QUESTION PERIOD — Ministry of Justice
Judicial Authorization
May 28, 2026
Minister Fraser, thank you for being here with us today.
I don’t think that we can argue against the intent of Bill C-22 of helping our security forces protect Canadians. However, many organizations have raised concerns regarding privacy protection and judicial authorizations. My question is not about the intent of the bill but rather what is allowable in this regard.
Back in April, in a speech in the other place, you said:
Let us keep in mind that throughout this process, even just to get the subscriber information, we are still requiring that law enforcement, under most circumstances, obtain judicial authorization before that information is shared. . . .
I would like to highlight that you said “most.”
Can you please clarify and outline specific circumstances where obtaining judicial authorization would not be required?
Thank you. It would be extremely limited. There is a narrow exception for what’s referred to as “exigent circumstances,” where law enforcement need to respond to something in real time. For example, law enforcement are aware of a specific individual who might be in the midst of a human trafficking operation where urgent action is required. Perhaps there is exploitation online that is taking place in a live environment that police become aware of through a tip from another law enforcement agency.
I expect this narrow set of circumstances to be rare, but we want it to preserve the ability in emergency situations to ensure that we’re able to offer those protections. In the vast majority of circumstances, this is going to continue to require judicial authorization in order to access the very basic subscriber information. Again, it’s not the content of individual communications, but it’s cases where there is an ongoing criminal investigation where we have reason to suspect that a crime has or will be committed, and that would still typically require the court’s authorization just to understand the person who may be connected to the concerning IP address or number that may be at issue.
A recent article in The Walrus spoke about how, though not explicitly in this bill, it could, “. . . lay the legal groundwork for giving the US warrantless access to our data.”
Can you speak a little bit about what this means for Canadian judicial authorization within the CLOUD Act agreement that we hear is currently being negotiated?
I’ll be careful, not because I’m afraid to share anything I’m thinking but only because there is another minister who has control of much of this file.
I don’t view this bill to be giving the suggested warrantless access to a foreign power over our information; rather, we’ve put in place protections that are stronger than most comparator countries around the world who have embraced this kind of approach.
We’ve seen lawful access regimes in a number of other countries. Five Eyes and G7 counterparts do not have the same level of judicial authorization that is required under Bill C-22. The minister responsible for Part 2 of the bill, Minister Anandasangaree, indicated yesterday an openness to amendments to help quell some of the concerns along the lines that you and others have raised.
To the extent we can —
Thank you, minister.
