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

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the truth of the matter is that we really do not know. That is why it so important to get this bill to committee. If we rely on the Liberals' track record and the history of this bill, they obviously must be nervous about what else is going to be wrong with it. Everybody is really suspicious. That is why I do think it is really important that we get this bill to committee and really suss out those potential problems.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am more encouraged this afternoon than I was this morning. We get this feeling that the legislation will, in fact, be going to committee. I think that is a positive. We have had many hours of debate on it. I think some of the Conservatives have at least acknowledged that there is a potential need for lawful access.

There are some serious crimes that are taking place in our communities. I have dealt with issues such as extortion, child sexual exploitation and serious crimes. We talk about fraud. The need to modernize is there.

I would encourage members of the Conservative Party, if they have some ideas going into committee, to share them with the department well in advance. We do want to make this good, solid legislation so that we can join the other four countries of the Five Eyes that already have lawful access.

That was more of a comment than a question.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I guess I do have a question of the government. The member talked about law enforcement and helping out law enforcement. It is quite puzzling when we start talking about how we support law enforcement. By all means, I still cannot understand why the Liberal government is moving forward with the confiscation program for firearms. It is spending billions of dollars on that. Those dollars could actually be going towards helping out bills like this and actually protecting Canadians instead of looking at penalizing firearms owners.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed my colleague's speech.

The government has announced that it will be tabling an economic statement in late April. I believe it will be on April 28. I am asking this question because, under Bill C-22, the intelligence commissioner will have a greater role. Law enforcement agencies will consult him frequently. So far, there has been no mention of increasing his budget. An important role is also being given to the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, or NSIRA, yet the budget includes cuts to this oversight body's funding.

There is something I do not understand, and perhaps my colleague will be able to clarify this for me. They want to give more power to the government, ministers and law enforcement while also cutting the budget of those who are supposed to oversee them.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that was another great comment and question from the member from the Bloc. Again, this goes back to money. The Liberals, we know, cannot manage money to save their lives. It seems like instead of trying to support the security community and make sure this program actually works and the bill can work, the Liberals are more interested in protecting slush funds.

Tomorrow, at the health committee, we are going to be investigating why 250 million taxpayer dollars was spent on PrescribeIT, rather than going to help security forces and strengthen this bill. Meanwhile, it was put into a Liberal slush fund.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, Natural Resources; the hon. member for Langley Township—Fraser Heights, Indigenous Affairs; the hon. member for Oxford, The Economy.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Emergency Management and Community Resilience]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I get up to speak to a bill that I think we absolutely need to send to committee. We are already very tardy on lawful access. As my fellow parliamentary secretary mentioned just a moment ago, all of our other Five Eyes partners and all of our other G7 partners have modernized laws with respect to lawful access.

Our government entered office with a couple of main priorities. One of them was being laser-focused on the economy and one of them was instilling a sense of safety in Canadians. In order to instill a sense of safety, we need to make sure that police, CSIS and all of our security community stakeholders have the effective tools they need in order to confront organized crime, threats of terrorism, interference from abroad and all of the other modern threats that exist in today's digital age, which did not exist 20 years ago.

That might have been done with the combatting hate act that was just adopted through the House and is now before the Senate. It would give police the tools they asked for to better combat hate. It was done through a bill we adopted with a significant majority to deal with making it harder for dangerous criminals and repeat offenders to get bail. It is being done with respect to a bill we are now debating at the justice committee that talks about intimate partner violence, femicide and images that are being shared. It is also being done through making sure that police have the necessary tools to deal with threats that are coming across our networks.

I used to have the privilege, before I was elected, of being the general counsel and chief administrative officer of a tech company. I frequently dealt with Internet service providers and telcos. This bill deals with solving the issues we are now having with respect to getting information from telcos and ISPs. That is the core of the bill.

The bill has three parts. I want to talk about the first part of the bill, the core of the bill, which deals with the new measures to help law enforcement deal with obtaining information and combatting crime in the digital age.

