Liberals Defend Fast-Tracking Lawful Access Legislation

The government is defending the expedited passage of its lawful access legislation Bill C-22, fending off criticism that the consequential bill required more thorough consideration.

The majority Liberal government passed the bill through the House of Commons on June 18, using a procedural motion to jointly move several pieces of legislation before Parliament adjourns for the summer.

The Conservatives had repeatedly requested that Bill C-22 be split into two parts, recommending the first part of the bill focused on additional law enforcement tools be passed, with the more contentious second part focused on metadata retention being studied further.

The Liberals opposed the proposal, and instead tabled a motion to expedite passage of the bill by limiting the Public Safety committee’s clause-by-clause review and MP debate. After passing the House, the bill is now headed to the Senate.

Government House Leader Steven MacKinnon defended the decision on June 19, charging the Conservative Party’s opposition to Bill C-22 stemmed from “conspiracy theories.”

The government’s lawful access bill has been met by “this wall of conspiracy theory, frankly, paranoia that I know many other Conservatives bristle at,” MacKinnon told reporters in Ottawa on June 18.

“I hope that the conspiracies and the tin foil hats are something that will fade away over time,” MacKinnon said, adding that he believes the Liberals are now the primary party supporting “law and order” in Canada.

In addition to Tory criticism, Bill C-22 has raised concerns among privacy advocates, civil liberties groups, and technology experts, who argue that expanded government powers to access digital communications could undermine Canadians’ privacy rights.

Bill C-22 would allow law enforcement to require a telecommunications provider to confirm whether it provides services to a specified person or account on “reasonable grounds” that a crime has been or will be committed. Police could then seek judicial authorization for a production order to obtain subscriber information relevant to an investigation.

The second part of the legislation, which the Conservatives and civil liberties groups have raised concerns with, would require certain electronic service providers to retain specified metadata for a period of time, and would compel telecommunications and online service providers to grant authorities access to user data. While the original bill required the metadata to be retained for one year, the bill was passed with government amendments shortening the maximum to six months.

The Liberals argue the measures are necessary to help police investigate serious crimes in an increasingly digital world.

Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree said on June 16 that the Liberals were expediting the bill because the Conservative Party had been filibustering it. Later that day, Liberal MP and public safety committee chair Jean-Yves Duclos said the committee had spent nearly 27 hours in total reviewing Bill C-22 and that, if the pace of debate continued, the bill would not pass until the end of 2028.

Conservative shadow public safety minister MP Frank Caputo said in committee on June 17 that MPs had not been able to debate significant privacy issues contained in the bill “that may impact the Charter.”

“Make no mistake, a court will consider the words that we pass on paper here someday, and they will decide the constitutionality of those words, and we are expected to pass those words without debate,” he said.

Several tech companies, including Signal, Proton VPN and NordVPN, have publicly opposed Bill C-22, arguing that it could undermine encryption, require metadata retention, or create technical access obligations that conflict with their commitments to privacy.

Google and Apple also previously raised concerns about Bill C-22 requiring tech companies to create “back doors” to grant security agencies lawful access to user data. Apple’s senior director of user privacy, Erik Neuenschwander, noted that the Chinese cyberattack “Salt Typhoon” exploited systems that internet service providers put in place in the United States to process police wiretap requests.

University of Ottawa law professor and digital rights expert Michael Geist has expressed concerns that the legislation could significantly expand government surveillance powers while weakening privacy protections. He argued that measures requiring telecommunications companies and internet service providers to facilitate access to subscriber information and communications data risk lowering the threshold for government access to personal information.

He said any lawful access framework should include robust judicial oversight, transparency requirements, and accountability mechanisms to ensure that law enforcement powers are proportionate and consistent with Canadians’ privacy rights under the Charter.