Evidence of meeting #42 for Public Safety and National Security in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was information.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC
Thank you.
To the officials, on “reasonable grounds to suspect” versus “reasonable grounds to believe”, is there an analogy to be drawn with section 495 of the code as to the powers to arrest and the reasonable and probable grounds to make an arrest?
Conservative
Jacob Mantle Conservative York—Durham, ON
On a point of order, I don't mean to interrupt my own colleague. I just wanted to clarify something with the chair.
Ms. Kwan made the point that other amendments are similar, and I just want to get your view on how other similar amendments would be affected if this is passed or defeated.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
That's a good question. There's no impact on the subsequent amendments.
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC
Boy, I had a really good thought going there.
Section 495 of the code, as I recall, governs reasonable and probable grounds to make an arrest, and that is based on “reasonable grounds to believe”, as I understand it. Is there any connection between the powers of arrest versus the reasonable and probable grounds to believe? In other words, are they on the same standard?
Would section 495 operate on the same standard as “reasonable grounds to believe” if we were to adopt this amendment? I suppose that is a better way to put it.
Acting General Counsel, Policy Sector, Department of Justice
No. One is “reasonable suspicion” and one is “reasonable grounds to believe”.
The arrest without a warrant is a big power of the state to apprehend someone. What we're talking about here in clause 5 is the confirmation of service demand.
We've provided information to committee members before to the effect that, in every other country, they don't need this tool because service providers say “yes” or “no”, whether or not they have information. The issue in Canada is that we have service providers who require a court order any time they talk to the state.
The information is also “yes” or “no”, and this was changed from Bill C-2 to Bill C-22 after consultation. The impact on privacy and a person's rights is far less. In fact, it impacts a service provider just to confirm whether or not they provide service to a telephone number or an IP address. The standards are different.
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC
Well, I understand that. I'm not sure I articulated my question properly.
Right now, we're debating the standard on which a production order should be granted or not. If I understand Ms. Kwan's amendment, it is to take it from “reasonable grounds to suspect” to a “reasonable grounds to believe” threshold, unless I'm looking at the wrong threshold.
Acting General Counsel, Policy Sector, Department of Justice
Chair, may I intervene? I think we're talking about clause 5—are we not? That's on the confirmation of service demand.
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC
Okay, I must be looking at the wrong thing on my chart. I'm going to consult the amendment directly for a moment.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Parkland, AB
I believe this is about clause 5.
I was wondering if the officials could tell us what the substantive difference in an investigation would be if it were changed from “reasonable grounds to suspect” to “reasonable grounds to believe”? What's the practical reality for a law enforcement officer in terms of the time put into something that requires a threshold of grounds to believe as opposed to grounds to suspect?
Deputy Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy Sector, Department of Justice
I'm sorry. I'm not sure we know who you are directing the question to.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Parkland, AB
It would probably be most appropriately directed to people who are in law enforcement, but if they don't have the answer, then perhaps some of the officials could answer.
Liberal
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Parkland, AB
In terms of getting a court order to get subscriber confirmation, what is the practical difference in terms of the time and effort thresholds that have to be hit by law enforcement when we're dealing with “reason to suspect” versus “reason to believe”?
Director General, Technical Investigation Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
I'll start, and then I may ask my colleague if there's an operational example that may reinforce what I'm going to say.
With the way the legislation is proposed now, “reasonable grounds to suspect” is for a constellation of facts that you have possession of, and it's at the very beginning of an investigation. You're still trying to link a criminal to a crime where there's a victim. The confirmation of service demand is simply about having enough facts, which you need to document and are disclosable in court, to say, “Do you service this person, yes or no?”
You get your answer, and then you build on that. There has to be investigative work done to support what you've already found out, in addition to any other investigative avenues you have, in order to get subscriber information to try to link somebody to the crime that you're investigating.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Parkland, AB
I understand what the purpose of the confirmation of service demand is. What I think you're saying is that the evidentiary requirements would be higher for “reason to believe” versus “reason to suspect”.
Director General, Technical Investigation Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Yes, but reasonable grounds to suspect for the production order as the next step is.... In what you were asking, I think your point was about what the difference in time is. There are no new powers, per se. This relates to Madame DeBellefeuille's question as well. As proposed right now, the production order for subscriber information has a much narrower scope that you're looking to get at the beginning of an investigation, as opposed to going through the process of getting reasonable grounds to believe for a general production order, which gives a lot more information but also takes a lot more time. The purpose of these orders and the reasonable grounds to suspect is the timeliness and access to the information at the beginning of an investigation.
I hope that helps. If there's an operational example that could assist, maybe my colleague can help. I hope that answers your question.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Parkland, AB
Thank you. That somewhat answers my question.
I know there are Canadians watching who might not understand this as much, and I'm learning myself, but to be clear, this is purely about “reason to suspect” versus “reason to believe”. This is about the court authorization that is necessary to receive a yes-or-no answer from the telecom companies or the electronic service provider. That is the confirmation of service. Is that correct?
You're nodding your head, so I'll take that as being correct.
Director General, Technical Investigation Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
I'm not sure what the question is. You're talking about the confirmation of service demand and about reasonable grounds to suspect to ask that yes-or-no question.
Director General, Technical Investigation Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
That's my understanding of the legislation as proposed, yes.
Conservative