Public Safety Committee on June 9th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

We are now back on BQ‑3.

Go ahead, Mrs. DeBellefeuille.

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

I don't know if you've noticed, but I'm putting a hand over my ear. It's not because I'm hearing impaired. It's because, when Mr. Mantle speaks English, I hear him in my right ear and I hear the interpretation in my left ear. If I don't cover my ear, I think I might go crazy. I don't want to sound like I have a problem. I just want to explain why I'm doing this.

It's the same thing when witnesses are too loud, sometimes. It's not your fault, Mr. Mantle. You're sitting close to me and you have a strong voice. You're a good speaker.

All that said, I'd like someone to explain something to me.

Mr. Wong used a great expression at our last meeting: he talked about a fishing net, as opposed to a fishing rod. I like the image. He said it was as if Bill C‑22 allowed for the use of a large net and, as a result, increased the odds of catching fish, that is to say criminals, compared to using a fishing rod, which is more complicated.

I don't know about you, but when I analyze things in life, I always draw a line where on the one side is what's unacceptable and, on the side, what's ideal. In my life, I always try to lean towards what's ideal, but I often settle for what's achievable.

Now, I'll tell you how I feel about the amendment that the Privacy Commissioner recommended. It's as if he's telling law enforcement he understands they've wanted legal access for 30 years and that, now that they might get it, they want the big net right away, without compromise. They should eat the elephant, or the whale, to stay with the fishery imaging, one bite at a time.

When I ask law enforcement what my amendment would change, they say it would make things more difficult, more complicated. The Privacy Commissioner's objective is surely to restrict things a bit. The wording he proposed is clearer on the type of services.

We talked a lot about aliases at the last meeting, but I'm much more interested in the information on the services provided. At some point, there's a limit to allowing access to an exhaustive list of services provided.

Regardless of how many times I ask law enforcement, I know they'll tell me the current wording of the bill is better than the amendment, because it would allow them to do more. However, if my amendment were adopted, the bill would still give law enforcement access to information to which they don't currently have. That would be a plus. Am I wrong, Mr. Burchill?

[Richard Burchill]

I'm sorry, can you repeat the last part of the question?

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

Would the amendment, as drafted, give you access to more information than you currently have access to? Would that be an improvement? It wouldn't give you as much access as the definition proposed in the current version of the bill, but would it be a plus compared to what you currently have? I don't know how the expression “un plus” is being interpreted or how it could be translated. Is that an advantage? I don't know how to summarize my question. I don't know how that was interpreted.

[Richard Burchill]

I'll ask my colleagues from the Department of Justice to help me answer.

As I understand it, under the proposed order in the bill, the information we have access to is more restricted. We only have access to a certain type of information at the moment.

My colleagues from the Department of Justice could help me explain the difference compared to what we have access to at the moment.

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

That's not the answer I was looking for. I don't really understand what you're trying to tell me.

I'll clarify my question. My proposed amendment is in line with the Privacy Commissioner's proposal. Even if it's a little more restrictive, isn't it a plus compared to what you have access to now?

[Normand Wong]

I'll answer in English.

It's not a plus because currently police use the general production order. In other motions that are coming up for discussion, you're also proposing to raise the level of judicial scrutiny, the test for it. It goes counter to the objective of the bill, which is to provide police with timely access to data. This would, in fact, give them less than they're currently getting under a general production order.

The idea of the more precise tool is to give them information that is consistent, as Ms. Gibner said, with other information that's available under “reasonable suspicion” already in the Criminal Code that relates to subscriber information. Your amendment would give them less than they're currently getting, and even with your other proposed amendments, if it were to stay the same, it would give them less than they're currently getting.

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

I don't know if I understood you correctly. I have no doubt the Privacy Commissioner's team is competent in this area. They have a legal department. In fact, Mr. Dufresne is himself a lawyer. However, you're telling me he and his team knowingly proposed amendments that would undermine the work of police officers. That's troubling. I have a great deal of respect for the commissioner, and I'm saddened that he's not here to make his case or share his point of view, or that he doesn't even have the opportunity to say he was wrong if that's the case.

What you just said is a big deal. I'm troubled by that. I don't know if you're familiar with this Quebec expression, but you're telling me the commissioner is “dans les patates”, which means he's completely out in left field. What you just said is pretty big. I don't know how the expression “être dans les patates” is rendered in English, but it's very colourful in French. It means being completely wrong. I think that's a very strong statement, Mr. Wong. I'm shaken to hear you say the amendment would undermine the work of the police. I'll have to take your word for it, but I still doubt that. If the commissioner was here, I could ask him questions and I'd be satisfied.

I'm going to stop asking questions, because I'll basically keep going in circles. You're going to keep repeating the same thing. Deep down, what I'd really like to hear is the commissioner's answer. This little legal battle would allow me to better understand what the commissioner had in mind when he proposed this. He proposed eight amendments. I can't believe his entire team got it wrong. His intent was not to undermine the bill or lawful access.

Thank you for your heartfelt answers to my questions.

