Bill C-75 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,
(a) modernize and clarify interim release provisions to simplify the forms of release that may be imposed on an accused, incorporate a principle of restraint and require that particular attention be given to the circumstances of Aboriginal accused and accused from vulnerable populations when making interim release decisions, and provide more onerous interim release requirements for offences involving violence against an intimate partner;
(b) provide for a judicial referral hearing to deal with administration of justice offences involving a failure to comply with conditions of release or failure to appear as required;
(c) abolish peremptory challenges of jurors, modify the process of challenging a juror for cause so that a judge makes the determination of whether a ground of challenge is true, and allow a judge to direct that a juror stand by for reasons of maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice;
(d) increase the maximum term of imprisonment for repeat offences involving intimate partner violence and provide that abuse of an intimate partner is an aggravating factor on sentencing;
(e) restrict the availability of a preliminary inquiry to offences punishable by imprisonment for a term of 14 years or more and strengthen the justice’s powers to limit the issues explored and witnesses to be heard at the inquiry;
(f) hybridize most indictable offences punishable by a maximum penalty of 10 years or less, increase the default maximum penalty to two years less a day of imprisonment for summary conviction offences and extend the limitation period for summary conviction offences to 12 months;
(g) remove the requirement for judicial endorsement for the execution of certain out-of-province warrants and authorizations, expand judicial case management powers, allow receiving routine police evidence in writing, consolidate provisions relating to the powers of the Attorney General and allow increased use of technology to facilitate remote attendance by any person in a proceeding;
(h) re-enact the victim surcharge regime and provide the court with the discretion to waive a victim surcharge if the court is satisfied that the victim surcharge would cause the offender undue hardship or would be disproportionate to the gravity of the offence or the degree of responsibility of the offender; and
(i) remove passages and repeal provisions that have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada, repeal section 159 of the Act and provide that no person shall be convicted of any historical offence of a sexual nature unless the act that constitutes the offence would constitute an offence under the Criminal Code if it were committed on the day on which the charge was laid.
The enactment also amends the Youth Criminal Justice Act in order to reduce delays within the youth criminal justice system and enhance the effectiveness of that system with respect to administration of justice offences. For those purposes, the enactment amends that Act to, among other things,
(a) set out principles intended to encourage the use of extrajudicial measures and judicial reviews as alternatives to the laying of charges for administration of justice offences;
(b) set out requirements for imposing conditions on a young person’s release order or as part of a sentence;
(c) limit the circumstances in which a custodial sentence may be imposed for an administration of justice offence;
(d) remove the requirement for the Attorney General to determine whether to seek an adult sentence in certain circumstances; and
(e) remove the power of a youth justice court to make an order to lift the ban on publication in the case of a young person who receives a youth sentence for a violent offence, as well as the requirement to determine whether to make such an order.
Finally, the enactment amends among other Acts An Act to amend the Criminal Code (exploitation and trafficking in persons) so that certain sections of that Act can come into force on different days and also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.

[Bronwyn Eyre]

Yes, I would.

In that case, I believe, the letter was—if you like—spearheaded by Premier Ford, although, as I said, it was signed by every premier. It followed on the tragic death we referenced of the Ontario Provincial Police officer. Everyone acknowledged that was a particularly tragic symbol and reality of the bail situation in the country. I think the sense, in writing that letter, and also among ministers who went to Ottawa 10 days ago, is that, if the bail system isn't broken, it's getting close to being broken.

Bill C-75 in 2019, which is obviously relatively recent, was something that swung the pendulum too far. There needs to be a correction. Of course, everyone understands the underpinnings of the presumption of innocence, the reasons for bail and issues around remand and overpopulation. All those things are top of mind and of concern.

I think it's fair to say the ministers felt—and the premiers in penning their letter—that particularly around Bill C-75 and the “principle of restraint” language that it codified.... The language is very clear that it codifies. Tragically, in the case of the Ontario Provincial Police officer, dealing pre-that with the bail release, some of those precise sections arose and had to be grappled with by the judge. We know, in this case, there was a pretty tragic outcome.

[Bronwyn Eyre, Minister of Justice and Attorney General, Government of Saskatchewan]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you very much for graciously accommodating me this afternoon.

First, I would like to say that I was certainly very pleased to participate on behalf of Saskatchewan, with my colleague Minister Tell, in the federal-provincial-territorial meeting on bail reform 10 days ago, chaired by Minister Lametti and Minister Mendicino.

