Public Safety Committee on Nov. 18th, 2025

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

I'm sorry, Superintendent, but I'll have to ask you for your input later on in the proceedings.

Thank you for that.

Mr. Santosuosso, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Assistant Commissioner Derek Santosuosso, Assistant Commissioner, Technical Operations, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

I am Assistant Commissioner Derek Santosuosso with technical operations within the RCMP, which includes responsibility for the administration of the national sex offender registry.

It is my pleasure to be with you today to provide the RCMP's perspective on Bill C‑12 with an emphasis on the proposed amendments to the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, or SOIRA.

The RCMP welcomes the amendments proposed in Bill C‑12 as they would meaningfully assist the RCMP's ability to protect public safety in two ways: support the RCMP's intelligence and investigative efforts to detect, investigate and disrupt the illegal drug market, including fentanyl; and enhance the RCMP's ability to disclose information that it collects under SOIRA with domestic and international police and law enforcement partners.

First, Bill C‑12's proposed amendments to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Cannabis Act will ensure that RCMP members are exempt from the application of any provision of the Criminal Code that creates drug-related, inchoate offences—that is to say, relating to a criminal act that has not yet been committed—when they are undertaking lawful investigations. This will effectively prevent our members from engaging in criminal liability while conducting otherwise illicit activities in the context of a lawful drug-related investigation.

Second, and of particular importance to me, Bill C‑12's proposed SOIRA amendments will enhance the ability of the RCMP to share information on registered sex offenders with domestic and international partners to better protect public safety.

The RCMP-managed national sex offender registry, or NSOR, is a national registration system for sex offenders convicted of designated sex offences under the Criminal Code and court ordered to report annually to police. As of November 13, there were a little under 71,000 individuals in NSOR.

The legal framework that guides the RCMP's administration of NSOR is set out in the Criminal Code and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act. The Criminal Code requires individuals to comply with SOIRA. The SOIRA sets out the specific obligations with which registered sex offenders must comply, such as providing up-to-date information about their place of residence or planned travel within and outside Canada.

The information on NSOR helps police prevent and investigate crimes of a sexual nature by providing up-to-date information on convicted sex offenders and an instant list of sex offenders who are registered and living within a particular geographic area.

The SOIRA also governs the circumstances in which information from NSOR may be accessed, used or disclosed. It is important to emphasize that the information on NSOR is not public and is only accessible to the police.

Currently, the SOIRA permits the RCMP to disclose information to a foreign police service on the planned international travel of a registered sex offender only if it is necessary to assist in the prevention or investigation of a crime of a sexual nature. This information includes the name, date of birth, dates of departure and return, as well as every address or location while travelling, passport number and photo, criminal history, sexual offence convictions, and victim information, sex and age. The threshold is high.

Bill C‑12's proposed SOIRA amendments would also improve the RCMP's ability to share information on registered sex offenders internationally and domestically with federal, provincial, territorial and municipal law enforcement partners when there are reasonable grounds to believe the disclosure will assist in verifying compliance with the SOIRA, obtaining or executing a warrant, or preventing or investigating a crime of a sexual nature.

For example, this would permit the RCMP to share information with Passport Canada when there are reasonable grounds to believe the disclosure will assist in preventing a crime of a sexual nature, and this information could be used in passport issuance, renewal or revocation determinations.

Many of the other proposed SOIRA amendments come as a result of years of operationalizing SOIRA and identifying unintended gaps that need to be closed. For example, amendments would require sex offenders to report changes to their motor vehicle information throughout the year, clarify what physical characteristics of a sex offender can be recorded, such as tattoos, and enable NSOR to show legally obtained mugshots to victims or witnesses of sex crimes to advance investigations. As of today, a legal defence could argue that the tattoos were not visible and should not have been recorded. To a child victim, a tattoo can be more memorable than any other physical characteristic.

The RCMP's priority is to safeguard public safety, and these proposed amendments would support us in doing just that.

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to be with you this afternoon. I welcome your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you very much.

We will now go to questions from members.

Mr. Motz, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you to our witnesses for being here today.

I'm going to start with you, Chief Superintendent Morris. I appreciate your candour and the information you shared with us today. There's probably a lot more that you can share and hopefully I and all questioners will give you that opportunity to share it today.

Coming from a law enforcement background, I can tell you that there are significant gaps in the enforcement tools that police have to go through in order to make things legal from an investigative perspective. Moreover, there's a balance between, as you described it, the legislative environment that needs improvement—it's slow, clumsy and not as flexible as it should be—and between law enforcement and prosecution requirements to get successful prosecutions of organized crime, and the need of Canadians for their privacy. For those who may not understand how things work, there have certainly been some significant concerns about that.

