Bill C-22

Lawful Access Act, 2026

An Act respecting lawful access

Part 1 amends various Acts to modernize certain provisions respecting the timely gathering and production of data and information during an investigation. It, among other things,
(a) amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,
(i) facilitate access to basic information that will assist in the investigation of federal offences through confirmation of service demands given to telecommunications service providers or judicial production orders for the production of subscriber information,
(ii) expedite the response to production orders by shortening the review process and clarify the ability of peace officers and public officers to receive and act on certain information that is voluntarily provided to them and to obtain and act on information that is publicly available,
(iii) specify certain circumstances in which peace officers and public officers may obtain evidence, including subscriber information, in exigent circumstances,
(iv) allow a justice or judge to authorize, in a warrant, a peace officer or public officer to obtain tracking data or transmission data that relates to any thing that is similar to a thing in relation to which data is authorized to be obtained under the warrant and that is unknown at the time the warrant is issued,
(v) provide and clarify authorities by which computer data may be examined, and
(vi) allow a justice or judge to authorize a peace officer or public officer to make a request to a foreign entity that provides telecommunications services — or that provides services by a means of telecommunication — to the public to produce transmission data or subscriber information that is in its possession or control;
(b) makes a consequential amendment to the Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act ;
(c) amends the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act to allow the Minister of Justice to authorize a competent authority to make arrangements for the enforcement of a decision made by an authority of a state or entity that is empowered to compel the production of transmission data or subscriber information that is in the possession or control of a person in Canada;
(d) amends the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act to, among other things,
(i) facilitate access to basic information that will assist the Canadian Security Intelligence Service in the performance of its duties and functions under section 12 or 16 of that Act through confirmation of service demands given to telecommunications service providers and judicial orders against those providers, and
(ii) clarify the response time for production orders; and
(e) amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Cannabis Act to provide and clarify authorities by which computer data may be examined.
Part 2 enacts the Supporting Authorized Access to Information Act . That Act establishes a framework for ensuring that electronic service providers can facilitate the exercise, by authorized persons, of authorities to access information conferred under the Criminal Code or the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act . It also makes related and consequential amendments to the Intelligence Commissioner Act .
Part 3 provides for the parliamentary review of Parts 1 and 2.

Lawful Access Act, 2026

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, for the Minister of Public Safety]

moved that Bill C-22, An Act respecting lawful access, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to thank everyone for being here to take part in this important debate.

First of all, I believe it is essential to understand the context of this debate and the importance of this bill.

It is no secret that public safety and crime in Canada are major political concerns for the government, and of course that reflects the reality that they are major political concerns for Canadians who go about their lives day to day concerned about the reality in their communities. Over the course of the past year now, we have been advancing a framework to address public safety in this country that rests on three key pillars. The first is to adopt stronger laws, including laws that would reform bail and sentencing in this country, laws that would combat hate, and laws that would more forcefully defend Canadians against gender-based violence and, in particular, the exploitation of Canadian children, particularly in an online environment.

The second pillar involves supporting the front line. This includes 1,000 new RCMP officers and 1,000 new officers at our borders, but also support for community organizations that help keep communities safe or support victims. It also includes providing law enforcement with the tools they need to keep our communities safe. The third pillar, which I would suggest is among the most important, is to make upstream investments to help build safer communities and healthier people in the long term, including investments in affordable housing, mental health and addictions, and programs that particularly target at-risk youth, among other things.

Today's bill arises in the context of the second pillar that I mentioned. That pillar, again, is to support the front line. It is easy for us, when we think about support for the front line, to think that it simply means more officers, which it must, as I pointed out, with significant investments in the federal aspect of both the RCMP and the CBSA, but importantly, it requires us to give law enforcement the tools they need.

Our strategy rests on three pillars. First, we are introducing legislation to strengthen criminal law across the country. Second, we are providing support to police officers and others who protect our communities. Third, we are making investments to build safe communities.

I want to focus specifically on this second pillar of giving the tools to law enforcement to help keep our communities safe. It will come as absolutely no surprise to anyone sitting in this chamber or those who live in our communities across Canada that the world we live in has changed over time and continues to change. In particular, the rapid pace of technological change demands that governments take actions to ensure that our laws reflect the reality in which we live today, not simply positioning us to address threats that existed during our childhood.