The first issue we need to confront is how law enforcement find out which telco or ISP has the needed information for them to then ask for a warrant to obtain more detailed information. The law that we now have, after the Supreme Court case of R. v. Spencer in 2014, means that telecommunications providers are generally only providing information once a court order is obtained. However, if law enforcement cannot figure out which telco has the phone number, the ISP address or the email that is tied to the potential violation or the feared violation of the Criminal Code, then they are stuck in limbo because they need to know who to go to, and have the reasonable grounds to go there, before they can get a court order.

In this bill, we created an amendment called the confirmation of service demand. It basically says that law enforcement can fill out this form and the service provider will have to answer if they are, for example, the provider of a specific number or email address. All that would be provided is a very rudimentary list of things to identify whether they have this information or not. That could be the address associated with the account, the email address, the telephone number, the amount of time the service has been going on and the type of service they provide. There would be no detailed information given without a court order, but this would resolve the issue from the R. v. Spencer case which made it inordinately complex, in my view, to get basic information from a telco.

When I was young, there was something called the White Pages and the Yellow Pages. We could find everyone's telephone numbers, addresses and names there. If the police was looking for a telephone number, they could find it in a phone book.

Those no longer exist now, with the advent of cellphones. Perhaps they still exist somewhere, but they are rarely used. I would not even know where to find one. I know that we can find information in the online 411 service.

If the information is in the public domain, it is not necessary to go to court to get an order to access it, because it is already available online.

We had another judgment of the court that made it confusing as to whether an Internet service provider or a telco could provide information that was available in the public domain without a court order or whether the police could use information that was in the public domain without a court order. There was also confusion as to what would happen if a good Samaritan, a company or anyone voluntarily offered law enforcement information that would touch, for example, what the billing address of a phone number was that was thought to be behind, for example, fraud.

We have all of these people who call us all the time in this country who are attempting to defraud us. I do not know how many times I have been called by Windows, not Microsoft, but Windows, with somebody telling me that my computer was broken, and I should give them my password for them to fix it. They are calling from a phone number and are attempting to defraud me. That same phone number has a senior scam where they call seniors and say it is their grandson or their granddaughter. They say they have been in an accident and need the grandparent to give them money, but no, no, no, they should not tell anyone else in the family.

I have heard from many people who have experienced this grandparents scam. They should be able, if somebody has that information, to give it to police. If the company, the telco, wilfully gives the information to police without a court order, the police should be allowed to use it. This bill clarifies that they can. It would also allow us to deal with information, such as phone numbers, email addresses and other information, that may be located abroad.

I would imagine that many different telephone numbers and email addresses are used to contact Canadians from abroad. We know that a lot of fraud happens in India, including many fraudulent calls directed at Canada. There are also attacks originating from Russia. Until now, it has been very difficult to obtain information from a foreign country under the law. The bill will give us that power and will enable other countries to request information from Canadian courts in a more equitable and fair way. If, for example, France is the victim of fraud committed by a number or person in Canada, then we should also help France obtain information. This is a very good start, in my opinion.

This bill would also clarify the issue of the police's right to use information in the event of an emergency. For example, if there is a terrorist attack, we certainly do not want police to have to get a court order to obtain the information they need to attempt to thwart a terrorist attack on Canada or a cybersecurity threat. These matters are all dealt with in the bill. One of the things I think we have pretty much unanimous agreement on, from all the recognized parties in the House, is that this should go to committee to be studied properly by a parliamentary committee.

I think everyone agrees that a committee should examine this bill, hear from witnesses and determine whether amendments are needed. It is very important to give our law enforcement and security agencies the tools they need.

I will wrap up, and I welcome any questions from colleagues.

[Scott Anderson, Conservative, Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary said, quite rightly, that 15 years ago we did not have this problem, and that is absolutely true. Technology has advanced since then. He also said that his new government is laser-focused on crime. I would like to point out that the government is not a new government. It is 11 years old. While technology has advanced, criminality has galloped forward.

I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary would like to explain why, in 11 years, when technology has advanced at a certain pace, crime has galloped ahead at a much faster pace.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let me simply reject the premise of literally everything the hon. member said. The Prime Minister was elected with a new government last April, and that was Canadians' choice, whether the hon. member accepts it or does not accept it, likes it or does not like it, likes the fact that we have a majority or does not like the fact that we have a majority.

