Public Safety Committee on Feb. 5th, 2026

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

This amendment seeks to introduce a number of factors that the Governor in Council must take into account before issuing a confidential order. These factors, which the minister will be required to consider, will help provide clearer parameters around the power to issue such orders.

As I mentioned earlier, Bill C‑8 contains several safeguards, but at the request of the witnesses we heard from, we added these to make things clearer. These six paragraphs clearly set out the circumstances in which an order may be made. They are the same as those already found in amendment G‑1 concerning the Governor in Council.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you.

Are there any comments?

Mr. Caputo, the floor is yours.

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

This is for the officials.

I assume this is the same situation we were dealing with before. There is a fundamental disparity between amendment C-5 and amendment G-3, in that the only reason to pass G-3, given the language in C-5, is in the event that CPC-5 is ruled out of scope by the Speaker. Is that correct?

[Andre Arbour]

Ultimately, it's up to elected officials how they wish to proceed with this type of circumstance, but yes, if you are concerned about the Conservative amendment being struck down the road, then supporting this amendment would make sure this one is in place should that eventuality occur. It is similar to what we had with G-1.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Mr. Caputo.

Are there any other interventions?

Shall G‑3 carry?

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

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

We're moving on to CPC‑16.

Would anyone like to move it?

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

Wait one moment. Could I ask the officials a question before I move this, please?

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Yes.

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

Given that there is judicial authorization, does this still need to be moved? I ask because it would allow TSPs to request judicial review. In one case, you're seeking judicial authorization in advance. In the other instance, this is requesting judicial review.

Do the officials have any comment on whether the two go hand in hand?

[Andre Arbour]

This provision is doubly duplicative, most likely. At a minimum, it's duplicative of the rights that TSPs would already have to challenge an order to the Federal Court.

Even if the authorization circumstance didn't exist, there are problems with this. When you have a provision in law, the assumption from a statutory interpretation standpoint is that it's there for a reason and that it's doing actual work. Adding something duplicative creates confusion, and you run the risk that in another provision that doesn't mention the right to appeal to the Federal Court, it could be interpreted as the drafters saying that you don't have that right in a subsequent process.

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

To be clear, it is your position, Mr. Arbour, that there is 100% a right to judicial review as the bill is drafted.

[Andre Arbour]

Yes, 100%. It's how appeals work more broadly in terms of the Federal Courts Act and subsequent—

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

That was the issue. It was the necessity of spelling it out. If you're 100% confident and we have the other issues, I will not move this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you for that clarification, MP Caputo.

That brings us to CPC-17.

Is CPC-17 being moved?

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

No. I will not move this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, MP Caputo. I shouldn't say this to someone from another party, but you are doing a very good job. It's not easy to follow the flow and coherence of all of these amendments, so well done.

This brings us to CPC-18.

Is CPC-18 being moved?

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

Yes. I would like to move this amendment, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Are there any interventions on CPC-18?

Shall CPC‑18 carry?

We'll proceed with a recorded vote.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

We are moving on to PV‑5, which is deemed to be moved.

MP May, would you like to speak to that amendment?

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

Yes, please. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Of course, under the terms of the motion the committee adopted, all of my amendments are deemed moved. Thank you for having somebody magical put them before you. Nobody else is allowed to speak to them, I suppose, so I will at this point.

I feel very strongly about this one. I note that there's a line conflict with the Conservative Party's amendment CPC-19. It's nice to be in such strong agreement with Mr. Caputo on so many amendments.

I'm quite shocked that we have legislation brought before us that so clearly will not meet the standard of section 8 of the charter. The witnesses noting this were many, but I was particularly struck by how our intelligence commissioner, the Honourable Simon Noël, spoke so clearly to this point.

This amendment attempts to redress that problem by ensuring that before the interception and production of information is compelled, there is a process of judicial review, and that such personal information can only be obtained if it is proportionate, necessary and judicially authorized.

The evidence before this committee from the intelligence commissioner was very strong. Having read and weighed the charter statement put forward by the minister.... To remind you, the intelligence commissioner said, “I haven’t seen anything in that statement that would give a justification under section 1 of the Charter.” In fact, he said, “it’s totally absent.”

PV‑5 is a little longer than the others.

We're putting forward important principles, and they need to be set out as to how the minister is constrained. The amendment reads:

The Minister must not require, under subsection (1), the provision of information relating to a person or a group of persons unless the Minister first obtains the authorization of a judge

I could go on, because it's very clearly important—

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Unfortunately, Madame May, with all due respect and the esteem I have for you, I have to, for reasons of equity—

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

Yes, I understand, but it's important, and I hope that this amendment will be adopted.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you very much, Ms. May.

I have two comments on this.

First, as Ms. May mentioned, if this amendment is adopted, amendments CPC‑19 and CPC‑20 cannot be moved because of a line conflict.

Second, the chair finds this amendment inadmissible for the following reason. The bill before us allows the minister, under section 15.4, to order that information be provided to the minister if the minister considers it relevant to establish or verify compliance with an order made under sections 15.1 and 15.2. PV‑5 would require the minister to obtain authorization from a judge to issue such an order in certain circumstances.

In the well‑known reference work, it states that “an amendment to a bill referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it goes beyond the scope and principle of the bill.” The chair therefore concludes that introducing a requirement for judicial authorization prior to issuing such orders constitutes a new concept that goes beyond the scope of the bill. Accordingly, I rule this amendment inadmissible.

Mr. Caputo, you have the floor.

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

I don't know if we can pick this up tomorrow or if this is Ms. May's last time here—when I say “tomorrow”, I mean the next meeting—but I will be challenging the chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

The chair's decision is being challenged. We will therefore proceed immediately to a recorded vote.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 5; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])