Brad Vis
Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, British Columbia · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, the third petition I would like to present today is on nicotine pouches. This petition is being presented on behalf of small businesses, including convenience stores.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions to present today. The first is petition e-7198, which has 5,746 signatures. It calls upon the Minister of Fisheries to not remove the recreational access to chinook and coho salmon in the allotment of salmon allocation.”
“Mr. Speaker, earlier today, I asked a Liberal member a very simple question: Could he confirm or deny the rumours in British Columbia that, under the new security partnership between Canada and China and the government's desire to sell federal airport assets, Chinese companies would be able to buy those assets?”
“Mr. Speaker, the second petition I would like to present today is with regard to the elimination of the federal apprenticeship incentive. The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to reinstate the apprenticeship incentive grant for Red Seal trades, index it to inflation, link it to the successful completion of technical training…”
“Mr. Speaker, Bill C-30 contains proposed new provisions under the Privacy Act and the Canada Transportation Act to assess the full value of our publicly owned airports. Rumours in British Columbia dictate that part of the new security agreement with China would allow Chinese companies to buy airports in Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour the life of Mel Zajac, a remarkable British Columbian whose compassion and generosity left an enduring imprint. Mel's life was marked by a profound tragedy that ultimately inspired a legacy of extraordinary philanthropy. In July 1986, he lost his son Mel Jr.”
The complete record
Every one of 622 lines we hold for Brad Vis, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 13.
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member for his thoughts in more detail about why the government has failed to enact the foreign registry. The government outlined during debates in the last Parliament that it was an important and necessary tool. It was partly in response to the Hogue commission, yet here we are. On three or four occasions, the government changed the timeline. Why is it being so slow to act on something that is so important? I also mention this in the context of the new security agreement the government just signed with China. How can we, as parliamentarians, be confident in the approach taken with a foreign government that the Hogue commission outlined as the greatest threat to Canadian democracy and with the new security agreement, when the government has not not enacted the foreign registry to date?”
“Mr. Speaker, whatever the government is doing, it is not working, and a myriad of programs will not replace the structural forms necessary to improve the entrepreneurial climate in Canada. Small businesses indeed are being squeezed from every direction by this government, with higher payroll taxes, rising costs and endless regulations. This government is doing nothing to stop that. How many more businesses have to shut their doors before the Prime Minister reverses some of these horrible economic policies and lets Canadian entrepreneurs succeed once again?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business released a damning report, saying that Canada is now in an “entrepreneurial drought”, with more businesses closing than opening for six straight quarters. More than half of small business owners “would not recommend starting a business” in this country, and there are now 100,000 fewer entrepreneurs than we had 20 years ago. Most damning is that 73% of survey respondents indicated a lack of confidence in this Liberal government. What is the Prime Minister 's response to the alarming decline of entrepreneurship in Canada?”
“Mr. Speaker, while I find floor crossing to be a reprehensible action, I do not believe that this power should be taken away from individual MPs. Call me a Conservative, but I believe that, at the end of the day, we are all accountable to the people who elected us. I know that there are varying positions on this in every political party. Ultimately, I believe in accountability to the people who elected me to stand as Brad Vis, as the member for Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, in the chamber to represent them and to use my due judgment to make decisions on their behalf.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will acknowledge that Canada does need to improve its relationship with China, but we need to be clear-eyed and realistic about it. Like my colleague from Yorkton—Melville, I was concerned when the government recently signed a new security agreement with the People's Republic of China, even though we have not enacted our foreign registry yet. There would have been much less apprehension about any such type of agreement had the government already fulfilled its duty on Bill C-70 , as it said it was going to do over a year ago today. Again, I encourage the government members to push their minister of democratic institutions to take the steps he said he was going to take and enact the registry today.”
