Public Safety Committee on Feb. 26th, 2026

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

Perfect.

I understand that Mr. Lloyd is working with his colleague to perhaps introduce a subamendment, but I just want to be more assured.

This recommendation was proposed to us by the Privacy Commissioner. When he makes such recommendations to us, we take them seriously, since that's his specialty. So we want to make sure that all information has to be withdrawn when it's no longer needed.

I didn't understand everything you said, since you spoke in English for a little while and the interpretation wasn't working, but as I understand it, if we adopted a subamendment to add the word “and”, that would be acceptable and would achieve the objective of BQ‑13 and CPC‑47.

[Kelly-Anne Gibson]

The way it's written right now, yes, there's a conflict. However, this conflict can be resolved. The proposed rules can coexist with the act.

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

Then, Mr. Chair, I would move a subamendment to add the word “and” where Ms. Gibson indicated, to make CPC‑47 more acceptable and to achieve the objective of withdrawing personal information when it's no longer needed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

I think the legislative clerks clearly understand this subamendment, but since it's getting a little complicated, I'm going to suspend the meeting for a few minutes to make sure everyone on both sides of the room understands exactly what we're talking about.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

I call the meeting back to order.

Before the break, we were talking about CPC‑47, and Mrs. DeBellefeuille had proposed a subamendment.

Do you wish to go back to that subamendment, Mrs. DeBellefeuille?

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

Yes.

After discussion, we came up with a better solution than my subamendment, and it achieves the same objective. I will therefore ask for unanimous consent to withdraw my subamendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

That's fine.

Is there unanimous consent for Madame DeBellefeuille to withdraw her subamendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

(Subamendment withdrawn)

This brings us back to CPC-47.

Mr. Ramsay, you have the floor.

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

I will read the subamendment in English for the benefit of our colleagues, since it concerns their amendment:

Any personal information, as defined in section 3 of the Privacy Act, that is collected or obtained under this Act must be disposed of if it is no longer necessary for the purposes for which it was collected or obtained or for verifying compliance or preventing non-compliance with this Act, or in accordance with any requirement under the Privacy Act that applies to it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay.

Is the committee in agreement with this subamendment?

(Subamendment agreed to on division)

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

We'll now go to a vote on CPC‑47 as amended.

(Amendment as amended agreed to)

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

We're moving on to CPC‑48.

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

Before that, I have another amendment to move.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Okay.

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

I move that Bill C‑8, in clause 11, be amended by adding after line 24 on page 32 the following:

For greater certainty 29.1 For greater certainty, nothing in this Act affects the provisions of the Communications Security Establishment Act in relation to the protection of personal information.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay.

Is there any debate on this amendment?

Is this amendment adopted?

(Amendment agreed to)

We are moving, therefore, to CPC-48.

Is CPC-48 moved?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

I'd like to move that amendment, and I'd like to speak to it.

We're seeking to add a confidentiality requirement for anyone exercising powers under these acts. I'd like to ask the officials to weigh in on this.

Thank you.

[Colin MacSween]

Thank you for the question.

We struggled with the intent behind this provision. Our plain language reading of this is, essentially, that an individual responsible for enforcing this act would not be allowed to share the name of any person who provides information under this act, unless the law specifically requires them to do so. This would apply in any situation that could compromise a service or system vital to national security or public safety. That is our interpretation.

There are some considerations for the committee.

Most prevalent is that it could prevent regulators from clearly showing what information they relied on, including from whom, when determining non-compliance with the act. If the determination was challenged, for example, and regulators were asked to demonstrate the source of the information used, this motion would limit their ability to do so.

It could make it harder to identify sources of information, limiting decision-makers' ability to assess credibility and make fully informed decisions. It would add administrative burdens, requiring new procedures, training and legal checks to avoid unintended violations, given the uncertainty around the provision. Obviously, it would impose strict confidentiality limits, slowing information handling, delaying coordination and reducing flexibility in administering the CCSPA.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you.

If there are no further comments, is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt CPC‑48?

(Amendment negatived)

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

We're moving on to G‑6.

Mr. Ramsay, you have the floor.

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

The purpose of this amendment is to address the industry's concerns regarding personal responsibility. It reduces maximum financial exposure to a more manageable level for individuals, including senior management and other company executives, while ensuring compliance. As such, everyone should be in favour of this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay.

Mrs. DeBellefeuille, you have the floor.

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

I would like to know why the government wants to reduce it to $500,000 from the original $1 million when the bill was initially drafted. That's a big difference. I would like you to explain the reasoning behind that. Why do you want to change the penalties so dramatically?

[Kelly-Anne Gibson]

After Bill C‑26 was introduced, we had an opportunity to talk to industry stakeholders, and most of them told us they were afraid people wouldn't want to accept positions in cybersecurity. They saw it as a major problem. We took their concerns into account, and that's why we decided to reduce the amount. We put $1 million initially because we wanted to make sure that people would take cybersecurity seriously. This is a compromise between the two.