SECU Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
Minutes of Proceedings
Dane Lloyd gave notice of the following motion:
That, given the increased need for police presence at foodbanks and other charitable organizations to act as crowd control as demand skyrockets, and rising food insecurity as a result of rising food prices, as well as the financial strain that has been put on vulnerable Canadians causing an increased reliance on food banks, and given the incidents at:
(a) Afrique au Féminin, a non-profit women’s organization based out of Montreal has seen an increase of food hampers prepared, from 80 to 90 baskets per week to 450 to 500 baskets every Tuesday, had to call the police to help manage the crowds of people lining up to receive food baskets;
(b) Ugly Potato Day in Surrey, BC, which had 62,000 pounds of vegetables to give away to anyone in need, and had so many people show up that it required police to manage traffic;
as well as the planned 23% increase to the carbon tax April 1 by the federal government; and
the committee express its disappointment that valuable police resources are being used at food banks and report its recommendation to the House to spike the hike and axe the tax.
The witnesses answered questions.
The committee commenced its clause-by-clause study of the Bill.
The Chair called Clause 1.
Clause 1 carried.
On Clause 2,
Iqwinder Gaheer moved, — That Bill C-26, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 13 on page 1 with the following:“15.1 (1) If the Governor in Council believes on reasonable grounds that it”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Iqwinder Gaheer and it was agreed to.
(a) by replacing line 15 on page 1 with the following:
“nications system against the threat of interfer‐”
(b) by replacing line 25 on page 2 with the following:
“tem against the threat of interference, manip‐”
(c) by replacing line 6 on page 3 with the following:
“an telecommunications system against the”
(d) by replacing line 11 on page 6 with the following:
“tem against the threat of interference, ma‐”
(e) by replacing line 13 on page 7 with the following:
“system of a foreign state against the threat of”
Ron McKinnon moved, — That the amendment be amended by replacing the words “nications system against the threat of interfer‐” with the words “nications system against any threat, including that of interference, manipulation, disruption or degradation, the Governor in Coun”.
By unanimous consent, the subamendment was withdrawn.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Kristina Michaud and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Peter Julian, Kristina Michaud — 2;
NAYS: Chris Bittle, Iqwinder Gaheer, Damien C. Kurek, Dane Lloyd, Ron McKinnon, Glen Motz, Jennifer O'Connell, Peter Schiefke, Doug Shipley — 9.
“nications system against any threat, including that of interference, manipulation, disruption or degradation, the Governor in Coun-”
By unanimous consent, the question was put on the amendment of Jennifer O'Connell and it was agreed to.
(a) by replacing line 17 on page 1 with the following:
“cil may, by order, after consultation by the Minister with the prescribed persons and entities, in the manner and within the period that the Minister may determine, having regard to the nature and urgency of the circumstances,”
(b) by adding after line 15 on page 4 the following:
“(3.1) Before making an order under subsection (1) or (2), the Minister must consult with the prescribed persons and entities, in the manner and within the period that the Minister may determine, having regard to the nature and urgency of the circumstances.”
(c) by replacing line 34 on page 7 with the following:
“of subsections 15.1(1) and 15.2(3.1) and paragraph 15.6(j).”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Peter Julian and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Peter Julian, Kristina Michaud — 2;
NAYS: Chris Bittle, Iqwinder Gaheer, Damien C. Kurek, Dane Lloyd, Ron McKinnon, Glen Motz, Jennifer O'Connell, Peter Schiefke, Doug Shipley — 9.
“cil may, by order and after consultation with the persons the Governor in Council considers appropriate,”
By unanimous consent, the question was put on the amendment of Iqwinder Gaheer and it was agreed to.
“(1.1) The provisions of the order must, in scope and substance, be reasonable and proportionate to the gravity of the threat of interference, manipulation or disruption.”
Debate arose thereon.
Dane Lloyd moved, — That the amendment be amended by
(a) replacing the word “or” with the following “,”
(b) adding the words “or degradation” after the word “disruption”.
