Randeep Sarai
Surrey Centre, British Columbia · Liberal · Canada
“Second, it would require the minister to consult individuals and organizations with expertise in data collection and the criminal justice system, including Statistics Canada, when preparing the report. (1705) The government supports the first part of this amendment.”
“It recognizes valuable contributions made through the Senate's review, while ensuring that the legislation would remain faithful to the objectives Parliament has pursued throughout its study of the bill. Before turning to the amendments, I think it is important to briefly remind members why Bill C-14 was introduced in the first place.”
“moved: Motion That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that, in relation to Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act (bail and sentencing), the House: agrees with amendments 1(a), 2(a) and 3 made by the Senate; respectfully disagrees with amendment 1(b)…”
“The amendment reflects a practical implementation approach and would help ensure that all relevant partners have sufficient time to prepare for the coming into force of these provisions. It would not alter the policy objective adopted by Parliament. Rather, it would support effective implementation.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the message received from the Senate concerning Bill C-14 , the bail and sentencing reform act. At the outset, I would like to thank the senators for their careful study of the legislation. The Senate plays an important role in our parliamentary system.”
“Creating a specific statutory requirement is unnecessary and could reduce flexibility in how information is gathered and reports are prepared. As a result, the motion proposes an amendment that would retain the reporting component while removing the mandatory consultation requirement.”
The complete record
Every one of 106 lines we hold for Randeep Sarai, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 3.
“Mr. Speaker, this has been very favourable among the police forces across the country, the law enforcement agencies and virtually every province. I spoke with the Solicitor General and the Attorney General of British Columbia, who are both very supportive of this. They gave their consultation and their comments. This is reflective of what Canadian law enforcement, Canadian Crown councils, the Canadian legal community and, most of all, the Canadian public have been demanding.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think the intent is not about whether someone is indigenous or not. It is about rural and remote communities, where a person seeking to get a surety has very few options. There may be 20, 30, 50 or 60 people in those communities. It is a matter of that small pool. If there is no available surety for that person and they can prove it, the judge would then have the discretion or liberty to allow someone charged with that offence to provide a surety. When there is an abundance of people who can provide a surety, there would be no carve-out.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is extremely important. As we all know, in Surrey and places across the country, crimes like shootings and extortions have been rampant and are on the rise. This bill would help in two ways. One is the reverse onus so that those who are charged would not be given bail. Serious offenders would be kept behind bars so that others in the community can feel safe. The other would give the power to the judge to give consecutive sentences, rather than complementary, concurrent sentencing. If somebody were to be sentenced for multiple crimes, they would serve them on top of each other, with the cumulative time together. It is very important.”
“Mr. Speaker, first of all, I think the member should read the bill. The whole bill is about offenders, people who have broken criminal laws. The bill is about strengthening our bail system so there would be a reverse onus and so criminals would not get released if they are violent repeat offenders or have committed crimes like extortion. It is to enhance the sentencing on them. I think everyone knows that the Liberals are on par to creating tougher sentencing laws for those who need it.”
“They expect us to provide law enforcement and the justice system with effective tools. They expect us to address violent offending, organized crime, extortion and human trafficking. They expect us to work collaboratively and move legislation forward when consensus has largely been achieved. Bill C‑14 has now been studied by both chambers of Parliament. The House has done its work. The Senate has done its work. The amendments before us have been carefully reviewed. I encourage members to support the motion before the House so Bill C‑14 can proceed without any further delay and continue its path forward for royal assent.”
“The amendment reflects a practical implementation approach and would help ensure that all relevant partners have sufficient time to prepare for the coming into force of these provisions. It would not alter the policy objective adopted by Parliament. Rather, it would support effective implementation. After careful consideration, the government believes that the package before the House today strikes the right balance. It would accept Senate amendments that improve the legislation, propose a targeted modification where appropriate, and respectfully reject an amendment that is unnecessary because its objective is already achieved through existing law. Most importantly, it would preserve the core purpose of Bill C‑14 . Canadians expect Parliament to respond to serious public safety concerns.”
“Subsection 515(13.1) of the Criminal Code already requires courts to state on the record how section 493.2 was considered in making a bail decision. In practice, this requirement already necessitates consideration of whether section 493.2 applies. As a result, the proposed amendment would not create a new substantive obligation. Instead, it would duplicate requirements that already exist within the Criminal Code. For that reason, the government believes the amendment is unnecessary. The final amendment relates to the coming into force of provisions respecting access to youth records. The amendment would provide that these provisions come into force on a day to be fixed by the order of the Governor in Council. The government supports this amendment.”
