Gary Anandasangaree Liberal
Bill passed the House, now waiting to be considered in the Senate, as of June 18, 2026
Subscribe to a feed (what's a feed?) of speeches and votes in the House related to Bill C-22.
This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament has also written a full legislative summary of the bill.
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.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-22s:
This is a computer-generated summary of the speeches below. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Bill C-22 seeks to modernize "lawful access" rules, equipping law enforcement with tools to investigate digital crimes. While proponents argue it closes crucial investigative gaps, the bill faces criticism regarding potential overreach, the threshold for accessing private data, and the scope of metadata retention requirements.
Liberal
Conservative
NDP
Bloc
Green
Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC
Mr. Speaker, earlier, I listened to the Minister of Justice talk about Bill C‑22 and say that he had carried out consultations. Bill C‑22 is a second attempt at legislation, following Bill C‑2. Observers say, however, that it only fixes some of the problems for which last year's bill was widely criticized.
Lastly, many observers and experts were not consulted. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC
Mr. Speaker, I would agree. Sometimes we get legislation before us in the House and we say that we can all agree to it or that some tweaks need to be made. This Parliament has worked a lot better than the last Parliament did in terms of moving forward things on which we can all agree.
In specific response to my colleague's question, there are certainly a number of questions that arise within this bill, particularly on part 2. If we are going to address this and develop our positions, I do not think it is a bad thing to ask the questions in debate and to develop our positions from there.
Alex Ruff Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my hon. colleague to build upon what he mentioned in his speech about his own experience as a public prosecutor, specifically around this data bit.
On the NSICOP committee, we found that without a general requirement for these CSPs to retain metadata, i.e., the address book, for a specific time, when a warrant is then sought, there is a possibility that that data is no longer available, which makes it very difficult with some of these very heinous crimes to put the alleged perpetrators away.
I do not want to get into the challenges of the bill as much as the requirement that we, as a Parliament, need to address this important piece of public safety here in Canada.
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for this very important question. Evidence is required in any sort of prosecution. What my colleague is asking about, in my view, is how we deal with the gaps in evidence that exists now but may not exist tomorrow. That is essentially what I take his question to be.
NSICOP has said there is a gap. For instance, I just mentioned that 30-day gap between ISP addresses and how long they go. This is clearly something that Canadian law has to address. It is an issue that we often have to overcome in prosecuting anything: Where is the data or the evidence now? It is crucially important for us, as a House, to consider that. What is the correct form, though?
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, there are many issues on which the member and I do not agree, but I think we do agree that there has never been anything like this not only in this Parliament but in any Parliament of Canada. A single bill, originally Bill C-2, the strong borders act, was so universally panned and attacked by so many civil society groups, a coalition of more than 300, that the bill then had to morph from Bill C-2 to Bill C-12 and now, to try to get to warrantless access, to Bill C-22. There has never been a course of legislation like this.
I would ask my hon. colleague, with whom I agreed on many of his attempts to improve the bill in committee, does he think we are getting closer? We have at least gotten rid of the original provisions that post office employees could open the mail without a warrant. The member for Winnipeg North may be the only member in this place who laments Bill C-2—
Lawful Access Act, 2026Government Orders
The Deputy Speaker Tom Kmiec
I am going to interrupt the member.
Before I go to the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, I think it is incumbent on all members when they are joining the chamber using Zoom to ensure that they are in a place where there is nobody else on camera or visible in the background for the dignity and decorum of this place.
With that being said, I will turn it over to the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands referenced my colleague from Winnipeg North and how much we have debated whether Canada Post can open people's mail, so I am not going to get into that for what would probably be the 32nd time or so.
I do agree with my colleague on the point of Bill C-2 morphing into Bill C-12 and now morphing into Bill C-22, and this tacit acknowledgement of, “Wow, we really got it wrong. Not only did we get it wrong on one thing, but we got it wrong on multiple things because we are not even pursuing Bill C-2 as a government.” This is the Liberals' point of view. “We got Bill C-12 right enough for it to pass and now we are trying to get Bill C-22 right enough for it to pass.”
When it comes to part 1 of this bill, what I do notice is that, for instance, the police or a state actor cannot go and get information from just anybody, a general practitioner, Facebook or groups like that. It is strictly restricted to telecoms, so we can see the government really pulling back on what it was seeking from this. I think that is an acknowledgement that Bill C-2 really did miss the mark.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to my original question that I asked the member because I think it is important.
The member and the Conservatives have now had a couple of weeks to look at the legislation itself, but a lot of it originates out of Bill C-2. They have had the opportunity to really get a good understanding of the direction the government is going on lawful access.
Can we expect the Conservative Party of Canada to support lawful access?
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-22 is a complicated bill. Bill C-2 was a dog's breakfast, to put it mildly. I do not know that I would be saying that we should build on anything from it.
We are looking at the bill and the member will know when we have our position. We are going to scrutinize this bill and give it the scrutiny it deserves on behalf of Canadians.
