Public Safety and National Security

This Canadian parliamentary committee meeting was called to discuss Canada's security screening process, specifically following up on a motion adopted in August 2026. The main topic of discussion revolved around a recent high-profile case where an individual accused of fraud and espionage was able to obtain a high-level security clearance and work at NATO. Committee members questioned the Minister of Public Safety and senior officials from various agencies about the effectiveness and accountability of the current security screening system. Key speakers included the Minister of Public Safety, Gary Anandasangaree, and officials from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, and the Treasury Board Secretariat. The Minister repeatedly stated that a Belgian investigation into the specific case limited his ability to provide detailed answers, but assured the committee that internal reviews were underway and that agencies were looking for ways to improve processes. He also mentioned that the Treasury Board implemented a new security screening directive in January 2025, which is currently being put into practice. Conservative committee members, particularly Frank Caputo and Dane Lloyd, expressed frustration over the lack of concrete answers and accountability regarding the security breach. They pressed the Minister on why it took 70 days to get to the bottom of the situation and questioned whether the incident constituted a "massive intelligence failure." Liberal committee members, like Sima Acan and Anthony Housefather, focused on understanding the existing process and identifying areas for modernization, such as potentially giving CSIS and RCMP recommendations more weight in clearance decisions. No specific decisions were made during this meeting. However, the committee identified next steps, including holding another meeting on the same topic two days later. The Minister indicated that he would consider recommendations from the committee to enhance security screenings. Officials from Public Safety also noted that their department has already made changes, such as adding Internet inquiries for secret security clearances, in response to recent events.

This Canadian parliamentary committee meeting was about a proposed law (Bill C-221) that aims to help victims of violent crimes get more information about the people who harmed them, especially regarding parole decisions. The proposed law would change the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to make sure victims receive explanations for decisions about an offender's parole eligibility and review dates. Key speakers included Dr. Colin Carrie, a former Member of Parliament who has championed this proposed law for 14 years, and Ms. Lisa Freeman, a victim rights advocate whose father was murdered. Ms. Freeman shared her personal story, explaining how the current system often re-traumatizes victims by not providing clear, timely information about offenders' parole processes. She emphasized that victims are often left to fight for basic information and participation rights, feeling like they are serving a "life sentence" alongside the offender. MP Mel Arnold, the current sponsor of the proposed law, highlighted that similar measures were included in a previous government proposed law (Bill C-16) but were never put into effect, which is why this new proposed law is needed. Committee members from different political parties expressed strong support for the proposed law, recognizing it as a non-partisan issue focused on victim rights and public safety. They acknowledged the emotional toll on victims and the need for greater transparency. Representatives from the Parole Board of Canada and Correctional Service of Canada stated that they are already providing much of this information to victims and could implement the proposed changes quickly without significant issues. The committee voted to approve the proposed law with two amendments. These amendments aim to ensure that the proposed law's measures come into force within one year of receiving royal assent and to address any potential overlaps with previous legislation. The committee agreed to report the amended proposed law to the House of Commons for further consideration, marking a step forward in making these changes a reality for victims.

The Public Safety and National Security committee met to decide if they should look into Canada's security checks after a Canadian was accused of spying while working at NATO. Committee members discussed a proposal to study how Canada screens people for sensitive jobs, especially after a former Canadian government employee, Biwei Zhang, was arrested in Belgium on spying charges related to her work at NATO. Conservative committee member Dane Lloyd proposed a study with six meetings, inviting several key officials like the Minister of Public Safety and the head of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. He emphasized that while Ms. Zhang is innocent until proven guilty, the allegations raise serious concerns about Canada's security screening processes and its reputation with allies. Other Conservative members, Rhonda Kirkland and Chak Au, supported the study, highlighting the need to understand how such a situation could happen and to prevent unfair blame on the Chinese-Canadian community. Liberal committee member Anthony Housefather suggested changes to the proposal. He wanted to reduce the study to three meetings and let the committee chair and vice-chairs decide which witnesses to invite and when the meetings would happen, rather than having a fixed list and a strict start date. He felt the original proposal was too rigid and hadn't been discussed enough among all parties. After some discussion and collaboration, the committee agreed to a compromise. They decided to undertake a study with three meetings to examine Canada's security screening processes. They will invite the Minister of Public Safety and any other witnesses the committee deems appropriate. The study will begin on a priority basis when the House of Commons returns, and the committee will report its findings and recommendations.

