Madam Speaker, I am glad to be standing up to reiterate what all my colleagues have been saying tonight: It is time to kill Bill C-11.
The legislation is about giving the government more power and making sure that we have extra regulation. If we give the CRTC more regulations, that means more red tape and more gatekeepers telling us what we can and cannot watch; it also equals less opportunity for us, as Canadians, and less opportunity for creators who are using the Internet. We know that it comes with more costs.
We already heard that the government is going to ask content providers to make sure that they have the appropriate broadcast licences to go onto YouTube and other social media platforms and get their creations out there. These creations may be online programming, some of the short films being produced, animation or sharing their music. Now they are actually going to have to pay for a licence to have their own channels on social media.
We have already witnessed how government intervention has cost us as consumers. Canadians already pay the highest Internet service fees in the world. We pay the highest mobile phone bills, more than anywhere else in the developed world. To me, that is extremely disturbing. Canadians continue to pay more and more, while everybody else seems to be getting away with paying less while getting better services than we get from our phone companies or Internet service providers.
We still have lots of Canadians, including in my riding, who do not have access to high-speed broadband. They do not have that opportunity to actually see what we are talking about here on Bill C-11 because they still do not have the ability to hook up online.
As Conservatives, we believe that Canadians should be given more of what they want. However, the Liberal-NDP coalition wants the government to tell Canadians what they can watch or see on YouTube and other social media platforms.
The question here, and we are going to use a little theatre, is 2(b) or not 2(b). Of course, I am talking about section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Under fundamental freedoms in section 2, it says that everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
Freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication.
If we go to Justice Canada's own website, and we are talking about a department of the federal government, it says:
The protection of freedom of expression is premised upon fundamental principles and values that promote the search for and attainment of truth, participation in social and political decision-making and the opportunity for individual self-fulfilment through expression.... The Supreme Court of Canada has maintained that the connection between freedom of expression and the political process is “perhaps the linchpin” of section 2(b) protection.... Free expression is valued above all as being instrumental to democratic governance. The two other rationales for protecting freedom of expression [are] the search for truth through the open exchange of ideas, and fostering individual self-actualization, thus directly engaging individual human dignity.
Canadians who value their Charter of Rights, who understand the freedom of expression, are all the ones out there denouncing what Bill C-11 could do. That is why we are hearing from social media content creators. A lot of them have their own shows where they share their political views. They share a lot of things, from criticizing what is going on in the film industry to criticizing what is happening here in the House of Commons. They fear, and they have testified at committee, that their ability to share their thoughts online, and the costs that come with it, would undermine their freedom of speech, expression, and opinion and thought. This would happen through the excess licensing that this bill would create.
That is why, as Conservatives, we are standing so strongly in opposition to what is very much a censorship bill that we are seeing from the Liberal-NDP coalition.
We heard through the debate tonight a lot of times from the Liberals asking where the legal expertise was. All we have to do is look at Phil Palmer, who is a constitutional lawyer and former official in the Department of Justice. He argued that Bill C-11 is unconstitutional. He said:
...C-11 lacks a foundation in Canadian constitutional law. Internet streaming services do not transmit to the public by radio waves, nor do they operate telecommunications facilities across provincial boundaries. They and their audiences are the clients of telecommunications common carriers, which are subject to federal regulation. Netflix, for instance, in this case is no more a federal undertaking than a law firm such as McCarthy Tétrault or a chain store like Canadian Tire, both of which rely extensively on telecommunications services.
We are talking about a situation where we have the Government of Canada overstepping its means through Bill C-11 and infringing upon the rights of Canadians, Canadian companies, individuals and our artists. I would make the argument that Bill C-11 would actually penalize content creators, including our artists, whether they are creating music, culture, clothing or any other type of art that is out there on social media.
We already heard from the member for Sarnia—Lambton. She talked about the monetization and the ability of creators who have been able to go online and make a good living selling their music, art and any bit of their creations. Right now, if we regulate the industry, we are talking about $1 billion a year that the arts community is going to be able to earn. Today, without government interference, it is making $5 billion a year. Why would we want to limit the ability of our arts and culture industry to actually make less?
I guess there is the argument out there about having a free market versus government intervention. We know that government intervention always equals more dependency, because people are going to have to rely on grants and subsidization to be able to earn a living. I think the Liberal-NDP coalition, and I think my colleagues will agree with me, actually loves when Canadians become more dependent, because if they are more dependent, the government gets to control them.
A great example of that is the $595-million media bailout and how the government has control of our free press, supposedly.
This is a debate about freedom. This is about the debate to have freedom to create, share and earn a living. This is about freedom of Canadians to view and listen to what we as consumers choose, without the gatekeepers dictating what we see and hear. This is about the freedom to express ourselves and participate in society online without any censorship, but we should not be surprised, since we have a Prime Minister who has said that he admires basic communist dictatorships.
