Public Safety Committee on June 9th, 2026

[Chak Au, Conservative, Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC]

I just want to go back to the point I made earlier today. I'm trying—we all are—to find a balance, and that's why we have to listen to both sides.

You come here to advocate for additional tools that you can use. I appreciate that. I understand that. On the other hand, we also have a duty to try to strike a balance to protect the privacy of Canadians.

This report came to the conclusion that there's no substantial evidence to back up the claim that there's a serious lawful access challenge, so that's something we have to bear in mind. I'm not saying that you do not require further measures. However, going back to how we can strike a balance, as I said before, I think that with the loosely defined meaning of “reasonable grounds to suspect” and asking for the power to use it, the net is too wide and the risk is too big. Also, the temptation to abuse it is big.

I still have some hesitation in supporting the draft as it is right now.

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

What's happening?

[Chak Au, Conservative, Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC]

That's it.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Don't worry. I'm back.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Oh, okay—surprise, surprise.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

I didn't want to disappoint Mr. Ramsay.

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

It takes a lot more than that.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

I wanted to return to one question. In my view, you've been making your case for why you want to change the threshold for the standard.

I'm sorry. Did you want to put your hand up and go on record?

[Marianne Dandurand, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

I'm not the one speaking.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

You are, though, because I can hear you.

[Marianne Dandurand, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

No. It wasn't me.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Okay.

Well, would you like to put that on the record?

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Trois-Rivières, QC]

No. We're listening to you. It's very interesting.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Good. I'm glad it is.

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

You have the floor, so go ahead.

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Trois-Rivières, QC]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

I disagree with that characterization entirely. I'm sorry—not entirely. “In part” is what I meant.

In my view, you made a conscious choice to lower the threshold, and you've been establishing why you think that will give you more tools.

I'll start with Public Safety. Did you turn your mind to or analyze the potential deleterious effects of lowering the standard?

[Richard Bilodeau]

By “deleterious”—

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

You've suggested what you think the benefit will be, which is quicker access to this information. Did you consider the downside risks to lowering the standard? This is with respect to the confirmation of service, which is what we're discussing now.

[Shannon Hiegel]

For this particular element, it's a consult that we obviously work very closely with our Justice colleagues on, but I would argue that, yes oh yes, absolutely, the pros and cons are always weighed in these considerations. We even think of it from a resourcing perspective for law enforcement. They're not just going to be in the position to start firing out a yes or no. It has to be led by something of suspicion—getting a tidbit of information.

When we weigh out everything, that's what we end up with as our recommendation. That may be a little more for our Justice colleagues, as it's around the negative impact of that from a court process perspective.

[Normand Wong]

I would go back to what Chief Superintendent Burchill said in terms of investigations. This information, in probably close to the majority of situations, is given voluntarily currently. The confirmation of service demand is a stopgap for service providers that require the piece of paper so they have something to respond to in order to protect them from liability.

In terms of the deleterious effects, this is already being done. This is part of routine police work. As I think Sergeant Gilkes said, it's a requirement to know who the service provider is before you go to court to get a production order against that service provider.

[Kimberly Gibner]

Perhaps I could add to that, because what I'm hearing you say is that it's more about the safeguards. If it helps you think through the calibration, the safeguards and the tool, I'll just remind you that the telcos have the ability not to respond. There's that safeguard. Of course, they can judicially review the decision on the confirmation of service demand or any of the warrant provisions, including the new production warrant. There's judicial oversight for everything that's provided for in the code.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Thank you for that.

I think my question might be a bit more germane to the production order, when we get to that, and the implications of lowering the standard in the production order and how that might interplay with the admissibility of evidence obtained through a lower standard. I think we'll have another discussion about judicial oversight, up to and including judicial review, because that's the very last step in some of this. There are other provisions that I'm sure we'll explore in different parts of the bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Good. Thank you.

Is it the will of the committee to adopt amendment NDP‑2?

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

On a point of order, could you repeat that? It took me a moment to get my—