This week, Bill C-22, formally called the Lawful Access Act, is moving through Parliament. The bill, which is currently being reviewed, was introduced by Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Liberal government this past March, and is aiming to update criminal and national security laws for the digital age. The legislation would grant law enforcement and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) new powers as well as access to digital data and meta data.
Jenny Kwan, NDP MP for Vancouver-East, says we shouldn’t be fooled by the bill’s promises on the surface. She agrees that in this modern age, because of changes in technology, we need to modernize our lawful access approaches so that the policies in intelligence agencies can do their work.
“But effective policing and intelligence work can and should operate within a robust legal framework that preserves judicial oversight and limits data collection to what is strictly necessary,” she tells me from her constituency office. “This bill fails: It lowers the threshold for access to personal information. It expands executive authority over digital infrastructure. It mandates and enables large-scale data retention, and increases systematic exposure of private communications.”
Kwan says the problem is that the Liberals haven’t struck the right balance in trying to address the need to modernize legal access while protecting civil liberties and privacy.
Last week federal NDP Leader Avi Lewis posted to his social media channels his own concerns over Bill C-22. “If passed, the legislation would allow police to pull information on who we talk to, when and where, all without a warrant.”
Kwan: Carney government didn’t learn lessons of failed bill
Even though the bill was just introduced months ago and is being tabled this week, it isn’t really new, Kwan says — something she adds is part of the issue.
“The Liberal Carney government, right out of the floodgates after the election, introduced Bill C-2. Bill C-2 was a sweeping set of legislation that combined a variety of different areas including the provisions in this bill, and some immigration components,” Kwan explains.
That original bill was met with significant backlash. “And rightfully so,” Kwan says. “Over 300 organizations came out and raised concerns.”
That’s when the Carney government shelved the piece of legislation.
“Then came Bill C-22; in that process one would have thought they learned the lessons and would properly consult and make sure that they balance the concerns that the community members had raised — including the NDP — around privacy and civil liberties and the need for changes to law enforcement and CSIS’s access to information for the work that they do.”
“Canada is far behind our most important allies,” Canada’s public safety minister, Gary Anandasangaree, said in March. “Our laws are stuck in another century while technology has moved forward.”
‘A whole host of organizations are raising deep concerns’
Kwan believes that coming back with Bill C-22 is a failure in that consultative process.
What Kwan says is especially shocking to her is that the government, in this process, did not consult with the Privacy Commissioner in the drafting of the bill. “They had the Privacy Commissioner show up at committee after the bill has gone through the second reading and is now sitting before the committee. It indicates how they have failed in ‘Drafting Legislations 101.’ When you’re talking about a bill that infringes on people’s privacies and civil liberties, you ought to consult the independent officers who are in charge of protecting Canadians’ privacy.”
Consequently, a host of organizations, NGOs, civil liberty defenders, and private defenders, are all coming forward to raise deep concerns, Kwan says. “They’re calling for either the entire bill to be shelved and to start all over again, or alternatively, to make substantive amendments to the bill. This is where we’re at with this situation once again.”
Critics beyond NDP: Conservatives, tech companies and Canadian Chamber of Commerce
But why would the Carney government champion such a bill to begin with?
“The government is moving forward in a way that is more indicative of an authoritarian approach rather a democratic approach,” says Kwan. “Bill C-22 is an indication of that. Civil liberties organizations have said the bill is one of the most significant expansion of state surveillance authority in Canada in decades. They’re even saying that it’s the most invasive piece of legislation to come forward.”
Even the Canadian Chamber of Commerce seems to think so. “You wouldn’t have thought that they would be against a banker prime minister’s legislation, the CCC, representing 200,000 businesses with a network of over 400 chambers of commerce and boards of trade across the country, said they are fundamentally opposed to this bill. They oppose the breaking of encryption and other essential zero knowledge security tools to provide the government and law enforcement with unfettered access to digital systems.”
Kwan adds that larger tech companies like Apple and Google are adding their voice to the disagreement of this bill.
“Bill C-22 is adding sweeping new powers that would allow any digital service provider to retain data on every single person in Canada without cost and to compel the redesign of digital systems in a way that will make Canadians more exposed and not more secure.”
The bill would also require electronic service providers to build and maintain interception capabilities within their system, Kwan adds. “Metadata, as we know, is really important and it says a lot about a person. So the legislation, while it may not include the content of the communications, it does review the pattern of behaviour, who we talk to, when we talk to them, where we are, how often we interact with them, and for how long. … Metadata is more revealing than is content. It’s basically a skeleton of a person’s private life. And this will all be exposed and allowed under this new bill.”
The government doesn’t even stop there, stresses Kwan. “They are requiring companies — forcing them — to build mechanisms that would enable easy access to encrypted or private communications. And those mechanisms don’t get contained for lawful access. We know that there are malicious actors out there, and this will expose critical information to people who want to exploit the system for their own purposes. This is, in effect, a back door that will actually expose huge vulnerabilities for Canadians’ privacy.”
Kwan’s understanding is that Conservative members of Parliament, who she says “have raised deep concerns around this,” will be moving amendments at committee.
“So we share concerns, and more to the point, the people in the public realm who are generally not engaged deeply in this level of politics have raised deep concerns. The watchdogs have sounded the alarm from the beginning.”
Prime Minister Mark Carney is seen during an event at a grocery store in Ottawa on Monday, Jan. 26, 2026. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Adrian Wyld
(The Canadian Press)Kwan: Carney government ‘more brazen’ in its approach
There is a likelihood that the bill could be passed.
“The Liberals have gotten their majority through the back door, and back door seems to be their thing nowadays with floorcrossers,” Kwan says. “What I’m watching is that they’re becoming more brazen with their approach to centralizing governance, and are going beyond in many cases what Stephen Harper would dare to have entertained.”
Kwan hopes she is proven wrong. She does have dozens of amendments to the bill, but in the past, whenever she has tabled amendments to address concerns with a bill, the Liberals have always voted against them. “I would expect that they would vote against my amendments this time around as well,” she says. “But because they have a majority, they can just push it through.”
Even if the bill doesn’t get passed, Kwan says she expects “the government to come back with yet another round.”
“If they do, I would hope that they actually take the time to properly consult with all the different stakeholders and bring back a balanced piece of legislation.”
Despite the odds, Kwan isn’t quitting. She has sponsored an official petition to withdraw Bill C-22.
As of Tuesday morning, it had gathered more than 8,400 signatures. “For Canadians to be subjected to the risks of this bill — it could even be something as simple as suspicion — is clearly wrong.”