“Mr. Speaker, indeed, the Hogue commission does outline that. Again, my personal belief is that democracy is best served when we have to be accountable to the people. The best way to be accountable to Canadian citizens is to convince them that we are good enough that they can open up their chequebook, especially in this time of an affordability crisis, to say, “I believe in you, and I'm going to give you my hard-earned money, because I think you can make a difference in our democracy.” There is no more powerful tool of accountability than one's ability to fundraise one's election and to subsequently win with the support of the grassroots members of our respective communities.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is a great question. In preparation for my speech, I thought about it, but the fact is that in 2015 we could not verify one way or the other. Many of those people might have been permanent residents without a Canadian passport and using their Indian passport. That is a fact, and that absolutely happened. However, I think what Elections Canada and this place would need to do, if permanent residents were to continue to participate, is update the licensing requirements at the provincial and territorial level to outline one's status in Canada. That is an easy fix to the issue I am addressing, to outline if one is a permanent resident, a Canadian citizen or here on another type of visa. That is indeed one way we could address my very real concern.”
“I believe we are best served when we, as individuals, and our political parties have to fight and justify our roles to the Canadian public.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is a great question. However, I do not agree that the public should be subsidizing political parties through a per-vote subsidy. My reason in opposition to that is that we already have very robust Elections Canada returns, which are in fact subsidies already. I believe our political parties are best served when grassroots members are willing to put forward their own dollars, with the receipt of a generous tax credit, to show that they really believe in what a political party stands for. It takes effort and it takes engagement on the part of all of us in here and all of the candidates who run in every election to gain public support in a way that is often the hardest: getting people to give us money. However, I think it makes our democracy more accountable when there is no broad-based political subsidy.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will note that Kenny Chiu, a former member of Parliament for Richmond, was the member for one of those ridings in question. Kenny Chiu was originally born in Hong Kong. The PRC targeted Richmond as a result of his statements about the human rights activists in Hong Kong at that time. That is a fact. That was outlined by the Hogue commission as well. We have the case of Joe Tay and a former member of the Liberal caucus who talked about a bounty on Joe Tay's head in advance of the 2025 election. That individual is no longer in the House of Commons as a result of that. Those are two very clear examples where the PRC used its influence through organizations like the United Front.”
“I love our democracy. I like the fact that even in challenging times, we can come together and we can agree on improvements in Bill C-25 that would benefit all political parties. That is the right way to go. I hope that all members of Parliament on the procedure and House affairs committee review nomination contests. I know Elections Canada has made a similar recommendation based on stories it has heard from across Canada. I hope, in good faith, that this bill is amended to include a provision that does not allow for non-Canadians to vote in candidate selections and nominations across Canada.”
“We cannot deny the fact that there were nefarious political actions that were not just. I know for a fact that people who signed up for the Conservative Party absolutely voted Liberal. I know for a fact that there were many people assigned addresses in West Abbotsford who were not Canadian citizens. That skewed our political data, because we did not have the tools to verify citizenship, as I mentioned earlier. One of the best ways to improve the integrity of our elections, for all Canadians and for all political parties, is to limit nomination contests solely to Canadians. It is not perfect, but in a country as diverse as ours, with so many foreign pressures and so many diaspora communities that may be influenced by non-state actors in Canada, we have to take that necessary step to protect the integrity of our local races.”
“To the Conservative Party's credit, our former lawyer, Arthur Hamilton, recognized there was a problem. Liv Grewal was disqualified. Ironically, the Conservative Party then asked Mike de Jong to run. Mike de Jong was the finance minister for British Columbia at the time. Mike de Jong rejected the invitation from the Conservative Party to be appointed as a candidate, and I was subsequently appointed, three weeks into the writ. I lost that election by 1,000 votes. When I went back and did a poll-by-poll analysis, the neighbourhoods with the highest concentration of Conservative memberships were getting about 10% Conservative support on the day of the election. Every election since then, I go to Homestead Crescent. In 2015, I got 10% there. In 2019, I got about 30% and it has gone up every election.”