When we think about the way the world has modernized, we quickly come to understand that so, too, have criminal organizations. The use of technology is so prevalent that it has become a primary way in which crimes are committed across borders, often in a digital environment. All of us are walking around with powerful phones in our pockets that allow us to engage with people in a moment around the world. We have access to networks of people we can keep in touch with, primarily for ordinary purposes, but we cannot be blind to the fact that there are criminal actors in this country and around the world who use that technology for unsavoury purposes.

We think about the ability of organized crime not simply to use digital communications but to communicate across borders in real time to facilitate the commission of very serious crimes. In my many conversations with law enforcement over the past year, they have pointed to the fact that this technology is often being used at a prolific rate when it comes to the commission of crimes relating to extortion in this country, often violent extortion in this country. We are being told repeatedly that home invasions and auto thefts are not simply one-off examples of isolated actors who are simply behaving badly on a particular day, but the result of sophisticated criminal organizations that have established a network and are using technology to communicate with those who are committing crimes on the ground.

We also know that when it comes to the very serious, most heinous crimes in Canada, sexual exploitation and abuse material are being committed against children. We know that the digital environment has caused the number of instances of this absolutely horrific criminal behaviour to increase dramatically in the number of examples we can find. One thing that is particularly challenging when it comes to the use of technology to commit these different kinds of atrocious criminal acts is the anonymity of the person who is doing wrong. It is not possible for the police to arrest an IP address or to investigate a phone number and bring it to prosecution. We have to understand that there are human beings who are willing to do bad things for their own personal gain and hide behind the anonymity that this technology can provide. If we want to keep Canadians safe, we must advance the law in a way that reflects the changes to technology.

I often speak with police officers and representatives of organizations that protect our communities. They tell me that as technology changes, the laws need to change along with it. Right now, criminal organizations can use technology to commit crimes with complete anonymity. It is not okay to simply accept these problems. We need to tackle these challenges by changing the laws, specifically the Criminal Code.

That is where this particular piece of legislation comes in. If we want the law to keep up with crime, we have to realize where we have fallen behind. This is where the concept of lawful access comes in, in the appropriately named lawful access act. Over the last number of years, countries around the world have been advancing their laws in a way that allows them to gain access to critical information, where a criminal investigation is taking place, to ensure that they are actually able to move forward with that investigation in order to stop crime and to prevent it, in the best case, or, when a criminal act is committed, to have the ability to bring the perpetrator to justice through a full and expeditious investigation, followed by a prosecution.

When I look around the world, it is clear that Canada needs to catch up. Every other G7 partner has established a lawful access regime. Each of our other Five Eyes partners has established a similar regime, and it is time for Canada to do the same.

The result of our current laws having failed to keep up with these rapidly changing technologies is that the investigations, although they still do take place, become cumbersome, difficult and time-consuming. When we are dealing with threats playing out in real time, it is important to understand that the ability to bring a perpetrator to justice depends upon police being able to do their job in real time as well.

This debate started not today, although it is formally under this piece of legislation, but in fact in one of the very first pieces of legislation we brought forward in this Parliament. At the time, it was Bill C-2, the strong borders act. We took that bill to this House. We consulted broadly, not only with law enforcement but with privacy experts, security experts and, importantly, members of Parliament from different parties. I want to give full credit to my colleague, the hon. Minister of Public Safety, for the extraordinary level of engagement he undertook to get this bill in a better place.

During those consultations, we heard that it is absolutely essential that Canada create the framework that will allow us to move forward with these kinds of investigations, but that we do so in a way that respects the privacy rights of Canadians and ensures that the state does not commit some overreach in its investigations seeking to stop these heinous criminal acts, which people unanimously agree we must change the law to address.