The question was put on the subamendment of Dane Lloyd and it was agreed to.
Jennifer O'Connell moved, — That the amendment be amended by deleting the words “and proportionate”.
The question was put on the subamendment of Jennifer O'Connell and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Chris Bittle, Iqwinder Gaheer, Damien C. Kurek, Ron McKinnon, Kristina Michaud, Glen Motz, Jennifer O'Connell, Peter Schiefke, Doug Shipley — 9;
NAYS: Peter Julian — 1.
The question was put on the amendment of Peter Julian, as amended, and it was agreed to.
“(2) On application by the Minister, the Federal Court may, by order, prohibit any person from disclosing some or all of the order's contents if it is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that such disclosure could be injurious to international relations, national defence or national security or endanger the safety of any person.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Kristina Michaud and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Peter Julian, Kristina Michaud — 2;
NAYS: Chris Bittle, Iqwinder Gaheer, Damien C. Kurek, Dane Lloyd, Ron McKinnon, Glen Motz, Jennifer O'Connell, Peter Schiefke, Doug Shipley — 9.
“(2.1) Before making the order, the Governor in Council must consider
(a) its operational impact on the affected telecommunications service providers;
(b) its financial impact on the affected telecommunications service providers;
(c) its effect on the provision of telecommunications services in Canada; and
(d) any other factor that the Governor in Council considers relevant.”
By unanimous consent, the question was put on the amendment of Iqwinder Gaheer and it was agreed to.
“lished in the Canada Gazette within 90 days after the day on which it is made, unless the Governor in”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Peter Julian and it was agreed to on division.
(a) by replacing line 23 on page 2 with the following:
“15.2 (1) If there are reasonable grounds to believe that it is necessary to”
(b) by replacing lines 4 and 5 on page 3 with the following:
“(1) or 15.1(1) — that is specified in the order and in respect of which there are reasonable grounds to believe is necessary to secure the Canadi-”
By unanimous consent, after debate, the question was put on the amendment of Peter Julian and it was agreed to.
“tem against any threat, including that of interference, manipulation, disruption or degradation, the Minister may, by order and af-”
By unanimous consent, the question was put on the amendment of Iqwinder Gaheer and it was agreed to.
“Emergency Preparedness and with the persons the Minister considers appropriate,”
By unanimous consent, after debate, the question was put on the amendment of Iqwinder Gaheer and it was agreed to.
(a) replacing lines 1 to 8 on page 3 with the following:
“(2) If the Minister believes on reasonable grounds that it is necessary to do so to secure the Canadian telecommunications system against any threat, including that of interference, manipulation, disruption or degradation, the Minister may, by order,”
(b) adding after line 12 on page 4 the following:
“(m) direct a telecommunications service provider to do a specified thing or refrain from doing a specified thing, other than a thing specified in subsection (1) or 15.1(1).”
By unanimous consent, the question was put on the amendment of Iqwinder Gaheer and it was agreed to.
“(2.1) The provisions of an order made under subsection (1) or (2) must, in scope and substance, be reasonable and proportionate to the gravity of the threat of interference, manipulation or disruption.”
Debate arose thereon.
Jennifer O'Connell moved, — That the amendment be amended by
(a) deleting the words “and proportionate”
(b) deleting the word “or” after the word “manipulation”
(c) adding the words “or degradation” after the word “disruption”
(d) adding the following “,” after the word “manipulation”.
After debate, the question was put on the subamendment of Jennifer O'Connell and it was agreed to on division.
The question was put on the amendment of Peter Julian, as amended, and it was agreed to.
“(m) require that a telecommunications service provider have a backup system to power telephone towers.”
Debate arose thereon.
Jennifer O'Connell moved, — That the amendment be amended by
(a) replacing the word “have” with the word “use”
(b) replacing the words “to power telephone towers” with the words “for telecommunications facilities”.
After debate, the question was put on the subamendment of Jennifer O'Connell and it was agreed to.
The question was put on the amendment of Kristina Michaud, as amended, and it was agreed to.
