Public Safety Committee on Feb. 5th, 2026

[Andre Arbour]

That is a very substantial risk with the way this amendment is worded.

I would start by saying that order-making can only be used to protect the telecommunications system. That's how Bill C-8 is scoped. It cannot be used to order processes to further law enforcement or other matters. There's already not an ability to order the breaking of encryption under this provision. I totally appreciate that there are some civil society concerns about that possibility and that they're seeking a “for greater certainty” clause. In this case, though, it doesn't mention encryption; it's just very vague.

Given that encryption is already not permitted under the act, there's a very high risk that this would have substantial collateral damage. Sometimes replacing or fixing equipment can be done without any interruption, but sometimes you need to take a piece of hardware off-line in order to patch it or replace it. This would have that collateral damage. I believe that's why the government's G-2 amendment, which speaks specifically to the issue of encryption, focuses more on the issue at hand.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Mr. Ramsay, the floor is yours.

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

Mr. Chair, I would simply like to draw your attention to the amendment we put forward in relation to this concern that has been raised. It has the advantage of being particularly clear: The minister cannot order the decoding of a private communication that is encrypted within the meaning of section 183 of the Criminal Code. It states exactly what the witnesses wished to hear when they appeared. Therefore, I much prefer this amendment to the one currently being proposed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay.

Are there any other interventions?

Mrs. DeBellefeuille, you have the floor.

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

Mr. Chair, I am one of the members of the committee who expressed significant concerns about the issue of encryption. I understand Ms. Kwan and her concerns. Like Mr. Ramsay, I believe that amendment G‑2 accurately reflects what I wanted to avoid and what I wanted the minister to clarify. Moreover, I think the minister made a commitment when she appeared before us. I am quite pleased to see that the government has taken this into account and that it is written clearly in black and white.

I will therefore unfortunately oppose amendment NDP‑4 and instead support amendment G‑2, which addresses the same needs as Ms. Kwan's amendment regarding encryption, but more clearly, in my view.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Mrs. DeBellefeuille.

Are there any other interventions?

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

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

We're moving on to G‑2.

Does anyone want to move it?

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

Yes.

For the same reasons I just mentioned, it responds exactly to the concerns that were raised during the committee's work. It serves to reassure anyone who might think that communications could be decrypted. It's an additional safeguard that the government wished to include in the bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Mr. Lloyd, you have the floor.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Thank you.

I appreciate what the government is trying to do here, but I note that there are other amendments later on that seek to expand the definition of a private communication beyond what the Criminal Code states currently.

I wonder if the officials could answer this. There's some concern that under the Criminal Code, the definition of a private communication is not expansive and doesn't include things like metadata. If we were to pass this amendment, what would be the impact on future amendments that seek to expand the definition of a private communication beyond what the Criminal Code states?

[Andre Arbour]

The text here is specific to this provision, so it refers to just this provision specifically.

I'm sorry. I'm actually not entirely sure I understand the question.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Okay. Maybe I'll ask the analysts.

They note that later on, there are some amendments that deal with the idea of the definition of a private communication. Private communication is outlined in the Criminal Code under section 183, as it says in this, but there was some concern from witnesses that the definition is not as encompassing as it needs to be to protect the privacy of Canadians' communications. I believe there's a Green Party amendment on this as well.

I'm wondering what impact the passing of this amendment would have on future amendments that touch on the definition of a private communication as outlined in the Criminal Code.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

I will suspend for a minute, because I'm uncertain as to whether they are able to answer that on their own. I'll be back in a second.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

We are resuming the meeting.

Thank you for your patience.

There are two pieces to MP Lloyd's question. There's the procedural piece and there's the legal piece. The legal clerks are advising me, as I understood earlier, that all of these amendments, including this one, are in order, so we can and should be discussing them. If there are legal conflicts, it's up to the experts to establish whether they exist and why they exist.

Mr. Arbour, if you have something to add, the floor is yours.

[Andre Arbour]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was able to do a cross-reference with PV-3. Those have two different definitions, but there's nothing to say that for this part...at least from a policy standpoint. They both refer to the Criminal Code. A different one gets into some other issue, but the government amendment has to deal with issues around encryption and—

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

You don't think they conflict.

[Andre Arbour]

I do not think they conflict.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you.

Is there anything more on G-2?

(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We're moving to CPC-13.

Is CPC-13 being moved?

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

I will move CPC-13.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Is there any input on CPC-13?

Ms. Acan, the floor is yours.

[Sima Acan, Liberal, Oakville West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have the same concerns I had with NDP-4. I feel like it's applying exactly the same thing I mentioned with regard to NDP-4. It is affecting the government's ability to act.

I will be opposed to this. I have the same concerns.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Ms. Acan.

Are there any other interventions?

Shall CPC‑13 carry?

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

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

We're now moving on to PV‑1, which is deemed to be moved.

Ms. May, you have the floor.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

As you'll know, I want to put it on the record that the procedure—I don't know if Madam Kwan objects to the procedure—of each committee passing an identical motion makes a mockery of the idea that committees are masters of their own work. This has been how MPs belonging to parties of fewer than 12 MPs have had to work for some time since the motion was first invented by Mr. Harper's PMO. It was adopted by Mr. Trudeau's PMO and now by Mr. Carney's PMO. I need to put it on the record that we would have the right, as smaller parties, as MPs, to put individual amendments, such as we are doing here, on the floor at report stage. Those are our rights under the rules. They are denied when we have this particularly strange procedure.

I know that it may stretch credulity that I'm not thrilled that this is my opportunity to participate. I appreciate that amendments that are being carried on Bill C-8 are very close to what we want to see, having heard the witnesses and looked at the evidence from so many groups, but I'll keep my remarks brief. Your motion allows them for each member of Parliament—I'm not a member of any committee—whose motion is deemed to be before you. I find the strictures unpleasant compared with the rights we have at report stage.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Once again, I'm sorry.

The Green Party's first amendment here is to deal with the question of encryption—to bring it back to mind. Many witnesses before this committee have spoken to the notion that, particularly, we've seen a weakening in Bill C-8 of some technical safeguards, notably encryption. Witnesses, particularly the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, have pointed out that robust encryption is critical to any efforts to secure telecommunications systems. Despite this technical reality, government agencies have repeatedly failed to prioritize cybersecurity over surveillance and sought to bypass encryption.

This amendment is very clear. On page 4, after line 41, in new proposed subsection 15.2(3.1), the language remains the same except for including encryption.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Ms. May.

Is there any debate?

Go ahead, Mr. Ramsay.