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
|
||||
| April | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|||
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
|
12
|
13
|
15
|
17
|
18
|
||
|
19
|
20
|
22
|
24
|
25
|
||
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
|||
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 new Clause 17 of the Bill.
“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.”
The debate continued.
Jacques Ramsay moved, — That the amendment be amended by deleting the words “of Industry”.
After debate, the question was put on the subamendment of Jacques Ramsay and it was agreed to.
The debate on the amendment, as amended, continued.
Dane Lloyd moved, — That the amendment be amended by replacing subsections 17(1) and (2) with the following:
“17 (1) Within five years after the day on which this Act receives royal assent, the Minister must complete a review of the provisions enacted or amended by this Act.
(2) Within 90 days after the conclusion of the review, the Minister must complete 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.”.
At 3:42 p.m., the meeting was suspended.
At 3:42 p.m., the meeting resumed.
After debate, the question was put on the subamendment of Dane Lloyd and it was agreed to.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Claude DeBellefeuille, as amended, and it was agreed to.
By unanimous consent, the committee reverted to Clause 11 previously stood.
(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.”
The debate continued.
By unanimous consent, the amendment was withdrawn.
“nated operator; or
(d) is personal information, as defined in section 3 of the Privacy Act. (renseignements confidentiels)”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Dane Lloyd and it was negatived.
(a) by replacing line 37 on page 21 with the following:
“cumstance, that has or may have an adverse material impact on”
(b) by replacing, in the French version, line 30 on page 21 with the following:
“b) soit pour la confidentialité, l’intégrité ou la disponi-”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Dane Lloyd and it was negatived.
“internal audit means an independent and objective assurance and advisory review conducted in accordance with any internationally recognized guidance on professional practices respecting internal auditing and specified in Treasury Board policies, such as the International Professional Practices Framework of the Institute of Internal Auditors. (vérification interne)”
At 3:55 p.m., the meeting was suspended.
At 3:59 p.m., the meeting resumed.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Dane Lloyd and it was agreed to.
(a) adding after line 11 on page 22 the following:
“personal information” has the same meaning as in section 3 of the Privacy Act. (“renseignements personnels”)
(b) adding after line 13 on page 31 the following:
26.1 For greater certainty, nothing in this Act affects the provisions of the Privacy Act in relation to the protection of personal information.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Jacques Ramsay and it was agreed to.
“those risks in accordance with any guidelines established under section 15.1.
15.1 The Communications Security Establishment must, in consultation with relevant industry stakeholders, develop guidelines on the mitigation of risks associated with supply chains and the use of third-party products and services, taking into consideration internationally recognized frameworks such as those developed by the International Organization for Standardization on cybersecurity in supplier relationships.”
Debate arose thereon.
Jacques Ramsay moved, — That the amendment be amended:
(a) by deleting the words “in accordance with any guidelines established under section 15.1”
(b) by replacing the word “must” with the word “may” in proposed section 15.1.
After debate, the question was put on the subamendment of Jacques Ramsay and it was agreed to.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Dane Lloyd, as amended, and it was agreed to.
“18.1 If the Communications Security Establishment believes on reasonable grounds that a cyber security incident involving personal information creates a real risk of significant harm to an individual, it must, without delay, give the Privacy Commissioner a copy of any incident report or any portion of it pertaining to that risk.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Dane Lloyd and it was negatived.
18.1 For greater certainty, nothing in sections 17 and 18 affects the provisions of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Jacques Ramsay and it was agreed to.
(1.1) Despite subsection (1), the Governor in Council must not order the decoding of an encrypted private communication, as defined in section 183 of the Criminal Code.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Jacques Ramsay and it was agreed to.
“(b.1) its impact on the privacy of Canadians;”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Dane Lloyd and it was agreed to.
(3.1) The provisions of the direction must, in scope and substance, be reasonable in relation to the purpose of protecting a critical cyber system.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Jacques Ramsay and it was agreed to.
That Bill C-8, in Clause 11, be amended
(a) by replacing lines 12 and 13 on page 30 with the following:
“ing to be disclosed, the content of that direction, except in ac‐”
(b) by replacing lines 16 and 17 on page 30 with the following:
“security direction may disclose its contents only to the extent necessary to”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Jenny Kwan and it was negatived.
