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

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, to that point, if the government was so sure that it got the balance right, why did it not ensure the Privacy Commissioner could provide their views and recommendations on Bill C-22?

The government was sent packing on Bill C-2 because of overreach, because of the omnibus bill and because Canadian public civil society organizations, civil liberties organizations and privacy advocates all said that the bill was wrong and it was an overreach. The government went back to the drawing board and came back with Bill C-22 on lawful access, but it missed a huge step, making sure the independent officer is incorporated into that consultation process. Why did the government exclude that step?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear my colleague's opinion about the risk of mistakes or of any issues that this might raise for gender-diverse individuals. Does she have any concerns about abuses by authorities?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, of course I am very concerned that there could be overreach.

That is an alarm bell that civil liberties organizations and privacy advocates have actually rung, saying that this is an overreach. They are very worried that instead of targeting a specific act or a specific investigation, this applies to all Canadians across the board as a generalized collection of metadata, of retention and of it being kept in place for a year, with no specific ties to a potential criminal activity. Those are real concerns.

The government needs to make sure the balance is right, and hence the requirement, in my view, to ensure the Privacy Commissioner's views and recommendations are incorporated into Bill C-22.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Vancouver East for sounding the alarm on Bill C-22. As she has mentioned, there are many civil liberties groups speaking out against this bill, like they have done with the majority of Liberal bills that have passed

How urgent is it for the Liberals to amend their bill to make sure that they are upholding the charter rights of people across Canada?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on the issue around surveillance, indigenous people bear the brunt of it. We just recently learned that there was secret surveillance of indigenous leaders and indigenous community members. This is happening right now, and we are just learning about it. As we talk about expanding surveillance activities and capabilities, we absolutely need to make sure all the checks and balances are in place and that our basic rights enshrined in the charter are protected.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-22, An Act respecting lawful access, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to join the debate around Bill C-22, the lawful access act, 2026.

To figure out where we are at, we have to figure out how we got here. I think any conversation around giving law enforcement agencies better tools to be better able to fight crime is a good thing. However, the devil is always in the details, as people say. With respect to this bill, there are some concerns coming from our side that we would like to flesh out at committee.

At first blush, there are some important aspects we need to ensure are in the bill. I have had conversations with some of our colleagues on NSICOP and the people looking into cybersecurity. Canada is somewhat behind when it comes to giving our police officers those tools, so the bill is timely.

Conservatives believe in law and order and have always stood for common-sense measures to keep Canadians safe. For the past decade, we have been urging the Liberals to reverse their failed policies and restore safety to our communities. I can say that, in many cases, in my home city of Regina, crime comes up very often when we are on the doorsteps or at events. Crime has continued to skyrocket under the Liberals, whether that be violent crimes, sexual assaults or gun crimes. Despite all of their failed attempts when it comes to the gun grab, gun crime continues to rise in this country, and that is because of failed Liberal policies. They have had chances over the last 11 years to implement different policies, but they continued to implement policies that have failed.

Last fall, the Liberals put forward a bill similar to this, Bill C-2, which fell short when we looked at protecting Canadians, while it overreached in other areas. I think that is one thing we will come back to time and again when it comes to Bill C-22. There are three parts to the bill. With respect to the first part, I think there is some agreement it is needed for law enforcement. However, the second and third parts come into question. The fact is the government has shown government overreach time and again. We need look no further than the implementation of the Emergencies Act, when bank accounts were frozen. I gave a speech when the act came into effect; I talked a lot about government overreach. That is one of the concerns we would have when reviewing this bill at committee.

Bill C-2, to give a bit of reference to the people watching in TV land, had to do with limiting the use of cash and opening mail without oversight. It demanded that any service provider, including hospitals, financial institutions and even dry cleaners, disclose user data without judicial overview. Therefore, I would say the parent bill to Bill C-22 is Bill C-2. The Liberals have taken some of those very poor policies out of C-22.

We support giving law enforcement agencies the tools they need to combat crime and keep communities safe, particularly as threats become more sophisticated in the digital age. At the same time, these powers must be accompanied by strong safeguards, clear limits and independent oversight to protect the rights and freedoms of Canadians. We are carefully reviewing the legislation we have talked about to ensure the Liberals do not repeat past failures when it come to government oversight. At committee, Conservatives would be able to hear from many experts to further evaluate and improve this legislation. We will continue to stand for common-sense solutions that protect the individual freedoms, privacy and safety of Canadians.

