Sima Acan

Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned that we have not consulted with the Privacy Commissioner. I want to mention that this is the wrong information, and I believe that my colleague was misinformed before her speech. The Privacy Commissioner said at the committee, “I would not say that we were not consulted in this instance. We made a number of recommendations. A number of them were taken and I've highlighted those improvements”. He said that during his witness testimony. I would also like to highlight that the government did its due diligence by getting the Privacy Commissioner's input for that bill. I also want to mention that, as a Liberal member on the committee, we would like to work with the opposition party members to improve the bill and work on the amendments. However, we heard 10 hours of witness testimonies, plus three hours with the officials. We had over 40 briefs and lots of witnesses on that study. Filibustering, unfortunately, is not allowing us to move on the amendments. The amendments are on the table. We would like to continue with the amendments and working on them, but the Conservatives are not allowing us to.

Madam Speaker, I enjoy working with my colleague at committee, as well as with my colleague from Oshawa, who also expressed concern about not having enough time to ask questions at committee. With respect, every member of the committee has the same time allocated. I have difficulty understanding why, while most of the other members of the committee could ask questions, the member was not able to. It is all about using our time wisely, I think. It is like someone's complaining about the distance they cannot go, when they have waited at the station too long. That was my concern. I am trying to understand how they could not use the time wisely and why they filibustered their own witnesses.

Mr. Speaker, just today, I received multiple calls from my constituents about why this bill is delayed. For months, it has been on the table. Could the minister explain to us why this bill is so crucial to pass and how it would help Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, with a background in public safety projects, I recognize that cyber-threats pose a growing risk to Canadians, and our government is confronting this challenge head-on. Last week, Bill C-8, the act respecting cybersecurity, passed third reading in the Senate and is now awaiting royal assent. This legislation will ensure critical infrastructure operators can prepare for, prevent and respond to cyber-incidents. Could the Minister of Public Safety explain what this means for the safety and security of Canadians and critical infrastructure in key sectors such as finance, telecommunications, energy and transportation?

