SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 172 - Mar/23/23

Hon. Marc Miller (Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, Lib.)

Mar/23/23 3:09:13 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, indeed, it is a disgrace that these survivors have not been compensated up to now. I sat down with a number of them this summer and had the opportunity to hear the pain that they continue to be going through. This is retriggered by a number of the settlements that we are achieving across Canada. These survivors deserve justice. Unfortunately, the Government of Saskatchewan has not acted up to this date, and it needs to be at the table with us. These were administered by the Government of Saskatchewan. It needs to be held accountable. Reconciliation is not only the job of the federal government, which is to be held to account, but for all levels of government. We need the Government of Saskatchewan to step up.

129 words

Mr. Alain Rayes (Richmond—Arthabaska, Ind.)

Mar/23/23 3:09:52 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on December 2 and February 15, I asked the government about a 30-year-old tax law whereby Canadian companies, like Zenit Nutrition, are penalized by our tax system despite the fact that they use only local and healthy ingredients. Following my questions, a minister and a parliamentary secretary offered to help me. The problem is that I have not received a single response or even an acknowledgement. In the meantime, these men and women entrepreneurs are fighting multinationals and are only asking to be able to compete on an equal footing. Why will the Liberals not take the time to listen to them?

107 words

Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.)

Mar/23/23 3:10:41 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, tax evasion has always been a priority for our government. That is why we have invested billions of dollars. I would be pleased to work with my colleague to get him some answers.

36 words

Ms. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP)

Mar/23/23 3:11:09 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations, and I hope that if you seek it, you will find consent for the following: I move: That this House acknowledge the need to improve and enhance security measures on Parliament Hill within a framework that affirms the Parliamentary privilege of Members that are deemed necessary for the House of Commons, as an institution, and its members, as representatives of the electorate, to fulfill their functions, including their freedom from obstruction, interference and intimidation.

80 words

Security

The Speaker

Mar/23/23 3:11:35 p.m.
Watch

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed. The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

37 words

The Speaker

Mar/23/23 3:12:52 p.m.
Watch

It being 3:11 p.m., pursuant to order made Thursday, June 23, 2022, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion to concur in the 25th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Call in the members.

49 words

The Speaker

Mar/23/23 3:28:26 p.m.
Watch

I declare the motion carried.

5 words

The Speaker

Mar/23/23 3:28:50 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion to concur in the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Finance. The question is on the amendment.

44 words

The Speaker

Mar/23/23 3:44:44 p.m.
Watch

I declare the amendment defeated. The next question is on the main motion. If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

53 words

Hon. Kerry-Lynne Findlay

Mar/23/23 3:45:24 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.

7 words

The Speaker

Mar/23/23 3:57:01 p.m.
Watch

I declare the motion carried. I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions, Government Orders will be extended by 44 minutes.

26 words

Mr. Chris Warkentin (Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, CPC)

Mar/23/23 3:57:40 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is tradition for the official opposition to ask the Thursday question. This Thursday, we asked the same question 24 times. I understand that the hon. member is looking forward to the question. The question is this: On what date did the Prime Minister first learn about the allegations now being reported by Global News? I wonder, when the government House leader gives us that answer, if he would also tell us what the legislative plans are for this upcoming week.

83 words

The Speaker

Mar/23/23 3:58:16 p.m.
Watch

Before I let the hon. government House leader answer, I just want to remind the hon. members that usually the question pertains to what is going to come up next week as far as legislation is concerned, and is not a continuation of debate. I know it is kind of fuzzy these days, but I just thought I would clarify that for next Thursday, so we can make sure it is done the way we want it.

