Evidence of meeting #101 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.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Doug Shipley Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
Just very quickly, to speed things up a bit, we will not be supporting NDP-10, but we will be supporting G-13 with the amendment by Mr. Motz.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Heath MacDonald
Thank you, Mr. Shipley.
Is there any further discussion on NDP-10?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
G-13 can only be moved if NDP-10 is defeated. Also, if G-13 is adopted....
Go ahead, Ms. O'Connell.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Thank you.
I'll move it, but for the sake of time, I think we've had the conversations and my earlier comments about this.
The change is needed, but I think we should go through regulations for the different time frames for reporting.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
I would agree, and if the parties are amicable about it, a subamendment that would put it in the regulations. The witnesses talked about a 72-hour time period. If we can put that in the regulations in some way, shape or form to ensure that the timeline is honoured, so that it's in the regulations....
I'm not contradictory. I'm saying that we need to do it in some way. I have some flexibility in the way we do it, but it shouldn't be in the act itself.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
I agree with Mr. Motz. I believe he's moving a motion for reconsideration of NDP-10.
As for the 72 hours, in terms of regulation, I believe we could provide some guidance in the regulations, but it would be safer and clearer if we just had the 72 hours written into the legislation.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Thanks.
I'm throwing this out there so that we can have some discussion, and I would like to include the officials.
If we included something along the lines of “not to exceed 72 hours”....
The intention is in terms of speed, but in a way that could allow, through regulations, industry-specific or sector-specific....
Before I move that language, could I just make sure that it would actually be achievable?
Maybe Mr. MacSween could answer.
4:15 p.m.
Director General, National Cyber Security Directorate, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Yes, that would work. We could put that in regulations.
For the committee's consideration, part of the rationale for recommending it be moved to regulations was to allow for flexibility—not just in changing it, but actually in recognizing the differences in sectors as well. When we did our consultations, we heard very clearly from the energy sector, for example, that they were very interested in a 72-hour time frame, obviously because of the cross-border linkages of the international pipeline, for example, with the U.S. That certainly made a lot of sense.
We would like to take the opportunity through the regulatory process to do sort of in-depth consultations with the other impacted parties in order to determine that the reporting requirement will work for them in a way that is best placed for their sector. With that in mind, then, another possible consideration could be consideration of the reporting timelines of major partners, or something to that effect.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Thanks.
I agree and I support the idea of having some of that flexibility while not losing the intention of speed as a necessity. If we added...or if the Conservatives moved a subamendment to include “not to exceed” and there was a sector that had issues, could you come back within the regs and deal with that, or is that kind of the floor—or ceiling, depending on who you are—in terms of looking at the time frame?
4:15 p.m.
Director General, National Cyber Security Directorate, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
I believe it was codified in such a way as to say—I'm sorry; I forget the exact wording—“within 72 hours”. I feel that we'd be bound to that. However, that could make sense in the circumstance.
As I understand it, I believe the proposal is for that to be captured in regulations, so that could also be amended through the regulatory process as well.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Would it work if we inserted some language to “not exceed”, but made it sector-specific, and also in circumstances to not exceed or be within 72 hours?
Again, it's to give flexibility within the wording. I don't know how to think of that right now, but it's to give flexibility in the wording that would allow for energy-specific time adjustments, although it should be within 72 hours if possible.
Is that something that's workable?
4:20 p.m.
Director General, National Cyber Security Directorate, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Yes, I believe that would be workable.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
At the end of this “within a period prescribed by regulations within 72 hours”....
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Mr. Chair, could we maybe park this one, work on a little bit of language and come back?
I don't want to do it on the fly. I think our intentions are good. It would allow us to work on the proper language without having to do it like this.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Heath MacDonald
Because clause 13 may have an effect on other parts of this bill, we're going to suspend for about two or three minutes and just get some language around this.
We are suspended.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Heath MacDonald
I will ask Mr. Motz to read out his amendment to G-13, for the record.