(a) by replacing line 22 on page 30 with the following:
“26 (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (4), a person must not”
(b) by adding after line 13 on page 31 the following:
“(4) If a designated operator discloses confidential information under subsection (1) to the Communications Security Establishment that is not required to be disclosed under this Act, the Communications Security Establishment may only use that information for the purpose of protecting critical cyber security systems and must not disclose it to any agency, body or other person or allow any other agency, body or person to have access to it, except if the disclosure is required by law.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Dane Lloyd and it was negatived.
“(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 is reasonable in relation to the gravity of the situation.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Dane Lloyd and it was negatived.
“29.1 Any information referred to in paragraph (d) of the definition confidential information in section 2, collected or obtained under this Act, with the exception of subsection 27(2), must be disposed of if it is no longer necessary for the purposes for which it was collected or obtained or for verifying compliance or preventing non-compliance with this Act, or in accordance with any requirement under the Privacy Act that applies to it, whichever retention period is shorter.”
Debate arose thereon.
Claude DeBellefeuille moved, — That the amendment be amended by replacing the words « or in accordance » with the words « and in accordance ».
Debate arose thereon.
At 4:22 p.m., the meeting was suspended.
At 4:32 p.m., the meeting resumed.
By unanimous consent, the subamendment was withdrawn.
The debate continued on the amendment of Dane Lloyd.
Jacques Ramsay moved, — That the amendment be amended by replacing the proposed text with the following:
“29.1 Any personal information, as defined in section 3 of the Privacy Act, that is collected or obtained under this Act must be disposed of if it is no longer necessary for the purposes for which it was collected or obtained or for verifying compliance or preventing non-compliance with this Act, and in accordance with any requirement under the Privacy Act that applies to it.”.
After debate, the question was put on the subamendment of Jacques Ramsay and it was agreed to on division.
The question was put on the amendment of Dane Lloyd, as amended, and it was agreed to.
29.1 For greater certainty, nothing in this Act affects the provisions of the Communications Security Establishment Act in relation to the protection of personal information.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Jacques Ramsay and it was agreed to.
“Confidentiality
31.1 A person who exercises or has exercised powers or who performs or has performed duties or functions in the administration or enforcement of this Act must not communicate or allow to be communicated to any other person except as required by law the identity of any individual from whom information was obtained pursuant to this Act in relation to a situation that could compromise a service or system that is vital to national security or public safety.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Dane Lloyd and it was negatived.
(a) $500,000, in the case of an individual; and
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Jacques Ramsay and it was agreed to on division.
“ernor in Council must, to the extent possible, ensure consistency with existing regulatory and standards regimes, such as those established by provincial regulatory agencies or recognized industry standards development organizations.
(3) In making regulations under subsection (1), the Governor in Council may provide that compliance with a requirement under a regulatory or standards regime referred to in subsection (2) is deemed to be compliance with any corresponding requirement under this Act.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Claude DeBellefeuille and it was agreed to on division.
(3) In making regulations under subsection (1), the Governor in Council may seek to ensure consistency with international best practices, guidelines and conventions.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Jacques Ramsay and it was negatived.
148 Nothing in this Act may be construed as affecting solicitor-client privilege or, in Quebec, the professional secrecy of advocates and notaries.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Jacques Ramsay and it was agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, carried.
Schedule 1 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-8, as amended, be reprinted for the use of the House of Commons at report stage.
Sukhman Gill moved, — That the committee reports to the House its grave concern about the rise of extortion, which is up 330% across Canada since 2015, including a 400% spike in British Columbia and a 500% increase in the Lower Mainland, and the committee further reports its recommendation that the federal government to use every tool at their disposal, including tougher sentences, more restrictive bail provisions and other measures to crack down on organized crime to protect Canadians, their property and their businesses.
Debate arose thereon.
At 4:55 p.m., the meeting was suspended.
At 4:58 p.m., the meeting resumed.
The debate continued.
Jacques Ramsay moved, — That the committee do now adjourn.
The question was put on the motion and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Sima Acan, Claude DeBellefeuille, Ali Ehsassi, Brendan Hanley, Jacques Ramsay — 5;
NAYS: Chak Au, Sukhman Gill, Rhonda Kirkland, Dane Lloyd — 4.
At 5:08 p.m., the committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.