“(2.1) For greater certainty, despite subsection (2), the Minister is not permitted to order a telecommunications service provider to intercept a private communication or a radio-based telephone communication, as those terms are defined in section 183 of the Criminal Code.”
By unanimous consent, the question was put on the amendment of Iqwinder Gaheer and it was agreed to.
“(2) On application by the Minister, the Federal Court may, by order, prohibit any person from disclosing some or all of the contents of an order made under subsection (1) or (2) if it is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that such disclosure could be injurious to international relations, national defence or national security or endanger the safety of any person.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Kristina Michaud and it was negatived.
“(3.1) Before making an order under subsection (1) or (2), the Minister must consider
(a) its operational impact on the affected telecommunications service providers;
(b) its financial impact on the affected telecommunications service providers;
(c) its effect on the provision of telecommunications services in Canada; and
(d) any other factor that the Minister considers relevant.”
The question was put on the amendment of Iqwinder Gaheer and it was agreed to.
“published in the Canada Gazette within 90 days after the day on which it is made, unless the Minister di‐”
The question was put on the amendment of Peter Julian and it was agreed to.
At 5:58 p.m., the sitting was suspended.
At 6:18 p.m., the sitting resumed.
Damien C. Kurek moved, — That, given the April 1 Carbon Tax hike, the committee call on the Minister of Public Safety and Minister of Environment to provide a report to the committee in 30 days on the additional costs the carbon tax adds to the RCMP budgets and police forces across the country, and to work with their provincial counterparts to secure this information, and report to the House its recommendation to spike the hike, and axe the tax.
Debate arose thereon.
Ron McKinnon moved, — That the debate be now adjourned.
The question was put on the motion and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Chris Bittle, Iqwinder Gaheer, Peter Julian, Ron McKinnon, Kristina Michaud, Jennifer O'Connell, Peter Schiefke — 7;
NAYS: Damien C. Kurek, Dane Lloyd, Glen Motz, Doug Shipley — 4.
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.
“the extent of the inconsistency and, if such an order prevails over such a decision of the Commission, the Commission must make that decision public.
(6.1) At the end of each fiscal year, the Minister must prepare a report stating the number of times that an order made under subsection (1) or (2) prevailed over a decision of the Commission made under this Act during the previous fiscal year and must cause the report to be tabled before each House of Parliament on any of the first 15 days on which the House is sitting after the report is completed.”
Debate arose thereon.
By unanimous consent, the amendment was withdrawn.
“15.21 (1) The Minister shall cause to be tabled in each House of Parliament, within three months after the end of each fiscal year or, if either House is not then sitting, on any of the first 15 days of the next sitting of that House, a report on the orders made under subsection 15.1(1) and subsections 15.2 (1) and (2).
(2) The Minister shall include in the report, for the fiscal year covered by the report, the following information:
(a) the number of orders made and the nature of the orders;
(b) the number of orders that were revoked;
(c) the number of applications made to the Federal Court seeking to prohibit disclosure of an order, and the number of applications granted;
(d) the number of telecommunications service providers affected by an order;
(e) the number of telecommunications service providers that partially complied with an order;
(f) the number of telecommunications service providers that fully complied with an order; and
(g) an explanation of the necessity, proportionality, reasonableness and utility of the orders.”
Debate arose thereon.
At 6:34 p.m., the sitting was suspended.
At 6:47 p.m., the sitting resumed.
Jennifer O'Connell moved, — That the amendment be amended by replacing the words “the number” with the words “description of compliance” in subparagraphs (e) and (f).
After debate, the question was put on the subamendment of Jennifer O'Connell and it was agreed to.
Doug Shipley moved, — That the amendment be amended by adding the following: “(3) The report shall state the number of times that an order prevailed over a decision of the Commission made under this Act during previous fiscal year and must cause the report to be tabled before each House of Parliament on any of the first 15 days on which the House is sitting after the report is completed.”.
After debate, the question was put on the subamendment of Doug Shipley and it was agreed to.
The question was put on the amendment of Peter Julian, as amended, and it was agreed to.
