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.
Publication Selector by Date
| June | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
20
|
21
|
|
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
|
29
|
30
|
|||||
| July | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
||
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
||
| August | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|
1
|
2
|
|||||
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
31
|
||||||
| September | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
|
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
19
|
20
|
|
|
21
|
22
|
24
|
26
|
27
|
||
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
||||
| October | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|||
|
5
|
6
|
8
|
10
|
11
|
||
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
|
19
|
20
|
22
|
24
|
25
|
||
|
26
|
27
|
29
|
31
|
|||
| January | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
||||
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
|
25
|
26
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
| February | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|
1
|
2
|
4
|
6
|
7
|
||
|
8
|
9
|
11
|
13
|
14
|
||
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
|
22
|
23
|
25
|
27
|
28
|
||
| March | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
|
8
|
9
|
11
|
13
|
14
|
||
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
|
22
|
23
|
25
|
27
|
28
|
||
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
||||
Minutes of Proceedings
Conservative
Bloc Québécois
The witnesses answered questions.
The committee resumed its clause-by-clause study of the Bill.
The committee resumed clause-by-clause consideration on Clause 2 of the Bill.
“believes on reasonable grounds is reasonable to provide in relation to the gravity of the threat and necessary for the pur‐”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Frank Caputo and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Chak Au, Frank Caputo, Claude DeBellefeuille, Rhonda Kirkland, Dane Lloyd — 5;
NAYS: Tatiana Auguste, John-Paul Danko, Marcus Powlowski, Jacques Ramsay — 4.
That Bill C-8, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 23 on page 7 the following:
“(2) The Minister must not require, under subsection (1), the provision of information relating to a person or a group of persons unless the Minister first obtains the authorization of a judge under subsection (3).
(3) On ex parte application by the Minister, a judge of the Federal Court may, subject to such conditions as the judge considers appropriate, authorize the Minister to require such information if the judge is satisfied, by information on oath, that the person or group of persons is ascertainable and that the information is necessary given the gravity of the threat and is relevant to a purpose described in subsection (1).
(4) The Minister must provide the authorization to the person to whom the request for information is made.”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was beyond the scope of the Bill, as provided in section 16.74 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Fourth Edition.
Whereupon, Frank Caputo appealed the decision of the Chair.
The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was overturned on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Tatiana Auguste, John-Paul Danko, Marcus Powlowski, Jacques Ramsay — 4;
NAYS: Chak Au, Frank Caputo, Claude DeBellefeuille, Rhonda Kirkland, Dane Lloyd — 5.
After debate, 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: Tatiana Auguste, John-Paul Danko, Claude DeBellefeuille, Marcus Powlowski, Jacques Ramsay — 5.
“(2) The Minister must not require, under subsection (1), the provision of information relating to a person or a group of persons unless the Minister first obtains the authorization of a judge under subsection (3).
(3) On ex parte application by the Minister, a judge of the Federal Court may, subject to such conditions as the judge considers appropriate, authorize the Minister to require such information if the judge is satisfied, by information on oath, that the person or group of persons is ascertainable and that the information is necessary given the gravity of the threat and is relevant to a purpose described in subsection (1).
(4) The Minister must provide the authorization to the person to whom the request for information is made.”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was beyond the scope of the Bill, as provided in section 16.74 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Fourth Edition.
Whereupon, Frank Caputo appealed the decision of the Chair.
The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was sustained on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Tatiana Auguste, John-Paul Danko, Claude DeBellefeuille, Marcus Powlowski, Jacques Ramsay — 5;
NAYS: Chak Au, Frank Caputo, Rhonda Kirkland, Dane Lloyd — 4.
That Bill C-8, in Clause 2, be amended
(a) by adding after line 11 on page 8 the following:
“(2.1) Personal information and de-identified information that is not designated as confidential under subsection (1) is deemed, for the purposes of this Part, to be designated as such.”
