Konservative verurteilen die Liberalen, weil sie versucht haben, den umstrittenen Gesetzesentwurf zum rechtmäßigen Zugang durch das Repräsentantenhaus zu „rammen“.

This bill isn’t just „controversial“, it basically means that all Canadians will be subjected to 24/7 monitoring and turns every piece of technology we have into a listening device for the government and makes it illegal to actually secure your devices/life against that sort of monitoring.

The backdoors and the like that it will mandate will leak, and will be used against us, and so this makes every Canadian less secure in order to make the government more comfortable and powerful.

Honestly, Jacob Mantle is 100% right. Setting a *retroactive* „deadline“ for amendments is beyond ridiculous, it’s abusive. Curtailing debate is one thing. But MPs who may have been sitting on proposed amendments in good faith until the clause-but-clause is done and there was a chance to address their concerns should still be permitted to bring their amendment proposals.

I get that the government’s position that what there is to say has been said, that the Parliamentary opposition and third party groups have had ample opportunity to air its severe and detailed objections, and that debate cannot continue forever. Previous versions have been shelved or undergone considerable reform. „Stakeholder“ groups (god I hate that word, but can’t think of a better one here) have had opportunities for multiple rounds of consultation and comment. For example, the CBA presented [a finely detailed criticism](https://cba.org/our-impact/submissions/bill-c-22-lawful-access-act-2026/bill-c-22-lawful-access-act-2026) of the specific mechanics of the proposed law that is worth a read for those interested. They are of course joined by [The Canadian Chamber of Commerce](https://chamber.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Bill-C-22-Recommended-Amendments.pdf), the [Canadian Civil Liberties Association](https://ccla.org/privacy/ccla-and-citizen-lab-researchers-release-detailed-analysis-of-bill-c-22s-many-flaws/), and basically a [who](https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2026/03/the-lawful-access-privacy-risks-unpacking-bill-c-22s-expansive-metadata-retention-requirements/)’s [who](https://policyoptions.irpp.org/about/our-people/) of those the National Post would denounce as the evil „Laurentian Elite“, except that this time they [agree with them](https://nationalpost.com/opinion/parliament-must-not-allow-bill-c-22-to-break-encryption).

Bill C-22 may be right. It may be wrong. It may be some middle of them. But given the depth of consultation and debate, the government may be right that there is nothing more to say that has not been said, repeatedly, and in depth. Besides, this bill is destined to receive a serious Charter Challenge and make its way *at least* to a Court of Appeal, so many of the rights questions are going to be disposed of judicially. I get that, I really do.

However, details matter. Parliamentary privilege matters. Using a patently dishonest retroactive „deadline“ to guillotine debate to *avoid* any „speak now or hold your peace“ final proposals is simply wrong.

It’s maybe a small thing, but I will hope against hope the Speaker will make the right call here, and force an extended deadline – even if only for a couple of days.