“Creating a specific statutory requirement is unnecessary and could reduce flexibility in how information is gathered and reports are prepared. As a result, the motion proposes an amendment that would retain the reporting component while removing the mandatory consultation requirement. I believe this approach appropriately balances accountability with operational flexibility. The third Senate amendment concerns proposed subsection 515(13.2), of the Criminal Code. This amendment would require a justice to ask on the record whether section 493.2 applies, even where neither party has raised the issue during the bail hearing. The government respectfully disagrees with this amendment. The reason is straightforward: Existing law already addresses this issue.”
“Second, it would require the minister to consult individuals and organizations with expertise in data collection and the criminal justice system, including Statistics Canada, when preparing the report. (1705) The government supports the first part of this amendment. Information relating to pretrial detention can contribute to a fuller understanding of how the bail system operates across this country. Reliable data is important. Evidence‑based policy is important. Parliamentarians would benefit by having access to meaningful information about the operation of the criminal justice system. However, the government does not support the second portion of the Senate amendment. The minister already has the ability to engage with relevant partners, experts and organizations when preparing reports and evaluating criminal justice data.”
“The amendment provides a narrow and carefully structured mechanism that would allow courts to address those exceptional circumstances while preserving the overall intent of the provision. For that reason, we believe the Senate amendment represents a reasonable refinement and should be supported. The second amendment concerns the annual reporting requirements related to bail data. Members will recall that the House adopted an amendment requiring the Minister of Justice to table an annual report respecting bail data. The Senate amendment proposes two changes. First, it would require that the information respecting rates of detention before trial be included in that report.”
“The Senate amendment would maintain that prohibition while providing limited judicial discretion in circumstances where no other surety is available and where the court determines that allowing the surety would be in the best interest of justice. The government supports this amendment, which would maintain the fundamental objective adopted by the House. Individuals convicted of serious offences would continue to be prohibited from serving as a surety. At the same time, it recognizes that exceptional circumstances may arise. Witnesses who appeared before the Senate raised concerns regarding the practical impact of a complete prohibition in certain remote, rural and northern communities where the pool of available sureties may be limited.”
“It would improve public safety while preserving judicial discretion and maintaining consistency with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The bill has been studied extensively. The House committee heard testimony from witnesses. Amendments were proposed and debated. Members from all parties contributed to its development. The Senate undertook its own review and proposed several amendments for the House's consideration. The first amendment before us relates to sureties. As members know, during the House committee study, an amendment was adopted to prohibit individuals who had been convicted of an indictable offence within the previous 10 years from acting as surety.”
“Transit workers and other frontline workers have called for stronger protections. Provincial and territorial governments have repeatedly asked the federal government to review the criminal law framework to ensure that our laws respond effectively to evolving public safety challenges. Bill C-14 is that response. The legislation would strengthen the bail system for certain serious offences by expanding reverse onus provisions in carefully defined circumstances. It would create new tools to address violent repeat offending. It would strengthen sentencing provisions for serious crimes, including extortion and arson committed for criminal purposes. It would respond to the growing threat posed by organized criminal activity and human trafficking.”
“It recognizes valuable contributions made through the Senate's review, while ensuring that the legislation would remain faithful to the objectives Parliament has pursued throughout its study of the bill. Before turning to the amendments, I think it is important to briefly remind members why Bill C-14 was introduced in the first place. Across Canada, communities have been raising concerns about public safety. Premiers, mayors, police leaders, victims' advocates and frontline organizations have all called for action to address serious violent offending, repeat offending, organized criminal activity, extortion and human trafficking. Canadians have seen a troubling rise in violent extortion targeting businesses and families. Communities have experienced growing concerns about organized crime and repeat violent offenders.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the message received from the Senate concerning Bill C-14 , the bail and sentencing reform act. At the outset, I would like to thank the senators for their careful study of the legislation. The Senate plays an important role in our parliamentary system. It provides sober second thought, hears from witnesses, reviews legislation clause by clause and proposes amendments where it believes improvements can be made. That is precisely what occurred with Bill C-14 . After reviewing the bill, the Senate adopted four amendments. The motion before the House today proposes that we agree with two of those amendments, amend one of them and respectfully disagree with another. I believe that this approach strikes the right balance.”
