“named in the order within 30 days after the service of the order and at the place and in”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Jenny Kwan and it was negatived.

On Clause 11,

(a) by replacing, in the English version, lines 22 and 23 on page 10 with the following:

“ficer to receive, obtain and act on any publicly available information.”

“(4.1) For the purpose of subsection (4), publicly available information means information that has been published or broadcast for public consumption, is accessible to the public on the global information infrastructure or otherwise or is available to the public on request, by subscription or by purchase. It does not include information in respect of which a Canadian or a person in Canada has a reasonable expectation of privacy.”

The question was put on the amendment of Claude DeBellefeuille and it was negatived on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Chak Au, Frank Caputo, Claude DeBellefeuille, Rhonda Kirkland, Dane Lloyd — 5;

NAYS: Sima Acan, Marianne Dandurand, Anthony Housefather, Marcus Powlowski, Jacques Ramsay, Amandeep Sodhi — 6.

On new Clause 12.1,

“12.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 487.092:

Order — Unlocking of Electronic Device

487.0921 (1) The following definitions apply in this section.

data has the same meaning as in section 487.‍011.‍ (données)

electronic device includes

(a) a computer program, a computer system or computer data within the meaning of subsection 342.‍1(2); and

(b) a data storage device.‍ (dispositif électronique)

judge means a judge of a superior court of criminal jurisdiction or a judge of the Court of Quebec. (juge)

offence means an offence contrary to, any conspiracy or attempt to commit or being an accessory after the fact in relation to an offence contrary to, or any counselling in relation to an offence contrary to

(a) any of the following provisions of this Act:

(i) section 82 (possession of explosives),

(ii) section 82.‍3 (possession, etc.‍, of nuclear material, radioactive material or device),

(iii) section 82.‍4 (use or alteration of nuclear material, radioactive material or device),

(iv) section 82.‍5 (commission of indictable offence to obtain nuclear material, etc.‍),

(v) section 82.‍6 (threats),

(vi) section 83.‍02 (providing or collecting property for certain activities),

(vii) subsection 83.‍03(1) (providing, making available, etc.‍, property or services for terrorist purposes),

(viii) section 83.‍04 (using or possessing property for terrorist purposes),

(ix) section 83.‍18 (participation in activity of terrorist group),

(x) section 83.‍181 (leaving Canada to participate in activity of terrorist group),

(xi) section 83.‍19 (facilitating terrorist activity),

(xii) section 83.‍191 (leaving Canada to facilitate terrorist activity),

(xiii) section 83.‍2 (commission of offence for terrorist group),

(xiv) section 83.‍201 (leaving Canada to commit offence for terrorist group),

(xv) section 83.‍202 (leaving Canada to commit offence that is terrorist activity),

(xvi) section 83.‍21 (instructing to carry out activity for terrorist group),

(xvii) section 83.‍22 (instructing to carry out terrorist activity),

(xviii) section 83.‍221 (counselling commission of terrorism offence),

(xix) section 83.‍23 (harbouring or concealing),

(xx) section 83.‍231 (hoax — terrorist activity),

(xxi) section 151 (sexual interference),

(xxii) section 152 (invitation to sexual touching),

(xxiii) section 153 (sexual exploitation),

(xxiv) subsection 160(3) (bestiality in presence of or by child),

(xxv) section 163.‍1 (child sexual abuse and exploitation material),

(xxvi) section 170 (parent or guardian procuring sexual activity),

(xxvii) section 171.‍1 (making sexually explicit material available to child),

(xxviii) section 172.‍1 (luring a child),

(xxix) section 172.‍2 (agreement or arrangement — sexual offence against child),

(xxx) section 235 (murder),

(xxxi) section 272 (sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm),

(xxxii) section 273 (aggravated sexual assault),

(xxxiii) section 273.‍3 (removal of child from Canada),

(xxxiv) section 279.‍01 (trafficking in persons),

(xxxv) section 279.‍011 (trafficking of a person under the age of eighteen years),

(xxxvi) section 280 (abduction of person under age of 16),

(xxxvii) section 281 (abduction of person under age of 14),

(xxxviii) section 282 (abduction in contravention of custody or parenting order),

(xxxix) section 283 (abduction); or

(b) the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act.‍ (infraction)

(2) On ex parte application made by a peace officer who has obtained lawful authority to examine the contents of an electronic device, a judge may make an order compelling a person to unlock the device, including providing access to data specified in the lawful authority and contained in or available to the device, if the judge is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds to believe that

(a) an offence has been committed;

(b) an examination of the device or of the specified data contained in or available to the device will afford evidence with respect to the commission of the offence;

(c) the person is a user of the device;

(d) other investigative procedures to obtain data contained in or available to the device have been tried and have failed or are unlikely to succeed, or that the urgency of the matter is such that it would be impractical to carry out the investigation of the offence using only other investigative procedures; and

(e) it is in the best interests of the administration of justice to make the order.

(3) The order must contain any terms and conditions that the judge considers advisable to ensure that the execution of the order is reasonable in the circumstances.

(4) The order may be executed at any place in Canada. Any peace officer who executes the order must have authority to act as a peace officer in the place where it is executed.

(5) If a peace officer believes that it would be impracticable to appear personally before a judge to make an application for an order, a judge may make an order on information submitted by telephone or other means of telecommunication and, for that purpose, section 487.‍1 applies, with any modifications that the circumstances require, to the order.

(6) Every person who, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with the order is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(7) Evidence that a person was able to unlock an electronic device in the execution of the order is inadmissible as evidence in any criminal or civil proceeding as proof of ownership of the device or that the person had knowledge of the contents of the device.”

The question was put on the amendment of Frank Caputo and it was negatived on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Chak Au, Frank Caputo, Claude DeBellefeuille, Rhonda Kirkland, Dane Lloyd — 5;

NAYS: Sima Acan, Marianne Dandurand, Anthony Housefather, Marcus Powlowski, Jacques Ramsay, Amandeep Sodhi — 6.

On Clause 19,

“are reasonable grounds to believe that the person will”

The question was put on the amendment of Jenny Kwan and it was negatived on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Chak Au, Frank Caputo, Claude DeBellefeuille, Rhonda Kirkland, Dane Lloyd — 5;

NAYS: Sima Acan, Marianne Dandurand, Anthony Housefather, Marcus Powlowski, Jacques Ramsay, Amandeep Sodhi — 6.

