Letter to the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs (SECD) (October 2026)

October 29th, 2026

Marty Deacon
Chair of Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs
The Senate of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A4

Dear Madam Chair,

I am writing in response to an invitation I received this week to appear before the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs (SECD) on Monday, November 2^nd, 2026, as part of its study on Bill C-22, An Act respecting lawful access.

I would like to respectfully note that, following careful analysis by my office, I have determined that Bill C-22 has no direct implications for my mandate, nor for the administration of the Access to Information Act (ATIA).

The bill is principally concerned with lawful access by law enforcement and national security agencies to information and data held by private-sector telecommunications and communications service providers. It does not concern Canadians' right of access to records under the control of federal institutions under the ATIA.

The reference to "access to information" in Part 2 may understandably give rise to some confusion. While the terminology may suggest a connection to the ATIA, it is used in a very different context and refers to access by authorized government entities to information held by private-sector organizations.

From the perspective of my mandate, the bill is largely inconsequential. It does not appear to amend the ATIA, alter my jurisdiction, create new institutions subject to the ATIA, establish any new mandatory or discretionary exemptions, nor add any provisions to Schedule II of the ATIA for the purposes of section 24.

To the extent that records generated under the proposed lawful access regime later come into the custody or control of federal institutions and are requested under the ATIA, those requests would be processed under the existing legislative framework, as is currently the case for law enforcement, intelligence, and national security records. Any resulting complaints would be addressed through my existing oversight functions.

Accordingly, I do not believe that my office is particularly well positioned to assist the Committee on the substantive policy issues raised by Bill C-22. Questions relating to privacy, surveillance, the collection and disclosure of personal information, and access by law enforcement to telecommunications data would more naturally fall within the expertise of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada and other bodies with mandates relating to privacy, public safety, and national security oversight.

I trust that this explanation offers your committee greater clarity on this matter. Recognizing that the committee's time is valuable, should you nevertheless determine that testimony from the Office of the Information Commissioner is warranted, I will be pleased to appear myself, or designate one of my officials to appear on my behalf.

Sincerely,

Caroline Maynard 
Information Commissioner of Canada