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

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, in a word, wow. We can talk about conspiracy theories. We can talk about misinformation. When we want to talk about safety in our communities, we have a new Prime Minister from less than a year ago, as well as a new government.

Bill C-9 deals with hate propaganda. Bill C-14 deals with bail reform. Bill C-16 actually restores mandatory minimums. We have Bill C-22 that deals with sensitive issues such as national security, terrorism, extortion and child exploitation. They are all substantive pieces of legislation.

On the other hand, the biggest thing the Conservatives have done to date has been to filibuster and slow down the progress of legislation because, in the minds of some, there is a giant conspiracy that the Government of Canada wants to take over the world.

Does the member support the principle of lawful access?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that was a lot of consternation. The member actually did not list a single thing that I said as being untrue or wrong. Is that not funny? Not one thing that I actually said did he disagree with. He just spoke loud, yelled and made a big production, as if he was somehow offended by all of the facts that I presented here in the House today.

Does the lawful access regime in this bill do some good things? Yes, it is going to do some good things. It is going to do some things that law enforcement needs. As a former law enforcement officer, I know that we actually need to give tools to the men and women who protect us and keep us safe every day.

The problem is the Liberals never get it right the first time. Every piece of legislation that he talked about has to do with undoing things or restoring them. Well, he is undoing his own mess. He is restoring things that Conservatives have done. One cannot be the problem and the solution at the same time.

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑22 includes a change involving the burden of proof. The government wants to allow police forces and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service to obtain warrants based on suspicions. Previously, it was necessary to prove to a judge that there were reasonable grounds to believe that a crime was committed or that a crime would be committed. From now on, what is required is to prove that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a crime was committed or that a crime will be committed. It is the lowest standard in criminal law, and that is now what is being proposed.

In my colleague's opinion, what are the risks associated with this change?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there are some potentially groundbreaking and new precedent-setting provisions in this legislation, but we also have to have some of the tools in place that will allow police to operate in a digital environment. There are lots of laws in the Criminal Code about the things we can and cannot do in real life, in the real and tangible world that we are not allowed to do. We cannot harm each other. We cannot steal property. We cannot do many of those things, yet the online world seems to allow a greater opportunity for these things to happen.

I am looking forward to this bill going to committee. I think that is the place where some of these questions will actually need to be addressed and where we get the proper experts. I think the member who asked me the question is right to have the questions he has. I am sure their member on the committee will flesh this—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to continue with questions and comments.

The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Indian Act, I have a special concern when it comes to civil liberties and the freedoms and rights of Canadians. However, when we are talking about protecting civil liberties, the Liberal government says that is based on conspiracies when, really, all we are trying to do is protect the freedom of Canadians.

Can my colleague give some examples of the Liberal government trying to promote the overreach of government, which nobody wants in this House or in Canada?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it does not seem to matter what aspect of life in Canada we look at, but if someone had, at any point in time, a disagreement with the policy of the government in the last 11 years, they would be squarely in the crosshairs of the government's mean-spirited implementation of programs. For example, groups running summer camps for kids have to sign an attestation form to go against their own values, in order to access their very own tax dollars from the government. That is just one example of how the Liberals actually only govern for themselves and the people who agree with them, and they—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Kitchener South—Hespeler.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my speech by thanking OpenMedia, the Canadian Constitution Foundation and privacy lawyer David Fraser for their excellent work on Bill C-22. The analysis I am about to offer closely mirrors their own, and if the Liberal government members would simply listen seriously to these civil liberties groups, they would not have to hear from me on this bill, but they have not, so here we are.

At around age 13, I was horrified to read the following excerpt from chapter 1 of George Orwell's 1984:

The telescreen received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound that Winston made...would be picked up by it, moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision...he could be seen as well as heard. There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in...was guesswork.

That gave me a chill down the spine 27 years ago. Could people really live with the government listening to their every utterance, watching their every move? How could the human spirit ever flourish in the utter absence of basic privacy? Even at a much younger age, I knew it was basically wrong for my sister to go through the things in my room or for me to read her diary, not because any authority figure ever told me it was wrong, but because I knew it in my soul. One cannot develop one's thoughts, one's feelings, one's self under prying eyes. That was just respect to my friends and family. What if a power as great as the government or the police violated our privacy? I knew that my mother and her family had escaped a Communist regime in the 1960s, but back then, telescreens were science fiction. Could my family have managed to plan their escape if a telescreen had been in their home?

I knew vaguely that there had been revolutions in East Germany and throughout the U.S.S.R., but even in 1989, when those revolutions started, the telescreen idea remained in the realm of science fiction. Fast-forward to today, I am more horrified today. We now have the technological capability to make telescreens. I have a phone in my pocket and an Apple Watch on my wrist. I am most horrified because, with the legislation before us, the Liberal government is attempting to make possible the 1984 telescreen out of every cell phone, AirPod, Apple Watch, smart TV and automobile, anything that is connected to the Internet. To quote the excerpt from 1984 again, “There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment.”

I know the members opposite will consider my views outlandish, but they are not. Let me please take them through their own law to show them how they are doing the exact thing they swore they would never do.

