Canadian Bill C-22: Lawful Access Act: Difference between revisions
m Category update |
m Clean-up. |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{IncidentCargo | {{IncidentCargo | ||
|Company=Government of Canada | |Company=Government of Canada | ||
|StartDate=2026 | |StartDate=12 March 2026 | ||
|EndDate= | |||
|Status=Active | |Status=Active | ||
|Type=Privacy, Privacy Concern | |Type=Privacy, Privacy Concern | ||
|Description=On | |Description=On March 12, the Canadian government began readings of Bill C-22, The Lawful Access Act. The bill has been widely criticized by privacy advocates over concerns of the retention of metadata and potential for government backdoor access. | ||
}}On March | }} | ||
On 12 March 2026, the Canadian government began readings of Bill C-22, The Lawful Access Act.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2026-03-12 |title=An Act respecting lawful access |url=https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/45-1/c-22 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260316022045/https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/45-1/c-22 |archive-date=2026-03-16 |access-date=2026-05-19 |website=LEGISinfo}}</ref> The bill has been widely criticized by privacy advocates including the Electronic Frontier Foundation and The Citizen Lab.<ref name=":0">{{Cite news |last=Klosowski |first=Thorin |date=2026-05-11 |title=Canada’s Bill C-22 Is a Repackaged Version of Last Year’s Surveillance Nightmare |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/05/canadas-bill-c-22-repackaged-version-last-years-surveillance-nightmare |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260513160959/https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/05/canadas-bill-c-22-repackaged-version-last-years-surveillance-nightmare |archive-date=2026-05-13 |access-date=2026-05-19 |work=Electronic Frontier Froundation}}</ref><ref name=":1">{{Cite news |last=Hatfield |first=Matt |date=2026-04-21 |title=Civil Society to Parliament: Kill Bill C-22 |url=https://openmedia.org/press/item/civil-society-to-parliament-kill-bill-c-22 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260518051029/https://openmedia.org/press/item/civil-society-to-parliament-kill-bill-c-22 |archive-date=2026-05-18 |access-date=2026-05-19 |work=Open Media}}</ref><ref name=":2">{{Cite news |last=Rene |first=Millman |date=2026-05-15 |title=Windscribe joins Signal in threatening Canada exit over controversial surveillance bill |url=https://www.techradar.com/vpn/vpn-privacy-security/windscribe-joins-signal-in-threatening-canada-exit-over-controversial-surveillance-bill |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260517192715/https://www.techradar.com/vpn/vpn-privacy-security/windscribe-joins-signal-in-threatening-canada-exit-over-controversial-surveillance-bill |archive-date=2026-05-17 |access-date=2026-05-19 |work=TechRadar}}</ref><ref name=":3">{{Cite news |date=2026-03-20 |title=Justice Centre launches national petition to stop Bill C-22 |url=https://www.jccf.ca/justice-centre-launches-national-petition-to-stop-bill-c-22/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260517031738/https://www.jccf.ca/justice-centre-launches-national-petition-to-stop-bill-c-22/ |archive-date=2026-05-17 |access-date=2026-05-19 |work=Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms}}</ref><ref name=":4">{{Cite web |date=2026-05-19 |title=Canadians Oppose Key Surveillance Powers in Bill C-22 and Want Strong Protections for Encrypted Communications |url=https://cdt.org/press/canadians-oppose-key-surveillance-powers-in-bill-c-22-and-want-strong-protections-for-encrypted-communications/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260520024858/https://cdt.org/press/canadians-oppose-key-surveillance-powers-in-bill-c-22-and-want-strong-protections-for-encrypted-communications/ |archive-date=20 May 2026 |access-date=2026-05-19 |website=Center For Democracy & Technology}}</ref><ref name=":5">{{Cite news |last=Woolf |first=Marie |date=2026-05-13 |title=Signal warns it would pull out of Canada if made to comply with lawful access bill |url=https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-signal-warns-it-would-pull-out-of-canada-if-made-to-comply-with-lawful/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260519052945/https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-signal-warns-it-would-pull-out-of-canada-if-made-to-comply-with-lawful/ |archive-date=2026-05-19 |access-date=2026-05-19 |work=The Globe And Mail}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Severi |first=Misty |date=2026-05-07 |title=Exclusive: House GOP warns Canada its new cybersecurity bill could pose privacy risks to Americans |url=https://justthenews.com/government/congress/exclusive-house-gop-warns-canada-its-new-cybersecurity-bill-could-pose-privacy |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260512014838/https://justthenews.com/government/congress/exclusive-house-gop-warns-canada-its-new-cybersecurity-bill-could-pose-privacy |archive-date=2026-05-12 |access-date=2026-05-19 |work=Just The News}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |date=2026-04-29 |title=Kill Bill C-22 Says Civil Society to Parliament |url=https://citizenlab.ca/kill-bill-c-22-says-civil-society-to-parliament/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260430010526/https://citizenlab.ca/kill-bill-c-22-says-civil-society-to-parliament/ |archive-date=2026-04-30 |access-date=2026-05-19 |work=The Citizen Lab}}</ref> | |||
==Background== | ==Background== | ||
Slightly less than a year prior to the proposal of Bill C-22, the federal government attempted to pass Bill C-2, the Strong Borders Act. <ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-06-03 |title=An Act respecting certain measures relating to the security of the border between Canada and the United States and respecting other related security measures |url=https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/45-1/c-2 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260427075334/https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/45-1/C-2 |archive-date=2026-04-27 |access-date=2026-05-19 |website=LEGISinfo}}</ref> Bill C-2 failed to pass and gained widespread condemnation from privacy advocates due to its broad lawful access provisions. <ref>{{Cite news |last=Mullin |first=Joe |date=2025-07-25 |title=Canada’s Bill C-2 Opens the Floodgates to U.S. Surveillance |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/07/canadas-bill-c-2-opens-floodgates-us-surveillance |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260512182146/https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/07/canadas-bill-c-2-opens-floodgates-us-surveillance |archive-date=2026-05-12 |access-date=2026-05-19 |work=Electronic Frontier Foundation}}</ref><ref name=":6">{{Cite web |last=Ferguson |first=Christopher |last2=Milton |first2=Leslie |date=2026-03-26 |title=Bill C‑22: The Lawful Access Act Reintroduces Lawful Access in Parliament After the Government of Canada’s Abortive Attempt to Do So in Bill C‑2, the Strong Borders Act |url=https://www.fasken.com/en/knowledge/2026/03/the-government-of-canada-introduces-bill-c22 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/ | Slightly less than a year prior to the proposal of Bill C-22, the federal government attempted to pass Bill C-2, the Strong Borders Act.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-06-03 |title=An Act respecting certain measures relating to the security of the border between Canada and the United States and respecting other related security measures |url=https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/45-1/c-2 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260427075334/https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/45-1/C-2 |archive-date=2026-04-27 |access-date=2026-05-19 |website=LEGISinfo}}</ref> Bill C-2 failed to pass and gained widespread condemnation from privacy advocates due to its broad lawful access provisions.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Mullin |first=Joe |date=2025-07-25 |title=Canada’s Bill C-2 Opens the Floodgates to U.S. Surveillance |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/07/canadas-bill-c-2-opens-floodgates-us-surveillance |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260512182146/https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/07/canadas-bill-c-2-opens-floodgates-us-surveillance |archive-date=2026-05-12 |access-date=2026-05-19 |work=Electronic Frontier Foundation}}</ref><ref name=":6">{{Cite web |last=Ferguson |first=Christopher |last2=Milton |first2=Leslie |date=2026-03-26 |title=Bill C‑22: The Lawful Access Act Reintroduces Lawful Access in Parliament After the Government of Canada’s Abortive Attempt to Do So in Bill C‑2, the Strong Borders Act |url=https://www.fasken.com/en/knowledge/2026/03/the-government-of-canada-introduces-bill-c22 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260520025245/https://www.fasken.com/en/knowledge/2026/03/the-government-of-canada-introduces-bill-c22 |archive-date=20 May 2026 |access-date=2026-05-19 |website=FASKEN}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Robertson |first=Kate |date=2025-06-16 |title=Unspoken Implications: A Preliminary Analysis of Bill C-2 and Canada’s Potential Data-Sharing Obligations Towards the United States and Other Countries |url=https://citizenlab.ca/research/a-preliminary-analysis-of-bill-c-2/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260513145912/https://citizenlab.ca/research/a-preliminary-analysis-of-bill-c-2/ |archive-date=2026-05-13 |access-date=2026-05-19 |work=The Citizen Lab}}</ref> As a result, the government split the bill's provisions into Bill C-12 (border and customs related provisions) and Bill C-22 which reintroduced the lawful access provisions from Bill C-2.