Public Safety Committee on Nov. 6th, 2025

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

Well, we can always rely on the Liberals to try to deflect for a minister who won't give us a date.

Mr. Chair, with all due respect, I haven't interrupted my Liberal colleagues, and I would appreciate it if they would give me the same courtesy, because we're hearing more from them than we are from the minister.

Last time at committee, Minister, when we were talking a lot about foreign nationals, we talked about 30,000 removal orders, and you said:

Mr. Caputo, there are 30,000 people who are going through the system, and they are going to be removed. They are in the queue. We know their addresses.

Now, it turns out, Minister, that there are actually 62,000—or were 62,000 people—because your officials told us there were 62,000, and you said that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

There is a point of order. Go ahead.

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

I think we’re rehashing the same issue over and over, Mr. Chair. I think we need to focus on Bill C‑8 and Bill C‑12 and take advantage of the minister’s time here. Our colleagues have been asking to have the minister appear before the committee to speak to these two bills for a long time, and yet we’re speaking to other matters. I’d like us to stay on Bill C‑8 in the first hour and on Bill C‑12 in the second hour.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

There are two issues here. The first issue is that indeed, the first hour is allocated to Bill C‑8. The second issue is that the chair cannot control the questions asked and the answers given. Members must use their best judgment to focus their statements on the agenda as much as possible.

Mr. Caputo, you have the floor.

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

If I could raise a point of order on that same point of order so that the time doesn't start, please, Bill C-12 is directly related to our strong border. The minister was here last time, and we are holding him to account for things he said. I don't know how that's irrelevant.

I've been interrupted three times in four minutes by the Liberals. I get it. They don't want the minister to speak. They don't want the minister to speak about relevant things. That's not my problem. That is the Liberals' problem. I will carry on, and I would ask that I can have that question, because I have to start it from the top again.

Minister, I asked you, of 62,000 people, you knew about 30,000, so you didn't know about where half of the people were. You said, “We know their addresses.” Do you know the addresses of the 32,000 people who are at large without warrant? Just give a yes or no, please.

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

Mr. Caputo, the numbers you're referencing are available on the CBSA website, under “Removals”. I will direct you there. There are, right now, removals in progress. There are 30,733. They're individuals we have contact with in some form or another. There are currently 32,000 who are in the area “Wanted”, whom we are seeking to remove.

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

Again, please answer my question. Do you have addresses for the 32,000 you are seeking to remove, as you told us last time? Answer yes or no.

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

We have addresses, Mr. Caputo.

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

You have addresses for the 32,000 people for whom there are warrants. Minister, the natural question is, if you have addresses for them, why aren't they being arrested right now?

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

Mr. Caputo, for questions like this, you need to give me some time to answer.

If I could elaborate, yes, we have addresses. They may not be accurate. Their veracity is up to the CBSA, and it is working to expedite the removals.

As I have indicated in the past, we're on target to remove over 20,000 people this year.

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

There are 32,000, so it should give Canadians great confidence to know that 12,000 people will be left.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

I'm sorry. That's all the time we have, Mr. Caputo. Thank you.

We're turning to MP Acan for six minutes.

[Sima Acan, Liberal, Oakville West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My questions will be based on Bill C-8, as per the agenda.

Minister, some members of the opposition have suggested that Bill C-8 could allow the government to suspend an individual's Internet access, which has understandably caused confusion and concern among Canadians. Could you clarify for the committee what powers the bill provides, and whether any provisions in Bill C-8 permit the government to restrict or cut off ordinary Canadians' Internet service?

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

To be very clear, Bill C-8 does not enable the government to cut off an individual's Internet service. There are very narrow areas where an individual user may pose an unacceptable level of risk. They may have a past record, and their continued access to the Internet could have repercussions for the safety and security of our critical infrastructure. In those very limited circumstances, there could be an order for an individual's Internet to be halted, and that is in the narrowest scope.

It does not apply to everyone; it applies to those who have a perpetual record of threats to critical infrastructure.

[Sima Acan, Liberal, Oakville West, ON]

To be absolutely clear, Minister, Bill C-8 imposes network-level security obligations on telecommunications operators, not individual users. It doesn't authorize the government to monitor personal communications or disconnect someone's Internet connection. Is that correct?

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

Yes, that's correct. We have a couple of experts here. Maybe I can turn to them for a more elaborate response.

