Debates of April 20th, 2026

Lawful Access Act, 2026

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

Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear. Since June of last year, the government, in one form or another, has been explaining, and asking for, lawful access. Canada is the only country in the Five Eyes that does not have lawful access.

The Conservative Party made a commitment to defeat and kill Bill C-2, which had lawful access. Therefore, we have brought forward Bill C-22. There have been a number of hours of debate on this legislation, and that is the reason why I believe the Conservative Party's intent is to filibuster the legislation.

If that is not the case, can the member give us an indication as to whether or not he would like to see the bill pass second reading before the end of this—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for York—Durham.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I clearly said in my remarks, the goal here is to strike the right balance between the interests of protecting public safety and suppressing crime and the protection of Canadians' right to privacy, the right to not be intruded on by the government or its agents.

Contrary to what the hon. member said, the purpose of this place is to debate those issues. We are here, once again, because the government has consistently failed, over 10 years, to bring forward a piece of legislation that adequately balances those rights.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech. He raised some very valid points in many respects.

I would like to know what he thinks of a government that wants to grant more powers to police and intelligence services but that has just slashed the budget of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, which is supposed to monitor those services, to save a few pennies.

How can the government say that those people need more powers while also cutting this agency's funding?

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

Mr. Speaker, my Bloc colleague has, of course, pointed out a contradiction in the government's position. I also want to thank the Bloc for pointing out, in their earlier speeches on this, the lower threshold of suspicion in part 1 that the government introduced. This is exactly why we have this debate. That is a question for the government to answer, why they have this contradiction: on the one hand, wanting more power but, on the other hand, reducing law enforcement's resources to exercise those powers.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from York—Durham for his excellent dissection of Bill C-22, part 2.

The Liberals have been trying to assure us that judicial oversight will be an important part of this bill. Does he see that as still being retained inside the bill as it is written?

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

Mr. Speaker, the short answer is no. I do not see that as being a robust portion of part 2 of the bill, in part because much of what the minister would do and the regulations that would be made would be done in secret.

Moreover, the provision of sending ministerial orders to the Information Commissioner is, in my view, somewhat misguided. The Information Commissioner deals with national security issues and signals intelligence, among other things. That individual is not tasked with protecting Canadians' privacy rights. That balance is not there in the review.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the government omitted to properly consult the Privacy Commissioner. It is a curious thing, why they did that. Would the member support an amendment to the bill to, prior to it receiving full authority, have the bill brought before the Privacy Commissioner for consultation and recommendations?

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

Mr. Speaker, of course, the opposition is always open to considering all reasonable amendments to the bill. At the very least, I would like to hear what the Privacy Commissioner's view is on the bill. Whether the Privacy Commissioner could provide that via testimony in committee or via a public letter to members of the House of Commons, I would welcome those comments.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Development)]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to speak about Bill C-22, the lawful access bill. There is no issue more pressing in the law enforcement legal framework than lawful access, a tool that is essential for police and prosecution to do the work to expeditiously catch people accused of many violent crimes.

The world around us is becoming increasingly digital and networked. Much of our day-to-day business communication and overall lives relies on the Internet. Smart phones, emails and instant messaging apps easily and instantly transcend provincial and national borders. Unfortunately, this also means that malicious actors, such as organized crime groups and violent extremists, can exploit the borderless nature of cyberspace for their own benefit. Canada's law enforcement agencies and CSIS need modern tools to help keep communities safe. We must close the capacity gap in current legislation that prevents law enforcement and CSIS from having lawful access to data, and must ensure that they can properly execute their mandates and protect Canadians.

“Lawful access” is a term we will hear a lot in association with the bill, but let us be clear what it really means. Lawful access covers the tools and authorities used to legally obtain certain information, data or communication during investigations. This information is often essential to generating leads on national security threats and serious criminal activities, such as extortion and organized crime, as well as to identifying and prosecuting the people involved.

For decades, law enforcement and CSIS have had to operate without a legal framework requiring electronic service providers, ESPs, to develop and maintain lawful access capabilities. The current legal framework dates from before the invention of cellphones and has not kept pace with the rapid advances in technology. This is important because law enforcement and intelligence investigators need basic subscriber information, such as a legal name or an address, to identify or exclude suspects, particularly during preliminary stages.

Bill C-22 would establish a legal framework requiring electronic service providers to have the capability to respond to legally authorized requests, such as a warrant or a production order, while respecting protecting privacy interests and fundamental rights. It would introduce provisions to support law enforcement as it cracks down on crime in an increasingly complex technological landscape where the vast majority of evidence is online or electronic.

