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, 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?

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, misinformation is really important on this. What the member is trying to say is that if any of the 55,000 people who work for Canada Post have any sense that there is any sort of a drug in a number 10 envelope, they will have the authority to open that envelope. I believe he knows full well that is not the case. A warrant would be required. Bill C-2 legislation would put Canada Post on the same playing field as Purolator and other companies.

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

No, Madam Speaker, that is wrong. It says Canada Post may open a letter when its employees have reasonable grounds to suspect; a warrant is issued on reasonable grounds to believe. I cannot be any more clear. No, the member is wrong. I am sorry, he is wrong.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-8, An Act respecting cyber security, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[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, I believe that parliamentarians, particularly on our side as opposition, should have the opportunity to voice their concerns. Does that mean Conservatives are going to put forward 140 speakers to the bill? No. At the same time, the reality is that the member is asking me whether I promise. I promise to do so as long as he concedes I am right on Bill C-2.

We are here in our democracy, and I spoke about the honour of being here as members. At the end of the day, I think the people who have concerns about Bill C-2 or want to endorse it from the government side should have their opportunity to speak. I believe we should afford them every opportunity to do so. At that point, we can look at the bill's going to committee.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke of a few problems with the bill. She mentioned amendments that the Bloc Québécois would like to move in committee.

Can she explain the amendments and the reasons for them?

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

Mr. Speaker, although I cannot list the provisions, I can say that we will be moving a few amendments on privacy. We also intend to move amendments to ensure respect for Quebec's jurisdictions and ensure that Hydro-Québec can continue to collaborate with the United States, since it is already heavily regulated.

If the bill stays in its current form, with no amendments, we find it hard to imagine that Quebec and Hydro-Québec will be able to continue this collaboration. In our opinion, this part makes no sense and creates jurisdictional overlap. We are going to study this issue.

I like my colleague a lot. We both sit on the all-party border caucus. However, I cannot overlook the fact that the Conservatives, the Liberals and the NDP joined forces to defeat amendments on the issue of federal interference in Quebec's jurisdictions.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know whether my colleague thinks this bill should be sent to committee as soon as possible so we can really study the amendments she talked about at length.

Does she think that should happen as soon as possible?

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague that this is a very urgent and important bill that deserves our attention. I would like to have the opportunity to study it in committee right away so that we can present our arguments and amendments and better define the issue of interference. Honestly, I do not think the Liberals and Conservatives fully understand what this means for Quebec and Hydro-Québec.

Sometimes these legislative measures are conceived out of a simple lack of knowledge or a strong inclination toward centralization. We are left with the impression that the government wants the provinces to gradually become mere subsidiaries, with all major decisions made only in Ottawa.

[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]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to interference in this case, there is really no difference between the Liberals, the Conservatives and the NDP because they all have the same penchant for centralization.

Earlier, my Conservative colleague, the public safety critic, with whom I serve on the committee, was telling me that cybersecurity and cyber-threats know no borders. I understand what he is saying, but the federal government cannot just introduce a bill forcing Hydro‑Québec to comply with two different ways of combatting cyber-threats. Our electricity grid has been in place for a long time, and there are really important mechanisms in place to counter cyber-threats and cyber-attacks. In any case, the grid is attacked every day because electricity is important and essential.

I am going to make it my duty to educate my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security and explain to them that there is no danger in letting Hydro‑Québec manage cybersecurity itself and counter cyber-threats itself.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my Bloc Québécois colleague and congratulate her on the relevance of the points she made. This is hardly about centralization. I am not an expert in this area, but I think we can agree that cybercriminals act quickly and nimbly. Their crimes are evolving so fast that our laws and those of other countries cannot keep up.

Does she not see that the constraints she is adding with her amendments could undermine our efforts to be as nimble as cybercriminals?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, with whom I serve on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. I think we have something in common, specifically that we both want to understand the issues and learn more.

My answer to his question is no. Hydro-Québec already complies with North American standards. It feels as though Bill C-8 is another layer on top of existing standards. Hydro-Québec would then be stuck trying to comply two sets of standards and, in extreme cases, it could face penalties from two authorities. This needs to be explored further to see how that scenario could be avoided. We will discuss this in committee.

