During question period on public safety, members debated Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act, 2026, which would update police and security agencies’ powers to obtain digital data during investigations and create a framework for accessing information held by electronic service providers. Conservatives said the government had broken a promise to work collaboratively on the bill, argued it goes too far in expanding surveillance, and proposed passing the parts dealing with police tools while studying Part 2 separately. Liberals responded that the bill was comprehensive, had involved consultation with stakeholders including law enforcement, that Parts 1 and 2 go together and cannot be split, and said modern tools are needed to fight terrorism and organized crime, accusing the Conservatives of slowing the bill in committee.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .
3 statements
“This is not how passing laws works. We introduced a detailed bill.”
“Mr. Speaker, this is not how legislation works. We have put forward a comprehensive piece of legislation— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!”
Mr. Speaker, this is not how legislation works. We have put forward a comprehensive piece of legislation— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
“We need to pass this whole bill together, not just pick parts of it. The Conservatives are wasting time in committee and slowing it down.”
“Mr. Speaker, this is not how legislation works. We have put forward a comprehensive piece of legislation. We have consulted with a range of stakeholders, including law enforcement. Parts 1 and 2 go hand in hand. We cannot cherry-pick which parts of the act go into effect. I will give an example of the obstructionism of the Conservative Party: over 10 hours of discussion on clause-by-clause at the committee, and they have passed seven amendments. Just last week alone, over three hours, they passed one amendment, and in fact, the key leaders on the committee were not even—”
Mr. Speaker, this is not how legislation works. We have put forward a comprehensive piece of legislation. We have consulted with a range of stakeholders, including law enforcement. Parts 1 and 2 go hand in hand. We cannot cherry-pick which parts of the act go into effect. I will give an example of the obstructionism of the Conservative Party: over 10 hours of discussion on clause-by-clause at the committee, and they have passed seven amendments. Just last week alone, over three hours, they passed one amendment, and in fact, the key leaders on the committee were not even—
“We need this bill because it gives police modern tools to fight terrorism and organized crime. The Conservatives are opposing it just to oppose everything.”
“Mr. Speaker, this Conservative opposition is not about scrutinizing bills. We are up for scrutiny. We have amended many of our bills, including Bill C-22. Bill C-22 is a bill that we in Parliament have tried to bring many times because, as I know the Conservatives recognize, we need modern tools to fight terrorism and to fight organized crime, but these Conservatives do not really care. They will oppose anything. Just last week, they opposed harsher sentences for child predators. Who are these people?”
Government answer in Question Period
Relevance 27 of 100
None of this answer addressed the specific question that was asked.
See full analysisMr. Speaker, this Conservative opposition is not about scrutinizing bills. We are up for scrutiny. We have amended many of our bills, including Bill C-22. Bill C-22 is a bill that we in Parliament have tried to bring many times because, as I know the Conservatives recognize, we need modern tools to fight terrorism and to fight organized crime, but these Conservatives do not really care. They will oppose anything. Just last week, they opposed harsher sentences for child predators. Who are these people?
