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
It was agreed, — That the proposed supplementary budget in the amount of $4,500, for the study of Bill C-8, An Act respecting cyber security, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts, be adopted.
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.
“15.72 A person who performs or has performed duties or functions in the administration or enforcement of this Act must not disclose or permit to be disclosed to any other person, except to a Canadian law enforcement agency or for the purposes of the administration or enforcement of this Act, the identity of any person who provided information on their own initiative to achieve the objectives of this Act that relate to securing the Canadian telecommunications system.”
Debate arose thereon.
At 3:46 p.m., the meeting was suspended.
At 3:47 p.m., the meeting resumed.
By unanimous consent, the amendment was withdrawn.
“15.72 A person who performs or has performed duties or functions in the administration or enforcement of this Act must not disclose or permit to be disclosed to any other person, except to a Canadian law enforcement agency or for the purposes of the administration or enforcement of this Act, the identity of any individual who provided information on their own initiative to the Minister to achieve the objectives of this Act that relate to securing the Canadian telecommunications system and who has requested confidentiality.” ”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Claude DeBellefeuille and it was agreed to.
At 3:55 p.m., the meeting was suspended.
At 4:11 p.m., the meeting resumed.
“(2.1) The report must state the number of times in that fiscal year that an order was made, amended or revoked on the basis of information that was designated as confidential under subsection 15.5(1) and was not disclosed or permitted to be disclosed.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Frank Caputo and it was negatived.
“(4) The Minister must publish a summary of the report on the website of the Department of Industry within 10 days after the day on which it is tabled in both Houses of Parliament.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Claude DeBellefeuille and it was agreed to.
“15.82 The Minister must, within three months after the end of each fiscal year, prepare a report respecting any request for information referred to in section 15.4 that was made during that fiscal year and must give a copy of the report to the Privacy Commissioner as soon as feasible after the report is completed.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Frank Caputo and it was negatived.
That Bill C-8, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 28 to 31 on page 10 with the following:
“15.9 (1) A person in respect of whom an order is made under section 15.1 or 15.2 or a regulation made under paragraph 15.8(1)(a) may apply to the Federal Court for a review in respect of the matter that is the subject of the order or regulation.
(1.1) The Minister may appear as a party to any review referred to under subsection (1).
(1.2) If a person makes an application for a review under subsection (1), that person must immediately serve a copy of the originating document on the Minister.
(1.3) For greater certainty, an application made under subsection (1) is to be heard and determined as a new proceeding.
(1.4) An application made under subsection (1) is to be heard and determined in a summary way in accordance with any special rules made in respect of such applications under section 46 of the Federal Courts Act, as well as the following rules:”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived.
“(c) if the judge is of the opinion that it is necessary for the fairness of the proceedings, the judge may appoint an amicus curiae.”
Debate arose thereon.
By unanimous consent, the amendment was withdrawn.
“(1.1) If the judge determines that a decision to make an order under section 15.1 or 15.2 or a regulation under paragraph 15.8(1)(a) was based primarily on confidential information that was not disclosed or permitted to be disclosed to the person affected by the order or the regulation, the judge may, in the judge's discretion, request that a special advocate present observations on the relevance, reliability and sufficiency of the evidence or other information provided by the Minister.”
Debate arose thereon.
By unanimous consent, the amendment was withdrawn.
Clause 2, as amended, carried.
On new Clause 2.1,
Claude DeBellefeuille moved, — That Bill C-8 be amended by adding after line 16 on page 11 the following new clause:“2.1 Section 16.3 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):
(2.1) Without limiting the generality of subsection (2), the offering and provision of any telecommunications service by an international telecommunications service licensee are subject to any conditions the Commission considers necessary to secure user information or the Canadian telecommunications system against a threat, which conditions may include any measure that may be included in an order made under section 15.1 or 15.2.”
Debate arose thereon.
By unanimous consent, the amendment was withdrawn.
Clause 3 carried.
Clause 4 carried.
Clause 5 carried.
Clause 6 carried.
