House Publications

     There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.

     moved that Bill C-225, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, as amended, be concurred in at report stage.

     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.

    Mr. Speaker, I ask that this be carried.

    The Speaker: On division?

    Frank Caputo: No, just carried through a voice vote, please.

    Is it agreed?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Speaker: I therefore declare the motion carried on division. When shall the bill be read a third time? Now?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

    He said: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. I must say, whenever we hear “when shall the bill be read the next time”, I think that this is the first time I have ever heard, in the House, that it be said, “Now.”

    I hear the member from Winnipeg chuckling. I think that he is probably a bit disappointed that he did not get that extra word in Hansard. If it was recorded, perhaps it could be attributed to him by the verification desk. We all know that he likes to speak in the House, just as I do. In fact, we should all appreciate speaking in this place. I was reflecting not long ago about this, about how much of an honour it is to be here.

    Let us face it. Whenever we have a job, we will have people who take different degrees of interest in their job. For me, I have the ability to stand here on the green carpet of the House of Commons, as somebody who grew up as the child of immigrants in a very middle-class home. My dad was a sawmill worker. My mom was a stay-at-home mom until I was about 10, the last child, when she went back to school to become a legal assistant. Ultimately, I became a lawyer. We see this going full circle.

    The ability to stand here in the House of Commons is not something we should ever underestimate, regardless of which side of the aisle we are on. If I could amplify that point even more, it is an even greater honour when we have what we call private members' bills or Private Members' Business.

    I experienced this first-hand last time, through Bill C-291, which was an amendment to the Criminal Code in the last Parliament, to change the name of child pornography to child sexual abuse exploitation material. I wrote that bill. It was then shepherded by the member for what is now Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies.

    I have my Criminal Code here. I promise that I am not using it as a prop, but one of the things I can say about my 2026 Criminal Code is that this language has now been adopted to reflect the fact that we are no longer using that antiquated language. It is against that backdrop that I rise here today.

    I thank everybody here for allowing this matter to proceed past the report stage without the necessity for a standing vote, so that we could get to third reading now. I am optimistic and hopeful that debate could perhaps collapse so that we could be voting on the bill as soon as Wednesday or even today. Hope springs eternal, they might say.

    Colloquially, this is called “Bailey's Law”, Bill C-225. This is the first private member's bill that has been brought forward in the Parliament for debate. It is my honour to stand here before us.

    Bailey McCourt was in her mid-30s. Her abuser was convicted of assaulting her, of choking her and, I believe, of threatening her. Three hours after he was convicted, free on bail, he killed her. That matter remains before the court, so he is obviously accused at this time. I do not believe that there is any dispute as to who the assailant was. The question of his guilt in a court of law will have to be for another day.

    For context, I had actually written the bill about two or three years ago. As most people know, I was a lawyer before I came to this place. I guess I will be a lawyer after I leave this place. One of the things that really bothered me was that we treat assault the same way regardless of context, mostly. For instance, assault in the Criminal Code is under section 266. Whether one beats one's intimate partner or beats somebody up at the bar, it is the same charge. There is one exception that we used to look at a lot, which was assault of a peace officer. Assaulting a peace officer was different. The law certainly recognizes that, sometimes, things should be different.

    I thought it should be different for assaulting an intimate partner. Intimate partners are within a relationship of trust and often of financial dependence. It is not uncommon for one intimate partner to make vastly more money. At times of separation or at times of potential separation, that can really be exploitative. There is spiritual dependence oftentimes, and just general codependence. That was something that really bothered me, and that was why I had written a version of the bill in 2023 or 2024.

    The bill never got tabled. After Bailey was killed in early July 2025, the NDP Premier of British Columbia called for the killing of an intimate partner to be first-degree murder. I thought, as a Conservative, that if the NDP premier was asking for this, perhaps we could find a common ground. That is why I put the bill forward.

     I want to recognize a number of people who have been impacted by Bailey's tragic killing. Let us not forget her children. Carrie Wiebe was present in the car when Bailey was killed. I sent her a message today giving her an update. We cannot forget Bailey's family, her mother Karen, her father Shane, her stepmom Trish, her sister Paige and her aunt Debbie.

    Sometimes we see things in the news and become detached from them. One thing I enjoy about this job that is challenging, and I think every member here feels this way, is that when we deal with somebody, whether with respect to an immigration matter, a taxation matter or, in this case, a matter of crime, they are touched by it personally. I can say that when we look somebody in the eye, it touches us personally. If we look at people like Flo and Paul, who appeared at committee, and we hear them speak about their daughter and her tragic killing at the hands of an intimate partner, it really crystallizes within me the necessity for us to challenge the status quo sometimes.

    The law evolves, it should evolve and sometimes it has to evolve more drastically. In fact, the last time I think the law evolved on the issue of intimate partner violence was likely in the early 1980s when an exception to the law of sexual assault with respect to one's spouse was taken out, and rightfully so. A person can sexually assault their spouse. It happens far too often. Therefore, I am very proud to be standing before Parliament today with I believe the support of all parties. We received all-party support at second reading. I hope we will have all-party support at third reading to make the most substantial change to the law of intimate partner violence thus far in Canadian history.

    It is important that we work together. One of the things I often tell people who see us oftentimes as being pugilistic or combative is that there is a time and a place to be oppositional. I am a member of His Majesty's loyal opposition, a role I take very seriously. Without a meaningful opposition, I believe that democracy is imperilled. There is a time to protest. There is a time to debate. There is a time to oppose. There is a time to question. Questioning is fine. In fact, questioning is vital to a robust democracy. I hope if I am ever on the government benches that we have a meaningful opposition. This is one reason why I often take such issue with time allocation, closure and things like that when we have barely discussed a bill. I am very proud to stand before Parliament on this issue.

    I was talking about the opposition and why it is important. One thing people may or may not realize is this. If they were to look at the bill before it goes to committee, at second reading and after it has gone to committee, they would see a substantially different bill, and that is okay. In fact, when we work together and make bills better, it is a good thing. I can say, as the sponsor of this bill, that I believe we have made it better. I believe that, in working with the minister's office and my staff, we have made the bill better.

    This may be the last time I get to speak on this bill, so I will thank my staff, Stephanie Rennick, Jesus Bondo and Rofiat Agboola, for helping out and working with the minister's staff. I would like to thank the minister's staff, who have been more than accommodating in meeting with us in order to address this bill.

    What would the bill do? It would make major changes with respect to homicide of an intimate partner. If a homicide of an intimate partner occurs, that homicide would now be first-degree murder if there is a pattern of coercion or control, or if the homicide occurs during coercion or control. Manslaughter of an intimate partner would now have to be considered with respect to whether a life sentence should be imposed.

    A life sentence in Canada is imposed mandatorily for murder generally, whether first-degree or second-degree murder The question then becomes one of parole ineligibility, and we call that a minimum sentence for life. There is actually a maximum sentence for life. A lot of people do not know this, but a person can go to jail for life for breaking into someone's home. That is the maximum sentence a court can impose. The court does not have to impose that, but it can. A court can also impose a maximum sentence of life for manslaughter.

    I was a parole officer in my early twenties, and I worked in the justice system for a long time. The last time I saw a life sentence imposed for manslaughter was in 1972. That is a long time ago, yet intimate partner violence continues to be a scourge on our society. Maybe it is high time we address sentencing.

     One of the things I have taken issue with is the government's sentencing of sexual offences, particularly sexual offences against children. The way we as society and as Parliament reflect our difficulty or our issue with a crime should be based in part on sentencing: the more repugnant the crime, the stricter the sentence. In some cases we call that denunciation. That is what is talked about in section 718 of the Criminal Code. Sometimes we talk about deterrence, making a sentence so bad that people do not want to do the crime or will think twice before they do it.

    However, in a lot of respects, we just have to say it like it is. It is happening far too often that intimate partners are dying. This is flying under the radar far too often, unreported or under-reported, so we need to make changes. Often in intimate partner violence what we call the cycle of violence continues on and on. In Bailey's case, there was a cycle of violence. As I recall, there were breaches involved. She had been previously victimized by the offender. It is time to stop the cycle of violence. We need a paradigm shift in this country on the issue, and I hope that Bill C-225 would do that.

     My colleague will be speaking on behalf of the party seconder, the member for Cloverdale—Langley City, whom I want to thank for giving up her spot in the order of precedence so we could speak to the bill sooner. Having a team effort like this and having members like the member for Cloverdale—Langley City, who gave up her spot selflessly in order to have Bailey's law advance sooner on third reading, is how we get things done. I am incredibly indebted to the member. I am indebted to every member who has spoken to the bill from our benches, who has supported it and who has met with the family.

    Let us get the bill passed right now.

    Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the member has brought forward substantive legislation, and because of the processing of legislation for private members' hour, we are actually at a point where, whether it is after this hour or after one more hour of debate, we will actually have a vote on this substantial piece of legislation.

    First, I would recognize the member bringing forward the legislation and bringing it to committee. It was really important that parties worked together so everyone could feel comfortable in ultimately getting the legislation to where it is today. I am wondering if the member could provide his feelings with respect to the committee process and the contributions that were made at committee.

    Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his contribution. Obviously, sometimes we do have our disagreements in the House, and that is actually healthy.

     Therefore, in direct response to the member's question, I will say that the committee process was actually very meaningful. For people who might not know, committee is where we study a bill. When we got to committee, we as Conservatives had agreed to a number of amendments. There were a number of stakeholders who had spoken loudly and clearly on the issue. I know that my Bloc colleagues had thoughts and that my Liberal colleagues and my NDP colleagues had thoughts.

    However, the fact that we were able to synthesize all those thoughts so quickly into amendments was very meaningful. I believe it was two and a half or three meetings that the committee met for such a lengthy piece of legislation. Normally, private members' bills are a lot shorter. The committee process went as it should: smoothly.

    Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola for introducing this bill. I work with him on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

    We realized that amendments needed to be made when we examined this bill in committee after second reading.

    I would like my colleague to talk more specifically about the importance of improving recognition of coercive control, which was a topic of discussion in our committee meetings. We have talked about this for far too long, but nothing seems to have come of it. What difference would that make for victims?

     Mr. Speaker, this is actually a very important question.

     The House voted, I believe unanimously, in the last Parliament on a bill from former NDP member Laurel Collins with respect to coercive control, but I believe it died on the Order Paper when the election was called.

     Coercive control is part of the cycle of violence that I just referred to. It is something that goes on and on. It is a part of that violence. Intimate partner violence generally does not just come out of nowhere. There are precursors. There are antecedents that happen, and coercive control is central to that. It is part of the dependence, often financial dependence, that we see, as well as psychological manipulation. Therefore, it is very important that the House recognize the role of coercive control in criminality.

     Mr. Speaker I spoke with Bailey's grandmother, who lives in my riding, who heartbrokenly told me that she was with Bailey the day she was born, for her first breath, and was with her when she took her last breath.

     I just wonder if the member could tell us how we as legislators can justify not strengthening protections for victims through measures like Bailey's law to ensure that dangerous offenders are not given opportunities to reoffend and to murder an intimate partner.

     Mr. Speaker, I extend my deepest condolences to Bailey's grandmother. I actually was not aware of her being present for Bailey's first and her final breaths. That is very difficult to hear.

    In answer to the member's question, the first thing that we have to address is that there is a problem. If we are unprepared in the House to say that intimate partner violence is a problem, and if we are unprepared to say we have to deal with this, then we have an even bigger problem. This is the first step in addressing that.

    Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to rise today and address a very important, substantive piece of legislation. I look at it with a holistic approach wherein we have witnessed over the last 10 months, since Canadians elected a new Prime Minister and a new government, that the Prime Minister has made it very clear that we wanted to make the whole crime file a part of that first-year agenda going forward. That is one of the reasons we saw substantial pieces of legislation come before the House dealing with the issue of crime. Whether it is things that take place in homes and in our communities or things that garner a great deal of national attention, we want people to feel safe and secure in their communities, and we recognize that the federal government has a very important role to ensure that this is taking place.

    That is why, when we take a look at the bill that we have before us today, Bill C-225, which the member appropriately named “Bailey's law”, Bailey McCourt hits the heartstrings of Canadians from coast to coast to coast. How can one not formulate an opinion when they hear some of the details of that particular situation that occurred? It was very tragic and very horrific in its nature, in the consequences and impact on the family unit, the friends, the community and so many others. As such, maybe a good starting point would be to extend our prayers and best wishes to the family and those who are so familiar and have had to endure what has taken place since the murder of Bailey McCourt. I say that with all sincerity, believing that every member of the Liberal caucus, and every member of the House of Commons, recognizes the tragedy of an individual who had suffered and ultimately was assaulted. The perpetrator was arrested, but then released on bail, and ultimately the consequence was a death.

    Fast-forward to the legislation that is before us today. This is why I indicated that I do believe it is appropriate to identify this piece of legislation with an individual whom people can easily relate to.

     I posed a question in regard to the committee stage, to the introducer of the legislation, and I did that because I think it is important for us to recognize that private members' bills, and ours, can make a very positive difference in our communities. I use this legislation as an example, where something was brought to the floor of the House and ultimately went to a standing committee, and because we had a consensus that was building among different political entities, we were able to improve the legislation to the degree that it is getting support. Areas of concern were addressed, amendments were brought forward and, ultimately, we now have before us legislation that is not going to have an issue with being able to pass. The committee structure can work, and this is a good example of that.

    Further to that, because we have a system that allows private members' business to ultimately be processed in a timely fashion, we know that legislation will pass and that time allocation, closure or unanimous consent, none of those things are necessary, because we have a process that enables bills to pass, and justifiably so.

     We talked about coercive control and about how the Prime Minister and the government have talked about a new offence that would actually prohibit the pattern of coercive and controlling conduct, which is one of the reasons we brought forward Bill C-16. There is a lot of substance within Bill C-16 that would be good for our communities, just as there is in Bill C-225, which deals with the very important and sensitive issue of domestic violence.

     If members were here for the second reading of the bill, as I was, we heard about domestic violence and coercive control, which is a dominant factor. We have heard this constantly over the years. The issue of stalking constantly comes up. We can think of the emotional and psychological abuse that is involved when domestic violence is taking place. However, often things like economic abuse are overlooked, which is a very real and tangible factor.

     We often cite physical abuse, because we can see when a spouse has been physically abused, often to the degree that they have to seek medical attention, and things such as sexual abuse. However, more and more, one of the things that continues to grow, which we need to deal with as a legislature, is the issue of cyber-violence and the impact that cyber-violence has on our communities, especially with the issue of sexual intimidation and intimidation in many other forms, such as blackmail and extortion. The impact on the physical and mental well-being of victims is very severe.

    The legislation before us today would elevate the consequence of domestic abuse, and I see that as a positive thing. During second reading of the bill, I talked more about the substance of the legislation, suggesting we would be open not only to what the member was trying to address but also to bringing other initiatives into the issue of domestic abuse and ensuring that there is an appropriate consequence to actions that are taken.

    On the issue of femicide, I made reference to Bill C-16. “Femicide” is a term that is not well known, but I believe it will become better known in the years ahead, because we recognize it is something, through Bill C-16, that should be elevated to first-degree murder when put into the context of sexual violence and human trafficking. These are the types of initiatives that, if we take the same approach at committee or at debate on substantive legislation that goes beyond Bill C-225, would lead to women, in particular, as well as children and members of society, to being better protected.

    At the beginning of my speech, I said that we should take a more holistic approach when looking at the legislation we have before us. Let us get the same sort of co-operation here that we witnessed in committee. Let us add strength to our legislation. The Prime Minister has provided us a substantial suite. Let us see if we can act together and make our communities a safer place to call home.

    Mr. Speaker, this morning we are debating Bill C-225, which amends the Criminal Code. This bill is also known as “Bailey's Law”, sadly in memory of a young woman who was strangled to death. It was a horrific crime, and femicide still occurs far too often. Rising to speak to these femicides is always upsetting. I want to thank the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola for introducing this bill, which we had the opportunity to study at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. We were moved by the testimony we heard and want to express our sympathy to the family. This was a horrible murder. The committee meetings got very emotional. We must do something about this.

    There is one thing, however, that I find somewhat regrettable. We discussed femicide and the problem of coercive control in the last Parliament. The member for Victoria, Ms. Collins, introduced a bill to criminalize coercive control. The bill passed in the House and even made it to the Senate. No bill on coercive control had ever made it that far before. Unfortunately, the bill died on the Order Paper when the election was called in 2025. That delayed the criminalization of coercive control, even though the National Assembly of Quebec has been calling for this for a long time, particularly since the publication of the “Rebuilding Trust” report. The National Assembly wanted to take action in Quebec to prevent any further femicides, but since the Criminal Code is federal legislation, the National Assembly said that it is the federal government that must act.

    By talking about this issue again today, we can drive home a message that should have been sent a long time ago. In fact, it was not until I proposed a study on coercive control at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women and parliamentarians from all political parties showed up outside the House for a press conference last fall to tell the government that it needed to take action on the issue of coercive control that things got moving. Meanwhile, at least the study of Bill C‑225 was coming along, and the Standing Committee on the Status of Women got a chance to debate it.

    There is a clear consensus on the seriousness of domestic violence, and all parties are willing to take action. As the work in committee showed, all parties were able to work together and propose amendments to move the bill forward and improve it. The Bloc Québécois supports the bill because it takes a rigorous and consistent approach, while respecting Quebec's areas of jurisdiction. Thanks to the amendments proposed in committee, we can say today that this bill must move forward.

    However, the problem is not just that there is a shortage of laws, but that these laws are not being adequately enforced. The federal government keeps coming up with legislative changes without fixing the cracks in the system. At this point in my speech, I would like to share some statistics. Only 36% of family violence cases and only 5% of sexual assault cases get reported, which clearly points to a loss of trust in our institutions; 95% of domestic violence cases involve coercive control; and about 117,000 victims report domestic violence every year in Canada, 80% of them women. Furthermore, one in three women will experience domestic violence in their lifetime.

    These figures are truly disturbing. In Canada, one woman is killed every six days. Not surprisingly, the most vulnerable groups are indigenous women, racialized women and women living in poverty. I could also include women in rural areas, where resources are more limited. The most vulnerable pay the highest price for the cracks in the system. We really have to act. It is also important to understand that coercive control is a form of violence that involves repeated acts of control and intimidation. Since it is a pattern of behaviour, gathering evidence is obviously not easy. The legal system is also ill equipped to deal with this problem. Current criminal law struggles to fully acknowledge the reality of coercive control, and that is what absolutely must change.

    Our contribution to Bill C-225 includes tougher sentences, specific mention of intimate partners and the addition of the coercive conduct criterion. That was one of the proposed amendments. Then there is the increased focus on repeat offences, which is crucial. Those changes meant the bill was improved in committee. We worked very hard, and it was the result of cross-party collaboration. I want to highlight that out of respect for the victims, their families and their loved ones, while also keeping survivors in mind.

    The Bloc Québécois brought forward what I would describe as constructive criticism. We wanted to ensure consistency with criminal law. For example, there was the issue of classifying the murder of an intimate partner as first-degree murder. We also wanted to avoid legislative redundancy, because several offences already exist, such as harassment, threats and assault.

    Adding sections to the Criminal Code does not always guarantee better justice. That is why we need to address something else at the same time: There is not enough enforcement. Not as many charges are being laid, with increased reliance on section 810, which was studied at committee. Does that really protect victims? This needs to be examined further in order to improve things. The problem is not so much the lack of tools as it is the way they are being used within the current justice system. Tools already exist in the Criminal Code.

    Lastly, it is also important to consider the relationship between Quebec and the federal government. Quebec has a solid system of community-based networks. I would like to take this opportunity to commend all the groups and employees within these community networks who work every day to help women who are victims of domestic violence and coercive control. They perform small miracles. They have recognized expertise in addressing domestic violence, but the reality is that resources are insufficient and these organizations are under pressure. It is important that they receive increased resources. The federal government needs to provide financial support, not just pass legislation. However, this must be done while respecting Quebec's jurisdictions. These organizations know the reality on the ground in Quebec.

    There are still too many obstacles for victims, who are afraid that they will not be believed. Financial dependence also keeps victims trapped in a cycle of violence because they are afraid that they will not be able to afford to escape and that they will lose custody of their children. We need to take action. The system is seen as ill equipped to deal with such situations and is even often exploited by abusers. The system must instead work to help victims break free of the cycle of domestic violence. It must not be yet another obstacle for them to deal with.

    What is more, we are seeing that new technology is having an increased impact on violence. It provides new ways to control victims, including location tracking, digital surveillance and online harassment. The law really needs to evolve to keep pace with these new forms of violence. I would also point out that we need to address cyber-violence because that also disproportionately affects women.

    In conclusion, we will really need to be very strategic. Of course, we support the bill because we recognize that improvements have been made. However, it is also important to continue ensuring that the law is consistent. Above all, we need to go further. Let me be clear: We must take effective, consistent and victim-centred action. There is only one way to do that. We must continue to listen to victims, survivors and their loved ones. As I said earlier, we must listen to the organizations that work with victims every day.

    I, along with the members of the Bloc Québécois, pledge to keep listening to them. This bill is not an end in itself. It is an important step, but we must also ensure that a comprehensive system is put in place to support it. We will also need more resources and a truly systemic review of how we can address violence against women and femicide.

    Mr. Speaker, it is a strange and troubling thing in a country as prosperous and progressive as ours that a woman at risk can do everything she has been told to do, to seek help, speak truth and place her trust in the law, and still find herself dead at the hands of her own partner wielding a bloody weapon, in what can only be considered a completely avoidable murder.

    Bailey McCourt is one such story. She was not a statistic. She was a young mother with two young children, right in my community of Cloverdale. To those who loved her, she was not a headline. She was the centre of a home, a woman trying to build a safe life for her family. Like so many others, she found herself in a relationship that became dangerous over time. There were threats. There was violence. At one point, there was strangulation, which is one of the clearest indicators that the risk had escalated to a level that should never be ignored.

    On the morning of July 4, Bailey's former partner stood before a court and was convicted of assaulting her. The system had, in that moment, all the pieces in front of it. It had the history, it had the violence, and it had the pattern that had been building over time, yet despite all of that, he was released. There was no requirement to step back and ask whether this was something more than a single offence. There was no mechanism that treated violence against an intimate partner as fundamentally different from any other assault. There was no tool that required the court to fully assess whether Bailey was still in danger even after a conviction had just been entered. This is because under the law as it stands, we do not distinguish in any meaningful way between a violent act against a stranger and a violent act against someone in an intimate relationship, a relationship built on trust, proximity and, in many cases, vulnerability. When we fail to make that distinction, we fail to recognize the very real and documented risk that comes with intimate partner violence, particularly when it escalates.

    Just hours later, Bailey was in a parking lot going about what should have been an ordinary part of her day. It was there, in that ordinary place, in broad daylight, that her attacker found her and murdered her. She knew this could happen. She had begged to be protected, but the law, as it is written, ensured that the warning signs were ignored, and the inevitable happened.

    When we look back at that day, the question is not simply how this happened, but why there was no legal mechanism strong enough to interrupt it. Why, after a conviction, was there no ability for the court to say that it needed to take a closer look at this individual, needed a proper risk assessment and needed to determine whether releasing this person put a woman's life at risk?