<ref name=":6" /> According to Public Safety Canada, the federal government of Canada initially proposed Bill C-22 as a way to modernize Canada's legal framework for lawful access to information. The bill's stated goal is to address gaps in existing laws that may prevent law enforcement agencies from obtaining information needed to generate investigative leads, identify suspects, and prosecute individuals or groups involved in serious criminal activity or national security threats.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2026-03-12 |title=Backgrounder – Supporting Authorized Access to Information Act (Bill C-22 – Part 2) |url=https://www.canada.ca/en/public-safety-canada/news/2026/03/backgrounder--securing-access-to-information-in-bill-c-22.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260511042516/https://www.canada.ca/en/public-safety-canada/news/2026/03/backgrounder--securing-access-to-information-in-bill-c-22.html |archive-date=2026-05-11 |access-date=2026-05-19 |website=Canada.ca}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2026-03-24 |title=Proposed changes to laws on timely access to information (Bill C-22 - Part 1) |url=https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/c22/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260508003742/https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/c22/ |archive-date=2026-05-08 |access-date=2026-05-19 |website=Department of Justice Canada}}</ref> | ||
==Controversial contents== | ==Controversial contents== | ||
As of | As of 19 May 2026, the bill is still being updated in parliament. Compared to its Bill C-2 predecessor, the new bill improved judicial oversight regarding access to internet subscriber information.<ref name=":6" /> One area of concern in the bill is the mandatory retention of metadata for digital services (including messaging applications), which would be required to be kept for a full year. Moreover, the bill would allow for the Minister of Public Safety to demand that companies create a backdoor to their services to provide law enforcement access to data, so long as these demands don't introduce a ''"systemic vulnerability"''.<ref name=":0" /><ref>{{Cite web |date=2026-03-12 |title=Bill C-22 |url=https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/45-1/bill/C-22/first-reading |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260428080135/https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/45-1/bill/C-22/first-reading |archive-date=2026-04-28 |access-date=2026-05-19 |website=Parliament of Canada}}</ref> According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the vague definitions of ''encryption'' and ''systemic vulnerability'' would allow the government to make demands to circumvent encryption.<ref name=":0" /> | ||
==Response from companies== | ==Response from companies== | ||
Since the tabling of the bill, many civil liberty and privacy advocate groups (as well as tech companies) have spoken out against the bill <ref name=":0" /><ref name=":1" /><ref name=":2" /><ref name=":3" /><ref name=":4" /><ref name=":5" /> | Since the tabling of the bill, many civil liberty and privacy advocate groups (as well as tech companies) have spoken out against the bill.<ref name=":0" /><ref name=":1" /><ref name=":2" /><ref name=":3" /><ref name=":4" /><ref name=":5" /> In response to the legislation, Udbhav Tiwari, the vice president of strategy and global affairs for the [[Signal|encrypted messaging app Signal]], stated that Signal ''"would rather pull out of the country than be compelled to compromise on the privacy promises we have made to our users"''.<ref name=":5" /> Similarly, Windscribe, a Canadian based VPN service, has threatened to leave Canada completely.<ref name=":2" /> Popular VPN provider [[NordVPN]] has also threatened to leave Canada.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Karadeglija |first=Anja |date=2026-05-15 |title=Major VPN provider says it could leave Canada over lawful access bill |url=https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/article/major-vpn-provider-says-it-could-leave-canada-over-lawful-access-bill/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260517004328/https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/article/major-vpn-provider-says-it-could-leave-canada-over-lawful-access-bill/ |archive-date=2026-05-17 |access-date=2025-06-19 |work=CTV News}}</ref> [[Apple]] has claimed that Bill C-22 would ''"allow the government to issue orders weakening encryption and create vulnerabilities that hackers and hostile nation states could exploit."''