On Clause 20,

“grounds to believe that the person will use that other”

The question was put on the amendment of Jenny Kwan and it was negatived on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Chak Au, Frank Caputo, Rhonda Kirkland, Dane Lloyd — 4;

NAYS: Sima Acan, Marianne Dandurand, Claude DeBellefeuille, Anthony Housefather, Marcus Powlowski, Jacques Ramsay, Amandeep Sodhi — 7.

On Clause 21,

“contained in (specify computer system”

The question was put on the amendment of Jenny Kwan and it was negatived.

On Clause 22,

(a) by replacing line 25 on page 15 with the following:

“puter data contained in a computer”

“tained in (specify computer system in”

The question was put on the amendment of Jenny Kwan and it was negatived on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Chak Au, Frank Caputo, Rhonda Kirkland, Dane Lloyd — 4;

NAYS: Sima Acan, Marianne Dandurand, Claude DeBellefeuille, Anthony Housefather, Marcus Powlowski, Jacques Ramsay, Amandeep Sodhi — 7.

On Clause 23,

“Because I have reasonable grounds to believe that”

The question was put on the amendment of Jenny Kwan and it was negatived on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Chak Au, Frank Caputo, Rhonda Kirkland, Dane Lloyd — 4;

NAYS: Sima Acan, Marianne Dandurand, Claude DeBellefeuille, Anthony Housefather, Marcus Powlowski, Jacques Ramsay, Amandeep Sodhi — 7.

On Clause 24,

“grounds to believe (including if the application is for an order under section 487.‍014 or 487.‍0141 of the Criminal Code)”

The question was put on the amendment of Claude DeBellefeuille and it was negatived on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Chak Au, Frank Caputo, Claude DeBellefeuille, Rhonda Kirkland, Dane Lloyd — 5;

NAYS: Sima Acan, Marianne Dandurand, Anthony Housefather, Marcus Powlowski, Jacques Ramsay, Amandeep Sodhi — 6.

On Clause 25,

“, that there are reasonable grounds to believe that an”

The question was put on the amendment of Claude DeBellefeuille and it was negatived on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Chak Au, Frank Caputo, Claude DeBellefeuille, Rhonda Kirkland, Dane Lloyd — 5;

NAYS: Sima Acan, Marianne Dandurand, Anthony Housefather, Marcus Powlowski, Jacques Ramsay, Amandeep Sodhi — 6.

On Clause 26,

(a) by replacing line 24 on page 21 with the following:

“grounds to believe”

“, that there are reasonable grounds to believe”

The question was put on the amendment of Claude DeBellefeuille and it was negatived on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Chak Au, Frank Caputo, Claude DeBellefeuille, Rhonda Kirkland, Dane Lloyd — 5;

NAYS: Sima Acan, Marianne Dandurand, Anthony Housefather, Marcus Powlowski, Jacques Ramsay, Amandeep Sodhi — 6.

On Clause 29,

“(1.1) The Minister must not authorize a competent authority to make arrangements for the enforcement of a decision under subsection (1) if the transmission data or subscriber information requested is public sector data, unless

(a) the public sector body in question consents to the production of the transmission data or subscriber information; or

(b) the Minister enters into an agreement with the state or entity to allow their production.”

The question was put on the amendment of Jenny Kwan and it was negatived.

“(1.1) The Minister must refuse the request if it is made by a state or entity that has committed grave breaches of international peace and security — including war crimes, violations of international humanitarian law or gross and systemic human rights violations — or acts of significant corruption.”

The question was put on the amendment of Frank Caputo and it was negatived on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Chak Au, Frank Caputo, Claude DeBellefeuille, Rhonda Kirkland, Dane Lloyd — 5;

NAYS: Sima Acan, Marianne Dandurand, Anthony Housefather, Marcus Powlowski, Jacques Ramsay, Amandeep Sodhi — 6.

On Clause 31,

“whether or not they provide or have provided telecommunications services to”

On Clause 34,

“cations under sections 20.23 and 20.5 and the hearing of such applications; and”

On Clause 41,

“vice, primarily for the purpose of enabling communica‐”

The question was put on the amendment of Jenny Kwan and it was negatived on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Chak Au, Frank Caputo, Claude DeBellefeuille, Rhonda Kirkland, Dane Lloyd — 5;

NAYS: Sima Acan, Marianne Dandurand, Anthony Housefather, Marcus Powlowski, Jacques Ramsay, Amandeep Sodhi — 6.

(a) by replacing lines 8 and 9 on page 37 with the following:

“(a) provides the service to persons in Canada; and

(b) carries on all of its business activities in”

“b) exerce toutes ses activités commerciales”

The question was put on the amendment of Jenny Kwan and it was negatived on division.

“electronic protection means a system, tool or feature that performs or contributes to critical functions in securing hardware, software or networks. It includes

(a) authentication processes;

(b) auditability mechanisms;

(c) encryption, as applied to devices, hardware or data in motion or at rest; and

(d) any other prescribed type of data protection measure that makes access to an electronic service provider’s data, devices, hardware or networks technically infeasible.‍ (pro‐”

The question was put on the amendment of Frank Caputo and it was negatived on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Chak Au, Frank Caputo, Claude DeBellefeuille, Rhonda Kirkland, Dane Lloyd — 5;

NAYS: Sima Acan, Marianne Dandurand, Anthony Housefather, Marcus Powlowski, Jacques Ramsay, Amandeep Sodhi — 6.

(a) by replacing lines 23 to 27 on page 37 with the following:

“systemic vulnerability means a vulnerability arising from any action that requires weakening, altering or circumventing the electronic protections of an electronic service — including encryption, such as the end-to-end encryption of text communications — creating split-key systems or deploying custom software patches to access private device data.‍ (vulnérabilité systémique)”

“(1.1) Nothing in this Act is to be construed as authorizing the making of regulations or ministerial orders that require electronic service providers to design, alter or restructure their products, services or infrastructure to create interception capabilities that do not already exist.”

The question was put on the amendment of Jenny Kwan and it was negatived on division.