This meeting of the Public Safety and National Security committee was about reviewing and voting on a proposed law known as C-22, which deals with lawful access to information. The committee members were in the process of going through the proposed law section by section, considering many changes proposed by different political parties. Key speakers included committee members Frank Caputo and Rhonda Kirkland from the Conservative party, and Marcus Powlowski, Jacques Ramsay, and Anthony Housefather from the Liberal party. Elizabeth May from the Green Party also spoke. Witnesses from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, Department of Justice, Department of Public Safety, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were present, though they did not speak much during this part of the meeting. Conservative members, particularly Mr. Caputo and Ms. Kirkland, expressed strong frustration and disappointment. They felt that a recent decision in the House of Commons, called a "programming motion," was forcing them to vote on many changes to the proposed law without enough time for discussion or debate. They argued this was undemocratic and prevented them from doing their job properly, especially on a proposed law that affects Canadians' privacy and civil liberties. Liberal members, like Mr. Powlowski and Mr. Housefather, countered that the opposition had wasted time in previous meetings, debating only a few changes over many hours. They felt the programming motion was necessary to move the process forward. Mr. Ramsay emphasized that judges, not committee members, should decide on certain orders related to the proposed law. Ultimately, the committee proceeded to vote on numerous clauses and amendments to the proposed law, mostly without debate, as dictated by the House motion. Many amendments proposed by opposition parties were defeated, while some government and Green Party amendments were passed. The committee eventually voted to approve the proposed law, as amended, and to report it to the House of Commons.

This meeting of the Public Safety and National Security committee focused on proposed law C-22, specifically discussing amendments to clauses 6 and 7. The committee spent a significant amount of time debating the legal standard required for obtaining subscriber information and international data requests, with a key point of contention being whether the standard should be "reasonable grounds to suspect" or "reasonable grounds to believe." Key speakers included Claude DeBellefeuille (Bloc Québécois), who proposed amendments to raise the legal standard to "reasonable grounds to believe," arguing for stronger privacy protections. Sergeant Aaron Gilkes of the RCMP and Normand Wong of the Department of Justice explained that the lower standard of "reasonable grounds to suspect" is crucial for early stages of investigations, especially given the volume and complexity of online crimes like child sexual exploitation and fraud. They emphasized that the proposed law aims to provide timely access to information, not content, and that existing tools for higher-privacy intrusions require a higher standard. Conservative committee members Connie Cody, Andrew Lawton, Jacob Mantle, and Chak Au raised concerns about privacy, the potential for systemic vulnerabilities with new interception infrastructure, and the broad definition of "electronic service provider." They questioned the government's rationale for a lower standard, citing Supreme Court cases like Spencer and Bykovets that highlight increasing privacy expectations in digital information. Liberal members Jacques Ramsay, Sima Acan, and Anthony Housefather pushed for efficiency, arguing that the opposition was delaying progress and that the proposed law's standards were appropriate and consistent with other legal frameworks. Ultimately, both Bloc Québécois amendments (BQ-5 and BQ-6), which sought to raise the legal standard and protect medical/solicitor-client information, were negatived with a vote of 6 nays to 5 yeas. Clause 6 as amended (without the proposed changes) was then agreed to with 7 yeas to 4 nays. The discussion on BQ-7, which also aimed to raise the standard for international data requests, was ongoing when the meeting was suspended due to a vote in the House of Commons.

This meeting of the Public Safety and National Security committee focused on a proposed law, Bill C-22, specifically discussing changes to how law enforcement can get information from service providers. The main discussion revolved around a subamendment to an earlier proposed change (amendment BQ-4) related to "subscriber information"—basic details like names and addresses linked to a service. Key speakers included committee members and officials from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), the Department of Justice, the Department of Public Safety, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). Mr. Housefather proposed a subamendment to clarify that judges would have more control over what specific subscriber information police could request. Justice Department official Normand Wong explained that this subamendment would make it clear that judges have the power to decide what information is appropriate, addressing concerns that the original wording of the proposed law was too broad. RCMP official Aaron Gilkes provided practical examples, explaining that police often don't know the exact terms service providers use for data. He said that if police requests are too specific, they might get incomplete information or no information at all, which can slow down or stop investigations. The subamendment aims to give police enough flexibility to get the necessary information while still ensuring a judge oversees the process. CSIS official Ramzi Nashef clarified that this specific part of the proposed law (Part 1) is mainly for law enforcement and not a tool CSIS would typically use. Committee members, particularly Tamara Kronis and Jacob Mantle, asked many questions to understand how the subamendment would work in real-life situations, balancing privacy concerns with the needs of law enforcement. They discussed how police gather evidence for crimes like fraud and how the proposed changes would affect that process. There was also a lot of debate about the pace of the committee's work and whether enough time was being given to discuss the proposed law. Ultimately, the committee voted to adopt Mr. Housefather's subamendment, and then adopted the original amendment (BQ-4) as changed by the subamendment. Shortly after, a motion was made to end the meeting, which was passed, concluding the discussion on this specific part of the proposed law.