As Saskatchewan, we were pleased to hear federal Justice Minister Lametti announce a commitment to “move forward quickly on targeted reforms to the Criminal Code on bail”. We are also pleased that he called his commitment the result of “good faith collaboration by all levels of government to address the needs posed by repeat violent offenders.”

Certainly, we agree. The bail system, specifically around repeat violent offenders—let's be very clear about that—is in need of reform. As we know, the primary purposes of bail are maintaining public safety and public confidence, and these risk being undermined. Only one-third of Canadians now have confidence in our criminal courts. Police chiefs across the country are calling for reform. Sheriffs are being deployed to cities' downtowns. Provinces are having to devote and deploy additional resources to community safety. States of emergency are on the rise on reserves in Canada.

There is no question that social disorder and crime are on the rise. Of course, we have seen some tragic deaths—a number of people have referenced that of Ontario provincial police officer Pierzchala—over the past few months. In that case, as we know, the judge had serious concerns about release, and about which it's been written that even a bleeding heart could turn to stone considering some of the offences that had previously been committed in that case by that offender.

What's known as “catch and release” bail is part of a broader problem. The numbers point to that. In Saskatchewan in 2021, according to data from Statistics Canada, there were 15,274 incidents of bail violations. This is a 9% increase over the number of bail violations in 2020, which was 14,000, and a 30% increase from the number of bail violations in 2018.

Saskatchewan has expressed concerns with federal Bill C-75 passed in 2019, which established a principle of restraint that favours release on bail “at the earliest reasonable opportunity and on the least onerous conditions”.

At the FPT 10 days ago, I challenged these provisions in Bill C-75 and put forward potential amendments to the Criminal Code that would hold repeat violent offenders accountable, improve public safety and restore Canadians' confidence in the justice system.

Also, leading up to the most recent ministers meeting, Saskatchewan, with Manitoba, called on the federal government to expand reverse onus provisions in bail for crimes using knives and bear spray. As well, all Canadian premiers leading up to the FPT, including Saskatchewan, called for reverse onus on bail for those charged with violent gun crimes, as well as a broader review and bail reform. Certainly, provinces were united going into the recent ministers meeting that it is time to correct the balance.

As I referenced, Saskatchewan proposed a number of specific changes creating reverse onuses on bail for repeat violent offenders, strengthening language around the importance of community safety and requiring judges to provide written consideration of the impacts to public safety when releasing violent offenders on bail.

Our specific proposals, which were also provided to Minister Lametti at the FPT, include the following as they relate to Bill C-75 and section 493.1 of the Criminal Code.

We proposed changing the wording as follows. After “In making a decision under this Part,” we would add, “firstly taking into account the need for public safety,” and then carry on with “a peace officer, justice or judge shall give consideration”, removing the word “primary”. Then, after “to the release of the accused”, we would continue with the wording.

We also proposed changes to subsection 515(10) that there be included an express reference to “use of weapons and repeat violent offences, with or without a weapon, as grounds for consideration of detention”.

Finally, on reverse onus, we proposed, first, that a new reverse onus be created for weapons offences and a new reverse onus that targets violent offenders who have previously been convicted of a violent offence, with or without a weapon. Second, we proposed that the tertiary ground be amended, in subparagraph 515(10)(c)(iii), to include the use of “any weapon” as grounds for consideration of detention. Third, we proposed codifying the definition of weapons “prohibition order” to include a clause in a release order.

Fourth, and finally, we proposed requiring judges, when releasing someone accused of violence or weapons, to make a statement on the impact to community safety and consideration towards victims.

I'll leave it there, Mr. Chair.

[Tom Stamatakis]

From my perspective, police officers are using that tool. We are exercising those authorities more frequently now than ever before, but we're talking about a type of offender who's different from what I've made submissions on. I accept my friend's submissions with respect to being careful not to create situations where people lose their jobs or that have a significant impact, but that's not what I'm talking about here. We're talking about repeat violent offenders who have demonstrated over and over again that they have no regard for public safety, whether we're talking about police officers or Canadians, and they're being released. We need to do something different.

I'm not going to sit here and suggest that I have all the answers, but if we came up with a definition, for example, maybe we could deal with the issue that comes up out of Bill C-75, for example, where for administration of justice offences there is no record for that. A judge, in fact, dealing with a person who repeatedly breaches conditions may not know that person has repeatedly done that over and over again. I don't know.

All I'm saying is let's create some kind of better guidance for the people who are dealing with these difficult cases so that we are targeting the right people, those repeat violent offenders, not someone who has made a mistake or has not demonstrated a complete disregard for public safety or the rule of law in this country. That's the point I'm making.

