Public Safety Committee on May 26th, 2026

[Patrick Brown]

The last part of that question, about trust, is so important. Right now, there is a sense of hopelessness because so many of these extortion investigations have gone cold. I hear again and again from law enforcement that if we had lawful access, they would be able to chase this one down, but it goes cold.

Let me give you an illustration of what I mean, MP Sidhu. If the Peel police observed a suspect.... This is from a senior officer who shared this with me about why he needs this legislation. He said if you were to observe a suspect, after a crime, speaking on a cellphone on the video camera, the police could write a production order for a cell tower site. Right now, that order would take upwards of three, four or five weeks, or maybe 45 days, and then all of the key evidence would be lost. Evidence would be lost. Video would be lost. More crimes would potentially be committed, and the criminals would evade justice.

To give another illustration, one of the investigations we had recently was successful because they had lawful access in the U.S. One of the criminals was operating out of the U.S. and they were able to nab him.

Canadian law enforcement shouldn't have to depend on other countries to do their job. They should have the same modern tools that other countries with similar charter protections and similar laws have. If other countries found that balance, I know Canada can. I believe this is a balanced approach that our hard-working police desperately need.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Thank you.

We know that criminal activities are increasingly moving into online spaces, making it harder for traditional policing methods to keep up.

Do you think it will provide more tools to combat online crime as well?

[Patrick Brown]

Yes, 100%. Online crime has become the new digital warfare. Unfortunately, criminal organizations are very sophisticated when it comes to technology. If they view a loophole in Canada, they will take advantage of it.

This is an important tool in preventing cybercrime as well. There are many aspects to this bill, all of which have been asked for by law enforcement. They're the ones on the front lines. As MP Caputo said, they're the ones banging doors down, chasing down evidence. If the people doing that very challenging work—the law enforcement, who put their necks on the line—say that this is the tool they need, I have confidence in our men and women in law enforcement and that, as this is a tool that has been successful in other countries, it will be successful here.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Thank you.

I saw you join Chief Nish yesterday in a press conference about the 17 individuals with extortion-related offences. We all saw the press conference. You told us in your testimony that this investigation spanned eight months, but that could potentially have been reduced if this modernized tool was given to the police before.

Do you think seniors, who are often targeted by scams and financial exploitation, could benefit from this?

[Patrick Brown]

Certainly.

There are seniors who are being taken advantage of through cybercrimes, although you may not hear about them as much as the extortions that are all over the news in Peel region. However, for crimes like that as well, I think it would be an important tool for law enforcement.

One of the people testifying before this committee in the next segment is Deputy Chief Nick Milinovich. I believe he's one of the smartest minds in the country when it comes to technology and law enforcement. I think you'll really enjoy asking him technical questions about why this legislation is so important. He can explain very specifically why it would help in those specific instances.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Chair, do I have any more time?

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

I'm sorry. No, you don't have any more time.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

I just want to thank you, Mayor Brown, for joining us today and for your continued focus on public safety, because it's very important for our city of Brampton.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Ms. Sidhu.

Ms. DeBellefeuille, you have two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Commissioner, I would like to discuss the issue of retaining metadata for one year.

We have raised this issue with department officials. They set the retention period at one year in what appears to be a rather arbitrary manner. In Australia, it is two years. I have heard that in the United States, no specific period is set.

What does a one-year period mean to you, as an investigator?

We have received recommendations to set this at 90 days or three months, for example, and to make these periods renewable upon request, rather than retaining all Canadians' metadata for a year.

If we reduced this period, under certain conditions, and allowed you to request the data again, could you live with that? I don't really understand the importance of having a one-year retention period.

What is your perspective on this as a police officer and investigator?

[Commr Thomas Carrique]

Thank you.

I do think that one year is a reasonable time period, given the length of time that it takes to progress through the necessary investigative steps on any serious or complex criminal investigation. Right now, the Criminal Code does provide us with the ability to obtain preservation orders that limit retaining known data to 90 days. However, 90 days is not enough time for us to conclude an investigation. We would find ourselves not knowing what we needed to know before that metadata was no longer available to us.

As I understand the way the legislation has been written, there is an opportunity to review the legislation at a later date. At that time, it may be appropriate to determine whether the time frame that has been provided—under one year—in the current version is sufficient.

