Public Safety Committee on May 26th, 2026

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

I'm sorry. Is that the service provider and the data provider? Maybe I don't need to ask you that.

Tell me about the cost implications of this bill for Apple. How is this going to affect you financially?

Specifically, there is a requirement for retaining metadata for up to a year. You're a computer guy. You're an engineer. How do you maintain metadata? Where does that happen? Is that up in your cloud? Where does that take place, and what are the costs for your company in keeping that kind of data?

[Erik Neuenschwander]

Primarily, I don't think we're overly focused on the costs. We're focused on the risks that would arise from that increased metadata retention.

Currently, we maintain the minimum amount of data necessary to provide the service. My understanding from the current draft is that it could force an increase beyond that time. What we're looking at then is just a larger amount of data that could be breached by an attacker and used to commit other crimes.

We're not aware of that ever having happened to Apple so far, and I will touch wood, but part of that is because we reduce that threat profile today as much as possible.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

You do not think the cost implications are of concern to your company.

[Erik Neuenschwander]

As an engineer, it's probably a little outside of my area, but again, I would be concerned mostly with security.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Let me ask Google the same question.

Do you consider yourself a service provider, a data provider or both of those?

[Jeanette Patell]

Similar to Apple, some of those definitions are left for future regulation, so we await further clarity in terms of the scope. Our understanding is that, either way, we would be captured by the legislation.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

I'm a little surprised. Given the size of Google and Apple, how big these companies are, I'm a little confused that legislation can be so vague that you don't even know whether this applies to you.

[Jeanette Patell]

It's a very good point about the opportunity for clarity and precision in the legal text so that the companies that are operating in Canada have a clear sense of the obligations that apply to them.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Can I ask you about the cost implications of this? Maybe I should ask generally before I get into the specifics of retaining metadata for up to a year. Just generally, what do you see as the cost implications for Google?

[Jeanette Patell]

Similar to Apple, the cost considerations have not been our primary consideration. We've been focused on the vulnerabilities that this would introduce to our—

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Let me challenge that. You are corporations. I think you do very well as a corporation. I may even have stocks in your corporation, which—thank you very much—do very well, but I think you are driven and mandated as a company to look after the financial bottom line. I'm a little surprised that you're not concerned about the financial implications of this.

[Jeanette Patell]

Our goal here is to first preserve users and the systems that we operate. We invest quite a lot of resources in doing that for users globally, including from some of our incredible team out of Montreal.

Maybe Kate can speak to what we see in terms of the compliance burdens that might come with regimes like this.

[Katherine Charlet]

I agree with the comments made so far on cost, but what I would add is that global companies seek to build one product experience, not have 100 different product experiences and systems that they have to build around the world.

Of course, we're a large company. We can handle complex compliance regimes but, in terms of the product experience, it's a better experience for users when they move across borders to have a similar experience.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

We've already heard that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

I'm sorry, MP Powlowski, to cut you off, but that's my obligation, given that the time is over for this second hour.

Thank you, witnesses, for taking the time to be with us either in person or virtually.

We will suspend for a few moments until the other group comes in. Again, thank you, and have a great day.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

We are resuming the meeting. This is the third part. We are welcoming new witnesses, to whom we extend a warm welcome.

We welcome Mr. Mathias Van Laer from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, who is here with us.

I invite everyone to be a bit more attentive.

From the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, we welcome Commissioner Thomas Carrique.

From the city of Brampton, we welcome Mr. Patrick Brown, mayor of Brampton.

I would like to welcome our witnesses.

We will now begin the five-minute presentations.

Mr. Van Laer, you have the floor.

[Mathias Van Laer, Retired Staff Sergeant, Reservist, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and honourable members of the committee. Thank you for the invitation to appear today, as we gather on the traditional and unceded territory of the Anishinabe nation and recognize the continuing presence of first nations, Inuit and Métis people in this region.

My name is Mathias Van Laer. I served as a regular member of the RCMP for 25 years and, eventually, retired in 2022 as a staff sergeant.

I would also like to point out that I am of French-speaking origin. I will be happy to answer your questions in the official language of your choice.

During my service, I was a non-commissioned officer in charge of the RCMP E Division's integrated child exploitation unit, located in the Lower Mainland district but representing the whole province of British Columbia. Following my retirement in 2022, I returned to the RCMP as a reserve constable for the city of Kamloops, B.C., to continue my work within their sex crimes unit, where I actively work on ongoing investigations, prepare judicial authorizations and oversee the intake of all online child sexual abuse investigations within the city of Kamloops, providing guidance, direction and training.

To provide you with some background, the RCMP's child exploitation units are specialized teams dedicated to preventing, detecting and investigating crimes involving the sexual exploitation of children, both online and off-line. Their mandate focuses on protecting vulnerable victims, identifying and apprehending offenders, and working collaboratively with domestic and international partners to disrupt networks involving child abuse material and exploitation. Key priorities include proactive intelligence gathering, victim identification and support, digital forensic analysis and public awareness initiatives to reduce risk and increase reporting.

