Public Safety Committee on June 11th, 2026

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

What you just described seems a bit crazy to me.

Throughout these discussions, I'm very sympathetic to some of the problems with the current system of production orders. I'm not sure that what we're discussing is the answer to that, but I'm sympathetic to the problem. It seems crazy to me that you get a judicial order and you have to submit it to a portal or they don't respond.

When I represented people and we didn't get things, we would go to the tribunal and say, “Subpoena them.” We would say, “If you don't follow that, it's contempt.” That's “go to jail” territory.

Why is there the indifference to what, in my mind, as a lawyer, is a pretty big deal?

[Aaron Gilkes]

I can't speak to it being indifference. I can speak to the volume of orders coming in and standard operating procedures for their practices.

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

I'm not sympathetic to that. It's a judicial order. That's how the system works. You respond to it or the court should intervene.

The fact that it is happening is why I'm sympathetic to your plight. It seems like some parts of the industry are not respecting the authority of the court, if I can put it that way—at least, in my view. I'm not going to put words in your mouth, but that's my view.

It seems to me that at least a partial solution to this should be the court saying, “No. These are orders.” If you come back and they haven't been responded to in a reasonable period, and the court is saying, “We have the power to control our own process”.... Whether it's contempt, or whatever the case may be, use those powers. It's not acceptable.

[Marianne Dandurand, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Go ahead, Madame Dandurand.

[Marianne Dandurand, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I've noticed that we already spent a great deal of time discussing many of these points in the committee. We held many meetings for the study. All the Liberals here were in attendance. Mrs. DeBellefeuille was also in attendance. On the Conservative side, two of the six members here took part in the study. Many of the answers that we're looking for are responses that we've already obtained, in particular with the help of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, who came to testify. He spoke to us for a full meeting.

Our comments are now redundant. We're drifting away from the subamendment. It seems that we're redoing the study, when we should be talking about a subamendment.

I would like us to get back to the main point and to avoid duplicating, with the resources and people here, the study that we already carried out. So if we could get back to the main point, I would appreciate it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Ms. Dandurand.

Resources are indeed limited. We absolutely want to avoid redoing the work of the past 25 hours devoted to studying Bill C‑22. We also want—and I encourage everyone to do this—to focus on the subamendment. We've already been studying it for almost two and a half hours.

So I urge everyone to use their best judgment to achieve this goal.

MP Mantle.

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

Thank you.

I'm sorry. I completely disagree with that characterization. I would invite the member to listen more closely, because my line of inquiry was not at all about the comments of the Privacy Commissioner. My line of inquiry was about understanding how the subamendment would affect the problem that Mr. Wong has identified, and I was probing that for my benefit, so I reject that premise. I think this is entirely on point, and I'm going to continue with my line of inquiry.

As I understand it, the Privacy Commissioner's amendment is going to sit.... Yes. I have to go back because I have to start my train of thought again since I was interrupted. If you'd like to make an argument, please add yourself to the speaking list.

The Privacy Commissioner's suggestion would limit you because you get to that point where you've written everything you can, to the best of your ability, and you get a bad response or it's not the way the company intends, so you try to have that discussion. Maybe it helps you, but maybe it doesn't. If it's not helpful at that stage, voluntarily, what do you do?

[Aaron Gilkes]

Depending on the nature of the investigation, it could end your investigation or seriously slow down your investigation, because you would then, potentially, have to try to find some other way to gain access to the information that's missing from your investigation.

Once again, it's a chain of evidence that brings you to your charge in this case. Police officers don't give up very easily. We often look for other sources of data that might be able to produce that information, but at times, if there's no other source, it could very much end your investigation.

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

I appreciate that. I'm glad that police officers don't give up too easily. Parliamentarians don't either, so we'll continue as long as we feel is necessary to get to the right answers.

If the company is not helpful, do you not go back to the court and say it's been unhelpful?

[Aaron Gilkes]

I can speak to myself personally.

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

Do you write another order?

[Aaron Gilkes]

It could be writing another order in order to obtain particular information once you've identified that someone is actually in possession of it.

Policing is a community, so at times, you can reach out within your community to try to identify whether anybody has received a particular type of information from company X that has spoken to what evidence is required. That might be one way to do it, and then go through another order to produce.

There is, I suppose, the option of going back and finding a Crown counsel who would be willing to support your additional request, citing that whatever was required in the order to produce was not met or was not produced. There are some options. Like I mentioned, another one is finding another source for that particular type of information.

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

When you say “finding another source”, what does that mean?

[Aaron Gilkes]

For example, if, during your investigation, you've identified through the return to production orders....

An investigation is not necessarily linear. Depending on whatever has happened, it's possible that in your attempt to identify the possible sources of information, you've sent out multiple production orders to try to glean some initial information about what actually happened, and in the process of sending out those orders, you might receive an order back from another company. In there, there might be some information that may hint at, allege...or point you in another direction to another company that might possess the same information or similar information to what you were requesting from the first company.

This can happen, because investigations are dynamic and all types of information are received, and then there has to be an analysis of the information. There are stages. It's not something that can be done very quickly.

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

It's a bit iterative in that sense.

[Aaron Gilkes]

That's correct.

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

You get a piece back, and that says, “I have A but not B and C, but A leads me to E, and now I have E.” Am I following you?

[Aaron Gilkes]

That's correct.

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

That could be going to get a production order against another company. Would that also be publicly available information that you didn't think was relevant, but now you do because you got something back from the company?

[Aaron Gilkes]

I suppose it could also be information that's already in an existing police database, and you are able to now link this investigation to another investigation that you didn't think was necessarily related.

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

Okay, that makes sense.

Ms. Gibner, I want to bring you back. How does the subamendment fix that problem that I've just explored? I'm still not clear on that.

[Kimberly Gibner, Deputy Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy Sector, Department of Justice]

I think what we've talked about is that BQ-4 turns it on its head and requires the police to itemize everything in every kind of service provider, while the subamendment does the opposite. It retains the subscriber information definition.

They have to have their grounds. They have to set it out in their affidavit, but it is up to the subscriber. He's not saying I need X name. It's how they categorize their data, and they'll give the information. The back-and-forth, in our view, would be eliminated. You heard the officer talk about having to go back and ask for it again. I think that the subamendment retains the overall purpose of the subscriber tool so that police don't need to itemize, but it does retain the discretion that the judge orders what is set out in the affidavit. Again, what we understood was the critical recommendation from the Privacy Commissioner was to make sure that the judges retain discretion in the decision-making. That was the focus of the subamendment.

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

I take the point very well.

Thank you, Mr. Gilkes, for helping me understand that. You don't want to put them in this position where they have to get everything right and, if they miss one thing, they're out of luck and have to redo the process or find it somewhere else. That seems unreasonable to me.

At the same time, I'm concerned with it being so expansive that, as it is currently written, it's all of the subscriber information that relates to any information specified in the order. That's too far on the other side. In the subamendment itself—you could bring it up if you have it before you—I think you're suggesting to me that this is a middle ground. Is that fair, or am I misunderstanding?

[Kimberly Gibner]

I would say that the subamendment really just focuses on retaining judicial discretion. The chapeau again says that you are limited because you must have set out grounds in your affidavit related only to (a) and (c). If you don't set out the grounds to (a) and (c), the judge will limit his order according to what you did set out.

Again, the tool is very narrow and limited. It can only be (a) to (c). The officer's going to need to set out the reasonable grounds to suspect the kind of information that they're looking for based on the facts they have before them, but the information related to the grounds will still need to be produced.