Lawful Access Act, 2026

An Act respecting lawful access

Sponsor

Status

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.

Summary

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.

Elsewhere

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:

C-22 (2022) Law Canada Disability Benefit Act
C-22 (2021) An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act
C-22 (2016) Law An Act to establish the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts
C-22 (2014) Law Energy Safety and Security Act

Debate Summary

line drawing of robot

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

  • Modernizing law for digital investigations: The Liberal Party aims to modernize Canada’s legal framework to match current technological realities, ensuring law enforcement can investigate digital crimes like extortion and child exploitation as effectively as they did in the analog era.
  • Proportional judicial oversight and privacy: This bill establishes a staged investigative process where the level of oversight remains proportional to the intrusion, requiring judicial authorization for identifying subscriber information while protecting the internal content of private communications.
  • Mandatory technical capabilities for providers: This legislation requires electronic service providers to maintain the technical capability to respond to lawful warrants, preventing investigations from stalling due to a provider’s inability to retrieve metadata or confirm service locations.
  • Aligning with international security partners: By establishing a modernized lawful access regime, Canada aligns its public safety tools with G7 and Five Eyes partners, facilitating better international cooperation against transnational organized crime and global security threats.

Conservative

  • Modernizing digital investigative tools: The Conservatives support modernizing lawful access laws to provide police with updated tools for digital investigations, noting that Canada remains the only Five Eyes nation without a modern framework for accessing communications in criminal cases.
  • Charter and privacy protection: The party emphasizes that any revisions to the law must be Charter-compliant and respect the privacy rights of Canadians, specifically criticizing the lowering of legal thresholds from "reasonable belief" to "reasonable suspicion" for accessing data.
  • Cybersecurity and system vulnerabilities: Members warn that mandating service providers to build surveillance capabilities into their systems creates technical vulnerabilities or "back doors" that could be exploited by hackers or hostile foreign states, compromising overall network security.
  • Oversight of secret ministerial orders: The party critiques the use of secret ministerial orders and the broad definition of "electronic service providers," arguing that allowing the government to implement surveillance requirements behind closed doors without judicial oversight threatens civil liberties.

NDP

  • Balancing investigative tools and privacy: The NDP recognizes the need to modernize investigative powers to combat serious crimes like human trafficking, but emphasizes that these tools must be balanced against strong protections for civil liberties and privacy.
  • Opposing bulk metadata retention: The party criticizes the bill's provisions for mandatory metadata retention, arguing that collecting data on all users for up to a year constitutes an invasion of privacy and replaces targeted suspicion with generalized surveillance.
  • Strengthening independent judicial oversight: New Democrats express concern over the Minister of Public Safety’s power to issue secret system modification orders without judicial authorization, asserting that administrative processes are insufficient replacements for independent judicial review.
  • Addressing systemic cybersecurity risks: The party warns that mandating large-scale data retention and building surveillance capabilities into systems creates significant cybersecurity vulnerabilities, potentially exposing sensitive data to breaches and exploitation by malicious actors.

Bloc

  • Improvement over Bill C-2: The Bloc Québécois acknowledges that Bill C-22 is more comprehensive and better crafted than its predecessor, though the party remains undecided on its final vote until further consultations and committee studies are completed.
  • Low evidentiary thresholds: Members express concern over lowering the legal standard of proof to "reasonable grounds to suspect," arguing this threshold is too low and could permit intrusive surveillance or "fishing expeditions" into personal information.
  • Strengthening oversight mechanisms: The party criticizes the reactive nature of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency. They advocate for stronger oversight, proactive consultation with independent agencies, and more timely monitoring of government access to data.
  • Metadata and hacking risks: The Bloc warns that requiring providers to retain a year of geolocation metadata creates a "treasure trove" for hackers, potentially endangering the privacy and security of millions of citizens who are not suspected of crimes.

