44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 1, 2022 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, of course, fundamentally I believe in the oversight of government and ensuring that there are checks and balances.
When bills proceed to committee, obviously members within the pertinent committee should bring forth ideas to strengthen them, and that includes Bill C-26. Our main priority as MPs is to bring forth good legislation, to improve it and to protect the security of Canadians, whether it is their cybersecurity or health and safety. Bill C-26 would take us down that path.
83 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, clause 2 of the bill would enable the government to issue orders to force users of telecommunications services to use products or services that do not come from certain providers, including Huawei.
Does that mean that a person who has already bought a Huawei cellphone, because that is a product, will not be able to use it anymore and will have to buy a new phone much sooner than they expected?
What is more, since decisions will be made by order, does that mean that, under this bill, the government will be using orders to govern in this area instead of going through parliamentarians?
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Quebec for her question.
In the preliminary version of the Library of Parliament's assessment of the bill, there is a reference that the bill specifies that no one would be entitled to any compensation from the federal government for any financial losses resulting from these orders. I am not certain if these orders pertain to exactly what the member was speaking to, but I do believe so. I would have to get back to the member on that specific question, because it is a pertinent question.
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we are all in agreement here. We know that Canada needs to strengthen protections when it comes to cybersecurity to protect Canadians and Canadian businesses.
One thing we are all unified on over on this side in the opposition parties is that we need to have some assurances for everyday Canadians that these sweeping powers, broad powers that are going to be given to the minister, are not going to be applied to everyday Canadians in terms of surveillance.
I know we keep hearing from Liberal colleagues that they will get it to committee and will answer these questions. However, does my colleague not agree that the minister failed in bringing forward this legislation without addressing some of these concerns at all? This is fairly substantial legislation, and the Liberals have not been able to address any of the concerns we brought forward today around these very real concerns.
151 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we must always protect the civil liberties and rights of Canadians. Any legislation brought to the House needs to pass that means test, if I can call it that.
With reference to Bill C-26, it is definitely required that we update our cybersecurity laws to reflect the ongoing changes in technology that have happened over the last number of years and the increasing use of cybersecurity, cyber-threats, increasing digitization that has been going on in the world, and the fact that Canadians are increasingly interconnected in this world.
We need to maintain checks and balances within the system and ensure that individual rights of Canadians are protected.
111 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, a good friend of mine.
Today I get to address Bill C-26, and right off the top I will say that I think this is dumb legislation. Why do I say that? I say that because I do not think that it has attempted to do what it has stated it would do. Generally I find that this is another piece of legislation, probably the third or fourth that I have spoken on in this session of Parliament, where I am frustrated with the government in that it does not seem to do the hard work of governing.
Governing is a matter of balancing the interests and coming up with a statement or something that is clear. On the rule of law, we would anticipate the public and anticipate what the rules ought to be and then look at the law, read the law somewhere and say, “Oh, that is what we are supposed to be doing.”
Again, here we have a piece of legislation where there is a clear, identifiable problem. Canadians have seen a number of issues around the country and around the world where cybersecurity is under threat. Canadians are asking the government to govern, to set some parameters and guidelines as to what the expectations are around who gets to participate in cyberspace and how we ought to operate in cyberspace.
We see in this piece of legislation the classic attitude of “We're the government. We're here to help. Trust us. We got this.” We do not trust the government. Particularly, the Conservatives do not trust the government to do the things it needs to do. We have seen it try to hand out billions of dollars to its friends. I mentioned the WE scandal. We have seen it hand out money to its friends over at Baylis Medical. We have ample evidence of why we should not trust the government.
When it comes to cybersecurity, it is also an area where I do not trust the government. The government has been in power for seven years, and we have watched it drag its feet with an inability to come to a decision, for a whole host of reasons, around the Huawei situation. Was a particular company allowed to participate in the building of the infrastructure of our Internet architecture?
This is a major issue. We told the government that we don't think this Chinese Communist Party government-controlled company should be able to participate in the Canadian Internet infrastructure. We called on the government to ban the use of Huawei technology in our Internet infrastructure, yet it could not do it. It took the government years of dragging its feet, wringing its hands and doing a whole host of things. When the Liberals come forward with a bill like Bill C-26 and say to trust the minister and that they will get this right, I am sorry, but we do not trust the minister to get this right.