Law enforcement groups have sounded the alarm about the obstacles they encounter in their investigations. For instance, imagine a person getting a call from an extortionist demanding money and threatening their family if they do not pay. They call 911, tell the police who called and show them the messages they received. Under the current framework, it would take weeks or even months for the police to find out basic information such as who or where the call came from.

This is just one example of the many challenges law enforcement officials face in obtaining the information they need. Often they do not know which service provider holds the customer account associated with the subscriber information, which also means they do not know whom to serve with a production order. This challenge currently stalls and delays real-world investigations. In many cases, law enforcement is required to seek multiple judicial authorizations to seek very basic information from different service providers, just to confirm which service provider's phone number or IP address the call was made from.

The current framework causes significant, unnecessary and potentially harmful delays. Timely access to the basic information is crucial in all stages of an investigation and can mean the difference between securing evidence and allowing criminals to slip through law enforcement's fingers.

Here is another example. Police are aware that a provider holds certain information, but the company cannot provide it because their systems do not possess the capability to do so, as there is no legal requirement to carry such capabilities. We have heard many stories of law enforcement tracking a missing child or attempting to stop a terrorist attack, knowing which service provider to obtain the information from but being stonewalled by the provider's lack of lawful access capabilities.

We cannot hope to fully protect Canadians and our communities if law enforcement and CSIS are unable to do their jobs. For this reason, Bill C-22 would introduce new legislation to close that gap, whereby certain ESPs would need to develop and maintain the technological capabilities to respond to production orders. To be clear, this aspect of the legislation intentionally and explicitly would not allow for backdoor access or any direct access for law enforcement or CSIS into electronic service provider systems. A legal authority to access that information would still always be required.

Bill C-22 proposes two ways by which an ESP would be asked to develop and maintain lawful access capabilities. First, those designated as core providers, such as traditional telecom companies, would have to abide by specific requirements set out in regulations. Second, the Minister of Public Safety could issue a ministerial order to develop specific capabilities based on operational needs as new technologies develop.

We have heard the concerns from parliamentarians and stakeholders around privacy and oversight. I want to reassure Canadians that Bill C-22 includes safeguards so ESPs would not have to abide by any demands that would introduce systemic vulnerabilities in electronic protections, such as encryption breaking or backdoor access. This would also require that the Minister of Public Safety obtain the approval of the intelligence commissioner before a ministerial order is valid, and it would be subject to further review by the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency.

Bill C-22 is about removing harmful barriers that impede active investigations and delay justice as well as put Canadians in harm's way. It is about bringing our legislation up to date with modern technologies and those of our closest allies and partners. It is about ensuring that alleged extortionists, child predators, cybercriminals, hostile state actors and organized criminal networks have nowhere to hide.

Law enforcement leaders have been very clear with us. I will quote the National Police Federation, which said, “For frontline police officers, the ability to lawfully identify who owns an online account is often the first step in investigating crimes such as extortion, child sexual exploitation, organized crime, violent offences, and national security threats. Bill C-22 will help ensure that longstanding court orders and warrants remain effective in a modern digital environment.” They need us to act now to eliminate these gaps in our legislation. I am urging hon. members to support the bill for the crucial public safety measure it would be.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite mentioned several times that law enforcement agencies are asking for this, that the RCMP and other law enforcement bodies are asking for this, and I would agree that they are. I went to an information session on the Hill that was hosted by the Minister of Public Safety, and those folks said very clearly that the government got it wrong in Bill C-2, that it did not do its proper due diligence, that there were some things that had to be changed, and that the government needed to improve it in Bill C-22. Would the member not agree that vigorous attention to and dissecting of the bill is important and that debate in the House is important as well as in committee?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we could have amended Bill C-2. It was the second bill introduced in the current session of the House, which shows the importance the government places on law enforcement and getting the tools that are needed. It was after those consultations that the government listened to, and that is why we have Bill C-22 now. Therefore, now that those consultations have been done, I urge that we pass the bill as fast as possible so we give the tools to law enforcement agencies.

I also met with the commissioner, the deputy commissioner and the regional police chiefs of all the areas around my riding, and all of them have stated that we need lawful access and need it now.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, members will recall that Bill C‑2 was split, in part because certain aspects of the bill were unacceptable. Today, it is back as Bill C‑22.

One unacceptable part of Bill C‑2 was that it used reasonable suspicion, rather than reasonable belief, to allow authorities to obtain information simply by getting a court order. A number of experts spoke out about this and told us that it could be a slippery slope.