I guess my overall question is about how our current laws obviously fall short in assisting law enforcement in multiple investigations—organized crime-related, money laundering, drugs, weapons, whatever it be, and those trafficking, as well as some of our sexual exploitation investigations.

What things, in your perspective, should be considered in this legislation that aren't here now and that we should add to it?

[C/Supt Pat Morris]

The number one thing that I think needs to be in this legislation, which I do think has many positive attributes, is lawful access. My reasoning is very simple.

I understand the tension and the juxtaposition between privacy and security, but this was an investigative capacity we already enjoyed under part VI of the Criminal Code, and we enjoyed it with the highest level of judicial authorization. Under the Criminal Code, we had to illustrate investigative necessity, and then second, we had to acquire the judicial authorization to engage in the electronic intercept.

We are not asking for a new capacity. We're asking for the capacity that we have already enjoyed since the Criminal Code, and specifically part VI, was overhauled in 1974. The only difference is that the modes of communication of all people have altered and the modes of communication, be they social media applications or...do provide for anonymization and encryption. Criminal conspiracies are discussed in communication either in person or via a device. Therefore, you must have a person in your confidence, such as an undercover operator or a confidential informer, or you must be privy to the communication, which you can acquire via judicial authorization.

The encryption and the mechanisms of that communication do not permit us to acquire that critical intelligence or evidence to prevent, detect, deter or mitigate. I have to be clear on this. What we would ask for is the ability to utilize software, commonly known as on-device investigative techniques. We have the capacity technologically and investigatively to do so. What we do not have is the legislative environment to make it effective to be able to implement it and utilize it effectively. By that I mean in the legislation, specifically sections 37 and 38 of the Canada Evidence Act, being able to only disclose in a way that would allow us to utilize it effectively and practically so that the technique remains alive for us in future considerations.

We are not asking for any alteration of the very high bar that is set now to acquire this, because it is an invasion of privacy. If I could use an analogy, when a criminal locks his door, and we have reasonable grounds to believe...we use a ram to go through the door. When evidence is locked in a safe or behind a lock, we're judicially authorized to pick the lock. We're not prevented. Encryption is just that form of a lock, and it's no greater abrogation of privacy than we had in the 1980s to acquire...through probes or other forms of electronic intercept.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Thank you very much. I appreciate those responses, and I do agree.

I left law enforcement in 2015, and already encryption was creating havoc in many of the part VI investigations that were going on that I was privy to.

Regulations sometimes can be clumsy and time-consuming to include, but are you suggesting that we make the changes to Bill C-12? The bill includes the Criminal Code. Are you suggesting that we make amendments to the Criminal Code on that for lawful access and having the on-device technology to pursue? If I heard you correctly, that's what you're asking for.

Can we ask you to do a submission to this committee on what you think that should look like and how it should be adjusted in the Criminal Code sections you are referring to?

I agree because Canadians, this committee and government expect law enforcement to enforce the law. Unfortunately, they don't—

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

MP Motz, I'm sorry to interrupt, but you're already a bit over. That was an important question to ask.

Superintendent, unfortunately you won't have time to answer now, but there will be other opportunities for you to step in, most likely.

In the meantime, we turn to MP Acan for six minutes.

[Sima Acan, Liberal, Oakville West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much for being here today.

Superintendent Morris, my questions will be for you to start. If the RCMP officials have anything to add, please feel free to step in.

First of all, I would like to take the chance to thank our law enforcement personnel for their hard work and efforts to keep Canadians safe, especially the OPP, which just shattered a record by seizing 6.5 million dollars' worth of fentanyl, which is 460,000 street-level doses. That seizure was recently carried out in Windsor. I noticed it was more than a year-long investigation. Thank you very much.

I will be asking a question based on the press release of October 16 on the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police website, which is supporting bills C-12 and C-2.

The release states, “Modernizing lawful access is not about expanding surveillance or diminishing civil liberties. It is about ensuring that police can, with proper court authorization, obtain vital evidence in complex cases involving cybercrime, child exploitation, organized crime, and other serious offences.”

While Bill C-12 represents an important starting point in strengthening Canada's enforcement framework, how will the additional powers proposed in Bill C-2 truly modernize search and seizure capabilities and complement law enforcement in addressing these complex threats?

