Public Safety Committee on Feb. 24th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Good afternoon, everyone.

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 25 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

Before we continue with the clause-by-clause consideration, I ask the committee to consider the budget that the clerk sent out yesterday morning. As a reminder, the committee has already adopted a budget for the study of the proposed Bill C‑8. Unfortunately, the budget didn't cover enough meetings for this study. As a result, the budget must allocate additional funds amounting to $4,500 to pay the cost of the additional meetings.

It should be noted that this amount is an estimate and that the committee could spend less on the study. Any unspent funds for the committee will be returned to the Liaison Committee.

Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the budget?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Great. The budget is adopted.

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

I would like to welcome the witnesses, who will answer questions if necessary.

From the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, we have Richard Bilodeau, senior assistant deputy minister, national security and cybersecurity branch; and Kelly‑Anne Gibson, director, national security and cybersecurity branch.

From the Department of Industry, we have Andre Arbour, director general, telecommunications and Internet policy branch; and Wen Kwan, director general, spectrum and telecommunications sector.

From the Communications Security Establishment, we have Stephen Bolton, director general, strategic policy; and Richard Larose, principal adviser on cyber security.

As you can see, we have six witnesses with us today.

We will now move to the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.

(On clause 2)

That said, the last time, we ended the meeting on consideration of BQ‑7, which would normally take us to CPC‑36, except that there was a notice of motion on BQ‑7.1.

Will anyone move that amendment?

Mrs. DeBellefeuille, you have the floor.

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

Mr. Chair, I want to move my amendment. I am a little late in doing so, but it is still important. The amendment protects whistle-blowers from being reprimanded or accused of anything. It also aims to prevent their identity from being revealed if they disclose sensitive information to protect the public interest. This is about protecting whistle-blowers, which we may have forgotten in the analysis we're completing of the bill.

In my opinion, it's relevant to support whistle-blowers who protect our systems, and thus to protect the identity of those who provide the information. I think that makes sense. I don't know if my colleagues share my feeling that this was missing from Bill C‑8.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Mrs. DeBellefeuille.

Since this amendment has just been proposed, I'll suspend the meeting for a few minutes to give concerned members time to make sure they understand it. I'll suspend for only a few minutes. I therefore invite members to stay close to the table. We'll resume the meeting very soon.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

I call the meeting back to order.

Does anyone wish to comment on amendment BQ‑7.1?

Mr. Ramsay, you have the floor.

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

Mr. Arbour, can you comment on this new proposed amendment? You can do so in English or in French.

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

I thank the member for the question.

There are already privacy protection measures in the Privacy Act, and other protections were adopted through amendments during the study of this bill. So there are already protections in place.

There are three drafting issues with this amendment.

First, I think there's some confusion between the words “person” and “individual”. In the legal framework, “person” has a broader meaning than “individual” because a person can be incorporated as a business.

Second, there's a discussion on the impacts of the Telecommunications Act. The scope of the act is broader than that of the Department of Industry or its minister. More specifically, there are implications for the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC.

Third, we hold consultations where participants share information voluntarily and on a daily basis. In that context, it would cause a conflict. An individual could share some information during a public consultation where there are a certain number of participants, for example. However, based on the current wording, this information couldn't be communicated or published, even during a public consultation or in other situations where someone provides information.

If it's very important to find a solution, we can avoid the problem by replacing “person” by “individual”.

That's the person who provided information on their own initiative to the minister.

In the legal framework, the term “minister” refers to “the minister and the Department of Industry”.

At the end of the day, we should add a request for confidentiality and specify who requested confidentiality, because if the individual in question doesn't want confidentiality, because it's in the context of a public proceeding, there's no problem. In that case, the amendment would create a conflict within the act.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Mrs. DeBellefeuille, you have the floor.

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

The purpose of the amendment is to provide protection for whistle-blowers. You're saying they're already protected and that this may not be necessary, but you are also saying that if we want to pass the amendment, we should replace “person” by “individual”.

Is that correct?

[Andre Arbour]

Yes, so—

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

Every time the word “person” appears, it should be replaced by “individual”.

Is that what you're saying?

[Andre Arbour]

Not for the first time it appears, but where it says “the identity of a person who provided”, yes. There, it should be replaced by “individual who provided information on their own initiative to the minister to achieve the objectives…”. Also, at the end, we should add “who requested confidentiality”.

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

Mr. Chair, I appreciate Mr. Arbour's arguments. However, I can't propose an amendment to my own amendment. Now either it's amended by one of my colleagues or we vote on it. It depends on how you want to manage this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

There are a number of possible options. The first is to seek unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment and propose a new one. The second is that committee members propose an amendment to the amendment. They can do so if they wish. The third is that we vote on your amendment, either immediately or after debate.

Mr. Caputo, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was just going to suggest the UC option.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Is there unanimous consent to withdraw amendment BQ‑7.1?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

(Amendment withdrawn.)

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Since an amendment can always be proposed without notice, another motion to amend can be proposed.

Mrs. DeBellefeuille, you have the floor.

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

If the committee agrees, I would adopt Mr. Arbour's propositions of amendment to the previously proposed amendment. Therefore, I would write “the identity of an individual”, and add the part on confidentiality that was suggested.

I'm not sure if the legislative clerk understands Mr. Arbour's proposed modifications. If so and it's clear to everyone, that would be my new amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

I'm going to suspend for a few moments to make sure the legislative clerks and the clerk of the committee understand what's being proposed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

I call the meeting back to order.

We'll take Mrs. DeBellefeuille's good advice. While we wait for the correct translation of the amendment, we'll carry on with other amendments, as there are no links between BQ‑7.1 and the others.

That brings us to amendment CPC‑36, for which a notice was filed.

Do I have someone to move amendment CPC‑36?

Mr. Caputo, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I do move CPC-36. There is no requirement to state the number of times an order was made respecting confidential information.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

We will now move to the debate on amendment CPC‑36.

Mr. Ramsay, you have the floor.