Evidence of meeting #26 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 subamendment.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Thank you for that.
Is there any further input?
Is CPC-40 adopted?
(Amendment negatived)
That brings us to CPC‑41.
Is CPC-41 being moved?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Thank you, MP Lloyd.
Is there any debate on CPC-41?
Mr. Ramsay, do you have a comment?
Liberal
Jacques Ramsay Liberal La Prairie—Atateken, QC
Indeed.
We believe that this amendment would restrict the reporting of certain incidents based on the current standard, since quasi-incidents could no longer be reported. It would be tantamount to looking only at weather events that are disasters, while ignoring the forecasts that might predict them.
This amendment would reduce the scope of threat activities that need to be reported to the Communications Security Establishment, so we will be voting against it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay.
Is there any further debate?
MP Lloyd, go ahead.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Parkland, AB
Conservatives are moving forward with this amendment because there's been a concern raised by civil liberties groups about the scope and the potential government overreach. By focusing on and including the word “material”, we're seeking to provide some level of comfort to Canadians that the impacts of this legislation, which is serious legislation, are meant to deal with serious problems.
Thank you.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
We're now moving on to CPC‑41.1, which was added a little later.
Is CPC‑41.1 moved?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
The notice wasn't sent in the initial package, but it was sent a bit later.
We'll pause for a few seconds. I'll suspend for a few seconds.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
MP Lloyd, you can explain it, and then if there is a need for a suspension, we'll suspend.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Parkland, AB
This amendment, I think, is quite uncontroversial. It came out of a meeting with an association of internal auditors who expressed a desire for a clear definition of what an internal audit is. That definition is actually included in the Treasury Board act; it's the definition that the Treasury Board follows. This organization expressed concern over there being no firm definition of internal audit and sought to include that in the legislation to provide more clarity.
I'd like to ask the officials to weigh in and reflect on that.
Thank you.
Director General, National Cyber Security Directorate, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
The consideration I would raise with respect to this amendment.... Yes, it's quite accurate to say that this definition is found in the Treasury Board policy on internal audit, but the one thing to bear in mind is that those policies are just that, policies of the government. They do have a broad effect. All deputy ministers must adhere to the policies and the policy requirements and so must use that definition. Therefore, there is some repetition there.
The consideration I would point out is that you would now be legislating that definition. Because policies are updated regularly, you run the risk of that definition in the policy changing. It's also possible that the institute that created this definition could also change or adapt that policy, in which case you would bump into a situation where a Treasury Board policy would now be different from what's legislated in this particular act.
Of course, it would be possible to update the legislation, but policies usually go a bit faster.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Parkland, AB
My question is this: If this is the definition that has been adopted by the Treasury Board, presumably that definition is being updated. I've been told by this organization that the government is involved in decisions about updating this. Where would there be a conflict with this act, in particular, if we were to include that, if the Treasury Board is already updating its provisions based on its own internal definition?
Director General, National Cyber Security Directorate, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
I apologize. I should clarify myself there.
All I said is that it just creates a situation whereby there could be a difference. If this is legislated in the act and the Treasury Board policy stays the same and doesn't change, then you will have the same definition. If in a year, for whatever reason, the institute that created that definition or the Treasury Board in its capacity as the policy centre for government decides to change it—
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Parkland, AB
I'm sorry, but I want to clarify.
Doesn't the Treasury Board definition also change?
Director General, National Cyber Security Directorate, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Yes, it could, but it wouldn't automatically change in the legislation. That's the issue.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Thank you, MP Lloyd.
Is there any further input?
I will suspend for a minute, because I think it's better for everyone to vote with sufficient clarity. It won't be a long suspension, so please don't go anywhere.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
We're going back to debating CPC‑41.1, hoping that it's sufficiently well understood.
There doesn't seem to be any other discussion on CPC‑41.1, so shall it carry?
(Amendment agreed to)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
That would normally take us to CPC‑42, but I believe there's another amendment for which notice had already been sent.
Mr. Ramsay, you have the floor.
Liberal