We have seen a number of security threats challenging our basic infrastructure. One we should really take note of, which was fairly recent, is the shutdown of a particular pipeline. We saw a dramatic spike in fuel prices across North America because the cybersecurity of a particular piece of pipeline infrastructure was not to the state that it should have been. This, again, comes to the fact around trusting the government to do its job, particularly this government.
One of the key roles of government in Canada and anywhere is the maintaining of peace and security, and we have a military, a police force and a judicial system for that. A growing area where we need to be concerned about peace and security is in cyberspace.
We should be able to feel that our property should not go missing. We should be able to own property, and it should be able to be maintained by us, all of these kinds of things. We expect the government to put forward registries so we can register our property, so that, if it goes missing, the government has a registry of it and we can use that to get our property back. It cannot just be expropriated from us, all of these kinds of things.
In the same way, that is increasingly a part of cybersecurity. The ownership of things in cyberspace, the ownership of websites and the ownership of even our own Twitter handles, for example, are increasingly things that are deemed to be cybersecurity.
The government seems to be lacking in the ability to protect Canadians' cybersecurity.
There is an iconic Canadian company, Ski-Doo. I do not know if people are snowmobilers, but I do enjoy snowmobiling, and Ski-Doo is an iconic Canadian company.
I do not know if people know this but, recently, Ski-Doo has been the victim of a cyber-attack and has lost control of its entire dealership network. Its own computer system has gone down. It has not been able to get it back. Somebody else has control of it now and it has not been able to get it back.
These are the types of things that I think are crucial. When one is going to bring in a bill that talks about cybersecurity, these are the kinds of things the government should be trying to keep secure. This is Canadian property. These are Canadian identities. These are Canadian brands. These are the things we need to ensure we can prosecute, that we can track these people down who are doing this kind of thing and that we can ensure cybersecurity.
I guess that is where I get a little frustrated with a bill like this. It says a lot of nice things at the top of it. The government comes here with a blanket statement around how it is going to defend cybersecurity, how cybersecurity is important and how we should all vote in favour of this particular bill. I imagine that we will.
However, the bill does not necessarily tell us what we are going to do. The banning of Huawei is not necessarily laid out in this. There are no criteria as to what the expectations are for companies to operate in this space, in terms of what they can be tied to and what they should not be tied to. It is just, “Trust us. We are the government and we are here to help.”
In addition, we have seen over the last number of years the opportunities for the government to put resources into law enforcement's ability to track some of this down. We can see changes to the Criminal Code, to ensure that some of these malware attacks or ransomware attacks could be tracked down and prosecuted here in Canada. This is a major concern for companies looking at investing in the world. They look at a country's ability to protect them from a cyber-attack but then also to prosecute those cyber-attacks.
I have a friend who works for the Calgary city police. He works in cybercrimes. He often works with police forces from around the world to track down folks who are using ransomware on Canadian companies.
He tells me they rarely, if ever, prosecute in Canada because our laws are so non-distinct around this that it is impossible to prosecute. Because these are multi-jurisdictional crimes, they will often take the prosecution of this to a jurisdiction that has better laws. He says he will work with 23 law enforcement organizations and they will bring a case in Europe, in eastern Europe or in Israel, because those places have much better laws to protect cybersecurity.
1306 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am glad the member will be voting in favour of the legislation going to committee. Hopefully many of the concerns he raises on the issues surrounding the worthiness of the legislation, will be addressed at that stage.
The legislation would empower the minister to be able to take actions. It would allow for financial penalties. It would allow for us to deal with cyber-attacks from a legislative perspective. That does not necessarily mean that this is the only thing we have done over the last number of years. There has been a great number of financial resources, individuals, committees and so forth ensuring our industries are protected.
This is yet another step forward in dealing with cyber-attacks, keeping us consistent with other allied countries. I am wondering if the member would acknowledge the importance of moving forward with allied countries in dealing with things, such as cyber-attacks?
153 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am hopeful that this bill would get us in line with other countries from around the world because, increasingly, Canada is left out of the discussions around cybersecurity.