I have listened to some my colleagues talk about some of the concerns they have with respect to Bill C-22. I think one of my colleagues talked about what modernization and privacy objectives should be in the bill. The world has changed how Canadians live, communicate, bank, work and raise families. That has all moved online rapidly and permanently, but our laws have not kept pace with that reality. That is why it is important to be clear about what this debate is and what it is not. We are not here to debate legislation that allows law enforcement to spy on innocent, law-abiding Canadians without oversight; that is not what the bill proposes. The core issue before us is how Parliament protects Canadians in an increasingly digital country while respecting the rights and freedoms that define us.

Public safety is the most obvious concern. Canadians are being targeted every day by online fraud, identity theft, extortion and exploitation. Seniors have lost life savings. Families have had their identities stolen. Children have been coerced and harmed in many ways made possible by anonymity and speed online.

In the communities we live in, we have conversations about online activity with our children. The Internet child exploitation, ICE, unit comes into schools across Saskatchewan to explain why it is so very important to be careful with anything online, making sure that our children know that there are some real safety concerns when it comes to online material and people trying to get their information online.

On the first day of school, we hear police officers comment to never take a picture of one's kid in front of their school or say what grade they are in or where they go to school. That has changed a lot in our country; it is important to be safe when we are online. Those conversations happen often in my house. Hopefully they happen in many houses, so that children are very careful with what they are doing online and are making sure they know who they are talking to when they are online.

I will reference a couple of news articles about some of the concerns that are out there when it comes to Bill C-22: “Canada's lawful access bill risks making Canada's telecoms and internet providers, as well as phones and laptops, more vulnerable to hackers, including foreign intelligence services with malevolent intent, tech and legal specialists are warning.”

That is from The Globe and Mail, dated March 16, 2026, by Marie Woolf. I think that this is something we can review when it comes to online protections. When it comes to the bill, when it goes to committee, we can very definitely review what there is for government oversight when it comes to warrants and things like that.

The article reads, “Bill C-22, introduced by Public Safety Minister...last week, would require telecoms, internet companies and other digital service providers to make changes to their systems to give surveillance and monitoring capabilities to the police....” That would potentially give hackers the opportunity to access that information.

That is what we are concerned about when it comes to housing Canadians' data and information and where that is going to be housed. We want to make sure that this is secure. Hackers can get more data if it is located in one spot.

What it comes down to is that the Conservative point of view is that we understand that there are some tools that law enforcement need to make Canadians safer online. We are just making sure that there is that proper oversight, so that it does not allow for hackers to access that information more quickly when it comes to people's online information.

There are some civil liberties groups that do have concerns. Michael Geist, the University of Ottawa's Canada research chair in Internet and e-commerce law, said that “concerns regarding vulnerabilities and scope creep are real.” He said, “Without greater precision, this could be used to target user devices or ultimately make networks less secure”, as we have mentioned before.

David Pierce, vice-president of government relations at the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, said that “his members, which include Canadian telecoms, understand the need for law enforcement to have a lawful access regime. But he said ensuring that encryption is not compromised, and data are not made vulnerable are key concerns of the business community.”

We do have some concerns out there when it comes to the bill. That is why it will be incumbent on us to have thorough witnesses and have a lot of time dedicated to the bill in committee, so that people come forward who do have concerns regarding the scope creep and the storing of data, making sure that it is not a vulnerability, and so that hackers cannot have access to that. We have been far behind on bills like this because of inaction by the Liberal government. That is why, over the last 11 years, we have seen skyrocketing crime rates. Hopefully, the bill can help give some of the tools to police officers, tools that they have asked for.

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

Mr. Speaker, I disagree wholeheartedly with the member. We had an election and a new Prime Minister less than a year ago. Literally weeks after that, we introduced Bill C-2, which brought to the House lawful access. Canada is the only country of the Five Eyes that does not have lawful access. It has been a priority for the government. We have been trying to push it through, just like we did with the bail reform legislation and so forth. I believe it has the checks in place to ensure privacy while, at the same time, dealing with national security, child sexual exploitation, issues like extortion and violent crime. This is all good stuff within the legislation.

I would like to ask a very straightforward question. Does the member support the principle of lawful access?

I am encouraged to see that he seems to be—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Regina—Lewvan.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, there are a few things I disagree with. First of all, the government is a tired, old government, an 11-year-old one. It is not one year old. It has the same faces in the same places. Changing one person does not make a different government.