(b) by adding after line 41 on page 9 the following:
“15.701 Any person who collects or obtains confidential information under this Part, with the exception of section 15.7, must dispose of that information if it is no longer necessary for any purpose related to the making, amending or revoking of an order under section 15.1 or 15.2 or a regulation under paragraph 15.8(1)(a) — or to verifying compliance or preventing non-compliance with such an order or regulation — or in accordance with any requirement under the Privacy Act that applies to that information, whichever retention period is shorter.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Jenny Kwan and it was negatived on division.
“(2.1) Personal information and de-identified information that is not designated as confidential under subsection (1) is deemed, for the purposes of this Part, to be designated as such.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Claude DeBellefeuille and it was agreed to on division.
That Bill C-8, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 11 on page 8 the following:
“(2.1) Information referred to in paragraph (1)(d) that is not designated as confidential under subsection (1) is deemed, for the purposes of this Part, to be designated as such.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived on division.
(a) by replacing line 12 on page 8 with the following:
“(3) Subject to subsections (4) and (5), no person shall knowingly”
(b) by replacing line 15 on page 8 with the following:
“(4) Information referred to in any of paragraphs (1)(a) to (c) that is designated as confidential may be”
(c) by adding after line 23 on page 8 the following:
“(5) Information referred to in paragraph (1)(d) that is designated as confidential may be disclosed, or be permitted to be disclosed, if
(a) the disclosure is required by law; or
(b) in the Minister's opinion, the disclosure is necessary to secure the Canadian telecommunications system, including against the threat of interference, manipulation or disruption, and the information, in scope and substance, is reasonable in relation to the gravity of any threat.”
(d) by adding after line 10 on page 9 the following:
“(1.1) For the purposes of subsection (1), information referred to in paragraph 15.5(1)(d) must not be collected or disclosed unless its scope and substance is reasonable in relation to the gravity of the threat.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Claude DeBellefeuille and it was agreed to on division.
That Bill C-8, in Clause 2, be amended
(a) by replacing line 17 on page 8 with the following:
“(a) the disclosure is required by law;”
(b) by replacing lines 20 and 21 on page 8 with the following:
“(c) the Minister believes on reasonable grounds that the disclosure is necessary to secure the Canadian telecommunications sys‐”
(c) by replacing line 23 on page 8 with the following:
“nipulation or disruption, and if only information that is essential to securing the system is disclosed.”
By unanimous consent, the amendment was withdrawn.
That Bill C-8, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 21 on page 8 with the following:
“ion, given the gravity of the threat, to secure the Canadian telecommunications sys‐”
At 4:06 p.m., the meeting was suspended.
At 4:28 p.m., the meeting resumed.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Jenny Kwan and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Tatiana Auguste, John-Paul Danko, Claude DeBellefeuille, Marcus Powlowski, Jacques Ramsay — 5;
NAYS: Chak Au, Frank Caputo, Rhonda Kirkland, Dane Lloyd — 4.
“tem against a material threat of interference, ma‐”
The question was put on the amendment of Frank Caputo and it was negatived on division.
That Bill C-8, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 23 on page 8 the following:
“(d) in the case of information referred to in paragraph (1)(d), the person to whom the information relates consents to its disclosure.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Jenny Kwan and it was agreed to on division.
“15.51 For greater certainty, for the purposes of sections 15.1, 15.2 and 15.5, a threat does not include any lawful activity.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Frank Caputo and it was negatived on division.
That Bill C-8, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 24 on page 8 with the following:
“15.6 (1) Despite section 15.5, to the extent that they believe on reasonable grounds is neces‐”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived on division.
“15.6 (1) Despite section 15.5, to the extent that is reasonable in relation to the gravity of the threat and neces-”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Frank Caputo and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Chak Au, Frank Caputo, Claude DeBellefeuille, Rhonda Kirkland, Dane Lloyd — 5;
NAYS: Tatiana Auguste, John-Paul Danko, Marcus Powlowski, Jacques Ramsay — 4.
“(3) Despite subsection (1), information mentioned in paragraph 15.5(1)(d) may not be collected or disclosed unless the persons or entities believe on reasonable grounds that the collection or disclosure is reasonable in relation to the gravity of the threat.”
