OTTAWA — The Liberal government has tabled revised “lawful access” legislation, seeking to give police new powers to access digital evidence and act on it more quickly, in what federal officials say is an effort to keep up with advances in technology and increasingly sophisticated criminal behaviour.
The version tabled Thursday by Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree is a second attempt at advancing legislation of this kind in this Parliament, after the first version faced major pushback from civil liberty groups.
Bill C-22 — the “Lawful Access Act, 2026” — proposes a refined “timely access to digital information” regime that widens the scope of what law enforcement can obtain from telecommunications service providers from what’s currently permitted. However, it’s narrower than initially proposed. The bill also clarifies the kind of subscriber information that can be accessed.
Specifically, through Criminal Code amendments, Bill C-22 would facilitate improved access to online information that would assist investigations. The legislation, if passed, would require internet and phone companies to confirm to law enforcement if they provide service to a particular suspected person or account.
From there, police could seek a production order to obtain subscriber information such as a name, address, and phone number. In doing so, officials said the onus would be on police to demonstrate reasonable suspicion that a crime has been or will be committed, and that the information would assist in investigating that offence.
“This new legislation, Bill C-22, balances the needs of law enforcement with the privacy and civil rights that Canadians demand,” said Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree.
“It’s about ensuring that when police have the legal grounds and the judicial authorizations to obtain information, the system works in a way that reflects the speed and complexity of modern crime,” said Justice Minister Sean Fraser.
The bill also seeks to update this country’s legal authorities, including by revising existing search warrant powers for computer searches, and proposes to allow Canadian police to seek information from foreign electronic service providers such as major social media companies and OpenAI.
Bill C-22 does not authorize the search or seizure of content information such as browsing or social media history, according to officials who briefed reporters on the contents of the legislation.
“It is not about surveillance of Canadians going on about their daily lives. It is about keeping Canadians safe in the online space,” Anandasangaree said.
Provisions of the proposed legislation would also shorten the review process for compelling legal document to be turned over to law enforcement. It also aims to clarify the ability for police to receive and act on information that’s voluntarily provided.
The 61-page legislation would additionally create new enforcement tools for Public Safety Canada. In instances where electronic service providers fail to comply, the minister could apply monetary penalties or issue regulatory offences. The minister could also impose “flexible and targeted” ministerial orders to compel providers to develop and maintain specific capabilities.
The ministerial orders would be subject to annual public reporting, with unredacted versions going to top national security panels, and the entire legislative framework would be reviewed by Parliament three years after it passes.
Police say new powers needed, long overdue
The government says the police and CSIS “are facing challenges in timely access to information and intelligence that is critical to their investigations,” and that “such authorities and capabilities exist in all other Five Eyes, the EU and all of their states and beyond.”
These were sentiments echoed by federal, provincial, and municipal police leaders who were in Ottawa for the unveiling of the legislation.
“The reality is that lawful access currently is as important as forensics is. Forensics, over the course of decades, has continued to evolve. The legislation around lawful access has not,” said Peel Regional Police deputy chief Nick Milinovich.
“Key and critical components of this proposed legislation allow us to advance our investigations where previously there was no pathway forward,” said OPP Commissioner Thomas Carrique. He added that these new powers will allow police to identify offenders and also identify locations, allowing them to “advance criminal investigations that are just simply stopping at unacceptable points.”
Various officers also made a point of noting that they’ve been pushing for an improved lawful access regime virtually their entire policing careers.
“You know, 25 years ago, 30 years ago, every investigative group in this country had a phone book, and in that phone book, detectives and investigators would go through and look at addresses, names and phone numbers,” said RCMP senior deputy commissioner Bryan Larkin. “The world has changed, and the home address now is an IP address, and phone number is some mobile phone, a burner phone.”
Second attempt amid privacy pushback
The initial attempt to legislate on this was though Bill C-2, the Liberals’ omnibus security bill titled the “Strong Borders Act” tabled last spring.
The government essentially abandoned that legislation at an early parliamentary stage, opting to advance a separate piece of legislation in the fall, that did not include the lawful access provisions, in order see other measures pass more quickly.
That decision was made given the blowback from by civil liberties and opposition parties over concerns the proposed new search powers in that version were overly broad, intrusive, and an infringement on Canadians’ privacy.
During Thursday’s briefing, senior government officials insisted this version includes “robust safeguards,” and upholds Charter protections. They also emphasized Canadian law enforcement needs these tools to investigate serious security threats and sophisticated criminal networks, child exploitation, and transnational organized crime.
Before bringing Bill C-22 forward, the government conducted rounds of consultation with stakeholders, academics, victim advocacy groups, police, and privacy rights organizations to inform the refinement of the legislation.
Among those involved in the consultations, was Norman Paterson School of International Affairs’ associate professor Leah West, who told CTV News she’s “more optimistic that this is the type of bill that could be constitutional.”West said among her initial concerns with Bill C-2 was that the way the legislation was worded sought to capture “nice to have” but not the essential information, which “made it ripe for potential abuse,” as well as lacking oversight on the types of orders that the minister could issue to service providers.
“Both of those issues for me, have been remedied in this bill,” West said. “I think Canadians should always be concerned when the government is trying to get access to information that reveals private information about us. So we should always be skeptical and questioning. I think this version of the bill does a far better job of narrowing the type of information they can get and under what circumstances and really limiting the type of information they can get without a judge giving an okay.”
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) was among the groups to express serious reservations about the first iteration of the lawful access regime. Speaking to CTV News on Thursday, the director for the CCLA’s privacy, surveillance and technology program Tamir Israel said that while the government has addressed “some of the elements that were really quite concerning,” such as leaving the door open to various service providers, ranging from a doctor to your hotel, being compelled to confirm whether an individual ever used their service, other problematic elements persist, or have been expanded.
“One provision that allows the government to order companies to basically create new surveillance tools and integrate them into their services remains largely intact and hasn’t been narrowed. This provision applies to a wide array of digital companies and can lead to very significant privacy intrusions,” Israel said. “Once you build a door like that, anyone can walk through it, so you’re creating vulnerabilities.”
Asked if he takes accountability for the issues with the first version that resulted in this now nearly yearlong delay in reviving efforts in Parliament to pass such policies, minister Anandasangaree didn’t directly answer, saying he believes the government now has the “right balance,” and is calling on the other parties to cooperate in helping pass this version “expeditiously.”
