Public Safety Committee on Nov. 27th, 2025

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Okay.

Mr. Sauvé, you talked about procurement, and obviously you're there to help represent the safety concerns of members. At this committee, I've raised the issue of the government procuring Black Hawk helicopters numerous times. The helicopters have since required Transport Canada exemptions because they didn't meet the safety requirement in Canada. Are your members concerned that they're flying potentially unsafe helicopters?

[Brian Sauvé]

As far as I'm aware, our members are not flying the helicopters. They are riding in them. I wouldn't want to see our members fly. Don't put me in one of those pilot seats. I might be able to go up but not land.

No, our emergency response teams are not expressing concerns about the safety of these particular transportation vehicles. Our pilots—because we also represent rotary-wing and fixed-wing pilots within the NPF—have expressed some concerns about the future. If this is an approved vehicle that's going to be used and procured by the RCMP in the future—so that we have our own pilots and our own maintenance engineers operating on it—what does that look like for them? What does the training look like? How are we going to, in the future, deploy a fleet of these helicopters with the challenges that are already being identified?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

I've received some really interesting access to information stuff related to the criminal intelligence estimate. It says, “Vancouver and Toronto are two of Canada's busiest container port[s]” and are the main destination for “precursor chemicals”. Organized crime is using “businesses or shell companies [to] exploit precursor licences”, and Canada has become a major exporter of fentanyl and methamphetamine.

This was a criminal intelligence estimate back in 2019, and the crisis has only worsened in this country. Why do you think it's taken so long for the government to start taking action on this issue?

[Brian Sauvé]

Is there an opportunity to recommend the re-creation of Canada's ports police?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

That's on the table for sure. Can you elaborate on that, Mr. Sauvé?

[Brian Sauvé]

They were disbanded before my time. I've never actually worked with them.

We're a country bounded by water. British Columbia, for example, has the longest coastline in the world, perhaps second to Portugal. It has the largest ferry system in the world, perhaps second to Germany. Do we focus adequately enough on our coastlines and our ports? Perhaps there's an opportunity to revisit that decision from years ago.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Mr. Sauvé, in your briefing to this committee on Bill C-12, you expressed concerns that the proposed legislation “does not introduce any mechanism to track, verify or audit the movement of precursor shipments within Canada to ensure they reach legitimate end-users”. Can you elaborate on the concerns you've raised?

[Brian Sauvé]

Well, I was in support of the recommendation to expedite the identification of...and the assurance that, when those particular precursor chemicals come into Canada, they go to the end-user that's identified.

These are some challenges we see now. You can have organized crime groups using shell companies, as you mentioned, that are importing those precursor chemicals, and right now we really have little to no oversight on where they go, who they are received by and whether numerous precursors are being brought in under numerous shell companies to—

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Have you seen the non-resident import program being abused? Is this something you've identified as a potential avenue for precursor chemicals to get into the country?

[Brian Sauvé]

I haven't seen this, but I can look into it and get back to you.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Mr. Lloyd.

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

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, La Prairie—Atateken, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the four witnesses.

Ms. West, the principle of lawful access currently prevents law enforcement agencies from doing their job. Moreover, drafting a completely new bill would entail considerable delays.

In this situation, do you believe that parts 14 and 15 of Bill C‑2, as drafted, would more quickly ensure that law enforcement agencies can operate effectively and do the work expected of them and regularly required of them by our Conservative friends?

[Leah West]

It's a tough question.

Part of me says yes, because I believe that elements of the bill deserve swift passage, but part of me says no, because there are elements that need to be fundamentally reconsidered. It would be somewhat challenging in its current form without in-depth consultation and prolonged committee hearings. If there were a commitment to doing that, to robust reconsideration of elements of the bill, I would support it.

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, La Prairie—Atateken, QC]

You said that this matter was already discussed in 2016. It was discussed more recently at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. There have been various initiatives. We didn't suddenly pull this out of a hat. The clauses, as drafted, are based on discussions that took place.

Now, from a technical standpoint, would the clauses in parts 14 and 15, as drafted in Bill C‑2, help law enforcement agencies do the job expected of them, meaning detective and investigative work, particularly when it comes to organized crime?

[Leah West]

Yes, they would. However, I think there are elements of the bill that are unconstitutional. I do not think the demand letters as they currently stand would pass muster if challenged in a court of law. Therefore, they should be heavily amended to make clear and explicit exemptions for certain types of information in order to move forward.

There are parts of the bill, such as the subscriber information production order, that I think pass constitutional muster and should be passed, but there are other parts of the bill that, without significant amendment, I simply do not think would be constitutional.

