Bill C-26

An Act respecting cyber security, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts

Part 1 amends the Telecommunications Act to add the promotion of the security of the Canadian telecommunications system as an objective of the Canadian telecommunications policy and to authorize the Governor in Council and the Minister of Industry to direct telecommunications service providers to do anything, or refrain from doing anything, that is necessary to secure the Canadian telecommunications system. It also establishes an administrative monetary penalty scheme to promote compliance with orders and regulations made by the Governor in Council and the Minister of Industry to secure the Canadian telecommunications system as well as rules for judicial review of those orders and regulations.
This Part also makes a consequential amendment to the Canada Evidence Act .
Part 2 enacts the Critical Cyber Systems Protection Act to provide a framework for the protection of the critical cyber systems of services and systems that are vital to national security or public safety and that are delivered or operated as part of a work, undertaking or business that is within the legislative authority of Parliament. It also, among other things,
(a) authorizes the Governor in Council to designate any service or system as a vital service or vital system;
(b) authorizes the Governor in Council to establish classes of operators in respect of a vital service or vital system;
(c) requires designated operators to, among other things, establish and implement cyber security programs, mitigate supply-chain and third-party risks, report cyber security incidents and comply with cyber security directions;
(d) provides for the exchange of information between relevant parties; and
(e) authorizes the enforcement of the obligations under the Act and imposes consequences for non-compliance.
This Part also makes consequential amendments to certain Acts.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Of course, my thoughts are with the victims today as well.

I support the discussion we're having. I appreciate that we've added additional witnesses. I think that is very important. Certainly, thinking of the victims today and the fact that we started this study last fall, my concern is that we have yet to report.... If the objective of our committee is to put in place recommendations that we oblige the government to follow to ensure that the concerns raised about victims and victims families, about the notification process around transfers and about how transfers are effectuated.... There are also the broad concerns that have been raised in the testimony we've heard so far in this study about correctional officers being consulted. They are the ones who know best the offenders who are in the institutions. We've heard from correctional officers that they haven't been consulted.

For all those reasons, it is important to continue this study. I would like the motion to reflect that we are continuing a study that we began last November and that what we're really doing is adding an additional six meetings for a total of no less than 11 meetings on this issue. As my Conservative colleagues have indicated, they see no distinction between the study we started last fall and the proposal to extend or continue that study we're hearing today.

I believe that we as a committee have made the decision to move ahead on clause-by-clause on Bill C-26. Cybersecurity is an issue that is of fundamental importance. I believe we can potentially wrap up the clause-by-clause study of this bill, which has been stuck out in no man's land now for two years. The reality is that we need to complete our work on that. I'm assuming that's the intent as well. We could potentially start the study this week. We would sit on clause-by-clause for cybersecurity, complete our work on that bill, which has been delayed for far too long and is far too critical for Canada's infrastructure, and then come back to this study. I have no objections to that. I believe the additional names Ms. O'Connell offered are valuable.

I have a further concern that's not reflected in the motion. I believe we need to clarify in the motion the fact that we're continuing this study. My further concern is the number of escapes we saw in previous years. I'm talking about the previous government, the Harper government. The number of escapes from federal institutions was at its highest level. In fact, the three worst years for prison escapes in recent memory were under the Harper government.

At the same time, we saw proposals to cut—to slash—funding to correctional services by $290 million. That was proposed by the Conservatives in December. That's a total of $290 million out of the overall Correctional Service Canada budget. I think that is a matter of some concern too. We've seen a higher level of escapes. If we're talking about public safety, it's important to keep in context that slashing the budget, as proposed and voted on in December, is not something that helps to reassure Canadians or to ensure public safety. That's an element that I think needs to be considered as part of continuing our study.

Overall, with those adjustments or changes, I think the most important element is that we proceed to hearing from witnesses, take a break around cybersecurity so we can complete the work that has been delayed for far too long and then come back and complete the study. Most importantly, I hope that we issue a report in the House of Commons that ensures victims are taken into consideration before transfers are put into place and ensures correctional officers are consulted in a meaningful way before transfers take place.

