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.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
A recorded vote has been requested, Mr. Clerk.
(Clause 6 as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)
(On clause 7)
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC
Yes, Mr. Chair.
BQ‑7 was recommended by the Barreau du Québec, which, once again, finds that the threshold for obtaining subscriber information is too low. The amendment seeks to raise the threshold by using the legal standard of “reasonable grounds to believe” rather than “reasonable grounds to suspect”.
Obviously, I would like an explanation. At this point, is it the beginning or the middle of the investigation?
Could you help me improve my knowledge and give me an example of why you are opposed to the amendment? I imagine you're opposed to it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Before I turn it over to the officials for questions, I will note that NDP‑5 and CPC‑5 cannot be moved, as they are identical to BQ‑7.
The floor is yours.
Acting Officer-in-Charge, RCMP Lawful Access, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Thank you for your question.
The police don't make much of a distinction between the services offered by companies established in Canada and those outside Canada. The services provided, particularly chat apps from the United States or even other countries, are very popular among people in Canada. They are often used for communication between people linked to crime or to commit Criminal Code offences. We don't see a difference between using a Canadian‑based app and using an American‑based one.
If we receive a complaint about a communication method that uses an app provided by a company based outside Canada, we're still at the beginning of the investigation, and we still have to go and get the same information to try to establish links between the crime and a particular person or device.
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC
At that point, do you know the name of the person and the type of device? Is that one more step?
Can you clarify that for me? Earlier, you told me, and I quite agree with you, that you can know if, for example, Ms. May has an account with a service provider and if the transactions are in order or suspicious.
Explain to me how far along you are at this stage. You know the name and the device.
Acting Officer-in-Charge, RCMP Lawful Access, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Sometimes we still don't know the name or the device. For example, this is the case if the person was contacted on some platform and we only see the number associated with that service, such as a phone number or an account number.
All we have at that point is a number associated with the account that was used to communicate with the victim—whether by sending images or messages, making calls, or something like that. Afterward, since we don't know who sent the information, we have to find out who is associated with that account, where that person is located, and what other services may be provided to that person.
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC
If the person sent, for example, a pornographic image or an image that is indecent or prohibited from being sent, it seems obvious to me. You've moved on to the next step if you find a phone number associated with an image of a pornographic scene. You truly have reasonable grounds to believe that an offence has been committed. With this kind of photo, we can all agree that you're no longer just suspecting. It's clear that there is trafficking in or use of pornographic or child pornography images.
When you have this image, it seems to me that you've reached your threshold—that you have reasonable grounds to believe.
Isn't that right?
Acting Officer-in-Charge, RCMP Lawful Access, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
It all depends on what kind of statement we receive. Given this image, it may be clear that this is a violation.
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC
You have reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been committed and will continue to be committed because images are being exchanged, based on the example you gave.
In my opinion, this may not be the best example, because if you have a compromising image, then that constitutes reasonable grounds to believe, not just reasonable grounds to suspect.
Acting Officer-in-Charge, RCMP Lawful Access, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
It depends on the type of image you receive. As you mentioned, it might have been an image of child pornography. In that case, it's clear. However, it could be another type of image in a situation where the victim might face a form of extortion. The image may seem harmless to most people, but for that person, it has an impact.
Again, we have to ask ourselves whether this is really a crime. The sender sent an image, but there may not be any message attached to it. Furthermore, we do not know the purpose behind sending this image. We must determine whether, legally, there is an intent to commit a crime behind this action.
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC
If we raise the threshold for obtaining information, you're telling us that we're depriving you of the ability to continue the investigation to be certain, because you can never really be certain. Even when you invoke reasonable grounds to believe, we agree that you're not completely sure.
On the other hand, if you use the lowest threshold, what does that allow you to do that you couldn't otherwise?
My other question concerns the potential for abuse of this standard—this lower threshold. There may be risks involved in misusing it to obtain additional information. I have concerns about this.
Acting Officer-in-Charge, RCMP Lawful Access, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
The information we can request is already quite limited compared to a general disclosure order, where we could even request the content of communications and so on.
As your colleague mentioned earlier, there has been an increase in the complexity and volume of crimes associated with online tools, devices and Internet use. So, given this volume and complexity, we need a tool to help sort through the crimes that occur—whether to identify suspects as quickly as possible, to rule out certain individuals from the list of suspects, or to make connections with other crimes committed in the surrounding area and elsewhere in Canada.
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC
Thank you very much for these clarifications.
I don't want to take up any more of your time, Mr. Chair, but I just want to share my thoughts with you.
