Public Safety Committee on Feb. 10th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

That brings us to CPC‑31, but since it covers the same lines as CPC‑30, it is inadmissible.

That brings us to NDP‑11, which is deemed to be moved.

Ms. Kwan, the floor is yours.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Chair, similar to NDP-6, this amendment introduces safeguards on the government's ability to share sensitive information with other countries and foreign or international organizations. It requires that the data retention and deletion clauses be included in agreements and MOUs entered into with foreign agencies.

It also requires that these retention periods be communicated to the telecommunications providers and that personal and de-identified information be deemed confidential for the purposes of proposed section 15.7.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Madam Kwan.

Are there any interventions on NDP-11?

Mr. Ramsay.

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

We cannot vote in favour of this amendment, which actually requires the government to disclose agreements with foreign governments to telecom companies. There is a risk of disclosing ongoing international relations activities that are not for the telecommunications service providers to know.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay.

Is there any further discussion on NDP‑11?

Mr. Caputo, you have the floor.

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

Mr. Chair, perhaps the officials could help me out here. I'm trying to keep everything straight. I want to make sure that we don't have any sort of conflict between proposed subsection 15.7(3) of NDP-11 and CPC-30. It seems to me that they are essentially tackling the same thing.

Could the officials please weigh in on that?

[Andre Arbour]

Mr. Chair, indeed, there is quite a bit of overlap between NDP-11 and CPC-30, to the degree that it would likely be interpreted as a drafting error down the road, given how similar it is. That creates an issue.

The one new element in NDP-11 that's not in CPC-30 is a requirement that the government disclose to any telecom service provider that it has entered into an agreement with another state. That speaks to the concerns that Mr. Ramsay was outlining about requiring the government to keep potentially dozens of telecom service providers up to speed with basic international relations, which would be problematic.

Given that proposed section 15.7 already prohibits the government from sharing even confidential information, that personally strikes me as quite a bit of cost to the government's conduct of international relations without material benefit from a privacy standpoint, in addition to, indeed, the duplication with CPC-30.

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

Okay. Thank you.

I would leave it to Ms. Kwan to gauge her feelings on this, but because of the overlap and the official's comments, I would be prepared to vote in favour of proposed subsection 15.7(4), but that would require deletion of proposed subsection 15.7(3) in the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, MP Caputo.

Are there any other interventions?

Shall NDP-11 carry? No?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Now we're on CPC-32.

Is CPC-32 being moved?

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

Yes, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Are there any interventions on CPC-32?

Mrs. DeBellefeuille, you have the floor.

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

Based on my reading of CPC‑32, it looks to me like it's similar to BQ‑7. Do you have any notes on that, Mr. Chair? I would like that clarified. Is it identical or similar?

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

That's a great question.

I'm going to suspend for a moment so that we get the most accurate answer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

We're back.

Procedurally, CPC‑32 is admissible.

We will, however, turn to the experts from the department to answer Mrs. DeBellefeuille's question about BQ‑7 as compared to CPC‑32.

[Andre Arbour]

I think there are actually a number of conflicts.

For example, as a matter of policy, the committee adopted BQ‑5, which requires that all personal information be automatically confidential. However, CPC‑32 indicates how the government should manage personal information that is non-confidential. That would be a conflict in the bill, because all personal information would be confidential, according to BQ‑5.

There are other conflicts with the Bloc Québécois amendments regarding the management of information for sharing purposes.

In my opinion, there are a number of conflicts, but, overall, I think the committee agrees on the general principles. If CPC‑32 were to pass, there would be a conflict in the language of the bill.

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

I'm not sure I understand your explanation. You say that CPC‑32 would conflict with BQ‑5, but I was asking you if it was comparable to BQ‑7. That leaves me a bit confused.

[Andre Arbour]

There's a certain degree of conflict with BQ‑5 in terms of the concept. In the way it's drafted, CPC‑32 talks about non-confidential personal information. However, according to BQ‑5, any information that is not designated by the telecommunications service provider as confidential will automatically be considered confidential. That makes it impossible for any personal information to be non-confidential.

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

According to on your explanation, if we adopt CPC‑32, we're going to have a problem, given that we've already adopted BQ‑5.

[Andre Arbour]

That's right.

I understand the committee's intent, but there would be a conflict specifically in the wording of the text.

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

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Mrs. DeBellefeuille.

Is there any further discussion on CPC‑32?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

We'll now move on to PV‑9, which is deemed to be moved.

Ms. May, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Chair.

This is the longest amendment of the package that I've prepared, and it's because the gap is large and the risk is large.

I note that though there are no line conflicts, I appreciate that, as in other cases, a number of us are trying to get to the same end from different places. Much further in the package, BQ-12 and CPC-45 try to get at the same policy objective. The language here is carefully worked out based on briefs that were received by the committee, particularly from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Citizen Lab.

The concern—and this week, as we know, we disagree with some of the advice from our experts here at the table—is that the expansion of the Communications Security Establishment's ability to access personal data is made possible under Bill C-8. It is concerning. It is not sufficiently restricted in how personal data obtained through these provisions can be used for purposes unrelated to cybersecurity. The concern has been mentioned before about how they can be used in foreign intelligence and criminal investigations. It constitutes a significant expansion of the government's ability and capability to investigate these concerns, and the use of personal data obtained through provisions in Bill C-8 must be strictly limited to only cybersecurity provisions.

It's for those reasons that PV-9, the Green Party's ninth amendment, as you look at it, is long. It's long because it sets out in detail, in a workable format, how to ensure that the legislation functions and is clear. I won't read the whole thing, Mr. Chair, obviously, but it reads:

(1) The Communications Security Establishment shall not carry out any activity under this Act in relation to the security of the Canadian telecommunications system except in accordance with an authorization issued under subsection (2).

That is also new and in this amendment.

(2) The Minister may issue an authorization to the Communications Security Establishment that authorizes it to carry out an activity specified in the authorization only if the Minister believes on reasonable grounds that

(a) the activity is reasonable and proportionate

It goes on.

It's a very strong set of guardrails. It doesn't get in the way of cybersecurity, but it does ensure that the door that's opened by Bill C-8 doesn't lead to abuse of personal information and abuses that Canadians and so many witnesses have raised with this committee.

In case anyone's keeping track, none of my amendments have passed yet, so I'll go for the sympathy vote and see if we can get this one in.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Madam May.

I'll turn to MP Caputo first.