“(1230) The system is not perfect, but I believe that if Bill C-25 took this necessary step, we would avoid some of the abuse I have seen in my own political party, and that has absolutely taken place in every other political party in Canada. The gaps and the outcomes are too large and too enticing for people not to do it. Frankly, it is not even against the law right now, so why would they not do it? I believe that nomination contests to choose candidates should only be for Canadian citizens. That is not the position of my party. That is the position of Brad Vis, but I feel very strongly about that position. In 2015, going back to my nomination, I spent a year going around to farms and to gurdwaras. I put myself out there like I had never done before in my life, and I lost.”
“That is a wide gap for abuse in our system. I will note that at the Conservative convention, we tried to pass a resolution to change this. Unfortunately, it did not pass, because many Conservative members made the rightful point that sometimes a permanent resident's first access to Canadian democracy is that vote in a nomination contest. In many parts of the country, for the Liberal Party, the Bloc Québécois and the Conservatives, the nomination itself is the determining factor in who will be the representative in Ottawa. We have to change the law. We have to eliminate the ability of non-Canadian citizens to choose our elected representatives in nomination contests.”
“Liv Grewal's father, Gurmant Grewal, a former Conservative member of Parliament, had signed up non-Canadians to participate in that nomination. The principal problem that happened in 2015 still exists. Under a Canadian ID issued by a province, we do not know whether someone is a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident or a foreign student. Our identification does not outline that key fact. I know this has happened in all parties. It is not a partisan issue. This is a nomination issue with Elections Canada. It happens in every political party. Even under the many good and positive improvements the Conservative Party has made within the context of the Canada Elections Act, when people go to vote, one cannot determine their citizenship. One cannot determine whether someone is simply a permanent resident or a foreign student.”
“I raise this because in 2015, tons of foreign students participated in my nomination. The most common form of identification was an Indian passport. People would go to the table to vote, and they would write a Canadian address and use an Indian passport. It was horrible. It undermined the confidence of people who had signed up in good faith as Canadian citizens to participate in our electoral process. I will note that the Conservative Party was following all the rules and that after Liv Grewal technically “won” the nomination in 2015, the Conservative Party used the Canada Elections Act, existing measures and its own investigative powers as a political entity in Canada to remove that candidate because of what took place at that nomination.”
“Let us tie together some of those third party financing obligations that serve Canadian sovereignty. Let us prevent another situation like that nefarious nomination in 2019. Let us give our law enforcement the tools it needs to protect Canadian sovereignty, and let us improve the processes in this place so there are clear lines of intelligence between our officials and our security apparatus. That does not exist today, but between Bill C-70 , with the work the government needs to do today to enact a foreign registry, and the tools in Bill C-25, I believe we are moving in the right direction. I am going to change subjects here because I would be remiss if I did not take an opportunity during a review of the Canada Elections Act to talk about the very real challenges I faced in 2015.”
“Dong in 2020, and it is on the parliamentary record that he spoke more about the need to have better processes and policies in place for foreign students than about any other subject matter when he got to the standing committee in the first place. How can we not, in this House, recognize that Mr. Dong was in fact influenced by those foreign students, or by the PRC officials who brought those foreign students to his nomination? I know that is a bit controversial, but the record stands for itself. Mr. Dong was here to advocate for foreign students from China, not to stand up for his constituents. I believe he was influenced, and I have no problem saying that in this chamber. What I would love the government to do is to move swiftly with Bill C-25 . The Liberals have the backing of the Conservatives.”
“While the Hogue commission outlined that intelligence officials in Canada indicated that PRC officials likely attempted to influence the 2019 Liberal nomination contest in Don Valley North, there were limits to our intelligence, so the Hogue commission and the Government of Canada could not definitively determine whether those foreign students actually voted and whether or not coercion in fact occurred. I argue here today that if we had enacted the tools in Bill C-70 , and if we enact the tools in Bill C-25 , the findings of the Hogue commission would have been different regarding Han Dong. I think the findings would have been much worse for Mr. Dong. (1225) I served on the HUMA committee with Mr.”
