If we are serious about public safety, we need a system that works from start to finish. This includes bail and sentencing. This includes giving police the support they have been asking for over the past number of years. Too often, the government has been selective, listening to law enforcement when it suits it and ignoring it when it does not. Conservatives will always stand with those on the front lines, but we will not accept a trade-off when Canadians' rights are weakened in the process. On one hand, we must ensure that those who enforce our laws have the tools they need. On the other, we must protect the fundamental rights and freedoms that define our nation. Conservatives will not sacrifice one for the other. If we get this wrong, the consequences will be serious. We have seen what happens when legislation is rushed and when concerns are dismissed. This is why we will not rubber-stamp Bill C-22. We will do our job. We will study it, question it and propose amendments where needed. We will listen to experts, law enforcement, civil liberties advocates and Canadians, because that is what responsible lawmakers do. We deeply support the objective of keeping Canadians safe. We support giving police effective tools. However, we will not ignore the risks of government overreach or the need for oversight. We will not ignore the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In closing, Bill C-22 raises serious and complex questions. It shows some progress, true, but it is clearly not there yet. It requires careful examination, detailed study, and scrutiny at committee and beyond. Conservatives will continue to stand for common-sense solutions that protect Canadians' individual freedoms, privacy and safety. That work is still ahead of us. [Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to be very clear, the government is not looking for a rubber stamp from the Conservative Party. What we are looking for is a Conservative opposition that at least acknowledges it has a role that allows legislation to go to committee so we can make the changes, if it wants to see changes take place. We have been talking about lawful access for months now, virtually since June. The issue is about national security, including terrorism. It is about child sexual exploitation. It is about extortion. These are serious issues. Let us allow the legislation to proceed. We have been talking about lawful access since June. Does the member support the principle of lawful access? (1255) [Expand] Kerry Diotte: Of course, Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out in my speech, we support giving the police tools. However, Canadians have a right to be skeptical of the Liberal government. In previous legislation, we stopped the Liberals from limiting the use of cash, opening mail without oversight and demanding that any service provider, including hospitals and dry cleaners, disclose user data without judicial oversight. Canadians have a right to be skeptical, and Conservatives are going to fight anything in this bill that looks suspicious. [Expand] Alex Ruff (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I will ask my hon. colleague a follow-up on the question asked by the member for Winnipeg North, who is sort of making the allegation that somehow Conservatives are holding up this important legislation. In fact, the reason we are in this position in the first place is that the Liberals introduced Bill C-2, which had so many poison pills in it. It was an omnibus bill that did not address lawful access. It was just one minor part of that omnibus that had, as he addressed, some of the poison pills in it. The fact that this has taken so long is due to the Liberals' failure to communicate on this important issue properly. Does my hon. colleague agree with my assessment? [Expand] Kerry Diotte: Mr. Speaker, I agree 100%. The Liberals talk a good game. I had a private member's bill that would have toughened up parole. We had several private members' bills that would have given police more tools. What happened? They got shut down. The Liberals talk a good game, but let us see them deliver. Again, Canadians have a right to be skeptical when poison pills are injected into legislation. [Translation ]

[Expand] Maxime Blanchette-Joncas (Rimouski—La Matapédia, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will give my colleague a moment to put in his earpiece so that he can understand me properly in one of Canada's official languages. The Conservative Party claims to defend individual freedoms. I would like to ask my colleague a simple question. Does he support “reasonable suspicion” as the threshold for granting access to Quebeckers' and Canadians' digital lives? That is what this bill does right now. [English ]

[Expand] Kerry Diotte: Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, the devil is in the details. When we start going through Bill C-22, there are a lot of details we have to look at. We want to give police the tools they need, but we cannot allow the bill to go over and above what Canadians expect. We believe in giving police power but not in giving away charter rights. [Expand] Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): Mr. Speaker, I want to put a comment on the record. The Green Party of Canada is 100% in agreement with the summary of what has happened with this bill that was just given by the hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. [Expand] Kerry Diotte: Mr. Speaker, we will take the support. It is great. The bill needs a great deal of work yet. Again, we believe in giving police the tools, but we do not want to rob people of their freedoms and rights under the charter. [Expand] Alex Ruff (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I will ask the chamber's indulgence, before I get into the crux of my speech, to just acknowledge the passing of a long-time family friend back in my riding, Marie Christie, who passed away on the 13th of this month in her 97th year. Her family settled in my neck of the woods, just a few kilometres from my home farm, back in 1856. She was part of the Arran Tara Fall Fair board as a director for over 55 years. She was a 40-plus-year member of the Royal Canadian Legion Ladies Auxiliary and a life member of the Legion Branch 144 (Chesley). Marie's legacy of kindness, love and spark will live on in our memories for generations. A celebration of life is ongoing this afternoon, and I want to pass on my deepest condolences to the whole extended Christie family. Marie made a difference and she will be missed by each and every person that ever had the privilege to meet her. We are here today to talk about Bill C-22. I am going to primarily focus my speech on why this piece of legislation around lawful access is so important. I am going to then spend a lot of time talking about key concerns around the terminology, especially around the concept of back doors. I am going to do this primarily by leveraging the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians' report on lawful access that was submitted to the Prime Minister back on March 4 last year. Unfortunately, it was not tabled in Parliament until September 15. Finally, I am going to talk about why I believe the Liberal government is failing on communicating on this important piece of legislation. Bill C-22 has three parts: Part 1 provides new tools for law enforcement to access digital information; part 2 provides a framework that ensures electronic service providers establish and maintain a system capable of providing the information that law enforcement is authorized to access; and part 3 mandates a review of the act three years after the provisions come into force. For those wanting a good explanation of the breakdown of all three parts, I encourage everyone to review the speeches by my Conservative colleagues for Parkland, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola and Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, and even the Minister of Justice 's intervention on Bill C-22. Why do we need lawful access in Canada? The NSICOP report, paragraph 198, states: Lawful access represents one of the most intrusive powers of the state in the protection of national security. Accordingly, Canadians expect strong safeguards for its use, including that it be prescribed by law, serve a legitimate purpose, and be necessary and proportionate. Canadians rightfully want to understand any proposals for new tools and authorities to security and intelligence organizations that have implications for their privacy. However, Canadians also expect security and intelligence organizations to have the tools, policies, and lawful authorities in place to conduct lawful access techniques. The Committee thinks Canadians would be surprised to learn how difficult it actually is for security and intelligence agencies to do so. Paragraph 200 states: The Committee is equally concerned that, if left unaddressed, these challenges will undermine Canada’s national security in the long term by increasingly hampering the ability of CSIS and the RCMP to fulfil their respective mandates. The failure to respond to these challenges may also impede Canada’s continued ability to benefit from Five Eyes efforts to detect and respond to security threats if it cannot meaningfully contribute to this partnership. Paragraph 202 of the report states: It is critical, however, that the government approach these issues proactively. There are examples internationally of like minded democracies having hurriedly passed controversial lawful access legislation in response to serious national security events. Parliamentarians should have the opportunity to debate new legislation about lawful access with clear eyes and careful consideration, not in a rushed, emotional debate in reaction to a national tragedy. The longer these issues are kept on the backburner, the more the government opens itself up to the risk of following a similar path. Now I want to get to the idea of intercept capability and the issue of back doors. Paragraph 104 states: Policy debates about how to respond to the challenge of encryption have included proposals that the government could require companies to create exceptional access to encryption programs, or backdoors, for security and intelligence organizations. CCCS defines a backdoor as an “undocumented, private, or less detectable-way of gaining remote access to a computer, bypassing authentication measures, and obtaining access to plaintext.”

The Citizen Lab states, “[o]nce a backdoor is created, there is no practical guarantee that only state agencies will walk through it. This fundamental flaw makes exceptional access systems an inherent threat to persons who rely on encrypted communications products.” This view is echoed by many cybersecurity experts. (1300) Continuing on in the report: CSE told the Committee that it also has a concern with backdoors. While it noted that “there are means of creating technical solutions which are currently considered secure,” it stated that it would have a concern with legislation compelling CSPs or software providers to implement backdoors, which could compromise the cybersecurity more generally. According to the RCMP, backdoors “create vulnerabilities and can weaken the overall security of a network; they create valid security concerns given the potential for these vulnerabilities to be exploited by criminals or other hostile actors. Recognizing the need to protect sensitive information and maintain individuals’ right to privacy, the RCMP does not advocate for the creation of ‘backdoors’ into CSPs’ networks. Instead, it would be safer and more beneficial for law enforcement and national security agencies to be able to leverage the information already accessible by CSPs.” Some cybersecurity experts and privacy advocates, however, consider lawful intercept capability a backdoor, citing that there is “no such thing as a security backdoor that is only for the ‘good guys.’” Others similarly contend that while it might be argued that “surveillance technology can be built securely and without risk of penetration by hostile forces,” the “track record is not encouraging.” Neither CSIS or RCMP view intercept capability as a backdoor, because it does not compromise encryption platforms or software. They instead regard the judicially authorized practice of using tools built into a CSP’s system, which are encryption neutral, as using the “front door.” From paragraph 172, “Importantly, the committee did not hear any government official call for legislation to compel the creation of exceptional access or 'backdoors' to get around encryption.” Long-winded, but that is all from the report. This is where I want to get to the issues that I am hearing from constituents and even during debate here in the House, and where the Liberal government is failing. First off, I talked about this a bit earlier, the Liberals tabled omnibus Bill C-2, which included a few clauses on lawful access. However, the bill was focused on everything from border security and immigration to banning cash transactions, and was doomed to fail from the start. Both Bill C-12 and Bill C-22 are the appropriate compromises as a result. Again, I mentioned this earlier. Unfortunately, the government's delay of the NSICOP report on lawful access hindered the ability to fully leverage the extensive work done by this bicameral, all-recognized-party committee that only includes findings and recommendations that have unanimous support of all its members. Again, I mentioned this was given to the Prime Minister on March 4, but not tabled here in Parliament until September 15, despite my encouraging a number of the Liberal government ministers to table it back in June. Here is a key paragraph from the report that will highlight the ongoing challenges around debate. Paragraph 175: The Committee also observed that privacy and cybersecurity advocates and national security practitioners appear to be talking past one another in debates about encryption and exceptional access for law enforcement and intelligence organizations. As stakeholders debate policy initiatives or legislation, it will be critical for both sides to ensure a common understanding of key concepts. For the government, the Committee suggests that a robust, transparent communication strategy, which explains technical concepts in detail, is fundamental. Unfortunately, this is where the Liberals' current communications strategy is failing to address this need and needs to be rectified. In conclusion, Canada absolutely needs updated legislation around lawful access. There have been been calls for this for decades and former governments have tried to, unfortunately, no success. In my opinion, Bill C-22 is the initial step to get us there. However, I fully believe that Bill C-22 needs full scrutiny at committee and that we, parliamentarians, need to be sure we are talking the same language and addressing the same concerns. In my opinion, the Liberal government is absolutely failing at addressing “a common understanding of key concepts” with respect to Bill C-22. It still has time to fix this. (1305) [Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time that the member opposite has put on the NSICOP committee. No doubt, it gives him a fair amount of insight. I also appreciate the members' emphasis on the standing committee. Ultimately, it would be wonderful to be able to see Bill C-22 get to that committee stage. This way, there would be no rush per se, as we could go into the details and look at ways it could be strengthened and have some of the concerns addressed. The desire, I believe, is to see lawful access brought into law so that we would not be the only country of the Five Eyes not to have it. Would the member not agree, in principle, that Canada needs to have lawful access? (1310) [Expand] Alex Ruff: Mr. Speaker, absolutely. Actually, the member can just read the report that I quoted extensively. This is something we absolutely need to address. The point, though, is that everybody ultimately, as I mentioned during my speech, thinks this should not be rushed. It needs to be done properly. As I have said countless times in response to this member, everybody in this chamber should have the exact same amount of time to speak to every bill as the member for Winnipeg North. [Translation ]

[Expand] Maxime Blanchette-Joncas (Rimouski—La Matapédia, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we would like some clarification from the Conservative Party. I would like him to explain his party's position. Where is the line between public safety and respect for privacy? I would like my colleague to share his and his party's views on that. [English ]

[Expand] Alex Ruff: Mr. Speaker, I actually cannot share my party's perspective writ large. That is a great question for the shadow minister for public safety or the shadow minister for justice on my side. I can share my own personal take on it, which is that we do have to balance it correctly. We talked about it. I quoted about it extensively in my speech. This is something I think absolutely needs to get fleshed out at committee. We need to have the same access to experts on this topic that the other members of the NSICOP committee and I had the privilege of having, in order to look at how we balance this. Again, I will reiterate what the report states. If the member read it, he would see it states clearly that privacy and public safety and public security are complementary even when it comes around lawful access. They can both work together, not be opposed to each other. [Expand] Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree with the member that the government screwed up the tabling of Bill C-2 in trying to force through an omnibus bill that was resoundingly, as a result, rejected by the Canadian public. Here we are now with Bill C-22. The government says it has consulted widely and has learned from its lesson, yet it has deliberately excluded the privacy commissioner in that consultation. Does the member think the government should have included the privacy commissioner on the development of Bill C-22? [Expand] Alex Ruff: Mr. Speaker, yes. [Expand] Rhonda Kirkland (Oshawa, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the succinct answers my colleague gives in the House. There are few colleagues in the House who I respect more than this member, and his insight into this bill has been very important to help me understand it, as I sit on the public safety committee. I wonder if he would take another few moments to comment on how important it is to take a look at and dissect this bill, as well as what it going to look like when we are done with it and if it is a good bill when it is finished. [Expand] Alex Ruff: Mr. Speaker, it is so important we do this right. I mentioned this earlier, and countless other members have highlighted it, but this has been attempted at least three times or four times over the last 25 or 30 years. Unfortunately, because balancing public safety and privacy rights is such a controversial issue, we need to get this right. This can only be done through deliberate, careful and very wide consultation with every stakeholder who has any sort of foot in this game when it comes to lawful access. [Expand] Kyle Seeback (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to have the opportunity today to talk a bit about Bill C-22, which deals with lawful access. Lawful access is, of course, critically important in the modern era with respect to the investigation and prosecution of crime. It is encouraging that we are talking about lawful access here in the House of Commons today. However, I would be remiss if I did not talk about a few things before dealing with the substance of the bill. First of all, I will talk about how we got here, which many colleagues in the opposition have done. They have talked about how the Liberal government tried to force the bill through in an earlier version, Bill C-2, which was a gigantic, omnibus piece of legislation. That piece of legislation had many flaws, and a huge number of problems and issues were raised. There were so many that, under the pressure of the opposition parties, the government was forced to split the bill into parts that could be studied and supported, and the rest is coming now in Bill C-22. This becomes especially important when we look at where we are today. We are now on the cusp of a Liberal majority government, with which the Liberals may choose to ram through pieces of legislation like this without any scrutiny. Why do I raise this concern right now, at this moment? It is because it has been interesting to listen today to the Liberal parliamentary secretary to the House leader denigrate the Conservatives who have the audacity to get up and speak about this particular piece of legislation. He is suggesting that we are filibustering this piece of legislation, when I have listened to many opposition colleagues get up today and give well-reasoned arguments for why this piece of legislation is problematic and why it deserves additional study. We know debate is part of the way in which we bring issues forward. The Liberal parliamentary secretary to the House leader seems to find it inconvenient and unsettling that opposition members of Parliament can get up in this chamber and identify significant and serious issues with a piece of government legislation. His view seems to be that we should be just a rubber-stamp chamber, where everything the Liberals decide to put forward is perfectly crafted and we should just move it along. That seems to be his argument all the time. It is almost as though he believes this chamber serves no purpose other than for him to get up and speak to every single piece of legislation, which he does, and then ask questions of every opposition member who has the audacity to stand up and try to exercise the same right. Why is this deeply concerning? It is deeply concerning because Canadians might be looking at the dystopian future of that kind of attitude being brought forward into the entire House of Commons as the Liberals move toward a majority government. It looks likely that the Liberals will reorganize committees to have a majority so that, once again, they can ram through pieces of legislation without any study. They can use all kinds of procedural tricks to do that. They can use a programming motion that limits the amount of debate on legislation and the amount of time it spends at committee, deems it adopted at certain stages and passes it on to the Senate. They can do that. They can use time allocation to end debate. They can use closure motions to end debate. They can take committee meetings in camera whenever they want, because they have the votes. Imagine if the Liberals had had this power back in the fall, when they tried to bring Bill C-2 forward. The opposition would not have had the power to get that bill split so that we could take out the problematic sections for it to be debated and further studied. The attitude being displayed by the Liberal parliamentary secretary to the House leader and many members of the Liberal caucus is that any time an opposition member has the audacity to stand in their seat, to which they were democratically elected, and raise issues about a piece of legislation. it is is obstruction or a filibuster, yet we have watched Liberal members get up today to speak to this particular bill immediately after the parliamentary secretary to the House leader accused a Conservative member of filibustering by daring to stand in his place to speak on this particular piece of legislation. Canadians should be listening very carefully to this, because it tells us what is about to happen. The government is going to ram through pieces of legislation because it thinks it can do nothing wrong. (1315) Let me tell this House something. The government has done a lot of things wrong in this Parliament, and did a lot of things wrong in the previous Parliament. For example, it was found to have illegally invoked the Emergencies Act. It is a government that has a tendency to use heavy-handed approaches, overreach and trample over Canadians' charter rights and freedoms. Now the government is going to have a majority in this House, and potentially a majority on committees, and it is going to use that to stifle debate. We know that because of the questions the Liberals ask and how they answer questions in question period. A day does not go by when the Liberals do not get up to say, “The opposition is obstructing what we are trying to do,” so we know what they are going to try to do when we get to their majority government. That is deeply troubling with a bill about lawful access, because lawful access is going to determine the extent to which the police and other security agencies can access Canadians' data. Let us be very clear about this. Most Canadians now have extraordinary digital footprints. With that comes the extraordinary need to maintain Canadians' privacy. This is not a government that has shown itself to be shy about overusing or abusing its powers. We have had members of the Conservative caucus get up and very clearly state how much scrutiny this legislation is going to need in order to safeguard the rights of Canadians. A huge part of that is debating right here in this chamber, much to the chagrin of the parliamentary secretary to the House leader, who would like us all to just sit down and let the Liberals continue to have their own speakers get up and speak to this. I want to make it abundantly clear that Conservatives, when they speak to particular pieces of legislation, are not filibustering. They have been duly elected by millions of Canadians from coast to coast to coast to fight for their rights. That includes their right to privacy. As we look at this lawful access bill, there are all kinds of things that Canadians should be concerned about, including access to metadata. I remember being a litigation lawyer 20 years ago, talking about preserving and using metadata during discovery. It was quite new 20 years ago. It is not new now. In fact, the amount of metadata the average Canadian has is enormous, and the potential abuse of that is deeply problematic. We could almost go back to when we were going through the COVID-19 pandemic, when the Liberals wanted to track our movement data, which is a form of metadata. They would have gotten a lot more data than just where people were moving around. They talked about how they would take that data and randomize it so that even if there was a data breach, no one would be granted access to it, but experts came to committees and said that was absolutely not true. No matter how the data is randomized, someone can put that data back together. When we look at the kinds of extraordinary powers the government is seeking to give not just police, but security agencies, we have to make sure that our data is protected and that the privacy of Canadians will be protected. This takes us to a deeply troubling thing that my NDP colleague raised several times today, which is the fact that the government did not consult the Privacy Commissioner on the drafting of this legislation. It is is deeply problematic, because the Privacy Commissioner is going to have a lot of concerns about this particular piece of legislation. Going back to how this is a majority government, and we are back at Bill C-2, which was an omnibus piece of legislation. The government did not consult the Privacy Commissioner. It has a majority. It can do whatever it wants in the House of Commons and at committee. This is deeply troubling for the future of Canadians and the future of Canadians' data. Whenever Bill C-22 goes to committee, if the government has reconstituted the committees to give itself a majority, which Canadians did not vote for, it will be able to pass this piece of legislation without amendment. In fact, it could pass it after hearing from one or two witnesses. The government could pass it without hearing from any witnesses, because it is going to have complete control of committees. The attitude displayed by the parliamentary secretary to the House leader and the contempt he seems to show for debate give me great concern for what would happen at committee. (1320) [Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of things that I could say with regard to the comments made by the member opposite, but suffice it to say that Canada elected a new Prime Minister under a year ago. We have a legislative agenda. Part of that means working with parliamentarians on all sides of the House. Whether it is the Prime Minister or the Liberal government, and whether it is a minority government or a majority government, we will continue to look for co-operation and to improve legislation. What I think there is not as much tolerance for is the Conservative Party's continuing to deny lawful access to Canadians. Conservatives have continued to do that ever since June last year. Asking for legislation to go to committee is not that much to ask for, while the Conservatives continue to prevent it from going to committee. Does the member believe the Conservative Party will— (1325) [Expand] The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): The hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon. [Expand] Kyle Seeback: Mr. Speaker, the cognitive dissonance of that question is really stunning. Once again, the member is suggesting that the audacity of Conservatives and other members of the opposition to get up and speak to this particular piece of legislation is somehow an affront to democracy. Meanwhile, we had a Liberal minister speaking to this particular piece of legislation literally 15 minutes ago. If the Liberals really think this bill is so important and that we do not need more debate, why do they continue to put up speakers? That takes us to exactly where we are in this country now. Everything the Liberals do, they think is perfect. Anything that anyone else does is filibustering and not worthy of the House's time. It is a deeply troubling belief that the Liberal government seems to have. [Expand] Kelly DeRidder (Kitchener Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I can already see the narrative starting that the Conservatives are filibustering committees and that we are holding up legislation. What I can see eventually happening is committees being reshuffled. I would like to ask my colleague why it is important to keep committees the same for Canadians in the face of democracy and ensure that His Majesty's loyal opposition still has a voice within Parliament. [Expand] Kyle Seeback: Mr. Speaker, that is a great question. Let us think about this bill. If it had been brought forward as Bill C-2 in its original form today, on the cusp of a Liberal majority government, there would have been no consultation. There would have been no splitting of the bill. The Liberals would have proceeded forward with this at committee to get it passed through the committee as quickly as possible. We have seen the attitude of the Liberals with respect to this bill. No one is filibustering this piece of legislation. No one is obstructing this piece of legislation. For goodness' sake, there was just a Liberal minister up, speaking to the bill. If what we are doing is obstruction and a filibuster, then they are filibustering their own piece of legislation. What is interesting is that the Liberals are actually filibustering at the ethics committee to stop an investigation into the finance minister, whose partner is on the board of directors for Alto. If members want to talk about filibusters and obstruction, they are the professionals. [Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, do members know what is most amazing? The member opposite sat in the chamber when Stephen Harper was the prime minister. With Stephen Harper, the Conservatives would stand in their place, introduce a bill and then move closure immediately after. There were well over 100 closure motions in some form or another. How dare the member try to compare the two when we have a government that continues to work with opposition members? It is absolutely ludicrous. I would challenge the member to join me at Carleton University and debate the issue of filibustering. Obviously, it is something he knows nothing about or he is an absolute something that I cannot say here. I would ask the member to give his head a shake and recognize that it is time we work for Canadians. We can work together and have good, solid legislation— [Expand] The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): I need to give the member time to respond. The hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon. [Expand] Kyle Seeback: Mr. Speaker, I am always happy to engage in an intellectual fight with people, but I refuse to get into an intellectual fight with someone who is unarmed. [Expand] The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): I think that may have crossed the line into unparliamentary language. I would ask the member to refrain from that. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Oakville West. [Expand] Sima Acan (Oakville West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in strong and unequivocal support for Bill C-22, the lawful access act of 2026. The legislation represents a vital and long-overdue step in modernizing Canada's legal, technical and investigative frameworks to protect our citizens in an increasingly dangerous digital world. The bill is a cornerstone of our commitment to modernizing Canada's safety framework for the digital age and beyond, ensuring that our investigators have the tools necessary to keep pace with rapidly evolving technology. As Chief Nishan Duraiappah of Peel Regional Police so powerfully stated during the government's announcement in Peel Region, our current rules and investigative frameworks were written before cell phones were even created. This is a staggering reality. While criminals, human traffickers and organized crime networks have rapidly adapted to new digital platforms and communication tools, the legal and technical framework available to our investigators has fundamentally failed to keep pace and is falling behind. The Canadian Police Association, an organization representing 60,000 frontline personnel, and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police have been clear. Our current legal framework to access digital evidence is significantly outdated and urgently needs to be revised. Unfortunately, the reality is clear that, while technology has advanced at lighting speed, the laws governing how we investigate the most sophisticated criminals have remained frozen in time. Transnational organized crime groups are currently exploiting this gap to traffic drugs, such as fentanyl; coordinate human trafficking; distribute child sex abuse material; and smuggle firearms across the border. Canada is the only country among the Five Eyes and the G7 that does not have a modernized lawful access regime. We are falling behind our peers. For too long, our law enforcement agencies have had to rely on the co-operation of international partners to fill in the gaps in our own national security and intelligence investigations. As our public safety minister has emphasized, a strong government delivers for its citizens. It is time for a Canadian solution to go after criminals who threaten our communities. Bill C-22 would provide the targeted, judicially authorized tools needed to combat 21st-century threats. One of the most important updates is the confirmation of service demand, which would allow investigators and CSIS to quickly confirm, with a simple yes-or-no question, whether a service provider holds information tied to any identifier. This would not grant access to private content. It would simply identify where the evidence may exist so that proper judicial authorization could follow. The subscriber information production order would allow police with judicial authorization to obtain basic identifying information, such as a name or an email address. This is the digital equivalent of using a phone book and is essential for identifying suspects operating behind anonymity. To be clear, this is the same approach that existed in the predigital age, simply modernized to keep pace with today's changing technological landscape. This modernization is essential for combatting crimes, such as human trafficking, sextortion and child exploitation, as well as auto theft networks and violent organized crime. For example, with regard to human trafficking and sextortion, these crimes often begin with an anonymous IP address. The new subscriber information production order would allow police with judicial approval to obtain basic identifying info, such as a name or an email address. This is the digital equivalent of a phone book, and it is essential for identifying the predators who are hiding behind pseudonyms. Organized car theft rings use digital tools to coordinate border-crossing operations. The bill would modernize tracking and transmission data warrants, allowing investigators to follow the digital bread crumbs of these networks, even when the specific devices they use change during the investigation. The Canadian Centre for Child Protection has fully endorsed these changes, noting that they would reduce the barriers police face when investigating online crimes against children. Without modern tools, criminals, especially predators, can remain hidden for far too long. Perhaps most importantly, part 1 of the bill would codify the power of police to act in exigent circumstances. In the digital world, every second counts. Members can imagine an active kidnapping, where a predator is communicating via an encrypted app or a terrorist threat, and an attack is imminent. Currently, waiting hours for a formal warrant in the middle of the night could mean the difference between life and death. Bill C-22 would specify circumstances in which officers can obtain evidence, including subscriber information, immediately, to prevent serious injury or the destruction of vital evidence. This would not grant permanent powers. It would ensure that, in a life-or-death emergency, the law would stand on the side of the victims. (1330) Legal authority is meaningless without technical capacity. Part 2 of the bill, which would enact the supporting authorized access to information act, would ensure that major electronic service providers maintain the technical ability to comply with court orders they are already legally required to follow. Currently, Canada has no regulatory framework requiring service providers to maintain systems capable of responding to lawful court orders in a timely and consistent manner. This bill would address the gap by ensuring core providers can retrieve and produce information when ordered to do so by a court. Importantly, this would not create any back doors. Providers themselves would retrieve the information and disclose it only under judicial authorization, avoiding any systemic vulnerabilities that could be exploited by malicious actors. I want to be very clear. This legislation would not create unchecked new powers. Strong judicial oversight and privacy would ensure that all powers are exercised under strict court authorization and with robust safeguards to protect Canadians' privacy rights. Judicial authorization ensures that almost every tool in this bill would require prior approval from a judge or justice based on reasonable grounds. No back doors would ensure there would be no covert access mechanism, with systems remaining secure and data only being disclosed under lawful authority. Independent review would ensure that ministerial orders under part 2 must be reviewed and approved by the intelligence commissioner, which would ensure independent oversight and accountability. To understand why this bill is so vital, we must look at the technical hurdles our officers face every day. I am particularly proud of the collaborative approach we have taken. I recently sponsored a parliamentary breakfast panel on the Hill in collaboration with the National Police Federation. I invited senators and members of Parliament from all parties to engage directly with the experts who work with these systems every day. We heard from Brian Sauvé, president of the National Police Federation, on frontline policing matters; Leah West, a national security law expert from Carleton University; Nick Milinovich, deputy chief of Peel Regional Police and co-chair of the lawful access advisory committee; and Gordon Scott Campbell, a constitutional and criminal lawyer with Supreme Court experience. Deputy Chief Milinovich and other experts described the trial and error burden that currently cripples investigations. When police have a digital identifier, such as an IP address, tied to a crime, they must send a production order to a service provider to identify the suspect. However, if they send that order to a provider that does not actually service that identifier, the provider can simply not comply. This creates a technical stalemate where police must guess which provider holds the data. Bill C-22 would solve this through the confirmation of service demand. This tool would allow the investigator to quickly confirm with a simple yes or no if a provider holds information tied to an identifier. It would not grant access to private content, but simply identify where evidence exists so that proper judicial authorization can follow, ending the era of investigative guesswork. We also heard important questions from our Conservative colleagues about privacy and scope. Those concerns were addressed clearly. This bill would not expand surveillance. It would ensure that, when a judge authorizes access, the information can be obtained effectively and lawfully. The Ontario Association Chiefs of Police has stated that this is about ensuring police can “obtain vital evidence in complex cases”, not “expanding surveillance”. In conclusion, we can no longer afford to leave our investigators with tools from a predigital era. We cannot remain the only G7 nation without a modern lawful access regime. Bill C-22 is a balanced, necessary and collaborative 21st-century solution to 21st-century crimes. As the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police and multiple national law enforcement bodies have emphasized, this is about ensuring police can obtain vital evidence in complex cases while maintaining strong judicial oversight and charter protections. I urge all members of the House to support the swift and constructive passage of this legislation so that we can fulfill our primary duty, the safety and security of all Canadians. (1335) [Expand] Ned Kuruc (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this bill would require core providers to retain categories of metadata, including transmission data, for up to one year, covering all users, regardless of whether anyone is a suspect of anything or not. This is a surveillance database built on every Canadian. Why is the Liberal government treating everyday citizens as suspects in this bill? [Expand] Sima Acan: Mr. Speaker, this legislation makes it very clear that the data retention only captures, as my colleague mentioned, metadata for up to one year, and this metadata would not include content on the Internet, web browser history or even social media information. Lawful access is about identifying who is committing crimes and providing timely intelligence to investigators and law enforcement. [Translation ]

