Public Safety Committee on June 9th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Mr. Caputo.

Shall Mr. Mantle's subamendment carry?

I'm sorry. I didn't see Mr. Mantle's name.

MP Mantle, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I presume everyone has now received the subamendment in both official languages. This is just to level set the purpose of the subamendment to Ms. DeBellefeuille's very good amendment, which originated from the Privacy Commissioner's suggestion to narrow the scope of information that could be available in a confirmation of service request.

You'll recall that we had an exchange with Ms. Gibner and Mr. Wong on that. There was some disagreement or confusion on my part or their part—it doesn't matter—on how the list of subscriber information as described in the bill should be understood. Specifically, it was whether the types of subscriber information listed in the bill are just that and nothing more, or whether this provides some sort of illustrative or non-exhaustive list.

My suggestion was to delete the word “including” in proposed paragraphs 487.011(a), (b) and (c). The advice from the legislative drafters was to not only delete the word “including” but also include the English word “namely”—forgive me; I don't know the exact translation in French—so that it is a closed list. What is described in proposed paragraphs 487.011(a), (b), and (c) would be the list itself.

That's why you received it as deleting “including” and including “namely”. I just wanted that on the record since my understanding of the advice I received from the drafters was different from my own suggestion.

I want to talk a bit about why I moved that subamendment, but prior to that, I will just build on one point from MP Caputo with respect to the officials who are here.

I want to ask the RCMP and CSIS if they could tell me how they were invited to appear before the committee for clause-by-clause.

[Richard Burchill]

I became involved because of my current role as the director general overseeing our technical investigative services branch. Lawful access falls within my remit. Since last summer, when they started doing the tech briefs, I was involved from the RCMP perspective. I just became part of the process. That's how I ended up being here.

I asked my chain of command if I could have Sergeant Gilkes attend with me for last week's appearance and any appearances going forward because of his subject matter expertise in operations. They were okay with that. I think he's been a good addition for us as a witness here at the committee.

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

What about CSIS?

[Ramzi Nashef, Director General, Policy, Planning and Accountability, Canadian Security Intelligence Service]

It's a similar answer from our side, MP Mantle.

I'm the director general for policy at the service. My teams have been involved in this and in all of the policy and legislation that we participate in as an organization. My colleague Juanita has been the senior policy analyst most responsible for our portions of Bill C-22.

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

Okay, that's helpful.

To clarify further, Mr. Burchill, did you ask to be part of clause-by-clause, or were you asked to be part of clause-by-clause?

[Richard Burchill]

Organizationally, I don't remember being asked or asking; I was just—

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

It was from the RCMP, I guess.

[Richard Burchill]

From the RCMP perspective, because I've been involved in the process since last year, when asked by parliamentary affairs who would be appearing, naturally I said I would be appearing.

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

You were asked by parliamentary affairs from the minister's office to—

[Richard Burchill]

No. It was RCMP parliamentary affairs.

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

They would have spoken to Public Safety, presumably.

[Richard Burchill]

Presumably they did, but I'm not sure.

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

Or maybe someone proposed—

[Richard Bilodeau]

I can answer the question.

I don't know the logistics about who sent an email to whom. I would just say that in my time at Public Safety, I have done a few of these bills, and it's common to have the people who are the operators, so to speak. As we're doing clause-by-clause, if there's a question about the impact of an amendment, it's important to get the views of the people who will be on the ground using the amendments in order to understand the impact from a practical perspective. If we go back to Bill C-70 on foreign interference, we had colleagues from RCMP, I think, and definitely from the service.

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

I don't know if CSIS has anything they want to add on that.

[Ramzi Nashef]

The only point I would say is that the CSIS Act would change as part of Bill C-22, so even if there wasn't...I think we would be because of equities. I would say that's a double reason we're here: The CSIS Act changes, which we are most responsible for, and some of the equities in part 2 immediately impact our stuff.

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

Is it fair to say that you wanted to be here because it affects your line of work, whether it's RCMP or CSIS, and Public Safety wanted you to be here for the same reason? They wanted your expertise at the table. Is that a fair summary?

It doesn't seem like there was a specific ask one way or the other, but it's a natural progression from your involvement in the considerations of Bill C-22. Is that fair?

[Richard Bilodeau]

This is about trying to be helpful, and the way that we think we can be most helpful is by having a diverse range of experts who can answer your questions.

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

Absolutely. For my part, I agree with that. I think it's helpful to have you guys here, the RCMP and CSIS.

To the RCMP and CSIS, it's fair to say that you're seeking the powers that are in part 1 and part 2, that you support them.

[Richard Burchill]

As I said previously to Mr. Caputo, at the end of the day, law enforcement and the RCMP work within the legislative investigational context we're provided. If there is a move to put forward legislation that will give us tools to do better investigations for victims in Canada, we're certainly going to be supportive of that, but as described, we're here to try to help give the committee the responses it requires from the RCMP to make its decisions on this legislation.

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

You take no position as the RCMP on whether part 1 or part 2 of Bill C-22 should be passed.

[Richard Burchill]

As I said, the position we would take is that we need to operate within the legislative context we're provided. If legislation is passed that gives law enforcement more tools to do better investigations in a more timely manner for victims, I'm supportive of that, yes.

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

Your view is that Bill C-22 does the things that you just described.

[Richard Burchill]

I think with the way the bill is introduced, if it were passed as it is with parts 1 and 2, it would give us timely access to data in a structured, uniform way.