This particular bill would achieve that balance, in my view, in precisely the correct way. The first feature of this bill that I want to draw attention to is that it would establish a process through which law enforcement could make a request for very basic information of electronic service providers. We are not talking about privileged information. We are not talking about advice from lawyers. We are not talking about health care details. In the first instance, where there is an existing criminal investigation and the police believe a crime has been or will be committed, this bill would enable the police to make a request that would confirm the service of an Internet service provider or a cellphone company that is tied to a particular phone number or IP address. This is not asking about the content of particular messages that may have been sent, but only whether a particular number or IP address exists on a particular network. Let me explain why this piece is of particular importance.

When a police officer is charged with investigating a heinous crime, looking into extortion rings or the distribution of child sexual exploitation and abuse material, they frequently receive tips from foreign law enforcement agencies or come to understand through tools that we have here in Canada that there are specific phone numbers or IP addresses that lead law enforcement to believe that a crime has been or will be committed. However, we do not have the ability to act swiftly in Canada to deal with the threats that we do know exist, including when we receive these tips from foreign law enforcement agencies.

Let us think about the position this puts law enforcement in. When they are seeking to look into an IP address just to determine which network it may be on, the current process could take months. It requires production orders where someone would go before the court only to establish whether a particular IP address belongs to one network over another. If they got it wrong on the first one, the process would of course begin again with the second and third. This would provide for an expeditious pathway for law enforcement to request whether a particular phone number or IP address is tied to a particular service provider.

In the event that the service provider responds affirmatively and says that IP address, which is part of an existing criminal investigation, is in fact on their network, the next step would allow law enforcement to apply to the court, based on a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been or will be committed, to have the network share the subscriber information, the name and address, that would be tied to that phone number or IP address.

When we think about this law simply keeping pace with changes to technology, we are not dealing with a broad-based overreach of information. This is the same information that used to be in our phone books. We do not see them around these days anymore, perhaps for obvious reasons. However, as a kid I remember it was common for a particular phone number to be listed next to a name and address. That information is not present when it comes to a person's IP address or modern cellphone numbers.

However, when the police believe that a particular IP address, through reasonably obtained information, is tied to criminal activity, we need to have the ability to understand what network that information rests upon and who the subscriber behind it is, which would allow the police to not only investigate who may be involved with the crime but, at the early stage of the investigation, save enormous law enforcement resources by ruling out certain actors from criminal investigations.

Let us keep in mind that throughout this process, even just to get the subscriber information, we are still requiring that law enforcement, under most circumstances, obtain judicial authorization before that information is shared. It is only where there are exigent circumstances, for example, where there is child exploitation being livestreamed, that there would be some provision for law enforcement to obtain this kind of information without first receiving judicial authorization.

This process I have laid out would position Canada as the jurisdiction amongst G7 counterparts, for example, that would contain the most serious privacy protections within a lawful access regime that comes to exist. It is important that, if we are going to ask this information of service providers, we also ensure that they maintain that information. One part of this bill is dedicated to the kind of information that those service providers would be required to hold. Now, we are mainly focused on large-scale networks to ensure that we understand the metadata behind messages. Again, we are not specifically requiring the individual content of every message, but only trying to identify what messages may have been sent at what time, for example. This information would help ground a police investigation that could lead, obviously, to the prevention of crime, or perhaps to the investigation and prosecution of a crime.

There are other elements of this bill that would also facilitate the co-operation of international criminal investigations when it comes to organized crime. The ability to operate seamlessly across borders creates opportunities for criminal organizations and puts obstacles in place for the states that are seeking to combat their heinous activity. This bill would create a clear legal pathway for Canada to make requests of its international partners, should we believe that foreign networks may have the same kind of information that I have described that would allow us to dig more deeply into investigations. It would also allow other states that are concerned about information that may be held in Canada to co-operate, through agreements that we reach with our allies, to ensure that we are doing our part to help protect the security interests of our closest friends and allies.

Let us just think about what this means for law enforcement. It means that they are going to have more streamlined investigations. It means that they are going to be able to more quickly deal with threats that are playing out in real time. It means they are going to be able to do a better job at preventing crime from taking place in the first place and at conducting full investigations, should a crime be committed, to ensure that the bad actors are indeed brought to justice at the end of the day.

