Evidence of meeting #21 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 telecommunications.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay.
I was just going to ask if, based on what you have mentioned, Mr. Chair.... I believe it was amendment BQ-1. Was BQ-1 the one you referenced?
If we were to amend BQ-1 by stating, “the gravity of that material threat”, would the amendment then accord with CPC-3? I don't want to scuttle Madame DeBellefeuille's amendment when it's just one word that would be changed.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
We can check on that. It will require a little time.
Again, what we know now is that if we adopt CPC-3, which we may do, BQ-1 cannot be voted on.
Let me suspend for a couple of minutes to check on your question, MP Caputo.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
I call the meeting back to order.
As you know, we're debating amendment CPC‑3. I already said that the adoption of this amendment would mean that amendment BQ‑1 couldn't be moved because of a line conflict. I don't think that this decision has been challenged. It's more of a warning than a decision.
I'll now open the floor to debate.
Mr. Ramsay, you have the floor.
February 3rd, 2026 / 5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Jacques Ramsay Liberal La Prairie—Atateken, QC
Mr. Chair, we're debating amendment CPC‑3.
In our view, this amendment is largely unnecessary. It raises the risk of limiting the scope of threats that the proposed orders could address. This could limit the government's flexibility to deal with what we might call new technological advances or cyber‑threats that would be defined later and that are currently unknown.
In our view, the bill is already narrowly focused on the security of telecommunications systems alone. The legislation doesn't allow the Governor in Council or the minister to use the proposed powers to address broader national security threats or challenges. This legislation isn't meant to focus on national security issues.
In addition, the proposed amendment includes the addition of the qualifier “importante” to the word “menace”. It isn't clear how this could be interpreted. Some threats are potential, but they nevertheless warrant mitigation. So we won't be supporting this choice of the word “important”, which remains difficult to interpret.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay.
I'll give the floor to Mr. Caputo. Then it's Ms. Kirkland's turn.
Then it's Madame DeBellefeuille.
You can start, MP Caputo.
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC
Okay. I'll be quite brief here. I would like to answer Mr. Ramsay's points about materiality. I respectfully disagree, and here's why.
We talked about potential threats. Right now, the bill says “any threat”. That would probably include a potential threat. What we're saying—and I think we would all agree around this table—is that a threat must be substantial enough that the government can act. The concern we have is that, in order to prevent any abuse of power.... I'm not trying to impute nefarious motives to anybody. The whole point is to say that, when the government is going to act, it must have reason to act.
I think that's a sentiment we all share around this table. Now, we may disagree on whether the word “material” encapsulates this. Usually, the word “material” in law means “important”, “substantial” or something like that. If the government is only going to act when it should be acting, the word “material” is quite important. When we get to “any threat”, it's much more confusing because “any threat” is so subjective. Who sees what as a threat?
That's why I prefer the term “material”, but I'll allow any of my other colleagues to intervene.
Thank you.
Liberal
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC
Mr. Chair, I would like a clarification.
When we compare the English and French versions of the amendment, the French version clearly states “menace importante”, but the English version says “material threat”. I don't see the word “important”. I'm wondering whether there was a translation error. That's my first question. I want to try to determine whether this English phrase means the same thing as it does in French. We know that words matter in a bill. I just want to check so that Mr. Caputo can say that we're talking about the same thing.
That said, I think that amendment BQ‑1 is more complete. I'll be voting for amendment CPC‑3. I believe that amendment BQ‑1 is more relevant and complete. However, I would appreciate an answer to my question about the translation.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
I'll invite the officials to respond.
I may have misunderstood you, Mrs. DeBellefeuille, but if amendment CPC‑3 were adopted, we couldn't—
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC
I wanted to give Mr. Caputo a chance, because the English and French don't match. However, I'll definitely be voting against amendment CPC‑3.
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC
That may be. Thank you for paying attention.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
I don't want to do your job, because you do it very well. However, I wanted to make sure that we all understood.
Would the officials like to answer Mrs. DeBellefeuille's question?
Director General, Telecommunications and Internet Policy Branch, Department of Industry
The word “important” in French could be compared to the word “material” in English. Both words aren't necessarily very precise in context. They remain vague, especially in view of the other provision stating that an order must be reasonable in relation to the threat in question.
