Evidence of meeting #22 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 amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Director General, Telecommunications and Internet Policy Branch, Department of Industry
It's within the Canada Gazette.
Liberal
Marcus Powlowski Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
Everyone knows about the vulnerability because it's published in writing.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Before I intervene again to recognize a member or to move to a vote, I will do what I should have done at the very beginning of the discussion on amendment CPC‑5. I want to inform you that, if amendment CPC‑5 is adopted, there would be a line conflict with amendments CPC‑6, CPC‑7 and NDP‑2, which means that those amendments could not be moved.
That said, are there any other comments?
In that case, we'll go to a recorded vote on amendment CPC‑5.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Normally, we would have to go to amendment CPC‑6, but there is a line conflict with amendement CPC‑5, which was just adopted. Therefore, we will move on to amendment NDP‑2.
I'm sorry, but we won't be discussing amendment NDP‑2, as there is a line conflict with the amendment we just adopted. That is also the case with amendement CPC‑7. As a result, we will go faster.
We'll move on to amendment G‑1.
Do I have a mover for that amendment?
February 5th, 2026 / 4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Jacques Ramsay Liberal La Prairie—Atateken, QC
The amendment seeks to introduce a set of factors that the Governor in Council must take into account before making an order confidential. These factors are set out in paragraphs (a) through (f) of subsection (3.1).
(a) the extent to which the disclosure could, in the Governor in Council’s opinion, compromise the objective of the order; (b) the necessity of including such a provision in light of the nature of the threat; (c) the possibility of limiting the scope of the prohibition; (d) the impact of non-disclosure on the principles of transparency and accountability of the Government of Canada; (e) any representations made by the affected telecommunications service providers; and (f) any other factor that the Governor in Council considers relevant.
This way, the amendment lays out what we think is fundamental to the bill, specifically in paragraph (a). It also reflects the significance of the threat, specifically in paragraph (b).
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC
Thank you.
I'm going to ask the officials about something. This is a bit of a mishmash. The reason there is no line conflict is that this is a new provision.
Given what we have decided in CPC-2 and CPC-5 and that this talks about the Governor in Council, in order to keep the language clear.... I'm not asking for your opinion on prudence, but just from a technical standpoint.... We've talked about judicial authorization. Now we're back to talking about the Governor in Council. In order to be clear given what has passed, should this not say “judge” or “justice” where it says “Governor in Council”?
Director General, Telecommunications and Internet Policy Branch, Department of Industry
Given that CPC-5 was carried, for G-1, while there is not a line conflict, there is at minimum a tension between them. G-1 is probably unnecessary in this context because there's already the judicial authorization piece with different criteria. That was carried as part of CPC-5.
Technically speaking, factors that the GIC would consider in recommending or suggesting that an order be confidential don't need to be the same thick criteria that a judge would consider in approving it, and there is overlap in those considerations. G-1 was more of an alternative to CPC-5, even if there's not a line conflict.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
I believe there is a little uncertainty. The legislative clerk may want to have a little time to investigate this and might seek some guidance from outside. I'll suspend for a couple of minutes.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
I call the meeting back to order.
We're at amendment G‑1, which is procedurally in order, as it doesn't conflict with any of the amendments that have already been adopted.
Do any members want to comment on amendment G‑1?
Mrs. DeBellefeuille, you have the floor.
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I don't know to whom to put this question. When we did the clause-by-clause study of Bill C‑12, your rulings were challenged two or three times, and the amendments were adopted. Then, at report stage, the Speaker of the House rejected the amendments we had adopted. I fear that it will happen again.
So I will vote in favour of amendment G‑1. If the Speaker of the House happens to reject amendment CPC‑5, I want to make sure that we will still retain amendment G‑1, which I consider to be very important.
Therefore, I would encourage my colleagues to adopt amendment G‑1 to give us the very important tools proposed in that amendment.
Liberal
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC
Thanks, Chair.
I want to build on what Madame DeBellefeuille just asked. I'm trying to think of a time when this has happened. I haven't been here as long as others. I know that Ms. May is very knowledgeable about procedure, as are others.
If an amendment is ruled out of scope by the Speaker, it doesn't then come back here. The bill is just as is with that excised. Is that accurate?
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC
Okay.
If I understand Madame DeBellefeuille, she's saying that if that happens, G-1 will not be in the bill if we do not agree with the amendment, which leaves what is essentially a hole. I think that's her point.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Well said.
Are there any more interventions?
In that case, we will proceed to the vote.
Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt amendment G‑1?
(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
We're moving on to amendment BQ‑2.
Do I have a mover for amendment BQ‑2?
Mrs. DeBellefeuille, you have the floor.
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We want to amend the text so that, when making an order, the Governor in Council must take into account not only its effect on the provision of telecommunications services in Canada, but also the confidentiality and security of telecommunications.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Does anyone want to comment on amendment BQ‑2?
Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt amendment BQ‑2?
(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
We'll now go to amendment NDP‑3, which is deemed moved.
Ms. Kwan, the floor is yours.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
This is amendment NDP-3. As it stands, the broad information collection powers under proposed sections 15.1 and 15.2 could be used to undermine the privacy of Canadians, including the security of their communications.
This amendment proposes stronger privacy protection by requiring the Governor in Council and the Minister of Industry to consider the effect on privacy and the security of communications of orders issued under proposed sections 15.1 and 15.2.
I note that this amendment is similar to BQ-2, BQ-3, CPC-8 and CPC-9. Hopefully, it will pass.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Thank you, Ms. Kwan.
Do any members wish to speak to this amendment?
Mr. Ramsay, go ahead.
Liberal
Jacques Ramsay Liberal La Prairie—Atateken, QC
Given that we have different wording in other amendments, we prefer the other amendments, especially since amendment BQ‑2 has already been adopted.
Therefore, we will be voting against this amendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay.
Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt amendment NDP‑3?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
We'll move on to amendment BQ‑3.
Could someone move amendment BQ‑3?
Mrs. DeBellefeuille, you have the floor.