“It would deter covert and deceptive behaviour. It would strengthen trust in our institutions without stigmatizing communities. It would give parliamentarians and officials a basic due diligence tool. It would align Canada with all of our Five Eyes allies, who already have a similar policy in place. It would reinforce the principle that sovereignty includes the information space and that how we conduct ourselves as MPs and engage with foreign agents or foreign governments matters in the context of protecting Canadian sovereignty. I mention all of this in the context of a former member of Parliament, Han Dong.”
“This is all very important. However, I will note as well that in the last Parliament, we had Bill C-70 , which was a response to the troubling findings of the Hogue commission. Still, today, despite many repeated promises, the Government of Canada has not enacted a foreign registry. Many of the things in Bill C-25 cannot be operationalized, cannot be used to their full effect, until the government fulfills its responsibility on legislation that received royal assent over a year ago. The threats to democracy are real, that has been concluded in Canada, but we have not seen the requisite action from the government to move at a speed that undermines the real problems Canadians are facing. A foreign registry would protect democratic debate in Canada. It would address that grey zone between influence and interference.”
“It would prohibit using foreign money, property or services to influence elections in Canada. While there are still a few more loopholes we want to address at committee, this is a step in the right direction. Bill C-25 would protect nomination and leadership contests from interference. It would ban deceptive AI deepfakes tied to elections. It would criminalize false information meant to disrupt voting. It would strengthen enforcement penalties. There would be increases to administrative monetary penalties, up to $100,000 for organizations. I think we might even consider going higher on some of those penalties if in fact our intelligence community found that foreign actors were using funds in a nefarious manner. It would improve party data protection obligations and boost foreign information threat detection capacity for our government.”
“(1220) The bottom line from the Hogue commission is that foreign interference is a real and serious threat. Although our democracy has proven resilient, we have seen some gaps and some damage because our government has not moved fast enough. I will say that the Conservatives will be supporting Bill C-25 at second reading to go to committee so we can make improvements to our democracy. I am glad to see this type of collaboration in the House of Commons. What would Bill C-25 do? It would extend foreign interference protections year-round. It would close channels for foreign and opaque political financing, such as cryptocurrencies, money orders and prepaid cards. It would tighten third party financing rules so that only Canadian citizens' or permanent residents' funds could be used for regulated partisan activities.”
“Much of the information about foreign interference comes from unverified or partial intelligence. Intelligence must be handled carefully to avoid unfair conclusions about individuals. The intelligence-to-evidence problem makes prosecutions difficult and requires non-criminal disruption tools. Foreign interference, the commission notes, has already harmed our democracy by undermining trust. It has been successful in weakening public confidence in the outcomes of our elections. The commissioner also noted that we need a whole-of-society response. We need greater transparency in public education, digital and media literacy, stronger coordination across government, engagement with civil society, and targeted action against disinformation and transnational repression.”
“Many experience transnational repression, including threats, intimidation, surveillance of family abroad and coercion. Indeed, I believe the member for Wellington—Halton Hills North had his family impacted by these very problems. These activities, in many cases, chill political participation in Canada and undermine self-expression and trust in Canadian institutions. While government responses have improved, we have been too slow and opaque as a nation to address many of our shortcomings. Our government is slow to react to intelligence. There is poor coordination, and there are unclear responsibilities. There have been failures in intelligence flow to decision-makers, and there is insufficient transparency and public communication about the real threats that Canada faces. Our intelligence is fragile and has limits.”
“The commissioner outlined that the greatest threat from foreign actors is disinformation and misinformation, especially online. Those things cause the most serious, long-term threat to Canadian democracy. Social media, foreign-language platforms and AI-enabled tools are increasingly used to amplify division, discourage participation and undermine trust. Even when election outcomes are unchanged, disinformation damages confidence in democracy, which is in itself a strategic objective of hostile state actors. The commission found that diaspora communities in Canada are disproportionately harmed. A central finding of the Hogue commission was on the human impact of foreign interference. Diaspora communities are the primary targets.”