During my time with the B.C. ICE unit, I have worked to address the growing demand, driven by the increasing use of the Internet, for online child sexual exploitation investigations. In collaboration with the RCMP's digital forensic services, B.C. ICE supports law enforcement agencies across British Columbia, works to identify and assist child victims, and identifies offenders to support appropriate criminal charges.

As investigators, we are constantly adapting investigative techniques to try to keep up with criminals, especially those who operate in the digital space and who do the greatest harm to vulnerable Canadians, including children. Bill C-22, an act respecting lawful access, would modernize our law so that Canadian police services can investigate crimes and target those who prey on the vulnerable.

RCMP child exploitation units increasingly rely on digital tools, data analysis and collaboration with intelligence partners to make progress in investigations. The Criminal Code amendments, proposed through Bill C-22, could improve timeliness and consistency in obtaining digital evidence, particularly in urgent or rapidly evolving cases.

Child exploitation investigations predominantly depend on IP address tracing, subscriber information and preserving volatile online data before it is deleted or purged. Enhanced lawful access provisions could streamline production orders and preservation demands, allowing investigators to act more quickly to identify suspects and to safeguard victims.

Protecting children remains a core priority for the RCMP. Teams are committed to safeguarding vulnerable victims, pursuing offenders and adapting to evolving online threats through strong partnerships and modern investigative tools. Whether through enforcement, victim supports or prevention efforts, the RCMP continues to place the safety and well-being of children at the forefront of its mandate, recognizing the critical importance of protecting them from harm in all environments.

Thank you very much. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you very much, Mr. Van Laer.

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

[Commissioner Thomas Carrique, President, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police]

Distinguished committee members, thank you for the opportunity to comment on Bill C-22.

Today, virtually every serious criminal investigation has a digital component. Organized crime groups, child predators, fraudsters, violent offenders and extremists rely on encrypted communications, digital platforms, anonymized tools and forum-based services to coordinate criminal activity, evade detection, frustrate prosecution and ultimately victimize innocent Canadians. Criminals are leveraging digital infrastructure and encryption, while the police are hindered by outdated legislation that does not prioritize public safety.

Bill C-22 is not about expanding unchecked police powers. It's about ensuring that judicially authorized investigations can function effectively in a complex and ever-changing digital environment. To the benefit of bad actors, too often debates on lawful access focus exclusively on privacy interests of suspects and the financial interests of big tech, while overlooking the rights of victims to safety, justice and timely intervention.

The police are not asking for, nor does Bill C-22 authorize, broad surveillance. It does not permit warrantless interception of communication. It does not eliminate judicial oversight. It does not provide unrestricted access to browser history or to social media content. The legislation preserves charter protections and maintains judicial authorization requirements for advanced investigative techniques.

Bill C-22 also addresses practical investigative steps. For example, it creates confidential confirmation of the service process with a simple yes or no so that investigators can determine which telecommunication provider actually holds relevant records before spending valuable time seeking judicial authorizations for records that simply may not exist. It creates a production order process for basic subscriber information based on reasonable suspicion, allowing investigators to advance early-stage investigations. It also addresses delays involving foreign-held evidence for cases in which investigators currently rely on mutual legal assistance processes that take many months, often while evidence disappears. In fact, Bill C-22 provides clear statutory rules in areas where courts, providers and investigators currently face inconsistent interpretations and legal uncertainty.

Bill C-22 prevents the harbouring of criminals by setting out the requirement for electronic service providers to develop and maintain systems capable of providing police with communication and information that they are legally authorized to obtain and that they require to advance criminal investigations.

It's important to note that Bill C-22 is not a surveillance tool; it's a lawful access framework. Metadata would be retained for a maximum of one year, including information such as date, time, duration and origin of transmission. It's critical to note that there will be no obligation to retain content such as emails, web browsing history or social media activities.

Furthermore, retention does not equal access. Judicial authorization will still be required. Metadata is the bare minimum of information that could assist investigators in complex investigations, such as those for homicides, international child sexual exploitation, extortion, cross-border auto theft, human trafficking and the smuggling of drugs and firearms. These types of crimes can far exceed a one-year investigation period that can involve the need for lawful access.

Absent reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, police will not and cannot judicially seek and lawfully obtain communication metadata about a private citizen of Canada going about their daily activities. Additionally, there are other safeguards built into the bill. Regulations made by the Governor in Council must consider privacy and cybersecurity implications, feasibility, cost to providers and impacts to customers, and the intelligence commissioner must approve orders prior to their issuance on an electronic service provider.

Bill C-22 also prevents any requirement that would cause an electronic service provider to introduce a systemic vulnerability, defined in the bill as “a substantial risk that secure information could be accessed by a person who does not have any right or authority to do so.”

