Public Safety Committee on June 9th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Good afternoon. Thank you for being here.

I now call to order meeting number 42 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

Before we resume our study of Bill C‑22, I want to ask the committee to consider the supplementary budget the clerk sent out to members a few hours ago. It's an estimate of the committee's financial needs. Obviously, the amounts listed are estimates, so the actual amounts could be lower. If so, any unspent funds will go back to the Liaison Committee, as you know.

You've probably seen the budget proposal by now.

Are there any questions about it?

Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the proposed budget?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Now that the budget has been adopted, we can move on to the agenda.

Pursuant to the order of reference of the House of April 20, 2026, and the motion adopted by the committee on April 30, 2026, the committee is meeting to study Bill C‑22, an act respecting lawful access.

Go ahead, Mr. Ramsay.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Given the importance the government places on Bill C‑22, given the desire to dispose of the bill before the House rises for the summer, given that law enforcement authorities are eager for lawful access tools, and given the slow pace of progress, I would ask if you could arrange for us to have the necessary resources to get through everything by the time the House rises, possibly by extending sitting hours.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

All right. Your message has been heard.

Mr. Caputo, go ahead.

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

We are already having extended sitting hours. The last time I checked, I think we are currently sitting for four hours. I'm not sure how fair it is to the staff or to other people here.

The reality is that the extended sitting hours were necessitated by ramming this bill through. We had witnesses—often three experts to a panel—and we couldn't even hear from those experts. The reality is that the Liberals have tried to ram this bill through, especially when it comes to part 2.

I wrote a letter to the Minister of Public Safety today that has been publicly released. Law enforcement has spoken about two parts. There is part 1 and part 2. Conservatives are prepared to pass part 1 as amended.

If I'm prepared to take my colleague Mr. Ramsay at his word, which I am, then we can get part 1 dealt with before we rise. Conservatives will amend part 1. I believe we should amend it, and I hope we will find common ground on some of our amendments. I think that among the Bloc, the NDP and the Conservatives, you see a similar thread running through. If the whole point of this exercise is to get the bill right—and we take what Mr. Ramsay had to say as true—and law enforcement wants what's in this bill, I would hope they would want part of what is in this bill.

My exhortation and my suggestion to the government.... I would love to hear from the witnesses on this point, but I know they can't opine outside of questions that are provided to them. The reality is that I think we can give them part 1. I believe that law enforcement has asked for part 1. Then the government can go back to the drawing board on part 2, or we can have further study on part 2.

I haven't heard from the government that they are prepared to accept part 1. We will give them part 1—I want to be unequivocally clear—so long as appropriate amendments are made to part 1.

I am really puzzled as to why there has not been agreement to say to the Conservatives and Bloc that we should get through part 1, amend it, look at that standard of reasonable grounds to believe versus reasonable grounds to suspect, and split that off.

In fact, I had a motion in the chamber today to divide this bill into 22A and 22B. If law enforcement wants part 1 and if one of the issues we have is the confirmation of subscriber information and a streamlined process for production orders, which means there's a court order, can somebody tell me why we wouldn't give that to law enforcement sooner rather than later, if we can come to common ground, which I believe we can, notwithstanding that we still have to go through the process? If we can get through that, why wouldn't we?

I hope I'm not jumping the gun here, but I'd love to hear from the officials on whether they would take part 1 if we could get it passed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Unfortunately, that's not for them to answer at this point, but your points are well understood and well noted. Thank you, MP Caputo.

Mrs. DeBellefeuille, I think you wanted to comment as well.

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

Yes, Mr. Chair, I want to say something quickly.

I just want to make the committee members aware of something. I think everyone here knows I'm not afraid of hard work, but when the committee is dealing with a bill that is highly technical and I have to wear my earpiece for four straight hours, so I can listen to the interpretation and follow what's being said, it's a lot. I'm sure the members opposite want me to contribute to the discussion and to fully understand what's being said. I challenge anyone to keep their earpiece in for four straight hours listening to the interpretation while I speak French. Then they'll see how hard it is.

Nevertheless, I choose to do this. Today, we are meeting for four hours, but I hope the Liberals don't intend to keep us here until midnight or we're all exhausted. I hope they'll have respect for all the committee members. A decision to keep us here that long would push me beyond my limits. The fact is I am the only unilingual French speaker on the committee, so I have to wear my earpiece the whole time to hear the interpretation of what's being said.

That's what I wanted to say to my fellow members. I am ready and willing to work, but I expect members to hear what I'm saying. That, too, is an indicator.

There's something else I want to say. I agree with Mr. Caputo, and I think it's unfortunate that the Privacy Commissioner isn't here. That is information we are missing. The department officials have consistently challenged the proposed amendments, so I'm curious. Why is that? I wish the commissioner had been given the opportunity to explain his recommendations. I don't understand why there's resistance to inviting him here for a half-hour or hour, so he can explain why these amendments are important. Philippe Dufresne isn't just anyone. I don't understand the resistance. Why don't we invite him here to explain his rationale?

