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.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
March 18th, 2024 / 4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I think what Mr. McKinnon was trying to do is get to where we're going with G-1.1. It might be simpler to defeat this amendment, and then deal with the following as they come.
However, before we get into that, perhaps I'll ask the officials about one of my concerns. I appreciate Madame Michaud's comments, and it is something we heard in terms of making sure that the powers in this bill are not so vast. However, when we're talking about cyber and cyber-threats, the concern is that by the time we print something on paper and it becomes law, it might already be outdated.
Officials, could you elaborate on whether or not the limits around only what can be considered might be deemed too limiting? Including the word “including” again in this section makes it clear that this is the intention of the bill but there is still flexibility, given the constantly changing nature of threats. Could officials elaborate on why there are concerns, or why there might need to be some parameters around this language?
4:40 p.m.
Director General, Strategy and Innovation Policy Sector, Department of Industry
Certainly the government appreciates the concerns from stakeholders about ensuring that guardrails are established in the bill. We'd start from the point of view that, first of all, anything within the bill needs to be in order to protect the Canadian telecommunications system, so anything that involves surveillance, for instance, is entirely separate from that issue.
With respect to the word “including”, the bill is crafted with the intention of trying to keep pace with an evolving technological landscape, but it's hard to know exactly what will evolve over time. Amendment G-1.1 looks at the word “including” but reframes it in terms of any threat, so rather than any thing, it's focusing on preventing threats. It then adds in the word “degradation”, which was a risk factor that wasn't in the original text but that, if the word “including” was removed, could present a vulnerability down the road.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Heath MacDonald
Is there any more discussion on the subamendment?
Shall BQ-1 carry?
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
Mr. Chair, I believe we have to vote on the subamendment.
4:40 p.m.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
We can vote on the subamendment, or Mr. McKinnon could simply decide to withdraw it based on our discussions.
I would also like the committee to proceed with a recorded vote on amendment BQ‑1.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Heath MacDonald
Mr. McKinnon, are you willing to withdraw your subamendment based on the conversations we just had?
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
Yes, Mr. Chair, I will withdraw the subamendment.
(Subamendment withdrawn)
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Heath MacDonald
Thank you.
Shall amendment BQ-1 carry?
(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We are on CPC-1.
If CPC-1 is adopted, G-1.1 cannot be moved due to a line conflict.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Doug Shipley Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
Chair, we'll be withdrawing that in favour of the language in G-1.1.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Heath MacDonald
Shall G-1.1 carry?
Someone has to move it. I'm sorry.
Ms. O'Connell, go ahead.
4:45 p.m.
NDP
4:45 p.m.
NDP
4:45 p.m.
NDP
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Okay. There we go.
Thank you. That was the missing part.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Thank you, Chair.
We're all getting back into the groove of this.
Amendment G-1.1 again cleans up the language in terms of the concerns that were rightly raised, but it also keeps in the word “including” to ensure the legislation can keep pace with the evolving nature of threats, and it adds in the word “degradation”, which I think officials already spoke to, so I won't speak further to that unless there are questions.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Heath MacDonald
Is there any other discussion? No.
Shall G-1.1 carry?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Again, Mr. Chair, if you can slow it down, that would be very helpful.