Alex Ruff Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Mr. Speaker, when NSICOP studied this bill, one of the recommendations the committee discovered was that there should be a national authority established and identified for lawful access and intercept initiatives across Canada because obviously, we have multiple police jurisdictions, CSIS and different organizations.
Is the member aware of anywhere in the legislation where that requirement is identified, yes or no?
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC
Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge, we have a review period that is required after three years, which is part 3 of the legislation. I would have to go back and look through this very lengthy bill to see whether there is something like that. Perhaps that is something that could be addressed through amendments.
I look forward to hearing my colleagues speak on this bill as well.
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Mr. Speaker, I was rather pleased when I reviewed Bill C-22, because I think it is better than what was proposed in Bill C-2 last year. However, I am not sure that it meets all of the necessary conditions for it to come into force.
It will come as no surprise that the Bloc Québécois is also not sure whether this bill should come into force. Honestly, I cannot tell my colleagues this morning what position the Bloc will take when it comes time to vote. We are still thinking about it and taking into consideration the comments, suggestions and criticisms we are hearing from civil society and others. While many people recognize the merits of many of the provisions of Bill C-22, others are concerned about other aspects of the bill.
This weekend, I read a New York Times article that a colleague sent to me about a recently developed software program that can hack into the databases of banks, governments and businesses. This software or AI could be put up for sale and sold to the highest bidder. We learned about this a few weeks ago, and the situation is constantly evolving, day by day.
Access to personal information is a major issue. It may well be the most important issue that this honourable House will have to address during the 45th Parliament. However, at this point, there is not a lot of data available to us. As I said, the situation is evolving day by day. What seemed impossible six months ago has now been a reality for months, and we are now grappling with what has existed for just a few weeks. Needless to say, we have no idea what will exist in six months or a year.
Despite all that, we are about to pass a bill that purports to regulate what will happen in six months, a year or 10 years. It is going to be quite difficult to draft a bill that includes sufficient measures to protect the entire population against various problems. It will also need to include sufficient regulations to protect individuals' right to privacy and all the rights recognized by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In saying all of that, I still have not really said anything; I know that and I am fully aware of it. However, I want everyone to recognize the gravity of the situation, the importance of this bill and our lack of tools in the face of all the objections that are being raised.
In this context, we must keep a watchful eye on the process we are about to implement. I am thinking in particular of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency. That agency is a good thing. However, when I read the bill, I noted that the agency will only receive unredacted reports after the redacted reports are tabled. That means decisions will be made and regulations will be adopted by the government without the House having a say and without the agency, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and all the other organizations that exist to protect people's rights and freedoms being able to look at them.
Will we not end up making matters worse? I am not saying that is the case, but I would say it is one of our main concerns regarding Bill C-22. Part 3 stipulates that Bill C-22 must be studied in committee and reviewed after three years. That is good news. The question is whether a review after three years is sufficient, given how quickly these situations evolve. I am not convinced that it is. If Bill C-22 is referred to committee, this is something that will need to be examined. Will the government be open enough to discussing the matter with the opposition parties and agree on a safeguard mechanism that is sufficiently well defined? That is the question.
I just want to digress for a moment. Today, by-elections are being held in three ridings, two in Toronto and the other in the riding of Terrebonne, Quebec. What will the results of those by-elections be? I do not want to make any assumptions and no one has a crystal ball, but one thing is certain: The situation of the current government, which until now has been a minority government, could be very different as of tomorrow. What impact will that have on the safeguards that we are working on? Will the government still be as open to their political opponents when they are in a minority situation as it was when they had the upper hand over the government? I do not know.
Until now, one committee member, regardless of their party affiliation, could tip the balance one way or the other, since the committees are often, although not always, made up of a Liberal chair, with four Liberals on one side, four Conservatives on the other and a Bloc member. That means that the Bloc member could hold the balance of power in committee and could decide between the Liberals' position and the Conservatives' position. Will this situation continue after tomorrow, once the by-elections are over and we know the results? I do not know.
I do not recall whether it was in the news today or yesterday, but I have to say that I was pleased to read that, according to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, the government would continue to work closely with the opposition, or at least respect the positions taken by the opposition, and that this would continue. I appreciated that openness. I just hope that that is what will actually happen, because if we end up with a majority government that plans to ignore the positions advocated by the opposition parties, then the situation could become very troubling, especially since we have already passed bills such as Bill C-15, which, in my humble opinion, granted the government excessive powers, and we have before us today Bill C-22, which could be similar in nature.
Is it wise to pass Bill C-22? Perhaps, perhaps not. As I was saying, there are some positive aspects. We need to address the issue of access to information. I understand that we need to get up to speed with what is being done elsewhere in the world. That is an argument that has come up a few times. However, when we take a closer look, it is not necessarily clear that Canada is in such a bad position compared to what is being done in the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom or elsewhere in the world. We therefore need to examine this closely. Would Bill C-22 not put us in a position that is abusive—or at the very least excessive—compared to what is being done elsewhere? That may or may not be the case.