“systemic vulnerability means a measure that weakens, undermines or circumvents an electronic protection deployed or made available by an electronic service provider to ensure the confidentiality, integrity or availability of data, including any requirement to implement, modify or build a capability or a requirement to take or prohibit any other action, that is likely to introduce a material risk that digital information, devices or hardware could be ac‐”

The question was put on the amendment of Frank Caputo and it was negatived on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Chak Au, Frank Caputo, Claude DeBellefeuille, Rhonda Kirkland, Dane Lloyd — 5;

NAYS: Sima Acan, Marianne Dandurand, Anthony Housefather, Marcus Powlowski, Jacques Ramsay, Amandeep Sodhi — 6.

“a credible risk, based on recognized international technical standards, that secure information could be ac‐”

The question was put on the amendment of Anthony Housefather and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Sima Acan, Marianne Dandurand, Anthony Housefather, Marcus Powlowski, Jacques Ramsay, Amandeep Sodhi — 6;

NAYS: Chak Au, Frank Caputo, Claude DeBellefeuille, Rhonda Kirkland, Dane Lloyd — 5.

“thority to do so or a vulnerability arising from any action that renders systemic methods of authentication or encryption less effective.‍ (vulnérabilité systémique)”

The question was put on the amendment of Claude DeBellefeuille and it was negatived on division.

“thority to do so, other than a risk that relates only to information related to persons with respect to whom a warrant, order or other authority to access information conferred under the Criminal Code or the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act — or any similar authority conferred under another Act of Parliament — applies.  (“vulnérabilité systémique”)”

“(4) Nothing in this Act is to be construed as authorizing the decoding of an encrypted private communication, as defined in section 183 of the Criminal Code.”

The question was put on the amendment of Claude DeBellefeuille and it was negatived on division.

“(4) Nothing in this Act is designed or intended to be applied to weaken or circumvent electronic protections, including encryption, to mandate client-side scanning or to otherwise introduce any security weaknesses.”

The question was put on the amendment of Jenny Kwan and it was negatived on division.

“(4) No obligations under this Act are to be construed as compelling an electronic service provider to decrypt, or to ensure that an authorized person is able to decrypt, any information that is encrypted by a person to whom the electronic service provider provides services, unless the encryption was provided by the electronic service provider and the provider possesses the information necessary to decrypt the information.”

“(4) Nothing in this Act may be applied to weaken or circumvent electronic protections, including encryption.”

The question was put on the amendment of Frank Caputo and it was negatived on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Chak Au, Frank Caputo, Claude DeBellefeuille, Rhonda Kirkland, Dane Lloyd — 5;

NAYS: Sima Acan, Marianne Dandurand, Anthony Housefather, Marcus Powlowski, Jacques Ramsay, Amandeep Sodhi — 6.

“sons, while protecting data security and privacy.”

The question was put on the amendment of Jenny Kwan and it was negatived on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Chak Au, Frank Caputo, Claude DeBellefeuille, Rhonda Kirkland, Dane Lloyd — 5;

NAYS: Sima Acan, Marianne Dandurand, Anthony Housefather, Marcus Powlowski, Jacques Ramsay, Amandeep Sodhi — 6.

“lating to the obligations of core providers, respecting”

(a) by replacing line 20 on page 38 with the following:

“and organizing information that is authorized by law to be ac‐”

“(d) the retention of specific, narrow categories of metadata — includ‐”

“of the Criminal Code — for limited and clearly prescribed periods of time not exceeding one year, in cases where retention is reasonable, proportionate and necessary for specified law enforcement or national security purposes.

(2.1) Regulations made under subsection (2) must not require core providers or any other person to install any government or other third-party software, hardware, firmware or other technology in any of their network, system, device, service or other process.”

The question was put on the amendment of Frank Caputo and it was negatived on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Chak Au, Frank Caputo, Claude DeBellefeuille, Rhonda Kirkland, Dane Lloyd — 5;

NAYS: Sima Acan, Marianne Dandurand, Anthony Housefather, Marcus Powlowski, Jacques Ramsay, Amandeep Sodhi — 6.

(a) by deleting lines 23 to 26 on page 38.

“to in paragraph (a); and”

The question was put on the amendment of Frank Caputo and it was negatived on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Chak Au, Frank Caputo, Claude DeBellefeuille, Rhonda Kirkland, Dane Lloyd — 5;

NAYS: Sima Acan, Marianne Dandurand, Anthony Housefather, Marcus Powlowski, Jacques Ramsay, Amandeep Sodhi — 6.

“equipment or other thing by core providers that may enable an autho‐”

(a) by deleting lines 31 to 34 on page 38.

“Preservation Demand

14.1 (1) A peace officer or public officer may make a demand to a core provider requiring them to preserve categories of metadata — including transmission data, as defined in section 487.011 of the Criminal Code — that are in their possession or control when the demand is made.

(2) The peace officer or public officer may make the demand only if they have reasonable grounds to suspect that

(a) an offence has been or will be committed under this Act or any other Act of Parliament; and

(b) the metadata is in the core provider’s possession or control and will assist in the investigation of the offence.

(3) A demand is not to be made to a core provider that is under investigation for the offence referred to in paragraph (2)(a).

(4) A peace officer or public officer may revoke the demand by notice given to the core provider at any time. In the case of an offence that has been or will be committed under this Act or any other Act of Parliament, the demand expires 21 days after the day on which it is made, unless the demand is revoked before that day.

(5) The peace officer or public officer who makes the demand may impose any conditions in the demand that they consider appropriate — including conditions prohibiting the disclosure of its existence or some or all of its contents — and may revoke a condition at any time by notice given to the core provider.

(6) A peace officer or public officer must not make another demand requiring the core provider to preserve the same metadata in connection with the investigation.”

The question was put on the amendment of Jenny Kwan and it was negatived on division.

“not exceeding six months.”

The question was put on the amendment of Jacques Ramsay and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Sima Acan, Chak Au, Frank Caputo, Marianne Dandurand, Claude DeBellefeuille, Anthony Housefather, Rhonda Kirkland, Dane Lloyd, Marcus Powlowski, Jacques Ramsay, Amandeep Sodhi — 11;

NAYS: — 0.

