Bill C-26 (Historical)

An Act respecting cyber security, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts

Part 1 amends the Telecommunications Act to add the promotion of the security of the Canadian telecommunications system as an objective of the Canadian telecommunications policy and to authorize the Governor in Council and the Minister of Industry to direct telecommunications service providers to do anything, or refrain from doing anything, that is necessary to secure the Canadian telecommunications system. It also establishes an administrative monetary penalty scheme to promote compliance with orders and regulations made by the Governor in Council and the Minister of Industry to secure the Canadian telecommunications system as well as rules for judicial review of those orders and regulations.
This Part also makes a consequential amendment to the Canada Evidence Act .
Part 2 enacts the Critical Cyber Systems Protection Act to provide a framework for the protection of the critical cyber systems of services and systems that are vital to national security or public safety and that are delivered or operated as part of a work, undertaking or business that is within the legislative authority of Parliament. It also, among other things,
(a) authorizes the Governor in Council to designate any service or system as a vital service or vital system;
(b) authorizes the Governor in Council to establish classes of operators in respect of a vital service or vital system;
(c) requires designated operators to, among other things, establish and implement cyber security programs, mitigate supply-chain and third-party risks, report cyber security incidents and comply with cyber security directions;
(d) provides for the exchange of information between relevant parties; and
(e) authorizes the enforcement of the obligations under the Act and imposes consequences for non-compliance.
This Part also makes consequential amendments to certain Acts.

An Act Respecting Cyber Security

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to this issue. In fact, I spoke to the previous version of the bill, Bill C‑26, in the last Parliament. It is easy to get lost in all these “C” bills.

Since the elements of Bill C‑8 are absolutely identical to those in the previous version, our hopes and fears are exactly the same as well. I could copy and paste what I said last time. Having said that, I am still going to make an attempt at originality today.

I think there is consensus in the House that the goal is so fundamental and that this issue of cybersecurity is so important that it goes without saying we need to give Bill C‑8 a chance at second reading.

The bill will then be studied in committee, where we will have the opportunity to examine it in greater depth. We all agree that this bill is filled with good intentions. However, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, so who knows what else we might find in there. That is often the case with this type of bill. There are issues, and the Privacy Commissioner of Canada has raised some concerns, as have we, while still agreeing with the bill's objective.

I want to start by talking about the objective of the bill. Everyone agrees that cybersecurity is a major issue, including for everyone here in Parliament. In a few days, on October 21, it will be six years since I became a member of Parliament here in the House. I have lost count of the number of emails I have received warning of cyber-attacks. We already know that cyberspace is at the heart of economic and geopolitical warfare in this increasingly dangerous world. Some would say that cyber-attacks are better than military attacks, but unfortunately, they are not mutually exclusive.

Let us look at several examples to show that this issue is not just theoretical. Let us remember that, in 2020, Parliament adopted a motion to force the government to make a decision regarding Huawei and Chinese interference in general. The federal government recently banned Huawei from the 5G network after years of dithering and warnings from intelligence services.

Let us briefly review what the 5G network is to help us understand why there is a clear need for legislation in this area. The 5G network is a new telecommunications technology with bandwidth that is 10 to 100 times greater than that of the current LTE networks. The technology stands out for more than just its speed. It stands out for its extremely low latency, which is the time it takes for one computer to communicate with another and receive a response. This opens the door to many possibilities in different areas, but to achieve such performance, 5G uses a multitude of pathways. To simplify, let us say that something that is sent from Montreal to a computer in Paris could have a portion pass through New York, another through London, another through Barcelona, and so forth. That is the interconnected world we live in today. This makes the technology particularly vulnerable because it becomes difficult to track the path that the data takes.

Huawei has already been implicated in a scandal involving China spying on the African Union headquarters. I do not know if anyone remembers that, but it is extremely worrying. In 2012, China gave the African Union a fully equipped ultramodern building. China told the African Union that it could get set up, that the networks, computers and telecommunications systems would be provided by Beijing. In 2017, after a few years of operation, African computer scientists realized that the servers were sending out huge amounts of data at night, when nobody was working in the building. It was odd. They wondered why that was happening.

They discovered that the data was going to servers in China that were being used to spy on political leaders and staff. As it turned out, Huawei was the main supplier of the network infrastructure. Microphones were discovered in the walls and tables.

In 2017, China adopted a new national intelligence law where all Chinese companies are obligated to contribute to Chinese intelligence work, be it military or civilian intelligence. A company could be told to spy on behalf of another Chinese company to give China an advantage on the world stage.

China has always denied that its companies had to engage in espionage in foreign countries. Western intelligence agencies, however, say otherwise, and also agree that Chinese laws apply abroad. In any case, we know that China's large companies have close ties to the Chinese Communist Party, the Chinese military and the Chinese government, and that all four have an extremely incestuous relationship with Beijing.

In any case, any company that shows the slightest defiance toward the Chinese Communist Party has no chance of prospering. China, of course, is not a market economy. It is a highly controlled and centralized economy even though, on paper, private companies have officially existed in areas known as special economic zones since the death of Mao Zedong, undergoing constant expansion ever since. For a while, it was thought that China would evolve into a market economy, but that has obviously not turned out to be the case.

For all of these reasons, experts are leery of using Chinese equipment in critical infrastructure such as telecommunications infrastructure. Digital technology played a key role in the so-called new silk roads strategy, launched by the Chinese regime in Beijing.

Once again, the British felt that the risk could be mitigated by not using Chinese equipment in certain specific areas, such as the military and embassies. These are such strategic areas that the British excluded them. However, they have since reconsidered their position and banned the company altogether in 2023.

The U.S. intelligence agency, the CIA, and the Canadian criminal intelligence agency, CSIS, believe that the threat is too great and that the company should be banned, just as the Canadian government recently banned Huawei's 5G technology. The United States has banned Huawei from developing 5G technology in the United States and is pushing for its NATO allies to follow suit, which Australia, New Zealand and now Britain have done.

It is important to note that Huawei was way ahead of the game in terms of developing 5G technology, which prompted many companies, including Canadian companies, to consider using Huawei equipment. Since then, many other companies, such as Nokia, Ericsson and Samsung, have caught up. This means there are more options on the market today, and the Canadian telecommunications industry has shifted away from Huawei services to develop 5G technology. Therefore, it is entirely possible. We are not that dependent on what China has to offer.

In addition, countries such as Australia and New Zealand have denied Chinese companies access to 5G technology development, even though these countries are much more dependent on China than Canada is. Justin Trudeau's government could not make up its mind for the longest time, but it finally woke up. Things started to move. The same is true when it comes to concerns about TikTok. The government is concerned that China could be using certain apps to steal information, and rightly so. As we have seen, China is the queen of data collection.

This bill obviously seeks to address a very real problem, to ward off these potential cyber-attacks, but we are concerned about interference from Ottawa. The Privacy Commissioner asked whether there was any evidence that this bill, which does not clearly rule out the possibility of tracking old emails or searches, would not infringe on the most fundamental aspects of people's privacy. The answer is in the question, in that we should likely clarify things and include more specifics to reassure people who may be concerned about their privacy. Right now, there is no evidence to show that the bill will not infringe on privacy, and we certainly do not have any guarantees that it will not.

That is why it is imperative that the committee conduct a thorough study, that we do the study right, that we hear from witnesses and experts. In any case, some of the work was done during the study of the previous version of the bill, Bill C‑26. Unfortunately, that study was not very reassuring. We need to amend the current bill to ensure that Ottawa is not able to infringe on people's privacy.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak to Bill C-8 today. For those watching at home, in the previous Parliament, Bill C-8 was Bill C-26.

I was pleased to sit on the public safety and national security committee, which went over that bill. I want to provide a quick overview, because part of the debate we are having in the House today is about why we are discussing the legislation again when it was discussed and advanced, pretty much to the finish line, in the last Parliament.

Bill C-26 went through committee. There were numerous amendments made by all parties. It came out and went to the Senate. The government asked the House of Commons to fast-track a different bill on foreign interference. In the government's own incompetence, it did not seem to realize that its foreign interference bill contained provisions that nullified the entire second part of Bill C-26. The Senate actually identified this problem. This caused such a delay to the bill that when the Liberal government decided to prorogue Parliament, despite the fact that it had not tested the confidence of the House, it actually resulted in the legislation being killed.

The government has been saying, “The dog ate my homework.” The fact is that the Liberal government was the one that killed the legislation in the last Parliament. That is the reason we are back here today.

Cybersecurity is an issue of critical importance. Cybersecurity has an impact on all aspects of our life. More and more of our daily life is being spent online, and we are becoming dependent on services and infrastructure that are vulnerable to cybersecurity threats. The threats posed by malicious actors are touching every aspect of society. They are touching industry, hospitals, pipelines and individual households.

As we know, with the government's implementation of soft-on-crime bail policies, criminals will always follow the path of least resistance. It is no different in the cybersecurity environment. When a country has poor cybersecurity legislation, it makes itself a target for these malicious actors and encourages that behaviour.

The Liberal government originally introduced Bill C-26 in June 2022, over three years ago. We only started to study the bill two years after it was introduced. We heard repeatedly from the Liberals that cybersecurity has been a high priority and that this is critically important legislation, but here we are, three years later, in an entirely new Parliament, going over the same legislation again.

These delays could have been prevented, but the Liberal government failed. It is unfortunate because we have heard repeatedly that Canada's cybersecurity has been neglected and remains a vulnerable and soft target.

The bill proposes to give sweeping powers to the government, and Conservatives believe that we cannot give the government a blank cheque. We need to study the legislation to ensure that we are creating effective mechanisms for combatting cybercrime without creating unnecessary red tape, bureaucracy or charter rights implications.

The bill has two key objectives. First, it seeks to amend the Telecommunications Act, to give the government the power to secure the telecommunications systems. Basically, the government would have the power to tell the telecommunications companies and others to do things or to not do things, such as removing equipment provided by a hostile foreign power that is being used in our telecommunications systems.

Second, it seeks to create the critical cyber systems protection act; in theory, this would allow the government to impose cybersecurity requirements on federally regulated industries. These industries could include the energy sector, pipelines, nuclear plants, the financial sector, banks, the health sector and other areas.

I believe there are some positive steps towards enhancing public safety in the bill. It is important for Conservatives to point out that there are some serious weaknesses that remain in Canada's cybersecurity posture. In fact, we are the last G7 country without a robust regulatory framework for cybersecurity.

Last summer, the Auditor General released a damning report on the government's capacity to combat cybercrime. I am going to quote her conclusions, because they were scathing:

...the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), Communications Security Establishment Canada, and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) did not have the capacity and tools to effectively enforce laws intended to protect Canadians from cyberattacks and address the growing volume and sophistication of cybercrime. We found breakdowns in response, coordination, enforcement, tracking, and analysis between and across the organizations responsible for protecting Canadians from cybercrime.

This raises an important point. We can have all of the laws we want that say all the right things, and we do have some laws on cybersecurity, but it is clear from the Auditor General's report that the government has not invested in the capacity, the resources or the tools to implement the current cybersecurity laws that we have. We need to be assured that, by bringing the legislation forward, the government is not only planning to grant itself these powers but also giving law enforcement the capability to do something with these powers. That is something that it has not really done.

The trend continues to worsen. The Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre projects that losses from cybercrime will surpass over $1 billion annually by 2028. There are actual insurance products being created to protect people from cybercrime. That is not just money being lost to fraud. That is broken lives and ongoing mental health challenges that are devastating our citizens.

We know that coordinated and strategic attacks on our national infrastructure by criminals or foreign adversaries have wreaked havoc, and will continue to wreak havoc, on our society. A cyber-attack on our power grid in the middle of winter would be devastating to hospitals with vulnerable patients or to pipeline infrastructure. Canada has already faced concentrated cyber-attacks against its telecommunication companies since at least 2021, with the Communications Security Establishment saying that it is aware of malicious cyber-activities from People's Republic of China state-sponsored actors.

Canada and our allies have already been the target of cyber-attacks carried out by hostile state-sponsored or aligned groups. In fact, the RCMP, FINTRAC and Global Affairs Canada, just to mention a few, have all been previously breached by cyber-attackers. The seriousness posed by these attacks on our nation's most sensitive information cannot be understated. We need to know that the government is taking action to secure its own systems, not just telling the private sector that it has to secure its systems.

We know that the private sector is taking proactive measures to invest in cyber-defence. With hundreds of thousands of cyber-attacks, and that is not hyperbole, targeting Canada in the first six months of 2025, they have been forced to step up and the government has not.

I hear from constituents on a regular basis that they are concerned that the government's own cybersecurity measures are not up to snuff, particularly in regard to the Canada Revenue Agency. As malicious criminals become more sophisticated, Canadians need to know that their data is being stored in a safe and secure way. Therefore, it is common sense that the Liberal government should hold itself to the same standards that it is holding the private sector to in the legislation.

Bill C-26 was introduced way back in June 2022. This was in the wake of the government's decision to finally, after tremendous political pressure, ban ZTE and Huawei from the Canadian 5G networks. This was long after decisive action had already been taken by all of our Five Eyes partners.

I am pleased to say that I think Bill C-26 left committee in better condition than when it went in, but we have heard from many witnesses who are concerned about the over-centralization of powers that this is giving to cabinet ministers. There is also concern that the bill in its current form gives the government excess executive authority without full proper oversight and guardrails. In Bill C-8, the government has continued to take a “trust us” approach to legislating Canada's cybersecurity, which is alarming to the many Canadians who are concerned that the government may overreach.

Conservatives believe that trust needs to be earned. As a great Conservative politician once said, “Trust, but verify”. Considering the Liberal government's habit of limiting free speech in bills like Bill C-11 and Bill C-18 in the last Parliament, and the illegal use of the Emergencies Act, I believe that many of these concerns are valid and should be addressed. Conservatives need to be able to study the bill, so we can provide amendments and listen to further witness testimony to ensure that accountability and oversight mechanisms are effective and that they are improved.

Another area of concern that was flagged by witnesses was the absence of a special national security-cleared lawyer to act on an applicant's behalf during a judicial review. This is actually a standard practice in other areas of national security when sensitive information is brought forward. Therefore, we find this omission questionable.

Basically, to explain that, part of the provision of the bill is to allow the government to conduct court hearings in secret. When we are dealing with top secret or sensitive information, we can see that there is a justification for that. We need to ensure that anyone who is caught up in that is getting the appropriate legal representation. That is a critically important factor.

Conservatives want to ensure transparency and accountability. We need strong oversight measures, clear retention limits and restrictions on how data can be collected, used and shared, especially with our foreign intelligence partners. We need to define “personal information”. The bill clearly fails to define what personal information is, which leaves the privacy of Canadians vulnerable. We need to ensure that the government is not allowed to keep these orders secret indefinitely without just cause, and we need to ensure there is no overreach of the powers it is giving itself.

Conservatives want to ensure there are appropriate consultations with and involvement of the Privacy Commissioner, the Intelligence Commissioner and other stakeholders in civil society in improving this legislation. We need independent oversight to ensure strong judicial oversight in accessing personal information. We need strong privacy safeguards to ensure that incident reports involving personal information are shared with the Privacy Commissioner. We need limitations so this data is only used in cases of cybersecurity. We need transparency requirements to mandate the disclosure of the secret orders after a reasonable period and consequences for failing to table those reports.

In summary, given the growing geopolitical tensions around the world, we cannot afford to be naive on matters of cybersecurity. We have sensitive research being conducted at our universities. We need to assert our sovereignty in the Arctic. Canada is a target for hostile powers wanting to undermine our country's national interests and go after our citizens.

We know that hostile states like North Korea, China, Russia and Iran have demonstrated the ability to hack into our critical infrastructure and will continue to take hostile action unless we take decisive steps to improve our cyber-defences. While this bill would be a step in securing our telecommunications systems and other federally regulated industries, it is not all-encompassing and there are some gaps. As Canadian society moves increasingly into a digital space, the government needs to remain vigilant and take proactive steps to ensure we are keeping up, because this landscape is always changing.

In conclusion, our Conservative team is looking forward to seeing this bill come back to committee, where we can propose meaningful amendments and listen to key witnesses and the concerns of Canadians so that they are addressed.

While this legislation is important, we need to ensure that we are not giving the government a blank cheque. We need to ensure that the government is held accountable so the powers it would be giving itself would only be used in a justified and proportionate manner.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Madam Speaker, we in the Bloc Québécois already raised our concerns earlier regarding respect for provincial jurisdictions. That is a crucial point. Another important point is the protection of civil liberties.

I was reading the testimony of the Privacy Commissioner who spoke at length when we were studying Bill C-26 about the risks of confidential and personal information unintentionally ending up in the hands of the government as a result of the bill's implementation.

My question for my colleague is this. To what extent will the Liberals take these concerns into account to ensure that information obtained for a legitimate purpose is not used by other federal government departments and agencies?

