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

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to ask my hon. colleague this: Considering how the Liberals froze bank accounts for people donating to the “freedom convoy”, how confident is he that they would not abuse Bill C-22?

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the difference here for the House and my colleagues to understand is that the courts found that during the “freedom convoy”, the government and the Governor in Council acted illegally. They circumvented the law. They basically broke the law, in my opinion and the opinion of the courts.

The difference here is that there is legislation that allows for this to occur. This gives me pause to believe that the government is not able to circumvent the authorities here because of the law. It acted under the Emergencies Act during the “freedom convoy”. It made the decision as cabinet, with no law to protect Canadians. It just did it on its own, trying to quell what it did not like to have happen.

This is why I have confidence to believe that with this legislation, being it is legislation and a statute, the law enforcement and the national security apparatus would operate within that statute.

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, for a very thorough analysis. I salute the depth of his analysis. As a retired policeman and investigator, he obviously knows this subject well. I am especially pleased with his endorsement of lawful access.

I noticed that he retired after the Spencer decision by the Supreme Court in 2014. Bill C-2 is directly in response to the Bykovets and Spencer decisions. I wonder if the member would care to elaborate on why his party's stance went from opposing lawful access in Bill C-2 to now recommending it in Bill C-22.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to remember that Bill C-2 had a number of things that distracted Canadians and gave us pause as legislators. It tried to lump everything together. It was suggested to the government that if we are going to deal with a subject as critical as this to law enforcement and the protection of our national security, and to CSIS and other national security investigators, we need to have a stand-alone bill. It needs to be clearly laid out and allow the government to be able to accept amendments and recommendations from opposition parties to strengthen the bill. This would allow law enforcement and our national security apparatus to both do the job we as Canadians have asked them to do for us and protect the privacy rights and concerns of Canadians. Having a stand-alone bill that can clearly articulate the authorities with which law enforcement can act would clear up a lot of ambiguity and get support across—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I must interrupt the hon. member so that we may proceed with questions and comments.

The hon. member for Drummond.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to congratulate my colleague on his speech, his knowledge and his mastery of this issue. He clearly knows what he is talking about.

Bill C-22 gives law enforcement greater authority to access sensitive information, often personal data, which is concerning in some cases, but may be necessary. We can discuss that. In short, that is the subject of the current discussion and debate.

Ironically, however, the Liberal federal government has cut funding for the agency responsible for overseeing these organizations. In fact, the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency has had its budget slashed by 15%, which represents a substantial sum of $2.7 million. Does my colleague agree that the government should establish oversight mechanisms to reassure the public, rather than cutting funding for an agency that is essential to the work we are discussing today?

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if the government is going to have a robust lawful access regime in this country, it needs to have the necessary resources, not only in law enforcement and the national security apparatus, but also in prosecutions, to make sure we can follow through and hold accountable those who would do us harm as a country, like those who prey on the vulnerable, and organized crime individuals. Law enforcement needs not only the resources to do its job well, but also laws that ensure that those who commit crimes are held responsible and that we take seriously the issue of national security and the public safety of Canadians.

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Eglinton—Lawrence.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-22. Since my time is limited, I will focus on part 2 of the bill, which deals with the technical capabilities of electronic service providers, while part 1 deals with the legal framework for obtaining information.

It is widely accepted that most crimes committed today leave a digital footprint. No matter what crime is committed, there is almost always a trace that enables investigators to track the perpetrator and understand how it was done. In the case of organized crime, the digital footprint helps shed light on its ramifications. These criminals and individuals who pose a threat to Canada's security exploit the digital environment to carry out a wide range of malicious activities. It is also an open secret that our laws on lawful access have not kept pace with advances in modern technology. Canada is the only G7 and Five Eyes country that does not have a modern lawful access regime requiring electronic service providers to establish ways to ensure authorized and timely access to information.

That is where the paradox lies. Currently, law enforcement agencies and CSIS already have the legal authority to obtain information from electronic service providers. However, there is no law requiring these providers to maintain a system that enables them to respond effectively to lawful access requests. This means that even if a provider has the requested information in its systems, it does not necessarily have the ability to retrieve that information and provide it to law enforcement agencies with a valid warrant, because it is not required to do so.

Without a modernized framework, law enforcement wastes valuable time and potential leads and misses out on crucial information. This can even lead to investigations being abandoned, particularly since the Jordan decision. Above all, these delays result in an increase in the number of crimes and victims. That is important, and it is worth reiterating. Take, for example, the wave of extortion cases observed in British Columbia and Ontario. The same individuals, likely affiliated with organized crime, are behind multiple attacks.

As things stand, even with the proper authority, if electronic service providers are unable to quickly extract the metadata needed, investigations can run into significant delays. Arrests that take several weeks result in a much larger number of victims than arrests made within days of the initial offence. The same applies to cybercrime, sextortion or Internet fraud cases. Being able to conduct investigations quickly can make a huge difference.

