Bill C-22 · 45th Parliament · Mark Carney
Lawful Access Act, 2026
An Act respecting lawful access
Government bill. Still before Parliament.
- IntroducedMarch 12, 2026
- Debated in principleApril 20, 2026
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberJune 18, 2026
- Passed the second chamberNot reached
- Became lawNot reached
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Mark CarneyPrime Minister
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
What it set out to do
On 12 March 2026, the Minister of Public Safety introduced Bill C-22, An Act respecting lawful access (Lawful Access Act, 2026) in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. 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…
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
For it 27
Voted for it, or spoke in support
Challenging it 44
Support only with changes, or serious objections raised in debate
and 4 more
Against it 4
Voted against it and argued against it
How it changed on the way
Only laws are compared, introduced against passed.
How precisely it is written
mostly preciseChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill relies on defined terms, numbered limits, and objective suspicion-or-belief tests for most warrants and demands, yet leaves several key decisions to judicial or ministerial discretion. This produces workable black-and-white rules in many places while still inviting argument over what counts as appropriate conditions or jeopardy to an investigation.
Open to argument
“A warrant may contain any conditions that the justice or judge considers appropriate, including conditions to protect a person’s interests.”
Subjective standard delegates scope of restrictions to individual judges without further statutory guidance.“the peace officer or public officer may impose the conditions only if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the disclosure during that period would jeopardize the conduct of the investigation”
Uses open-ended 'jeopardize' test that turns on an officer’s assessment rather than a fixed criterion.“will assist in the investigation of the offence”
Broad assistance language appears repeatedly and lacks any quantitative or enumerated threshold.
Clear-cut
“the authorization is to be in Form 5.00802 and must specify that a peace officer or public officer must not send a production request more than 30 days after the day on which the authorization is granted.”
Hard 30-day cap and mandatory form create clear temporal and procedural boundaries.“is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable to a fine of not more than $5,000.”
Fixed maximum penalty and summary-conviction classification leave little room for interpretive dispute.“subscriber information , in relation to any client of a person who provides services to the public or any subscriber to the services of such a person, means (a) information that may be used to identify the subscriber or client, including their name, pseudonym, address, telephone number and email address;”
Enumerated list of data fields supplies an objective definition.
Discretion. Ministers may issue binding orders to core providers after receiving representations and Intelligence Commissioner review, while judges decide warrant conditions, night searches, and similar-thing extensions on a case-by-case basis.
Challenging the law itself. Section 8 Charter claims are plausible because many provisions still hinge on 'reasonable grounds to suspect' and broad 'assist' language, yet the repeated use of judicial pre-authorization and defined subscriber data narrows the target for vagueness or overbreadth arguments.
Disputing a charge under it. An accused can readily dispute whether an officer had reasonable grounds to suspect or believe, but once a warrant or demand is issued the statutory elements (forms, time limits, defined data types) are comparatively easy to verify.
Read by a language model from the as introduced text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
Only laws in force for two years or more are checked.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.