“of justice, in particular to investigations relating to indictable offences under the”

The question was put on the amendment of Frank Caputo and it was negatived on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Chak Au, Frank Caputo, Claude DeBellefeuille, Rhonda Kirkland, Dane Lloyd — 5;

NAYS: Sima Acan, Marianne Dandurand, Anthony Housefather, Marcus Powlowski, Jacques Ramsay, Amandeep Sodhi — 6.

(a) by replacing line 10 on page 39 with the following:

“for the core providers without a risk of introducing a systemic vulnerability;”

“ensure compliance with the regulation and their potential financial impact on them;”

“sons to whom the core providers provide services, including the delivery of services and systems to those persons;

(d.1) the potential impact on public safety and the data security of Canadians;”

“(e.1) international comity; and”

The question was put on the amendment of Frank Caputo and it was negatived on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Chak Au, Frank Caputo, Claude DeBellefeuille, Rhonda Kirkland, Dane Lloyd — 5;

NAYS: Sima Acan, Marianne Dandurand, Anthony Housefather, Marcus Powlowski, Jacques Ramsay, Amandeep Sodhi — 6.

(a) by adding after line 16 on page 39 the following:

“(e.1) the potential for the regulation to place core providers in a conflict with the laws or regulations of another jurisdiction to which they are subject; and”

“(3.1) Subsection (2) does not authorize the making of regulations setting a requirement for core providers that is likely to introduce a systemic vulnerability related to a service.”

The question was put on the amendment of Frank Caputo and it was negatived on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Chak Au, Frank Caputo, Claude DeBellefeuille, Rhonda Kirkland, Dane Lloyd — 5;

NAYS: Sima Acan, Marianne Dandurand, Anthony Housefather, Marcus Powlowski, Jacques Ramsay, Amandeep Sodhi — 6.

“(4) Paragraphs (2)‍(b) and (d) do not authorize the making of regulations that require core providers to install, use, operate, manage, assess, test or maintain any device, equipment or other thing or to retain informa‐”

The question was put on the amendment of Frank Caputo and it was negatived on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Chak Au, Frank Caputo, Claude DeBellefeuille, Rhonda Kirkland, Dane Lloyd — 5;

NAYS: Sima Acan, Marianne Dandurand, Anthony Housefather, Marcus Powlowski, Jacques Ramsay, Amandeep Sodhi — 6.

“(4.1) Paragraphs (2)(a) and (d) do not authorize the making of regulations that require core providers to

(a) make changes to products or services that they provide in the ordinary course of business;

(b) collect and retain any data beyond what they require for their own purposes; or

(c) make any changes that would affect the features of any products or services they provide, including the addition of new features.”

The question was put on the amendment of Jenny Kwan and it was negatived on division.

“(4.1) The Governor in Council may make a regulation requiring the retention of a category of metadata under paragraph (2)(d) only if the Governor in Council is satisfied that the category and all its elements are essential for facilitating effective and timely investigations under the Criminal Code or for facilitating the effective and timely exercise of powers or performance of duties and functions under the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act.”

“(4.1) Subsection (2) do not authorize the making of regulations that require core providers to make changes to products or services that they provide, such as changes that would affect the features of those products or services, including the addition of new features.”

The question was put on the amendment of Frank Caputo and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

“spect to an electronic service, including an interoperable service, if compliance with that provision would require the provider to risk introducing a sys‐”

The question was put on the amendment of Frank Caputo and it was negatived on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Chak Au, Frank Caputo, Rhonda Kirkland, Dane Lloyd — 4;

NAYS: Sima Acan, Marianne Dandurand, Claude DeBellefeuille, Anthony Housefather, Marcus Powlowski, Jacques Ramsay, Amandeep Sodhi — 7.

(a) by replacing lines 30 and 31 on page 39 with the following:

“provision would have the effect of requiring the provider to introduce a systemic vulnerability related to that service or of preventing the”

“would have the effect of requiring the provider to introduce a systemic vulnerability related to that service or of preventing the provider”

“(6) For greater certainty, subsection (2) does not authorize the making of regulations that confer an authority to access personal information about the persons to whom the core provider provides services.”

“5.1 (1) When making a regulation under subsection 5(2), the Governor in Council must provide for compensation to be paid to core providers for the core providers' reasonable costs directly related to complying with the regulation and must determine the amount of compensation in consultation with the relevant core providers and in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.

(2) Compensation under subsection (1) is to be determined on the basis that core providers should recover their reasonable capital and operating costs directly related to complying with the regulation, without profiting from complying or bearing the cost of complying.

(3) The reasonable costs provided for under subsection (1) may be periodically reviewed and adjusted by the Governor in Council, if necessary, on the Governor in Council's own motion or upon request by a core provider that incurs costs in relation to the regulation.

(4) The Governor in Council may audit a core provider's reasonable costs under subsection (1) and adjust compensation amounts, if necessary.”

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it infringed on the financial initiative of the Crown, as stated in section 16.77 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Fourth Edition.

“5.1 No order or regulation made under this Act is to require the production of, or the implementation of any system capable of producing, any document or information within less than

(a) 24 hours, for an exigent circumstances request;

(b) five days, for an urgent request related to an active investigation; or

(c) 30 days, for a non-urgent request related to an active investigation.”

The question was put on the amendment of Frank Caputo and it was negatived.

(a) by replacing lines 34 and 35 on page 39 with the following:

“must, by order, exempt the core provider, for a specified”

“tion made under subsection 5(2), if the core provider demonstrates on grounds that are reasonable and directly related to the purpose of the exemption that the exemption is necessary and proportionate.”

The question was put on the amendment of Frank Caputo and it was negatived on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Chak Au, Frank Caputo, Claude DeBellefeuille, Rhonda Kirkland, Dane Lloyd — 5;

NAYS: Sima Acan, Marianne Dandurand, Anthony Housefather, Marcus Powlowski, Jacques Ramsay, Amandeep Sodhi — 6.

“(1.1) The order may contain provisions respecting the disclosure of information contained in it and the disclosure of the fact that the core provider is subject to it.”