“moved: Motion That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that, in relation to Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act (bail and sentencing), the House: agrees with amendments 1(a), 2(a) and 3 made by the Senate; respectfully disagrees with amendment 1(b) because subsection 515(13.1) of the Criminal Code already requires courts to state on the record that they considered section 493.2 in making a bail decision, rendering the additional provision unnecessary; respectfully disagrees with amendment 2(b) because engagement with relevant partners and stakeholders is already permitted, and the additional statutory consultation requirement could limit flexibility in the preparation and tabling of the report. He said: Mr.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would disagree with that. When Build Canada Homes makes its judgments, including for the 1,100 homes that are being built in British Columbia, it uses a varied metric of all types of housing, such as three-bedroom units in these buildings, two-bedroom, one-bedroom and accessible units. It is designed and built for a mosaic of the families that need them. If that needs to be adjusted, I would welcome the Conservatives' comments at committee to make sure that Build Canada Homes does that.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is a great question. The affordability measurement is, I think, 30% of pre-tax income of a household, as a means of affordability. That is the test case, so it varies, obviously. In areas where perhaps housing costs are lower, there might be less of a need for Build Canada Homes, but I think that in most cases, Canadians are feeling the pinch in having to pay a lot more than 30% of their monthly income toward housing. The goal is to build the type of housing for which people do not have to pay more than 30% of their household income.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is a great question, and I apologize for not being able to answer in French. I think it gives, first, the financial tools. There is $13 billion seeded in it, so it has a lot of financial capability. It has the necessary vehicles, whether that is using CMHC or its own funding, the new building code with pre-approved designs, and encouraging modular design and working with modular providers. These are the types of tools that give it the assets and capabilities to move much more quickly and much more efficiently, and also to innovate in the industry in a time when sometimes the private sector is a little hesitant to do that. That is the ability it has, and as a Crown corporation, it would have more power than a special body.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think this is a Crown corporation that would take a lot of federal lands, provincial lands and municipal lands and build quickly and efficiently. It would actually hold, in a lot of cases, those assets in the Crown corporation, and the revenue from that would hopefully help build more homes going forward. It would also help expedite a lot of the process. I think it is much needed. Canada has tried many other things, and I think this is a time when more homes are needed more quickly. We need an agency like this that has the agility, the financial firepower and the power behind it to build these homes much more quickly.”
“Bill C‑20 is about scaling up what is already working. It is about building the partnerships, capacity and innovative construction approaches needed to deliver more homes for Canadians in the years ahead. By establishing Build Canada Homes as a Crown corporation, the legislation would provide the governance, flexibility and financial capacity needed to build on that progress and to deliver on its mandate at a greater scale. It would allow Build Canada Homes to hold assets, make investments, deploy innovative financial tools and pursue long-term opportunities more effectively, while maintaining a clear accountability framework to Parliament and Canadians. At a time when Canadians need more homes built more quickly and more affordably, Bill C‑20 would help ensure that Build Canada Homes has the tools it needs to deliver.”
“By prioritizing projects and partnerships that invest in sustainable Canadian materials, strengthen Canadian supply chains and create good jobs through the homebuilding process, Build Canada Homes is helping advance the federal government's buy Canadian strategy. This means Canadian lumber, Canadian building materials, Canadian manufacturing and Canadian construction expertise. Across the board, Build Canada Homes is helping ensure that public investments create economic benefits here at home. In a changing global economy, strengthening domestic capacity matters. Build Canada Homes is helping increase housing supply while supporting Canadian workers, Canadian businesses and Canadian innovation. The partnerships and projects already under way demonstrate what Build Canada Homes can achieve.”
“This is exactly the type of collaboration Build Canada Homes was created to support. It demonstrates how governments can work together to increase housing supply while helping to modernize the homebuilding sector. Importantly, it also demonstrates the potential of Build Canada Homes as a national institution. In just a few short months, it has advanced projects and partnerships representing thousands of homes across the country. Bill C‑20 is about turning that early momentum into sustained long-term results. By establishing Build Canada Homes as a Crown corporation, we would be strengthening its ability to support more projects, deepen partnerships and help deliver more homes for Canadians. However, that is not all. In addition to helping build more houses, Build Canada Homes is also helping build a stronger Canadian economy.”
“Build Canada Homes and BC Housing have partnered to deliver at least 1,100 homes, including supportive, transitional and affordable rental housing. This partnership will make use of standardized designs, Canadian-made prefabricated components and modern methods of construction to reduce costs, improve quality, shorten construction timelines and help increase housing construction at scale. These approaches demonstrate how innovation can play a critical role in addressing Canada's housing shortage. This is only the first phase of a broader commitment between Canada and British Columbia. By aligning federal investment with construction-ready projects, Build Canada Homes is helping move projects from plans to shovels in the ground, while laying the foundation for thousands more homes in future phases.”