I do not have the answer, so I will ask the member for Bourassa the following question: Was Quebec consulted? Was Quebec's minister of cybersecurity and digital technology consulted? Were the other provinces asked for their opinions?

In my view, this bill calls for co-operation. When co-operation is required, it is important to take the time to consult those who will be affected.

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

Madam Speaker, when I look at legislation, whether it is on finance, telecommunications, energy or our transportation industry, these are responsibilities that the federal government has. It is the federal government's responsibility to take a look at one of the greatest threats, that being cybersecurity. Putting in a framework and establishing this legislation is critically important. I do not think that what we want to see is dealing with energy. In Manitoba, we have a lot of hydro, much like Quebec. Manitoba and Quebec have a lot in common.

I see having the federal government take responsibility and provide that additional sense of security, given the importance of hydro power to both of our provinces, as a positive. How is it a negative thing? That is the question I have for the member.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Winnipeg North for asking me that question. I get the sense that he is curious and wants to understand our position, which is nice.

As for me, I am curious about whether Manitoba was consulted. That is something I am personally curious about. Perhaps my colleague already knows the answer.

We need to see how we can avoid duplicating what is already in place and what is working well, and how we can collaborate. I believe we will explore this aspect in committee so that we can understand it fully. Perhaps we will conclude that only a small change will be necessary. Then the government will be able to offer Quebeckers and the people in the other provinces greater security for critical systems and sectors by collaborating and leveraging provincial expertise.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, let me begin by saying that I will be splitting my time with the member for Vancouver East.

I am very pleased to rise today to speak in support of Bill C‑8, an act respecting cyber security. This critical piece of legislation will strengthen Canada's resilience against public and private cyber-threats.

I believe that all of my parliamentary colleagues would agree that cyber-threats are now a major security concern in Canada. Bad actors are going to extreme lengths to disrupt our daily lives by carrying out cyber-threats against critical infrastructure. These disruptions have very serious consequences given our day-to-day reliance on technology. Whether for banking, communications or government services, cyber-incidents can affect every aspect of our lives. That is why it is imperative that we update our laws in order to mount an adequate and agile response to modern-day threats.

In June, our government introduced Bill C‑8, which represents an important step in combatting cybercrime and protecting our critical infrastructures from cyber-threats. The possibility that the critical infrastructures Canadians rely on for essential services could be hit by cyber-incidents poses a threat to our public safety, national security and economic prosperity.

Cyber-threats are becoming more and more frequent and sophisticated, and are increasingly sponsored or supported by states. Moreover, Canada's critical infrastructure is becoming increasingly digitized and interconnected, particularly with the emergence of new technologies such as 5G and 5G+. Any compromise in the telecommunications, energy, finance or transport sectors could jeopardize the security of Canadians or cause significant damage to the Canadian economy.

Passing this bill represents an important step in the government's ongoing work to combat cyber-threats, address vulnerabilities and ensure the security of Canadians and Canadian private, public and quasi-public businesses. This bill aims to strengthen national security, public safety and economic prosperity by better protecting Canada's telecommunications system against threats and enhancing the cybersecurity of federally regulated critical infrastructure.

Bill C‑8 will help strengthen our economic prosperity, as resilient infrastructure is precisely what global investors are looking for. Digital sovereignty is also a global objective. It is unrealistic to believe that investments or investors will come if we do not demonstrate a clear commitment to protecting our critical infrastructure.

To that end, this bill introduces security-related amendments to the Telecommunications Act and establishes a new cybersecurity framework aimed at strengthening the resilience of our country's critical cyber systems. The amendments to the Telecommunications Act are intended to ensure the security of Canada's telecommunications system. In particular, they are intended to protect it from threats posed by high-risk providers. These amendments will give the government clear and explicit legal authority to require telecommunications operators to take the necessary measures to protect their systems.

