44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 1, 2022 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, it was interesting to follow that speech, with all the conspiracy theories laid in, but I will note the most bizarre part of it. We hear the Conservatives talk about corporate welfare a lot, but it seems the hon. member wants to give money to Bell, Rogers and Telus for doing their job. That is an interesting part of her solution to this problem, which she seems to acknowledge, even though she also suggests that members of our armed forces will do wrong by the new powers they are given.
I am wondering why the member wants to focus on giving Bell, Rogers and Telus more money to help solve the issue of cybersecurity.
116 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, first of all, I in no way insinuated that the people who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces would do any wrong intentionally. They have to be given the proper direction, and that is why we have to get the legislation right.
Furthermore, when the Liberals talk about conspiracy theories, that only tells us they do not have an answer to the point that we are making. It is just something they throw out when they do not have an explanation for something or they cannot deny it.
90 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech, in which she mentioned something very interesting.
She said that giving too much power to the executive would undermine the work of parliamentarians. I found that quite odd because Bill C‑11, which is exceptionally important for the discoverability of francophone content and for supporting francophone culture in Canada, is currently being held up in the Senate, where Conservative senators have been filibustering it for months.
Does the member think that her friends in the Senate are currently undermining the work of parliamentarians?
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, Bill C-11 is a terrible bill. It seeks to censor, and there is no rationale to have such a bill in place. It would do no good for any freedom-loving, law-abiding citizen in this country and it must be struck down.
46 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am not nearly as old as I look. When I came here I was much younger, but then I had to sit through eight years of the Harper government and my hair turned white. I feel like I am one of the few who remember what actually happened then, and I watch this cultural amnesia play out day after day.
I remember Bill C-30. Stephen Harper decided that he wanted a law allowing the police to check people's phones any time they wanted for whatever reason, and the Conservatives insisted that the telecoms put in a back channel so they could spy on and listen in to ordinary Canadians. That was before we knew there were conspiracy theories, and the Conservatives have a million over there. They would think this had something to do with promoting vaccines, but this was Stephen Harper's attempt to criminalize ordinary people without a warrant.
I want to ask my hon. colleague about that. She talks about, God forbid, the Conservatives coming back. I do not know what would happen to the rest of my hair if that happened. Are they going to continue to promote the kinds of tactics that Stephen Harper used, which criminalized ordinary Canadians in their private homes by listening in to what they were talking about?
222 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member opposite does not have to worry about a previous prime minister coming back to power, because right now what he noted is already happening. With Bill C-21, the police could come into people's homes. They are made into paper criminals just by virtue of the Liberals' declaring that certain firearms are now prohibited. It is already happening, and he does not have to wait for the best prime minister this country ever had to return.
81 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I honestly thought the member for Timmins—James Bay dyed his hair Arctic chill. I did not realize, but there is a Clairol product that he can get at the—
34 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, on a point of order. I retract my previous comment. I do dye my hair so I look smarter than I am. I have been called out, so I have to admit it. I dye my hair.
39 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the government has proven itself to fail on multiple fronts in delivering multiple projects and multiple bills.
What concern does the member have as far as delivering on this bill?
32 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, this bill gives the government of the day boundless opportunities to abuse our privacy and to issue secret orders.
One can only imagine what would have happened during the lockdowns with secret orders going forth. For even a peaceful demonstration coming to Parliament Hill, imagine the types of punishments, accusations and jail time, not just freezing bank accounts and taking money from lawful people.
66 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is an honour to enter into debate in this place, especially when it comes to issues that are so very pressing in relation to national security and some of the challenges that our nation is facing. I would suggest the whole discussion around cybersecurity is especially relevant, because we are seeing highlighted, each and every day, a drip of new information related to foreign interference in our elections.
It highlights how important the conversation around cybersecurity is. It is often through computer and technological means that these malicious, foreign state actors will attack Canadian infrastructure. It is particularly relevant that I rise to debate Bill C-26, relating to the Liberals' recently introduced bill on cybersecurity, and I would like to highlight a couple of things.
