Debates of Sept. 26th, 2025

An Act Respecting Cyber Security

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

moved that Bill C-8, An Act respecting cyber security, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts, be now read a second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I am grateful to speak today to Bill C-8, an act respecting cyber security, and I want to acknowledge that we are gathered here on the traditional unceded territory of the Anishinabe Algonquin people.

Let me also take this opportunity to acknowledge the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation coming up on September 30, also known as Orange Shirt Day. It is a critically important day for Canada. It is a critical day for survivors and the young people who never went home. This is a part of our history we need to reflect on, and I encourage all Canadians to mark this commemoration in their own way. I want to particularly acknowledge the incredible pain and resilience of indigenous people across this land.

I would like to take this opportunity to remind my colleagues in the House why it is urgent that we pass this bill.

Right now, Canada is facing unprecedented cyber-threats across all sectors of society. Government, industry, academia and individuals have been targeted by increasingly sophisticated threats, including the malicious use of artificial intelligence. The Communications Security Establishment, or CSE, has said cybercrime is now the most prevalent and pervasive threat to Canadians and Canadian businesses. The CSE's cyber centre has warned us of the many risks of cyber-threats, with ransomware at the top of that list.

I think all parliamentarians would agree that Canada must be better prepared to deal with these threats to protect Canadians, our critical infrastructure and our economy and to ensure Canada remains secure, competitive and connected. Cyber-threats to Canada are evolving rapidly, increasing in size and technical sophistication every day.

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

Madam Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. The interpretation stopped working during my colleague's speech.

The minister is moving papers around near the microphone and it is affecting the sound quality and making it hard for the interpreters to hear.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The minister has to be careful when moving his sheets of paper, because they are covering the mic. Apparently it interrupts the interpretation.

Interpretation is now working.

The hon. minister.

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

My colleague gave a speech and spoke about increasing cybersecurity. It is no secret that everything has increased under the Liberals, whether it be the cost of living, the amount of tax we are paying or the cost of groceries, which the Prime Minister said we should judge him on. It has gone up. Right now, we have a cost of living crisis.

Small businesses are the engine of the Canadian economy. How will these regulatory burdens impact small businesses when it is death by a thousand cuts already as a result of Liberal inaction on so many different fronts?

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

Madam Speaker, I would argue that Bill C-8 would in fact help small businesses.

If members recall, this is about securing critical infrastructure, whether it is in telecommunications, transportation, finance or other critical infrastructure. For example, if the banking system were to be taken down or was off-line for several days or even hours, it could severely impact the ability of small businesses to do their job. The telecommunications infrastructure is an example. If someone were to try to pay through the Interac system, but it was down because of a cyber-attack, this bill would ensure small businesses are protected. This bill is meant to ensure that critical infrastructure, which is important for the operation of small businesses, is protected. This is what Bill C-8 would do.

I look forward to other questions from the member opposite.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the minister. I also reviewed the bill and read the legislative summary from the Library of Parliament. As a side note, the work of the Library of Parliament's analysts and researchers is outstanding. They are really great.

Although the minister is trying to reassure us, the fact is that some doubt remains in terms of the protection of privacy in this bill. The bill will be supported by the Bloc Québécois, which will vote for it at second reading in order to refer it to a committee.

Is the minister open to the idea of further improving Bill C‑8 through amendments that the Bloc Québécois may introduce?

[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.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for tabling this bill, which we are now studying at second reading.

I sit on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. I would like the minister to tell us a bit more about the importance and impact of protecting privacy and personal data in Bill C‑8.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, who has returned to Parliament. I am very excited to work with her again in her capacity as a member.

I want to highlight that there are a number of provisions in the bill that would ensure the security of privacy information in the course of this bill's implementation. For example, the personal, confidential information of individuals or businesses could not be shared. It would need to be shared in the context of ensuring the security and safety of critical infrastructure and for no other purpose.

We have done a fair bit of work to ensure that privacy rights are protected. Of course, in anything we do, we are still governed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects Canadians against breaches where their individual information may be shared. This is a bill to ensure that businesses, such as the business my friend opposite used to run in her riding, could continue to work without disruptions in the banking or telecommunications sector, for example, or from loss of hydro. It is so that small businesses would not be impacted whatsoever at times when there may be incidents of cyber-attacks.

[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, 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.

[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, it is important to recognize that this bill would not impact or impose conditions on SMEs. It is much more for bigger telecommunications companies, transportation companies and critical infrastructure across Canada that are quite large enterprises. They are not small businesses per se. In fact, the work we do protecting and ensuring cybersecurity is to protect and support small businesses, at its core.

[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?

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

Madam Speaker, I have indicated that we will continue to work with the opposition and continue to work through the parliamentary process to strengthen the bill.