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in support of Bill C-8, an act respecting cyber security, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments to other acts.

This legislation is a necessary, measured step to protect systems that Canadians rely on every single day. This bill would help critical infrastructure operators better prepare, prevent and respond to cyber-incidents. It would do what responsible governments must do: It would set clear, enforceable standards for operators in the most critical sectors; it would enable rapid, targeted interventions when threats emerge; and it would ensure that Canada is aligned with international partners that are facing precisely the same challenges. In this era, it is very important that we pass this piece of legislation.

Let me talk about two big things the bill would do. First, it would modernize the Telecommunications Act so that our security agencies and responsible ministers can issue targeted, time-limited directions to defend our networks against serious and evolving threats. Second, it would enact the critical cyber systems protection act, the CCSPA, which would set baseline, legally binding cybersecurity duties for designated operators in federally regulated critical sectors. This would mean cyber-risk management programs, timely incident reporting and accountability up and down the supply chain. Those are not “nice to haves” anymore; they are the basic hygiene that we need for running a critical service in 2025.

Colleagues will recall earlier efforts under Bill C-26. With Bill C-8, our government has brought back a refined, clearer and in some places improved framework because the threat landscape did not pause when Parliament did. Several independent analyses confirm that Bill C-8 substantially revives the Bill C-26 approach while correcting drafting issues and clarifying process where needed, and that is prudent governance.

Why does this matter? For Canada, cyber-risk is now an economic risk, a jobs risk and a public safety risk. A successful attack can freeze payrolls, disable hospitals, shut down pipelines or even take down our 911 lines.

Across London, manufacturers, research labs at Western University, students at Fanshawe College, local clinics and small businesses on our main streets all depend on secure networks. The southwestern Ontario supply chain and the supply chain across Canada, which include major investments in EVs, batteries and advanced manufacturing, cannot function with brittle digital infrastructure. When a single compromised supplier can ripple through an entire regional economy, cyber-resilience becomes a competitiveness strategy.

Essentially, what Bill C-8 would require under the CCSPA is that designated operators, such as those in banking and financial services, telecommunications, energy and transportation, must establish and maintain a cybersecurity program proportional to their risks, report cyber-incidents quickly and consistently, manage third party and supply chain vulnerabilities, and comply with enforceable directions in extraordinary circumstances. There are administrative monetary penalties for non-compliance because rules without consequences are just suggestions. We cannot afford to bring just suggestions forward.

On the telecom side, Bill C-8 would modernize the tool kit so that government can act surgically when credible threats emerge in our networks. These powers are not a blanket. They are tied to concrete risks and are subject to review. In today's environment, speed matters. A 72-hour delay can be the difference between a contained incident and a national outage.

Some civil society groups and legal scholars have raised important concerns about privacy, transparency and due process, especially around how directions are issued and reviewed and how information flows between government and private operators. I want to take the opportunity to acknowledge those concerns, which are clearly on the floor of this House. Some of our colleagues have mentioned them in this debate.

The goal of Bill C-8 is to protect Canadians, not to weaken their rights. As this bill advances to committee, I look forward to seeing the conversations that colleagues from across the aisle will have and the suggestions they will be putting forward. As we did before on Bill C-26, I think we will be able to achieve a consensus on what this bill is going to look like. Essentially, the goal is to protect Canadians.

I also have some thoughts on some of the things we could look at. Number one is that we could look at tightened transparency around reporting, including public statistics on the use of cybersecurity directions wherever national security considerations allow. We can also look at strengthened due process, making judicial review avenues practical and timely, and clarify data handling and retention so information shared for cybersecurity is not used for unrelated purposes and that it is protected with robust safeguards.

I do not sit on the committee, but I do know we have colleagues on it from across the aisle who are going to have robust conversations on how to strengthen the bill as we did in the past. We voted for Bill C-26. It is now back in the House, refined and reframed for all our colleagues to discuss and to propose measures they want to see within the spirit of wanting to protect cybersecurity for all Canadians.

I think these are reasonable and constructive asks that would make for good dialogue and would strengthen the bill. I am sure there will be more suggestions that I look forward to reading from my colleagues. I am sure they will support and pass the bill in a very timely manner, because if we are having a conversation about a cybersecurity bill in 2025, we need to pass it. I think we understand that the bill is not coming forward as a nice-to-have conversation; it is really critical.

Not every critical service is a national giant. Many are medium-sized providers or municipal utilities that keep water flowing and transit moving. For these operators, the question is often capacity. Having the people, the tools and the processes that meet modern standards is really important. I support complementary measures alongside Bill C-8: practical guidance, shared services, threat intel programs that actually reach the front lines, and funding that helps smaller providers implement the basics, such as asset inventories, multi-factor authentication, network segmentation, backup discipline and tabletop exercises.

Standards without support risk becoming paper compliance. What we should be trying to do with our approach is to enable real resilience for Canadians. We also need to be honest about where the real attack surface is today: suppliers, managed service providers, and software dependencies. Bill C-8's supply chain provisions are a step forward, but we must continue to keep pushing for secure-by-design practices. The objective is learning and early warning, not blame-shifting.

I hope that colleagues at committee will have the time to ensure that timelines will also allow the time to consult, that thresholds and formats are clear, and that we streamline duplication with sectoral regulators where possible.

Critical services in indigenous and rural communities face unique constraints.

I do not think I will be able to finish my speech, but I want to say that the legislation is really important for all Canadians. I am happy to speak to and support the bill. I look forward, for all our colleagues who have been speaking to the bill today, to their actually helping us bring it to committee so we can bring amendments that are necessary and we can pass the bill as quickly as possible. They voted for it in the last Parliament under Bill C-26. It is back now, and it is really important we pass it as quickly as possible.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-26 was killed because of the Conservatives' irresponsibility last fall. That is the reason Canadians do not have it.

Let me extend a hand of co-operation to the Conservative Party. At the end of the day, we can all reflect about what came out of the last election. The Government of Canada cannot pass legislation unless it gets the opposition's co-operation. The opposition knows that. If every member of the Conservative caucus is put up to speak to every piece of legislation, we will not be able to pass legislation. That is why Conservative voters need to also be listened to. Everyone wants more co-operation. It is time that we are less political and more at work putting Canadian interests ahead of partisan interests. That is what Canadians of all political stripes want.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, the private sector in general is ready to protect itself, especially on the cybersecurity front, otherwise it cannot really do business in this world. The government, on the other side, is not ready. It has been dragging its feet since the last Parliament by killing Bill C-26.

Will the hon. member be honest and tell Canadians why the government killed Bill C-26?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the answer is no, the government did not intentionally kill Bill C-26. As the member may be aware, there was a Senate-related issue, so it had to come back to the House.

If there had not been as much filibustering as we witnessed last November and December, we would have been trying to see legislation pass that is in the best interest of Canadians. All the member needs to do is look at 80% of the debate, in which we saw Conservative after Conservative stand up on a frivolous privilege issue to try to justify that every member would be able to debate something, not once but twice. That is why they have to put—

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I find it ironic that the member talked about Conservatives being obstructionist. It is precisely because the government begged us in the last Parliament to fast-track its foreign interference legislation that we are here today. Because that legislation was fast-tracked, it actually nullified provisions in Bill C-26, which caused the unnecessary delays to the bill. That is the reason we are here debating it today.

It is such a debacle that it leads me to ask, did the government kill Bill C-26 purposely, or are the Liberals just incompetent?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

The Conservative Party takes the attitude that it is okay for it to significantly change the legislation and that we should just forget about members' being able to speak to it; heaven forbid that. However, when it comes to government legislation, the Conservatives have their politically motivated methods of filibustering.

Let us talk about Bill C-26 and Bill C-8. What is Bill C-8? It is a reflection of Bill C-26, with a couple of relatively minor changes to it. Bill C-26 had second reading debate. It went to committee, had extensive debate there, came back for extensive debate here, and then went to the Senate.

At every stage, it was passed unanimously; everyone supported the legislation, yet the Conservatives look at the bill and say that they have new members. The government caucus has more new members than the Conservatives do, and we have a new Prime Minister. At the end of the day, the Prime Minister has taken a holistic approach in terms of what we need to do inside the House of Commons, and he said that the bill is important legislation. It would have a very real, tangible impact on our businesses and on Canadians.

We are looking for what Canadians mandated not only the Liberal Party to do, but also the Conservative, Bloc and New Democrat members and the leader of the Green Party. They want a higher sense of co-operation on the floor of the House of Commons. Even Conservative voters want more co-operation. We all know the bill is good, sound legislation, at the very least, that can go to the committee stage. If someone senses a little frustration on my part, it is based on other legislation that the government has before us.

Often what it takes is that we have to shame opposition members, particularly the Conservatives, into recognizing legislation is in the best interest of Canadians, and there is nothing wrong with allowing good legislation to, at the very least, go to a standing committee where experts, Canadians and members opposite can debate it, especially when there is a minister who stands up and says that if members have amendments, they should bring them forward. However, we do not see that happening. There is a very clear double standard.

We can look at the legislation itself. Malicious cyber-attacks are a reality. They are taking place today in many sectors, and they are not unique to Canada. They are a threat to the world economy, I would argue. Bill C-8 is a positive step in addressing that issue. It would ensure that we would have more sharing of information between governments, industry and stakeholders. It would establish more accountability, and one would think every member of the House would be in support of something of that nature.

In terms of cyber-threats, think of the critical industries the federal government is responsible for. Finance, communication, energy and transportation all have critical infrastructures, and we need the legislation. When we have a Prime Minister who says we want to build a strong, healthy economy, the best and strongest economy in the G7, in order to protect the interests of that economy, we need this type of legislation passed.

Let us talk about cyber-threats in terms of finance. The finance industry is so critically important to Canada. When I was first elected as a parliamentarian a few decades ago, we did not have things like online banking. We went to the bank and went through long lineups, and there were more banks in our communities.

I can say that changes that have occurred in our financial industry have been overwhelming in many different ways, and legislation needs to be brought forward to protect the interests of Canadians, whether in terms of identity theft or cyber-attacks, which can literally shut down or cause serious financial issues at a banking or credit union institution. What is wrong with legislation that reinforces the need to ensure there is a higher sense of accountability and more information sharing? Then, if a cyber-attack occurs at X, we can learn from that and make sure the industry as a whole is better informed in order to be able to deal with an attack of that nature.

It is very real. Nowadays, our business communities get more payments on credit cards and debit cards than they do in cash transactions. We can go to a mall or a store, anywhere we go where we see financial transactions, let alone the Internet itself. We need to protect and ensure that privacy information is kept private and, where there are bad actors, that the government is in a position to be able take action. That just deals with one component I made reference to as an example, finances.

In telecommunications and cellphones and things of this nature, what makes up the cellphone matters and subcontractors matter. These types of things are in Canadians' best interests. Whether it is energy, transportation, finance or telecommunications, I think it is a very strong, positive and warranted piece of legislation from the national government. That is why, when I started off my comments, it was all about the process. We have had a lot of discussion and debate. I am not saying that it has to pass today, but let us take a look at legislation that is before the House of Commons and be reasonable so we know we will be able to pass legislation and we know—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for London West.

It was interesting to listen to the last speaker. I would like to take up on some of the comments he put on the record, along with those of my friend from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

They need a reality check. First, let us flash back to December of last year when the Conservatives, the Bloc and the New Democrats, all opposition parties, said that at the first opportunity, they were going to defeat the government. Now the member stands in his place and says that we should not have had the election when we had it and that the government should have prolonged things a little longer. It is amazing the member can say that with a straight face. It is totally amazing.

The member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, the Conservative critic for this bill, last week introduced a private member's bill in the House, Bill C-225. I will quote what the member said: “This bill is a monumental change”, “I ask that the House streamline the passing of this bill as quickly as possible” and “Let us pass this bill right away.” I wonder what would happen if we were to apply the hypocrisy of members' opposite when they talk about us suggesting not that we pass a bill but allow it to go to committee.

With regard to the private member's bill the member was referring to, I agree that there are a lot of substantive changes, but how much time is it going to have at second reading? There will be two hours; that is it, and then it will go to committee. Then there is a time frame for it at committee, and it will come back for another two hours of debate in the House. Then it will head to the Senate. Let us contrast that with the ongoing obstructionist attitude that the Conservative Party has on legislation, period. Let us talk about Bill C-26.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, and it is an honour to contribute in questions and comments to my hon. colleague from the Okanagan. I really appreciate what he had to say. He built on what my colleague from the Bloc had to say.

I have been fairly clear, and I will speak as the chief critic for the Conservative Party. This will go to committee. When it goes to committee, Conservatives will engage in vigorous scrutiny in order to ensure that we have the best bill possible. Just because the bill passed in the form of Bill C-26 does not mean that we rubber-stamp it through in the 45th Parliament. We need to be committed to always making every bill the best it can be. Does my colleague agree?

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed my colleague's speech. He really has a great radio voice and it was a pleasure listening to him.

I might have a brief response for my Liberal colleague. Bill C‑8 was tabled in June. Let us check the current date. This is an important bill, but the Liberals seem to be having a hard time managing their legislative calendar. Now, all of a sudden, they want to fast-track Bill C‑8 because it really is very important.

While this bill is indeed very important, some concerns remained after we debated Bill C‑26. Bill C‑26 passed because we made compromises. We now have another opportunity to improve Bill C‑8.

Does my colleague think there is still room for improvement in Bill C‑8?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals tabled Bill C-26 two years before doing anything with it. This is the very first day that we actually have the ability to discuss Bill C-8, but the government does not like to hear that it is being held accountable. I know that we can improve the legislation, and my constituents have views on it. I would hope the deputy House leader would actually listen and encourage, in a minority government, debate about a very profound piece of legislation that can have an impact on people's lives. This will probably be a once-in-a-generation discussion, so I would hope the member would not simply try to push away that there are concerns with the bill—

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am sure the member opposite remembers the efforts on Bill C-26 before the election happened, which he and his colleagues spent two years calling for. He is saying we do not want to have the conversation, and I want to disagree with the member, because we put forward a bill. We put it forward in the last Parliament, and we are putting it forward again. We want to bring it to committee. We want members to bring suggestions and amendments.

We understand the importance of cybersecurity for Canadians, especially in 2025. Why will the member not agree to send this to committee instead of arguing just for the sake of arguing?

[Chak Au, Conservative, Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC]

Madam Speaker, definitely. It was discussed at the last public safety and national security committee.

We listened to presentations from many witnesses, who told us about the problems with Bill C-26. If the bill goes to the committee again, we would like to hear more from experts, concerned parties and stakeholders on the problems that we have in the bill as presented.

[Chak Au, Conservative, Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC]

Madam Speaker, we are debating legislation brought in by the government to try to improve cybersecurity.

However, what I see is a law that would be as problematic as Bill C-26. There is one little improvement, but most of the contents of Bill C-26 will remain the same. How can the government say that this is going to protect Canadians more? Furthermore, this bill might address improving the pipe, but it does not guarantee or secure what goes through the pipe.

This is not real cyber-resilience. It is smoke and mirrors.

[Chak Au, Conservative, Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna.

Before I begin, I want to thank the people of Richmond Centre—Marpole for bestowing their trust in me and electing me as their member of Parliament. I am deeply honoured by their confidence, and I am committed to serving them faithfully, with their interests always my top priority. Every time I rise in the House, it is with their voices in mind.

We are debating Bill C-8, the government's latest attempt at a cybersecurity framework. To understand Bill C-8, we must remember where it comes from. This is essentially the reintroduction of Bill C-26, which the government first brought forward in 2022. Conservatives supported the principle of Bill C-26, the idea that Canada needs stronger protections for critical cyber systems. However, we also raised serious, legitimate concerns about how the bill was drafted.

We warned that Bill C-26 would concentrate too much unchecked power in the hands of the ministers. We warned that its secrecy provisions would undermine transparency and accountability. We warned that the cost of compliance would inevitably be passed down to ordinary Canadians through higher phone bills and banking fees. We warned that the legislation was focused on the wrong targets, federally regulated banks, pipelines and telecom companies, while leaving out the institutions Canadians actually see attacked most often: hospitals, municipalities and schools.

Those warnings were echoed not only by Conservatives but also by industry leaders, civil liberty groups and privacy experts. The Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security heard those criticisms over many months. What happened? Bill C-26 stalled in committee and never passed. It died on the Order Paper because it could not overcome its flaws.

Now the government has come back with Bill C-8, and to be fair, there has been one improvement. The government removed the so-called secret evidence clause, the provision that would allow ministers to rely on confidential materials in court challenges without disclosure to affected parties. It was a step in the right direction, and Conservatives acknowledge that change.