Conservative
Matt Strauss Conservative Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON
Thank you, Chair.
It seems that we're struggling for the right word, but I have perceived, over the last couple of meetings I've attended, that there's some amount of consensus, including with Minister Joly when she attended, that the intent—I take it on good faith—of the legislation is to regulate the structure of the telecommunications system. The words “any threat”, to me, would include the content. When I proposed to Minister Joly that an amendment be made to use words like “physical” or “structural” or “infrastructural”, she expressed agreement with that proposition at that time.
If you don't like the word “material”, I guess I would put it to all of the members here to come up with some sort of word that drives at the civil liberties concern. My fear is that, as it's written right now, a leftist government could view conservatism online as a threat, and a conservative government could view leftism online as a threat.
I would ask members to look at it from that perspective. I just want some safeguard in place. I'm not a lawyer and I'm not a telecommunications regulator, but if on team Canada here we could find some word to allay this concern, which the minister said she shared with me, I would appreciate that.
Mr. Arbour, do you have any suggestions for words that way?
Director General, Telecommunications and Internet Policy Branch, Department of Industry
Part of my hesitation, given the existing language in the bill, is just, again, trying to think through what would be useful to add without being confusing. I'm at a bit of a loss at the moment, to be perfectly clear.
Conservative
Matt Strauss Conservative Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON
That's fine. I did spring it on you at the last minute.
Director General, Telecommunications and Internet Policy Branch, Department of Industry
In terms of the comments you made about the way the telecom act is scoped for targeting infrastructure, it doesn't get into the same detail in this, because we're talking about amendments as opposed to the act as a whole. That is indeed already the scope of the act. You can read the Supreme Court's Capital Cities case from 2003 or the ISP reference case from 2012.
Telecommunications in the modern world touches pretty much any activity that exists in Canada. If someone is engaged in online commerce, like Rogers, which has a banking activity, that is subject to the Bank Act. It's not subject to the Telecommunications Act just because it happens to be online. The Telecommunications Act is specifically about the physical transmission between equipment. That is the definition of “telecommunications” in the Telecommunications Act. That's what it speaks to.
In the ISP reference case I mentioned, the Supreme Court got into what it means, for instance, to be a broadcaster engaging in expressive speech versus what it means to be a telecommunications operator. There, the ruling was quite clear: When you're just providing the raw transmission, you're acting as a neutral conduit. That's just the focus of the bill and the infrastructure there. Certainly, the amendment that was adopted this evening added for greater certainty that expressive speech cannot be controlled.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Thank you.
I have other MPs on the list, but if they withdraw their names.... I see Madame Acan specifically.
If there are no more interventions, we can vote on CPC-3. Otherwise, we will adjourn.
Liberal
Liberal
Sima Acan Liberal Oakville West, ON
Thank you.
In the technical field of cybersecurity, I think this amendment could be considered dangerous for some reasons. One reason is that it would prevent proactive defence. I would be very happy if the experts could speak to that briefly before we move on.
Effective cybersecurity relies on identifying and mitigating near misses and the smaller technical threats before they escalate into a national crisis. If the law is restricted to only material threats, which I read as significant, the government could be legally barred from acting against early-stage vulnerabilities. I think it's important. We need to act against early-stage vulnerabilities that have not yet caused immeasurable harm. A material threshold might even prevent the government from addressing a major attack targeting a single service provider if the attack is not yet considered material to the entire Canadian telecommunications system. By forcing the government to wait until the threat is significant, in using the word “material”, this amendment effectively prioritizes reactive measures over proactive protection.
Could you please briefly talk about near misses and how important it is to detect them before they become material threats? Thank you.
Director General, Telecommunications and Internet Policy Branch, Department of Industry
Yes, a lot of the regulatory activities that would be considered are very routine. It's about good hygiene, so it's about, for instance, how frequently you're patching your systems and that type of thing.
In that context, it's just unclear how “material” would be interpreted. I would say it's possible that it ends up being interpreted in an expansive way, but it's unclear to me, at least, if that would be the case.