It struck me, when I was speaking to law enforcement, when the bill was first tabled, just how seriously they treated this issue. We were joined by the deputy commissioner of the RCMP, the head of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the chief of police here in Ottawa. They not only described the urgency with which this issue must be addressed but lamented the decades-long process that it has taken successive governments of different parties to get here.

I want to read a quote from the head of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and commissioner of the OPP, Thomas Carrique. He said, “I engaged in the first conversation on lawful access in 1996—”

I was still in elementary school when this conversation began.

—when police leaders said we were at risk of going dark for access to digital evidence. We are now here, 30 years later, with the support of this government. This is a non-partisan issue. This is a public safety issue. From Internet child exploitation to extortions, to home invasions, to carjackings, to drive-by shootings, to hate motivated crime, to extremism. Lawful access is absolutely required and it's required now. So, on behalf of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, my thanks to this government and my hope that all parliamentarians will work together to ensure the safety and security of this country.

I want to give my thanks in particular to Murray Rankin, a former colleague in the House, for his engagement on this issue and for consulting with stakeholders to ensure we had a broad base of perspectives to understand what changes needed to be made. I want to thank Leah West, a professor with unique expertise in security and privacy issues, who helped guide some of this work and provided invaluable feedback to get the bill in the shape that it is today. I want to thank the many stakeholders and parliamentarians who shared their perspectives to help us refine the initial version of the bill that was put forward into one that does a better job of advancing both security and privacy interests at the same time.

We must continue to introduce criminal laws if we want to fight crime in our communities. It is also essential to work with everyone so that the government understands the perspectives of the various people who have contributed to the solutions proposed to improve the bill.

We have an opportunity to do something in the House this week that has been 30 years in the making, and that is to bring Canada's laws in accordance with a modern standard that would give law enforcement the tools they need to keep our community safe. It is hard to imagine a more important outcome to pursue than that.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. I take great interest in this subject matter, both as a lawyer who practised in this area and as the chief critic for the bill.

One of the things that is very important, I think, to the people who are looking at the bill, to the people who are scrutinizing the bill and to the people who have looked at the bill from an expert point of view is part 2. That is with respect to the retention of data.

I am coming at this from a legitimate point of inquiry. This is not meant to be a gotcha or anything. What I would like the minister to explain is this. The bill would require third parties, as in businesses and service providers, to retain certain information and to do things with that information.

Does he think that this is constitutionally compliant? How do we know that the government simply is not going too far here?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I take the question in the spirit in which it was intended. The question is an important one. The first element is whether the bill is constitutionally compliant. I believe it is. I am happy to discuss, in public or off-line, the details of my constitutional assessment of the bill.

I also think it is functionally necessary, and let me explain why. The core of the bill is to provide an opportunity for law enforcement to request particular information that would allow them to investigate criminal activity. They can only obtain that information if it exists. We can imagine the futility of the exercise in empowering law enforcement to make a request of a third-party service provider that would normally hold this information if there was no obligation for that information to be held in the first place. If the protections that we are seeking to include in the bill are not realized in the community, the bill will not be worth the paper on which it is written.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his speech. The Bloc Québécois has a question about the budget cuts. Of course, we agree that the government should give intelligence services and the police more power so that they can do their jobs, but at the same time, it is cutting the budget of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, or NSIRA, by 15%.

That seems rather inconsistent to us. On one hand, the government wants to grant more power, but on the other, it is cutting necessary funding for organizations such as the NSIRA, funding that may already be insufficient to carry out the work that these organizations need to do. I would like to hear the minister's thoughts on that.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her question. I would like to speak to that concern. I have a different perspective on the issue.

We proposed the bill and at the same time we invested in increasing the number of federal police officers in Canada. Last year's budget, for example, included investments to increase the RCMP workforce by 1,000 and border security staff by 1,000 as well.

We can make investments and ensure that police have the resources they need to enforce the law as it exists now. However, we also need to change the law to ensure that Canada is equipped to protect our communities. I am very pleased to keep the conversation going.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime came to Winnipeg and met with some interested individual community members where we talked about the issue of extortion. We also then met with the Winnipeg chief of police and members of the Winnipeg Police Association. All of them seemed to be of the opinion that we needed to get lawful access passed, and extortion was the issue that was constantly being raised at all three of those meetings.

