Public Safety Committee on May 5th, 2026

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Minister of Justice]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Before I begin my opening statement, I'd like to thank everyone for being here to take part in this very important debate.

I think it's important to understand the context of this bill. To improve public safety, we have a strategy built on three pillars. The first is to strengthen criminal laws, particularly with Bill C‑9, Bill C‑14 and Bill C‑16.

That said, we recognize it's not enough just to make changes to criminal laws. We also need to support those working on the ground in our communities, such as community organizations and police officers. It's not enough to increase the number of people working in the communities. We also have to give them the tools they need so they can meet the expectations we have for the officers on the ground.

We also need to invest to prevent crime and violence in the long term. That includes making investments in affordable housing, making investments so people with mental health issues can have medication and making investments to support young people who have issues in their lives.

This bill is focused on that second pillar, supporting those who are on the front lines trying to make Canada safer every day. We can't expect people to address modern challenges with outdated technologies. That's where this bill comes in.

When we compare Canada with other partners around the world, we are significantly behind when it comes to addressing modern challenges, particularly in a digital context. Technology has changed. The world has changed. Crime has changed. It is faster-moving. It crosses borders. It is digital on an increasing basis. We've seen that other jurisdictions have embraced what we are discussing and calling “lawful access”. Very simply put, it's the ability of law enforcement to get access to the evidence they need that may be digital in nature, the same way we would allow them to get access to evidence that exists in the physical world. You can't arrest an IP address or a phone number.

We need to give tools to ensure that law enforcement has the ability to figure out, where there is a criminal investigation going on, who is the person behind it and how they can advance that investigation. When I look at the actual process we've laid out, I think it's important that we demonstrate to Canadians that we have put significant thought into ensuring that privacy rights are protected, in the same way that we embrace the recommendations of law enforcement to make it easier for them to do their jobs.

In particular, to start off, what we're allowing under this legislation is for law enforcement, when they have an investigation involving a phone number or an IP address, to make a simple request of a service provider: “Is this on your network?” If the network comes back and says it is, that would allow us to move forward with a process, which would be approved by a judge, to say, yes, there is a person with a name and an address attached to this. Currently, this process can take months. When we're dealing with people who are involved in criminal organizations—engaging in child sexual exploitation, engaging in drug trafficking and human trafficking, organizing home invasions and auto theft rings—you can appreciate the need to move quickly. It is essential if we're going to reduce the ultimate consequences of crime to Canadian communities.

This bill, in my view, provides the appropriate framework that empowers law enforcement to have the tools they need to keep Canadians safe, but it puts protections in place to ensure that, where appropriate, judicial authorization remains essential, and we put a system in place so that service providers actually do hold the information that will help facilitate these investigations.

Let me perhaps sum it up simply: We are not going to solve Netflix problems with Blockbuster technology. We have to join the advanced economies in the world that have been working to solve these problems for many years. With the support of different parties at this committee, I think we have the potential to send a strong signal to Canadians that when it comes to public safety, we will make absolutely sure that law enforcement has the tools they need to keep Canadians safe.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, both.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the ministers and officials.

I'll note that we have two Kamloopsians at the table today. That's always wonderful.

Minister Anandasangaree, you're off the hook today. We won't be asking you about visas and who gave people from the IRGC a visa. We'll stick to Bill C-22 here.

I want to go into something you mentioned, Minister. You talked about this being encryption-neutral. One of the greatest concerns I'm hearing about is encryption. Please don't defer to the analysts. I want to hear your perspective on this. This bill could threaten encrypted communications, based on the way it is written or the way some people are reading it.

Can you confirm that the purpose of this bill is not to go after end-to-end encryption, as in party A is using a program to deal with party B that is encrypted and there's no way to decrypt it? Can you confirm that this is neither in this bill nor the intent of this bill?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

I can confirm that, yes.

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

I'll just ensure one step further: that there's no requirement for company A, then, from point one to point two, to create what some would call a back door, a mechanism by which that information can be accessed. Is that accurate as well?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

I addressed that in my initial opening.

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

If there's any ambiguity on that, I trust you would support an amendment to close that, because this is a game-changer when it comes to that bill.

I take that to be the case.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

I would say what I told you privately, Mr. Caputo. We brought this bill forward with a number of engagements, including with colleagues in different parties. We will work in collaboration to strengthen the bill. If there are specific recommendations that this committee comes up with, we will certainly take them under consideration. We look forward to that engagement to get to the right result.

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

I'll be blunt, Minister. The Liberal government now has a majority. There is a concern that, if there is room there, it won't be addressed.

