SECU Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
Minutes of Proceedings
Conservative
Bloc Québécois
The witnesses answered questions.
The committee resumed its clause-by-clause study of the Bill.
By unanimous consent, Clause 2 previously carried was reconsidered.
By unanimous consent, the committee reconsidered the amendment, as amended, of Peter Julian previously adopted which read as follows: That Bill C-26, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 31 on page 4 the following:
“15.21 (1) The Minister shall cause to be tabled in each House of Parliament, within three months after the end of each fiscal year or, if either House is not then sitting, on any of the first 15 days of the next sitting of that House, a report on the orders made under subsection 15.1(1) and subsections 15.2(1) and (2).
(2) The Minister shall include in the report, for the fiscal year covered by the report, the following information:
(a) the number of orders made and the nature of the orders;
(b) the number of orders that were revoked;
(c) the number of applications made to the Federal Court seeking to prohibit disclosure of an order, and the number of applications granted;
(d) the number of telecommunications service providers affected by an order;
(e) description of compliance of telecommunications service providers that partially complied with an order;
(f) description of compliance of telecommunications service providers that fully complied with an order; and
(g) an explanation of the necessity, proportionality, reasonableness and utility of the orders.
(3) The report shall state the number of times that an order prevailed over a decision of the Commission made under this Act during previous fiscal year and must cause the report to be tabled before each House of Parliament on any of the first 15 days on which the House is sitting after the report is completed.”
Doug Shipley moved, — That the amendment be amended
(a) by adding after subparagraph (b) the following: “(b.1) the number of times during the previous fiscal year that, under subsection 15.2(6), an order prevailed over a decision of the Commission made under this Act;”
(b) by deleting the words “and must cause the report to be tabled before each House of Parliament on any of the first 15 days on which the House is sitting after the report is completed”.
The question was put on the subamendment of Doug Shipley and it was agreed to.
The question was put on the amendment of Peter Julian, as amended, and it was agreed to.
By unanimous consent, the committee reconsidered the amendment, as amended, of Jennifer O'Connell previously adopted which read as follows: That Bill C-26, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 40 on page 7 the following:
“15.81 (1) The Minister must, within three months after the end of each fiscal year, prepare a report respecting any orders referred to in sections 15.1 and 15.2 that were made during that fiscal year and must cause the report to be laid before each House of Parliament within the first 15 days on which that House is sitting after the report is completed.
(2) The report must include the number of orders that were made in that fiscal year and state the number of times an order prevailed over a decision of the CRTC made under this Act.”
Doug Shipley moved, — That the amendment be amended
(a) by deleting the words “and state the number of times an order prevailed over a decision of the CRTC made under this Act”
(b) by adding after paragraph (2) the following: “(3) The report must also state the number of times that an order prevailed over a decision of the Commission made under this Act during the previous fiscal year.”.
The question was put on the subamendment of Doug Shipley and it was agreed to.
The question was put on the amendment of Jennifer O'Connell, as amended, and it was agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, carried.
Clause 12 carried.
On Clause 13,
Jennifer O'Connell moved, — That Bill C-26, in Clause 13, be amended by replacing line 10 on page 18 with the following:“tems in the federally regulated sector”
The question was put on the amendment of Jennifer O'Connell and it was agreed to.
(a) replacing line 22 on page 18 with the following:
“ber systems of the federally regulated sector”
(b) replacing line 28 on page 18 with the following:
“the federally regulated sector, to help protect”
The question was put on the amendment of Jennifer O'Connell and it was agreed to.
“ter collaboration across Canada, with the provinces and territories and around the”
The question was put on the amendment of Jennifer O'Connell and it was agreed to.
(a) replacing line 26 on page 18 with the following:
“Whereas the Government of Canada is commit-”
(b) adding after line 30 on page 18 the following:
“And whereas the Government of Canada acknowledges the necessity to protect the privacy of Canadians with respect to their personal information in accordance with the Privacy Act;”
The question was put on the amendment of Jennifer O'Connell and it was agreed to.
(a) replacing line 7 on page 23 with the following:
“ber systems and include in the program steps”
(b) replacing line 3 on page 24 with the following:
“the steps that are included in the program un-”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Pam Damoff and it was agreed to.