I have heard from hundreds of constituents and Canadians across the country who oppose Bill C-11 as well as the NDP-Liberal coalition. They are worried about censorship. The artists and content providers are worried about the red tape, the extra costs and the limited market opportunities. Matthew Hatfield, who is the campaigns director of OpenMedia, encapsulates this the best. He raises the issue I think most Canadians are concerned about. He says:
...Bill C-11 must not give the CRTC the power to manipulate the results of algorithms on platforms. We would never tolerate the government setting rules specifying which books must be placed in the front window of our bookstores or what kinds of stories must appear on the front pages of our newspapers. But that’s exactly what the discoverability provision in section 9.1(1) currently does. This dictatorial approach is not needed or appropriate.
I can tell Canadians that there is hope out there. A future Conservative government would kill Bill C-11.
1342 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, to my understanding, Haiti, right now, is not listed as a terrorist organization, so right now we can raise funds.
I know that one of the things talked about when President Biden was here with the Prime Minister was Canada's participating in a special mission to Haiti to bring and restore peace and security to the region. We need to do that for our aid workers who are there. Haiti is like Afghanistan, the second-poorest country in the world. If anyone needs help, it is the people of Haiti, and if anyone needs to go, it is the gangs that are right now running the government.
110 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I must agree it is disappointing that it has been 18 months since the fall of Afghanistan into the hands of the Taliban. It has been nine months since the Special Committee on Afghanistan brought forward its recommendations to the House, recommending these amendments.
For whatever reason, the government has dragged its feet. “Dither and delay” is the trademark of the Liberal Party of Canada when it is in government, so it is unfortunate that we are where we are, but at least we are moving it forward. I hope the bill gets through committee in an expeditious fashion so we can get back to the basics of saving lives. I just hope we have not lost too many lives because of the ongoing indecision by the government.
132 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we definitely are responding to the situation in Afghanistan, but I also look at Mali, and I also look at what is happening down in Haiti right now. There are a number of other failed states where we see gangs and terrorist organizations in control. I worry about Lebanon and the increasing influence that Hezbollah has there as the country continues to try to recover after the massive blast in Beirut, with all the damage and lives lost.
That is why I do like some of the parts of Bill C-41 that would provide flexibility to the minister and the department to do reviews more than every five years. They could do them as they see fit. I would hope the government would listen to parliamentarians, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and the International Subcommittee on Human Rights. If they were to raise red flags, I hope the government would act upon them to ensure that, where we see dollars being diverted illegally into terrorist organizations or illegitimate governments, it can put a stop to any fundraising activities or dollars flowing to aid organizations to ensure we are not directly or indirectly financing terrorism.
198 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to rise in the House and speak to Bill C-41. I am going to be supporting this bill to get it to committee so it can undergo the vigorous review it needs to ease the concerns Canadians have. There are organizations that want to provide humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan in particular, but also to other areas of the world where terrorist organizations are in control, and they need to be able to do so without any repercussions here in Canada.
As we know, this bill would make some major changes to the Criminal Code to impact those individuals and organizations that are trying to help people who are the least privileged in the world and who are in crisis right now, especially in Afghanistan. There are over four million people who are starving. There is a lack of food and resources available to support the citizens. Those are largely women, girls and single-family units that do not have the ability to raise money.
In saying that, I want to first and foremost pay tribute to the brave women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces who served in the conflict in Afghanistan. Over 40,000 Canadians went to war in Afghanistan against al Qaeda and against the Taliban because of the terrorist attacks of 9/11. They served from 2001 to 2011, and the last of our troops came home in 2014.
We witnessed 165 Canadians die; 158 of them were brave soldiers of the Canadian Armed Forces and seven of them were civilians who were there assisting our forces, assisting the Government of Canada, working on diplomatic missions and working on things like humanitarian relief.
We have seen the consequences of that war for those who served. Thousands have come back with both physical and invisible injuries, whether it is PTSD and other operational stress injuries, or actual physical injuries, such as missing limbs. This still impacts our veteran community with a high level of suicide. Over 2,000 members were physically wounded or injured while serving in Afghanistan, and we have to continue to be with them.
I want to make the point that Canada committed itself to this war against terror in Afghanistan. It cost us in lives, we spilled blood and we spent a good portion of the treasury in fighting against the Taliban. It cost $18 billion just in military contributions, as well as in provincial reconstruction.
In addition to that, another $3.9 billion over two decades, from 2001 to 2021, was spent in humanitarian assistance building schools, building roads and infrastructure, and providing meals. We made sure Afghanistan converted from a poppy agricultural industry providing opium and other opioids on the illicit drug trafficking market around the world, to actual commodities it could trade legally in the global context that would provide a better, more sustainable way of life.
However, here we are today with an illegitimate government led by Taliban leaders who were complicit in the crimes against humanity that we witnessed before 2001 and that they are now undertaking today in Afghanistan. There are an illegitimate prime minister, Mullah Mohammad Hassan Akhund, and supreme leader, Mullah Haibatullah Akhunzada. These are people who helped orchestrate attacks against our own soldiers and our own civilians working in Afghanistan.