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

Commissioner, there are still many witnesses who say that one year is too long. Some believe we should limit the data retention period and require more renewals through the courts, for example.

If we keep the metadata of all Canadians, that's still a lot of data, and it opens the door for criminals. They could then steal that data. That's what the companies are telling us, too.

What do you think?

[Commr Thomas Carrique]

Certainly, I have no knowledge of how that would compromise systems and make people more vulnerable to criminals. My understanding of the metadata that we're looking to retain for a year is that it's very specific as it relates to date, time, duration and origin of transmission. It is not content like emails or browser histories or social media activities. Even for that basic metadata, for the bare minimum that could assist in complex investigations, we would still require judicial authorization.

From a police perspective, I do believe it is a reasonable time frame.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Mr. Carrique.

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

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

I'd like to build on what Madame DeBellefeuille just said, Mr. Van Laer, and get your opinion on metadata and timelines. I feel that one thing we are lacking as a committee is piecing together how metadata assists investigations.

Are you following me here so far?

[Mathias Van Laer]

I think so.

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

Can you comment on that? In what situations would you need metadata for only 30 days, 60 days, 90 days or one year? Can you envision any sort of scenario here? The bill here says that you have to keep metadata for a year. That is an arbitrary number. Why is it a year?

I guess what I'm trying to figure out is this: Based on your investigative experience over the course of thousands of investigations, what is your experience as to how long data should be kept?

[Mathias Van Laer]

It's a bit of a difficult question to answer in the sense that if investigations were not able to be pursued because the data had expired, for instance, we wouldn't know where or how far we could have gone had the data been available in the first place.

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

How often are you missing data in your investigations, would you say?

[Mathias Van Laer]

Unfortunately, because of a number of factors, it happens quite a bit at the moment due to a number of delays in the process and the time it takes sometimes for a simple investigation to even be initiated. At the start, we need to be able to have access to subscriber information, for instance. If we have an electronic service provider or an Internet service provider that is not compelled to keep those records for any length of time, then we can be basically shut down before the investigation even starts.

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

Can you give a timeline? Based on your experience, is there a number you can assign to say, “Look, right now, electronic service providers keep this data for 90 days, and that frequently shuts us out of our investigations”?

[Mathias Van Laer]

I don't know that there's an actual number I can provide other than, as you mentioned, my experience. I've had the unfortunate scenario of having to close investigations because the data had expired. We have to remember where the source is coming from. By the time information that comes from other countries trickles down to Canadian authorities, never mind to provincial jurisdictions and then to municipal jurisdictions, that time can expire very quickly.

I'm not here to give you a number. I'm just here to explain the reality that this timeline is of the essence.

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

Okay.

Commissioner Carrique, you have spoken at length, and very passionately, about the necessity for this bill. As somebody who comes from a prosecutorial background, I understand that. I think one of the main things I'd like to ask you about...and Mayor Brown is free to weigh in on this as well. This is important legislation, but it's equally important that we get it right—for instance, on the “reasonable grounds to suspect” versus the “reasonable grounds to believe”. Would you support the fact that this is complicated stuff?

We can't even agree on a number, for instance, for retaining metadata. At some point, we have to delve into this and get it absolutely right. I don't think there's much room for error here. I feel that the process has been rushed on this. Mayor Brown used the word “dither”. In my life, I have looked at the ceiling at night in investigations where we could not put the person behind the computer. It sucks. At the same time, we as parliamentarians have to make sure we get it right.

What do the two of you say to that?

[Commr Thomas Carrique]

MP Caputo, I know that if anyone understands, it's you, as you have been a prosecutor. It is important to get this right. I also think we can't waste time diving into things that are really not important or not overly relevant, like debating timelines of three months, six months, nine months or 12 months. We have to start somewhere.

I can tell you that as a young detective constable in 1996, in a group that was working under Criminal Intelligence Service Ontario, I brought this matter forward to say that we were being hindered by the advancement of technology and outdated legislation. Thirty years later, we've seen no substantive change. The first of many resolutions from the CACP was issued and shared with the federal government in 2002. There has been no substantive change.

I guess my question would be, how long does it take to get it right and how many more victims are harmed in the process?

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

Go ahead.