In fact, when the minister told us he was open to our proposing amendments to Bill C‑22 , I realized that, from the very beginning—and it's true that we're only on amendment BQ-7—no amendments from the opposition have been adopted. On the other hand, we voted in favour of a subamendment proposed by the Liberals, which almost completely distorts the bill.
As a member of an opposition party, I find it hard to be accused of systematic obstruction, because it affects me personally. I tell myself that my job is to ask questions. So when I'm told that our committee has almost become a farce, I feel insulted. I just want to tell you—and remind those who do not serve as standing members—that our committee has been nearly exemplary.
We managed to reach an agreement to pass Bill C‑8 on cybersecurity and Bill C‑12, and we did so because there was dialogue. The government cooperated.
Right now, Mr. Housefather and Mr. Ramsay can complain all they want; they can invoke the Standing Orders as they please—but I still feel that whether the opposition parties are present or absent makes no difference. They already know they're going to vote against the amendments, and it bothers them to have to work until midnight. I understand that, but I'm here to try to understand the explanations—and to gain a better understanding of Bill C‑22.
So I don't think that, at this stage, asking questions and sitting until midnight is a joke or that I'm doing it on purpose to slow down the proceedings. In fact, what bothers me is the feeling that, no matter what I say and no matter what the answers are, the Liberals have already made up their minds and that on Friday, the bill will ultimately be passed.
As for me, I don't call that collaboration. I'm disappointed that, as we speak, I no longer sense the open-mindedness the minister showed at the beginning. I understand that my colleagues are impatient, but, really, they just have to wait until Friday at 2:30 p.m. Bill C‑22 will then be passed, and they will have gotten what they wanted. However, in the meantime, we shouldn't be criticized for asking questions, because that is our right. That's all we have left.
I just want to set the record straight regarding what I've been hearing for a while now. I know it would be easier for us to sit here tonight until midnight to fast-track the bill, but the Liberals will get their fast-track treatment on Thursday. So I'm asking them for patience and tolerance, because if they were in the opposition's shoes, they wouldn't find it funny to be treated the way they're treating us. No matter what we contribute, it's not taken into account at all.
Personally, I'm disappointed, and I want to say so publicly. I had confidence in the openness shown by the minister, but that is no longer the case. That being said, thank you very much. I think you've explained things to me clearly. Of course, I'm struggling with this. I'm torn, because I also trust the Barreau du Québec.
I'm wondering. Where do we draw the line? Would it be so bad to raise the threshold? Would it be so bad if you didn't have everything, so that we could reassure certain witnesses—who, in my opinion, are credible—that the government is also making an effort? Would it be so bad if we didn't give you everything you need—since doubts still remain—but if you accepted that we may not have done the work as thoroughly as we should have, given that we did receive 100 briefs and 70 letters? I've read many of them; some are very credible.
I would have liked to ask questions of software architects and computer scientists, but there weren't any. I don't know if Mr. Bilodeau is a computer scientist, but I still have questions. In fact, as a member of the opposition, I'm willing not to obstruct for the sake of it, because I tell myself that, in any case, the die is cast. The government has made its bed.
Dear witnesses, you have been very patient. You listened to us, and you answered our questions. Honestly, I think it's extraordinary that you've been so patient. I think you should serve as a model for the government members sitting on the other side. After all, this is your job, and you're doing it with diligence and professionalism. I want to thank you. If we ask questions, it's because we're genuinely interested. When asking questions is all the power we have left, you'll understand that we'll use it to the fullest. We'll use it until midnight, because on Thursday, all we'll be able to do is say “yes” or “no”. For us, it's as if we couldn't contribute at the outset because the majority government is preventing us from doing so, and it won't compromise or negotiate. It's a flat refusal.
I wanted to deliver my message at least once. I won't talk about this again for the rest of the meeting to avoid any accusations of filibustering or being off topic. I feel strongly about this, and I feel that it's important to share this with you. This isn't how we work on a bill that changes a culture and that changes a privacy principle. This isn't how we work. I find that there has been abuse, and I wanted to say so. Now that this is out of the way, I would like to inform you that I've finished speaking on amendment BQ‑7.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Thank you, Mrs. DeBellefeuille. Well put and well understood.
Mr. Ramsay, you have the floor.
Liberal
Jacques Ramsay Liberal La Prairie—Atateken, QC
If we were to adopt amendment BQ‑7, it would put us in a rather strange situation. The threshold for requesting information from a foreign entity would be higher than what we ask of our own national entities, the companies in Canada. This seems a bit absurd.