    Bailey's case is not just a tragedy. It is a clear example of a gap in our law, a gap between what we know about intimate partner violence and how our system is currently structured to respond to it.

    When we step back from Bailey's story, difficult as it is, we are forced to ask ourselves a larger question. Was this truly an isolated failure, or is it part of something that we have been seeing for far too long and are just not willing to make the necessary changes to to protect women at risk?

    Dr. Wendy Aujla, assistant professor of criminal justice at Athabasca University, has spent years listening to women, many of them particularly vulnerable as new immigrants, who have walked this very path, not in theory but in lived experiences, in stories that, when placed side by side, begin to look far less like exceptions and far more like a pattern we can no longer ignore. What she hears time and again are stories not of women who failed to act but of women who did exactly what Bailey did. They reported, they sought help, and they tried to leave, but just like with Bailey, risk was not considered in the context of what had already happened and what was increasingly likely to happen next.

    For many women in the South Asian community, the path to even reaching that point is far more complex than the system is designed to recognize. Their particular cases are often complicated by family honour, language barriers and coercive control inside the home. A system like ours that is seemingly built to protect the perpetrator of intimate violence is very dangerous, especially for women of vulnerable minorities.

    When we consider what happened to Bailey, we cannot look at it in isolation. It fits into a pattern that has already been identified and already been studied. The knowledge is there. Our laws are ignoring that knowledge. While research like Dr. Aujla's helps us understand the pattern, it is often outside the government and in community spaces where we see just how real and immediate this issue is for women living through it.

    Last year, I attended a fundraiser on behalf of The Kaur Movement, founded by Gurpreet Kaur and supported by leaders like Manjot Kaur. The Kaur Movement is a survivor-led network that supports women facing abuse by connecting them to real-time help, such as shelters, legal aid and counselling, while also working to break the culture of silence around domestic violence, especially in the South Asian community.

    I went to the fundraiser expecting to hear about advocacy, awareness and the kinds of work many organizations are doing in this space to support women. What I heard that evening has stayed with me because it was not abstract or theoretical. It was story after story of women who have lived through violence, who have tried to seek help and who, in many cases, have found themselves navigating systems that were slow or difficult to access at the very moment they needed them the most. What struck me was not just the severity of what women endure but the common thread running through their experiences, which was the sense that they were often left to carry the burden of their safety on their own shoulders while feeling helpless and afraid because their lives were not as valued as those of the men who perpetrated the violence.

    The Kaur Movement has built something remarkable in response to this reality. It has created a network that responds in real time, connecting women to shelters, legal help and counselling, often at the very instant that they are reaching out. What The Kaur Movement is seeing day after day reinforces what we know: These are not isolated stories but part of a pattern that continues to unfold in communities across the country. Tragedies are playing out time and again due to a lack of laws that protect these vulnerable women in their moment of need.

    We can place these stories side by side: Bailey's life and loss; the careful work of women like Dr. Aujla who study these patterns; and community voices like The Kaur Movement, rising from what they see in reality every day. When we do, it becomes impossible to pretend that we do not understand what is happening.

    This bill asks us to finally align our legal response with what we already know to be true. It asks us to recognize in law that violence within an intimate relationship is not the same as violence between strangers, carrying with it a level of risk and proximity that makes it more dangerous, not less. This bill would begin to correct that by naming the reality for what it is. It would create a distinct offence that acknowledges the nature of intimate partner violence.

    The bill would go further still. It would recognize that when the ultimate act of violence is committed within a pattern of coercive or controlling conduct, when a life is taken by someone who has used that pattern of control and fear as a weapon, it must be treated with the full weight of the law. To name that act as first-degree murder would be not merely a question of punishment but a statement of clarity and a refusal to look away from what intimate partner homicide truly represents. The law has long recognized that killing in the context of other serious circumstances warrants elevation to first-degree murder. This bill would extend that same principle to the killing of an intimate partner where coercive or controlling conduct is present. That context is not incidental to the crime; it is the crime.

    This bill would ensure that when a person has already been convicted of an intimate partner offence within the past five years, or is already at large on a release order related to a prior intimate partner offence, a peace officer could not simply release them at the scene. The decision would have to go before a judge. It would be a safeguard built for moments like Bailey's, where the history is already there, the pattern is already documented and the ordinary process of release is simply not enough to meet the gravity of what is in front of the court.

    Bailey McCourt should still be here. That is the simplest, most honest thing that can be said. Her children should still have their mother. Her family should not be carrying this weight, nor should they be the ones who must now stand before us and ask that we do what should have been done already. We cannot give Bailey back to her children, but we can decide here and now that her story will not end in silence and that from it will come a measure of protection for those who are still, even today, waiting for the system to recognize the danger they are living with.

    Let us pass this bill. Let us act with the seriousness this moment demands and ensure that when the warning signs are there, as they so often are, we do not look back once again and say that we knew and did not act.

    Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise at third reading to support Bill C-225, introduced by the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. First, I would like to congratulate him on introducing this bill. I also want to congratulate the members of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women for their co-operation during the committee's consideration of the bill and for their efforts to significantly strengthen it through a series of amendments. We were able to work together in committee and achieve this. I would also like to thank the witnesses who appeared before the committee for their valuable testimony and insights, which led to the discussion we are having today.

    Before proceeding further, I would also like to note that this bill has been named “Bailey's Law” in honour of Bailey McCourt, a woman from Kelowna, British Columbia, who was tragically murdered by her former partner last July. Members of Bailey McCourt's family were present during the committee hearings, and I had the opportunity to meet them right here in the House through our colleague, the bill's sponsor. I thank him for introducing them to us. We had a good discussion with them. I would like to point out that their work has not only inspired the House but also contributed to the amendments made to the bill in preparation for the next steps.

    It is for these family members and countless other survivors and family members of those who have experienced intimate partner violence that we continue our efforts to advance this vital work.

    I would like to focus on three points today, three key amendments made to the bill at committee that deal with first-degree murder, manslaughter and the proposed new offence of intimate partner violence.

    First, Bill C-225 was amended to specify that the murder of an intimate partner will be treated as first-degree murder if the perpetrator commits the murder while engaging in, or after having engaged in, coercive and controlling behaviour. This means that, under these circumstances, the murder of an intimate partner will be treated as the most serious form of homicide, regardless of whether it was planned and deliberate. Whenever someone murders their intimate partner, it will be treated the same way whether it was premeditated or not.

    This is a very important measure aimed at condemning intimate partner homicides, which disproportionately target women. First-degree murder carries a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment with a parole ineligibility period of 25 years.

    At first reading, Bill C‑225 proposed to automatically designate all intimate partner murders as first-degree murders. When the bill was being studied in committee, many witnesses indicated that, even though they supported the intent behind the proposal, they were concerned that it might inadvertently penalize victims of intimate partner violence who end up killing their intimate partner in response to that violence. They wanted to make sure that the bill would not apply to persons acting in self-defence.

    In response to these concerns, the bill was amended to include a safeguard: Intimate partner murders would be treated as first-degree murders only if the evidence showed that the murder was committed “in the context of a pattern of coercive or controlling conduct”.

    A pattern of controlling or coercive conduct is defined in the coercion or control offence proposed in Bill C‑16. This offence was carefully designed so that it would protect victims and not be used to their detriment. It includes indicators of persistent violence that help determine who the true aggressor is in any given situation, including fatal cases of intimate partner violence, since we must consider the alleged offence in its broader context, rather than focusing only on isolated incidents of violence.

    This will make it possible to distinguish between acts of abusive violence and those committed in self-defence. In short, evidence will be required to prove that the person who killed their intimate partner was also experiencing a pattern of controlling or coercive behaviour. This could help to ensure that victims who kill their violent partner would not be considered to have committed first-degree murder because these victims did not necessarily have control over their partners. The goal is to protect the victims in such situations.

    This amendment is therefore very important. It also seeks to protect women and is a direct response to the concerns raised by several witnesses in committee. It also complements the provisions of Bill C-16 related to femicide.

    Second, Bill C-225 was amended to require the sentencing court to consider imposing a life sentence in cases involving the manslaughter of an intimate partner where the offender committed the offence in a context of coercive control. This amendment complements the one relating to first-degree murder in a context of intimate partner violence, which I just talked about, by ensuring that, even when the homicide of an intimate partner does not meet the legal threshold for murder, the law still treats it with the utmost seriousness.

    Like the amendment related to first-degree murder in a context of intimate partner violence, this amendments seeks to protect victims who kill their violent partner in response to the violence they are experiencing. This provision also complements one of the aggravating factors related to manslaughter in cases of femicide already set out in Bill C-16.

    The amended bill also includes a number of consequential amendments related to this amendment regarding the offence of manslaughter in the context of intimate partner violence. For example, if a court were to impose a life sentence in such a case, it would also be required to impose a parole ineligibility period of 10 to 25 years.

    This amendment ensures that manslaughter committed by an intimate partner is treated in a manner that is comparable to second-degree murder for the purpose of the parole ineligibility provisions when an offender is sentenced to life imprisonment. In doing so, it recognizes that those who take the life of an intimate partner in a context of coercive control bear greater responsibility.

    Lastly, Bill C‑225 was also amended to create a new offence specific to intimate partner violence that—

    I must interrupt the hon. deputy government House leader.

    The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

     moved that Bill C-22, An Act respecting lawful access, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

    He said: Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to thank everyone for being here to take part in this important debate.

    First of all, I believe it is essential to understand the context of this debate and the importance of this bill.

    It is no secret that public safety and crime in Canada are major political concerns for the government, and of course that reflects the reality that they are major political concerns for Canadians who go about their lives day to day concerned about the reality in their communities. Over the course of the past year now, we have been advancing a framework to address public safety in this country that rests on three key pillars. The first is to adopt stronger laws, including laws that would reform bail and sentencing in this country, laws that would combat hate, and laws that would more forcefully defend Canadians against gender-based violence and, in particular, the exploitation of Canadian children, particularly in an online environment.

    The second pillar involves supporting the front line. This includes 1,000 new RCMP officers and 1,000 new officers at our borders, but also support for community organizations that help keep communities safe or support victims. It also includes providing law enforcement with the tools they need to keep our communities safe. The third pillar, which I would suggest is among the most important, is to make upstream investments to help build safer communities and healthier people in the long term, including investments in affordable housing, mental health and addictions, and programs that particularly target at-risk youth, among other things.

    Today's bill arises in the context of the second pillar that I mentioned. That pillar, again, is to support the front line. It is easy for us, when we think about support for the front line, to think that it simply means more officers, which it must, as I pointed out, with significant investments in the federal aspect of both the RCMP and the CBSA, but importantly, it requires us to give law enforcement the tools they need.

    Our strategy rests on three pillars. First, we are introducing legislation to strengthen criminal law across the country. Second, we are providing support to police officers and others who protect our communities. Third, we are making investments to build safe communities.

     I want to focus specifically on this second pillar of giving the tools to law enforcement to help keep our communities safe. It will come as absolutely no surprise to anyone sitting in this chamber or those who live in our communities across Canada that the world we live in has changed over time and continues to change. In particular, the rapid pace of technological change demands that governments take actions to ensure that our laws reflect the reality in which we live today, not simply positioning us to address threats that existed during our childhood.

    When we think about the way the world has modernized, we quickly come to understand that so, too, have criminal organizations. The use of technology is so prevalent that it has become a primary way in which crimes are committed across borders, often in a digital environment. All of us are walking around with powerful phones in our pockets that allow us to engage with people in a moment around the world. We have access to networks of people we can keep in touch with, primarily for ordinary purposes, but we cannot be blind to the fact that there are criminal actors in this country and around the world who use that technology for unsavoury purposes.

    We think about the ability of organized crime not simply to use digital communications but to communicate across borders in real time to facilitate the commission of very serious crimes. In my many conversations with law enforcement over the past year, they have pointed to the fact that this technology is often being used at a prolific rate when it comes to the commission of crimes relating to extortion in this country, often violent extortion in this country. We are being told repeatedly that home invasions and auto thefts are not simply one-off examples of isolated actors who are simply behaving badly on a particular day, but the result of sophisticated criminal organizations that have established a network and are using technology to communicate with those who are committing crimes on the ground.

    We also know that when it comes to the very serious, most heinous crimes in Canada, sexual exploitation and abuse material are being committed against children. We know that the digital environment has caused the number of instances of this absolutely horrific criminal behaviour to increase dramatically in the number of examples we can find. One thing that is particularly challenging when it comes to the use of technology to commit these different kinds of atrocious criminal acts is the anonymity of the person who is doing wrong. It is not possible for the police to arrest an IP address or to investigate a phone number and bring it to prosecution. We have to understand that there are human beings who are willing to do bad things for their own personal gain and hide behind the anonymity that this technology can provide. If we want to keep Canadians safe, we must advance the law in a way that reflects the changes to technology.

    I often speak with police officers and representatives of organizations that protect our communities. They tell me that as technology changes, the laws need to change along with it. Right now, criminal organizations can use technology to commit crimes with complete anonymity. It is not okay to simply accept these problems. We need to tackle these challenges by changing the laws, specifically the Criminal Code.

    That is where this particular piece of legislation comes in. If we want the law to keep up with crime, we have to realize where we have fallen behind. This is where the concept of lawful access comes in, in the appropriately named lawful access act. Over the last number of years, countries around the world have been advancing their laws in a way that allows them to gain access to critical information, where a criminal investigation is taking place, to ensure that they are actually able to move forward with that investigation in order to stop crime and to prevent it, in the best case, or, when a criminal act is committed, to have the ability to bring the perpetrator to justice through a full and expeditious investigation, followed by a prosecution.

    When I look around the world, it is clear that Canada needs to catch up. Every other G7 partner has established a lawful access regime. Each of our other Five Eyes partners has established a similar regime, and it is time for Canada to do the same.

    The result of our current laws having failed to keep up with these rapidly changing technologies is that the investigations, although they still do take place, become cumbersome, difficult and time-consuming. When we are dealing with threats playing out in real time, it is important to understand that the ability to bring a perpetrator to justice depends upon police being able to do their job in real time as well.

    This debate started not today, although it is formally under this piece of legislation, but in fact in one of the very first pieces of legislation we brought forward in this Parliament. At the time, it was Bill C-2, the strong borders act. We took that bill to this House. We consulted broadly, not only with law enforcement but with privacy experts, security experts and, importantly, members of Parliament from different parties. I want to give full credit to my colleague, the hon. Minister of Public Safety, for the extraordinary level of engagement he undertook to get this bill in a better place.

    During those consultations, we heard that it is absolutely essential that Canada create the framework that will allow us to move forward with these kinds of investigations, but that we do so in a way that respects the privacy rights of Canadians and ensures that the state does not commit some overreach in its investigations seeking to stop these heinous criminal acts, which people unanimously agree we must change the law to address.

    This particular bill would achieve that balance, in my view, in precisely the correct way. The first feature of this bill that I want to draw attention to is that it would establish a process through which law enforcement could make a request for very basic information of electronic service providers. We are not talking about privileged information. We are not talking about advice from lawyers. We are not talking about health care details. In the first instance, where there is an existing criminal investigation and the police believe a crime has been or will be committed, this bill would enable the police to make a request that would confirm the service of an Internet service provider or a cellphone company that is tied to a particular phone number or IP address. This is not asking about the content of particular messages that may have been sent, but only whether a particular number or IP address exists on a particular network. Let me explain why this piece is of particular importance.

    When a police officer is charged with investigating a heinous crime, looking into extortion rings or the distribution of child sexual exploitation and abuse material, they frequently receive tips from foreign law enforcement agencies or come to understand through tools that we have here in Canada that there are specific phone numbers or IP addresses that lead law enforcement to believe that a crime has been or will be committed. However, we do not have the ability to act swiftly in Canada to deal with the threats that we do know exist, including when we receive these tips from foreign law enforcement agencies.

    Let us think about the position this puts law enforcement in. When they are seeking to look into an IP address just to determine which network it may be on, the current process could take months. It requires production orders where someone would go before the court only to establish whether a particular IP address belongs to one network over another. If they got it wrong on the first one, the process would of course begin again with the second and third. This would provide for an expeditious pathway for law enforcement to request whether a particular phone number or IP address is tied to a particular service provider.

     In the event that the service provider responds affirmatively and says that IP address, which is part of an existing criminal investigation, is in fact on their network, the next step would allow law enforcement to apply to the court, based on a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been or will be committed, to have the network share the subscriber information, the name and address, that would be tied to that phone number or IP address.

    When we think about this law simply keeping pace with changes to technology, we are not dealing with a broad-based overreach of information. This is the same information that used to be in our phone books. We do not see them around these days anymore, perhaps for obvious reasons. However, as a kid I remember it was common for a particular phone number to be listed next to a name and address. That information is not present when it comes to a person's IP address or modern cellphone numbers.

    However, when the police believe that a particular IP address, through reasonably obtained information, is tied to criminal activity, we need to have the ability to understand what network that information rests upon and who the subscriber behind it is, which would allow the police to not only investigate who may be involved with the crime but, at the early stage of the investigation, save enormous law enforcement resources by ruling out certain actors from criminal investigations.

    Let us keep in mind that throughout this process, even just to get the subscriber information, we are still requiring that law enforcement, under most circumstances, obtain judicial authorization before that information is shared. It is only where there are exigent circumstances, for example, where there is child exploitation being livestreamed, that there would be some provision for law enforcement to obtain this kind of information without first receiving judicial authorization.

     This process I have laid out would position Canada as the jurisdiction amongst G7 counterparts, for example, that would contain the most serious privacy protections within a lawful access regime that comes to exist. It is important that, if we are going to ask this information of service providers, we also ensure that they maintain that information. One part of this bill is dedicated to the kind of information that those service providers would be required to hold. Now, we are mainly focused on large-scale networks to ensure that we understand the metadata behind messages. Again, we are not specifically requiring the individual content of every message, but only trying to identify what messages may have been sent at what time, for example. This information would help ground a police investigation that could lead, obviously, to the prevention of crime, or perhaps to the investigation and prosecution of a crime.

     There are other elements of this bill that would also facilitate the co-operation of international criminal investigations when it comes to organized crime. The ability to operate seamlessly across borders creates opportunities for criminal organizations and puts obstacles in place for the states that are seeking to combat their heinous activity. This bill would create a clear legal pathway for Canada to make requests of its international partners, should we believe that foreign networks may have the same kind of information that I have described that would allow us to dig more deeply into investigations. It would also allow other states that are concerned about information that may be held in Canada to co-operate, through agreements that we reach with our allies, to ensure that we are doing our part to help protect the security interests of our closest friends and allies.

    Let us just think about what this means for law enforcement. It means that they are going to have more streamlined investigations. It means that they are going to be able to more quickly deal with threats that are playing out in real time. It means they are going to be able to do a better job at preventing crime from taking place in the first place and at conducting full investigations, should a crime be committed, to ensure that the bad actors are indeed brought to justice at the end of the day.

    It struck me, when I was speaking to law enforcement, when the bill was first tabled, just how seriously they treated this issue. We were joined by the deputy commissioner of the RCMP, the head of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the chief of police here in Ottawa. They not only described the urgency with which this issue must be addressed but lamented the decades-long process that it has taken successive governments of different parties to get here.

    I want to read a quote from the head of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and commissioner of the OPP, Thomas Carrique. He said, “I engaged in the first conversation on lawful access in 1996—”

    I was still in elementary school when this conversation began.

    I want to give my thanks in particular to Murray Rankin, a former colleague in the House, for his engagement on this issue and for consulting with stakeholders to ensure we had a broad base of perspectives to understand what changes needed to be made. I want to thank Leah West, a professor with unique expertise in security and privacy issues, who helped guide some of this work and provided invaluable feedback to get the bill in the shape that it is today. I want to thank the many stakeholders and parliamentarians who shared their perspectives to help us refine the initial version of the bill that was put forward into one that does a better job of advancing both security and privacy interests at the same time.

    We must continue to introduce criminal laws if we want to fight crime in our communities. It is also essential to work with everyone so that the government understands the perspectives of the various people who have contributed to the solutions proposed to improve the bill.

     We have an opportunity to do something in the House this week that has been 30 years in the making, and that is to bring Canada's laws in accordance with a modern standard that would give law enforcement the tools they need to keep our community safe. It is hard to imagine a more important outcome to pursue than that.

     Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. I take great interest in this subject matter, both as a lawyer who practised in this area and as the chief critic for the bill.

    One of the things that is very important, I think, to the people who are looking at the bill, to the people who are scrutinizing the bill and to the people who have looked at the bill from an expert point of view is part 2. That is with respect to the retention of data.

     I am coming at this from a legitimate point of inquiry. This is not meant to be a gotcha or anything. What I would like the minister to explain is this. The bill would require third parties, as in businesses and service providers, to retain certain information and to do things with that information.

    Does he think that this is constitutionally compliant? How do we know that the government simply is not going too far here?

     Mr. Speaker, I take the question in the spirit in which it was intended. The question is an important one. The first element is whether the bill is constitutionally compliant. I believe it is. I am happy to discuss, in public or off-line, the details of my constitutional assessment of the bill.

    I also think it is functionally necessary, and let me explain why. The core of the bill is to provide an opportunity for law enforcement to request particular information that would allow them to investigate criminal activity. They can only obtain that information if it exists. We can imagine the futility of the exercise in empowering law enforcement to make a request of a third-party service provider that would normally hold this information if there was no obligation for that information to be held in the first place. If the protections that we are seeking to include in the bill are not realized in the community, the bill will not be worth the paper on which it is written.

    Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his speech. The Bloc Québécois has a question about the budget cuts. Of course, we agree that the government should give intelligence services and the police more power so that they can do their jobs, but at the same time, it is cutting the budget of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, or NSIRA, by 15%.

    That seems rather inconsistent to us. On one hand, the government wants to grant more power, but on the other, it is cutting necessary funding for organizations such as the NSIRA, funding that may already be insufficient to carry out the work that these organizations need to do. I would like to hear the minister's thoughts on that.

     Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her question. I would like to speak to that concern. I have a different perspective on the issue.

    We proposed the bill and at the same time we invested in increasing the number of federal police officers in Canada. Last year's budget, for example, included investments to increase the RCMP workforce by 1,000 and border security staff by 1,000 as well.

     We can make investments and ensure that police have the resources they need to enforce the law as it exists now. However, we also need to change the law to ensure that Canada is equipped to protect our communities. I am very pleased to keep the conversation going.

    Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime came to Winnipeg and met with some interested individual community members where we talked about the issue of extortion. We also then met with the Winnipeg chief of police and members of the Winnipeg Police Association. All of them seemed to be of the opinion that we needed to get lawful access passed, and extortion was the issue that was constantly being raised at all three of those meetings.

     From a personal perspective, I feel somewhat frustrated, in the sense that we could have had this legislation, in the form of Bill C-2, pass last year, but because of Conservative obstruction we were not able to do that. I am wondering if the minister could provide his thoughts in regards to the degree to which this legislation is necessary and wanted in our communities across Canada.