However, let us be clear: Beyond that one tweak, almost everything else is the same. The sweeping ministerial powers are still there. The indefinite secrecy is still there. The lack of oversight is still there. The downloading of costs onto consumers is still there. Most importantly, the narrow scope of the bill, covering only federally regulated industries while excluding hospitals, municipalities and schools, is still there. Canadians deserve better than a reheated version of a flawed bill. A single fix does not change the reality that this legislation would fail in its core purpose, which is protecting Canadians where they are most vulnerable.

Let me bring this closer to home. Cyber-attacks are not theoretical, and they are not distant. They are happening right now, and they are hitting our communities hard. In British Columbia, the B.C. government itself was breached. State-sponsored actors infiltrated its email systems and accessed sensitive personal information. Vancouver Coastal Health, which cares for more than a million people, was hit with ransomware that disrupted hospital operations and delayed patient services. The City of Richmond, my own city, faced cyber-intrusions and compromised email systems, threatening the delivery of municipal services. Even the Richmond School District fell victim to a cyber-attack that exposed private and financial information of teachers, staff and families.

These are not hypotheticals. They are real attacks on real people. Not one of these institutions would be protected under Bill C-8.

That is the first fatal flaw. Bill C-8 offers Canadians a false promise of security. The government says it would protect vital systems, but the very systems Canadians interact with every day, their hospitals, their local governments, their children's schools, would be left outside the law's reach. A cybersecurity bill that does not secure hospitals, cities or schools is like locking the front door and leaving the back door wide open.

The second flaw is secrecy. Just like Bill C-26, Bill C-8 would grant sweeping powers to ministers and to cabinet. With the stroke of a pen, the government could order a company to block a service, rip out equipment or suspend operations, and those orders could be kept secret indefinitely. Companies could even be kept from telling Canadians that the government had interfered with their networks. Operational secrecy during an active attack may be justified, but secrecy without time limits or oversight is simply unacceptable. That is not transparency, that is not accountability, and it does not inspire public trust. Canadians deserve to know, after the fact, what actions were taken in their name.

The third flaw is cost. Bill C-8, like Bill C-26 before it, makes it explicit: There would be no compensation for companies forced to comply with government orders. If a telecom company was told to strip out hundreds or millions of dollars of equipment, Ottawa would not pay a cent. Those costs would land on Canadians, who would see higher phone bills, higher bank fees and slower upgrades to essential services. National security should be funded fairly, not through hidden taxes on consumers.

The fourth flaw is scope. The government may argue that by forcing telecom companies to strengthen their networks, hospitals and schools that rely on those networks are indirectly protected, but that argument does not hold up. The attacks we have seen in British Columbia did not come through telecom backbones; they came through local servers, outdated software and ransomware emails. Protecting the pipes does not protect the people.

The government may also claim that the bill would help stop foreign interference, but again, this is spin, not substance. Bill C-8 would deal with cyber-intrusions into networks. It would do nothing to address the broader reality of foreign interference, such as disinformation campaigns, covert political financing, intimidation of diaspora communities or manipulation of democratic institutions. Suggesting that Bill C-8 would stop foreign interference misleads Canadians and risks creating dangerous complacency.

What would Canadians really get with Bill C-8? They would get a law that still misses the real victims of cyber-attacks. They would get a law that still hides decisions from public view. They would get a law that still sticks consumers with the bill. They would get a law that still does almost nothing to address the broader threat of foreign interference.

That is not cyber-resilience. That is not leadership. That is smoke and mirrors. Conservatives believe in stronger cybersecurity, but we believe in getting it right. What Canada needs is legislation that actually works with provinces and municipalities to protect the services Canadians rely on most: hospitals, schools and local governments. We need legislation that provides oversight and accountability, not blank cheques for secrecy. We need legislation that shares the cost of national security fairly, instead of forcing families to pay through hidden charges. We need legislation that integrates—

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, yes, the bill, in the form of Bill C-26, has gone before Parliament. Some amendments were adopted, but having said that, I think more work needs to be done.

I raised a series of questions in my speech. I would like answers from the government. I would like to hear experts respond to those concerns, and then we can move forward with amendments to address, truly, a bill that would balance the need to enhance cybersecurity infrastructure for Canadians with protecting our rights.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the member for Bourassa, for splitting his time with me.

Cybersecurity is no longer a distant concern of experts in back rooms; it is a kitchen table issue. Canadians expect their lights to come on, their paycheque to be deposited, their medical records to be private and their phone to connect them to loved ones without interruption. They expect those things to be safe from hackers, hostile states, nefarious actors and, yes, overreach by their very own government. Cybersecurity is not an abstract concern; it is about whether families can trust their power grid to stay on, whether a rural clinic can keep its patient records safe and whether small businesses can keep their doors open without fear of being taken down by hackers.

Canadians deserve real protections against cyber-threats. They are a reality in today’s world, and we all recognize that. In that respect, I acknowledge that Bill C-8 reflects a pressing reality: Canada must strengthen the resilience of our critical infrastructure. However, in our rush to act, we must also ensure that we get the right balance. If we protect our systems but undermine our rights, if we secure our networks but destabilize our economy, then we will have built a fortress with the doors left open.

Bill C-8 as it stands raises several concerns. The Liberals tell us the bill is proof of their so-called innovation agenda, but when we look closely at the fine print, the reality is far more complicated. Bill C-8 is a near carbon copy of Bill C-26, a bill that died when Parliament was prorogued earlier this year, and while some minor improvements have been made, some fundamental flaws remain. This is where I would like to focus my remarks as I and my colleagues in the NDP consider the ramifications of the bill. Allow me to bring those questions forward with the hope of bringing some clarity and changes to the bill.

First is the scope of ministerial powers. Under the bill, the Minister of Industry could compel telecommunications providers to rip out equipment, ban entire suppliers or suspend agreements. Imagine that a company might have to pass the costs of that on to its customers or close its doors entirely.

While the minister explained that safeguards exist to prevent disproportionate orders from crippling providers and leaving rural Canadians disconnected, Bill C-8 would grant sweeping powers to cabinet and the Minister of Industry: powers to ban telecom companies from using certain equipment, to force its removal, to suspend services and to terminate contracts. These orders could be issued without prior judicial approval, without parliamentary review and without independent oversight. When we concentrate this much power in the hands of a single minister, we need checks and balances. Where are they in the bill?

Second are the risks to privacy and civil liberties. The bill would allow for mandatory information sharing between telecoms, regulators and federal agencies, and possibly onward to foreign governments. The standard for this disclosure is simply the minister’s own judgment of what is “necessary”. This is vague, subjective and wide open to abuse. Why are there no requirements in the bill for privacy impact assessments? Why are there no guarantees that collected data would not be repurposed for unrelated purposes?

Third is the absence of compensation or worker protection. If a company is ordered to rip out equipment or shut down services, there would be no compensation. For small Internet providers, that could mean bankruptcy. For their workers, it could mean layoffs. For rural and remote communities, it could mean disruptions in already fragile service. Where is the government’s plan to support the workers, providers and communities that would bear the costs of compliance?

Fourth are the penalties. Bill C-8 envisions fines of up to $15 million a day for corporations and up to $1 million a day for individual employees. Think about that: A frontline worker following orders from management could face personal ruin under the regime. Where are the safeguards to ensure fairness, due process and appeal rights?

Fifth is the one-size-fits-all approach. The bill would lump together banks, telecoms, nuclear facilities and energy co-operatives under a single compliance framework. All of them would face the same 90-day timeline to stand up cybersecurity programs, no matter their size or capacity. For large corporations, perhaps this is feasible, but for small operators or co-ops, it could be impossible. Should compliance obligations not be tailored to the realities of different sectors?

Sixth are international consequences. Canada’s adequacy status under the European Union’s GDPR is the foundation of much of our digital economy. It is what allows European data to flow into Canadian systems, supporting banks, airlines and cloud providers, but the European Commission reviews adequacy every four years. If it sees that Canada is granting unchecked surveillance powers, or if it sees data repurposed without necessity and proportionality, we risk losing that adequacy decision. We have already seen what happened to the United States under Schrems II. Does the government truly want to put Canada in the same position?

New Democrats agree that cybersecurity is essential, but cybersecurity must not come at the expense of democracy, accountability, privacy or fairness for workers and communities.

Here are the questions we are putting on the record for the Minister of Public Safety and the government to answer. Why has the government chosen to concentrate so much power in cabinet without requiring independent judicial and parliamentary review? Why would there be no independent oversight body to ensure that orders are proportionate and justified? Why would the bill not guarantee privacy impact assessments or limit onward disclosure of Canadians’ personal data to foreign governments? Why has the government not proposed compensation or transition supports for workers and small providers who would bear the financial burden? Why would penalties be so extreme that individual employees could be personally liable for millions of dollars, even when following management orders? Why would the same compliance framework be applied to banks, nuclear facilities and small ISPs alike? Has the government conducted and published a risk assessment of how Bill C-8 could affect Canada’s adequacy standing with the European Union?

The Liberals say the bill would modernize our telecom laws and defend Canada, but democracy must not be sacrificed in the process. Strong cybersecurity should also mean strong democracy. It should protect Canadians from foreign threats without opening the door to unchecked government overreach.

New Democrats will continue to push for changes, independent oversight, stronger privacy protections, fair treatment for workers and communities, proportional penalties and sector-specific flexibility. We can protect Canadians from cyber-threats without trampling on rights, without ignoring workers and without undermining our economy. Bill C-8 is an opportunity to strike the right balance, but right now it does not seem well equipped to do that.

Canadians want more answers, transparency and oversight from overreach, as we have seen the tendency of the new Prime Minister to move headlong toward centralization without considering the consequences for public policy and its effects on everyday Canadians.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague, who did a good job explaining how Quebec is already doing a lot to ensure its security. Hydro-Québec is doing a lot in this area, because its infrastructure is massive and important to us. We want to protect it, because we care about it so much.

The federal government is proposing new standards and new ways of doing things that would create jurisdictional overlap and even force Quebec to do things differently, even though it already has the expertise and is capable of countering these threats. It is not really surprising to me that this is coming from the Liberals, given their penchant for centralizing everything in Ottawa.

Bill C-8 looks a lot like Bill C-26. Why were the reservations and concerns that the Bloc Québécois previously expressed not taken into account in Bill C‑8, given that the government already had the opportunity to hear these arguments? It also already had the opportunity to hear Quebec's concerns.

How did the Liberals respond to these concerns?

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Madam Speaker, I cannot begin my speech without noting that next Tuesday, September 30, we will be observing National Truth and Reconciliation Day. We will therefore not be sitting on that day. I would like to stand with my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois who, like me, have the privilege of living near a reserve. I work with the Akwesasne reserve, so I would like to say hello to my friend Grand Chief Abram Benedict, for whom I have great respect. He is responsible for the Ontario portion of the Akwesasne reserve, which is divided into three sections, located in the United States, Quebec and Ontario. I also want to say hello to Grand Chief Lazore, who was elected just a year ago and for whom I also have great respect.

During a meeting, Grand Chief Abram Benedict shared his main complaints with me. Since I am the Bloc's public safety critic, we discussed Akwesasne's need for legislation to regulate all police forces on its territory. Policing is currently managed provincially, and the people of Akwesasne would like to have one police force covering their entire territory.

He also told me about travel issues. Sometimes, people have to cross the American border to access the Akwesasne reserve, which poses problems for people who live on the reserve.

We had some good discussions. I believe that honest and sincere discussion is imperative to walk the path of truth and reconciliation. That was a brief word of introduction to set the stage for a very special day coming this September 30.

This legislation is fairly technical. As mentioned by my colleague, the Conservative Party critic for public safety, I do not think that anyone here would claim to be an expert in cybersecurity, considering its complexities. However, we recognize the importance of implementing a legislative framework to protect sectors and systems of critical importance to Quebec, the provinces and Canada.

What is Bill C‑8 exactly? Allow me to read a few paragraphs from the bill to give members a quick idea.

The first part is quite simple. It amends the Telecommunications Act by adding a part on cybersecurity that empowers the government “to direct telecommunications service providers to do anything, or refrain from doing anything, that is necessary to secure the Canadian telecommunications system.” Obviously, that is very important.

The bill also provides for a penalty scheme to promote compliance with orders and regulations made to secure the Canadian telecommunications system. This will allow the government to prohibit companies from using products and services from high-risk suppliers.

The second part of the bill would enact the critical cyber systems protection act to provide a framework for the protection of critical cyber-infrastructure or cyber-businesses in the federally regulated sector. Basically, the bill will authorize the government to designate any service or system as a vital service or system and to establish classes of operators for those services and systems. In the bill, the government says that this will serve as a model for provinces, territories and municipalities to secure critical infrastructure. The second part of the bill will apply more to operators in the telecommunications, energy, finance and transportation sectors, which are all critical sectors related to national security.

The legislation will make it possible to designate certain systems and services in the federally regulated sector as vital to national security or public safety.

The bill is very clear. It lists six vital services and vital systems in schedule 1. Let us look at them together. Obviously there are telecommunications services. Then we have interprovincial or international pipeline and power line systems, nuclear energy systems and federally regulated transportation systems, such as ports, trains, planes and airports. There are also banking systems, followed by clearing and settlement systems.

I would like to note, as all my colleagues have, that Bill C‑8 is practically a carbon copy of Bill C-26, with just a few exceptions.

I read the legislative summary when I was preparing this speech, and I would like to mention once again that the analysts at the Library of Parliament do extraordinary work. They help us better understand the bills, they provide us with the tools to improve bills and they raise concerns for us to clarify. I would like to thank them today because they are doing a truly extraordinary job of supporting us in our work every day, especially our legislative work.

I was saying that Bill C‑8 is almost a carbon copy of Bill C‑26. There are a few small changes. We know that Bill C‑26 died on the Order Paper. It had almost made it all the way through the legislative process in the House, but it died on the Order Paper in the Senate.

I want to point out that a lot of work was done in committee. The committee held eight meetings. My colleague at the time, Kristina Michaud, studied Bill C‑26 carefully with her assistant and the Bloc Québécois's research team and proposed some 26 amendments, most of which were considered, voted on and adopted. That just goes to show that the opposition's work, particularly in committee, also serves to improve government bills.

I am saying that because the Bloc Québécois is a party that is often praised for its diligence and professionalism. We are a party that works hard. We always look at bills from the same angle: Is the bill good for Quebec? Often, if a bill is good for Quebec, it is also good for the other provinces in Canada.

However, if it is not so good for Quebec, we are able to take advantage of the opportunity for debate to try to point out to our colleagues that there are some provisions that are not in Quebec's interest. That is really our mission here in the House of Commons, or part of it, at least. I would really like to thank Kristina Michaud, her assistant and the research team for doing such a great job throughout the study and for improving Bill C‑26 through amendments.

Of course, during this process, we submitted amendments that were not adopted. These amendments were rejected by the NDP, the Conservatives and the Liberals. The situation is different now, and we hope that we will be able to convince the government that the amendments we proposed to Bill C‑26 are relevant and should be incorporated into Bill C‑8.

That being said, I would like to reassure the government right away that the Bloc Québécois is in favour of the bill. It is true that Canada is lagging behind on the issue of cybersecurity for countering cyber-attacks and cyber-threats. However, the committee will still need to spend a few hours hearing from witnesses who have concerns, and it will also need to take into account the Bloc Québécois's amendments.

The amendments we proposed focused on government accountability. We wanted to include a reporting requirement and a requirement for greater transparency. I have to say that Bill C‑8 gives the minister a number of powers. We therefore felt it was important that the minister be required to table reports.

On the privacy issue, the amendments we proposed were adopted. However, I think that section of the bill warrants further analysis. It would be useful to hear from witnesses who specialize in the management of private information and in documentation. I think we will continue this work on privacy protection by consulting experienced witnesses in order to enrich our thinking.

Despite the work that was accomplished and the amendments we proposed, certain concerns remain, particularly regarding the businesses covered by the bill. Are the businesses willing to invest? Will they be able to quickly comply with the requirements set out in the bill? That is one of our concerns, because it seems that businesses will have a lot of work to do, and we are wondering whether better support would be needed.

It is clear to us that the government has been mindful of the lack of clarity surrounding the designation of classes of operators. In fact, research conducted by the Library of Parliament found that there is some ambiguity, a lack of legislative clarity, in the way operators are designated. We hope that the work done in committee will allow us to delve deeper into this issue and explore the possibility of clarifying the definition of “designated operator”.

We also have concerns about the unlimited power to make orders and collect information, particularly with respect to telecommunications service providers and designated operators of critical cyber systems. Legal experts have expressed reservations about the protection of personal and confidential information, including information covered by solicitor-client privilege. Protecting this type of information could be challenging, given the new search powers. More improvements are needed to ensure that Bill C-8 includes every measure necessary to protect privacy and personal information.