“(1.1) Subsection (1) does not apply to a designated operator that already has a program that meets the requirements set out in that subsection, but such an operator must provide the program or make it available to the appropriate regulator in the manner provided by section 10.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Kristina Michaud and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 10.
“14 (1) A designated operator must, within a period prescribed by the regulations, notify”
The question was put on the amendment of Jennifer O'Connell and it was agreed to.
“graph 9(1)(a), the designated operator must mitigate those risks.”
The question was put on the amendment of Jennifer O'Connell and it was agreed to.
“Establishment — in accordance with the cybersecurity and information assurance aspect of the mandate of the Communications Security Establishment, set out in section 17 of the Communications Security Establishment Act — in respect of”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Kristina Michaud and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 2; NAYS: 9.
(a) by replacing line 19 on page 25 with the following:
“17 A designated operator must report a cy‐”
(b) by replacing line 24 on page 25 with the following:
“exercise its powers or perform its duties and functions. The designated operator must report the cyber security incident within 72 hours from the time the operator reasonably believes the incident occurred.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Peter Julian and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 2; NAYS: 9.
“17 A designated operator must, within a period prescribed by the regulations, report a cy-”
Debate arose thereon.
Glen Motz moved, — That the amendment be amended by adding the words “not to exceed 72 hours,” after the words “prescribed by the regulations,”.
At 16:21 p.m., the sitting was suspended.
At 16:25 p.m., the sitting resumed.
After debate, the question was put on the subamendment of Glen Motz and it was agreed to.
The question was put on the amendment of Jennifer O'Connell, as amended, and it was agreed to.
Larry Brock moved, — Given that under the current NDP-Liberal government, car thefts across Canada have surged by 34%, and that the Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC) has deemed the number of car thefts a “national crisis,” stating that insurers have had to pay out record numbers, and these costs are passed directly on to Canadians, costing every driver an extra $130 per year. And, recently reported in the media, a Montrealer went through hell in March when his car was stolen twice in just three weeks. The committee reports to the House that Canada is facing a national auto theft crisis and requests that the Minister of Public Safety appear before the committee for no less than 3 hours in relation to the ongoing auto theft study.
Jennifer O'Connell moved, — That the debate be now adjourned.
The question was put on the motion and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:
YEAS: — 0;
NAYS: — 0.
The witnesses answered questions.
The committee resumed its clause-by-clause study of the Bill.
The committee resumed clause-by-clause consideration on Clause 13 of the Bill.
“18 Within 24 hours after reporting a cyber security incident,”
Debate arose thereon.
By unanimous consent, the amendment was withdrawn.
“(b) give a copy of the report to the appro‐”
The question was put on the amendment of Peter Julian and it was agreed to.
“(2) If a designated operator pays a ransom as the result of a ransomware attack, they must report the payment to the Communications Security Establishment within 24 hours after making it.
(3) If any new information subsequently becomes available in relation to the ransomware attack, the designated operator must provide the Communications Security Establishment with an update without delay and must continue to provide such updates until the incident is resolved.
(4) In subsections (2) and (3), ransomware attack means a cyber security incident that involves the use or threat of use of unauthorized or malicious software or of another digital mechanism, such as a denial of service attack, to interrupt or disrupt the operations of a cyber system or to compromise the confidentiality, availability or integrity of computer data stored on, processed by or transmitted by a cyber system in order to extort a ransom.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Doug Shipley and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 7.
(a) replacing line 11 on page 26 with the following:
“of protecting a critical cyber system, if the Governor in Council believes on reasonable grounds that it is necessary to make the order for that purpose.”
(b) adding after line 13 on page 26 the following:
“(2.1) Before making an order under subsection (1), the Governor in Council must consider
(a) its operational impacts on affected designated operators;
(b) its impact on public safety of Canadians;
(c) its financial impacts on affected designated operators;
(d) its impact on the delivery of vital services and vital systems to consumers; and
(e) any other factor that the Governor in Council considers to be relevant.”
The question was put on the amendment of Jennifer O'Connell and it was agreed to.
“(5) The Minister must, within 90 days after an order is made under subsection (1), notify the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians and the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency of the making of the order.”
The question was put on the amendment of Jennifer O'Connell and it was agreed to.