[Expand] Maxime Blanchette-Joncas (Rimouski—La Matapédia, BQ): Riddle me this, Mr. Speaker. The government is asking the public to trust it and saying that it needs more power. That is what the government is asking parliamentarians to approve right now. However, the government is cutting the resources of those that will oversee those new powers. In the most recent budget, the Liberal Party made a 15% cut to the budget of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, the watchdog for the new powers the government is asking for. Can my colleague explain how the government will do more surveillance with more powers when there will be fewer people responsible for overseeing those new powers? (1340) [English ]

[Expand] Sima Acan: 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. [Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): 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— [Expand] The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): The hon. member for Oakville West. [Expand] Sima Acan: 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. [Expand] Harb Gill (Windsor West, CPC): 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? [Expand] Sima Acan: 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. [Expand] Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP): 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. (1345) 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. (1350) [Expand] John-Paul Danko (Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, Lib.): 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? [Expand] Jenny Kwan: 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. (1355) [Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): 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. [Expand] Jenny Kwan: 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? [Translation ]

[Expand] Sébastien Lemire (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ): 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? [English ]

[Expand] Jenny Kwan: 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. [Expand] Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): 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? [Expand] Jenny Kwan: 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.

Statements by Members

[Statements by Members]

(1400) [English ]

Food Price Transparency

[Expand] Gurbux Saini (Fleetwood—Port Kells, Lib.): 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.

Fisheries and Oceans

[Expand] Clifford Small (Central Newfoundland, CPC): 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.

Sikh Heritage Month

[Expand] Amandeep Sodhi (Brampton Centre, Lib.): 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.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Expand] Amanpreet Gill (Calgary Skyview, CPC): 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. [Translation ]

45th Anniversary of La Boussole

[Expand] Steeve Lavoie (Beauport—Limoilou, Lib.): 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. (1405) [English ]

Mother's Day

[Expand] Richard Bragdon (Tobique—Mactaquac, CPC): 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.

The Economy

[Expand] John-Paul Danko (Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, Lib.): 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.

Ethics

[Expand] Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, CPC): 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? [Translation ]

[Expand] Marie-Hélène Gaudreau: 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. [Expand] The Speaker: 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.

Hélène Le Scelleur

[Expand] Marie-Hélène Gaudreau (Laurentides—Labelle, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the words “sense of duty”, “tenacity” and “strength of character” are not enough to describe retired captain Hélène Le Scelleur. She served with courage in the Canadian Armed Forces for 28 years, particularly in the Balkans and in Afghanistan, guided by a deep sense of duty. However, her dedication extends beyond her uniform. Today, she continues to serve in different ways. She is very outspoken about injustices, particularly at Veterans Affairs Canada and on the issue of the Presence in Absence monument. She even had the courage to resign from the Women Veterans Council, despite the consequences, in order to remain true to her convictions. Today, she is pursuing doctoral studies with the same determination. Hélène Le Scelleur is a woman who keeps going even in the face of adversity, and she deserves our respect. (1410) [English ]

Annapolis Valley Hockey Teams

[Expand] Hon. Kody Blois (Kings—Hants, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, April is playoff hockey season, and it was great to see the Montreal Canadiens get off to a great start last night. Closer to home, I want to recognize the tremendous success of two under-13 AAA hockey teams from the Annapolis Valley. The Valley Wild female under-13 and the Valley Jets male under-13 both won their respective provincial championships, earning them the right to represent Nova Scotia at the Atlantic championships this past weekend. In Halifax, the Jets went 3-1 in round robin play, narrowly missing the gold medal game, but edged the Kings County Kings from P.E.I. to earn the Atlantic bronze. In Cape Breton, at the Kehoe Forum, dedicated to girls' hockey, the Valley Wild went 5-0, beating Pownal 3-0 in the final to win the Atlantic championship. The Valley Wild finished the Atlantics with a dominating 18 goals for and only three goals against. I find it impressive that the top male and female hockey teams at the under-13 level are from Nova Scotia. I congratulate all the players, coaches and family members on a tremendous season that will not be soon forgotten.

Home Ownership

[Expand] Tako Van Popta (Langley Township—Fraser Heights, CPC): Mr. Speaker, British Columbians are living with uncertainty about whether the homes they worked their whole lives to buy are truly theirs. Businesses are hearing from their commercial lenders that they cannot just assume that they can take their fee simple security to the bank. Between the Cowichan Tribes decision and the Musqueam agreements, Liberal and NDP governments have cast doubt on fee simple private property rights for thousands of Canadians. Reconciliation matters, but it cannot be pursued through legal confusion. The Cowichan case may take years to reach the Supreme Court of Canada, leaving families and businesses in limbo. The Liberals say they will appeal, but here is the problem: They had instructed their lawyers not to argue at trial that fee simple title supersedes all other titles and interests. Appeals are not do-overs, so how do they expect to win an appeal on arguments they are not entitled to raise? How are they going to restore confidence in home ownership and fee simple security, now that they have dropped the ball?

Ottawa Tool Library

[Expand] Anita Vandenbeld (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an incredible project in my riding, the Ottawa Tool Library. This place functions like any other library, but instead of lending books, it lends tools. Whether someone is tackling a home renovation project or a creative project, or repairing something, this place makes it possible. Through repair cafés, workshops, a tinkering school and the Dr. Phil Tool Hospital, tools are given a second chance, and our community is reminded of the values of sustainability, sharing and helping one another. I would especially like to thank Bettina Vollmerhausen and the many dedicated volunteers who teach people how to build something new, repair something old and discover skills they never knew they had. To everyone at the Ottawa Tool Library, I say thanks, and keep building.

Fuel Costs

[Expand] Jonathan Rowe (Terra Nova—The Peninsulas, CPC): Mr. Speaker, not that long ago, the Liberal government had plans to bring fuel costs to over two dollars a litre. They said it was the only way for the world to go to net zero. Conservatives stood up, and we listened to Canadians, who knew that the carbon tax was crippling our economy and driving up affordability. Long before Trump made it tougher to compete with American tariffs, we tariffed ourselves with a carbon tax, a tax that made it nearly impossible for any sector to compete in the global markets. Even a fisherman in Newfoundland and Labrador had to pay more for fuel to catch his lobster than a fisherman in Maine. Our Conservative leader stood up for Canadians and explained that our oil and gas is the best substitute for the rising demand for coal in the world. The Liberals finally caved to our demands in a last-ditch effort to pander for votes. Thankfully, they have listened to us again, but their plan only takes away a fraction of the taxes for a fraction of the year. (1415)

National Tourism Week

[Expand] Patrick Weiler (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada has what the world wants to experience: stunning coastlines, dramatic mountains and natural beauty on a massive scale. From coast to coast to coast, it is not just landscapes; it is food, culture and distinct local experiences in every region. But what truly sets Canada apart is the spirit of its people: kind, welcoming and easy to connect with. From Newfoundland to Vancouver Island, a strong tourism industry powers communities across our country. In West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, tourism is woven into the fabric of our life. Whistler's world-renowned mountains and the Sunshine Coast's stunning landscapes provide an unforgettable backdrop for visitors from across the globe. Tourism is about more than just welcoming visitors. The industry helps support one in 10 Canadian jobs and contributes over $44 billion a year to Canada's economy. Coming off the best tourism year in our history, we realize that there is more to do for tourism to reach its full potential, and that is work for all members of the House to do together. With that, I would like to wish all members a happy National Tourism Week.

The Economy

[Expand] Shelby Kramp-Neuman (Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadian families are emerging from a long, hard winter, made even more difficult by a historic affordability crisis. Their hard-earned money is putting fewer groceries in their fridges and less gas in their tanks. A steady decline in purchasing power, driven by years of inflationary fiscal policy, is draining the economic backbone of our nation, leaving many Canadians unable to meet even the most basic of needs. We have had no new pipelines, no new trade deals, no repeal of anti-development laws and no progress on interprovincial trade barriers. Instead of piecemeal band-aids, Canadians need action that tackles the root causes of these crises. If we want to be affordable at home, safe at home and strong at home, we must make real change at home. I urge the Prime Minister and his front bench to change course and work with Conservatives to deliver results, because we in this place can wait out a majority government, but struggling Canadians cannot.

World Immunization Week

[Expand] Hon. Arielle Kayabaga (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we approach World Immunization Week, observed from April 24 to 30, I rise to highlight the vital importance of routine immunization, both here in Canada and around the world. Vaccines remain one of the most effective tools we have to protect children under the age of five from preventable and life-threatening diseases. Thanks to global immunization efforts, millions of lives have been saved and we are closer than ever to eradicating polio, a disease that once caused widespread paralysis and death. However, at a time when global health systems are under strain and international aid is declining, continued leadership and commitment are more important than ever. In London West and across Canada, we know that strong communities are built on healthy foundations. Supporting immunization means investing in a safer and healthier future for children. I encourage all members of this House to recognize World Immunization Week and reaffirm our shared commitment to protecting the health of children everywhere around the world.

Oral Questions

[Oral Questions]

[English ]

Government Priorities

[Expand] Melissa Lantsman (Thornhill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister spent the weekend repeating the same speech he has already given, and Canadians are still wondering when they will see results. He has the power to green-light major projects and build pipelines, but zero have been approved while keeping every anti-development law on the books. Over a trillion dollars in net investment is now gone from the country, and a year past his own deadline, we have no deal, just fear and division without results. We have more speeches and more agreements to make agreements. There are no pipelines, no deal, no investment and no relief at the grocery store. When does the Prime Minister stop auditioning for the job that he already has? [Expand] Hon. Tim Hodgson (Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will help the member get off that clickbait and go through what we are doing in the provinces: $8 billion in Goose Bay, a new transmission line between Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, a new wind farm in Nova Scotia, a new port in Montreal, a new SMR in Ontario, a new mine in Manitoba, multiple new mines in Saskatchewan, new CCUS in Alberta and a new pipeline in Alberta, new LNG in B.C. Maybe the Conservatives should get out of the clickbait. (1420) [Expand] Melissa Lantsman (Thornhill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, all of those things were announced, but not a single one of those things has been built. I will give the member some new numbers from today. In March, Canada had the worst food inflation in the G7, not the second-worst, but the worst. Every G7 country faces the same global factors, yet Canadians are paying more than all of them. After years of deficit spending and higher taxes, Canadians now lead the G7 in household debt, housing costs and food inflation. When will the Prime Minister stop giving the fancy speeches and bring down the cost of government so Canadians can afford to live? [Expand] Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Finance and National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we acknowledge the challenges that we are seeing, but what a great list that was. I know it is Monday and the Conservatives want more good news, and I have some coming out of Washington. The International Monetary Fund just said that Canada has the strongest fiscal position in the G7 and the second-fastest growth in the G7, almost twice that of Germany and Japan. There is more good news. Our recruitment in the armed forces is at an all-time high. We will build in this country, and we are here for Canadians across this country. [Expand] Melissa Lantsman (Thornhill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, that is arrogance on display. The minister thinks that everything is going fine, but for everyone drawing a paycheque, feeding a family or paying a mortgage, the reality is much different. Last month, the Prime Minister stood in this House and said, “Affordability is the best it has been in over a decade.” While we get the same speeches for four straight months and running, Canada has had the worst food inflation of all of our allies, and that, too, deserves a speech. On top of all of that, Canada has the highest household debt and the only shrinking economy in the G7. If affordability is the best it has been in a decade, then I have one question: For whom? [Expand] Hon. Patty Hajdu (Minister of Jobs and Families and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, while this government has been focused on giving Canadians a boost today and a bridge to tomorrow, the opposition has been sticking spokes in the wheels of Canadians, whether it is affordable child care, building major projects, training skilled trades workers, making sure youth can afford post-secondary education or feeding kids at school. It does not matter what the support is; the Conservatives say no. They have no vision for this country, and no vision for Canadians. [Translation ]

[Expand] Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in his latest amateur video, the Prime Minister is giving us the same old story, the same old promises, the same old staged performance and the same lack of results. Meanwhile, we have seen no pipelines, no trade agreements, fewer homes and a skyrocketing deficit. We do not need more speeches or more smoke and mirrors. We need results. When will the Prime Minister deliver results? [Expand] Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (President of the King’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade, Intergovernmental Affairs, Internal Trade, and One Canadian Economy, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what our government is doing. We are creating economic benefits for Canadians across the country. I thank my colleague for supporting Bill C-5 to once again build major projects in Canada. His province is home to some of the best examples of these projects in the country. Take, for example, Nouveau Monde Graphite, a major mine that is currently under development, or the start of construction at the Port of Montreal at Contrecoeur that was announced a week ago. Those projects are good news, and there is more to come.

Grocery Industry

[Expand] Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the daily reality for regular people, those watching us at home, as the Minister of Finance often says, is that we still have the worst food inflation of the G7. The Prime Minister likes to talk about the global factors that are hiking up grocery costs. He is unable to say anything else. Liberals are trying to distract us, but the reality is made up of things we buy every day, like groceries. Can the Prime Minister give us some specific facts about lowering the cost of food? [Expand] Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Finance and National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is right, we understand the situation that people are in. Although he spoke of the International Monetary Fund, the member forgot to tell the people watching that the International Monetary Fund said last week that Canada's fiscal situation is the most robust of the G7. The International Monetary Fund says that Canada's economic growth is almost twice that of Japan or Germany. The good news today is also that recruitment in the Canadian Armed Forces has hit record levels. We are building this country together, with Canadians. We are going to build a strong Canada, of which we can all be proud. (1425)

Government Priorities

[Expand] Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in his little video, the Prime Minister said that “hope is not a plan”. Right now, his plan is to give up 74% of our exports to the United States in exchange for 4% with the Chinese communist regime. To me, that is pure madness. He promised an agreement with Donald Trump before July 21, 2025. Absolutely nothing has been resolved and worse yet, tariffs have doubled and other tariffs have been added in the past 18 days. The Prime Minister said to judge him by the cost of groceries. We now know that Canada is the worst country in the G7 when it comes to the price of groceries. What does the Prime Minister plan to do to fix this situation and put money back in taxpayers' pockets? [Expand] Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (President of the King’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade, Intergovernmental Affairs, Internal Trade, and One Canadian Economy, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our colleague is wondering what we are doing to improve the situation. That is precisely what the Prime Minister has been working on since we won the election. It is about diversifying our markets with other reliable trade partners, once again undertaking major projects that are in Canada's national interest, and supporting industries and workers who are dealing with the unjustified and illegal U.S. tariffs. I have good news. We are doing all three at the same time.