We can't defend at all the horrible, horrific, sadistic acts of Paul Bernardo and Luka Magnotta. The important thing is that the public have confidence in the correctional service and our prison system and see that they are working on their behalf. It is crucial that we get to a report and to recommendations, table them in the House, have a debate in the House of Commons and ensure that the government is being pressured to put into place the recommendations we are making.

In general, I support the motion. I think there is some tweaking required to ensure that people are aware that this is a continuation of a study we started last November. However, above all, I believe that we need to complete this study, make the recommendations and ensure that they are respected and put into place so that the concerns raised over the last few months are finally met with the response of the public safety committee.

Thank you.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

I'm glad we have this motion. From our perspective, we have no issue with looking further into transfers of prisoners and classifications and working with this committee to put forward reasonable, worthwhile recommendations on how we can advance victims' rights in this country and improve the system. However, I think what we learned from the last few days of the study we did on this...because it's important to note that this isn't new. This isn't something the Conservatives are bringing forward today. We, as a committee, have already held several meetings on this and heard testimony, and this would be a continuation of that.

I hope that today is not just Conservatives performing for clips and that this committee is actually serious about working together to put forward serious, legitimate policy recommendations on how we can move things forward. That's exactly what we want to do and what we did as a committee when we all came prepared to ask questions of CSC and the witnesses we had before on this very issue. Again, there's no issue. We've participated and asked tough questions, as I think all Canadians want us to.

I think it's important that we look into this. It was stated by the earlier speaker that this was somehow related to Liberal legislation or a change, and that's simply not true. In fact, some of the years with the highest number of prisoner classification changes from maximum to medium were under Harper Conservative governments. In 2012-13, there were 291 reclassifications from maximum to medium. In 2013-14, there were 319 from maximum to medium.

If there's a question of how this is happening and what policies are in place for the Correctional Service of Canada, I think that's a fulsome conversation we need to have, but putting it out there that this was somehow a change in legislation or policy is, frankly, just not accurate. It's important that Canadians understand that there are certain politicians trying to use the most heinous and horrendous crimes in this country as a fearmongering tactic to suggest that current policies are somehow different from when Conservatives have held office. I think it's important that we get this data on the table so that Canadians can see exactly how decisions are made.

If this committee wants to make recommendations to the government to make changes or to review policy, I think that's absolutely appropriate, but if there's a suggestion.... If we're starting off with a base of misinformation that there was a policy change, I've just outlined that the highest number of maximum to medium reclassifications in the Canadian justice system happened in 2013-14 under the Conservatives' so-called tough-on-crime language.

It's important that we get the facts. That's why we're very happy to continue to hold meetings on this, to make legitimate fulsome policy recommendations based on what we hear and to ensure Canadians' voices are at the table. However, as I said, I think it's incredibly important that we start from a place of truth and honesty. I hope the continuation of this meeting does that, because I think we have a number of policy insights and things that every member of this committee would want to share.

I'll just raise a couple of points about the motion as drafted. I want to hear from colleagues, so please add me to the list again, because I'd like to hear other opinions.

As for doing the study immediately and in six meetings, my issue is not with studying this but with whether or not we need six meetings. We're open to the idea, but based on the witnesses listed in this motion, that wouldn't equate to six meetings. I think the Conservatives are maybe being a little disingenuous in terms of what this motion says and what they hope to accomplish, but we can debate the numbers in terms of what's needed and whether it's immediate.

Based on this, the Conservatives are abandoning the auto theft study. They also don't want to complete Bill C-26, which, as we heard from witnesses, would actually have direct impacts on Canadians' safety, for example, during a weather event when phone lines could go down and there wouldn't be protections in place to ensure that telecommunication companies or banks would have robust procedures to avoid cyber-attacks. I guess Conservatives don't care about those impacts.

This committee can determine the timing, but we had determined the sequence of meetings. Auto theft would being abandoned. Cybersecurity would being abandoned. The other studies we were looking at would be as well, given timing. I assume the minister's visit on the mandate, which was scheduled for next week, would also be abandoned if this motion passed as is.

I have concerns with some of that given the other committee priorities we've talked about, but, as I said, I'm prepared to listen to other opinions about priority and sequencing. We're not opposed to this study.