Mr. Chair, I'm done with my remarks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Mrs. DeBellefeuille.

Mr. Mantle, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to follow up on a point from my colleague. I'm going to put this back to you because I want it on the record.

Mr. Wong, your view is that the Privacy Commissioner's recommendations are counter to your understanding of the purpose of this bill. In fact, it's worse than that. The Privacy Commissioner's amendments are redundant, because you would be back in the same situation of getting a general production order.

[Normand Wong]

Yes.

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

I think that warrants a response from the Privacy Commissioner, who might want to respond to that.

I have another question for you, Mr. Wong. You mentioned briefly reasonable suspicion and that there are other provisions in the code where that is used. I'm not an expert, and I didn't practise criminal law. I had to take criminal law in law school, and that's the last time I touched it, thankfully.

Could you just explain a couple of examples in the Criminal Code where that standard is used? You mentioned in your response that otherwise we're just back to what you would get under the general production order, which is the higher standard. What are some specific examples in the code that use that?

[Normand Wong]

There is only one production order under reasonable grounds, I believe, and that's the general production order. There are, I believe, four production orders currently and maybe even specified dates—no, that's reasonable grounds to believe. For trace specified communications, that's a transmission data production order.

To go back to your earlier question about Bill C-13, these all came about in Bill C-13. That's section 487.015, and section 487.016 is the production order for transmission data. The production order for tracking data is section 487.017. The financial data production order, section 487.018, which Ms. Gibner talked about, has been in the Criminal Code since 2004. That includes not only banking information but the customer's name and address and the type of subscriber information that we're talking about currently in the subscriber information production order. All of those things are under the reasonable suspicion standard.

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

Thank you. That's helpful.

I thought you might go to the transmission one, because that's the one I'm aware of. I suspect that we will return to that in our discussion and debate on the different standards, because I think we may take a different view on what transmission data is versus what is being proposed in subscriber information.

One of the other points the Privacy Commissioner made with this list needs to be dealt with in the list before we get to the standard. If the standard is not changed, the Privacy Commissioner makes the argument that the problems with the definition will be magnified because other portions of part 1 rely on that definition. The Privacy Commissioner makes the argument that because the production order for subscriber information after you get the confirmation of service, which relies on the same definition, can be served on any person who provides service, that means that in some of the cases, service providers are going to be required to provide all—it refers to all—the information in the chapeau.

What do you say to the critique that this definition compounds the problem because the subsequent production order for subscriber information would then rely on the same definition, which is very expansive?

[Normand Wong]

I will refer back to what Ms. Gibner previously answered on the balancing of privacy interests with what police need.

We're not on this clause yet, but in the way the subscriber information production order is constructed, it's based on the definition that we've already dealt with. We've tried to include the information that police need in an investigation, but the way the production order works is that the service provider would provide that information in relation to something else. That's in relation to the phone number or the IP address that the police have obtained because they're investigating a crime.

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

Thank you for that. I don't think that answers the critique of the Privacy Commissioner, but I want to reiterate, and will continue to reiterate, that this is why I think we can come to a reasonable place on part 1. I clearly have some differences of opinion on some of the amendments, but as Mr. Caputo said, I think we can come to a reasonable position on part 1, which, as we've heard, would be helpful.

I will reiterate that our offer remains on the table for the members opposite to consider as we move through part 1, especially as we move through the current BQ-3 amendment and the other amendments. With some reasonable amendments, which we're debating, we could arrive at a place where we could pass part 1 and then continue the discussion that clearly needs to continue on part 2. I think that's a reasonable off-ramp. We've offered that and you could—

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Go ahead, Mr. Ramsay.

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

Are we still discussing the amendment, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

The point is—and, again, the chair needs to be careful—we've heard those arguments before.

MP Mantle.

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

Thanks.

I would just remind members opposite that every time you do that, you're going to make this longer. You're operating against your own cause there.

I was just saying that these amendments are important. If we can read a reasonable position on them, we can pass part 1, which would be helpful, and then we can continue discussing part 2.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you very much for that.

Is it the will of the committee to adopt amendment BQ-3?

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

(Clause 4 agreed to on division)

(On clause 5)

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Let's move to clause 5.

Amemdment NDP‑2 is deemed moved.

Ms. Kwan, you have the floor.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

With regard to this amendment, I note the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce have raised concerns with respect to production order thresholds, saying that “reasonable grounds to suspect” is an unreasonably low standard, particularly given the Supreme Court of Canada's findings regarding the high potential sensitivity of subscriber information, which has been described as “narrow in scope” but in fact is incredibly revealing about “personal aspects of an individual's life”.

With respect to the standard, this amendment replaces the language “reasonable grounds to suspect” with “reasonable grounds to believe”. Doing so in all provisions regarding subscriber information, production orders and real-time device tracking authorizations will set a standard that requires the probability of a crime rather than a mere suspicion before they can map a citizen's movement or demand identifying logs.

I hope committee members will support this amendment. I note that others have also advanced exactly the same amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

Mr. Caputo, you have the floor.