We are no longer invited to some of the many important forums that do take place in battling this. If that is what this bill is attempting to do, to bring us in line with some of these other countries, I hope that is the case. However, I would note, I was talking to my friend with the Calgary Police Service who said that Canada is increasingly not the jurisdiction where they pursue these prosecutions because we are so lacking in good legislation to protect our cybersecurity.
118 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.
He talked about trust in the government or perhaps a lack of trust. In the current global context, there is interference by countries like China. We know that the RCMP has launched investigations into 11 electoral candidates. In fact, we also know that on July 7, 2016, the Prime Minister authorized a Chinese bank to do business on Canadian soil. At the same time, on July 6 and 7, 2016, the Papineau Federal Liberal Association received more than $70,000 in donations in 48 hours.
Is that not a reason to lose trust in the Prime Minister and the government?
111 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, that is another prime example among many of why Canadians do not trust the Liberal government, whether it this particular case of accepting interesting money for an approval; the Huawei decision that needed to be made; the WE Charity scandal, where the Prime Minister was trying to give an organization $1 billion, an organization that had funded nearly half a million dollars to his personal family; or the sweetheart deal with Baylis Medical.
Over and over again, we see that the government is not trustworthy. When it comes forward with bills that do not have a lot of details and that just give blanket permission to cabinet ministers, I am sorry, but we do not trust it.
119 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, today in the House we have heard the NDP speak about its concerns, also about its concerns with oversight.
Are Conservatives also in support of those changes around oversight?
31 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, yes, that is for sure the case. We are in support of more oversight. We would like to see a detailed bill, not a bill that just says that it would give the minister broad powers to do all the things.
That is not governing. That is not providing legislation. That is basically saying, “We love puppies. You should support us because we love puppies.”
69 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in the House today to a very serious subject, cybersecurity and the security of our country in general.
I will say, on a lighter note, that my friend from Peace River—Westlock spoke about snowmobiling companies and cyber-attacks. I have some personal experience with snowmobiling at his house, and I would say that the government's approach to security is the equivalent of driving a snowmobile over a four-foot retaining wall, which may or may not have happened the last time I tried to drive one of those machines.
The situation of security in this country is very much worth the House taking note of. For much of the time that I have been engaging with and following politics, the primary area of security we would talk about would be concerns about our readiness for and our response to the threat of terrorism. However, it is important to take stock of how things have changed and the fact that, while there are still concerns about terrorism and how we respond to potential acts of terrorism, the primary security threat we face as a country, and indeed that the western world faces, is the threat of foreign state-backed and directed interference in our national affairs. Our abiding concern should be the reality that various foreign states are trying to shape and interfere with our democratic life to try to bend not only our government institutions, but also our civil society institutions, toward their desired objective.
Members of the government have said that the purpose of this interference is to cause total chaos and confusion. We should acknowledge that there are some cases of foreign interference that are aimed at causing chaos, but very often it is about simply trying to subvert and control the direction of institutions toward the will and the interests of that particular foreign power. We have discussed how the Chinese Communist Party is the biggest player when it comes to foreign state-backed interference, but it is far from the only player.
We have seen reports about Chinese government interference in our elections. There have also been recent reports about death threats from the Iranian regime targeting individuals in Canada. There are various other countries that CSIS and other organizations have identified as being involved in this activity of trying to interfere with, subvert and direct Canadian institutions, government really at all levels, as well as civil society organizations, universities and the like, toward their objective.
This kind of invisible, or sometimes a little more visible but often hard to detect, interference in the direction of our national life toward objectives that are not consistent with the objectives Canadians have established is a great threat to our security and our sovereignty. It is something that we should all be seized with and working to respond to.
Part of the context as well is that we are in what some analysts have described as a second cold war. Of course, there are many features of the current conflict between democratic and authoritarian values that are different from the last Cold War, but we have this reality of intensifying global competition between two different value systems that are represented by different countries at different times, and we have countries that are in the middle that are being pulled in different directions.
I tend to think that kind of cold war frame is a reasonably useful way of understanding the current tensions we face in the world. In the context of those tensions, we see how powers with political values that are fundamentally different from ours, where governments are trying to protect their own position, are trying to project their influence around the world. Again, this requires vigilance. It requires a strong response from Canada.