They have banned girls and women from going to school. They have taken most women out of the workforce so they are unable to provide for their families. They have reinstated the mandatory wearing of the burka, and other very misogynistic and chauvinistic policies that continue to trample on the rights of women, minority groups and minority religions.
We know that the Taliban today is actively hunting those Afghans who worked alongside our Canadian Armed Forces as interpreters, truck drivers and support workers in our military bases and forward operating locations throughout the Panjwai district where Canada served, and in Kandahar. Something we need to remember is that those we fought against are again back in control. We all saw on TV how it played out in 2021, as Afghans ran to planes to get out of the country, climbing aboard wherever they could. They were begging us to come back and begging Canada, the United States and others to come get those who wanted to go to our countries.
We knew this was coming as well. We knew that the U.S. had announced it was going to do its drawdown in 2021 when it announced it the previous year. Global Affairs Canada was raising this with the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, saying that we had to act to get our Canadians, as well as our friends and allies, out.
It was not until the actual collapse of Kabul started that we finally saw some action. The first to come out was our diplomat corps, on a half-empty airplane. It was a disappointment for all Canadians and an embarrassment for the government, that we could have saved more and decided not to.
Over 17,000 Afghans who served with Canada made application to come here. Over 11,000 of them have been approved, and over the past three years, about 9,500 have been able to make it to Canada. A lot of us, in our offices, continue to advocate and find ways out for those who served alongside our forces. We had some luck a couple of weeks ago in having another Afghan interpreter get to safety here in Canada, but the support in Afghanistan from the government is non-existent.
We know that these Criminal Code amendments are necessary to ensure that those out there wanting to do God's work in Afghanistan would not be turned into people who are considered complicit in terrorism. We want to make sure that organizations like World Vision, the Red Cross and Red Crescent are able to go out there and help those in need without having to worry about whether they are going to be charged back here in Canada.
However, we have to be diligent, and one thing we need to find out through committee study is how the government would continue to monitor the situation. How would the government decide whether organizations are being coerced or are having to pay big bribes to the Taliban and other terrorist organizations around the world and essentially redirect money that would help the terrorist activity, the human rights violations and the atrocities that we, all too often, are witnessing?
We have to be diligent and vigilant in making sure the government and the department are continuing to oversee this. As we look at Bill C-41 and start providing exemptions for different organizations and individuals, we have to go into this with eyes wide open. We have witnessed other terrorist organizations raising money here in Canada. Hamas, Hezbollah and ISIS all have been able to raise funds in the past to fund their terrorist activities around the world, so we have to be very diligent.
The House of Commons passed a motion unanimously in 2018 recognizing the IRGC, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in Iran, as a terrorist entity. If the Government of Canada would finally list it as a terrorist organization, we could also make sure it could not raise money here in Canada now that it does actually have assets.
Though I support getting this bill to committee and making sure we provide relief to those who need it the most, the most disadvantaged people in the world, we also have to be extremely critical in our analysis at committee to ensure that those who want to have other nefarious means do not exploit this for their own terrorist ideologies.
1291 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/23/23 2:09:38 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, in a secret courtroom in Russia, an unjust trial of a courageous freedom fighter is taking place.
Our friend, Vladimir Kara-Murza, is facing a sentence of 25 years in prison, which would beat the longest verdict ever sentenced and handed out to a Russian political prisoner. His crime is high treason, but what did he actually do? Vladimir Kara-Murza spoke out against Putin's illegal invasion of Ukraine. He called out corrupt oligarchs and the kleptocrats in the Kremlin. He stood up for liberty, the rule of law and democracy.
While Putin wages his genocidal war in Ukraine, Kara-Murza called for peace. He languishes in prison, exacerbating his poor health, which is a result of the poisonings that he survived from two previous assassination attempts ordered by Moscow, yet he continues to fight for a better future for the people of Russia. In the words Kara-Murza, “The biggest gift that those of us who oppose Vladimir Putin could give to the Kremlin would be to give up and run away”.
I call on the House to demand Putin to immediately end the show trial against Vladimir Kara-Murza and set him free.
200 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank the leader of the official opposition for his careful articulation and his commitment to killing Bill C-11.
He mentioned the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and how freedom of expression would be eroded by Bill C-11. On the Government of Canada's own website, it says, “The Supreme Court of Canada has maintained that the connection between freedom of expression and the political process is 'perhaps the linchpin' of section 2(b)... Free expression is valued above all as being instrumental to democratic governance.”
My question to the Leader of the Opposition, who is committed to killing this bill, whether now or when he is prime minister, a day I look forward to happening very soon, is why would the Liberal Prime Minister actually want to bring in this type of censorship? Is it because he admires communist dictatorships?
147 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-324, An Act to amend the Special Economic Measures Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Calgary Rocky Ridge for seconding this bill.
The bill that I am bringing forward is about changing the name of the Special Economic Measures Act to the Sergei Magnitsky global sanctions act. As many in the House know, in 2015, Senator Raynell Andreychuk, as well as myself, had introduced, in the Senate and in the House, the Sergei Magnitsky law to sanction gross human rights violators and corrupt foreign officials.
