SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 139

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 1, 2022 10:00AM
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Dec/1/22 3:27:27 p.m.
  • Watch
The hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle is rising.
10 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • 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
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • 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
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • 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
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • 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
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • 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
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • 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
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • 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
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Dec/1/22 3:31:05 p.m.
  • Watch
This is not the debate we are going to.
9 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • 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
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • 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
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Dec/1/22 3:41:21 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-26 
Madam Speaker, I mentioned at the end of my speech that the government was very late in putting forward such a bill. It is a very tough question to answer as to whether or not we can catch up. We know the existing wars and challenges and future wars are mostly around cybersecurity. It will be important in this motion of the House, with this bill, to assess how prepared Canada is for facing future threats.
76 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Dec/1/22 3:42:09 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-26 
Madam Speaker, within the legislation there is consideration given to how financial penalties would empower the minister to take strong action to ensure that providers are keeping up with what they need to keep up with. My question to the member is this. Would he agree that when we take a look at the issue of cyber-attacks, they are not something unique to Canada? It is happening around the world. We are working with allied countries and others. This is one part. It does not stop here. There is a need to continue, as we have for the last number of years, investing tens of millions of dollars and putting people to the task of protecting us against cyber-threats. Could the member just provide his thoughts in terms of the broader picture of cyber-threats?
137 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Dec/1/22 3:43:10 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-26 
Madam Speaker, I will answer the end of the question and go back to the beginning of what the hon. member asked. We are still not there in terms of assessing our preparedness and our cybersecurity position. I do not know if we have enough understanding of those challenges, what our position is and how prepared we are. That is a very important task for the government. As far as financial penalties on businesses, I mentioned in my speech that such things could put some businesses into bankruptcy, because they would not be able to afford the services that would provide the protection needed for them not to end up in such a disastrous situation. Therefore, a balance is needed, and this has to be done by working together with the industry. If we are truly prepared, the financial penalties should be less, because the government should have done more in the last seven years, or even the years before that, in terms of looking to the future. It all remains in the hands of the government that is putting this bill forward. We hope to get some answers.
189 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Dec/1/22 3:44:26 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-26 
Madam Speaker, that was a very interesting intervention. I am not a specialist in cybersecurity, so I am finding this debate very informative. I guess one of the questions I have is about how we balance the need for cybersecurity with the need for transparency. That is really what the big question is for this. How do we make it effective but also adhere to the Canadian values of transparency, human rights and whatnot? I wonder if the member has anything to say about the fact—
87 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Dec/1/22 3:44:54 p.m.
  • Watch
I have an hon. member with a point of order, and I think I know what the hon. member is going to say. The hon. member asking the question does not have her headset, and we do not allow members to speak without a headset. That is on me, with my apologies. I will have to interrupt the hon. member right now and give the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay a very short question, please.
77 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Dec/1/22 3:45:21 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-26 
Madam Speaker, cyber-threats are not new. In 2011, Canada's two main financial centres in government, Finance and the Treasury Board, were pushed off-line for days by hacks from Chinese operators, yet the Harper government did nothing about that. It did not want to talk about it because it was busy selling off sections of the oil sands and Nexen to Chinese state-owned operators and then signing a free trade deal with China, the deal that would allow it to take on Canada outside of the court system. I find it kind of special that the Conservatives are suddenly concerned about cybercrime now, when they did nothing to take on China's state threats to Canada under Harper.
121 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Dec/1/22 3:46:03 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-26 
Madam Speaker, the NDP member always wants to politicize things. This is a very serious issue, and there is not one party that is more serious about this than others. I wish he had stayed within the non-partisan notion of this bill. Let us talk about facts. Let us talk about logic and stop the attacks.
57 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Dec/1/22 3:46:33 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-26 
Madam Speaker, before I begin, I will just say that I will be splitting my time with the member for Kingston and the Islands. It is an honour to rise today in the House to debate the second reading of Bill C-26, an act respecting cybersecurity. To me, cybersecurity is essential, and it certainly relates directly to our national security. When we consider the challenges and opportunities we face in this field, the theme of collaboration underpins and needs to underpin all that we do. The prevalence of cybercrime in an increasingly online world, improving cyber-defence posture in an unstable global environment, deep thinking about what the future holds in a world where innovation and change are exponential, a critical look at whether our policies and laws are up to the task, and the protection of content and intellectual property as data becomes one of the world's most precious resources: These are just some of the reflections that we have to have when considering this bill. In Canada, being online and connected is essential. Now, more than ever, Canadians rely on the Internet for their daily lives. It is about more than just conducting business and paying bills. It is also about staying connected with loved ones across the country and around the world. We should be able to do all these activities safely and securely. I would like to offer a few words about what we are doing here in Canada to get that balance right, and I would like to reinforce the importance of our commitment to protecting the cyber systems that underpin our critical infrastructure. We can take the emergence of new technologies, such as 5G, as one clear reason we need to redouble our efforts. We think about our increased reliance on technology in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. We think about international tensions amidst Russia’s unprovoked and unjustified ongoing invasion of Ukraine, with threats ranging from supply chain disruptions to state and non-state malicious cyber-activity. Through all of these remarkable events, the government has been working tirelessly to keep Canadians safe. We recognize that, now more than ever, secure and reliable connectivity is a necessity for our daily lives and our collective safety and security. It underpins the delivery of critical services, such as energy production, financial transactions, safe transportation and emergency communications. As part of his mandate, bestowed by Prime Minister Trudeau, the Minister of Public Safety is seized with the opportunity and challenge of developing a renewed national—
424 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border