It's like we're conducting a trial without taking the time to hear from a witness. He did not have a chance to address what the department officials have told us, about the amendments being overly restrictive.

In short, I'm prepared to work hard and to work co-operatively with my fellow members, but I would ask that they respect my limits.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you. You have made yourself clear, and your limits are duly noted.

That brings us to today's agenda and the matter we are scheduled to discuss for the next four hours. As has been mentioned, we have a lot to do in a short amount of time, so we'll try to work as a team as efficiently as possible.

I'll take a moment to quickly introduce the witnesses, even though you already know most of them.

From the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, or CSIS, we have Ramzi Nashef and Juanita M.

From the Department of Justice, we have Kimberly Gibner and Normand Wong.

From the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, we have Richard Bilodeau, Shannon Hiegel and Fenton Ho.

From the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or RCMP, we have Chief Superintendent Richard Burchill and Sergeant Aaron Gilkes.

(On clause 4)

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

When our meeting ended last week, we were discussing Bloc Québécois amendment 3, or BQ‑3, to which Mr. Mantle had proposed an amendment. Mr. Mantle's subamendment was translated and distributed to members, and that's where we're at.

Would anyone like to comment on the subamendment?

Mr. Caputo, you may go ahead.

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

Thank you.

I have one housekeeping issue.

I want to double-check. Do we know whether we have all the briefs that have been submitted at this point?

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

I believe it was last Friday that you were sent an update on the state of the translation of the briefs. It obviously will have changed since then.

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

Okay. I was just double-checking. Thank you very much.

Could I be on the speaking list and move on to the subamendment, please?

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Yes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to ask the whole table about this. You heard my initial monologue, if you will. I won't call it a soliloquy. It did talk about part 1, and we are talking about subamending part 1.

Within the whole issue of getting through this bill, I think all the officials here would agree that the issue of lawful access has come before Parliament many times, most notably in 2014, I believe. It has now been 12 years. The Internet has changed substantially.

I'm not going to ask every person to go through this one more time, but my impression is that from an official's point of view, speaking objectively, there is a need for lawful access. That's why we're all here. That's what we have been told. That's why we had a number of people from your agencies come to committee and tell us that we need the powers that are in this bill.

We have parted company, obviously, on the precise powers that are in the bill and whether those should be granted in the form of legislation or whether those should be tweaked or not. At the end of the day, it has been very clear from officials and from witnesses that the current state of crime and the evolution of technology require new tools. I think there's no doubt about that.

Where I think we haven't gotten into the meat and potatoes is the “why”. We've been told, “We want to catch terrorists and want to catch predators.” It is the job of the government to convince Canadians. It is not the job of the opposition. The job of the opposition is to scrutinize and to ask questions on behalf of Canadians. That's where I think part 2 has really broken down.

Would any of the witnesses be prepared to say that, yes, part 1 is integral to what we do, and these are powers that we need sooner rather than later? Is anybody prepared to acknowledge that?

[Richard Bilodeau, Acting Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

If I may, there is no doubt that part 1 is important, but so is part 2. Our job as the public service is obviously to hear concerns about gaps in the system. In this case, it's lawful access and some of the difficulties of law enforcement and the intelligence service in getting access to certain information because capabilities are not uniform across a particular sector. We've talked about the unevenness and about how this legislation, especially part 2, is creating some consistency across core providers, for example, which would likely be telecoms in the first instance. It is about creating a level playing field.

We've heard the concerns from law enforcement. We've developed policy options. The result is the legislation that's before you today. Part 1 and part 2 are obviously—it goes without saying—distinct parts of the legislation, but they are both equally important to solving some of the gaps that have been identified in various lawful access regimes and can help law enforcement and intelligence services fill those gaps.

The legislation that's been put forward is the result of years of effort and policy and is trying to achieve the balance of having lawful access within the Canadian system while respecting the charter. That's the legislation before you. Obviously, we're here to support you in answering questions about amendments and providing our best information and advice on those amendments so that you can make an informed decision.

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

I am mindful of that.

Part 2 aims at solving crime, and I understand that. I don't think anybody around this table is saying, boy, we want more crime. The question is about getting it right.

To Mr. Bilodeau and to all the other witnesses, we have heard from so many witnesses. Frankly, not enough time was given to them because sometimes we had three experts on a panel. If you have an opening statement of five minutes each, that's 15 minutes, and that leaves 45 minutes for questions and answers, sometimes with three outstanding witnesses. Really, we could have had one of them, so we didn't always hear the in-depth knowledge.