Green

  • Conditional support pending amendments: While acknowledging improvements over previous iterations, the Green Party cannot support Bill C-22 as currently drafted and urges the government to adopt a more collaborative process to achieve consensus.
  • Objection to novel legal terminology: The party opposes the "reasonable grounds to suspect" threshold for warrants, arguing it is an unprecedented, lower standard that lacks jurisprudence and will create legal confusion for law enforcement.
  • Risks of permanent surveillance capacity: Elizabeth May warns that requiring Internet providers to install surveillance capacity could allow foreign governments to access Canadians' personal data, creating permanent spyware risks that must be addressed.
Was this summary helpful and accurate?

Lawful Access Act, 2026Government Orders

April 20th, 2026 / 4 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I will stay away from Conservative conspiracy theories for the moment and focus instead on the principle of the legislation, which would bring lawful access to Canada. Canada would not be alone. In fact we are the only Five Eyes nation that does not have lawful access. The concerns of privacy would in fact be dealt with in the legislation.

I am glad the Conservatives are going to allow the legislation to go to committee today. It has taken quite a while. The issue of lawful access has been up for debate since last June, shortly after the Prime Minister was elected by Canadians in the government.

Does the member join with law enforcement agencies in Canada and many other stakeholders who want to see lawful access in place as law here in Canada? Does she support the principle of lawful access?

Lawful Access Act, 2026Government Orders

April 20th, 2026 / 4 p.m.

Conservative

Cheryl Gallant Conservative Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON

Mr. Speaker, whenever a Liberal does not have a reasonable response to a fair and explanatory speech, they always call it a conspiracy theory. What we have learned with recent so-called conspiracy theories is they have all come true.

Lawful Access Act, 2026Government Orders

April 20th, 2026 / 4 p.m.

Bloc

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech and I would like to ask her the following question: In Bill C‑22, the government decided to choose the lowest threshold for obtaining information, that is to say it chose a threshold of reasonable suspicion rather than reasonable belief. The lower standard chosen by the government is raising a lot of questions among experts in Quebec and Canada. What does my colleague think about the government choosing the lowest threshold?

Lawful Access Act, 2026Government Orders

April 20th, 2026 / 4 p.m.

Conservative

Cheryl Gallant Conservative Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would have to agree with my colleague from the Bloc. In fact, we want to get this bill to committee so we can examine and root out the answers to the questions, just as she asked right now.

Lawful Access Act, 2026Government Orders

April 20th, 2026 / 4 p.m.

Conservative

Dalwinder Gill Conservative Calgary McKnight, AB

Mr. Speaker, can the hon. member specify what threshold of suspicion would be required before the authorities could access Canadians' personal data under Bill C-22 and how that threshold would be consistent with our charter rights?

Lawful Access Act, 2026Government Orders

April 20th, 2026 / 4 p.m.

Conservative

Cheryl Gallant Conservative Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON

Mr. Speaker, actually, no, I cannot determine what the lowest threshold would be. It is not specifically mentioned. However, having dealt with the Liberal government for 25 years, I would say that the absolute least amount of suspicion would be required.

Lawful Access Act, 2026Government Orders

April 20th, 2026 / 4 p.m.

Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River Saskatchewan

Liberal

Buckley Belanger LiberalSecretary of State (Rural Development)

Mr. Speaker, when my colleague from Winnipeg North asked a question, the member did not give him an answer. The question was, through the Chair, “Do you support the notion of lawful access?” The response was about conspiracy theories, which is not an answer. I have a simple question: Do you support lawful access, yes or no?

Lawful Access Act, 2026Government Orders

April 20th, 2026 / 4 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater

I remind the member he needs to address questions through the Chair.

The hon. member for Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke has the floor.

Lawful Access Act, 2026Government Orders

April 20th, 2026 / 4 p.m.

Conservative

Cheryl Gallant Conservative Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON

Mr. Speaker, now the member opposite who just asked the question understands what the opposition feels every time we are in question period. The Liberals never answer the question.