“(4) Within 10 days after the day on which the application is submitted,”

The question was put on the amendment of Frank Caputo and it was negatived on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Chak Au, Frank Caputo, Claude DeBellefeuille, Rhonda Kirkland, Dane Lloyd — 5;

NAYS: Sima Acan, Marianne Dandurand, Anthony Housefather, Marcus Powlowski, Jacques Ramsay, Amandeep Sodhi — 6.

“(4) Within 90 days after the day on which the application is submitted, or within any other period that may be agreed on by the Minister and the core provider,”

(a) by replacing lines 30 and 31 on page 40 with the following:

“not the provider is a core provider.”

“7(1) has effect for 90 days.”

“under subsection 7(1) or only extends the duration of another order made under subsection 7(1).”

“the factors referred to in subsection 7(3), the 90-day period should be extended.”

The question was put on the amendment of Claude DeBellefeuille and it was negatived on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Chak Au, Frank Caputo, Claude DeBellefeuille, Rhonda Kirkland, Dane Lloyd — 5;

NAYS: Sima Acan, Marianne Dandurand, Anthony Housefather, Marcus Powlowski, Jacques Ramsay, Amandeep Sodhi — 6.

(a) by replacing lines 30 and 31 on page 40 with the following:

“not the provider is a core provider.”

“7(1) is valid for a period not exceeding one year.”

“the factors referred to in subsection 7(3), the order should be extended.

(1.1) An order may only be extended if:

(a) the Minister is satisfied that it should be following the review; and

(b) the extension is approved by the Intelligence Commissioner.

(1.2) An order that is extended is subject to the same requirements as the original order.”

The question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived.

“fy a period, not exceeding two years, during which it is valid.”

“(1.1) The order may also contain provisions respecting the disclosure of information contained in it and the disclosure of the fact that the electronic service provider is subject to it.”

“(1.1) Subsection (1) does not authorize the making of an order that requires electronic service providers to make changes to products or services that they provide, such as changes that would affect the features of those products or services, including the addition of new features.”

The question was put on the amendment of Frank Caputo and it was negatived on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Chak Au, Frank Caputo, Claude DeBellefeuille, Rhonda Kirkland, Dane Lloyd — 5;

NAYS: Sima Acan, Marianne Dandurand, Anthony Housefather, Marcus Powlowski, Jacques Ramsay, Amandeep Sodhi — 6.

(a) replacing line 1 on page 41 with the following:

“(2) The order is not valid unless it is approved by the In-”

“Intelligence Commissioner Actand the Intelligence Com-”

“(2.1) The Intelligence Commissioner must have access to all the materials necessary to review the factors taken into account by the Minister under subsection (3), including any potential technical, privacy or cybersecurity impacts of the order.”

The question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived on division.

(a) by adding after line 5 on page 41 the following:

“(2.1) The Intelligence Commissioner’s written decision approving the order must include

(a) a detailed description of any privacy or security measure referred to in subsection (3.1) and the reasons for which the Commissioner considers them necessary; and

(b) a detailed explanation of how the technical capability sought under the order will not introduce a systemic vulnerability.”

“(3.1) The Minister must include in the order any privacy or security measure that the Intelligence Commissioner considers necessary.”

The question was put on the amendment of Frank Caputo and it was negatived on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Chak Au, Frank Caputo, Claude DeBellefeuille, Rhonda Kirkland, Dane Lloyd — 5;

NAYS: Sima Acan, Marianne Dandurand, Anthony Housefather, Marcus Powlowski, Jacques Ramsay, Amandeep Sodhi — 6.

“(3) In deciding whether to make the order, the Minister must take into ac‐”

“justice, in particular to investigations relating to indictable offences under the Crimi‐”

The question was put on the amendment of Frank Caputo and it was negatived on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Chak Au, Frank Caputo, Claude DeBellefeuille, Rhonda Kirkland, Dane Lloyd — 5;

NAYS: Sima Acan, Marianne Dandurand, Anthony Housefather, Marcus Powlowski, Jacques Ramsay, Amandeep Sodhi — 6.

(a) by replacing line 14 on page 41 with the following:

“electronic service provider without a risk of introducing a systemic vulnerability;”

“provider to ensure compliance with the order and their potential financial impact on the electronic service provider;”

“vices, including the delivery of services and systems to those persons;

(d.1) the potential impact on public safety and the data security of Canadians;”

“(e.‍1) international comity; and”

The question was put on the amendment of Frank Caputo and it was negatived on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Chak Au, Frank Caputo, Claude DeBellefeuille, Rhonda Kirkland, Dane Lloyd — 5;

NAYS: Sima Acan, Marianne Dandurand, Anthony Housefather, Marcus Powlowski, Jacques Ramsay, Amandeep Sodhi — 6.

“(e.1) any reasonable alternative to the making of the order in the circumstances; and”

The question was put on the amendment of Claude DeBellefeuille and it was negatived on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Chak Au, Frank Caputo, Claude DeBellefeuille, Rhonda Kirkland, Dane Lloyd — 5;

NAYS: Sima Acan, Marianne Dandurand, Anthony Housefather, Marcus Powlowski, Jacques Ramsay, Amandeep Sodhi — 6.

The question was put on the amendment of Frank Caputo and it was negatived on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Chak Au, Frank Caputo, Rhonda Kirkland, Dane Lloyd — 4;

NAYS: Sima Acan, Marianne Dandurand, Claude DeBellefeuille, Anthony Housefather, Marcus Powlowski, Jacques Ramsay — 6.

“(4) When making an order under subsection 7(1), the Minister must provide for compensation to be paid to electronic service providers for the electronic service providers' reasonable costs directly related to complying with the order and must determine the amount of compensation in consultation with the relevant electronic service providers and in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.

(4.1) Compensation under subsection (4) is to be determined on the basis that electronic service providers should recover their reasonable capital and operating costs directly related to complying with the order, without profiting from complying or bearing the cost of complying.

(4.2) The reasonable costs provided for under subsection (4) may be periodically reviewed and adjusted by the Minister, if necessary, on the Minister's own motion or upon request by an electronic service provider that incurs costs in relation to the order.

(4.3) The Minister may audit an electronic service provider's reasonable costs under subsection (4) and adjust compensation amounts, if necessary.