Can we come up with something, for example, where a judge would be informed with respect to the impact on victims and those kinds of things? I can give many examples. We've talked about the police officers who were killed in the last number of months, but how about the police officers who were shot? How about the co-workers who are affected? How about the dispatcher or the communications operator who is never going to come back to work because of feelings of guilt, and all of the other ramifications of dealing with those issues.

It's not just with respect to police. What about those people who are dispatching when citizens are killed or seriously harmed? There is a huge impact, and we have to get ahead of it somehow.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

I imagine there must be more habeus corpus applications in connection with that, given the steady increase in delays in getting bail hearings.

Thanks to the former Bill C‑75, police officers have more flexibility in terms of release. Is this tool being used properly? Professor Myers recommended that police officers be given more resources to make better use of it. That would also take some pressure off the justice system.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.

Justice and Human Rights

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-75 was introduced four years ago. One of its stated purposes was to reduce the number of indigenous people in our criminal justice system and in our prisons. However, our correctional investigator, Dr. Zinger, said in his latest report that the number is going in the wrong direction, particularly for indigenous women. Could my colleague comment on that?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a Friday afternoon, and my friend from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke has brought forward a very important conversation today.

I do not really want to get into a political debate, but I want to put on the record that the member and the party opposite have consistently spoken out against Bill C-75, which in many ways addresses the issue of gender-based violence. Many provisions were brought in that were not available in protecting victims, so I find it a little disingenuous when the party opposite starts going into a political discussion on timing of an appointment, where the real issues are addressed in Criminal Code amendments we have brought forward as a government, which they continuously criticize, demean and in fact misinform the public on.

[Danardo S. Jones]

Indeed. We know from the social science data that police officers engage in racial profiling. At this point in time, that's not a very controversial statement to make. What that results in is an over-prosecution of racialized people, of indigenous and black people.

When these people are in bail court, as I said earlier, because of how we read risk and how risk is kind of inscribed on bodies, these people, whether it is the Crown's onus or it's a reverse onus, are seen as less likely to adhere to whatever bail condition they have received than someone not in their position. We have certain narratives around who is more trustworthy. That is the threshold for evidence in a bail hearing—credible and trustworthy evidence. Some people, because of certain racial narratives, as I said, are deemed to be more credible and more trustworthy. We're talking about not just the accused person but also any sureties they may rely on.

There's a profound issue with how risk is understood and how we read risk on particular bodies. This is where that race sensitivity or awareness or consciousness comes into play. Is that something you can legislate? Not necessarily. As I said, I think Bill C-75 gave us some language, but it is incumbent on Crowns and defence lawyers and JPs and judges to start taking notice of some of these racial realities on the ground and incorporating them into their decision-making.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

You talked about the impact of former Bill C‑75 on access to bail. I'd like to hear your views on the impact the elimination of mandatory minimum sentences had or didn't have on access to bail. Did it change anything, for instance, how judges assess the seriousness of the offence?

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you for that.

Can you describe what Bill C-75 did, in your experience, and the impact it had on the bail system?

[Markita Kaulius, President, Families For Justice]

Thank you very much for inviting me to be here today.

On December 27, 2022, the killing of an Ontario Provincial Police officer brought renewed scrutiny to Canada's bail system. Before the shooting death of Constable Greg Pierzchala in Ontario, the 25-year-old suspect, Randall McKenzie, was wanted by police for missing an August court date. He was accused of assault, and he faced a number of weapons charges. A judge issued a warrant for Mr. McKenzie's arrest when he failed to show up for a court date.

Mr. McKenzie had a previous lifetime firearms ban after being convicted for a 2017 armed robbery. He spent much of his nearly three-year sentence in maximum security for allegedly stabbing another inmate. While out on bail for charges of assaulting another police officer and illegally possessing a handgun, Randall McKenzie is now facing a charge of first-degree murder in the death of Constable Pierzchala.

There have been six police officers killed across Canada in the line of duty in the last few months. The Canadian public and several police agencies have great concern and are demanding new bail reforms.

On January 13, 2023, premiers across Canada issued a call to action, strongly asking the federal government to take immediate action to strengthen Canada's bail reforms. The call for bail reforms is supported by several police agencies. In addition, you have millions of Canadians who are asking for bail reforms and demanding tougher sentencing laws in Canada. We believe the rights of the accused are being prioritized over the rights of victims and public safety.

