Public Safety Committee on June 11th, 2026

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

I know we're not allowed to talk about whether someone's here or not here in the House, but in the context of committee, I want to welcome the member. I'm new as well, and I've been welcomed here.

The subamendment that we are talking about specifically relates to the kind of information that law enforcement is able to get as part of a judicial order. As everyone, I think, around the table who's been involved with this bill knows, there are Canadians who are really concerned about this bill. Many of those concerns relate to part 2 of the bill, and that's one of the reasons why we've been proposing to split the bill into part 1 and part 2.

Of course, today we're talking about part 2 of the bill, and a specific amendment and a specific subamendment. We were talking about the specific situations in which law enforcement uses the judicial authorizations to be able to get information. In terms of that top-down, general, I hesitate to use the word “surveillance”, CSIS operates in a very different way from law enforcement. It's a much broader scope and arena. This is law enforcement saying, well, it's much narrower. The tie-in and the way in which this part of the bill, I think, does something really interesting is that it helps law enforcement make the kinds of connections that sometimes lead to CSIS, without getting CSIS directly involved.

If I'm correct in understanding the interaction between both witnesses and the questioning, the RCMP may find that there is a connection among a number of frauds, or things that look like frauds, that are happening to seniors in our communities; but it turns out that there's enough similarity that they learn through the IP addresses that, in fact, they can be linked to organized crime. This is really relevant in my community and throughout British Columbia as we cope with the addictions crisis, but also for CSIS as they think about issues of national security.

Have I represented your comments accurately in that?

[Aaron Gilkes]

I can't really speak to the way we typically interact with national security. I have no experience with the operations with our national security department.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

What about from the CSIS side of things? Is that a fair representation of how the section of the bill as amended by the subamendment actually contributes to the work you do in a way that doesn't overly invade people's privacy?

[Ramzi Nashef]

Certainly the second part. Very quickly, to frame it out, the amendment is solely focused on a law enforcement tool. Sometimes, of course, I would say the direction of investigation often goes from national security to law enforcement, not the other way around, although it can. CSIS would start an investigation, would hand that over through a number of different mechanisms to law enforcement, who would reconstitute and take that through a prosecution. That's usually the direction of travel in that case.

I think what we're really talking about in this amendment is finding a way to ensure that law enforcement can get some of those early building blocks of information to expedite the start of an investigation and bring about better prosecutorial outcomes.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

I'm really grateful to all of the witnesses who have answered my questions. This has been a really interesting conversation.

I want to thank Mr. Housefather for this subamendment.

I think what I've learned in this, and what I'm inclined to conclude, is this. If we get the rest of this bill right, then this subamendment would help law enforcement in a situation where something has been initiated—it's not a fishing expedition—and has come to law enforcement. They have some information where a legal threshold has been passed, where they believe that they are going to, in the old words, lay a charge, or they feel as if there is something here. They find themselves in a situation where they have enough information to know that and to pull together the kind of argument that will allow them to go before a judge.

At that point, the subamendment proposed by Mr. Housefather would help narrow, funnel or specify what kind of information is available off the menu. It isn't quite a complete menu, but at least it's a menu. Law enforcement can then go to the judge and be cognizant of the fact that if there is ever a trial in this case, the accused would invoke section 8 of the charter. They would be operating within the space they're familiar with in Canada—search and seizure, section 8 and privacy rights—and would be able to make a reasonable application to a judge, which would be successful, or not, sometimes.

The judge would have control over the process and evaluate whether the information provided or the information requested fits within this fairly well-developed section—now that this committee has done excellent work. Then that judge would make a decision, and that information would be taken forward into some of the other processes we'll talk about in other sections of the bill.

I'm particularly heartened to know this, and I think people watching this at home will be as well. When it comes to some of that broader work that CSIS does, the higher-level surveillance of our country in general, this isn't a section they can use to go too far, in the absence of a larger law enforcement file that relates probably to something bigger that would fit into organized crime, terrorism or the kinds of activities that CSIS does.

In the context of this particular subamendment, with the Privacy Commissioner's recommendations, the reassurances that came from the RCMP, the really good work and explanations provided by the counsel from the Department of Justice and the reassurance provided by CSIS, I want to thank everybody. This has been a really interesting discussion.

I will turn the floor back over to you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I have a point of order, Chair.

I've just joined and I understand that we're debating a subamendment by Mr. Housefather. I wonder if that could be sent by email to all the members who are here. Maybe it was distributed when it was initially moved, but could you share that?

I had my hand up, as I want to be on the speaking list. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you. Yes, you'll be sent the subamendment, and you'll be added to the list.

We have MP Mantle and then MP Cody, MP Au and MP Genuis.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair. It's good to be back with everyone this evening.

I want to start by reflecting on your opening comments, Mr. Chair, on both the pace of our review and the time that we have to do so.

Also, of course, happy birthday. I don't want to forget that.

On the pace of the review, I would note that lawful access and these types of proposals have been ongoing for over a decade. For that decade, this government has been in power, and I'll say respectfully that I'm not sympathetic to the argument that we should move at any pace other than what is necessary to consider the bill.

I think that's what you were getting at. We want to have a civil and substantive debate and address each part of the bill—part 1, part 2 and the various clauses—and give them the due consideration they need. If that requires additional time or additional resources, I would be open to further meetings and further opportunities to do that, because—

[Sima Acan, Liberal, Oakville West, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

MP Acan, please go ahead.

[Sima Acan, Liberal, Oakville West, ON]

We are still on the subamendment, and I don't think there's any relevance to the subamendment here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

The point is well understood. Thank you.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

On the same point of order, Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

MP Genuis, please go ahead.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

This is my first time coming here physically, but I've been following the work of this committee. The fact is, Chair, that commenting on an issue you raised around timing is of course relevant to the matter being discussed right now on the table, which is the continuation of the clause-by-clause consideration as well as the particular amendments.

I can see that Liberals are trying to slow things down by interrupting Conservative members—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

—and I'm sorry they're doing that, but I think Mr. Mantle should be able to continue without delay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, MP Genuis—

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

I'll be back in a second with you, MP Housefather.

Thank you for joining us, MP Genuis. This is our 25th hour on this bill and you will join a well-informed crowd. Thank you for being part of it now.

MP Housefather is next.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My point of order is that we've now spent about two hours on a simple subamendment, which, from my understanding, everyone is going to vote for. Ms. Kronis has brilliantly summarized it about 14 times over an hour and a half.

My question for you is this, Mr. Chair: Is there any reason you would see that we would continue to debate for hours something that everybody's in favour of? Or is it just simply that because the rules of Parliament allow it and—

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

I have a point of order.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

—the Conservatives are seeking to filibuster in doing this? Just out of curiosity—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Points of order are about the rules, Mr. Housefather.