Public Safety Committee on May 7th, 2026

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

Thank you.

My question is for the two law enforcement representatives. One important thing to keep in mind here is that Bill C‑22 aims to give law enforcement the means to act in a timely manner.

Chief Demkiw, you said that the process was time-consuming and that this could lead to the loss of evidence.

Also, in your opinion, in cases of online fraud, cybercrime, extortion and vehicle theft, am I correct in thinking that acting quickly helps reduce the number of victims?

If an investigation takes a year or 18 months, there could be hundreds of victims rather than just a few or a few dozen cases. In cases of cybercrime or sextortion, there can be many victims.

That's what I would like clarification on. There's a big difference between having one victim or 200, between having one case of cybercrime or 12.

This is where Bill C‑22 needs to make a difference.

What are your thoughts on this?

[Chief Myron Demkiw]

The short answer is, yes, time is of the essence, and whenever time is of the essence, in cybercriminality, fraud or extortion, you certainly risk greater victimization, both in the number of victims and in the impact on individual victims. As we know, sometimes people are victimized many times over.

To your point, as our investigations are sometimes hampered and as it takes longer to unravel the digital evidence that needs to be uncovered to stop the victimization and criminality, more people are victimized.

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

Chief Fleury, would you like to add to this?

[Chief Darcy Fleury]

Yes.

Given the example of fraud-related offences that you used, let's take an example of a Ponzi scheme. In a Ponzi scheme situation, if we've identified one, two or three victims and we're able to get into that material or that information early on, there's a really strong possibility that our quick access to that information will stop further victimization or prevent other people from becoming victims before we finish up the investigation.

I have seen that happen in the past when time was of the essence. We're talking about people who are very motivated to do their crime, and they will victimize multiple people very quickly. If we have the ability to get in there, we might be able to interrupt some of their activity while we're forming grounds to lay charges and go forward with court proceedings. I think it's really important to have that early access in those types of scenarios.

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

Thank you.

We sometimes get the impression that some people would like to portray Bill C‑22 as excessive. On the contrary, I believe that the government has shown a lot of restraint with this bill and focused solely on what is essential. At one point, there was a proposal to request information on taxis and on what happens at night in hotels. The government decided to limit those powers.

In your opinion, does Bill C‑22 represent a well-considered piece of legislation that seeks only essential information?

[Chief Myron Demkiw]

If I may start, the short answer is, yes, I believe it is.

We know from practical experience that the use of digital technology by the criminal element has expanded dramatically, and our ability to gather timely evidence, preserve evidence and prevent the escalation of offences is hampered by the inability to access key digital bits of evidence. Bill C-22 will assist us in that regard.

By way of a simple example, when we have a phone number tied to a particular set of criminality, no matter how serious the alleged crime, we have to establish who the service provider is, and that in and of itself is a cumbersome task today. Bill C-22 will streamline that task, allowing us to move more quickly and gather essential evidence that may disappear and be lost while we wait for different service providers to advance our investigations under the current legislative framework.

Bill C-22 is calibrated well to assist us in making timely access to key digital technology more readily possible.

[Chief Darcy Fleury]

Yes, I agree with Chief Demkiw. I think it's very well put together and addresses those areas where data moves so quickly. It does a good job of collecting that.

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

Ms. West, I believe Canada and Australia are the only countries where there is explicit prohibition against, for electronic protection safeguards, implementing a capability that would introduce a systemic vulnerability. For instance, in the U.S.A.—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Frank Caputo]

I'm sorry, Mr. Ramsay. Your time is up.

No, I didn't look forward to saying that.

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

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Dr. West, in a joint letter, several civil society organizations have expressed concerns about Bill C‑22. They say it could facilitate increased information sharing with foreign governments, including countries with human rights practices that are of concern.

What additional safeguards should be considered to limit the subsequent use of Canadians' personal information?

[Leah West]

I think there are two issues.

The first is on changes to the MLAT, which would allow foreign entities to serve orders in Canada. There would be a process where the minister approves the request, it goes through a judge, the judge agrees that the criteria made out in the Criminal Code are met, and then they collect that data back.