That brings me to the part that concerns us more, the part about Hydro-Québec. As we have said time and again in this House, the Bloc Québécois objects to federal government intrusion in Quebec's jurisdictions. As we know, Hydro-Québec owns all the transmission lines in our territory, and as far as we are concerned, this ownership is not up for discussion. It represents a pivotal gain dating back to the Quiet Revolution that enables us to produce green, affordable electricity for all Quebeckers. As we see it, the bill infringes on provincial jurisdiction over electricity.

Let me explain so that it is clearer, since we will have to discuss this in committee. The Canadian Energy Regulator Act states that provincial laws apply to parts of an international power line that are within a province. A province may therefore designate a regulatory agency to exercise its powers, rights, and privileges over those parts. For a line to fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government and the Canada Energy Regulator, the interprovincial line must be designated by order. In Quebec, no lines are under federal jurisdiction or subject to the Canadian Energy Regulator Act.

This poses a significant problem for us. This was already the case with Bill C-26 and it is still the case with Bill C-8. Bill C‑8 technically affects interprovincial lines. The Canadian Energy Regulator Act and Bill C‑8 are contradictory on the issue of jurisdiction. However, the Canadian Energy Regulator is designated as the regulator of vital systems in Bill C-8. In our opinion, this is a combination of inconsistency and interference.

Under the guise of cybersecurity, Bill C‑8 expands the jurisdiction of the Canadian Energy Regulator to cover the entirety of an international line, even the intraprovincial parts. In our view, the law should acknowledge the jurisdictions of the provincial regulatory agencies, like Hydro-Québec. We see Bill C‑8 as a blatant encroachment, and it certainly does not address the matter of overlapping jurisdictions or even duplication of responsibility.

At a time when the government is imposing budget cuts on Quebec and on Canada, we find it hard to understand why, through Bill C‑8, the federal government is imposing standards on Hydro-Québec and claiming supremacy, given that Hydro-Québec has its own cybersecurity protection systems.

The provinces even have the authority to impose penalties if reliability standards are violated. In our view, Bill C‑8 interferes in an area already covered by the critical infrastructure protection, or CIP, standards of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation. These standards apply to the critical infrastructure that the bill seeks to implement. As a result, an operator could be penalized twice for the same violation. Which would take precedence? These are some of the things we are wondering about. We think that the jurisdiction of Quebec and Hydro‑Québec should be respected.

The bill enabled the federal government to fine Hydro-Québec if Hydro-Québec did not comply with the federal standards. That is rather absurd because Quebec has been managing a hydroelectric system for a long time and Hydro-Québec, which experiences cyber-attacks nearly every day, has a rather robust system.

There could even be penalties of up to $15 million if the business is found to be non-compliant, which is considered to be a separate violation, when Hydro-Québec is already adhering to standards. That is my point.

Hydro-Québec already follows North American standards. Since we supply electricity to the United States, we must meet North American standards. It seems like Bill C‑8 ignores what is currently happening with Hydro-Québec's actual responsibilities and tries to encroach on its jurisdiction. I am not sure whether the Government of Quebec was consulted. I am not sure whether Hydro-Québec was consulted either.

Yes, the government needs to collaborate nationally with the provinces and territories on a bill, but it needs to reassure Hydro-Québec and Quebec that certain provisions of Bill C‑8 will be reviewed in order to respect the jurisdiction of Hydro-Québec and the provinces.

On that note, I invite my colleagues to ask me a few questions if they want to better understand our view, which is that Bill C‑8 is an important bill but needs to be amended to ensure that the federal government is not interfering in Quebec's affairs and jurisdictions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, my question is on Bill C-8, which we know is kind of a replacement, with some modifications, of Bill C-26. The member himself introduced a private member's bill just last week, talking about how it was reformative and about the many changes that would result as a direct response. That is programmed, so we know that after two hours of debate, it is going to committee.

This particular bill has already gone to committee, passed third reading, gone to the Senate and come back in a somewhat different form. I wonder whether the member would agree that there has been a lot of debate. He said he wants the bill ultimately to go to committee. Can he give us some sense of how long he believes the bill should stay in the House before it goes to committee?

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, and it is an even greater pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola as a critic for a bill. I have been fortunate to be a member sitting in this House, which is itself one of the greatest honours that a Canadian could ever have. Let us bear in mind that there are 38 million or 40 million Canadians, and only 343 of us get to sit in this chamber and to walk on this green carpet.

That in itself is an honour, but I am just so grateful to be a critic as well. It is a job I absolutely love, and I thank my leader and my party for that and for the support I receive, whether it be on this bill, Bill C-2, or on the private member's bill I just put forward on intimate partner violence last week. I am grateful for those around me and for this opportunity.

Before I begin, I want to recognize a life very well lived. It is my great sadness to say that a pillar of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, Chris Rose, recently passed away. Those in the community will know that Chris Rose was an exceptional humanitarian. In fact, the Chris Rose Therapy Centre for Autism is a centre on the north shore, about six blocks from where I grew up, that helps children with autism. It is a school that they can attend, with resources that it provides. Those who know me and my family well will know that autism is a cause that is close to my heart.

Chris passed away just this week, and I express my deepest condolences to Mr. Rose's family. I wish them all the best in this difficult time. May perpetual light shine upon Chris Rose.

At this point, I also want to highlight the life of Dana Evans. I was saddened to read this obituary. Ms. Evans was the mother of a friend of mine from high school, Derek Luce. I can recall staying over at Derek's house when we were about 15 or 16; Ms. Evans would make us pancakes in the morning and then send us on our way. I never forgot that hospitality. I know that her son Derek, whom I run into sometimes in the Kamloops area, has gone on to do wonderful things. He is certainly a reflection of her stewardship and the maternal influence that she had on his life. My deepest condolences go to her siblings, who are left to mourn her memory and their loss, and also to her sons, Derek and Louie.

I noticed that she went to Thorp high school, which is in a tiny community. I always used to make fun of Thorp and how small it was, because I had some friends who grew up in Thorp, and Derek's mom also went to high school there. I wish great condolences to the family, and may perpetual light shine upon her.

The minister, in his opening comments, talked about Orange Shirt Day and September 30, and that is something very important. For those who watch the news, Kamloops is a very important centre when it comes to the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation. In fact, I moved a unanimous consent motion a number of years ago that spoke about bringing the flag to half-staff on every September 30, so I appreciate the minister's highlighting that.

Last, before I really launch in, I would be remiss if I did not recognize that yesterday was my mom's birthday. I was not in the House at all yesterday, so I wish my mom a happy day-late belated birthday. Happy birthday, mom.

Let us get into the crux of this. My hon. colleague from the Bloc raised a critical point. I have actually got the Library of Parliament report right here. My Bloc colleague mentioned the exceptional work, and this is great work when we are dealing with a highly technical bill. I do not know how many people in this chamber out of the 343 of us can say, “I am an expert on cybersecurity.” We have a very technical bill. The work that was done and that was distilled into this report is incredibly helpful.

By way of background, Bill C-8 came before Parliament as a renewal of Bill C-26. It is virtually identical to Bill C-26, which made it to third reading but did not make it to royal assent. We are grateful to the Senate, because it found a glaring hole in the bill, which was ameliorated by the Senate's work. However, the bill died on the Order Paper. For history, Conservatives voted for the bill at second reading, and I anticipate we will do so again.

My position as critic is that, yes, the bill passed third reading, on division, here in the House, and then went to the Senate and passed there on third reading over the votes of the Conservative senators. However, at the end of the day, as my Bloc colleague pointed out, as the commentary in the Library of Parliament report stated and academic discourse has stated, we should not be content to just accept the bill, to take a bill that previously passed and not make it better.

The concerns remain alive. Obviously, the public safety minister has been quite embattled of late. However, as much as we can be told by the government that this is the be-all and end-all, that we should pass the bill quickly and that there are no concerns, we are part of His Majesty's loyal opposition; we should be scrutinizing the bill, especially a highly technical bill, with a fresh set of eyes. I have no problem saying that the bill, with the Conservative vote, will likely go to committee, but at committee we will be scrutinizing it closely, particularly as it relates to privacy concerns.

My colleague, the member for Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, just asked the hon. minister about privacy concerns and about the Privacy Commissioner. When I reviewed the proceedings, I found that the previous bill was at committee for about eight meetings, which is a fairly long time. This tells me that there was a fair amount of contention around many of the bill's provisions.

I really look forward to scrutinizing the bill. It addresses an area in which Canada lags behind. After 10 years of Liberal government, I can say that we lag behind our Five Eyes intelligence partners greatly. It feels as though there is an undertone when we hear from international media that Canada is no longer trusted, that Canadian intelligence is no longer well regarded. I remember Justin Trudeau saying, “Canada is back”. No, we are not, if we are not trusted by our allies or respected by our allies. The government had 10 years to bring this forward; we are now seeing it done, and we will scrutinize it.

As has been stated, the bill has two parts. The first part would amend the Telecommunications Act and aim to strengthen the resilience of Canada's critical infrastructure. There is no doubt that our critical infrastructure is vulnerable. Any expert, I am sure, would come to committee or to the House and tell us that. There is absolutely no doubt about it. The need for the bill is not disputed. I would never say, “Wow, why are we bringing the bill forward?” I would say that on a number of other bills, and the Online Streaming Act would be one of them, thinking, “Why is the government doing this other than to further an agenda that a number of Canadians disagree with?”

As I stated earlier, Bill C-8 is largely a reinvention of Bill C-26. The first part of the bill would amend the Telecommunications Act and bring about changes to ensure that we can counter cyber-threats, and the second part would enact the critical cyber systems protection act, imposing new cybersecurity measures on federally regulated entities operating in sectors that are considered vital to public and national safety.

I will not get into the response to a number of government reports, but when we look at the Telecommunications Act, one thing that was a really big issue, which I think the government took far too long on, was the issue of Huawei.

For context, I was elected in September 2021. When I first got here, there was this issue of Huawei. Unfortunately, the government dithered when we needed decisive action on whether to ban 5G. It took until May 2022, when the decision was finally made to ban Huawei and its 5G networks for national security reasons. Our Five Eyes allies, which are the United States, the U.K., Australia and Japan, had already acted on this. One has to wonder why we took so long. Australia, as well, acted on cybersecurity.

What does Bill C-8 really do? What are some of the issues?

The bill does not include some of the proposed amendments to the Canada Evidence Act. Bill C-8 makes the judicial review process more transparent by removing the government's ability to make confidential submissions to the court and refuse to disclose information.

For those people who are watching Bill C-2, it is a parallel piece of legislation. It is also a piece of legislation that has been sponsored and put forward by the public safety minister. I understand the notion of confidentiality. I worked as a lawyer for many years, and I know that confidentiality has to happen, but far too often what I see in the House is something that is a laudable cause, a cause that we should be embracing, going further.

Sometimes secret things have to remain secret. The problem is that, far too often in the House, what I see is the Liberal government going further. Yes, we have to keep some things secret, but it is just keeping everything secret. Yes, we have to do this in this regard, but we are going to go one step further. That puts the opposition in a really awful place; we might agree with the goal of the legislation, but we do not agree with the mechanism by which we get to the goal. That is when we have protracted debate and then sometimes go to committee for a committee meeting.

This results in vigorous debate, which is actually wonderful. We should have vigorous debate in this place, but at the end of the day, the government will often hear from stakeholders, as they did with Bill C-26 formerly, and then it is walked back. There were so many amendments. I believe all but one or two of the Conservative amendments that were put forward for Bill C-26 were adopted. I do not understand that.

I can see the same thing in Bill C-2 as I see here in Bill C-8, for example, with respect to the mail provisions in Bill C-2. The government can open a person's mail. Why is that? The whole purpose of Bill C-2 is to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act, as I believe it is called. This is because the government is worried about fentanyl being sent through the mail, which is a notable concern, a laudable concern. Anything under 500 grams cannot be opened, so let us make sure that letters under 500 grams can be opened so that 499 grams of fentanyl and fentanyl precursors cannot get through. That is the goal. Great. Now how do we go about achieving that goal? In Bill C-2, we go about achieving that goal by saying that if Canada Post, not a peace officer, has reasonable suspicion, then it can open a person's mail without a warrant.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, certainly Bill C-8 has a number of improvements based on the debates we had in this place before Bill C-26 died on the Order Paper and, as my hon. friend from Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong just mentioned, on work done in the Senate as well. However, these persist.

As the minister knows, under part 2, proposed section 35, there remain very serious privacy concerns that this would open a back door to surveillance on Canadians, as would Bill C-2, which is not being debated today. There is a pattern here of reducing the threshold for Canadians' private information to be not just obtained by our government but also shared with other governments and actors.

Is the minister open to amendments to repair these flaws?

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Madam Speaker, the minister is correct. It is true that Bill C‑26 from the last Parliament and the current Bill C‑8 are almost identical. However, he is forgetting that the opposition parties proposed amendments in committee. Those amendments were rejected, but they will come up again because the Bloc Québécois feels that some of them are important.

The question I would like to ask the minister reflects the concerns shared by small and medium-sized businesses. There are no provisions to help them enhance their security measures to protect their systems.

Even though the standards are welcome and urgently needed, given the current difficult economic climate, are there not things that could be done to support SMEs in becoming cybersecure?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, as this bill goes through the parliamentary process, whether here, at committee or in the other place, we will of course welcome the opportunity to discuss additional measures we need to take.

Bill C-8 was introduced in the form that was completed when Bill C-26 went through all the processes. This is just a continuation of that process. I believe that we have incorporated all the proposals from the previous version of this bill, but we look forward to having a robust discussion at committee.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Madam Speaker, when this bill came forward in the last Parliament as Bill C-26, it went to the Senate. Senator Denise Batters was the critic for the file, and the Privacy Commissioner said that there was an amendment needed to address privacy. The senator has reviewed Bill C-8 and said that the amendment was not incorporated.

Why did the minister not take the advice of the Privacy Commissioner?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, the predecessor bill to Bill C-8 was Bill C-26. A lot of work went into ensuring that it is the best bill we can bring forward. A number of changes were made. As members will recall, Bill C-26 was almost completed in the previous session.

Having said that, we are always open to ensuring the bill is strengthened. The privacy rights of Canadians are essential to the government. We are governed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We will ensure that we work closely and in collaboration with opposition parties to strengthen and pass this bill.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague.

Canada's critical infrastructure providers and enterprises are increasingly targeted. It is not just our government that is aware of these threats. The Canadian public is increasingly seeing these threats in headlines. They see that malicious cyber-actors are breaching our country's IT systems, accessing sensitive information and putting lives in danger. They see that cybercriminals are holding our businesses for ransom, and they see that hostile state actors are stealing information and gaining access to systems that are critical to our national security and public safety.

Unfortunately, these threats are spreading around the world.

The cyber centre's most recent national cyber-threat assessment found:

Canada is confronting an expanding and complex cyber threat landscape with a growing cast of malicious and unpredictable state and non-state cyber threat actors, from cybercriminals to hacktivists, that are targeting our critical infrastructure and endangering our national security.

It has also warned that Canada's oil and gas sector is a likely target for disruptions. At one point last year, the CSE said a cyber-actor “had the potential to cause physical damage” to a piece of critical infrastructure in Canada.

The threat is real.

In July 2025, Colabor Group, a Quebec-based food wholesaler, was affected by a cybersecurity incident that impacted its internal IT systems. Before this, Pembroke Regional Hospital, in Ontario, experienced service delays and had to cancel certain appointments and procedures because of a cybersecurity incident.

Earlier this year, a cyber-incident impacted WestJet, resulting in the theft of personal and travel-related data, though no credit or debit card information was compromised. As we will recall, last week, some airports in Europe were also disrupted because of cyber-threats.

In March 2024, the City of Hamilton in Ontario was hit with a ransomware attack that shut down many of its online services.

While Hamilton's critical services were not affected, cyber-incidents in municipal networks can lead to dangerous situations if an attack tampers with emergency water and waste-water systems. The high-value data held by these enterprises and governments, including sensitive personal information and financial data, makes them an attractive target for cybercriminals and state-sponsored actors or their proxies.

These incidents highlight the ongoing cybersecurity challenges faced by Canadian organizations across various sectors and jurisdictions. We need to act urgently to enhance our preparedness and improve the resilience of our critical infrastructure so that we can tackle these threats head-on before damage is done.

Bill C-8 is essential to achieving this.

Bill C-8 would help promote increased cybersecurity across four major sectors: finance, telecommunications, energy and transportation. Part 1 would amend the Telecommunications Act to enshrine security as a policy objective and bring the security framework regulating the sector in line with those of other critical infrastructure. The amendments to the Telecommunications Act would enable the Governor in Council and the Minister of Industry to direct telecommunications service providers to take specific actions to secure the Canadian telecommunications system.

This change would enable the government to act quickly in an industry where milliseconds make all the difference between security and risk.

When necessary, this means that Canadian telcos could be prohibited from using products or services from high-risk suppliers, which would prevent these risks from being passed on to users.