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today at third reading of Bill S‑228, an act to amend the Criminal Code. At the outset, I would like to thank the sponsor of the legislation in the Senate, the Hon. Senator Yvonne Boyer, for her leadership, dedication and tireless advocacy on this issue. Senator Boyer has been a powerful voice for survivors and for indigenous women across this country, and her work has helped bring national attention to a practice that should never have occurred in Canada. I also would like to thank the member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes for sponsoring the legislation in the House of Commons and helping move it through the parliamentary process. Most importantly, I want to acknowledge the survivors, whose courage, persistence and willingness to share deeply personal experiences have brought us to this point. Their voices have been at the centre of this discussion from the very beginning. The bill exists because survivors refused to allow these experiences to remain hidden and because they demanded accountability, recognition and action. Today, members from all sides of the House have an opportunity to take an important step forward. Bill S‑228 is straightforward in its purpose. It would clarify that sterilization procedures carried out without free and informed consent constitute aggravated assault under the Criminal Code. The legislation would not create a new criminal offence. It would not change the law of consent. It would not alter legitimate medical practice. Rather, it would make explicit what many Canadians would reasonably expect the law to already recognize: A sterilization procedure performed without free and informed consent is among the most serious violations of a person's bodily autonomy and should be treated accordingly. At its core, the bill is about consent. Consent is one of the foundational principles of both our criminal law and our health care system. Consent must be given freely, consent must be informed, and consent must be voluntary. Consent cannot be obtained through coercion, manipulation, pressure, threats, deception or abuse of authority. These principles are not new. They are already deeply embedded in Canadian law, yet the experiences that have been brought forward by survivors demonstrate why clarity matters. For many survivors, particularly indigenous women, the issue was never simply what the law said on paper. The issue was whether the system recognized the seriousness of what had happened to them. The issue was whether there was sufficient clarity and accountability. That is why Bill S-228 is important. It would send a clear message that sterilization without free and informed consent is not merely a breach of medical ethics but is also a profound violation of bodily autonomy that engages the criminal law. Discussions surrounding the bill have also provided an opportunity to reflect on a difficult chapter in our country's history. We know that forced and coerced sterilization occurred in Canada. We know that indigenous women were disproportionately affected. We know that many survivors experienced lasting physical, emotional, psychological, cultural and intergenerational harms. We know that these harms have contributed to deep mistrust of institutions and systems that should have protected these women. The experiences shared by survivors have been powerful and heartbreaking, and they have reminded all of us that legislation is ultimately about people. Behind every discussion of criminal law, every amendment and every committee study, there are individuals whose lives have been affected. The bill recognizes that reality. One of the themes that emerged repeatedly during committee study was the importance of ensuring that the bill provides clarity while avoiding unintended consequences. I believe that the legislation successfully achieves that balance. Some questions were raised about whether the bill could affect lawful and consensual medical procedures. The answer is no. The bill would preserve lawful medical care. Some questions were raised about whether physicians acting appropriately in emergency circumstances could somehow face new criminal liability. Again, the answer is no. The legislation would clarify the existing state of the law. It would not change the legal framework governing emergency medical treatment. It would not remove existing protections available to health professionals acting with reasonable care and skill. It would not alter the long-standing principles that apply when urgent medical intervention is necessary to preserve life or health. These safeguards already exist within Canadian law and would continue to exist. That point was reinforced through testimony received during committee study. In other words, Bill S-228 would strengthen accountability for non-consensual sterilization, while preserving appropriate medical care. Those two objectives are not in conflict; indeed, they are complementary. A strong health care system depends upon trust, and trust depends upon consent. One aspect of the bill that deserves particular attention is its use of a “for greater certainty” provision. The legislation would not attempt to reinvent the criminal law. Instead, it would clarify how existing principles would apply in a specific context. Parliament uses this type of provision when it wishes to remove doubt and to provide greater certainty regarding the application of the law. That is precisely what the bill would do. It would provide greater clarity to courts, prosecutors, law enforcement and, most important, to survivors and Canadians. It would reinforce that sterilization without free and informed consent is conduct of the utmost seriousness. Another important feature of the bill is that it reflects a collaborative approach. This is not a partisan issue. The bill originated in the Senate, was advanced by Senator Boyer, was sponsored in the House of Commons by a Conservative member and has received support from members across party lines. That is how Parliament should function when addressing issues of fundamental human dignity. There are times when we will disagree vigorously, but there should also be moments when we can come together around shared principles. Respect for bodily autonomy is one of those principles. Respect for free and informed consent is another of those principles, as is the dignity of every person. Bill S-228 reflects those values. I also want to acknowledge the many organizations, advocates, academics, medical professionals and community leaders who have contributed to this conversation. We heard from individuals with expertise in reproductive justice, indigenous health, medical ethics, women's rights and criminal law. While witnesses approached the issue from different perspectives, there was broad recognition of the importance of affirming bodily autonomy and reinforcing the principle of free and informed consent. That broad support speaks to the strength of the bill. It also speaks to the seriousness of the issue before us. The legislation is also consistent with broader efforts to advance reconciliation. Reconciliation requires more than words; it requires action, listening, responding to the experiences of indigenous people and taking concrete steps when harms have occurred. No single bill can undo the harms experienced by survivors. No single legislative amendment can rebuild trust overnight. No single measure can address every aspect of this issue. That does not mean Parliament should do nothing. Meaningful progress often occurs through concrete and targeted steps. Bill S-228 is one such step. It would recognize the harms that occurred, reinforce accountability, strengthen clarity and affirm principles that are fundamental to a free and democratic society. Throughout this debate, we have heard discussions about bodily autonomy. That concept is sometimes discussed in legal, medical or policy language, but at its heart, bodily autonomy means something simple: Every person has the right to make decisions about their own body, those decisions must belong to the individual, and procedures with permanent consequences cannot be imposed through coercion, pressure, manipulation or abuse of authority. These principles should not be controversial; they should unite us, and I believe they do. The passage of Bill S-228 would not mark the end of this conversation. There would continue to be important discussions about patient safety, about reconciliation and about accountability. Those conversations should continue, but today Parliament is being asked to decide a specific question: Should the Criminal Code clearly state that sterilization procedures performed without free and informed consent constitute aggravated assault? I believe the answer is yes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the outstanding young leaders of the Oakville West Youth Council, who are joining us here on Parliament Hill today. This has been a remarkable year for this group. Together we visited the Halton Regional Police Service headquarters to see the work that our law enforcement does, Sheridan College to learn about future career paths to pursue and Oakville Museum to learn about why Black History Month is important and Oakville's contribution to it. They also participated in a mock committee study on artificial intelligence, among many other meaningful experiences, including today's meet-and-greet with the Prime Minister. At every step, they have demonstrated curiosity, leadership and genuine commitment to learning and serving their communities. Spending time with these young people gives me tremendous hope for the future. They are thoughtful, driven and deeply engaged. They are not simply preparing to become leaders someday; they are already leading today. I thank the Oakville West Youth Council.

