Public Safety Committee on Feb. 26th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

I call this meeting to order.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Welcome to meeting number 26 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

You may have noticed that the meeting adjournment time has been extended to 7:30 p.m. It's to allow us to sit until later than 5:30 p.m., should we need to, so we can finish the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C‑8.

Pursuant to the House of Commons order of reference of October 3, 2025, the committee is meeting on 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 we're fortunate to have with us today and who will be able to answer questions, if necessary.

First, from the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, we have Colin MacSween, director general, and Kelly-Anne Gibson, director.

From the Department of Industry, we have Andre Arbour, director general, and David Gibson, director.

Finally, from the Communications Security Establishment, we have Stephen Bolton, director general, and Richard Larose, principal adviser on cyber security.

We will now resume our clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. As you recall, the last time we met, on Tuesday, we were at the proposed new clause 17, because we had reserved clause 11 for future consideration. We'll start, then, with the proposed new clause 17. We had an amendment moved for this one, BQ‑15, and Mr. Ramsay moved a subamendment, which was unfortunately not in order. Therefore, we're back to BQ‑15, and I understand, Mr. Ramsay, that you'd like to move a subamendment.

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

Mr. Chair, we intend to vote in favour of BQ‑15, provided that the words “of Industry” are removed from the wording of section 17(1), after the word “Minister”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

It's a fairly simple subamendment to understand. It would no longer refer to the Minister of Industry, but to the Minister, period.

Is there a will to have greater clarity on what this subamendment would do to amendment BQ-15? Before we debate it, is there any need to specify or any value in specifying more clearly the nature of that subamendment?

MP Lloyd.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

I'm wondering who is responsible if we don't state the minister responsible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Let's check on that with the experts. Would anyone like to speak to that?

Monsieur MacSween.

[Colin MacSween, Director General, National Cyber Security Directorate, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Thank you very much for the question, Mr. Chair.

Should the bill receive royal assent, the Minister of Public Safety would be responsible for the CCSPA, and the Minister of Industry would be responsible for the Telecommunications Act. As you know, currently the Minister of Public Safety is the sponsor of the bill as a whole, but should it receive royal assent, those would be their responsibilities.

It's part of the reason why the amendment is suggested. It could be interpreted to mean that the responsible minister would be responsible for reviewing their specific piece of the legislation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Is there any further input on this subamendment?

Shall the subamendment carry?

(Subamendment agreed to)

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

We'll therefore go back to BQ‑15 as amended.

Mr. Lloyd, the floor is yours.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

I'd like to move forward with my subamendment.

I hope I have the indulgence of the committee, because it has been amended to remove the reference to the Minister of Industry. My amendment was using some of the old language.

The spirit of my amendment is to change the language. This has been sent around, so everyone has it. Too often, we've seen in previous legislation that we've put in review clauses—I think of the NSICOP Act as an example—but reviews don't take place at the statutory five-year review period, and I think it's been several years overdue.

What I'm seeking to do with this amendment is create what I think is a broad and flexible requirement that within five years of this bill coming into force, the minister responsible must complete a review of the legislation, and then within 90 days of the completion of that review—so 90 days from the maximum of five years—the minister must complete a report on that review. The subamendment then goes on to what the regular amendment was, which is that within 15 days of the completion of the report, it be tabled in the House.

I think this creates firm accountability because, as worded, it's not clear to me that the minister would ever actually have to table any report. They would undertake to do a report and a review, but there would be no actual statutory requirement for that report to ever be tabled in the House.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Just for clarity, is that a subamendment to BQ-15 or a different amendment?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

It's an amendment to BQ-15.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

It's a subamendment to BQ-15. Has this been communicated to the legislative clerk?

I have a question. As you pointed out first, and you were very good in doing so, since this comes after the subamendment, which was voted on positively, there's a question of whether we would include “of Industry” or “responsible”. Would you—

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

I consent to removing that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

I'll pause for 15 seconds—don't go anywhere—and we'll make sure that everyone is on the same page.

The subamendment is what MP Lloyd pointed to, except that it would read, “the minister must complete a review” as opposed to “the Minister of Industry must complete a review”. Is everyone on the same page? Good.

That leads us to possibly discussing the subamendment to BQ-15. Is there debate on that? No.

Shall the subamendment carry?

(Subamendment agreed to)

That takes us back to BQ‑15 as amended for a second time.

Since no one seems to have anything to say about BQ‑15 as amended, shall it carry?

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

(On clause 11)

That means we can go back to clause 11, which was reserved last week and which we're now going to consider.

You will recall that BQ‑9 had been moved for clause 11. If BQ‑9 is adopted, then CPC‑40, which could come next, cannot be moved due to a line conflict. Also, if BQ‑9 or CPC‑40 are adopted, they would amend the definition of so-called confidential information, which is mentioned later in BQ‑10 and BQ‑13. BQ‑10 and BQ‑13 can only be moved as long as BQ‑9 or CPC‑40 is adopted, since there is a correlation. So it's a bit complex, but those who understand subamendments will follow me a little better. This is just to let you know that the vote on BQ‑9 has an impact on CPC‑40 due to a line conflict, and on us being able to debate BQ‑10 and BQ‑13.

That said, is there debate on BQ-9?

Madame DeBellefeuille, go ahead.

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

I don't wish to move BQ‑9 anymore. I wish to withdraw it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Okay. The amendment was moved last Tuesday. Unanimous consent is therefore required to withdraw it.

Is it the will of the committee that Mrs. DeBellefeuille withdraw BQ‑9?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

(Amendment withdrawn)

That brings us to CPC‑40.

Is CPC-40 being moved?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

I'll move CPC-40.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, MP Lloyd.

Is there debate on CPC-40?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

I'd like to ask the officials if they can give their reflection on CPC-40.

[Colin MacSween]

In part 2 of the act, one of the challenges that occur with CPC-40 is that it creates significant confusion as to the way personal information would be administered under the act. This arises from the commingling of the definition of personal information with confidential information.

I'm happy to give you an example here. Personal information under the Privacy Act is accessible by Canadians. There's a requirement to retain that personal information for two years. Canadians can request that information, can seek to correct that information and can seek recourse based on that information.

The confusion here arises because that information would now need to be treated as confidential, so it creates an interpretive question: If somebody requested that information under the Privacy Act, what would happen in that case? Would we need to keep it confidential, or could it be disclosed?

What exacerbates this challenge is that, in part 2 of the act, we have several organizations administering this act—not just Public Safety but regulators as well—so it certainly, at a minimum, creates a risk of conflict with the Privacy Act.

There's also a potential challenge in the administration of the act. If personal information has to remain confidential, there is a question as to how that could be interpreted when a regulator tries to exercise their regulatory power.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

I appreciate that. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, MP Lloyd.

Thank you, Mr. MacSween.

Is there any further input?

Mr. Ramsay, go ahead.

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

I'd just like to say that, in view of what's been said and in order to avoid this confusion, we will submit another amendment later—if this one doesn't go through, of course.

We will vote against this amendment.