The bill also enacts the critical cyber systems protection act, which requires designated operators in the finance, telecommunications, energy, and transportation sectors to protect their critical cyber systems. This obligation includes implementing a cybersecurity program and reporting cybersecurity incidents to the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security.

Through cybersecurity incident reporting, our intelligence agencies will be better equipped to monitor trends and new methods used by bad actors. Let me say it again: Bad actors are much more agile and improve much faster. Unfortunately, they tend to find their way around systems. At times, this renders all government systems out-of-date.

The critical cyber systems protection act also provides the government with a new tool for taking action to fight cybersecurity threats or vulnerabilities as needed, and to protect Canadian cyber systems more effectively. This legislation will help our government fulfill its security mandate and meet its security priorities.

This government is committed to fighting modern threats like foreign interference, transnational repression and cybercrime. Because these crimes are often interconnected, this bill would play a key role in this fight by enabling the government to take action to promote the safety and security of Canada's critical infrastructure.

It is time to update our legislation so that it is able to address 21st-century threats and challenges. If this bill receives royal assent, the provisions of the critical cyber systems protection act will be implemented gradually, and the consultations under way between the government and industry stakeholders regarding the development of regulations will continue in order to minimize the potential impacts on the sectors affected.

By giving the government the capacity to take direct measures against cyber-threats or vulnerabilities, this bill will strengthen the cybersecurity of Canada's essential infrastructure through its regulatory framework, while enabling the Communications Security Establishment to be better informed of the cyber-threats facing that infrastructure. The new powers granted by the bill will help us to proactively monitor the ever-changing landscape of cyber-threats and take quick action to stop threats and address vulnerabilities.

It often seems that not a day goes by without us hearing about a cyber-incident that has occurred somewhere in the world or in Canada. Canadians hear about these incidents and are rightly concerned about the security of their personal information and the disruptions that could be caused to the systems they rely on every day, such as financial and banking systems. We need to respond to these concerns. As legislators, it is our duty to do all we can for them.

Cybersecurity is not a partisan issue. That is why I invite my hon. opposition colleagues to support us in our efforts to strengthen our collective security. We are monitoring developments in Canada and abroad, and we are taking appropriate action. The government will continue to consult stakeholders and interested parties throughout the regulatory process. While changes are definitely needed to strengthen our systems and infrastructure, we want to ensure that there is as little disruption as possible to industry, which will be a key partner in combatting cybercrime and in strengthening our resilience.

In closing, I once again invite all of my parliamentary colleagues to support this bill in order to protect Canada and Canadians from cyber-threats.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to see you in that chair.

I commend my colleague from Bourassa on his speech, which I enjoyed.

We all understand that cybersecurity is a 21st-century topic that does not just affect Quebec City, Quebec and Canada. The entire planet is subject to cyber-threats. Obviously, this bill presents approaches that are worth considering. However, if we want to keep people safe, we also have to protect their personal information. We believe that the bill should better define what constitutes personal information, since everything hinges on that. We all want to be protected from cyber-attacks, but we also want to be sure that our personal information is not being given out to everyone.

Could the member elaborate on that?

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question.

There are two dimensions here. The first has to do with cyber-threats. We are talking about criminals and how to deal with them.

With regard to my speech, at one point I mentioned that service providers must be required to comply. That being said, it is my opinion and that of the government, that, to complement this bill, we need to establish digital sovereignty as a government and as a country, so that we have our own infrastructure and so that we are not dependent on international service providers.

In this case, once we have full control over our data, storage and clouds, we can really talk about securing the data of our fellow citizens.

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

Madam Speaker, the bill spells out in black and white that the federal government intends to collaborate on cybersecurity with the provinces and territories. This caught my attention, and I want to come back to the word “collaborate”.

Collaboration often means that Ottawa imposes its will and everyone else does as they are told.

I would like to know whether, this time, the word “collaborate” means true collaboration, where the government consults the other parties concerned, gathers their advice and ultimately reaches a joint decision. In other words, Ottawa does not impose a decision.

Since the government claims that it wants to collaborate on this bill, there should perhaps be some guarantee that Ottawa has held consultations with the Government of Quebec and Hydro-Québec, which will have to live with the consequences of this bill.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to reiterate what I said earlier and I will repeat it again, to make it very clear.