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, La Prairie—Atateken, QC]

I'll take note of this. However, I would like to point out that we've received many opinions stating that the parts, as drafted, comply with the rules of law and respect the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That said, you're obviously entitled to your opinion.

You also spoke about the CLOUD Act. Can you tell us why Canada should be concerned about this? What are the benefits of the CLOUD Act? I believe that Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States have a partnership, but that we aren't involved in it. Can you elaborate on the CLOUD Act? What should we look out for? Are there any benefits?

[Leah West]

The CLOUD Act would allow a judge to issue a production order in Canada—if the Criminal Code were amended—that would be enforceable in the United States by simply serving it on a U.S. company, just as if it was served.... Vice versa, a U.S. production order could be served on a company in Canada for data. What is required in order to make it work is for there to be symmetrical legal authorities—or at least equivalent legal authorities, if not exactly parallel.

We currently don't have any method that matches the U.S. basis for issuing a subpoena to receive basic subscriber information. Right now in Canada, you require a warrant for that, so we wouldn't be able to take a U.S. subpoena for basic subscriber information, serve it in Canada and have it authorized if we had a CLOUD Act agreement. The agreement allows for the recognition of each other's authorities, and it ensures that you will have parallel authorities, but we simply do not have those parallel authorities in Canada as it stands.

The real importance of a CLOUD Act agreement, especially for Canadians—I think our law enforcement would be the significant beneficiary of it—is that many Canadians use software and service providers based in the United States that have no bricks and mortar in this country. Therefore, they cannot be issued lawful production orders in this country because they do not physically operate here. This is a huge impediment to gaining lawful access to data for countries that provide services in this country but do not operate here.

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, La Prairie—Atateken, QC]

I understand that you don't see any legal impediments to this—

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Mr. Ramsay, unfortunately, I must interrupt you to give the floor to Mr. Caputo for five minutes.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

I'm sorry; I thought the Bloc had one more round, but I guess we're on round four, which we don't normally get to.

I want to pick up where my colleague Mr. Ramsay—

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Just to make sure that everyone understands, we are at the end of round two. I'm sorry. We're on the first intervenor at the start of round three, so we will have Madame DeBellefeuille in just a moment.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Okay. I apologize, Chair.

Professor West, you may have seen me having a chuckle. Let's just put it on the table here. The reason I was having a chuckle is that the Liberals have put forward a piece of legislation that is prepared to get to the end without respecting the means of constitutionality. They want to get to the ends of law enforcement, which I think we all want to get to, but at the end of the day, parts 14 and 15 have laudable components that are not necessarily constitutionally compliant.

The reason I chuckled wasn't your answer; I chuckled because it was, “Well, I guess you're entitled to your opinion.” You have a doctorate in law. I've looked up your credentials. You're eminently qualified. This isn't just an opinion. This is something shared by a number of people.

I'm not sure what my colleague did. I mostly prosecuted Internet offences against kids, so I'm very well aware of lawful access and the Bykovets decision. Parts 14 and 15 failed because public opinion prevailed against what I would characterize, in my view, as elements that were clearly concerning. I don't think that you and I stand alone in thinking that there were elements in parts 14 and 15 that weren't constitutionally compliant. I'm not trying to belabour this point. I'm trying to make the point that everybody in the government can say to pass parts 14 and 15 right away. It's just not the way it works—unless you want the legislation to get struck down.

I just want to give you a chance to comment on that, please.

[Leah West]

Part 15 could probably get there through amendment in committee. Part of the problem with elements of part 14, more specifically, is issues around the demand letter. To speak to the issue of consultation, there's never been consultation on this element of the bill in the past.

I've been studying lawful access since three law degrees ago, and this has never been put forward in legislation. There was no consultation on that in 2016, so there has been no consultation with stakeholders, privacy advocates and other academics on that specific element of the bill. This is one area in particular in which consultation would have helped alleviate the very real concerns that privacy and civil liberties advocates have in this country.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Certainly. In fact, it was way before I got into Parliament, but then justice minister Vic Toews introduced lawful access and was roundly mocked by the Liberals. There was a famous quote—I'm not going to repeat it again. This bill goes further, as I understand it, than the bill Vic Toews put forward that was mocked by the Liberals. It is a bit rich to come in here and people try to say we really need lawful access and try to get people to say that.

I want to move on to something else, which is data retention. This is actually a really important point. I know that, in my prosecutorial work, data retention was difficult because you have service providers and their data takes up space. You have to store it somewhere, and that costs a lot of money, of course, so it's in a provider's best interest to get rid of the data as quickly as possible. When you get rid of the data, you extinguish law enforcement's ability to recover or to obtain the data.

Am I being clear here?