The criminal justice system fundamentally needs to keep anyone who poses a dangerous threat to public safety off the streets. This starts with meaningful changes to the Criminal Code, an area solely within the federal government's jurisdiction.

Most Canadians feel that enough is enough. We cannot allow the deaths of police officers or innocent people to go unchallenged. As elected government officials, it is a priority to review the judicial and public safety frameworks, commit to fully understanding the best remedies, identify what isn't working and call for change to ensure that this does not continue. Everything should be on the table, from bail to sentencing to a growing, chronic shortage of police officers.

In B.C. recently, statistics show that 200 people accounted for more than 11,000 police files in just one year. Our police agencies also flagged a significant increase in the number of offenders routinely breaching conditions without consequence while out on bail and failing to appear in court without any consequences.

The urgent call for stronger bail conditions, stricter consequences and sentencing, as well as stronger consideration for maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice in bail and charge assessment policies, is long overdue.

In B.C., since 2017, there's been a 118% increase in the amount of time the province takes to review files it receives from the police, and a 75% increase in the rate of the BC Prosecution Service choosing to not charge suspects on police file cases.

We have a criminal justice system that is not working, and it hasn't been working for years. Most Canadians, when asked to consider our criminal justice system, refer to the system as a joke, based on the lack of appropriate sentences handed down for serious crimes, and these sentences are based on previous court precedents. These include impaired driving cases, stalking, domestic violence and homicide cases.

Bill C-75, a federal bill passed in 2019, was designed in part to modernize and streamline bail procedures. However, it is inadvertently causing more repeat offenders to end up on the streets. We now see easy catch-and-release bail policies that make it easier to get bail, and we seem to have a revolving door at the courthouse.

In Canada, the accused who have been arrested—who have a long rap sheet for previous offences or violent crimes, or who are prolific offenders who continue to commit crimes knowing not much will happen to them in court—are being released again and again, and are being given a minimal sentence, if any at all.

Canadians believe that if convicted, a person should stay behind bars [Technical difficulty—Editor] to the public. Ensuring the safety and security of victims and witnesses should be an essential part of the decision-making process in release procedures.

We would like to see a legislative bill for reform that gives more weight to those whom we deem as chronic offenders, those who have demonstrated a repeat pattern of violent behaviour, behaviours with firearms and the actions caused by involvement due to being impaired by alcohol or drugs. Previous criminal history should play a large part in determining if bail is granted.

On behalf of all victims of crime, I call upon this justice and human rights committee and the federal government of Canada to make the needed changes to strengthen Canada's bail reforms to ensure public safety for all Canadians.

Thank you.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

I'll go back to Ms. Coyle.

In terms of conditions being imposed, Bill C-75 was supposed to create this better link that Dr. Myers referred to between the conditions and the offences and the reasons for detention.

Do you find that's what's actually happening on the ground, or are we still having blanket abstinence conditions imposed on people who have addiction problems, setting them up to fail? Is that still happening?

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

I'm sorry, Jennifer. I just don't have very much time, but I have lots of questions.

I want to go to Dr. Nicole Myers. When we're talking about the reverse onus of C-75, do you support the reverse onus when it comes to those who have been sexually exploited and trafficked and suffered domestic violence? What are your thoughts on that, if you don't mind sharing?

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Thanks.

Jennifer, I just want to ask, because you're speaking about this. In Bill C-75, we're talking about reverse onus. You've talked about this police officer showing that they're good, and they have to have this reverse onus proving that they're not going to do it again. Are we hearing the exact opposite, though, from what you're talking about with this police officer and other people within our own community?

[Dr. Nicole Myers, Associate Professor, Department of Sociology, Queen’s University, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for the invitation to speak with you today.

My name is Dr. Nicole Myers. I'm an associate professor at Queen's University. I've been studying issues around bail and pretrial detention for almost 20 years.

Following a tragic event, it is understandable that people, especially the police, are upset and concerned about what's happened and would like to find a way to make sure it does not happen again in the future. I agree that our bail system merits review and attention.

While a tragic incident may be what motivates a critical review of the law and the operation of the system, systematic empirical data needs to be what informs our conclusions about the system and the directions for change. When we think about bail, we must be mindful of the foundational principles of the criminal justice system and the rights enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including the presumption of innocence and the right to reasonable bail.

The Supreme Court of Canada has emphasized that restraint must be exercised in the bail decision, with the starting position being that accused are to be unconditionally released. To hold people accountable for their actions and to sanction and punish behaviour, we must first convict people of the offence for which they've been charged.

