Public Safety Committee on June 4th, 2026

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Ms. Kirkland, you have the floor.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have questions regarding the amendment, but I just want to get some things off my chest. I promise I'll only take a very short couple of minutes. It won't be long.

I have a quick question for the chair before we proceed.

In the last meeting, you mentioned, Mr. Chair, that you would advocate for our committee in terms of getting the briefings and the timing, because this is such an important bill. I'm wondering if you've had an opportunity to do that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Yes, I have.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you.

Did it seem like there was going to be a bit more of a push to help us get all the documentation needed? It seemed as though it was going that way.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Honestly, the answer is always balance, meaning that—

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

I understand.

My background is in education. I have a very hard time studying something in depth unless I have all of the information at my fingertips, so I appreciate that.

Is there any way you can tell me how many...? Do you know approximately how many we're waiting on? Is there a guess? Are we waiting on 10, 12, 30 or 40? Do you have any idea of what we're looking at?

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

No. I wouldn't be able to provide you with the number.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Would the clerk know how many approximately?

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

It's a fair question, but I think we want also to have an accurate answer. As I said earlier, the clerk, who is obviously listening, will follow up and not only provide that precise number, which obviously changes every day, I suppose, but also the way in which more information can be provided on the briefs that have been submitted until now.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

I appreciate that. I'm trying to manage my time, if that makes sense. If we were looking at 30 more that we're waiting for versus five more, it would help us manage our time.

You have no indication at all, not even a guess.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

It certainly will vary every day, because there is input and output.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Of course. I mean as of now.

You have no idea.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

No, I wouldn't even....

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Okay. Fair enough.

As I outset all of my questions on the amendments that we're going to go through today and in the next sessions, I feel like I need to set the stage for all the questions I'm going to ask throughout the amendments. If you would permit me, I would like to qualify all of my questions based on this statement I'd like to give.

I want to begin where I think we have broad agreement. Conservatives have general support for part 1 of this bill. The testimony we've heard suggests that it has practical value. We can see that. It strengthens investigative tools and improves clarity in existing processes. There is a responsible path for part 1 to move forward, and I think Canadians would expect us to do that where there is consensus.

The question is whether we should treat part 2 in the same way. You've all heard my notice of motion. I do believe that we need to split the bill, but perhaps we'll talk about that down the road. I don't think we should treat part 2 in the same way, on the same timeline and with the same urgency. That is the precursor to all of my questions for amendments today. After all the testimony we've heard, I don't believe that we can responsibly say yes to that.

We heard from OpenMedia. Their warning was not abstract. It was pretty direct. Expanding lawful access frameworks and imposing system-wide obligations does not just affect individual cases. It changes the environment that systems operate in. It increases exposure. It increases risk. It increases the potential consequences when something goes wrong.

We also heard from Signal, one of the most trusted secure messaging platforms.

I promise that I'm just taking a couple of minutes. I really promise that, so please don't feel like I'm.... I promise you. It's just a couple of minutes. It will help preface everything I'm about to say for the rest of the evening.

Their message was stark: They would rather withdraw from Canada than be forced into compromising the privacy guarantees their users rely on.

We heard from a CSIS official that no technical system is ever fully secure and that lawful access mechanisms can potentially be misused beyond their intended purposes. I think we all know that. It underscores the need to fully understand all the risks as we proceed.

Even the public safety minister, when he was here, acknowledged that public trust does depend on Canadians' understanding of how their personal information is going to be protected in this bill. When that clarity is missing, confidence in both the law and its enforcement can begin to erode.

We also heard from legal and academic experts, who have repeatedly emphasized in public commentary and parliamentary testimony the importance of distinguishing between targeted lawful access and broader system-level obligations embedded in communications infrastructure.

Throughout the study, we've also heard concerns about how definitions and obligations in this bill may evolve over time through regulation—which I'm sure we'll hear more about today—and through ministerial powers as well. That raises a serious question about how much of this framework is fixed in legislation and how much is left to change after the fact without full parliamentary debate.

Mr. Chair, my concern is not that these questions exist. My concern is that we're being asked to move forward on part 2 without fully answering them. The technical adjustments go to the structure of how Canadians' private communications are protected.

I want to be clear. I don't want to slow things down: I want to not rush something. Once it's implemented, we can't undo it. I really truly, from my heart, want us to do this right. That's just why I wanted to predicate what I was saying. Canadians want us to move legislation forward, and I understand that, but we have to understand what we're changing before we change it.

Again, I will restate my position that splitting Bill C-22 isn't about delay. It's about responsibility, and it's about doing the job fully and not quickly. I do think we can do both, and I wanted to lay out my thinking as we got started.

I appreciated the questions that Ms. DeBellefeuille asked the officials.

Just to clarify, in a nutshell, if we were to adopt amendment NDP-1, would this have a great deal of impact on investigations? How much of an impact are we talking about this having on investigations?

[Normand Wong]

I tried to touch upon that. In this digital Internet age, when most computing has been distributed and much of it is outside of Canada, I think it would have a really big impact. The police have been using this power for many years now.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

How negative of an impact are we talking about?

Investigations are proceeding now, without lawful access. Would adding this amendment mess with this bill enough that it would make that huge of a difference?

[Normand Wong]

I think I'm going to ask the RCMP to answer this.

In terms of what this bill would do.... Since this bill is focused on giving the police new tools, this amendment would take away a very useful tool that the police have been using for almost 30 years now.

[Richard Burchill, Director General, Technical Investigation Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have one of my colleagues here, Sergeant Aaron Gilkes, who's the current acting officer in charge of our national lawful access centre. I'd like to ask that he come in and provide Ms. Kirkland with some response to the question she's asking, to help clarify.

Essentially, if I understand it correctly, what the member is asking is how significant of an impact there would be on criminal investigations if this particular amendment were adopted. My colleague will try to provide some context in an operational sense.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

What I'm looking for is help in understanding exactly how this would affect it.

[Aaron Gilkes, Acting Officer-in-Charge, RCMP Lawful Access, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

I appreciate the question, Mr. Chair.

Essentially, what we currently have is the ability to go on scene with a search warrant, and if there is a computer that is currently powered on, we can search that computer for what's contained within it.

There's a rather blurred line nowadays about what is contained on a device as opposed to what is accessible to a device. For example, with your mobile device, you may be looking at photos, thinking that they are contained on your device, but you're actually looking at just the thumbnails. When you click on the thumbnail, there's a download and you're able to see the picture that you think is on your device.

It's very much the same thing with a device that's in a home, for example. There are many types of computer systems that have a very small main hard drive. Most of the data is actually backed up on a cloud or in some accessible area. Having this ability to search that allows us to access that information before it could potentially be deleted. If there is more than one device that can access that cloud, for example, and it's in the possession of someone else who's off the premises, and they find out about the search before the police may be able to seize that evidence going further or to write a new search warrant, what could happen is that other person who has access could delete whatever information is there.

It's crucial to have access to that information and be able to seize it—with judicial authorization, of course.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Okay. Actually, that brings up another question.

I have noticed this on my cellphone, for instance, with my contacts. They're all on the cloud now versus on my device. That has changed quite significantly over the most recent years. Is that correct?

[Aaron Gilkes]

Precisely.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you.

That answers my question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Ms. Kirkland.

Mr. Caputo, you have the floor.