This House of Commons committee meeting on public safety and national security studied Bill C-22, an act respecting lawful access. Appearing were officials from the Department of Public Safety, the Department of Justice, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, along with the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Justice.
Mike McGuire, Director General of International and Border Policy at Public Safety Canada, opened by explaining that Bill C-22 addresses gaps in Canada’s lawful access framework, which has not kept pace with digital crime. He described part 1 as modernizing legal authorities for police and CSIS to obtain digital information, including a new confirmation of service demand for a yes-or-no answer on whether a telecom provider serves a specific identifier, and a production order for basic subscriber information. Part 2, he said, creates a framework requiring electronic service providers to have the technical capacity to respond to existing lawful access requests, with safeguards including a ban on creating systemic vulnerabilities or weakening encryption, and oversight by the intelligence commissioner and NSIRA.
Shannon Hiegel, Director General of the National Security Policy Directorate at Public Safety Canada, confirmed that the bill is encryption-neutral and does not force companies with end-to-end encryption to decrypt communications. She explained that metadata retention periods and categories will be defined through regulation, with one year as a maximum based on international comparisons, and that core provider definitions will also be set in regulation. She noted that the intelligence commissioner has confirmed he can manage the expected workload of approving ministerial orders, and that companies can push back if a requirement would create a systemic vulnerability, with a right to judicial review.
Fenton Ho, Director of Intelligence Policy at Public Safety Canada, added that the bill links metadata to capabilities that support law enforcement, and that the charter analysis for metadata retention will depend on how it is circumscribed in regulation. He emphasized that if a capability would create a systemic vulnerability, the answer is no, and that the intelligence commissioner is well suited to review ministerial orders given their experience with similar frameworks.
Ramzi Nashef, Director General at CSIS, explained that metadata helps establish patterns of communication in warranted investigations, serving as a building block for understanding threat actor networks. He noted that the specific types of metadata to be captured will be worked out through regulation.
Richard Burchill, Director General of Technical Investigation Services at the RCMP, described the confirmation of service demand as a front-end tool to verify a phone number or IP address with a provider, after which police must still build grounds for a production order. He gave examples of metadata useful to investigations, including Internet transmission data with time-stamps and IP addresses, and tower signalling data to locate individuals at the time of an offence.
Anne-Marie LeBel, Counsel at the Department of Justice, explained that the “reasonable grounds to suspect” threshold already exists in the Criminal Code for certain production orders targeting less sensitive data, and that it requires observable facts, not mere suspicion. She noted that the threshold was chosen for subscriber information like name and address, balancing privacy interests.
Kimberly Gibner, Deputy Assistant Deputy Minister at the Department of Justice, added that since the Supreme Court’s Spencer decision required lawful authorization for subscriber information, Bill C-22 provides that authorization, and that “reasonable grounds to suspect” is an appropriate standard for basic subscriber details.
Nicole Giles, Deputy Director at CSIS, gave operational examples of why part 2 capabilities are needed, such as tracking a person of interest’s cellphone under a warrant when a provider lacks location tracking, or responding to foreign partner tips about threats linked to Canadian phone numbers sold by resellers that do not maintain records.
Minister of Public Safety Gary Anandasangaree stated that Bill C-22 is encryption-neutral and does not aim to regulate the Internet or create back doors, and that it provides modern tools for law enforcement while upholding charter and privacy rights. He confirmed that the government will consider amendments from the committee, including on encryption, but would not pre-emptively agree to specific proposals. He declined to release a consultation report by Murray Rankin, citing privilege, and said the bill reflects near-consensus after extensive engagement.
Minister of Justice Sean Fraser emphasized that Canada is behind other advanced economies in lawful access, and that the bill requires judicial authorization for subscriber information, unlike many Five Eyes partners. He argued the bill strikes a balance between giving law enforcement tools to combat modern crime and protecting privacy, noting that subscriber information is ring-fenced to exclude medical and legal advice.
The committee also heard debate on procedural matters, including requests for additional witness time and the release of the Rankin report, but no motions or votes were recorded in the transcript.
AI-generated summary — may contain errors; verify against the official evidence.