I would say that, yes, if members listened to my speech, they would realize there are some things in the bill we do agree on. I have been listening to law enforcement, which has asked for parts of the bill. My only fear, which we have seen time and time again with the tired, 11-year-old government, is government overreach. It wants big government and small citizens, and that is not something I can agree with.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell my colleague that it is a good thing the government did not have a majority when it introduced Bill C‑2 because that bill was a disaster. Everyone agreed on this. People from all kinds of industries agreed that privacy protection was an issue.

Now, as far as Bill C‑22 is concerned, yes, we see an improvement and, yes, the government has finally held consultations. Still, there is something that is bothering me. The National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, or NSIRA, was given a secondary role. Australia gives its oversight agency a leading role, yet Canada has decided to notify NSIRA 12 months after the fact, when it submits its report. What is more, the government has three months to submit that report. This means that some events will not be reviewed by NSIRA until a year and a half has passed.

Does my colleague think that giving more power to NSIRA, whose mandate is to monitor compliance with legislation, would be a good amendment?

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more with the member. The government would be a total disaster if it had a majority more often.

NSICOP is a very important committee, and the committee members it has would do a very good job of reviewing and getting material in a more timely fashion. That is a very good suggestion.

When it comes to reviewing this bill at committee, I hope every party takes a serious look at it and brings forward good amendments to make it stronger. This could ensure that we have the best bill possible going forward and that there is not scope creep and government overreach, so Canadians and their data can be protected and law enforcement agencies can have the tools they need to make sure they are finding the criminal factor online.

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we all know that Liberals' soft-on-crime bills have given a free pass to criminals, and Canadians are suffering every day. We all agree on keeping Canadians safe, but not at the expense of their freedoms.

Could the member explain why Bill C-22 would not strike the right balance between public safety and the fundamental right to privacy?

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we have to take the bill to committee to make sure that people's privacy is protected. We have heard time and time again, as I have mentioned, from law enforcement agencies that they need more tools to ensure they can catch the online criminal element faster and make sure they can protect citizens and their data when they are online.

My big fear, and the fear of many people on this side of the House and in other parties, is continual government overreach and making sure that citizens' privacy is protected. We will fight day and night to make sure that it happens.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of security conscious Canadians in the vigilant riding of Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke to speak to Bill C-22, a bill respecting lawful access.

The Conservatives support giving law enforcement the tools it needs to combat crime and keep communities safe. At the same time, these powers must be accompanied by strong safeguards, clear limits and independent oversight to protect Canadians' rights and freedoms. Conservatives support sending the bill to committee for careful review.

The bill represents a major test for the Prime Minister and his ill-gotten majority. Had Canadians collectively decided to actually elect a majority government last year, we would not even be debating this bill. The Liberals would have used their majority to force through Bill C-2, which was the Liberals' first attempt at a lawful access bill. It was only because of a minority government that the Conservatives were able to prevent the Liberals from passing it.

If the Liberals had gotten their way, they would have had the power to limit Canadians' use of cash. Bill C-2 would have allowed the Liberals to open people's mail without a warrant. The bill would have allowed Liberals to demand any data from any service provider, without a warrant. That would have applied to telecoms and companies, as well as to hospitals and banks. Even Canadian dry cleaners would have been subject to this law. Bill C-2 was an obvious overreach.

The absence of those provisions in the new bill proves only that Conservatives were right. Just as with the first bill, the new version is not perfect. There are troubling issues related to metadata retention and the legal thresholds for asking for Canadians' private information. It may be possible to address or correct those issues in committee. Whether or not the Liberal MPs on the committee will be willing to adopt those corrections is the test. Will this be a typical Liberal majority under a typical Liberal prime minister? How the bill is handled will provide Canadians with the answers.

By the time Jean Chrétien was in his third majority, journalists were writing books with titles such as The Friendly Dictatorship. After Justin Trudeau was given a blank cheque by Jagmeet Singh's NDP to govern as if he had a majority, he illegally invoked the Emergencies Act and violated Canadians' charter rights. The only thing worse than a Liberal prime minister with a majority government is a Liberal prime minister who has convinced himself he is serving in a time of a unique crisis requiring new powers.

Jean Chrétien nearly led us to the breakup of the country. He used that to justify emergency spending on Canadian flags in Quebec. He told himself that he did not need oversight. He was saving the country. When the pandemic finally arrived in North America, Trudeau's first instinct was to seek two years of unlimited spending power without parliamentary approval. He told himself he did not need oversight, because he was saving the country. Now we have a new Prime Minister claiming we have a new crisis. He told himself that only he could solve it by answering fewer questions than any prime minister in history.