Collaboration involves all stakeholders, including provinces, territories, and, as I said earlier, all industries, whether public or quasi-public. Why? It is because we want to act quickly, because the threat is there. In the meantime, we do not want to cause any disruption to industry. That is very important.

Stakeholders will be consulted and gradual action will be taken. We will consult with all stakeholders, including the provinces and industries.

Far be it from our government to want to disrupt industry.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's very thoughtful speech.

I wonder if my colleague sees what else this law can bring. Can we have tools in this bill that can help inform and educate our communities so that people understand how to protect themselves in cyberspace?

Of course, the bill focuses on institutions, but I wonder if we can bring in tools to teach and educate people who spend time in cyberspace.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, I talked about cracking down on crime, but my colleague is absolutely right to mention education.

I am not just talking about public safety, but also about other sectors and other areas. Departments need to have communication strategies that educate users so that their data is as secure as possible.

[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.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member talked a lot about the protective measures, but the bill is one that has been in the House before. I think she supported it in the past as well.

Are amendments to establish a regulatory framework to strengthen the baseline of cybersecurity something the member would like to bring to committee to discuss and support, going forward with the bill?

[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.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Madam Speaker, let me congratulate and express deep gratitude to the hon. member for that excellent speech. I too am terribly concerned by the civil liberties restrictions that this bill would impose. I note that when this bill was in the last Parliament, several civil society organizations, including the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights, penned an open letter saying it tramples our civil liberties.

To the deputy House leader's point, I would just like to point out that this bill has already been to committee. It has already been criticized by these civil liberties organizations.

Why did the Liberals not make the amendments these civil society groups asked for?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I cannot really answer why the government is doing what it is doing. It is doing many things I do not agree with, such as what it is doing with Canada Post right now. I cannot answer for the government.

What I can do, though, is to raise these concerns again and to put them forward. I expect we will hear from expert witnesses at committee. I expect amendments will be put forward, and I hope they will be taken seriously. I hope we can work collaboratively, because cybersecurity for Canadians is really important, but so too are our rights and our democracy. We can strike the right balance.

I really urge the government to stop centralizing all the power and making decisions behind closed doors and giving ministers, in this instance the Minister of Industry, this expansive power without transparency.

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

Madam Speaker, I also congratulate my colleague on her speech. She raised a number of very relevant points, particularly regarding the centralization of power within cabinet, which has ultimately resulted in a law marked by numerous ambiguities.

Of course, the Bloc Québécois wants to ensure that we have the means to deal with cyber-attacks, but we are very concerned about Quebec's jurisdiction being respected.

Given the excessive centralization of authority within cabinet, is my colleague prepared to work with the Bloc Québécois to ensure that the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces are respected?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is important to respect jurisdictional authority, and I am not sure if the government actually struck the right balance in this bill. I am not sure it has struck the right balance in ensuring that respect is in place, but more importantly, to respect the privacy rights and those measures the government put forward that meet the standard of transparency and accountability.

There is a lot of stuff in this bill that comes without independent oversight, as an example. That is not good for Canadians; that is not good for anyone. We will see what happens at committee. I expect amendments will be put forward. The NDP does not have a seat at the committee table, but we will be watching to see how things progress and we will make a determination of how we can enhance Bill C-8 for all Canadians.

[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—

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

The hon. member is out of time.

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

Madam Speaker, the member brought up the issue of foreign interference, and I just cannot resist. We all know, when it comes to foreign interference, that the Leader of the Conservative Party has yet to actually get his security clearance.

If the Conservative Party wants any credibility whatsoever in dealing with the issue of foreign interference, would the member not agree that their own political leader, the Leader of the Conservative Party, should at very least get a security clearance done?

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech.

We both have the privilege of sitting on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. We will be studying Bill C‑8 together in committee. I think we all agree that Bill C‑8 is important and that we will likely pass it after the study in committee. I do not think anyone here wants to slow down the work, but I think we want to take a close look at several aspects, including privacy protection.