Steel and Aluminum Industry

[Expand] Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in a video, the Prime Minister told those hoping for a return to normalcy with the United States that “nostalgia is not a strategy”. That is fine, but we have been waiting for his strategy for a year. Meanwhile, Washington has started taxing our steel- and aluminum-containing products on their total value. This is a disaster for hundreds of businesses and our resource processing sector. Apart from calling them nostalgic, what does the Prime Minister plan to do for our businesses? [Expand] Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (President of the King’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade, Intergovernmental Affairs, Internal Trade, and One Canadian Economy, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to our colleague, the Prime Minister said that “nostalgia is not a strategy”. He is absolutely right. The good news is that we have seen changes in international relations with the Americans. As I said a few moments ago, we are diversifying our markets with other reliable economic partners and building projects of national interest. We also recognize the importance of supporting our steel and aluminum workers and their industries, and we are doing exactly that at the same time. [Expand] Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister still has to deliver results. Two things: First, the fact that he is describing our relationship with the U.S. as a weakness shows that the negotiations are not going well. Second, although the government is talking about economic diversification, 80% of our trade is with the U.S. and that cannot be redirected overnight. Meanwhile, some Quebec businesses have had to reduce shifts or close their doors since Washington began charging tariffs on the total value of our products. Will the government help them before it is too late? [Expand] Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Finance and National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are doing both of those things. As my colleague said, we have a trade relationship with the United States. I was in Washington last week to meet with the United States Secretary of the Treasury. We had an excellent discussion. Meanwhile, we are also diversifying our overseas exports, because we understand that if we want more stability and predictability, then we need to open our exports to all of the other countries in the world. Recently, we signed a series of agreements that make Canada the only G7 country that has free trade agreements with every other member of the G7. Canada is in an enviable position, and we will build this country together. [Expand] Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, BQ): Mr. Speaker, with the steel and aluminum tariffs imposed by Washington getting worse, it is hard to know exactly where the negotiations stand. The Prime Minister has little regard for Parliament. He is rarely available for interviews. Now we find out that he is just as tight-lipped about his consultations. On Friday, the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec and the Manufacturiers et Exportateurs du Québec both complained that they are not being consulted as much as they once were. Even Jean Charest, an adviser to the Prime Minister on Canada-U.S. relations, is concerned that the process is getting too centralized. Why is the Prime Minister against transparency? [Expand] Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (President of the King’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade, Intergovernmental Affairs, Internal Trade, and One Canadian Economy, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it will come as no surprise to anyone that I do not entirely agree with the premise of our colleague's question. He mentioned Jean Charest, a person of whom we are very fond. I spoke with him last week for about and hour and a half, and I intend to meet with him again later this week. My colleague mentioned the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec. It so happens that the federation's president, Véronique Proulx, was in Ottawa today. I had very good conversation with her about the matters that the member just raised, so I thank him for the question. (1430) [English ]

Taxation

[Expand] Jasraj Hallan (Calgary East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the only things emptier than the Prime Minister 's weekend of recycled speeches are Canadians' shelves, stomachs and gas tanks. Today's data confirmed that Canada has the highest food inflation in the G7 for the fourth straight month. The Liberals cannot blame global factors. Their industrial carbon tax and fuel standard have made our food and fuel more expensive. Why will the Prime Minister not cut the recycled speeches and instead cut the Liberal fuel taxes for the rest of the year? [Expand] Hon. Wayne Long (Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member must have forgotten that we just announced the groceries and essentials benefit, putting up to $1,400 in the pockets of Canadian families. In fact, just this past weekend, we announced that the first 50% payment will be on June 5. We have also announced a pause in the federal gas excise tax. On this side of the House, we are going to continue to focus on affordability. The other side is continuing to focus on podcasts, rhetoric and bluster. [Expand] Jasraj Hallan (Calgary East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, if Canadians got a dollar every time the Liberals bragged about a $90 tax cut, they would have a whole lot more than $90 in their pockets. The Liberal math was on full display last week. They took a third of the tax off for a third of the year. That tax trick does not give Canadians real relief. In fact, if they had implemented our plan, Canadians would have saved 25¢ per litre, $1,200 a year. Instead of cutting a third of the tax for a third of the year, why do they not cut all of the tax for all of the year? [Expand] Hon. Steven MacKinnon (Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today is the day we implement the 10¢-per-litre reduction on gasoline in Canada, and also the four-cents-per-litre reduction on diesel and the four-cents-per-litre reduction on jet fuel. These are important reductions. They go with the groceries and essentials benefit, which we have already brought into the House. The government is doing many things to help Canadians with affordability, and it must be pointed out that these many things are being done despite the obstruction and the opposition of the— [Expand] The Speaker: The hon. member for Haldimand—Norfolk. [Expand] Leslyn Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk, CPC): Mr. Speaker, many Canadian families, including the ones I am hearing from in Haldimand—Norfolk, are feeling the strain every time they fill up their vehicles and buy groceries. Gas prices remain out of control, and food inflation is still the highest in the G7. For rural residents, there is no public transit alternative. They must drive to work, drive to school and drive to the grocery store. When will the Prime Minister finally deliver real relief and end the federal taxes on gas for the rest of the year? [Expand] Hon. Anna Gainey (Secretary of State (Children and Youth), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are listening to Canadians and delivering relief at the pump: 10 cents a litre today, four cents on jet fuel and four cents on diesel. Recently, I spoke with the CEO of Montreal's Welcome Hall Mission about lifting the federal gas tax. He told me that it is a welcome measure that translates into meaningful cost savings, allowing more resources to be directed to providing core services. The government continues to listen to people, including community leaders like the Welcome Hall Mission, as we lower costs and help families make ends meet. [Expand] Leslyn Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk, CPC): Mr. Speaker, rising fuel costs are a daily reality for Canadians. Fresh vegetables are up nearly 8% and fuel costs continue to skyrocket. Canadians pay 20% more for gas than Americans. At what point is the Liberal government going to stop blaming global factors and take responsibility for these rising costs? When will the Prime Minister finally remove all of the federal taxes on fuel and deliver real relief for Canadians? (1435) [Expand] Hon. Rechie Valdez (Minister of Women and Gender Equality and Secretary of State (Small Business and Tourism), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, starting today, as mentioned, we are suspending the federal fuel tax on gasoline and diesel. If we combine this with the elimination of the consumer carbon tax, Canadians are saving 28¢ per litre at the pumps. What this means is $2.4 billion back into the pockets of Canadians. With respect to the province of Ontario alone, over four million people received the GST rebate. That is $2.2 billion in direct support for families across the province. We are going to continue doing everything we can to support Canadians during this time. [Expand] Lianne Rood (Middlesex—London, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberals continue to blame global factors for skyrocketing gas and grocery prices while offering Canadians only a partial, temporary tax cut. They have been playing with matches for years, printing money and hiking the carbon tax and the fuel standard tax. Now they act surprised that their house is on fire. Canadians see through their excuses in repeated speeches offering more illusions. When will they stop the blame game, take responsibility and give families real relief by removing all federal taxes on gas and diesel for the rest of the year? [Expand] Hon. Anna Gainey (Secretary of State (Children and Youth), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, we are bringing relief to Canadians at the gas pump today, which represents 10¢ a litre now through Labour Day. We have been there for Canadians from the moment this new government took office, with a tax cut for 22 million Canadians. We are delivering a groceries and essentials rebate, which is a meaningful boost to over 12 million Canadians that will put more money in their pockets. This is on top of dental care, which is reaching five million Canadians, the national school food program, and child care. We are there for Canadians and helping them with affordability. [Expand] Lianne Rood (Middlesex—London, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister warned Canadians about making hard sacrifices, but now he is refusing to show up at the bargaining table with our largest trading partner. Liberal taxes make Canadians pay 20% more for gas. His fearmongering is making relations worse and hurting our economy. He is deliberately pitting Canadians against the United States, all while the Liberals cozy up to the CCP. We could be expanding our resource industry and building our nation as a global leader. Instead, we get state-sponsored propaganda to cover up all the Liberal failures. When will the Prime Minister stop making excuses and take responsibility? [Expand] Hon. Adam van Koeverden (Secretary of State (Sport), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are saying that, on this side of the House, we are blaming global factors. We are not. We are acknowledging global factors and putting forth measures to address global factors. They want to completely ignore the fact that we live in a globally connected society and that price factors are influenced by global affairs like a war in the Middle East. Gas prices are too high, so the Prime Minister announced that we are addressing that. We are also lowering income tax. We put forward other affordability measures like dental care and child care, things the Conservatives voted against. [Expand] William Stevenson (Yellowhead, CPC): Mr. Speaker, when gas and diesel prices rise, they drive up the cost of everything. Farmers, truckers and grocery stores all feel it, while families pay for it. No wonder Canada's food inflation is the highest in the G7 for the fourth month in a row. Conservatives called upon the Liberals to remove all gas taxes, but the Prime Minister played politics, cutting a third of the tax for a third of the year. When will the Liberals remove the remaining gas taxes for the rest of the year and deliver real relief to struggling Canadians? [Expand] Hon. Eleanor Olszewski (Minister of Emergency Management and Community Resilience and Minister responsible for Prairies Economic Development Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Albertans are happy to hear we are investing in them and addressing their affordability challenges in tangible ways. They know that making a reduction in fuel costs from now to Labour Day will save them money and make it easier for them to travel to and from work and throughout our beautiful province. Albertans are looking for the government to provide solutions, and we are delivering. [Translation ]

Justice

[Expand] Rhéal Éloi Fortin (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice texted an apology to the Premier of Quebec for his comments about wanting to limit the use of the notwithstanding clause. However, that is exactly what he is doing with his Supreme Court challenge of Bill 21. His brief and his oral arguments make it clear that Ottawa wants to limit the use of the notwithstanding clause by restricting its pre-emptive use. Now that the minister has apologized, will he formally commit to never allowing limits on the notwithstanding clause, including for pre-emptive use? (1440) [Expand] Hon. Sean Fraser (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for my friend, but I have to clarify something. Obviously the federal government does not have the authority to alter provincial powers under the Constitution. It is strange, honestly. We will uphold the Constitution and respect provincial jurisdictions at the same time. My comments were made in the context of the bill that is currently before the Senate and that concerns the federal government's powers only. That is all. [Expand] Rhéal Éloi Fortin (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the government may not have the power, but we know the federal government's position on the notwithstanding clause. There is no misunderstanding. In fact, the government has spent at least $2 million fighting something in the Supreme Court over which it supposedly has no power. The government wants to limit Quebec's ability to pre-emptively use the notwithstanding clause. What it is doing is exactly why it had to apologize to the Premier of Quebec. Rather than saying one thing and doing the opposite, will the government commit to refusing to limit Quebec's power to use this clause in any way? [Expand] Hon. Joël Lightbound (Minister of Government Transformation, Public Works and Procurement and Quebec Lieutenant, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague, the Minister of Justice, was very clear. The leader of the Bloc Québécois was trying to twist the facts, but they can only be twisted so far. My colleague, the Minister of Justice, was talking about a bill in the Senate that concerns the federal government's use of the notwithstanding clause. It was never about the authority of the provinces to use a power that is granted to them under the Constitution. We respect areas of provincial jurisdiction.

Taxation

[Expand] Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on the weekend, the Liberal Prime Minister once again repeated the same old worn-out promises. Meanwhile, in Lotbinière, L'Érable, Le Granit and the Appalachian region in my riding, families have to choose between filling their gas tanks and filling their fridges. Why? The reason is that the Liberals chose to do away with only one-third of the federal gas taxes. The Liberal Prime Minister may fancy himself a magician, but his magic wand is not working. When will he eliminate all federal gas taxes for the rest of the year to make life more affordable for everyone? [Expand] Hon. Rachel Bendayan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is true. As of today, we are suspending the federal excise tax on gasoline, which will give struggling Canadians a little more breathing room. We also just announced that, on June 5, Canadians will receive a one-time Canada groceries and essentials benefit payment. That is a cheque of up to $530 per family. We are there for Canadians. We know that Canadians need us, and our government is there for them. [Expand] Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière, CPC): Mr. Speaker, how is it, then, that we are in such a mess? We have the worst food inflation in the G7 for the fourth month in a row. The price of produce went up 7.8% in March. I find it strange that the Prime Minister and the Liberals never talk about food prices. I will repeat my question. Instead of repeating the same excuses over and over, when will the Liberal Prime Minister axe all federal Liberal taxes on gas for the rest of the year? [Expand] Hon. Nathalie Provost (Secretary of State (Nature), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am quite surprised at the turn my kind colleague's question is taking when he says that we never talk about it. However, in my little booklet, I see Canada's national school food program. That is food for Canadians. We proposed that, and the Conservatives voted against it. Then there is the Canada groceries and essentials benefit. That is to help pay for groceries, which are more expensive. We have also committed to helping with gas. We are doing that, but the Conservatives are voting against half of the measures that are helping to restore Canadians' purchasing power. [Expand] Joël Godin (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, CPC): Mr. Speaker, to hear them talk, everything is fine and Canadians have pockets full of cash. While Canadians are facing a steady rise in the cost of living, particularly at the pump, the Liberal government is once again content with half measures when it comes to lowering gas taxes. Can the government explain why it is refusing to provide significant tax relief to struggling families, workers and businesses? When will the government stop favouring symbolic measures over meaningful action to help Canadian families and workers? [Expand] Hon. Steven MacKinnon (Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my esteemed colleague will surely acknowledge that, today, in his riding and in all 343 ridings in Canada, the price at the pump will be dropping by 10¢ a litre for gasoline, four cents a litre for diesel and four cents a litre for jet fuel. We are providing this temporary support because an international conflict is causing oil shortages. The Government of Canada is proud to add this measure to all of the other measures that it has already put in place to ease the burden on Canadians. (1445) [Expand] Joël Godin (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are pleased with themselves for putting 10 cents back in Canadians' pockets, but it could have been 25 cents if they had listened to the Conservatives. The government is once again using temporary programs to pull the wool over people's eyes. The reality is that Canadians are still paying too much for gas. Will my colleague finally admit that these half measures on the fuel tax make little difference at the pump? Can he explain why exactly he would rather protect his tax revenue by pocketing billions of dollars at the expense of Canadian families and workers? [Expand] Hon. Joël Lightbound (Minister of Government Transformation, Public Works and Procurement and Quebec Lieutenant, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yes, we are pleased to have lowered gas prices by 10 cents today by eliminating the federal excise tax. Yes, we are pleased to have lowered taxes for 22 million Canadians. Yes, we are pleased to have introduced the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, which helps 12 million of the most vulnerable Canadians. Will my colleague ever be pleased to see $72 million flowing into his riding through the Canada child benefit, which helps 13,000 families in his riding? Will he ever be pleased that 20,000 of his constituents have access to dental care thanks to the Canadian dental care plan? Will he ever support these measures, which actually help his constituents? [Expand] Richard Martel (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister spent the weekend repeating the same speech and the same promises. The problem is that Liberal taxes have raised the cost of gas to be 20% higher for Canadians than it is for Americans. Everyone knows that when gas is expensive, everything is expensive. Canada has the worst food inflation in the G7. Why do the Liberals not listen to us and give families some room to breathe by removing all taxes on gas for the rest of the year? [Expand] Hon. Anna Gainey (Secretary of State (Children and Youth), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is true that Canadians need solutions. We are listening, and that is why we are helping to make life more affordable. We are suspending the federal tax on gas to help Canadians deal with challenges over the short term. That amounts to a savings of 10¢ a litre on gasoline and four cents a litre on diesel. We are lowering costs for Canadians and building Canada strong.

Foreign Affairs

[Expand] Sameer Zuberi (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the war in Sudan is still the world's worst humanitarian crisis, and 34 million people, nearly two-thirds of the country's population, are currently in need of humanitarian assistance. [English ]

The war has had a devastating impact on the civilian population in Sudan. Our government is leading on the international stage. We are helping with humanitarian and development assistance to help the people of Sudan. Can the Secretary of State for International Development tell us how Canada is supporting the most vulnerable, the most affected by this devastating conflict? [Expand] Hon. Randeep Sarai (Secretary of State (International Development), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada's support for the people of Sudan has been unwavering since the beginning of the conflict. Last week, our government announced more than $120 million in new assistance to support the people of Sudan and others across the region. This is about getting life-saving support to those who need it most. It underscores Canada's commitment to addressing one of the world's worst humanitarian crises. The people of Sudan deserve protection, dignity and a path back to stability. Canada will continue to press for the conditions that make that possible.

International Trade

[Expand] Kyle Seeback (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC): Mr. Speaker, a year ago, the Liberal Prime Minister said he was the one to get a deal from Donald Trump. Fast-forward to this year, and we have seen tens of thousands of job losses in the auto sector, the softwood lumber sector, and the steel and aluminum sector. Now we have new tariffs on our manufacturers that are punishing our tool and die makers. What is the Liberal Prime Minister's response? It is that trade with America is a weakness. Let me explain something to these Liberals. There are 2.6 million Canadian jobs tied to trade with America. Other than “I give up” and “Trade with America is a weakness”, what does the Liberal Prime Minister have to say to the Canadian families whose jobs rely on trade with America? (1450) [Expand] Karim Bardeesy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we know that trade with America continues to be important, but Canadians recognize, definitely in my riding, that we need to diversify. That is why we are doing trade deals with other countries. That is why our auto strategy attempts to diversify to other countries and attract new investment. While things are difficult, we know that there is good news, including new foreign direct investment statistics. In 2025, there was $96.8 billion in foreign direct investment to Canada, the largest amount in 18 years. That is good news while we are diversifying our trade. [Expand] Kyle Seeback (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC): Mr. Speaker, has anyone ever had the experience of listening to people talk who actually say nothing? It is the Liberal response to every single question that we get in question period. There is the illusion of progress, the illusion that things are getting better with the trade relationship with the United States, and yet everything continuously gets worse. The Liberals always say something is just over the horizon. My question was this. If they think trade with the United States is such a weakness for Canada, what do they have to say to the 2.6 million Canadian families whose jobs rely on that trading relationship? I just ask for an answer to that. [Expand] Karim Bardeesy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a very simple answer, which is that we are fighting for them every day and we are not going to do any deal at the expense of a bad deal. That is the answer. When it comes to the auto sector, our companies continue to innovate. Our companies' owners are saying they want to be part of the electric vehicle future. They want these investments in electric infrastructure. I was pleased to join, on behalf of the Minister of Industry, in announcing a new investment in hydrogen electric vehicle heavy trucking. When I visited that company, Elemental Trucks, its team said that this was huge news for their sector. This allows them to use Canadian components and Canadian innovation not only to deliver to Canada but to export across the world. [Expand] Harb Gill (Windsor West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it has been 273 days since the Prime Minister promised a deal with Washington. Instead, we are seeing more tariffs now being applied to the full value of Canadian exports. That means businesses and workers in Windsor are being tariffed on their labour, their investment and the products they build right here at home. When will the Prime Minister keep his word to the 2.6 million Canadian workers whose livelihoods depend on cross-border trade and deliver on the deal he promised a year ago? [Expand] Hon. Kody Blois (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, along with the Minister for Canada-U.S. Relations, continues to have dialogue with the U.S. administration. We will continue to be there to support Canadian workers who are being impacted by unjustified and illegal tariffs and we are having a conversation about the best pathway forward. If that hon. member would suggest that we should have just thrown the cards on the table and gotten a bad deal, we do not agree. We are going to stand up for Canadian workers. We are going to stand up for workers in Windsor. By the way, I hope the member is highlighting the fact of immediate expensing for greenhouse infrastructure. That is important in the Windsor and Leamington area. I hope that has made his householder because I can almost promise he is not sharing the good news that this government is actually fighting for workers every single day. [Expand] Dave Epp (Chatham-Kent—Leamington, CPC): Mr. Speaker, manufacturers like mould-makers, steel fabricators and aluminum extruders are at risk because this Prime Minister failed them. He promised a U.S. trade deal last July, but a year later, the tariffs have more than doubled. With respect to machinery parts, manufacturing materials, steel and aluminum, tariffs are way up. These Canadian companies and jobs are at risk, while lower-cost countries with non-market economies are moving in to fill the gap. When will the Prime Minister, who is avoiding his responsibility, finally secure the American trade deal that he promised last July? [Expand] Hon. Kody Blois (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we know the importance of the U.S. market and the importance of that continued engagement. This member is from Leamington. I am wondering if he has told his constituents about what was in budget 2025, where the Minister of Finance provided immediate expensing for greenhouse infrastructure in this country. We see that Leamington area as an asset for greenhouses. I have not heard the member stand up and talk about how important that is. However, as much as I respect that hon. member, the Conservatives had nothing for farmers in this country. They had nothing in their platform, especially nothing for farmers in southwestern Ontario. [Expand] Kathy Borrelli (Windsor—Tecumseh—Lakeshore, CPC): Mr. Speaker, last year, the Prime Minister promised to end tariffs and fix our trade with the U.S., but he failed. This year, on April 6, section 232 tariffs increased dramatically and are putting up to 2.6 million Canadian jobs at risk. The Prime Minister calls our trade relationship a “weakness”, but the real weakness is his failure to make a deal. With millions of Canadian families at risk, when will the Prime Minister deliver results instead of more speeches, illusions and excuses? (1455) [Expand] Yasir Naqvi (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade and to the Secretary of State (International Development), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the government will continue to work hard to get the best deal with the United States for Canadians. Our criterion is simple: The deal has to be one of the best deals. However, Canadians also realize that if our country relies on only one country for its trade, that could turn into a weakness. That is why it is imperative that we work hard to diversify our trade, to trade, and to create more markets around the world. That is why we are working with India, China, Southeast Asian countries and Latin America to ensure that Canadian businesses have more opportunities to create good jobs right here in Canada.

