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

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

Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear. Since June of last year, the government, in one form or another, has been explaining, and asking for, lawful access. Canada is the only country in the Five Eyes that does not have lawful access.

The Conservative Party made a commitment to defeat and kill Bill C-2, which had lawful access. Therefore, we have brought forward Bill C-22. There have been a number of hours of debate on this legislation, and that is the reason why I believe the Conservative Party's intent is to filibuster the legislation.

If that is not the case, can the member give us an indication as to whether or not he would like to see the bill pass second reading before the end of this—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for York—Durham.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I clearly said in my remarks, the goal here is to strike the right balance between the interests of protecting public safety and suppressing crime and the protection of Canadians' right to privacy, the right to not be intruded on by the government or its agents.

Contrary to what the hon. member said, the purpose of this place is to debate those issues. We are here, once again, because the government has consistently failed, over 10 years, to bring forward a piece of legislation that adequately balances those rights.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech. He raised some very valid points in many respects.

I would like to know what he thinks of a government that wants to grant more powers to police and intelligence services but that has just slashed the budget of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, which is supposed to monitor those services, to save a few pennies.

How can the government say that those people need more powers while also cutting this agency's funding?

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my Bloc colleague has, of course, pointed out a contradiction in the government's position. I also want to thank the Bloc for pointing out, in their earlier speeches on this, the lower threshold of suspicion in part 1 that the government introduced. This is exactly why we have this debate. That is a question for the government to answer, why they have this contradiction: on the one hand, wanting more power but, on the other hand, reducing law enforcement's resources to exercise those powers.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from York—Durham for his excellent dissection of Bill C-22, part 2.

The Liberals have been trying to assure us that judicial oversight will be an important part of this bill. Does he see that as still being retained inside the bill as it is written?

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the short answer is no. I do not see that as being a robust portion of part 2 of the bill, in part because much of what the minister would do and the regulations that would be made would be done in secret.

Moreover, the provision of sending ministerial orders to the Information Commissioner is, in my view, somewhat misguided. The Information Commissioner deals with national security issues and signals intelligence, among other things. That individual is not tasked with protecting Canadians' privacy rights. That balance is not there in the review.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the government omitted to properly consult the Privacy Commissioner. It is a curious thing, why they did that. Would the member support an amendment to the bill to, prior to it receiving full authority, have the bill brought before the Privacy Commissioner for consultation and recommendations?

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, of course, the opposition is always open to considering all reasonable amendments to the bill. At the very least, I would like to hear what the Privacy Commissioner's view is on the bill. Whether the Privacy Commissioner could provide that via testimony in committee or via a public letter to members of the House of Commons, I would welcome those comments.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Development)]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to speak about Bill C-22, the lawful access bill. There is no issue more pressing in the law enforcement legal framework than lawful access, a tool that is essential for police and prosecution to do the work to expeditiously catch people accused of many violent crimes.

The world around us is becoming increasingly digital and networked. Much of our day-to-day business communication and overall lives relies on the Internet. Smart phones, emails and instant messaging apps easily and instantly transcend provincial and national borders. Unfortunately, this also means that malicious actors, such as organized crime groups and violent extremists, can exploit the borderless nature of cyberspace for their own benefit. Canada's law enforcement agencies and CSIS need modern tools to help keep communities safe. We must close the capacity gap in current legislation that prevents law enforcement and CSIS from having lawful access to data, and must ensure that they can properly execute their mandates and protect Canadians.

“Lawful access” is a term we will hear a lot in association with the bill, but let us be clear what it really means. Lawful access covers the tools and authorities used to legally obtain certain information, data or communication during investigations. This information is often essential to generating leads on national security threats and serious criminal activities, such as extortion and organized crime, as well as to identifying and prosecuting the people involved.

For decades, law enforcement and CSIS have had to operate without a legal framework requiring electronic service providers, ESPs, to develop and maintain lawful access capabilities. The current legal framework dates from before the invention of cellphones and has not kept pace with the rapid advances in technology. This is important because law enforcement and intelligence investigators need basic subscriber information, such as a legal name or an address, to identify or exclude suspects, particularly during preliminary stages.

Bill C-22 would establish a legal framework requiring electronic service providers to have the capability to respond to legally authorized requests, such as a warrant or a production order, while respecting protecting privacy interests and fundamental rights. It would introduce provisions to support law enforcement as it cracks down on crime in an increasingly complex technological landscape where the vast majority of evidence is online or electronic.

Law enforcement groups have sounded the alarm about the obstacles they encounter in their investigations. For instance, imagine a person getting a call from an extortionist demanding money and threatening their family if they do not pay. They call 911, tell the police who called and show them the messages they received. Under the current framework, it would take weeks or even months for the police to find out basic information such as who or where the call came from.

