Public Safety Committee on April 8th, 2024

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

We had this debate at a previous meeting. I am going to raise it for the final time today. If the committee decides that the argument holds merit, then we will continue the discussions. If not, I will withdraw the amendment.

This is a recommendation that comes from the coalition. We've had a variety of recommendations around not exempting this legislation from the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. Currently, it says very clearly that an order made here is exempt from the application of the Statutory Instruments Act. This amendment would delete those lines, lines 26 to 28 on page 26, so it would no longer exempt the applications of the sections of the act from the Statutory Instruments Act and thus allow the ability of these regulations to be accessible to the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations.

I have raised this point before. Certainly the testimony we heard from witnesses was very compelling on this issue. At previous discussions of similar amendments, the committee has not chosen to move forward with those amendments. I am giving a last opportunity for members of the committee to support subjecting clauses of this bill to the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations and the Statutory Instruments Act. If the committee chooses to go in a different direction, I may disagree, but I will then ask for withdrawal of NDP amendments 13 to 24 that treat the same subject, as you know, Mr. Chair.

I hope that the committee will move to adopt this amendment, but that is not how the committee has decided on amendments like this that I have presented in the past.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

Ms. O'Connell, go ahead, please.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Again, I understand the need for that transparency and oversight, but this is precisely why the amendments that we just dealt with were to identify and notify NSIRA and NSICOP of any orders made.

The challenge with this amendment, keeping in mind that I do understand the intent, is that it would create a delay that would essentially make the legislation obsolete.

To ensure that I understand that correctly, maybe through the chair to Mr. MacSween, am I correct in the assumption that excluding the exemption would create a delay in going forward and being able to make an order to bring in compliance or to, let's say, speed up the issue if we don't have someone in the sector who is taking the matter urgently at hand?

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Mr. MacSween, go ahead, please.

[Colin MacSween]

Yes, that is a concern. It is similar to the concerns raised when the committee considered part 1 of the act as well. It does create a time lag as to when the decisions can be made.

Another unintended potential consequence with this specific amendment is that requiring publishing in the Canada Gazette could potentially, or would, make confidential or identifiable information about critical infrastructure public.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Thank you.

Is there any further discussion?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

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

Mr. Chair, I'll withdraw amendments NDP-13 to NDP-24.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

Amendment BQ-16 could only be moved if NDP-12 or CPC-23 were defeated, so we're good.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, but I won't be moving BQ‑16.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Then we will move now to G-15.

Go ahead, Ms. O'Connell.

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

Thank you, Chair.

This is just to clarify that confidential information that is collected is disclosed under the section and that it must always be treated as confidential. The confidentiality travels with the information and is not just with whoever initially received it.

It's just to clarify that this was always the intention and to make it perfectly clear.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Thank you, Ms. O'Connell.

Is there any further discussion?

Ms. Michaud, go ahead, please.

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

Could you confirm something for me, Mr. Chair? If G‑15 is adopted, I assume BQ‑17 and BQ‑18 can't be moved, because they apply to the same spot. Can I still move them?

[An hon. member]

They're additions.

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

I can, then. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Is there any further discussion on G-15?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We are on BQ-17.

If BQ-17 is moved, CPC-24 cannot be moved, as they are identical.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

BQ‑17 is pretty simple. It reflects a recommendation made by organizations concerned about civil liberties. The idea is to ensure that the information collected or obtained is retained only for as long as is necessary to make an order under section 20 of the proposed act, and that the designated operators be informed of the retention periods.

It's that simple.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Thank you, Ms. Michaud.

Is there any discussion?

Go ahead, Ms. O'Connell.

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

Thank you.

I have a question for officials.

As I read this amendment, it's simply dealing with the retention of that information. Are there concerns or issues in terms of limiting this amendment, which really just defines how long the information is kept for and provides clarity to the sector that it's coming from? Do we have concerns?

What would be the problem with something like this in clarifying the retention of information?

[Colin MacSween]

There are two considerations for the committee related to this amendment.

When the act was constructed, it was built in such a way as to contemplate the collection of technical information and information related to commercial interests and whatnot. The intention was that it would work with related pieces of legislation, such as those governing the agencies associated with it, which may, in some cases, already have requirements around the retention and disposition of information.

The other consideration I would point out is that the amendment reads “for as long as is necessary”. Typically, in statute we would see a time frame attached to the retention period.

I would offer those two considerations up to committee.

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

Thanks.

If I understand correctly, you don't have an issue with a retention period, but “as long as is necessary” keeps it too broad.

[Colin MacSween]

Yes, in a way it could be read to be overly broad. That's absolutely a consideration.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Go ahead, Mr. Motz.

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

To the officials, I'm curious about what a reasonable retention period would be, based on this clause.

[Colin MacSween]

It's a difficult question to answer because, as I said, when we initially set up the legislation, we intended it to work with the existing pieces that were out there—for example, CSE's enabling legislation and the enabling legislation of public safety—and the retention periods that apply to those, whether that's from Library and Archives Canada or the Privacy Act, etc. It's hard to give you a specific number, because the numbers vary across statutes.