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.
6:20 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Conservatives did agree to go through Bill C-26 without filibustering. I hope Mr. Kurek now has a copy of that memo because we really need to get through this bill.
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Heath MacDonald
Thank you, Mr. Julian.
We're moving right back into clause-by-clause.
We're on CPC-8.1.
6:25 p.m.
Conservative
Doug Shipley Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
We will be moving that amendment, which was recommended by the Citizen Lab.
This amendment would require the minister to “prepare a report stating the number of times that an order...prevailed over a decision of the Commission made under this Act” and that it be tabled in Parliament. Hopefully we have support for it.
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
This is for officials, actually.
If this passes, I wonder if it would require the submission of a report separate from one that's already proposed in NDP-7, BQ-6 and CPC-9. I'm wondering if it would make sense to not move forward on this and, with the future amendments on reporting, have just one combined report.
Could you elaborate on or speak to whether you see having a stand-alone report in addition to the others as an issue?
6:25 p.m.
Director General, Strategy and Innovation Policy Sector, Department of Industry
This speaks to a separate clause that notes the possibility of an inconsistency between a government order and a CRTC decision. For greater certainty, it removes some risk that there would be confusion in the event of said inconsistency.
Certainly reporting—to the extent that this occurs—doesn't present any operational challenges. Having it as a separate, stand-alone report with some potentially different timelines—there's potentially a bit of ambiguity in the language here—doesn't present any big challenges.
To the extent that it could be folded into one clearer annual reporting requirement, that would be a bit cleaner.
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Again, our issue is not with the intention. I'm not going to support this amendment because I think we can take the intention and deal with it as one overall report, which we have coming up in subsequent amendments.
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Well, there's NDP-7, which would be next, and BQ-6 and CPC-9 also deal with reporting. It would be cleaner to have one report to talk about when orders were issued or “prevailed” over a CRTC decision.
6:25 p.m.
Conservative
Doug Shipley Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
Chair, if there's good intent on that, and seeing that the other side wants to have this in, we will withdraw our amendment and try to add it into the next one, NDP-7.
Ms. O'Connell, is that what you're suggesting?
6:25 p.m.
Conservative
Doug Shipley Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
We'll withdraw our amendment, then, and roll it in.
6:25 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
6:25 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
You caught me at a bad time, Mr. Chair. Are we moving on to NDP-7?
6:25 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
There is a recommendation from the coalition in the coalition brief. You will find it on page 16. Just to remind folks, it includes the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, OpenMedia, the Ligue des droits et libertés, the Privacy and Access Council of Canada and a number of other distinguished Canadians.
What they are looking for, as they proposed in their testimony, is for reports to be filed pertaining to orders and regulations as a way of ensuring complete transparency. The requirement is to file an annual report, and if the minister fails to file such a report, the minister would be required to come before a parliamentary committee to explain why that has not happened.
Those are the provisions. I won't read them out because they're fairly lengthy, but I move the provisions of NDP-7.
6:30 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Because I just identified that we're open to the language from the Conservatives' amendment, I won't subamend yet. I'll let them introduce theirs.
I will say that we're comfortable with this. We just have concerns with proposed paragraphs 15.21(2)(e) and (f). We'd prefer to replace “the number” with “description of compliance”. Again, I will do that, but in fairness to my colleagues, I will let them have a chance to move their amendment.
6:30 p.m.
Conservative
Doug Shipley Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
What word did you want to change it to?
6:30 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
If you go to proposed paragraph 15.21(2)(e) of the NDP amendment, it says “the number of telecommunications service providers that partially complied with an order”, and proposed paragraph 15.21(2)(f) is the same. It says, “the number of telecommunications service providers that fully complied with an order”. We would like to replace “the number” with “description of compliance”.
6:30 p.m.
Conservative
6:30 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
No. It's just in each one to replace “the number” with “description of compliance”.
6:30 p.m.
Conservative
Doug Shipley Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
Are you okay with us chatting? We're not going to do the subamendment yet, then.