One thing is certain: No matter what side of the fine line we stand on, mechanisms for protecting every person's rights and freedoms are vital. In my opinion, Bill C‑22 does not place a high priority on that.
The powers conferred on the agency, which I believe are largely cosmetic at this point, require careful examination. It might be nice to see words like “protection agency” in the bill, but in reality, if this agency is informed of what was done—right or wrong—only after the fact, what can it really do besides say that it would have disagreed had it been consulted? A fat lot of good that will do.
It might be a good idea to do the review before things happen, not after. The regulations that will be made should be examined, if not by the House as a whole, then at least by independent agencies responsible for protecting the rights of all citizens. I think these issues deserve to be studied.
The bill also sets a threshold of “reasonable grounds to suspect,” rather than “reasonable grounds to believe”, which would need to be met before certain investigations can be authorized. This distinction may seem semantic, but it is actually quite significant, since “reasonable grounds to suspect” represents a significantly lower threshold than “reasonable grounds to believe.” Granting investigative powers based on mere suspicion could amount to a blank check. The threshold for “reasonable grounds to believe” was already relatively low. Lowering it further is cause for concern. If the bill is considered in committee, I look forward to hearing what organizations responsible for protecting rights and freedoms have to say about this. For my part, I find this issue troubling.
The Intelligence Commissioner's approval of regulations is also an important factor. However, will the commissioner be allowed to intervene at an early stage? A veto power might be excessive, but at the very least, the authority to observe, critique and make recommendations would be essential. However, I do not believe that the current version of Bill C-22 offers much hope in this regard.
In my view, both the agency and the Intelligence Commissioner, which are essentially the only two independent bodies with the power to reassure the public and protect each individual's rights and freedoms, should be consulted before decisions are made to avoid jeopardizing everyone's rights and freedoms.
Personally, I have nothing to hide. However, the idea that the authorities might be able to access my emails or financial information strikes me as intrusive and makes me feel uncomfortable and unsafe. No one is completely comfortable with that level of surveillance. Everyone is concerned about an Orwellian dictator, even though some say that we reached that point some time ago and that we have to stop being afraid of that. That may be true, but Bill C-22 proposes giving such a dictator even more power, which may alarm many.
We need to focus on how we are going to protect individual rights and freedoms. We all know that our lives are already quite public. Almost everyone is on social media in one way or another. These platforms contain a lot of information that would otherwise be personal and confidential. Every individual chooses to post pictures, text or documents on those social networks. They choose that kind of exposure, and that is perfectly fine. I understand that.
Bill C-22 goes even further, however. When we start talking about banking information, emails, and all that, it becomes a cause for concern. Although I believe that law enforcement and government agencies must be given the means to protect us from malicious intrusions by foreign agents or organized crime, or from all kinds of attacks that may be launched against our bank accounts or other assets, and although I believe that the government must take measures to protect us from this, I also believe that the government must take steps to ensure that, in doing so, it does not infringe on our right to privacy. This is the fine and delicate balance we are currently trying to strike: the balance between protecting ourselves from organized crime and foreign interference and protecting ourselves from potentially abusive intrusions into our privacy without any safeguards in place.
I would also like to hear from the Ethics Commissioner. We will see what he has to say if the bill is referred to committee. The Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service are all institutions that must take a close look at Bill C‑22. While it may be an improvement over, or more acceptable than, Bill C‑2, Bill C‑22 is nonetheless questionable and troubling. It must be examined thoroughly. I will leave it at that and say that we in the Bloc Québécois are continuing our reflection in the hope that we will be able to find a sound position to take on these serious issues.
Lawful Access Act, 2026Government Orders
Winnipeg North Manitoba
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, in his comments, the member made me reflect on some of the debate we had on Bill C-9. One of the issues we had when dealing with the hate legislation was the fact that the official opposition, through social media and emails, providing information that was definitely misleading, which ultimately took away from the true value of Bill C-9.
When we talk about this particular bill on lawful access, Bill C-22, it is important to recognize that what we are really talking about is confirmation of service. It is not like the police can go to Rogers and say that they want to know how much money a person has in their bank account or ask for email information. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on making sure information is accurate.
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I must say that I have doubts about the premise. I share his concern. Bill C‑22 should not be used to embark on a witch hunt and make false claims. However, I do not agree that Bill C‑22 could not ultimately be used to allow individuals or organizations to gain access to our bank accounts. I think that that is already a reality, with or without Bill C‑22. That is already possible.
I am concerned about the passage of the bill. Once again, I agree with his statements about how it is important to not vilify Bill C‑22 and engage in a false debate. However, it is also important to not naively close our eyes and let things go.
Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yet another impressive speech. He mentioned in his remarks that one of the factors being cited is that Canada is lagging behind internationally, particularly in comparison to countries such as the United States, New Zealand, Australia, the United Kingdom, France and Italy.
Can my colleague talk about what could have been done or whether there are good practices elsewhere that Canada could have emulated instead of potentially violating people's privacy?