I sound like a broken record, I know, but I think the chief issue here that we are dealing with is that we didn't get a lot of the technical information. We were told that we needed this, and Mayor Brown touched on that. We need this because we want to catch criminals. I get that, and we get that, but how does proposed subsection 5.2 relate to that? How does the ministerial order relate to that? How do the different categories of metadata relate to that? How do location services relate to that without intruding on privacy, notwithstanding the requirement for a court order? Those are all very live issues in part 2 that I don't think we really dealt with.

I apologize. This might not seem like a fair question, but I think it's an apposite question. If given the choice of having part 1 or nothing, I assume the officials would say that we need the powers in part 1. Is that an accurate statement?

[Richard Bilodeau]

As you noted in your first question, it's not for us to answer the question about whether or not part 1 is sufficient and say that if we get part 1, can we park part 2. That is not up for us to answer.

My first answer stands. Both parts address gaps in the system and are important for law enforcement and intelligence so that they can help further their investigations.

We've answered questions—and law enforcement were here separately from us—on the necessity of some metadata.

There are amendments, I understand, which are part of the proposals to be heard by this committee, that address some of the issues you just mentioned. I'm happy to answer questions about that to see what we can provide you with in terms of information and advice that can inform your decision.

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

I get that, Mr. Bilodeau, and I'm not trying to put you in a corner. Officials are presumed independent. I understand that, and I still know you all have your own views. I am somebody whose professional life, frankly, revolved around data and its existence or lack of existence and how that created an evidentiary chain or an evidentiary gap, because that was just the way it went. When you had an evidentiary chain, you had a prosecution and a potential conviction. When you had an evidentiary gap, you didn't have an arrest or charges typically. I'm very mindful of that.

The point I'm trying to get to is that if part 1 is important, and I know you can't say this or it seems that you can't—

[Richard Bilodeau]

It is important, no doubt.

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

If part 1 is important, then why aren't we passing a piece of important legislation?

Can anybody weigh in on whether part 1 would help if it were passed on its own, notwithstanding that part 2 might be important as well? If they're both important, why aren't we passing some of that which is important?

[Richard Bilodeau]

It's up to Parliament and MPs to make that determination. As much as part 1 is important to advancing investigations, we have had real examples provided by CSIS and law enforcement about shortcomings in advancing terrorism investigations and child sexual exploitation investigations because we didn't have the gaps filled that part 2 fills. That's why I said that both parts are important. Gaps have been identified in instances that harm the advancement of investigations and in holding the people who commit those crimes accountable.

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

I'm very mindful of that. The reality is that we've heard a lot of testimony, if we're being candid, especially about part 2, that has left Canadians with questions, in my view. I can't speak for all Canadians, but I'm reading the mail and reading editorials, and we have media here. There are questions about that. I don't think there is the same degree of questions....

I'm not sure if I can ask the RCMP this. I'll be direct. If part 1 were passed tomorrow, would that be of assistance to the RCMP?

[Richard Burchill, Director General, Technical Investigation Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

From an RCMP perspective, we work within the legislative context we're provided. Whatever Parliament decides to pass, if it provides tools for law enforcement to use, we'll do that, but as far as what that is, we're not part of that decision.

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

Chief Superintendent Burchill, I'm going to hearken back to a lot of the testimony, which was that we are often going on fishing expeditions and that we have 10 service providers and just need to confirm whether somebody is a provider. We're going to look at amendments within that, but my impression from hearing from the witnesses is that they said, “We need both parts.” If witnesses and law enforcement want both parts, they clearly want one of them.

My point here to the committee, to Parliament and to Canadians is a very clear one: If part of the equation is part 1—which I think we can get to common ground on—and it would help, I don't think it's a stretch for officials to say, “Yes, that would help us.” Now, you can't say, “Please pass it alone.” I get that, but what I'm trying to get to—and perhaps through silence we're getting there; I don't know—is this: Why wouldn't we give you some of the powers you're seeking when we can come to common ground?

On part 2, we're nowhere near common ground. The government came in, and the minister sat, I believe, where Ms. Gibner is sitting. I asked flat out, “Will you address encryption?” We got answers like, “We're open to amendments.” Now here we are, three weeks later, and the minister is holding a press conference, not to get asked questions but to tell Canadians, “Whoa. Wait a minute. We're not just open to amendments. We're going to put forward amendments on encryption.”

Three weeks ago it was, “Well, we'll see. We'll do as we please.” That was the gist of it. Then we heard testimony for three weeks, and Canadians rightly created an opinion of the legislation in their own heads. Once that happens and Canadians aren't convinced, as a member of His Majesty's loyal opposition, it's not our job to plug those holes, those gaps.

I've spoken long enough on this. I know you can't answer the question, but if part 1 is going to help you, I don't know why we're not passing it and dealing with Mr. Mantle's subamendment within that point and Ms. DeBellefeuille's amendment within that point. I think we can get to common ground.

I'll leave it at that. Thank you.