“The Liberal Party has lost its way. It is getting into people's business instead of taking care of Canadians. I want the member to tell me what he thinks about a former Liberal minister who said the party left him.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the aisle mentioned the former leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, Mr. Joe Clark. I actually have interactions with a former Liberal minister, Mr. Dan McTeague, who said that he did not leave the Liberal Party but that the Liberal Party left him. I think there is some give and take here. I would like to know what my colleague from Winnipeg North’s opinions are on Mr. McTeague. I feel as if the Liberal Party has lost its compass. It is way off and seems to be getting into everybody else’s business instead of looking after the business of looking after Canadians.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“The Liberals say they want to work together, but they always tell us no. If this bill were truly good policy, it could handle proper debate and changes. The government is trying to cut off debate because this bill cannot stand up to scrutiny.”

“Mr. Speaker, I listened very intently to the member for Winnipeg North’s speech. He talked about collaboration and said that the Liberals want to collaborate. Unfortunately, that is simply not the case. Any time we tried to collaborate, the answer was always no. Unfortunately that left us little availability to do other things. The Liberals also said that they want to use the tools. I would suggest they abuse the tools. The member also called the legislation “sound public policy”, so I will say this: If Bill C-22 is good, sound public policy, then it should be able to withstand scrutiny, it should be able to withstand amendments, and it should be able to withstand debate. Frankly, the motion, in my view, is an admission by the Liberal government that it has failed. The bill is so flawed that it cannot possibly withstand debate, and the member should agree with that, because it is definitely not able to withstand scrutiny.”

“Our committee rushed through our study of this bill, hearing from about 48 witnesses in just nine hours. The Liberals even blocked the Privacy Commissioner from coming back to answer questions about the changes he suggested. I want to hear my colleague's thoughts on why they did that.”

“Mr. Speaker, I truly appreciate the work ethic of my friend and colleague who sits with me on the public safety committee and the amount that she has studied this bill. We studied it in depth, and I appreciate her being thankful for all the staff who have done this work with us as well. As we went through this very rushed process of pre-clause-by-clause, I think there were somewhere upward of 48 witnesses over just nine hours whom we sped through to try to study the bill. We had a hard time getting the briefs, as well, because it was rushed, and that created some problems. I asked for consent of the committee to bring the Privacy Commissioner in during clause-by-clause to help us. As we looked through the amendments, a lot of them he had suggested, we could not ask him questions very much during pre-clause-by-clause. Could the member comment on what she thought the Liberals were doing when they blocked the Privacy Commissioner from coming?”

“Witnesses sent their notes to the committee before the meeting, but committee members never got to see them. Was that frustrating to the member?”

“Madam Speaker, I was at the committee meeting the day the Privacy Commissioner was there, along with other witnesses representing social media platforms. Before the meeting, all the witnesses indicated that they had submitted their briefs to the committee. However, members were not able to see them because they had not received them. Did the member not find it frustrating that we did not receive the briefs before the meeting, not only from the Privacy Commissioner but also from the other witnesses?”

“We want to change this bill to make it better. The Liberals say we are just delaying things. Can we change this bill to protect people's privacy and rights while still helping police investigate crimes?”

“Madam Speaker, I thank the member for that very passionate speech. As opposition members, we propose to improve these types of bills with amendments. The Liberals characterize these amendments at committee stage as obstructions, yet all we are trying to do is make the bills better. Could the member tell us if there are amendments that can be implemented to achieve the objectives while still protecting privacy and civil rights?”

“People who oppose this bill are not just spreading fear. Tech and phone companies say they might leave Canada if it passes. They are worried about protecting their customers' privacy and the high cost of storing extra data. What does the member for Vancouver East think about these concerns?”

“Madam Speaker, earlier in debate tonight, we heard from the Liberal side of the House suggesting that anybody who was opposed to Bill C‑22 was fearmongering and spreading misinformation. However, the very rational debate coming from the member for Vancouver East would suggest otherwise. Also, I am reading a Global News story that says that social media platforms, satellite companies and telecommunication companies will consider leaving Canada if and when Bill C‑22 passes because they are afraid they are not going to be able to maintain their customers’ privacy, something that they are committed to doing. The secondary concern of these companies seems to be the additional cost of having to maintain digital information for a long period of time. Can the member for Vancouver East comment on those very rational concerns?”

