Public Safety Committee on Feb. 10th, 2026

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

Mr. Chair, I'm mindful of the fact this is a tough question, given the length of PV-9, but Ms. May pointed out the complementary nature—potential overlap is probably a better term—of CPC-45 and PV-9.

At the end of the day, I just want to get the best language. I don't know if the officials could opine on that. It's probably for the committee to decide. Could the officials do a quick compare and contrast on whether there are implications for interpretation in one that might not be in the other?

I'm sorry. If you need a couple of minutes, I apologize. Please let us know.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

We'll suspend for a few minutes so that we get the most accurate answer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you for your patience.

The short pause gave the experts a little time to reflect upon the important question that was raised.

Do the officials have any input on this?

[Andre Arbour]

Mr. Chair, we looked at a crosswalk between this and the amendments that were mentioned. Given that they apply to different parts and fundamentally to different acts at the end of the day, the Telecommunications Act and the critical cyber systems protection act, this is a pretty complex piece of drafting, but we don't think there is a conflict there. There are many other substantial problems with this amendment. However, in terms of a conflict with the specific ones that you asked about, we don't think so.

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

Thank you. I appreciate that. I know these things don't solve themselves, and I know it takes a while to look it over, so I thank you for your timely response.

You did mention there are some issues with this. We may not agree on these, but if you're prepared to lay them out, that will inform how I vote.

[Andre Arbour]

The CSE already participates in a range of voluntary activities with ISED and with the telecommunications sector regarding the sharing of threat analysis and understanding best practices for how they can secure their networks. The team of my colleague here oversees a private sector-government working group that includes the CSE and Public Safety Canada and that sort of thing. There's already a range of activities that do exist.

The CSE is still bound by the guardrails under the CSE Act in terms of how it operates, and there is a set of oversight mechanisms that govern the CSE as it is. The CSE does not have any regulatory powers, investigatory powers or anything under the Telecommunications Act currently or under Bill C-8. However, this proposes to have the Minister of Industry take on a new oversight role of designating CSE activities in implementing certain aspects of the act and governing certain aspects of sharing information that raise quite a few substantial, practical and operational questions for us.

I also note that the committee has already adopted a range of existing protections in terms of the sharing of information, and specifically on personal information, that are much better targeted, in my opinion. If there are broader questions about the oversight of the CSE and how that would work, I think the CSE Act would be the better venue for dealing with that. Trying to work that into the Telecommunications Act and a new oversight function for the Minister of Industry seems quite complex and confusing.

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

Ms. May, I may have missed this earlier. If so, I apologize.

Obviously, this is a very nuanced amendment. I'm wondering if you could tell us about the genesis of this amendment, where it came from. Was it verbatim from somebody or a group, or was this put together from a number of different recommendations?

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

It comes from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association in their brief to committee and specifically from recommendation 5. In drafting it, we also worked with them, asking how we address the concern that's found in recommendation 5 and how we ensure that the Communications Security Establishment's ability to access this personal data is absolutely nailed down to only those purposes that Bill C-8 intends.

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

That's enough for me to vote in favour of it.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you.

MP Ramsay.

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

Mr. Chair, I just want to add to what Mr. Arbour just told us. In our view, to amend or clarify the legal activities of the Communications Security Establishment, it would be better to amend the Communications Security Establishment Act than redefine the scope of the Telecommunications Act or the powers of the Minister of Industry, who really has nothing to do with this specific field of activity.

Therefore, we will be voting against PV‑9.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay.

That brings us to a vote on PV‑9.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

That brings us to BQ‑7.

Is BQ‑7 being moved?

Go ahead, Mrs. DeBellefeuille.

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

Yes, I would like to move BQ‑7.

Basically, the amendment clarified information sharing even further to better respect privacy. It's based on recommendations from the Privacy Commissioner.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Mrs. DeBellefeuille.

Over to you, Mr. Ramsay.

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

We are in favour of pretty much most of the amendment. However, we would like to propose a subamendment, because it seems to us that there is a conflict in the retention of information, which could contravene the Telecommunications Act, and in the deletion of information, which could contravene the Privacy Act.

Therefore, we would like to remove the last five words of the amendment, “whichever retention period is shorter.”

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay.

Do we have specific enough information to provide to members of Parliament? It seems so.

Have all members understood the content of the subamendment?

By the way, we've all understood that if BQ‑7 is adopted, then CPC‑33 can't be moved, because it's identical. In fact, since we are discussing BQ‑7, we won't be able to discuss CPC‑33 in a moment.

Is there any discussion on the content of the subamendment proposed by Mr. Ramsay?

(Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

That brings us to BQ‑7 as amended.

(Amendment as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

That brings us to CPC‑34, since we're skipping CPC‑33.

Is CPC‑34 being moved?

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

If I could I just have a quick moment, my concern is that we are essentially dealing with a conflict with BQ-7, which just went forward. Could the officials confirm that, please? It looks as though we're in a bit of a conflict, though.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

As you noted, MP Caputo, we just voted on BQ-7, which was amended. Having considered BQ-7, we need to skip CPC-33, which is identical to BQ-7.

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

No, I'm talking about CPC-34. I think that CPC-34 is almost identical, except for proposed subsection 15.701(2).

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

There is a redundancy indeed with BQ-7, but it's not identical.

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

It's not identical, but it's close enough. I think we would be getting into dangerous territory. The Liberals would have to move a subamendment, and we would be dealing with conflicting legislation there.

Could I ask the officials about this? I think proposed subsection 15.701(2) is very clear. Just out of caution, does that conflict with anything we have passed so far?

[Andre Arbour]

Mr. Chair, just to make sure I am referring to the right area, we're talking about CPC-34, proposed subsection 15.701(2), “In the case where the information was provided by”....