Lawful Access Act, 2026Government Orders

April 20th, 2026 / 4:05 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Fonseca Liberal Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON

Mr. Speaker, when we speak to constituents in my riding and right across Canada, public safety is paramount, and lawful access is something that we keep hearing is necessary to keep Canadians safe. As such, this is not an abstract notion. This is not theoretical. It reflects the reality of Canadians, like our families, seniors, newcomers and young people, while they are going about their daily lives with growing concern about what is happening in their community. In my riding of Mississauga East—Cooksville, I hear this directly. People want to feel safe. At the same time, they want to know that their rights are protected. They expect both of these things, and they are right to expect both.

Over the past year, our government has advanced a clear and comprehensive framework to address public safety in Canada, one that rests on three key pillars. First is stronger laws. This includes reforms to bail and sentencing, measures to combat hate, and stronger protections against gender-based violence and exploitation of children, especially online. Second is supporting the front line. This includes investments in law enforcement, with 1,000 new RCMP officers and 1,000 new border officers, but also ensuring police have the tools they need to do their jobs effectively. Third is upstream investments, because safer communities are built not only through enforcement, but through prevention and investments in housing, mental health, addiction supports and programs for at-risk youth.

It is important to emphasize that these pillars are not isolated; they reinforce one another. Strong laws mean little without enforcement. Enforcement alone is insufficient without prevention, and prevention must be paired with accountability. Today's legislation, Bill C-22, sits squarely within that second pillar. Let me be clear that supporting the front line is not just about adding more officers, but it is about equipping them with tools that reflect the world that we live in today, because that world has changed. We all know that.

Technology has transformed how we live and, unfortunately, how crime is committed. We all carry powerful devices in our pockets. We communicate instantly across borders. While these tools serve very positive purposes, we cannot ignore that criminal organizations are using them as well. In conversations I have had with law enforcement, one message comes through clearly: Crime today is increasingly digital, organized and transnational.

We are seeing sophisticated extortion schemes coordinated online, auto theft rings operating across jurisdictions, home invasions tied to organized networks and, most disturbingly, the online exploitation of children. These are not isolated incidents. They are coordinated operations, often directed in real time through encrypted communications.

In Mississauga East—Cooksville, we are not immune to these trends. We are seeing online fraud targeting seniors and newcomers, exploitation facilitated through digital platforms and organized crime leveraging technology to evade detection. What is particularly troubling is the speed at which these crimes unfold. A scam can empty a bank account in minutes. An online interaction can put a young person at risk almost instantly.

Our local police, especially Peel Regional Police, are doing exceptional work, but they have been very clear that the tools available to them must keep pace with the threats that they face. One of the greatest challenges in modern policing is anonymity. Police cannot arrest an IP address. They cannot prosecute a phone number. Behind every digital identifier is a human being. Too often, that individual is shielded by outdated laws, creating a troubling imbalance. Criminals can act quickly, anonymously and across borders. Law enforcement, meanwhile, is slowed by processes that were designed for a different era. If we are serious about public safety, we must ensure our legal framework reflects modern realities.

This is where Bill C-22 comes in. At its core, this legislation is about lawful access, or giving the police the ability to access critical information in a targeted, lawful and timely way.

Let me be clear about what this bill would do and what it would not do. It would not provide unrestricted access to personal data. It would not allow surveillance without oversight. Instead, it would introduce a carefully structured, step-by-step process.

First, where there is an active investigation, police could request confirmation of whether a phone number or IP address is linked to a particular service provider. This would not be content. It would not be private communications. It would simply be identifying the network. Today, the process can take months to determine where to even begin. During those months, evidence can disappear, victims can be further harmed and criminal networks can continue to operate without interruption. This is unacceptable.

Once a link is confirmed, police would then need to seek judicial authorization to access subscriber information such as name and address. This would ensure every step is grounded in legal oversight. This is information that was publicly available in the past. I remember in the 1980s, and I am one of the older guys here, we could open up a phone book and get all this information. Today, that is not accessible to law enforcement, so this needs to get done. In today's digital world, this is not accessible without legal authority. Only in urgent, time-sensitive situations, such as active child exploitation, can access occur without prior authorization. Even then, strict safeguards apply, including accountability measures after the fact.

