The committee studied Bill C-8, which addresses telecommunications security and critical cyber systems protection, and heard from Andre Arbour, Director General of the Telecommunications and Internet Policy Branch at the Department of Industry.
Andre Arbour testified that existing protections in the Privacy Act and amendments already adopted during the bill's study cover whistle-blower protections, and he identified three drafting issues with a proposed amendment on the topic, including confusion between the terms "person" and "individual" and conflicts with public consultation processes. He recommended replacing "person" with "individual" and adding a confidentiality request requirement to avoid conflicts within the act.
Arbour stated that a proposed amendment requiring the minister to publish a report summary on the Department of Industry's website within 10 days of tabling was unnecessary, as Bill C-8 already includes annual reporting requirements, and adding a second report would create an administrative burden and confusion. He also confirmed that amendments related to amicus curiae and special advocates were redundant, as the Federal Court already has those powers under the Federal Courts Act.
Regarding an amendment on international traffic licences and outsourcing of telecommunications infrastructure, Arbour explained that Bill C-8 already provides supply chain control powers under proposed sections 15.1 and 15.2, allowing the government to impose rules on telecommunications service providers to address credible threats, including foreign services. He noted that adding specific criteria for the CRTC could cause confusion by implying limits on the CRTC's broader existing powers.
Arbour opposed an amendment adding "knowingly" to administrative monetary penalty provisions for individuals, arguing it would set an extraordinarily high bar that would render the penalty power unusable, as the department lacks law enforcement investigatory capacity and the current criteria already limit penalties to promoting compliance. He noted only two instances of individual penalties among 160,000 licences.
Arbour did not comment on a subamendment to BQ-9 that sought to align definitions with the Privacy Act, as it was a procedural matter between members. He also did not address a proposed five-year review amendment, which was later amended to assign the review to the Minister of Public Safety instead of the Minister of Industry.
The committee debated and voted on several amendments, with members withdrawing some after Arbour's testimony, including the whistle-blower amendment after adopting Arbour's suggested changes, and the amicus curiae and special advocate amendments as redundant. The BQ-9 amendment was voted on division after a subamendment was proposed but not accepted by the mover.
AI-generated summary — may contain errors; verify against the official evidence.