Public Safety Committee on May 26th, 2026

[Mathias Van Laer]

Yes.

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

This is something you've dealt with on the front lines. Is that right?

[Mathias Van Laer]

That's correct. There are layers of metadata, of course.

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

Yes.

You've dealt with cases that we may never have heard about, right up to the Amanda Todd case in B.C.

[Mathias Van Laer]

That's correct.

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

Does metadata assist in any way on child sexual abuse cases? Can you tell the committee how? We haven't heard anything like that so far.

[Mathias Van Laer]

That's correct.

First of all, metadata is quite broad, so there might be a need to make sure that we understand what exactly we are referring to when we say metadata. It's information captured by an electronic service provider insofar as every little bit of that information can be considered metadata.

Ultimately, the role of the police is not just to identify an Internet subscriber. An Internet subscriber is just the person who pays for the Internet connection. Our job, in order to satisfy prosecution, is to identify the person behind the keyboard. In order to do so, we need to dig into the content of what's happening on the Internet to identify the actual suspect user as opposed to simply a subscriber. The subscriber is a piece of the puzzle, and it leads our investigation into, hopefully, the user. We can't identify a user if we can't see their traces or identify them through some of their traces on the Internet, if that makes sense.

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

Let's say you get an IP address of a suspected child sexual abuser. What do you do from there?

[Mathias Van Laer]

Currently, what we are required to do from there is to draft a production order to get the subscriber's name and address. That process takes man-hours. It takes time to draft the production order, but then, insofar as the result of the production order, it is left to the Internet service provider to give us that result. It can take up to 30 days, if not more sometimes.

That's not the end of the road, though, obviously. Once we have the IP address identified to a subscriber, we then have an address. Once we have the address, we start to do our investigation into that address and into the residents of that address. Then, more often than not, it will lead to a search warrant. We will need to satisfy the courts and provide reasonable, probable grounds to believe an offence was committed within that residence and evidence exists within it. We will then go through that door, get and seize those computers and electronic devices, and look for the traces that led us to that door in the first place.

You have to remember that we don't get an IP address out of the blue. It's been pre-identified for us. It's been given to us by an electronic service provider that is self-reporting online criminal activity. They see it as criminal activity, they report it and then it lands on our desk, unsolicited. We receive those reports, which are provided to us voluntarily by the electronic service provider.

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

Once you have that information—you've kicked down the door, so to speak, and you've seized a number of things—what's your timeline, then, for investigation? What role might metadata play in identifying and arresting a child predator?

[Mathias Van Laer]

Digital forensics is going to have to take place. We are going to have to get those computers analyzed by digital forensics experts. Those are the people who are going to be able to see or say what was happening on the computer at certain dates and times. We will try to match the activity of the computer with the activity of the offender, and by doing so, that's how we can identify who's behind the keyboard.

The electronic service provider will collect the username, the IP address and pieces of information within the profile. That's what, sometimes, on more complex cases, may lead us to identify the same user utilizing different profiles because they can do that too. My colleagues who are also witnesses today are speaking of complex investigations. More often than not, we're looking at—never mind one offender—usually multiple profiles being used, and then we have to reconcile those different identities, online identities, to an actual, real one.

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

How long does all of this take?

[Mathias Van Laer]

The forensic analysis of a computer can take months. That's outside of the on-the-ground investigation. It depends on the resources and the capability. It depends on the content, the size of the computer equipment and the number of devices that were seized in order to conduct the investigation. There are multiple factors.

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

From there, then, is there a use for metadata in an ongoing investigation? I guess that's my question.

[Mathias Van Laer]

Absolutely. I think you were referring to the Amanda Todd case earlier. That's one of those cases where, if it weren't for the voluntary participation of a major electronic service provider, which was collecting that data already and co-operated with our investigation, thankfully—and I think they were in the right place to do so—we wouldn't ever have been able to identify a suspect overseas.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, MP Caputo.

We have MP Sodhi for six minutes, please.

[Amandeep Sodhi, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all of our witnesses for appearing before the committee today.

I would like to ask Mayor Brown my first set of questions. First and foremost, I would like to wish one of the best mayors that Brampton has had a very happy birthday.

Mayor Brown, you have been one of the most more vocal municipal leaders calling for stronger lawful access tools for police services, particularly as Brampton and Peel region confront rising levels of enabled crime, including extortion and organized criminal activity predominantly targeting the South Asian community and their businesses.