We all should be working together to combat crime. Combatting crime is a really serious issue for Canadians across this country. It is something that I think we generally agree with across parties, and we should be working together, not insulting one another on this issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed my colleague's speech. He delivered it in both official languages and I thank him for that.

I have a little question for him, precisely because he is a Quebec member. Quebec has adopted robust legislation to protect privacy, Bill 25. Certain large Quebec institutions have asked me what is going to happen with Bill 25. They have adapted their practices and systems to meet the privacy requirements of Bill 25. Now that Bill C-22 has been introduced, is it going to cause any confusion in Quebec? Companies and institutions have made a lot of investments in response to Quebec's Bill 25.

What is my colleague's reaction to that? What kind of allowances does he propose that his government make?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that we should invite those groups to testify in committee. We should invite the Barreau du Québec, the chambers of commerce and anyone who can tell us about the work that entrepreneurs in Quebec have done to adapt their privacy practices.

In my previous job, I noticed that, even though the laws vary from place to place around the world, companies always find a way to adapt. Of course, I do not think that we should make people do redundant work to achieve what is essentially the same outcome, but I think that is something that can be sorted out in committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to reinforce what the member alluded to, which is that, within the last year, the Prime Minister, the government and Liberal members of Parliament have brought forward a suite of legislation to deal with combatting crime. One would think that all members of the House would see the value of that. This is what Canadians want us to do. Bill C-22 would deal with very serious issues that I have had the opportunity to highlight and the member highlighted, issues like extortion, terrorism and so forth.

I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts as to why it is so important to pass legislation that would reflect what our constituents have been asking for and the commitment that was made in the last election, just under a year ago, by the Prime Minister.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, one of the focuses of the government is crime. It is not only crime, but also making sure all Canadians have a sense of safety. People need not only to feel safe, but also to be safe. That is why we brought forward a robust number of crime bills and worked with the public safety critic of the official opposition on private members' bills, which add to the list of bills.

I think this is something that all members of all parties agree on. We all pretty much agree.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee.

To the viewers at home, the Liberals are coming to regulate the Internet.

This is a very serious moment. The Liberals have introduced a piece of legislation that looks to police activity on the Internet and prosecute crime using the Internet. Obviously, this is going to give rise to a lot of questions about privacy, law and execution. I propose to have a professional discussion about how the Liberals are going to police the Internet while preserving basic charter rights, because we all agree that we must preserve charter rights.

Conservatives support giving law enforcement 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 Canadians' rights and freedoms. Conservatives will always continue to stand for individual freedom, privacy and safety.

Let us begin by talking about some laws. The Liberals want to know if Jane Doe is a customer of Telus. They want law enforcement to have the right to call up an Internet service provider and simply ask if Jane Smith is its customer, without a warrant. I must say that I do not object to that. It is probably public information, and in the interest of security, providers could probably move their privacy policy in a direction where that would be allowable.

I see that my friend from Winnipeg North agrees. I am happy.

I would like to put another proposition to him. Telus or Rogers knows that Jane Smith is a customer, and the police want to seize additional records on Jane Smith, some basic information such as IP address, location, etc. Now we are talking about personal information contained within the records of the company. Like my friend from Winnipeg North says, they are going to go see a judge, hallelujah.

The problem is that, to obtain a warrant, typically a police officer would have to swear to a reasonable belief that criminal activity may have occurred. “Reasonable belief” is an important technical term because it commits the police officer to an affidavit, to a subjective belief that he must swear to. However, in this bill, the Liberals are proposing to lower that threshold to reasonable suspicion.

If a police officer says that they reasonably suspect a crime has occurred, then that would be enough to satisfy the conditions of the warrant and disclose Jane Smith's additional information. We will think about this at committee, and I will want to hear some testimony, but I am not sure that it is prudent to be lowering the threshold of search and seizure, so this is a very problematic provision.