On Clause 7,
Dane Lloyd moved, — That Bill C-8, in Clause 7, be amended(a) by replacing lines 19 to 27 on page 13 with the following:
“72.131 (1) Every individual who knowingly contravenes a provision of an order made under section 15.1 or 15.2 or a regulation made under paragraph 15.8(1)(a) commits a violation and is liable to an administrative monetary penalty of an amount not exceeding $25,000 and, for a subsequent contravention, not exceeding $50,000.
(2) Every person — other than an individual — who contravenes a provision of an order made under section 15.1 or 15.2 or a regulation made under paragraph 15.8(1)(a) commits a violation and is liable to an administrative monetary penalty of an amount not exceeding $10,000,000 and,”
(b) by adding after line 7 on page 14 the following:
“(d.1) relevant international practices in relation to penalties for similar violations, such as maximum penalty amounts;”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Dane Lloyd and it was negatived.
Clause 7 carried.
Clause 8 carried.
Clause 9 carried.
Clause 10 carried.
At 4:47 p.m., the meeting was suspended.
At 4:52 p.m., the meeting resumed.
On Clause 11,
Claude DeBellefeuille moved, — That Bill C-8, in Clause 11, be amended(a) by replacing line 30 on page 21 with the following:
“nated operator; or
(d) is personal information, as defined in section 3 of the Privacy Act, including information that could indirectly identify an individual. (renseignements confidentiels)”
(b) by adding after line 6 on page 31 the following:
“(1.1) Despite subsection (1), it is prohibited to disclose or allow the disclosure of or access to information referred to in paragraph (d) of the definition confidential information in section 2, except if
(a) the disclosure or access is allowed under paragraph (1)(a) or (b); or
(b) the disclosure or access is allowed under paragraph (1)(d) and the information, in scope and substance, is reasonable in relation to the gravity of the situation.”
Debate arose thereon.
Jacques Ramsay moved, — That the amendment be amended by replacing all the words with the following:
“(a) by adding the following after line 11 on page 22:
“personal information has the same meaning as in section 3 of the Privacy Act. (renseignements personnels)”
(b) by adding the following after line 13 on page 31:
“26.1 For greater certainty, nothing in this Act affects the provisions of the Privacy Act in relation to the protection of personal information.””
The Chair ruled the proposed subamendment inadmissible because it rendered the clause unintelligible or ungrammatical, as provided in section 16.78 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Fourth Edition.
At 4:56 p.m., the meeting was suspended.
At 5:13 p.m., the meeting resumed.
By unanimous consent, Clause 11 was allowed to stand.
Clause 11.1 carried on division.
Clause 12 carried on division.
Clause 13 carried on division.
Clause 14 carried on division.
Clause 15 carried on division.
Clause 15.1 carried on division.
Clause 16 carried on division.
“Five-year Review
17 (1) Five years after the day on which this Act receives royal assent, the Minister of Industry must undertake a review of the provisions enacted or amended by this Act.
(2) At the conclusion of the review, the Minister must prepare a report on the review that sets out the Minister's findings on the effectiveness of the measures provided by this Act respecting offences that are more easily committed using cyber technology, among other matters, and the Minister's recommendations, including any changes to any Act, such as the Criminal Code.
(3) The Minister must 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 completed.”
Debate arose thereon.
Jacques Ramsay moved, — That the amendment be amended by replacing all the words with the following:
“That Bill C-8 be amended by adding after line 27 on page 88 the following new clause:
“15.1 (1) Five years after the day on which section 11 comes into force, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness must undertake a review of the Critical Cyber Systems Protection Act.
(2) At the conclusion of the review, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness must prepare a report on the review that sets out the Minister’s findings on the effectiveness of the measures provided by that Act respecting offences that are more easily committed using cyber technology, among other matters, and the Minister’s recommendations, including any changes to any Act, such as the Criminal Code.
(3) The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness must 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 completed.””.
At 5:18 p.m., the meeting was suspended.
At 5:28 p.m., the meeting resumed.
The Chair ruled the proposed subamendment inadmissible because it rendered the clause unintelligible or ungrammatical, as provided in section 16.78 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Fourth Edition.
By unanimous consent, the committee reverted to Clause 11 previously stood.
“(d.1) its potential impacts on the privacy of Canadians; and”
Debate arose thereon.
At 5:31 p.m., the committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.