“It would also provide Build Canada Homes with the flexibility needed to hold assets, make investments and make long-term decisions that support the delivery of affordable housing. Together, these tools would strengthen its ability to deliver on its mandate and build more homes for Canadians. These are exactly the kinds of tools needed to increase housing supply and accelerate construction across the country. Partnerships with provinces and territories are central to the success of Build Canada Homes. Whether through land financing, housing expertise or construction-ready projects, provinces and territories play a critical role in increasing housing supply and helping more homes get built. (1245) Allow me to use my home province of British Columbia as an example.”
“It would also work in close partnership with developers, investors, manufacturers and housing providers focused on long-term affordability. This includes non-profits, co-operatives, community housing providers or organizations that promote a variety of housing options for Canadians. These strategic partnerships would create homes that are affordable to a range of households across the income spectrum. These partnerships are about building capacity, supporting innovation and creating the conditions for more homes to be built across Canada, which is what makes the legislation before us today so important. By establishing Build Canada Homes as a Crown corporation, Bill C-20 would provide the agency with the operational autonomy and governance structure needed to pursue its mission more effectively.”
“It is also helping modernize Canada's homebuilding sector by supporting innovative approaches, including modern methods of construction. Build Canada Homes is helping create the conditions needed to build more homes more quickly and more efficiently. This is particularly important at a time in Canada when Canada needs to significantly increase its housing supply. Build Canada Homes is helping build the capacity needed to meet that challenge. As a Crown corporation, Build Canada Homes would combine access to federal lands, development expertise and flexible financial tools under one roof. It would work alongside non-profits, indigenous organizations and all orders of government to help move projects from concept to construction and to accelerate the delivery of affordable housing.”
“As we consider the legislation before us today, it is worth revisiting exactly what Build Canada Homes was designed to achieve. Build Canada Homes was created to build and finance affordable housing at scale while helping to catalyze a more productive and innovative homebuilding industry. It makes it simpler and faster to get large-scale affordable housing projects off the ground, attracting public, private and philanthropic investment. thus maximizing impact. Build Canada Homes does more than fund individual projects. It is a new way of doing business. Its goal is to unlock opportunities across the country by partnering with governments, builders, non-profits and investors to identify and scale high-impact housing solutions.”
“Bill C-20 would build on that early progress by establishing Build Canada Homes as a Crown corporation, providing it with the operational autonomy and dedicated governance needed to scale up efforts to address Canada's housing crisis. By transitioning Build Canada Homes from a special operating agency to a Crown corporation, the legislation would strengthen its ability to deliver on its mandate at scale while maintaining accountability to Parliament and to Canadians. All Canadians deserve an affordable place to call home. Housing is a fundamental need, and the growing demand for housing across the country requires urgent action, which means that this is about more than creating a new institution. It is about giving Build Canada Homes the tools it needs to build more homes more quickly.”
“Mr. Speaker, this is a great opportunity for me to rise in support of Bill C-20 , the Build Canada Homes act. The challenge before us is significant. Too many Canadians are struggling to find a home they can afford, and too many communities are facing housing shortages that continue to drive up costs. That is why our government launched Build Canada Homes in September 2025 with a clear mandate to build affordable homes, support builders with financing and encourage innovative construction methods using Canadian technology, workers and lumber. In just a few short months, Build Canada Homes has already begun advancing projects and establishing partnerships across the country.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member from Nanaimo knows a lot of the issues that are particular to the island. Market housing works really well in places like Nanaimo, and can probably be the solution that she is expressing would be valid there, but urban markets with the missing middle are a challenging place. Regardless of the red tape and other things, it is very hard for builders and developers to develop there. How does the member consider developers should be incentivized to build in those areas without a Build Canada Homes-like approach?”