[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.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

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

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the member from Winnipeg is laughing. What he does not know is that I actually had a technical briefing yesterday in which I asked the minister's own people about this. I see the member from Winnipeg is listening intently. I am so glad he is. They told me I was right. The bill enables opening of mail without a warrant on a standard of reasonable suspicion. If something is found there, a warrant will then be needed.

I did not mean to go off on this tangent, but for those who are unaware, the member for Winnipeg North and I have jousted, sometimes being more friendly than at other times, on this very issue. I think he owes me a coffee, and I will end it at that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

To open the mail, we still have to get the warrant.

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

Madam Speaker, the member is still fighting it. His own departmental officials have said a warrant is not needed. I can tell the member for Winnipeg North that a warrant is not needed, and I will leave it at that. It had better be a good coffee.

Conservatives fully recognize the importance of cybersecurity as part of our national defence strategy. We can all be united on that. There is no doubt about it. Unfortunately, it is the Conservatives' position that the government has lagged behind when it comes to recognizing the importance of cybersecurity as part of our national defence strategy. The government is slow to address cyber-threats, over a number of serious incidents to occur, with no substantive legislative response in 10 years. That means that when this legislation comes before us, even for a second time, we have to get it right.

We as Conservatives want to review this legislation and ensure ways it would stand up for the security of Canadians, but not at the expense of privacy and charter rights. The Liberals will often say they are the party of the charter, and yet so often we will see pieces of legislation, and I see it in Bill C-2, that I think certainly offend section 8, the search and seizure provisions of the charter. We need to ensure that any such provisions are subject to Canadians' rights and, at the same time, reach our goals.

Some of the Conservatives' key concerns are transparency and accountability. The bill could be stronger when it comes to oversight measures with respect to retention limits. When we give the government our intellectual property and information, meaning the collective “we” as Canadians, what happens to that?

I come from a criminal law background, and I know that in certain cases, those doing investigations would say, “Look, we are asking for something voluntarily. We will destroy it so that you know this will never be used again.”

When people give information to the government compelled by legislation, it is my position that people need to know to what extent that information will be used or shared and with whom. When we are talking about digital information, something that, let us face it, the expertise of which is beyond so many of us, as a legislature we need to be extremely careful and concerned about the extent of that sharing.

What does “personal information” mean? This is building on what I just said, the information that can be used, which could leave Canadians' privacy vulnerable. This bill is often about operating in secrecy. There is a time to be secret and there is a time not to be secret, obviously. As Conservatives, we want to ensure that we are not being secret when we do not need to be and that we have an open and accountable government.

One of my greatest criticisms over the past 10 years is the lack of accountability and the obfuscation. I cannot say how many times I have sat in this House when questions were asked and there were absolutely no answers to them. We cannot even figure out how many trees were planted some days. I note the government said it would plant two billion, and it could not do that. I do not know how it is going to build houses, but that is a different speech on a different day.

I know I am coming to the end of my time. I can see the member for Winnipeg North is really wanting to get up and ask about Bill C-2. With that, I will sit down, and I will answer any questions he or others may have.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I would remind all members that we are on Bill C-8, not Bill C-2.

The hon. member for Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am not an expert on cybersecurity, but as a former municipal councillor in Hamilton, which was subject to one of the largest cybersecurity attacks in the history of Canada, I know a whole lot more about it than I ever wanted to.

It is good to hear that Conservatives and the governing party have a lot in common regarding this bill in wanting to ensure and protect the security, information and private data of Canadians. On privacy concerns, what we have learned is that the implications of a cyber-attack, the theft of private data by cybercriminals, is a far greater risk than implementing an act to protect that data in the first place.

On the issue of cost, what we learned at the City of Hamilton is that the cost of having robust cybersecurity is far less than recovering after the fact. Would the member agree?

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

Madam Speaker, the House will get no argument from me that we have to prevent cybersecurity attacks and the catastrophic outcome of those cybersecurity attacks, which often cannot be measured. Obviously, we do need to do that. Yes, as a councillor, the member would have experienced this. There was a vulnerability, and it was attacked. We live in a world where hostile actors will attack us.

With that being said, as Conservatives, and, I think, as legislators in this place, we should seek both. We should say that we do not have one at the expense of the other; we should seek to have excellent cybersecurity defence while maintaining the rights of Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, while listening to my colleague, I also get the impression, as a member of the Standing Committee on Public Safety, that we will have a lot of work to do. We seem to agree, however, on the importance of discussing and passing this bill, which will allow us to manage cybersecurity systems across Canada.

My colleague knows that the bill targets highly critical sectors like banking, but it also covers the energy sector. Where energy is concerned, the thought of pipelines comes to mind. Pipelines are federally regulated, so there is no problem there. However, it also calls to mind hydro lines and electrical transmission, which currently come under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces.

Does my colleague get the impression that Bill C-8, as it stands, involves overlapping jurisdictions and federal encroachment on Quebec's jurisdictions?