Publication Search

Madam Speaker, I am going to build a little on the last question to the member. I know he sat on the public safety committee for a while. From his viewpoint, what does he think is the greatest cyber-threat to Canadians?

I would ask him to speak again to why getting this legislation right is so important, but I am interested in his take on what he perceives to be the greatest cyber-threat to Canadians.

Madam Speaker, I will build on that last question a bit because I think the member took it out context, though I may be wrong.

The question is around specific cyber-incidents or transgressions that need to be dealt with by the appropriate authorities. The issue is the legislation itself and how the power would be used by our security establishments. One of the criticisms that needs to be fleshed out at committee is how this bill and the legislation get reported back here to the House of Commons and to Canadians.

Would the member agree that it would be an important addition or amendment to the legislation to include the requirement for an annual report back to Parliament on how this legislation is progressing and what key changes our national security organizations have made so that Canadians can understand how their lives are being impacted in the cyber-realm?

Madam Speaker, I will ask a question I asked earlier of another member. In this member's opinion, what does she view as the greatest threat to Canada's cybersecurity? Is it state actors? Is it cybercrime and cyber-technology? Specifically, what does the member think is the greatest threat that we face as a nation around cybersecurity?

Madam Speaker, I will take maybe a different tack today to contribute to this debate on cybersecurity. I am going to tell a story about Tom and how he has been impacted by technological changes over the last couple of decades. Before I tell Tom's story, I have to share Emily's story with technology and why this legislation and changes to cybersecurity in Canada are so important and so needed.

Before I get into that, I think it is important to first lay out in simple terms what this bill is about from my current understanding. There are really two parts to the bill.

The first part is about amending the Telecommunications Act to address and fix the security needed for our Canadian telecommunications system. The bill would do this by addressing it through two means. First, it would “direct telecommunications service providers to do anything, or refrain from doing anything, that is necessary to secure the Canadian telecommunications system.” As well, it would establish some monetary penalties tied to those changes.

The second part of the bill is all tied to the critical cyber systems protection act. It would provide the framework for the protection of our critical cyber systems, which are vital to national security and public safety. It would do that through five different aspects. First, it would authorize the government to designate those services that are vital to Canadians, those critical sorts of services, what they are and what systems are tied to them. Second, it would authorize the government to establish who is responsible for maintaining those systems. Third, it has how these cybersecurity incidents would be reported and how Canadians and institutions comply with those changes. Fourth, it lays out how information would be shared and, arguably, needs to be protected. Finally, it gives the “so what” of the enforcement and the consequences for non-compliance with the legislation.

In reality, this bill is quite lengthy and very technical, so I am going to focus most of my speech around two important aspects of the bill. The first aspect is the threats to cybersecurity. The second is information sharing and the need to protect Canadians' privacy rights while highlighting the important need for transparency. How would the government ensure the accountability of any institution affected by this bill, particularly the government itself, with the additional powers this legislation would grant it?

Let us get back to Emily. She is a senior citizen and a retired teacher. She uses a mix of online banking and billing, although she still prefers to handle the majority of her financial transactions right at the bank. She has a fledging social media presence mainly to stay in contact with her grandchildren and friends. She even has a TikTok account at her grandchildren's urging. We will see if she is going to change her mind and delete that sooner than later.

Being online and connected is essential to all Canadians now, more than ever, as a lot of Canadians rely on the Internet for their daily lives. It is about more than just conducting business and paying bills. As I have mentioned, we have seen an increased dependency on the Internet, especially for government services. In the last few years, under the Liberal government, it continues to shift more and more government services online, while unfortunately decreasing service delivery for those without access to the Internet at the same time. I will not go into detail on all the shortfalls I see with the current approach, considering that a large portion of rural Canada still do not have access to high-speed or dependable Internet.

What threats does Emily face? She complains about getting emails and phone calls from people alleging to be affiliated with her bank or service providers. She wonders about the advertising that shows up on her social media feeds that align with something she only mentioned in an email to a friend. How is all of this happening?

To quote the director of CSIS from December 4, 2018, over four years ago, during a speech that he gave to Bay Street, which I have extracted from Stephanie Carvin's Stand on Guard, Mr. Vigneault stated that the greatest threat to our prosperity and national interest is “foreign influence and espionage.” While terrorism remains the number one threat to public safety, “other national security threats—such as foreign interference, cyber threats, and espionage—pose greater strategic challenges”.

In her book, Professor Carvin clearly lays out the risks associated with cyber-attacks, whether malware, ransomware, a targeting of critical infrastructure, denials of services or others. She talks about cyberterrorism, cyber-espionage and cybercrime, so how do we deal with this?

We deal with this not only through this legislation, but also, mainly for some of the challenges we have, as my colleague from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman talked about in much greater detail earlier today in his speech, our Canadian Armed Forces, the Communications Security Establishment and even our federal police services, which have ways to deal with this. My colleague hinted that sometimes the best defence is a good offence.