With these changes, the Governor in Council and the Minister of Industry would have the ability to take security-related measures, just as other federal regulators can do in their respective critical infrastructure sectors. These authorities do not just focus on cybersecurity but can equally address situations of human error or climate-based disruptions that can cause a risk of outages to these critical services.

Second, Bill C-8 would introduce the new critical cyber systems protection act, which would legally compel designated operators to protect their critical cyber systems. Currently, the list of vital services and systems is composed of the Canadian telecommunications services, banking systems and other federally regulated industries, such as energy and transportation. However, the Governor in Council may also add new vital services and systems if needed.

This part of the bill would provide the tools the government needs to take further action to address a range of vulnerabilities. To do so, designated operators of vital services and systems would be obligated to develop and implement cybersecurity programs, mitigate supply chain and third party risk, and comply with cybersecurity directions.

It would also increase the sharing of information on cyber-threats by requiring the reporting of cybersecurity incidents above a certain threshold. Currently, there are no such legal requirements for industry to share information on cyber-incidents and no legal mechanism for the government to compel action in the face of known threats or vulnerabilities.

That means that the government may not be aware of the threats and may not be able to respond to them.

When it comes to national security, we cannot rely on the goodwill of industry alone. We must enshrine a more robust cybersecurity framework into law.

We heard from witnesses during committee study of Bill C-26, which was introduced in the last session of Parliament and adopted in the House in June 2024, that mandatory reporting on cybersecurity incidents is essential to protecting our country's national security and critical infrastructure. Mandatory reporting provides the government with increased visibility into the cyber-threat landscape and allows for more accurate and targeted sharing of technical advice and guidance to combat the exploitation of vulnerabilities.

This section of Bill C-8 also aims to serve as a model for our provincial, territorial and municipal partners to protect critical cyber-infrastructure in sectors under their respective jurisdictions. It would support all sectors in the prevention of and recovery from a wide range of malicious cyber-activities, including cyber-incidents, cyber-espionage and ransomware.

Since the introduction of Bill C-26, our government has undertaken widespread consultations with a broad range of stakeholders. Among those consulted were provinces, territories and municipalities; critical infrastructure owners and operators; civil liberty organizations; and academia.

We listened carefully to the concerns raised during debates on Bill C-26, as well as those raised at committee discussions of the bill in both the House and the Senate. Among the concerns was a need for more oversight and transparency, as well as the need to ensure that privacy is protected.

Bill C-8 would further protect Canadians' fundamental rights under the Privacy Act.

While Canadians' privacy is already protected through a number of constitutional and legislative instruments, this legislation would provide greater certainty to Canadians that their privacy and personal information will be protected. It is also now clear that confidential information must continue to be treated as such when it is necessary for it to be shared, and its recipients must similarly be respectful of that confidentiality.

The bill provides assurances to Canadians that directions issued under both part 1 and part 2 of the legislation would not be used to engage in surveillance or to intercept private communications. This responds directly to the concerns we heard from civil liberty groups.

The act also includes provisions to increase the government's transparency and accountability while still balancing the need for confidentiality, quick action and the public's desire for transparency. The bill includes an obligation for the government to notify the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians and the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency within 90 days after an order or direction is made. Furthermore, annual reports to Parliament would need to include information such as the number of orders or directions that were issued and the number of impacted operators.

Civil liberties groups and industry experts also expressed concerns about the new broader powers granted to the government under former Bill C-26.

For example, stakeholders said there was a potential for orders or directions to be issued without the government consulting or considering relevant factors, such as whether reasonable alternatives exist to issuing the order or direction. As a result of these concerns, the bill includes a reasonableness standard and a non-exhaustive list of factors the Governor in Council must first consider before issuing an order or direction. When issuing, amending or revoking an order or direction, the Governor in Council would be able to consult governments and industry, recognizing the need to do so in an expedient manner given the urgency of the situation.

While the Governor in Council already has checks and balances on their powers, criteria qualifying the government's order-making and direction-making powers are expected to prevent their misuse and improve accountability. In fact, the addition of the reasonableness standard and relevant factors for consideration before issuing an order or direction, such as operational, financial and public safety impacts, would provide the Governor in Council with further clarity and fairness around the use of these new powers.

Bill C-8 would provide transparency and accountability to Canadians. It would also provide further reassurances to Canadians that their privacy and personal information will be protected.

I hope my fellow parliamentarians will agree that Bill C-8 would provide a strong foundation for securing Canada's critical infrastructure against the dynamic and sophisticated threats that are becoming increasingly common and dangerous.

In today's world, there is no shortage of bad actors who seek to exploit vulnerabilities in our cyber systems across all of our country and society. Whether it has to do with our financial systems, telecommunications, energy sector or other critical infrastructure, we now live in a world where cyber-threats are commonplace.

By using critical infrastructure, individuals, the government, businesses and owners are all experiencing this new reality every day.

Successful cyber-incidents have severe, lasting and alarming consequences for every entity impacted but most of all for the economic and mental well-being of individuals whose lives are disrupted and whose data is compromised. Nowadays, our cyber systems are understandably complex and increasingly interdependent with other critical infrastructure. This means the consequences of security breaches are far-reaching. This malicious threat activity has the potential to seriously compromise Canada's national security and public safety, and our economy.

Bill C-8 would bring us a much-needed, consistent, cross-sectoral approach to cybersecurity. It would allow our government and industry to do more to prepare for and prevent debilitating cyber-incidents when and if they occur. This is a crucial piece of legislation to make sure our defences meet the moment, in order to protect our national security and our economy. It would demonstrate that we are a capable and sovereign ally and position our country as a global leader in cybersecurity, ensuring that Canada remains secure, competitive and connected.

Our government knows that, more than ever, secure and reliable connectivity is a necessity for our daily lives and our collective safety and security. As lawmakers, we have the power, through the passage of Bill C-8, to ensure that Canadians and businesses continue to thrive in the digital economy and that their banks and telecommunications providers continue to provide them with reliable service.

Cybersecurity is national security. This legislation would protect Canadians, businesses and the cyber systems they depend on well into the future so they can continue to work and live their lives comfortably and securely, safe in the knowledge that their government is doing all it can to ensure we have reliable and secure services and systems.

Our government's top priority will always be to keep Canadians safe.

That is exactly what Bill C-8 would help us do.

Industry and Technology

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the member raises a very important issue about the Internet, and threats on the Internet, in a number of ways. He spent a great deal of his time focused on Bill C-27, and understandably so since that is what the motion is about. The government has taken a very holistic approach in dealing with all aspects of the Internet in the form of legislation and regulations.

Quite often in legislation, we see a framework that is absolutely essential to support healthy and strong regulations that, ultimately, protect the interests of Canadians. It has been somewhat frustrating, as the member was frustrated when talking about what is taking place in committees; on the floor of the House of Commons, it has also been frustrating. The member referred to Bill C-27 being held up in committee, but he tried to put the blame on the government.

One of the biggest differences between the government today and the government while Stephen Harper was prime minister is that we are very open to ideas, constructive criticism, and looking at ways we can improve legislation. That means we have been open to amendments and changes. There have been a number of recommendations, but there was also an extensive filibuster on Bill C-27. It was not just government members but opposition members, much like we see filibusters taking place now on other aspects of the safety of Canadians.

For seven or eight weeks now, there has been a Conservative filibuster on the floor of the House of Commons, and there are other pieces of legislation dealing with the Internet that the Conservatives continue to filibuster. I am referring to Bill C-63, which deals with things such as intimate images being spread on the Internet without consent and child exploitation. We are talking about serious issues facing Canadians, including Bill C-63, that we cannot even get to committee because the Conservative Party has made the decision to filibuster on the floor of the House of Commons.

When the member opposite talks about Bill C-27, I can assure the member that the government is very keen on the legislation. We do not see how Canadians would benefit by splitting the legislation because both aspects are really important to Canadians. We should look at where it can be improved and we are open to that. We have clearly demonstrated that, but we need a higher sense of co-operation, whether dealing with Bill C-63 in the chamber or Bill C-27 at committee. Bill C-26 deals with cybersecurity. As I said, the government is very aware of what is happening on the Internet and our responsibility as legislators to advance legislation that helps establish a framework that will protect the interests of Canadians.

Earlier, I referred to a trip I took to the Philippines in the last five days. One of the companies we visited was a Canadian company, Open Text, that employs 1,500-plus people. We sat in a room that had this huge monitor of the world, and Open Text talked about how threats to infrastructure and to individuals occur every second. We are talking about a trillion type of number when it comes to computer threats occurring on a monthly basis. Open Text can tell where they are coming from and where they are going. It was a very interesting presentation.

No government has invested more in issues around AI than this government has, recognizing the potential good but also the extreme harm out there. We can think about different types of data banks. There are government data banks, such as Canada Revenue at the national level and health care records at the provincial level. There are the Tim Hortons, the private companies, and the data they acquire in their applications. The amount of information about Canadian individuals on the Internet is incredible. Technology has changed the lives of each and every one of us, whether we know it or not.

We can take a look at the number of cameras on our public streets, in malls and so on. We can think of the number of interactions we have on a daily or weekly basis, whether that is banking, which contains very sensitive information, or medical reports—

Message from the Senate

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bill with an amendment to which the concurrence of the House is desired: C-26, an act respecting cyber security, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts.

Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question and especially that it is coming from a Conservative member.

He is asking us what thoughts we have in regard to legislation. I made reference in my comments to Bill C-63, the online harms act. I made reference to Bill C-26, which deals with cybersecurity. I made reference to Bill C-27, which deals with updating a framework so that we have regulations that address many aspects of the report.

The biggest barrier is not a lack of ideas or legislation. The biggest barrier is, in fact, the Conservative Party of Canada, which continues to prevent legislation from ultimately becoming law. On the one hand, the Conservatives talk about the importance of privacy for Canadians and the importance of cyber-related issues, but when it comes time to advance legislation, they are found wanting. If my colleague believes that we should have legislation, I would encourage him to allow legislation to get through.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak on an issue that I know is very important to all Canadians. I wanted to make note of a couple of things before I really get under way. When we think of the Internet, I think that we need to put it into the perspective of how things have changed over time in a very significant way. I would suggest that applies more to the industry of technological changes related to the Internet and computers: it is virtually second to none, and it is something we all need to be much aware of. It is an issue our constituents are very concerned with. I think, at the end of the day, we need to recognize just how much things have changed and the importance of governments to show that not only do they understand the issue, but they also have taken tangible actions in order to address the many different concerns out there.

I will start off by saying there are a number of pieces of legislation that are all related to that technological change. If we canvass Canadians, we will find that there is a wide spectrum of ways they use the internet. There are many benefits to it, and there are many drawbacks.

The legislative agenda that we have put forward and advanced over the last number of years deals with both sides: How important it is to have a framework that enables us to protect, for example, the marketplace; and how important it is that we have laws that protect the victims of the abuse that takes place over the Internet.

I would like to cite three pieces of legislation and where they are at today. It is not necessarily because of the government's will to constantly push opposition members in trying to get through the legislation, but I believe that these are the types of legislation that a vast majority of Canadians would ultimately support. I can make reference to the issue of protection, for example. I think there have been four concurrence reports from the Conservative Party, this is either the second or third from the Bloc and I know the New Democrats have done a concurrence report. This is all during government business. Then we have had the issue of the matters of privilege. No Conservative is standing up saying, “Why are we doing these concurrence reports when we should be dealing with the privilege?” This is because the privilege is actually being used as a tool to prevent the discussion of legislation.

Why is that important to highlight right now? It is because one of the pieces of legislation we have been trying to push out of second reading is Bill C-63, the online harms act. That is a piece of legislation that ultimately protects individuals and our communities from inappropriate behaviour taking place on the Internet and creating victims. These are the types of things to which I question, what role does government have? This particular report raises a number of concerns on the impacts of AI and facial recognition. Imagine all the images on the Internet today that Canadians do not want on the Internet.

I am thinking of a breakup where one spouse is, without the consent of the ex, putting inappropriate pictures on the Internet. Bill C-63 is legislation that addresses an issue of that nature, yet it continues to be frustrated in terms of getting through the House of Commons on second reading. However, I know that a majority of members of Parliament who are sitting in the House of Commons actually support Bill C-63.

We have Bill C-26, which deals with the important issue of cybersecurity. When we think of cybersecurity, we can imagine the data banks out there collecting information and how critical that information is. We are defending and supporting Canadians, where we can, through issues related to privacy and the potential leak of data bank information.

There was a time when a data bank was paper-driven, and the shredders might have had good business at the time. I remember going into an embassy where I saw containers full of correspondence. Containers are disappearing as more and more things are becoming digital, and that applies in many different forms. In literally seconds, millions of data points can actually be lost and ultimately acquired by someone who might have malicious intent. However, we are still waiting for Bill C-26 to ultimately get that royal assent, not to mention Bill C-27.

Bill C-27 has a great deal to do with what we are talking about today. I think members need to fully understand, when we look at how important this issue is, that the last time we actually had a modernization of the acts that are in question, and I am referring to Bill C-27, was back in 2000, over 20 years ago, when iPhones did not exist. Can members imagine a time where iPhones did not exist? I can, and it really was not all that long ago.

When I was first elected, when I turned on the computer, the first thing I heard was a dial tone, a ding-dong, and then I was logged onto the Internet type of thing, and it took quite a while to get that connection. People used five-and-a-half-inch floppy disks. However, from 1995 to 2001, we really started to see an explosion of Internet advancement and technology, and it continues today.

Let us think about where the government has put its investments. It is not only toward protecting Canadians, but toward ensuring that communities have access to the Internet because of how critical it is to all of us.

We can look at one of the largest expenditures in my own province of Manitoba, which expanded broadband Internet into rural communities. It is being financed through the Canada Infrastructure Bank. Ironically, it is the same Canada Infrastructure Bank that the Conservatives say is doing nothing and has no projects. The leader of the Conservative Party has said he is going to get rid of the Infrastructure Bank. However, in Manitoba, we have seen the Internet expand through the Canada Infrastructure Bank.

The Internet is an absolutely essential service today. Back in the late eighties and going into the nineties, some might have said it was an option. Today, it is not an option. The year 2000 was the last time the act was updated. For almost a decade, Stephen Harper chose to do absolutely nothing to protect individuals' identifications from being consumed through the Internet.

This government, for a number of years, has been looking at how we can modernize the protection of Canadians through the Internet and how we can maximize the benefits of the Internet, while minimizing harms to society. Those are the types of initiatives the Government of Canada has been taking to show, in a very real and tangible way, whether with legislative or budgetary measures, that it understands the technology. We are going to continue not only to be there but also to invest in it. It is one of the reasons that Canada virtually leads the rest of the world in many areas, especially on AI and facial recognition. It is because we understand, looking forward, the role that they are going to play.

That is why it is so important to bring forward legislation and, ultimately, look across the way. In a minority situation, we need a sense of co-operation coming from all opposition parties. It does not take a majority of members to prevent things from happening in the House. All it takes is one political party. Any political entity in the House that has 13 or 14 members can cause a great deal of frustration, even though a majority inside the House might want to see actions taken. In the last federal election, a minority government was elected, but that does not take responsibility away from all political parties to take the actions necessary to support what is in the best interests of Canadians.

That is why I am standing up to speak to the report, which had a lot of work. I was not at the committee, but I can assure everyone that a great deal of effort would have been put into coming up with the report.

Having read some of the comments provided by the minister's office in response to the report, obviously the government has taken the report very seriously. If members want to get an appreciation for the content of the report, I would encourage them to take a look at it. They should also look at the response the government has provided to the report. I suspect that if they were to take a look at the response, they would find that once again, much as in the many comments I have put on the record thus far, we have a government that understands the issue and the report and has taken action, not only today but previously, to deal with the concerns being raised.

All we need to do is take a look at Bill C-27. In his response, even the minister made reference to Bill C-27. If members are genuinely concerned about the report, they should be sympathetic to at least allowing Bill C-27 to get out of committee. Why would that not happen? I can assure members, contrary to what the member across the way said, that as a government, we are constantly listening to Canadians. That is why we will find within our measures, whether they are legislative or budget measures, the thoughts and ideas of the people of Canada being reflected.

The Speaker's constituents, my constituents and all of our constituents are genuinely concerned about what is happening on the Internet today. To amplify that fact and the need for change, I quickly made reference to the year 2000, when we last had legislation. We had a big gap when absolutely nothing was done. I call that the Stephen Harper era. Then we had a government replace that era and it immediately started to work with Canadians to get a better understanding of the types of legislation and regulations that are necessary.

The best example that I can come up with, because of the explosion of iPhones out there today, is the issue of Facebook and how many people participate in Facebook. How many people own an iPad or iPhone or are on Facebook, Instagram or the many other social media, which did not exist in 2000? None of them existed. If that is the case, as I stated, I think a good question to pose is why there is resistance to supporting what Canadians want to see. Why would anyone oppose the framework legislation that we are bringing forward that would protect the interests of Canadians?

