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.
7 p.m.
Liberal
7 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
I would just urge the members of the committee to pass this. This is something that came up repeatedly in testimony before the committee.
7 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Heath MacDonald
We'll have a recorded vote on the amendment.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We're now moving to BQ-7.
If BQ-7 is moved, CPC-11 cannot be moved, as they are identical.
7 p.m.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Amendment BQ-7 concerns information retention periods.
During our study, representatives of organizations told us that the bill should be amended to specify that information obtained from telecommunications service providers or operators designated under the Critical Cyber Systems Protection Act, or CCSPA, will only be retained for as long as necessary to make, amend or revoke an order under section 15.1 or section 15.2 or a regulation under paragraph 15.8(1)(a) of the Telecommunications Act or section 20 of the CCSPA, or to verify compliance with or prevent non-compliance with such an order or regulation.
Retention periods must be disclosed to telecommunications service providers from whom the minister has collected information.
We also propose amending the text to order the government to add provisions relating to retention periods and the deletion of data in agreements or memoranda of understanding with foreign governments or agencies. This adds a safeguard concerning organizations' fears about the information collected and the retention period for that information.
I hope my colleagues will vote in favour of the amendment.
7 p.m.
Liberal
7:05 p.m.
Conservative
Doug Shipley Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
Thank you.
We will not be supporting this. For transparency, we will be withdrawing CPC-11 after, if necessary.
7:05 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Thank you, Chair.
We agree with the intention in terms of privacy and privacy rights. We understand the concerns raised by witnesses. We just think that, for clarity, although in essence the amendment itself is.... Again, we're okay with the intention, but we feel that the language is a little unclear. We actually prefer G-6.1, which reiterates that the Privacy Act would supersede the provisions in this bill to give that level of assurance. We did hear that, that it was silent. We just think it's clear and adds the certainty that this bill would have to comply with the Privacy Act. We just think it's a cleaner way of achieving the same things.
We won't support this language as is, but we understand and agree with the intention. That's why we have G-6.1, which comes up later.
7:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Heath MacDonald
Shall BQ-7 carry?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We are on BQ-8.
If BQ-8 is moved, CPC-12 cannot be moved, as they are identical.
7:05 p.m.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Amendment BQ-8 is somewhat along the same lines. We simply want to add definitions that may apply to subclause 2(1)(d)—the definitions of the terms “de-identify” and “personal information”.
It's pretty straightforward. I know that this is a recommendation of the coalition that Mr. Julian has been talking about since the beginning, which seeks to protect civil liberties.
That's what this amendment is about.
7:05 p.m.
Conservative
Doug Shipley Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
Very quickly, I want to let the Bloc know that we will be supporting this amendment.
7:05 p.m.
Liberal
Iqwinder Gaheer Liberal Mississauga—Malton, ON
I just have a subamendment. We'd like to amend (d) and replace “or” with “and” for greater clarity, so it will be “personal information and de-identified information”.
7:05 p.m.
Conservative
Doug Shipley Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
Okay, now we're not going to support it.
7:05 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
7:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Heath MacDonald
Is there any further discussion on the subamendment?
(Subamendment agreed to)
(Amendment as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We are on CPC-12.1.
7:05 p.m.
Conservative
Doug Shipley Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
Thank you.
We will be moving CPC-12.1. This amendment would ensure that information collected would be treated as confidential and would be disclosed only if doing so was necessary to secure the Canadian telecommunications system.
7:05 p.m.
Liberal
7:05 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
I think our concerns with this one were that there's a timing issue in that it would require a court order to be sought prior to the release of the information.
Maybe I'll turn to the officials to see if I'm understanding this correctly. Do you see this amendment as adding a requirement through a court order that would cause additional delay?
7:05 p.m.
Director General, Strategy and Innovation Policy Sector, Department of Industry
Yes. In certain circumstances where we would be dealing with an emergency situation, that could include, in the process of making the order, divulging certain information that has been designated confidential by a telecommunications service provider. This amendment would mean that a court order would be required before that information could be disclosed.
I would flag that the information could be disclosed only if doing so would protect the Canadian telecommunications system, so it would be possible only in certain very limited circumstances.
Thank you.
7:10 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Can I just hone in on that a little bit? Are you saying that other provisions within the act clarify when that disclosure could be made? Is that right? That's why, with this piece to make a disclosure, you would have to seek a court order, which, if you were disclosing the information, would be a pretty big threshold, I would think. It would probably be under an emergency type of situation, and this would delay that.
Am I understanding your rationale there?
7:10 p.m.
Director General, Strategy and Innovation Policy Sector, Department of Industry
Yes. That is correct.
The possibility for disclosing confidential information is quite narrowly constrained, but the circumstances in which that would be an issue would involve protecting the Canadian telecommunications system, and there would be an added requirement to go to court first.