    Certainly, Mr. Speaker, my colleague pointed to members of a number of policing organizations whom he has met with in his community who have supported this bill. However, to be clear, it includes not only his local police forces but the National Police Federation, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the British Columbia Association of Chiefs of Police, the Vancouver Police Department, the Toronto Police Service, the Peel Regional Police and the Ottawa Police Service. I think people get the idea. One of the reasons that we see such strong support from law enforcement organizations is they are living with the reality of communities that could be made safer if this bill were passed in its current form.

    When it comes to extortion in particular, we are hearing timelines to get through this process that sometimes stretch into months, 11 or 12 weeks, when in fact we can shrink that timeline to days or, in some instances, even hours to get the information they need. How that translates into better safety outcomes, which is what the law enforcement sector is really working towards, is that tougher criminal laws can punish bad actors after something has happened and this bill would sometimes allow agencies to prevent that bad act from taking place in the first instance.

    Mr. Speaker, this bill regarding lawful access certainly includes many improvements. I would like to see more, but I will speak to that later.

     It occurs to me today, and I am sure the Minister of Justice has this on his mind, that in five days we mark six years since the largest mass killings in Canada, in Portapique, Nova Scotia. In the resulting inquiry, the Mass Casualty Commission report called for many critical measures to be pursued. When the Minister of Justice says we are going to hire 1,000 new RCMP officers, what springs to my mind is that they would all be inadequately trained, according to the Mass Casualty Commission. The commission called for an overhaul of the way that RCMP officers are trained. We are talking about a preventable tragedy.

    Will the government implement the report from the Mass Casualty Commission?

    Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has a deep history with and love for my home province of Nova Scotia.

    I remember like it was yesterday, locking my family inside my basement for fear that there was an active shooter in my community. There are families I know personally that lost their loved ones that day, and we must heed the advice of the Mass Casualty Commission, which was led by one of the most esteemed justices in my lifetime, Chief Justice Michael MacDonald, who did exemplary work.

    There are a number of recommendations that came out of that process, some of which have already been implemented or are being implemented, including through different pieces of criminal legislation I have tabled in the House since I have had the opportunity to serve in this particular position.

    With respect to RCMP training, obviously that engages the responsibilities of one of my colleagues. I will continue to be an advocate for improving the quality of the training RCMP officers receive, particularly as we add additional personnel to help keep our communities safe. There are no easy solutions, but we should start with the work that has been done to inform those solutions, including the recommendations of the Mass Casualty Commission.

    Mr. Speaker, I have four points that I am looking for reassurance on from the minister.

    Number one, the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians did a whole report on lawful access. Of its findings, finding one found that the security and intelligence organizations in Canada do not systematically track the challenges they have with lawful access. Is there anything in this bill that would deal with that and the reporting aspects?

    Number two, can the minister reassure Canadians, because, as per the NSICOP report, nobody wants a back door to this bill, that the bill would in no way enable a back door into encrypted communications here in Canada?

     Number three, referring to finding seven, I see nothing in this bill that would address the intelligence and evidence dilemma. This is something we still need to fix. I assure the minister that I want the government to do more.

    Finally, in recommendation six, NSICOP talks about a compensation model, if we are going to force CSPs to comply—

    I need to interrupt the member to give the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada a chance to respond.

     Mr. Speaker, I expect I am going to run out of time in my response. I will offer a conversation to my colleague to ensure we can work together to advance the best version of this bill and the associated supports that would allow it to function in practice.

    To address some of his concerns about a back door, this was a concern I heard about during the consultations. I believe that, with the ring-fencing of the information that can be provided and the combined strategy of GIC regulations and ministerial orders, with the oversight of the intelligence officer, we would actually be able to prevent that kind of harm. We will work with service providers to identify the best way of ensuring that they would be able to share this information. For large service providers, I do not think it is going to be too onerous of a responsibility.

    I completely agree with the member on the intelligence and evidence divide. I am happy to work with my colleague on that. Given that I am out of time, I will make good of my commitment to finish this conversation off-line.

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

    We are only about an hour and a half into today, and this is my third time rising. What an honour it is to speak in the House of Commons, not only so frequently but also on matters of such import. We are dealing with really important issues today. Sometimes we deal with things that are quite performative in the House, but I can candidly say that, today, this is an issue of fairly significant importance.

    Before I start, I want to recognize one of my very good friends, who is celebrating a birthday. Philip Lee is 48 years old. He is somebody I went to high school with and have known for the past 36 years now. We have had the opportunity to travel together, and he has been a wonderful friend. I would like to wish Phil all the best in the upcoming year.

    I also want to recognize two people from Kamloops who accomplished something really significant. Johnny Hicks and Brady Milburn are part of the Denver Pioneers hockey club. That club is part of the NCAA. This weekend, the team was crowned the men's NCAA champion. I congratulate Johnny and Brady, who are both Kamloops products, and the whole Denver Pioneers team. Winning the NCAA championship is a tremendous accomplishment.

    What brings us here today is Bill C-22, but we have to look at the past to inform how we got here. Bill C-2 was heralded as a cure-all, a panacea, if we will, to all the things that ailed the justice system. If only we could pass Bill C-2, everything would be fine.

    Unfortunately, we have heard that before in the House. For years, we were told there were no issues with bail and sentencing, yet here we are now with a so-called new government, with many of the same cabinet ministers as the old government, and we are still dealing with the same issues.

    I believe the minister referenced Commissioner Carrique talking about this type of legislation going way back to 1997. In fact, Conservatives put forward legislation on lawful access and were roundly mocked by Liberals. There is a famous quote, which I will not repeat here today, that stemmed from that very debate, and now we hear there is a rush to pass this legislation. I understand why lawful access is so important, but if there was a rush, then why were the Liberals opposed to it in the last decade? If there was a rush, then why has it taken the Liberal government 11 years to bring this bill forward? If there was a rush, then why was Bill C-2 so clumsily drafted?

    We are here because of Bill C-2. In fact, if we look at portions of Bill C-2, we can see that we now have two bills that stem from it: Bill C-12 and Bill C-22. Both of those bills have dramatically remodelled what was contained in Bill C-2. In fact, Bill C-12 renovated so much of the text of Bill C-2 that it underwent further amendments at committee. I believe that my colleague, the shadow minister for immigration, the member for Calgary Nose Hill, did a great deal of work and produced a number of amendments at committee that were supported by the government or the Bloc and ultimately made it into the bill. That bill was a substantially better version of portions of Bill C-2. What do we have in Bill C-22? We have parts 14 and 15 of Bill C-2.

     One of the things that always strikes me is how, in the past, Conservatives heard criticisms of omnibus bills. Bill C-2 is about as omnibus as it gets. I think it would have impacted something like 11 pieces of legislation. I do not want to be quoted on that because I cannot remember, but it would have impacted so many pieces of legislation and created pieces of legislation. It is well over 100 pages. It is an omnibus bill to the point where we now have two bills that have stemmed from it, and I think we probably have three or four distinct subject matters that are contained within Bill C-2 that still have not been addressed. The part of Bill C-2 we have before us now is the notion of lawful access.

     I am going to focus on what is in Bill C-2, but I will also focus on some of the concerns I have. My hope is that the government will take these concerns legitimately and that we can proceed in the spirit of open and constructive dialogue.

    My colleague for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound asked a question. He sits on the national security committee, commonly known as NSICOP, which provides secret and confidential advice to the Prime Minister. Those who are on the committee are not permitted to speak about anything that is discussed in committee, and would be subject to very significant penalties under criminal law if they did, but one thing my colleague and friend for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound spoke about was not only the necessity, from NSICOP's point of view, of lawful access, but also what should be in that legislation.

    As Conservatives, we will always take the position that initiatives to help law enforcement, initiatives that allow those in law enforcement to do their jobs more easily, is something we will always be open to, but we have to make sure that those revisions to the law are both charter-compliant and consistent with the rights of privacy that we believe all Canadians should enjoy.

    In my view, the government has, in the past, tried to overstep its boundaries at times. Bill C-2, in parts 14 and 15, is an example, as it goes so far as to use language like any threat or “any action”. We saw that in Bill C-8 as well. Bill C-2 essentially wants the government to have access to “any information”. Well, that goes quite too far. I was happy to see that the government, at the very least, went back to the drawing board.

    Previously, a question from the government was about how the Conservatives could have just passed this in Bill C-2. Well, no, Conservatives would not have passed this in Bill C-2 because Bill C-2 is a poorly written piece of legislation. If Conservatives should have passed it in Bill C-2, then the government should have put forward a better piece of legislation, and I would go so far as to say that the government is admitting such because it has put forward Bill C-22. If Bill C-2 had no issues, if it did not, in the eyes of experts throughout the country, take significant liberties with privacy rights and things like that, then we would not be here today. The fact that the government has put forward Bill C-22 is itself an admission that Bill C-2, in its omnibus form, is, unfortunately, poorly drafted. That is what brings us here today.

    What are some of the things in Bill C-2? There are three parts. The first part we are looking at is on tools for law enforcement to access digital information. I do not believe this is going to be a controversial part of the bill. Right now, based on decisions from the Supreme Court of Canada over roughly the last 12 years, law enforcement has to write a great number of court orders, which is how I would put it. Another way to put it is “judicial authorizations”, and some people call them “warrants”. They often take the form of a warrant or a production order, such as an order to a business saying, “Is Frank Caputo your subscriber, yes or no?” Then it would say, “Please produce all the Frank Caputo subscriber information.” Those might be two distinct questions. The problem is that this takes time.

     Every time somebody has to go and get a court order, somebody has to write up that court order. They have to swear an affidavit in support of that court order. That takes time. As Conservatives, we recognize that when there are inefficiencies in the law, we need to address them. That is something that I do not think people take a great deal of issue with, but sometimes the devil is in the details and we need to ask further questions about those things.

     The current process in regard to subscriber information is informed by the decision of Regina v. Spencer. Now, that decision came out in 2014. Spencer impacted the obtaining of production orders, just to put it colloquially. I am sure somebody is going to be looking at the headnote of Spencer and will compare my words. I am just talking generally here, not with the legal precision that I would in court. We are looking at getting production orders for just about everything for which a subscriber may have an expectation of privacy. That would change with Bill C-22.

    Bykovets was another really key decision of the court, 10 years after Spencer. I believe Bykovets was about the expectation of privacy in a person's IP address. This was significant because most people do not know their IP address. A lot of people do not even know that they have an IP address. If they do know they have an IP address, they might not even know how they get it. When Bykovets said there is an expectation of privacy in that, I believe some legal scholars said, “Okay, that's interesting.”

    I am not here to take potshots at decisions. I am here to recognize what the issue is. Whenever there is an expectation of privacy, then we need a search that is authorized by law through a court order. That meant a court order was required to get an IP address, even though finding an IP address was essentially akin to finding a phone number in the phone book. That was the analogy, as I recall. Most of us in the House will remember phone books. The member for Kenora—Kiiwetinoong probably does not, but he is probably the only one. The rest of us remember what it was like to get phone books. Let us face it, phone books were everywhere. Anybody could find anything. Anybody, as I understand it, with some semblance of digital acumen would be able to get an IP address, but nonetheless, the courts said there is an expectation of privacy.

     These are all issues we are dealing with right now, within the current framework, that part 1 would address. As well, let us not forget that these are often offences against children and terrorist offences. Those are the two offences that are probably of the most interest to the legislators in the House, as in how we address those things.

    Let us get into part 2 a little bit. I have skipped over some of part 1 because I want to give part 2 what it requires in terms of debate. Part 2 talks about ministerial orders. I am mindful of the fact that the Intelligence Commissioner now has a role to play within these ministerial orders.

    The thing that I think we need to look at or that I would want more information on, as I craft my position and Conservatives craft our position on this, is that when there is a ministerial order that is secret, the government should be prepared to substantiate why it is secret and if it should be secret in every single instance. For instance, we spoke about NSICOP recently and how everything that is about national security will be top secret. There may be a place to say yes, if it is going to impact national security, but does that mean that every single ministerial order is going to be secret or should be secret?

    Furthermore, when it comes to the Intelligence Commissioner, precisely what role would that person play, and how would their independent oversight impact a number of the concerns? One of the key areas that part 2 of Bill C-22 impacts is that it compels third parties to keep information. I want to be very clear here that the information, in my reading of the bill, would still require a warrant. I believe the way the minister explained it was that the information would be kept and then could be accessed. That is, the government does not simply receive the information, but it is present in order to be accessed.

    It is my view that whenever the government tells anybody, including electronic service providers, that they must keep something, including metadata, it is something we need to ask questions about. This is probably one of the biggest issues. As I understand it, the bill's intent is to require that metadata be kept. That can include location services, but it is not meant to include the content. That is my reading of the bill. I think this needs to be closely scrutinized, and I look forward to asking more questions in the next two days of debate here on that very issue.

     First, I would love to hear about the constitutionality of the requirement to have a third party keep something so the government can access it. I am not going to stand here and say whether that is or is not constitutional as it is not something I have studied thus far, but I think it is a question Canadians may have.

    Second, on the idea of the requirement that a person's location be kept, who is going to keep that? Where is the data going to be stored? In my riding, we have a huge data storage facility. Are there going to be requirements as to how and where that data is stored and things like that?

    This is a very complicated piece of legislation. I think somebody could read Bill C-22 three times and think they are starting to get a sense of what it actually says. When we deal with pieces of legislation that are quite intricate, obviously we need to develop our positions not only in a careful way but in a way that is sound. That is what I hope to do and what we as Conservatives hope to do.

     Is there a mechanism by which web browsing history can be captured under Bill C-22? I think a lot of people would be alarmed if that were the case, from a privacy point of view. The issue of data retention is not a new one. One of the principal issues that I went up against, as somebody who prosecuted Internet offences against kids, was data retention. I was speaking with police officers today, and ISP addresses, in some cases, can actually disappear within as little as 30 days. I am not saying we should not be looking at that. We should absolutely be looking at that, but perhaps there should be limits.

    If we are going to impact privacy rights, maybe that should be based on the offence. If we are looking at a sexual offence, perhaps the terminology we could look at is “an offence against the person”. All sexual offences are, by their very nature, violent, and I do not mean to dichotomize there. However, with respect to sexual offences, sexual offences against children or investigations into violence against the person, if there are concerns, perhaps there could be a narrowing so there would not be simply a fishing expedition to try to find an offence. Rather, we would be looking at all offences.

    I see my time is coming to a close. Before I end, I want to acknowledge three people: Kelly Hunter, a baseball and softball umpire who was inducted into the Kamloops Sports Hall of Fame this weekend; Jessica Hewitt, a speed skater who was inducted into the Kamloops Sports Hall of Fame this weekend; and Glenn Armstrong, a football coach who was also inducted into the Kamloops Sports Hall of Fame. These three individuals have made dynamic contributions to the Kamloops area in sport, and I congratulate them.

     With that, I will enjoy any questions.

    Mr. Speaker, within the legislation we will find substantive aspects that would protect the privacy of Canadians.

     It was interesting when the member made reference to phone books. I remember the phone books quite well. In fact, the Who Called? book was based on addresses. One could go into an area with a list of addresses followed by a phone number and find out who was in a home.

     We have advanced with the Internet and the digital era, and the need for law enforcement officers to have this important tool is absolutely critical.

    Does the member agree that we need to modernize, and can we anticipate that the Conservative Party will be supporting Bill C-22?

     Mr. Speaker, we always need to modernize in law. I actually spoke about it this morning when I was speaking to my private member's bill. The moment we stop pushing here and are complacent, in any law but especially in the criminal law, we have an issue. The law is often years behind when it comes to technology. The member will have heard me reference Spencer, which was a decision from 2014.

    As Conservatives, we will always be open to the modernization of law. Right now, what we are doing and what we are evaluating in debate with respect to this bill is whether this is the right way to modernize the law. There is no issue that we all want less crime and that we all want the police to be able to do their jobs. The question that I have, and that we have, is whether Bill C-22 is the appropriate mechanism to do so.

    Mr. Speaker, earlier, I listened to the Minister of Justice talk about Bill C‑22 and say that he had carried out consultations. Bill C‑22 is a second attempt at legislation, following Bill C‑2. Observers say, however, that it only fixes some of the problems for which last year's bill was widely criticized.

    Lastly, many observers and experts were not consulted. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

     Mr. Speaker, I would agree. Sometimes we get legislation before us in the House and we say that we can all agree to it or that some tweaks need to be made. This Parliament has worked a lot better than the last Parliament did in terms of moving forward things on which we can all agree.

    In specific response to my colleague's question, there are certainly a number of questions that arise within this bill, particularly on part 2. If we are going to address this and develop our positions, I do not think it is a bad thing to ask the questions in debate and to develop our positions from there.

    Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my hon. colleague to build upon what he mentioned in his speech about his own experience as a public prosecutor, specifically around this data bit.

    On the NSICOP committee, we found that without a general requirement for these CSPs to retain metadata, i.e., the address book, for a specific time, when a warrant is then sought, there is a possibility that that data is no longer available, which makes it very difficult with some of these very heinous crimes to put the alleged perpetrators away.

    I do not want to get into the challenges of the bill as much as the requirement that we, as a Parliament, need to address this important piece of public safety here in Canada.

    Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for this very important question. Evidence is required in any sort of prosecution. What my colleague is asking about, in my view, is how we deal with the gaps in evidence that exists now but may not exist tomorrow. That is essentially what I take his question to be.

     NSICOP has said there is a gap. For instance, I just mentioned that 30-day gap between ISP addresses and how long they go. This is clearly something that Canadian law has to address. It is an issue that we often have to overcome in prosecuting anything: Where is the data or the evidence now? It is crucially important for us, as a House, to consider that. What is the correct form, though?

     Mr. Speaker, there are many issues on which the member and I do not agree, but I think we do agree that there has never been anything like this not only in this Parliament but in any Parliament of Canada. A single bill, originally Bill C-2, the strong borders act, was so universally panned and attacked by so many civil society groups, a coalition of more than 300, that the bill then had to morph from Bill C-2 to Bill C-12 and now, to try to get to warrantless access, to Bill C-22. There has never been a course of legislation like this.

     I would ask my hon. colleague, with whom I agreed on many of his attempts to improve the bill in committee, does he think we are getting closer? We have at least gotten rid of the original provisions that post office employees could open the mail without a warrant. The member for Winnipeg North may be the only member in this place who laments Bill C-2—

     I am going to interrupt the member.

    Before I go to the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, I think it is incumbent on all members when they are joining the chamber using Zoom to ensure that they are in a place where there is nobody else on camera or visible in the background for the dignity and decorum of this place.

    With that being said, I will turn it over to the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

    Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands referenced my colleague from Winnipeg North and how much we have debated whether Canada Post can open people's mail, so I am not going to get into that for what would probably be the 32nd time or so.

    I do agree with my colleague on the point of Bill C-2 morphing into Bill C-12 and now morphing into Bill C-22, and this tacit acknowledgement of, “Wow, we really got it wrong. Not only did we get it wrong on one thing, but we got it wrong on multiple things because we are not even pursuing Bill C-2 as a government.” This is the Liberals' point of view. “We got Bill C-12 right enough for it to pass and now we are trying to get Bill C-22 right enough for it to pass.”

    When it comes to part 1 of this bill, what I do notice is that, for instance, the police or a state actor cannot go and get information from just anybody, a general practitioner, Facebook or groups like that. It is strictly restricted to telecoms, so we can see the government really pulling back on what it was seeking from this. I think that is an acknowledgement that Bill C-2 really did miss the mark.

     Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to my original question that I asked the member because I think it is important.

    The member and the Conservatives have now had a couple of weeks to look at the legislation itself, but a lot of it originates out of Bill C-2. They have had the opportunity to really get a good understanding of the direction the government is going on lawful access.

    Can we expect the Conservative Party of Canada to support lawful access?

    Mr. Speaker, Bill C-22 is a complicated bill. Bill C-2 was a dog's breakfast, to put it mildly. I do not know that I would be saying that we should build on anything from it.

    We are looking at the bill and the member will know when we have our position. We are going to scrutinize this bill and give it the scrutiny it deserves on behalf of Canadians.

    Mr. Speaker, when NSICOP studied this bill, one of the recommendations the committee discovered was that there should be a national authority established and identified for lawful access and intercept initiatives across Canada because obviously, we have multiple police jurisdictions, CSIS and different organizations.

    Is the member aware of anywhere in the legislation where that requirement is identified, yes or no?

    Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge, we have a review period that is required after three years, which is part 3 of the legislation. I would have to go back and look through this very lengthy bill to see whether there is something like that. Perhaps that is something that could be addressed through amendments.

    I look forward to hearing my colleagues speak on this bill as well.

    Mr. Speaker, I was rather pleased when I reviewed Bill C-22, because I think it is better than what was proposed in Bill C-2 last year. However, I am not sure that it meets all of the necessary conditions for it to come into force.

    It will come as no surprise that the Bloc Québécois is also not sure whether this bill should come into force. Honestly, I cannot tell my colleagues this morning what position the Bloc will take when it comes time to vote. We are still thinking about it and taking into consideration the comments, suggestions and criticisms we are hearing from civil society and others. While many people recognize the merits of many of the provisions of Bill C-22, others are concerned about other aspects of the bill.

    This weekend, I read a New York Times article that a colleague sent to me about a recently developed software program that can hack into the databases of banks, governments and businesses. This software or AI could be put up for sale and sold to the highest bidder. We learned about this a few weeks ago, and the situation is constantly evolving, day by day.

    Access to personal information is a major issue. It may well be the most important issue that this honourable House will have to address during the 45th Parliament. However, at this point, there is not a lot of data available to us. As I said, the situation is evolving day by day. What seemed impossible six months ago has now been a reality for months, and we are now grappling with what has existed for just a few weeks. Needless to say, we have no idea what will exist in six months or a year.

    Despite all that, we are about to pass a bill that purports to regulate what will happen in six months, a year or 10 years. It is going to be quite difficult to draft a bill that includes sufficient measures to protect the entire population against various problems. It will also need to include sufficient regulations to protect individuals' right to privacy and all the rights recognized by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In saying all of that, I still have not really said anything; I know that and I am fully aware of it. However, I want everyone to recognize the gravity of the situation, the importance of this bill and our lack of tools in the face of all the objections that are being raised.

    In this context, we must keep a watchful eye on the process we are about to implement. I am thinking in particular of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency. That agency is a good thing. However, when I read the bill, I noted that the agency will only receive unredacted reports after the redacted reports are tabled. That means decisions will be made and regulations will be adopted by the government without the House having a say and without the agency, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and all the other organizations that exist to protect people's rights and freedoms being able to look at them.

    Will we not end up making matters worse? I am not saying that is the case, but I would say it is one of our main concerns regarding Bill C-22. Part 3 stipulates that Bill C-22 must be studied in committee and reviewed after three years. That is good news. The question is whether a review after three years is sufficient, given how quickly these situations evolve. I am not convinced that it is. If Bill C-22 is referred to committee, this is something that will need to be examined. Will the government be open enough to discussing the matter with the opposition parties and agree on a safeguard mechanism that is sufficiently well defined? That is the question.