From a personal perspective, I feel somewhat frustrated, in the sense that we could have had this legislation, in the form of Bill C-2, pass last year, but because of Conservative obstruction we were not able to do that. I am wondering if the minister could provide his thoughts in regards to the degree to which this legislation is necessary and wanted in our communities across Canada.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, my colleague pointed to members of a number of policing organizations whom he has met with in his community who have supported this bill. However, to be clear, it includes not only his local police forces but the National Police Federation, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the British Columbia Association of Chiefs of Police, the Vancouver Police Department, the Toronto Police Service, the Peel Regional Police and the Ottawa Police Service. I think people get the idea. One of the reasons that we see such strong support from law enforcement organizations is they are living with the reality of communities that could be made safer if this bill were passed in its current form.

When it comes to extortion in particular, we are hearing timelines to get through this process that sometimes stretch into months, 11 or 12 weeks, when in fact we can shrink that timeline to days or, in some instances, even hours to get the information they need. How that translates into better safety outcomes, which is what the law enforcement sector is really working towards, is that tougher criminal laws can punish bad actors after something has happened and this bill would sometimes allow agencies to prevent that bad act from taking place in the first instance.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this bill regarding lawful access certainly includes many improvements. I would like to see more, but I will speak to that later.

It occurs to me today, and I am sure the Minister of Justice has this on his mind, that in five days we mark six years since the largest mass killings in Canada, in Portapique, Nova Scotia. In the resulting inquiry, the Mass Casualty Commission report called for many critical measures to be pursued. When the Minister of Justice says we are going to hire 1,000 new RCMP officers, what springs to my mind is that they would all be inadequately trained, according to the Mass Casualty Commission. The commission called for an overhaul of the way that RCMP officers are trained. We are talking about a preventable tragedy.

Will the government implement the report from the Mass Casualty Commission?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has a deep history with and love for my home province of Nova Scotia.

I remember like it was yesterday, locking my family inside my basement for fear that there was an active shooter in my community. There are families I know personally that lost their loved ones that day, and we must heed the advice of the Mass Casualty Commission, which was led by one of the most esteemed justices in my lifetime, Chief Justice Michael MacDonald, who did exemplary work.

There are a number of recommendations that came out of that process, some of which have already been implemented or are being implemented, including through different pieces of criminal legislation I have tabled in the House since I have had the opportunity to serve in this particular position.

With respect to RCMP training, obviously that engages the responsibilities of one of my colleagues. I will continue to be an advocate for improving the quality of the training RCMP officers receive, particularly as we add additional personnel to help keep our communities safe. There are no easy solutions, but we should start with the work that has been done to inform those solutions, including the recommendations of the Mass Casualty Commission.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have four points that I am looking for reassurance on from the minister.

Number one, the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians did a whole report on lawful access. Of its findings, finding one found that the security and intelligence organizations in Canada do not systematically track the challenges they have with lawful access. Is there anything in this bill that would deal with that and the reporting aspects?

Number two, can the minister reassure Canadians, because, as per the NSICOP report, nobody wants a back door to this bill, that the bill would in no way enable a back door into encrypted communications here in Canada?

Number three, referring to finding seven, I see nothing in this bill that would address the intelligence and evidence dilemma. This is something we still need to fix. I assure the minister that I want the government to do more.

Finally, in recommendation six, NSICOP talks about a compensation model, if we are going to force CSPs to comply—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I need to interrupt the member to give the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada a chance to respond.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I expect I am going to run out of time in my response. I will offer a conversation to my colleague to ensure we can work together to advance the best version of this bill and the associated supports that would allow it to function in practice.

To address some of his concerns about a back door, this was a concern I heard about during the consultations. I believe that, with the ring-fencing of the information that can be provided and the combined strategy of GIC regulations and ministerial orders, with the oversight of the intelligence officer, we would actually be able to prevent that kind of harm. We will work with service providers to identify the best way of ensuring that they would be able to share this information. For large service providers, I do not think it is going to be too onerous of a responsibility.