[C/Supt Pat Morris]

Thank you for your question. I'll try my best. I want to be very candid and blunt.

We appreciate what has been brought forward in Bill C-12. I see it as four operational domains: border security, transnational organized crime disruption, illicit financial intelligence and the immigration system facilitating more rapid information sharing.

To your question related to the OACP, what is in Bill C-2 is absolutely critical to us in terms of lawful intercept. I agree with what was said. It is not a request for any more of an invasion of privacy. It is only a request for a modern legislative regime and amendments that are relevant to the modernization of how society communicates so that when we acquire the highest level of judicial authorization for an investigation in relation to any of the areas you touched on, which are all critical to public safety, we can effectively do it.

To be quite honest, the way we do it now—and I'm estimating—in a gross majority of the cases, it would be like having English-speaking people monitoring communication in a foreign language. The encryption that occurs results in the fact that we can neither make sense of nor exploit the communication we have acquired. The alterations in Bill C-2 would be much more effective in providing us this key investigative technique that we already had.

The other mechanism is that to acquire it for a single use would be worthless and wasteful. We have to ensure that the Canada Evidence Act is altered so that we have the technique which we previously had, that it's conducive to modern communication, and that it can be protected in terms of the investigative technique and the technology utilized to employ that technique.

[Sima Acan, Liberal, Oakville West, ON]

Thank you very much, Superintendent Morris.

You touched base on the Bill C-2 and Bill C-12 gaps. Do you have any specific areas or gaps that you want to identify regarding Bill C-2 addresses and Bill C-12 mechanisms such as accelerated scheduling of precursors, chemicals or jurisdictional vulnerabilities that criminals exploit along the Canada-U.S. border?

[C/Supt Pat Morris]

In terms of Bill C-12, I'm quite happy with what has been provided to us in terms of the the expanded powers of CBSA, the expanded capacity of IRCC to share the information and the enhanced powers to FINTRAC and financial intelligence, but I aspire always in law enforcement towards fusion. We have about 150 police services in this country. If we all collectively knew what we actually know and had it for extraction, we would be much more efficient.

I see many of the changes in Bill C-12 as moving in that direction: the establishment of the JOIC, the expanded controls at the border and the expanded powers. Those are all powerful information-sharing authorities and will lead to expanded investigative frameworks, which I see as positive, but the major push I have, on behalf of anyone I've ever spoken to in law enforcement, is the need for our specialized investigative techniques.

Without those, we cannot get to the heart of a conspiracy. Whether it's a conspiracy to commit murder or whether it is a transnational conspiracy for bringing fentanyl, cocaine or firearms into this country, our opportunities would be restricted to opportunistic interdiction for those seizures, as opposed to a proactive intelligence-informed operation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Superintendent Morris.

Mrs. DeBellefeuille now has the floor for six minutes.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Santosuosso, the riding I represent includes the region of Akwesasne, Saint-Anicet and Lake Saint-François. It is a hub for arms trafficking, tobacco trafficking and, of course, human trafficking.

You didn't really talk about the significance of the change in the role of the Canadian Coast Guard, which will now be able to share intelligence with you so that you can better track certain smugglers, for example. Do you look favourably on this change proposed on Bill C‑12? What should be further clarified so that you can better collaborate with the coast guard? Does anything need to be improved in that respect? Among other things, are you in favour of the coast guard being unarmed and limited to sharing intelligence?

[A/Commr Derek Santosuosso]

Mr. Chair, with regard to within Bill C-12, it really is more along the lines of the sex offenders as far as the changes go and being able to share that information with other agencies, such as the CBSA, the Coast Guard and so on in that space. I would say that we already have an excellent working relationship with the Coast Guard. We continue to do that, as well as with CBSA and municipal and provincial police agencies along the border in your neck of the woods, specifically headed up in what is our federal eastern region.

As for being able to go after those people doing those sorts of things, we are well suited in that place. With the passing of the budget, the extra 1,000 officers heading towards federal policing will also be helpful in that space when it comes to protecting our borders as well as looking at financial crimes and so on.

With regard—

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

I'm sorry to interrupt you. I prefer to say 750 new officers, because we've learned that it's 750 new officers, plus 250 more who will be assigned to investigations, among other things.

You say that you're well qualified. I spoke to the mayor of Dundee recently. He feels that you have capabilities, but you don't have the staff needed, even with the additional officers. We know that it can take up to a year or a year and a half to train an RCMP officer, including the hiring process. Therefore, we'll see no difference right away in your staff who can intervene in our part of the country, which is a major hot spot.

