Evidence of meeting #25 for Public Safety and National Security in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was floor.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC
I believe it's CPC-38.1 that I'm seeking to move.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Okay.
CPC‑38 was withdrawn by unanimous consent.
Is CPC‑38.1 moved?
So amendment CPC-38.1 is moved.
Liberal
Liberal
Jacques Ramsay Liberal La Prairie—Atateken, QC
Again, Mr. Chair, this is a redundant provision. The Federal Court already has the power to appoint a special advocate in cases where confidential information needs to be reviewed. There's no need for special consideration in the Telecommunications Act. It's already there.
Liberal
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC
Yes, I'll ask for UC to withdraw it.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Is there unanimous consent to withdraw amendment CPC-38.1?
(Amendment withdrawn)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
We're at clause 2.
We understand that there have been several rounds of amendments and subamendments to clause 2. Therefore, we have an amended version of clause 2. We're now making an overall decision on clause 2 as amended.
Shall clause 2 as amended carry?
Mrs. DeBellefeuille, would you like to speak?
Bloc
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
We're going to have a debate on BQ‑8.1, but it comes after BQ‑7.1. We haven't voted on that one yet because we're waiting for it to be translated.
The good news is that we now have the translation of BQ‑7.1.
Shall BQ‑7.1 carry?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC
I'm sorry, but I'm a little confused.
Basically, does BQ‑8.1 become clause 2.1?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
We'll discuss BQ‑8.1 shortly, once clause 2 is adopted. It goes between clause 2 and clause 3.
Bloc
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Shall clause 2 as amended carry?
(Clause 2 as amended carry agreed to)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
We're going to move on to BQ‑8.1.
Can someone move BQ‑8.1?
Mrs. DeBellefeuille, you have the floor.
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC
I do.
During clause-by-clause consideration, we have continued to meet partners. I honestly wondered how I could improve the bill by putting limits on something I find disquieting. Let me explain.
We've learned that Canadian Internet service providers have subcontracted the management of all their infrastructure, even its design, outside Canada. I'll give you an example. An Internet service provider that I won't name has subcontracted all maintenance and management of its infrastructure to a company located in India. In other words, if there was a problem in a cell tower, for example, to get the repairs done, a worker in India would have to press a button.
I'm wondering how our personal information is protected, since it's in another country that has its own rules and spies on us too. It's documented. How is it that we couldn't prevent an Internet service provider from outsourcing its work to a country like India, for example, despite all the risks we're aware of?
I have another example. I learned that another Internet service provider's infrastructure was being managed from Egypt. However, I learned that in Egypt, all telecommunications are nationalized, meaning that Egypt can order a provider to provide data and the provider has to comply. How can we allow our data to be administered and hosted by subcontractors used by providers here at home?
I know that the Minister of Industry is well aware of this and she was unable to block the transaction for all kinds of reasons. Our rules of the game have allowed this, and I think companies want to make as much profit as possible. So they play with the rules, going as far as they can. As a legislator, I wondered what I could do in terms of damage control and, as much as possible, to secure our Internet infrastructure that's managed outside Canada. We spoke with the legislative counsel, who proposed this amendment to us. It's not perfect protection, but it brings to light the current problem, which is that we're allowing our Internet service providers to use foreign workers and have our data hosted abroad, in a context where we're talking about cyber-attacks, among other things. I'd like to hear what Mr. Arbour has to say about this.
How can we ensure that our data will remain confidential and will not be used by India or Egypt, for example, when everything is managed in their country?
I know that what I'm proposing is not ideal, but at least it tries to set some limits on this. I hope the government will find a solution to avoid the worst-case scenario. I know they are already aware of the problem and looking for a solution. So I humbly propose this amendment to try to reduce the risks, knowing full well that it's not perfect, but that it's better than nothing.
I find it extremely serious that, with the full knowledge of the government, all of our data have ended up in India or Egypt, for example. I don't want to name the two Internet service providers, but I think you're familiar with them. They're the ones who outsourced the management of their infrastructure. I was even told that infrastructure design mandates had been entrusted to companies outside Canada.
I hope this new clause I'm proposing will be helpful. I know very well that it doesn't fill all the gaps, but it does provide somewhat of a framework.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Thank you, Mrs. DeBellefeuille.
Do you want to jump in, Mr. Arbour, or does anyone else?
Director General, Telecommunications and Internet Policy Branch, Department of Industry
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First, with respect to the concerns raised, the supply chain controls are already in place in the current version of Bill C‑8. This includes the provision of services, such as foreign services. Powers are already in the bill. It's not necessary to list every specific risk. There's a framework in part I. Under Bill C‑8, in the event of a real and credible threat, we would have the authority to impose rules on telecommunications service providers in Canada to control supply chains. Fortunately, the powers are in the current bill.
The proposed amendment with respect to the new clause 2.1 would add consideration by the CRTC for one type of licence, namely international traffic licences. However, the CRTC is already able to take these kinds of risks into account under the current framework of Bill C‑8. So there's no need to add it.
In addition, it could cause confusion because the CRTC has other powers to impose regulatory restrictions. In this context, we're talking about clause 16.3, for example, but the CRTC has other powers to impose conditions of service under clause 24.
That's why there's no need for the criteria related to international traffic. They are broader powers, and the CRTC has other powers. If we impose the criteria of these powers but not the others, we risk causing confusion, that is to say people might think that Parliament intends to limit the CRTC's power.
In my opinion, the good news is that there are already powers established to counter this type of situation.