    I just want to digress for a moment. Today, by-elections are being held in three ridings, two in Toronto and the other in the riding of Terrebonne, Quebec. What will the results of those by-elections be? I do not want to make any assumptions and no one has a crystal ball, but one thing is certain: The situation of the current government, which until now has been a minority government, could be very different as of tomorrow. What impact will that have on the safeguards that we are working on? Will the government still be as open to their political opponents when they are in a minority situation as it was when they had the upper hand over the government? I do not know.

    Until now, one committee member, regardless of their party affiliation, could tip the balance one way or the other, since the committees are often, although not always, made up of a Liberal chair, with four Liberals on one side, four Conservatives on the other and a Bloc member. That means that the Bloc member could hold the balance of power in committee and could decide between the Liberals' position and the Conservatives' position. Will this situation continue after tomorrow, once the by-elections are over and we know the results? I do not know.

    I do not recall whether it was in the news today or yesterday, but I have to say that I was pleased to read that, according to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, the government would continue to work closely with the opposition, or at least respect the positions taken by the opposition, and that this would continue. I appreciated that openness. I just hope that that is what will actually happen, because if we end up with a majority government that plans to ignore the positions advocated by the opposition parties, then the situation could become very troubling, especially since we have already passed bills such as Bill C-15, which, in my humble opinion, granted the government excessive powers, and we have before us today Bill C-22, which could be similar in nature.

    Is it wise to pass Bill C-22? Perhaps, perhaps not. As I was saying, there are some positive aspects. We need to address the issue of access to information. I understand that we need to get up to speed with what is being done elsewhere in the world. That is an argument that has come up a few times. However, when we take a closer look, it is not necessarily clear that Canada is in such a bad position compared to what is being done in the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom or elsewhere in the world. We therefore need to examine this closely. Would Bill C-22 not put us in a position that is abusive—or at the very least excessive—compared to what is being done elsewhere? That may or may not be the case.

    One thing is certain: No matter what side of the fine line we stand on, mechanisms for protecting every person's rights and freedoms are vital. In my opinion, Bill C‑22 does not place a high priority on that.

    The powers conferred on the agency, which I believe are largely cosmetic at this point, require careful examination. It might be nice to see words like “protection agency” in the bill, but in reality, if this agency is informed of what was done—right or wrong—only after the fact, what can it really do besides say that it would have disagreed had it been consulted? A fat lot of good that will do.

    It might be a good idea to do the review before things happen, not after. The regulations that will be made should be examined, if not by the House as a whole, then at least by independent agencies responsible for protecting the rights of all citizens. I think these issues deserve to be studied.

    The bill also sets a threshold of “reasonable grounds to suspect,” rather than “reasonable grounds to believe”, which would need to be met before certain investigations can be authorized. This distinction may seem semantic, but it is actually quite significant, since “reasonable grounds to suspect” represents a significantly lower threshold than “reasonable grounds to believe.” Granting investigative powers based on mere suspicion could amount to a blank check. The threshold for “reasonable grounds to believe” was already relatively low. Lowering it further is cause for concern. If the bill is considered in committee, I look forward to hearing what organizations responsible for protecting rights and freedoms have to say about this. For my part, I find this issue troubling.

    The Intelligence Commissioner's approval of regulations is also an important factor. However, will the commissioner be allowed to intervene at an early stage? A veto power might be excessive, but at the very least, the authority to observe, critique and make recommendations would be essential. However, I do not believe that the current version of Bill C-22 offers much hope in this regard.

    In my view, both the agency and the Intelligence Commissioner, which are essentially the only two independent bodies with the power to reassure the public and protect each individual's rights and freedoms, should be consulted before decisions are made to avoid jeopardizing everyone's rights and freedoms.

    Personally, I have nothing to hide. However, the idea that the authorities might be able to access my emails or financial information strikes me as intrusive and makes me feel uncomfortable and unsafe. No one is completely comfortable with that level of surveillance. Everyone is concerned about an Orwellian dictator, even though some say that we reached that point some time ago and that we have to stop being afraid of that. That may be true, but Bill C-22 proposes giving such a dictator even more power, which may alarm many.

    We need to focus on how we are going to protect individual rights and freedoms. We all know that our lives are already quite public. Almost everyone is on social media in one way or another. These platforms contain a lot of information that would otherwise be personal and confidential. Every individual chooses to post pictures, text or documents on those social networks. They choose that kind of exposure, and that is perfectly fine. I understand that.

    Bill C-22 goes even further, however. When we start talking about banking information, emails, and all that, it becomes a cause for concern. Although I believe that law enforcement and government agencies must be given the means to protect us from malicious intrusions by foreign agents or organized crime, or from all kinds of attacks that may be launched against our bank accounts or other assets, and although I believe that the government must take measures to protect us from this, I also believe that the government must take steps to ensure that, in doing so, it does not infringe on our right to privacy. This is the fine and delicate balance we are currently trying to strike: the balance between protecting ourselves from organized crime and foreign interference and protecting ourselves from potentially abusive intrusions into our privacy without any safeguards in place.

    I would also like to hear from the Ethics Commissioner. We will see what he has to say if the bill is referred to committee. The Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service are all institutions that must take a close look at Bill C‑22. While it may be an improvement over, or more acceptable than, Bill C‑2, Bill C‑22 is nonetheless questionable and troubling. It must be examined thoroughly. I will leave it at that and say that we in the Bloc Québécois are continuing our reflection in the hope that we will be able to find a sound position to take on these serious issues.

    Mr. Speaker, in his comments, the member made me reflect on some of the debate we had on Bill C-9. One of the issues we had when dealing with the hate legislation was the fact that the official opposition, through social media and emails, providing information that was definitely misleading, which ultimately took away from the true value of Bill C-9.

    When we talk about this particular bill on lawful access, Bill C-22, it is important to recognize that what we are really talking about is confirmation of service. It is not like the police can go to Rogers and say that they want to know how much money a person has in their bank account or ask for email information. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on making sure information is accurate.

    Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I must say that I have doubts about the premise. I share his concern. Bill C‑22 should not be used to embark on a witch hunt and make false claims. However, I do not agree that Bill C‑22 could not ultimately be used to allow individuals or organizations to gain access to our bank accounts. I think that that is already a reality, with or without Bill C‑22. That is already possible.

    I am concerned about the passage of the bill. Once again, I agree with his statements about how it is important to not vilify Bill C‑22 and engage in a false debate. However, it is also important to not naively close our eyes and let things go.

    Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yet another impressive speech. He mentioned in his remarks that one of the factors being cited is that Canada is lagging behind internationally, particularly in comparison to countries such as the United States, New Zealand, Australia, the United Kingdom, France and Italy.

    Can my colleague talk about what could have been done or whether there are good practices elsewhere that Canada could have emulated instead of potentially violating people's privacy?

    Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Shefford, who always has excellent questions, although they are often tricky. I am not entirely sure if I am answering correctly, but yes, this has to do with the so-called Five Eyes. Canada must not rely solely on information obtained from other countries. We also need to produce information. We also need to take the lead and be able to take action on various issues. Is what is being done elsewhere better than what is being done here in Canada? For some countries, the answer is yes. For others, it is no.

    That is the challenge we face with Bill C-22. We need to examine it and ask ourselves how far we should go, or not go, to ensure we strike the right balance between protecting privacy and keeping all Quebeckers and Canadians safe.

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to recognize Vaisakhi, a time of renewal, gratitude and community for Sikhs and Punjabis here in Canada and around the world. It marks the founding of the Sikh faith and reminds us of the enduring values of service, equality and courage. With that spirit in mind, I will turn to my question.

     Let us say a municipal police service flags a suspected trafficker, but that information does not fully reach federal partners like the RCMP or CSIS, or perhaps even provincial partners like the OPP. What good is more data if it is still stuck in separate systems? My experience as a police officer has been that there are silos and those silos do not necessarily talk to each other at all.

    Mr. Speaker, I must admit that my colleague is raising a concern that I also share, in a number of ways. I have been a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for a number of years now and, all too often, police officers tell us that police services do not all have access to the same information, which significantly impacts their efforts to fight crime.

    Indeed, information must be shared among the various police services. That is important. We share the same concern about privacy and the measures that should be implemented to regulate these powers. Police services must work together and share information, but it must all be done in accordance with clear and well-defined standards.

    That is why the work we are doing right now on Bill C‑22 is so important. It will ensure better communication and more efficient service delivery without compromising privacy rights.

    Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's answer to my first question. This one is more dealing with the issue of process.

     Given the very nature of how we have been trying to get lawful access as part of our Criminal Code, it is important for this government to respond and provide the necessary legislation in the form of a tool that can be used by law enforcement agencies across the country and CSIS by providing this tool that agencies want brought in. Does the Bloc party support the principle of the legislation and is it prepared to see it go to committee sometime soon?

    Mr. Speaker, we are not that far apart on this issue. We really need to give law enforcement and government agencies the tools they need to adapt to the realities of 2026, 2027 and so on. I agree on that point.

    However, does that mean that we agree to pass Bill C-22? I do not know. As I said at the outset, we are still considering it. There are arguments in favour that are being countered by arguments against, and they all make sense. All of the arguments are reasonable. All of the concerns are, in my opinion, justified. However, the demands and requirements regarding the fight against organized crime are indeed a concern for the Bloc Québécois, and always have been.

    Mr. Speaker, originally this legislation was presented in Bill C-2, and there were lots and lots of problems with Bill C-2. It has been reintroduced now as Bill C-22. Does the member find that the concerns that were addressed with Bill C-2 have been adequately addressed in this legislation?

    Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question gives me the opportunity to say that we are pleased that, with Bill C‑22, the government has proposed a piece of legislation that is better than Bill C‑2. I acknowledge that and am grateful for it.

    However, as I said earlier, just because it is better does not mean it is perfect. That does not even mean that we should spend time studying it in committee. Maybe we should, and maybe we should not. That is something we are currently considering. Unfortunately, I am not in a position to say today whether we will be voting for or against referring it to committee. We will have to decide what position to take in the coming days.

    Mr. Speaker, before I get to my question, I would like to wish my good friends, Shanti Ramachandran and Anthony Norohna, a happy birthday. They are fantastic friends and fantastic people.

    When I was in policing, if I wanted subscriber information tied to a phone used in a fraud case, say, I had to go before a judge and justify that before I could get the production order. Why are we now saying that reasonable suspicion alone is enough? Are we lowering the bar for accessing personal information?

    Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, that issue is debatable. The government wants to change the threshold from reasonable grounds to fear to reasonable grounds to suspect. The threshold is being lowered to such an extent that, ultimately, there is hardly any threshold at all. It is important to think about that. We need to be careful. It has been said that the perfect is often the enemy of the good. We will have to see. If we go too far, we might do more harm than good, so we need to look at this carefully.

    Mr. Speaker, I want to start off by commenting on a question I posed to the minister who introduced the legislation. In my question, I talked about how the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime came to Winnipeg, and we met with some interested citizens with regard to lawful access and dealing with the issue of extortion. We then met with the Winnipeg police chief and the Winnipeg Police Association, all of whom were exceptionally encouraging and very supportive of the principle of lawful access. That is what this entire piece of legislation is about, in essence. That is why I believe it is so very important that we take the opportunity to recognize the legislation for what it is, an effective tool that can be used in the tool belt for law enforcement officers and CSIS, and I am concerned with some of the responses that I received.

    When I posed the question to the minister, he commented that it is not just the Winnipeg police department or the chief of police, both of whom I met with, but it is throughout Canada. Law enforcement agencies in every region of the country have seen the benefits of lawful access. If we were to canvass every member of the Liberal caucus today, we would find that there is a desire to see Bill C-22 pass.

    It has been less than a year since Canadians elected a new Prime Minister, and he made it very clear that he wanted to establish a suite of legislative initiatives that would deal with the issue of crime. It is interesting that we now have Bill C-2, Bill C-9, Bill C-14, Bill C-16 and today Bill C-22, and I will provide a brief comment on each of those. It demonstrates the degree to which we want substantive changes to our Criminal Code and other legislation so we can provide safer homes, communities and nation.

    That is what Bill C-2 set out to do right from the get-go. Let us remember that Bill C-2 was introduced last June, within a couple of months after the election. The election was at the end of April, and the legislation was introduced in June. Bill C-2 incorporated lawful access. It incorporated things such as stabilizing immigration and strengthening Canada's borders. Unfortunately, the opposition made the decision to go all out in opposing Bill C-2. As a direct result, a lot of the initiatives that Bill C-2 would have supported were obstructed by the Conservative Party of Canada, and it is unfortunate. It is not the only piece of legislation that the Conservatives obstructed.

    When we think of lawful access, I would encourage members opposite to talk to their local law enforcement agencies and the constituents they represent who feel concerned about the issue of extortion. When the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime was in Winnipeg, that was the issue that the group we met with wanted to talk about, the issue of extortion. Whether they had already gotten a phone call or they realized that a phone call could be made, there was a genuine concern. We talked about that for a good 45 minutes to an hour.

    That was followed by a meeting with the law enforcement agency. The chief of police and the Winnipeg Police Association both talked about the need for Bill C-22, which was actually incorporated in Bill C-2, which could have been passed long ago, and how it would in fact have an impact on issues like extortion. Flash back to four, five, six months ago, when we had Conservatives standing up and talking about the issue of extortion. They were criticizing the government for not doing enough, when we had legislation before the House and the Conservatives were obstructing it from being able to pass. We witnessed that all of last year.

    I make reference to Bill C-2 because that is where Bill C-22 comes out of. We also had Bill C-9, the hate legislation, and Bill C-14, the bail reform legislation. Let us remember the bail reform legislation and how long we had to wait for that. I was standing in this very spot back in November, saying to the opposition, “Let us pass bail reform legislation. We could actually pass it before the end of the year.” That was at the end of 2025. However, the Conservatives were obstructing the passage of that legislation.

     We also have Bill C-16 before the House today. We have no sense of where the official opposition is going to land on that legislation. Is it going to be their intent to oppose and prevent its passage? It is a legitimate question. That is the question I asked the Conservative critic today when he made his presentation on Bill C-22. Not once but twice I asked him that question. At the end of the day, Bill C-22 has been out there for the last couple of weeks in terms of the actual legislation, but the issue itself has been debated for months, and not necessarily just inside the House. It has been talked about inside and outside Ottawa, and in our communities. I think it was fair for me to ask the Conservative shadow minister if the Conservatives would be supporting the legislation. When I asked the question, not once but twice, there was no indication whatsoever that we could anticipate support from the Conservative Party of Canada. That is concerning. It should be concerning to all of us.

    The Prime Minister has made it very clear that at times there is a need for us to work collectively and to put some of the partisan politics to the side to see if we can actually pass legislation.

     All we need to do is take a look at what happened this morning. Bailey's law actually passed through the concurrence stage and is now in third reading. It has one more hour of debate, and then I expect it will pass. At the committee stage, the government moved a number of amendments, and fortunately the opposition was in agreement with those amendments. We were actually able to pass a substantive piece of legislation that I anticipate all members are now going to support.

     I wish the same attitude and sense of co-operation that have been shown by the government on a Conservative private member's piece of legislation would also apply to government legislation.

     That is why I would suggest to us that it is discouraging, in the sense that Bill C-2 was actually very clear. The Conservatives were not going to support it in any fashion whatsoever. It ultimately led to two other pieces of legislation having to come out as a direct result, Bill C-12 and now Bill C-22.

    If we look at it, Bill C-12 has actually now passed through. That was to do with what the Prime Minister and this government committed to Canadians, which was to look at stabilizing the immigration file. It is going to go a long way in being able to assist with that. It also dealt with some border security issues that came out of Bill C-2.

    We now go to Bill C-22, lawful access. We have law enforcement agencies from across our nation supporting the legislation and lawful access. Did members know that Canada is the only country in the Five Eyes that does not have lawful access? In fact, we are the only country in the G7 that does not have lawful access. Already today, in listening to the debate, I am concerned.

    When, for example, the member from the Bloc spoke about it, he said that he does not know if it is overreach. This is what the Bloc is saying, that it could be overreach, where the government is going to be able to look into a person's bank account or read emails.

    I raised the issue with the member opposite when it came time for a question. My concern is that we are going to see, with Bill C-22, the same thing we witnessed on Bill C-9.

    Bill C-9 dealt with hate crimes. It actually put in protections for churches, mosques, gurdwaras and temples. Misinformation that flowed out about that legislation created a fear that many of my constituents and Canadians had, not based on fact but based on misinformation. We have to counter that.

     I would hope that Bill C-22 would not be one of those pieces of legislation, once again, where we will see the Conservative Party putting its own interests ahead of good, sound public policy that is in the best interest of Canadians. For anyone to even imply, in any fashion whatsoever, that the government wants to read one's emails or know how much one has in one's bank account, I think, does a great disservice to the chamber.

    I believe that the decision should be based on facts. There is absolutely no merit whatsoever to that argument. Remember, what we are talking about is a confirmation of service, finding out whether a particular individual or home has an IP service location. If the answer to that is yes, there is then a process to go through that incorporates our courts. There is no information provided other than a yes on an IP address.

    I think that is an essential aspect to policing today. If members do not believe me, they should ask law enforcement agencies and many of the different stakeholders out there.

    This is something that I believe is absolutely necessary. Those who would ask, “Is it really?” should ask themselves why it is that every other G7 country has lawful access, but not Canada. That has been a part of the frustration of minority governments over the last number of years.

    Here we have good public policy to help equip law enforcement officers to do the types of things that they need to do in order to protect the public, but we have opposition members who will oppose in many ways for the sake of opposing.

    I want to highlight that when we talk about enabling law enforcement, we are talking about Canadian Security Intelligence Service, RCMP and local law enforcement officers who will often take a look and have investigations that are ongoing. It would enable those to enforce legally obtaining certain information, such as data and communications, from an electronic service provider. That is what the bill is proposing to do. It would update critical investigation tools.

    Earlier, there was reference to phone books, and I provided a comment on that. Things change over time. When I first was elected, it was pretty easy to identify who was in a house. People have made reference to phone books. There was also a thing called the “who called me” book. I loved it because it was just like a voters list and anyone could access it. One could take a street and it would have the phone number and the name of individual living there. One could probably identify up to 90% of a population, where they were living, their phone number and name. People had to specifically ask to have their number taken out of a phone book or the “who called me” book, and they had to pay for that service.

    Things have changed a great deal. There is a default position that we have to protect the privacy of Canadians. This is a government that very much understands that and is focused on the protection of those rights.

    It was the Liberal Party back in the 1980s that brought in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The privacy of individuals is protected under this legislation.

    The shadow minister, in criticizing the legislation, knows full well that if we allow the legislation to go to committee, the Conservatives will be afforded the opportunity to ask all forms of questions. The issues they have can be addressed in great detail.

    Second reading is a debate on the substance and the principle of the legislation; it is not necessarily designed to go into the great details. Nothing prevents us from being able to allow legislation to get to committee stage, much like how we had two hours of debate on the private member's bill, it went to committee, amendments were made and then it came here.

    We are going to have a lot more than two hours of debate on this legislation. It will go to committee, and people will be afforded the opportunity to have that dialogue. We are open to improving the legislation if the need is there.

    I would encourage members of the Conservative Party to support Bill C-22. It is good, it is sound and it is in the public's interest.

    Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member on becoming a grandfather.

     Is there a time when the Liberal Party would think it appropriate to use the notwithstanding clause? Some of the things around the IP address could have been addressed by the government just using the notwithstanding clause. I am just wondering if there is ever a time that the Liberal Party would use the notwithstanding clause.

    Mr. Speaker, I appreciate, from all sides of the House, the congratulatory comments in regards to the birth of my fourth grandson just last Wednesday. He is a healthy baby boy. The oldest grandson is Benjamin, then Andrew, Hudson and now Rhys.

     I cannot envision a situation where we would be using the notwithstanding clause. One should never say never, I guess, but I cannot envision it.

    Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is from Winnipeg, which is home to the Canadian Centre for Child Protection. I was wondering if he can discuss conversations he had with its representatives, and how this bill would aid their work in protecting children and the police who aid them as well.

    Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out, when I asked the Minister of Justice earlier today about the Winnipeg police, the chief of police and a particular group of individuals I met with, his response was that it is not only in Winnipeg. There are community-interest stakeholders throughout the country who are genuinely interested. They are following this issue and want to see lawful access become a part of our Canadian law to join the other Five Eyes countries, and in fact the G7 countries, in having lawful access. It is a very important, critical tool to be able to deal with anything from child exploitation to extortion and terrorism. It is something that Canada needs for public safety reasons.

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

    I listened with great interest to my colleague's speech. I find where we really part company is on this idea that we should simply pass the bill because the Liberals think it is good legislation. It is not that there should not be scrutiny, because there is a great deal of scrutiny. Here is a quote: “Part 2 of C-22 enables secret ministerial orders to any digital service Canadians rely on, with no public registry, no parliamentary approval, and no right for Canadians to even know it's happening.” This is not to say that every piece of legislation here is wonderful or every piece of legislation is bad, but we scrutinize legislation.

     The member points to law enforcement. Where were those sentiments on the jail not bail act? Law enforcement wanted the jail not bail act. He stood up repeatedly and voted against it. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

     Mr. Speaker, law enforcement and Canadians as a whole wanted bail reform legislation. I remember, just last fall, when the Conservative Party of Canada was obstructing it and refused to allow it to pass. I literally begged and pleaded with the Conservatives here in this very spot to allow bail reform legislation to pass before the end of last year.

    At the end of the day, I think we want to see more co-operation among parliamentarians to deal with the Canadian first agenda. It is time that we look at the whole crime package. The Prime Minister has brought forward to the House substantial pieces of legislation, and we need to start working together.

     Conservative filibustering has not been in the public interest. It might have been in the Conservative Party of Canada's interest, but it has not been in the interest of Canadians, and we need to stop that and start focusing on Canadians.

    Mr. Speaker, I am a resident of Peel, from Brampton South. Can my hon. colleague tell me how Bill C-22 could support law enforcement with the modern tools it needs to investigate digital crimes, especially in extortion cases?

     Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate that I had the opportunity to meet with my colleague in Brampton, where we had a discussion about extortion. I also met with representatives from Peel Regional Police. At the time, it was in regard to Bill C-2, because Bill C-2 also included lawful access, which is an effective tool. Members do not have to believe me. They should believe what our law enforcement agencies are telling us, which is that this bill would help us in dealing with issues like extortion and so many others. The time to pass the legislation is past due. Lawful access was in Bill C-2 but was taken out. We need to have lawful access.

    I look forward to the Conservative Party's eventually taking a position on it. In the meantime, as opposed to filibustering the bill in any fashion, Conservatives should allow it to go to committee, allow Canadians to have it in committee and get their questions answered. The Conservatives can still filibuster afterward if they so choose, I guess.

    Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North seemed to be lamenting, in his extensive speech, that the Conservatives were not automatically co-operating. He went on to list a number of bills that, as my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola said, faced scrutiny in the House, which I believe is our job.

    What the member neglected to mention is the fact that Bill C-5 was passed in five parliamentary sitting days, giving the Prime Minister extraordinary powers. Bill C-4 was brought in through a ways and means motion first, and the government waited six months to bring it to the chamber. We passed it and co-operated on it all the way through.