“The Hogue commission outlined that the 2019 and 2021 elections were not undermined, but that there was foreign influence. The commissioner found no evidence of widespread or systematic manipulation. At most, though it is still very significant, a small number of ridings may have been impacted, but that impact could not be determined with certainty; in other words, the ability of the government to determine our security apparatuses did not have the tools. There was no evidence that members of Parliament were elected because of foreign state support. The commission found that there were no parliamentarians influenced by foreign agents. While there were some concerning and naive interactions with foreign actors, the evidence did not support allegations of systemic betrayal or treason in the context of those elections.”
“Mr. Speaker, in my time today, I want to talk about two specific issues. One is foreign interference in the context of the Hogue commission, and the second is my own experience in the 2015 election and my previous nomination contest at the time. Let us start with the Hogue commission. What did the Hogue commission say about foreign interference? It concluded that foreign states are actively attempting to interfere in Canada's democratic institutions and electoral processes. The threat is persistent and evolving, with the main state actors identified as China, India, Russia, Iran and Pakistan. The commission noted that their tactics include covert influence, disinformation, cyber activity, intimidation and the use of proxies within Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of small business owners, including convenience store owners, to remove restrictions on the sale of nicotine pouches. Members of Parliament across all political parties love nicotine pouches. They use them every day, but they can only buy them at Shoppers Drug Mart. Why is Shoppers Drug Mart getting an exclusive monopoly for the sale of nicotine pouches? The petitioners call on the Minister of Health to remove the restriction of the sale of nicotine pouches only to pharmacies, and allow convenience stores to sell them once again.”
“The petitioners therefore call upon the Government of Canada to stop its attack on agricultural science, reinstate the program and strengthen public research in organic and regenerative agriculture, which is an economic boost to the country of Canada and small businesses in every province and territory.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition from Canadians concerned about the closure of the organic and regenerative research program at the Swift Current Research and Development Centre. The petitioners note that this was the only dedicated organic research initiative within Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. It supported critical long-term work on soil health, crop rotation, pest management and scientific best practices writ large. They warn that its closure risks weakening Canada's agricultural research capacity and long-term competitiveness.”
“When we come forward with a flood mitigation plan, it will require federal leadership to build the requisite climate-resilient infrastructure to prevent the next flood. The member knows as well as I do that Sumas Lake used to be a lake. Now it is farmland, but we need to fix that area for future agriculture.”
“Mr. Speaker, I really do enjoy debating with the member for Vancouver Quadra every single time. I will point out, in disagreement, that the suspension of the fuel excise tax proves the argument I was making, that increased regulations and carbon taxes in Canada do impact our cost of living, and that is why, indeed, the government listened to the Conservatives, in good faith and constructive parliamentary debate, and decided to remove it until Labour Day. The member also mentioned climate change adaptation in his remarks, and I am glad he did, because he knows as well as I do that my constituents in Semá:th first nation, across Sumas Prairie and across the eastern Fraser Valley really are looking for leadership from the Government of Canada.”
“For small businesses, that means fewer contracts, fewer supply chains, less growth and fewer jobs. I have been contacted by businesses from B.C. and across Canada that cannot afford to keep their doors open due to mounting financial pressures that are not just international in nature but from Canada as well. The Hub recently reported that Canadians are opening more businesses in the U.S. than at home because we have no regulatory framework to protect entrepreneurs. The government's policies have made it impossible to meet its own economic objectives. Why is it making it harder to do business in Canada? Will it finally scrap these policies before more jobs and investment leave our great country?”
