Public Safety Committee on May 28th, 2026

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

I think parliamentarians need to understand that as well, and that's why we've taken a number of steps.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Do you not think that Canadians should have clarity?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

I think the first step is for parliamentarians...but, certainly, Canadians also need to have that confidence and trust.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

I think you would agree that when there is any uncertainty in privacy law, it can be just as damaging as overreach. Is that right? Uncertainty can be just as damaging as overreach because it changes how Canadians behave online. Would you agree with that?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

The lawful access bill that's in front of you has found the appropriate balance between the protection of privacy rights and privacy interest. There's a reasonable expectation of privacy for all of us who are engaged with or use electronic devices.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

You believe.... I'll take that to—

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

That is a basic principle that we're working with.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Let me go back to what you said.

You believe it strikes the proper balance. Yesterday, you criticized big tech companies and suggested they needed to step up in protecting Canadians' privacy rights, and that may be true. You even accused them of misinformation.

Apple, Google, Meta, Signal, civil liberty groups and privacy law experts, including the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, all testified that Bill C-22 could weaken encryption, create systemic vulnerabilities and expose Canadians to greater cybersecurity threats, putting our security even more at risk. Were all of those witnesses wrong, including the Privacy Commissioner?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

Ms. Kirkland, let me.... What I've said on encryption is that we will be more than willing to look at amendments that strengthen encryption and that don't, in any way, compromise encryption.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

This is about more than just encryption, with all due respect.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

There are a number of things that you put forward there. With all due respect, it's not helpful for us to argue on points that I've already addressed.

For example, on encryption—

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

I understand this already. I'm just trying to help Canadians understand it, so could you just be careful about how you're responding back to me?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

Sure. On encryption, let's talk—

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

It feels a bit like you're trying to....

I've been studying this legislation. I understand it. I don't want to accuse you of sounding a certain way, so we're just going to back up right there for a second. The Privacy Commissioner of Canada testified. He was here. He said that Bill C-22 poses significant privacy risks, and he recommended narrowing the scope of the bill.

Will you commit to doing that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

I'm sorry to interrupt what could have been a useful answer, but that's all the time we have for now.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

You've been saved by the bell.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Mr. Powlowski, go ahead for five minutes, please.

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

Minister, it's quite apparent that Conservatives like to ask questions, but they're not too interested in the answers. You did talk and you seemed to want to talk about the issue of encryption in Bill C-22. I'll give you the opportunity to actually answer the question.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Powlowski.

I think I've made clear that, from the outset, Bill C-22 did have protection for when systemic vulnerability is at risk. There's certainly an ability for those who need to comply to not comply with it in the name of systemic vulnerability or creating these vulnerabilities that could potentially impact the system's cybersecurity as a whole.

On the issue of encryption, I have made it absolutely clear, and I made a number of interventions yesterday where I made it clear, that we're willing to look at it and have the appropriate language put in place. I hope this is where the committee can work towards finding that right language. We may have a proposal. There may be a proposal from our colleagues on the other side. This is where I think the appropriate discussions need to take place as to what kinds of safeguards need to be put in.

There's no question that the intention was never to jeopardize encryption. The commitment that we have today, which I've made clearly, is that encryption should not be compromised under any circumstances.

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

Thank you.

Now I'll ask the questions I want to ask concerning my riding.

I know Commissioner Larkin is here, so maybe this is more of a question for him.

There used to be something like 26 RCMP officers between White River and the Manitoba border. It was down to two, but I believe it's up to three. We've heard a lot about 1,000 new RCMP officers, but I don't think Thunder Bay has yet to see more than one, even though they're trying to increase the numbers beyond that.

Can you give me some idea as to when we can hope to get some new RCMP officers?

[Senior Deputy Commissioner Bryan Larkin, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

The RCMP investment from the Government of Canada in the 1,000 is for the federal mandate. You will see those 750 regular members, which are police officers, supported by 250 public servants and/or specialized skills. The design is to deploy them across the country in our four federal policing regions. Clearly, Ontario is its own region: central region. It's a large land mass with significant national security work, supporting our colleagues at the CBSA through border integrity, as well as serious organized crime. Those are rolling out right now, so we anticipate, by the end of the fiscal first year, adding 350 regular members across the country. Those are not centric to national headquarters; those are centric to the regions supporting the federal policing mandate.

I recognize that there is a detachment in Thunder Bay, and that staffing allocation is still an internal discussion as we look at vulnerabilities not only in Ontario but across the country. You will see a large infusion in the range of about 200 additional federal policing regular members in central region. They'll be dispersed throughout the province of Ontario.

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

My other understanding is that an impediment to getting officers in that region doing federal policing was the fact that in a lot of places where they have contract policing, like in the Prairies, the officer in charge had to sign off on somebody transferring out of those regions, and they were refusing to allow officers in those places to move to other places.

I think we had the head of the union of the RCMP here who said that was changing. Can you tell me if that has changed, or do we still have the problem or the situation where the officer in charge of groups of police across Canada can veto transfers?

[D/Commr Bryan Larkin]

What you're speaking about is releasability. Obviously, we manage releasability across our nation to ensure that every province and territory where we may be the provincial or territorial police service is not impacted, and to create public safety in those communities where we provide support for provincial, territorial and municipal policing.

What I can tell you is that the commissioner has issued a federal policing releasability mandate, which directs all commanding officers across the country with set targets so that we can meet the RCMP 1,000 and ensure that the federal policing program is a priority within our organization. Each province and territory does have a signal around its year-one, year-two and year-three targets, because the addition of the 1,000 is over a three-year period. That ensures a balanced, strategic approach to ensuring staffing across our nation without creating any gaps and/or vulnerabilities in any community, which is important. We must ensure that our country is safe and secure, so that's a very delicate balance.

I can tell you that we have a strategic approach around quarterly releasability, and that's tied to a learning curriculum, a recruiting curriculum, which brings a very strategic focus to our organization.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, MP Powlowski.

Mrs. DeBellefeuille, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Minister, earlier we talked about discrimination between francophones and anglophones in the services provided by a community organization, more specifically the Canadian Human Trafficking Hotline.

I discovered another intolerable situation. The Integrated Threat Assessment Centre, which operates under the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, publishes small pamphlets and publications such as “Threats to Canada Related to the Conflict in the Middle East” fairly regularly in French-language CEGEPs in Quebec. However, the Cégep de Jonquière drew my attention to the fact that it does not receive as many publications in French as it does in English.

The response it received from the centre is, in my view, unacceptable. According to this response, the centre is making a significant effort to translate its materials as quickly as possible. Its assessments are often produced in response to events. To publish effectively, most of the time, it releases them in English and follows up with a French version. It does not send emails for the French versions. Anyone who frequently visits the centre's portal will see the French reports, which are published regularly. The centre invites the CEGEP to let it know if there is a specific report being sought.

Reading this makes me very angry. These publications are meant to inform people about terrorist threats. They are sent to French-language CEGEPs. Three-quarters of the publications are in English, and when they are requested in French, the response is that the news must be disseminated quickly and that translation services are not available—because, essentially, they are written and distributed in English, even to French-language institutions.

How do you respond to that? Personally, I'm appalled by the situation.