    What is so difficult to understand? When good legislation is brought before the chamber, this side of the House co-operates and moves it through. When there are issues with legislation, we do His Majesty's loyal work and oppose it.

    Mr. Speaker, the problem is that this is just not true. We have a suite of legislation dealing with the issue of crime. I make reference to lawful access, number one, in Bill C-2, which dealt with border security. Also, there is Bill C-9, on hate propaganda; Bill C-14, which is bail reform legislation; and Bill C-16, which would restore things like mandatory minimum sentences. Bill C-12 is another important aspect in the stabilization of immigration and securing Canada's borders.

     There is a substantial amount of legislation. All one needs to do is read some of the debate that was taking place at the end of 2025. They will find that the Conservative Party members then, the far-right Conservative Party members I must add, were in opposition and preventing legislation from passing. The only reason we do not have lawful access today in Canada is the Conservative Party of Canada.

     Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet, I want to wish a happy birthday to Wesley Padbury.

    The Conservative members were excited to ask a question about the notwithstanding clause, the suspending of rights for Canadians. This is something they talk about frequently and is something they would do with religious freedoms and freedoms before the courts. It is shocking that they would come forward to do that.

    I was wondering if the hon. member could comment on how easy it is for the Conservatives to want to suspend the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

     Mr. Speaker, one of the things I have recognized in my parliamentary career is the importance of things such as judicial independence, the respect of the rule of law and understanding how important our Charter of Rights is. I have never to date seen a situation where I could support the use of the notwithstanding clause. It terrifies me at times when we hear the Conservative Party say that it would use it as a preventive measure. It is a distortion of what was actually intended when the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was introduced to Canada. This is one of the reasons I think a change within the Conservative leadership is needed: to change the mentality of using the notwithstanding clause.

    Mr. Speaker, I am always honoured to rise in this place to represent the amazing people of Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner.

    Today's debate on Bill C-22, an act respecting lawful access, is important and timely, as Parliament again aims to modernize Canada's lawful access framework. I am hopeful this time that our efforts on the issue will have some measure of success.

    In Canada, “lawful access” refers to the ability of law enforcement and national security agencies to legally obtain information from electronic service providers or to intercept communications with judicial authorization. This authorized interception and the search and seizure of documents, computer data and other information is a tool frequently used by law enforcement agencies to investigate serious crimes like the illegal trafficking of weapons, drugs and people; money laundering; child pornography; Internet fraud; cybercrime; homicide and organized crime.

    National security agencies also use lawful access to investigate terrorist groups that threaten Canada's national security.

    Unfortunately, Canada's current lawful access framework is outdated and ineffective in the face of the rapid changes in technology being exploited by criminals. Gaps in legislation render Canadians increasingly vulnerable as wireless communication technology continues to advance, making it difficult for our law enforcement and national security apparatus to get the information needed to investigate serious crimes or security threats in a timely manner and to be able to prosecute them effectively.

    Technologies like the Internet, email, cellphones, wireless data networks and encryption all add additional layers of complexity and present serious technological challenges and delays for obtaining critical evidence. The growing global nature of crime increases this vulnerability, as terrorist networks, organized criminal groups and human traffickers all use modern technology to perpetrate crimes and avoid detection.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the beginning of an exciting new chapter for Canada's New Democrats and our nation. I would like to thank the Prime Minister, the leaders of all parties and every member of the House for their collegiality during my term as interim leader, an experience that reaffirmed for me the profound privilege of serving Canadians in the heart of our democracy.

     Recently in Winnipeg, thousands of New Democrats came together with purpose and unity to choose our new leader, Avi Lewis. Avi understands that this moment demands bold action. He knows Canadians are facing rising unemployment, soaring grocery bills and crushing housing costs. He will fight for good jobs with fair wages and give young people real hope for the future.

     The truth is that Canada's NDP is needed now more than ever. Under Avi Lewis's leadership, we will deliver the progressive vision our country needs and will fight for the progressive, positive change Canadians deserve.

     Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Oakville West's ongoing efforts to prevent bullying, especially among our youth. We are fortunate to have strong educational frameworks in place. The Halton District School Board's RespectED program provides essential learning on personal boundaries, abuse prevention and healthy relationships. Complementing this is the Canadian Red Cross initiative Beyond the Hurt, which takes a peer-led approach to addressing harassment among youth, empowering them to support one another. Beyond the classroom, the Women's Centre of Halton is doing critical work to help individuals break free from the blame cycle, fostering lasting and positive change.

     I am also proud of my Oakville West youth council, which serves as a direct platform for our future leaders to research, discuss and work on the issues that affect them most, including cyber-bullying and online safety. By bringing their voices directly to the House, we ensure that the fight against bullying is not just something we do for our youth but also something we do together with them.

    Mr. Speaker, today marks the start of national public safety telecommunicators week. It is a week to honour the dedicated 911 communicators who serve as the calm, steady voices behind the line during some of the most terrifying moments of a person's life. These professionals are often the first responders in an emergency. They listen to things that no one else will ever hear: the raw panic in a parent's voice, the final breaths of a loved one and the heartbreaking sobs of a family facing unimaginable grief. They carry a heavy emotional burden, yet after a difficult call, they take a deep breath, compose themselves and answer the next call with the same compassion, focus and professionalism.

    Every 911 communicator across this country should know how much they are appreciated. Their compassion, their courage and their steady presence in people's darkest moments matter more than they will ever know. We see the difficult work they do, we respect the weight they carry every shift and we are truly, deeply grateful.

    Mr. Speaker, every spring there is a sure sign that warmer days are on the way, and in Kitchener—Conestoga that sign has been a cherished tradition since 1965: the Elmira Maple Syrup Festival. Recognizing the world's largest one-day maple syrup festival, Elmira, home to about 12,000 residents, welcomed around 70,000 visitors this past Saturday. I thank the tireless volunteers, the festival committee and the dedicated sponsors whose support brings our community together year after year.

     The day featured a pancake-flipping contest, a family fun area, incredible food, local vendors, live entertainment and of course pancakes drenched in pure Canadian maple syrup produced right here in Kitchener—Conestoga. All proceeds from the festival are returned directly to the community, supporting local charitable and not-for-profit organizations and turning a delicious day of celebration into lasting community impacts.

    Year after year, the Elmira Maple Syrup Festival truly represents the best of community, agriculture and springtime in Canada. I offer my congratulations.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Henry Ly for his leadership in the Father's Knowledge Circle, a weekly meeting run by the North Okanagan Friendship Center Society in Vernon, British Columbia. The circle creates a respectful, supportive space for fathers to come together and share knowledge and stories. Speaking at the knowledge circle took me back 20 years, to the day I suddenly found myself a single father with my three young kids, living in a motel room. Things worked out for me, but for far too many men the extra stress can be deadly.

     Single fatherhood is a growing demographic in our society, and the challenges and lack of support can be overwhelming. Nearly a million Canadian men suffer from major depression annually, and 75% of all suicides in Canada are men. Volunteer support programs like this save lives. Thanks to leaders like Henry Ly and programs like Father's Knowledge Circle, dads have a place to turn and a community that says to them that they are not alone.

     Mr. Speaker, I rise today, April 13, during autism awareness and acceptance month, a month dedicated to highlighting the need for greater inclusion, understanding and support for people on the autism spectrum.

    In Canada, 2% or roughly one in 50 children and youth is diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. The prevalence of autism among adults is estimated to be around the same, at 1.8%, but no matter what the age, living with autism spectrum disorder can bring about significant life challenges. That is why I want to highlight the incredible work of the physicians, researchers and organizations that have made so much progress in helping to better identify and diagnose autism spectrum disorder, as well as teachers, employers and organizations like Autism Canada and the Canadian autism network, which, in their own way, work tirelessly to support Canadians living with autism.

    Canada is a better, stronger and fairer place because of their hard work. On behalf of all members of my community in Vaudreuil and all members of this House, I thank them.

     Mr. Speaker, last week a Christian family of eight was killed in Nigeria. Two weeks ago, on Palm Sunday, an attack on a mostly Christian Nigerian town left 28 dead. Since 2009, Boko Haram and others have waged a brutal campaign attacking Christians in Nigeria. Millions have been displaced, villages destroyed, churches burned and entire families murdered.

    Reports indicate that over 7,000 Christians were massacred in 2025 alone. Three churches on average are being destroyed every day, with over 18,000 churches destroyed since 2009. These attacks are not just political disputes; they are violent attacks against innocent people just because they are Christians. Canada must speak out and stand up for the persecuted Christians and push the international community to act. Freedom of worship and freedom of conscience are core Canadian values that we cannot ignore.

    To our brothers and sisters in Nigeria, we have not forgotten about them. Stay strong and keep the faith.

    Mr. Speaker, there is exciting news for the music industry in Cape Breton. Morgan Toney has just won his first Juno Award, for traditional roots album of the year. He was honoured for his album “Heal the Divide”, which showcases the signature Mi'kmaltic genre, a blend of Mi'kmaq stories and Celtic tunes.

    From the small community of Wagmatcook, Morgan Toney's fiddle gets people stomping their feet or doing the traditional Mi'kmaq ko'jua dance. Morgan Toney stated that his win is dedicated to his late mother and that he always keeps her in his heart while creating music.

    Morgan records at the Barn Bhreagh studio in Baddeck with Keith Mullins, a studio known for promoting the Mi'kmaq language. Morgan always finds time to collaborate with others, kindly lending his fiddle to help other recording artists. Morgan Toney continues to inspire and make his community, his nation and all of Cape Breton proud.

     [Member spoke in Mi'kmaq and provided the following text:]

    Welaliek, Morgan. Welukwen aq siawi' keleukw telatike nitap.

    [Member provided the following translation:]

    “Thank you, Morgan. You're doing great. Keep up the good work.”

    Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize and celebrate Vaisakhi. Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh.

    Vaisakhi is a sacred day for Sikhs in Canada and around the world. In 1699, our Guru, Guru Gobind Singh Ji, founded the Khalsa, a moment of courage, equality and faith. April is also Sikh Heritage Month, a time to honour faith, history and contribution. Across Canada, Nagar Kirtan fills our streets. It brings communities together. It reflects seva, unity and generosity. Sikh Canadians strengthen our nation every day. Their contributions make Canada proud.

    As we honour this sacred day, let us reaffirm our commitment to freedom, compassion and justice for all.

    Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh. Bole So Nihal. Sat Sri Akal.

    Mr. Speaker, Louis Saia, a legend of Quebec theatre, passed away on April 1. Louis Saia was the co-author of Broue, the most popular play in our history. He also leaves us Les voisins, another play co-written with his longtime collaborator Claude Meunier that still makes us laugh at ourselves 40 years on.

    Between Ding et Dong, La petite vie, Paul et Paul, and Radio enfer, it is hard to grasp how many of the classics enjoyed by countless families would not exist without Louis Saia's contributions. Then there was his film franchise Les Boys, the first of which premiered in 1997 and broke all the records for a Quebec film, at a time when Quebec was the only place in the world immune to the box-office pull of Titanic. As far as I am concerned, his career deserves every accolade that the world has to give.

    On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, allow me to offer my condolences to his family, loved ones and the Quebec cultural community at large on the loss of one of its giants. I thank Louis Saia for everything and ask him to join Michel Côté in raising a glass, a “petite frette”, to the good health of us all.

    Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to welcome the Swiss delegation and the President of the National Council of the Swiss Confederation to Canada this week.

    Canada and Switzerland are bound not only by friendship but by a shared commitment to democracy, innovation and the rule of law.

    For decades, our two countries have been working closely together to promote peace, prosperity and international co-operation.

    At a time of global uncertainty, partnerships like ours matter more than ever. They remind us that progress is built through dialogue, trust and common purpose. As chair of the Canada-Switzerland Parliamentary Friendship Group, I am proud to highlight this visit and celebrate the enduring ties between our two nations.

    Together, we will continue to strengthen this relationship for the benefit of our fellow citizens and future generations.

    Mr. Speaker, the Alto project will be the biggest expropriation event in Canadian history. Alto also costs more than Canada can afford. At $90 billion, it is larger than last year's record federal deficit. If Alto experiences the 50% to 100% cost overruns that are typical for Canadian rail projects, it could easily be paused or even abandoned. This makes pre-emptive expropriations and land freezes doubly irresponsible, but pre-emptive expropriations are a hallmark of Liberal infrastructure policy. At Mirabel airport, at Pickering airport and at LeBreton Flats, land was expropriated first, and the project cancelled later, after costs skyrocketed.

    Citizens are not powerless. If enough Canadians sign petition e-7203 against Alto, we can show the Liberals that Canada does not want the Alto project, not the expropriations and not the wasted billions. It is time for the government to go back to the drawing board.

     Mr. Speaker, Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh.

    This month marks the seventh anniversary of Sikh Heritage Month, which allows us to celebrate and educate future generations about the contributions Sikh Canadians continue to make across our country. Vaisakhi, the founding of Khalsa, is being honoured today on Parliament Hill.

     On April 18, Khalsa Day and Vaisakhi will be celebrated in Surrey Newton, where the annual Nagar Kirtan will attract over half a million people. This celebration reflects the Sikh commitment to equality, selfless service and unity. I thank the organizers of the Surrey Nagar Kirtan and Sikh Canadians across our nation, who, over the past century, have helped build Canada into the country it is today.

    Jo Bole So Nihal. Sat Sri Akal.

     Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was asked yesterday what he would do to help Canadians suffering with high gas and diesel prices. He did not have an answer. Even in oil-rich Alberta, folks are paying well over two bucks a litre for diesel.

    Here is an easy way for the Prime Minister to help. The feds are hauling in record revenues from high oil prices, so they can use $5 billion of that estimated $9 billion to help hard-hit Canadians. Conservatives have a plan: suspend the fuel excise tax, suspend the GST on gas and diesel, and kill the so-called clean fuel standard tax and the hated industrial carbon tax. That would cut 20¢ a litre off the price of gas and 21¢ off the price of diesel.

    Canadians are suffering. They desperately need some relief from the pain at the pumps. The Liberal government must give them the relief they deserve.

    Mr. Speaker, over 4,500 people from across Canada came to beautiful Montreal on Thursday and Friday, where we were able to witness a very common thread, the thread being building Canada strong. Building Canada strong means looking at diversifying our economy. It means building Canada's infrastructure. That includes big projects, by the way. It means growing export markets. It means buying Canadian. By using the power of our economy, we are able to provide things such as health care, home care services, improved dental programs and pharmacare programs. Building Canada strong means building the strongest and healthiest economy in the G7.

    Mr. Speaker, Canadians are pinching pennies as the Liberal government continues to pinch Canadians. Canadian families are struggling while the Liberal government is taking in cash every time Canadians fill up their gas tanks. Fuel prices have skyrocketed, and the Liberals stand to collect almost $10 billion in additional revenue because Canadians have to pay more at the pumps. Yesterday, when asked how he would help Canadians facing rising gas prices, the Prime Minister said he was still “looking” at it.

     Canadians do not need any more studying, waiting or another MOU. They need relief right now. Here is an idea for the Prime Minister: suspend all federal taxes on gas and diesel until the end of 2026, remove the fuel excise tax, permanently scrap the industrial carbon and clean fuel standard taxes, and eliminate the GST on fuel. Ending those four taxes would save almost 25¢ a litre, saving Canadian families roughly 20 bucks every time they fill up the tank.

     Canadians have been sacrificing long enough under the Liberal government. Suspend the fuel taxes, give Canadians—

    The hon. member for Brampton South.

    Mr. Speaker, Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh.

    As we celebrate Vaisakhi and Sikh Heritage Month in April, we commemorate the founding of the Khalsa Panth in 1699 by Guru Gobind Singh Ji. This moment formalized the Sikh commitment to equality, social justice, courage and service to others. These teachings continue to guide generations. Sikh Canadians strengthen our communities through seva, selfless service, uplifting those in need and bringing people together. These are not only Sikh values; these are Canadian values.

    Today, we are celebrating Vaisakhi on the Hill. I want to thank everyone who has joined from across Canada. On behalf of the residents of Brampton South, I wish everyone who is celebrating around the world a very happy Vaisakhi and Sikh Heritage Month.

    Vaisakhi athe Khalsa sirjana divas diyaan seriya nu lakh vadhaiyan hoven.

     Mr. Speaker, anybody going to the gas station right now knows that the prices are simply out of control.

     Today, a litre of gas in Ontario is $1.70, and in B.C. it is over $2. We do not just pay for fuel at the pumps; we pay an excise tax of 10¢, a fuel standard tax of 7¢, going to 17¢, and we pay GST on all of that. All of those are just federal taxes, adding up to 25¢ on every litre. Liberal taxes have turned a bad situation into a tax grab for the government.

     Will the Liberals adopt the Conservative plan and suspend all of those gas taxes today?

    Mr. Speaker, we will not take lessons from the Conservatives.

    We are very aware of the situation. We have been following this issue. Let me remind the Conservatives that there is something called a conflict going on in the Middle East. We are watching the situation. We had a meeting with our federal, provincial and territorial colleagues just last week.

    Canadians know that we are always there to support them in difficult times.

     Mr. Speaker, there are some things the government can control, and there are many things that it should control.

    For the Liberal government, the pain at the pump is not a coincidence, it is actually a policy choice. It is up to the Liberals now how much tax goes on every litre of gas. That sits at 25¢, but the Liberals could make it zero cents by adopting our Conservative plan. While they delay, Canadian families suffer from an extra $20 cost every time they fill up.

    The Prime Minister has been looking at it, while Canadians have been paying for it. When does he plan on doing something other than just monitoring the situation?

     Mr. Speaker, in fact, we have done a lot. Let me remind my colleagues, because it is Monday, the first thing that we did was to lower taxes for 22 million Canadians.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Hon. François-Philippe Champagne: Just talk to constituents; they will tell my friend. Just ask constituents, and they will tell them—

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    I would remind members that they must address other members through the Chair. We have been away for two weeks, but we have not forgotten everything.

    The hon. Minister of Finance.

    Mr. Speaker, you are quite right. It is all about emotion and passion in this House.

    One thing that I can say is that the first thing we did under this government was to lower taxes for 22 million Canadians, but more than that we have been there, working for Canadians, with respect to groceries, we have been there to help them with child care and we have been there to help them with pharmacare. We are there to help them with dental care.

     Mr. Speaker, the minister will not stand up and give a clear answer. In fact, he will not even talk about gas prices, and it is very easy to see why.

     Oil prices are not hurting this government. They are actually funding the government, because with every $10 increase in oil prices, the Liberals get $2 billion more in tax revenue. That means the Liberals are collecting a generational windfall at the pumps, while Canadians pay more for everyday essentials.

    I will give the minister some more practice, and I will ask him my question very slowly. Will he suspend the out-of-control gas taxes and return the $5 billion to the people who paid for it?

    Mr. Speaker, let us suppose for a moment that there is a generational windfall. I know what the Conservatives would not spend it on. They sure would not spend it on training for young people, because they voted against that. They sure would not spend it on building the kind of infrastructure that communities need while creating great-paying union jobs, because they voted against that. They sure would not spend it on student food programs or an affordable early learning and child care program that is saving Ontario families $16,000 per year per child, because they voted against that.

    What would the Conservatives spend any kind of tax earnings on? Not Canadians.

    Mr. Speaker, it is a mistake for a country to tax its way to success, but that seems to be the cornerstone of the Liberals' decisions of the past 11 years.

    While governments around the world are working to help citizens deal with the oil crisis, the Liberal government is going to think about it. Australia, Ireland, Spain and Austria have lowered their fuel taxes to give people some breathing room.

    Suspending the federal fuel tax for the rest of the year is the responsible, logical and effective thing to do. Will the Liberals adopt our proposal and suspend the federal fuel tax?

    Mr. Speaker, I will answer the question in a second. As a member from Quebec, and on behalf of the government, I first want to congratulate Christine Fréchette on getting elected to lead the Coalition Avenir Québec. She thereby becomes the next premier of Quebec.

    As for the fuel tax, I would remind my colleague that we have eliminated the consumer fuel tax. We have lowered taxes for 22 million Canadians. We have invested in child care, dental care and groceries. The Conservatives were against all of that.

    Mr. Speaker, Canada has the fourth-largest oil reserves in the world. There is no reason why a country as rich in resources as ours should be so vulnerable to global oil crises.

    After 11 years of Liberal government, however, the many anti-development laws in place are weakening our country. We could have followed Norway's example: Develop our resources intelligently, enrich our society and fund our public services, but not by taxing the people.

    Would the Liberals at least have the decency to give Quebeckers and Canadians some relief by lifting the gas tax?

     Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we have done. Let me help jog my colleague's memory. Let me remind him that the first thing we did was to lower the taxes of 22 million Canadians.

    There was also the Canada child benefit, the national school food program, the Canada disability benefit and the old age security program.

    What we are saying to the Quebeckers and Canadians watching us today is that we have always been there in hard times. The folks at home know that a Liberal government will always be there to support them through hard times.

    Mr. Speaker, the Liberals claim that federal taxes on gasoline and diesel have no effect on inflation or the cost of living. Seriously, is anyone buying that? Do they have any respect for Canadians? We are talking 25¢ a litre. Meanwhile, Canadians, people from Beauce, workers and entrepreneurs are seeing their bills skyrocket and their purchasing power plummet.

    My question is simple. Will the Prime Minister suspend the federal gas tax, yes or no?

    Mr. Speaker, if the member opposite wants to talk about what affects the cost of living, we could talk about the Canada child benefit, which likely helps tens of thousands of children and families in his riding. We could talk about the Canadian dental care plan, which, again, helps nearly two million Quebeckers. We could talk about the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, which will provide up to nearly $2,000 per family in Quebec. We could talk about the agreement that we reached with Quebec for 37,000 day care spaces.

    I would remind everyone that these are all measures that my colleague voted against.

    Mr. Speaker, in his Bill C‑15, the Minister of Finance granted special powers to the Alto corporation to expropriate land from people in Terrebonne to make way for high-speed rail. Bill C‑15, which has become law, bears his imprint.

    However, media reports have revealed that the Minister of Finance has personal ties to Alto's senior management. Right in the middle of an election in Terrebonne, a Liberal minister is making it easier to expropriate land from the people of Terrebonne in support of a company with which he has close connections.

    Why is the Liberal minister working with Alto at the expense of the rights of the people of Terrebonne?

    Mr. Speaker, that is a surprising question coming from the Bloc Québécois. Old-fashioned political tactics, personal attacks and false allegations against public sector employees are not the kind of politics that Canadians want to see right now. I have followed all the rules, and I will continue to focus on building the most resilient economy in the G7.

    Mr. Speaker, the minister has not taken the necessary steps to distance himself. He himself introduced Bill C-15 in the House, and that bill includes measures to facilitate the expropriation of land from the people of Terrebonne. He is the one who requested that this bill be drafted in response to his budget, which he himself tabled.

    Again, the Liberal minister has close ties to Alto's management. The Liberal minister has introduced legislation to help Alto expropriate land from the citizens of Terrebonne. Is this really the kind of policy the Liberal government is offering Terrebonne voters today?