(4.4) The Minister may make regulations respecting the compensation to be paid to electronic service providers, including regulations respecting the production of cost data by electronic service providers, the manner of calculation of the compensation and the time and manner of payment.”

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it infringed on the financial initiative of the Crown, as stated in section 16.77 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Fourth Edition.

“(3) Within 30 days after the day on which a decision of the Intelligence Commissioner under paragraph 20(1)(a) of the Intelligence Commissioner Act is received, the Minister must provide the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency with a copy of the order, along with all the information that was provided to the Intelligence Commissioner under subsection (1).”

The question was put on the amendment of Claude DeBellefeuille and it was negatived on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Chak Au, Frank Caputo, Claude DeBellefeuille, Rhonda Kirkland, Dane Lloyd — 5;

NAYS: Sima Acan, Marianne Dandurand, Anthony Housefather, Marcus Powlowski, Jacques Ramsay, Amandeep Sodhi — 6.

“9.1 Without delay after making the order under subsection 7(1), the Minister must provide the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency with the following:

(a) a copy of the order; and

(b) all other materials provided to the Intelligence Commissioner for the purposes of subsection 9(1).”

The question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived on division.

“(3) Within 30 days after the day on which a decision of the Intelligence Commissioner under paragraph 20(1)(a) of the Intelligence Commissioner Act is received, the Minister must provide the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency with a copy of the order, along with all the information that was provided to the Intelligence Commissioner under subsection 23(1) of the Intelligence Commissioner Act, for the purpose of assisting the Agency in fulfilling its mandate under paragraphs 8(1)(a) to (c) of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency Act.

(4) For greater certainty, the disclosure under subsection (3) of any information that is subject to solicitor-client privilege or the professional secrecy of advocates and notaries or to litigation privilege does not constitute a waiver of those privileges or that secrecy.”

“7(1) is valid for the period specified in the order.”

“under subsection 7(1).”

“12 Subject to subsection 7(5), an electronic service provider that is subject to an or-”

The question was put on the amendment of Frank Caputo and it was negatived on division.

“14 (1) Subject to subsection 7(5), on request made by the Minister, an electronic”

The question was put on the amendment of Frank Caputo and it was negatived on division.

(a) by replacing line 2 on page 43 with the following:

“service provider must provide reasonable assistance to”

“son to access information, to the extent that it does not require weakening or bypassing electronic protections, including encryption, or otherwise compromising the security of its systems.

(1.1) The Minister may not require an electronic service provider or any other person to install any government or other third-party software, hardware, firmware or other technology in any of their network, system, device, service or process.

(1.2) An electronic service provider may consult legal counsel, experts or others whose assistance is reasonably necessary to comply with the Minister's request or to assess the underlying legality of the request.

(1.3) An electronic service provider established in a foreign state may proceed with consultations in that state for the purposes of subsection (1.2).”

The question was put on the amendment of Frank Caputo and it was negatived on division.

(a) by replacing lines 24 and 25 on page 43 with the following:

“15 (1) On ex parte application by the Minister or a person designated by the Minister, a justice of the peace may, subject to subsection (2), issue an order prohibiting an electronic service provider and any person acting on its behalf, or any person referred to in subsection (5), from disclosing any of the following infor‐”

“(2) The order must specify the period during which it has effect, which must not exceed 30 days.

(3) A justice of the peace may make an order under subsection (1) only if they are satisfied there are reasonable grounds to believe that the disclosure of information would pose a serious risk to

(a) an individual's health, safety or security;

(b) critical infrastructure;

(c) national security; or

(d) the conduct of a criminal investigation of an offence to which the information relates.

(4) On application by the Minister or a person designated by the Minister, a justice of the peace may grant an extension of the effective period of an order made under subsection (1) for a period not exceeding the period specified in the original order if the justice is satisfied, on the basis of an affidavit submitted in support of the application, that the order continues to be necessary for one or more of the reasons set out in subsection (3).

(5) If the subject of an order made under subsection (1) is a citizen of a foreign state, is established in a foreign state or is otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign state, the order does not prohibit or limit communications between the subject of the order, or a person acting on their behalf, and the appropriate authorities in that foreign state.

(6) When issuing an order under subsection (1), the justice of the peace may require any person to provide all reasonable assistance if the justice is satisfied there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person's assistance is necessary for the order to be given effect.”

The question was put on the amendment of Frank Caputo and it was negatived on division.

“(c) the fact that the electronic service provider is or was sub-”

The question was put on the amendment of Frank Caputo and it was negatived on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Chak Au, Frank Caputo, Claude DeBellefeuille, Rhonda Kirkland, Dane Lloyd — 5;

NAYS: Sima Acan, Marianne Dandurand, Anthony Housefather, Marcus Powlowski, Jacques Ramsay, Amandeep Sodhi — 6.

“(2) Despite subsection (1), an electronic service provider and any person acting on its behalf may disclose information related to orders made under subsection 7(1) to appropriate regulatory bodies for the purpose of those bodies' exercise of their powers or performance of their duties or functions.”

The question was put on the amendment of Frank Caputo and it was negatived on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Chak Au, Frank Caputo, Claude DeBellefeuille, Rhonda Kirkland, Dane Lloyd — 5;

NAYS: Sima Acan, Marianne Dandurand, Anthony Housefather, Marcus Powlowski, Jacques Ramsay, Amandeep Sodhi — 6.

“(2) For greater certainty, the prohibition on disclosure does not prevent the disclosure of general information on the existence of orders or requests for assistance or on the nature of investigations related to these orders or requests.”

The question was put on the amendment of Frank Caputo and it was negatived on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Chak Au, Frank Caputo, Claude DeBellefeuille, Rhonda Kirkland, Dane Lloyd — 5;

NAYS: Sima Acan, Marianne Dandurand, Anthony Housefather, Marcus Powlowski, Jacques Ramsay, Amandeep Sodhi — 6.

“(1.1) An electronic service provider and any person acting on its behalf may consult legal counsel, experts or others whose assistance is reasonably necessary to comply with this section.‍”

The question was put on the amendment of Frank Caputo and it was negatived on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Chak Au, Frank Caputo, Claude DeBellefeuille, Rhonda Kirkland, Dane Lloyd — 5;

NAYS: Sima Acan, Marianne Dandurand, Anthony Housefather, Marcus Powlowski, Jacques Ramsay, Amandeep Sodhi — 6.