I would like to know why the government is coming back with the same threshold as before and whether the government is open to amendments to perhaps compromise and rethink this threshold.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the threshold is to get subscriber information. The first step when someone gets a call or a threat is to find out who the number belongs to. It used to be very easy. We could pick up a phone book-like thing in the library that had every number in it. It used to be published every year. When somebody called, we could tell where the number came from. The world has changed drastically from that. We are now on VPNs. Even normal office phones are. Land lines do not actually communicate with a direct line. They go over the Internet.

Getting the subscriber information is the first and fundamental step so law enforcement can take subsequent steps to get production orders to tap phones. Those would come after, but the initial step of finding out who is calling, where the information is coming from, is vital.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the secretary of state's comments, and I thank him for coming to Winnipeg North to deal with the issue of extortion. Bill C-22 would deal with it in a significant way. Could he provide further comment on that specific issue?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very valid question. It is a big concern. People facing extortion threats are wondering why it takes the police so long to find out who is responsible, when sometimes in the private sector they may be able to get a private investigation or a digital firm to find out where the call was coming from.

Unfortunately, law enforcement has been handicapped without those capabilities. It has asked for the bill to pass immediately, as fast as possible, as the threat is really hindering people's lives. Normal business people are not able to go out. They live in fear. It is finally coming to fruition, and I am hopeful they will be able to live their lives in a peaceful manner.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think everyone agrees that the modernization of investigative powers in the digital age is required. The question is about getting the right balance.

In the interests of getting the right balance and protecting privacy and civil rights, why did the government not consult with the Privacy Commissioner or ensure that their input was incorporated in the drafting of Bill C-22?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the minister did a very good job in getting consultation from a broad sector of stakeholders, such as from law enforcement and the prosecutor's office. One of our former colleagues, from Victoria, gave the NDP's insight formally. I think there was broad consultation. I am sure if the Privacy Commissioner has some concerns, they are able to table their opinions as well.

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today on behalf of the Edmonton Griesbach riding. I will be using my time to speak to Bill C-22.

Bill C-22 is significant. It touches on public safety, privacy and the fundamental relationship between citizens and the government. That means we absolutely have to get it right.

It goes without saying that Conservatives believe in law and order. We have always stood for common-sense measures to keep Canadians safe. For the past decade, we have been urging the Liberal government to reverse its failed policies and restore safety to our communities. Instead, the Liberals have let the situation get out of control.

Last fall, the Liberals put forward Bill C-2, which would have fallen well short of protecting Canadians while overreaching in other areas. Thanks to the work of our Conservative team, we forced the Liberals to back down from Bill C-2, successfully blocking their infringement of individual freedoms and privacy. We stopped the Liberals from limiting the use of cash. We stopped them from opening mail without oversight. We stopped them from demanding that any service provider, including even dry cleaners, disclose user data without judicial oversight. Now we are presented with Bill C-22. While this bill excludes some provisions that Conservatives opposed, it also reintroduces parts of the failed Bill C-2.

My Conservative colleagues and I continue to carefully review every line of this bill, as lawmakers. This legislation requires the necessary scrutiny and, yes, skepticism. Conservatives take this responsibility seriously. We support law enforcement. We want officers to have the tools they need to keep Canadians safe. That is not in question. It has never been in question. Also, we know these powers must be accompanied by strong safeguards, clear limits and independent oversight to protect Canadians' rights and freedoms. At the same time, we stand for the rights and freedoms of Canadians. We stand for privacy and due process. Those two principles must go hand in hand. We will continue working to ensure that privacy and due process are protected, with this legislation and all future legislation.

Unlike the Liberal government, we believe in listening before legislating. As a result, Conservatives have spoken with law enforcement about Bill C-22. What we heard was clear. Officers want tools, and they want clarity. They want to be able to act quickly when it matters most. Of course, we agree with that. We welcome measures that lawfully, and with proper judicial oversight, allow police to access information needed to stop serious crime.

Here is the concern. Too often with the Liberal government, the devil is in the details. We have seen it before. We saw it in Bill C-2. What was packaged as a so-called border bill actually included proposals to inspect Canadians' mail without a warrant. Canadians rejected that. We saw it again in Bill C-8, a cybersecurity bill that made sense on the surface but also included sweeping ministerial powers with little oversight. Now we have Bill C-22, and serious concerns remain.

One of the biggest concerns I have with this legislation is about oversight. This bill would grant significant authority. In some cases, that authority would rest with ministers, not with the courts or with independent bodies. That is a problem. Ministerial authority is not the same as judicial oversight. It is not the same as accountability. It risks becoming arbitrary.