Housing

[Expand] Scott Aitchison (Parry Sound—Muskoka, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadians are being asked to believe that short-term measures will fix a long-term housing crisis. Meanwhile, Statistics Canada is showing that residential permits are down nearly 5% year over year. In the GTA, new home sales are at a 35-year low. The Liberals are pointing to temporary measures like a one-year tax break and vague promises about costs being reduced by up to 50%. If the Liberals' plan relies on temporary measures, how can Canadians believe that it will deliver the sustained increase in housing supply that Canada so desperately needs? [Expand] Hon. Gregor Robertson (Minister of Housing and Infrastructure and Minister responsible for Pacific Economic Development Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have good news. Housing starts are up almost 10% across Canada year to date, so we are seeing progress in terms of housing starts. We are seeing rents decrease. We are seeing mortgages reduced. We are seeing home prices reduced. Affordability is improving for housing across Canada. It is not just a short-term change that we have to grapple with, with the uncertainty we face. Build Canada Homes is a dedicated affordable housing agency here in Canada to build for generations to come. We expect members opposite to support the bill through Parliament. [Expand] Scott Aitchison (Parry Sound—Muskoka, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the minister talked about more of these short-term measures, but Canadians have really been waiting for years. In that time, affordability has worsened and supply has fallen. The Liberals promised to build 500,000 homes a year, but last year not nearly half of that number were built. As it turns out, Liberal promises do not build homes. Canadians cannot wait any longer. At what point will we see the real results that match the scale of what is needed in this country, instead of the illusions the Prime Minister continues to offer? [Expand] Hon. Gregor Robertson (Minister of Housing and Infrastructure and Minister responsible for Pacific Economic Development Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the results speak for themselves. Affordability for housing has been improving over the last several years. The actions taken by the government are having an immediate effect. We are seeing rents come down. We are seeing home prices come down. We are seeing housing supply increase. We do have immediate-term measures to boost housing supply with provinces and territories. We are working with cities and with indigenous communities to build housing: supportive and transitional housing for people who are homeless, missing middle housing, and student housing. Across the board, we are investing. We expect all members of the House to support affordable housing. [Expand] Richard Bragdon (Tobique—Mactaquac, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised to double homebuilding, yet his own housing agency now expects construction to drop by 18%. At the same time, housing starts in Atlantic Canada are already down, including a 13% drop in Nova Scotia. When will the Prime Minister stop scapegoating, stop speechifying, get bureaucracy out of the way and deliver real results and real homes for Canadians? [Expand] Hon. Wayne Long (Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member has my respect, but he would actually have more of my respect if he supported some of the housing initiatives we have put forward. What about Build Canada Homes that is going to build homes at a scale not seen in generations? On this side of the House, we are focused on building homes, affordable homes, for Canada. The other side continues to vote against every housing initiative we have put forward. [Expand] Richard Bragdon (Tobique—Mactaquac, CPC): Mr. Speaker, there are yet more grand pronouncements and grand announcements, saying, “It's coming just beyond the rainbow and just around the corner.” What Canadians want are real results and real homes. When is the government going to deliver that? (1500) [Expand] Hon. Wayne Long (Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of passion, fire and brimstone on that side of the House. I love it, but on this side of the House we are laser-focused on building homes. Build Canada Homes, announced in budget 2025, will build homes at a scale not seen in generations. The other side of the House has voted against every housing initiative we have put forward in the past 10 years It is time for the other side of the House to stop the podcasts, stop the tours, stop the obstruction, stop the rhetoric, and get on board. Let us build homes.

Youth

[Expand] Jake Sawatzky (New Westminster—Burnaby—Maillardville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today marks the opening of Canada summer jobs 2026, with 100,000 positions that will be posted on the job bank, which Canadians can visit on jobbank.gc.ca/youth. This is the largest number of summer job opportunities ever, with budget 2025 investing in 24,000 more jobs this summer. Can the Secretary of State for Children and Youth please explain what this investment means for young Canadians? [Expand] Hon. Anna Gainey (Secretary of State (Children and Youth), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to share great news with my colleague for New Westminster—Burnaby—Maillardville and with the House: Today, young Canadians can now access summer jobs right across Canada. There are 100,000 opportunities, including lifeguarding in Burnaby, being a day camp counsellor in Brampton, or working on a golf course in Brookdale, Nova Scotia. There are 100,000 opportunities for young people to build skills and gain valuable work experience this summer. We are taking action to support youth across this country. People can visit the job bank to learn more.

Ethics

[Expand] John Brassard (Barrie South—Innisfil, CPC): Mr. Speaker, speaking of jobs, if one has nothing to hide, one has nothing to fear. For 16 hours and 45 minutes, the Liberals have been filibustering the ethics committee meetings on a motion that would invite the Minister of Finance to appear before it about his assertion that he put an ethics screen in place because of his spouse's employment as vice-president at Alto. How can there be an ethics screen in place when the minister has been participating in every decision on Alto since the screen was in place? What is the minister hiding, and why are Liberal members of the committee not wanting him to appear? [Expand] Hon. Steven MacKinnon (Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the member knows because he lives under the same rules, all members of the House, all public office holders in Canada, live under some of the strictest ethics rules in the world. The Minister of Finance rigorously follows these rules, as must all members, and he will continue to do so. [Expand] John Brassard (Barrie South—Innisfil, CPC): Mr. Speaker, here is what the member knows. We have seen the future of a Liberal majority at committee, and the future is now. Just last week, the Liberal Prime Minister promised Canadians they would see less showboating and more relevance and substantive debate at committee. What we are actually seeing at committee is Liberal obstruction and a clear sign that they will further obstruct the work of committees and not allow for transparency and accountability, and for the truth to be exposed. If the finance minister has nothing to hide, why will he not come to committee and explain why he discussed and voted on portions of the budget specifically related to Alto, when he said he would not? [Expand] Hon. Steven MacKinnon (Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what Canadians are witnessing, and what they are quite rightly sick of, is Conservative filibustering, obstruction and getting in the way of the plans for our economy, the plans to build this country, the plans to attract investment, to diversify trade and put men and women to work while getting Canadians' costs down. The Conservatives have been obstructing that for months now, and one can only hope we will get a respite from that. [Translation ]

[Expand] Gabriel Hardy (Montmorency—Charlevoix, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this afternoon at the ethics committee, we will begin the 17th hour of Liberal stand-up comedy, the longest monologue possible to ensure that three people whose salaries are paid by the government do not testify: the Minister of Finance, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and the president of Alto. It seems they have better things to do than come and answer legitimate questions about recusals that did not end up happening. Last week, the committee adjourned on the subject of cattle, hay and the quality of milk. Could the Prime Minister please tell his actors that the charade has gone on long enough and have the Minister of Finance come and answer the questions? [Expand] Hon. Steven MacKinnon (Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member knows this full well, because he is subject to the same rules as the 343 members of the House: Everyone who holds important positions in the government must abide by the strictest code of ethics in the world. We will continue to do so, just as the Minister of Finance is doing so diligently. (1505) [English ]

Tourism Industry

[Expand] Fares Al Soud (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today perhaps more than ever, Canada has what the world wants. This past year, we welcomed a record number of visitors, with last summer alone generating over $60 billion in tourism revenue. In Mississauga, we see that potential first-hand, from Square One to Celebration Square, from the Riverwood Conservancy to Port Credit, and from Streetsville and the Egyptian Museum to, of course, Ridgeway Plaza. As we mark the start of National Tourism Week, can Mississauga's own, the Minister of Women and Gender Equality and Secretary of State for Small Business and Tourism, share how our government will continue to support our tourism sector, create good jobs and strengthen our economy? [Expand] Hon. Rechie Valdez (Minister of Women and Gender Equality and Secretary of State (Small Business and Tourism), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his support of our tourism industry, which hit a record $60 billion last summer thanks to the help of the Canada Strong pass. Last week I announced $15 million through the international convention attraction fund to bring international events here to Canadian cities. To date, ICAF has secured 116 events, with over 324,000 attendees, and has generated $803 million in economic impact. We are supporting local businesses. We are creating good jobs and strengthening our tourism industry. I wish everyone a happy Tourism Week.

Housing

[Expand] Burton Bailey (Red Deer, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Red Deer exceeded housing starts for two straight years by cutting bureaucracy and using common-sense solutions. This is exactly what Conservatives have been calling for. Under our Conservative plan, cities like Red Deer would be rewarded for building homes. Instead, the Liberal one-size-fits-all approach punishes mid-size cities like Red Deer while funnelling resources to Liberal vote-rich strongholds where homebuilding dropped. Will the minister commit today to stop punishing Red Deer, scrap the failed Liberal scheme and adopt the Conservative plan to build homes, not bureaucracy? [Expand] Hon. Gregor Robertson (Minister of Housing and Infrastructure and Minister responsible for Pacific Economic Development Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our government is leading a national effort to solve the housing crisis by working with cities and towns across Canada to get more housing built. In reducing red tape, the housing accelerator fund has been very successful working with 241 communities across the country. Those communities made commitments. This government holds everyone accountable to their commitments. The integrity of those agreements is important. We are seeing great results, and Red Deer is one of the cities that is delivering housing supply. That is our goal— An hon. member: Oh, oh! [Expand] The Speaker: One would think the member for Red Deer would want to hear the answer because the question is about his community. The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands has the floor.

The Environment

[Expand] Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): Mr. Speaker, last Thursday in question period, in response to a question from the member for Edmonton Strathcona, the Minister of Energy completely dismissed any concern about the recent nearly one million-litre leak from the pipeline of Imperial Oil on Cold Lake First Nations territory, on top of frequent spills and leaks by Imperial from its tailings ponds and elsewhere. With Earth Day on Wednesday, I wonder if, as the Speaker says, the hon. minister might want to take it from the top and give a response that at least pretends to be concerned about the environment. [Expand] Wade Grant (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we, of course, acknowledge and take seriously the concerns raised by indigenous communities in the regions around tailings ponds where safety risks happen. Pollution from oil sands tailings is a serious issue that affects Canada's waters, ecosystems and the well-being of communities. Our government is committed to protecting the health of communities, as well as Canada's waters, fish and ecosystems, today and for generations to come. This is why we are working closely with the Crown-indigenous working group along with the affected communities, first nations, provinces and industry to develop a long-term, science-based solution, and we look forward to their recommendations. [Translation ]

Business of the House

[Expand] Hon. Steven MacKinnon (Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that tomorrow, during Routine Proceedings, the government intends to introduce Motion No. 359 to approve the appointment of Annette Ryan as Parliamentary Budget Officer for a term of seven years. (1510) [Expand] Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning the admissibility of amendments BQ‑2 and BQ‑3, which were introduced by the Bloc Québécois during the Standing Committee on National Defence's study of Bill C‑11. [Expand] The Speaker: I have the hon. member's name on my list, but I would like to complete Routine Proceedings before giving him the floor. The member will have an opportunity to speak, and the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman will also have an opportunity to speak.

Routine Proceedings

[Routine Proceedings]

[English ]

Citizenship Act

[Expand] Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-274, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. She said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce an act that would amend the Citizenship Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre for seconding the bill. In the previous Parliament, now retired senator Mobina Jaffer brought a bill on this issue, Bill S-235, through the Senate at all its stages. I would like to thank Senator Jaffer and the Our System, Our Children, Our Responsibility coalition for putting a light on this urgent gap in child protection. Every day an estimated 61,000 children are in and out of care homes in Canada. Like all children, they deserve to have the rights of the child fully respected. They deserve the best of care. When the system fails in its responsibilities to these children, they are exposed to harm. It is the responsibility of the government to apply for citizenship for children in care who came to Canada as minors, but the government routinely fails to do so. It leaves these young children vulnerable to the cruelty of deportation to a country that they left long ago as minors or that they have no connection to at all. Refugees and protected people face even more severe harms. There is a temporary policy in place to address the citizenship of children who are the legal responsibility of the child protection system, but it will expire January 7, 2027. This bill would enshrine a clear path to citizenship for children in care who came to Canada as minors. Children aging out of care already face too many extraordinary barriers. Parliamentarians should use their powers to protect the rights of some of the most vulnerable children. I urge the government to adopt this bill and see to its swift passage. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Petitions

Climate Change

[Expand] Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to present a petition. It is an e-petition that was put together and supported by 587 people looking at the issue of expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure. The petitioners point out that any expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure runs contrary to climate action and the necessity of holding the global average temperature increase to below 1.5°C, if possible. The petitioners point out that projects, and specifically the carbon sequestration project called the Pathways Alliance project, are unlikely to work to hold greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere. The petitioners also point out that even if it did work, it would be insufficient to undo the environmental damage of continued fossil fuel expansion. Therefore, the petitioners call on the government to stop any subsidies to the Pathways Alliance project and to do what is practical and meaningful, which is to reduce greenhouse gases, not expand them while pretending that carbon capture and storage will nullify the damage that expansion will inevitably produce. (1515) Agriculture

[Expand] Hon. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have here a petition signed by dozens and dozens of residents near Indian Head, Saskatchewan. As members may know, the Liberal government has decided to cancel the funding for the agricultural research centre located at Indian Head. This facility does world-class research into crop development, drought resistance and pest resistance. Unfortunately, the Liberal government has decided to close this facility and a number of other research centres across the country. The petitioners point out the good work that this centre does to help improve agricultural commodities and the benefits it has to the agricultural and agri-food sectors. They are calling on the government to reverse the cold-hearted and anti-science decision to close this research facility. The Environment

[Expand] Adam Chambers (Simcoe North, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and pleasure to rise today in the House of Commons on behalf of many residents, including the Friends of Wye Marsh in Midland, Ontario, who recognize that Canada holds 24% of the world's forests, over 20% of the world's fresh waters, three oceans and all the plants and animals that go in these ecosystems. These individuals are calling on the government to work with indigenous rights holders to protect more land, prevent degradation of the environment by holding companies responsible when they are doing work and, of course, to increase the amount of land that it conserves. I appreciate that and submit that to the House with great pleasure today. Weather Radio Service

[Expand] Adam Chambers (Simcoe North, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have one more petition, with respect to a number of residents who are concerned by the government's cuts to the VHF weather broadcast. These individuals recognize that the VHF weather broadcast provides real-time weather updates in remote and rural locations across the country, including essential services to those who boat recreationally. It is important that these services be reinstated. The petitioners are calling on the government to reconsider its proposal to cut these very vital services, which help us prepare ourselves in time of emergency. Farmland in Clearview Township

[Expand] Terry Dowdall (Simcoe—Grey, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise here on behalf of petitioners from Simcoe—Grey once again. The Department of National Defence has purchased 700 acres of prime farmland with the goal of building an over-the-horizon radar system. This is fantastic land right on the edge of the Minesing wetlands. There are huge environmental concerns. In order for this to be operational, stage 2 would require up to another 3,000 acres. All the residents are worried about expropriation. This is prime farmland. Petitioners are calling on the government to stop the building of the over-the-horizon site on the already purchased property, to prevent future acquisition of prime farmland and the building of the over-the-horizon site on prime farmland in Clearview Township, and to register the previously purchased property with the Ontario Farmland Trust to preserve its agricultural status. The municipality and all the neighbouring municipalities are opposed to this location.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand at this time. The Speaker: Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed. [For text of questions and responses, see Written Questions website ]

Points of Order

Admissibility of Committee Amendments to Bill C-11

[Points of Order]

[Expand] James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC): 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. (1520) 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. (1525) [Translation ]

[Expand] Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, BQ): 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. (1530) 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.

Government Orders

[Government Orders]

(1535) [English ]

Lawful Access Act, 2026

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. [Expand] Warren Steinley (Regina—Lewvan, CPC): 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. (1540) 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. (1545) [Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): 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— [Expand] The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): The hon. member for Regina—Lewvan. [Expand] Warren Steinley: 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. [Translation ]

[Expand] Claude DeBellefeuille (Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, BQ): 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? [English ]

[Expand] Warren Steinley: 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. [Expand] Amarjeet Gill (Brampton West, CPC): 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? (1550) [Expand] Warren Steinley: 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. [Expand] Cheryl Gallant (Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, CPC): 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. (1555) 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. (1600) [Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): 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? [Expand] Cheryl Gallant: 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. [Translation ]

[Expand] Claude DeBellefeuille (Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, BQ): 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? [English ]

[Expand] Cheryl Gallant: 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. [Expand] Dalwinder Gill (Calgary McKnight, CPC): 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? [Expand] Cheryl Gallant: 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. [Expand] Hon. Buckley Belanger (Secretary of State (Rural Development), Lib.): 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? [Expand] 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. [Expand] Cheryl Gallant: 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. (1605) [Expand] Peter Fonseca (Mississauga East—Cooksville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when we speak to constituents in my riding and right across Canada, public safety is paramount, and lawful access is something that we keep hearing is necessary to keep Canadians safe. As such, this is not an abstract notion. This is not theoretical. It reflects the reality of Canadians, like our families, seniors, newcomers and young people, while they are going about their daily lives with growing concern about what is happening in their community. In my riding of Mississauga East—Cooksville, I hear this directly. People want to feel safe. At the same time, they want to know that their rights are protected. They expect both of these things, and they are right to expect both. Over the past year, our government has advanced a clear and comprehensive framework to address public safety in Canada, one that rests on three key pillars. First is stronger laws. This includes reforms to bail and sentencing, measures to combat hate, and stronger protections against gender-based violence and exploitation of children, especially online. Second is supporting the front line. This includes investments in law enforcement, with 1,000 new RCMP officers and 1,000 new border officers, but also ensuring police have the tools they need to do their jobs effectively. Third is upstream investments, because safer communities are built not only through enforcement, but through prevention and investments in housing, mental health, addiction supports and programs for at-risk youth. It is important to emphasize that these pillars are not isolated; they reinforce one another. Strong laws mean little without enforcement. Enforcement alone is insufficient without prevention, and prevention must be paired with accountability. Today's legislation, Bill C-22, sits squarely within that second pillar. Let me be clear that supporting the front line is not just about adding more officers, but it is about equipping them with tools that reflect the world that we live in today, because that world has changed. We all know that. Technology has transformed how we live and, unfortunately, how crime is committed. We all carry powerful devices in our pockets. We communicate instantly across borders. While these tools serve very positive purposes, we cannot ignore that criminal organizations are using them as well. In conversations I have had with law enforcement, one message comes through clearly: Crime today is increasingly digital, organized and transnational. We are seeing sophisticated extortion schemes coordinated online, auto theft rings operating across jurisdictions, home invasions tied to organized networks and, most disturbingly, the online exploitation of children. These are not isolated incidents. They are coordinated operations, often directed in real time through encrypted communications. In Mississauga East—Cooksville, we are not immune to these trends. We are seeing online fraud targeting seniors and newcomers, exploitation facilitated through digital platforms and organized crime leveraging technology to evade detection. What is particularly troubling is the speed at which these crimes unfold. A scam can empty a bank account in minutes. An online interaction can put a young person at risk almost instantly. Our local police, especially Peel Regional Police, are doing exceptional work, but they have been very clear that the tools available to them must keep pace with the threats that they face. One of the greatest challenges in modern policing is anonymity. Police cannot arrest an IP address. They cannot prosecute a phone number. Behind every digital identifier is a human being. Too often, that individual is shielded by outdated laws, creating a troubling imbalance. Criminals can act quickly, anonymously and across borders. Law enforcement, meanwhile, is slowed by processes that were designed for a different era. If we are serious about public safety, we must ensure our legal framework reflects modern realities. (1610) This is where Bill C-22 comes in. At its core, this legislation is about lawful access, or giving the police the ability to access critical information in a targeted, lawful and timely way. Let me be clear about what this bill would do and what it would not do. It would not provide unrestricted access to personal data. It would not allow surveillance without oversight. Instead, it would introduce a carefully structured, step-by-step process. First, where there is an active investigation, police could request confirmation of whether a phone number or IP address is linked to a particular service provider. This would not be content. It would not be private communications. It would simply be identifying the network. Today, the process can take months to determine where to even begin. During those months, evidence can disappear, victims can be further harmed and criminal networks can continue to operate without interruption. This is unacceptable. Once a link is confirmed, police would then need to seek judicial authorization to access subscriber information such as name and address. This would ensure every step is grounded in legal oversight. This is information that was publicly available in the past. I remember in the 1980s, and I am one of the older guys here, we could open up a phone book and get all this information. Today, that is not accessible to law enforcement, so this needs to get done. In today's digital world, this is not accessible without legal authority. Only in urgent, time-sensitive situations, such as active child exploitation, can access occur without prior authorization. Even then, strict safeguards apply, including accountability measures after the fact. I want to take a moment to emphasize something that is fundamental to this legislation, and that is trust. Canadians must have confidence that their rights are protected. That is why this bill includes clear legal thresholds before any information could be accessed, judicial oversight for sensitive information, defined limits on what could and could not be requested, and accountability mechanisms to ensure proper use. This is not about expanding state power without limits. It is about ensuring that when power is used, it would be used responsibly, proportionately and transparently. In fact, this legislation reflects the guidance of our courts and incorporates lessons from past debates. This bill is about balance. It would ensure judicial oversight, clear legal thresholds and independent accountability. In fact, it would establish one of the strongest privacy-protected lawful access regimes in the G7. I would argue this balance is precisely what Canadians expect. They do not want a false choice between safety and privacy. They want both, and this bill would deliver both. Let us be honest: Canada is behind. Every other G7 country has a lawful access framework. All our Five Eyes partners do as well. Without it, our investigations are slower, more cumbersome and less effective. When crime happens in real time, delays have consequences. This legislation did not emerge overnight. It builds on years of consultation with law enforcement, privacy experts, legal scholars and parliamentarians from all parties. The result is a bill that is more targeted, more accountable and more transparent. This is what responsible law-making looks like. When we talk about public safety, we must remember the people on the front lines, the officers, the investigators and the professionals, working every day to keep Canadians safe. They are not asking for unlimited powers. They are asking for modern tools to match modern crime. When we give them those tools with proper safeguards, we are not only supporting law enforcement, we are supporting victims. This issue has been discussed for decades. Law enforcement leaders have warned that we are at risk of “going dark” and losing access to critical digital evidence. We now have an opportunity to act, and with that opportunity comes responsibility. (1615) Before I conclude, I want to share a quick story that underscores why this matters. A constituent in Mississauga East—Cooksville reached out to my office not long ago and said he was defrauded because of a cryptocurrency scam online. For that individual and many across our country, we need to pass this bill, move quickly— [Expand] The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): I am afraid we have to move on to questions and comments. The hon. member for Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee. [Expand] Scott Anderson (Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if my colleague across the aisle could explain whether he believes Bill C-22 is better than Bill C-2, given that Bill C-2 wanted to limit the use of cash for Canadians. [Expand] Peter Fonseca: Mr. Speaker, good governance is about learning, improving, consultations and listening to those who have brought concerns forward in this House, but also across our country. That is what we have done. We have struck the right balance and brought forward improved legislation that I am very proud of, and I hope we move expeditiously on this. [Translation ]

[Expand] Alexis Deschênes (Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, BQ): Mr. Speaker, with the introduction of Bill C‑22, one of the issues is what powers will be granted to the minister by allowing them to order service providers to keep metadata for a year. One of the concerns that this raises is that businesses that may not currently track users will now be required to do so. This will create a fairly substantial amount of information that law enforcement can access. Some Canadians might fear that their telephone will become a tracking device. What can my colleague say to reassure these individuals? [English ]