Since it was passed in the House in 2017, it has only been used on 70 individuals. The first name on the list is the President of Venezuela, President Maduro. It is about making sure that we go after those who are creating the greatest crimes against their own citizens and enriching themselves through that process.
What we need to do is make sure that the Liberal government is always naming people who have committed human rights violations and who are destabilizing peace and security in the world by using the name Sergei Magnitsky. This is about the standardization of our nomenclature of our Canadian sanctions regime.
We have to remember that Sergei Magnitsky, who was a Russian lawyer and accountant, fought against corruption in Russia. He was arrested, falsely accused, tortured and killed while in detention and while he was defending Bill Browder. A lot of us know Bill Browder. He was a business person in Russia at the time and has been living in London, England, since then. He wrote a number of books, two of which are Red Notice and Freezing Order. I encourage everyone to read those books to understand how corrupt the Russian regime is under Vladimir Putin.
The Special Economic Measures Act has been used roughly 1,300 times against Russian individuals and entities. The majority of the people we are sanctioning now, because of the war in Ukraine and crimes committed against humanity, are Russian kleptocrats and Vladimir Putin himself. Therefore, let us make sure that we are consistent with our allies when we use sanctions and we say that we are using the Sergei Magnitsky sanctions to honour the legacy of Sergei Magnitsky. Let us make sure that his name is synonymous with standing up for human rights, for the rule of law, for democracy and for standing against corruption.
404 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my colleague from the Bloc was spot on when he started talking about Canadians being very trusting. All consumers are very trusting when using social media like Facebook, TikTok and Instagram. When I was at the ethics committee, we looked at Clearview AI, which scraped images off of Facebook and Instagram to build up its databases to profile criminals. On top of that, we found out that it was racialized.
As Canadians and as consumers, we have to be very diligent with where we are sharing our information. I agree that we have to ask questions around social media platforms like Facebook, not just TikTok.
107 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my colleague is dead right that the People’s Liberation Army in Beijing has established a number of different cybersecurity units and that their whole goal is to cyber-attack. Canada is not an ally of China, so we have been attacked by the regime in Beijing. It will continue to attack us here and attack NORAD, as we just witnessed with the high-altitude balloons going around doing surveillance on military installations across North America.
We have to be ready, and the cybersecurity command we have here in Canada has been slow to get off the ground under the leadership of the Liberals. We need more resources. We need to use our reserves to find the right type of personnel out there, who are currently working in the private sector. Maybe we can also put them to work part time to defend Canada's interests so that both the corporate world and our national defence will be under better control and better command, with ultimately better protection for all Canadians.
174 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I agree. Right now, this will be studied only at the industry committee, but it involves a huge component of national security and national defence. I hope that as legislation comes forward, we will see other studies come into play that look at the impacts of it as it applies not just to industry but to our national security. One would hope that the public safety committee would also undertake a study. There might be a requirement to split this bill, and perhaps OGGO, the government operations committee, needs to look at this as well.
There are multiple departments within the Government of Canada, like Shared Services Canada, but how do we make sure that they are fully up to scale with all of the technologies that are currently available and that they are developing the new technologies needed to defend Canadians here at home? We know that the Government of Canada already collects a pile of personal information from Canadians and that they have been targeted by nefarious foreign actors, transnational criminal organizations and cybercriminals right here in Canada.
182 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we all have to be concerned about the rapid deployment of new technologies and how they can be used nefariously to attack Canadians. This comes back to Bill C-26 as well. Again, the government would be putting all the onus on corporate Canada to protect us, but at the same time, I wonder who will do the R&D, who will step up to ensure our technology and our ability to defend ourselves is deployed across the spectrum, whether it is government agencies, government departments, our provincial and territorial partners or corporate Canada. How are we going to ensure the safety of Canadians when it comes down to their personal information and ID, especially if we are seeing new malware out there that will harvest and hack passwords in a matter of seconds?
We have to be investing in R&D. The government has a responsibility and role to get it done, but we do not see that in Bill C-26.
167 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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 am pleased to be able to rise in this place today and speak to Bill C-26, a bill that we as Conservatives are supporting to get to committee.
I have a lot of concerns around the bill itself, in terms of making sure that the government did not make a number of errors in judgment in putting it together. These concerns are based on the feedback we have received from Canadians and from organizations, especially on the issues surrounding privacy and the costs that have been offloaded to the private sector.
I also have to raise my concerns. Here we are, eight long years under the Liberal government, and we know that, when it has come down to cybersecurity, it has been slow in responding. A good case in point was banning Huawei from our critical infrastructure, our 5G network. We know that the Liberals sat on their hands and tried to do nothing for most of the past seven years, before they were finally forced to act after a great deal of pressure was brought upon them by our allies, especially within the Five Eyes.
Cybersecurity and national defence go hand in hand. When we talk about our national defence and national security, we know that hybrid warfare has evolved.