What do we know? We know that Canadian crime rates, including violent crime rates, continue to be at historic lows. However, the bail decision in Canada has become generally more restrictive and more risk-averse over time. For example, in Canada the number of people in pretrial detention has exceeded the number of people convicted and sentenced to provincial custody since 2005-06. In 2021-22, 70.5% of the provincial jail population across Canada was in pretrial detention. The rate at which we use pretrial detention has more than doubled in the last 40 years, and the number of people in pretrial has quadrupled in this time.

Given the rate, number and proportions of people in remand, it is clear that Canada is not lenient when it comes to pretrial detention. Many people are serving time before they have been found guilty.

One of the biggest difficulties we face is that there is no accurate, reliable way to predict who is going to go on to commit crimes in general or serious violent offences in particular. Our criminal justice system cannot and should not be expected to identify, address and eliminate all future risks. Any attempts to predict risk are both unreliable and discriminatory, especially against indigenous people, Black people and other racialized communities.

The law already provides mechanisms to keep people in pretrial custody where appropriate, including for reasons of public safety.

Keeping people in pretrial detention removes them from the community and may provide some short-term public safety. This protection, however, is temporary and is undermined by longer-term negative public safety outcomes.

Custody is not only incredibly expensive; it is also criminogenic. Even short periods of time in custody make it more, not less, likely that someone will commit further offences in the future.

The specific proposal to create more reverse-onus provisions is not an effective way to achieve the objective of enhancing public safety. Reverse-onus provisions are problematic and unnecessary, as they fail to acknowledge the inequality of power and resources between an accused and the state. When a person's liberty is at stake, the state ought to bear the onus of demonstrating that detention is justified, rather than an accused person bearing the onus of demonstrating why they ought to be released.

If the risk of an accused is significant, the Crown will make these submissions to the court, and an accused can be detained; if they are released they will be subject to conditions and monitoring in the community. It is a slippery slope to pursue, making the system more restrictive when our provincial jails are already full of legally innocent people. Tightening the bail system and increasing our reliance on pretrial detention will have discriminatory outcomes on the most marginalized, the most over-policed and the most disproportionately incarcerated in society, compounding disadvantage, having the opposite of our intended effect of making the communities less rather than more safe.

The best way forward is through a thorough and principled review of the law that brings together justice system actors and community stakeholders to consider the purposes of bail and how to best balance rights with public safety. We might consider that rather than making amendments to section 515 of the Criminal Code, we step back and reconceptualize and fully replace the law on bail, with recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions in mind, explicitly outlining principles, objectives and directions for how decision-makers are to exercise their discretion.

We should set up and encourage the police to use their powers of release, including judicial referral hearings that were created by Bill C-75. Having fewer minor matters starting in bail court will give the courts more time and resources to focus on those that are more risky or more serious.

We should improve efficiency and case processing, including access to justice. More funding for legal aid will help reduce the number of people who are held in custody as well as the amount of time that people are detained or subject to conditions in the community. We might think about developing specific, principled hurdles to detention.

The crisis in our bail system is not one of an overly lenient or lax system. What happened is undoubtedly tragic. Allegations of violence, especially repeat violence, are concerning. There are opportunities for reflection and change. The question, however, is one of priority. Are we more interested in short-term or long-term public safety? I encourage everyone to uphold the principled purposes and limits of the criminal law by prioritizing the latter.

Thank you.

Telecommunications Act

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this House on behalf of the people of my riding of Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan.

The safety and security of our nation is of paramount importance, and I understand the need to enhance the safety and security of Canadians, both here at home and abroad. This would include many of our international corporations, which are large contributors to our economic base, and of course our own government institutions and interests. Having the opportunity to speak to cybersecurity in Canada gives us an opportunity to enhance or increase our country's ability to protect us from cyber-threats.

A significant concern for all Canadians is security. This concern has increased in recent times, as we see the rise in organized crime and gang-related offences, which have gone up 92%. The question I ask myself when I see this increase is this: Will the Liberal government be led by evidence and act on the evidence that has been reported?

Cybersecurity is extremely important for our nation to protect itself from inside and outside threats. I welcome Bill C-26, but I do have some concerns pertaining to the success of the bill, and one concern is about accountability. This is a question that we in opposition bring up every day in this House and regularly.

