Bill C-8

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.
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

[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?

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

Madam Speaker, I am practising my French with my hon. colleague, and I thank her for her patience.

When it comes to the provinces and Canada, what I would say to my hon. colleague is this: cybersecurity attacks do not distinguish. An attack on a city, as my colleague mentioned, like Hamilton, an attack on the province of Quebec or British Columbia, an attack on this legislature or on the Government of Canada, any of those is an attack that we as federal legislators have jurisdiction over and should be addressing. I am not going to say that any attack should be delineated by jurisdiction.

We, here, should be prepared to stand up against every cyber-attack, and I hope to work on legislation that would do that.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola for such a serious speech. I know he is a serious MP and will be working on these issues at the public safety committee on behalf of his constituents.

Speaking of his constituents, I had the pleasure of representing many of them in the Nicola Valley, and I wanted to take this opportunity to ask the member how they are doing, and if he could please pass on my best to each and every one of them.

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

Madam Speaker, that might be the biggest softball I get today.

My hon. colleague will often say when he is there that the people of the Nicola Valley got an upgrade when I started to represent them, but I would joke that it was a downgrade because he is such an exceptional member. One of the things I appreciate about the member, and realized as I was talking to a newer member just yesterday and relating stories about “the member told me this, and this is what I learned from it,” I have not even had a chance to tell him this, but it was at that moment I realized how much wisdom he had imparted to me.

This is very critical. We should be prepared to impart wisdom across the aisle, but also across our benches. I thank the member for his mentorship, example and leadership in this place.

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

Madam Speaker, I heard my friend's comment earlier on Bill C-2, and I want to pursue it a bit. I know we are talking about Bill C-8.

I would like the member's thoughts on this as a lawyer. Why would we not consider something else instead of thinking we can open people's mail? It has the addressee's name right on it. If we think a package or a letter is suspicious, does the hon. member think there is a better way to pursue what is in the envelope by asking the addressee before we open it without their permission?

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

Madam Speaker, we come back to mail every time. The hon. member is a lawyer. To be candid, I would have to give that some thought. My law enforcement brain is thinking that there may not be candour from somebody who is saying, “Yes, please open up this envelope that has drugs in it. Go ahead.” I do worry about that.

In terms of other measures, though, whenever somebody looks at something in which a section 8 privacy interest, the right to be free from arbitrary search and seizure, is engaged, I think the easiest mechanism is to get a warrant. I would love to talk more with this member and the member for Winnipeg North about what the technical briefing told me, because it was completely different from what I thought I was going to hear. I am happy to discuss that further.

Let us just put a warrant provision in the bill and be done with it.