It is now about more than just targeting military assets; it is about targeting the entire government as it is at play. All we have to do is look at what is happening in Ukraine today, as well as what has happened to a number of other allies we have, through NATO, in eastern Europe.
We see the troll farms in St. Petersburg constantly attacking, on Facebook and on Twitter, the military individuals, the soldiers and troops, serving there. They also attack things like critical infrastructure in countries where Canadians are currently deployed, like Latvia. As we have witnessed in Ukraine and Estonia, they have not just gone after them through direct kinetic means to take out critical infrastructure, but they have also gone through cyberwarfare as well.
The Russians have done this very effectively in knocking down financial systems, knocking down transportation systems, and taking out power and water infrastructure in places like Estonia. As a prelude to the war in Ukraine, before they had actually started bombing these civilian targets in Ukraine, they were attacking them on cyber. It is part of hybrid warfare and it is the evolution of war.
There is a responsibility upon the Government of Canada to ensure that we are protecting not just our national infrastructure and the Government of Canada, that we are not just using CSE, or Communications Security Establishment, to protect national defence, but that we are also using a plethora of capabilities to ensure that our infrastructure here in Canada is protected.
That includes preventing our adversaries from going after our soft targets. That is what I think Bill C-26 is trying to accomplish, to ensure that telecommunications companies in Canada are stepping up to do their share to protect Canadians from cyber-attacks. We know that cyber-attackers have gone after things like our health care systems. They have gone after the medical records of Canadians. They have gone after the education records of students at schools and at universities. They go after retailers. They can go in through a retailer's back door, harvest all sorts of personal data, especially credit card information, and then use that for raising money, for transnational criminal gangs or for ransomware, as we have witnessed as well.
We must remember that we have a number of a maligned foreign actors at play here in Canada now and against our allies. It was just reported, again, that the People's Liberation Army was found guilty of hacking into U.S. critical infrastructure.
We know that the People's Liberation Army, under the control of the communist regime in Beijing, continues to attack cybersecurity assets around the world, including trying to break through the Canadian cybersecurity walls of our government and national defence on a daily basis.
As I mentioned, Russia has become very good at this. That does not mean that it is concentrating only on its near sphere of influence, NATO members in eastern Europe like Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, but it is also targeting Ukraine. We know that it is targeting Moldova. We know that it has gone after countries like Romania, but it also does cyber-attacks here in Canada and in the United States.
Russia continues to be an adversary and we have to stand on guard to protect Canadians from those attacks.
We know that Iran, the regime in Tehran, is continuing to be a government that attacks its neighbours and attacks Israel and Canada through cyber-means. North Korea has developed an entire cybersecurity and cyberwarfare unit and continues not to just wreak havoc with the democratically elected, peaceful South Korea, but has also gone after Japan and the Phillippines, and is going after U.S. infrastructure as well. Therefore, we have to take the necessary steps to make sure we can deal with transnational criminal organizations, with nefarious foreign states and with those who are trying to get rich through ransomware.
Here in Canada just a couple of years ago, we saw a situation in regard to the Royal Military College in Kingston, which the member for Kingston and the Islands is certainly aware of. The Department of National Defence stated that RMC had been a target. It originally called it a mass phishing campaign, but a month after the incident, it was established that the phishing campaign was actually a cyber-attack going after financial information and personal data of cadets. These had been compromised and published on the dark web, and were made available to a lot of people who participate on the dark web to profiteer from that information.
According to several observers who looked at the hack of RMC Kingston, it was attributed to a cybercriminal group called DoppelPaymer that did not seem to be connected to a nation-state actor. There are criminal organizations out there that are going about their criminal activities in such a way as to extract dollars from governments, retailers and private citizens, as well as from other corporations, to line their pockets and continue doing other nefarious things that sometimes go beyond the cyberworld.
I have said in the past, when we have talked about other legislation here dealing with cybersecurity, that we not only need the ability to defend, but also that the government has the responsibility, especially under national defence, to attack using cybersecurity. We cannot just be here deflecting the arrows; sometimes we have to be able to shoot down the archer. The way we do that is by having a very robust cybersecurity system. We need the best capabilities and the best personnel who are able not only to sit here and defend, that is to put up shields and fight off the attacks, but also are able to go out there and take out the adversaries, to knock out their systems, so that we are safer here at home.
With regard to some of the criticisms that have come out, I know that letters have come in from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, and the Business Council of Canada wrote a very detailed brief, as did the Citizen Lab in looking at the bill. When we read through the documentation, we see that one of the concerns that has been raised, especially by the Business Council of Canada, is that there seems to be an imbalance. We are telling members of corporate Canada to go out there and make sure they have the proper cybersecurity systems in place, but at the same time we realize that it is not just up to them to do the defending. What we see is that the corporations are saying that either they have to do it or we are going to fine them up to $15 million or five years of jail time, and that the individuals who work for them could also be held criminally responsible for not doing enough.