77 words

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

Mar/23/23 3:58:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member across the way, having not had an opportunity to ask the Thursday question and not having been granted that opportunity, might be somewhat confused about the nature of the Thursday question or what it would be about, so of course we excuse him for that. This afternoon, we are going to be concluding second reading debate of Bill C-26, concerning the critical cyber systems protection act. I would also like to thank all parties for their co-operation in helping to conclude that debate. As all members are aware, and as I am sure you are aware of and quite excited for, Mr. Speaker, the House will be adjourned tomorrow for the address of the United States President, President Joe Biden. On Monday, we will be dealing with the Senate amendments in relation to Bill C-11, the online streaming act. Tuesday, we will continue the debate at second reading of Bill C-27, the digital charter implementation act, with the budget presentation taking place later that day, at 4 p.m. Members will be pleased to know that days one and two of the budget debate, which I know members are anxiously awaiting, will be happening on Wednesday and Thursday, respectively. On Friday, we will proceed to the second reading debate of Bill C-41, regarding humanitarian aid to vulnerable Afghans.

231 words

Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.)

Mar/23/23 4:00:37 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-26

Mr. Speaker, in some respects, Bill C-26 is quite complicated, but it is also quite simple. It aspires to have the risks of cybersecurity systems identified, managed and addressed so we are at much less risk because of our cyber system. In the last while, I have had the good fortune to be the chair of the public safety committee in the previous Parliament, and I am now the chair of the defence committee. As such, I have listened to literally hours of testimony from people who are quite well informed on this subject matter. My advice to colleagues here is this: It behooves us all to be quite humble and approach this subject with some humility because it is extremely complex. The first area of complexity is with respect to the definitions. For instance, cybersecurity is defined as “the protection of digital information, as well as the integrity of the infrastructure housing and transmitting digital information”. Cyber-threat is defined as “an activity intended to compromise the security of an information system”. Cyber-defence, according to NATO, is defensive actions in the cyber domain. Cyberwarfare generally means damaging or disrupting another nation-state's computers. Cyber-attacks “exploit vulnerabilities in computer systems and networks of computer data”. Therefore, with respect to the definitions, we can appreciate the complexity of inserting yet another bill and minister into this process. Let me offer some suggested questions for the members who would be asked to sit on the committee to look at this bill if it passes out of the House. I do recommend that the bill pass out of the House and, if it does, that the committee charged with its review take the appropriate amount of time to inform itself on the complexities of this particular space. The first question I would ask is this: Who is doing the coordination? There are a number of silos involved here. We have heard testimony after testimony about various entities operating in various silos. For instance, the Department of Defence has its silo, which is to defend the military infrastructure. It also has some capability to launch cyber-attacks, but it is a silo. Then there is the public safety silo, which is a very big silo, because it relies on the CSE, CSIS and the RCMP, and has the largest responsibility for the protection of civilian infrastructure. While the CSE does not have the ability to launch cyber-attacks domestically, it has the ability to launch a cyber-attack in international cyberspace. It is a curious contradiction, and I would encourage members to ask potential witnesses to explain that contradiction, because the more this space expands, the more the distinctions between foreign attacks and domestic attacks become blurred. The bill would charge the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry with some responsibility with respect to cybersecurity. I would ask my colleagues to ask questions about how these three entities, public safety, defence and now the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, are going to coordinate so that the silos are operating in a coordinated fashion and sharing information with each other so that Canada presents the best possible posture for the defence of our networks. Again, I offer that as a suggestion of a question to be asked. We cannot afford the luxury of one silo knowing something that the other silo does not know, and this is becoming a very significant issue. CSIS, for instance, deals in information and intelligence. The RCMP deals in evidence. Most of the information that is coming through all of the cyber-infrastructure would never reach the level of evidence, whether the civil or criminal standard of evidence. This is largely information, largely intelligence, and sometimes it is extremely murky. Again, I am offering that as a question for members to ask of those who come before the committee as proponents of the bill. The other area I would suggest is to question is how this particular bill would deal with the attributions of an attack. To add to all of the complications I have already put on the floor of the House, there is also a myriad of attackers. There are pure state attackers, hybrid state criminal attackers and flat-out criminals. For the state attackers, one can basically name the big four: China, Russia, North Korea and Iran. However, there are themes and variations within that. Russia, for instance, frequently uses its rather extensive criminal network to act on behalf of the state. It basically funds itself by with proceeds of its criminal activities, and the Russians do not care. If one is going to cripple a hospital network or a pipeline or any infrastructure on can name, then they do not care whether it happens by pure criminal activity or hybrid activity or state activity. It is all an exercise in disruption and making things difficult for Canadians in particular. We see daily examples of this in Ukraine, where the Russians have used cyber-attacks to really make the lives of Ukrainians vulnerable and also miserable. The next question I would ask, and if this is not enough, I have plenty more, is on the alphabet soup of various actors. We have NSICOP, CSE, CSIS and the RCMP. I do not know what the acronym for this bill will be, but I am sure that somebody will think of it. How does this particular initiative, which, as I say, is a worthy initiative to be supported here, fit into the overall architecture? Finally, CAF and the defence department are now doing a review of our defence posture, our defence policy. Cyber is an ever-increasing part of our security environment and, again, I would be asking the question of how Bill C-26 and all of its various actors fit into that defence review.