“I want to split this bill into two parts. This would give police the tools they need right away, but pause the parts that threaten people's privacy so we can study them more.”

“Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for what I thought was a very thoughtful speech on a very concerning bill. It is not just the NDP or Conservatives who are concerned, but civil liberty organizations and other stakeholders. The Privacy Commissioner himself has significant concerns about the privacy aspects of this legislation. Earlier today, Conservatives moved an amendment to separate the bill into Bill C‑22A and Bill C‑22B. By doing that, we could work with and allow the police the tools they need for investigations of serious crimes and other matters, but it would also put on pause the ultimate concern of this bill, which is part 2, and allow the Privacy Commissioner and others to come back in further reflection on this bill. Does the hon. member agree with the amendment that we put forward?”

“I oppose this motion to cut off debate on the police access bill. The government is rushing the bill through committee and not letting us review it properly. We support giving police the tools to catch criminals with a judge's permission, but we have over 100 changes to debate. We should split the bill and take the time to get it right.”

“Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Richmond Centre—Marpole. I have been a member for just over a year, 12 or 14 months, and I think I am more disappointed this week than I have been in my entire time in the House. I am not only disappointed on behalf of my neighbours in Oshawa, but disappointed on behalf of all Canadians, who believe they sent us here for democracy and for freedom and to be able to represent them in the House. What we are witnessing today from the Liberal government is quite alarming, as members from the Bloc, members from the NDP and the Green Party member have also said. It is shocking, quite frankly, that all four opposition parties are in line on this. The other shocking piece is that we even had some identical amendments that came forward, which was quite amazing. I find the Liberal government’s response, both in committee and in the House, to be very arrogant and dismissive of the process that we have in the House for a reason. The Liberal programming motion is not only about Bill C‑22, which is of course the Liberal government’s lawful access bill, but it is also about whether Parliament is still allowed to do its job. Over the last several weeks, I have spent countless hours studying this bill, both on my own and in the public safety committee. I had to add time on my own because of the rushed nature of the witness testimony and because the stage of study for this bill was like nothing I have ever seen before. I think we saw a minimum of 48 witnesses in just eight hours. We could not possibly get all our questions in. Several times, witnesses from multiple organizations were there in one hour. We had to pick and choose whom to ask questions when we needed to ask questions of all of them. Often, we would get only two rounds of questions in that hour because of all sorts of different reasons. I did not get to ask any questions of the Privacy Commissioner because of that in the short time he was there. In fact, it was the hour the Privacy Commissioner was there when we had only two rounds of questions. Every question we asked at clause-by-clause was relevant to the importance of this bill and the understanding of it. There has been a lot of hard work put into dozens and dozens of amendments. I think the public safety minister mentioned in a press conference that there were about 100 amendments. That says something. Work has been done. I appreciated the Bloc member from the committee mentioning the staff who worked on studying this bill. The staff in our offices put countless hours into helping us. They have been studying this bill and doing lots and lots of research. We are doing it from a place of really wanting to understand this and do it right, not just do it fast. It has been so rushed. It has been mentioned that briefs did not get to us until well after the witnesses were there. They spoke about the briefs, and we said, “What briefs?” We had not seen these briefs. Earlier in some heckling, I heard the Liberals blaming the clerk because we did not get the briefs in time, but, quite frankly, the real reason we did not get them in time was the rushed nature of this and the way the Liberal government has been pushing it through. Conservatives have been clear from the beginning: We support giving police the tools they need to pursue terrorists, child predators, organized crime networks and cybercriminals. With proper judicial authorization, law enforcement should be able to obtain lawful access to necessary and relevant evidence when investigating serious crimes. What we cannot support is the idea that Parliament should simply rubber-stamp legislation without proper scrutiny. That is exactly what this motion seeks to do. Right now, there are over 100 proposed amendments to Bill C‑22, which I just mentioned. We have been able to debate only a small number so far. However, because of this motion proposed by the government, the Liberals are effectively saying they do not want Parliament to finish the work and take the time it needs to get this legislation right. If committee members cannot complete clause-by-clause consideration within the government’s imposed timeline, the remaining amendments would simply be deemed moved and we would be voting on them, so the truth is that not only would we not get to move and debate each amendment and possibly make subamendments, but Canadians would not be able to see what those amendments are until they have already been voted on. The secrecy of that alone should alarm Canadians. That should concern every member of the House. What troubles me most is that the Liberal government continues to talk about trust. At the committee, the public safety minister agreed with me when I told him that public trust is important and essential, especially on matters such as these, but trust is not built by cutting off debate. Trust is not built by limiting scrutiny, and it is not built by using a manufactured majority to silence opposition voices. Trust is earned through transparency. It is earned through accountability, and it is earned by allowing Parliament to do its job. I think the member for Winnipeg North said Bill C-22 is “sound” legislation. If it is so sound, it should be able to withstand scrutiny. It should be able to withstand amendments, and perhaps subamendments. We should be able to debate those in good faith, and the bill should be able to withstand said debate. In my view, the motion that the Liberals have brought today with Government Business No. 13, to cut off debate and ram the bill through committee and through Parliament, moved by the Liberal public safety minister and the Liberal government, is an admission that the bill is so flawed that it cannot possibly withstand debate and scrutiny. I think the Liberals are afraid to answer the questions. As members of His Majesty’s loyal opposition, our job is not to rubber-stamp government legislation. Our job is to ask the tough questions, even if we might agree with aspects of the legislation before us. Our job is to identify problems, as well as anticipate future consequences, and our job is to ensure that Canadians understand what is being done in their name. That responsibility does not disappear simply because the government wants a bill passed before summer. That would be irresponsible. That is why we are trying. Our amendment to the motion even is reasonable: to split the bill, pass what we can agree on and do this right. Canadians expect us to do our homework, to read the fine print and to identify problems before legislation becomes law, not after. Most of all, Canadians expect Parliament to function as more than a government approval machine. Governments come and go, and majorities come and go, but the precedents and intentions we set in the House matter. When governments normalize cutting off scrutiny whenever it becomes inconvenient, Parliament becomes weak. When committees are prevented from completing their work, accountability becomes weaker. When opposition voices are treated as obstacles and obstruction, rather than participants in democracy, Canadians lose confidence in their institutions. That should concern us all. The motion asks Parliament to move faster, but when legislation affects Canadians’ privacy, freedoms and rights, speed should never come at the expense of scrutiny. Getting legislation passed quickly is easy; getting legislation passed right is the hard part. That is the job Canadians sent us here to do, and Conservatives will stand in the House every day, fight for the job that we are here to do and protect Canadians’ rights.”