“15.1 (1) At an electronic service provider’s request, the Minister may issue a written authorization permitting, on any terms that the Minister considers reasonable, the electronic service provider to disclose any information referred to in section 15.

(2) However, if the information that is the subject of a request made under subsection (1) is relevant to the exercise of a regulatory authority’s powers or to the performance of its duties or functions, the Minister must issue a written authorization permitting, on any terms that the Minister considers reasonable, the electronic service provider to disclose that information to that authority.

(3) The Statutory Instruments Act does not apply to an authorization issued under this section.

(4) In this section, “regulatory authority” means a person that has powers, duties or functions relating to the administration or enforcement of an Act of Parliament or of the legislature of a province and includes a person that is prescribed to be a regulatory authority.”

(a) by replacing line 23 on page 44 with the following:

“17 (1) A core provider may make an”

“decision made under this Act.”

The question was put on the amendment of Frank Caputo and it was negatived on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Chak Au, Frank Caputo, Claude DeBellefeuille, Rhonda Kirkland, Dane Lloyd — 5;

NAYS: Sima Acan, Marianne Dandurand, Anthony Housefather, Marcus Powlowski, Jacques Ramsay, Amandeep Sodhi — 6.

“(1.1) The Minister must not designate persons or classes of persons who are considered competitors of the electronic service provider subject to an inspection under this Act.”

The question was put on the amendment of Frank Caputo and it was negatived on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Chak Au, Frank Caputo, Claude DeBellefeuille, Rhonda Kirkland, Dane Lloyd — 5;

NAYS: Sima Acan, Marianne Dandurand, Anthony Housefather, Marcus Powlowski, Jacques Ramsay, Amandeep Sodhi — 6.

(a) by replacing line 26 on page 45 with the following:

“20 (1) A designated person”

“ing non-compliance with this Act, under the authority of a warrant issued under subsection (2), enter a place if there are reasonable grounds to believe that there are records located in that place that are directly relevant to the inspection.

(1.1) A justice of the peace may, on ex parte application, issue a warrant authorizing the designated person named in it to enter the place, subject to any conditions specified in the warrant.

(1.2) In executing the warrant, the designated person is not entitled to use force unless the use of force is specifically authorized in the warrant and they are accompanied by a peace officer.”

The question was put on the amendment of Frank Caputo and it was negatived on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Chak Au, Frank Caputo, Claude DeBellefeuille, Rhonda Kirkland, Dane Lloyd — 5;

NAYS: Sima Acan, Marianne Dandurand, Anthony Housefather, Marcus Powlowski, Jacques Ramsay, Amandeep Sodhi — 6.

The question was put on the amendment of Frank Caputo and it was negatived on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Chak Au, Frank Caputo, Claude DeBellefeuille, Rhonda Kirkland, Dane Lloyd — 5;

NAYS: Sima Acan, Marianne Dandurand, Anthony Housefather, Marcus Powlowski, Jacques Ramsay, Amandeep Sodhi — 6.

(a) by replacing lines 36 and 37 on page 46 with the following:

“them may enter and pass through private property to gain entry to a”

“21 (1) A designated person is not authorized to enter a place referred to in subsection 20(1) without the occupant’s”

“in it to enter a place referred to in subsection 20(1), subject to any conditions”

“(a) the place is a place referred to in subsec‐”

“(b) entry to the place is necessary for a pur‐”

The question was put on the amendment of Jenny Kwan and it was negatived on division.

“electronic data directly related to an identified compliance issue.

(1.1) The order made under subsection (1) must specify the scope and objectives of the audit and include safeguards to protect privileged and confidential information.”

The question was put on the amendment of Frank Caputo and it was negatived on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Chak Au, Frank Caputo, Claude DeBellefeuille, Rhonda Kirkland, Dane Lloyd — 5;

NAYS: Sima Acan, Marianne Dandurand, Anthony Housefather, Marcus Powlowski, Jacques Ramsay, Amandeep Sodhi — 6.

“(2) The electronic service provider is not required to disclose any proprietary or other confidential information in connection with the audit.”

The question was put on the amendment of Frank Caputo and it was negatived on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Chak Au, Frank Caputo, Claude DeBellefeuille, Rhonda Kirkland, Dane Lloyd — 5;

NAYS: Sima Acan, Marianne Dandurand, Anthony Housefather, Marcus Powlowski, Jacques Ramsay, Amandeep Sodhi — 6.

(a) by replacing line 8 on page 48 with the following:

“grounds that there is a contravention of”

“(a) stop doing something that is in”

“(b) take the reasonable measures that are necessary to comply with”

“fects of non-compliance in a manner that is consistent with the requirements of this Act and any other applicable Act of Parliament.”

The question was put on the amendment of Frank Caputo and it was negatived on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Chak Au, Frank Caputo, Claude DeBellefeuille, Rhonda Kirkland, Dane Lloyd — 5;

NAYS: Sima Acan, Marianne Dandurand, Anthony Housefather, Marcus Powlowski, Jacques Ramsay, Amandeep Sodhi — 6.

“(1.1) Despite subsection (1), a designated person must not

(a) order an electronic service provider or other person to take any action that would introduce a systemic vulnerability in any network, system, device, service or process;

(b) prevent the electronic service provider or the person from taking any action to rectify an identified systemic vulnerability; or

(c) prohibit or sanction the prospective use — or delay the implementation — by the electronic service provider of encryption or any other technology, process or procedure that enhances data security.”

The question was put on the amendment of Frank Caputo and it was negatived on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Chak Au, Frank Caputo, Claude DeBellefeuille, Rhonda Kirkland, Dane Lloyd — 5;

NAYS: Sima Acan, Marianne Dandurand, Anthony Housefather, Marcus Powlowski, Jacques Ramsay, Amandeep Sodhi — 6.

“(2.1) The electronic service provider is not required to comply with a provision of the order, with respect to an electronic service, if compliance with that provision would require the provider to introduce a systemic vulnerability related to that service or prevent the provider from rectifying such a vulnerability.”