I completely agree with the member on the intelligence and evidence divide. I am happy to work with my colleague on that. Given that I am out of time, I will make good of my commitment to finish this conversation off-line.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

We are only about an hour and a half into today, and this is my third time rising. What an honour it is to speak in the House of Commons, not only so frequently but also on matters of such import. We are dealing with really important issues today. Sometimes we deal with things that are quite performative in the House, but I can candidly say that, today, this is an issue of fairly significant importance.

Before I start, I want to recognize one of my very good friends, who is celebrating a birthday. Philip Lee is 48 years old. He is somebody I went to high school with and have known for the past 36 years now. We have had the opportunity to travel together, and he has been a wonderful friend. I would like to wish Phil all the best in the upcoming year.

I also want to recognize two people from Kamloops who accomplished something really significant. Johnny Hicks and Brady Milburn are part of the Denver Pioneers hockey club. That club is part of the NCAA. This weekend, the team was crowned the men's NCAA champion. I congratulate Johnny and Brady, who are both Kamloops products, and the whole Denver Pioneers team. Winning the NCAA championship is a tremendous accomplishment.

What brings us here today is Bill C-22, but we have to look at the past to inform how we got here. Bill C-2 was heralded as a cure-all, a panacea, if we will, to all the things that ailed the justice system. If only we could pass Bill C-2, everything would be fine.

Unfortunately, we have heard that before in the House. For years, we were told there were no issues with bail and sentencing, yet here we are now with a so-called new government, with many of the same cabinet ministers as the old government, and we are still dealing with the same issues.

I believe the minister referenced Commissioner Carrique talking about this type of legislation going way back to 1997. In fact, Conservatives put forward legislation on lawful access and were roundly mocked by Liberals. There is a famous quote, which I will not repeat here today, that stemmed from that very debate, and now we hear there is a rush to pass this legislation. I understand why lawful access is so important, but if there was a rush, then why were the Liberals opposed to it in the last decade? If there was a rush, then why has it taken the Liberal government 11 years to bring this bill forward? If there was a rush, then why was Bill C-2 so clumsily drafted?

We are here because of Bill C-2. In fact, if we look at portions of Bill C-2, we can see that we now have two bills that stem from it: Bill C-12 and Bill C-22. Both of those bills have dramatically remodelled what was contained in Bill C-2. In fact, Bill C-12 renovated so much of the text of Bill C-2 that it underwent further amendments at committee. I believe that my colleague, the shadow minister for immigration, the member for Calgary Nose Hill, did a great deal of work and produced a number of amendments at committee that were supported by the government or the Bloc and ultimately made it into the bill. That bill was a substantially better version of portions of Bill C-2. What do we have in Bill C-22? We have parts 14 and 15 of Bill C-2.

One of the things that always strikes me is how, in the past, Conservatives heard criticisms of omnibus bills. Bill C-2 is about as omnibus as it gets. I think it would have impacted something like 11 pieces of legislation. I do not want to be quoted on that because I cannot remember, but it would have impacted so many pieces of legislation and created pieces of legislation. It is well over 100 pages. It is an omnibus bill to the point where we now have two bills that have stemmed from it, and I think we probably have three or four distinct subject matters that are contained within Bill C-2 that still have not been addressed. The part of Bill C-2 we have before us now is the notion of lawful access.

I am going to focus on what is in Bill C-2, but I will also focus on some of the concerns I have. My hope is that the government will take these concerns legitimately and that we can proceed in the spirit of open and constructive dialogue.

My colleague for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound asked a question. He sits on the national security committee, commonly known as NSICOP, which provides secret and confidential advice to the Prime Minister. Those who are on the committee are not permitted to speak about anything that is discussed in committee, and would be subject to very significant penalties under criminal law if they did, but one thing my colleague and friend for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound spoke about was not only the necessity, from NSICOP's point of view, of lawful access, but also what should be in that legislation.

As Conservatives, we will always take the position that initiatives to help law enforcement, initiatives that allow those in law enforcement to do their jobs more easily, is something we will always be open to, but we have to make sure that those revisions to the law are both charter-compliant and consistent with the rights of privacy that we believe all Canadians should enjoy.

