


Public Safety Committee on Feb. 10th, 2026
Evidence of meeting #23 for Public Safety and National Security in the 45th Parliament, 1st session
February 10th, 2026 / 3:40 p.m.
Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP
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 Jean-Yves Duclos
Liberal
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.