Public Safety Committee on June 16th, 2026

[Normand Wong]

I would say that this type of information is not available under the subscriber information production order. The subscriber information is defined. Vaccination status would be more privacy-focused. If police required that information, they'd have to get a general production order under the higher “reasonable grounds to believe” standard.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Again, there has been a lot of discussion in this committee and also elsewhere about exactly what information is contained in that. I take your point, but if there is no risk that medical information would be transmitted as part of this, what would be the harm in making it crystal clear that the information is safeguarded? The same is true of solicitor-client information. If the view is that this information is not really at issue in what would be contained in subscriber details, why not offer the assurance that these pretty critical details will be protected?

[Normand Wong]

All I can say is that it would make it inconsistent with other provisions in the Criminal Code that could lend to the interpretation that this type of information is disclosable for the other provisions in the Criminal Code, or all the other production orders. As I think I started off with, it creates a bit of redundancy in relation to the aspect of solicitor-client information. As I mentioned, again, there may be many reasons why police might want to confirm that a suspect is a patient at a particular clinic so that they can get subsequent types of production orders to obtain more evidence.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

My understanding is that there is a lengthy body of evidence about solicitor-client privilege. It isn't just about communications between lawyers and their clients; it's even about the identity of clients. Am I understanding that correctly?

[Normand Wong]

Yes, but I'm not an expert in solicitor-client information.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

That's understandable. I appreciate you sharing your expertise on all these things. If one of your colleagues is more suited to answer my next question, that's fine.

This is where my question stems from: Because a lot of the information we're talking about—let's go to metadata for a moment—is about which phone numbers have been in communication with others, that could reveal a relationship that would be privileged, could it not?

[Normand Wong]

It could, yes.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

If we are trying to protect solicitor-client privilege in explicit terms, I think that Madame DeBellefeuille is right to put that in clear language. I know the Supreme Court has held in the past this is a principle of fundamental justice. This is under section 7 of the charter. It's a hugely important right.

I am not a lawyer, but being in politics, I have the misfortune of working alongside many of them. I greatly appreciate and respect a lot of what my colleagues do and what you all do, and I thank you for it, all jokes aside and being married to someone who's soon to be a lawyer as well.

What I take from your earlier comment, Mr. Wong, is that we, as a principle, are trying to protect solicitor-client privilege. We have mechanisms to do that already, so why not spell it out explicitly? I know that's a point of argumentation on the merits of the amendment. I'll make that rhetorical instead of getting you to weigh in on that. I would encourage my Liberal colleagues to very strongly consider supporting that. I'm willing to hear from other colleagues from different parties on this.

I would also point out medical information. A lot of the opposition to Bill C-22 has come from people who fundamentally distrust this government. I would say, having seen what this government has done and is trying to do in other bills, that's with good reason. If we are trying to safeguard and remove the reasons that Canadians are distrustful of this particular legislation, I don't know why we would not want to make it airtight, especially if the official position of the government is that none of these things would ever be conveyed in this process anyway. Why not spell that out? I think it's reasonable. I am open to hearing arguments to the contrary.

I will yield at this time, but I think it certainly merits consideration by my colleagues from the Liberal Party.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, MP Lawton.

I have MP Mantle and then MP Housefather.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you again to our witnesses for appearing and providing their valuable feedback and testimony on these different portions of the bill.

I wonder if our colleagues from the Department of Justice could just.... I'm not an expert on solicitor-client privilege, other than when I used it as a lawyer and had to engage in that. To Mr. Lawton's point, yes, the identity of a client can certainly be privileged. I've had many cases where the identity of the client was an important factor to keep confidential.

Of all the standards of confidentiality, my understanding has always been that solicitor-client privilege is probably at the top of the list. Is that a fair assessment?

This is for Ms. Gibner or Mr. Wong.

[Normand Wong]

I'm sorry. Could you repeat that? I was trying to get help from my colleagues behind me as you were asking the question.

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

Yes, bring them to the table.

My view has always been that solicitor-client privilege is at the top of the list of confidentiality that can exist between two people.

[Normand Wong]

I would say it is. There is a partial provision in the Criminal Code that talks about searches on lawyers' offices. When we're talking about the subscriber information production order, we're not considering it being served on production orders because there's a special process any time a lawyer's office has to be searched. This is when police do not know that a prior privilege situation exists, and it allows the holder of the information to object on that basis.

I believe Madame DeBellefeuille's amendment speaks to that same objective.

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

As I see it in this amendment, I don't think the issue is that somebody who's in receipt of a production order and thinks it may disclose information that's subject to solicitor-client privilege couldn't object. I would assume, regardless of what type of production order or demand for information you receive from any government authority or otherwise, you could always raise an issue of solicitor-client privilege. After the fact, you could always raise it.

I see nodding heads. Okay.

[Normand Wong]

You can, yes.

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

I raise that because it's not after the fact that's at issue. It's signalling to those who are making the production orders, or who are considering the scope of information or the place to search, to make it very clear that this type of information is off limits. I think it's more of a signal in the law.

I want to ask a couple of questions about it. You made a comment that, in your view, it might be redundant. Is that right, Mr. Wong?

[Normand Wong]

Yes, but if I could briefly comment on what you were talking about, I think Sergeant Gilkes talked about this earlier. When it's at the beginning of an investigation, if it's nothing but numbers, police have no idea what those numbers relate to, because they don't know who the people are who are implicated in the investigation.