“(6) For greater certainty, despite subsection (1), the Governor in Council is not permitted to order any designated operator or class of operators to intercept a private communication or a radio-based telephone communication, as those terms are defined in section 183 of the Criminal Code.”
The question was put on the amendment of Jennifer O'Connell and it was agreed to.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Peter Julian and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 10.
“(2) Any confidential information, within the meaning of this Act or any other Act of Parliament that applies to or is administered by a person or entity referred to in subsection (1), that is collected or disclosed under that subsection must be treated as confidential.”
The question was put on the amendment of Jennifer O'Connell and it was agreed to.
“(2) Any information collected or obtained under subsection (1) must be retained only for as long as is necessary to make, amend or revoke an order under section 20, or to verify compliance or prevent non-compliance with such an order.
(3) A designated operator, or class of operators, to which the information relates must be informed of the retention period.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Kristina Michaud and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 4.
“(2) A person or entity that collects or receives information under subsection (1) must not use it for any purpose other than that set out in section 5.”
The question was put on the amendment of Kristina Michaud and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 10.
(a) by replacing line 5 on page 28 with the following:
“knowingly disclose confidential information, personal information or de-identified information or allow it to”
(b) by adding after line 20 on page 28 the following:
“(1.1) The following definitions apply in subsection (1).
de-identify means to modify personal information so that an individual cannot be directly identified from it, though a risk of the individual being identified remains. (dépersonnaliser)
personal information has the same meaning as in section 3 of the Privacy Act. (renseignements personnels)”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Kristina Michaud and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 2; NAYS: 9.
(a) replacing lines 14 and 15 on page 28 with the following:
“(d) the disclosure is necessary for the protection of vital services, vital systems or criti-”
(b) adding after line 24 on page 28 the following:
“(3) Any confidential information that is disclosed or allowed to be accessed under subsection (1) must be treated as confidential.”
The question was put on the amendment of Jennifer O'Connell and it was agreed to.
“(1.1) If an exchange of information occurs under an agreement or arrangement with the government of a foreign state or with an international organization established by the governments of foreign states, the Minister must, without delay, notify the person to whom the information relates of the disclosure and of the state or organization that received it.”
The question was put on the amendment of Kristina Michaud and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 2; NAYS: 9.
“(1.1) The agreement or arrangement must restrict the retention of the information to the period necessary for the purposes set out in subsection (1) and provide for its subsequent disposal.”
The question was put on the amendment of Kristina Michaud and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 2; NAYS: 9.
(a) replacing line 16 on page 29 with the following:
“28 (1) If it is necessary for the protection of vital services, vital systems or critical cyber systems, the appropriate”
(b) replacing line 22 on page 29 with the following:
“the regulations. However, if for the same reason the Minister or the responsi-”
(c) adding after line 25 on page 29 the following:
“(2) Any confidential information, within the meaning of this Act or any other Act of Parliament that applies to or is administered by the appropriate regulator, that is provided under subsection (1) must be treated as confidential.”
The question was put on the amendment of Jennifer O'Connell and it was agreed to.
(a) by replacing line 29 on page 57 with the following:
“committed a violation, the Superintendent must issue a”
(b) by replacing, in the English version, lines 2 to 4 on page 58 with the following:
“person and cause it to be served on them.”
The question was put on the amendment of Peter Julian and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 10.
(a) replacing line 17 on page 80 with the following:
“(c) respecting the form, manner and period for reporting any”
(b) adding after line 19 on page 80 the following:
“(c.1) respecting the period within which a notification referred to under subsection 14(1) is to be provided;”
The question was put on the amendment of Jennifer O'Connell and it was agreed to.
“(2) For greater certainty, the power provided by subsection (1) must be exercised in accordance with the jurisdiction and powers of the provinces and territories.”
The question was put on the amendment of Kristina Michaud and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 10.
“(2) Any law of a province relating to cybersecurity that provides for more stringent rules than those prescribed by regulations made under subsection (1) is to prevail in that province.”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was beyond the scope of the Bill, as provided on page 770 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
“(2) In making regulations under subsection (1), the Governor in Council must seek to ensure consistency with existing regulatory regimes, such as those established by provincial regulatory agencies and the North American Electric Reliability Corporation Critical Infrastructure Protection Standards.”
Debate arose thereon.