Sometimes resources are not available. Sometimes there are new companies that may not have the ability to put in place the proper security systems. I look at a lot of the Internet service providers that we have, for example. They are covered under the Telecommunications Act, yet, as new start-ups, they may not have the personnel or the equipment to properly defend their networks. Would we go ahead and fine these companies up to $15 million? Then what would we do in regard to jail time and fines for those criminal organizations that are profiteering through cyber-attacks? Where is the balance in this? That is one of the concerns we have and one of the things we have to look at through our study at the industry committee when it brings this forward.
A huge concern has been raised, especially by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, on how this would be implemented and how it may affect the privacy rights of Canadians at the individual level. Corporations have broader responsibilities and do not necessarily fall under the charter, but their clients who they are going to protect and the information they are going to be required to share with the Government of Canada could very well be violations of their clients' privacy rights.
When we look at section 7 of the Charter of Rights, we have to balance the right to life, liberty and security of a person with section 8 of the charter which says that we have freedom from search and seizure. When we drill down on section 8 and go to some of the legal analysis of our charter, as all the rights and freedoms are laid out, it tells us that the underlying values of freedom from search and seizure when it comes to individual privacy is the value of dignity, integrity and autonomy. Again, I think we are all concerned that when we look at Bill C-26 at committee, we ensure the bill balances those rights of the individual to be both secure and safe from cyber attacks, but do it without compromising privacy rights and charter rights as described in freedom from search and seizure. The way we do that is through warrants.
We know that through National Defence, the Communications Security Establishment, or CSE, which has a long-standing history of defending the Canadian Armed Forces, has to comply with the charter. It has to comply with all Canadian legislation and it cannot do indirectly what it is prohibited doing directly. Therefore, CSE cannot go to the National Security Agency, or NSA, of the United States, say that it is concerned that a Canadian maybe talking to a terrorist organization offshore and ask the agency to spy on that individual because CSE is prohibited from spying on the person and listening in through the Communications Security Establishment. CSE cannot go to the NSA and ask it to violate Canadian law on its behalf to find out what is happening in the same way CSIS cannot go to the FBI or the CIA and ask it to spy on Canadians. It cannot do indirectly what it is prohibited from doing directly under Canadian law. The way to get around that is to apply for warrants.
Judicial appointments are made to have supernumerary justices over these organizations to ensure that charter rights are protected, even when conversations take place inadvertently. In the past, CSE has listened in on people who may have been in Afghanistan funding the Taliban or al Qaeda. They may have family in Canada and were talking back and forth about something that had nothing to do with operations on al Qaeda or the Taliban. However, because it involved a Canadian citizen, it had to go through the proper processes to ensure that his or her charter rights were protected by getting a warrant to listen to those conversations. Whether they were listening electronically or through wire taps, it is all mandated to watch that we do not trip over the rights of Canadians under legislation.
Bill C-26 would not address this like we have under the National Defence Act, under the Criminal Code and under the whole gamut of cybersecurity that has been in place up to date. The privacy rights are paramount.
To come back to Bill C-26, the Supreme Court of Canada said in 1984, as well as in 1988, that privacy was paramount and was “at the heart of liberty in a modern state”. Again, did the Liberal government ensure the bill was tested first to ensure those privacy rights were protected? This is what we will have to find out when we get Bill C-26 in front of committee.
We can look at information that has come from places like the Business Council of Canada. One of the concerns it raises goes back to this whole issue of huge fines on Canadian corporations, as well as the employees of those corporations, if they are found to have been not responsible enough to put in place proper security protocols to protect their clients from cyber attacks. Because it goes against individual employee as well, we will create another brain drain from Canada.
We are unfairly targeting Canadian employees who are going to be working for these cybersecurity firms, working in the telecommunications sector and in our financial institutions. If they are found to have erred, which a lot of times it is by error or by a lack of resources, then they are held criminally responsible and they are fined. The question becomes why they would want to work in Canada when they are afforded better protections in places like the United States, the European Union, the United Kingdom or Australia, which was held up by the Business Council of Canada as the gold standard we should be striving to achieve, and what it has done through their own cybersecurity protocols.
We want to ensure that we protect critical infrastructure, but we do not want to chase away very good Canadian employees and force them, with their skills, to go offshore where they have better protection and probably better pay. We want to ensure we keep the best of the best here. We want to ensure we do not go through a brain drain, as we have witnessed before when the Liberals have targeted professionals in Canada, such as lawyers, accountants, doctors or anyone who set up a private corporation. Now I fear the Liberals are going after individuals again who we need in Canada to protect us here at home, that they are creating a toxic work environment and those individuals will want to leave.
The Citizen Lab wrote a report entitled “Cybersecurity Will Not Thrive in Darkness”. It brought forward a ton of recommendations on how bad this bill was. It suggested that there needed to be 30 changes made to the act itself.
