Public Safety Committee on May 26th, 2026

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank all of the witnesses.

Deputy Chief Milinovich, I took heed of what you said. My colleague Ms. Acan asked you a question and you said that it was going to take a lot longer than six minutes, and I understand why. This isn't easy stuff.

This is complex stuff: how metadata leads to an offender, how a production order is authorized.... I mean, we haven't even gotten into that. I don't think that even once we've talked about the test for getting a production order. I think Mr. Van Laer did very briefly last time, but we haven't even talked about that here. That's part of the point I've been making. I know that my Liberal colleagues may think I'm a broken record, but the reality is that this is not easy stuff. This is where we have had lawyers come in here and disagree: knowledgeable lawyers, people who have practised law for a great deal of time.

I would love to hear more from you. I know that extortion is a huge issue in your area. You and I spoke—I believe it was just last month—and I really appreciate your passion for trying to bring safe streets to the Peel region. I echo that.

The thing that stands out for me—and this goes for all of our witnesses here—is that we all want safe streets. We all want to put bad people in jail. We all want people who hurt kids to go to jail and—I can say on this end—for a very long time. I would hope that my Liberal colleagues would join that, yet here we are, on the precipice of having to deal with a bill that has huge ramifications and huge implications.

I'm going to ask you just one brief question, Mr. Rankin. Was there one recommendation that you really hoped would have made it in here and didn't?

[Murray Rankin]

First of all, thank you very much for the question, MP Caputo.

I can't think of.... No, I can't answer that in such a simple way. I can't.

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

Fair enough.

Here is the reality, Mr. Chair. My friend and colleague Mr. Powlowski, when he was asking questions, talked about how he was still figuring this out. We are all still figuring this out. That's why I referenced Deputy Chief Milinovich's comment on how much time we have.

One theme that I've been stating throughout, and that I've been stating publicly and privately, is that we need more time with this bill. Yes, we've had three meetings. That's not nearly enough. These have been exhausting meetings. They've been going on for four hours. We're into the fourth hour, and we don't know basic things, such as how long metadata should be retained. I don't think we've actually gotten into the technical nature of how metadata leads to an arrest, which leads to a charge, which leads to a conviction. We haven't even touched on that. We have not touched on what the U.K. does, what Australia does, what the EU does or what Sweden does. We've heard it's 10 months, one year or two years. We have not gotten into that.

Speaking as somebody who wants to see bad people put behind bars, I know that we have to balance it with getting it right, period. I don't think anybody around this table wants to have legislation that will not stand up constitutionally. For that reason, I will be moving a motion. The clerk has received copies in both English and French, I believe.

This should not come as a surprise to any of my colleagues. I think we as Conservatives have been very transparent on this. We have been transparent on the necessity for more meetings.

Mr. Chair, as it stands right now—as it stands right now—we are going to hear from witnesses on Thursday, yet amendments are due tomorrow. We will actually be hearing from officials when the deadline for amendments has passed.

I checked with Mr. Rankin. I think we should have an hour or two with just him. It's been a major failing of this meeting, alone, that we crammed in 12 excellent witnesses who could probably have had an hour on their own—each one. We crammed them in, sometimes getting only two rounds.

With that in mind, I am putting forward this motion:

That, in relation to the ongoing study of Bill C-22, an Act respecting lawful access,

a) the study be extended to accommodate further examination of Part 2 of the bill which would enact the Supporting Authorized Access to Information Act, provided that the following witnesses appear separately, for at least one hour each:

1. the Minister of Industry, in relation to the impact on electronic service providers and their industry,

2. the Minister responsible for Canada-US Trade, in relation to trade and security implications raised by American lawmakers,

3. the Secretary of State (Combatting Crime);

b) the committee receive an additional 8 hours of witness testimony, provided that the committee prioritize another briefing with departmental officials and hearing the testimony of representatives from Signal, NordVPN, OpenMedia, Centre for Free Expression, Canadian Constitution Foundation, Canadian Muslim Public Affairs Council, Migrant Workers Alliance for Change, and the testimony of Glenn Greenwald, Safiyya Ahmad, Noura Aljizawi, Teresa Scassa, and Jane Bailey, in addition to additional testimony deemed relevant by the committee;

c) the chair be authorized to seek additional meeting time to accommodate this testimony in a timely manner;

d) the deadline for submitting amendments be extended until the testimony outlined in this motion has been received;

e) the chair only be authorized to schedule a meeting for the purposes of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill after the witnesses listed in part a) have appeared, and the number of hours of testimony in part b) have been received.

Mr. Chair, we owe it to the people who have appeared and who have told us of the necessity for this bill, we owe it to the victims and we owe it to Canadians to get this right and to get this right the first time. That is why I'm moving this motion.

I implore my colleagues to accept this motion. Let's get this bill done. Let's explore it, and let's get it done right.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Mr. Caputo.

Witnesses, this concludes your appearance. We won't keep you any longer. Given that the motion has been moved, we'll certainly spend the next few minutes discussing it. Therefore, we won't deprive you of the pleasure of returning home or wherever you'd like to go.