There is no requirement that the law under investigation also be a crime in Canada, so there is the possibility of seeing foreign governments seeking to enforce repressive laws or politically motivated investigations through this process. There is no real safeguard against that, except for the actions of the minister executing things at his discretion. In this case, especially because there isn't necessarily a judge involved in the foreign jurisdiction, it can be an administrative order. The minister has to commit to exercising his discretion to not authorize a process where the crimes being investigated are potentially repressive or politically motivated. There is no safeguard in the law.

There could be by adding the fact that the law would similarly have to be a crime in Canada. Then we wouldn't have that problem. That's one way to make it broader. However, right now, it would be at the minister's discretion.

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

Thank you.

I'm very concerned about this. So if you could suggest a specific amendment to Bill C‑22 that might reassure people, that would be very helpful. We have until May 27 to introduce amendments.

I'd like to ask you another question. In the letter you published in The Globe and Mail, you emphasize the importance of the work being done in committee and of reaching a consensus around Bill C‑22. I think everyone here would agree that this bill is necessary, but that it could be improved.

Do you think it would be reasonable to include the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, so that it is notified in real time when a ministerial order is issued, and so that it can investigate and ensure that the powers conferred by Bill C‑22 are not abused?

[Leah West]

No, I don't think so. The National Security and Intelligence Review Agency is a review body. It engages in ex post facto review. It doesn't have a current mandate to engage in oversight.

I personally recommended that the intelligence commissioner be involved in reviewing ministerial orders, because they have that role of oversight in the current system and they are set up to do that in a way NSIRA is not.

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

Okay.

The idea is not for the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency to participate in the decision or give its opinion on the continuation of the ministerial order. Rather, it's a matter of ensuring that the agency is notified in real time so that it can document a case that, once a year has passed, might be easier to handle should an investigation ever be launched.

Thank you for clarifying your opinion because, even with the help of interpretation, it's a bit difficult for me to understand.

[Leah West]

I certainly see a role for NSIRA in reviewing the system in general and potentially a role for your colleagues on NSICOP down the road. That will be exceptionally important, particularly in looking at how the role of engagement with the service provider community is rolled out.

Whether or not NSIRA needs to be informed every time there's a ministerial order in order to do that.... Again, I think it's more set up for a longer-term review. It would be best receiving information at the end of the calendar year or every six months. I don't really think it's in a position to do case-by-case reviews.

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

You said that the definition of “electronic service provider” is very broad and that it could include hardware providers, for example.

Could you give us some examples of hardware providers?

[Leah West]

Typically, anyone who provides hardware often also provides some sort of electronic service. I think hardware providers, like Ericsson and others that operate in the hardware space, could find themselves captured by the broad definition.

I don't think that's necessarily wrong. I think the definition—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Frank Caputo]

I'm sorry, Professor. We'll have to pick that up in the next round.

We will move on to Ms. Kirkland for five minutes, please.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you.

My questions will be for Ms. West.

I appreciate your testimony here.

Given that this is our ninth time, as you said, trying to get this legislation right in terms of lawful access, how important is it—you talked about striking the right balance—that we're not racing to royal assent and that we are taking the time to review amendments and listen to testimony?

[Leah West]

In my opinion, it's crucial to getting the bill right.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you.

You have said publicly that the government should show its homework. I appreciated that, especially the focus on this committee, which is part of making this legislation go through this process.

We know that in consultation with Murray Rankin, who produced a report that informed Bill C-22.... The Minister of Public Safety told the committee that the report was used specifically to inform the government's decision-making on Bill C-22. I know you participated directly in that consultation.

In your professional opinion, is there any legitimate national security solicitor-client privilege or operational reason preventing the report from being released to Parliament or to the Canadian public?

[Leah West]

I'm not privy to the relationship that Murray Rankin had with the minister when he offered his advice, so, no.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

From your perspective as a participant in the process, how central was the consultation exercise to shaping the lawful access now before Parliament?

[Leah West]

In my opinion, it reflects the type of advice I was hearing as part of the consultation process.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

To your knowledge, were participants in the consultation process ever advised that the report or its findings would remain confidential from Parliament?