“15.21 The Minister must, within 90 days after an order that includes a provision prohibiting the disclosure of its existence, or some or all of its contents, is made under section 15.1 or 15.2, notify the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians and the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency of the making of the order.”
By unanimous consent, the question was put on the amendment of Iqwinder Gaheer and it was agreed to.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Peter Julian and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Peter Julian — 1;
NAYS: Chris Bittle, Iqwinder Gaheer, Damien C. Kurek, Dane Lloyd, Ron McKinnon, Kristina Michaud, Glen Motz, Jennifer O'Connell, Peter Schiefke, Doug Shipley — 10.
“(2) Any information collected or obtained under this Act must be retained only for as long as is necessary to make, amend or revoke an order under section 15.1 or 15.2 or a regulation under paragraph 15.8(1)(a), or to verify compliance or prevent non-compliance with such an order or regulation.
(3) A person who provides information under subsection (1) must be informed of the retention period.
(4) Any agreement, memorandum of understanding or arrangement under section 15.7 must restrict the retention of the information to the period necessary for the purposes set out in subsection 15.7(1) and provide for its subsequent disposal.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Kristina Michaud and it was negatived.
“(d) personal information or de-identified information.
(1.1) The following definitions apply in paragraph (1)(d).
de-identify means to modify personal information so that an individual cannot be directly identified from it, though a risk of the individual being identified remains. (dépersonnaliser)
personal information has the same meaning as in section 3 of the Privacy Act. (renseignements personnels)”
Iqwinder Gaheer moved, — That the amendment be amended by replacing the word “or” with the word “and” in paragraph (d).
The question was put on the subamendment of Iqwinder Gaheer and it was agreed to.
The question was put on the amendment of Kristina Michaud, as amended, and it was agreed to.
(a) by replacing lines 9 to 12 on page 6 with the following:
“(c) the disclosure is authorized by an order made under subsection (4).”
(b) by adding after line 12 on page 6 the following:
“(4) On application by the Minister, the Federal Court may, by order, authorize information that is designated as confidential to be disclosed, or to be permitted to be disclosed, if it is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the disclosure is necessary to secure the Canadian telecommunications system against the threat of interference, manipulation or disruption.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Doug Shipley and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Damien C. Kurek, Dane Lloyd, Glen Motz, Doug Shipley — 4;
NAYS: Chris Bittle, Iqwinder Gaheer, Peter Julian, Ron McKinnon, Kristina Michaud, Jennifer O'Connell, Peter Schiefke — 7.
“(2) Any confidential information that is collected under subsection (1) must be treated as confidential.”
By unanimous consent, the question was put on the amendment of Iqwinder Gaheer and it was agreed to.
“(3) If an exchange of information occurs under an agreement or arrangement with the government of a foreign state or with an international organization established by the governments of foreign states, the Minister must, without delay, notify the person to whom the information relates of the disclosure and of the state or organization that received it.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Kristina Michaud and it was negatived.
“15.71 For greater certainty, nothing in sections 15.1, 15. 2 and 15.4 to 15.7 affects the provisions of the Privacy Act.”
The question was put on the amendment of Iqwinder Gaheer and it was agreed to.
“extent of the inconsistency and, if such a regulation prevails over such a decision of the Commission, the Commission must make that decision public.
(3) At the end of each fiscal year, the Minister must prepare a report stating the number of times that a regulation made under paragraph 1(a) prevailed over a decision of the Commission made under this Act during the previous fiscal year and must cause the report to be tabled before each House of Parliament on any of the first 15 days on which the House is sitting after the report is completed.”
Debate arose thereon.
At 7:29 p.m., the sitting was suspended.
At 7:32 p.m., the sitting resumed.
By unanimous consent, the amendment was withdrawn.
“15.81 (1) The Minister must, within three months after the end of each fiscal year, prepare a report respecting any orders referred to in sections 15.1 and 15.2 that were made during that fiscal year and must cause the report to be laid before each House of Parliament within the first 15 days on which that House is sitting after the report is completed.