Apart from its impact on our ability to conduct investigations, this situation also prevents us from fully participating in security-related international co-operation activities and thereby benefiting from our partners' information and support at a time when transnational gangs and terrorists are especially active. Bill C‑22, especially part 2, entitled “Supporting Authorized Access to Information Act”, will correct these problems and establish a modern framework for lawful technical access while continuing to safeguard the privacy of Canadians.

It is important to note that part 2 of Bill C-22 does not create any new surveillance powers, either for law enforcement agencies or for the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. There will be no surveillance of social media content, web browsing history or text message content. I would like to correct the record on something my colleague, the member for Rivière-du-Nord, said this morning. He claimed that this would be the case, but that is not accurate. This is only about the metadata transmitted by electronic service providers. The production of such transmission data has already been approved by the courts, with a valid search warrant.

Imagine that a missing teenage girl, 16 years old, makes an emergency call 10 days after her disappearance. Although the telecommunications service provider is able to confirm the call and the antenna used, it cannot precisely identify the last known location of the phone before it was disconnected, because it is not required to have that capability.

Bill C‑22 will correct this situation by requiring that these suppliers, considered essential suppliers, maintain consistent and reliable technical capabilities nationwide. Let me remind the House that these capabilities are already the norm in Europe and in Five Eyes countries. Under this bill, a supplier could be required to develop and maintain technical capabilities in two ways: based on specific requirements for major suppliers or, in other cases, pursuant to a ministerial order based on operational needs as new technologies emerge.

Instead of requiring entire industries, including small businesses, to develop the same capabilities, the proposed framework takes a more targeted approach by providing for the necessary capability development through ministerial orders based on strict criteria. Let me be clear. As an additional safeguard and external oversight mechanism, the bill requires the Minister of Public Safety to first consult with the relevant provider and then obtain approval from the intelligence commissioner before an order becomes valid. In addition, if the order is approved by the intelligence commissioner, the electronic service provider in question still has the option of challenging the order before a judge.

We have done our homework. We are talking about protecting the public and our country from bad actors in the digital world as we already do in the physical world, while protecting the privacy of Canadians and the rights enshrined in the charter. Criminals are constantly adapting to new technologies and finding new ways to commit crimes. We must ensure that our law enforcement and intelligence agencies can adapt as well. Our government is committed to doing everything it can to prevent criminals from threatening the security of Canadians.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member opposite could carefully explain to us what assurances Canadians have that their privacy would, indeed, be protected with Bill C-22 and that there would not be government overreach. This is a common concern that I get all the time, and I would really like for the member opposite to speak directly to that.

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, La Prairie—Atateken, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is referring to part I of the bill, which clearly outlines the information that may be requested. Bill C-22 does not expand existing powers. In fact, it narrows the scope within which investigators can seek information. What the bill does, however, is speed up the process so that this information can be obtained within the prescribed time frames, allowing investigations to move forward quickly.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate my colleague opposite, as well as his knowledge of the file. From his remarks, it is clear that he has taken the time to study the issue carefully.

We live in an age when people are worried about their personal data. The Quebec National Assembly has passed Bill 25, which regulates the sharing of personal information and data. Bill C-22 is currently causing a great deal of concern among the public. Members of Parliament, including my colleague, I believe, are receiving dozens of emails from people who are concerned about the potential implementation of this legislation. However, I am not hearing anything reassuring here, and that is what concerns us a bit and makes the Bloc Québécois wary of Bill C-22. We support the principle, but we feel it lacks sufficient measures. I mentioned earlier that funding for the review agency was cut to allow for a little more security.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the measures that need to be put in place to reassure people that their personal data will be protected, which is missing from Bill C-22.

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, La Prairie—Atateken, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in an ideal world, of course, the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency would have all the resources it needs.

You know as well as I do, sir, that this is not the case. The government has—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I must interrupt the member to remind him that the Standing Orders require that remarks be addressed through the Chair and not directly to other members.

The member may continue.

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, La Prairie—Atateken, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, in an ideal world, the agency would have all the resources it needs. However, it has had to comply with the rules being applied across the entire government, particularly with regard to budget cuts. That said, this analysis was conducted with a view to ensuring that the agency can continue to fulfill its mandate, and we are confident that it will be able to carry it out as required.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the King’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I wanted to say that I have had an opportunity to review Bill C-22. It is critical that it does pass, so I would be remiss if I did not take this opportunity to ask the parliamentary secretary how this came about. I recall sitting in committee, and regrettably members opposite were very much dead set against lawful access. This was despite the fact that we were hearing from witness after witness as to how crucially important it was. As such, if the parliamentary secretary could tell us what is responsible for that sea change in attitude, I would be most grateful.