Evidence of meeting #99 for Public Safety and National Security in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was information.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
5:40 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
You're just going at a breakneck speed here, Mr. Chair. I'm getting paper cuts now from moving through the clauses.
NDP-5 is very similar to NDP-2. Some colleagues around the table may want to delete “proportionate”, given that we have done that previously. It's not that I agree with that, but I certainly understand the consistency.
Again, NDP-5 comes from coalition recommendations. It would amend clause 2 by adding after line 12 on page 4 the following:
(2.1) The provisions of an order made under subsection (1) or (2) must, in scope and substance, be reasonable and proportionate to the gravity of the threat of interference, manipulation or disruption.
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Thank you.
Once again, we have no issue if you want to add “degradation” to keep it consistent, but, again, our objection to proportionality is simply the legal term. If it's a question of subamending and removing that, we are willing to accept it, or we would have to vote against the amendment.
I will move a subamendment to remove “and proportionate” and then add “degradation” after “manipulation or disruption”.
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
It would be “manipulation, disruption or degradation”.
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
5:45 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
I'm opposed in principle, but I understand the reason it's being revoked.
(Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Heath MacDonald
Shall NDP-5 as amended carry?
(Amendment as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We are on BQ-4, please.
5:45 p.m.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This amendment may seem a bit odd, but I'll explain what it entails.
It seemed like a good opportunity to move this amendment to the bill, in the part where the minister may direct a telecommunications service provider to do anything, or refrain from doing anything, that is specified and that is, in the minister's opinion, necessary to secure the Canadian telecommunications system, including against the threat of interference, manipulation or disruption.
In the event of disruptions to the system, the minister may require that a provider have a backup system to power telephone towers.
The City of Terrebonne has been in touch with us about this issue. I imagine that other cities are in the same situation. In stormy or very windy weather, cell coverage drops because the cell towers don't have a backup system. In the event of a cyber‑attack, I think that this could ensure backup power while the situation is resolved.
We hope that our colleagues will support this amendment, which could make a big difference to many people's lives.
Thank you.
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Could the officials explain to us or tell us how practical this is? I understand the importance of it, but is this something that's in the industry now? What is the impact of this compared to what is common practice?
5:45 p.m.
Director General, Strategy and Innovation Policy Sector, Department of Industry
Yes, considerations around backup power are important in the industry currently. There will be different systems of backup power at different parts of the network.
One thing that I would flag is that, while I understand the objective of the text, it could have a risk of accidentally limiting the government's authority, just because there are other parts of the telecommunications network that require backup systems or backup power. Backup power to fibre optic cables can be an issue, for instance.
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
You're saying that by limiting it to towers, we might create a problem.
Can we just say “telecommunications systems”?
5:50 p.m.
Director General, Strategy and Innovation Policy Sector, Department of Industry
Removing the reference to “power”, so that it is backup systems more broadly, and making reference to “telecommunications facilities”, as opposed to just “towers”, would solve that issue.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Thank you.
On the same point, I think we all agree with the intention, but I'm going to move a subamendment just to clarify the language, to require that telecommunications service providers use “a backup system for telecommunications facilities”.
Again, the intention there is just to clean it up, so that it's not limited to just “towers” and “power”. It's backup systems for telecommunications facilities, so it would encompass everything.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Heath MacDonald
Shall the subamendment carry?
(Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Shall BQ-4 as amended carry?
(Amendment as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We'll go to Mr. Gaheer on amendment G-4.4.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
Iqwinder Gaheer Liberal Mississauga—Malton, ON
Thank you, Chair.
This amendment is in regard to concerns from civil liberties groups that the bill could be used to target individuals. This makes it clear that the bill deals with network security and it's not for intercepting communications.
I'll just read the language of it:
(2.1) For greater certainty, despite subsection (2), the Minister is not permitted to order a telecommunications service provider to intercept a private communication or a radio-based telephone communication, as those terms are defined in section 183 of the Criminal Code.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Heath MacDonald
Is there any discussion?
Shall G-4.4 carry?
(Amendment agreed to)
We are now on BQ-5.
If BQ-5 is adopted, CPC-8 cannot be moved due to a line conflict.
Ms. Michaud.