It is also important for us to address the issue of federal interference in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction. Is my colleague willing to learn more about this part of the bill that the Bloc Québécois is keen to amend?

[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.

[Bienvenu-Olivier Ntumba, Liberal, Mont-Saint-Bruno—L’Acadie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed the member's speech and I hear what he is saying.

However, I have one concern. I would like him to explain to me why his party is hesitant to support this bill, which will protect our families, our hospitals and our banks from cyber-attacks.

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

Madam Speaker, we are not hesitant to support a bill that would really protect Canadians.

However, the problem is that the bill is very narrow in scope and flawed in terms of giving the ministers too much power. There is no balance between rights and protections.

If the bill were amended according to what we suggest, we would like to see it discussed further. With the form it is in right now, we cannot support the bill.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Madam Speaker, I note that in 2021, the Liberal Party said it was going to combat authoritarianism worldwide.

I remark, with horror, I suppose, on the authoritarianism that I detect in this document that they are proposing to get through the House, after the strenuous objections of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

Does the member have any reflections on either the authoritarianism in the bill or the hypocrisy that such authoritarianism implies?

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

Madam Speaker, as I already pointed out, the bill would not really protect Canadians. It would only give the government and the ministers more power to intrude on the privacy of average Canadians. It is the secrecy in the bill that is problematic.

We have reflected on this many times at the public safety and national security committee, and I am sure we will hear more presentations and discussions on it if the bill goes to committee again.

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

Madam Speaker, it is an absolute honour to rise in this chamber to talk about a very serious matter: those who are and are not addressed in the bill before us, Bill C-8.

Let me hearken back to a previous parliament when I had my first opportunity to work with the splendid member for Parkland. We were both on the industry committee, and during our time on that committee, Ottawa had a tornado incident. This tornado scared a lot of people and caused a lot of damage to Ottawa. Many people were quite surprised that after about eight or so hours, they were not able to use their cellphones to get in touch with their loved ones. This surprised me, because most people assume that in an urban centre such as Ottawa, there is continuous service, even after a strenuous event such as a tornado. I can only imagine someone trying desperately to reach their family and loved ones or to connect with work to say why they could not be there. To not have the ability to do that caused a lot of consternation in the community.

The member for Parkland put forward a motion for us to study this further, and some of the things we found out in regard to it were not reassuring. For example, there is no regulation surrounding what telecommunications companies have to have as backup. Essentially, a telecommunications company, such as Rogers or Telus, often have backup generators, but there is no provision to say for how long. We saw a system strained by a tornado, and the damage and fear were compounded by the telecommunications companies not having sufficient gas in generator tanks for them to continue service after the tornado incident. This is a small example of the vulnerabilities that currently exist within our system that hopefully Bill C-8 will address.

There are two components to this particular legislation. One, as I was referencing, refers to the Telecommunications Act, and the other would create new provisions surrounding cybersecurity.

I think most Canadians understand the dependence we now have on our ability to communicate with one another and access information quickly. If the systems that we so heavily depend on in our modern life were to become compromised, the disturbance that could have is not just about the inconvenience of, for example, not being able to access Environment Canada's weather reports. There could be other issues when it comes to banking. One only has to think about the incident in Toronto when suddenly Rogers flickered and no one was able to access their accounts. In fact, business owners were not able to do Interac transactions, and of course, small and medium-sized businesses had no way to take payment, because many of us rely almost exclusively on credit and debit cards. When most people stop and think about how dependent they are on technology and how interdependent these systems are, they quickly come to the conclusion that there should be something there.

I believe, as every member in this place would probably believe, that the government has a responsibility to protect its own systems. That has been done over time. Has it been perfect? No. There have been privacy breaches and attacks by entities. The NSICOP reports talk about how we are frequently targeted by authoritarian regimes. For example, the Communist Chinese regime in Beijing is cited in the reports, as is Russia.