“A study by the Fraser Institute estimates that increasing the industrial carbon price to $170 per tonne by 2030 will lead to a 1.3% reduction in our GDP nationally, reduce average incomes by $1,160 per worker and cost Canada 50,000 jobs. The report is clear. Reduced returns on investment will lead to cancelled or delayed business expansion, less capital investment and ultimately lower long-term living standards for Canadians. Over the last decade, Canada has already lost 1,000 entrepreneurs, while our population has gone up by 10 million people. When Canadian firms face higher input costs due to carbon pricing, investment flows elsewhere. The Business Council of Canada has warned that investment is increasingly being redirected to the U.S. due to more competitive policy frameworks.”
“While the government has temporarily suspended the federal excise tax on gas and diesel this week, it has doubled down on the clean fuel standards and the industrial carbon tax, which is set to increase to $170 per tonne by 2030. It is subjecting our economy and Canadians to a death by a thousand cuts. Even the Parliamentary Budget Officer has noted that Canada's emissions reductions will have a limited impact globally, yet Canadian businesses are bearing disproportionately high costs. Temporary relief does nothing to offset permanent structural cost increases, causing our economy to hemorrhage jobs and investments and not address the affordability crisis. The situation, unfortunately, is projected to get worse.”
“The industrial carbon tax disproportionately targets energy-intensive sectors that small businesses rely on, such as fuels for shipping and electricity for day-to-day operations. According to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, nearly two-thirds of small businesses report that they are absorbing additional fuel costs. A third have increased their prices as a result. Taxes and regulatory burden remain among the top pressures facing small businesses in Canada today. We are already seeing the consequences. Business closures are up 19% since 2019. Small business employment dropped by 34,000 jobs in March alone. Employment declined across every region in the country. Fifty-five per cent of small businesses would not recommend starting a business in Canada's environment today.”
“Mr. Speaker, in December, I asked the Minister of Jobs and Families why the Prime Minister was increasing industrial carbon taxes during a cost of living crisis. These costs do not stay with large emitters, but are passed down the supply chains, raising the price of groceries and transportation, and stunting economic growth. Lower fuel costs would reduce the price of shipping, building materials and essentials, making life more affordable for Canadians who are already pinching their pennies. That is why this week the government listened to the Conservatives. However, its plan only delivers a third of the relief Conservatives propose for a third of the year. Eliminating federal taxes would also ease pressures for small businesses operating on already thin margins.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think the most concerning thing is the requirement for blanket metadata retention. Under the bill, service providers could be forced to store vast quantities of Canadians' digital footprints for up to a year, regardless of suspicion and regardless of wrongdoing. I know in some cases that metadata can be utilized for nefarious purposes, and we need to make sure that the proper protocols are in place.”
“For these reasons, I believe Conservatives should support the bill at second reading in order to send it to committee, but only with a clear expectation that amendments are required. Any lawful access regime must strike a proper balance, equipping police to stop criminals while firmly protecting the rights and freedoms of law-abiding Canadians. I believe we can get there, and this is a step in the right direction, especially as it relates to vulnerable children and victims of human trafficking.”
“Bill C-22 contains elements that Conservatives can support in principle and that I will be voting in favour of, particularly the goal of modernizing investigative tools, but as drafted, the bill would overreach in ways that could threaten civil liberties, weaken transparency and expand ministerial power, while failing to deliver real improvements to public safety in certain cases. In a digital era, when metadata can be as revealing as content itself, the bill's cumulative effect risks putting Canada on a path to where lawful access becomes pervasive access. A more balanced approach would have raised access thresholds, narrowed voluntary disclosure, strengthened notice obligations and subjected the most privacy-intrusive powers to stricter, not looser, judicial control.”
“(1805) My fifth point is that the bill fails to address Canada's real public safety crisis. Perhaps most troubling is what Bill C-22 would not do: It would do nothing to address catch-and-release bail, sentencing leniency or the lack of mandatory prison time for fentanyl traffickers and violent gang members. Canadians continue to face rising violent crime, organized theft and drug trafficking, problems driven not by lack of data but by judicial and policy failures. The government's focus on digital access powers, while ignoring these other key aspects of our criminal justice system, reflects, in some cases, a few misplaced priorities.”