    Mr. Speaker, this question dishonours the Bloc Québécois and the member across the way. The minister just answered it.

    As for Terrebonne and all the communities along the high-speed rail route in Canada, I can assure residents that everything will be done with consideration and respect, and their concerns will be heard. However, we are moving forward, and we are going to build a dream train for all Canadians.

    Mr. Speaker, the only reason the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner let the Minister of Finance off the hook is because he is not going to benefit from these actions personally. No, the ones that stand to benefit are the Liberal government and Alto, which will now have an easier time expropriating residents of Terrebonne from their properties. The ones who stand to lose out are the people living along the high-speed rail route imposed by Alto.

    Why are the Liberals not trying to rally support from the residents of Terrebonne by really listening to them, instead of stripping them of their rights and threatening their property?

    Mr. Speaker, the ones who stand to benefit are the 40 million Canadians who have been dreaming of high-speed trail for 40 or 50 years. This dream is within their grasp, starting with the section between Quebec City and Toronto. We are going to keep going, because we will have implemented an advanced technology in Canada. We are going to deliver a travel game-changer for all Canadians. We are going to build high-speed rail in Canada.

    Mr. Speaker, Liberal fuel taxes drive up the cost of gas and food. That is clear in Calgary East. Our Salvation Army has seen a 500% usage increase in its food security program because of the higher cost of food. Like a typical Liberal, the Prime Minister would rather cash in on higher oil prices for his government than give Canadians a break at the pump. Will he implement our Conservative plan to remove all federal fuel taxes to save Canadians 25¢ per litre at the pump, yes or no?

    Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we are going to continue to focus on making life more affordable for Canadians. We just launched a groceries and essentials benefit, putting up to $1,900 in the pockets of working families. We cut the taxes for 22 million Canadians. We cut the consumer carbon tax and the GST for first-time homebuyers.

     It is time for that leader and that party to focus on affordability for Canadians like we are.

    Mr. Speaker, the member is bragging about a $90 tax cut. One cannot even buy a jug of milk for that weekly.

     Canadians are paying on average 20¢ more per litre than the Americans and the difference is because of the fuel taxes. The Liberal Prime Minister said he is looking into lower gas prices, but the answer is right in front of him. Will he implement our plan to get rid of all fuel taxes federally to save Canadians $1,200 at the pump, yes or no?

     Mr. Speaker, I think it is pretty clear that Canadians from coast to coast to coast and members in this House are gravitating to our Prime Minister's leadership and his vision for Canada. We continue to make life more affordable for Canadians by cutting taxes, with the groceries and essentials benefit, the automatic federal benefits and the list goes on.

     On this side of the House, we are going to continue to focus on affordability. It is time for that leader to get back in this House and help us build a strong Canada.

     I know the hon. member was speaking probably metaphorically, but we know that we cannot indicate whether a member is present or absent.

    The hon. member for Middlesex—London.

    Mr. Speaker, yesterday, when asked about rising gas prices, the Prime Minister said that he is still looking at how to help cushion the blow for Canadians. Let me help him out. The reality is that the federal government will collect more royalties than it would cost to eliminate all of the federal fuel taxes for the rest of the year. Conservatives have proposed cutting these taxes to save 25¢ a litre at the pump for Canadians.

    Will the Liberals help Canadians, adopt our Conservative plan and just cut the taxes?

     Mr. Speaker, how one votes in this House matters. On this side of the House, we voted every single day to make life more affordable for Canadians. On that side of the House, Conservatives voted against every measure to make life more affordable for Canadians, such as delivering a tax cut that is benefiting 22 million Canadians, delivering the Canada child benefit, reducing child care costs, cutting the carbon tax that reduces gas prices, delivering dental care and delivering the national school food program. The problem with the Conservatives is that they voted against it all.

    Mr. Speaker, that is still more rhetoric and no results from the Liberals.

     Canadians have been pinching their pennies for long enough. The Liberals have the ability to use $5 billion of their $9 billion windfall to suspend the excise tax, the GST on gas and diesel, and permanently eliminate the clean fuel taxes and the carbon taxes. That would deliver over $1,200 in savings this year for a family of four.

    Will the Liberals stop lining their own pockets for once, do the right thing and cut the gas taxes for Canadians?

    Mr. Speaker, we are delivering relief for Canadians, whether at the grocery store or on everyday essentials like gas. We have delivered the Canada groceries and essentials benefit. The member gave the perfect example of a family of four; there is $1,900 additional for that family. We have also cut taxes for 22 million Canadians. Premiers across the country, including Conservative premiers, agree with our plan.

    We will keep delivering for Canadians. As Right to Food has said, this will “turn the tables on food insecurity and deliver” for all Canadians.

    Mr. Speaker, in rural Canada, families and small businesses have no choice but to drive long distances for work, school and basic services, and they are being hit the hardest by soaring costs and soaring fuel prices. Meanwhile, the Liberals stand to collect up to $9 billion in extra taxes and revenue from these higher prices.

    Will the Liberals adopt our plan to cut 25¢ per litre and make rural Canadians' lives more affordable?

    Mr. Speaker, it is a great discussion today, and there are good questions. We are all concerned about Canadians, but one thing we have missed talking about is the geopolitical situation we find ourselves in. We are not in charge of everything that is happening in the east, but we are certainly looking at all applications.

    When we talk about investments, we are talking about $1.5 billion towards initiatives to adopt clean technologies for our farming communities, $3.5 billion in sustainable agricultural partnership with the provinces, the superdeduction productivity fund and a $27-million investment into youth employment two weeks ago. We are doing everything we can to make life more affordable.

     Mr. Speaker, rural Canadians, and Canadians across the country, for that matter, know that our biggest challenges are not coming from without. They are coming from within through overtaxation and over-regulation.

    When will the government, knowing that it is going to be collecting billions more because of these high taxes, come up with a plan, adopt our plan to reduce the cost on fuels by 25¢ a litre and provide $1,200 more per year in immediate relief for Canadian families? Why will the government not stop the delays and finally give Canadians a break at the pump?

    Mr. Speaker, when we went to the polls just about a year ago, I went door knocking in my riding of a Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, and I talked to this gentleman named Craig at the door. He said to me that what was really important to him was an income tax cut. Here is the thing, he wanted to know why it would be better to vote for me than for the Conservatives. I said that, if he voted for us, the tax cut was going to come in right away. He would get up to $800 a year. If he voted for those guys, he would have to wait four years. It is not even in their plan until they are theoretically re-elected.

    Canadians chose. They chose right.

     Mr. Speaker, Canadians are struggling with the rising gas prices while the government keeps piling on taxes, taxes and more taxes. Kitchener Centre families are paying more at the pump. Our seniors are worried about driving to see their grandchildren. Our workers have to pay more just to get to work, on top of the rising cost of everything else.

    Why will the Prime Minister not adopt our Conservative plan and reduce the gas tax? It will save 25¢ per litre for Canadians to give them the relief they deserve.

    Mr. Speaker, as the Secretary of State for Seniors, I talk to seniors across this country and I talk to seniors in Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke on Vancouver Island. What they tell me is that they cannot trust these Conservatives. They cannot trust them because they have great memories. What they remember is that those Conservatives wanted to cut their old age security from them. They wanted to bring their CPP earning age up to 67. They wanted to make it more expensive to retire and more expensive to age.

    Seniors know they can trust the Liberal Party of Canada. They know they can trust the government to have their backs.

    Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance and National Revenue introduced Bill C-15, the budget bill, which contains measures to help Alto expropriate land from the people of Terrebonne for the high-speed rail line. People might ask what the connection is between the Minister of Finance, a budget bill and expropriations. It is true that there is no connection, except that the Minister of Finance has close ties to Alto's senior management.

    Why did he use his budget bill to help Alto, a company he has close ties to, evict the residents of Terrebonne from their homes?

    Mr. Speaker, even though the Bloc Québécois has a new critic, that does not make it any less shameful to raise this question. Alto is a government-owned corporation that is overseeing the construction of the high-speed rail line, a project that Canadians, including residents of Laval, Montreal, Trois-Rivières and even Terrebonne, are eager to see completed.

    We are going to build this high-speed rail line for Canadians and Quebeckers, even though the Bloc Québécois consistently opposes it.

    Mr. Speaker, if the minister had recused himself from the Alto file, he would not have tabled a bill that deals directly with this file and benefits Alto.

    The people of Terrebonne are not fooled. What they are seeing today is a Liberal member helping a company—one whose executives he is close to and that was created by the federal government—kick people out of Terrebonne by undermining their rights.

    How can anyone expect the people of Terrebonne to have confidence in this Liberal government after this?

    Mr. Speaker, the people of Terrebonne want this project as much as anyone, but they want to be listened to. They want their concerns to be taken into consideration and they want the government to meet with them and take their opinions into account. They also want to have a high-speed train, which will connect Quebec City and Toronto and change the way Quebeckers and Canadians travel.

    We are going to take people's opinions into account as we build it, but we will build it.

    Mr. Speaker, the inflation affecting gas prices is hitting all Canadians, including those who fill up their cars and those who buy goods and products that are transported. This means that it is affecting everyone.

    We cannot control what happens in Iran. However, we can control what happens here, specifically taxation and Liberal taxes on carbon and gas. We are proposing that they be eliminated this year. That would mean an extra $5 billion in taxpayers' pockets rather than government coffers. When will the government deliver on this great proposal?

    Mr. Speaker, he is right to say that a number of factors influence oil prices. He mentioned the conflict in Iran, and yes, that is part of the equation. He is also right to say that there are things that we can control.

    What he can control is how he votes in the House. He voted against the Canada child benefit, which has reduced child poverty in this country by 40% and has provided thousands of dollars more to families in his riding. He voted against the Canadian dental care plan, which is giving many people in his Quebec City riding access to a dentist for the first time, and he voted against a range of other affordability measures.

    Mr. Speaker, let us talk about this minister's voting record. Let us not forget that, like many others here, he was elected in 2015 on a promise that the Liberals would implement the Liberal carbon tax, which they presented as the best way to help the environment. After insulting us for nine years, they scrapped the Liberal carbon tax.

    We applaud them for doing the right thing. They already scrapped one carbon tax so why not scrap the other Liberal fuel taxes?

    Mr. Speaker, he is right, and we did not stop there. We lowered taxes for 22 million Canadians. We brought in the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, which can provide up to $1,800 for a family and which helps 12 million Canadians, the most vulnerable families in particular.

    I am very proud of our record when it comes to helping Canadians across the country, including Quebeckers, deal with the cost of living.

    Mr. Speaker, I would encourage my colleague to live in the present, not the past.

    Canadians are struggling in the current economic situation. I went to help distribute food assistance at the Centre Femmes de Portneuf. The volunteers are caring and generous, but they are at the end of their rope. Demand is up, but there is less food available to distribute to people from all walks of life with basic needs.

    Here is a quick and easy solution: suspend the excise tax on fuel and the GST on gasoline and diesel. Will the Liberal Prime Minister take the necessary steps now, regardless of past measures, to provide immediate relief to Canadian families?

    Mr. Speaker, we are providing assistance to Canadians right now.

    In my hon. colleague's riding, the Canada child benefit can provide up to $8,000 per year per child. The Canada groceries and essentials benefit can provide up to $1,890 per year. The Canadian dental care plan benefits 19,755 people, resulting in an average savings of $800.

    We are taking measures to help Canadians during this particularly difficult time, but he is voting against them.

    Mr. Speaker, with prices at the pump skyrocketing and the Liberal government raking in billions of extra dollars thanks to rising oil prices, how much more time does the Prime Minister need to think before he acts, while Canadians bear the costs? Canadians are struggling to make ends meet. Why will he not act now and suspend the federal taxes on gas and diesel?

    Will the Liberal Prime Minister finally adopt our Conservative plan to axe these taxes and save Canadian families hundreds of dollars at the pump between now and—

    The hon. secretary of state.

    Mr. Speaker, we did not wait to help Canadians. Since we have been here, the government has been taking action. A family of four in my colleague's riding will save up to $21,924 thanks to all the cuts and benefits that have been introduced in the past year. That is what taking action for Canadians means. That is why we chose this solution.

    However, every time these solutions were proposed, my esteemed colleague voted against them. I think he needs to look at things from a broader perspective, with a systematic solution for Canadians—

    The hon. member for Côte‑du‑Sud—Rivière‑du‑Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata.

    Mr. Speaker, in our regions, travel is not an option; it is a necessity. Our young people rely on transportation to get to school and to their activities, but the skyrocketing price of gas is hurting our transport companies, and our young people are paying the price.

    In the meantime, the federal government is raking in billions of extra dollars from higher oil prices. Yesterday, the Liberal Prime Minister said he was looking at solutions. Unfortunately, Canadians do not have time to wait for his solutions.

     Why is the government refusing to suspend the federal tax on gas and diesel, which would bring some real relief to young people and the regions?

    Mr. Speaker, our colleague is right. Since February 28, the price of gas—at least in my neck of the woods—has climbed from $1.45 a litre to about $2 a litre. This is because the price of oil has increased from $60 a barrel to almost $120 a barrel. The problem is the war in the Middle East.

    In the meantime, we have rolled out a suite of measures to help Canadians, including the Canada child benefit. As my colleague said earlier, the Canada child benefit provides $8,000 per family.

     Mr. Speaker, at this historical moment for our country, we have a choice. Will we look back on nostalgia as a strategy, or will we invest in ourselves to build better cities and communities? Last week, Canada's new government launched the build communities strong fund, a historic $51-billion investment to build the roads, bridges, transit and community infrastructure our future depends on.

    On behalf of the people of Brampton, I ask if the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure could tell the House what this critical new investment will mean for people in our community?

     Mr. Speaker, it was wonderful to be in Brampton last week with the Prime Minister to announce the funding for a new community centre, the Embleton community centre and park, in Brampton. It is a $64-million investment for a 175,000-square foot community centre. It is exactly the kind of project that we promised Canadians we would deliver. This is one of 13 initial projects for the build community strong fund.

    There is much more to come in the weeks ahead. It is time to build.

    Mr. Speaker, with gas prices soaring, the Liberal government is now expected to receive up to $9 billion more in revenue from higher oil and gas prices. This is revenue it never budgeted for, but for Canadians, these are higher costs they never budgeted for. It means higher prices at the pump, at the grocery store or just to get by.

    Will the Liberal government commit today to dropping the 25¢ per litre tax on gas for the remainder of the year, so Canadians are not being punished while the Liberal government profits?

     Mr. Speaker, instead of repeating talking points, let us give some facts about building an affordable life for real Canadians. We cut tax for 22 million Canadians. Our groceries and essentials bill will put almost $1,900 in the pockets of families of four. We are building affordable homes. Let us not forget dental care and health care. That is real help for real families and real jobs for a real affordable life, not talking points and not fiction.

    Mr. Speaker, there was no acknowledgement of two dollars per litre gas and no solutions to address it. What we hear is, “We are looking into it, we are following the issue or we are just patting ourselves on the back for something.” While the Liberals are raking in the profits, families are paying more at the pumps, at the grocery store and just to get by.

    When will the Prime Minister start acting by immediately adopting our Conservative plan to drop federal taxes on gas and diesel for the remainder of the year so Canadians can have a break at the pump?

     Mr. Speaker, we are investing in Canadians. We are investing in businesses because, unlike the opposition, we realize we are in a trade war and have to support our businesses. Let me give some examples. In Markham, we invested in CES Transformers, creating 143 new jobs there. In Thorold, we have been investing in Axe Buildings: 32 permanent new jobs. In Kit Steel, we are investing in companies and families to make life more affordable and to build this into the strongest economy in the G7. That is how we win.

    Mr. Speaker, affordability has gotten so bad that farmers in my riding are taking to social media begging the Liberal government for gas tax relief. This is planting season, which is one of the most fuel-intensive times of the year. Tyler Heppell, a very popular Cloverdale farmer, said it plainly: When fuel costs go up, food prices go up. It is that simple. Families are already struggling at the grocery store, yet the government keeps collecting billions in extra as prices rise. The Prime Minister says that he is looking at options. Farmers do not need looking; they need action.

    Will the Liberals remove federal taxes on gas and diesel before these costs hit every dinner table in Canada?

    Mr. Speaker, we are helping make food more affordable by introducing the new Canadian groceries and essentials benefit, giving family direct support when they need it most. We have also created the $150-million food security fund to help communities expand access to nutritious, affordable food close to home. That is not all. We are strengthening local food infrastructure across the country so producers can connect more easily with consumers. We are working hard to keep prices down and make more healthy food options accessible for more Canadians.

    Mr. Speaker, what makes this worse is that the government makes more money the higher gas prices go. Every time the price at the pump rises, the GST rises with it. More pain for Canadians means more revenue for Ottawa. This is not just about high prices. The government is profiting from them. Families are cutting back. Farmers are warning food prices will climb again, and the Liberals are quietly taking in billions more. If they can collect billions extra from higher prices, why not give it back by taking taxes off gas and diesel?

    Will the Prime Minister finally give Canadians relief at the pump?

     Mr. Speaker, we understand Canadians are facing affordability challenges, and Canadians in British Columbia understand there is uncertainty in the world. Canada's economy has been impacted by heightened uncertainty from emerging conflicts and unjust trade decisions. Our government is delivering measures to help Canadians weather current challenges, from automatic tax filings to the groceries and essentials benefit for 12 million Canadians and reducing taxes for 22 million Canadians. Our commitment to improving affordability remains unchanged and unwavering.

     Mr. Speaker, in the Cowichan land claim case, the Liberal government instructed its lawyers to abandon the fee simple argument, the very cornerstone of private property rights in Canada. That decision has created real uncertainty for homeowners, businesses and everyone who depends on secure land ownership in this country. By stepping back in court, the government is effectively walking away from defending Canadians' property rights.

    Will the Prime Minister reverse this decision and direct its lawyers to fully defend fee simple ownership, yes or no?

    Mr. Speaker, Canada disagrees with the court's decision, and we appealed that on September 8, 2025. At trial, Canada defended the validity of fee simple title granted by the Crown, and we will continue to do so on appeal. The decision's potential implications necessitate greater legal clarity, and our government is committed to attaining that clarity through the proper legal process.

    Mr. Speaker, the government says it supports private property rights, yet it negotiated the Musqueam agreements behind closed doors without protections and consultation with affected communities. That approach is creating uncertainty for homeowners, businesses and investors who rely on transparency and stability. Canadians still feel their property rights are not safeguarded by this Liberal government.

    Will the Liberals match their words with action and commit to a full, legally binding transparency agreement and to protecting private property rights in all future agreements?

    Mr. Speaker, first off, let me be clear. The Musqueam agreement does not affect private property rights.

    An MOU was signed in 2017, and a framework agreement was signed in February. It is not a land claim, and it is not a title agreement. The agreement was Musqueam's constitutionally protected aboriginal rights in the specific areas of fisheries, stewardship and marine emergency management, while also establishing a clear framework for collaboration between the first nation and Canada.

    Mr. Speaker, I am from British Columbia, where homeowners are anxious and builders are hesitating to invest. People are wondering if they are going to be able to renew their mortgages. They are asking about the value of their homes. Liberals and New Democrats told their lawyers not to defend our fee simple property rights. They unleashed uncertainty and chaos when we are already struggling with high costs and economic volatility.

    What communities want to know is will this Prime Minister end the secrecy and instruct his lawyers to protect the supremacy of private property rights or will Canadians have to keep wondering if their homes are truly theirs.

    Mr. Speaker, the degree to which the Conservatives have misconstrued the position of the Government of Canada indicates that they have not, in fact, read the pleadings that have been filed in the court today.

    To be clear, Canada disagrees with the decision that was tabled by the superior court in British Columbia, and more than seven months ago, we appealed that decision because of that disagreement. We are seeking to advance arguments, as we have at trial, that would protect the private property rights of citizens, and we believe that this deserves legal clarity in the moment.

    I look forward to making the argument before the British Columbia courts, where this decision will be determined as a matter of law, not politics.

    Mr. Speaker, residents across British Columbia already face enough pressure from the high cost of living and continued economic uncertainty without wondering whether their homes are truly theirs. The Cowichan Tribes' decision now calls into question all private property rights while damaging reconciliation efforts across Canada.

    Closed-door deals without transparency are not in the spirit of truth and reconciliation. The Liberals must do better. They must provide unity and economic stability.

    Will the Liberals assure Canadians that all future agreements will put private property rights first while protecting meaningful reconciliation?

    Mr. Speaker, this government supports the rights of private property owners and this government is 100% committed to reconciliation.

    Canadians want the clarity that this appeal will provide. They do not want the fear and misinformation that these Conservatives are pushing out in an attempt to divide Canadians.

    Mr. Speaker, the recent B.C. Supreme Court ruling in Cowichan Tribes calls into question whether private property rights in Canada are secure, creating unnecessary economic risk in our economy. Clearly the Liberals have dropped the ball on this one, and right at a time when Canadians are facing pressure from higher costs and economic uncertainty.

    Will the Liberal Prime Minister direct the lawyers to argue that private property rights in Canada must be secure for homeowners, farmers, businesses and investors? It must be number one.

    Mr. Speaker, as has been said by some of my colleagues, this will not change private property rights. Reconciliation is our path forward for our country, and we will continue to move forward for both.

    Mr. Speaker, in the face of economic upheaval, Canadians are doing what they have always done: adapting, helping one another and continuing to grow. More and more Canadians are choosing to discover and celebrate what makes our country unique.

    As more and more Canadians choose Okanagan wines over those from California or local breweries, such as the well-known Beau’s Brewing in my riding of Prescott—Russell—Cumberland, could the Minister of Finance tell us how we are supporting this proudly Canadian industry?

    Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent question.

    I have good news for communities across Canada. Let us all raise a glass to Canadian breweries, distilleries and wineries, which are showing resilience in the face of economic uncertainty. By extending the alcohol excise tax relief for two years, we are giving our brewers, distillers and winemakers a boost to help them showcase Canadian products. These measures will allow them to focus on what matters most: growing their businesses, supporting local workers and, of course, showcasing their products, which we all enjoy.

    Mr. Speaker, at least 90 billion taxpayer dollars are at stake in the Alto high-speed rail project, and Canadians deserve to know that personal relationships are not influencing government decisions. The finance minister recognized the risk of a conflict of interest with his partner serving as a vice-president at Alto. The law says that he cannot be part of decisions, discussions, debates or votes when it comes to Alto. Canadians deserve to have confidence in their public institutions and in all elected officials, and especially when $90 billion is at stake.

    As such, will the minister come before committee and address this conflict of interest?

     Mr. Speaker, the minister has already answered that question. There is no risk, of course, and the minister complies, as we all must, with some of the most stringent ethics rules in the world. As for Alto and high-speed rail in Canada, it is a generational project, one that is desired by people in that member's riding and people all over Canada.

    Mr. Speaker, the government House leader is disagreeing with his finance minister here, and this is the confusion that is created for Canadians. The finance minister said that he needed to recuse himself from the discussions. He said he needed to put in place a conflict of interest screen, but then went ahead and participated in discussions and debates, and even said at a Senate committee that he was “delivering the goods” for Canadians.

