Public Safety Committee on June 16th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

That is a risk, indeed, of asking those types of questions, but obviously you are free to ask them. Then we'll see whether the answers are either reasonable or up to the expectations that you're setting.

Madame DeBellefeuille, go ahead.

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

I want to tell you that these rapid exchanges are very difficult. Mr. Housefather also speaks at the speed of light. I understand that. The interpreter who is interpreting is very good. She's interpreting very quickly, but I'm sure she won't last until midnight like that.

I don't know if you noticed that I don't have a headset today. It's banned because it hasn't been tested, so I only have an earpiece. It's very difficult for me. I would ask my Conservative and Liberal colleagues to slow down. We'll be here until midnight. I would ask them to speak more slowly so that I can keep up and participate in the discussion. Otherwise, I will remove my earpiece and you can call me when it's time to vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

It's a question of privilege for members. They must be able to participate in the discussions in either official language. The opposite would be true, but in this case, it's particularly true, because Mrs. DeBellefeuille uses the interpretation and is often seated near those who speak quite quickly, so please keep that in mind as you speak from now on.

Ms. Cody, would you like to continue, or is that, as you said, the end of your questioning?

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

I have one more relevant question. Thank you.

I want to know if there is going to be a more clear definition. Will “belief” be strong enough for an arrest, or could it be a suspicion or a thought? Is there a risk that “belief” will come from false accusations or an act of bad faith by someone who wants to create distress for another person?

[Richard Bilodeau]

I'll go to my colleagues from the RCMP.

When you're going to a court to apply for a production order on “reasonable grounds to believe”, there's a robust process to draft up affidavits and get a judge to sign off on that.

As to what that means in practice, I'll go to Sergeant Gilkes.

[Aaron Gilkes]

I'm sorry, but could you just repeat the question, please?

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

I was just wondering if there's going to be a more clear definition of “belief”, because it could be a suspicion or it could be just a thought by someone. Is there a risk that when you're going to be making a production order to investigate someone, it could be from a false accusation or an act of bad faith by someone who wants to create distress for another person? We've seen complaints get called in...you know, there's a neighbour upset about someone.

When you have a word that is so vague, like “believe”, what definition are we actually going to use and follow to ensure that the strength of “believe” is going to be enough to warrant an investigation and not just chase someone down a rabbit hole?

[Aaron Gilkes]

Thank you for your question.

Essentially, especially if we're going to be presenting our information to obtain to a judge or a justice, they have a guideline themselves. It is, in fact, subjective, but they were trained to properly assess whatever grounds are being put before them. They have their own tests, which will test whatever grounds are being put before them, and they will attribute the level of grounds which have been or have not been met.

We can present only what we learn, what we collect in terms of evidence. If it does not meet the grounds and the judge or the justice feels that it's either “to suspect” or “to believe”, then, quite simply, it's not signed and not attributed or active as a warrant.

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

I'd like to thank all of you for answering all of these questions that I had and your patience with them. I will conclude.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Ms. Cody.

Mr. Ramsay, you have the floor.

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

I'm going to have to make an effort to remember that, because we went to Timbuktu and came back via Vladivostok, and now we're returning here.

So let me remind you that BQ‑5 seeks to replace line 27 on page 7 with the phrase “are reasonable grounds to believe” with the phrase “are reasonable grounds to suspect”. One word is being changed.

Then there are two conditions:

(a) an offence has been or will be committed under this Act or any other Act of Parliament; (b) the metadata is in the core provider's possession or control and will assist in the investigation of the offence.

Also, I believe it was Mr. Gilkes who spoke to us about, among other things, a case involving the online sexual exploitation of children. In that case, the amendment to replace “reasonable grounds to suspect” with “reasonable grounds to believe” would require a much higher standard of proof even before the identity is known.

I don't want to assume anything, so I'd like to ask the Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers a question.

Roughly how many crimes or cases of sexual exploitation occur in Canada each year?

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

We wouldn't have the number for you on that question.

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

Could we be talking about thousands of cases?

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

I have Ms. Acan on a point of order.

[Sima Acan, Liberal, Oakville West, ON]

I think the bells are ringing now. Could we look for unanimous consent to continue our study?

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

We can certainly do that. Is there unanimous consent to continue the proceedings?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

There is no unanimous consent, which means we will need—

[Sima Acan, Liberal, Oakville West, ON]

We will take another 40-minute break, I guess.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

We'll need to stop now. I suppose there might be a bell.

Whatever happens, 10 minutes after the vote is the maximum time that I would be waiting for people to come back. If everyone is back, I will start before that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

I call the meeting back to order. Thank you for coming back.

We'll move on.

Mr. Ramsay, you have the floor.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I would like to say that I disagree with your assertion that, at this rate, we would finish in 2028. I suggest it would be more like 2029.

After three hours of discussion, we've made no progress on an amendment that is essentially very simple. Indeed, as Mr. Gilkes explained to us, it specifically addresses cases of online child sexual exploitation. So this is an issue that should command unanimous support.

I know the witnesses didn't have any statistics on this. If I suggest that there are around 20,000 cases of online child sexual exploitation a year, am I far off the mark?

[C/Supt Richard Burchill]

Thank you for the question. I still don't have exact numbers from our RCMP units. However, I would like to call on my colleagues from the Department of Justice, just to repeat.... They did have some Juristat statistics on that the other day. If they could repeat them, then I can speak to context.

[Normand Wong, Acting General Counsel, Policy Sector, Department of Justice]

Thank you. I have a few statistics from a variety of sources.

The Canadian Centre for Child Protection, which I believe appeared as a witness here, received about 23,000 in 2024. These are all reports they receive from the public that they refer to Canadian law enforcement. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children in the United States refers approximately 100,000 child sexual exploitation cases to Canadian authorities every year. Juristat reported that police incidents were at approximately 17,000 reports last year. Importantly, 94% of these cases are not cleared by police because of either insufficient evidence or the impossibility of identifying criminals.

I would also like to add—it doesn't have to do with child sexual exploitation—that in terms of Internet fraud cases, only about 5% of Internet fraud cases are reported at any given time. In the first three months of this year, there were 8,000 reports that were processed by police, totalling $188 million. In 2025, it was almost $800 million, and again, that's only 5% of Internet fraud cases.

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

Mr. Chair, I would suggest that these numbers speak for themselves. I'm really surprised that our colleagues opposite have the reflex to vote against a clause that is extremely simple. Let me remind you that it concerns just one word and that it will allow, as the title of part 1 of the bill states, timely access to data and information.

I would like to hear what the RCMP witnesses have to say about this. Acting in a timely manner is what will make it possible to arrest more criminals, cybercriminals, and those responsible for fraud and sexual exploitation cases.

These are not small numbers. We're not talking about 10 children. We're talking about thousands of cases.

If we are serious about fighting crime in 2026, then we agree on—