Mr. Chair, we're debating amendment CPC‑3.
In our view, this amendment is largely unnecessary. It raises the risk of limiting the scope of threats that the proposed orders could address. This could limit the government's flexibility to deal with what we might call new technological advances or cyber‑threats that would be defined later and that are currently unknown.
In our view, the bill is already narrowly focused on the security of telecommunications systems alone. The legislation doesn't allow the Governor in Council or the minister to use the proposed powers to address broader national security threats or challenges. This legislation isn't meant to focus on national security issues.
In addition, the proposed amendment includes the addition of the qualifier “importante” to the word “menace”. It isn't clear how this could be interpreted. Some threats are potential, but they nevertheless warrant mitigation. So we won't be supporting this choice of the word “important”, which remains difficult to interpret.