Public Safety Committee on Nov. 6th, 2025

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

I'm just very concerned, because part of this bill is secrecy provisions, and I'm concerned that there could be a lack of transparency. We're trying to hold telecoms and others accountable when there are these cyber-incidents, but who is holding the government to account when it has cyber-incidents that cost Canadian taxpayers millions of dollars? If the government doesn't report those incidents, we're potentially looking at Canadians not knowing the vulnerabilities in our government system.

What do you say to that, Minister?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

On a practical level, my understanding is that reporting does happen on a case-by-case basis when incidents of cybersecurity impact the privacy concerns of individuals. I do believe that there is reporting that does occur.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Mr. Lloyd.

Ms. Dandurand, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Marianne Dandurand, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for being with us.

Can you comment on some of the things we heard during the second reading of the bill? There is a Conservative member who happens to be with us, MP Strauss, who said that Bill C-8 would allow the Liberals to kick people off the Internet without a warrant. Is that correct?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

Absolutely not.

[Marianne Dandurand, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

What is this bill going to do?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

I humbly ask all colleagues on this. It's important that when we're bringing forward legislation such as this, it should not be a politicized piece of legislation. This is meant for the safety and security of all Canadians. Canadians need to have confidence in our security apparatus. They need to have confidence that all of us are working together in the best interest of Canadians.

In that vein, I would say a simplistic assertion such as that is inaccurate.

What is accurate is that, in very limited circumstances, when an individual who may have access to the Internet through a service provider has posed a risk to the safety and security of our critical infrastructure and demonstrated the type of continued behaviour that could harm our critical infrastructure and thereby many other systems, there is, in very limited scope, the ability to terminate their Internet services. It is in exceptional circumstances; it's not on a routine basis.

[Marianne Dandurand, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Thank you, Minister. It is very clear.

I would also like to go back to Bill C-26. Are there major differences between Bill C-26, which all parties voted in favour of, and the current bill?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

No, there aren't.

As you know, Bill C-26 went through both Houses, and there was a technical issue that had be corrected—

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

How is this relevant? We're talking about Bill C-8. Is that any different from the point of order that was made by the Liberals?

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

My earlier remark still stands here as well. Members have the right and the ability to ask the questions they feel are most relevant to the topic of debate, which today focuses on Bill C‑8, or any other questions that are directly or indirectly related to the bill.

Ms. Dandurand, I stopped the clock during that intervention. You may continue.

[Marianne Dandurand, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

I will ask...

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, this is not about my colleagues, but I was just made aware that during my speaking time with the minister, the microphones were not being synced properly, so my questions were not being picked up.

I'm wondering if the clerk can take a look at that, because it's concerning. If people can't hear what I have to say at committee, that impacts the testimony of this committee.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Good. That is an appropriate point of order. The technicians will look into this, and we'll come back to that in a moment, when we have clear answers.

Madame Dandurand.

[Marianne Dandurand, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Thank you, Chair.

We are talking about Bill C-8. I'm going to ask you to comment on Bill C-8 and its similarities to Bill C-26, which was presented during the last session. What are the major differences between Bill C-26 and Bill C-8, reminding you that Bill C-26 passed all the steps in both chambers?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

I'm going to ask Mr. Bilodeau to comment on this. It is essentially the same bill, with some very minor changes.

[Richard Bilodeau, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, National Cyber and Security Branch, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Thank you, Minister.

To answer your question, there was an administrative error that was corrected. The other substantive difference is because of Bill C-70, which adopted a secure administrative review procedure to allow—in the context of judicial reviews—a special process to consider confidential information and to appoint special councils to assess the intelligence that might be used in an administrative proceeding.

SARP, as we refer to it, replaced the provisions in Bill C-26 that referenced a specific process. Now SARP applies to almost all judicial reviews, as opposed to piecemeal per legislation. That was the real substantive change.

[Marianne Dandurand, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Thank you.

Minister, there are no substantial differences between Bill C-26 and Bill C-8. Bill C-26 passed with the agreement of all the other parties.

Thank you very much.

Could you explain how the government is going to ensure that the powers provided under Bill C‑8 will not be expanded beyond what is already provided for, meaning that they will not be expanded beyond private businesses?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

It's quite clear that the scope of Bill C-8 involves, first and foremost, four areas of responsibility that are primarily in the federal domain. Any additional elements that need to be added on will require a Governor in Council change that would expand the scope of the bill.

Again, due to the nature of our federal state, anything outside of the federal domain will likely be unconstitutional. Therefore, it is very narrow in scope in terms of the areas that can have the application of this particular bill.

There are a number of safeguards in place, including reporting requirements to NSIRA and NSICOP. There's a requirement for adherence to the Privacy Act. There's also recourse to the Federal Court, in some circumstances. I believe a number of different safeguards have been put in place to ensure that there's no arbitrary application to this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Minister. That’s all the time we have for this round.

Mr. Fortin, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, I don’t really see any independent accountability mechanism in Bill C-8 with respect to orders from the cabinet. Don’t you think that could have been added?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Fortin, this is, in my opinion, subject to judicial review. It doesn't end at just an order in council. It can go beyond. The decision can be reviewed by the courts.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

I understand that it’s subject to judicial review. Perhaps I wasn’t very clear, and so I’ll rephrase my question.

Generally speaking, isn’t there a basis to make sure there’s a mechanism that would hold your department accountable to an independent organization? I’m not sure what organization that would be, but that’s something that can be looked into. That said, while I’ll not go as far as to say that waiting for a citizen to apply for judicial review is negligent, I don’t think it’s very proactive. It’s possible to be more proactive and to provide a report annually or every five or two years. The details can be fleshed out.

In short, did you feel that it was not useful to include a mechanism to track these orders in the bill?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

On the reason that we have NSIRA and NSICOP, they are now fairly established entities that review—particularly around issues of national security, because in certain cases there is an element of discretion required—and report. My response, Mr. Fortin, is that this is a built-in mechanism within the act that does refer to NSICOP and NSIRA for review.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Okay, but who reports to whom?