Debate arose thereon.
By unanimous consent, the amendment was withdrawn.
That Bill C-8, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 12 on page 9 the following:
“15.61 For greater certainty, only the persons listed in paragraphs 15.6(1)(a) to (i) may use information obtained under section 15.4 or 15.6 and they may only use that information for purposes related to cyber security and information assurance.”
After debate, 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: Tatiana Auguste, John-Paul Danko, Claude DeBellefeuille, Marcus Powlowski, Jacques Ramsay — 5.
“ment or organization, if
(a) the Minister believes that the information may be relevant to securing the Canadian telecommunications system or the telecommunications system of a foreign state, including against the threat of interference, manipulation or disruption; and
(b) the agreement, memorandum of understanding or arrangement provides for the disposal of that information once it is no longer necessary for the purpose for which it was disclosed.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Frank Caputo and it was agreed to on division.
That Bill C-8, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 41 on page 9 the following:
“(3) Any agreement, memorandum of understanding or arrangement between the Government of Canada and the government of a foreign state, an international organization of states or an international organization established by the governments of states, or any institution of any such government or organization, must include provisions respecting the retention and disposal of information collected or obtained under this Act and disclosed in accordance with that agreement, memorandum of understanding or arrangement.
(4) The Minister must inform a telecommunications service provider of any retention period established under subsection (3) for information that was collected or obtained from that service provider under this Act.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Jenny Kwan and it was negatived on division.
“(3) Despite subsection (1), information mentioned in paragraph 15.5(1)(d) that has not been designated as confidential may not be disclosed unless the Minister believes on reasonable grounds that the disclosure is reasonable in relation to the gravity of the threat.”
At 4:57 p.m., the meeting was suspended.
At 4:59 p.m., the meeting resumed.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Frank Caputo and it was negatived on division.
That Bill C-8, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 41 on page 9 the following:
“15.701 (1) The Communications Security Establishment shall not carry out any activity under this Act in relation to the security of the Canadian telecommunications system except in accordance with an authorization issued under subsection (2).
(2) The Minister may issue an authorization to the Communications Security Establishment that authorizes it to carry out an activity specified in the authorization only if the Minister believes on reasonable grounds that
(a) the activity is reasonable and proportionate, having regard to its nature and that of the objective to be achieved;
(b) any information referred to in the authorization could not reasonably be acquired by any other means and will be retained for no longer than is reasonably necessary;
(c) the consent of any person whose identity could be inferred from any information that may be acquired under the authorization could not reasonably be obtained;
(d) any information referred to in the authorization is necessary to identify, isolate, prevent or mitigate harm to a telecommunications service provider that is designated under subsection 21(1) of the Communications Security Establishment Act as being of importance to the Government of Canada; and
(e) the measures referred to in section 24 of the Communications Security Establishment Act will ensure that information acquired under the authorization that is identified as relating to a Canadian person or a person in Canada will be used, analyzed or retained only if the information is essential to identify, isolate, prevent or mitigate harm to a telecommunications service provider that is designated under subsection 21(1) of the Communications Security Establishment Act as being of importance to the Government of Canada.”
At 5:08 p.m., the meeting was suspended.
At 5:14 p.m., the meeting resumed.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived on division.
“15.701 Any person who collects or obtains information referred to in paragraph 15.5(1)(d) under this Part, with the exception of section 15.7, must dispose of that information if it is no longer necessary for any purpose related to the making, amending or revoking of an order under section 15.1 or 15.2 or a regulation under paragraph 15.8(1)(a) — or to verifying compliance or preventing non-compliance with such an order or regulation — or in accordance with any requirement under the Privacy Act that applies to that information, whichever retention period is shorter.”
Debate arose thereon.
Jacques Ramsay moved, — That the amendment be amended by deleting the words “whichever retention period is shorter”.
After debate, the question was put on the subamendment of Jacques Ramsay and it was agreed to.
The question was put on the amendment of Claude DeBellefeuille, as amended, and it was agreed to.
At 5:30 p.m., the committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.