Rather than hiding on YouTube, the Prime Minister should be giving his forward guidance advice to Canadians from the floor of the House of Commons. That the Prime Minister's instincts are to hide from the House makes me think he will fail the test the bill represents, but the test falls onto the shoulders of every so-called Liberal member of Parliament. Too often, they seem to think they are Liberal members of government.

During the last election, we knocked on, collectively, hundreds of thousands of doors. Not a single voter told me that their first priority was ensuring that telecoms retain a year of metadata on all their customers. I bet that is true for every Liberal member too, yet even before new MPs had a chance to find the bathrooms, the government was tabling extensive legislation to give the state vast new powers. The bill was tabled for the same reason we have a fentanyl czar: The Liberals thought it would appease the Trump administration.

The former bureaucrat, turned Prime Minister, asked the federal bureaucracy to draft legislation to make America happy again. Before his ministers could staff their offices with the type of people who might ask what stakeholders such as the Canadian Civil Liberties Association would say about the law, it was tabled. It was only the opposition's holding a majority that prevented this first rushed and flawed legislation from becoming law. Thanks to unprecedented acts of self-interest, Liberals have a hair's breadth of a majority.

Will the newly empowered Liberal members use this opportunity to work collaboratively, or will they force the bill through quickly to rack up a political victory? Do the so-called Liberal MPs think provisions in the bill that would require service providers to retain all metadata for a year are justifiable?

Metadata information about the file itself is contained within many computer files. Emails that Canadians send contain extensive metadata, including who sent the email, the time it was sent, the software that was used to send it, the type of hardware used to send it, the sender's IP address and every IP address that every server in an email was routed through. People's cellphone calls create metadata that includes who called, who answered and the time and duration of the call; the cell towers used during the call; and even the GPS coordinates for the caller.

Telecom companies retain this data for billing purposes, but they do not keep it beyond that point. Canadians, collectively, make 100 million cellphone calls every year. Forcing companies to maintain databases containing information on over 36 billion phone calls would present a systemic privacy risk.

Beyond maintaining this vast secret database for the government, the companies would also be required to maintain systems that allow government to easily search and collect this metadata. This is often referred to as a back door. The concern has always been that creating a back door for the government also creates a back door for criminals and hostile foreign states. The Liberals will tell Canadians not to worry. They will point to language in the bill that says the government would not be allowed to ask for any back doors that company officials believe would create a hacking risk.

Unfortunately for the Liberals, they tabled the bill just weeks before the world learned that the AI company Anthropic had built an AI model so advanced and so dangerous that the company has limited the access to it. The danger was that this new AI model had discovered thousands of new vulnerabilities in some of the most popular code. One of the most widely used operating systems for routers had a vulnerability that had been undiscovered for 27 years.

The government is asking Canadians to trust Bell, Rogers and Telus to know in advance if the government is putting our privacy at risk. I should clarify something. I do not know whether Bell, Rogers and Telus would be covered by the bill. It is a reasonable assumption, or in the language of this bill, I have a reasonable suspicion, that the big three telecoms would be included. The actual list of providers can be found under schedule 1 of the bill. That page is currently blank.

It would be left to cabinet to decide which companies would be covered. Cabinet would decide what measures companies would have to take to provide access to the company's information. In making these regulations, cabinet would be required to consider the cost of the regulations, the feasibility of the regulations and the impact of the regulations. However, just in case those factors ended up limiting the government, cabinet would have the power to also consider any other factor cabinet thinks is relevant. How convenient that is for the Liberal cabinet.

That is just one example of one loophole in a substantive bill. This is why Conservatives support moving the bill to committee. The intent of the bill is to allow police and CSIS to do their jobs. The committee must be given the time it needs to hear from witnesses. It needs the time to provide the level of scrutiny that such a bill demands.

We know that the Prime Minister is impatient. He is used to people just following orders. We have already seen how he mis-characterizes legitimate opposition as wasting time. Even the Liberal-friendly Toronto Star is allowing expressions of concern that the Prime Minister has an authoritarian streak. That is why the bill is such an important test for the ill-gotten Liberal majority. It could be an example of parties' listening to each other and to Canadians to improve the bill, or it could be that desperate Liberals grasping for accomplishments will jam it down Canadians' throats.

The Prime Minister has already failed the test he set for himself. There is no comprehensive deal with the U.S. Food prices are the highest in the G7. We do not need forward guidance to tell us the deficit is already higher than he projected six months ago. We need a prime minister who will pass the test of democracy.