Frankly, from a law enforcement perspective, the concerns by some major telecommunication companies and special interest privacy advocates about encryption and cybersecurity are overstated. The legislation as written does not compel companies to weaken encryption or create vulnerabilities; rather, under a legislative framework, it ensures that electronic service providers are not serving as a safe haven for criminal and terrorist-related activity and compromising public safety locally, nationally and internationally.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

I'm sorry to interrupt, Commissioner, but could you finish in five or 10 seconds?

[Commr Thomas Carrique]

Absolutely, sir.

In closing, I look forward to answering your questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you. That was much appreciated.

Let us now turn to Mayor Brown.

Mayor Brown has particular merit in being here today, given that this is his birthday. We won't take the time to sing you a happy birthday, because we don't want to interfere with your allocated time.

Happy birthday, Mayor, and it's five minutes for you as well.

[Patrick Brown, Mayor, City of Brampton]

I was going to celebrate my birthday, but when I heard you were talking about such an important topic, I did not want to miss this opportunity to speak on behalf of the residents of Brampton and the Peel region, where we have unfortunately faced significant criminal activity and where Bill C-22 could have made a world of difference.

I want to share a few things with the committee today.

Organized crime is sophisticated. I wear two hats, one as mayor of Brampton and one as a member of the Peel Police Service Board. Commissioner Carrique's comments, which were so eloquent, were what I hear from our senior police. This could be the most significant investigative tool for police since DNA evidence changed the game.

Organized crime does not want Canada to update our lawful access legislation. Frankly, they've been able to conduct criminal activity with impunity in our country. Police have their hands tied, and it's unfortunate. There are more victims and there are more preventable crimes. I'm sure that if this committee or the Parliament of Canada dithers or delays, the Bishnoi gang will be elated, the Sinaloa cartel will be elated and For Brothers will be elated, but there will be more victims.

I come from a community where I've seen too many cases of child exploitation, human trafficking and extortions. Don't even get me started on extortions, because they have terrorized our community. I can tell you that in Peel region over the last year, we've had 476 extortions on families and businesses. This legislation is absolutely critical for us to be able to hold these criminal organizations accountable.

In the case of extortions, production orders can take three, four or five weeks, and sometimes even longer. There are continuous delays. With these delays on production orders, investigations go cold.

Police investigations are most efficient when they have the tools to do their job, and I can tell you that organized crime is utilizing all of these modern technology tools. When investigators have to wait 45 days for critical information, video from local cameras disappears, critical evidence disappears and more innocent victims are traumatized.

I've had victims call me. I had a father call me who said, “My kids can't sleep after our house was shot up.” Can you imagine having your children not being able to sleep for months because they were terrorized by an extortion? These extortions could have been prevented if the police had the tools to do their job.

I know there were concerns from the opposition over the initial incarnation of this bill. However, I can tell you—and I know the Peel police have been involved in providing input—that this is a balanced approach that gives the police the same tools as other Five Eyes countries. I know there are going to be tech lobbyists aggressively lobbying against this bill for their own reasons, but if this works in other Five Eyes countries where there is a balance between protecting privacy and giving police the tools to do their jobs, we can find that balance in Canada.

I was at the big city mayors' caucus, where we lobbied Prime Minister Carney specifically to give local police forces this tool that is so critical. For those who have privacy concerns, my message would be this: Don't commit a crime. Don't be involved in a heinous crime. Then you won't have your privacy abridged.

You hear law enforcement saying that it will be utilized only when there is reasonable suspicion of a crime. If we have video evidence of someone being involved in a crime, it shouldn't take 45 days to get that digital information.

This is the new warfare. I read these police reports and I study them. I can tell you that I have asked our senior leadership in the Peel Regional Police again and again how long this investigation would have taken if we had lawful access. Time and time again, they respond that it would be a fraction of the time. For investigations that have gone cold, this could have made a difference by actually preventing crime and preventing more victims, so I implore this committee to not dither and delay.

If there are reasonable adjustments and amendments, we have reasonable parliamentarians here. Please find that consensus, but do not dither and delay. The only people you will please with any dither and delay on this critical information that law enforcement is begging for are organized crime members.

I'm happy to be before this honourable committee today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Mayor Brown.

Let us now turn to MP Caputo for six minutes, please.

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

Thank you.

Happy birthday, Mayor. It's nice to make your acquaintance over Zoom.

It's nice to see you again, Commissioner Carrique. I've had the pleasure of meeting you many times.

It's nice to see you, Mr. Van Laer.

Mr. Van Laer and I worked together on investigations relating to child sexual abuse and exploitation material. One of the reasons that I invited him here and wanted to hear from him is that we haven't heard from anybody yet who has told us what it's like to kick down a door or what metadata you look for when you're doing child sexual abuse investigations.

Mr. Van Laer, I'm going to focus my questions on you for the time being.

This bill focuses on metadata. Are you familiar with metadata in the context of child sexual abuse material cases and Internet luring cases? I assume you're aware of metadata and how it all works.