Tag

transparency

3 articles

LegislationMay 22, 20267 min read
Bill C-22 Lets the Public Safety Minister Order a Telecom to Build Surveillance Tools. The Telecom Cannot Tell You. Here Is How That Works.
Bill C-22 contains a provision that civil-liberties advocates from Meta, Apple, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and academic privacy law have uniformly flagged as the bill's most aggressive feature: the Public Safety Minister's power to issue "capability orders" to electronic service providers. Under Part 2 of the bill (the Supporting Authorized Access to Information Act, SAAIA), the Minister can require a provider to build a specific surveillance capability into their service, maintain it, and not disclose its existence. The provider must comply. The provider is legally prohibited from disclosing that the order exists. The Intelligence Commissioner reviews the Minister's reasonableness on a case-by-case basis. There is no statutory requirement of public reporting — even aggregate. This article walks through how the order is issued, what the provider is and is not allowed to say, how the Intelligence Commissioner's review works in practice, and what amendments could restore public accountability.
AccountabilityMay 21, 20268 min read
Bill C-22 Is at Committee. Here Are the MPs Who Put It There — And How to Reach Them.
On April 20, 2026, the House of Commons passed Bill C-22 (Lawful Access Act, 2026) at second reading. The bill is now at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security (SECU), which is the last realistic stage for substantive amendments. This article catalogues the load-bearing Liberal MPs in C-22's path to passage — the bill's sponsor (Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree), three Cabinet members who spoke for the bill at second reading (Justice Minister Sean Fraser, Secretary of State for Combatting Crime Ruby Sahota, Parliamentary Secretary Patricia Lattanzio), the Government House Leader who scheduled the debate (Steven MacKinnon), and the seven Liberal members on SECU led by Chair Jean-Yves Duclos. Each MP's public role on C-22 is described and public-record contact information is included so constituents can reach their representatives. Parliament Audit takes no position on whether the bill should pass; we publish the record and the contact channel.
AccountabilityMay 6, 20266 min read
Liberals Used Their New Majority to Vote a $298M Health Hearing Behind Closed Doors. The Vote Was 6–5.
On April 28, 2026 — the first day the Liberals’ new House majority took effect — two House of Commons standing committees voted to go in camera on motions involving public-interest accountability. At HESA (Health), Liberal Parliamentary Secretary Maggie Chi moved to take the meeting in camera while a Conservative motion to ask the Auditor General to audit PrescribeIT was on the floor. The vote was 6–5: six Liberals YEA, four Conservatives plus one Bloc MP NAY. At ETHI (Ethics), Liberal members made an identical move on a Conservative motion that would have required the Privy Council Office to provide regular updates on the Prime Minister’s ethics screen. The pattern triggered a public defence from Liberal House leader Steven MacKinnon, who pledged "open committees" the next day.

Bill C-22 Lets the Public Safety Minister Order a Telecom to Build Surveillance Tools. The Telecom Cannot Tell You. Here Is How That Works.

Bill C-22 contains a provision that civil-liberties advocates from Meta, Apple, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and academic privacy law have uniformly flagged as the bill's most aggressive feature: the Public Safety Minister's power to issue "capability orders" to electronic service providers. Under Part 2 of the bill (the Supporting Authorized Access to Information Act, SAAIA), the Minister can require a provider to build a specific surveillance capability into their service, maintain it, and not disclose its existence. The provider must comply. The provider is legally prohibited from disclosing that the order exists. The Intelligence Commissioner reviews the Minister's reasonableness on a case-by-case basis. There is no statutory requirement of public reporting — even aggregate. This article walks through how the order is issued, what the provider is and is not allowed to say, how the Intelligence Commissioner's review works in practice, and what amendments could restore public accountability.

Bill C-22 Is at Committee. Here Are the MPs Who Put It There — And How to Reach Them.

On April 20, 2026, the House of Commons passed Bill C-22 (Lawful Access Act, 2026) at second reading. The bill is now at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security (SECU), which is the last realistic stage for substantive amendments. This article catalogues the load-bearing Liberal MPs in C-22's path to passage — the bill's sponsor (Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree), three Cabinet members who spoke for the bill at second reading (Justice Minister Sean Fraser, Secretary of State for Combatting Crime Ruby Sahota, Parliamentary Secretary Patricia Lattanzio), the Government House Leader who scheduled the debate (Steven MacKinnon), and the seven Liberal members on SECU led by Chair Jean-Yves Duclos. Each MP's public role on C-22 is described and public-record contact information is included so constituents can reach their representatives. Parliament Audit takes no position on whether the bill should pass; we publish the record and the contact channel.

Liberals Used Their New Majority to Vote a $298M Health Hearing Behind Closed Doors. The Vote Was 6–5.

On April 28, 2026 — the first day the Liberals’ new House majority took effect — two House of Commons standing committees voted to go in camera on motions involving public-interest accountability. At HESA (Health), Liberal Parliamentary Secretary Maggie Chi moved to take the meeting in camera while a Conservative motion to ask the Auditor General to audit PrescribeIT was on the floor. The vote was 6–5: six Liberals YEA, four Conservatives plus one Bloc MP NAY. At ETHI (Ethics), Liberal members made an identical move on a Conservative motion that would have required the Privy Council Office to provide regular updates on the Prime Minister’s ethics screen. The pattern triggered a public defence from Liberal House leader Steven MacKinnon, who pledged "open committees" the next day.