“Mr. Speaker, the only party in the House that is bringing that fear is the Conservative Party of Canada. The only party in British Columbia that is doing that is the Conservative Party of British Columbia, and the only reason they are doing this is to instill fear. Everyone knows that their private property rights are not at risk. The government is defending them as we speak, and that is how we will always protect the property rights of all individuals in Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. The federal government is defending the property rights. The property rights are not at risk. The only people who are saying the property rights are at risk are the Conservatives over here and their counterparts in the province of British Columbia. They know it and we know it. The Canadian government will always defend private property rights. None of the treaty agreements take away those rights. We will defend the rights of Canadians. They are just disseminating fear in the hearts of British Columbians and Canadians for the wrong reasons.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canada's humanitarian assistance is making a real difference on the ground. Through trusted partners, we have helped provide nearly 5.7 million meals to families in need. We have supported emergency medical assistance to almost 16,000 patients and health services to 35,000 more. We are helping 40 primary care health facilities across Lebanon stay open, and improving access to essential medical care for the most vulnerable. These are just a few examples of the life-saving support that Canadians are helping provide. For families fleeing violence and facing displacement, hunger and loss, it makes a real difference. It is something Canadians can be proud of.”
“Mr. Speaker, another unique feature of the Waterloo region is how technology intersects development. KA Imaging is a great example of how Canadian innovation can have an impact both domestically and globally. Through Grand Challenges Canada, our government supports innovators that are developing and scaling solutions to some of the world's most pressing health challenges, from improving maternal and newborn care to strengthening health systems in challenging contexts. Our government reaffirmed our support for GCC to ensure that Canadian innovators continue to turn bold ideas into life-saving solutions.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canada's support for the people of Sudan has been unwavering since the beginning of the conflict. Last week, our government announced more than $120 million in new assistance to support the people of Sudan and others across the region. This is about getting life-saving support to those who need it most. It underscores Canada's commitment to addressing one of the world's worst humanitarian crises. The people of Sudan deserve protection, dignity and a path back to stability. Canada will continue to press for the conditions that make that possible.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think the minister did a very good job in getting consultation from a broad sector of stakeholders, such as from law enforcement and the prosecutor's office. One of our former colleagues, from Victoria, gave the NDP's insight formally. I think there was broad consultation. I am sure if the Privacy Commissioner has some concerns, they are able to table their opinions as well.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is a very valid question. It is a big concern. People facing extortion threats are wondering why it takes the police so long to find out who is responsible, when sometimes in the private sector they may be able to get a private investigation or a digital firm to find out where the call was coming from. Unfortunately, law enforcement has been handicapped without those capabilities. It has asked for the bill to pass immediately, as fast as possible, as the threat is really hindering people's lives. Normal business people are not able to go out. They live in fear. It is finally coming to fruition, and I am hopeful they will be able to live their lives in a peaceful manner.”
“Mr. Speaker, the threshold is to get subscriber information. The first step when someone gets a call or a threat is to find out who the number belongs to. It used to be very easy. We could pick up a phone book-like thing in the library that had every number in it. It used to be published every year. When somebody called, we could tell where the number came from. The world has changed drastically from that. We are now on VPNs. Even normal office phones are. Land lines do not actually communicate with a direct line. They go over the Internet. Getting the subscriber information is the first and fundamental step so law enforcement can take subsequent steps to get production orders to tap phones. Those would come after, but the initial step of finding out who is calling, where the information is coming from, is vital.”
“Mr. Speaker, we could have amended Bill C-2 . It was the second bill introduced in the current session of the House, which shows the importance the government places on law enforcement and getting the tools that are needed. It was after those consultations that the government listened to, and that is why we have Bill C-22 now. Therefore, now that those consultations have been done, I urge that we pass the bill as fast as possible so we give the tools to law enforcement agencies. I also met with the commissioner, the deputy commissioner and the regional police chiefs of all the areas around my riding, and all of them have stated that we need lawful access and need it now.”
“It is about ensuring that alleged extortionists, child predators, cybercriminals, hostile state actors and organized criminal networks have nowhere to hide. Law enforcement leaders have been very clear with us. I will quote the National Police Federation, which said, “For frontline police officers, the ability to lawfully identify who owns an online account is often the first step in investigating crimes such as extortion, child sexual exploitation, organized crime, violent offences, and national security threats. Bill C-22 will help ensure that longstanding court orders and warrants remain effective in a modern digital environment.” They need us to act now to eliminate these gaps in our legislation. I am urging hon. members to support the bill for the crucial public safety measure it would be.”
“I want to reassure Canadians that Bill C-22 includes safeguards so ESPs would not have to abide by any demands that would introduce systemic vulnerabilities in electronic protections, such as encryption breaking or backdoor access. This would also require that the Minister of Public Safety obtain the approval of the intelligence commissioner before a ministerial order is valid, and it would be subject to further review by the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency. Bill C-22 is about removing harmful barriers that impede active investigations and delay justice as well as put Canadians in harm's way. It is about bringing our legislation up to date with modern technologies and those of our closest allies and partners.”
