Public Safety Committee on Feb. 10th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Good afternoon, everyone. I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 23 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

Pursuant to the House order of October 3, 2025, we're meeting on our study of Bill C‑8, an act respecting cyber security, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments to other acts.

I would now like to welcome the witnesses, whom we know very well and who will answer questions, if needed.

From the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, we have Colin MacSween and Kelly‑Anne Gibson.

From the Department of Industry, we have Andre Arbour and Wen Kwan.

Other senior officials are seated in the room and can potentially move to the table if their presence is deemed necessary.

We will now resume the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C‑8.

(On clause 2)

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

You will probably remember that, last time, we had reached consideration of amendment CPC‑19.

Is amendment CPC‑19 being moved?

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

One moment, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

I'll give the member time to find amendment CPC‑19, on which notice was given.

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

I will not be moving CPC-19. I intend to move CPC-21 instead.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

We will not be moving CPC-19, which brings us to amendment CPC-20.

Is CPC-20 being moved?

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

Yes, Mr. Chair. I would like to move CPC-20, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Would you like to speak to it?

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

I don't at this point. I think we have done a fair amount of talking. I think we know generally where the lines have been drawn, and I will leave it to you. If there are other interventions, I am happy to respond.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Is there any discussion on CPC-20?

Go ahead, MP Ramsay.

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

I feel that this amendment would strongly reduce the power to collect information, so I'd like to verify with Mr. Arbour if he's of that opinion.

[Andre Arbour, Director General, Telecommunications and Internet Policy Branch, Department of Industry]

Mr. Chair, the concerns with respect to this amendment concern this switch from collecting information that is relevant to an order-making activity to necessary. Then there's also a lack of clarity, potentially, and some risk of confusion. The core issue appears to be the difference between “necessary” and “relevant”.

The issue here is that there is information that is highly relevant to an order-making activity, but it's highly debatable whether it would be necessary, for example, information from the private sector on the costs of implementing an order to undertake a reasonable cost-benefit analysis of how to calibrate the order. Arguably, that is not, strictly speaking, necessary to proceed, but it is certainly relevant to whether and how an order should be calibrated.

The issue of the risk of lack of precision is due to the language around gravity of the threat. Another reason for collecting information in this context would be to verify compliance. By taking the gravity-of-the-threat language out of the order-making and putting it into information collection, it's unclear what threat we're talking about here. Is it the threat of non-compliance? Is it the threat for the reason of the order to begin with?

I'll stop there. Hopefully, that's clear, but I'm happy to go further as needed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

MP Caputo, go ahead.

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

Thank you.

I thank the officials and welcome them back. It's our third day, and I know they have a lot on their plate, so we are very grateful for their presence here.

One of the reasons I will be voting in favour of this amendment, given the foregoing, is when we do have ambiguity, when it's like, “Well, this may be necessary.” I think that's part of the issue. Canadians write to me when there is ambiguity and when there is concern because something may not be necessary, but if it may not be necessary, it may also be necessary. Therefore, any clarification we can give is something which should animate our discussions and our votes.

It is for that reason that I will be voting for this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Mr. Caputo.

Is there anyone else?

In that case, we will move to a vote on whether CPC-20 will be adopted.

We will proceed with a roll call vote, Mr. Clerk.

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

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

We'll now go to NDP‑5, which is deemed moved.

Ms. Kwan, would you like to speak to it?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The rationale behind NDP-5, is that Bill C-8 grants the minister broad powers to compel the production of any information considered on reasonable grounds to be relevant to the exercise or enforcement of the minister's powers under part 1 of the bill. This could allow the government to order companies to hand over the personal and confidential data of Canadians without a judicial warrant or other independent oversight. As the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, amongst others, has pointed out, this “falls short of the constitutional minimum”.

This amendment requires the government to obtain prior judicial authorization from the Federal Court before it can compel a telecommunications provider to disclose personal or de-identified information so that this section of Bill C-8 can meet the minimum protection against the government interfering with individuals' reasonable expectation of privacy under section 8 of the charter.

Mr. Chair, I would note that this amendment is identical to CPC-21.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

Let me give you the following ruling.

Bill C‑8 amends the Telecommunications Act to allow the minister, under proposed section 15.4, to require the provision of information that he or she considers relevant to establish or verify compliance with an order under proposed sections 15.1 and 15.2. The proposed amendment would require the minister to obtain the authorization of a judge to make such an order under certain circumstances.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, fourth edition, states the following in section 16.74: “An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.” In the chair's opinion, introducing judicial authorization prior to orders is indeed a new concept that is beyond the scope of the bill. Therefore, the amendment is out of order.

Mr. Caputo, you have the floor.

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

With the greatest of respect, Chair, I would challenge your decision, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Mr. Caputo.

That brings us to an immediate vote.

Mr. Clerk, would you please proceed to a roll call vote.

(Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 5; yeas 4)

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

That brings us to debating this amendment.

Is there any discussion?

Mrs. DeBellefeuille, you have the floor.

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

I just wanted to ask for a little clarification, Mr. Chair.

Before your ruling was overturned, you ruled NDP‑5 out of order. In my mind, and I think Ms. Kwan said this as well, NDP‑5 and CPC‑21 were similar. However, you didn't say at the outset that there was a line conflict.

Do you see them as two different amendments?

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

That's a great question.

They're very similar, but they're not the same word for word.

Mr. Ramsay, you have the floor.

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

I just want to remind everyone that the word “person” used in proposed subsections (2), (3) and (4) refers to either a person or an organization that provides telecommunications services. As a result, this proposal would even prevent the collection of information from telecommunications companies.

Now, I have two questions for the witnesses.

First, as I understand it, this amendment would be out of step with existing regulatory regimes in several sectors. I'd like to hear from the experts on this.

Second, I'd like to know if you feel that any other approaches or amendments that have been proposed would better fulfill this role than amendment NDP‑5.

[Andre Arbour]

The wording of the provision currently proposed in Bill C‑8 is based on a provision in the Telecommunications Act that's been in force since the 1990s, so for several decades. It's very similar. There's another provision in the Radiocommunication Act that is, again, very similar. There are several similar provisions in insurance industry legislation, in the banking context, in the health context, in drug regulations, for example, or in the transportation sector. Access to private sector information is very important for a targeted regulatory regime focused on implementing and operating networks or operations in the private sector. So, without this type of provision, part I would perhaps be useless.

The proposal to require judicial authorization has never been put forward to date in the federal context. It's completely new.

In addition, the proposal introduces the context of rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but for businesses, yes, because relevant information is information from operating companies or financial companies. That is what has constituted relevant information in recent decades for general questions. I'm not necessarily talking about security, but about what has existed in the Telecommunications Act and the Radiocommunication Act for decades.

I would like to add another clarification. The comments refer to the concept of “person”, but again, I think there's some confusion between the day-to-day usage of “person” and its usage in a legal context. In the legislative context, for example in the context of the Telecommunications Act, a person can be a corporation, meaning a business.

So, if the proposed provision were included in the act, it would be more or less impossible to carry out part I effectively, given the evolution of technology, which is constantly changing.

The committee has already adopted authorization processes that would add perhaps months, maybe even a few years, to the order-making process. If this proposal were adopted, it would add even more months to the process. In addition, it would increase the paperwork and make it harder for each business that would have to apply it. It would be very difficult.

There may be one last thing to consider. Of course, there are other proposals, including the Bloc Québécois amendments BQ‑6 and BQ‑7, which I think are much more specific on the issue of protecting personal information, rather than introducing protections for Bell Canada or Rogers that would undermine the government's ability to apply measures to protect Canadians.