SoVote

Mr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP)

Dec/1/22 3:09:52 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, Terrace, B.C., has the third-highest death rate from toxic drug overdoses in our province, yet northern residents are still struggling to access detox and treatment services. People often have to wait weeks to get a bed in a facility, and when they do get a space, they have to travel hours away from home. The Northern First Nations Alliance has a real plan for a new treatment centre right in northwest B.C. It just needs support with the cost. Will the minister step up and ensure this project is completed as soon as possible?

99 words

Mrs. Élisabeth Brière (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health, Lib.)

Dec/1/22 3:10:30 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. We all know that the toxic drug and overdose crisis has a very painful effect on families and communities. We are working with the provinces and territories to put in place every tool and program we can to improve the situation. Since 2017, we have invested over $800 million to respond to this crisis and we will continue in that direction.

71 words

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

Dec/1/22 3:11:01 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, last week Canada's federal housing advocate was clear that the national housing strategy is failing. In my community we are seeing this first-hand. Over the past three years, the number of people experiencing homelessness has tripled. Organizations across the Waterloo region are ready to build the affordable housing we need, but they are still waiting on federal funding. Will the Minister of Housing commit to ensuring the national housing strategy actually reduces homelessness in my community and in others across the country?

86 words

Hon. Ahmed Hussen (Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion, Lib.)

Dec/1/22 3:11:39 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, this is a really important issue. That is why our government has prioritized investments to reduce and eventually eliminate chronic homelessness from Canada. We have doubled the federal program to combat homelessness, from $2 billion to just over $4 billion. In addition to that, we have introduced the rapid housing initiative, which has resulted in 10,250 deeply affordable homes, targeting the most vulnerable members of our communities. We know those investments are working all across the country. Some 64,000 Canadians were prevented from joining the ranks of the homeless in this country, and 32,000 were taken out of homelessness.

104 words

The Speaker

Dec/1/22 3:12:19 p.m.
Watch

I wish to draw the attention of members to the presence in the gallery of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada 2022 Impact Award winners: Cindy Blackstock, Fannie Lafontaine, Semra Sevi, Jordan Stanger-Ross and Jan Grabowski. Some hon. members: Hear, hear! The Speaker: The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable on a point of order.

63 words

Mr. Luc Berthold

Dec/1/22 3:13:15 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, during oral question period, I quoted a document from the director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. I decided to follow his instructions and ask for permission to openly and transparently table the report that he submitted to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding foreign interference in our election.

54 words

The Speaker

Dec/1/22 3:13:40 p.m.
Watch

All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay. Some hon. members: Nay.

18 words

The Speaker

Dec/1/22 3:15:26 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-29

It being 3:11 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-29. Call in the members.

42 words

The Speaker

Dec/1/22 3:27:12 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-29

I declare the motion carried.

5 words

All Topics

The Speaker

Dec/1/22 3:27:27 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle is rising.

10 words

Hon. Andrew Scheer

Dec/1/22 3:27:27 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-29

Mr. Speaker, a colleague voted by the app, encountered some technical difficulties and could not log on in time to switch his vote. I am wondering if the House would allow, as we have done in the past for other members, for the hon. member for Foothills to change his vote. His intention was to vote in favour. If the House would grant consent for that change, this would be a unanimous vote in favour of the bill.

78 words

All Topics

The Speaker

Dec/1/22 3:27:47 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-29

Do we have unanimous consent of the House? Some hon. members: Agreed.

12 words

All Topics

The Speaker

Dec/1/22 3:28:06 p.m.
Watch

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded division, Government Orders will be extended by 12 minutes. We now have the Thursday question.

27 words

Hon. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC)

Dec/1/22 3:28:24 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-21

Mr. Speaker, I shudder to think what would happen if the Thursday question was not asked. I have taken the advice the Speaker has given me and the government House leader over the past couple of weeks, so I have a more focused Thursday question. I wonder if the government House leader can inform the House as to the business of the House for this week and next week? While I am on my feet, I was wondering if the House would give me unanimous consent to table in the chamber the list of firearms used for hunting, because there seems to be some confusion on the government side as to which firearms it would actually be banning in its new amendment to Bill C-21.

126 words

The Speaker

Dec/1/22 3:29:02 p.m.
Watch

We will separate that. The hon. member can bring this up right after the Thursday question. In the meantime, I will ask the government House leader to respond to the question.

31 words

Thursday

Hon. Mark Holland (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Dec/1/22 3:29:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we will need to wait for the unanimous consent motion to see what will happen. I will wait for that. There is good news for the member opposite in that he has the opportunity, at committee of course, to review those guns and make any suggestions his members would like. I am sure, as a long-serving member, he would be aware of that opportunity, but I just remind him of that. The Speaker will be pleased to know we will continue with debate at second reading of Bill C-26, an act respecting cyber security, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments to other acts. Tomorrow we will begin debate at second reading of Bill C-23, the historic places of Canada act. On Monday, we will begin debate at report stage and third reading on Bill C-32, the fall economic statement implementation act, 2022. Thursday will be the final allotted day of the current supply period. For the rest of the week, priority should be given to Bill C-32. I would also like to indicate that on Tuesday there will be a statement by the minister on the commemoration of the Polytechnique massacre.

200 words

Hon. Andrew Scheer

Dec/1/22 3:30:44 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-21

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. Hope springs eternal, and maybe while the government House leader was answering my question, he reflected on the benefit of all members having this information right now, because oftentimes the answers to questions indicate some confusion on the government side as to the hunting rifles that would be banned in the bill. Do I have unanimous consent—

68 words

The Speaker

Dec/1/22 3:31:05 p.m.
Watch

This is not the debate we are going to.