We realize that the government has not done its homework on this. We need to ensure we get experts in front of us who are going to look at everything, such as there is responsibility upon government to help corporate Canada ensure we have the proper security mechanisms in place to prevent cyber attacks. We have to ensure that those corporations are not being coerced into sharing private information with the Government of Canada that could be a violation of private rights, which may be a violation of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, PIPEDA. We want to ensure that privacy rights will be cohesive, but, at the same time, collectively, we need to balance all federal legislation that is in contravention of each other.
We need to bring in the legal experts. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association needs to be before committee. The Citizen Lab, which is very concerned about individual privacy rights, has to be front and centre in the discussion. We need to ensure the Business Council of Canada, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and others are brought forward, along with the department officials who were responsible for drafting this bill at the direction of the Liberal government.
I will reiterate that I will be voting in favour of the bill to ensure it goes to committee and the committee can do its homework. I would hope that the government will allow the committee to do a thorough investigation, as well as a constructive report with recommendations on how to change and amend the legislation.
Finally, I would remind everyone that the Supreme Court of Canada said, “privacy is at the heart of liberty in a modern society”, and we have to take that to heart to ensure we protect Canadians from cyber attacks, as well as to ensure they have their privacy, dignity, integrity and autonomy respected.
2837 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/16/23 2:10:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, February 24 marks 365 days since Vladimir Putin gave the order for his Russian war machine to further invade Ukraine, 365 days of Putin’s barbarians committing war crimes and atrocities against innocent Ukrainians, 365 days of Russian soldiers and mercenaries raping Ukrainian women and children and pillaging homes and villages in Ukraine, and 365 days of Russian missiles and drones indiscriminately bombing Ukrainian hospitals, schools, apartment buildings, day cares and energy infrastructure.
Over those 365 days, we have witnessed Ukrainians fighting back valiantly. For 365 days, they have bravely stood up to Moscow by destroying Russian tanks, aircraft, missiles and drones and liberating Ukrainian communities. For 365 days, Canada and our allies have stood with Ukraine, supplying it with weapons, humanitarian aid and financial assistance.
Over the past year, Conservatives said Canada can and must do more by sending our soon-to-be-retired LAVs, Canadian-made sniper rifles and Role 3 hospitals to Ukraine. We must stand with Ukraine so it can defeat Putin’s war machine to ensure peace and security for all.
Slava Ukraini.
182 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/1/23 3:10:02 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, that was another bad answer from a random Liberal.
After eight years of the Prime Minister, Canadians are struggling like they never have before, but if one is a Liberal lobbyist or a high-priced consultant, it has never been better.
For the fifth time, these Liberals have been found guilty of breaking our ethics laws, which was done twice by the Prime Minister. This time, the trade minister was caught shovelling money to her good friend and CBC pundit Amanda Alvaro, who was also on the trade minister's campaign team.
Will the Prime Minister fire the trade minister and make her pay back the $17,000 she gave to her BFF?
115 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/22 3:02:56 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, if the trade minister were truly sorry, she would pay the money back. In fact, she is the fourth Liberal cabinet minister to be found guilty of breaking the law by the Ethics Commissioner.
The trade minister got caught giving two sweetheart deals to her friend, who also worked on her campaign. The minister said there is simply no excuse for contracting with a friend's company. After Bill Morneau got caught, he did the honourable thing and resigned.
Will the trade minister follow suit and resign immediately, or does the Prime Minister have to fire this corrupt minister?
101 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/12/22 12:34:47 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-8
Mr. Speaker, what is it going to take to list the IRGC as a terrorist organization? The IRGC shot down PS752, which was done intentionally as a terrorist act. It funds Hamas, Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations throughout the world. It continues to commit all sorts of atrocities against its own civilians in Iran. Now it is participating in a defence co-operation agreement with Russia in the war in Ukraine by having kamikaze drones flown into civilian infrastructure to make winter long, cold and hard for Ukrainians.
Why will the government not wake up and finally list the IRGC as a terrorist organization, as Parliament called for unanimously in 2018?
111 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is indeed an honour to rise today to speak to Bill S-223, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to stop the trafficking in human organs. I want to thank Senator Salma Ataullahjan, who brought this bill forward in the Senate, where it passed all three readings. It is now being considered here in the House of Commons, sponsored by my colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.
This bill would amend the Criminal Code to create some indictable offences for those who are engaged in illegal organ harvesting. It would also allow the Minister of Immigration and Citizenship to intercede. If it is believed that someone is in Canada as a permanent resident or here as a foreign national, they can be deemed inadmissible to Canada if they have participated, in one way or another, in the harvesting of human organs.
I have been advocating for this for quite some time. We brought forward the Sergei Magnitsky law, which passed this place unanimously in 2018. The government has failed to use it since that time, other than for the first tranche of people who were sanctioned. It was to make sure that those individuals who are committing gross human rights violations around the world were held to account and that they were not allowed to use Canada as a safe haven.
We know there has been a systematic organ harvesting program going on in China, led by the Communist regime in Beijing. They have used it on political dissidents and ethnic and religious minorities, like the Falun Gong practitioners, like the Uighurs, like Christians and others. They have gone out after them, arrested them and then forcibly removed their organs to profit from them.