I have been struck by some of the recent comments from the Prime Minister on these matters. I think he has been showing a real lack of transparency around acknowledging what he knew when, and refusing to answer direct questions from the opposition about foreign interference, but he has also stated quite openly the reality that we have a serious problem with foreign interference. This is a reality that opposition members, in particular in the Conservative Party, have been raising for years. We have been asking the government to do more. We have been calling for strong legislative frameworks to respond to the problem of foreign state-backed interference.
We have also sought to elevate the voices of victims of foreign interference, people who have faced threats and intimidation from foreign state actors to try to silence their advocacy, which those foreign state actors see as contrary to their interests. It has been widely reported some of these victims really struggle to actually get proper support. They often get the runaround.
They go to their local police force, which does not necessarily have the capacity to handle a foreign state-backed organized campaign of threats and intimidation. Do they go to Global Affairs? Do they go to CSIS? Do they go to the RCMP? There can be a bit of confusion and passing of the buck concerning support for these victims of foreign state-backed interference.
We have a lot of work to do in legislation and policy, and our preparedness in general and our understanding of these issues. It is critical that we step up to strengthen our understanding of and response to the threats facing our country.
One thing we need to see more from the Prime Minister and the government is transparency because being transparent about this reality can help to counter the impact of that foreign interference. If we know it is happening, if we know what it is directed toward, then we can respond more effectively.
This is not only a responsibility of the federal government to respond to. Provincial and municipal governments need to be aware of the issues of foreign interference. Our universities need to step up as well. Private companies need to be aware of the risks around interference, theft of technology and the ways in which certain things may have a dual military use. There needs to be a broader awareness of this threat to the national interest, a threat to our values across all sectors of society, and a broader response to it.
The government has an important role to play in leading the response and making changes at the national level. We have been far behind, as far the national government goes, in responding to these threats. The Conservative opposition has been calling for a response to foreign interference for years. Now we are seeing the government start to talk about it a bit more.
I noted in some of the language in the Indo-Pacific strategy, for example, the government is starting, or trying, to sound a bit more like Conservatives in the way it talks about some of the challenges confronting us and the steps we need to take in the Indo-Pacific region. While the government is adopting some of that language, it is failing to substantively adjust its approach.
We have a bill in front of us today that deals with one avenue where we need to be engaged with and responding to the problem of foreign state-backed interference, and that is the issue of cybersecurity. I will be supporting this legislation at this stage to see it go to committee, mainly because we clearly need a new cybersecurity bill. We clearly need a new framework. The committee study will identify some of the significant gaps we see in the legislation right now, the ways the legislation needs to be improved and possibly the many additional steps required. I will just note that it is far past due that we have some kind of proposal for a framework on cybersecurity that, in a way, gives the committee the opportunity to add to and build on what the government has initially put forward.
This is really the first time we see any kind of legislation proposed by the government that substantively touches on this emergent problem of foreign state-backed interference. We need a much broader range of responses from the government. We need so much more to be done to counter this major security threat.
This is about preserving our country. It is about preserving the integrity of our institutions. It is about defending the principle that the direction of our democracy and the direction of our society should be shaped through the open deliberation of Canadians, not by foreign powers who have particular interests that may be contrary to our interests who are trying to push and pull that discussion in their preferred direction.
Having this framework that opens the door for the committee to discuss further, fill in some of the gaps and try to push the government to have greater specificity in the framework around what they are going to do provides us with the opportunity to do that. This is late, lacking in detail and really a small piece of the much broader picture that is required.
The government has been so delayed. I mentioned the decision around Huawei. We were way behind all of our allies in making the decision. It is important now, finally, at this late stage where the government is starting to mention the problem, that we actually see concrete action. Conservatives will be pushing the government to act in line with some of the words it has been saying.
1591 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would just correct the member. Yes, this legislation is very important and we hope to see it get to the committee stage where it will no doubt be well discussed and debated. There will be presentations where members can digest information and see if there are ways in which we can improve upon the legislation. However, to try to give an impression that this is the only thing the government has done on the issue of cyber-threats is a bit of a false impression.
Not only have we been seeing a great deal of dialogue and actions from different departments to date in the form of formalized advisory groups, but we have seen literally tens of millions of dollars, not to mention the other incentive programs that were there, for the private sector, for example.