Mr. Speaker, when women and gender-diverse Canadians face barriers to entering the workforce, accessing leadership opportunities or living free from violence, it does not just impact individuals; it holds back the entire economy and our communities. Organizations across Canada are working every day to support survivors, expand opportunities and build safer, more inclusive communities, but they need stable and timely support. After obstruction from the Conservatives, our budget is now delivering support for these organizations. Can the Minister of Women and Gender Equality update the House on how these investments will strengthen support across Canada?

Mr. Speaker, it was great to spend this weekend with Oakville firefighters. With winter ending, we are reminded of the risk of wildfires, such as the one at Bronte Creek Provincial Park in 2021. With warmer weather, we are also already sadly seeing many communities impacted by flooding. As emergencies have become more frequent, more severe and more costly, could the Minister of Emergency Management and Community Resilience let us know what is ongoing to prepare for the upcoming wildfire and flooding seasons to keep Canadians safe?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition signed by 8,089 residents from my riding of Oakville West and from across Canada. The petitioners draw the attention of the House to individuals currently in Canada under the TS2023 temporary public policy who were welcomed on humanitarian grounds and have built their lives in Canada following the devastating earthquakes in Turkey and Syria. The petitioners highlight that despite ongoing reconstruction efforts abroad, the impending expiry of work permits is creating uncertainty for these individuals. Therefore, the petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to extend work permits and to consider a pathway to permanent residency for those who are contributing to Canadian society and the economy. I am pleased to present this petition on their behalf.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the House referred Bill C-22 to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. As a proud member of the committee, I am committed to strengthening public safety and ensuring that our law enforcement agencies have the tools they need to protect Canadians. I carry with me the voices of the residents of Oakville West, who trust us to act decisively in the face of evolving threats, and that is exactly what we are delivering as a government. Bill C-22 is an important piece of legislation that would give law enforcement legal access to certain information or to intercept communications in support of investigations into crimes and threats. Tonight, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police is hosting a reception to discuss the vital importance of this legislation. I want to encourage all my fellow parliamentarians who want to learn more about lawful access to attend, get informed and support Bill C-22. Let us give law enforcement the modern tools it needs to keep our communities and Canadians safe.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in strong and unequivocal support for Bill C-22, the lawful access act of 2026. The legislation represents a vital and long-overdue step in modernizing Canada's legal, technical and investigative frameworks to protect our citizens in an increasingly dangerous digital world. The bill is a cornerstone of our commitment to modernizing Canada's safety framework for the digital age and beyond, ensuring that our investigators have the tools necessary to keep pace with rapidly evolving technology. As Chief Nishan Duraiappah of Peel Regional Police so powerfully stated during the government's announcement in Peel Region, our current rules and investigative frameworks were written before cell phones were even created. This is a staggering reality. While criminals, human traffickers and organized crime networks have rapidly adapted to new digital platforms and communication tools, the legal and technical framework available to our investigators has fundamentally failed to keep pace and is falling behind. The Canadian Police Association, an organization representing 60,000 frontline personnel, and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police have been clear. Our current legal framework to access digital evidence is significantly outdated and urgently needs to be revised. Unfortunately, the reality is clear that, while technology has advanced at lighting speed, the laws governing how we investigate the most sophisticated criminals have remained frozen in time. Transnational organized crime groups are currently exploiting this gap to traffic drugs, such as fentanyl; coordinate human trafficking; distribute child sex abuse material; and smuggle firearms across the border. Canada is the only country among the Five Eyes and the G7 that does not have a modernized lawful access regime. We are falling behind our peers. For too long, our law enforcement agencies have had to rely on the co-operation of international partners to fill in the gaps in our own national security and intelligence investigations. As our public safety minister has emphasized, a strong government delivers for its citizens. It is time for a Canadian solution to go after criminals who threaten our communities. Bill C-22 would provide the targeted, judicially authorized tools needed to combat 21st-century threats. One of the most important updates is the confirmation of service demand, which would allow investigators and CSIS to quickly confirm, with a simple yes-or-no question, whether a service provider holds information tied to any identifier. This would not grant access to private content. It would simply identify where the evidence may exist so that proper judicial authorization could follow. The subscriber information production order would allow police with judicial authorization to obtain basic identifying information, such as a name or an email address. This is the digital equivalent of using a phone book and is essential for identifying suspects operating behind anonymity. To be clear, this is the same approach that existed in the predigital age, simply modernized to keep pace with today's changing technological landscape. This modernization is essential for combatting crimes, such as human trafficking, sextortion and child exploitation, as well as auto theft networks and violent organized crime. For example, with regard to human trafficking and sextortion, these