I think part of the issue with this on the front end is that police don't know what they don't know. They're trying to identify the people who are implicated in the offence. Even if this were here, they would not be able to determine whether or not it was a medical clinic attached to the phone number, or a lawyer's office. They don't know until that information is produced.

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

Why, then, in the confirmation of service provisions of Bill C-22, are there specific carve-outs for solicitor-client privilege?

[Normand Wong]

Those carve-outs relate to who can be served with the order. The confirmation of service demand or the “information demand”, as it was called in Bill C-2, was a general tool that could have been served on any provider of public services.

Generally right now, in the Bill C-22 version, because it's limited to telecommunications service providers, that articulation or that clarification is arguably unnecessary. I think the government wanted to make it crystal clear that they were listening to stakeholders and made the carve-out, because most medical clinics, as far as I know, are not telecommunications service providers.

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

Thanks for that. I think you're agreeing with me.

The government, at least with respect to the confirmation of service demand, did include that very clear marker to say...and it's not just with respect to this that it can be requested. The section doesn't make reference to it being requested. It just says that a demand must not be made if the confirmation would disclose the information.

I think you're quite right that it was made on purpose to signal that this information—medical and solicitor-client privilege—is off limits. I think what we're suggesting is, what is the downside of doing the exact same thing for arguably the more intrusive tool, which is the production order? The confirmation of service demand is certainly less intrusive, we've established, than the production order itself. Why not make that same declaration here that we have that information again out of scope?

[Normand Wong]

Thank you again for the question.

I think the difference is that under the confirmation of service demand, it's a statutory power for the police to exercise without judicial supervision. Here, when we're talking about the subscriber information production order, it's at the discretion of a judge.

Perhaps I can point back to my RCMP colleagues to give some examples of instances where they may need to serve it on medical clinics or other clinics or areas where this might be relevant.

In terms of the difference between the two, I think there was some concern by the government that because it's a demand, a police officer statutory power, that wasn't sufficient supervision. However, because this is a production order, it fits in the realm of all the other production orders and benefits as well from all the general provisions in the production order scheme.

[Aaron Gilkes]

Thank you for the question.

I suppose for us the challenges that we see, particularly, for example, in medical records.... This is an example that you can see in the case of an assault, where an individual who's a suspect of an assault or the suspect of a particular crime has been injured in some way. Let's say it was a gunshot wound or something and we're fairly certain that this individual would have been harmed and would have needed medical attention. It's not uncommon for police to canvass an area and try to figure out which hospital they might have went to.

Asking whether an individual has been in the hospital is one question, but then it's confirming what type of treatment they may have received, not actually seeing the medical records but seeing if that person was actually checked into the hospital and if they received treatment at that time. That would be, at this point, some of the information we would require, without getting the actual content of the records, in order to carry forward the investigation.

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

Thank you for that, Sergeant Gilkes.

I guess I'm having a bit of trouble with the idea that we shouldn't include this because there's sufficient supervision. You mentioned a judge. These will not just be issued by judges. They may be issued by justices of the peace who may have no legal training at all, so we could have a discussion about the level of supervision.

Leaving that aside for a moment, we're always reviewing this after the fact. Whether it's a confirmation of service demand or a production order, “Was it done correctly?” is always going to be asked after the fact. If the information violated solicitor-client privilege, that would be a basis to appeal, but it's up front to make that signal.

I want to provide another example.

In other circumstances, at least in terms of what I was able to find, this is specifically laid out in legislation. In the CSIS Act, there's a specific provision with respect to orders. It allows a judge to revoke or vary an order if they're satisfied that it would disclose privileged information. That's the same situation—a production order or getting information—but it's in black and white to make sure it's clear that information subject to privilege should be protected.

Why include it in some, such as the CSIS Act, but not in Bill C-22? We've already included it in another provision. I always look at an act and say, “Well, if Parliament says something in one section but doesn't say it in another section, that means something.” I would prefer to be consistent. I think we can all agree. I'm not going to talk about medical information because I don't have enough knowledge, right now, to speak to that, but I don't think there is disagreement that solicitor-client information should be protected under a production order or a confirmation of service demand.

The bill says that this would be protected under the confirmation of service demand itself, so why not be consistent?

[Normand Wong]

Thanks, again, for the question.

I really don't think the bill is inconsistent. As I mentioned before, section 487.0193 already exists in relation to that.

I also mentioned that there's a special process police have to follow if they're going to search a lawyer's office. I don't think it's very common that lawyers' offices are served with production orders because of the reason we talked about: solicitor-client privilege. There are already a lot of protections for solicitor-client privilege in the Criminal Code, so if we're just focusing on that part of the amendment, I would say that it's completely redundant. Although it's not up front in the provision itself, it's in a provision that applies to all production orders. This provision, section 487.0193, would apply to this new production order.

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

That's fair enough. Thank you for your comments, Mr. Wong.

I will just say that I don't see any harm in saying, for greater certainty, that this is important. We've done that in another section of the bill. You provided reasons for why you think that is, but when we're dealing with something like solicitor-client privilege—which is at the top of the hierarchy of information that should be protected.... Searching a lawyer's office, yes, is going to put it smack dab in front of somebody.

Solicitor-client privilege can be held in many different places. It doesn't mean you're just searching my former law offices. I would be much more comfortable if it were clear in Bill C-22 that privileged solicitor-client information is off limits for production orders.

Thank you.