Public Safety Committee on June 9th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

I agree.

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

Let me be very clear. If I wanted to just blow this up, I have 800 pages that I can work in. I'm not trying to do that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

It's a balance that we are currently achieving well, so let me come back to you.

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

Would information like, for example, services provided by hotels, Airbnb and escort services be useful in your investigation, yes or no?

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

I guess it depends on who is running the service. We cannot serve a judicial order or a court order to an entity that's currently under investigation. If we're going to be asking about details of their possible criminal enterprise, we cannot even serve them with something like that.

We have to take into account the information we're receiving. In the way our investigations flow, there's more than just evidence of the offence that we are trying to collect, and there's precedence in that. When we write the search warrants for a computer system, for example, we're searching for evidence of the offence—let's say photos, emails or something like that—but we're also searching for evidence of something like the use of a particular device or the use of an account.

In terms of what can be provided to us regarding services, a lot of the time we're trying to corroborate and establish who might actually be behind or in control of the unknown that we are trying to establish. This does happen. For example, when we write a production order for a home service and obtain information that a second security system service has been purchased, we do a follow-up production order to obtain the location of that. We identify other homes belonging to the individuals. We identify other operations or facilities they may have that they're obtaining services for.

For us, it's about the importance of being able to establish not only evidence of the offence but also other potential sources for evidence we could write about going forward.

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

Is there anything you'd like to add, Mr. Burchill?

[Richard Burchill]

No. His example would illustrate what.... I hope it answers your question.

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

Yes, it does. It confirms part of my discomfort with the current clause, which is that it's being left open-ended. The scope of subscriber information could potentially be quite broad; therefore, there could be different privacy interests at play. I don't think that's the best balance, I'll say, between providing law enforcement the right classes of information to identify what services we're providing and potentially going to the next step of getting the production order and protecting certain privacy interests that Canadians, in my view, reasonably have.

To summarize, that's why I think this subamendment to create an exhaustive list is necessary, and that's in keeping with the Privacy Commissioner's recommendation to narrow the list of subscriber information to a finite list.

Thank you, Ms. Gibner, Mr. Wong, Mr. Burchill, Mr. Gilkes and Mr. Nashef, for your comments.

I'll leave it there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you.

Your points have been well expressed and well understood.

Next is Madame DeBellefeuille, to be followed by MP Au.

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

I actually want to comment on the amendment, Mr. Chair.

I thought my amendment was a reasonable compromise regarding clause 4 of the bill. By removing the word “including”, I think the subamendment is too restrictive and is not consistent with the intent of what the commissioner had proposed. I will therefore be voting against the subamendment.

I'm eager for us to get back to my amendment, because I didn't get a satisfactory answer as to why you think it would be so terrible to adopt the amendment and, above all, restrict the services provided somewhat. That's really what's bothering me.

As soon as we're done discussing the subamendment, I would like the floor to discuss my amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you.

We now go to Mr. Au.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will speak directly to the subamendment. I'm in support of the subamendment. However, before I go on, I have to share some of my observations, and I want to seek your guidance in the process.

I think we are going in circles. I wonder whether we can move fast enough to produce a workable, acceptable and balanced piece of legislation for the sake of public safety. My feeling is that right now we have opinions from only one side. We are talking about trying to get a balance. I know this is what we are supposed to do. We have a piece of legislation in front of us. We have different views. We have people who are in favour. Some people who are in a different group might say, no, this is going too far.

What I observe here is that even though our witnesses said they are not here to advocate for the passing of the legislation as is, actually they are, because they will be the users and consumers of this legislation if it passes. I can understand that from their perspective of what they should have, the more, the better in terms of authority, power and convenience. On the other hand, we have received lots of submissions from civil liberty groups and service providers, and they have a very different view. They have concerns. They have worries. They have also expressed some limitations of this bill if it is passed.

What we have here today, as we had last week, is that whenever we raise a question, we get almost a rebuttal that this is not working, this is not the right thing or this is not the right approach. That is not what I would like to have. That's why I support the idea that we should at least have the Privacy Commissioner present to answer some of our questions. Yes, he made a presentation before, and he was mentioned by other people in their submissions, but that's different from having him present. New questions, new perspectives and new insights have been raised.

We need to have a balance of opinions and need to have people here who can give us another perspective so that we can actually strike a balance.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Mr. Housefather.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Chair, Mr. Au has been speaking for five minutes now and hasn't dealt with the subamendment at all. He's relitigating a motion that was defeated by the committee at the last meeting. Not once has he spoken to the subamendment in question. This is not within the scope of how we deal with clause-by-clause.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

That is well noted. Thank you.

MP Au.

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

My suggestion is to be a bit more patient. I'm coming to you—

[Sima Acan, Liberal, Oakville West, ON]

It's been 75 minutes.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

We've been here for an hour and 40 minutes, and we haven't gotten through one subamendment.

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

Let me tell you more about my background. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not going to make long speeches. You don't have to worry about that. I'm a family therapist. I'm trained to listen to both sides. I'm used to it.

That's where I'm coming from. That's why I made the statements I did earlier.

[Sima Acan, Liberal, Oakville West, ON]

It's been 75 minutes of listening.

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

Well, the more you interrupt me, the more I have to explain myself. Is that not the case?

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Let's focus on the subamendment. Let's also respectfully listen to what the content of the input will be.

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

That's why I said at the beginning that I am in support of the subamendment. I said that last time. We need to have a clear definition of what we are seeking. This is also what civil liberties groups are asking for and what service providers are suggesting. I mentioned last time that we should limit and be clear about the information we are seeking and have a clear definition.

With that, I have expressed my opinion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, MP Au, for having done that.

Shall the subamendment to BQ‑3 carry?

(Subamendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Proceedings of Minutes])