As I said, it is not like the Internet is an option nowadays. Today, it is an essential service. People will go to the Internet for a wide spectrum of reasons, whether it is streaming a favourite show from the past or something more recent, or looking at issues related to health conditions. I am always amazed at how the general knowledge of the population continues to grow on health-related issues.

That area has great potential, and it will incorporate AI and facial recognition. Non-profit and private organizations and even governments will use the Internet as a tool to deliver health care services and provide health care advice. Many people are taking that up and looking into it. That is one of the reasons that people will be living longer lives in the future. It is endless. That is—

(Bill C-26: On the Order: Government Orders)

April 19, 2024—Consideration at report stage of Bill C-26, An Act respecting cyber security, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security with amendments—Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs.

(Bill concurred in at report stage, read the third time and passed)

(Bill C-40: On the Order: Government Orders)

June 17, 2024—Third reading of Bill C-40, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, to make consequential amendments to other Acts and to repeal a regulation (miscarriage of justice reviews)—Minister of Justice.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

(Bill S-6: On the Order: Government Orders)

May 3, 2023—Resuming consideration of the motion of Ms. Fortier (President of the Treasury Board), seconded by Ms. Khera (Minister of Seniors),—That Bill S-6, An Act respecting regulatory modernization, be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

(Bill S‑9: On the Order: Government Orders:)

December 15, 2023 — Resuming consideration of the motion of Ms. Joly (Minister of Foreign Affairs), seconded by Mr. Beech (Minister of Citizens' Services), — That Bill S‑9, An Act to amend the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

(Bill read the second time, considered in committee of the whole, reported, concurred in, read the third time and passed)

(Bill S-16. On the Order: Government Orders)

June 6 2024—Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs of Bill S-16, An Act respecting the recognition of the Haida Nation and the Council of the Haida Nation—Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

Business of the House

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, for a moment there, I thought that, for once, we were going to get away without a preamble, but we had a lot of amble there, a lot of post-amble.

I can assure my hon. friend that the law that is coming this fall would protect every single Canadian who draws their income from a paycheque, and 0.13% of Canadians would pay a modest amount of additional tax on capital gains over a quarter of a million dollars garnered in a single year.

Tax fairness not only will be written into the law, but also will continue to be the thing we talk about in the House.

Tomorrow, we will complete the report stage study of Bill C-40, the miscarriage of justice review commission act, which is also known as David and Joyce Milgaard's law.

I would like to request that the ordinary hour of daily adjournment of the next sitting be 12 midnight, pursuant to order made Wednesday, February 28.

Our priorities next week will be to complete report stage and third reading of Bill C-69, the budget implementation act, and second reading of Bill C-65, the electoral participation act. We will also give priority to other important bills, namely third reading of the aforementioned Bill C-40 and report stage and third reading of Bill C-26, the critical cyber systems protection act.

Opposition Motion—Auto Theft

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, one of my Conservative colleagues was honest enough to tell me how he felt about this. These are tactics.

The Bloc Québécois is an opposition party. As everyone knows, the Bloc Québécois will never come to power in Ottawa. We are here to represent the interests of Quebeckers. Even though the current government is not our favourite and we do not always agree with it, we try to study and improve each bill as much as possible and make gains for Quebeckers.

My Conservative colleague told me that his party, as the official opposition, would oppose any bill introduced by the Liberal government to stop it from passing.

The Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security is studying Bill C‑26 on cybersecurity, which is extremely important, and the Conservative Party is doing everything it can to delay it. The Conservatives always have an issue or a concern that is more urgent, or a motion to move. They are always filibustering, which is unfortunate. People elected us to do important work here in Ottawa, and we are being prevented from doing it because of these tactics. I want people who may be watching at home to realize this, but it is extremely difficult to get the message across.

In any case, we in the Bloc Québécois continue to do our job, and we are very proud of that.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to have the opportunity to elaborate on this subject. As I was saying earlier, the Conservatives are finally paying attention. They now realize that this is an important topic and that it might be a good idea to add it to their arsenal of election slogans.

As my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands was saying a little earlier, it is true that investigative journalism brought this problem to our attention a few months ago. There are also organizations that come to Ottawa to tell us about certain issues and raise awareness about them.

Last April, I met with people from the Corporation des concessionnaires automobiles du Québec and the Canadian Automobile Dealers Association and they talked to me about this. It is wrong to say that they do not care about this phenomenon because they make money and they will be able to sell a car if a customer has theirs stolen, since they are reimbursed by the insurance company. It is not true that they do not care, because they are here in Ottawa to talk to us about it. They want the government to do something about this problem.

I first became interested in the subject a few months ago. I met with global car manufacturers, who also spoke to me about it. In October, following the feature story aired in J.E, a television program on TVA, and after the numerous news reports of the Journal de Montréal’s investigations bureau, I announced that I was going to move a motion at the public safety and national security committee. I talked to my colleagues about it, because we often see members of certain parties come totally out of left field with a motion on any given subject, thinking everyone is going to accept it as is. It is important to discuss these things with colleagues first and to make them aware of the issue. That is how I came to talk to my Conservative colleagues about the auto theft problem. They seemed to be very interested. When I moved the motion, all parties voted in favour of it. Everyone had a story to tell, everyone had a friend or colleague who had their vehicle stolen. A Conservative colleague even told me that he personally had his car stolen. There was definitely a consensus that this was something we should look into as soon as possible.

At the public safety and national security committee, we were looking at Bill C-20. That was significantly delayed by the Conservative Party for reasons we may or may not be aware of. The same thing is happening now with Bill C-26. The process has been delayed, and our committee agenda has us looking at the bill on auto theft after that. I do not really understand why the Conservatives are trying to delay this study as much as possible, when they are making it a priority today by talking about it. If it were that important to them, they would be working hard on the public safety and national security committee to finally get it done.

With today’s motion, they may be trying to get material for pre-election, or even election, slogans, because we get the impression that the Conservative Party may already be on the campaign trail. The Bloc Québécois did not get the memo. The Conservatives’ new slogan is in today’s motion, which states, “after eight years of soft on crime policies, this Prime Minister has created the auto theft crisis”. Who knew? The Prime Minister himself created the auto theft crisis. He sure has broad shoulders. I am not saying this to defend him. It is true that the Liberals have not done much in recent years to combat this problem. However, that the Prime Minister single-handedly created the crisis is something we cannot take very seriously.

I would even go so far as to say that the entire argument laid out in the Conservatives’ motion is completely disconnected from reality, despite the fact that the problem is all too real. If one looks at the problem with a minimum of seriousness, it is immediately clear that the COVID 19 pandemic in 2020 caused significant disruptions in the logistics chain around the world. One of the most hard-hit sectors was the industry producing the semiconductors needed for all microprocessors. The microprocessor shortage led to a worldwide reduction in auto manufacturing, which made demand go up. This increased the cost of used vehicles. Crime gangs jumped on the opportunity and quickly specialized in car theft and shipment to other markets. This was already happening on a smaller scale, but the pandemic and the impact it had on supply chains accelerated the phenomenon. Because of its geographical location, Montreal became an auto theft hub.

Why was that? Because Montreal is home to the largest port in eastern Canada that provides access to the rest of the world. Of course other ports are involved as well, such as those in Halifax and Vancouver. However, these ports have not been as affected as the port of Montreal. It is truly a gateway, a hub. As I was saying, the pandemic exacerbated the situation but, on top of that, new technological developments have made auto theft more appealing.

For example, consider the increasingly frequent use of smart keys, which make it easier to steal vehicles. Several news reports have shown how thieves go about it. All they have to do is use a relay to amplify the signal of a smart key inside a house by standing next to the front door. With an accomplice, the thief can then open the car door and start the engine.

They can also connect a computer to the onboard diagnostic port in the car, which enables them to use another key. All they have to do then is force open the door.

It is child’s play for people who know what they are doing.

In Montreal, as in the rest of the country, we have seen people using Denver boots or steering wheel locks to make it harder for thieves to steal their car. I say harder, because thieves have found other ways to remove these devices and leave with a car in no time at all.

This phenomenon is truly becoming a scourge, especially in Quebec and in Montreal. Auto theft has increased over the years. According to Équité Association, roughly 70,000 vehicles were stolen in Canada in 2022. That is huge. Between 2021 and 2022, the number of thefts increased by 50%, or half, in Quebec, by nearly half in Ontario, or 48%, by 34% in Atlantic Canada, and by 18% in Alberta. 2022 was a record year for auto theft. The numbers are not yet known for 2023, but by all indications auto theft has increased yet again.

The reported losses are in the billions of dollars for insurers, and we have seen premiums go up for ordinary people. Le Journal de Montréal reported that between 2012 and 2022, the average car insurance premium increased by 50% as well. This increase is in part tied to auto theft.

Given these facts, one of the questions we need to ask ourselves is why there is this growing interest in auto theft.

It must be said that auto theft is one of the easiest and least risky sources of revenue for gangs, which then use part of the proceeds to finance other criminal activities, such as gun trafficking and human trafficking. Those are the two reasons. It is easy and low-risk.

I explained earlier why it is easy. One reason it is so low-risk is that sentences are so light. In an article in La Presse, Jacques Lamontagne, director of investigations for Quebec and the Atlantic region at Équité Association and a retired Montreal police force criminal investigator, explained—

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will start again. Unfortunately, I do not think anyone heard me. If the member would put his earpiece in, I think that would work even better.

I am pleased to see that the Conservatives have finally realized that there is an auto theft crisis in Canada. I for one have been talking about it since October. I moved a motion at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to study this issue. The Conservatives agreed to it. They thought it was a good idea, but all they have done since then is hold up the committee's work. That is what they did with Bill C-20 and Bill C-26.

Why are they doing that? The reason is that they do not think that the auto theft crisis is all that important after all.

Why do they want to talk about it today? Is it because it makes for a good campaign slogan? Is it because they want to crack down on crime? Why has this become a priority for the Conservative Party today?

Criminal Code

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to rise and offer my thoughts on Bill C-21 at third reading.

I say that with a bit of amazement because I cannot believe we have actually made it to third reading. This bill received first reading in this House on May 30 of last year. We got through second reading in fairly short order, but at committee stage, things really got lost and all hell broke loose, so to speak.

I remember participating as the NDP's public safety critic. We had scheduled eight witness meetings to look at the first version of this bill. Things were going along quite well. There were some disagreements around the table, but there was not any of the friction that suggested there would be a major catastrophe in the making.

That all changed in November when we arrived at the clause-by-clause portion of the bill. Before that meeting started, every party was responsible for reviewing the witness testimony, reviewing the briefs that had been submitted, and working with legislative drafters to put together our amendments. Once those were submitted to the clerk, as is the normal course of things, the clerk then distributed them to all committee members.

It was quite a surprise when we saw just how big the amendment package was and just how expanded the scope of the bill was going to be. Most of the amendments came from the government. There were a couple in particular that completely sent the committee off its rails.

The amendments landed on our laps at the 11th hour. It was obvious that there had been no warning to committee members. The Liberal members of the committee were introducing those amendments on behalf of the government. They read them into the record, but I do not think they actually had a clue as to the monumental nature of the amendments.

It was clear that the amendments were not backed by any witness testimony because of the significant nature of how they were changing the bill. We, as committee members, never had the opportunity to question witnesses on the bill taking shape.

That completely derailed things. That started in November 2022, and it is only just recently that the committee stage of the bill was finally able to complete its job. That is an incredible amount of time for one committee to be occupied with a single bill.

If we look at the mandate of the public safety and national security committee, it is one of the most important committees. It is responsible for reviewing the policies and legislation of multiple agencies, whether it is the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Officer of the Correctional Investigator or the RCMP.

There are two other bills. Bill C-20 is going to provide an important oversight body for the RCMP and the CBSA. Bill C-26 is going to seek to upgrade our cybersecurity infrastructure. Both of those bills have been held up because of the shenanigans going on with Bill C-21.

I listened to the debate all day yesterday when this bill was going through report stage, and today when it was going through third reading. Unfortunately, because of some of the speeches in this House, there is a lot of misinformation out there and a lot of people have the wrong idea of what is included in this bill.

My Conservative colleagues do make a big deal in their speeches about standing up for hunters, farmers and indigenous communities, and I take no fault with that. I proudly stand here and say the same thing. It is troubling because it is alluding to something that is actually not in the bill. That illusion for hunters, farmers and indigenous communities is that their rifle or shotgun, if it is semi-automatic, is going to be prohibited by this bill.

Let me clearly say this for the record: That is not the case. Bill C-21 is not going to do that. If someone has a current make or model of a rifle or shotgun, they are licensed and legally own that firearm, after this bill receives royal assent, they will continue to be able to use it.

That is a fact. So far, when I have brought it up in questions, my Conservative colleagues have been unable to refute that. I have challenged multiple Conservative MPs to name one rifle or shotgun that is going to be prohibited by Bill C-21. In every single instance, they have deflected and swerved away to go back to comfortable talking points, because they cannot do it. I will tell colleagues why. It is because I am not reading Conservative talking points. I am going to actually read from the text of the bill.

In the new section that is going to add to the definition of a prohibited firearm, it mentions that it is:

...a firearm that is not a handgun and that

(i) discharges centre-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner,

(ii) was originally designed with a detachable cartridge magazine with a capacity of six cartridges or more, and

(iii) is designed and manufactured on or after the day on which this paragraph comes into force...

The last point is one that everyone seems to skip over, but it is the key part.

Current makes and models are not going to be affected by Bill C-21. Future makes and models that come into the market after this bill receives royal assent will be affected. However, current owners will not be affected by Bill C-21.

Conservatives will then seek to muddy the waters even further. I have heard a lot of reference to the firearms advisory committee. They say that the minister is going to bring this back and staff it with Liberal appointees, who are going to make suggestions about what firearms should be prohibited and then act on the suggestions. I have a news flash for my Conservative colleagues. This is a power that the government already has. It does not need a firearms advisory committee.

I would direct my Conservative colleagues to the existing section 84(1) of the Criminal Code. It says right there that the government can change the definition of what a prohibited firearm is when it mentions “any firearm that is prescribed to be a prohibited firearm”. “Prescribed” is the key word there, because that means it can be done by cabinet decree. If they do not believe me, how did the government get the authority in May 2020 to issue an order in council? Here, 1,500 makes and models were done through the Canada Gazette under existing powers.

All this ballyhoo over a firearms advisory council, as well as all the hoopla that we have heard in this House about the dangers of that council coming into being, is a complete red herring. It is smoke and mirrors. This is a power the government already has. In fact, I would rebut them on that argument by saying that if the minister currently has that power to do this unilaterally through an order in council cabinet decree, would it not be a good thing to have an advisory council to at least talk to the minister about how maybe that would not be a good idea?

If we can ensure that the advisory council has indigenous representation, representation from the hunting community and representation from the sport shooting community, in my mind, that is a good thing. I will let them continue to say that, but they know they cannot argue with me on those facts. Again, I am reading from the bill and from existing provisions of the Criminal Code. If they are going to try to muddy the waters, they can try to argue their way out of it, but the facts cannot be changed.

I want to turn to something more positive, with the airsoft community. Last summer, I had the pleasure of visiting the Victoria fish and game club. I do not know if colleagues have been to Vancouver Island, but in the middle of my riding is the Malahat Mountain. It is the big mountain that separates the Cowichan Valley from the city of Langford and the whole west shore. It is the traditional territory of the Malahat people, but on top of it is where the Victoria fish and game club is, on a beautiful property. Right beside it, there is an amazing forest setting for the club's airsoft games. I went out there with one of my constituency assistants on a weekend. They invited us to come and see a match. We got to don the referee uniforms, so that we could walk out in the middle of a pitched battle. I think one of my constituency assistants accidentally got shot.

It was so fun to see how much fun these players were having, to talk to them about how passionate they were about their sport and to really understand that this is more than a hobby for them. This is something that allows them to get out into the great outdoors with their family and friends.

They were really worried about Bill C-21 because of a section in the bill that would basically turn their airsoft rifles into prohibited devices. I invited some of them, with other colleagues around the committee table, to come to committee, to submit briefs and to say their piece. I have to say that the representatives of the airsoft industry, the manufacturers and the players associations did themselves proud. They made a good argument, and they convinced those around the committee table. They did what is done in a democratic system. They fought for change, and they achieved it.

The NDP amendment that was put forward to delete the offending sections from the bill was passed. That is a victory for the airsoft community. All they are asking for is not the sledgehammer approach of legislation that was in the original version of Bill C-21, but a regulatory approach. They are more than willing to work with government on the regulatory approach. That message was heard, and that is something that all parliamentarians can celebrate.