I'm happy to say that your day is over. Ours is not yet over, because we'll have to discuss that motion. We are obviously very grateful for your participation, either virtually or in person. Your views have been quite clearly heard, but not completely so. We look forward to more possible engagement with you in the future.

Have a great night. We won't suspend and shake hands, but you understand why we'll now focus on our own internal work. Thank you.

Ms. Kirkland, the floor is yours.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Chair, I'm really concerned that we are just not spending the time necessary to get this right. When I first spoke to departmental officials, before we even started studying this bill here in committee, I assured them that we want, for those who are committing the most heinous crimes, the best possible lawful access regime that could potentially do the job that it's supposed to do, but what we don't want is to have one thing at the sacrifice of another.

As an example, we had today, in our committee time, four hours. One hour only had two rounds. There were issues of privilege, and these were brought up simply because we don't have time. We're not getting the information that we need in a timely manner, and that's not anyone's fault. It's the clock's fault.

The only fault that we can place on this is the fact that the government, to be fair, has decided that it wants to ram this legislation through and race to royal assent, as I have said several times. This is not doing the justice that this type of legislation deserves. Canadians deserve to hear everything. I said before that I could ask these witnesses the questions that I have privately, but that is not appropriate for all Canadians. They want to know the answers to these questions.

I'm specifically shocked and annoyed by words that were used by the mayor of Brampton. Although I respect him greatly, it's not dithering to properly look at legislation and take it apart piece by piece. That is our job. If we're not going to do our job, then what are we here for? Is it the job of the opposition, as well, to just sit back and say, “Yes, yes, yes”, and be yes-people?

It's just outrageous to me that we've spent such little time. Asking for eight more hours seems very congenial. It should be easy to do. If we do four-hour meetings again, that's two more four-hour meetings.

I know we're tired, but this is our job. If we don't get this right, then we could be causing lots of problems going forward, and I fear that we already are. We've seen news reports. Anyone who has reached out to my office has said, “Yes, we understand the need for lawful access, but my concerns are regarding my privacy and my safety.”

I implore everyone on this committee to take this motion seriously. It is made in good faith. I want to do my job, and I want to do my job effectively. I hope that everyone on this committee wants to do their job effectively to properly scrutinize this bill and to get it right. That's truly all we're asking for.

With that, I will leave it. The only possible thing I would like to mention is the idea of amendments being due before we finish hearing testimony. I don't understand that at all, and I don't think it's just because I'm a one-year, new parliamentarian.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

You may have been here for only one year, but you sound very experienced.

Let me turn to MP Ramsay.

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

I appreciate the views of Mr. Caputo and Mrs. Kirkland. I think we have a solution that will appease everyone, so we move to adjourn debate.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

How is that a solution?

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

How's that a solution?

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

This is a dilatory motion that we must vote on immediately to adjourn the debate. To be clear, this isn't about adjourning the meeting, but adjourning the debate.

Who is in favour of this motion to adjourn the debate?

I think it's quite clear that the motion is—

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

We oppose. It should be on the record so that we—

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Okay. Do you want it on the record as on division?

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

No, it should be on the record. I think we should—

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Okay, if you want a roll call vote, we can do that.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Mr. Ramsay, the floor is yours.

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

I'd like to introduce a new motion:

That the committee extends its study of C‑22 by inviting witnesses to appear on Thursday, May 28 from 4:30-6:30 p.m.; That the amendment deadline be extended to Monday, June 1 at 5:30 p.m.; That the first hour of the meeting of Tuesday, June 2 be on Bill C‑221, and receive testimony of the sponsor of the bill—

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

Sorry to interrupt you, Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Chair, can we get a copy of the motion so we can read it?

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

We will listen to Mr. Ramsay, then ensure everyone has a copy of the text.

Mr. Ramsay, the floor is yours.

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

I'll continue:

That the first hour of the meeting of Tuesday, June 2 be on Bill C‑221, and receive testimony of the sponsor of the bill, Mel Arnold; That the second hour of the meeting of Tuesday, June 2 consists of relevant department officials on the topics of main estimates, and on Bill C‑22; And that clause-by-clause consideration of C‑22 begin on Thursday, June 4th.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Mr. Ramsay, do you have an English version? Can you read it in English? That way, it can be interpreted into French.

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

Yes.

Wait just a moment.

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

Mr. Chair, why don't we have a copy of the motion?

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

We'll find out what's going on.

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

All right, in English it reads:

That the committee extend its study of Bill C-22 by inviting witnesses to appear on Thursday, May 28, 2026, from 4:30 to 6:30 p.m.; that the amendment deadline be extended to Monday, June 1, 2026, at 5:30 p.m.; that the first hour of the meeting of Tuesday, June 2, 2026, be on Bill C-221, and receive testimony from the sponsor of the bill, Mel Arnold; that the second hour of the meeting of Tuesday, June 2, 2026, consist of relevant department officials on the studies of the Main Estimates and Bill C-22; and that clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-22 begin on Thursday, June 4, 2026.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you.

We'll need this information to be sent to us by email, that is, in writing. The clerk will help with that. Please keep an eye on your devices. The motion will be sent in both French and English.

While the information is being sent, Mr. Caputo, would you like to speak? You're on my list.