Yes.
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.
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.
Liberal
Iqwinder Gaheer Liberal Mississauga—Malton, ON
Great. Thank you, Chair.
G-2 adds proposed subsection 15.1(2.1). This amendment adds a non-exhaustive list of factors that the GIC must consider prior to issuing an order. The list of factors would include the financial impact on telecommunications service providers, the operational impact on TSPs, the delivery of services to consumers and anything else the GIC deems relevant.
This is something we heard during testimony from witnesses. Obviously, the government will conduct a thorough assessment and look at the impact of the order on implicated parties, but some stakeholders raised the issue that adding an explicit requirement within the bill will go a long way.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Heath MacDonald
Shall G-2 carry?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We're on NDP-3. If NDP-3 is adopted, CPC-4 cannot be moved due to a line conflict.
Mr. Julian.
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I apologize to my Conservative colleagues in advance for CPC-4 not being able to be moved if we adopt NDP-3.
We had a persistent theme in testimony before the committee that we need to ensure transparency around Bill C-26. What NDP-3 would accomplish is ensuring that orders are published “in the Canada Gazette within 90 days after the day on which it is made”. This has been suggested by coalition members who appeared before the committee, and it would ensure more transparency in the bill.
Conservative
Doug Shipley Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
I hate to say this to my friend down the table, because he was so nice to us, but we will be voting against this amendment. If it moves forward, we will be withdrawing our next amendment, which is CPC-4.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This NDP amendment provides a 90‑day deadline. What is the usual deadline in legislation? Is 90 days enough time for the government? Should there be a longer deadline? What do we usually see? Is there a common practice?
Director General, Strategy and Innovation Policy Sector, Department of Industry
I want to thank the member for her question, Mr. Chair.
We aren't worried about the deadline. To ensure that stakeholders or telecommunications service providers know about their obligations, the regulations must be made available well in advance. A 90‑day deadline wouldn't pose any issues.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Thank you.
I understand the statement you just made, Mr. Arbour, but I'm wondering if it could ever be an issue. Has it ever been an issue in the past? All we're trying to get at is a timely release of the information. I think that's what my NDP colleague was trying to do. We need to put some parameters around the time within which it should be presented. You say you have no problem doing that, which is great.
In general, on average, how much time does it take before matters from the public safety department get into the Gazette?
Director General, Strategy and Innovation Policy Sector, Department of Industry
Just to clarify, I'll speak for ISED—Innovation, Science and Economic Development, of course.
Because parties need to know what the obligations are, we will coordinate the publication in line with when they're in effect. There is a bit of a period after you submit the package to the Canada Gazette—it can be a week and a half before it is published—and we'll coordinate accordingly, but even if there is some unexpected problem or something like that, 90 days allows for quite a comfortable period of time to get publication done.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
This is about the order. You're saying that once an order is made, you have no issue achieving that 90 days, and even though the act doesn't specify a time, you're suggesting that you can easily do it within 90 days now and it's just a matter of.... My question was more this: The Gazette is going to need a week to get it published, so from the time an order is made and you give it to the Gazette to put in, are we talking about it being within a week as well, or two, potentially?
Director General, Strategy and Innovation Policy Sector, Department of Industry
For an order in council, there is another, separate process through the Privy Council Office to get Governor General approval on the final order. We will coordinate that in parallel with the Canada Gazette process to make sure things are presented appropriately in public.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Thanks for that.
The way I read line 12 in the act is that it must be published in the Canada Gazette. It doesn't speak to a timeline, but it must be published. From your testimony, it sounds as though there's an immediacy factor to that or, in some cases, it must be done even in advance of the order taking effect. I bring that up because you're describing the circumstances for something being gazetted versus an explicit 90-day timeline that's listed here.
Could the 90-day timeline potentially reduce the requirement that it be done with the industry and timeliness mentioned in the current writing of line 12, which is in proposed subsection 15.1(4)? I'm just curious as to whether you can comment on that. If you're doing it immediately, is that what the expectation is with the current wording versus what it would be if you added 90 days? Could adding time into the way it is currently written possibly create complications?
Director General, Strategy and Innovation Policy Sector, Department of Industry
No, I don't think it would contribute to a delay in publishing orders. With the way the current requirements are set up, we would announce something and publish an unofficial version—on our website, for example—and then we would have to publish the full version in the Canada Gazette. We would have submitted that, and that would come a week and a half later.
It's in our interest to have that out as quickly as possible. Adding a 90-day requirement does not delay it, but I can understand that if you didn't see a specific deadline in the bill, there could be some concern that the government could drag its feet on this. Adding a specific deadline doesn't create problems for us, but I can understand why it might provide some additional comfort.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Heath MacDonald
Okay.
Shall NDP-3 carry?
(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Heath MacDonald
Next, we have CPC-4.
You're not moving it, Mr. Shipley. Okay.
We are moving on to NDP-4.
If NDP-4 is adopted, G-3 and G-4 cannot be moved due to a line conflict.
Mr. Julian, go ahead.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Again, this is one of the recommendations from the coalition, which is concerned about the powers being given to the minister, to ensure there are more guardrails around that and to ensure the legislation is effective. What this would do is amend clause 2 by replacing line 23 on page 2 with “If there are reasonable grounds to believe that it is necessary to”, and replacing lines 4 and 5 on page 3 with “specified in the order and in respect of which there are reasonable grounds to believe is necessary”.
This is part of what I think we're all endeavouring to do: provide more guardrails in the legislation to ensure transparency and accountability.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Thank you.
I want to say that we agree with this and are supportive.
As with G-1, we acknowledge and accept adding additional language in the legislation to reiterate “reasonable grounds”. It is something we're supportive of. I don't think there was an intention to leave it out. It was assumed. We are supportive of any opportunity to put it in and clarify that.