Second, the Liberals are asking Internet service providers to co-operate with them in creating various systems that will help them prosecute crime and find offenders. I do not disagree that that is a noble and necessary goal. They are asking Internet service providers to create systems for the retention of data, back doors where the government would be able to enter encrypted communications and other means to help law enforcement. What is important is that those companies would not be asked by virtue of a court warrant, because a crime has been committed, to say that they now need to create a system.

It would be done by a ministerial order, signed off by the commissioner of intelligence pre-emptively. In other words, while we would not be alleging that any crime has been committed, the minister would now come to the private sector and say that they want it to create a system.

That is fine, but even if that were to happen, the problem is the definition of an electronic service provider, because this order may be very wide. According to the legislation, an electronic service provider “means a person that, individually or as part of a group, provides an electronic service, including for the purpose of enabling communications, and that...provides the service to persons in Canada [and] carries on...its business...in Canada.‍”

If it is Telus, Sprint and Rogers, I understand, but I say to my friend from Winnipeg and to my friend from Mount Royal, who just spoke to this, that I would like to understand very clearly whether this could this also apply to a law firm. Could it apply to an accounting firm? Could it apply to an educational institution? All these folks meet the definition of an electronic service provider as presently articulated by the legislation.

That is a concern on my part. I ask that we study it very carefully at committee. I am sure that even members on the other side of the aisle who lean to the left agree that we have to set some reasonable limits, that we cannot be coming to a law firm and saying that a minister, without a court order, would secretly order them to create a retention system and a back door to look at their clients, with no court order, no judge and no right of appeal. Please, let us be very careful with this.

That brings me to the final point on what is difficult about the bill, and that is the fact that the public safety minister would order the retention of metadata, of all the data, essentially, that goes through an electronic service provider's infrastructure, and they would be mandated to keep it for 365 days. That engages an interesting question about section 8, on arbitrary search and seizure, because the Internet service provider would be ordered by the minister, not by the court, to keep all our data for 365 days, without a warrant. A person may not have committed any offence, but the minister would want the Internet service provider to keep the data in the event that they have committed an offence. That is not how our legal system works.

People will say that it would not be the government seizing the data. That does not matter. If the government were to order another institution, in this case an Internet service provider, to seize it, that Internet service provider would become an agent of the government. The effect is the same, which is a breach of section 8 in that it would be an arbitrary seizure. We need to think about this very carefully. I think I have made a prima facie case that this would violate the charter.

It is important to distinguish this from Snowden. I want to talk about Snowden a little bit. He blew the lid off this in 2013 and said that the government was collecting all sorts of metadata. It was collecting all of it. In order to collect that metadata, one had to go to the FISA court. Even though there are some questions about the FISA court and its efficacy, there was still a court. According to the bill, there would be no court. We would just seize it all.

In fairness to my friends the Liberals, the government would not be able to see the information seized without a court order, without a warrant. The Internet service provider would hold on to all this stuff. If the government wants it, it would get a court order. Nonetheless, the seizure would still happen.

That brings me to my last point: security. It is very clear. According to The Globe and Mail, we are not prepared. We do not have the systems in place to order this sort of metadata catch-all and to create back doors. The article says, “experts are warning that the lawful access regime could allow hackers to exploit architecture inserted into electronic systems”. That is exactly what happened to the United States. The Salt Typhoon hackers out of China, who allegedly have been working for the Chinese state, exploited lawful intercept infrastructure that the U.S. telecoms were required by law to build. They were actually able to breach the White House. Their systems are considerably more advanced than Canadian systems.

We understand the need for lawful access, but we need to make sure we draw the appropriate lines and safeguard civil liberties. The government has a problem with civil liberties.

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

Mr. Speaker, as we get closer to the possible ending of the debate on Bill C-22, it is important to amplify the fact that the legislation would protect personal privacy. Within the legislation, there are checkmarks to do that. Through the legislation, we would also be protecting the public's interest on the issue of safety in a number of different areas. The legislation would do both.

I am encouraged by the Conservatives who were saying this afternoon that the bill will go to committee. The member expressed himself, and though I disagree with a lot of what he expressed, I hope he is able to get some detailed answers at the committee. If he is having issues after the committee, he should not hesitate to bring those concerns to me personally.