I wonder if the member would not agree that this issue is not new and this is just one very important aspect in taking a step forward.
166 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member is correct that this is not a new issue. That is precisely why I think the government is very late in coming to the table. The issue of foreign interference, which is part of the context of the cyber-threats we face, is also not a new issue. Again, we have been calling for action from the government, but we have not seen other action from it. The member says that the Liberals have done all these other things, such as maybe giving some money over here or over there, but he evidently could not articulate specific measures that the government had taken.
We are behind when it comes to defending our security. We are behind what we should have known much earlier. We are behind our allies. We were the last of the Five Eyes and very late to step up on recognizing the risks associated with Huawei.
When it comes to foreign interference, I will challenge the government on one point: Why has the government not expelled foreign diplomats involved in interference and intimidation in Canada? That would be a simple step and the government has not taken it.
195 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the bill before us seeks to reinforce our security systems and may affect critical infrastructure in Quebec such as Hydro-Québec. I always think about the Conservatives and their famous great energy corridor. That is the type of project in which the federal government could appropriate provincial responsibilities and critical infrastructure in the name of national security. This sets off major alarm bells in my mind.
Can the member reassure me about the Conservatives' intentions? Can he assure me that if they come to power some day, they would not misuse legislation like this piece of legislation?
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member asked what we would do if we were in government. We would make the right decision on every one of those.
With respect to the particulars the member raises with respect to what powers the federal government would have in intervening with provinces, this is an important issue for the committee to look at. I am supporting this legislation because we need to have a cybersecurity framework in Canada. It is important that this goes through to the committee and that those issues be looked at there.
I did not have time to go into it, but there are a significant number of problems in the legislation that do have to be worked out by the committee. No doubt there has to be a role for federal leadership around security, but it has to be a constructive, collaborative relationship, because there are steps for other levels of government. We see foreign interference at the very granular local level, so that collaboration across levels of government is really important.
172 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, this morning my colleague from Kildonan—St. Paul made an excellent presentation on this bill. She talked about the transparency that may be lacking in certain areas and the effects on small businesses and how they may not be able to afford the cost like a larger company. I wonder if my colleague could expand on that.
60 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, that is an excellent point. I did not have a chance in my remarks to talk specifically about the transparency issues. Again, we need to support this bill through the second reading stage out of agreement with the general principle that we need to do more on cybersecurity, recognizing how far behind the government has been.
However, there are significant issues with respect to ensuring transparency. There are significant issues on whether the bill is clear and specific enough about the steps that are required, instead of just leaving it, as we see often with the government and legislation, and giving an open-ended blank cheque to the government.
There are definitely issues. This requires a detailed committee study. I hope Conservative proposals will be adopted and we will be able to strengthen the bill as a result.
140 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.
I am pleased to speak to this bill, which, I must say, was eagerly awaited by my party.
The Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security had the opportunity to study the issue of cyber security. We heard from experts in this field, who told us what they think about Canada's cyber security preparedness or posture. The idea came from my Conservative colleagues, and it was a very good one.
Given what is happening in Ukraine with the Russian invasion, we know that there are still military threats in the 21st century. However, we are also dealing with the emergence of new technologies that pose non-military threats. I had the opportunity to talk about these non-military threats at the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Parliamentary Assembly last week in Warsaw, Poland. I discussed non-military threats and how different countries must prepare for or guard against them.
What the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security heard is how difficult it is to prepare for these threats, because they are evolving so quickly. No one had anything particularly positive to say about Canada's preparedness.
I think that the willingness is there, and that is what the experts told us: Canada is trying to prepare for and guard against potential cyber-attacks. I said “potential” cyber-attacks, but they are already happening. We know there have been cyber-attacks on various infrastructure and companies in Quebec and Canada, especially in the private sector, in the past. Canada is not as prepared as it could be to face these attacks, but we were told that it may never be totally prepared. The same is true for all countries because, as I said, the technology is changing so rapidly.
For this reason, I think that adopting a cybersecurity framework is an extremely positive step. That is what the government promised. In its national cyber security strategy, it pledged to better regulate cyber systems in the federally regulated private sector. The 2019 budget earmarked $144.9 million to develop a new framework to protect critical infrastructure. That is exactly what the two main parts of this bill do. They are aimed at strengthening the security of the Canadian telecommunications system.