The Public Safety and National Security committee met to discuss a proposed law, Bill C-22, which deals with how law enforcement can get access to digital information. The meeting started with the committee approving its budget. Then, the main discussion focused on how to move forward with the proposed law, especially before the summer break. Committee members debated whether to extend meeting hours to speed up the process. Key speakers included Mr. Jacques Ramsay, who wanted to finish the proposed law quickly, and Mr. Frank Caputo, who suggested splitting the proposed law into two parts. Mr. Caputo argued that Part 1, which deals with basic information, could be passed quickly with some changes, while Part 2, which is more complex, needs more discussion. Ms. Claude DeBellefeuille also raised concerns about the long hours of debate and the absence of the Privacy Commissioner, whose recommendations were being discussed. Officials from CSIS, the Department of Justice, Public Safety, and the RCMP were present to answer questions. They explained that both parts of the proposed law are important for law enforcement to address gaps in investigations, especially concerning child sexual exploitation and terrorism. They clarified that the proposed law aims to provide timely access to information, which is currently a challenge. The committee then debated a specific amendment (BQ-3) and a subamendment related to the definition of "subscriber information" and the standard for obtaining it. Mr. Jacob Mantle argued for a more specific, exhaustive list of information that could be requested, aligning with the Privacy Commissioner's recommendations. However, officials from the Department of Justice stated that a non-exhaustive list is necessary because service providers collect information in different ways. The subamendment was voted down, and then the main amendment (BQ-3) was also defeated. The discussion moved to another amendment (NDP-2) concerning the standard for obtaining information, proposing to change it from "reasonable grounds to suspect" to "reasonable grounds to believe." Law enforcement officials explained that "reasonable grounds to suspect" is needed at the very beginning of an investigation when they have limited information. They clarified that for a "confirmation of service" request, it's a simple yes-or-no question about whether a service is provided, not a request for personal details. This amendment was also defeated. The meeting ended with a subamendment to BQ-4 being introduced and then the meeting was adjourned until the next session.

The Public Safety and National Security committee met to review a proposed law, Bill C-22, which aims to update how police can access digital information during investigations. The committee went through the proposed law section by section, discussing changes (amendments) and hearing from government experts about how these changes would affect police work and people's privacy. During the meeting, committee members discussed specific parts of the proposed law. Jenny Kwan from the NDP suggested removing words that would allow police to access data "available to" a device, arguing it was too broad. However, experts from the Department of Justice and the RCMP explained that this change would make it much harder for police to find important evidence, especially with information stored online (in the "cloud"), as criminals could easily delete it. Claude DeBellefeuille from the Bloc Québécois proposed changes to add more safeguards for examining computer data and to narrow down what "subscriber information" (like names, addresses, or pseudonyms) police could get. Government officials and RCMP representatives argued that the current wording is needed to help police identify suspects, especially when criminals use fake names. They also explained that judges would still need to approve these requests, balancing the need for investigations with privacy. Committee members Frank Caputo and Rhonda Kirkland from the Conservative party raised concerns about the broadness of the definitions and the balance between police powers and privacy rights. They also pointed out that not all important public comments (briefs) had been translated for review. Ms. Kirkland tried to get the Privacy Commissioner to return to the meeting to help explain his recommendations, but this request was not approved. The committee voted on two proposed changes, both of which were rejected. The meeting ended while they were still discussing another proposed change related to subscriber information, meaning no final decision was made on that part of the law.