That's why I'm asking you, on the record, if there's a chance that encrypted communications can be targeted by this bill. If that's not the intent of the bill—that's what you said—I don't think it's too much to say, “Yes, Mr. Caputo, I would support an amendment to ensure that our intent is clear.” For instance, that could be an amendment that includes a definition of encrypted data in part 2 or an amendment that says that “systemic vulnerability” includes a key to encrypted data and the creation thereof.

With all due respect, Minister, I don't think it's difficult to say, “Yes, that's our intent.” Do you not agree?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

What I will repeat is that we are willing to work together in collaboration in advancing the bill.

I was at the Senate yesterday on Bill C-8, and 75% of the amendments that were passed were opposition amendments. They weren't government amendments.

On this bill, I think we have been very clear, both of us, that we will work with the opposition, as we have on every other bill, to advance and strengthen the bill.

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

The difference with Bill C-8, though, Minister.... If you want to get into Bill C-8, that is exactly my cautionary tale. The Liberals voted against just about every amendment that was of consequence. It was the Conservatives and the Bloc that voted for those amendments, that swayed those amendments, with the government often voting against them. Now things have changed. With all due respect, Bill C-8 is not a great example to use. That's why I'm trying to get it on the record.

I think I've made my point. You've made your point. Let's move on.

The ministerial order is one of the biggest things. One of them, as I said, is encryption; another major issue is the degree to which enforcement and definitions are left to regulation. That's one of the primary criticisms of this bill.

I look at proposed section 5, for instance. This is sweeping powers. Proposed paragraph 5(2)(b) says, “the installation, use, operation, management, assessment, testing and maintenance of any device”. Proposed paragraph 5(2)(d) says, “the retention of categories of metadata”. Minister, I get why the government wants things to be broad; it's because then you can account for things. However, should we not be defining things where we can define them? I'm pretty sure we're going to have experts who say, “Do you know what? We can define categories of metadata.” I'm sure we can define categories of metadata. Those don't change every day.

Would you be open to an amendment that says that when we're looking at taking information from people over which there's a high expectation of privacy...? I trust you would support an amendment that would define those types of things.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

I'm going to go back to my initial position, Mr. Caputo. We will consider specific amendments that you propose. I will personally engage with you on this. However, I don't think I am going to pre-emptively agree to amendments that you're proposing here.

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

Just [Inaudible—Editor].

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

It would be irresponsible for me to say that I will accept all of these amendments. I think what's important is that we look at them and at the implications for the bill. We'll be more than glad to give you our feedback—as I always have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you for that respectful and useful exchange.

Madame Sodhi, you have six minutes, please.

[Amandeep Sodhi, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our ministers for attending today.

Minister Anandasangaree, in Brampton, we have seen a concerning rise in crime of any and all types, from car thefts to robbery, breaking and entering, murders and shootings in broad daylight. I'm worried about the safety of my constituents and all residents of Brampton, and they are as well. Our mayor, Patrick Brown, and Peel Regional Police chiefs have been calling for legislation like Bill C-22 and have welcomed this bill's introduction.

With that local context in mind, can you describe the specific threats this bill is designed to respond to and the real-world operational gaps facing law enforcement and CSIS today that Bill C-22 would close?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

Let me acknowledge the work of Peel Regional Police in informing us on the development of this bill. It's been quite critical. I've had conversations with Chief Nishan Duraiappah on a number of occasions.

This is the number one priority as indicated by police leaders, not just in Peel, but across Canada at every level, whether it is Commissioner Carrique in Ontario with the OPP or Commissioner Duheme at the RCMP, as well as regional police services. This is of critical importance.

In a granular sense, the technology we have today is inadequate to deal with the types of issues we're dealing with. Primarily, telephones, the Internet, emails and electronic devices are used on a day-to-day basis for the execution of crime. Extortion, for example, is oftentimes done by way of a phone call or a text, or sometimes by email. Over the years, all of this has meant a great deal of delay for law enforcement to be able to get production orders. Oftentimes, they have to wait weeks, sometimes months, to get the information that will enable them to go to the next step.

Essentially, what we're doing here.... I'll use the example of a phone directory or Bower's reverse lookup, which can be found at a local library. If you have a phone number, you can go to the Bower's directory, put the phone number in and get the address of the individual who owns the phone number. Right now, these are often anonymous, which means that we need to go to the service provider. If it is a telco, we need to go to the telco and ask if this particular telephone number is associated with their service. It takes weeks, sometimes months, to get that information.

Bill C-22 would, as a starting point, enable law enforcement to get what's called confirmation of service. That will say whether this phone number is attached to the service the telco provides. Once that information is obtained.... It's a yes-or-no answer. If it's a no, the matter stops there. If it's a yes, then a production order, a warrant, will need to be prepared, seeking subscriber information on the individual whose phone number may be associated with the telephone company. Based on the warrant, we will get basic subscriber information, which would be their name, email address and so on.