[Expand] Peter Fonseca: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-22 balances the ability of law enforcement to have a tool they require. We see this with our G7 partners and the Five Eyes. They have been able to do it with their service providers. We need to move on this. I know the service providers in Canada will be able to bolster their systems to provide the information that is required. In the end, this is about protecting Canadians, which is paramount, and we need to move on this. [Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I really want to emphasize that what the member is talking about is the need to modernize the law. When we look at what has been taking place over the last period of time, we have witnessed issues such as national security, terrorism, child sexual exploitation and repeat violent crimes. For me personally, another big issue has been extortion. All of those crimes are taking place. Law enforcement officers across the country are saying they need lawful access in order to deal with these crimes in a more timely fashion. The security of privacy of information is in the legislation. I would ask the member to amplify his thoughts on why it is so important that we pass the legislation. [Expand] Peter Fonseca: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the opportunity to speak to this in a very personal way. As I was finishing up my remarks, I said I have had constituents come to my office, and one, in particular, was a victim of a cryptocurrency scam online. He thought he did everything right. This has exhausted his life savings, which have been taken from him. He said he did everything right. He was looking for help. He went to the police, and the police told him they did not have the resources, the ability or the tools to address this. With this legislation, the police would be able to help this individual. That is what we are working for here, as parliamentarians, together: to make sure we can safeguard our citizens. [Expand] Harb Gill (Windsor West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a quick moment to wish a good friend of mine, Gurwinder Ruprai, a happy birthday. She is a teacher and a great friend from the member opposite's riding in Mississauga. We have all seen cases where information was not shared among police agencies, so are there any provisions in this bill that would provide not just access but also sharing with other police agencies that get the information? (1620) [Expand] Peter Fonseca: Mr. Speaker, I will take this opportunity to also wish Gurwinder Ruprai a happy birthday. Listening to many of the witnesses and others, we have heard about transnational crimes that are happening. Many times, our G7 partners and our Five Eyes partners come to Canada and we do not have the tools to actually support them in addressing crimes that are taking place. We need to be able to do that so we can have the sharing of information that is necessary. [Expand] Julie Dzerowicz (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as always, it is a real pleasure to rise in the House on behalf of the residents of my riding of Davenport to speak in support of Bill C-22, the lawful access act, 2026. When I talk to Davenport residents, the issues they raise with me most often are affordability, housing and jobs. Those remain the top concerns, and I want to be honest about that, but when the conversation turns to safety, what I hear has me worried. Davenport residents tell me they feel uneasy when they see drugs on our streets. They worry about encampments down the block. They are worried about watching another storefront on our main streets board up its windows after a break-in. They have heard of a neighbour's car stolen off the street in the middle of the night. They are unsettled by a number of stories about safety in our community. They are also telling me that they are worried about online scams, which keep getting more sophisticated, the ones that are aimed at their parents, at newcomers, at anyone who answers the phone. They may not always call it public safety, but they feel it and they expect their government to respond. This is exactly what Bill C-22 is about. Under the Mark Carney Liberal government, our approach to keeping Canadians safe rests on three pillars. [Expand] The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): I will just remind members that they cannot use the Prime Minister 's proper name. The hon. member has the floor. [Expand] Julie Dzerowicz: Mr. Speaker, under our federal government, our approach to keeping Canadians safe rests on three pillars: stronger laws; stronger support for the front line, including 1,000 new RCMP officers and 1,000 new officers at our borders; and stronger upstream investments in housing, mental health and programs for at-risk youth. Bill C-22 sits inside the first two pillars. It would modernize our laws and give our police the tools they have been asking Parliament for, not for years but for decades. Let me speak plainly about why we need this legislation. Today, the most serious crime does not happen only on our streets. It also happens on our phones and on our apps. It is planned in chat groups. It is carried out across borders, and it is all done in seconds. With child sexual exploitation, human trafficking, extortion, money laundering, auto theft rings, hate-motivated violence and foreign interference, criminals have moved online, and our laws have not yet kept up. Canada is currently the only country in the Five Eyes and the only country in the G7 without a modern lawful access framework. Every one of our closest allies has legal tools that let their police, with judicial oversight, obtain basic digital information during a criminal investigation. Canadian police do not. That gap is not theoretical. It means that Canadian investigations stall. It means that tips from foreign agencies sit unused. It means, in the worst cases, that investigations are simply abandoned before they begin. The Canadian Centre for Child Protection has reported that police-reported online child sexual exploitation incidents rose 374% between 2014 and 2024. In 2024 alone, 94% of online child sexual abuse material did not result in charges, often because police simply could not identify the person behind the screen name, and that is unacceptable. Bill C-22 would help to change that. Let me walk through, in plain language, what Bill C-22 actually does and, just as importantly, what it does not do. I think that when people understand the mechanics, a lot of the worry might fall away. First, the bill would create a simple yes-or-no tool called a confirmation of service demand. Here is how it works. Say police are investigating an extortion case and they have a phone number. They need to know which telephone company, whether it is Rogers, Bell, Telus or anyone else, actually services that number so they know where to send a court order. Under Bill C-22, they can ask that single question: “Do you or do you not service this number?” That is it. There is no name, no address, no content, just yes or no. Today, without this tool, police can spend weeks or months in court, company by company, just to figure out whom to serve. Bill C-22 would let them skip that guessing game and get on with the real investigative work. Second, and this is the critical privacy safeguard, once police know which provider to go to, they still have to go to a judge. A judge has to independently authorize what is called a subscriber information production order before police can get the name and address behind that account. That is judicial oversight. That is the charter at work. This is not police walking away with someone's name on their own say-so. It is police going before a court, making their case, and a judge deciding whether the threshold has been met. Frankly, this is the same kind of information that used to sit in the phone books on our kitchen counters, but because digital identifiers now reveal so much more about us, the Supreme Court has said, rightly, that accessing them requires a warrant, and Bill C-22 respects that. Third, the bill would require our major electronic service providers to actually be capable of responding to a valid court order. This sounds almost unbelievable, but under current Canadian law, there is no such requirement. A judge can issue an order, and a company can simply reply that it is not technically able to provide the information. Bill C-22 would fix that with requirements tailored to each class of provider and with oversight from the independent intelligence commissioner. Fourth, the bill would create a clear legal pathway for Canadian police to work with our allies when crime crosses borders. In 2026, organized crime does not stop at the 49th parallel, and our law enforcement has to be able to move just as quickly. (1625) I am very blessed to represent one of the most engaged and most thoughtful communities in this country. Davenport residents care deeply about privacy and the charter. I want them to know their federal government has listened. This is not the first version of the bill. An earlier version was part of Bill C-2 last year. We heard the concerns raised by privacy experts, civil liberties groups and members of all parties. We took those concerns seriously, we consulted broadly, and we came back with a better, narrower and more carefully built bill. Here is what changed. Warrantless access to subscriber information is gone, and judicial authorization would be the rule. The definition of “subscriber information” has been narrowed to the basics. The bill would also explicitly protect solicitor-client privilege and medical information. Ministerial orders would require approval by the independent intelligence commissioner. Data retention would be strictly limited to metadata, for a maximum of one year, and not content, not web browsing history and not social media activity. As well, the whole act would come back before Parliament for mandatory review three years after it comes into force. To be absolutely clear, there are no back doors in this bill. Police would not get direct access to anyone's communications. Service providers themselves would retrieve the information, and only after a court has authorized it. This is lawful access, with the emphasis on “lawful”. Last month I had the privilege, as chair of the Toronto Liberal caucus, of joining the federal Minister of Public Safety and Toronto police chief Myron Demkiw at Toronto police headquarters, where the minister spoke about the legislation. Standing with the chief, hearing directly from him about what Toronto police officers face every single day, such as the extortion cases hitting families across the city, the auto theft rings and the online exploitation of our children, one understands very quickly why the bill matters and why the delay has real costs, and it is not just Toronto. There is also support for this bill from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Police Federation and the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police. In closing, to my constituents in Davenport and to the families that have been scammed, the parents worried about their children online and the small business owners who have been threatened with extortion, the bill is for them. To those across Davenport who care fiercely about privacy in the charter, I want them to know that the bill has been built carefully, with judicial oversight at its core and independent accountability layered throughout. It is not a choice between safety and rights. It is both, together, the way Canadians expect. Crime has modernized. It is long past time our laws did too. I urge all members of the House, from every party, to send Bill C-22 to committee, to study it, to strengthen it where they can and to get it passed. Canadians have waited many years. They should not have to wait any longer. (1630) [Expand] Scott Anderson (Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, CPC): Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Davenport mentioned that this is a better bill than before. In fact, this is the third attempt the Liberals have made to introduce a bill that is similar to this, each one a little less intrusive than the last one. My concern, if we let the bill go to committee, is around whether the Liberals would actually respect the amendments we make in it, because I have just come out of a committee with Bill C-11 where we had made some very important amendments to the bill, and on Friday the Liberal Minister of National Defence simply attempted to strip all the amendments away. I wonder if the Liberals intend to actually respect the amendments we make in committee. [Expand] Julie Dzerowicz: Mr. Speaker, that is an important question. My colleague who gave the last speech said this, and I think he was right. We introduced Bill C-2. It had much more comprehensive legislation in it, but we came across a lot of concerns, so we pulled back this section of Bill C-2. Then we decided we were going to consult and listen further. We then went to privacy experts, civil liberties groups and members of all parties. We took all the concerns seriously, and we came back with a better, narrower and more carefully built bill. I think we know it is always much better, if we get bills to committee and if we all work with the right intention, that we are open to listening. We want to make sure the bill is as strong as possible. [Translation ]

[Expand] Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are living in a time when people are worried and are increasingly aware of the need to protect their personal information. The public is becoming more vigilant about these issues, which is something we support. However, Bill C‑22 is worrisome for these people, who are concerned. While the government is asking for easier access to the public's information, it is also cutting $2.7 million from the budget of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency. This budget should in fact be strengthened in order to reassure people about the government's request in this matter. Can my colleague explain her understanding of this logic? Cuts are being made to an oversight body at a time when people are worried and when the government is asking citizens for easier access to their information. [English ]

[Expand] Julie Dzerowicz: Mr. Speaker, on privacy, the first thing I would say is that we really spent the time over the last year to get this right. As I mentioned in my earlier answer, we met with constitutional experts, privacy groups and members from all parties in the House to try to make sure that we got this legislation right, that we were honouring our charter rights. However, we were also moving forward and making sure that we provided law enforcement, the police and CSIS with the tools they need to be able to counter today's crime. That is the first thing I would say. On the priority of our resources, the attention we are giving to law enforcement, and funding, I would say we are spending a lot of time and money on ensuring public safety in this country. We have introduced a number of pieces of legislation for that cause. We have also put a substantial amount of money into hiring more CBSA agents and more law enforcement agents across the country. The resources are there, and the priority is there as well. [Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I like the comment the member made, that it is not about choosing between public safety and personal privacy. The legislation covers both. Can the member provide her thoughts on why it was important for the legislation to cover both? (1635) [Expand] Julie Dzerowicz: Mr. Speaker, what the member has raised is exactly what was raised by Davenport residents. The bill has been built carefully with judicial oversight at its core and with independent accountability layered throughout. It is not a choice between safety and rights. It is both, and it is the way Canadians expect us to work, by respecting their rights while allowing us to make the laws, enforce the laws and keep our communities right across the country safe. [Expand] Dan Mazier (Riding Mountain, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Conservatives believe in law and order, real law and order, not the kind the Liberals talk about at election time and forget about the moment the votes are counted. Real law and order means keeping Canadians safe and making sure the justice system actually works. Today we are talking about Bill C-22, a bill that deals with how law enforcement investigates crime in the digital world. Crime has changed. The drug dealer who once operated on a street corner now operates through encrypted apps. The fraudster who once passed bad cheques now steals credit cards online. The predator who once lurked in a park now targets children on the Internet. If Parliament does not give law enforcement the tools to follow crime in a digital world, criminals will keep winning. Conservatives understand that. We support giving law enforcement the modern tools it needs to do its job, but we also understand something else: The government does not get a free pass from scrutiny when it comes to the personal information of Canadians. Let me tell members about a case that shows exactly what Parliament is dealing with here. In the Supreme Court case of R. v. Bykovets, police were investigating online fraud by a fraudster who was using stolen credit card information to purchase gift cards online. Investigators traced the activity back to an IP address and obtained subscriber information, and charges followed. However, the case was decided not by what evidence was found but by how that evidence was obtained. That information could reveal personal details about a person's online activity. Investigators can only move forward when that data can be tied to a real person. Because the IP address was accessed without a warrant, the evidence was thrown out. That is the reality of what Parliament is dealing with today. In a digital investigation, it is not enough to find the evidence. The law must allow law enforcement to get it in the right way. If that step is mishandled, the case can fall apart, and justice may not be served. That is why Parliament must get this legislation right. Before I say more about Bill C-22, we need to look at how the legislation came to be here today, because this is not the first time the Liberal government has tried to expand access to the personal information of Canadians. Last fall, the Liberals introduced Bill C-2. It proposed a sweeping expansion of government surveillance that alarmed many Canadians, including many of my constituents. It would have given the government access to personal data across a broad range of service providers with little jurisdictional oversight. It included broad ministerial powers with almost no independent accountability. It applied obligations far beyond the communications sector. Conservatives pushed back. We forced the Liberals to remove provisions that would have allowed access to postal mail without a warrant. We forced them to remove provisions that would have enabled broad demands for personal data without defined legal thresholds. After all of that, they came back with Bill C-22. When a government has to rewrite its own legislation twice because it went too far, it raises many concerns. That is exactly why Parliament must examine this bill with care. Let us be honest about the government's record on crime. For 10 years, the Liberals let crime get out of control. Violent crime is up, auto theft is up, and bail has become a revolving door. Canadians are less safe today than they were when the Liberals took office. What has been the Liberals' response? Absolutely nothing. Canadians will not be fooled. They have watched the government talk tough on crime while criminals walk free on bail the same day they are arrested. They have watched the government lecture Canadians about safety while gutting the tools that keep them safe. Now the same government wants Parliament to trust it with expanded access to the personal data of Canadians. What would Bill C-22 actually do? Part 1 would lower the threshold for accessing subscriber information. It would allow investigators to move from an IP address to an identifiable person more quickly and without a warrant. (1640) Part 2 would require electronic service providers to retain data, including IP addresses and location information, so it is available for future access. The bill would also also give ministers the power to impose technical requirements on service providers through confidential orders. I think that is the most important part. I personally think that is probably one of the bigger sticking points. Those orders would be reviewed by the intelligence commissioner. Each of those three things raises serious questions. Subscriber information can reveal identity and patterns of activity. If limits are not clearly defined, the risk of improper use would increase. Data retention creates a standing pool of information that can be accessed later. Without clear rules on storage, duration and security, that data would become vulnerable. Ministerial orders would impose requirements on private systems without public visibility. As I commented before, that is probably one of the more concerning ones. We need public visibility with this bill. It is not clear that the oversight by the intelligence commissioner alone would be sufficient. These are not hypothetical concerns, but the same concerns that forced major changes in Bill C-2; they exist in Bill C-22. Conservatives want this bill to go to committee. Second reading is about the principle of the bill. Committee is about whether the bill is properly drafted and actually works. This bill needs that scrutiny. It does not clearly define who must keep the retained data, where it would be stored, how long it would be kept or how it would be protected. Those gaps would leave the system exposed to misuse. The definition of electronic service provider is broad. It can extend well beyond telecommunications to messaging platforms and cloud services. The bill would set limits on excluding content, browsing history and social media activity from retention, but it is not clear those distinctions would hold. At committee, we will hear from law enforcement officers who can speak to what they need on the ground. It is where privacy experts can explain how these measures would affect Canadians. That is where the work of Parliament is supposed to occur. Conservatives support giving law enforcement agencies the tools they need within a framework that respects the rights of Canadians. Sending it to committee would allow Parliament to fix legislation before it becomes law. I represent a rural region in western Manitoba. My constituents care deeply about safety and their freedom. They want law enforcement officers to have the tools to protect their communities. They also expect their government to protect their rights. Those two things are not in conflict. Effective law enforcement and strong safeguards for Canadians can and must go together. The R. v. Bykovets case reminds us that shortcuts in procedure can undermine even the strongest investigation. The history of the Liberal legislation in Bill C-2 reminds us what happens when government reaches too far. Conservatives will not let that happen again. We will make sure this legislation serves both justice and freedom, because Canadians deserve nothing less. [Expand] Scott Anderson (Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Riding Mountain. I originally hail from Manitoba as well. One thing I can say about it is it is cold and flat and has many mosquitoes. I love it too. We live in a technological society that is so advanced most of us here do not understand some of the capabilities that are out there, and I do not pretend to know what technologies are employed by criminals around here. On the one hand, we have pure anarchy when we address governance and on the other, we have severe authoritarianism. As my colleague mentioned, there have been several bills and several attempts to do this. I wonder if he thinks this bill comes closest to striking a proper balance between severe authoritarianism on the one hand and pure anarchy on the other. (1645) [Expand] Dan Mazier: Mr. Speaker, the truth of the matter is that we really do not know. That is why it so important to get this bill to committee. If we rely on the Liberals' track record and the history of this bill, they obviously must be nervous about what else is going to be wrong with it. Everybody is really suspicious. That is why I do think it is really important that we get this bill to committee and really suss out those potential problems. [Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am more encouraged this afternoon than I was this morning. We get this feeling that the legislation will, in fact, be going to committee. I think that is a positive. We have had many hours of debate on it. I think some of the Conservatives have at least acknowledged that there is a potential need for lawful access. There are some serious crimes that are taking place in our communities. I have dealt with issues such as extortion, child sexual exploitation and serious crimes. We talk about fraud. The need to modernize is there. I would encourage members of the Conservative Party, if they have some ideas going into committee, to share them with the department well in advance. We do want to make this good, solid legislation so that we can join the other four countries of the Five Eyes that already have lawful access. That was more of a comment than a question. [Expand] Dan Mazier: Mr. Speaker, I guess I do have a question of the government. The member talked about law enforcement and helping out law enforcement. It is quite puzzling when we start talking about how we support law enforcement. By all means, I still cannot understand why the Liberal government is moving forward with the confiscation program for firearms. It is spending billions of dollars on that. Those dollars could actually be going towards helping out bills like this and actually protecting Canadians instead of looking at penalizing firearms owners. [Translation ]

[Expand] Claude DeBellefeuille (Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed my colleague's speech. The government has announced that it will be tabling an economic statement in late April. I believe it will be on April 28. I am asking this question because, under Bill C-22, the intelligence commissioner will have a greater role. Law enforcement agencies will consult him frequently. So far, there has been no mention of increasing his budget. An important role is also being given to the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, or NSIRA, yet the budget includes cuts to this oversight body's funding. There is something I do not understand, and perhaps my colleague will be able to clarify this for me. They want to give more power to the government, ministers and law enforcement while also cutting the budget of those who are supposed to oversee them. [English ]

[Expand] Dan Mazier: Mr. Speaker, that was another great comment and question from the member from the Bloc. Again, this goes back to money. The Liberals, we know, cannot manage money to save their lives. It seems like instead of trying to support the security community and make sure this program actually works and the bill can work, the Liberals are more interested in protecting slush funds. Tomorrow, at the health committee, we are going to be investigating why 250 million taxpayer dollars was spent on PrescribeIT, rather than going to help security forces and strengthen this bill. Meanwhile, it was put into a Liberal slush fund. [Translation ]

[Expand] The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, Natural Resources; the hon. member for Langley Township—Fraser Heights, Indigenous Affairs; the hon. member for Oxford, The Economy. (1650) [English ]

[Expand] Anthony Housefather (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Emergency Management and Community Resilience, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I get up to speak to a bill that I think we absolutely need to send to committee. We are already very tardy on lawful access. As my fellow parliamentary secretary mentioned just a moment ago, all of our other Five Eyes partners and all of our other G7 partners have modernized laws with respect to lawful access. Our government entered office with a couple of main priorities. One of them was being laser-focused on the economy and one of them was instilling a sense of safety in Canadians. In order to instill a sense of safety, we need to make sure that police, CSIS and all of our security community stakeholders have the effective tools they need in order to confront organized crime, threats of terrorism, interference from abroad and all of the other modern threats that exist in today's digital age, which did not exist 20 years ago. That might have been done with the combatting hate act that was just adopted through the House and is now before the Senate. It would give police the tools they asked for to better combat hate. It was done through a bill we adopted with a significant majority to deal with making it harder for dangerous criminals and repeat offenders to get bail. It is being done with respect to a bill we are now debating at the justice committee that talks about intimate partner violence, femicide and images that are being shared. It is also being done through making sure that police have the necessary tools to deal with threats that are coming across our networks. I used to have the privilege, before I was elected, of being the general counsel and chief administrative officer of a tech company. I frequently dealt with Internet service providers and telcos. This bill deals with solving the issues we are now having with respect to getting information from telcos and ISPs. That is the core of the bill. The bill has three parts. I want to talk about the first part of the bill, the core of the bill, which deals with the new measures to help law enforcement deal with obtaining information and combatting crime in the digital age. The first issue we need to confront is how law enforcement find out which telco or ISP has the needed information for them to then ask for a warrant to obtain more detailed information. The law that we now have, after the Supreme Court case of R. v. Spencer in 2014, means that telecommunications providers are generally only providing information once a court order is obtained. However, if law enforcement cannot figure out which telco has the phone number, the ISP address or the email that is tied to the potential violation or the feared violation of the Criminal Code, then they are stuck in limbo because they need to know who to go to, and have the reasonable grounds to go there, before they can get a court order. In this bill, we created an amendment called the confirmation of service demand. It basically says that law enforcement can fill out this form and the service provider will have to answer if they are, for example, the provider of a specific number or email address. All that would be provided is a very rudimentary list of things to identify whether they have this information or not. That could be the address associated with the account, the email address, the telephone number, the amount of time the service has been going on and the type of service they provide. There would be no detailed information given without a court order, but this would resolve the issue from the R. v. Spencer case which made it inordinately complex, in my view, to get basic information from a telco. (1655) [Translation ]

When I was young, there was something called the White Pages and the Yellow Pages. We could find everyone's telephone numbers, addresses and names there. If the police was looking for a telephone number, they could find it in a phone book. Those no longer exist now, with the advent of cellphones. Perhaps they still exist somewhere, but they are rarely used. I would not even know where to find one. I know that we can find information in the online 411 service. If the information is in the public domain, it is not necessary to go to court to get an order to access it, because it is already available online. [English ]

We had another judgment of the court that made it confusing as to whether an Internet service provider or a telco could provide information that was available in the public domain without a court order or whether the police could use information that was in the public domain without a court order. There was also confusion as to what would happen if a good Samaritan, a company or anyone voluntarily offered law enforcement information that would touch, for example, what the billing address of a phone number was that was thought to be behind, for example, fraud. We have all of these people who call us all the time in this country who are attempting to defraud us. I do not know how many times I have been called by Windows, not Microsoft, but Windows, with somebody telling me that my computer was broken, and I should give them my password for them to fix it. They are calling from a phone number and are attempting to defraud me. That same phone number has a senior scam where they call seniors and say it is their grandson or their granddaughter. They say they have been in an accident and need the grandparent to give them money, but no, no, no, they should not tell anyone else in the family. I have heard from many people who have experienced this grandparents scam. They should be able, if somebody has that information, to give it to police. If the company, the telco, wilfully gives the information to police without a court order, the police should be allowed to use it. This bill clarifies that they can. It would also allow us to deal with information, such as phone numbers, email addresses and other information, that may be located abroad. [Translation ]