[Andre Arbour, Director General, Telecommunications and Internet Policy Branch, Department of Industry]

The authorities under part 1 allow taking action to protect the Canadian telecommunications system, and any action that is taken needs to be “reasonable in relation to the gravity of the threat”. In the instance of disconnecting a particular system, that would be only in the circumstance where our telecommunications system is under severe threat, and any action needs to be reasonable in relation to that threat.

[Sima Acan, Liberal, Oakville West, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Arbour.

Minister, this bill is fundamentally about strengthening the infrastructure for Canadians who rely on our telecommunications network. Bill C-26, the predecessor of this legislation, passed unanimously in the House last year, because protecting Canada's telecommunications system is a shared national priority.

Could you please explain what vulnerabilities or gaps in our current framework Bill C-8 is designed to address and how it enhances the security and resilience of those networks?

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

Telecommunications is one of four sectors that are the subject of this particular bill. As you're aware, transportation and other critical infrastructure are also subjects of the bill.

Essentially, what the bill attempts to do is ensure that there are disclosure and transparency when critical infrastructure is under attack or is attacked. There is a duty to disclose the nature and the scope of the attack to one of our agencies. The bill also imposes a requirement for each critical infrastructure unit to have its own plan to address the issues around cybersecurity.

As you may know, Ms. Acan, many cybersecurity incidents go without being reported because of issues around reputation and risk to the brand name. This imposes a legal requirement for the disclosure of specific incidents that will help other parts of our critical infrastructure to take precautions and proactive action.

[Sima Acan, Liberal, Oakville West, ON]

Thank you, Minister.

One of the strengths of Bill C-8 is that it requires operators to build cybersecurity programs before an incident happens.

Under clause 9 of the critical cyber-systems protection act, organizations must proactively identify and manage risks. Could you please speak to how this forward-looking approach will help Canadians to prevent attacks instead of reacting to them afterwards?

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

Increasingly, cyber-attacks have economic impacts, and they cause issues around confidence in our critical infrastructure and around privacy, involving the datasets of so many different individuals and business clients. There is a need for every institution that has critical infrastructure to manage to proactively develop a system that will enable them to react and have a process by which disclosure takes place, along with actions to prevent and ensure not only that critical cyber-attacks do not occur, but that when they do occur, they are dealt with responsibly.

[Sima Acan, Liberal, Oakville West, ON]

Thank you very much, Minister.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Ms. Acan.

I’ll now yield the floor to Mr. Fortin for six minutes. Welcome.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for joining us today.

Your bill has raised a number of questions and concerns among Canadians. I’ll not pass judgment as to its necessity, but we’ll see that when it comes to a vote. In any event, there are some concerns.

First, I’d like to clarify something with you.

When the Privacy Commissioner of Canada testified before the committee last week, he raised some concerns and questions regarding the transmission of information as provided under the proposed new section 15.4, which section 2 of Bill C‑8 proposes to add to the Telecommunications Act. The proposed section states:

15.4 The Minister may require any person to provide to the Minister or any person designated by the Minister, within any time and subject to any conditions that the Minister may specify, any information that the Minister believes on reasonable grounds is relevant for the purpose of making…

However, the reasonable grounds have not been described. They are stated generally.

In contrast, the proposed new subsection 15.2(3) of the bill states:

(3) The provisions of an order made under subsection (1) or (2) must, in scope and substance, be reasonable in relation to the gravity of the threat…

The French version says sont raisonnables, but I’d like to note that that’s an error in translation. It should have been doivent être raisonnables to be consistent with the English version, which states “must…be reasonable” .

Beyond that and assuming this correction is made, this protection doesn’t exist under the proposed new section 15.4.

First, I’d like to know why and second, whether you have plans to make any amendments to adapt the wording in the proposed section.

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

Mr. Fortin, I've been with you in many committees where you have done an incredible amount of work to ensure consistency in both official languages, so if there are errors or omissions, we'll be more than glad to look at them.

With respect to the reasonableness standard, it is one that has been defined by the Supreme Court, and there's a fair bit of clarity in terms of what that is. For the purpose of the act, it is a standard that was defined by the Supreme Court that clarifies a law on standard review and provides guidance on the application of the reasonableness standard. The primary case is Canada v. Vavilov from 2019, and it essentially outlines the test. I don't want to go into the finer details of it, but that's the reference I would provide to you, Mr. Fortin.