I want to take a moment to emphasize something that is fundamental to this legislation, and that is trust. Canadians must have confidence that their rights are protected. That is why this bill includes clear legal thresholds before any information could be accessed, judicial oversight for sensitive information, defined limits on what could and could not be requested, and accountability mechanisms to ensure proper use. This is not about expanding state power without limits. It is about ensuring that when power is used, it would be used responsibly, proportionately and transparently.

In fact, this legislation reflects the guidance of our courts and incorporates lessons from past debates. This bill is about balance. It would ensure judicial oversight, clear legal thresholds and independent accountability. In fact, it would establish one of the strongest privacy-protected lawful access regimes in the G7. I would argue this balance is precisely what Canadians expect. They do not want a false choice between safety and privacy. They want both, and this bill would deliver both.

Let us be honest: Canada is behind. Every other G7 country has a lawful access framework. All our Five Eyes partners do as well. Without it, our investigations are slower, more cumbersome and less effective. When crime happens in real time, delays have consequences.

This legislation did not emerge overnight. It builds on years of consultation with law enforcement, privacy experts, legal scholars and parliamentarians from all parties. The result is a bill that is more targeted, more accountable and more transparent. This is what responsible law-making looks like.

When we talk about public safety, we must remember the people on the front lines, the officers, the investigators and the professionals, working every day to keep Canadians safe. They are not asking for unlimited powers. They are asking for modern tools to match modern crime. When we give them those tools with proper safeguards, we are not only supporting law enforcement, we are supporting victims. This issue has been discussed for decades. Law enforcement leaders have warned that we are at risk of “going dark” and losing access to critical digital evidence. We now have an opportunity to act, and with that opportunity comes responsibility.

Before I conclude, I want to share a quick story that underscores why this matters. A constituent in Mississauga East—Cooksville reached out to my office not long ago and said he was defrauded because of a cryptocurrency scam online. For that individual and many across our country, we need to pass this bill, move quickly—

Lawful Access Act, 2026Government Orders

April 20th, 2026 / 4:15 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater

I am afraid we have to move on to questions and comments.

The hon. member for Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee.

Lawful Access Act, 2026Government Orders

April 20th, 2026 / 4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Scott Anderson Conservative Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if my colleague across the aisle could explain whether he believes Bill C-22 is better than Bill C-2, given that Bill C-2 wanted to limit the use of cash for Canadians.

Lawful Access Act, 2026Government Orders

April 20th, 2026 / 4:15 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Fonseca Liberal Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON

Mr. Speaker, good governance is about learning, improving, consultations and listening to those who have brought concerns forward in this House, but also across our country. That is what we have done. We have struck the right balance and brought forward improved legislation that I am very proud of, and I hope we move expeditiously on this.

Lawful Access Act, 2026Government Orders

April 20th, 2026 / 4:15 p.m.

Bloc

Alexis Deschênes Bloc Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC

Mr. Speaker, with the introduction of Bill C‑22, one of the issues is what powers will be granted to the minister by allowing them to order service providers to keep metadata for a year.

One of the concerns that this raises is that businesses that may not currently track users will now be required to do so. This will create a fairly substantial amount of information that law enforcement can access. Some Canadians might fear that their telephone will become a tracking device.

What can my colleague say to reassure these individuals?

Lawful Access Act, 2026Government Orders

April 20th, 2026 / 4:15 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Fonseca Liberal Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-22 balances the ability of law enforcement to have a tool they require. We see this with our G7 partners and the Five Eyes. They have been able to do it with their service providers. We need to move on this. I know the service providers in Canada will be able to bolster their systems to provide the information that is required.

In the end, this is about protecting Canadians, which is paramount, and we need to move on this.