<ref>{{Cite news |last=Tunney |first=Catharine |date=2026-05-06 |title=Apple argues Liberals' lawful access bill could put users’ personal data at risk |url=https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/apple-argues-liberals-lawful-access-bill-could-put-users-personal-data-at-risk-9.7190092 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260513023101/https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/apple-argues-liberals-lawful-access-bill-could-put-users-personal-data-at-risk-9.7190092 |archive-date=13 May 2026 |access-date=2026-05-19 |work=CBC News}}</ref> [[Meta]] has also spoken out against the bill.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2026-05-07 |title=Meta’s Position on Canada’s Bill C-22 |url=https://about.fb.com/news/2026/05/metas-position-on-canadas-bill-c-22/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260516083106/https://about.fb.com/news/2026/05/metas-position-on-canadas-bill-c-22/ |archive-date=2026-05-16 |access-date=2026-05-19 |website=Meta}}</ref> | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
{{ | {{Reflist}} | ||
[[Category:Canadian legislation]] | [[Category:Canadian legislation]] | ||
[[Category:Canadian incidents]] | [[Category:Canadian incidents]] | ||
Latest revision as of 03:20, 20 May 2026
On 12 March 2026, the Canadian government began readings of Bill C-22, The Lawful Access Act.[1] The bill has been widely criticized by privacy advocates including the Electronic Frontier Foundation and The Citizen Lab.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]
Background
[edit | edit source]Slightly less than a year prior to the proposal of Bill C-22, the federal government attempted to pass Bill C-2, the Strong Borders Act.[10] Bill C-2 failed to pass and gained widespread condemnation from privacy advocates due to its broad lawful access provisions.[11][12][13] As a result, the government split the bill's provisions into Bill C-12 (border and customs related provisions) and Bill C-22 which reintroduced the lawful access provisions from Bill C-2.[12] According to Public Safety Canada, the federal government of Canada initially proposed Bill C-22 as a way to modernize Canada's legal framework for lawful access to information. The bill's stated goal is to address gaps in existing laws that may prevent law enforcement agencies from obtaining information needed to generate investigative leads, identify suspects, and prosecute individuals or groups involved in serious criminal activity or national security threats.[14][15]
Controversial contents
[edit | edit source]As of 19 May 2026, the bill is still being updated in parliament. Compared to its Bill C-2 predecessor, the new bill improved judicial oversight regarding access to internet subscriber information.[12] One area of concern in the bill is the mandatory retention of metadata for digital services (including messaging applications), which would be required to be kept for a full year. Moreover, the bill would allow for the Minister of Public Safety to demand that companies create a backdoor to their services to provide law enforcement access to data, so long as these demands don't introduce a "systemic vulnerability".[2][16] According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the vague definitions of encryption and systemic vulnerability would allow the government to make demands to circumvent encryption.[2]
Response from companies
[edit | edit source]Since the tabling of the bill, many civil liberty and privacy advocate groups (as well as tech companies) have spoken out against the bill.[2][3][4][5][6][7] In response to the legislation, Udbhav Tiwari, the vice president of strategy and global affairs for the encrypted messaging app Signal, stated that Signal "would rather pull out of the country than be compelled to compromise on the privacy promises we have made to our users".[7] Similarly, Windscribe, a Canadian based VPN service, has threatened to leave Canada completely.[4] Popular VPN provider NordVPN has also threatened to leave Canada.[17] Apple has claimed that Bill C-22 would "allow the government to issue orders weakening encryption and create vulnerabilities that hackers and hostile nation states could exploit."[18] Meta has also spoken out against the bill.[19]
References
[edit | edit source]- ↑ "An Act respecting lawful access". LEGISinfo. 2026-03-12. Archived from the original on 2026-03-16. Retrieved 2026-05-19.