The first thing is about seven years of inaction. I find it interesting, after seven years, how it was heard at the ethics committee from a whole host of experts in the field, including on cybersecurity and a whole range of issues, that the government is missing in action. It is not just about the government's inaction, but it is missing in action when it comes to some of the key issues surrounding things like cybersecurity. It has the direct consequence of creating uncertainty in terms of the technological space in the high-tech sector, which has massive opportunities.
We hear the Ottawa area referred to as silicon valley north. We have the Waterloo sector that has a significant investment in the high-tech sector. In my home province of Alberta, there is tremendous opportunity that has been brought forward through innovation, specifically in the Calgary area where we are seeing massive advancements in technology, but there is uncertainty.
Over the last seven years, the government has not taken action when it should have been providing clear direction so that industry and capital could prosper in our country. That is on the investment and economic side, but likewise, on the trust in government institutions side, we have seen an erosion of trust, such as the years-long delay on the decision regarding Huawei.
I and many Canadians, including experts in the field, as well as many within our Five Eyes security partners, were baffled about the government's delay on taking clear and decisive action against Huawei. Even though our Five Eyes, a group of countries that shares intelligence and has a strong intelligence working relationship, sees how inaction eroded the trust that these other nations had in Canada's ability to respond to cyber-concerns and threats. There is the fact that a company, a state-owned enterprise, has clear connections to a malicious foreign actor.
That delay led to incredible uncertainty in the markets and incredible costs taken on by private enterprise that simply did not have direction. Imagine all the telecoms that may have purchased significant assets of Huawei infrastructure because the government refused to provide them direction. There were years and years of inaction.
I will speak specifically about how important it is to understand the question around Canadian institutions. I would hope that members of the House take seriously the reports tabled in this place, such as from the public safety committee, which in the second session of the last Parliament I had the honour of sitting on. There is a whole host of studies that have been done related to this.
Then there are the CSIS reports tabled in this place containing some astounding revelations about foreign state actors and their incursions and attempts to erode trust in Canadian institutions. Specifically, there was a CSE report for 2021, which I believe is the most recent one tabled, that talks about three to five billion malicious incursions in our federal institutions a day via cyber-means. That is an astounding number and does not include the incursions that would be hacks against individuals or corporations. That is simply federal government institutions. That is three to five billion a day.
There are NSICOP reports as well. The RCMP, military intelligence and a whole host of agencies are hard at work on many of these things. It highlights how absolutely important cybersecurity is.
I find it interesting, because over the last seven years the Liberals have talked tough about many things but have delivered action on very few. Huawei is a great example. Cybersecurity is another. We see a host of other concerns that would veer off the topic of this discussion, so I will make sure that I keep directly focused on Bill C-26 today. The Liberal government is very good at announcing things, but the follow-through often leaves much to be desired.
We see Bill C-26 before us today. There is no question that action is needed. I am thankful we have the opportunity to be able to debate the substance of this bill in this place. I know the hard work that will be done, certainly by Conservatives though I cannot speak for the other parties, at committee to attempt to fix some of the concerns that have been highlighted, and certainly have been highlighted by a number of my colleagues.
The reality is Canadians, more and more, depend on technology. We saw examples, when there are issues with that technology, of the massive economic implications and disruptions that take place across our country. We saw that with the Rogers outage that took place in July. Most Canadians would not have realized that the debit card system, one of the foundational elements of our financial system, was dependent upon the Rogers network. For a number of days, having disruptions in that space had significant economic implications. It just speaks to one of the many ways Canadians depend on technology.
We saw an example in the United States, so not directly in Canada, when the Colonial Pipeline faced a ransomware attack. A major energy pipeline on the eastern seaboard of the United States was shut down through a cyber ransomware attack. It caused massive disruptions.
Another Canadian example that has been reported in talking to some in the sector was Bombardier recreational products. The Quebec company is under a cyber-lockdown because of hostile actions. There are numerous other examples, whether in the federal government or in the provinces, where this has been faced.
