Public Safety committee  No, I don't see an operational problem with this text. It actually had been discussed in the last session, but it might have got lost in some of the line overlap. It refers to a “for greater clarity” provision in the bill to say that in the event of an inconsistency between an

Public Safety committee  If it's the committee's intent to ensure that due diligence applies, clause 10 is not needed at all.

Public Safety committee  The Telecommunications Act, as drafted currently, has a due diligence defence that applies broadly across the course of the act. Clause 10 of Bill C-26 would insert an exception that would essentially have it so that orders under Bill C-26 would not be subject to due diligence.

Public Safety committee  Mr. Chair, I thank the member for her question. In a bill like this, it is perfectly normal to indicate a maximum amount. This is an important principle in order to avoid the risk of having a very large amount. In a sector with a wide variety of service provider sizes, there ar

Public Safety committee  Indeed, proposed subsection 72.133(1) sets out the set of factors that must be taken into consideration when determining the amount of the penalty. It includes the nature and scope of the violation and any past history, but also, importantly, the person's ability to pay the penal

Public Safety committee  First, I'll start with the scope of the information that can be collected. It can only be collected if it's related to an order to protect the Canadian telecommunications system—to inform the development of an order, or to enforce or promote compliance with an order. Off the bat,

Public Safety committee  Perhaps I'll start with the protections that exist, and then explain what this amendment would do over and above that. There are already restrictions in the text on the ability to share confidential information, which would include personal information. Proposed subsection 15.7(

Public Safety committee  I appreciate the intent behind the consideration of my understanding there. Because the text of the amendment replaces “is necessary...to secure the Canadian telecommunications system” with only “is authorized by an order” and then sets out that the order is granted by an “applic

Public Safety committee  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 co

Public Safety committee  As you may have surmised in your question, it can be very context-specific. However, another reason why it can be challenging to answer is that it can depend on what the court is dealing with and on broader, contextual factors. It could add days or weeks, depending on the context

Public Safety committee  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 tha

Public Safety committee  Certainly, there would be real world consequences that would make it hard to keep pace with the developments of technology and the sector. That is one of the considerations in the current regulatory sphere we're dealing with, where the SIA does not come into play in regulating un

Public Safety committee  Having followed the testimony, I certainly appreciate the sentiment behind the amendment. There are three categories of practical considerations that would pose challenges from an implementation standpoint. The first is that the overall structure of the SIA—and the associated re

Public Safety committee  This speaks to a separate clause that notes the possibility of an inconsistency between a government order and a CRTC decision. For greater certainty, it removes some risk that there would be confusion in the event of said inconsistency. Certainly reporting—to the extent that t

Public Safety committee  Removing the reference to “power”, so that it is backup systems more broadly, and making reference to “telecommunications facilities”, as opposed to just “towers”, would solve that issue.