Pam Damoff moved, — That the amendment be amended
(a) by replacing the word “must” with the word “may”
(b) by deleting the words “and the North American Electric Reliability Corporation Critical Infrastructure Protection Standards”.
After debate, the question was put on the subamendment of Pam Damoff and it was agreed to.
The question was put on the amendment of Glen Motz, as amended, and it was agreed to.
“loi, que l’exploitant désigné ait été ou non poursuivi ou déclaré coupable de l’infraction.”
The question was put on the amendment of Jennifer O'Connell and it was agreed to.
“spect of a contravention of section 26 or paragraph 87(a) or (b) — if they establish that they”
The question was put on the amendment of Jennifer O'Connell and it was agreed to.
(a) by adding after line 13 on page 83 the following:
“(a.1) the judge must appoint a person from a list established by the Minister to act as a special advocate in the proceeding after hearing representations from the applicant and the Minister and after giving particular consideration and weight to the preferences of the applicant;”
(b) by adding after line 28 on page 83 the following:
“(c.1) on the request of the Minister, the judge may exempt the Minister from the obligation to provide the special advocate with a copy of information if the judge is satisfied that the information does not enable the applicant to be reasonably informed of the case made by the Minister;
(c.2) for the purpose of deciding whether to grant an exemption under paragraph (c.1), the judge may ask the special advocate to make submissions and may communicate with the special advocate to the extent required to enable the special advocate to make the submissions, if the judge is of the opinion that considerations of fairness and natural justice require it;”
(c) by adding after line 43 on page 83 the following:
“(h) the judge may receive into evidence anything that, in the judge’s opinion, is reliable and appropriate, even if it is inadmissible in a court of law, and may base a decision on that evidence; and
(i) the judge must not base a decision on information that the Minister is exempted from providing to the special advocate, must ensure the confidentiality of that information and must return it to the Minister.”
(d) by adding after line 4 on page 84 the following:
“(2.1) A special advocate’s role is to protect the interests of the applicant in a proceeding referred to in subsection (1) when evidence or other information is heard in the absence of the public and of the applicant and their counsel.
(2.2) A special advocate may challenge
(a) the Minister’s claim that the disclosure of evidence or other information would be injurious to international relations, national defence or national security or endanger the safety of any person; and
(b) the relevance, reliability and sufficiency of evidence or other information that is provided by the Minister and is not disclosed to the applicant and their counsel, and the weight to be given to it.
(2.3) Subject to paragraph (1)(c.1), the Minister must, within a period set by the judge, provide the special advocate with a copy of the evidence and other information that is relevant to the case made by the Minister and that has been filed with the Federal Court, but that is not disclosed to the applicant and their counsel.”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it infringed on the financial initiative of the Crown, as provided on page 772 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
“(2) The report must include, for the fiscal year covered by the report, the following information in relation to orders made under subsection 20(1):
(a) the number of orders made under subsection 20(1) and the nature of the directions set out in those orders;
(b) the number of directions revoked under subsection 20(2);
(c) the number of designated operators that were subject to a direction;
(e) the number of designated operators that partially complied with a direction;
(f) the number of designated operators that fully complied with a direction; and
(g) an explanation of the necessity, proportionality, reasonableness and utility of the directions.”
Debate arose thereon.
Jennifer O'Connell moved, — That the amendment be amended by replacing the word “the number” with the words “description of compliance” in subparagraph (e) and (f).
After debate, the question was put on the subamendment of Jennifer O'Connell and it was agreed to.
The question was put on the amendment of Peter Julian, as amended, and it was agreed to.
(2) The report must contain information on, among other things,
(a) the number of directions issued under subsection 20(1) in the immediately preceding fiscal year;
(b) the number of designated operators that were issued directions under subsection 20(1) in the immediately preceding fiscal year; and
(c) any other information relating to the immediately preceding fiscal year that the Minister considers relevant, if that information is not likely to be about an identifiable designated operator or other person.
The question was put on the amendment of Jennifer O'Connell and it was agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, carried.
Clause 14 carried.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 15 to 19 inclusive carried severally.
Schedule carried.
The Title carried.
The Bill, as amended, was adopted.
ORDERED, — That the Chair report the Bill, as amended, to the House.
ORDERED, — That Bill C-26, as amended, be reprinted for the use of the House of Commons at report stage.
At 5:41 p.m., the committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.