I'm wondering what you think of Bill C‑12. It gives you the opportunity to collaborate with the Canadian Coast Guard, but it doesn't necessarily give you the means to meet the aspirations of the bill. We have a lot of questions on our minds: What will this change on the ground for the part of the country that I represent, which seems to have been abandoned? The RCMP does very little maritime patrolling now. Yes, we see the helicopters, but we don't feel the maritime presence of your unit or the Canadian Coast Guard. So we wonder what will change should the bill pass.

[A/Commr Derek Santosuosso]

Again, with Bill C-12, it will be specifically with the sex offender registry. It will allow us to share more information back and forth with our international partners in that space.

I will go back to the extra federal officers who are going to be joining our ranks. The intention is to have them up and in place over the next four years, not within four years. There will be extra humans who can be deployed toward the border.

We are also working with expanding our surveillance techniques at the border in a myriad of ways, whether that is via sensors, drones or other ways in order to capture that. It will take time for us to fill in some of the missing people that we have there, but we will be able to do that with the added funding that we've been able to get.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

A study released in 2010 indicated that 5,000 additional officers would be needed to be able to respond to the challenges Canada is facing. We have 1,000 officers, but threats of all kinds are getting worse, whether it's organized crime, cyber-attacks or foreign interference. In his annual address, the director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service defines the needs, but points out that there is a shortage of staff, and especially of technology. If Bill C‑12 is passed, it sets out all kinds of wishes and desires, but it doesn't necessarily guarantee that the RCMP will have everything it needs to accomplish what the bill aspires to. Are you aware that you won't necessarily have the financial capacity to meet the objectives of Bill C‑12?

[A/Commr Derek Santosuosso]

We continue to work with the budget as it's allocated to us and the resources that we have in order to go after smugglers, issues at the border, financial crimes, cybercrime and so on. We prioritize and move things around as we can within the financial constraints we do have and in which we all must operate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Mrs. DeBellefeuille, thank you for your intervention.

I give the floor to Mr. Au for five minutes.

[Chak Au, Conservative, Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC]

I have questions for the RCMP officers.

How the system works right now is that the banks would flag suspicious transactions to FINTRAC, and FINTRAC could make referrals to the RCMP for further investigations. What we are seeing is that there are millions of reports being made to FINTRAC and transferred to the RCMP, but we see a very low conversion rate of reports that really get into some kind of investigation.

What are the barriers that stop more investigations from being conducted and what reforms are necessary?

[A/Commr Derek Santosuosso]

The barriers are mostly a result of the number of files that keep coming in. There's a volume attachment to it. The Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre took over 100,000 reports last year alone. We've just revamped the public reporting page and we expect that to actually double now that it's become easier for folks to do that.

You gather as much evidence as you can. You put it over to the police of jurisdiction, wherever they might be, and then go after what you can and try to prosecute. Sometimes it's the gathering of that evidence that can be hindering because we're not able to get to it or it doesn't exist.

We do welcome the changes with FINTRAC getting more things that they will be collecting from the banks, which they will then be able to disclose to us. With any luck, we'll be able to translate those into investigative files that the police of jurisdiction or the federal financial crime units of the RCMP will be able to use.

[Chak Au, Conservative, Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC]

Can you clarify, for the current problem, if it's related to some structural barriers, to the lack of capacity of the RCMP or to the expertise that you may have?

[A/Commr Derek Santosuosso]

Mr. Chair, it's a question of volume, so there are technology barriers we have to get through. We're not all on the same systems. We do work very well with what we have, though, and we try to hit the highest-priority targets, both us and the police of jurisdictions that we work with in that space.

[Chak Au, Conservative, Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC]

You mentioned that perhaps the different systems are not working in terms of harmonization. How can that be improved?

[A/Commr Derek Santosuosso]

Mr. Chair, we continue to work on that. For example, with the new public-facing reporting system, we've set it up now so that the public can get in. We'll get more reports. We expect it's a little easier for the public. It's not as onerous or as difficult, especially for people with less computer knowledge.

Also, for those municipal, provincial, territorial and indigenous police agencies that want to join, they'll be able to go in the back end to get that data themselves and then integrate it into their own systems. As well, they can see what's going on in the larger picture across the country. They'll be able to see how a file in British Columbia in the Burnaby detachment is related to something in Peel Region because it is of a nature that they would be able to link it. That should hopefully get us closer to arresting a bad person and putting them in jail.