“Part 2 of the bill, the supporting authorized access to information act, introduces a new regulatory regime imposing obligations on electronic service providers. The government may designate core providers, such as a cellphone company, and require them to build and maintain technical surveillance capabilities, retain metadata for up to one year, and assist in testing access systems, all at their own expense. While the bill claims to prohibit mandatory back doors and systematic vulnerabilities, the scope of ministerial discretion remains extremely broad. Individualized ministerial orders are confidential, shielded from public scrutiny, and only reviewed for reasonableness by the intelligence commissioner. This framework risks imposing compliance costs, stifling innovation and concentrating powers in the hands of our executive.”
“Bill C-22 entrenches secrecy as a core feature of lawful access. Non-disclosure orders can prevent service providers from revealing that they have been compelled to co-operate. In some cases, notice to affected individuals may be delayed for up to three years, with possible extensions. This erosion of transparency undermines meaningful accountability. Canadians whose data is accessed may never know it happened, making charter challenges or judicial remedies largely theoretical. Oversight that occurs only after the fact and primarily within government institutions cannot substitute for timely notice and real recourse. My fourth point is about ministerial powers and burdens on service providers.”
“While true emergencies justify flexibility, the bill's language does risk stretching “impracticability” beyond genuine urgency and into administrative expediency. Even more concerning is the bill's broad reliance on voluntary disclosure. Telecommunications companies and other service providers are explicitly encouraged to hand over information voluntarily, including unsolicited information or data required under foreign law, with full immunity from civil or criminal liability. This effectively creates, or could create, a parallel system of access outside traditional judiciary scrutiny. Canadians should not have their personal information transferred to the state simply because a company decides it is expedient or risk-free to comply in certain circumstances. My third concern is that secrecy and delayed notice could weaken accountability.”
“In the modern context, this information can reveal detailed personal profiles and social connections. Lowering the evidentiary threshold for accessing this data risks normalizing surveillance at early investigative stages without sufficient justification or safeguards. While judicial oversight technically remains in place for most tools, the cumulative effect is a system where access is easier, quicker and more routine, even when the intrusion into privacy could be significant. My second point is about the expansion of warrantless and voluntary disclosure powers. Bill C-22 codifies and expands the ability of police and public officers to obtain information without warrants in exigent circumstances.”
“As drafted, the bill risks trading Canadians' privacy and constitutional protections for administrative convenience while failing to meaningfully address the most urgent public safety issues facing the country. My first point is that faster access comes at the cost of lower thresholds. At the heart of Bill C-22 is a deliberate shift toward faster and easier access to digital information. The bill introduces new confirmation of service demands, production orders for subscriber information and clarified emergency seizure powers, many of which operate on the low standard of “reasonable grounds to suspect” rather than “reasonable grounds to believe”. Subscriber information under this bill is defined broadly, including names, addresses, email accounts, device identifiers and service history.”
“Mr. Speaker, Bill C-22 is the federal government's attempt to finally establish a Canadian lawful access regime after years of inaction. There is no doubt that law enforcement and national security agencies face real challenges in the digital world. Criminals involved in organized crime, child exploitation and human trafficking increasingly use encrypted services, burner phones and foreign-based platforms to hide their identities and evade justice. Conservatives have long recognized the need to give police the tools required to pursue criminals effectively. However, while Bill C-22 addresses some genuine operational gaps, it also raises serious concerns about civil liberties, proportionality and ministerial overreach.”
“Mr. Speaker, the second petition I would like to present today is on behalf of the recreational fishing community in British Columbia. They are very concerned about access to coho and chinook. They note that the federal government did not consult with them in advance of its proposed changes, and they are pleading, in good faith, with the Minister of Fisheries to maintain access for all British Columbians to practise their cultural right to fish, as British Columbians have always done.”