Public Safety Committee on Feb. 10th, 2026

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

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

There is no unanimous consent, which brings us back to the discussion on NDP‑7.

Are there any other interventions?

Mrs. DeBellefeuille, you have the floor.

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

I just want to hear from the officials on this amendment. I'm going to support it, because I think it's a very valid amendment, but I would still like to know if the officials have any reservations.

Just before you begin your answer, Mr. Arbour, I would like to point something out.

Mr. Chair, there was a pause while we were waiting for the translation of a subamendment. I'll tell you what I understand, Mr. Chair, and I'd like you to confirm whether it's the case. This may be more of a point of order. Did we drop the subamendment because the translation was slow in coming? Is there a problem with the translation bureau? Is our work slowed down because the bureau isn't able to translate a subamendment quickly? What happened the whole time we waited? What is the problem? I'd like you to let me know, because it's a huge concern for me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

I'll answer your question first. Then, if I understand correctly, you would like the experts to comment on another issue.

Obviously, it always takes some time to do a translation, but I can assure you that, in this case, the problem was not the translation, but rather the consistency between the subamendment and the amendment. At first glance, the legislative clerks believed, after a quick analysis, that the subamendment was compatible with the amendment. Therefore, it was sent to the translation bureau for translation. Then, elsewhere, it was found that the subamendment was not compatible with the amendment. That is why the subamendment is not currently being discussed and why we are discussing NDP‑7.

Mr. Arbour, you have the floor.

[Andre Arbour]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In both CPC‑22 and NDP‑7, the language is very similar to the current text of the bill. The proposed changes would not have a very significant impact on the work we are doing. They might make the criteria for sharing confidential information a little bit stricter than they are in the current wording, but it's not a very big difference.

I would like to add that, in this context, when we talk about private sector information, from what I've seen in my career, members of Parliament and civil society are usually the ones who want access to this type of information. It might be a good idea to ask officials questions about why the government isn't going to disclose the information in the interest of transparency. It's a very small comment to consider before making the decision. Overall, the difference is very small.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you.

Is there any further debate?

Shall NDP‑7 carry?

Is it carried on division?

We will have a recorded vote, since there is some uncertainty as to who is in favour of the amendment and who is not.

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

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

We'll now move on to CPC‑23.

Is CPC‑23 being moved?

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

Mr. Chair, I will move CPC-23.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Mr. Caputo.

Shall CPC-23 be adopted?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Is CPC-24 being moved?

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

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

That brings us to NDP-8, which is deemed moved.

Madam Kwan.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Chair, I want to thank the committee members for passing my last amendment.

On this one, proposed paragraph 15.5(4)(b) allows for the disclosure of confidential information with the consent of the person who designated the information as confidential. Telecommunications providers should not be able to consent on behalf of their customers to the sharing of personal or de-identified information. The amendment therefore ensures clearer limits on the sharing of personal information by requiring that consent be obtained from the person to whom the information relates, rather than a third party, before that information can be disclosed to other government agencies.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

Since NDP‑8 has been moved, CPC‑25 cannot be moved, as they are identical.

We'll now discuss NDP‑8.

Is there any discussion?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

We'll now move on to CPC‑26.

Is CPC‑26 being moved?

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

Yes, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Are there any interventions on CPC-26?

MP Ramsay, go ahead.

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

We are against this amendment.

We think that this will greatly limit the ability to intervene in behaviours that are legal but could nonetheless put the telecommunications system at risk. The purpose of the bill is to minimize the risks to the telecommunications system, not to determine whether behaviours are legal or not. We're talking about risks to the telecommunications system. These could include network configuration practices that are deficient or negligent. These are not necessarily illegal behaviours, but they are still dangerous for the telecommunications system.

I'd like the expert, Mr. Arbour, to comment on that.

[Andre Arbour]

Yes, of course.

The proposal would pose major problems for the implementation of the bill. Many of the activities related to network operations, such as the frequency of software updates or the type of equipment used in the network, are not illegal under the Criminal Code, but can, of course, pose very significant risks to the security of our infrastructure. There were, for example, issues with Rogers in 2022 and other problems in the operation of telecommunications networks for Canadians.

There would be enormous risks if this amendment were adopted.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay.

Is there any further debate?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

We'll now move on to PV‑8, which is deemed to be moved.

Ms. May, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's a very simple, straightforward element. It's just a straightforward change.

If you're looking at proposed subsection 15.6(1), you'll see that it is just as straightforward: “Despite section 15.5, to the extent that is necessary for any purpose”.

Based on the evidence of a number of witnesses, we propose changing “that is necessary” to “that they believe on reasonable grounds is necessary”.

It's another protection against extending the reach of this ability to invade privacy through Internet service providers and make sure that the disclosure of information is only guided by the demand that they believe, on reasonable grounds, that it's necessary.

I hope that you find amendment PV-8 acceptable.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you.

Before I turn to you, Mr. Caputo, let me inform you that, if this amendment is adopted, CPC‑27 and NDP‑9 cannot be moved owing to a line conflict.

Mr. Caputo, you have the floor.

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

Mr. Chair, with the greatest of respect for the leader of the Green Party, I prefer the wording in CPC-27. I don't take issue with the rationale behind it. That is the only reason why I'll be voting against this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Mr. Caputo.

Is there any further debate?

(Amendment negatived)