Evidence of meeting #20 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 c-8.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Marcus Powlowski Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
Okay.
Mr. Caputo suggested that, if there is time, there should be judicial oversight and a requirement to ask for a warrant beforehand. Do you know or can some of your staff tell me—because you say that all the other Five Eyes countries already have similar legislation—whether in the legislation from those other countries there is that kind of judicial oversight? Is there a requirement for a warrant before you act?
Director General, Telecommunications and Internet Policy Branch, Department of Industry
Thank you for the question.
In this particular context, where we're talking about authorities to regulate the operation of network infrastructure by the private sector, I'm not aware of any such example that exists. The circumstances where there is that type of warrant architecture exist when there is an investigative function. There's some type of either intelligence surveillance or other law enforcement surveillance that's outside the context of regulating the day-to-day operation of the networks. It's about government authorities having access to information that normally would be subject to the right to privacy.
Liberal
Marcus Powlowski Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
The kinds of cybersecurity threats where an outside source is trying to shut down your system, your transmission lines or your power stations are not normally, in other countries' legislation, subject to that kind of judicial oversight.
Director General, Telecommunications and Internet Policy Branch, Department of Industry
No, not that I'm aware of. Certainly, the court in Canada does not currently have the expertise or the capacity to consider those types of questions that get into the substantive day-to-day operation of the network infrastructure, as opposed to questions about rights or investigations.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Thank you, Mr. Powlowski.
Mrs. DeBellefeuille, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC
Minister, I have two questions for you.
The Honourable Simon Noël, the Intelligence Commissioner of Canada, made only two recommendations in relation to Bill C‑8.
First, he proposed that an independent commissioner be appointed to provide independent oversight and regulate access to and use of personal information and its dissemination.
Second, he proposed that any inspection of premises, seizure of documents or collection of private information by a superintendent be preceded by a warrant issued by a judicial authority.
The intelligence commissioner tells us that he has only two recommendations to make for the entire bill, but they are still not included. Can you explain why the intelligence commissioner’s recommendations were not considered relevant and included in the bill?
Liberal
Mélanie Joly Liberal Ahuntsic-Cartierville, QC
I have already answered your question to some extent, as it is similar to the one you asked me earlier.
We reintroduced the same bill that had been passed in the House of Commons and the Senate, which had been unanimous and represented a consensus.
That said, I understand that there have been other interpretations since then. As I said, we are prepared to consider certain amendments. We can certainly work with the intelligence commissioner primarily to protect the personal data of Canadians. The goal is not to create a new commissioner’s office infrastructure, but rather to work with the infrastructure already in place, particularly with the office of the intelligence commissioner.
With regard to—
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC
I am not very familiar with the commissioner’s specific duties, but why do you think he did not claim this responsibility and instead proposed another commission? How do you interpret this?
Liberal
Mélanie Joly Liberal Ahuntsic-Cartierville, QC
You would have to ask him that question.
Currently, my concern is different, perhaps because my previous role was closely linked to geopolitical events that sometimes led to cyber-attacks against the Government of Canada’s infrastructure or our businesses. When this kind of thing happens, things move quickly. Personally, it’s our ability to respond to situations that actually occur that worries me. Suddenly, we have to make calls to protect ourselves quickly.
Once these situations have occurred, we are managing a crisis. So we need to be able to look back and see if things were done properly and how we are adapting.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Minister, I am sorry to interrupt you.
We must move on to the next intervention.
Mr. Strauss, you have the floor for five minutes.
January 27th, 2026 / 4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Matt Strauss Conservative Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister, for being here.
You said in your opening remarks that this bill would not provide for the withholding of services to individuals. In answer to my colleague Mr. Lloyd, you said that even though the word “individual” is in the bill, going back to the definitions in the Telecommunications Act, an individual person wouldn't be included. I have with me here the definitions section of the Telecommunications Act. It defines “person” as “includes any individual”.
Are you undertaking here to change that definition so that it does not include any individual?
Liberal
Mélanie Joly Liberal Ahuntsic-Cartierville, QC
I'm willing to make sure there's even a section—if you bring in an amendment, we could definitely work with it—to make it clear that this will not have any impact on freedom of speech online or anything linked to the type of content that could be put online.
Conservative
Matt Strauss Conservative Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON
Would you remove the definition of “any individual”?
Liberal
Mélanie Joly Liberal Ahuntsic-Cartierville, QC
That was part of my answer to our colleague from the Bloc Québécois: I want to make sure we're talking only about the critical infrastructure and that it doesn't go into the connectivity part of ultimately how we are addressing what people are discussing on the Internet. That's really important, because I think it's not the role of the Minister of Industry. This is not how the government is organized. That question should be addressed by the Department of Canadian Heritage.
Conservative
Matt Strauss Conservative Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON
Okay, thank you.
The bill as it's written right now says that you would have oversight to withhold services to an individual if “any threat” to the telecommunication system arises. It doesn't say any physical threat or any structural threat; it says “any threat”. What particularly concerns me about this is that there are several internal Government of Canada documents describing misinformation and disinformation as threats to the telecommunication systems of Canada.
I'll put it to you like this: Do you and your government believe that misinformation and disinformation are threats to the integrity of the telecommunication system in Canada?
Liberal
Mélanie Joly Liberal Ahuntsic-Cartierville, QC
This is not about misinformation or disinformation. That is a question that should be asked much more in the context of anything linked to the online harms act or anything that would be much more about content. At the Department of Industry, we're not addressing these questions. It has nothing to do with it.
Conservative
Matt Strauss Conservative Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON
I hope not, but the bill that's before us says “any threat”, so are you hereby undertaking to change the language to mean any physical or structural threat?
Liberal
Mélanie Joly Liberal Ahuntsic-Cartierville, QC
The bill is clear that this is about critical infrastructure and threats to the telecommunication networks, the wires and the towers, etc. It has nothing to do with what is being discussed online. I think the last Parliament saw that clearly, and this should be clear here as well.
Conservative
Liberal
Mélanie Joly Liberal Ahuntsic-Cartierville, QC
I understand that if it's not clear enough, we can make sure there's an amendment regarding that.
Conservative
Matt Strauss Conservative Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON
Okay, that's fantastic.
In the previous Parliament, when this bill existed as Bill C-26, it was thoroughly criticized by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Constitution Foundation and the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms. I've discussed the bill with the directors of many of those organizations. None of the criticisms they made turned into amendments when that bill was passed by Parliament, and none of the Conservative amendments, as far as I can tell in the archaeology of this bill, were passed at the last committee.
It sounds like you're now expressing an openness to amendments, but none of that occurred when amendments were sought for Bill C-26 in the previous Parliament. Why the change?
Liberal
Mélanie Joly Liberal Ahuntsic-Cartierville, QC
Doug Shipley, the member for Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, said this:
Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise in the House today to speak to this important legislation on behalf of the good people of Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte. I am pleased to see Bill C-26 come forward in the House. Improving the resiliency of our critical infrastructure is of the utmost importance to our national security and the everyday safety of Canadians.
That's what your colleague said.