Offensive cyber-operations are really not the bailiwick of this legislation, although I would offer that there is some overlap, as we look at a lot of these threats Canadians and Canadian institutions are facing are financed through cyber-attacks and more here at home. We need to tackle this and get the balance right.

The bottom line is Emily and Canadians like her being affected by all of these cyber risks. Professor Carvin pointed out that at least 10 million Canadians had their data compromised in 2017 alone. Unfortunately, this number is likely under-reported, and neither the government nor the private sector fully understand the scale of the problem. To sum up, the threats are huge.

Bill C-26 must balance privacy rights while ensuring national security. Increased use of encrypted apps, data being stored in the cloud on servers outside of Canada, IP protection and more factor into the challenges of getting this legislation right. In order to deal with these threats, the legislation would need to enable our security establishments with robust, flexible powers. However, these robust powers must come with clear guidance on how far and when to inform the public. This is essential in rebuilding our trust in our democratic institutions.

The Business Council of Canada has already publicly expressed concerns over the current draft of this legislation. It rightly identified that large companies, and also small- and medium-sized enterprises, are concerned that the sheer amount of red tape tied to this bill is extremely high.

We need to get the balance right. It is vital, and it is going to require significant expert testimony at committee. Although I would argue the legislation is desperately needed, and I would argue even late in coming, it needs to be done right and cannot be rushed through debate or review at the committee stage.

I have some final comments. This legislation is needed to protect Canadians. However, this legislation needs to be reviewed regularly and needs to include safeguards. I know if he gets the chance, the member for Winnipeg North might ask about what amendment we are recommending. There is no annual reporting mechanism in this bill, so the government should have to table an annual report to Parliament outlining the progress on this legislation, and include an updated cyber threat assessment to Canadians and what it has been hearing back from the companies impacted by this legislation.

Sean McFate, in this book The New Rules of War: Victory in the Age of Durable Disorder, wrote, “ Secrets and democracy are not compatible.... Democracy thrives in the light of information and transparency.”

Finally, I will conclude with Tom's story and how he has been impacted by technology. The bottom line is that he has not been. He does not have a cell phone. He does not use the Internet. He only pays in cash and does not have a credit card. The only way he is currently being impacted is when he shows up to try to get some federal services from the government. He cannot do it because he does not have any of that, and he cannot get anybody to show up in an office to work.

Madam Speaker, I suggest that the member ask the member for Carleton, the Leader of the Opposition, to answer that question because I cannot speak for him other than to state that he has put out a very clear, definitive statement condemning the hashtags that were put on some videos, which he knew nothing about. I will leave my comments at that.

The last time I checked, we are debating Bill C-26, legislation that is needed to protect Canadians. It needs to be improved and debated to get it right so we can deal with threats of political interference from foreign states, such as the Communist Chinese government. That is of utmost importance to Canadians.

Madam Speaker, I think the public record of the House and this party in the chamber has been clear-cut on the issue of Huawei. We have called for it to be disavowed, taken off devices and not be allowed to be a provider here. That was passed a year and a half ago.

Whether someone had private employment prior to them declaring or running in a leadership race is a great question for the individual. Because somebody's past history involved them working for different institutions and companies, yes, we can judge those individuals, but let us talk about the public record here. I would argue that there has been no party in the history of Canada that has stood up more for the defence and sovereignty of this nation than the Conservative Party of Canada.

Madam Speaker, I referenced a couple important books and a couple references by some of our esteemed national security experts across this country. If people read through that and read some books that are out there, they would see this is a threat that has been building for the better part of a decade or more.

The government has known about this since the day it formed government, yet we have seen no action. As mentioned by the CSIS director from 2018, here we are almost five years later, and we are just now seeing this important legislation being delivered.

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition on behalf of a number of my constituents, in particular law-abiding firearms owners. There are two aspects to the petition. The petitioners are calling on the government to drop the last-minute amendments to Bill C-21, which I note has occurred, and in particular to focus on criminals and not law-abiding firearms owners.

The petitioners emphasize the requirement for the government to use its own data, in particular Public Safety's commissioned report done a few years back by Hill+Knowlton. It points out that over 100,000 Canadians oppose a firearms ban in this country.

The petitioners are calling upon the government to stand up for law-abiding firearms owners, sport shooters and farmers with gun legislation, quit targeting them and go after criminals instead.

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations with other parties, and I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion, which seeks to correct the record from yesterday's two votes.

I move:

That notwithstanding any Standing Order

That the Journals of the House of Commons for Monday, February 13, 2023, be amended, under Division Nos. 257 and 258, to indicate the following members as paired:

The Minister of Foreign Affairs with the member for Shefford

The member for Ottawa South with the member for Beauport—Limoilou

The member for Parkdale—High Park with the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot

The member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill with the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.