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Klosowski, Thorin (2026-05-11). "Canada's Bill C-22 Is a Repackaged Version of Last Year's Surveillance Nightmare". Electronic Frontier Froundation. Archived from the original on 2026-05-13. Retrieved 2026-05-19.
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Hatfield, Matt (2026-04-21). "Civil Society to Parliament: Kill Bill C-22". Open Media. Archived from the original on 2026-05-18. Retrieved 2026-05-19.
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 Rene, Millman (2026-05-15). "Windscribe joins Signal in threatening Canada exit over controversial surveillance bill". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2026-05-17. Retrieved 2026-05-19.
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 "Justice Centre launches national petition to stop Bill C-22". Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms. 2026-03-20. Archived from the original on 2026-05-17. Retrieved 2026-05-19.
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 "Canadians Oppose Key Surveillance Powers in Bill C-22 and Want Strong Protections for Encrypted Communications". Center For Democracy & Technology. 2026-05-19. Archived from the original on 20 May 2026. Retrieved 2026-05-19.
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 Woolf, Marie (2026-05-13). "Signal warns it would pull out of Canada if made to comply with lawful access bill". The Globe And Mail. Archived from the original on 2026-05-19. Retrieved 2026-05-19.
- ↑ Severi, Misty (2026-05-07). "Exclusive: House GOP warns Canada its new cybersecurity bill could pose privacy risks to Americans". Just The News. Archived from the original on 2026-05-12. Retrieved 2026-05-19.
- ↑ "Kill Bill C-22 Says Civil Society to Parliament". The Citizen Lab. 2026-04-29. Archived from the original on 2026-04-30. Retrieved 2026-05-19.
- ↑ "An Act respecting certain measures relating to the security of the border between Canada and the United States and respecting other related security measures". LEGISinfo. 2025-06-03. Archived from the original on 2026-04-27. Retrieved 2026-05-19.
- ↑ Mullin, Joe (2025-07-25). "Canada's Bill C-2 Opens the Floodgates to U.S. Surveillance". Electronic Frontier Foundation. Archived from the original on 2026-05-12. Retrieved 2026-05-19.
- ↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 Ferguson, Christopher; Milton, Leslie (2026-03-26). "Bill C‑22: The Lawful Access Act Reintroduces Lawful Access in Parliament After the Government of Canada's Abortive Attempt to Do So in Bill C‑2, the Strong Borders Act". FASKEN. Archived from the original on 20 May 2026. Retrieved 2026-05-19.
- ↑ Robertson, Kate (2025-06-16). "Unspoken Implications: A Preliminary Analysis of Bill C-2 and Canada's Potential Data-Sharing Obligations Towards the United States and Other Countries". The Citizen Lab. Archived from the original on 2026-05-13. Retrieved 2026-05-19.
- ↑ "Backgrounder – Supporting Authorized Access to Information Act (Bill C-22 – Part 2)". Canada.ca. 2026-03-12. Archived from the original on 2026-05-11. Retrieved 2026-05-19.
- ↑ "Proposed changes to laws on timely access to information (Bill C-22 - Part 1)". Department of Justice Canada. 2026-03-24. Archived from the original on 2026-05-08. Retrieved 2026-05-19.
- ↑ "Bill C-22". Parliament of Canada. 2026-03-12. Archived from the original on 2026-04-28. Retrieved 2026-05-19.
- ↑ Karadeglija, Anja (2026-05-15). "Major VPN provider says it could leave Canada over lawful access bill". CTV News. Archived from the original on 2026-05-17. Retrieved 2025-06-19.
- ↑ Tunney, Catharine (2026-05-06). "Apple argues Liberals' lawful access bill could put users' personal data at risk". CBC News. Archived from the original on 13 May 2026. Retrieved 2026-05-19.
- ↑ "Meta's Position on Canada's Bill C-22". Meta. 2026-05-07. Archived from the original on 2026-05-16. Retrieved 2026-05-19.