Evidence of meeting #44 for Public Safety and National Security in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was reasonable.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
I listened to you for 56 minutes.
In any case, Mr. Chair—
Liberal
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Again, I would have wrapped this up in three if I hadn't been interrupted.
In any case, Mr. Chair, at this point, I believe this is a pointless debate. We have an amendment again. There are dozens of amendments, and we got through one today. I think this makes the point that some people are taking this discussion with a complete lack of seriousness.
Thank you.
Conservative
Jacob Mantle Conservative York—Durham, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a short intervention in response.
As Mr. Housefather will know, there are several different powers in the act. The government is choosing to change the standard in each of them. Several of them are different, actually. The confirmation of service, for example, is one. The production order is another. The third one that comes to mind is the requirement for tracking information, which will come up in an amendment shortly.
Those are three different powers under the act, and each can demand its own discussion of what standard should be applicable.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Thank you, MP Mantle.
Is it the will of the committee to adopt amendment BQ‑7?
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
We'll proceed to a recorded division.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Since amendment NDP‑5 is identical, we won't vote on it. The same applies to amendment CPC‑5.
Is it the will of the committee to adopt clause 7?
(Clause 7 agreed to on division)
(On clause 8)
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC
One moment, please, Chair.
I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. Go ahead. I wanted to make sure I'm following you.
We have no amendments to clause 8. Is that correct?
Okay. It's on division.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Is it the will of the committee to adopt clause 8?
(Clause 8 agreed to on division)
(On clause 9)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Amendment NDP‑6 is deemed moved.
Is it the will of the committee to adopt amendment NDP‑6?
Conservative
Conservative
Rhonda Kirkland Conservative Oshawa, ON
Thank you very much.
My understanding is that the current framework deliberately leaves timelines to judicial discretion—correct me if I'm wrong—so that production orders can be tailored to the facts of a particular investigation. Can you walk me through why that flexibility was built into the regime? Could there be any operational challenges if Parliament were to prescribe a more rigid approach, as is recommended in this amendment?
Acting General Counsel, Policy Sector, Department of Justice
The original production order framework left it to the judge to have the discretion to decide the time and place and format for the production of the data. This is primarily because police might ask for different types of information that may be easier to compile in some instances and harder to compile in other instances. Depending on the scope and range of the production requested by the police, it may entail a lengthy process, so leaving it up to the judge is appropriate for the circumstances.
What has happened since the introduction of the production orders is that there's a provision in here that allows for the entity to object to a production order. They have a certain amount of time in which to object. That time is any time before the production order is due. By 30 days, at the very most, they have to inform the peace officer. The reason 30 days was chosen was that we didn't want the entity holding the information to wait until the clock ran out. Let's say it was a lengthy production and the judge granted 90 days for the production. We didn't want them to wait 90 days to tell the police that they weren't going to produce. We wanted to be able to inform the police at an earlier date, so that the police could decide whether or not they would wait for the eventual production or pivot and try a new investigative technique.
The motion as presented here would standardize a 30-day return. That is basically what police already have, which has been highly problematic, especially since Spencer. This provision applies to all production orders. Even where return dates are shorter currently for the other types of production orders, the other lower-threshold specific information, this would standardize the time of a minimum of 30 days. As I said, the way it's written here, “30 days”, doesn't give the judge discretion to order a longer time if the production is more lengthy.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
I would also like to point out that, since this amendment was moved, the following amendment—amendment CPC‑6—can't be moved because it's identical.
Mr. Mantle, you have the floor.
Conservative
Jacob Mantle Conservative York—Durham, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to ask the police to tell me a bit about...because we had a conversation on Tuesday—I think it was Tuesday—in which we went through some of the problems you have when you write a production order. You're trying to get it perfect, and the back-and-forth happens. How long does it usually take to get a response from one of these production orders? Are there maybe categories, depending...?
Conservative
Jacob Mantle Conservative York—Durham, ON
It was about something different. I know you weren't here—
Liberal