There are a number of concerns related to what needs to take place in this bill to ensure that we get it right. It needs to align with the actions that have taken place in our Five Eyes allies. We need to ensure that the civil liberties question is clearly answered.
We have seen the government not take concern over the rights of Canadians to see their rights protected, their freedom of speech, whether that is Bill C-11. I know other parties support this backdoor censorship bill, but these are significant concerns. Canadians have a right to question whether or not there would be a civil liberties impact, to make sure there would not be opportunity for backdoor surveillance, and to ensure there would be appropriate safeguards in place and not give too much power to politicians and bureaucrats as to what the actions of government would be.
As was stated by one stakeholder in writing about this, the lack of guardrails to constrain abuse is very concerning. In Bill C-26, there is vague language. Whenever there is vague language in legislation, it leaves it open to interpretation. We have seen how, in the Emergencies Act discussion and debate, the government created its own definition of some of the things that I would suggest were fairly clearly defined in legislation. We have to make sure it is airtight.
Massive power would be given to the Minister of Industry in relation to many of the measures contained in this bill.
I look forward to taking questions. It is absolutely key we get this right, so Canadians can in fact be protected and have confidence in their cybersecurity regime.
1331 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I heard the member talk about Huawei quite a bit. I could not help but reflect on the fact that the former contender to the current leader of the Conservative Party was actually on the legal team to support Huawei through its initiative to try to get onto the 5G network in Canada. I cannot help but wonder why on earth, if the Conservatives are so against Huawei and treat this threat so seriously, the Conservative Party of Canada would green-light—
85 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/1/22 4:43:28 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member may know it is not the business of the House to deal with leadership issues of the different parties. I understand what the hon. member is trying to say, but try to keep it to the legislation.
40 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, Jean Charest was a lawyer for Huawei. The member brought up Huawei. Jean Charest is a well-known Conservative who ran in the leadership. Why would they have allowed Jean Charest to run in the leadership had that been the case?
43 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will suggest this has direct relevance to the debate at hand. It has direct relevance because the victor of that race was not the individual the member referred to, but rather the member for Carleton, who I was proud to support and who will be so pleased to ensure we, as a majority Conservative government after a future election, have the opportunity to get things right and get this country back on track.
76 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.
I would like my colleague to reassure people who are watching, people in our communities who are worried about a device that is in their hands for much of the day. These people live with this device in their home. They use this device to share anecdotes, conversations and occasionally intimate secrets, believing that it all belongs exclusively to them.
Since our colleague does not seem interested in better control of cyber-attacks, how does he expect to reassure the public without moving toward tighter cybersecurity?
95 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I cannot hold up my cellphone, but what is absolutely key to the whole conversation we are having is the fact that all of us in this place carry an incredibly powerful computing device that only a few years ago would have been something we would not have seen even in the most futuristic sci-fi novels and movies. The space in which we are discussing cybersecurity has evolved so rapidly.
Specifically to the question the member asked regarding privacy, it is a very important one. It is one that, as a member of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, we need to make sure the legislation we have in this country, including privacy legislation both on the application of government and the privacy of all Canadians in terms of corporations and that whole space, reflects the modern realities. In many cases, decades old legislation needs to be updated to reflect the realities of today.
161 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, when we talk about the updated realities of today, persons with disabilities rely heavily on these technologies and this access. If I think about persons with disabilities who rely on technologies for everyday barrier reduction interactions in their lives, how can their rights to access be protected?
49 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the right to access is absolutely key. We have seen some incredible technological advancements that have helped those who face disabilities in a wide variety of things. Outside of the context of what Bill C-26 directly addresses in terms of cybersecurity, there is a particular connection, because if we do not have things like secure networks, if we do not ensure that our telecoms have consistent and stable networks that we can trust as a country, then access becomes a real issue. Malicious foreign-state actors could take advantage of that, which would disadvantage all Canadians, but specifically those who depend on technology to mitigate things like disabilities.
111 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/1/22 4:48:15 p.m.
- Watch
Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Bow River, Taxation; the hon. member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay, Post-Secondary Education.
48 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