Bill C-26 is essentially divided into two different parts. The first part is to amend the Telecommunications Act to promote the security of the Canadian telecommunications system, adding security as a policy objective; to bring the telecommunications sector in line with other infrastructure sectors; and to secure Canada's telecommunications system and prohibit the use of products and services provided by specific telecommunications service providers. This amendment would enforce the ban on Huawei Technologies and ZTE from Canada's 5G infrastructure and would remove or terminate 4G equipment by the year 2027. What stands out to me, which has been a concern, is the time that it took the government to react to enforce the ban on Huawei.

The second portion of this bill is to enact the critical cyber systems protection act, or CCSPA, designed to protect critical cyber systems and “systems that are vital to national security or public safety and that are delivered or operated...within the legislative authority of Parliament.” As a report by Norton Rose Fulbright notes, the purpose of the CCSPA is, first, to “[e]nsure the identification and effective management of any cybersecurity risks, including risks associated with supply chains and using third-party products and services”; second, to “[p]rotect critical cyber systems from being compromised”; third, to “[e]nsure the proper detection of cybersecurity incidents”; and finally, to “[m]inimize the impacts of any cybersecurity incidents on critical cyber systems.”

The impacts of this bill would be far-reaching, and here are the things that need to be considered when this bill is in place. The government would have the power to receive, review, assess and even intervene in cyber-compliance and operational situations within critical industries in Canada; to make mandatory cybersecurity programs for critical industries; and to enforce regulations through regulatory and legal enforcement, with potential financial penalties. With this in place, the Governor in Council and the Minister of Industry would be afforded additional powers.

As the report notes:

If any cybersecurity risks associated with the operator’s supply chain or its use of third-party products and services are identified, the operator must take reasonable steps to mitigate those risks. While the Act doesn’t give any indication of what kind of steps will be required from operators, such steps may be prescribed by the regulations [at committee].

It goes on:

The Act also addresses cybersecurity incidents, which are defined as incidents, including acts, omissions or circumstances, that interfere or could interfere with the continuity or security of vital services and systems, or the confidentiality, integrity or availability of the critical cyber systems touching upon these vital services and systems. No indication is given as to what would constitute interference under the Act. In the event of a cybersecurity incident, a designated operator must immediately report the incident to the CSE and the appropriate regulator. At present, the Act does not prescribe any timeline or give other indication as to how “immediately” should be interpreted.

Some deficiencies in Bill C-26, as it is presently drafted, can be listed as follows:

The breadth of what the government might order a telecommunications provider to do is not sufficiently bounded.

The secrecy and confidentiality provisions imposed on telecommunications providers threaten to establish a class of secret law and regulations.

There is a potential for excessive information sharing within the federal government and with international partners.

The costs associated with compliance with reforms may endanger the viability of smaller providers.

The vague drafting language means that the full contours of the legislation cannot be assessed.

There exists no recognition of privacy or other charter-protected rights as a counterbalance to the proposed security requirements, nor are appropriate accountability or transparency requirements imposed on the government.

Should these recommendations or ones derived from them not be taken up, the government could be creating legislation that would require the public and telecommunications providers to simply trust that it knows what it is doing and that its actions are in the best interests of everyone.

Is it reaching the right decision to say that no need exists for broader public discussion concerning the kinds of protections that should be in place to protect the cybersecurity of Canada's telecommunications and networks? The government could amend its legislation to ensure its activities conform with Canada's democratic values and norms, as well as transparency and accountability.

If the government is truly focused on security for Canadians, should we not start by reviewing the gang and organized crime evidence showing that our present policies have failed? Should we not look at safety and security in our bail reform to protect innocent Canadians who become victims?

If Bill C-26 is a step in protecting Canada from cybersecurity threats, what is the review process to ensure compliance? What is the review process to ensure effectiveness and goals are met when we look at Bill C-75 regarding bail reform? The NDP-Liberal government is not interested in reviewing bail reform even though the evidence clearly shows that Bill C-75 failed.

Cybersecurity is important to our country's security, as are the victims of crime after their safety and security are violated. I am deeply concerned that the government is struggling with evidence-based information to review Bill C-26, as Bill C-75 and Bill C-5 are not supported by evidence. In fact, offenders and criminals are a higher priority than their victims are. My concern is if Bill C-26 requires amendment or review.

Bill C-26 proposes compliance measures intended to protect cybersecurity in sectors that are deemed vital to Canadian security. Therefore, although late out of the gate, Bill C-26 is a start.

In conclusion, I would like to see some clear accountability to ensure the objectives of this bill are met and that a proper review process is conducted that holds individuals, corporations, and most importantly, our government accountable.