This parliamentary committee meeting focused on a proposed law, Bill C-22, which aims to update how law enforcement can access digital information. The main discussion revolved around concerns that the proposed law, especially Part 2, could significantly impact Canadians' privacy and cybersecurity. Key speakers from the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Constitution Foundation, OpenMedia, the Canadian Muslim Public Affairs Council, the Centre for Free Expression, and Signal all raised serious objections to the bill in its current form. Christiane Saad from the Canadian Bar Association highlighted four major issues: a lack of evidence that new powers are needed, a dramatic expansion of government access, insufficient safeguards for privacy, and potential violations of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. She suggested splitting the proposed law into two parts, with Part 1 (focused on timely access) moving forward, and Part 2 (which could require companies to build 'back doors' for surveillance) needing more debate. Alexander Surgenor from the Canadian Constitution Foundation and Matthew Hatfield from OpenMedia echoed these concerns, emphasizing that the bill could lead to widespread surveillance and create security vulnerabilities that hackers could exploit. Mr. Hatfield specifically warned that the bill goes far beyond what other allied nations have in place. Khaled Alqazzaz from the Canadian Muslim Public Public Affairs Council and Tim McSorley from the Centre for Free Expression expressed worries that the expanded surveillance powers would disproportionately affect marginalized communities and could undermine freedom of expression. Udbhav Tiwari from Signal stated that his company would rather leave the Canadian market than comply with requirements to build surveillance capabilities or collect metadata. He stressed that there is no such thing as a 'back door' that only the 'good guys' can use. Several committee members, particularly from the Conservative and Bloc Québécois parties, expressed frustration that crucial briefs from witnesses had not been translated and distributed in time for amendments to be considered. They argued that the process felt rushed and that Part 2 of the bill required much more study. Two motions were given notice: one to extend the study of Part 2 and hear more witnesses, and another to divide the bill into two separate proposed laws. The Chair ruled against a point of privilege regarding the delayed briefs, leading to further debate and a challenge to the Chair's ruling, which ultimately led to the adjournment of the meeting.

This meeting of the Public Safety and National Security committee focused on the government's spending plans for public safety, as well as discussions around a proposed law, Bill C-22, and other public safety concerns. The Minister of Public Safety, Gary Anandasangaree, presented the 2026-2027 main estimates for his department, totaling $16.7 billion. He highlighted increased funding for First Nations and Inuit policing programs, the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) to hire 1,000 new officers, and the RCMP to expand its federal policing workforce by 1,000 personnel. He also mentioned increased funding for Correctional Service of Canada and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS). Committee members raised various issues. Conservative MP Frank Caputo repeatedly questioned the Minister about extending the study of Bill C-22 and the government's refusal to release a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with China on security and intelligence sharing. The Minister stated that releasing the MOU was the Canadian government's prerogative and not subject to China's approval, though a later RCMP official contradicted this, saying third-party consent is generally sought. Liberal MP Marianne Dandurand brought up the lack of cellular connectivity in rural border areas and its impact on emergency services, and also inquired about maintaining border security services under budget constraints. Bloc Québécois MP Claude DeBellefeuille raised concerns about inadequate French language services for human trafficking victims through a federally funded hotline and unequal access to threat assessment publications in French-language colleges. Discussions around Bill C-22, a proposed law on lawful access, continued in the third hour with officials from CSIS, the Department of Justice, Public Safety, and the RCMP. Concerns were raised by committee members from all parties regarding the bill's impact on privacy, the definition of "systemic vulnerability," and the retention of metadata. Officials clarified that the bill does not allow for mass surveillance or direct access to private systems without judicial authorization, and that the intent is to modernize law enforcement tools while protecting privacy. The committee chair proposed extending the deadline for amendments to Bill C-22 and scheduling a clause-by-clause review of the proposed law for a future meeting.

The committee discussed a proposed law aimed at modernizing how police and security agencies can access digital information to fight crime, while also considering privacy concerns. The meeting began by quickly approving three budgets, but the main focus was a proposed law called "An Act Respecting Lawful Access," which seeks to update how law enforcement can get digital information for investigations. Many witnesses raised concerns about the proposed law. Marcel-Olivier Nadeau from the Quebec Bar Association argued that definitions were too broad and the legal standard for getting information was too low. Luc Lefebvre from Crypto Québec urged the committee to withdraw the law, fearing it could weaken encryption and create a permanent digital monitoring system. Philippe Dufresne, the Privacy Commissioner, suggested narrowing definitions and requiring that any obligations be "necessary and proportionate." Representatives from Apple and Google also worried about the law's potential to force companies to weaken encryption or create "back doors," and about broad, secret ministerial orders. Tamir Israel from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association highlighted the law's broad scope and lack of judicial authorization. Conversely, Mathias Van Laer from the RCMP, Commissioner Thomas Carrique from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, and Mayor Patrick Brown of Brampton strongly supported the proposed law. They stressed that modern criminals use digital tools, making it hard for police to investigate serious crimes like child exploitation and extortion. They argued the law would provide essential, modernized tools, such as faster access to basic subscriber information and metadata, which are crucial for investigations. Commissioner Carrique clarified that the law is not about broad surveillance but about effective, judicially authorized investigations. Mayor Brown shared examples of how delays in getting digital information allowed crimes to continue, emphasizing the need for this balanced approach. No immediate decisions were made, but committee members discussed potential amendments. Concerns were raised about the rushed process and the short deadline for submitting changes, especially after the Privacy Commissioner's detailed recommendations were distributed late. The Chair acknowledged these concerns and stated he would review the matter of privilege and discuss potential schedule changes after the meeting. The committee will continue its review and consider amendments to the proposed law.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security met to discuss proposed law C-22, which deals with lawful access to electronic information by law enforcement. The goal is to update laws to address modern crime, which often involves digital platforms and encryption. Key witnesses included Professor Leah West, who suggested amendments to strengthen the proposed law, particularly around subscriber information, risks to individuals in foreign countries, and cybersecurity. Police Chiefs Darcy Fleury and Myron Demkiw spoke in favor of the proposed law, highlighting how it would help them investigate crimes like drug trafficking, human trafficking, and online exploitation more efficiently. They emphasized the importance of timely access to information to protect vulnerable people, especially children. Other experts like Professors Robert Diab and Michael Geist, and lawyer David Fraser, raised concerns about the proposed law's potential impact on privacy and cybersecurity. They suggested narrowing the scope of subscriber information requests and strengthening safeguards against systemic vulnerabilities. Representatives from the Canadian Centre for Child Protection, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, and Peel Children's Aid Society also provided their perspectives on the proposed law's potential benefits and risks. The committee discussed various aspects of the proposed law, including encryption, data retention, and the balance between public safety and privacy rights. Witnesses proposed specific amendments to address concerns about overreach and potential abuses of power. The committee also heard from the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency (NSIRA) and the Intelligence Commissioner (IC) about their roles in overseeing the proposed law's implementation.