crimes often begin with an anonymous IP address. The new subscriber information production order would allow police with judicial approval to obtain basic identifying info, such as a name or an email address. This is the digital equivalent of a phone book, and it is essential for identifying the predators who are hiding behind pseudonyms. Organized car theft rings use digital tools to coordinate border-crossing operations. The bill would modernize tracking and transmission data warrants, allowing investigators to follow the digital bread crumbs of these networks, even when the specific devices they use change during the investigation. The Canadian Centre for Child Protection has fully endorsed these changes, noting that they would reduce the barriers police face when investigating online crimes against children. Without modern tools, criminals, especially predators, can remain hidden for far too long. Perhaps most importantly, part 1 of the bill would codify the power of police to act in exigent circumstances. In the digital world, every second counts. Members can imagine an active kidnapping, where a predator is communicating via an encrypted app or a terrorist threat, and an attack is imminent. Currently, waiting hours for a formal warrant in the middle of the night could mean the difference between life and death. Bill C-22 would specify circumstances in which officers can obtain evidence, including subscriber information, immediately, to prevent serious injury or the destruction of vital evidence. This would not grant permanent powers. It would ensure that, in a life-or-death emergency, the law would stand on the side of the victims. Legal authority is meaningless without technical capacity. Part 2 of the bill, which would enact the supporting authorized access to information act, would ensure that major electronic service providers maintain the technical ability to comply with court orders they are already legally required to follow. Currently, Canada has no regulatory framework requiring service providers to maintain systems capable of responding to lawful court orders in a timely and consistent manner. This bill would address the gap by ensuring core providers can retrieve and produce information when ordered to do so by a court. Importantly, this would not create any back doors. Providers themselves would retrieve the information and disclose it only under judicial authorization, avoiding any systemic vulnerabilities that could be exploited by malicious actors. I want to be very clear. This legislation would not create unchecked new powers. Strong judicial oversight and privacy would ensure that all powers are exercised under strict court authorization and with robust safeguards to protect Canadians' privacy rights. Judicial authorization ensures that almost every tool in this bill would require prior approval from a judge or justice based on reasonable grounds. No back doors would ensure there would be no covert access mechanism, with systems remaining secure and data only being disclosed under lawful authority. Independent review would ensure that ministerial orders under part 2 must be reviewed and approved by the intelligence commissioner, which would ensure independent oversight and accountability. To understand why this bill is so vital, we must look at the technical hurdles our officers face every day. I am particularly proud of the collaborative approach we have taken. I recently sponsored a parliamentary breakfast panel on the Hill in collaboration with the National Police Federation. I invited senators and members of Parliament from all parties to engage directly with the experts who work with these systems every day. We heard from Brian Sauvé, president of the National Police Federation, on frontline policing matters; Leah West, a national security law expert from Carleton University; Nick Milinovich, deputy chief of Peel Regional Police and co-chair of the lawful access advisory committee; and Gordon Scott Campbell, a constitutional and criminal lawyer with Supreme Court experience. Deputy Chief Milinovich and other experts described the trial and error burden that currently cripples investigations. When police have a digital identifier, such as an IP address, tied to a crime, they must send a production order to a service provider to identify the suspect. However, if they send that order to a provider that does not actually service that identifier, the provider can simply not comply. This creates a technical stalemate where police must guess which provider holds the data. Bill C-22 would solve this through the confirmation of service demand. This tool would allow the investigator to quickly confirm with a simple yes or no if a provider holds information tied to an identifier. It would not grant access to private content, but simply identify where evidence exists so that proper judicial authorization can follow, ending the era of investigative guesswork. We also heard important questions from our Conservative colleagues about privacy and scope. Those concerns were addressed clearly. This bill would not expand surveillance. It would ensure that, when a judge authorizes access, the information can be obtained effectively and lawfully. The Ontario Association Chiefs of Police has stated that this is about ensuring police can “obtain vital evidence in complex cases”, not “expanding surveillance”. In conclusion, we can no longer afford to leave our investigators with tools from a predigital era. We cannot remain the only G7 nation without a modern lawful access regime. Bill C-22 is a balanced, necessary and collaborative 21st-century solution to 21st-century crimes. As the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police and multiple national law enforcement bodies have emphasized, this is about ensuring police can obtain vital evidence in complex cases while maintaining strong judicial oversight and charter protections. I urge all members of the House to support the swift and constructive passage of this legislation so that we can fulfill our primary duty, the safety and security of all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation makes it very clear that the data retention only captures, as my colleague mentioned, metadata for up to one year, and this metadata would not include content on the Internet, web browser history or even social media information. Lawful access is about identifying who is committing crimes and providing timely intelligence to investigators and law enforcement.