Beyond that, any additional information that is required will go back to what we do right now, which is go back to court, all under judicial authorization, to be able to get the type of information that's required for that investigation to continue. Essentially, an investigation that takes months could take weeks, based on the additional provisions that are provided within this bill.

[Amandeep Sodhi, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Minister, you said that you discussed it heavily with Chief Nish from Peel Regional Police. Do you find there is consensus? Do police jurisdictions from all over Canada want Bill C-22?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

I would say that we've had a number of engagements. The Honourable Murray Rankin engaged in some mediation sessions and advised us on near consensus. I wouldn't say there was consensus, but there were civil liberties organizations and industry representatives present. We had law enforcement, as well as community advocates in different conversations.

What we have here is an area where I think there is a great deal of understanding and acceptance. It is not perfect. Not everyone is 100% behind this. There are concerns that people continue to express, but, by and large, this reflects.... Even with law enforcement, we have had to curtail.... You will see some significant changes in Bill C-22 from Bill C-2, for example narrowing and defining certain aspects of what is included.

We have done an enormous amount of work to build what we think is as close to a consensus as we can get. We won't get full consensus. I think the work we need to do is make sure that all the safeguards are in place. We are fully confident that both privacy and charter rights concerns are addressed in this bill. Some would like us to go further. Some would like us not to have a bill whatsoever, but that is not an option for us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you very much for that, MP Sodhi.

Mrs. DeBellefeuille, you have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much, ministers.

Mr. Fraser, I don't really have any questions for you, but I honestly want to congratulate you on your French, which has greatly improved.

Mr. Anandasangaree, the Support for Authorized Access to Information Act, enacted by part 2 of the bill, provides for a limited role for the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, the NSIRA. However, we've noticed that there are comparable legal access mechanisms among our Five Eyes partners that come with a more formal independent oversight role. Australia is an example, where the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Act of 2018 mandates the NSIRA's counterpart be notified of the issuance of technical assistance orders within a specified period of time.

According to Bill C‑22, a year later, you have to provide the agency with an unredacted report, and, if I'm not mistaken, you have 90 days to do so. This means you're handing this report to the review agency about a year and a half after the fact or after the decisions were issued.

You've drawn inspiration from the Five Eyes for your bill, so why don't you want to give the agency a role as important as the one given by Australia to their oversight body?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

Thank you for the question.

I would say that there are a number of safeguards that have been built into Bill C-22. For example, on ministerial orders, there's a requirement to get acceptance from the intelligence commissioner before an order can be issued. There are provisions for judicial review in certain circumstances. There's also a reference to NSIRA post facto, and this is the ordinary review process—

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

I'm sorry to interrupt, but I've already read that. I came prepared.

I find the Canadian agency is somewhat sidelined and I'd like to understand why. I know the intelligence commissioner has a role, but why isn't the agency notified in real time? It's hard to conduct an investigation into whether the agencies involved, such as the RCMP or the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, are complying with the law when you get the facts almost a year and a half later.

I'm letting you know I'll be proposing an amendment so the review agency is notified in real time, similar to the Australian model, because I think that's our guarantee. It's a bit like entrusting the government by ensuring the review agency, whose primary mission is to conduct oversight, is notified in real time, like the intelligence commissioner.

I was also surprised to learn from your team that the various consultation groups organized to study Bill C-22 didn’t consult Ms. Deschamps, the current agency chair. That doesn’t make sense to me, honestly. We look to our Five Eyes partners for best practices, yet we fail to include an important role for the agency in Bill C-22. Would you be willing to discuss the idea of notifying the agency in real time?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

I would say, in part, that in order to move forward on a ministerial order, the timeline for it to go through the NSIRA review process could be quite significant, so this is a safeguard that's built in. The role of the intelligence commissioner, as you're aware, involves a lot more real-time responses and the ability of the intelligence commissioner to give that feedback. That safeguard is there so that the intelligence commissioner could approve or not approve a proposed order—

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

What prevents you from notifying the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency? That's what I don't understand. I don't understand why you're excluding it. Its primary mission is to monitor and you're setting it aside. It's only informed a year after the fact.

I'll repeat my question. I'll propose my amendment. I know you said in the House of Commons that you'd be open to amendments. If you're going to notify the commissioner, I don't understand why it's complicated to also notify the office of the agency's chair. I think it would make sense, and that's more or less what Australia's doing. However, you don't seem open to the idea. Do you have any arguments to convince me I'm wrong to ask you for this amendment?