The Liberal government will not split the controversial section of Bill C-22, a lawful access bill, despite pressure from the Conservative party [1].
The decision maintains the current structure of the legislation, which governs how police and intelligence agencies access encrypted data. This move signals a refusal to compromise on the scope of police search powers in the face of privacy concerns.
Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree (Liberal) said the announcement on June 3, 2026, during a Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs meeting in Ottawa [2]. The committee is reviewing the bill's data-interception provisions, which have become a primary point of contention between the two parties [2].
Conservatives argue that the provisions allowing for data interception should be separated from the rest of the bill to limit the powers granted to law enforcement [2]. They contend that the current bundling of these powers creates an overly broad mandate for police searches [5].
Anandasangaree rejected this approach, saying that the government believes the current framework is necessary for national security. "We are very comfortable with the balance between the two sections of Bill C-22," he said [1].
The minister further argued that altering the bill's structure would jeopardize the effectiveness of the legislation. "Splitting the bill would be a mistake and would weaken our ability to protect Canadians," he said [3].
Despite the pushback from the opposition, the government intends to move forward with the legislation as written. "The government remains committed to the current structure of Bill C-22," Anandasangaree said [4].
“"Splitting the bill would be a mistake and would weaken our ability to protect Canadians."”
The government's refusal to decouple the data-interception provisions from Bill C-22 suggests a prioritization of law enforcement capabilities over the privacy safeguards requested by the opposition. By maintaining the bill's current structure, the Liberals are betting that the perceived security benefits of expanded lawful access outweigh the political risk of appearing to grant police excessive surveillance powers.
