Public Safety Committee on Feb. 5th, 2026

[Andre Arbour]

This isn't, with all due respect, a clarification. This would reverse the whole legal construct of this provision. The whole raison d'être is to be able to.... If we're talking about high-risk vendor equipment, it is provided by an equipment manufacturer, not a telecom service provider and not someone responsible for the security of a telecom service. They're not involved, or they may not be involved, in the day-to-day management of telecom service. If you swap that language, you completely remove the ability for the government to set parameters on contracting for supply chains.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you.

Mrs. DeBellefeuille, you have the floor.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Chair, I'd like to thank Mr. Arbour for those details. It's not easy for us to understand legal language. So I very much appreciate his clarifications.

I would also like to thank the interpreters behind me, who interpret brilliantly and who really help me follow the discussions and explanations in real time.

I would like to reiterate to everyone that having interpreters on site really improves things when we have debates where the language is very legal. I greatly appreciate the work the clerk has done to get the interpreter, as that enables me to feel like a full participant.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Mrs. DeBellefeuille, all those words are well received and welcome. Do you want to continue?

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

No. I didn't want to discuss the amendment. I had some reservations, but with the explanations Mr. Arbour provided, I will be voting against the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Okay.

Mr. Caputo, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you.

As I understand it—and I want to be sure—Mr. Arbour, you have spoken about proposed section 15.1, but our amendment also addresses proposed section 15.2, which says:

(b) direct a telecommunications service provider to suspend providing for a specified period any service to any specified person, including a telecommunications service provider.

There, we actually have a distinction, again going back to the basic principles of statutory interpretation. The words speak for themselves. If we're talking about corporate entities, that would be the telecommunications provider, would it not? Why are we delineating between “person” and “telecommunications provider” in proposed paragraph 15.2(1)(b)?

[Andre Arbour]

When it comes to the considerations of individuals for the disconnection power in proposed section 15.2, there are other ways to manage that. There is one CPC amendment, for instance, to exempt the consideration of individuals from that construct. It would do that in a way that is actually targeted towards what I'm hearing is the concern.

If CPC-4 is adopted, it would eliminate the government's ability to put restrictions on high-risk offenders.

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

Okay, that's fair enough. I understand that.

What if CPC-4 was adopted, but only insofar as paragraph (d) is concerned? Would that still pose the same risk that you mentioned?

[Andre Arbour]

Yes, because telecom service providers can be interconnected with servers, data centres or other corporations that can pose a dramatic risk to the telecom system. They are not themselves telecommunications service providers. If the concern with that further section is the application to individuals, there are much more targeted ways to address that concern, in my opinion.

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

As my last question, could this be used to target an individual?

[Andre Arbour]

I don't believe so. Individuals are not involved in the provision of any material goods and services into a supply chain. That is the business of corporations.

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

I'm not going to ask any questions, but that's where I think we disagree. I think proprietors come in all shapes and sizes—some big, some small. The assumption that people will necessarily be incorporated vendors is not an assumption I'm prepared to make.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you for that.

Is there anything more?

In that case, I would like to ask the clerk to proceed to a roll call vote.

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

It's defeated on division.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

That brings us to NDP-1, which is deemed to be moved.

I see that Madam Kwan wants to speak to it.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Bill C-8 proposes unrestricted secrecy provisions with respect to the orders the government will be able to issue to telecommunications providers and other entities. The amendment that I'm proposing would implement safeguards by limiting the grounds that justify the use of secrecy around the issuance of these orders by adopting language that is similar to that used in the Canada Evidence Act, which constrains secrecy to where it is justified on the grounds that disclosures “would be injurious to international relations or national defence or national security”.

There are two components within the amendment. I won't read them out because everybody has copies of it, but it basically incorporates that language into those respective sections.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you very much, Madam Kwan.

Is there any intervention on that?

Go ahead, Mr. Ramsay.

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, La Prairie—Atateken, QC]

We are opposed to the amendment because limiting it to defence and national security obscures a number of aspects related to the networks' technical and commercial activities.

I think the government's proposed amendments G‑1 and G‑3 are going to meet the needs in a much more appropriate and focused way than this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

I forgot to mention at the beginning that, if amendment NDP‑1 is adopted, amendments CPC‑5, CPC‑6, CPC‑15 and PV‑4 cannot be moved owing to a line conflict.

Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt amendment NDP‑1?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

That brings us to amendment CPC‑5.

Would someone like to move that amendment?

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

Yes, Mr. Chair, I will be moving CPC-5.

This is similar to the issue we discussed at length at our last meeting, which was that rather than after-the-fact review and determining what should happen and whether things were done right, we should figure it out at the time.

Consistent with this rationale is judicial authorization for a non-disclosure order. If an order is being made by a judge, it actually makes sense that the judge should be making an order for non-disclosure.

It is for that reason that I move CPC-5 and support it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Mr. Caputo.

I'm giving you my ruling on this amendment.

Bill C‑8 amends the Telecommunications Act by granting new powers to the Governor in Council to include a non-disclosure clause to an order made under section 15.1.

The amendment seeks to amend the bill by preventing the Governor in Council from including such a provision in the order, instead requiring him to make an application to the court to do so.

In the fourth edition of the book you're so familiar with, section 16.74 states that, “[an] amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill”.

I agree with that, so this amendment is out of order.

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

With respect, I will challenge the chair's decision.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

The chair's ruling has been challenged, so we will go immediately to a recorded vote on this.

(Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 5; yeas 4)