978 words

Mr. Alex Ruff (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC)

Mar/23/23 4:10:36 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-26

Madam Speaker, I am looking for the member's commentary on something I will read to him. It reads: There are several legislative changes that could be implemented to enhance cybersecurity in Canada. Some of these changes include: 1. Strengthening Privacy Laws... 2. Mandatory Reporting of Cybersecurity Incidents... 3. Improving Cybersecurity Standards... 4. Increasing Cybersecurity Funding... 6. Strengthening Cybercrime Laws... Overall, these legislative changes could help strengthen cybersecurity in Canada and better protect individuals and organizations from cyber threats. I am reading this and I could have read more, but this was all generated by ChatGPT. I could have also given some negatives around certain legislation. My point is that I think this emphasizes the importance of the bill and getting it right because we have artificial intelligence getting to the point where it can literally write speeches for us for the House if we want it to. I would like the member's comments on that.

157 words

Hon. John McKay

Mar/23/23 4:11:36 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-26

Madam Speaker, that was an excellent question. I wish I had written it myself, but apparently someone, or something, else already had. Prior to question period, I was sitting with my colleague from Scarborough—Rouge Park. He wrote a speech for me, through ChatGPT, on my modern slavery bill. We just sat there, and after he had fed in a few words, an entire speech was spit out. Yet again, we have another challenge for us as legislators. I sometimes think that we are so far behind that we do not even know how far behind we are. Cheney said that we do not even know what we do not know. Bill C-26 is an opportunity to bring ourselves into the game.

124 words

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP)

Mar/23/23 4:12:37 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-26

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his speech and his series of responses. I also want to thank him for being the chair of the defence committee. I know this is a little outside the topic of the bill, but I had asked a another colleague from the same committee two questions that have come forward during our study of cybersecurity. The first was on his thoughts and ponderings on international calls for the International Criminal Court to consider cyber warfare an act of war. The additional thought was that 90% of what the Canadian government sees as classified information could actually be declassified, and the ability to help our organizations sort through a lot of these cyber-attacks and information, when in fact we could eliminate and limit the amount we classify.

137 words

Hon. John McKay

Mar/23/23 4:13:46 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-26

Madam Speaker, that is two impossible questions in a row, and I congratulate the member for them. The first was whether cyberwarfare should be declared an act of war. To my mind, an attack is an attack. If someone is running cars off the road, or interfering with pipelines or hospitals, they are putting people's lives at risk and sometimes even killing them. That does strike me as an act of war. The second issue, and the member was probably there when I raised that question with one of our witnesses, was our levels of classification for information. The question I put to one of the witnesses was as follows: I have been in on some of the security briefings, and I am sitting there wondering whether I read it two weeks ago in The Globe and Mail. We seem to have a very high threshold of classifications, and maybe this could be an opportunity to reduce that threshold.

160 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Mar/23/23 4:14:58 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-26

Madam Speaker, this is an area where I appreciate the member's expertise in identifying where the actors are that attack our cybersecurity. Does the member think, from what he knows, that there is any level of response from the Canadian government that would not always be playing catch-up with cybercriminals who are ahead of us?

57 words