This House of Commons committee meeting on Bill C-22, an act respecting lawful access, heard from a range of witnesses including legal scholars, police chiefs, business representatives, child protection advocates, and oversight officials. The committee studied the bill's provisions to modernize law enforcement access to digital data.
Leah West, an associate professor, argued that while Bill C-22 is a meaningful improvement over past efforts, targeted amendments are needed. She recommended that subscriber information production orders be narrowed to allow police and judges to authorize only specific data types, that judges be required to assess the risk of mistreatment when data is requested from foreign jurisdictions, and that the definition of "systemic vulnerability" be strengthened, blanket data retention be prohibited, and it be made explicit that law enforcement cannot directly collect data from service providers' systems.
Chief Darcy Fleury of the Thunder Bay Police Service strongly supported the bill, arguing it provides practical, measured updates to close the gap between modern crime and outdated laws. He emphasized that the bill streamlines access to essential information, improves emergency data sharing, and clarifies voluntary disclosures, all while maintaining judicial and privacy safeguards, using the example of a missing child to illustrate the critical need for timely access.
Chief Myron Demkiw of the Toronto Police Service also supported the bill, stating it would provide additional tools to move investigations forward more quickly and prevent harm. He highlighted the complexity of policing in Toronto and noted that the bill would streamline the process of identifying which service provider holds relevant information, reducing delays that can lead to lost evidence.
Robert Diab, a law professor, identified three significant weaknesses in the bill. He argued that the new subscriber information production orders are too broad and would likely be struck down under section 8 of the Charter, that the definition of "systemic vulnerability" is too narrow and may not protect operating systems, and that the mandatory metadata preservation power constitutes a seizure that engages section 8, contrary to the charter statement's position.
Michael Geist, a law professor, raised three serious concerns, echoing Diab. He argued that the mandatory metadata retention regime for up to a year is disproportionate and likely to be struck down, that the systemic vulnerability safeguards are weak and could lead to a backdoor capability mandate that weakens encryption, and that the threshold for subscriber information production orders should not be lowered to "reasonable grounds to suspect" given the high privacy interest in such data.
David Fraser, a partner at McInnes Cooper, argued that part 2 of the bill is very problematic and that no compelling case has been made for it. He stated that the bill could allow secret ministerial orders to turn devices into listening devices, that it does not prevent back doors or mandatory decryption, and that the metadata retention provision will almost certainly violate the Charter, creating a record of everyone's movements.
Monique St-Germain of the Canadian Centre for Child Protection welcomed the bill's measures, particularly the confirmation of service demand and subscriber information production order, noting the exponential increase in online child sexual exploitation. She recommended that the confirmation of service demand include basic jurisdiction information to help police be more effective in their investigations.
David Pierce of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce expressed strong concerns about part 2, arguing it could oblige businesses to install devices and open their digital doors, creating cybersecurity risks and imposing significant costs. He recommended a primary function test for the definition of "core provider" to narrow its scope and suggested that part 2 be studied further, as it could penalize Canadian companies operating internationally.
Mary Beth Moellenkamp of the Peel Children's Aid Society stated that Bill C-22 could help law enforcement obtain digital leads more quickly to locate children and disrupt exploiters, but emphasized that safeguards are essential. She noted that traffickers exploit gaps between systems and jurisdictions, and that timely access to digital evidence can be critical when a child is at risk of being moved.
Rachel Curran of Meta Platforms Inc. stated that part 1 of the bill is a good framework, but part 2 could make Canadians less safe by conscripting companies into a government surveillance apparatus. She recommended removing obligations to add government surveillance tools, strengthening the definition of "systemic vulnerability" to explicitly rule out weakening encryption, and codifying a process for companies to challenge requests.
Hon. Marie Deschamps of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency (NSIRA) stated that the bill falls short of supporting timely and effective independent review. She recommended two amendments: that NSIRA be proactively provided with access to classified ministerial orders and supporting information, and that it be informed when compliance orders are issued, to enable more timely and targeted reviews.
Hon. Simon Noël, the Intelligence Commissioner, explained his role in approving ministerial orders and expressed confidence in his office's ability to handle the new function. He recommended that the bill specify that decisions to issue orders be based on a standard of reasonableness and proportionality, and that a maximum validity period for orders be set, with renewals requiring new approval.
Robyn Greene of Meta Platforms Inc. elaborated on the company's concerns, stating that the bill's definition of "systemic vulnerability" is unclear and that the process for challenging problematic orders is insufficient. She argued that it is not possible to build back doors to encrypted systems without creating vulnerabilities that will be exploited by malicious actors, and that the bill could chill innovation and harm Canadian competitiveness.
The committee also heard debate on procedural matters, including a point of order regarding the accuracy of a member's question, which was resolved without a formal vote.
AI-generated summary — may contain errors; verify against the official evidence.