Mr. Speaker, I want to be very clear on the ministerial powers. The ministerial orders in part 2 would be subject to approval by the intelligence commissioner. Privacy and cybersecurity are the considerations when issuing orders. Judges have discretion to include conditions to protect any person's privacy interests when issuing a warrant. This strikes the right balance. I am looking forward to working with my colleague across the aisle on this bill at committee.

Mr. Speaker, yes, Canada is the only country in the G7, as well as the Five Eyes, that does not have lawful access. It has been almost a year that I have been working with law enforcement, which includes my local police organization, Halton Regional Police Service. I learned, through many hours of consultation, that they do agree and they want this legislation. They are thirsty for this legislation and have been for decades. They are in full support of this legislation, just like those on this side of the House are.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his support. We have repeatedly said that this bill does not touch the privacy of Canadians; it is built to protect Canadians. We are open to working with our Conservative colleagues at the committee level to improve the bill if it is necessary.

Mr. Speaker, last year as part of the tech caucus, I delivered some AI training to my colleagues on this side of the House. As part of that training, to showcase the risks of AI, I made a deepfake of myself speaking for several minutes, fluently in French, to show them that it was me and my voice. Although I am not fluent in French, I was perfectly so in the deepfake. I was able to create such a sophisticated deepfake of myself in my office months ago, and AI and deepfakes are evolving really fast. Could my colleague, the hon. member, explain how the legislation is long overdue for the protection of our elections?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Oakville West's ongoing efforts to prevent bullying, especially among our youth. We are fortunate to have strong educational frameworks in place. The Halton District School Board's RespectED program provides essential learning on personal boundaries, abuse prevention and healthy relationships. Complementing this is the Canadian Red Cross initiative Beyond the Hurt, which takes a peer-led approach to addressing harassment among youth, empowering them to support one another. Beyond the classroom, the Women's Centre of Halton is doing critical work to help individuals break free from the blame cycle, fostering lasting and positive change. I am also proud of my Oakville West youth council, which serves as a direct platform for our future leaders to research, discuss and work on the issues that affect them most, including cyber-bullying and online safety. By bringing their voices directly to the House, we ensure that the fight against bullying is not just something we do for our youth but also something we do together with them.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his constructive comments about our committee's hard work, and I thank him for the time he put into the committee's work and for joining us during those studies. He also supported the sponsored event I had on the Hill on this matter, with the National Police Federation as well as other law enforcement and some lawyers. As a former police officer, could my colleague emphasize the importance of this legislation and how it gives our law enforcement the expediency to respond to often complex and heinous digital crimes, which he also mentioned in his speech, such as child sexual exploitation?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is concerned that the legislation is being rushed or not being adequately reviewed, but he also mentioned that the legislation would address the gaps and delays for the information that law enforcement needs in order to catch criminals. Also, law enforcement has publicly supported the legislation, and the member's colleagues have repeatedly mentioned that lawful access does not mean an expansion of or access to private information. I wonder, which is it?