     If he has recused himself, why is he also voting on this issue in the House? Canadians have concerns about how this $90 billion is being spent. They are concerned about this conflict of interest. Why will the finance minister not speak for himself, get on his feet and say he will come to committee and address it?

     Mr. Speaker, the minister has answered that question repeatedly and we follow, as everyone must, the highest ethics code and the most stringent ethics code in the western world. We will continue to do so.

    Mr. Speaker, if someone is ever wondering how to make things more expensive, they can simply put a Liberal in charge. The Trans Mountain pipeline cost more than six times the original budget. Arrive scam cost 700 times. Now the Liberal are asking Canadians to trust them with a $90-billion budget for a high-speed rail train. That is more than even the deficit.

    Canadians cannot afford any more of this Liberal waste. Will the government focus on getting shovels in the ground for nation-building projects instead of blowing billions of dollars on a train to nowhere?

     Mr. Speaker, high-speed rail is a major nation-building project. High-speed rail is something that Conservatives used to talk about. Their 2023 convention voted overwhelmingly to ask the government for high-speed rail. We listened very carefully to that Conservative convention, and I can assure the member we are moving forward on at least one Conservative policy: high-speed rail for Canadians.

     Mr. Speaker, at a time when some people mistakenly frame the environment and the economy as competing priorities, our government is taking a different approach.

    Can the Minister of the Environment, Climate Change and Nature share with the House how Canada's new nature strategy is both protecting our natural capital and building a stronger, more sustainable economy?

     Mr. Speaker, it is a very important question. We were able to tour the member for Carleton's riding, and we saw how sheep farmers and solar farming are working right alongside each other to create great jobs in rural communities.

    The nature strategy that we put forward in our plan is going to work on creating two new parks: a marine conservation area in the eastern James Bay Area and the Seal River park in Manitoba. More than that, we are working on mapping to help projects be built well, and we are going to mobilize capital so we can continue to build these amazing projects.

     Mr. Speaker, last fall the media reported that Regina's new federally subsidized electric buses could run for only three hours per day in the winter, but in response to a written question, the Liberals said that they have “not been made aware of any instances where battery electric buses were unable to operate due to cold weather.” That is anywhere in the country.

     How is it possible for the Liberals to be so unaware of billions of dollars of waste, and why do they continue to throw money at buses that will not work in Canadian winters?

     Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity for the member opposite to let me highlight the work that is going into the Canada public transit fund and the zero emission transit fund.

    We have opportunities to invest in zero emission transportation: battery electric buses. Technology is improving by the month. There are battery electric buses operating in many cities across Canada. Edmonton is currently the city with the lead. Edmonton, as some members opposite will know, is fairly far north in Canada, and those buses are running well. There is evidence around the world that battery electric buses will deliver good transportation.

     Mr. Speaker, big corporations and grocery chains have found a new way to rip people off. It is called surveillance pricing, which is using personal data to charge people more based on where they live, what they search for online or how often they shop. This is predatory, it is just plain creepy and it is driving up prices even higher during a cost of living crisis.

    Will the Liberal government support our NDP motion and ban surveillance pricing to finally bring food prices down?

     Mr. Speaker, my colleague is raising a very important question. We have already increased the power of the Competition Bureau because we know that competition is the best way to ensure that we can stabilize prices in the country.

     We will always be on the side of competition, and Canadians know they can trust that we will always be on the side of consumers to make sure they have better prices across our nation.

    I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Pierre‑André Page, President of the National Council of the Swiss Confederation.

     Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

     Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to 73 petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.

    Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts in relation to Bill C-230, an act to amend the Financial Administration Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, with respect to the debt forgiveness registry.

    The committee has studied the bill and is reporting it back to the House of Commons, with amendments.

    Mr. Speaker, I am tabling a petition on behalf of constituents of my riding of Courtenay—Alberni. They are citing that there are 165,000 new cases of brain injuries annually in Canada; that health and community service providers require more education regarding the intersection of brain injury, mental health and addiction; that the risk of suicide increases by 400% for a survivor of brain injury; that brain injury survivors face a 200% increase in risk of struggling with addictions after sustaining a brain injury; and that, despite the federal government's committing $11 million over 10 years to improve community support and mental health and addiction services, none are specifically targeted to brain injury.

     The petitioners are calling upon the government to support my bill, Bill C-206, to develop a national strategy to support and improve brain injury awareness, prevention and treatment, as well as the rehabilitation and recovery of persons living with brain injury. Preferably, the petitioners would like this brain injury strategy implemented in the spring economic statement.

    Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition on behalf of fellow professional chartered accountants and others who are raising concerns about how the Canada Revenue Agency has authorized its tax representatives.

     Petitioners point out that the CRA has moved to an online system, “My Account”, creating real barriers for many Canadians. Seniors, persons with disabilities, those without reliable Internet and those without digital skills are being left behind. Many individuals rely on trusted tax preparers to meet their obligations. To get the appropriate authorization has become unreliable, and there is bureaucratic red tape to get through in order to be authorized. That process worked only a year ago but now has become quite difficult.

    Therefore, if the government would go back to the previous tax system, it would correct the unfair penalizing of taxpayers who are trying to get a new tax preparer. The petitioners state that they are calling for the government to restore accessible authorization methods for approved tax preparers and to ensure that fraud prevention efforts are targeted only at those who actually break the rules.

    Mr. Speaker, I am standing today on behalf of petitioners who presented petitions in regard to Bill C-9 when the bill was in the House of Commons and have continued to say that we must keep this in front of our House as it is before the other House, and who want to ensure that it knows as well that Canadians are not happy with the response of the government to date. They look forward to the day when Bill C-9 does not come into law.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the good people of Simcoe—Grey to present a petition.

     The Department of National Defence has purchased over 700 acres of prime farmland in the Township of Clearview and will need up to another 3,000 acres to finish the over-the-horizon project. There are many concerns environmentally. The Minesing Wetlands are right beside this property. As well, we often hear about food security. This will be a huge chunk of land, and certainly the people in the riding are not interested in selling the 3,000 acres. They fear there will be expropriation of these properties. There is nowhere else for the people to go.

    The petitioners are asking for a stop to the building of the over-the-horizon site, for other options in other areas, for prevention of future acquisition of prime farmland or any building of the over-the-horizon site on prime farmland in Clearview Township, and for registration of the previously purchased property with the Ontario Farmland Trust to preserve its agricultural status.

     Mr. Speaker, if the government's responses to Questions Nos. 846, 847, 848, 849, 850, 851, 852, 853, 854, 855, 856, 857, 858, 859, 860, 861, 862, 863, 864, 865, 866, 867, 868, 869, 870, 871, 872, 873, 874, 875, 876, 877, 878, 879, 880, 881, 882, 883, 884, 885, 886, 887, 888, 889, 890, 891, 892, 893, 894, 895, 896, 897, 898, 899, 900, 901, 902, 903, 904, 905, 906, 907, 908, 909, 910, 911, 912, 913 and 914 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled in electronic format immediately.

    Is it agreed?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

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

    Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.

    Is it agreed?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

     Mr. Speaker, I will continue on with the lawful access speech I was providing.

    Basically, the growing global nature of crime increases vulnerability as terrorist networks, organized criminal groups and human traffickers all use modern technology to perpetrate crimes and avoid detection. Many criminal organizations are using communication technologies that cannot be easily or lawfully accessed by Canadian law enforcement and national security agencies. Communication networks themselves have become more complex through the rise of mobile and Internet communications, encrypted messaging services, international roaming, service resellers and ever faster network technologies. Generally, these new types of communication services are developed with consumer protection and security in mind, not lawful access, which has created tremendous challenges for investigators. As new technologies shape the way criminals operate, we must ensure that our law enforcement and national security apparatus have the tools and resources necessary to keep up with this changed and changing technical landscape.

    In 2009, 2011 and 2012, successive attempts by Conservative governments to modernize Canada's lawful access legislation did not succeed. Over the last 10 years, Liberal governments ignored the issue, which allowed the problem to fester and organized criminals to take over our streets. Canada is currently the only Five Eyes nation without a clear lawful access framework for modern communication. Decades of successive governments have not only let down but actively hindered our law enforcement and national security agencies by failing to provide them with the required legislation to allow for adequate investigative tools and resources needed to keep Canadians safe.

    The country's police chiefs have been calling for modernization of Canada's lawful access framework for many years, since as early as 2001. Canada's security and intelligence organizations continue to face significant challenges in successfully obtaining lawful access to communications due to the growing gap between the lawful authority to collect information and the technical capability to do so. In fact, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has urged elected officials to “recognise the critical need for amendments to Canada's laws, to address the widening gap between ever-evolving technology and the outdated legislative framework that Canada's policing services must work within.”

    Our judicial system is constrained by investigative hurdles, outdated statutes, protracted pretrial and trial litigation and a lack of clarity. In 2018, the director of CSIS described lawful access problems as one of the most significant challenges he had identified to the government.

    Three core factors contribute to the challenges faced by law enforcement: the effects of advances in technology, the absence of legislation for intercept capability and the jurisdictional issues arising due to the cross-border nature of digital data.

    Our current legislation means police face barriers around seizure authorities, causing investigative delays, sometimes with no way to get access to the information they need. Modernizing Canada's lawful access framework is necessary to remove ambiguity and provide predictability and consistency for police and prosecutors while strengthening transparency and public trust. For these reasons, I personally am very pleased to see this legislation being brought forward as a stand-alone bill, and I support Bill C-22 being sent to committee, where it can be carefully studied, scrutinized and reviewed.

    Part 1 of Bill C-22 aims to facilitate quicker evidence gathering by allowing police officers to demand a yes-or-no answer from telecommunications providers as to whether they provide service to a specific account. It would also create a specific judicial order to compel electronic service providers to give basic identifying information, such as a names, addresses and emails, and would introduce a new mechanism for Canadian judges to authorize requests for subscriber information held by foreign entities. This addition would be an important tool for law enforcement, as cyberspace is not constrained by Canada's domestic border.

     In fact, a recent report by the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians found that many, if not most, Canadians use digital services from third party companies based outside of Canada. This report also noted that most online child sexual abuse cases involve offshore tech companies. Under current legislation, if digital information is required from a company based outside of Canada, the RCMP may request that information through a mutual legal assistance treaty, commonly known as an MLAT, where one is in place.

     For example, if the RCMP requires information from, say, Facebook or Apple, it sends a request to Canada's Department of Justice, which sends the request on to the U.S. Department of Justice. After that request is accepted by the U.S. Department of Justice, an assistant U.S. attorney makes an application before a U.S. judge to obtain a warrant for the information. The FBI can only execute that warrant after it is issued by a U.S. judge. Once the company provides the FBI with the information, it eventually makes its way back to the RCMP via the two justice departments.

    Now, even if the legal process is successful, if a company does not have a data retention policy, the content sought by an investigator may be deleted before the investigation request even arrives. According to the RCMP, the MLAT process can take three to six months, delaying investigations while Canadians remain at risk. For example, if someone reports to police a case of extortion occurring, say, on Instagram, it is currently a very lengthy and complicated process for police to obtain the alleged perpetrator's name or IP address because Instagram is a U.S.-based company. Part 1 of Bill C-22 would allow police to obtain a warrant to request the IP address from Instagram; then identify which Canadian provider services that IP address, through a yes-or-no response; and finally compel that specific provider to disclose the name, phone number and address linked to the IP address with judicial authorization: a warrant.

     By creating a mechanism to authorize these information requests from foreign entities, Bill C-22 would provide police with an important tool to seek judicial approval to obtain IP addresses and subscriber names linked to criminal communications routed through international platforms. It would also create a new tool of international co-operation in criminal matters to facilitate obtaining the court-ordered production of specific electronic data at the request of Canada's foreign partners, allowing for better co-operation with our allies. Even with these new production orders and judicial authorizations, these investigative processes often entail extensive work and time. In some cases, the time required to produce information exceeds the length of time that the service provider retains the information, meaning evidence is being purged before police can get the legal authorization to obtain it. Part 1 of Bill C-22 would expedite the response to production orders by changing the review period to 10 days, because having prompt access to these telecommunication records is a necessity for investigations.

    Part 1 of Bill C-22 would also provide clarifications on the ability of police officers to receive and act on certain information that is voluntarily provided to them or publicly available. For example, if a parent discovers that their child is being sexually exploited online and finds explicit messages, the perpetrator's username and IP address may be visible directly within the chat logs. Under current law, police may hesitate to act immediately on this voluntarily provided information due to uncertainty around privacy laws and liability, potentially delaying intervention and allowing harm to continue. This clarification is important to ensure that police can lawfully and promptly use such voluntarily provided information, enabling faster identification of the service provider and quicker protection of the child.

     However, this new lawful access framework is only useful if telecommunications providers have the ability to respond to these demands. Currently, Canada is the only Western democracy that does not have a legal framework requiring electronic service providers to develop and maintain certain technical capabilities. This means that even if law enforcement obtains a warrant for information to, for example, track the movements of a terrorist group through one of its members' cellphones, the electronic provider may not be able to give that information as it is not required to retain it. Some telecommunications companies' and social media platforms' policies simply do not involve tracking or saving the kind of data that police might require as evidence unless they are legislated to do so.

     In addition to data storage, Canada currently has no comprehensive legislative or regulatory mechanism that obligates communications service providers to develop or deploy systems that provide intercept capabilities. When a new technology or communications service is introduced, law enforcement and national security agencies often have to research and develop new methods to gain lawful access to those networks. The lack of a technical solution, or a delay in the ability to use it, hampers investigations and prevents law enforcement and national security agencies from effectively acting on serious crimes or threats to national security in a timely manner.

    Part 2 of Bill C-22 would require electronic service providers to develop and maintain the technological capacity necessary to respond to lawful access requests and would establish a monetary penalty for non-compliance. It would also empower the Minister of Public Safety to issue flexible and targeted ministerial orders compelling an electronic service provider to develop and maintain specific capabilities. These ministerial orders would be subject to approval by the Intelligence Commissioner, as privacy and cybersecurity are explicit factors that need to be considered. With the establishment of legal obligations for service providers, when law enforcement agencies obtain a search warrant, they could be assured that the information they need to combat terrorism, organized crime or human trafficking, for example, would be provided quickly and accurately.

    Finally, part 3 of the bill would mandate a comprehensive review of the entire act by Parliament three years after all provisions came into force to assess its effectiveness and impact. I personally believe it would be of significant assistance to law enforcement, national security agencies and prosecutors if the public safety committee, when it does this study, also undertook to discuss and recommend amendments to sections 37 and 38 of the Canada Evidence Act, which deal with what information must be disclosed in court and what can remain protected. Currently, when police officers develop and use certain investigative techniques, they may be required to disclose how those tactics work in court, which can expose sensitive methods and undermine future investigations. Previous committee testimony by the commander of the Provincial Operations Intelligence Bureau of the Ontario Provincial Police discussed how amendments to the Canada Evidence Act are necessary to maintain confidentiality regarding the way in which investigative tools are developed and how they operate, function or are deployed to protect ongoing and future investigations. I hope that at committee, serious consideration will be given to these issues to ensure that police and our national security apparatus have the tools needed to prevent, investigate and prosecute serious and organized crimes, terrorism and other such offences.

    Coming from a law enforcement background, I have witnessed first-hand the growing gap between what Canada's law allows and what technologies make possible for criminals. Conservatives believe in law and order and have always stood for common-sense measures to keep Canadians safe. With that said, I am also aware of concerns raised by Canadians about the implications of this bill on their individual freedoms and privacy. I want to clarify that lawful access does not mean expanded access to private information. Rather, it means more timely and consistent lawful access to information related to specific individuals suspected of being engaged in criminal activity. Law enforcement authorities are not interested in the millions of devices used by everyday Canadians. The framework in Bill C-22 is intended to target those devices or communications that are being used to plan or execute criminal or terrorist activities. We must remember that without judicial authorization, law enforcement cannot intercept communications or request information and data.

     Lawful access does not allow access to private communications without a warrant, and interception can be carried out only with lawful authority, for targeted communications, for a specific period of time. Lawful access legislation does not allow law enforcement and intelligence investigators to simply monitor anyone's Internet use, email content or social media activity.

    Conservatives have been and will continue to be unequivocal in our commitment to protecting the freedom, privacy and safety of Canadians. At committee, we will scrutinize, debate and propose amendments to improve this legislation and stand firm against unnecessary infringements on the rights of Canadians.

    I remain optimistic that the government is open to non-partisan co-operation in assuring that Bill C-22 achieves its stated goal of strengthening Canada's public safety and national security, as well as safeguarding the rights and freedoms of all Canadians.

    Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his constructive comments about our committee's hard work, and I thank him for the time he put into the committee's work and for joining us during those studies. He also supported the sponsored event I had on the Hill on this matter, with the National Police Federation as well as other law enforcement and some lawyers.

    As a former police officer, could my colleague emphasize the importance of this legislation and how it gives our law enforcement the expediency to respond to often complex and heinous digital crimes, which he also mentioned in his speech, such as child sexual exploitation?

     Mr. Speaker, I left policing in 2015, and I can say that in the decade and a half or more before that, there were serious restrictions and limitations on the ability of law enforcement, and certainly our national security apparatus, to lawfully gather information and then be able to use it in court.

    I can say that the chiefs of police, as I indicated in my remarks, said as early as 2001 that one of the biggest gaps that they have in bringing criminals to justice is the change in legislation for lawful access. Criminals are using the latest technology available, and law enforcement cannot keep up because our legislation has not kept up. I think it is critical, if we want to, regardless of some of the laws that I think could be changed—

    I have to interrupt the member to continue.

    The hon. member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj.

    Mr. Speaker, I will give my colleague the opportunity to finish his answer, but first I want to tell him that I appreciated his speech. I think he touched on an important question: How can we help law enforcement be more effective while respecting privacy? My colleague mentioned the importance of seeking a warrant before getting information. However, the threshold set out in Bill C‑22 is very low. Authorities will be able to obtain a warrant as long as they have reasonable grounds to suspect that there is something illegal going on that requires the transmission of information.

    Does my colleague think that the bar is set high enough to ensure that warrants are not issued to just about anyone for just about anything?

    Mr. Speaker, I was getting wound up on my last question. I will answer my colleague from the Bloc first.

    I do not think the threshold, to be honest, would be any lower. Law enforcement would still require reasonable, probable grounds to believe an offence has been or is about to be committed in order for the threshold to be met to obtain a warrant. The only thing that would be adjusted is that a service provider would be answering a basic yes or no question, with no details. “Does person X have an account? Are you the service provider for person X or for this account?” Once law enforcement knows that, the idea is that they would go to a judge to present this additional information. “Yes, Bell has this account, and this account is part of our investigation.” Then they could ask the judge for a warrant for that specific account.

    Right now, law enforcement is on a fishing trip, trying to find out what service provider that IP address is attached to.

    Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to ask my hon. colleague this: Considering how the Liberals froze bank accounts for people donating to the “freedom convoy”, how confident is he that they would not abuse Bill C-22?

    Mr. Speaker, the difference here for the House and my colleagues to understand is that the courts found that during the “freedom convoy”, the government and the Governor in Council acted illegally. They circumvented the law. They basically broke the law, in my opinion and the opinion of the courts.

    The difference here is that there is legislation that allows for this to occur. This gives me pause to believe that the government is not able to circumvent the authorities here because of the law. It acted under the Emergencies Act during the “freedom convoy”. It made the decision as cabinet, with no law to protect Canadians. It just did it on its own, trying to quell what it did not like to have happen.

    This is why I have confidence to believe that with this legislation, being it is legislation and a statute, the law enforcement and the national security apparatus would operate within that statute.

    Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, for a very thorough analysis. I salute the depth of his analysis. As a retired policeman and investigator, he obviously knows this subject well. I am especially pleased with his endorsement of lawful access.

    I noticed that he retired after the Spencer decision by the Supreme Court in 2014. Bill C-2 is directly in response to the Bykovets and Spencer decisions. I wonder if the member would care to elaborate on why his party's stance went from opposing lawful access in Bill C-2 to now recommending it in Bill C-22.

    Mr. Speaker, it is important to remember that Bill C-2 had a number of things that distracted Canadians and gave us pause as legislators. It tried to lump everything together. It was suggested to the government that if we are going to deal with a subject as critical as this to law enforcement and the protection of our national security, and to CSIS and other national security investigators, we need to have a stand-alone bill. It needs to be clearly laid out and allow the government to be able to accept amendments and recommendations from opposition parties to strengthen the bill. This would allow law enforcement and our national security apparatus to both do the job we as Canadians have asked them to do for us and protect the privacy rights and concerns of Canadians. Having a stand-alone bill that can clearly articulate the authorities with which law enforcement can act would clear up a lot of ambiguity and get support across—

    I must interrupt the hon. member so that we may proceed with questions and comments.

    The hon. member for Drummond.

    Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to congratulate my colleague on his speech, his knowledge and his mastery of this issue. He clearly knows what he is talking about.

    Bill C-22 gives law enforcement greater authority to access sensitive information, often personal data, which is concerning in some cases, but may be necessary. We can discuss that. In short, that is the subject of the current discussion and debate.

    Ironically, however, the Liberal federal government has cut funding for the agency responsible for overseeing these organizations. In fact, the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency has had its budget slashed by 15%, which represents a substantial sum of $2.7 million. Does my colleague agree that the government should establish oversight mechanisms to reassure the public, rather than cutting funding for an agency that is essential to the work we are discussing today?

    Mr. Speaker, if the government is going to have a robust lawful access regime in this country, it needs to have the necessary resources, not only in law enforcement and the national security apparatus, but also in prosecutions, to make sure we can follow through and hold accountable those who would do us harm as a country, like those who prey on the vulnerable, and organized crime individuals. Law enforcement needs not only the resources to do its job well, but also laws that ensure that those who commit crimes are held responsible and that we take seriously the issue of national security and the public safety of Canadians.

    Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Eglinton—Lawrence.

    I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-22. Since my time is limited, I will focus on part 2 of the bill, which deals with the technical capabilities of electronic service providers, while part 1 deals with the legal framework for obtaining information.

    It is widely accepted that most crimes committed today leave a digital footprint. No matter what crime is committed, there is almost always a trace that enables investigators to track the perpetrator and understand how it was done. In the case of organized crime, the digital footprint helps shed light on its ramifications. These criminals and individuals who pose a threat to Canada's security exploit the digital environment to carry out a wide range of malicious activities. It is also an open secret that our laws on lawful access have not kept pace with advances in modern technology. Canada is the only G7 and Five Eyes country that does not have a modern lawful access regime requiring electronic service providers to establish ways to ensure authorized and timely access to information.

    That is where the paradox lies. Currently, law enforcement agencies and CSIS already have the legal authority to obtain information from electronic service providers. However, there is no law requiring these providers to maintain a system that enables them to respond effectively to lawful access requests. This means that even if a provider has the requested information in its systems, it does not necessarily have the ability to retrieve that information and provide it to law enforcement agencies with a valid warrant, because it is not required to do so.