“We support the part of this bill that gives police the tools they need. But we want to change the second part because it does not protect people's privacy.”

“Madam Speaker, one year in, the member for Oshawa has done a lot of work on the public safety committee. I just want to state again, on our amendment, that we agree with the government on part 1, which would be Bill C-22A. We have also heard from police all over this country that they need the tools. However, the privacy issue is what we are debating here tonight. Bill C-22B would be on the privacy issue. I sit on the heritage committee, and we had the same thing with the government this week when it threw up Bill C-34. That is also a privacy issue we are going to have to deal with when it comes back in the fall. To the hon. member for Oshawa, let us talk about part 2, because that is the hill we are going to die on. We need this amendment tonight for Bill C-22B.”

“True teamwork means debating and checking the government's plans. The Liberals just want us to agree to everything they say without question, and that is wrong.”

“Madam Speaker, I appreciate that very much, because that is exactly the kind of collaboration that is the correct collaboration in the House. The Liberals’ version of collaboration, with all due respect, is that we should say, “Yes, yes” to everything they say, without any debate and without any scrutiny, and say, “Please, just do whatever you want.” That is unacceptable.”

“I support local police, and they need proper tools to do their jobs. But this bill must not take away people's privacy rights.”

“Madam Speaker, it is true: I do share a border with the member. I would argue that common sense ends at that border. Quite frankly, Durham Regional Police Service and Durham Regional Police Association know that I stand with them. I have spoken to them about the bill, and I have been very clear about my stand on it. I want them to have the tools they need, but I do not want them to have this at the expense of the privacy rights or the charter rights of Canadians. Every officer I spoke to agreed with me. They want it, but not at the expense of privacy.”

“The Liberal member for Whitby just said democracy is a waste of time. That shows how the government really thinks.”

“Madam Speaker, the member for Whitby heckled that democracy is a waste of time. This is the prevailing attitude of the Liberal government. It is interesting to hear this—”

“The government is backing down on parts of this bill, like cutting how long data must be saved from one year to six months. This shows the bill is flawed.”

“Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Oshawa does not even know this yet, but there is breaking news that the Liberal government is actually standing down on some of the contentious parts of the bill, namely the retention of records. They are talking about reducing it from one year to six months now. There are other things they are talking about with respect to adjusting this piece of legislation. Again, like everything else they do, is this not an admission of failure that the bill is completely flawed?”

“The government is cutting short the study of this bill because it is a failure. The public is against it.”

“Madam Speaker, yes, it is an admission of failure. If the government cannot allow its legislation to go through the process of study and clause-by-clause without cancelling it, that is the strongest admission of failure. In fact, it is such an admission of failure that it cannot allow more scrutiny. The court of public opinion is speaking up as well, and quite frankly, they are against what is going on, because they are being attacked.”

“I oppose this motion to cut off debate on this bill. Conservatives support giving police modern tools to fight crime, and we can support the first part of this bill. But the second part gives the government new surveillance powers and forces tech companies to help them. Many legal, privacy, and tech experts have warned that this hurts people's privacy and cybersecurity. The government should split the bill and let us properly study and fix these new powers instead of rushing them through.”

“Madam Speaker, I rise today to express serious concerns with part 2 of Bill C‑22 and to oppose the motion in Government Business No. 13. Let me be clear from the outset: Conservatives believe that law enforcement must have modern tools to combat organized crime, fentanyl trafficking, child exploitation, terrorism and foreign interference in a digital age. These types of rampant criminality cannot go unattended. That is why Conservatives have taken a constructive approach to Bill C‑22 and have indicated that we are prepared to support part 1 of the bill, subject to several changes, clarifications and amendments, even though we recognize that part 1 is not perfect. In fact, Conservatives have repeatedly proposed at committee that the bill should be split, allowing part 1 to proceed, while part 2 undergoes more thorough study and scrutiny. Part 2 would create an entirely new framework governing electronic service providers and compelled assistance. It is this portion of the legislation that has attracted substantial criticism from privacy experts, constitutional experts, technology companies and civil liberties organizations. If the government believes those concerns are unfounded, then it should welcome scrutiny, not shut it down. When legislation grants new surveillance powers, expands access to personal information and creates new obligations for communication providers, Parliament has a duty to scrutinize those powers carefully, deliberately and transparently. That duty becomes even more important when respected legal, privacy, constitutional and technology experts continue to warn that significant concerns remain unresolved. However, instead of allowing Parliament to complete that scrutiny, the Liberal government has brought forward the motion to force this legislation through before Parliament has properly completed its work. That is precisely backwards. When respected experts continue to identify unresolved concerns, Parliament’s responsibility is to examine those concerns, not to declare that the discussion is over. Throughout committee consideration of Bill C‑22, witness after witness identified concerns regarding privacy protections, judicial oversight, transparency and the impact on personal and business communications. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner has stated that amendments remain necessary to strengthen privacy protections within the legislation. That alone should give Parliament pause before debate is cut short. The Privacy Commissioner was denied the opportunity to appear during clause-by-clause consideration, by Liberal members at the public safety and national security committee, despite being Canada’s foremost independent authority on privacy rights. The Canadian Bar Association has also raised concerns regarding the legislation. In its submission on Bill C‑22, it warned that certain provisions expand state powers while reducing traditional safeguards and questioned whether the government had adequately demonstrated the necessity and proportionality of some of the measures being proposed. Those concerns deserve answers before debate is terminated. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has seemingly warned that aspects of Bill C‑22 raise significant constitutional and civil liberties concerns. It has argued that broad surveillance powers require proportionally strong safeguards, oversight and accountability measures. That principle should not be controversial. Throughout Canadian history, Parliament has recognized that extraordinary powers must be accompanied by extraordinary safeguards. Canadians expect no less. Researchers from The Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto have also raised concerns regarding the scope and operation of certain powers contained in Bill C‑22. The Citizen Lab is internationally recognized as one of the world’s leading research institutes on digital surveillance, cybersecurity and human rights. Its work has been cited by governments, courts, journalists and academics around the world. When researchers of that calibre identify concerns with surveillance legislation, Parliament should carefully examine those concerns rather than rush the bill through the legislative process. Even major technology companies and communications providers have expressed important concerns about the legislation. Their concerns are not about avoiding the law; they relate to whether legislation intended to improve public safety could inadvertently weaken cybersecurity, undermine encryption or create new vulnerabilities for law-abiding Canadians. Canadians deserve confidence that legislation intended to improve public safety would not inadvertently compromise digital security. This is where Government Business No. 13 becomes especially troubling. The government is effectively asking Parliament to conclude that the debate is finished, but the debate is not finished. In fact, it has barely begun. The Minister of Public Safety has changed his position on part 2. He began by resisting amendments, but after hearing the extensive evidence provided by the opposition and expert witnesses on why part 2 required amendments, he agreed that changes were necessary. However, by shutting down further clause-by-clause debate before we have even begun considering part 2, the government would be using the motion to effectively prevent the very amendments that the minister himself has acknowledged are necessary. With the proposed shutting down of further clause-by-clause debate, experts, industry and parliamentarians continue to raise concerns. The Liberal government is free to disagree with those concerns, but disagreement is not justification for shutting down parliamentary scrutiny. The purpose of Parliament is not to rubber-stamp legislation but to democratically challenge assumptions, test arguments, identify flaws and improve laws before they affect millions of Canadians. Government Business No. 13 would disregard democratic process and parliamentary responsibility. The Liberal government argues that the legislation is urgently needed because Canada has fallen behind in modernizing lawful-access authorities. The Liberal government has a long history of asking for extraordinary powers in the name of urgency. Parliament’s responsibility is to determine whether those powers are truly necessary, proportionate and accountable, before they are granted, not after they have already been exercised. This is where scrutiny matters the most. Conservatives believe that Canadians deserve both security and freedom. Canadians can have effective law enforcement while safeguarding the constitutional rights that define our democracy. Public trust is essential, and it is strengthened when security measures are carefully designed, properly supervised and transparently justified. Public trust is weakened when governments appear eager to curtail debate before legitimate and constitutional concerns have been addressed.”