9 words

Mr. Ziad Aboultaif (Edmonton Manning, CPC)

Dec/1/22 3:31:28 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-26

Mr. Speaker, we live in a world where every person is increasingly concerned with cybersecurity. So much of our lives is stored on our personal devices, protected by passwords and multi-factor authentication in the hopes of keeping our most private information secure. Corporations are increasingly at risk. It seems as if every day we hear a new report of companies’ computer systems being hacked and their data held for ransom by thieves who have managed digital anonymity. Law enforcement officials say many such cybercrimes go unreported, with companies paying quietly and privately so as to avoid publicity. Our public institutions are not immune either. Hospitals have had their computer systems attacked by intruders, putting patients' lives at risk. Emergency services have been attacked, as have the parliamentary computer systems. Cyber-threats remain a national security and economic issue that threatens the safety and security of Canadians. Government and industry alike have highlighted the need for regulation in cybersecurity. There has been a lot of talk, but not much else. Currently the Canadian government does not have a legal mechanism to compel action to address cyber-threats or vulnerabilities in the telecommunications sector, yet cybersecurity has become one of the primary issues each person and institution has to address. I am pleased that the government has introduced this legislation to allow us in the House to examine the cybersecurity concerns and needs of our nation. Bill C-26 would amend the Telecommunications Act as well as other related acts. The intention would be to amend the Telecommunications Act to add the promotion of the security of the Canadian telecommunications system as an objective of Canadian telecommunications policy and to authorize the Governor in Council and the Minister of Industry to direct telecommunications service providers to do anything, or refrain from doing anything that is necessary to secure the Canadian telecommunications system. I do not think there is anyone in the House, indeed in the country, who would disagree with the objective. As I have already pointed out, there is a problem with cybersecurity in our society, and government has an important role to play in protecting Canadian individuals and institutions. Some may wonder about giving such power to the Governor in Council and the Minister of Industry, but there are rules for the judicial review of those orders and applications. This is not a granting of absolute power, but of limited power subject to the checks and balances needed in a democracy. The bill would also enact the critical cyber systems protection act to provide a framework for the protection of the cyber systems of services and systems vital to national security or public safety. This, among other things, would authorize the Governor in Council to designate any service or system as a vital service or vital system. It would require designated operators to establish and implement cybersecurity programs, mitigate supply chain and third party risks, report cybersecurity incidents and comply with cybersecurity directions. One would think that such cybersecurity measures should be common sense and not need to be mandated by government. Is it right to compel private corporations and organizations to use their own resources to invest in cybersecurity? It would seem to me that well-run businesses would put cybersecurity first. Not every aspect of a business generates income, and smart business managers and owners know that. As the cliché goes, they have to spend money to make money. Implementing cybersecurity measures comes with a cost. There is no doubt about that. It would seem to me, though, that the cost would be considerably less than the cost of dealing with criminals holding their data for ransom after they have invaded their computer system and locked them out of it. Cybersecurity makes common sense for business. However, given that implementing cybersecurity measures comes with a financial cost with no corresponding revenue, do we really want to rely on those who might put short-term profits first, or does it make more sense in this case for government to step in to save some business owners from themselves? As someone who has spent most of his life working as a businessman, I am reluctant to suggest that business owners need to be saved from themselves, but as a Canadian I know that sometimes such action is necessary. We have only to look at the history of one of Canada's most successful companies: Nortel. It is a company that might still exist if those running it had taken cybersecurity more seriously. With more than 94,000 employees worldwide, Nortel was a high-tech leader until its headquarters were bugged, its computer systems breached and its intellectual property stolen. Now it is just a memory. We will never know for sure, but perhaps if cybersecurity had been a higher priority at Nortel, it would still be providing jobs, products and services for Canadian people. If anyone ever asks why we would take cybersecurity seriously, the one-word answer is “Nortel”. Though I am a little uneasy that this bill would almost certainly increase regulations and red tape, maybe there are ways that some of the excessive paperwork that seems to be beloved by the Liberals can be made reasonable. Certainly there is a need to ensure a level playing field of regulatory burdens for small and medium-sized businesses and organizations. If there is not, then I can see companies being forced into bankruptcy by the cost of implementing government-mandated cybersecurity procedures. I know that is not the government's intention, but as we have seen in the past, sometimes not all the impacts of government rule-making are foreseen. The Minister of Industry especially needs to ensure that the rules are workable and provide protection against attacks by criminals and malicious states. Indeed, it is perhaps malicious states that we should be concerned about the most. The interconnectedness of computer systems and their use in controlling and maintaining our infrastructures mean we are increasingly vulnerable to a devastating attack. An enemy that could seize control of our electricity grid or our banking system could bring our nation to its knees without firing a shot. The nature of warfare has changed, and as a result we must change our defences. Canada's national security requires being prepared for the security warfare threats that we face. The government has been slow to address cyber-threats and has seen a number of serious incidents occur, with no substantive legislative response for seven years. I am pleased that the government has finally chosen to act, and I am hopeful that we in the House can help improve this legislation. Cybersecurity is of paramount importance in the modern world. Canada cannot neglect it.

1125 words

All Topics

Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ)

Dec/1/22 3:40:32 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-26

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his speech. Cybersecurity is essential, and it is also a race against time because hackers are becoming better and better organized. They are fast, equipped, cunning and, on top of that, dishonest. That gives them an advantage over us presumably honest people. The government has been slow to act, legislate and get aggressive with cybersecurity. Does my colleague think that there is still time to take the lead in this race, or are we going to continue to fall behind international hacker organizations?

92 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 139