In my view, the government has, in the past, tried to overstep its boundaries at times. Bill C-2, in parts 14 and 15, is an example, as it goes so far as to use language like any threat or “any action”. We saw that in Bill C-8 as well. Bill C-2 essentially wants the government to have access to “any information”. Well, that goes quite too far. I was happy to see that the government, at the very least, went back to the drawing board.

Previously, a question from the government was about how the Conservatives could have just passed this in Bill C-2. Well, no, Conservatives would not have passed this in Bill C-2 because Bill C-2 is a poorly written piece of legislation. If Conservatives should have passed it in Bill C-2, then the government should have put forward a better piece of legislation, and I would go so far as to say that the government is admitting such because it has put forward Bill C-22. If Bill C-2 had no issues, if it did not, in the eyes of experts throughout the country, take significant liberties with privacy rights and things like that, then we would not be here today. The fact that the government has put forward Bill C-22 is itself an admission that Bill C-2, in its omnibus form, is, unfortunately, poorly drafted. That is what brings us here today.

What are some of the things in Bill C-2? There are three parts. The first part we are looking at is on tools for law enforcement to access digital information. I do not believe this is going to be a controversial part of the bill. Right now, based on decisions from the Supreme Court of Canada over roughly the last 12 years, law enforcement has to write a great number of court orders, which is how I would put it. Another way to put it is “judicial authorizations”, and some people call them “warrants”. They often take the form of a warrant or a production order, such as an order to a business saying, “Is Frank Caputo your subscriber, yes or no?” Then it would say, “Please produce all the Frank Caputo subscriber information.” Those might be two distinct questions. The problem is that this takes time.

Every time somebody has to go and get a court order, somebody has to write up that court order. They have to swear an affidavit in support of that court order. That takes time. As Conservatives, we recognize that when there are inefficiencies in the law, we need to address them. That is something that I do not think people take a great deal of issue with, but sometimes the devil is in the details and we need to ask further questions about those things.

The current process in regard to subscriber information is informed by the decision of Regina v. Spencer. Now, that decision came out in 2014. Spencer impacted the obtaining of production orders, just to put it colloquially. I am sure somebody is going to be looking at the headnote of Spencer and will compare my words. I am just talking generally here, not with the legal precision that I would in court. We are looking at getting production orders for just about everything for which a subscriber may have an expectation of privacy. That would change with Bill C-22.

Bykovets was another really key decision of the court, 10 years after Spencer. I believe Bykovets was about the expectation of privacy in a person's IP address. This was significant because most people do not know their IP address. A lot of people do not even know that they have an IP address. If they do know they have an IP address, they might not even know how they get it. When Bykovets said there is an expectation of privacy in that, I believe some legal scholars said, “Okay, that's interesting.”

I am not here to take potshots at decisions. I am here to recognize what the issue is. Whenever there is an expectation of privacy, then we need a search that is authorized by law through a court order. That meant a court order was required to get an IP address, even though finding an IP address was essentially akin to finding a phone number in the phone book. That was the analogy, as I recall. Most of us in the House will remember phone books. The member for Kenora—Kiiwetinoong probably does not, but he is probably the only one. The rest of us remember what it was like to get phone books. Let us face it, phone books were everywhere. Anybody could find anything. Anybody, as I understand it, with some semblance of digital acumen would be able to get an IP address, but nonetheless, the courts said there is an expectation of privacy.

These are all issues we are dealing with right now, within the current framework, that part 1 would address. As well, let us not forget that these are often offences against children and terrorist offences. Those are the two offences that are probably of the most interest to the legislators in the House, as in how we address those things.

Let us get into part 2 a little bit. I have skipped over some of part 1 because I want to give part 2 what it requires in terms of debate. Part 2 talks about ministerial orders. I am mindful of the fact that the Intelligence Commissioner now has a role to play within these ministerial orders.

The thing that I think we need to look at or that I would want more information on, as I craft my position and Conservatives craft our position on this, is that when there is a ministerial order that is secret, the government should be prepared to substantiate why it is secret and if it should be secret in every single instance. For instance, we spoke about NSICOP recently and how everything that is about national security will be top secret. There may be a place to say yes, if it is going to impact national security, but does that mean that every single ministerial order is going to be secret or should be secret?