Last year, in December of 2025, Brampton city council adopted a motion approving a letter to the federal and provincial governments calling for, among other measures, federal action on digital evidence access, a dedicated extortion and organized crime task force, victim support and community outreach funding, and the establishment of a formal intelligence-sharing framework across federal, provincial and municipal law enforcement.

Can you speak to what the measures in Bill C-22 will mean at a community level to our constituents in the city of Brampton?

[Patrick Brown]

Thank you for that question, MP Sodhi.

What I've heard from law enforcement is that this is an incredibly important tool that will make a world of difference.

Yesterday, we had a major police announcement by Chief Nish. There were 17 individuals arrested for violent extortions. I was told that the investigation took very difficult police work. You had police members who put themselves in harm's way to hold these international criminals to account. They told me that the investigation literally could have been done in two or three months, not eight months, and that there was a litany of victims in that period, which this legislation could have prevented.

It's not just extortions, MP Sodhi. I can tell you about some of the worst crimes in the region. This is a tool that could have prevented them. Let me give you one example that was shared with me by the Peel Regional Police. We had two victims of a recent cybercrime—a cryptocurrency scam—and the two innocent victims were defrauded of $1.6 million. This is a case where the lawful access provisions would have allowed them to get those responsible and to have them charged before this crime was successful.

For human trafficking and child exploitation to extortions, this is a tool that I think our police desperately need. When you hear chiefs of police and police unions across the country pleading for this help and saying that this is a tool they need, I can't comprehend why there would be such hesitation behind this. I was told very clearly by our chief of police, in whom I have a great level of confidence—I think he's one of the best chiefs in the country, and he was actually chief of the chiefs at one point—that this is balanced. It's carved out to focus on those crimes where there's a reasonable suspicion of a crime. There's not an overextension of where it could be applicable. For those who are sharing privacy concerns, I think you do not need to worry about your privacy being infringed if you're not committing criminal activities.

I'd ask this question: How about the right to privacy of victims? How about the right to not get your house shot up? How about the right to not have your children terrified?

Amandeep, you represent the Brampton riding. I'm sure you've heard countless concerns as well. I get calls from the victims who say, “What are you going to do, Mr. Mayor, to stand up for us?”

One of the things we've been doing is pleading with the Government of Canada to deliver updated lawful access legislation. I'm grateful that the government has done so. I know that our hard-working police officers are grateful that this hope and this help are on the horizon. I really hope that we don't see delays in the passage of this legislation.

[Amandeep Sodhi, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Thank you for your answer, Mayor Brown.

You've also been in contact with mayors and police chiefs across Canada and Peel region on this file, from Surrey to Edmonton to Hamilton. Is the position of your colleagues across different big cities on this bill broadly aligned with yours? In your view, how strong is the consensus among Canadian municipal leaders that Parliament needs to act?

[Patrick Brown]

I believe there's a strong consensus.

With organized crime, if they see a loophole.... Right now, they view a loophole in Canada that other Five Eyes countries have closed. We don't have lawful access for police. This is going to replicate itself across the country. It will mushroom. It may have started out in Surrey and Brampton, but we've heard of cases in Calgary, Edmonton and Winnipeg. I've had colleagues, other mayors across the country, call me and say the same terrifying incidents I've told them about are now happening in their communities.

Other gangs and organized criminal syndicates will commit these extortions and heinous criminal activities if they can get away with them. The lawful access legislation is a clear tool to police to make sure that they don't get away with them. Don't give a gift to organized crime. Don't dither and delay. Right now, it may be in 10 or 15 Canadian cities, but it will be in 100 Canadian cities in no time if we do not act. We've been too slow as it is, and that's why the police have been so united, clear and eloquent on the need for this legislation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

You have 15 seconds.

[Amandeep Sodhi, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mayor Brown.

I have only 15 seconds, so I'll say thank you.

[Patrick Brown]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

I'm sorry.

I now give the floor to Mrs. DeBellefeuille for six minutes.

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

I would like to thank the witnesses very much for coming here today to appear before us.

Mr. Commissioner, I don’t know if you were connected to the meeting earlier, but representatives from the Barreau du Québec came to express their disagreement regarding the use of “reasonable grounds to suspect” rather than “reasonable grounds to believe”—the higher threshold—when issuing an order.

According to the president of the Quebec bar, including “reasonable grounds to suspect” in the bill does not respect the spirit of the Supreme Court’s decision. However, the Department of Justice and its minister claim the opposite.

Can you explain to me what difference it makes for investigators to use “reasonable grounds to suspect” rather than “reasonable grounds to believe” when issuing an order?