Proposed subsection 5(2) says:

The Governor in Council [which means the government] may make regulations respecting the obligations of core providers, including regulations respecting

(a) the development, implementation, assessment, testing and maintenance of operational and technical capabilities, including capabilities related to extracting and organizing information that is authorized to be accessed

In plain English, this means a back door. Right now, it is my understanding that my watch listens to everything I say. If I say, “Hey, Siri”, it sends whatever speech follows to the cloud for processing. If I do not say, “Hey, Siri”, nothing goes to the cloud. Proposed paragraph 5(2)(a) allows the minister to require that Apple build in the ability for authorities to listen to my Apple Watch whether I say, “Hey, Siri” or not. The same would go for my phone and my AirPods. Yes, they would need a warrant to actually listen in, but this bill takes the huge first step of building the surveillance architecture in the first place. Once it is built, it will be ripe for abuse either by the government or by hackers. Once it is built, it will not be unbuilt. We are at the stage where the government builds all the telescreens and puts them in our home, but promises to only use them if we have been bad.

What is worse is this bill, as pertains to electronic service providers under proposed section 7, such as Apple, Signal, Telegram or Tinder, may be forced to keep that back door secret. Proposed section 15 says:

An electronic service provider and any person acting on its behalf must not disclose any of the following information

(c) the fact that the electronic service provider is subject to the order;

In plain English, this section sets out the fact that the government has ordered construction of a back door to be kept secret. Once this bill passes, our cell phone manufacturer, our messaging service, our dating app may receive a secret order to build a back door into the service for the government to check in on us, and we might never be alerted. Our excerpt from the 1984 says, “How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in...was guesswork.” Why? Why, if everything here was above board, would the bill include the ability for the public safety minister to build secret back doors? I do not happen to be one of them, but some Canadians might say it is okay to read their Tinder messages, that they do not care, but to at least tell them if the government is going to do that. This bill specifically allows a minister to do it secretly. Why?

Just on these points alone, the construction of a backdoor surveillance architecture and that they intend to keep some parts of this architecture secret, the Liberals should hang their heads in shame. Liberals are supposed to fight against this sort of excessive government reach. They are not supposed to be its source, and it only gets worse.

As set forth in proposed paragraph 5(2)(d), in addition to demanding that secret back doors be constructed, the government's ministers can order all electronic service providers to collect and store all metadata for a year. Metadata means many things, but the most important thing to me is location. This bill goes even further than the telescreens in 1984. It would turn every Internet-connected device into not just a listening device, but a tracking device as well, and it would cause that location data to be admissible in a court of law.

Let me just give a couple of examples for why I find this concerning. We just had a pandemic, in which some governments went way too far restricting human rights in unscientific ways. Do people remember the red zones and the green zones or the six-person bubbles? It may surprise the House to learn that I never broke a single COVID rule, even though I was a strong critic of their unscientific basis, but I know that a lot of people did. I know that some people sitting on the government side of the House did. It is a matter of public record that Justin Trudeau broke COVID rules and broke the Reopening Ontario Act by attending a Black Lives Matter protest here in Ottawa.

If Bill C-22 passes, when there is another pandemic with some silly rules, any police officer could say they suspect that the member for Winnipeg North broke pandemic rules, get a warrant and see his location for every moment of the last 365 days. If he ever stepped into a red zone or ever broke quarantine, it would be game over. This capability would not be merely for COVID laws. It would be for every law. Chrystia Freeland was once found guilty of going 30 kilometres an hour over the limit on the highway to see her dad. Once she was convicted of that, a police officer could check to see her speed for every moment of the 365 days preceding.

Do not ask for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. As the head of Joseph Stalin's secret service said, “Show me the man and I'll show you the crime.” If everyone here is surveilled 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, every one of us will be liable to be found guilty of something. If the government of the day passes this bill in its present form, I fear that the Liberals may live to see the day when its provisions are used against them. I swear it will not be me doing it, but who knows who will be prime minister in 2046. I fear her last name may be Trudeau-Perry.

The Liberals will rue the day they torched all our collective privacy rights. I urge them to correct course. We can catch bad guys without violating the privacy rights of every single Canadian.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful that we are seeing the legislation go to committee. I disagree with much of what the member opposite has said. Within this legislation, the public security and safety issues are being addressed, and privacy concerns are also addressed. We can do both in one piece of legislation. Bill C-22 amplifies both of those. Most importantly, it would protect real Canadians in our communities from organized crime and so many other things that are taking place. The legislation is needed because it is time to modernize. Canada is the only one of the Five Eyes that does not have legislation of this nature.

Does he support the principle?

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is very interesting that the member disagreed with everything I said but failed to point to one specific piece of my analysis that was wrong. Every piece of my analysis was correct.

As to this talking point, I keep hearing that all the Five Eyes are doing it. I am proud to be Canadian. I am proud to have been born in the freest country in the land, and God help me, I am going to keep it that way. Just because the member's friends are all jumping off a cliff, it does not mean that the member should too.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raised some rather serious concerns in his speech, including on the idea of forcing service providers to go further than they do currently and develop capacity to retain metadata for one year, which may include geolocation.

What parameters can my colleague propose to ensure that, if this bill moves forward, we can keep this data as secure as possible?

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the best way to keep a year's worth of surveillance location data secure is to not build a back door or to not save it in the first place. There is some bizarre verbiage in this bill about systemic vulnerabilities, but the point of part 2 of this legislation, as it currently stands, is to build the systemic vulnerabilities that it later says it is not building. It is frankly doublespeak at this point, and it needs to be significantly reworked.

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

Mr. Speaker, we often hear from the other side that Canada is the only country that does not have this type of law, but what they sometimes forget to talk about are the damages and deleterious effects that have come from creating these back doors or front doors.

Does the member have any examples of bad things happening, either by government abuse or by hackers and bad actors?