If Canadian companies are asked to do something, I think that the same should apply to the United States. The threshold shouldn't be any different.
Am I wrong?
Acting General Counsel, Policy Sector, Department of Justice
Thank you for the question. I'll respond in English.
You are correct. The way the tool is designed—this is the international production request—it is a non-compellable, judicially authorized request. It's not an order, but it's based on the underlying information that police can obtain in Canada, which is the subscriber information that we just finished talking about and the existing transmission data production order.
If police can meet the threshold for those tools, they can also ask a judge to issue a request that can be served on a foreign entity to provide that information. You are correct that if this amendment, this motion, were allowed to pass, it would make it more difficult for police to get information from foreign service providers than it would for domestic ones, and it would arguably make their current situation worse.
Liberal
Jacques Ramsay Liberal La Prairie—Atateken, QC
Mr. Chair, based on this confirmation from Mr. Wong, we'll be voting against this amendment.
I would just like to address some of the comments made. I take exception to what has been said. I don't think that any party around this table has collaborated more on this bill than the Liberal Party. Mrs. DeBellefeuille is free to think what she wants. Mr. Lawton is also free to think what he wants. I'm proud to say—and I stand by this—that our party has fully co‑operated in the study of this bill. If the circumstances lead us to act differently, I don't think that the finger will be pointed at us. That's all that I'll say about this.
Liberal
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Before I get into the substantive points and questions for officials on the amendment, I have to respond to the rather bizarre strawman argument we just heard from Mr. Ramsay. He said that because the Liberals voted against a previous amendment that would have made the bill better, they can't support this amendment, as it would lead to an inconsistency between the two. The problem there, which is glaring to people certainly on this side of the table—and potentially that side, given that Ms. May has the fortune of sitting on the government bench right now—is that the Liberals are basically saying that because they made a bad decision earlier, in the interest of consistency, they now need to stick to that. I think it's a bad decision, but they obviously disagree with that point.
The standard of proof that we're seeking here in part 1 of the bill is incredibly germane. It is actually one of the areas where I had hoped at the outset of this we would have collaboration across the aisle. There has been no collaboration from the Liberals on Bill C-22 in general. We've seen minimal, if any, collaboration on part 1, where I think there's actually significantly less daylight between us. I would note that we have repeatedly made the offer to pass part 1, which is consistent with the authorities and powers that the police I've been speaking to in St. Thomas and London and the police chiefs in other parts of the country are actually asking for.
This idea that part 1 cannot exist without part 2 is entirely false—and, if so, that actually means that perhaps there are more problems with part 1 than people have realized. I think part 1 stands on its own and deals with the need to have expeditious production orders. I think confirmation of service is incredibly reasonable, when I hear the time delays that police on the ground often encounter trying to find information to seek what would go into a production order. We already have, from our officials here, a pretty important recognition that this is fundamentally a different mechanism from the one that exists for domestic service providers. This is a request and not an order.
I don't know if this next question would go to our law enforcement officials. I think it probably should, to start, but anyone should feel free to add to it.
We have to situate this amendment into the broader context of the clause itself. What is the current process for accessing this information from a foreign telecom provider, and what would it be if clause 7, unamended, were adopted?
Acting Officer-in-Charge, RCMP Lawful Access, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
It really depends on which province you happen to be in. There are some providers, extra-jurisdictional or providers from outside of Canada, that will accept a production order from Canada. That being said, depending on the province you're in, a justice or a judge may not actually sign your production order, because they do not believe they have the jurisdiction to order a company outside of Canada to action whatever the order is.
Short of that, the alternative would be the mutual legal assistance process. It takes a considerable amount of time and resources to actually get that completed. Then you're looking at maybe six months, a year or something like that for the response time, depending.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Let's pause for a moment, please, Sergeant, just to understand what we're talking about here. Is this an American Verizon customer who is in Canada, and an investigation leads you to this person who is physically in Canada or was physically in Canada, and you're trying to get the information from Verizon; or is this where, in the course of your investigation, you find that someone in Canada was in communication with someone in another country and you're going to get information from that person? Do both situations fall into this?
Acting Officer-in-Charge, RCMP Lawful Access, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
I suppose both situations could fall into it if the provider holding that data were situated outside of Canada. Now, regardless of how they....
Well, it depends on how they actually perceive themselves and whether they do have some sort of presence in Canada and they're willing to accept a Canadian judicial authorization. They may say that they are exclusively outside of Canada and you have to go the route of a mutual legal assistance treaty.