Madam Speaker, I am here tonight to re-address a question that I asked last week in the House on Afghans and Afghan interpreters, those Afghans who helped Canada during our mission there, and what the current Liberal government is doing to help them out.

In particular, I was asking on behalf of Abdullah, who has actually been here, about what they were doing to help his family, who were approved eight months or so ago to come to Canada, yet nothing has happened.

His brother is now feared missing and presumed dead. My question to the government then was as follows: How many more Afghans such as Abdullah's brother need to die before the government will take urgent action?

I want to emphasize why this is so important. I spent over a year of my life in Afghanistan. I have seen, first-hand, the horrific actions of the Taliban. I apologize, in advance, to anybody listening about some of the graphic details I am going to share, such as a father and son beheaded and hung because they helped the local Afghan police during my time there in 2007, and young girls with acid thrown in their face because they dared go to school.

We have seen now, since the Taliban has retaken the country, that it is not allowing women and girls to go to university and, just in the last couple of months, any school at all. It has taken away those rights. It is persecuting religious minorities, ethnic minorities, women, 2SLGBTQ+ groups and, in particular, it is targeting women members of parliament from the former Afghanistan government, former Afghan judges and those Afghans who chose to help us help them during our decade-plus in that country.

Why is this so important? If we are unwilling, as a nation, to help these Afghans, or those from any country we travel to and where we depend upon them to achieve our missions, whether it be military, whether it be diplomatic or whether it be Canadian NGOs working in those nations, and then we leave them behind when things go sideways, that speaks to who we are as a nation and what we think of those people we are supposedly trying to help.

I will predict what I am going to hear from the parliamentary secretary here shortly. She will talk about how they have accepted 27,000 Afghans here into Canada. My question is this: Out of the 27,000, how many of them were already outside of Afghanistan, already in relative safety? I am not saying that we should not be helping them out, those who were able to flee the country, but my primary concern is about those Afghans still in Afghanistan.

We are going to hear about the challenges, logistical and security challenges. I will continue to call BS on that. I talk on a daily basis, or a weekly basis, with former colleagues and NGOs that are moving Afghans and Ukrainians out of these respective countries, out of war zones, and they can get it done very, very quickly.

I will close with two simple questions. How many more Afghans need to die before the government takes action? When can Parliament expect an update from the government on the 37 recommendations, and the progress that the Liberal government has made them, that came out of the Special Committee on Afghanistan?

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary did not address my questions.

My first question was, when can we expect the Afghans still stuck in Afghanistan to get here? There were lots of excuses and lots of reasons why there are challenges. Again, I talked to the people on the ground directly involved with moving these Afghans. It is the bureaucracy. It is the lack of paperwork. We can move people within days if we just get the bureaucracy and paperwork resolved.

I will go back to the other question I asked. I am looking for an update on when this House of Commons can expect a progress report on the 37 recommendations made by the Special Committee on Afghanistan to the government.

Madam Speaker, the member for Mississauga—Erin Mills talked about and highlighted the need for our current bail system to be improved. Changes need to happen.

I have just two simple questions for her. Does she agree this is an urgent problem? How much time is realistic to address this urgent problem and make necessary changes to our bail system in Canada?

Madam Speaker, the member for Richmond Hill gave us a very long overview of what the bill is intended to do and what Bill C-75 is supposed to do. However, I want to share some facts.

In my riding alone, in December of this past year, in a drive-by shooting, one of the charges was possession of a firearm contrary to a probation order. In December as well, a man was attacked with a hammer and, again, there were several charges, including several counts of breach of probation. In November, a man and a woman were arrested on numerous drug charges, but again the man was charged with additional two counts of a breach of a weapons prohibition. There was another one in my riding, with multiple agencies in a drug bust, where again charges were tied to a prohibition order.

If this bill is so good and we do not need bail reform, why do the stats show that it is not working and we desperately need changes to our bail system?

Mr. Speaker, today is Groundhog Day, and I am proud to represent Canada’s world-famous prognosticator, Wiarton Willie.

Before I share his prediction, I will share how Groundhog Day began for most Canadians. Their alarms went off, they rolled over, grabbed their phones and read about a Liberal sweetheart deal for McKinsey. The next day, their alarms went off, they rolled over, grabbed their phones and were shocked to see yet another McKinsey contract for millions of dollars. They went to bed that night thinking this nightmare had to end, but lo and behold, when they woke up the next morning there was another million-dollar contract for McKinsey.

We may think Bill Murray had it bad in the movie Groundhog Day, but after eight years and random Liberal after another random Liberal getting rich, it is costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.

The good news is that Wiarton Willie brought hope for Canadians this morning. In the great riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, he predicted an early spring, and he also predicted an end to the Liberal scandals and a Conservative win in the next federal election.