Furthermore, when it comes to the Intelligence Commissioner, precisely what role would that person play, and how would their independent oversight impact a number of the concerns? One of the key areas that part 2 of Bill C-22 impacts is that it compels third parties to keep information. I want to be very clear here that the information, in my reading of the bill, would still require a warrant. I believe the way the minister explained it was that the information would be kept and then could be accessed. That is, the government does not simply receive the information, but it is present in order to be accessed.

It is my view that whenever the government tells anybody, including electronic service providers, that they must keep something, including metadata, it is something we need to ask questions about. This is probably one of the biggest issues. As I understand it, the bill's intent is to require that metadata be kept. That can include location services, but it is not meant to include the content. That is my reading of the bill. I think this needs to be closely scrutinized, and I look forward to asking more questions in the next two days of debate here on that very issue.

First, I would love to hear about the constitutionality of the requirement to have a third party keep something so the government can access it. I am not going to stand here and say whether that is or is not constitutional as it is not something I have studied thus far, but I think it is a question Canadians may have.

Second, on the idea of the requirement that a person's location be kept, who is going to keep that? Where is the data going to be stored? In my riding, we have a huge data storage facility. Are there going to be requirements as to how and where that data is stored and things like that?

This is a very complicated piece of legislation. I think somebody could read Bill C-22 three times and think they are starting to get a sense of what it actually says. When we deal with pieces of legislation that are quite intricate, obviously we need to develop our positions not only in a careful way but in a way that is sound. That is what I hope to do and what we as Conservatives hope to do.

Is there a mechanism by which web browsing history can be captured under Bill C-22? I think a lot of people would be alarmed if that were the case, from a privacy point of view. The issue of data retention is not a new one. One of the principal issues that I went up against, as somebody who prosecuted Internet offences against kids, was data retention. I was speaking with police officers today, and ISP addresses, in some cases, can actually disappear within as little as 30 days. I am not saying we should not be looking at that. We should absolutely be looking at that, but perhaps there should be limits.

If we are going to impact privacy rights, maybe that should be based on the offence. If we are looking at a sexual offence, perhaps the terminology we could look at is “an offence against the person”. All sexual offences are, by their very nature, violent, and I do not mean to dichotomize there. However, with respect to sexual offences, sexual offences against children or investigations into violence against the person, if there are concerns, perhaps there could be a narrowing so there would not be simply a fishing expedition to try to find an offence. Rather, we would be looking at all offences.

I see my time is coming to a close. Before I end, I want to acknowledge three people: Kelly Hunter, a baseball and softball umpire who was inducted into the Kamloops Sports Hall of Fame this weekend; Jessica Hewitt, a speed skater who was inducted into the Kamloops Sports Hall of Fame this weekend; and Glenn Armstrong, a football coach who was also inducted into the Kamloops Sports Hall of Fame. These three individuals have made dynamic contributions to the Kamloops area in sport, and I congratulate them.

With that, I will enjoy any questions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, within the legislation we will find substantive aspects that would protect the privacy of Canadians.

It was interesting when the member made reference to phone books. I remember the phone books quite well. In fact, the Who Called? book was based on addresses. One could go into an area with a list of addresses followed by a phone number and find out who was in a home.

We have advanced with the Internet and the digital era, and the need for law enforcement officers to have this important tool is absolutely critical.

Does the member agree that we need to modernize, and can we anticipate that the Conservative Party will be supporting Bill C-22?

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we always need to modernize in law. I actually spoke about it this morning when I was speaking to my private member's bill. The moment we stop pushing here and are complacent, in any law but especially in the criminal law, we have an issue. The law is often years behind when it comes to technology. The member will have heard me reference Spencer, which was a decision from 2014.

As Conservatives, we will always be open to the modernization of law. Right now, what we are doing and what we are evaluating in debate with respect to this bill is whether this is the right way to modernize the law. There is no issue that we all want less crime and that we all want the police to be able to do their jobs. The question that I have, and that we have, is whether Bill C-22 is the appropriate mechanism to do so.