The Canadian parliamentary committee met to discuss proposed law C-22, which deals with lawful access to digital information by law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Mike McGuire from Public Safety Canada explained that the proposed law aims to update Canada's legal framework to address gaps in accessing digital information needed for investigations, while respecting privacy rights. The proposed law includes things like confirming if a telecommunications service provider has a customer with a specific phone number or IP address, getting basic subscriber information, and ensuring electronic service providers have the technical ability to respond to lawful access requests. Committee members raised concerns about the proposed law's impact on encryption and privacy. Frank Caputo, a Conservative member, questioned whether the proposed law would require companies providing encrypted communication services to create ways for the government to access that data. Shannon Hiegel from Public Safety Canada clarified that the proposed law is not intended to force companies to decrypt end-to-end encrypted communications. Sima Acan, a Liberal member, asked about the types of metadata that would be collected and how it would be used in investigations. Richard Burchill from the RCMP gave examples of how metadata, like IP addresses and time stamps, can help law enforcement in investigations. Claude DeBellefeuille, a Bloc Québécois member, questioned why the current chair of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency (NSIRA) wasn't consulted on the proposed law. She also raised concerns about the low threshold of "reasonable grounds to suspect" for obtaining information. Dane Lloyd, a Conservative member, expressed concern that the proposed law could force companies to create vulnerabilities in their systems that could be exploited by hackers. The committee also heard from Minister of Public Safety Gary Anandasangaree and Minister of Justice Sean Fraser, who defended the proposed law as necessary to keep Canadians safe in the digital age. Minister Anandasangaree stated the government is willing to work with the committee to strengthen the proposed law. He also said the proposed law is encryption-neutral and does not aim to break encryption. The committee discussed potential amendments to clarify the proposed law's impact on encryption and to define key terms like "metadata." The committee will continue its study of the proposed law and consider potential amendments.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security met to discuss Canada's process for removing foreign nationals with criminal records. Minister of Public Safety Gary Anandasangaree and Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Lena Metlege Diab explained how their departments work to keep Canadians safe by removing individuals who pose a risk. The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) reported removing over 22,500 inadmissible people in 2025, a record number. They emphasized collaboration between agencies and with international partners is key to identifying and removing threats. Much of the meeting focused on a recent case where a former senior member of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) was granted a visa to Canada, but was then stopped at the border and sent back. Committee members questioned the ministers about how this could happen, pressing them on why the individual was issued a visa in the first place, given the IRGC's designation as a terrorist organization. Ministers Diab and Anandasangaree stated they could not comment on specific cases for privacy reasons, but assured the committee that the safety and security of Canadians is always the top priority. Conservative committee members questioned whether the Minister of Immigration was briefed on the visa application. The Deputy Minister of Immigration acknowledged that mistakes happen and stated that he is accountable and motivated to tighten controls within Canada's immigration system. The committee also discussed proposed law C-12 and how it will give CBSA and law enforcement more tools to remove individuals linked to organized crime and to stop the flow of illicit drugs like fentanyl. The committee agreed to continue the discussion in a private session.