“25 (1) Subject to subsection 24(2.1), an electronic service provider that is subject to”

“(3) The order is suspended upon the filing of a request for review.”

The question was put on the amendment of Frank Caputo and it was negatived on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Chak Au, Frank Caputo, Claude DeBellefeuille, Rhonda Kirkland, Dane Lloyd — 5;

NAYS: Sima Acan, Marianne Dandurand, Anthony Housefather, Marcus Powlowski, Jacques Ramsay, Amandeep Sodhi — 6.

“(4) For greater certainty, the Federal Court has exclusive jurisdiction to hear applications for judicial review in respect of any compliance order made under subsection 24(1) or decision under section 27.”

The question was put on the amendment of Frank Caputo and it was negatived on division.

“(3) Within 30 days after the day on which the written request from the electronic service provider under subsection 26(1) is received, the Minister must notify the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency of the following:

(a) the fact that an order was made under subsection 24(1) and the identity of the electronic service provider that is subject to the order;

(b) the provisions that were contravened, according to the order; and

(c) any notification of compliance the electronic service provider gave under subsection 25(2).

(4) The notice must also include a statement indicating whether the electronic service provider made a request for review to the Minister under subsection 26(1) and setting out the grounds for review.

(5) If an electronic service provider makes a request for review under subsection 26(1), the Minister must notify the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency of the decision and the reasons for it within 30 days after the review under subsection (1) is completed.”

The question was put on the amendment of Claude DeBellefeuille and it was negatived on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Chak Au, Frank Caputo, Claude DeBellefeuille, Rhonda Kirkland, Dane Lloyd — 5;

NAYS: Sima Acan, Marianne Dandurand, Anthony Housefather, Marcus Powlowski, Jacques Ramsay, Amandeep Sodhi — 6.

“27.1 (1) The Minister must, without delay, notify the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency after a compliance order is made under this Act.

(2) The notice must include any information relevant in supporting actual or potential non-compliance with this Act, in order to enable the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency to assess the legality, reasonableness and necessity of activities conducted under this Act.”

The question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived on division.

“(3) Within 30 days after the day on which the time period referred to in subsection 26(2) ends, the Minister must, for the purpose of assisting the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency in fulfilling its mandate under paragraphs 8(1)(a) to (c) of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency Act, notify the Agency of the following:

(a) the fact that an order was made under subsection 24(1) and the identity of the electronic service provider that is subject to the order;

(b) the provisions that were contravened, according to the order; and

(c) any notification of compliance the electronic service provider gave under subsection 25(2).

(4) The notice must also include a statement indicating whether the electronic service provider made a request for review to the Minister under subsection 26(1) and setting out the grounds for review.

(5) If an electronic service provider makes a request for review under subsection 26(1), the Minister must, for the purpose of assisting the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency in fulfilling its mandate under paragraphs 8(1)(a) to (c) of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency Act, notify the Agency of the decision and the reasons for it within 30 days after the day on which the review is completed.”

“the violation was knowingly and wilfully committed by an employee or an agent”

The question was put on the amendment of Frank Caputo and it was negatived on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Chak Au, Frank Caputo, Claude DeBellefeuille, Rhonda Kirkland, Dane Lloyd — 5;

NAYS: Sima Acan, Marianne Dandurand, Anthony Housefather, Marcus Powlowski, Jacques Ramsay, Amandeep Sodhi — 6.

“or agents or mandataries who knowingly and wilfully directed, authorized, as‐”

The question was put on the amendment of Frank Caputo and it was negatived on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Chak Au, Frank Caputo, Claude DeBellefeuille, Rhonda Kirkland, Dane Lloyd — 5;

NAYS: Sima Acan, Marianne Dandurand, Anthony Housefather, Marcus Powlowski, Jacques Ramsay, Amandeep Sodhi — 6.

“tors, officers or agents or mandataries who knowingly and wilfully directed, au‐”

The question was put on the amendment of Frank Caputo and it was negatived on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Chak Au, Frank Caputo, Claude DeBellefeuille, Rhonda Kirkland, Dane Lloyd — 5;

NAYS: Sima Acan, Marianne Dandurand, Anthony Housefather, Marcus Powlowski, Jacques Ramsay, Amandeep Sodhi — 6.

“for the purposes of this Act, other than the terms and expressions defined in it;”

“(3.1) Regulations made under paragraph (1)(c) must be consistent with any standardized meaning assigned by a recognized standard-setting body to a term or expression that relates to the subject matter of this Act.”

The question was put on the amendment of Frank Caputo and it was negatived on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Chak Au, Frank Caputo, Claude DeBellefeuille, Rhonda Kirkland, Dane Lloyd — 5;

NAYS: Sima Acan, Marianne Dandurand, Anthony Housefather, Marcus Powlowski, Jacques Ramsay, Amandeep Sodhi — 6.

On Clause 43,

“Act — and the decision to make the order are reasonable.”

The question was put on the amendment of Claude DeBellefeuille and it was negatived.

On Clause 47.1,

“Annual Report

47.1 (1) The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness must, at the end of each fiscal year, prepare a report on the administration and implementation of this Act, including on the use of confirmation of service demands and other authorities to examine and to collect, during the previous fiscal year.

(2) The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness must, during the fiscal year after the fiscal year for which the report is prepared, cause the report to be tabled before each House of Parliament on any of the first 15 days on which that House is sitting after the report is prepared.”

The question was put on the amendment of Jenny Kwan and it was negatived.

“PART 2.1

Privacy Commissioner Review

47.1 (1) Before the day on which the provisions enacted or amended by Part 1 come into force and before the day fixed by the Governor in Council for the coming into force of the provisions enacted or amended by Part 2, the Privacy Commissioner must undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions enacted or amended by Parts 1 and 2.

(2) The Privacy Commissioner must submit a report on the review that sets out their findings and recommendations, including any improvements to the provisions enacted or amended by Parts 1 and 2 that they recommend, to the Speaker of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Commons, who must each table the report in the House over which they preside immediately after receiving it or, if that House is not then sitting, on any of the first 15 days on which that House is sitting after the Speaker receives it.”

The question was put on the amendment of Jenny Kwan and it was negatived on division.