“To be clear, this aspect of the legislation intentionally and explicitly would not allow for backdoor access or any direct access for law enforcement or CSIS into electronic service provider systems. A legal authority to access that information would still always be required. (1235) Bill C-22 proposes two ways by which an ESP would be asked to develop and maintain lawful access capabilities. First, those designated as core providers, such as traditional telecom companies, would have to abide by specific requirements set out in regulations. Second, the Minister of Public Safety could issue a ministerial order to develop specific capabilities based on operational needs as new technologies develop. We have heard the concerns from parliamentarians and stakeholders around privacy and oversight.”
“Police are aware that a provider holds certain information, but the company cannot provide it because their systems do not possess the capability to do so, as there is no legal requirement to carry such capabilities. We have heard many stories of law enforcement tracking a missing child or attempting to stop a terrorist attack, knowing which service provider to obtain the information from but being stonewalled by the provider's lack of lawful access capabilities. We cannot hope to fully protect Canadians and our communities if law enforcement and CSIS are unable to do their jobs. For this reason, Bill C-22 would introduce new legislation to close that gap, whereby certain ESPs would need to develop and maintain the technological capabilities to respond to production orders.”
“Often they do not know which service provider holds the customer account associated with the subscriber information, which also means they do not know whom to serve with a production order. This challenge currently stalls and delays real-world investigations. In many cases, law enforcement is required to seek multiple judicial authorizations to seek very basic information from different service providers, just to confirm which service provider's phone number or IP address the call was made from. The current framework causes significant, unnecessary and potentially harmful delays. Timely access to the basic information is crucial in all stages of an investigation and can mean the difference between securing evidence and allowing criminals to slip through law enforcement's fingers. Here is another example.”
“It would introduce provisions to support law enforcement as it cracks down on crime in an increasingly complex technological landscape where the vast majority of evidence is online or electronic. Law enforcement groups have sounded the alarm about the obstacles they encounter in their investigations. For instance, imagine a person getting a call from an extortionist demanding money and threatening their family if they do not pay. They call 911, tell the police who called and show them the messages they received. Under the current framework, it would take weeks or even months for the police to find out basic information such as who or where the call came from. This is just one example of the many challenges law enforcement officials face in obtaining the information they need.”
“For decades, law enforcement and CSIS have had to operate without a legal framework requiring electronic service providers, ESPs, to develop and maintain lawful access capabilities. The current legal framework dates from before the invention of cellphones and has not kept pace with the rapid advances in technology. This is important because law enforcement and intelligence investigators need basic subscriber information, such as a legal name or an address, to identify or exclude suspects, particularly during preliminary stages. Bill C-22 would establish a legal framework requiring electronic service providers to have the capability to respond to legally authorized requests, such as a warrant or a production order, while respecting protecting privacy interests and fundamental rights.”
“Canada's law enforcement agencies and CSIS need modern tools to help keep communities safe. We must close the capacity gap in current legislation that prevents law enforcement and CSIS from having lawful access to data, and must ensure that they can properly execute their mandates and protect Canadians. “Lawful access” is a term we will hear a lot in association with the bill, but let us be clear what it really means. Lawful access covers the tools and authorities used to legally obtain certain information, data or communication during investigations. This information is often essential to generating leads on national security threats and serious criminal activities, such as extortion and organized crime, as well as to identifying and prosecuting the people involved.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to speak about Bill C-22 , the lawful access bill. There is no issue more pressing in the law enforcement legal framework than lawful access, a tool that is essential for police and prosecution to do the work to expeditiously catch people accused of many violent crimes. The world around us is becoming increasingly digital and networked. Much of our day-to-day business communication and overall lives relies on the Internet. Smart phones, emails and instant messaging apps easily and instantly transcend provincial and national borders. Unfortunately, this also means that malicious actors, such as organized crime groups and violent extremists, can exploit the borderless nature of cyberspace for their own benefit.”
“Speaker, when I speak to British Columbians, including Rachel from my riding, they thank me for the Canada child benefit. Rachel also remembers that when the program was under the Conservatives, she had to pay taxes on it when it came to April. She also thanks me for the dental benefit that is helping her and her children get dental care. She is also looking forward to our affordability measure that is coming out for her groceries in June. In addition to that, the 10¢ tax relief at the gas pump is helpful. We are listening to Canadians, and they are getting what they need. The Conservatives are not listening to Canadians and should—”