44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 6, 2023 11:00AM
Madam Speaker, I have a lot of trouble putting any confidence in the Liberal government. It took seven years for it to ban Huawei. It is a government that sat on its hands and did nothing about cybersecurity for the past several years. I know this is a government I cannot trust. When I look at Bill C-11, the Liberals are now trying to censor Canadians online. They are trying to control what people see online, which violates charter rights, especially when it comes down to freedom of expression, freedom of association and the ability to actually have discourse online about our political situation in Canada and around the world. When the Liberals try to put veils over certain parts of our information system, I have to be very concerned.
I look at Bill C-21 and how the Liberals have gone after responsible firearms owners like hunters, sport shooters and farmers. To me, that builds no trust in the government to get the job done.
167 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his riveting speech.
I would like to ask him what he thinks about the government's strategy on Huawei and 5G. It seems to me that there were a lot of about-faces, that it took a long time and that there was a lot of dilly-dallying.
I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.
66 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I do not have a lot of comfort that the government will get it right given how many years it dragged its feet on Huawei. I think we have every reason to be concerned that this bill might come out of committee without the necessary amendments.
One of the things I am particularly concerned about is the sentence I referred to from the bill that a minister can do or refrain from doing anything necessary to secure the Canadian telecommunication system. That statement needs to be measured against section 7 and 8 of the charter, which is the right to life, liberty and security of person and to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure.
We need to make sure that this bill can stand the scrutiny of the courts in case any business or individual affected by it decides to bring a charter challenge. I think there are serious concerns around the idea of giving a minister unfettered power, as one of my political heroes, Abraham Lincoln said, who I mentioned earlier in my speech.
178 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on behalf of the good people of Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.
I welcome this debate because essentially what the government has put forward in the bill is two words: “Trust us”. We should trust the government and give it all these powers for the Telecommunications Act, expanding it drastically. We should trust the government when it comes to designating cybersecurity systems as being of such importance that a whole host of new rules should be put upon them. That is what the government is asking us to do.
This is the same government that took years to answer the question of whether we will allow Huawei in our 5G infrastructure. It is a question that has infuriated our allies because they expect Canada to be a trustworthy party in the Five Eyes' intelligence and sharing. It has also infuriated the companies themselves, as many had hoped to utilize the technology. Now, I was against the use of Huawei, but these enterprises are in a competitive venture and will take any particular opportunity to compete and try to lower their prices. However, this government wasted years for that infrastructure to be procured. I believe this also infuriated many Canadians who wanted a simple yes or no on Huawei.
I think the government went through three public safety ministers who said that an answer was coming. Finally, it said no, answering Conservative calls for “no way to Huawei”. However, now it has put forward a bill that would essentially give the power to the government. For example, the government would be able to bring forward an order that could not be reviewed by Parliament. In fact, the Statutory Instruments Act is being exempted from both the telecommunications component in Bill C-26 and the new cybersecurity part, the critical cyber systems protection act.
I am the co-chair of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, which is a committee tasked by the House and the other place to ensure that when the government creates an order or regulation, it does not exceed the authority granted to it by Parliament. We are able to make sure that when a department or ministry is charged with a delegated authority that it does so justly, and in light of the legislation, that it does not, ultra vires, exceed it.
However, in the legislation before us, the government is effectively saying that it gets to place secret orders that cannot be reviewed by Parliament. Now, members may say that they can go to a justice to be able to have a case heard in court. Again, who can be designated under this proposed bill is an open question. Someone could go in front of a justice, but guess what, Madam Speaker? The government reserves the right to actually make its accusations in a closed-door fashion where a person or company does not have to be there to defend themselves against the evidence that is brought to the court. There, a person or company may be subject to an order that is so secret that it cannot even be said within a closed hearing with an independent judge.
Now, some may say, “Well, so what? It is for national security.” However, we actually do not know. There are so many different organizations that can make powers here. Everyone from the responsible minister to the appropriate regulator, the minister of foreign affairs, the minister of national defence, the chief of the defence staff, the chief or an employee of the Communications Security Establishment, the director or an employee of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service or any other person or entity that is prescribed in the regulations can exert power.
“Trust us”, says the government. The government wants us to give it this power, and it will choose who can use it on whom; Parliament will never know anything about it. Even if a person or company protests, they will not be able to hear the evidence in court as to why they must comply.
Granted, I believe that, within Canada's interests, we should have the ability to work with providers around concerns, but I have great reservations on this. This bill says, “Trust us.” The government says this repeatedly. When we ask questions about foreign interference or share concerns about Huawei, the answer is, “Trust us.” This is not a respectful way to do it.
Let me tell everyone about a respectful way to do these things. Having brought forward a bill, it would perhaps be respectful to bring it to the committee stage first. There is a process where a committee can have hearings on potential legislation before it comes to this place for second reading. This offers the committee the flexibility to begin hearings and mould whether those powers are going to be broadly met in this House. In a minority setting, that would have been ideal.
However, that is the past; the government has brought forward this bill and we are at second reading. What would have been even better is to look at the example of Australia, which decided to hold a number of different inquiries over a period of years. I know the government is very sore around the subject of inquiries these days, but these commissions were set up and asked what information government should have, as well as how and with what kinds of regulations data should be regulated by government. Essentially, it took the approach that someone's personal data is their own, and they should be able to direct it.
Over a series of commissions, some with 800-page reports, they decided on a process for making changes. They would focus on privacy, deciding what the government could keep and could not keep, and they went through that legislative process. Then they said they were going to regulate industry by industry. We should notice that the proposed critical cyber systems protection act casts such a wide net that it could be anything from pipelines to sewage water treatment plants or air transit systems.