We talk about gross human rights violations. It is disgusting that someone would actually take people who are being persecuted because they are a minority group or someone who does not agree with the regime in Beijing, or other countries for that matter, and arrest them, detain them and then literally rip them apart and market their organs around the world.
Bill S-223 would make sure that those individuals, if they ever came to Canada, would face our criminal justice system. They would not just be facing sanctions and be banned from Canada or have their assets frozen here in Canada, but they would face criminal prosecution here in Canada.
Let us consider someone who needed an organ transplant and knowingly used an organ that was harvested in this manner from a political dissident, from a Falun Gong practitioner or Uighurs. Right now, the Uighurs are being persecuted to the highest level. Essentially a genocide is being carried out by the Communist regime in Beijing against the Uighurs. If somebody wanted to buy one of these organs, they could be facing criminal prosecution here in Canada.
We know that this market exists. Estimates suggest that illegal organ trafficking generates $1 billion to $2 billion Canadian every year. That is sourced from 12,000 illegal transplants, predominantly coming from mainland China. That is 12,000 transplants a year. We have to put an end to this.
I had the privilege of working with the Falun Dafa Association here in Canada. It represents Falun Gong practitioners. Many of them have fled mainland China to make sure they had the ability here in Canada to have the things that we take for granted, such as freedom of association, freedom of expression, freedom of religion and freedom of conscience. All of that is denied by the Communist regime in China.
They put together some great research over the years. A former colleague has put together a rather large report with the assistance of David Matas. When I say a former colleague, I mean David Kilgour, who was a long-time MP here, who always championed human rights.
They had a list of over 150 individuals who were profiting from the sale of illegally obtained organs that were harvested from Falun Gong practitioners. Last spring, I presented a petition that called on the government to look at this. It said that in the last 21 years, Communist Party officials had orchestrated the torture and killing of a large number of people who practised Falun Gong and that it was being done on a mass scale so their vital organs could fuel the communist regime's organ transplant trade. There were 14 names to sanction under the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, the Sergei Magnitsky Law, and the government responded but never sanctioned any of the individuals named.
In October 2021, I sent a letter to the Minister of Foreign Affairs congratulating her on her new appointment and asking her to take action on behalf of Falun Gong practitioners. I asked her to look at the entire list of individuals, which said who they were, what position they held in mainland China and what operations they were involved in with regard to persecuting and arresting Falun Gong practitioners, harvesting their organs and ultimately trading those organs around the world. I first sent the 150 names to her predecessor at the time and then to her. Again, we got a response but no action was taken.
I know the bill is getting support from all sides of the House and from every corner of the chamber, but we need to make sure we step up and sanction those individuals to ensure they are not coming to Canada. We can sanction them using the Sergei Magnitsky Law. They are hiding their wealth, taking advantage of our strong banking system, taking advantage of our fairly robust real estate market and capitalizing on the illicit gains they have been able to achieve because of this illegal trade in organs.
There are Canadians who need organ transplants. We have to encourage more and more people to donate organs in Canada so that we can extend the life of those who need transplants. That way, we can also deter this illicit trade in illegally harvested human organs and make sure it does not spread to other jurisdictions. We always like to concentrate on the communist regime in China, but we know this is happening in other places in the world. There are stories of African nations, and it is not just governments doing this, but gangs and the people out there in human trafficking who are resorting to this as a way to generate illicit revenues.
We need to continue to stand on the side of the individuals who cannot stand up for themselves. We have to make sure Canada continues to be a leader on the issue of human rights.
We need to make sure that those committing these crimes can be held to account. I know Bill S-223 would go a long way in ensuring that they would not be allowed to work in Canada and would be arrested if they did, and would not be allowed to travel to Canada or they would be arrested and face charges. We also need to make sure that those who know they are purchasing organs through this gross human rights violation of illegal organ harvesting face the full cost and full force of law here in Canada.
I again want to congratulate Senator Ataullahjan for bringing this bill forward. It is something she has been working on for a number of years. It has died on the Order Paper in the past, and this is our opportunity to make sure it comes into force as quickly as possible.
1267 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/22 2:12:19 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, our Conservative tough-on-crime laws have been systematically stripped away by the Liberals letting violent criminals be back on the street instead of in jail where they belong. The results are tragic.
The Toronto police reported that shootings in 2019 skyrocketed, over 400%, to 492 shootings from 117 in 2014. In 2014, murders in Toronto were 76, but in 2019, under the Liberals, Toronto suffered a staggering 240 murders. The Liberal approach has seen violent crime increase 32% since the Prime Minister took office, and gang-related homicides have increased a whopping 92%.
The NDP-Liberal soft-on-crime coalition has made life easier for violent criminals, and it has failed to stop the flow of illegal guns across our border. Instead, the Liberals are targeting duck hunters, farmers and sport shooters while the revolving-door justice system is putting gang members back on the street, where they continue to terrorize our communities. This is bad public policy, which only the ducks, deer and clay pigeons support.
170 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