This is just one example of the many challenges law enforcement officials face in obtaining the information they need. Often they do not know which service provider holds the customer account associated with the subscriber information, which also means they do not know whom to serve with a production order. This challenge currently stalls and delays real-world investigations. In many cases, law enforcement is required to seek multiple judicial authorizations to seek very basic information from different service providers, just to confirm which service provider's phone number or IP address the call was made from.

The current framework causes significant, unnecessary and potentially harmful delays. Timely access to the basic information is crucial in all stages of an investigation and can mean the difference between securing evidence and allowing criminals to slip through law enforcement's fingers.

Here is another example. Police are aware that a provider holds certain information, but the company cannot provide it because their systems do not possess the capability to do so, as there is no legal requirement to carry such capabilities. We have heard many stories of law enforcement tracking a missing child or attempting to stop a terrorist attack, knowing which service provider to obtain the information from but being stonewalled by the provider's lack of lawful access capabilities.

We cannot hope to fully protect Canadians and our communities if law enforcement and CSIS are unable to do their jobs. For this reason, Bill C-22 would introduce new legislation to close that gap, whereby certain ESPs would need to develop and maintain the technological capabilities to respond to production orders. To be clear, this aspect of the legislation intentionally and explicitly would not allow for backdoor access or any direct access for law enforcement or CSIS into electronic service provider systems. A legal authority to access that information would still always be required.

Bill C-22 proposes two ways by which an ESP would be asked to develop and maintain lawful access capabilities. First, those designated as core providers, such as traditional telecom companies, would have to abide by specific requirements set out in regulations. Second, the Minister of Public Safety could issue a ministerial order to develop specific capabilities based on operational needs as new technologies develop.

We have heard the concerns from parliamentarians and stakeholders around privacy and oversight. I want to reassure Canadians that Bill C-22 includes safeguards so ESPs would not have to abide by any demands that would introduce systemic vulnerabilities in electronic protections, such as encryption breaking or backdoor access. This would also require that the Minister of Public Safety obtain the approval of the intelligence commissioner before a ministerial order is valid, and it would be subject to further review by the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency.

Bill C-22 is about removing harmful barriers that impede active investigations and delay justice as well as put Canadians in harm's way. It is about bringing our legislation up to date with modern technologies and those of our closest allies and partners. It is about ensuring that alleged extortionists, child predators, cybercriminals, hostile state actors and organized criminal networks have nowhere to hide.

Law enforcement leaders have been very clear with us. I will quote the National Police Federation, which said, “For frontline police officers, the ability to lawfully identify who owns an online account is often the first step in investigating crimes such as extortion, child sexual exploitation, organized crime, violent offences, and national security threats. Bill C-22 will help ensure that longstanding court orders and warrants remain effective in a modern digital environment.” They need us to act now to eliminate these gaps in our legislation. I am urging hon. members to support the bill for the crucial public safety measure it would be.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite mentioned several times that law enforcement agencies are asking for this, that the RCMP and other law enforcement bodies are asking for this, and I would agree that they are. I went to an information session on the Hill that was hosted by the Minister of Public Safety, and those folks said very clearly that the government got it wrong in Bill C-2, that it did not do its proper due diligence, that there were some things that had to be changed, and that the government needed to improve it in Bill C-22. Would the member not agree that vigorous attention to and dissecting of the bill is important and that debate in the House is important as well as in committee?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we could have amended Bill C-2. It was the second bill introduced in the current session of the House, which shows the importance the government places on law enforcement and getting the tools that are needed. It was after those consultations that the government listened to, and that is why we have Bill C-22 now. Therefore, now that those consultations have been done, I urge that we pass the bill as fast as possible so we give the tools to law enforcement agencies.

I also met with the commissioner, the deputy commissioner and the regional police chiefs of all the areas around my riding, and all of them have stated that we need lawful access and need it now.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, members will recall that Bill C‑2 was split, in part because certain aspects of the bill were unacceptable. Today, it is back as Bill C‑22.

One unacceptable part of Bill C‑2 was that it used reasonable suspicion, rather than reasonable belief, to allow authorities to obtain information simply by getting a court order. A number of experts spoke out about this and told us that it could be a slippery slope.

I would like to know why the government is coming back with the same threshold as before and whether the government is open to amendments to perhaps compromise and rethink this threshold.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the threshold is to get subscriber information. The first step when someone gets a call or a threat is to find out who the number belongs to. It used to be very easy. We could pick up a phone book-like thing in the library that had every number in it. It used to be published every year. When somebody called, we could tell where the number came from. The world has changed drastically from that. We are now on VPNs. Even normal office phones are. Land lines do not actually communicate with a direct line. They go over the Internet.

Getting the subscriber information is the first and fundamental step so law enforcement can take subsequent steps to get production orders to tap phones. Those would come after, but the initial step of finding out who is calling, where the information is coming from, is vital.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the secretary of state's comments, and I thank him for coming to Winnipeg North to deal with the issue of extortion. Bill C-22 would deal with it in a significant way. Could he provide further comment on that specific issue?