Public Safety Committee on June 4th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Mrs. DeBellefeuille.

Mr. Caputo, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you.

I note that Ms. DeBellefeuille said Mr. Wong was a model witness. She didn't call me a model parliamentarian, so I'm a bit hurt by that.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

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

I'll move on to more important things.

The way we characterize the definitions in this section is actually pretty important. We're early on in the amendments, but this is a very important amendment, in my view, and a very important issue.

Right now we're talking about subscriber information that can be sought from a person who provides a service to the public. I think you touched on this. What categories could be included in that “a person who provides services to the public”? What could that include, please?

[Kimberly Gibner, Deputy Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy Sector, Department of Justice]

To answer and to add on to Madame DeBellefeuille's question, what my colleague was expressing is that the subscriber tool is judicially authorized by a court that balances both privacy interests and law enforcement interests. It's law enforcement versus privacy interest neutral, and it would apply to everyone. That is a really important point—to remember that this is a judicially authorized warrant for basic information like name and address.

As it relates to medical information, that provision doesn't speak to providing any content of anybody's service information, no medical information. Again, it's name and address.

In terms of the tool itself, it is a tool for law enforcement to investigate crime. Again, it's judicially authorized, so it has to balance those privacy interests. It's pretty straightforward. It would be everybody who provides a service. If a law firm is providing a service, a car rental, like my colleague identified, or any sort of service provider, law enforcement can go get a judicial authorization to ask the court for a court order to provide somebody's name and address.

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

I take your point about judicial authorization. I think the point that's being attempted to be made.... Perhaps I shouldn't be so bold. The point I will attempt to make is this. As I understand it, we are looking at a streamlined process in order to get information. Law enforcement has said, “We spend way too long getting really basic information,” and this is why we use terms like “confirmation of service demand” rather than going out and getting things.

If, right now, we're looking at confirmation of service, my understanding was that the whole point of that was to streamline the process and, in so streamlining the process, it was to say the privacy interest that is being impugned or questioned is low. Asking, “Are you a customer? Are you this? Are you that?” is for the narrow category of service providers, so to speak. I think we were all thinking of the classic being the IP address, “Are they a customer of Bell?” When you start talking about streamlining getting information from a hotel, for instance, and things like that, I think that's a lot different. I'm mindful of questions such as, “Is this person a client of the hotel. Did they stay there or not?” To me, that's a much different privacy interest being streamlined than just, “Is this a customer?”

I hope I'm making sense here. How do you respond to that?

[Kimberly Gibner]

Again, the confirmation of service demand is scoped narrowly to telecommunications service providers, so you're 100% right. It's “Bell or Telus, is Kim Gibner a client of yours, yes or no?” That's a streamlined process. That is one tool.

The subscriber production warrant is also basic information—name and address—but because it's not just “Is Kim Gibner a client of yours?” but “What's Kim's address?” it requires a warrant. That is not just narrowed to telecommunications service providers, as this amendment is requesting us to do. It is currently drafted to apply to all people who provide services. They are two different tools and two different standards.

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

What's the different standard? I must be missing that.

[Kimberly Gibner]

The confirmation of service does not require a warrant. The subscriber production order requires a judicial authorization.

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

I see what you're saying.

[Kimberly Gibner]

One is very tailored. It's just to the telecommunications service providers: yes or no. You do not need a judicially authorized warrant. For the broader information, “What's Kim Gibner's address?”, you need a judicially authorized warrant. That applies to all people who provide services.

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

That judicial authorization is done in a streamlined manner. That's the whole point of this.

[Kimberly Gibner]

Yes, if by “streamlined manner”, you mean the test is reasonable grounds to suspect.

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

There's no prescription in terms of.... How would I put it?

[Kimberly Gibner]

There's no streamlined process other than the standard “reasonable grounds to suspect”, which is calibrated to the nature of the information.

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

It's commensurate with the diminished privacy interest.

[Kimberly Gibner]

Exactly.

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

We say that there's a reasonable ground to suspect, not a reasonable ground to believe, because we only want your name and address. Law enforcement should be able to get that based on suspicion, because all we're getting is your name and address. If we were getting your personal details, we would need reasonable grounds to believe.

[Kimberly Gibner]

That's exactly right.

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

Within that context—I guess I've spun myself into knots—how does this amendment change things?

[Kimberly Gibner]

This amendment wants to circumscribe this judicially authorized warrant tool to apply only to telcos, like the confirmation of service demand does.

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

If that's the case, if all we're dealing with are telcos, could you not just go and get a production order that says, “Give me Frank Caputo's name and address from the hotel he stayed at”? Could you not just do that? What's the difference there?

[Kimberly Gibner]

Again, just so we're using the same language, that's what this subscriber information is. It's a production order. The amendment is proposing that we go and get a judicially authorized warrant to get Mr. Caputo's hotel information—or whatever your example was.

If this amendment was passed, then law enforcement would be back to the reasonable probable grounds of the general warrant that we use to search your home in order to find out whether you rented at Hertz or Budget.

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

The status quo is a more arduous process. This is trying to—maybe “streamline” isn't the right word—simplify it.

The concern—I suppose—from the officials is that if we were to accept this amendment, we would be simplifying it in some respects but not in other respects. The status quo would still exist, which is a general warrant to go and search my house. I can't remember the analogy you used.

[Kimberly Gibner]

You have set that out correctly.

My colleague is just suggesting that it might be helpful for the committee's deliberations, if you want concrete examples, for the RCMP—