Part 1 of the bill amends the Telecommunications Act to add the promotion of security, authorizing the government to direct Internet service providers to do anything, or refrain from doing anything, that is necessary to secure Canada's telecommunications system. Part 2 enacts the new critical cyber systems protection act to provide a framework for the protection of critical cyber-infrastructure and companies under federal jurisdiction.
The act is essentially a regulatory framework. As my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue mentioned earlier in his question to our Conservative colleague, we will have to see what impact this bill could have on Quebec, especially companies and organizations like Hydro-Québec, since it designates interprovincial power line systems as vital services and vital systems. More on that later.
We will also have to see in committee whether the vast regulation-making powers provided for in Bill C-26 are justified or whether they bypass Parliament for no reason. Certain groups that raised concerns in the media have contacted us as well. Their concerns about this bill are well founded. I will get back to this a little later on.
I would say that it is important to proceed carefully and properly with this bill. Any amendments made to the bill will have a direct impact on every transmission facility in Quebec, including those that will soon be built in my riding to offer adequate cell service to those who are still waiting. Some Canadian ridings are unfortunately still without cell service in 2022. Since my riding is one of them, the bill will have a significant impact.
Local telephone service providers, IP-based voice services, Internet service providers, long distance providers and wireless services will be subject to the amendments to the act.
This means that the amendments would allow authorities to secure the system if there is reason to believe that the security of the telecommunications system is under threat of interference, manipulation or disruption. In that case, telecommunication service providers could be prohibited from using or supplying certain goods or services.
As I understand the wording of the bill, which is rather complex, telecommunication service providers could even be prohibited from supplying services to a specific individual. It is important to realize that these are vast powers, and I hope that, when the bill is sent to committee for study, it will be detailed enough to include the factors that will be taken into account before such powers are granted.
As I was saying earlier, the act will make it possible to designate certain systems and services under federal jurisdiction as critical to national security or public safety. The new Critical Cyber Systems Protection Act will protect critical cyber systems in the private sector.
What, then, is a critical cyber system? I found it difficult to find a clear definition in French of what a critical cyber system is, but the government defines the term itself in the bill. It appears that it is a “system that, if...compromised, could affect the continuity or security of a vital service or vital system.”
The bills lists six vital services and systems in its schedule. These obviously include telecommunications services, interprovincial or international pipeline and power line systems, nuclear energy systems, transportation systems that are under federal jurisdiction, banking systems, and clearing and settlement systems.
These are the areas this bill addresses. That is a lot to verify, and several actors are involved. Several ministers will be involved in the regulatory process after that, so it is important to study the bill carefully.
At this stage, a number of questions arise. For example, what impact will the bill have on certain interprovincial infrastructures, such as power lines and power grids? The act could impact Hydro-Québec and other non-federal infrastructures, such as aluminum smelters. As I understand it, the bill itself would designate interprovincial power lines as a vital service. That could have an impact.
In principle, the bill is not a problem for my party. When we call experts to testify before the committee, we will be able to determine whether or not it will have a positive impact. I think it could be very positive, but we need to look at its scope.
The Bloc Québécois has often supported the government in its efforts to ensure stricter control of broadcasting for certain vital infrastructures that could be in the crosshairs of foreign nations. Let us consider China and Russia, as I mentioned earlier. There is the Huawei saga and the development of the 5G network. The government's indecision for so many years proves that it would have been better to act beforehand rather than to react to the current situation. China's increasing power and its attempts at interference on several occasions, as well as Canada's vulnerabilities in terms of cybersecurity, are real. For example, we know that Hydro-Québec has been a potential target for Chinese espionage. The same could happen directly in our infrastructures. I think that this bill is relevant. We are very happy that the government introduced it. That is why the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of sending the bill to a parliamentary committee so that we can hear what the experts have to say.
I would like to take these final moments to talk about the concerns voiced by certain groups. Professor Christopher Parsons of the University of Toronto said that the bill was so imperfect that authoritarian governments around the world could cite it to justify their own repressive laws. That is a worrisome statement. I will elaborate during questions and comments.
1353 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