Let me turn to the handgun freeze and the amendment that we put forward as an attempt to expand the exceptions of the handgun freeze to allow for other sport shooting disciplines. As the bill is currently written, at this third reading stage, the only exemptions that exist are limited to people who are at an extremely elite level. They are Olympic athletes and Paralympic athletes. I use the terms “exemptions” and “exceptions” interchangeably.

After speaking to members of my community who participate in the International Practical Shooting Confederation and speaking to members who are in single-action shooting as well, I felt that these people are athletes. They train for what they do. They are passionate about their sport. They deserve to have exemptions as well. Therefore, I put forward an amendment to try to expand that. That amendment almost passed. There was a little bit of confusion on the Liberal side when that amendment came to a vote.

When I tuned in to watch the committee hearing at that stage, I was pleasantly surprised to see the Liberal member for Kings—Hants speaking in support of our amendment. It was a wonderful surprise to see, except that when it came to a vote, unfortunately, he abstained. It resulted in a five-five tie; of course, this had to be broken by the Liberal Chair. We came really close.

I have received a lot of flak from certain sectors of society for my stance on this. That is okay; I can take it. I am not going to apologize for standing here and making an attempt to fix the bill on behalf of my constituents who simply want to be able to practise their sport. To those who are arguing against that, I would simply point to the submission that was given to our committee by none other than the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. They said:

We believe that a handgun freeze is one method of reducing access to these types of firearms, while allowing existing law-abiding handgun owners to practise their sport.

That is what I was basing my amendment on, as well as the interventions made by my constituents. We tried our best at committee to make that change. Unfortunately, because of the votes falling the way they did with the Liberals and Bloc, it did not pass.

I will give another reason. The top IPSC competitors were telling me that they shoot about 50,000 rounds of ammunition a year. That is an incredible amount. We have to understand that a handgun is essentially a mechanical device. If someone is shooting it 50,000 times a year, it will break down. Sometimes, handguns have to be replaced. In my mind, it was unfair, not allowing an exception for an athlete of that calibre to have the means to be able to replace a tool that they use to compete.

We may have lost this particular battle, but what I would say to members of those sport shooting disciplines is that I will continue to pursue this issue. I will find other avenues to fight to make sure that their sport has an exemption.

We have completed the report stage part of the bill, but there has been some controversy from some women's groups who were unhappy with the red-flag provisions of the law, and I understand that. When I approached the committee hearings on this, I understood the controversy that existed around red-flag provisions. There were some women's groups that felt that adding this extra layer of bureaucracy through the court system did not serve women or other people who were in vulnerable situations where firearms might be present. They felt that we should have a properly equipped and responsive police force, and I agree with them.

I will turn critics' attention to members of the National Association of Women and the Law, because when Bill C-21 was reported back to the House, they made some public tweets, which are all up there for people to read. They said that with all the amendments that were proposed, these are some of the ways that the bill would make women safer: “The provision on licence revocation when someone has committed violence is now strengthened and clarified. A licence must be revoked when there are reasonable grounds to suspect that an individual may have engaged in family violence.” They also said, “people who have been subject to a protection order will now be ineligible to hold a licence if they ‘could pose’ a threat or risk to the safety of another person. This way, safety comes first.” That is the onus test.

They went on to say, “The Bill had no timelines for reacting to danger and domestic violence. Thanks to the adoption of our recommendations, there is now a statutory duty to act within 24 hours. This will protect women at the critical time of separation, when risk of violence is at its highest.”

A lot about the bill has been subsumed by the debate over hunting rifles, shotguns, airsoft and the handgun freeze. However, it is important for us to realize that, in the heart of the bill, there are actually some very important measures, which have now been improved by the committee. I have worked with members of the National Association of Women and the Law, and I respect the submissions they have made. If they are willing to come out and publicly endorse the bill in this way, I am glad to have their support as a stakeholder, and I give it a lot of credence.

I also want to talk about ghost guns, which relate to another “unsung hero” part of the bill. We heard from law enforcement, and I want to read into the record the testimony that came from Inspector Michael Rowe, who is a staff sergeant in the Vancouver Police Department. He said:

In addition to what is already included in Bill C‑21, I would ask this committee to consider regulating the possession, sale and importation of firearms parts used to manufacture ghost guns, such as barrels, slides and trigger assemblies. These parts are currently lawful to purchase and possess without a licence, and they can be purchased online or imported from the United States. The emergence of privately made firearms has reduced the significance of the currently regulated receiver and increased the importance of currently unregulated gun parts that are needed to finish a 3-D-printed receiver and turn it into a functioning firearm.

That is the request coming from law enforcement. We know that this is a growing problem, and they asked for a specific legislative fix to the problem. I am proud to see that the public safety committee delivered on that request from law enforcement.

Much has been said about indigenous communities. They are, of course, the ones who led the way in opposition to the bill. I remember, back in December, when the Assembly of First Nations came out with a unanimous emergency resolution opposing those eleventh-hour amendments that were made by the Liberal government. They said that the amendments went against the spirit of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. They helped us to understand, as parliamentarians, that these are not toys or hobbies; rather, they are a way of life. In some indigenous communities, they are necessary for the protection of life. I am glad to see that the committee listened, and no current make or model of a rifle or shotgun that is currently in use in indigenous communities is touched by Bill C-21. The committee went further and added a clause, which now references section 35 of the Constitution Act to show that indigenous rights are upheld.

I will conclude by saying I can honestly go back to the hunters, farmers and indigenous communities in my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford and tell them their currently owned firearms are safe. I am glad we were able to force the government's hand on this matter.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I spoke to this last week when we were debating Motion No. 25. I made reference to the fact that, for the Conservatives, Bill C-21 is the goose that lays the golden eggs. That is why they have wanted to see it stuck in the House; that hoovering sound we can hear is the sound of the Conservative Party's fundraising machine raking in millions of dollars off this bill. I for one am glad to see that the committee has sent it back to the House, because there are two other important bills waiting to be heard. These are Bill C-20, which deals with important RCMP oversight, and Bill C-26, which looks at cybersecurity; these are both very pressing issues. It is high time the public safety committee got to work in addressing those other key issues.

Government Business No. 25—Proceedings on Bill C-21

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is hard to find the words to start given how long I have personally been involved with this piece of legislation. I know there are a few select members of this House who would agree with me. I think for each one of us, this has been our own personal odyssey, and to get to this point is really remarkable. All of the different twists and turns that this one bill, Bill C-21, has taken are going to be studied in parliamentary procedure for years to come.

I have had the privilege of representing my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for three terms, now being in my eighth year, and I have discovered that in my time here, Parliament has demonstrated that it is indeed the last place to go for an open, honest and logical debate on firearms. A lot of the debate we have seen on this bill and on firearms regulations, policy and legislation in general has done a very real disservice to Canadians. Both sides of the issue have torqued up their arguments. There has been blatant misinformation and labelling, and this has really descended the level of debate into something that I think a lot of Canadians would quite rightly be disgusted by. It is very difficult in this place, when we have all of these torqued up emotions and political agendas, to have a reasoned debate on firearms. That certainly has been the story.

I know a lot of people on Twitter are following this debate very closely. I would say that the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security is probably the most watched committee of them all, and I know that my words right now are being analyzed and tweeted about, even in real time. I just want the people who are listening to brace themselves, because I have equal amounts of criticism for both the Liberals and the Conservatives as to why we now find ourselves in this place.

I first want to start by talking about the committee, because ultimately today's motion is one of instruction to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. One could be forgiven for thinking that all this committee does is study policy and legislation surrounding firearms, because that is indeed all it has really been consumed with since the bill was referred to the committee late last year. In fact, we started Bill C-21 at committee in October 2022, and here we are now, well into May 2023, and we are still only at the clause-by-clause part of the bill.

I think it is useful for people to understand what the mandate of this committee is. It is responsible for reviewing legislation, policies, programs and expenditure plans of a whole host of different government departments and agencies that are responsible for not only public safety, but national security, policing, law enforcement, corrections, the conditional release of federal offenders, emergency management, crime prevention and of course the protection of our borders. When we are doing things like the estimates for the spending plans of Public Safety Canada, quite often we have representatives included from the Canada Border Services Agency, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Parole Board of Canada and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

What I am trying to underline here is that this committee is an extremely important committee of the House of Commons, and all the work it does in all of these different areas in looking after our intelligence gathering, law enforcement and border protection has been sidelined by the incredible amount of time that has been consumed. Time is our most valuable resource in Parliament, and once we spend it we do not get it back.

Because of the shenanigans that have occurred with respect to Bill C-21, the public safety committee has quite correctly been prevented from examining all of these other different areas, keeping tabs on those different departments, examining different pieces of legislation and keeping tabs on what the government's policies and practices are going to be with respect to other key areas. That is an important element that we first need to establish when we are talking about where we are today.

As many members will know, including members in my own community, I used to be our party's public safety critic. I found my time on that committee to be personally quite valuable. I found that the subject matter we were dealing with was quite intellectually challenging and stimulating, and it is important work.

I know from my interactions with other members of the committee, whether on the Liberal, Conservative or Bloc Québécois side, that they all conducted themselves very well, and I enjoyed my working relationships with them. That even goes for our work on Bill C-21.

Believe it or not, there was actually a time when Bill C-21 was progressing through committee in relatively good order. We concluded roughly eight meetings with witnesses. The committee then had time to come forward with its amendments, and there seemed to be an acknowledgement that aside from a few differences with a few clauses here and there, the bill was probably on schedule to be reported back to the House for report stage and eventually third reading sometime in December.

We then got to November, and all hell broke loose. This was when the eleventh-hour amendments were dropped by the Liberals. I should correctly say “the Liberal government”, because I do not think they were, by design, from the Liberal members of the committee. They did come from the government.

I do not want to go into the details of the bill too much, because I think that is a well-trodden path and a well-known story, but allow me to take this moment in my speech to levy what I think are some well-earned criticisms on both the Liberals and the Conservatives. I know some of my colleagues will probably laugh at this, particularly the member for Hamilton Centre, because he has heard me joke about this before.

I often feel like the character Mercutio in Shakespeare's play, Romeo and Juliet, when he is expressing his frustration with the Capulets and the Montagues, because I feel that same frustration with the Liberals and the Conservatives. It is difficult sometimes to watch the shenanigans between those parties and the way our level of debate around this issue descends into the depths and scrapes the bottom of the barrel.

Let me start with the Liberals. One day, someone is going to write a book about this sorry episode, and it is probably going to be titled something like “How Not to Amend One's Own Legislation”. It is going to be a warning guide for governments in the future on what not to do and how not to spring a surprise on an unsuspecting committee when they have not done their homework, when they have not done consultation and, most importantly, when they have not consulted with the members of the committee who are actually responsible for shepherding those amendments through.

I want to caution members: My comments are not, in any way, directed to the colleagues I work with, but more to the Liberal Party brain trust. I understand the reasoning behind where they are coming from. Gun violence in our major urban centres is a very concerning thing. It needs to be dealt with appropriately. I want to take a moment to acknowledge the extreme grief that is out there within so many families who are dealing with a loss due to firearms violence.

Sometimes the road forward for the Liberals has been paved with good intentions, but it has led to some pretty awful results. I would ask them to step back and try and heal some of the wounds that exist in that divide between urban and rural Canada. We need to understand that yes, firearms violence is a big issue, but there also has to be a level of respect afforded to Canadians who are lawful firearms owners, who play by the rules and who have done everything right. I would encourage the Liberals to consult more with their rural MPs.

When the Liberals introduced those amendments, one of the groups that were leading the way was indigenous communities—not only hunters and farmers, but indigenous communities, not the least of which was the Assembly of First Nations. In an extremely rare move, the AFN came out with a unanimous emergency resolution on the last day. That is almost unheard of. They were going after the government for those ill-thought-of eleventh-hour amendments.

No consultation had taken place. One could make a legitimate argument that the Liberals, in bringing in these amendments, were not respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples or even the legislation we have passed that enshrines that within our own laws to make sure that all federal laws are in harmony with the declaration itself. It went against the spirit of that.

Now I will turn to my Conservative friends.

What do we say about the reams of ridiculous hyperbole we have seen from that party on Bill C-21? The bill has been a fundraising boon for the Conservative Party. That giant sucking sound we hear is Conservatives hoovering money from the harvest of their rage-farming operation around the bill, and I think a part of me wonders whether the Conservatives do not want to see the bill go forward because it has been so financially viable for them. The evidence is all out there. I do not think there is any interest at all in trying to move the legislation forward, because doing so would essentially stop the goose from laying golden eggs for them. It has been an incredible money-maker for them.

When I look at some of the misinformation that has been put out by the Conservative Party around the bill, I see they are fanning flames of rage over amendments that no longer exist and incorrectly saying that the government wants to take away all their guns. It is just completely off-the-wall bonkers stuff that can be easily disproven, and it is completely not helping the standard of debate we expect of our parliamentarians. It just makes the rest of our jobs harder when we have to fight that completely untrue disinformation that is being actively fanned on social media.

Yes, it is a sorry state due to the actions of both parties in so expertly playing politics with the bill, and that is a large part of the reason we are here today.

We know that the problematic amendments were withdrawn by the Liberals. That is fact number one. All current owners of long guns in Canada are not going to have those firearms impacted, because the problematic amendments were withdrawn. What we now have being proposed as an amendment to the bill would go after firearms that will be manufactured in the future, after the bill receives royal assent. There is also an important amendment, I understand, that would make sure that nothing in the bill takes away from the rights of indigenous peoples. That is recognized and affirmed under section 35 of our Constitution.

Of course, there are incredibly important amendments dealing with the exponentially growing problem of ghost guns. This is a problem that has been brought to the committee's attention repeatedly by law enforcement agencies. I would hope that more attention is paid to those particular amendments, and of course we, the remaining members of the House of Commons, have to reserve our judgment on the bill until we see the final version that the committee ultimately reports back to us.

Now let us turn to the motion of instruction and what it would do.

First of all, we have to understand that as of this morning, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security had already spent approximately five hours on clause-by-clause consideration. If they had been able to complete their meeting this afternoon, and I know it was interrupted by a series of votes, that would have brought the total to eight hours, which is roughly equivalent to four full meetings. The motion being debated today would add a further 17 hours to that, bringing it to roughly 25 hours, which is the equivalent of 12-and-a-half meetings.

I understand from the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, our member on the public safety committee, that he has tried multiple times to extend the sitting hours of the public safety committee so that Conservatives, the Bloc and New Democrats could have additional time to look at the amendments that are being proposed by various members. I understand that in each of those instances, these attempts were either rejected or filibustered so that the committee ultimately could never get to a vote. To hear Conservatives complain that they are being silenced in the House when they have, in fact, had multiple opportunities at committee to extend the sitting hours of that committee does come across as a bit rich.

I would say that because I have had my staff look at bills similar in size and complexity to Bill C-21, Bill C-18 comes to mind. That particular bill, when it went through clause-by-clause study at its committee, had seven meetings, the equivalent of 14 hours, for clause-by-clause study, so that is more than enough time to get through it.

I know from my own experience, because I used to be a member of the public safety committee and have seen a lot of these amendments, that are a lot of them are very technical, small changes to the bill, especially the parts that deal with ghost guns. Not a lot of debate is going to be required on them. In fact, the committee can probably get through them in short order because they are repetitive and many different areas of the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act have to be updated to make sure that those existing statutes are in harmony with each another.

The other thing I want to turn to in my final three minutes goes back to the earlier part that I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, the overall mandate of the public safety committee. We have two really important pieces of legislation waiting in the wings, waiting for their turn to be examined at the public safety committee. They are Bill C-20 and Bill C-26.

Bill C-20 is going to create our first-ever public accountability and transparency network that is independent of the RCMP and the CBSA. In fact, the CBSA has never had an independent oversight mechanism. Looking at the public safety committee's report from the previous Parliament looking at systemic racism in policing and looking at all of the instances of injuries and sometimes death that have happened to people who had been in the custody of the CBSA, we see that these are important measures. We have had so many racialized Canadians, so many indigenous Canadians who have been calling out for these types of oversight measures for years. Why should those pieces of legislation continue to be pushed back while we draw out this process on Bill C-21?

Bill C-26 is an important piece of legislation, which I will be the first to admit needs a lot of work at committee, but it is going to really bring in line a lot of the cybersecurity requirements that are needed for some of our critical sectors, be they in banking, transportation, energy and so on. It is going to be a requirement for many of those private actors to bring their systems in line with a standard that is acceptable to the federal government. Again, a lot of work is needed, but no one in this House can deny or absolve themselves from the fact that these are important issues that deserve to have their turn at the public safety committee.

My ultimate motivation for this motion today is to get Bill C-21 on its way. We have had enough time at the committee. It has occupied so much time at the public safety committee, and it is time for the public safety committee to move on to other bills that are equally important to many other Canadians.