“This bill is complicated, and we need time to study it properly to answer people's concerns. The government is shutting down debate before we even have a chance to go through it line by line. That is not democratic.”

“Madam Speaker, with a bill that is so complex and complicated, we need time to understand it thoroughly and assess each portion of the bill so that we can address the concerns being raised and the questions being asked by the public and by professionals. I want to ask whether the member on the other side agrees that it is not democratic that we had not even had the chance to start debating clause-by-clause on part 2, and the government chose to shut down the discussion.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 46 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“The government should not shut down debate on this bill. It is complex, and we need time to study it properly. Every opposition party is against this bill, which shows the government is wrong.”

“Madam Chair, I have to point out that we cannot replace necessity with convenience. It may be convenient for the government to shut down debate in the name of urgency or in the name of saving time. As I mentioned, with a bill that is so complex and sometimes difficult to understand thoroughly, we need the time to do thorough work. It is necessary. It is not just for the sake of convenience that we shut it down. I also want to point out that someone made a very interesting observation, which was that the Conservatives, the Bloc, the NDP and the Green Party, all parties that are very different on the political spectrum, are united in opposing Bill C‑22. That is rare. With that kind of a situation, it is obvious that something is wrong. In this case, the Liberal government is wrong.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“This bill is about citizens' rights versus government power. Why do the Liberals want to end debate on it so quickly?”

“Madam Speaker, this is one of the deepest debates in Canadian politics, between the rights and freedoms of citizens on one hand and the powers of government on the other hand. I wonder if my colleague could speculate on why the Liberals want to shut down debate like this, so pre-emptively.”

“The government is ending debate so it can take more power. It is ignoring what the public and experts have to say.”

“Madam Speaker, the government is known for its intention, its seeking of power and its expansion of its power. Therefore, I suppose that through shutting down this debate, the government wants to have more power, and it wants to do what it wants to do without really caring about the different views being expressed by the public and by professionals.”

“The Liberals are using their majority to force this bill through without allowing any debate or changes. Almost half of the MPs here want to fix part 2, but the government is ignoring them.”

“Madam Speaker, the member gave a knowledgeable speech in terms of democracy and the way this place is supposed to work. In fact, when I came here, the Liberal government had a minority government, and things were working. It was getting comments from all the MPs in this place, and there was compromise and amendments in committee. Now that the Liberals have a majority, they stacked their majority and now they do not allow debate on any amendments from any party. By my numbers, there are 174 Liberal members who want to force this bill through, but there are 169 MPs from every party who want to fix part 2. Does the member see the fault in this? Can she see how this is wrong and how it is working against the democratic system?”