Mr. Chair, I'm going to move one amendment for now, and that is to add the following witnesses: Howard Sapers, the former correctional investigator for Canada; the John Howard Society of Canada; the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies; Aboriginal Legal Services; the Black Legal Action Centre and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. I'll give those names to the clerk.

I may have other amendments later, Mr. Chair, given my concerns about sequencing and the number of meetings. We're more than happy to move forward with this study, but I want to take into account other people's comments before making any additional amendments. I think it's important that we add some additional witnesses.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Thank you.

Okay. So leave that with the chair, please.

For Bill C-26, on Monday the clerk distributed the draft budget in the amount of $14,500.

Are there any questions or comments?

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Just so we're clear, amendments are due on February 26. For February 26 and 29, the recommendation is to have the auto theft study. That is what the majority of the opposition side has come up with. Then on Monday, March 18 we would begin clause-by-clause of Bill C-26 with the idea that on that particular day, Monday the 18th if possible, we would extend those hours for a reasonable time depending on resources. I think that would be very reasonable, to begin Bill C-26 on that date.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

I think there's kind of an understanding, at least among the majority of the committee, that we want to do two auto theft days next week and then we would start using extended hours in March on Bill C-26. That's my understanding.

I just don't want to get surprised when the notice comes out, Mr. Chair, and we have a huge extended February meeting coming out of nowhere when it's not very clear that the committee has agreed to that.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Chair, I'm sorry, but just to sort of recap, it's a riding week next week. The first week back both meetings would be on auto theft, and then when we returned after that we would do extended sittings for Bill C-26. Is that what I'm hearing, Mr. Julian?

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you.

I would like us to recap our discussion on dates.

I don't think that it's a bad idea to extend meeting hours. That said, sitting until midnight seems a bit like a closure procedure.

I agree that we could do more over four or five hours, such as Monday evening from 4:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. or 9:30 p.m. I don't see any issue with that.

Mr. Chair, please confirm that we can set the date for submitting amendments for February 26, and that the February 26 meeting will focus on car theft.

At the meeting on Thursday, February 29, we would begin the study of Bill C‑26. By then, the clerk would have already sent us the amendments proposed by the other parties, because we need to take time to study these amendments.

Since it will be on Thursday morning, we can't really extend the meeting. That brings us two weeks later, to Monday, March 18. I imagine that this meeting would be extended a bit. On Thursday, we would meet with Mr. LeBlanc.

We would continue the study of Bill C‑26 on April 8.

Is that right, Mr. Chair?

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

What I find rather interesting is that this has been on the books since June 2022, so we're 20 months into this, and now we want to rush through a process that we have heard many witnesses.... We also have significant recommendations to make in clause-by-clause to go through and fix this, and it's the responsibility of this committee to do that.

I don't know why there is the rush of an extra day or week or two to go through this. I don't support the extra length of meetings. We have other responsibilities as well, so I definitely don't support the need to sit extra.

I think we should get at the study on auto. When we're done with our recommendations and have them submitted, then we can go back and work on the clause-by-clause of Bill C-26. That, for sure, is going to take a lot longer than a couple of meetings of extended time.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

I agree with my colleagues.

We could start our study on car theft in a week and a half. By next Tuesday, we could submit the list of witnesses for Ms. Michaud's proposed study on car theft. We could set the deadline for submitting amendments for the following week.

I would like to suggest something for the following week. In the next seven weeks, there are just two sitting weeks. If we conduct our study on car theft next week, I suggest that the committee hold longer meetings to discuss the proposed amendments to Bill C‑26.

Honestly, I find it difficult to discuss amendments for two hours and then to continue our discussion three days later. The amendments are often connected. I think that it would be more useful to hold a meeting from 3.30 p.m. to midnight, for example. If we did that, we could finish studying the bill that week. I'm talking about the second sitting week in March.

I propose that we hold longer meetings, extend the deadline for submitting amendments and start our study on car theft the week after next.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Thank you.

Before we go any further, we have some administrative housekeeping that the clerk would like to get some answers on.