I would imagine that many different telephone numbers and email addresses are used to contact Canadians from abroad. We know that a lot of fraud happens in India, including many fraudulent calls directed at Canada. There are also attacks originating from Russia. Until now, it has been very difficult to obtain information from a foreign country under the law. The bill will give us that power and will enable other countries to request information from Canadian courts in a more equitable and fair way. If, for example, France is the victim of fraud committed by a number or person in Canada, then we should also help France obtain information. This is a very good start, in my opinion. [English ]

This bill would also clarify the issue of the police's right to use information in the event of an emergency. For example, if there is a terrorist attack, we certainly do not want police to have to get a court order to obtain the information they need to attempt to thwart a terrorist attack on Canada or a cybersecurity threat. These matters are all dealt with in the bill. One of the things I think we have pretty much unanimous agreement on, from all the recognized parties in the House, is that this should go to committee to be studied properly by a parliamentary committee. [Translation ]

I think everyone agrees that a committee should examine this bill, hear from witnesses and determine whether amendments are needed. It is very important to give our law enforcement and security agencies the tools they need. (1700) [English ]

I will wrap up, and I welcome any questions from colleagues. [Expand] Scott Anderson (Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary said, quite rightly, that 15 years ago we did not have this problem, and that is absolutely true. Technology has advanced since then. He also said that his new government is laser-focused on crime. I would like to point out that the government is not a new government. It is 11 years old. While technology has advanced, criminality has galloped forward. I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary would like to explain why, in 11 years, when technology has advanced at a certain pace, crime has galloped ahead at a much faster pace. [Expand] Anthony Housefather: Mr. Speaker, let me simply reject the premise of literally everything the hon. member said. The Prime Minister was elected with a new government last April, and that was Canadians' choice, whether the hon. member accepts it or does not accept it, likes it or does not like it, likes the fact that we have a majority or does not like the fact that we have a majority. We all should be working together to combat crime. Combatting crime is a really serious issue for Canadians across this country. It is something that I think we generally agree with across parties, and we should be working together, not insulting one another on this issue. [Translation ]

[Expand] Claude DeBellefeuille (Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed my colleague's speech. He delivered it in both official languages and I thank him for that. I have a little question for him, precisely because he is a Quebec member. Quebec has adopted robust legislation to protect privacy, Bill 25. Certain large Quebec institutions have asked me what is going to happen with Bill 25. They have adapted their practices and systems to meet the privacy requirements of Bill 25. Now that Bill C-22 has been introduced, is it going to cause any confusion in Quebec? Companies and institutions have made a lot of investments in response to Quebec's Bill 25. What is my colleague's reaction to that? What kind of allowances does he propose that his government make? [Expand] Anthony Housefather: Mr. Speaker, I think that we should invite those groups to testify in committee. We should invite the Barreau du Québec, the chambers of commerce and anyone who can tell us about the work that entrepreneurs in Quebec have done to adapt their privacy practices. In my previous job, I noticed that, even though the laws vary from place to place around the world, companies always find a way to adapt. Of course, I do not think that we should make people do redundant work to achieve what is essentially the same outcome, but I think that is something that can be sorted out in committee. [English ]

[Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to reinforce what the member alluded to, which is that, within the last year, the Prime Minister, the government and Liberal members of Parliament have brought forward a suite of legislation to deal with combatting crime. One would think that all members of the House would see the value of that. This is what Canadians want us to do. Bill C-22 would deal with very serious issues that I have had the opportunity to highlight and the member highlighted, issues like extortion, terrorism and so forth. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts as to why it is so important to pass legislation that would reflect what our constituents have been asking for and the commitment that was made in the last election, just under a year ago, by the Prime Minister. [Expand] Anthony Housefather: Mr. Speaker, absolutely, one of the focuses of the government is crime. It is not only crime, but also making sure all Canadians have a sense of safety. People need not only to feel safe, but also to be safe. That is why we brought forward a robust number of crime bills and worked with the public safety critic of the official opposition on private members' bills, which add to the list of bills. (1705) [Translation ]

I think this is something that all members of all parties agree on. We all pretty much agree. [English ]

[Expand] Roman Baber (York Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee. To the viewers at home, the Liberals are coming to regulate the Internet. This is a very serious moment. The Liberals have introduced a piece of legislation that looks to police activity on the Internet and prosecute crime using the Internet. Obviously, this is going to give rise to a lot of questions about privacy, law and execution. I propose to have a professional discussion about how the Liberals are going to police the Internet while preserving basic charter rights, because we all agree that we must preserve charter rights. Conservatives support giving law enforcement 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 Canadians' rights and freedoms. Conservatives will always continue to stand for individual freedom, privacy and safety. Let us begin by talking about some laws. The Liberals want to know if Jane Doe is a customer of Telus. They want law enforcement to have the right to call up an Internet service provider and simply ask if Jane Smith is its customer, without a warrant. I must say that I do not object to that. It is probably public information, and in the interest of security, providers could probably move their privacy policy in a direction where that would be allowable. I see that my friend from Winnipeg North agrees. I am happy. I would like to put another proposition to him. Telus or Rogers knows that Jane Smith is a customer, and the police want to seize additional records on Jane Smith, some basic information such as IP address, location, etc. Now we are talking about personal information contained within the records of the company. Like my friend from Winnipeg North says, they are going to go see a judge, hallelujah. The problem is that, to obtain a warrant, typically a police officer would have to swear to a reasonable belief that criminal activity may have occurred. “Reasonable belief” is an important technical term because it commits the police officer to an affidavit, to a subjective belief that he must swear to. However, in this bill, the Liberals are proposing to lower that threshold to reasonable suspicion. If a police officer says that they reasonably suspect a crime has occurred, then that would be enough to satisfy the conditions of the warrant and disclose Jane Smith's additional information. We will think about this at committee, and I will want to hear some testimony, but I am not sure that it is prudent to be lowering the threshold of search and seizure, so this is a very problematic provision. Second, the Liberals are asking Internet service providers to co-operate with them in creating various systems that will help them prosecute crime and find offenders. I do not disagree that that is a noble and necessary goal. They are asking Internet service providers to create systems for the retention of data, back doors where the government would be able to enter encrypted communications and other means to help law enforcement. What is important is that those companies would not be asked by virtue of a court warrant, because a crime has been committed, to say that they now need to create a system. (1710) It would be done by a ministerial order, signed off by the commissioner of intelligence pre-emptively. In other words, while we would not be alleging that any crime has been committed, the minister would now come to the private sector and say that they want it to create a system. That is fine, but even if that were to happen, the problem is the definition of an electronic service provider, because this order may be very wide. According to the legislation, an electronic service provider “means a person that, individually or as part of a group, provides an electronic service, including for the purpose of enabling communications, and that...provides the service to persons in Canada [and] carries on...its business...in Canada.‍” If it is Telus, Sprint and Rogers, I understand, but I say to my friend from Winnipeg and to my friend from Mount Royal, who just spoke to this, that I would like to understand very clearly whether this could this also apply to a law firm. Could it apply to an accounting firm? Could it apply to an educational institution? All these folks meet the definition of an electronic service provider as presently articulated by the legislation. That is a concern on my part. I ask that we study it very carefully at committee. I am sure that even members on the other side of the aisle who lean to the left agree that we have to set some reasonable limits, that we cannot be coming to a law firm and saying that a minister, without a court order, would secretly order them to create a retention system and a back door to look at their clients, with no court order, no judge and no right of appeal. Please, let us be very careful with this. That brings me to the final point on what is difficult about the bill, and that is the fact that the public safety minister would order the retention of metadata, of all the data, essentially, that goes through an electronic service provider's infrastructure, and they would be mandated to keep it for 365 days. That engages an interesting question about section 8, on arbitrary search and seizure, because the Internet service provider would be ordered by the minister, not by the court, to keep all our data for 365 days, without a warrant. A person may not have committed any offence, but the minister would want the Internet service provider to keep the data in the event that they have committed an offence. That is not how our legal system works. People will say that it would not be the government seizing the data. That does not matter. If the government were to order another institution, in this case an Internet service provider, to seize it, that Internet service provider would become an agent of the government. The effect is the same, which is a breach of section 8 in that it would be an arbitrary seizure. We need to think about this very carefully. I think I have made a prima facie case that this would violate the charter. It is important to distinguish this from Snowden. I want to talk about Snowden a little bit. He blew the lid off this in 2013 and said that the government was collecting all sorts of metadata. It was collecting all of it. In order to collect that metadata, one had to go to the FISA court. Even though there are some questions about the FISA court and its efficacy, there was still a court. According to the bill, there would be no court. We would just seize it all. In fairness to my friends the Liberals, the government would not be able to see the information seized without a court order, without a warrant. The Internet service provider would hold on to all this stuff. If the government wants it, it would get a court order. Nonetheless, the seizure would still happen. That brings me to my last point: security. It is very clear. According to The Globe and Mail, we are not prepared. We do not have the systems in place to order this sort of metadata catch-all and to create back doors. The article says, “experts are warning that the lawful access regime could allow hackers to exploit architecture inserted into electronic systems”. That is exactly what happened to the United States. The Salt Typhoon hackers out of China, who allegedly have been working for the Chinese state, exploited lawful intercept infrastructure that the U.S. telecoms were required by law to build. They were actually able to breach the White House. Their systems are considerably more advanced than Canadian systems. (1715) We understand the need for lawful access, but we need to make sure we draw the appropriate lines and safeguard civil liberties. The government has a problem with civil liberties. [Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we get closer to the possible ending of the debate on Bill C-22, it is important to amplify the fact that the legislation would protect personal privacy. Within the legislation, there are checkmarks to do that. Through the legislation, we would also be protecting the public's interest on the issue of safety in a number of different areas. The legislation would do both. I am encouraged by the Conservatives who were saying this afternoon that the bill will go to committee. The member expressed himself, and though I disagree with a lot of what he expressed, I hope he is able to get some detailed answers at the committee. If he is having issues after the committee, he should not hesitate to bring those concerns to me personally. [Expand] Roman Baber: Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Winnipeg is exactly wrong on the privacy issue. In fact, the Privacy Commissioner was not brought into the legislation. Ministerial orders require approval only by intelligence commissioners, and the absence of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada from any oversight role suggests that privacy is at best a second consideration. The Privacy Commissioner is not contemplated within this regime, and the criminal law system that is contemplated in it would override any privacy concerns. It is very concerning that the legislation was, effectively, drafted without any input from the Privacy Commissioner. [Expand] Dave Epp (Chatham-Kent—Leamington, CPC): Mr. Speaker, my colleague gave an excellent speech. In interventions from the government side, we have heard that we should be confident that the government intends to do the right thing going forward. I want to ask my hon. colleague what level of confidence he has, given that the Prime Minister committed to having a free trade agreement with our cousins to the south, and to building things at unheard of speeds. In the past we have also heard that the budgets will balance themselves. What level of confidence does my hon. colleague have that, on its own, the government would do the right thing? [Expand] Roman Baber: Mr. Speaker, obviously I have very little confidence, but I would like to provide a legal answer as opposed to a political answer. We are still bound and graced by and availed of the presumption of innocence. It is a presumption that the government must overcome. It is important that we do not create a regime that would undermine some of our basic civil liberties. Of course, in the quest of pursuing criminals and defending children, it is not uncommon for police or prosecutors to want to overreach. We cannot have that situation here if we want to preserve our democracy. We always treat the state with suspicion. It comes from a very basic premise: The state has the power, the legislature, the police, the crown and the lab workers. All there is on the other side is— [Translation ]

[Expand] The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): Order. We will continue with questions and comments. The hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon has the floor. [Expand] Claude DeBellefeuille (Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I see that my colleague enjoys holding forth, and I think we share the same concerns about Bill C‑22. It is a much-needed bill, but there are a lot of passages, especially in part 2, that require amendments to improve the bill, particularly when it comes to the whole issue of definitions. In Bill C‑22, the government gives itself a great deal of leeway to define certain fundamental privacy-related terms, but it chooses to do so through regulation rather than through parliamentary debate. This raises concerns, because the government will have a lot of freedom to change the definitions of fundamental privacy-related terms. Does my colleague think that reducing the number of things that can be decided by regulation would be good amendment? (1720) [English ]

[Expand] Roman Baber: Mr. Speaker, I am actually very worried that we are not going to have a lot of opportunity to fix this by way of regulation. I would point out to my hon. colleague that the most worrisome thing, the greatest expansion of rights and what scares me about part two, is the definition of electronic service provider. The way it reads now, basically anybody who uses email for work would be an electronic service provider if they facilitate communications in Canada. That would include corporations, trusts, partnerships, joint ventures, unincorporated associations, etc. I am very concerned that we would have ministerial orders without judicial oversight targeted at private corporations— [Expand] The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): Resuming debate, the hon. member for Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee. [Expand] Scott Anderson (Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-22 is like so many other bills that show good promise and strong potential to be shaped into good policy in committee. It is right here in second reading that the problems with Bill C-22 are initially identified, and that is what my colleagues on this side of the chamber have been doing: probing, asking questions and identifying weak spots that could be eliminated or good points that could be strengthened. If after this debate the House agrees, Bill C-22 would go to committee stage where it would be debate and have amendments introduced, and then the amendments would be voted on. Committees are an exceptional tool in which all parties can take a mediocre bill and shape it into good policy, or they can take a good bill and make it even better. We conduct witness interviews, and we incorporate the concerns of everyone until we have a bill that works for all parties, and by extension, for all Canadians. Unfortunately, this is what the Liberals have recently taken to calling obstruction, but it is not. This is how our Canadian parliamentary democracy is supposed to work. I want to address this manufactured Liberal claim of obstruction, because with the compliant media out there, if I do not tell Canadians in the House, they are not going to find out. Contrary to the narrative of obstruction the Liberals are trying to create, we Conservatives truly did hope that the Prime Minister would steal another of our platform promises and build the so-called energy corridor he promised. We believed him when he said he would make Canada an energy superpower. We hoped he would move quickly and decisively to get our clean Canadian energy to an energy-starved world. That is why we Conservatives voted for Bill C-5 early in the Prime Minister's tenure, and with it gave him more power than any previous prime minister has ever had to achieve those goals. The Prime Minister has more jurisdictional power than Prime Minister John A. Macdonald had when he built thousands of miles of continental railway through some of the most inhospitable terrain imaginable. The Prime Minister has technologies that would leave Macdonald in shock. We can do in a day what it took a year to do in Macdonald's day. The Prime Minister can look down in real time from 100 kilometres above and see right into the earth with lidar. He can view the route. He can model a pipeline. He can even watch it in real time as it is built from the comfort of his airplane seat. He could have a pipeline built in two years if he wanted to, yet a year after Bill C-5, he does not even have a pipeline started. He does not have a plan to build one. He does not have a route, not even a gleam in a surveyor's eye. What would a rational person think about this? The Prime Minister promised grand projects of great national importance. He promised a deal with the Americans by this time last year. He promised to move at speeds not seen in generations to unleash our Canadian economy. However, he has not landed in Canada long enough to move anything. Instead of an energy corridor, we have silence. Instead of housing, we have an enormously expensive bureaucracy and empty props that are taken down as soon as the photo op is over. Instead of a continental railway from coast to coast, we have a $90-billion boondoggle between two eastern cities that will likely never get built, and even that is mired in scandal and controversy before the land snatch even begins. Unfortunately, our Prime Minister is usually absent from Ottawa, flitting about the world here and there in no particular direction, at enormous taxpayer expense and with a catering budget that would make Emperor Nero blush, all apparently to avoid hard questions in question period, since nothing much has been produced except an undergrad international relations term paper at Davos. The reason I bring this up is that there is a problem, and I am troubled by it. If we send Bill C-22 to committee by voting for the legislation, how can we be confident the Liberals will respect the committee process and not try to do an end run around Canadians? Can we be sure that our efforts in committee will be respected by the Liberals? What is supposed to happen is all-party input, all-party witnesses, all-party debate and amendments put forward and voted on, and ultimately the result is a bill modified by the people of Canada through the process of representative democracy. That is what is supposed to happen. It is not what is actually happening, and I want to talk for a minute about what is happening. (1725) I want to talk about a troubling tactic the Liberals are using to subvert that process. I am fearful that what happened to Bill C-11 is going to happen to Bill C-22. I am a member of the national defence committee. We recently studied Bill C-11, a bill whose central purpose is to transfer sexual assault cases from the military to the civilian justice system. I assumed, probably like most of us here, that after listening to the horror stories in the media, this would be a rubber stamp, and we would simply transfer the authority to the civilian system. However, all of us at committee were surprised. We listened to the defence and the prosecution teams from the military argue that the studies the bill was responding to were a decade old and no longer applied to the current military culture. They argued that they had both the capability and the capacity to address the cases, and that the culture within the CAF had radically changed in those 10 years. We listened to the civilian police, who told us that, although they had the capability, they no longer had the capacity to absorb yet more work, especially in locations with military bases close by. Then we listened to victim after victim of sexual assault in the military. It was really the victims who surprised me and I think most of us at committee, the people I thought would have the strongest desire to move out of the military justice system. I thought perhaps one or two might say they would like to have a choice, but it turned out that just about every single witness we talked to wanted a choice between the military justice system and the civilian system. After numerous victims spoke, it became obvious that the bill needed to be modified, so, with the support of the Bloc member on the committee, we co-operated to amend an outdated Liberal motion into one that every stakeholder, from victim to investigator, wanted. We gave the victims a choice. So far, so good. We took a bill that was okay and made it into a good bill. Late this Friday afternoon, the Minister of National Defence, in defiance of civilian and military lawyers, civilian and military police, and even the victims themselves, came into the House and tabled Bill C-11 at report stage. He is trying to strip our amendments from the bill. Why are the Liberals doing this? We had a decent bill that we turned into a much better bill. There seems to be no explanation for it at all. Why would the Liberals defy both the military and civilian justice systems and the victims? There is a reason. The Prime Minister has not, will not and cannot fulfill his campaign promises. The cracks in our economy have become chasms, and he needs an election before Canadians feel the full brunt of his purposeful inaction. He knows Canadians are going to start to notice the growing divide between these grandiose announcements and the cold, grey reality of their pocketbooks, so he needs a majority government, and fast. He trolled the opposition benches and, yes, sure enough, an artificial majority did manage to slither across the aisle, but the Prime Minister is afraid that his majority will unravel, since he now has both far right and far left members in his caucus. He has called this a big tent, but it has become more like a circus tent, so he needs an election. However, the Prime Minister does not want to be blamed for calling an election, so the Liberals are banging on about obstruction to make it look like the normal processes of Parliament are somehow wrong. If he employs tactics like this now that he has a majority government, he knows it is to create the kinds of division within Parliament that he can point to and claim are obstruction. Bill C-22 may have the potential to be a good bill, if it makes it past second reading and goes to committee. My fear is that it will meet the fate of Bill C-11, be subjected to the scrutiny of experts, be modified into a much clearer, better bill, and then have all the positive changes stripped out once it hits report stage. This is obstruction, to be sure, but not by Conservatives. Conservatives are doing what we are supposed to be doing for the benefit of Canadians. The Prime Minister and the Liberal Party, on the other hand, are acting on behalf of the Liberal Party. They are attempting to fabricate another election that no one wants by trying to make it look like it is not their fault. This is not order and good government, but devious arrogance by the Liberals. Canadians had better brace themselves. (1730) [Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there was a lot in that speech. It was not necessarily related to Bill C-22, but there was definitely a lot in terms of conspiracy theories. Let me reassure the member. Here is a reality check. The Prime Minister and the government are focusing on building Canada strong for all. There are record amounts, over $70 billion, of foreign investment because of initiatives that the government is talking about abroad. There are all sorts of potential export opportunities. There is a litany of things. The Speaker is not going to give me enough time to expand on it all. The point is that, as we are focused on Canadians with good and sound public policy, the member opposite can focus on whatever he wants. [Expand] Scott Anderson: Mr. Speaker, there was not a question there. There was a statement, so I am going to make a statement. Potentialities are not the same thing as actualities. We have MOUs worth whatever amount of money. What we actually have is very little. I could talk about the great mineral exploration we are going to be doing on Saturn, but that does not mean we are going to have it today, tomorrow or ever. I am just talking about it. That is my statement. [Expand] Steven Bonk (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC): Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has a way of really hitting the point home. The Liberals have been in power for 11 years now, and there is a big gap between expectations they set for themselves and for Canada and the experience that Canadians feel. They also have a very long track record of making grandiose statements and of actually overreaching into the affairs of provincial governments and private citizens. I would like to ask my hon. colleague this: How does he think we should trust this government after all it has done to erode the trust of Canadians for the past 11 years? [Expand] Scott Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think we should trust the Liberals at all. We just heard that over 10 years, crime has galloped ahead, and it is being blamed on technology creep. Crime has galloped. Technology has moved. The reason for that is fairly obvious: The Liberals are now playing catch-up to a decade of ignoring crime and hoping that it would go away. Now they are dealing with the actuality. They are scrambling to do it and somehow yelling and screaming that they need to do it quickly. [Expand] Harb Gill (Windsor West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in the 30 years of policing that I did, getting access to information was a huge challenge for us. Oftentimes the evidence we needed to prosecute an accused person was sitting on a server outside of Canada, and co-operation was voluntary. Does my colleague see any practical solutions in the bill that would help with cross-border access and enforcement? (1735) [Expand] Scott Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I see a great deal of potential in the bill. I have been talking to people overseas as well. There is absolutely no recourse in our laws, and I certainly think we need that, but we have to draw a balance between, on one hand, the anarchy of pure freedom, and on the other hand, really heavy-handed authoritarianism. I think the bill has the potential to hit the middle ground there, but it must go to committee and have all-party input. I hope that the Liberals abide by that, and I hope that they honour the process of Parliament. [Expand] Blaine Calkins (Ponoka—Didsbury, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is always great to get up in the House and represent the fine people of Ponoka—Didsbury. I consider myself fairly right-wing, but my colleague from Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee is making me look like a moderate in the House today. I unfortunately do not have time to go back and alter my speech in order to keep pace with my new-found best friend. We are going to be spending a lot more time together, based on my assessment of what he had to say about the government across the way. It is important to speak to this piece of legislation, Bill C-22, the lawful access act. It is a bit weird to stand here, because it feels like we were just talking about this last fall. This is the second kick at the cat for this piece of legislation for the government. The Liberals tried to have a similar set of laws passed in a sweeping omnibus bill, Bill C-2, but that bill did not pass, and now it seems it is being reintroduced by the government. We know that it is coming on the heels of what was a minority Parliament and is going to turn into a majority Parliament here soon. One always has to keep that in mind. If this bill is crafted the same way that the majority government here was crafted, there is no reason at all to think that this is not a sneaky piece of legislation. The Liberals laud their talking points and their PMO comms lines that this bill would help keep Canadians safe and get crime under control. The only reason crime is not under control is that we have had 11 years of Liberals across the way. If Bill C-22 were really about law and order, limiting crime or protecting victims, Conservatives would be wholly in support of this piece of legislation, but it is actually not about any of that. It is about power, it is about control, and it has a very deeply Orwellian feel to it. Conservatives in this country have always believed in law and order. A vital and fundamental pillar of what it means to be a Conservative is to believe in and respect the rule of law in this country. We used to actually have governments that followed the laws as well. It would be nice if we got back to that at some point in time. The governing Liberals have had many opportunities over the last 11 years to show us that they also want to see a reduction in crime, but every chance that we put in front of this Parliament, they seem to vote against. The Liberals have an ardent history of refusing bail reform and embracing catch-and-release style legislation. Now, after a decade, they expect the opposition members to believe that they are actually serious about cracking down on crime. Well, I am not buying it. Last week, we debated Bill C-25, which would amend the Canada Elections Act. One of the objectives of that bill is to prevent foreign interference. During debate of that bill, I used the example of the 700 Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps members who are freely living in Canada today. The government will not deport them and will not put them in jail. They are here fundraising, conducting business and harming our country every single day. The Liberals cannot say that they are serious about dealing with foreign interference if they do not deport the terrorists and criminals living in our country. They cannot say they are serious about crime and protecting Canadians without deporting these same terrorists or criminals from the country as well. They cannot have it both ways. That is because the Liberals are not serious about crime. The Liberals are serious, however, about seizing control and having more power for themselves and their government. We know that much for sure. On Friday, my colleague from Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes referred to Bill C-22 as “Bill C-2 redo”, and he is exactly right. Last fall, the Liberals put forward Bill C-2, the strong borders act, which fell short of protecting Canadians while overreaching in many areas of jurisdiction where it did not need to, like authorizing law enforcement to open up people's mail and inspect it without any due process at all. There was severe push-back on this, not only from the opposition but from hundreds of advocacy groups, who stood firmly against this legislation because of the risks it would pose to the civil liberties of the Canadian public. The Conservatives successfully blocked Bill C-2, stopping the Liberals from limiting the use of cash in transactions, opening the mail without any oversight whatsoever, and demanding that any service providers, including hospitals, financial institutions and probably even one's local dry cleaning store, disclose user data without any judicial oversight. Bill C-22 removed some of these proposed provisions that we opposed, but reintroduced some of the proposed parts of Bill C-2 that were rejected when the Liberals held their rightful minority government. They have since reintroduced this bill, now that they know they are going to have the majority of votes in this place. It seems like an awfully convenient opportunity, does it not? We Conservatives support giving law enforcement officers the tools they need to combat crime and keep communities safe, particularly as threats and dangers evolve in the digital age, but we also believe that there need to be strong safeguards accompanying these powers. (1740) There also need to be clear limits and independent oversight to protect the rights and freedoms of the people here in Canada. Bill C-2 was a failed piece of legislation that the opposition could not and did not support because not only did it fail to adequately address the criminal element in our society, but it infringed on the freedoms and the rights of Canadians in an unjustifiable way. Now the Liberals seek to reintroduce many of the rejected measures of Bill C-2 in this bill today. They rebranded their failed legislation as Bill C-22 and have brought it back to this very House with their illegitimately obtained, like I said, soon-to-be majority here in the House. This should alarm Canadians, especially the 11-plus million Canadian voters who did not actually vote for a Liberal candidate in the last election. Our caucus has been very clear in where we stand on the Liberals' obsession with big, bloated and powerful government: It is unnecessary and is a gross misuse of power. Bill C-22 focuses specifically on telecommunications and Internet service providers while creating oversight for ministerial orders. The Liberals have already banned news from being reported on Meta. Why do they need access to Canadians' information through the Internet and telecommunications providers? Will the personal information of Canadians be shared with the government through this bill, like it would have been under Bill C-2? The government will not tell us. Can any member sitting on the government benches today give me an answer to that? If they could, they probably would not. If they did have an answer, chances are it would be wrong. Keeping Canadians safe is just a mere disguise for the folks across the way. The Liberals have had over a decade to keep Canadians safe, and they have continuously let crime get worse. The Liberals say that Bill C-22 is needed to keep up with the rapid growth of our world's digital environment and to help keep Canadians safe, but it makes me wonder if this is actually true. I would say that in some cases it is not. Why is this? It is because the Liberals have voted down every piece of crime-reducing legislation the Conservatives have brought to the House since this Parliament commenced last May. The Liberals have repeatedly ignored the calls of every single premier in Canada who asked for bail reform. They refused to appoint judges, so violent criminals are having their cases dismissed and timed out. This is not about crime reduction for the Liberals across the way. This is all about having an excuse and a reason to seize power and control. Even CBC pundit Andrew Coyne, known for his staunch Conservative support, and I am kidding of course, said last week that the Prime Minister has an “autocratic streak a mile wide,” and he is showing that now. Coyne said that during a minority Parliament. How bad will it actually get in a majority parliament? It is all about control, about central control by the central banker. Bill C-2 was about control by letting law enforcement open our mail. Bill C-9 would control what religious people are allowed to say out loud or how texts are supposed to be read. Bill C-22 would control the privacy rights of Canadians through increased government surveillance and access to information. We know this because the Liberals have a track record of these power grabs, such as changes they proposed to make to the Standing Orders in 2016. I do not know if there are a lot of people here today who remember that, but I remember it. They were going to basically take control of this place. They did not want an opposition; they wanted an audience. There was the former prime minister's interference in the SNC-Lavalin scandal in 2019 and subsequent firing of the first indigenous female justice minister in Canadian history. As well, we see the consistent cutting, through time allocation, of debates on important pieces of legislation. There were gag orders on government watchdogs, as well as the unnecessary invocation of the Emergencies Act in 2022, which saw the Liberals freeze the bank accounts of hundreds of Canadians. There was the expansion of cabinet authority provided in Bill C-5. Bill C-15 gives ministers of the Crown permission to exempt individuals and organizations of their choosing from any federal law they want, including the Criminal Code. Now there is online surveillance and access to Canadians' information. Every time the Liberals are tasked with solving a problem, they always choose to assert total control and dominance over the situation. They grab power for power's sake. They control people's taxes, finances, what they say, the religious texts they read aloud, the firearms they are allowed to hunt with, the things they need to believe to qualify for Canada's summer jobs money and the salmon they allowed to fish for on the west coast. It is all about control. It is always overkill. It is always too much. It is always over the top. It never solves the problem. Then again, one cannot be the problem and the solution at the same time. Bill C-22 is of course no different. The Conservatives have put forward so many pieces of legislation to crack down on crime and protect Canadians, but the Liberals continue to vote us down in favour of their soft-on-crime policies that repeatedly let violent offenders out on bail time and time again. The government does not need to infringe on the rights of Canadians to solve the problem of surging crime. That problem is solved and Canadians are protected by putting violent offenders in jail, strengthening bail laws and deporting non-citizens who are guilty of committing violent crimes here in Canada. I do not see any of that in this legislation. It is because the Liberals are not serious about fixing the problem. They are only serious about garnering more control for themselves and their friends, and taking Canadians' tax dollars and putting it on their— (1745) [Expand] The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader. [Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in a word, wow. We can talk about conspiracy theories. We can talk about misinformation. When we want to talk about safety in our communities, we have a new Prime Minister from less than a year ago, as well as a new government. Bill C-9 deals with hate propaganda. Bill C-14 deals with bail reform. Bill C-16 actually restores mandatory minimums. We have Bill C-22 that deals with sensitive issues such as national security, terrorism, extortion and child exploitation. They are all substantive pieces of legislation. On the other hand, the biggest thing the Conservatives have done to date has been to filibuster and slow down the progress of legislation because, in the minds of some, there is a giant conspiracy that the Government of Canada wants to take over the world. Does the member support the principle of lawful access? [Expand] Blaine Calkins: Mr. Speaker, that was a lot of consternation. The member actually did not list a single thing that I said as being untrue or wrong. Is that not funny? Not one thing that I actually said did he disagree with. He just spoke loud, yelled and made a big production, as if he was somehow offended by all of the facts that I presented here in the House today. Does the lawful access regime in this bill do some good things? Yes, it is going to do some good things. It is going to do some things that law enforcement needs. As a former law enforcement officer, I know that we actually need to give tools to the men and women who protect us and keep us safe every day. The problem is the Liberals never get it right the first time. Every piece of legislation that he talked about has to do with undoing things or restoring them. Well, he is undoing his own mess. He is restoring things that Conservatives have done. One cannot be the problem and the solution at the same time. [Translation ]