Canadians have reason to be skeptical of Bill C-22. The government has a track record. Time and time again, it has pushed the limits of government power. Time and time again, the Liberals have asked Canadians to simply trust them, but trust must be earned, and right now it is in short supply.

Civil liberties groups from across the spectrum have raised alarms about Bill C-22. That should tell us something. It tells us we need to slow down and take a closer look. This is not just about technology or policing tools. This is about Canadians' personal information, their data, their communications, their private lives. Metadata alone can reveal a great deal, more than many people realize, yet we are being asked to consider provisions that would involve broad data practices without clear limits or definitions. For example, the bill does not clearly define what constitutes a service provider. That could mean telecom companies. It could mean email providers. It could mean messaging apps or cloud storage. In other words, it could mean access to deeply personal aspects of Canadians' lives.

This is not a small matter. We cannot afford vague definitions because once those powers exist, they do not just apply today. They apply tomorrow. They apply to future governments as well. This is not about partisanship but about principle. We must always ask, “How could this power be used, and how could it be misused?” This is our duty as legislators, and it is a duty Conservatives will uphold as we continue to examine this proposed legislation. As legislators, we cannot look at lawful access in isolation. If we are serious about public safety, we need a system that works from start to finish. This includes bail and sentencing. This includes giving police the support they have been asking for over the past number of years.

Too often, the government has been selective, listening to law enforcement when it suits it and ignoring it when it does not. Conservatives will always stand with those on the front lines, but we will not accept a trade-off when Canadians' rights are weakened in the process. On one hand, we must ensure that those who enforce our laws have the tools they need. On the other, we must protect the fundamental rights and freedoms that define our nation. Conservatives will not sacrifice one for the other. If we get this wrong, the consequences will be serious.

We have seen what happens when legislation is rushed and when concerns are dismissed. This is why we will not rubber-stamp Bill C-22. We will do our job. We will study it, question it and propose amendments where needed. We will listen to experts, law enforcement, civil liberties advocates and Canadians, because that is what responsible lawmakers do. We deeply support the objective of keeping Canadians safe. We support giving police effective tools. However, we will not ignore the risks of government overreach or the need for oversight. We will not ignore the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In closing, Bill C-22 raises serious and complex questions. It shows some progress, true, but it is clearly not there yet. It requires careful examination, detailed study, and scrutiny at committee and beyond. Conservatives will continue to stand for common-sense solutions that protect Canadians' individual freedoms, privacy and safety. That work is still ahead of us.

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

Mr. Speaker, to be very clear, the government is not looking for a rubber stamp from the Conservative Party. What we are looking for is a Conservative opposition that at least acknowledges it has a role that allows legislation to go to committee so we can make the changes, if it wants to see changes take place. We have been talking about lawful access for months now, virtually since June. The issue is about national security, including terrorism. It is about child sexual exploitation. It is about extortion. These are serious issues. Let us allow the legislation to proceed. We have been talking about lawful access since June.

Does the member support the principle of lawful access?

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Of course, Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out in my speech, we support giving the police tools. However, Canadians have a right to be skeptical of the Liberal government. In previous legislation, we stopped the Liberals from limiting the use of cash, opening mail without oversight and demanding that any service provider, including hospitals and dry cleaners, disclose user data without judicial oversight.

Canadians have a right to be skeptical, and Conservatives are going to fight anything in this bill that looks suspicious.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will ask my hon. colleague a follow-up on the question asked by the member for Winnipeg North, who is sort of making the allegation that somehow Conservatives are holding up this important legislation. In fact, the reason we are in this position in the first place is that the Liberals introduced Bill C-2, which had so many poison pills in it. It was an omnibus bill that did not address lawful access. It was just one minor part of that omnibus that had, as he addressed, some of the poison pills in it. The fact that this has taken so long is due to the Liberals' failure to communicate on this important issue properly.

Does my hon. colleague agree with my assessment?

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree 100%. The Liberals talk a good game. I had a private member's bill that would have toughened up parole. We had several private members' bills that would have given police more tools. What happened? They got shut down.

The Liberals talk a good game, but let us see them deliver. Again, Canadians have a right to be skeptical when poison pills are injected into legislation.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will give my colleague a moment to put in his earpiece so that he can understand me properly in one of Canada's official languages.

The Conservative Party claims to defend individual freedoms. I would like to ask my colleague a simple question. Does he support “reasonable suspicion” as the threshold for granting access to Quebeckers' and Canadians' digital lives? That is what this bill does right now.

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, the devil is in the details. When we start going through Bill C-22, there are a lot of details we have to look at. We want to give police the tools they need, but we cannot allow the bill to go over and above what Canadians expect. We believe in giving police power but not in giving away charter rights.