In conclusion, I ultimately am going to reserve my judgment on Bill C-21 until I see what the committee reports back to the House, but I will not agree to let that committee continue to be bogged down, especially when there is so much other important work to be done.

With that I conclude. I welcome any comments and questions from my colleagues.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, we miss the member on the committee, although we welcome his colleague. His contributions to this bill have been important and he is absolutely right.

Waiting in line at the public safety committee is Bill C-20, a bill that would provide important oversight for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canada Border Services Agency, something that, for many year, has been called for to enhance that oversight for the RCMP, but also provide oversight for CBSA for the very first time.

In addition to that, we have Bill C-26, which deals with cybersecurity. The member is absolutely correct. We have two important bills waiting, but we cannot get to them until we finish Bill C-21.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was glad to hear that the parliamentary secretary started her remarks with an acknowledgement of indigenous communities, because they led the way, with the Assembly of First Nations, in fighting against the amendments the government brought in at the eleventh hour. I am glad to see that those amendments were withdrawn. I would also thank committee members for passing my amendment to save the sport of airsoft. We have had a lot of very positive correspondence from that community, which is glad to see that the government will go back to the drawing board on this.

By my calculation, after tomorrow's meeting, the committee will have had eight hours on clause-by-clause. If this motion passes, there will be an additional 17 hours, which will be the equivalent of 12.5 meetings. By comparison, Bill C-18 only had seven meetings. I think there will be enough time to get this bill through.

Could the parliamentary secretary talk about the other bills that are waiting their turn at the public safety committee, like Bill C-20 and Bill C-26, and how important it is to look at those bills?

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

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.

Finance

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to talk about the important issue of finances and the direction in which the government has been leading Canada in order to support Canadians in every region of the country.

Before I get into that, I want to quickly make reference once again to the Conservatives' bringing forward a concurrence motion in order to prevent government legislation from being debated. In fact, today, we were supposed to be debating Bill C-26, which is about cybersecurity, something important to Canadians. However, it is not the first time we have seen the Conservative Party show disrespect for important issues Canadians want us to deal with. In fact—

Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2022

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, that is why I was reflecting on Bill C-26. If we look at the debate that took place yesterday on cybersecurity, dealing with the digital world, at the end of the day, Conservative member after member was standing up saying that, yes, they were going to support the bill but that they had a lot of problems with the legislation, and that the principle of Bill C-26 is something that they support.

I kind of made a leap, and apparently the wrong leap, by seeing the Conservatives, in principle, support the privacy of Canadians and the legislation that will give an enhanced privacy legislation. I guess I should not have made that particular leap.

Inconsistency from the Conservative caucus is fairly well known. I will try my best not to make that sort of mistake going forward.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-27 today. As I put forward to my friend in the form of a question, when we think of Bill C-27, I like to think that the government is on the right track in continuing to protect the privacy of Canadians in many different ways. Yesterday we had a debate on Bill C-26 on cybersecurity.

If we take a holistic look at what the government has been able to accomplish through legislation and, ultimately, in certain areas in terms of developing the industry through budgetary measures, Canada is indeed in a very good position in comparison to our peer countries around the world. I do not say that lightly, because I know that all members are very concerned about the issue of privacy. That is in good part why we have the legislation today.

The last time these changes we are proposing happened was two decades ago. Let us reflect on that time of 20 years ago. We did not have iPhones, and Facebook did not exist. Going back a little further than that to when I was first elected, when one clicked into the Internet, the first thing one heard was a buzzing sound, the dial tone and then clicking. Then one was magically connected to the world. How far we have advanced in a relatively short period of time. Last week, I was on the Internet making a purchase that would be delivered. I never had to go to the store. It involved my doing a little bit of design work on the computer before making the purchase. I was told yesterday that it was delivered to my home.

The amount of information out there is absolutely incredible, and it is very hard to imagine the types of data and the risk factors out there. That is why it is so important that, as a government, we bring forward substantive legislation that is going to protect the privacy of Canadians, to ensure companies are held accountable and, in the context of yesterday's debate, to protect them from security threats that are very strong and very viable. It was interesting yesterday listening to the debate for a number of hours.

I get the sense that a wide spectrum of support is shaping up today. The NDP is supporting the legislation. My understanding is that the Conservatives are supporting the legislation. The Bloc, in principle, is supporting the legislation. The Province of Quebec has actually made some significant gains on this whole front, so I am not surprised that the Bloc or members from Quebec within the Liberal caucus are very strong about these issues, whether they are cybersecurity issues or the privacy issues of Bill C-27 that we are debating today.

I raise this because I believe that it does not matter what side of the House one happens to sit on, as this is legislation worth supporting. As I indicated, it has been 20 years since we have seen substantial changes to the legislation. The expectation is very high that we will not only introduce the legislation but that, with the cooperation of members opposite, we will see it pass through in a timely fashion.

Being an optimist, I would like to see the bill pass before the summer, and it is possible. I realize that it would require a great deal of co-operation from opposition parties, but I do believe it is doable, especially after the comments I heard this morning.

The legislation is not meant to address every matter that Canadians are having to face in the digital world. That is not what it is designed for. As I indicated, the legislation, whether this one or Bill C-26, goes a long way in establishing a solid base for a framework that would enable the government of the day, which is held accountable by the opposition, to have the opportunity to do a lot of work in an area where we need to see a higher sense of security and protection.

One member across the way asked about engagement. There has been a great deal of engagement. I can assure the member that, whether it is from a constituency perspective, a ministerial perspective or, I would even suggest, the member would have to take some credit in terms of an opposition perspective, there has been a great deal of dialogue. This is not a new issue. This issue has been in the making for years now.

There have been some factors that are beyond the government's control in terms of the manner in which it can bring forward legislation, for example the worldwide pandemic and the requirement for substantial legislation in order to support Canadians and have their backs. There were issues of that nature, along with numerous other pieces of legislation. I would not want to give a false impression that this is not an important issue for the Government of Canada.

At the end of the day, based on comments I have heard on both Bill C-26 and Bill C-27, I believe the legislation would establish a solid footing or framework, whatever terminology we might want to use, and, at the very least, we should see it go to committee. The principles of the legislation are in fact endorsed and supported by all sides of the House, from what I can tell, and please correct me if I am wrong. No doubt we will have other legislation that might be somewhat more controversial, where there is real opposition to the legislation, and this would enable more time for debate on that type of legislation.

If we could somehow recognize the value of this legislation, given that there is so much support for its principles, we would allow it to go to committee, where members of Parliament are afforded the opportunity to get into the nuts and bolts, the details, where there is representation from different stakeholders at committee to express their thoughts and opinions on the legislation, and where members can find out directly from the minister what kind of consultation has taken place. The member does not to have to take my word for it, but I can assure him that there has been a great deal of consultation. He would be able to hear that first-hand from departmental officials, the minister and so forth.

I believe the government has done its work in bringing the legislation to the point where it is today. We have seen ministers, in their opening remarks and in their response to questions, in co-operation with opposition members. The government has demonstrated very clearly in the past that it is open to amendments that can improve upon legislation for the benefit of Canadians, and if there are ways we can improve this legislation, we will accept those types of amendments. We will support those types of amendments. I believe this is one of the areas where the Prime Minister has been very good in sending that message. It could be because of years in opposition, when the opposition never had amendments accepted by former prime minister Stephen Harper.

At the end of the day, if there are ways to do it, we can improve upon this bill. I heard yesterday on Bill C-26, and already today on Bill C-27, that members have genuine concerns. I do not question those concerns, but I do believe that it would be helpful if they can look at those concerns. If they already have ideas that they believe will improve the legislation, nothing prevents members of the opposition or government members from being able to provide those amendments or thoughts in advance to the ministry, which would potentially allow for a deeper look into it to see if, in fact, something is doable.

The NDP talked, for example, about digital rights for Canadians. There is a great deal of concern that we need to ensure and recognize them, whether they are consumer rights or privacy rights. These are things we all hold very close to our hearts. We all want to make sure the interests of Canadians are being served.

When I took a look at the specifics of the legislation, I highlighted three parts I wanted to make reference to. CPPA would strengthen privacy enforcement and oversight in a manner that is similar to that of certain provinces and some of Canada's foreign trading partners. It is important that we do not just look internally. There are jurisdictions, whether nations or provincial entities, that have already done some fine work in this area. We do not have to reinvent the wheel, and working with or looking at other forms of legislation that are there is a very positive thing. In particular, the CPPA would do so by granting the Privacy Commissioner of Canada order-making powers that can compel organizations to stop certain improper activities or uses of personal information and order organizations to preserve information relevant to an OPC investigation.

This is significant. We need to think in terms of the technology that I make reference to. I can remember a number of years back when a pizza store was becoming computerized. As someone called in and made an order, they recorded the telephone number, the name and the address, personal information such as that. I remember talking to the franchise owner, whom I happen to know quite well, explaining how the collection of data, if used appropriately, can not only complement the business, but also complement the consumer, and this was maybe 20 years ago.

We can contrast that to an iPhone and looking at some of those applications we see. The one that comes to mind is a true Canadian application and a true Canadian franchise: Tim Hortons. My wife never followed hockey, but nowadays she does because of Tim Hortons. One can win free cups of coffee by picking who is going to score goals or get assists. I am not exactly sure how it works, but Tim Hortons comes up with a program that is actually collecting data from people. It is a program that allows it to send out all kinds of notifications. It could be sales of product. It could be something like NHL standings. It really engages the consumers. An incredible amount of data is actually being collected.

Tim Hortons is not alone. One can go to virtually all the major franchises and find the same thing. It is not just the private sector. Yesterday we were talking about cybersecurity, and one can easily understand and appreciate the sensitivity of collecting information, even if one is a Tim Hortons or a Home Depot, but also many government agencies. For example, there is the amount of personal information Manitoba Health has, which is all computerized. There are also doctors' offices. The digital world, in a very real and tangible way, has changed to such a degree that many, including myself, would argue that things like Internet access have become an absolute and essential service nowadays. It is something we all require.

The incredible growth of data banks, both in the private sector and in the government, and I would throw in the non-profits and the many other groups that collect data, has been substantive in the last 15 or 20 years. That is the reason why today we have the type of legislation we have before us. Bill C-27 would ensure that we have something in place to provide consequences for offences. To give members a sense of those consequences, the new law would enable administrative monetary penalties for serious contraventions of the law, subject to a maximum penalty of 3% or $10 million of an organization's global revenue, whichever is greater, and fines of up to 5% of revenues or $25 million, whichever is greater, for the most serious offences.

I said I wanted to highlight three things, so I will move on to the second point. The personal information and data protection tribunal act would establish a new tribunal, which would be responsible for determining whether to assign administrative monetary penalties that are recommended by the Privacy Commissioner following investigations, determining the amount of penalties and hearing appeals of the Privacy Commissioner's orders and decisions. The tribunal would provide for access to justice and contribute to further development of privacy expertise by providing expeditious reviews of the Privacy Commissioner's orders.

The third point is that the AIDA would impose a duty to act responsibly by requiring organizations designing, developing, deploying or operating high-impact artificial intelligence technologies to put in place measures to proactively mitigate risks of harm and bias in the development of these technologies.

I have less than a minute left to talk, and I have not even touched on the AI file. I made reference at the very beginning to the financial investments of this government in encouraging the growth of that industry in the different regions of our country. The Government of Canada is not only bringing in the type of securities that are absolutely important for Canadians from a privacy perspective, to encourage continual growth in the area and have these protections in place, but also doing so through budgetary measures to ensure that we continue to enhance the opportunities of Canadians. If we take a look at the digital world today, it is very hard to imagine where it is going to be tomorrow, at least for myself, in witnessing the growth of the digital world over the last 20 or 30 years and how far it has gone.

This legislation is a modernization. It is legislation we can all get behind and support. I would encourage members, no matter what party they are from, to support it. Let us see it go to committee, where the committee can do its fine work and see if we can even improve—

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's very sincere effort, I am sure, to lay that on the record. I am sure he is in shock that there was not unanimous consent. However, my hon. colleague can rest assured that, when it comes to climate change, we will not allow inaction to be the rule of the day and that we will absolutely continue to take action to make sure climate change does not ravage this planet.

I do want to pick up on the second-last comment that the hon. opposition House leader made, which were comments with respect to Family Day. I hope that he, and indeed all members in the House, take time with their families and with their constituents, and that they return to this place in good health.

Tomorrow, we will resume debate on Bill C-34 to amend the Investment Canada Act at second reading.

Upon our return on Monday, March 6, we will call Bill C-27 on the digital charter, at second reading.

Tuesday shall be an allotted day.

On Wednesday, we will commence debate on Bill C-33 concerning the port system and railway safety.

Thursday will not only be the opportunity for my hon. colleague's favourite time of the week, another Thursday question, but we will also resume debate on Bill C-23 respecting historic places, at second reading.

On Friday, we will continue second reading debate of Bill C-26, the cybersecurity legislation.

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Edmonton Strathcona, who has done incredible work on this file.

Throughout the debate today, I have heard issues raised about the lack of clarity in this bill and the fact that there is not enough parliamentary oversight into the sanctions regime. I am just wondering if my hon. colleague could tell the House if that would inform her committee strategy. Does she see that there might be opportunities amongst the government and opposition sides to reach a compromise to make sure that the important aspect of parliamentary oversight is there?

I have noticed that, in public safety bills introduced earlier in this session, notably in Bill C-20 and in Bill C-26, there was a clear lack of parliamentary oversight specified. That will inform our strategy going forward. I am just wondering if the member could add some further comments on that.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in several other public safety bills, notably Bill C-20 and Bill C-26, I have noticed, in the way the bills are written, there is a lack of avenue for parliamentary oversight.

One thing that has been missing with this sanctions regime is also a lack of parliamentary oversight. Would Conservatives join with New Democrats at committee to look for avenues in which this bill could be strengthened to buttress up parliamentary oversight so members of the House could make sure the government is doing its job when it should be doing its job?

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we will need to wait for the unanimous consent motion to see what will happen. I will wait for that. There is good news for the member opposite in that he has the opportunity, at committee of course, to review those guns and make any suggestions his members would like. I am sure, as a long-serving member, he would be aware of that opportunity, but I just remind him of that.

The Speaker will be pleased to know we will continue with debate at second reading of Bill C-26, an act respecting cyber security, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments to other acts. Tomorrow we will begin debate at second reading of Bill C-23, the historic places of Canada act.

On Monday, we will begin debate at report stage and third reading on Bill C-32, the fall economic statement implementation act, 2022. Thursday will be the final allotted day of the current supply period. For the rest of the week, priority should be given to Bill C-32.

I would also like to indicate that on Tuesday there will be a statement by the minister on the commemoration of the Polytechnique massacre.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are not going to stop the supports we have for Canadians. In fact, I would suggest to the member opposite that making sure our most vulnerable are protected is critical. That is why we have a number of things we are going to be doing in that regard, which I will illuminate in a moment.

As to the other question that was put, I do seriously want to ask, if the Conservatives are opposed to action on the climate, whether they have reflected about what the costs are. These are not costs that will be borne for a year or two but for all time. It is something to reflect on regarding the questions that were posed to me.

I am pleased that this afternoon we are going to complete the second reading debate of Bill S-4, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make related amendments to other acts. Tomorrow, we will go back to the second reading debate of Bill C-20, concerning the public complaints and review commission act. On Monday, we will resume second reading debate of Bill C-27, the digital charter implementation act, 2022. For Tuesday and Wednesday, we will call Bill C-29, an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation, which was reported with amendments from committee earlier this week.

Mr. Speaker, I see you moving in your chair, so you will be happy to know that, finally, for next Thursday, our plan is to commence second reading debate of Bill C-26, the critical cyber systems protection act.

Democratic Institutions

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the House that the purpose of foreign interference is to sow chaos and throw our democratic institutions into disarray.

That is why we are taking action to combat attempted foreign interference, beginning with our national security agencies who conduct investigations and use all the tools at their disposal. It also includes significant work to shore up Canada's institutions and critical infrastructure, such as Bill C-26, which would bolster cybersecurity and give new tools to the RCMP. I invite all members of the House to support the government in supporting Bill C-26.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, protecting Canadian democracy is a responsibility we take very seriously. We are taking steps to combat foreign interference attempts. It starts with election officials and law enforcement and intelligence services, those who investigate and use all the tools at their disposal. Strengthening Canada's essential infrastructure and institutions is a big job. It takes legislation like Bill C‑26 to reinforce cybersecurity and give the RCMP additional resources.

Telecommunications

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Vancouver Granville for his question and his hard work.

Cybersecurity is national security. Bill C-26 will help both the public and private sectors better protect themselves against cyber-attacks and is one part of our robust strategy to defend Canada and the crucial infrastructure that Canadians rely on. We will always protect the safety and security of Canadians and we will take any actions necessary to safeguard our telecommunications infrastructure.