(2) The report must include the number of orders that were made in that fiscal year.”
At 7:35 p.m., the sitting was suspended.
At 7:39 p.m., the sitting resumed.
Doug Shipley moved, — That the amendment be amended by adding after the words “made in that fiscal year” the following: “and state the number of times an order prevailed over a decision of the CRTC made under this Act”.
The question was put on the subamendment of Doug Shipley and it was agreed to.
The question was put on the amendment of Jennifer O'Connell, as amended, and it was agreed to.
(a) by adding after line 13 on page 8 the following:
“(a.1) the judge must appoint a person from a list established by the Minister to act as a special advocate in the proceeding after hearing representations from the applicant and the Minister and after giving particular consideration and weight to the preferences of the applicant;”
(b) by adding after line 28 on page 8 the following:
“(c.1) on the request of the Minister, the judge may exempt the Minister from the obligation to provide the special advocate with a copy of information if the judge is satisfied that the information does not enable the applicant to be reasonably informed of the case made by the Minister;
(c.2) for the purpose of deciding whether to grant an exemption under paragraph (c.1), the judge may ask the special advocate to make submissions and may communicate with the special advocate to the extent required to enable the special advocate to make the submissions, if the judge is of the opinion that considerations of fairness and natural justice require it;”
(c) by adding after line 43 on page 8 the following:
“(h) the judge may receive into evidence anything that, in the judge’s opinion, is reliable and appropriate, even if it is inadmissible in a court of law, and may base a decision on that evidence; and
(i) the judge must not base a decision on information that the Minister is exempted from providing to the special advocate, must ensure the confidentiality of that information and must return it to the Minister.”
(d) by adding after line 4 on page 9 the following:
“(2.1) A special advocate’s role is to protect the interests of the applicant in a proceeding referred to in subsection (1) when evidence or other information is heard in the absence of the public and of the applicant and their counsel.
(2.2) A special advocate may challenge
(a) the Minister’s claim that the disclosure of evidence or other information would be injurious to international relations, national defence or national security or endanger the safety of any person; and
(b) the relevance, reliability and sufficiency of evidence or other information that is provided by the Minister and is not disclosed to the applicant and their counsel, and the weight to be given to it.
(2.3) Subject to paragraph (1)(c.1), the Minister must, within a period set by the judge, provide the special advocate with a copy of the evidence and other information that is relevant to the case made by the Minister and that has been filed with the Federal Court, but that is not disclosed to the applicant and their counsel.”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it infringed on the financial initiative of the Crown, as provided on page 772 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
Whereupon, Peter Julian 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: Chris Bittle, Iqwinder Gaheer, Ron McKinnon, Kristina Michaud, Jennifer O'Connell, Peter Schiefke — 6;
NAYS: Peter Julian, Damien C. Kurek, Dane Lloyd, Glen Motz, Doug Shipley — 5.
Clause 2, as amended, carried.
Clause 3 carried.
Clause 4 carried.
Clause 5 carried.
Clause 6 carried.
On Clause 7,
Kristina Michaud moved, — That Bill C-26, in Clause 7, be amended by deleting lines 24 to 26 on page 11.After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Kristina Michaud and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Kristina Michaud — 1;
NAYS: Chris Bittle, Iqwinder Gaheer, Peter Julian, Damien C. Kurek, Dane Lloyd, Ron McKinnon, Glen Motz, Jennifer O'Connell, Peter Schiefke, Doug Shipley — 10.
“(a.1) any evidence that the person exercised due diligence to prevent the violation;”
Debate arose thereon.
By unanimous consent, Clause 7 was allowed to stand.
Clause 8 carried.
Clause 9 carried.
Clause 10 was negatived.
By unanimous consent, the committee reverted to Clause 7 previously stood.
“(a.1) any evidence that the person exercised due diligence to prevent the violation;”
By unanimous consent, the amendment was withdrawn.
Clause 7 carried.
Clause 11 carried.
At 8:13 p.m., the committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.