We do not know because the government just says to trust it. However, I know, and I am sure others know as well from experience, that every industry uses different technology. Therefore, a one-size-fits-all, big, bossy government, as the member for Carleton would probably call it, does not have the touchpoints or the understanding. All we know is that these orders can be placed on any industry at any time and that those orders will never be looked at by Parliament. To me, the government is asking for too much.
Again going to the Australian model, Australia said it was going to start with data privacy rights in telecommunications, energy systems and banking. It picked the industry that it was going to focus on and made sure it got it right before putting forward the new rules that allowed for a steady process. Instead of a holus-bolus process where everything gets thrown into Bill C-26 with the government telling Canadians, members of Parliament and members of the other place to just trust it, we could have had smart legislation that would be reviewed at committee. Hearings could be held, and we could find out what is reasonable for each industry and what is not. From a privacy standpoint, we could also ask what the government means when it designates someone under this act. Does it mean a person or a company? What are their rights and responsibilities? Unfortunately, this is all on the government side; it decides, saying, “Trust us.”
My colleagues and I will be seeing this bill go to committee. However, I have to protest in this place that this is not the way to make our systems better and provide more trust in our institutions. “Trust us” is not an argument, and the government should know better by now.
1342 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the speech my colleague made. I think the track record here is one of the biggest points I took from his speech. Specifically, he referenced how the government delayed enforcing its decision on Huawei for years. This is not a new concern after eight years of the Liberals delaying and refusing to act or provide leadership while many of our global counterparts have done so.
Specifically, he emphasized the example of Huawei very well. Could he expand a little on how damaging the delay was to Canada's international reputation on cybersecurity?
96 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, governments are made of people, and people make mistakes. After talking to many of our allies and seeing what our other Five Eyes partners in the United States, Great Britain, New Zealand and Australia have done, the government probably heard the feedback that it was a black eye that it took so long for Huawei to be banned from Canada's 5G infrastructure. This is now perhaps an overreaction to try to make up for that.
Let me say this. In this place, in this country, we want laws that are just, fair, and most of all, practicable. Unfortunately, this is a one-size-fits-all, big, bossy government that asks us to trust it because it knows the shots and will take them as it sees them. It has not done well in the past, and I believe that this overshoot is to respond to that lack of credibility with respect to Huawei. However, two wrongs do not make a right.
164 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech.
The Bloc Québécois has often supported the need for the government to tighten cybersecurity controls. I am curious about the Conservative Party and I have a question for my colleague. There has been a lot of doubt and uncertainty concerning cyber-attacks and companies like Huawei. We know and people know that a former candidate for the Conservative leadership worked with Huawei.
I would like my colleague to explain to me what credibility the Conservative Party has today, as we talk about cybersecurity and Chinese interference, because one of its own members, who was a leadership candidate, worked with a company like Huawei. The giants in this world, the Five Eyes in particular, have stopped doing business with this company. Today, we are once again asking how that party can lecture everyone else about cybersecurity.
149 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I think the public record of the House and this party in the chamber has been clear-cut on the issue of Huawei. We have called for it to be disavowed, taken off devices and not be allowed to be a provider here. That was passed a year and a half ago.
Whether someone had private employment prior to them declaring or running in a leadership race is a great question for the individual. Because somebody's past history involved them working for different institutions and companies, yes, we can judge those individuals, but let us talk about the public record here. I would argue that there has been no party in the history of Canada that has stood up more for the defence and sovereignty of this nation than the Conservative Party of Canada.
137 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, a common theme I have heard, highlighted well from members from the Conservative side, is how past records are one of the best indicators for future success or failure. Certainly, when it comes to the issues surrounding Huawei and cybersecurity, we see Canada, especially its reputation on the world stage, being greatly diminished by the actions and, in many cases, inactions of the Liberal government and the Prime Minister over the course of five years.
Could he expand on how those past actions have diminished Canada's reputation among allies and partners?
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, let us look at the bungling that has gone on in recent years. Ottawa arrested Meng Wanzhou, not for a common law crime, but for failing to comply with an American embargo. It kowtowed to the Americans on an embargo that Canada does not even share.
There is also Ottawa's refusal to follow the leadership and initiative of the U.S., which acted very quickly with regard to Huawei. Does that not demonstrate a glaring lack of vision?
82 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I think many Canadians are wondering why the government took so long to act on Huawei. Our Five Eyes allies have certainly put pressure on Canada and acted previously to ensure that their 5G systems were not compromised, which had been found to be the case with the Huawei technology. That is why, in my statement, I made some comments that this government is finally waking up, after all this time, to deal with some of these issues we are facing as a country.
86 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am hearing some contradictions from my Conservative colleagues today. My colleagues in the Bloc have perhaps done a better job than me of explaining the importance of banning Huawei and the fact that Canada has been slow to do so. My Conservative colleague also mentioned it, but one of the Conservative leadership candidates actually worked for Huawei, so one wonders which way the Conservatives are leaning.
I met with an interdisciplinary cybersecurity research group and learned some fascinating things. Canada's bureaucracy is really slow when it comes to cybersecurity. The research chair at the Université de Sherbrooke criticized the fact that the cybersecurity issue was allowed to drag on under the pretext that it was not yet an election issue. Now it is finally becoming one. That is exactly what we are seeing right now with China's interference.
The Conservatives were not very quick either, because we are behind many other countries. The first RCMP report on cybercrime was not released until 2014, and the report was criticized at the time for containing no numbers, no statistics. The comments were general and predictable, and there were no forecasts. Things have not happened fast enough.
Here we are in 2023, and we really have a lot of ground to make up compared to many other countries, especially European countries. I think it is time to turn this over to the committee, make up for lost time, and pick up the pace on this bill.
250 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