[Expand] Alexis Deschênes (Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑22 includes a change involving the burden of proof. The government wants to allow police forces and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service to obtain warrants based on suspicions. Previously, it was necessary to prove to a judge that there were reasonable grounds to believe that a crime was committed or that a crime would be committed. From now on, what is required is to prove that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a crime was committed or that a crime will be committed. It is the lowest standard in criminal law, and that is now what is being proposed. In my colleague's opinion, what are the risks associated with this change? [English ]

[Expand] Blaine Calkins: Mr. Speaker, there are some potentially groundbreaking and new precedent-setting provisions in this legislation, but we also have to have some of the tools in place that will allow police to operate in a digital environment. There are lots of laws in the Criminal Code about the things we can and cannot do in real life, in the real and tangible world that we are not allowed to do. We cannot harm each other. We cannot steal property. We cannot do many of those things, yet the online world seems to allow a greater opportunity for these things to happen. I am looking forward to this bill going to committee. I think that is the place where some of these questions will actually need to be addressed and where we get the proper experts. I think the member who asked me the question is right to have the questions he has. I am sure their member on the committee will flesh this— [Expand] The Deputy Speaker: I have to continue with questions and comments. The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley. [Expand] Ellis Ross (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, CPC): Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Indian Act, I have a special concern when it comes to civil liberties and the freedoms and rights of Canadians. However, when we are talking about protecting civil liberties, the Liberal government says that is based on conspiracies when, really, all we are trying to do is protect the freedom of Canadians. Can my colleague give some examples of the Liberal government trying to promote the overreach of government, which nobody wants in this House or in Canada? (1750) [Expand] Blaine Calkins: Mr. Speaker, it does not seem to matter what aspect of life in Canada we look at, but if someone had, at any point in time, a disagreement with the policy of the government in the last 11 years, they would be squarely in the crosshairs of the government's mean-spirited implementation of programs. For example, groups running summer camps for kids have to sign an attestation form to go against their own values, in order to access their very own tax dollars from the government. That is just one example of how the Liberals actually only govern for themselves and the people who agree with them, and they— [Expand] The Deputy Speaker: Resuming debate, the hon. member for Kitchener South—Hespeler. [Expand] Matt Strauss (Kitchener South—Hespeler, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my speech by thanking OpenMedia, the Canadian Constitution Foundation and privacy lawyer David Fraser for their excellent work on Bill C-22. The analysis I am about to offer closely mirrors their own, and if the Liberal government members would simply listen seriously to these civil liberties groups, they would not have to hear from me on this bill, but they have not, so here we are. At around age 13, I was horrified to read the following excerpt from chapter 1 of George Orwell's 1984: The telescreen received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound that Winston made...would be picked up by it, moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision...he could be seen as well as heard. There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in...was guesswork. That gave me a chill down the spine 27 years ago. Could people really live with the government listening to their every utterance, watching their every move? How could the human spirit ever flourish in the utter absence of basic privacy? Even at a much younger age, I knew it was basically wrong for my sister to go through the things in my room or for me to read her diary, not because any authority figure ever told me it was wrong, but because I knew it in my soul. One cannot develop one's thoughts, one's feelings, one's self under prying eyes. That was just respect to my friends and family. What if a power as great as the government or the police violated our privacy? I knew that my mother and her family had escaped a Communist regime in the 1960s, but back then, telescreens were science fiction. Could my family have managed to plan their escape if a telescreen had been in their home? I knew vaguely that there had been revolutions in East Germany and throughout the U.S.S.R., but even in 1989, when those revolutions started, the telescreen idea remained in the realm of science fiction. Fast-forward to today, I am more horrified today. We now have the technological capability to make telescreens. I have a phone in my pocket and an Apple Watch on my wrist. I am most horrified because, with the legislation before us, the Liberal government is attempting to make possible the 1984 telescreen out of every cell phone, AirPod, Apple Watch, smart TV and automobile, anything that is connected to the Internet. To quote the excerpt from 1984 again, “There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment.” I know the members opposite will consider my views outlandish, but they are not. Let me please take them through their own law to show them how they are doing the exact thing they swore they would never do. Proposed subsection 5(2) says: The Governor in Council [which means the government] may make regulations respecting the obligations of core providers, including regulations respecting (a) the development, implementation, assessment, testing and maintenance of operational and technical capabilities, including capabilities related to extracting and organizing information that is authorized to be accessed In plain English, this means a back door. Right now, it is my understanding that my watch listens to everything I say. If I say, “Hey, Siri”, it sends whatever speech follows to the cloud for processing. If I do not say, “Hey, Siri”, nothing goes to the cloud. Proposed paragraph 5(2)(a) allows the minister to require that Apple build in the ability for authorities to listen to my Apple Watch whether I say, “Hey, Siri” or not. The same would go for my phone and my AirPods. Yes, they would need a warrant to actually listen in, but this bill takes the huge first step of building the surveillance architecture in the first place. Once it is built, it will be ripe for abuse either by the government or by hackers. Once it is built, it will not be unbuilt. We are at the stage where the government builds all the telescreens and puts them in our home, but promises to only use them if we have been bad. What is worse is this bill, as pertains to electronic service providers under proposed section 7, such as Apple, Signal, Telegram or Tinder, may be forced to keep that back door secret. Proposed section 15 says: An electronic service provider and any person acting on its behalf must not disclose any of the following information (c) the fact that the electronic service provider is subject to the order; In plain English, this section sets out the fact that the government has ordered construction of a back door to be kept secret. Once this bill passes, our cell phone manufacturer, our messaging service, our dating app may receive a secret order to build a back door into the service for the government to check in on us, and we might never be alerted. Our excerpt from the 1984 says, “How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in...was guesswork.” Why? Why, if everything here was above board, would the bill include the ability for the public safety minister to build secret back doors? I do not happen to be one of them, but some Canadians might say it is okay to read their Tinder messages, that they do not care, but to at least tell them if the government is going to do that. This bill specifically allows a minister to do it secretly. Why? (1755) Just on these points alone, the construction of a backdoor surveillance architecture and that they intend to keep some parts of this architecture secret, the Liberals should hang their heads in shame. Liberals are supposed to fight against this sort of excessive government reach. They are not supposed to be its source, and it only gets worse. As set forth in proposed paragraph 5(2)(d), in addition to demanding that secret back doors be constructed, the government's ministers can order all electronic service providers to collect and store all metadata for a year. Metadata means many things, but the most important thing to me is location. This bill goes even further than the telescreens in 1984. It would turn every Internet-connected device into not just a listening device, but a tracking device as well, and it would cause that location data to be admissible in a court of law. Let me just give a couple of examples for why I find this concerning. We just had a pandemic, in which some governments went way too far restricting human rights in unscientific ways. Do people remember the red zones and the green zones or the six-person bubbles? It may surprise the House to learn that I never broke a single COVID rule, even though I was a strong critic of their unscientific basis, but I know that a lot of people did. I know that some people sitting on the government side of the House did. It is a matter of public record that Justin Trudeau broke COVID rules and broke the Reopening Ontario Act by attending a Black Lives Matter protest here in Ottawa. If Bill C-22 passes, when there is another pandemic with some silly rules, any police officer could say they suspect that the member for Winnipeg North broke pandemic rules, get a warrant and see his location for every moment of the last 365 days. If he ever stepped into a red zone or ever broke quarantine, it would be game over. This capability would not be merely for COVID laws. It would be for every law. Chrystia Freeland was once found guilty of going 30 kilometres an hour over the limit on the highway to see her dad. Once she was convicted of that, a police officer could check to see her speed for every moment of the 365 days preceding. Do not ask for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. As the head of Joseph Stalin's secret service said, “Show me the man and I'll show you the crime.” If everyone here is surveilled 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, every one of us will be liable to be found guilty of something. If the government of the day passes this bill in its present form, I fear that the Liberals may live to see the day when its provisions are used against them. I swear it will not be me doing it, but who knows who will be prime minister in 2046. I fear her last name may be Trudeau-Perry. The Liberals will rue the day they torched all our collective privacy rights. I urge them to correct course. We can catch bad guys without violating the privacy rights of every single Canadian. [Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am grateful that we are seeing the legislation go to committee. I disagree with much of what the member opposite has said. Within this legislation, the public security and safety issues are being addressed, and privacy concerns are also addressed. We can do both in one piece of legislation. Bill C-22 amplifies both of those. Most importantly, it would protect real Canadians in our communities from organized crime and so many other things that are taking place. The legislation is needed because it is time to modernize. Canada is the only one of the Five Eyes that does not have legislation of this nature. Does he support the principle? (1800) [Expand] Matt Strauss: Mr. Speaker, I think it is very interesting that the member disagreed with everything I said but failed to point to one specific piece of my analysis that was wrong. Every piece of my analysis was correct. As to this talking point, I keep hearing that all the Five Eyes are doing it. I am proud to be Canadian. I am proud to have been born in the freest country in the land, and God help me, I am going to keep it that way. Just because the member's friends are all jumping off a cliff, it does not mean that the member should too. [Translation ]

[Expand] Alexis Deschênes (Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my colleague raised some rather serious concerns in his speech, including on the idea of forcing service providers to go further than they do currently and develop capacity to retain metadata for one year, which may include geolocation. What parameters can my colleague propose to ensure that, if this bill moves forward, we can keep this data as secure as possible? [English ]

[Expand] Matt Strauss: Mr. Speaker, the best way to keep a year's worth of surveillance location data secure is to not build a back door or to not save it in the first place. There is some bizarre verbiage in this bill about systemic vulnerabilities, but the point of part 2 of this legislation, as it currently stands, is to build the systemic vulnerabilities that it later says it is not building. It is frankly doublespeak at this point, and it needs to be significantly reworked. [Expand] Jacob Mantle (York—Durham, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we often hear from the other side that Canada is the only country that does not have this type of law, but what they sometimes forget to talk about are the damages and deleterious effects that have come from creating these back doors or front doors. Does the member have any examples of bad things happening, either by government abuse or by hackers and bad actors? [Expand] Matt Strauss: Mr. Speaker, I am relying on the video that privacy lawyer David Fraser put together on the topic. I urge every member of the House, particularly those on the government benches, to see it. It is not outlandish. He is a very credible voice. He teaches at Dalhousie University. He speaks about the Salt Typhoon incident in which the Americans, one of those Five Eyes partners that my colleague from Winnipeg North is so eager to emulate, built these sorts of back doors into their messaging services. The first thing that happened was that the Chinese Communist Party hacked into them and got everybody's private conversations. It is a real threat. If the NSA is subject to this sort of data exploitation by the Chinese Communist Party, I suspect that our country, having just initiated this new security partnership with the Chinese Communist Party, would be even more at risk. [Expand] Dave Epp (Chatham-Kent—Leamington, CPC): Mr. Speaker, a previous colleague of ours shared the metaphor that one cannot be the problem and the solution at the same time. I wonder if my hon. colleague could respond to the following metaphor with respect to the government actually behaving itself if this legislation were to pass. A previous assistant deputy minister once said to me that a hog can never slaughter itself. [Expand] Matt Strauss: Mr. Speaker, I am a great fan of my colleague who asked the question. I myself am a city boy, and I do not understand the metaphor. Can I just say what is particularly galling to me about this legislation? Conservatives like law and order. We support the police. We want bad guys in jail. We have put forward dozens, at this point— [Translation ]

[Expand] The Deputy Speaker: We are resuming debate. The hon. member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj has the floor. [Expand] Alexis Deschênes (Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how can we ensure that law enforcement and CSIS have the resources they need to access digital data and effectively combat organized crime and threats to national security without descending into an era of widespread, intrusive and excessive surveillance? That is the question that we are facing today in this debate on Bill C-22. How can we modernize our law enforcement without infringing on people's right to privacy? Bill C‑22 seeks to strike a balance. I understand that we will likely be able to find out in committee if this balance was struck. We in the Bloc Québécois have a number of questions about what is being proposed, although we support the goal of properly equipping our law enforcement agencies. We have questions about a number of aspects. The first question concerns the proposed new orders. The government wants to simplify the work of law enforcement when it comes to conducting investigations. How? It is creating a new order. The order will allow law enforcement to simply ask an Internet or electronic service provider whether or not a person is a subscriber. All that a police officer needs to make this request is a suspicion, and a suspicion is not much at all. A suspicion is the lowest bar there is in Canadian criminal law. Police officers are often asked to have “reasonable grounds to believe” that a crime has been committed. This remains the current state of the law today. Why are police officers required to have reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been committed? It is to prevent fishing expeditions and to ensure that police officers have a minimum amount of evidence before obtaining people's personal data. The other order provided for in Bill C-22 concerns the production of subscriber information. Once again, the burden of proof that law enforcement agencies would be required to meet is low. If they have a phone number, for example, or an IP address, they only need to have a suspicion that a crime has been committed or is about to be committed. That is a very low threshold, and it does not take much. They will be able to go before a court to obtain an order for the production of information. They will be able to obtain the name and address of the person to whom the IP address belongs and track them down. Is it possible to strike a balance with such a measure when the burden of proof is lowered? We will have to ask this question and listen to privacy experts, because a police officer might be strongly tempted to quickly file a request for the production of documents, given that it will now be much easier to do so. Another point that is quite concerning and that will raise questions is that, under Bill C‑22, the Minister of Public Safety will first have to determine which service providers would be required to develop technical capabilities. We need to understand where we are going with this. Right now, some telephone or social media service providers do not really keep the data they have because they are not interested in it, since they are only in business for commercial purposes. They might keep some data for the purpose of commercial profiling, but they might not keep it for a very long time or in an orderly fashion, since they have no commercial interest in doing so. Essentially, however, what the government is proposing with Bill C‑22 is to require service providers to have the technical capability to retain metadata for one year, including the geolocation data of its subscribers. They will also be required to ensure that they can provide this information within a relatively short period of time, on the grounds that law enforcement may need it in order to know where a specific person was on a specific date. Of course, we understand how incredibly efficient this will be for law enforcement, because as soon as they have reason to suspect that a crime has been committed, they will be able to retrieve location data to determine where a person was on a specific date. It will help, but it raises some very legitimate concerns, because, as my colleague mentioned, a database will be created containing millions and millions of location data points for each individual. Each one of us has a phone, which means that with data from the past year, it would be possible to determine where we were at any given time. (1805) This is meant to target criminals, of course, but 99.9% of people in Canada are not criminals and their data are going to be captured somewhere. Any time that a large amount of data like that exists somewhere, it can attract organized crime. We know about hackers, but countless other situations come to mind if we think of all the metadata to be stored. I understand that people would be concerned about this. Questions must be asked, because these data banks will not be created by the government, but by businesses. They will be required to conserve these data, but what kind of data protection will be required? There are examples. A few years back, fraud was committed at Desjardins. Sometimes the mechanisms are good, but insiders have bad intentions. A year's worth of geolocation metadata is practically a treasure trove for hackers. The mind reels just thinking about it. Another concern we have is about the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency. Normally, one would expect this agency to be given more financial and legal authority, as well as material resources, to do its job and to reassure us, at least a little, about this new surveillance system that is being put in place. One of our concerns is that, when interventions are made, the agency will not be notified until 12 months later. There are other countries, such as Australia, where the agency is notified in real time. However, 12 months is already quite far removed from the abuse of authority, if any abuse occurred, so we have a concern on that front. Next, we have concerns regarding funding. The government has announced across-the-board cuts that will affect this agency in particular. These cuts amount to 15%. If law enforcement agencies are being granted expanded powers and significant amounts of personal data will be stored with service providers, we would at least like to be assured that the agency will have the resources it needs to take action. I also have questions about the regulatory powers that are being granted. Since April, the government has adopted the unfortunate habit of frequently proposing to proceed by regulatory means, so there are concerns. How will the government determine what exactly constitutes a service provider? Some banks are concerned. Will they be included in that definition? If they provide banking services, will they have to retain that data as well? The minister's power to act through regulatory means and ministerial orders raises some concerns for us, as does this bill's alignment with Quebec's new Bill 25, which seeks to protect personal information and which forced businesses and organizations in Quebec to adapt to protect data. Is the federal government going to add another layer of protection? That will need to be done properly. We need to be careful about this so as not to duplicate legislative protections. (1810) [English ]

[Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am again encouraged by the Bloc recognizing that there is value to having lawful access. I did not know about the Province of Quebec. I will have to look into that aspect. I would like to think they would be complementary of each other, but I do not know. I believe it is important for the bill to go to committee. The member raises a number of concerns he has with the ministry. If there are things that they can do even in advance, I would encourage him to do likewise. My understanding is that the Bloc supports the principle of the legislation and wants to see it go to committee. Am I not correct? [Translation ]

[Expand] Alexis Deschênes: Mr. Speaker, what the Bloc Québécois is asking for is a balanced approach. We want to give law enforcement the ability to act, adapt and modernize its capacity to act while also ensuring that the right to personal information and privacy remains a fundamental right that is protected in Quebec and Canada. [Expand] Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to ask a question to my colleague from Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj. I also want to congratulate him on his speech. Earlier, my Bloc Québécois colleague asked a question about Bill 25 that was passed by the Quebec National Assembly. Although this legislation was necessary and legitimate, it caused a lot of challenges for Quebec businesses when it was introduced, forcing them to adapt to this new reality in terms of privacy protection. I think the question is very relevant, because the federal government is creating a law that will likely infringe a bit on what has already been implemented in Quebec under Bill 25. Can my colleague tell us how we could proceed, if Bill C‑22 were to be passed, to ensure that it is seamless for Quebec businesses, which have already gone through quite a bit of hardship as a result of adapting to Bill 25? (1815) [Expand] Alexis Deschênes: Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. I think that, when the time comes, we will have to take a closer look at what Bill 25 has accomplished. The idea behind Bill 25 was really to protect personal information in this increasingly digital age. As for Bill C‑22, I am really concerned about the businesses that will be affected by it. I think it will be important to put in place very specific measures. Service providers will be required to keep data, and we will have to make them ensure that it is the most secure data in the world. [Expand] Anthony Housefather (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Emergency Management and Community Resilience, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague on his speech. I believe there are exceptions in Bill 25. They have to do with the personal information that can be requested by the police if there are threats or if there is a real reason to believe that someone is violating the Criminal Code. I want to be sure I understand my colleague. Do we agree that the best way forward is to pass the bill at second reading, study it in committee and hear Quebec groups talk about what they have done and what they think about it? [Expand] Alexis Deschênes: Mr. Speaker, Bill 25 applies to organizations. At present, when police officers in Quebec conduct an investigation, they appear before a judge and must show that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been or will be committed. If officers successfully convince the judge, they obtain a search warrant and may then search cell phones. This is how it is currently done. The question that Bill C‑22 raises is: Should the burden of proof be lowered to make things easier for police officers? [English ]

[Expand] Steven Bonk (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the government has a long record of abuse of power and overreach into the affairs of provincial governments and private citizens. I wonder if my hon. colleague could elaborate on why he thinks the government cannot be trusted once again with this bill. [Translation ]

[Expand] Alexis Deschênes: Mr. Speaker, people often say that opportunity makes the thief. When action is taken to give law enforcement more powers, it must be done in such a way that the data are protected to a degree that constitutes a deterrent. The mere thought of holding on to a year's worth of metadata on everyone's movements would definitely seem like an opportunity to a thief. I think that organized crime would be itching to get its hands on these data. The best approach is to seek advice from top experts to ensure that the data are properly protected. [English ]

[Expand] The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? Some hon. members: Question. The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair. [Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, we would like it to carry on division. [Translation ]

[Expand] The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried on division. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. (Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[English ]

[Expand] Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I suspect that if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to call it 6:30 p.m. at this time so we could begin the late show. (1820) [Translation ]

[Expand] The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Adjournment Proceedings

[Adjournment Proceedings]

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved. [English ]

Natural Resources

[Expand] Jeremy Patzer (Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise on behalf of the great people of southwest and west central Saskatchewan. Spring is finally on the horizon. We have been battling a bit of winter wanting to stick around. Of course, until the May long weekend comes and goes, we are never fully out of it, but I know the farmers are feeling the itch, and they are ready to get going and get the spring planting in place so they can start growing the crops for the 2026 season. I want to take a few moments to discuss the follow-up to the question I asked the Minister of Natural Resources about any future pipeline developments here in Canada. The last pipeline that was built is now running at almost 100% capacity, and people in the oil and gas industry are wondering and waiting to know when the next export pipeline is going to be built in Canada. Now, the government has taken the step of signing an MOU with the Province of Alberta, suggesting the Liberals are going to try to iron out the details of how they will build another pipeline, possibly, maybe. We are still waiting to find out what is going to happen with that. The MOU was signed a while ago. We have not heard of any recent developments, so we know it is going to be another substantive amount of time before we will see any movement on that. I want to talk about how the House of Commons has actually been working together. Conservatives worked collaboratively with the government to pass Bill C-5. Bill C-5 was a bill that the Prime Minister said was needed to develop and build things at a speed not seen in a generation, those were his words, and so Conservatives thought we would play ball. We want to see major projects get built, and we want to see that happen in a timely manner. We agree. We did not think Bill C-5 went far enough, because it did not actually repeal any of the regulations that have crippled resource development in Canada for the last 10 years or longer. What it did do was attempt to give the government the ability to circumvent a lot of those regulations to try to get projects done. It is kind of a weird way of the government admitting that it was wrong for the last 10 years. The Liberals do not want to fully admit it just yet, but they want to give themselves a workaround anyway. When I look at the Major Projects Office list, I notice there are a lot of projects on the list, but most of those projects already had a final business decision made. Their investment was already finalized and sourced, it was in there, and they already had prior approvals. The government just dumped a bunch of projects in there to make it look like it was doing something. I will note that several of these projects, including the one I asked the minister about before, are still sitting with the status of “referred to MPO”. Not a single project on the list says it has been advanced to the next stage. They are all just sitting there, referred and still waiting. I want to read a quote from Frances Donald of the Royal Bank of Canada: “This is an entire sector that has repeatedly been pushed into a position where it could not grow”. The article continues: Donald said industries—including oil and gas—need consistency for an extended period to be confident enough to invest. “It is not one person, but it is a change of culture within a country.... We cannot expect that to come in one year with one policy or one pipeline.” ...“Everybody wants to hear there’s one thing we can do that could change the story...But that’s not a holistic way to expect business confidence to shift after over a decade of having moved the pendulum in the (other) direction.” Here is another quote, from Cenovus Energy: “It will be difficult for the industry to grow production without 'fundamental' changes to government policies and regulations”. With these kinds of quotes from the biggest bank in Canada and one of the biggest oil and energy producers in Canada, we have not seen any movement from the government to recognize that its policies and regulations are getting in the way. The Major Projects Office is not actually advancing projects at a rate that the Liberals said it would. When is the government finally going to admit that it was wrong and pass the sovereignty act that the Conservative Party put forward so we can work collaboratively to get rid of the regulations that are hampering our industry? [Expand] Corey Hogan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are a few things that I think we need to level set as I begin my response here. The member talks about crippling the energy industry. The member talks about development for the last 10 years being deficient. However, I want to note that oil and gas production in Canada increased 34% over the last 10 years. If I compare that globally, global oil and gas production increased 6% over the same time frame. Impressively, Canada managed to do this while reducing our emissions profile, not per capita and not per barrel, but overall, by 6%, showing that there are ways we can both grow our energy sector and meet our commitments to the planet, which I think is a wonderful thing. The member brought up some specific questions and commentary about the Major Projects Office, which I would like to address here. First and foremost, there was a bit of a drive-by about a pipeline to the west coast that the Government of Canada has entered an MOU with the Government of Alberta to create. The Premier of Alberta, when that MOU was signed, said that they would bring forward a project in June of this year. That is still on track. There will be a project that is brought forward. I am most certain of that, and the agreement remains firm and stands. Talking about the timelines set out in that agreement, for one of them, we were a month ahead of schedule. That was on the Impact Assessment Act and on having a single review, which will improve the ability of all projects to move forward. As well, we also reached an agreement on methane a week ahead of schedule, and while we are a couple of weeks behind schedule on the carbon pricing, the details were all agreed to are in the MOU. We are just working out the technical components underneath at this point. It is a very exciting time for the oil and gas sector. In fact, we are hitting record production again this year, and that record production, it is planned, will grow even further from there. On the Major Projects Office's other stream of work, I think it is important to note that, while the Major Projects Office is responsible for taking these referrals and moving forward with them, it is not going to then go out into the public and explain every conversation that is occurring. On every single one of those files, there was something that was needed to get it to a point of reality. That is why they were put to the Major Projects Office. Sometimes it was assistance with finding private investments, and sometimes it was regulations, but in all cases, the Major Projects Office is now using those powers and is reviewing the situation to bring forward the ability to get those projects to move forward. It has been a very positive experience for the companies that have been involved in it, and that is important to note. The last thing I will note about the Major Projects Office is that the Prime Minister also charged it with making sure we can bring overall regulatory improvements into the system. The office has been working on that as well, and it is bringing those things forward to the government for consideration, because we want to make sure that we are building not only in a responsible way, but also in a way that reflects this serious moment we are at, where we need to ensure that Canada can stand on its own two feet in a very challenging global environment. There are many good signs that I am happy to talk about in my rejoinder. I will leave my comments there at this moment. (1825) [Expand] Jeremy Patzer: Mr. Speaker, I have two quick points on that. What the member failed to mention is that there are no brand new projects at the Major Projects Office. Like I said, these are all projects that were already in existence and were already well advanced in the process of trying to get to the point where they would be starting to build the projects. It is not like they are new projects. The Liberals just want to take credit for work that they never did. When it comes to the 34% increase in oil production, that is riding the coattails of all the work that happened during the years under the Harper government. There were no less than 16 major pipelines that were built or approved in those time frames, and there were many other smaller projects that were built. When I go on the Government of Saskatchewan website and look at the well activity over the last number of years, for years now, there has only been a small handful of drilling rigs out in the field trying to drill new wells. Because of the crippling regulations the government has put on those industries, the breadwinner of the entire economy is not able to actually do the things that it does best, and the government is solely responsible for that. [Expand] Corey Hogan: Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting to see what members on both sides take credit for, or not, in the chronology going back 10 years. Those are some long coattails, I would suggest to the member opposite. The reality is that this is the only government that managed to get a pipe to tidewater. That pipe is now being expanded. That is a major project going on, but let us talk about the Major Projects Office and the nature of those projects. On the first list of major projects activity, which was announced back in September, obviously some of the furthest along were going to be the ones that are best positioned to move forward, but there was also a release of transformational strategies that was provided concurrently. It includes things such as Wind West, the Port of Churchill, and carbon capture and utilization. There are many projects that are brand new and of much excitement for this country and for Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Indigenous Affairs

[Expand] Tako Van Popta (Langley Township—Fraser Heights, CPC): Mr. Speaker, last week I raised an issue of deep concern to the people of British Columbia, namely the impact of the B. C. Supreme Court decision in Cowichan Tribes v. Canada and the impact that the decision has on private property rights. It is a significant ruling, because it is the first time in Canada's history that a court declared aboriginal title over non-Crown lands, privately owned lands. There have been other aboriginal title cases in British Columbia before, and I am going to highlight one of them, the Tsilhqot’in Nation case of 2014. The court declared aboriginal title over a very large piece of land, 1,750 square kilometres. It was very remote land and it was all Crown land. The Tsilhqot'in plaintiffs in that case were very careful to carve around all the privately held land, so that the claims area was only public land. That was their strategy. Fast-forward a decade to the current case, and the Cowichan plaintiffs took a different, more aggressive approach. Their claims area does include privately owned lands. We are talking about a relatively small piece of land, not 1,750 square kilometres but 800 acres. It is right in the heart of Metro Vancouver and, as any realtor would say, the three most important things about real estate are "location, location, location". The morning after the decision, 150 private landowners, farmers, homeowners, businesses and a golf course discovered that their titles were now burdened with the aboriginal title designation. That is what makes this decision so unique. It has never happened before in Canadian history. This is why I say that the Liberals dropped the ball. Instead of arguing aggressively to defend private property rights, federal counsel, under the direction of then attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould and then prime minister Justin Trudeau, retreated from their strongest legal defence. This is what the court said in paragraph 2096, “Canada initially pled extinguishment but abandoned its reliance on this defence in its amended response to civil claim filed November 22, 2018.” The Liberal strategy was to drop its first and best line of defence, that the Crown's deliberate granting of fee simple title to private individuals throughout British Columbia's history had the effect of extinguishing pre-existing aboriginal title. They did not argue that, making it easy for the trial judge to find that aboriginal title still exists on all parcels, including private lands, within the claim area, and that aboriginal title and privately held fee simple title could co-exist on the same piece of land. Many legal experts have weighed in on that, saying that it does not work, and asking how two title owners could have exclusive and competing interests over the same title. Who wins? The judge's answer was that “Aboriginal title is a prior and senior right” to other property interests, whether the land is public or private. That is what has people worried. Who actually owns the land? I will ask the question again. Will the new Liberal Prime Minister direct the federal lawyers to argue that private property rights in Canada must be secured for homeowners, farmers, businesses and investors? (1830) [Expand] Jaime Battiste (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me first say that the decision to appeal does not diminish our commitment to upholding our legal obligations to indigenous people. With that said, our government disagrees with aspects of the B.C. Supreme Court decision. Preserving the certainty and stability of private property is of utmost importance, and that is why we will advance all viable legal arguments to protect private property. As this case is before the courts, I will be careful with my remarks. The principle of the validity of fee simple title is foundational to the certainty and stability of property rights in this country. It is a cornerstone of our legal system and of the confidence Canadians seek in land ownership. The decision of the court has potentially significant implications, including for private property rights. These implications are not limited to one province or one community. They could extend across the country. They touch on questions that go to the heart of how land is owned, transferred and managed in Canada. Let me emphasize in the strongest terms possible that the decision to appeal does not diminish our commitment to upholding our legal obligations to indigenous people. We respect the constitutional recognition of aboriginal rights and title, and we remain fully committed to reconciliation. That commitment is unwavering. We respect the right of all parties to pursue their own legal strategies. Canada's concern with the decision focuses on specific legal questions. Other parties may seek to have other issues resolved. This is a complex matter, and the courts are the proper forum for resolving these questions. Canadians deserve a fair and impartial resolution. That is what the courts are designed to provide. This case goes beyond legal arguments; it concerns the framework that underpins our shared future. Canada's approach must be principled, respectful and clear. That is why we are pursuing this appeal, to seek legal clarity and legal certainty that rights are respected and that reconciliation continues to guide our actions. Our commitment is clear. We will work through the proper legal processes. We will uphold our obligations and we will continue to engage constructively with all parties. That is how we build certainty, stability and trust, values that are essential to Canada's future. (1835) [Expand] Tako Van Popta: Mr. Speaker, the concern is that the federal lawyers have dropped the extinguishment argument, which was their first and best line of defence, under the misguided concept or idea that reconciliation requires the federal government not to be too aggressive in defending private property rights. That is the concern here, and nothing that the hon. secretary has just mentioned adds any comfort. Of course the government is going to argue. Of course it is going to appeal, but is it going to argue that line of reasoning? There is a great quote from the New Brunswick Court of Appeal, which was addressing a similar fact situation. They said: ...a declaration of Aboriginal title over privately owned lands, which, by its very nature, gives the Aboriginal beneficiary exclusive possession, occupation, and use would sound the death knell of reconciliation with the interests of non-Aboriginal Canadians. Does he agree with that statement from the Court of Appeal? [Expand] Jaime Battiste: Mr. Speaker, as I have said in my remarks, we understand that the decision may cause uncertainty and concern for private landowners. We hear those concerns, and we take them seriously. I reaffirm that our government disagrees with aspects of the B.C. Supreme Court decision, and that is why we are appealing it. The Government of Canada is committed to maintaining legal clarity and stability in land ownership while respecting aboriginal rights and title and the court process. That balance is essential, not only for property owners but for indigenous communities, municipalities and the country as a whole. The Economy

[Expand] Arpan Khanna (Oxford, CPC): Mr. Speaker, when it comes to our economy, the Liberals are telling Canadians that they have never had it so good, but here are the facts. Under the Liberal government, in the G7, Canada now has the highest household debt, the most unaffordable housing, the lowest investment per worker and the worst food price inflation, double that of the U.S.. Today's Stats Canada report shows that food inflation is once again rising, with the cost of fresh fruit and vegetables hitting a three-year high. Canada has the second-lowest productivity and the second-highest unemployment in the G7. Almost 100,000 jobs were lost last month, 5,000 of which were from the auto sector. Thousands of spinoff jobs left our country as well. There were job losses in steel and lumber. Our youth unemployment rate is over 14%, and we have the fewest homes per capita in the G7. We have the second-slowest building permit process in the OECD. I am not done yet. Under the Liberal government, 500 billion dollars' worth of investment has left Canada for the U.S., and twice as many Canadians are opening businesses in the U.S. as are doing so in Canada. The CFIB has said that more businesses have closed than opened. In fact, business closures have outpaced openings for six consecutive quarters, and 55% of small business owners say they would not recommend starting a business right now. Input costs for our farmers are skyrocketing, especially with the fertilizer tariff the Liberal government put on our farmers. We are the only country in the G7 that has put those tariffs on farmers, and because of that, food prices have gone up. There are 2.2 million food bank visits in a single month. One in ten of those is by a senior, and a quarter are for youth and children. The gap between the rich and the poor is also growing. Sixty per cent of Canadians are living paycheque to paycheque, only $200 away from bankruptcy. From the new numbers that came out today, we see that inflation is rising once again. Canada used to be a happy nation. Canadians were happy people, but under the Liberal government, we went from the fifth-happiest 10 years ago to the 18th-happiest last year. Since the Prime Minister took office, we have become the 25th‑happiest in the world, so Canadians are not happy with the direction this country is going, yet the Prime Minister stood in the House and said, “Affordability is the best it has been in over a decade.” Can the member tell me, beyond the Liberal insiders and Liberal elites who are getting rich from government contracts, do Liberals really feel that affordability has been the best since 2015? (1840) [Expand] Jaime Battiste (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to have the opportunity to elaborate on what the government is doing to help Canadians with their day-to-day costs. We know that Canadians need immediate relief, and we are delivering it. The government is providing help to more than 12 million low- and modest-income Canadians to afford day-to-day necessities through the new Canada groceries and essentials benefit. Specifically, we are providing a one-time top-up to be paid on June 5, which is equal to a 50% increase to the annual 2025-26 value of the GST credit. This will deliver $3.1 billion in immediate assistance to 12 million Canadians who currently get the GST credit. We are also increasing the value of the benefit by 25% for five years, starting in July 2026. This will deliver $8.6 billion in additional support over the next five years. Combined, these measures mean that a family of four will receive up to $1,890 this year and about $1,400 annually for the next four years. A single person will receive up to $950 this year and about $700 annually for the next four years. The benefit is only one example of the many ways the government has the backs of Canadians. It is in addition to the existing benefits, such as the Canada child benefit, the Canada disability benefit and the guaranteed income supplement. We are fulfilling the pledge to make life even more affordable for families. Canada's new government is also using the improvement in the fiscal outlook associated with the higher oil prices to provide targeted relief to households and businesses. Specifically, we are reducing pressure on fuel prices at the pump by suspending the application of the federal fuel excise tax on gasoline and diesel, effective today, April 20, until August 31, 2026, delivering over $2.2 billion in relief for Canadians. This temporary suspension of excise tax for gasoline and diesel is expected to save Canadians up to an estimated $5.75 on regular gasoline and up to $2.30 on diesel when filling up a typical 50-litre fuel tank. [Expand] Arpan Khanna: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government is so out of touch with the reality of what Canadian families are facing. The member talked about temporary pauses, temporary measures and one-time tax breaks. I always welcome a tax break. It is the people's money and the money should be going back into their pockets. However, the Liberals had a chance this week to remove all federal taxes on fuel, but instead of going all the way, they just took off one tax, the excise tax. Their plan saves 10¢ a litre. The Conservative plan would have saved 25¢ a litre or $1,200 for the average family, and that is what we are calling for. We are calling for a full tax exemption on fuel, all federal taxes, in 2026. The sad reality is that Canadians are struggling. They are struggling to put food on the table. Seniors are skipping meals. Kids have their milk watered down. Will the Liberal member tell us what measures they are taking to support families who are struggling in Canada today? [Expand] Jaime Battiste: Mr. Speaker, by easing the financial strain on households, our government is empowering Canadians to shape a better future for their families and our country. This includes the $150-million food security fund through the regional tariff response initiative for small and medium-sized businesses and the organizations that support them. This measure will help businesses absorb the costs associated with supply chain disruptions without passing the burden on to Canadians. Our government is taking bold actions right now to support the many Canadians who are feeling the financial sting of everyday expenses. Canadians need immediate relief, and we are delivering. (1845) [Translation ]

[Expand] The Deputy Speaker: The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1). (The House adjourned at 6:45 p.m.) Hansard - 106 (April 20, 2026) Explore By: Table of Contents
- )
- )
- )
- )
- )
- )
- )