We talked about this at our last meeting. If the committee wishes to start clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-26, on Monday, February 26, I recommend to establish the deadline for submitting amendments as Wednesday, February 21, at noon.

I know there was some conversation surrounding this, so I'll ask if that's still good.

Mr. Shipley.

[Mark Schaan]

I'm happy to.

Thank you for the question.

I think it's important to note that the telecommunications security objective, as the minister outlined, actually allows for a broad reach of application, in the sense that security is fundamental to a number of contexts. While we often think about that as related to cyber, in this particular zone I think we need to think about security in things like whether you can securely access the telecommunications system in the event of natural disasters, which are increasingly common.

The industry minister has order-making powers under Bill C-26, for instance, to allow for a telecommunication service provider to develop a security plan in relation to its services, networks or facilities and—

[Mark Schaan, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategy and Innovation Policy Sector, Department of Industry]

Mr. Chair, I want to thank the member for the question.

With regard to the collection of personal information, as noted in Bill C-26, the minister has order-making powers that will allow him to be able to issue orders to protect the security of the telecommunications system.

There are two things that I think are really important to note. The actions and orders related to the minister's order-making power have to be connected to that security objective and ring-fenced in that regard. Similarly, there's a proportionality test that applies as a function of administrative law to the orders that the minister is making.

Two things that I think are really important to note as well are, one, that the Privacy Act continues to apply, both to the Minister of Industry and to the minister's officials through the department; and, two, that the Personal Information and Protection of Electronic Documents Act, PIPEDA, continues to apply to the telecommunications providers for whom order-making would be done.

There are privacy protections in place on both entities, both on the government side and on the private sector side, and there are limitations to the order-making capacities of the minister.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Auditor General's report on the ArriveCAN application speaks specifically about this bad practice for handling confidential information.

This is something we need to learn from.

On Bill C-26 we've had testimony from The Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. One of the recommendations was that relief should be available if the government mishandles confidential, personal or de-identified information, and that the legislation should be amended to enable individuals and telecommunications providers to seek relief if the government has mishandled that information.

I'll direct this question to Minister LeBlanc.

Do you believe that it's appropriate that we incorporate into that legislation lessons learned from ArriveCAN?

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The issues that often came up during the consultations held here in the committee obviously concerned transparency and privacy.

Some colleagues have already addressed these issues. According to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, it might be a good idea for the government to consult the office before making any decisions on Bill C‑26. Perhaps this would reassure Quebeckers and Canadians.

Obviously, Bill C‑26 currently doesn't set out a time frame from when the government accesses personal information held by companies, for example, to when it deletes this information under the bill. We also know that there are many data leaks, and that the government isn't necessarily immune to these leaks either.

How can we strike a balance between the right to privacy and the highly confidential power grabs and orders?

Where does the balance lie in all this? How can you reassure Quebeckers, Canadians and SMEs?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

That's very much at the heart of the exercise that I think all of us are trying to achieve in Bill C-26.

Our federation gives our partners in provinces and territories jurisdiction over things as important as health care systems and highway infrastructure. We're all thinking of examples where these particular critical infrastructure sectors can be subject to these cyber-attacks. I've spoken to mayors of cities. Saint John, New Brunswick, it was reported—a small Canadian city—was subject to a pretty concerning cyber-attack.

The only way we're able to do that work is in partnership with provinces and territories and, of course, they are responsible in the case of municipalities as well. We would be wide open to signing agreements with provinces and territories. We think Bill C-26, if it's adopted and receives royal assent, can be a model for some other provincial legislation that should be companion pieces to this federal legislation.

As colleagues would want, we're always looking to respect provincial jurisdiction.

This is certainly a priority for us. However, we won't shy away from being a partner and a leader or from sharing information, as long as it's safe to do so. We'll be signing agreements with the provinces specifically to enable us to share information.

That said, we acknowledge that urgent situations arise in areas of provincial jurisdiction. That's why I gave the example of Newfoundland and Labrador. At the time, the premier of Newfoundland and Labrador told us that the province was completely overwhelmed in terms of resources. He asked the Government of Canada to step in. Of course, we did everything possible at the time to help them resolve the situation.