    Without a modernized framework, law enforcement wastes valuable time and potential leads and misses out on crucial information. This can even lead to investigations being abandoned, particularly since the Jordan decision. Above all, these delays result in an increase in the number of crimes and victims. That is important, and it is worth reiterating. Take, for example, the wave of extortion cases observed in British Columbia and Ontario. The same individuals, likely affiliated with organized crime, are behind multiple attacks.

    As things stand, even with the proper authority, if electronic service providers are unable to quickly extract the metadata needed, investigations can run into significant delays. Arrests that take several weeks result in a much larger number of victims than arrests made within days of the initial offence. The same applies to cybercrime, sextortion or Internet fraud cases. Being able to conduct investigations quickly can make a huge difference.

    Apart from its impact on our ability to conduct investigations, this situation also prevents us from fully participating in security-related international co-operation activities and thereby benefiting from our partners' information and support at a time when transnational gangs and terrorists are especially active. Bill C‑22, especially part 2, entitled “Supporting Authorized Access to Information Act”, will correct these problems and establish a modern framework for lawful technical access while continuing to safeguard the privacy of Canadians.

    It is important to note that part 2 of Bill C-22 does not create any new surveillance powers, either for law enforcement agencies or for the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. There will be no surveillance of social media content, web browsing history or text message content. I would like to correct the record on something my colleague, the member for Rivière-du-Nord, said this morning. He claimed that this would be the case, but that is not accurate. This is only about the metadata transmitted by electronic service providers. The production of such transmission data has already been approved by the courts, with a valid search warrant.

    Imagine that a missing teenage girl, 16 years old, makes an emergency call 10 days after her disappearance. Although the telecommunications service provider is able to confirm the call and the antenna used, it cannot precisely identify the last known location of the phone before it was disconnected, because it is not required to have that capability.

    Bill C‑22 will correct this situation by requiring that these suppliers, considered essential suppliers, maintain consistent and reliable technical capabilities nationwide. Let me remind the House that these capabilities are already the norm in Europe and in Five Eyes countries. Under this bill, a supplier could be required to develop and maintain technical capabilities in two ways: based on specific requirements for major suppliers or, in other cases, pursuant to a ministerial order based on operational needs as new technologies emerge.

    Instead of requiring entire industries, including small businesses, to develop the same capabilities, the proposed framework takes a more targeted approach by providing for the necessary capability development through ministerial orders based on strict criteria. Let me be clear. As an additional safeguard and external oversight mechanism, the bill requires the Minister of Public Safety to first consult with the relevant provider and then obtain approval from the intelligence commissioner before an order becomes valid. In addition, if the order is approved by the intelligence commissioner, the electronic service provider in question still has the option of challenging the order before a judge.

    We have done our homework. We are talking about protecting the public and our country from bad actors in the digital world as we already do in the physical world, while protecting the privacy of Canadians and the rights enshrined in the charter. Criminals are constantly adapting to new technologies and finding new ways to commit crimes. We must ensure that our law enforcement and intelligence agencies can adapt as well. Our government is committed to doing everything it can to prevent criminals from threatening the security of Canadians.

     Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member opposite could carefully explain to us what assurances Canadians have that their privacy would, indeed, be protected with Bill C-22 and that there would not be government overreach. This is a common concern that I get all the time, and I would really like for the member opposite to speak directly to that.

    Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is referring to part I of the bill, which clearly outlines the information that may be requested. Bill C-22 does not expand existing powers. In fact, it narrows the scope within which investigators can seek information. What the bill does, however, is speed up the process so that this information can be obtained within the prescribed time frames, allowing investigations to move forward quickly.

    Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate my colleague opposite, as well as his knowledge of the file. From his remarks, it is clear that he has taken the time to study the issue carefully.

    We live in an age when people are worried about their personal data. The Quebec National Assembly has passed Bill 25, which regulates the sharing of personal information and data. Bill C-22 is currently causing a great deal of concern among the public. Members of Parliament, including my colleague, I believe, are receiving dozens of emails from people who are concerned about the potential implementation of this legislation. However, I am not hearing anything reassuring here, and that is what concerns us a bit and makes the Bloc Québécois wary of Bill C-22. We support the principle, but we feel it lacks sufficient measures. I mentioned earlier that funding for the review agency was cut to allow for a little more security.

    I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the measures that need to be put in place to reassure people that their personal data will be protected, which is missing from Bill C-22.

    Mr. Speaker, in an ideal world, of course, the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency would have all the resources it needs.

    You know as well as I do, sir, that this is not the case. The government has—

    I must interrupt the member to remind him that the Standing Orders require that remarks be addressed through the Chair and not directly to other members.

    The member may continue.

    Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, in an ideal world, the agency would have all the resources it needs. However, it has had to comply with the rules being applied across the entire government, particularly with regard to budget cuts. That said, this analysis was conducted with a view to ensuring that the agency can continue to fulfill its mandate, and we are confident that it will be able to carry it out as required.

     Mr. Speaker, first of all, I wanted to say that I have had an opportunity to review Bill C-22. It is critical that it does pass, so I would be remiss if I did not take this opportunity to ask the parliamentary secretary how this came about. I recall sitting in committee, and regrettably members opposite were very much dead set against lawful access. This was despite the fact that we were hearing from witness after witness as to how crucially important it was. As such, if the parliamentary secretary could tell us what is responsible for that sea change in attitude, I would be most grateful.

    Mr. Speaker, in committee, we heard witnesses say that they have been wanting this measure for more than 20 years. This is not new. It is something that is constantly evolving.

    We have also heard law enforcement officials tell us, time and again, that they are unable to conduct their investigations effectively, that there are delays and that more crimes are being committed.

    It is in this context that we have put forward this proposal. The hon. member across the way mentioned that some people wanted a specific bill. As far as I am concerned, what matters is that we have—

    Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime.

     Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to speak in support of our new government's latest piece of legislation designed to keep Canadians safe and to ensure that our law enforcement and national security apparatus have modern lawful tools they need to carry out their vital responsibilities.

    Bill C-22, an act respecting lawful access, is our new government's seventh piece of legislation dedicated to enhancing our country's public safety and protecting Canadians. It builds on the broader suite of measures that include legislative action to combat hate and extremism, meaningful reforms to the bail system, stronger protections to address intimate partner violence, and steps to strengthen the integrity and effectiveness of Canada's immigration system. Together, these initiatives respond to evolving public safety threats while reinforcing the rule of law.

    It is clear that public safety is a priority for our government, and we will continue to do everything we can at the federal level to keep Canadians safe. Bill C-22 was developed through extensive round tables and consultations with law enforcement, telecommunications providers and privacy experts.

    Importantly, the scope of the bill has been carefully narrowed to strategically target telecommunication service providers while retaining the long-standing and well-understood legal threshold of reasonable grounds to suspect. This ensures that investigators could act swiftly when necessary while maintaining appropriate limits.

    To be abundantly clear, there is nothing in this bill that would grant the capability or authority to conduct mass tracking or generalized surveillance of Canadians. As part of their normal operations, telecommunications providers already maintain technical information that shows which cellphones connect to which network or tower.

    Bill C-22 would not expand that technical capability. It would simply establish a clear and lawful process to ensure that in the context of an imminent threat and/or legally authorized investigation, service providers could share specific information with law enforcement promptly and responsibly. During time-sensitive investigations that involve child exploitation, organized crime, terrorism or imminent threats to life, delays in accessing basic technical information can mean the difference between prevention and tragedy.

    Bill C-22 would not give police new investigative powers. It would update how powers that already exist under Canadian law are used so they work in today's digital world. The same legal standards would apply and the same court oversight would remain firmly in place. This means there would be no additional access to the content of Canadians' communications without proper judicial authorization. Law enforcement could not read emails or text messages, listen to phone calls, view photos or access personal files without a warrant issued by a court. Through lawful access, there would be no access to an individual's browsing history or search history and no authority to monitor people indiscriminately or in real time.

    The legislation is deliberately narrow. It would be limited to confirming whether a service exists, identifying the type of service being provided and obtaining the technical identifiers necessary to link activity to a specific service provider in the context of lawful investigation. This is about modernizing a process to make it timely in the 21st century.

    Before this legislation, whenever police needed information to stop a serious threat like a child abduction, police had to go telecom provider by telecom provider and ask each one individually, with a warrant, in order to obtain basic information. That process takes way too long in a globalized world. When a threat to life is unfolding, time is the difference between life and death.

    Here is the reality we are dealing with. When there is a serious threat to national security like a terrorist attack, our police and security agencies need to move fast. Every minute counts, but right now, even when the law says police can get information, there is a big problem.

    Online service providers do not always have the basic technical tools to actually deliver the information. Sometimes the company does not have a secure way to send it. Sometimes they cannot retrieve it quickly enough, and sometimes they cannot guarantee it is accurate or complete. Because of that, police work is delayed or never even started. That is not acceptable when Canadian safety is on the line. This legislation would allow for a ministerial order during a serious national security event at the request of CSIS and other law enforcement agencies. It would require providers to have the basic technical capabilities to co-operate with law enforcement on demand.

    Let me give another real-world example of why this matters. CSIS was investigating a suspected terrorist network and had received a court-approved warrant to track the cellphone of a person of interest. Even when the legal authorization was in place, the service provider did not have the technical ability to support the request because it was not required to maintain that capability. As a result, CSIS could not track the device digitally and had to rely on human intelligence and surveillance instead. That approach was slower, more expensive and carried a greater risk to the investigator and the public. Valuable time was lost, not because the law was missing, but because the system was not built to respond when it needed to.

    Bill C-22 has robust guardrails to protect Canadians' rights and privacy. These safeguards include independent approval by the intelligence commissioner, enhanced oversight mechanisms and mandatory annual public reporting. In addition, Bill C-22 contains a statutory parliamentary review clause that would require the act to be reviewed during the third year after all of its provisions were put in force.

    As technology continues to advance, so too do the methods used by organized crime, hostile state actors and individuals who wish to do our country harm. Our law enforcement and national security agencies must be equipped to keep pace with these 21st-century developments.

    This legislation has the support of law enforcement and stakeholders from across the country, such as the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police president Mark Campbell, who said, “Technology has changed the way criminals operate. We need 21st-century tools to investigate 21st century crimes—always with strong judicial oversight and respect for Canadians’ privacy rights.” Similarly, CSIS indicated publicly in October that the absence of modern lawful access legislation is placing national security investigations at risk. Canada remains the only western democracy without a comprehensive legal framework governing lawful access.

    Outside of an outdated licensing regime dating back to the 1990s, co-operation between police services, CSIS and electronic service providers has relied largely on voluntary arrangements. These are slow and no longer relevant in a dangerous and fractious world. Bill C-22 would change that and finally align Canada with our Five Eyes allies and closest partners, including New Zealand, the U.K., Australia and France, by establishing a clear, lawful and accountable framework for access to essential digital information. Without these tools, Canadian investigators have at times been excluded from international investigations simply because it takes too long for us to obtain critical information.

    If we are serious about strengthening our sovereignty, we must also strengthen our national security. Sovereignty requires that law enforcement and our national security apparatus be able to do their jobs effectively and operate on a level playing field with our allies on the world stage. Bill C-22 is a necessary and measured step toward ensuring that Canada remains secure, resilient and fully engaged in protecting its citizens in the 21st century.

    Mr. Speaker, Bill C-22 comes as an answer to two Supreme Court decisions about requiring a warrant to get IP addresses. There were a number of ways the government could have reinstated the ability of law enforcement to get access to IP addresses, and it seems to have developed quite a cumbersome one in Bill C-22, so I am a little concerned about that.

    We have also heard a number of other things about Bill C-22 when it comes to lawful access, and I am hoping we can get a bit of clarity on this. Bill C-2 was originally introduced, and I am wondering why the government chose to pick some of the pieces from Bill C-2 and put them in Bill C-22.

    Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that we were unable to get the support from the necessary opposition parties in order to pass Bill C-2. After further consultation with law enforcement and our national security apparatus, we chose specific pieces of the bill that they said were absolutely critical and needed to combat crime in the 21st century, so we took the advice of the professionals. That is why we chose specific pieces from Bill C-2 and placed them into Bill C-22.

    Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and for the explanations he provided.

    I have a question for him. I do not want to go into too much detail, but I think he is knowledgeable enough to answer my question. I understand that law enforcement first contacts a service provider and that, without a warrant, the provider must state whether or not the individual is receiving services from that company. What I also see in the bill is that, at that point, the service provider has 24 hours to respond and five days to challenge the order before a judge if they so desire.

    If my colleague was involved in this, I would like to ask him how those deadlines were determined.

    Mr. Speaker, there had to be reasonable time provided to the service providers to provide our police and national security apparatus with the necessary information.

    The member is absolutely right. The current system is incredibly cumbersome, where warrants are needed to get a yes-or-no answer on whether an ISP is providing services to a specific national security threat or potential national security threat. We had to give the companies the necessary time to get back to us, and it was through some consultation with police and our national security apparatus, which were saying that this was an appropriate amount of time. Again, we took instruction from our police and public safety officials on the timing.

     Mr. Speaker, our colleague opposite, who is from the riding of Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner and is a former police officer, correctly stated that lawful access is not access to private information. Can my colleague, the parliamentary secretary for combatting crime, expand upon the safeguards in this bill that would ensure that Canadians' privacy would be protected while we provide the tools the police need to get the evidence they need to put the bad guys in jail?

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for the work she does on committee. That question is a testament to all the great work she has done.

    The fact of the matter is that we would not be expanding any police rules here. This is about modernizing a process to ensure that police and our national security apparatus can move at the speed of the 21st century. We cannot be held up by cumbersome rules that have been in place since the 1990s.

     Mr. Speaker, as always, it is a privilege and honour to speak on behalf of the great citizens of my riding, particularly on an important bill such as this. As a former member of the justice system, I know the great difficulty that law enforcement has had. Unfortunately, Canada has been an outlier in how efficiently law enforcement can gain access to information. Ultimately, the bill is a step in the right direction, but certainly much improvement is required.

     I will start off with the general notion that Canadians expect their government to do two things well. Canadians expect it to, number one, keep them safe and, number two, protect their fundamental rights and freedoms. In today's world, that balance is becoming increasingly complex. We know that crime is evolving, technology is advancing and law enforcement is facing new challenges in accessing the evidence it needs to investigate serious offences.

    No one in the House disputes that reality, but Canadians also expect that, when governments respond to those challenges, they do so carefully and not in a rushed manner. They will do it responsibly and with a clear understanding of the consequences. Unfortunately, that has not been the standard approach of the government. Time and again over the last 11 years, we have seen legislation from the Liberal government that is rushed, is poorly thought out and ultimately fails to strike the right balance between public safety and individual liberties.

    Conservatives have always believed, and will always believe, in law and order. We have always stood for measures that keep Canadians safe while respecting the fundamental rights and freedoms that are enshrined in our charter and define our country. I know that Liberals often talk about being the only party that stands on behalf of the charter, but that is not the case. For nearly a decade now, we have been urging the government to get this balance right.

    Unfortunately, what Canadians have seen instead is a pattern of failure, a pattern where the government lags behind evolving threats, introduces flawed legislation, and then expects Parliament to clean up its mess. We saw that just last fall when it introduced Bill C-2. That piece of legislation fell well short of protecting Canadians, while at the same time it overreached into areas that raise serious concerns about individual freedoms and privacy. Conservatives did our job. We pushed back, and we forced the government to reconsider that flawed piece of legislation. We successfully blocked provisions that would have infringed on the rights of law-abiding Canadians.

    Now, with Bill C-22, we are once again being asked to consider a lawful access framework. Let me be abundantly clear that there is a real issue here. As someone who has spent close to two decades in the legal system, I understand first-hand how critical timely access to digital evidence is in modern investigations. Today's criminals do not operate in the same world as they did 20 or 30 years ago. They are always several steps ahead of law enforcement. As a result, our law enforcement agencies must have the appropriate tools they need to keep pace.

    We know that delays in accessing basic subscriber information will often stall investigations. Quite often that is the difference between making an arrest and not. We know that gaps in international co-operation can allow serious offenders to evade accountability. We know that technological limitations can prevent police from acting on leads that protect victims.

    These are the real challenges, and they deserve real solutions. The question before us is not whether action is needed. The question is whether the Liberal government can be trusted to get it right, because over the last 11 years its track record suggests otherwise. As I have indicated, we have seen legislation that is rushed, overly broad and insufficiently thought through. We have seen measures that go either too far, risking Canadians' rights, or simply not far enough, failing to deliver real public safety concerns.

    Bill C-22 reintroduces elements from Bill C-2, and that alone demands careful scrutiny. Conservatives will not simply take the government at its word. We will examine the details, test the assumptions and ensure that any new powers are justified, targeted and subject to proper oversight, because Canadians have already seen what happens when the Liberal government rushes ahead without regard for Canadians' privacy. The invocation of the Emergencies Act is but one example.

     In Bill C-2, the Liberals tried to give themselves sweeping, unjustified access to personal information without the appropriate safeguards and without respect for the fundamental rights of law-abiding Canadians. In fact, the Privacy Commissioner confirmed that the government did not even consult his office before attempting to grant itself these sweeping new powers to access Canadians' personal information from service providers like banks and telecommunications companies without a warrant. Conservatives stood up, pushed back and forced the Liberals to retreat.

    Now, with Bill C-22, Canadians are right to be cautious. Any expansion of state power, whether through lower legal thresholds, new data demands or broad retention requirements, must be tightly limited, clearly justified and subject to real oversight. We will never accept a repeat of the same overreach simply dressed up in new language. We must ensure that any lowering of legal thresholds does not come at the expense of Canadians' fundamental rights. We must ensure that data retention requirements, particularly those that apply broadly, are necessary, proportionate and consistent with the charter. We also must ensure that any obligations placed on service providers are clear and reasonable and do not create any unintended consequences for innovation or privacy.

    This is especially important given the scope of this bill, which creates a new framework governing how electronic service providers must support lawful access. These provisions raise complex legal and technical questions. They involve requirements for data retention, technical capabilities and compliance mechanisms that could have far-reaching implications. While the government argues that this is necessary to modernize our investigative framework, we must ensure that we are not creating a system that overreaches or lacks sufficient accountability.

    At the same time, we simply cannot ignore the broader context. Public safety and, I would add, trust in our federal institutions and in our democracy have been deteriorating.

    Canadians are seeing rising violent crime, repeat offenders cycling through the system and a growing sense that the justice system is not working for them. In fact, many victims do not even refer anymore to “the Canadian justice system”. They do not see it as justice for them, as they have been ignored for over 11 years. They see it simply as a legal system. At the same time, we have seen failures in basic areas of law enforcement capacity. We have all read and seen reports that the RCMP has struggled to recruit enough officers to meet operational needs. We have seen gaps in resources, coordination and leadership.

    Therefore, when the government brings forward legislation like Bill C-22, Canadians are right to ask if this is part of a coherent plan to improve public safety or if it is another isolated measure that fails to address the root problems. Tools alone are not enough. We need the people, the resources and the leadership to make those tools effective.

    Conservatives believe in giving police the tools they need, but we also believe in accountability. We believe in getting that balance right, and we believe that any legislation must be clear, targeted and respectful of Canadian rights. That is why we will be carefully reviewing the bill. We will listen to experts. We will hear from law enforcement and consider the views of civil liberty organizations. We will do the work necessary to ensure that any final legislation reflects the interests of Canadians, not the political priorities of the Liberal government.

    Canadians deserve to be safe. They deserve a justice system that works, and they deserve a government that gets it right the first time. Unfortunately, that has not been the trademark of the Liberal government. That is why it falls to this House to do the necessary hard work of scrutiny, accountability and improvement. Conservatives will continue to stand for common-sense solutions that protect Canadians' safety, their privacy and their fundamental freedoms. We will scrutinize the legislation carefully. We will insist on the right balance, one that protects public safety while safeguarding the privacy and freedoms of law-abiding Canadians, because Canadians should never have to choose between being safe and being free.

    I want to highlight some of the stakeholder reactions that I have been able to access so far with respect to Bill C-22.

    Law enforcement clearly welcomes Bill C-22 as a needed change to the legal frameworks for warrants and searches in Canada, for timely information gathering. The legal profession is skeptical of the bill. While they welcome the amendments from Bill C-2, they are doubtful of its efficacy and of the charter compliance contained in part 2. The business community acknowledges the need for modern law enforcement but is wary of higher regulatory burdens and the impact on innovation and encryption. Civil liberty groups strongly oppose the bill.

    This is by no means an exhaustive list. Some examples of groups that support the bill would be the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the BC Association of Chiefs of Police, and the B.C. public safety minister, Nina Krieger. Those who have mixed opinions on the bill and who seek amendment include the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, Dr. Michael Geist, the Canadian Bar Association and Dr. Robert Diab, professor of law at Thompson Rivers University.

     Those who flat out oppose this piece of legislation include the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, the BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association, the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms and the Yanik Guillemette technology and entrepreneurship industry.

    I will give members a flavour of some of the comments from these three groups. A passage from the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, which opposes the bill, reads, “This legislation presents one of the greatest threats to privacy in Canada of the past two decades.” The changes from Bill C-2 to Bill C-22 do not go “far enough” in addressing the charter compliance concerns with Bill C-2. Bill C-22 adds a “data retention provision...that raises...additional privacy concerns.”

    Those who support the bill include the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, which sees this legislation as “intended to modernize Canada's lawful access regime” and improve its “ability to investigate crime and protect the public in the digital age.”

    It continues:

    Those with mixed opinion include the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. Businesses understand that “Canada needs modern tools to fight crime”, but they recognize that “strong encryption and consumer privacy are fundamental for our economic and national security.” They want to see Bill C-22 provide “surgical, proportionate” tools to law enforcement.

    Another mixed opinion is from Dr. Michael Geist. He says that Bill C-22 significantly improves the timely access to data and information, which was in part 1 of Bill C-2, while worsening the privacy concerns in part 2 of the new bill, but transforming the way that governments will interact with digital platforms and communication providers. He also says that the new “confirmation of service” demand power in part 1 addresses a long-standing police complaint regarding timely access to information, and part 2 covers “new requirements for communications providers to actively work with law enforcement on their surveillance and monitoring capabilities.... The government will point to increased oversight [through the Intelligence Commissioner], but the concerns regarding surveillance capabilities, security vulnerabilities, secrecy, and cross-border data sharing remain.”

    A mixed opinion comes from the Canadian Bar Association, which says that while Bill C-22 “narrows the...powers from C-2 and increases some oversight, it also expands international cooperation in law enforcement.” Part 2 of the bill is seen as disastrous in their opinion, opening back doors for CSIS and the police to “get real-time access to their information”. Further, “systematic vulnerabilities are not defined [as specifically] as they are in Australia”, despite the bill including language that requires that the government not introduce “systemic vulnerabilities into these systems”.

    I see I am almost out of time, so I will end at this point.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is a Liberal government bill. I am shocked today that, with the importance of this bill, there is really no one in the House. I call quorum.

    I will ask the clerk to count the members present.

    And the count having been taken:

    The Deputy Speaker: We have quorum.

    Order. 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 Regina—Lewvan, Finance; the hon. member for Cloverdale—Langley City, Housing; the hon. member for York—Durham, Housing.