There are also non-state actors who will try to hack into our different systems, so it makes sense to people when we say that the government should protect our information, health records, tax records and any personal information we have. People understand that, and they want their government to be secure, particularly when we start talking about national defence or our different security and intelligence systems. However, people do not always assume that the same protections that government encourages and codifies in its own practices are being done in the private sector. Bill C-8 would create a set of provisions to do that.

Conservatives believe strongly in the need to protect our national security and to make sure these critical systems we depend on will function when Canadians need them the most, during times of emergency or if we are attacked by our adversaries abroad. I believe the government understands this issue and is trying to find the legislation necessary.

That is where I am going to stop saying what I agree with and point out a few things.

It seems the government has smartened up a bit and adopted certain amendments that were pushed by Conservatives at committee stage in the last Parliament. That is a good thing. A good idea should be seen as such, and it should not matter which side it comes from. That is a problem we have in this place. Too often it is on who proposes an idea that one decides the merit of it, and that is wrong. It should be on the merit of the idea for the betterment of Canadians.

What I will say is when a party, particularly the governing party, is given tremendous powers and uses that authority for its own purposes, that becomes a problem. I can already see some of my friends across the way starting to waver, wondering where I am going with this. When the Prime Minister dropped the writ and effectively launched an election this past spring, there were consequences. The fact that this bill did not make it through and become law is 100% on the Liberal government today.

I wanted to make sure I stated that for the record, because when a Prime Minister puts his own government's interest ahead of the public interest, it should be called out, and they should be held accountable. I think the Liberal Party needs to listen, in a minority government, to other viewpoints that say this should have happened and it should have passed. Maybe the Liberals could have waited a bit longer, but they did not. They decided to put their own electoral interests ahead of societal interests.

It is important to know that it rests with the government, but we are here now. We are offering similar critiques and are happy they were listened to, in part, in the last Parliament and have been incorporated into the bill, but there are still some oversights.

For example, with respect to privacy, in a previous Parliament when I was on the industry committee, Statistics Canada ordered Canada's banks to give it holus-bolus a large amount of information, everything from mortgages to debits. We called on the chief statistician to account for this new collection of a massive amount of information. By the way, to their credit, someone at the big banks leaked it to the media. That is the only way we would have known about it. We brought the chief statistician of the day forward, who assured the committee that Statistics Canada was going to, basically, anonymize all of the information. Within four questions, that argument crumbled.

It crumbled, and so did the collection exercise, because it became quite apparent that Statistics Canada had not informed the minister that it was doing this, something it is required to do under law. I was very lucky to have some privacy experts reach out to me and give me some direction about what to ask, and the chief statistician's whole argument crumbled. He basically said that even though Statistics Canada would anonymize the data, it was very simple to reassemble it, to realign it and have someone's complete information.

I can tell members that Canadians care very much about their privacy rights. In a world where we are more interconnected and utilize technology all the time, where our digital thumbprint, so to speak, is everywhere, people care about where that information goes. Under this regime, the government has given itself almost a complete pass when it comes to the management of the privacy of Canadians.

The government would essentially do the same thing Statistics Canada did, saying they could take the information, order the information and use it however they want without any oversight. That is wrong.

Conservatives at committee are going to be talking about privacy rights, even if the ministers and the members on that committee do not want to talk about this, because we are there to make sure—

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

I am here to make sure we respect time, so I have to do that.

The hon. deputy House leader.

[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?

[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—

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

The hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon.

[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, I would like to thank my colleague for her very kind comment. My mother used to say that I had a face made for radio.

It is important to discuss how best to improve the government's approach, even if the government does not want to hear it. Like the hon. member, I too hope that this bill will be improved.

[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?

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

Madam Speaker, let us bear in mind that there was an election. There are a lot of new faces here. Many are not just new; they represent different parties than in the previous parliament. They deserve the benefit of being able to consult their constituents and bring forward ideas.

It seems to me that those here today speaking from the Liberal Party are very frustrated that new members of Parliament may have questions for them, questions that maybe they do not think are important but that I believe this Parliament will find important. I hope we can improve this legislation together.

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order about relevance. We know the member is new to this place and does not know the difference between Private Members' Business and public bills. Maybe you could educate him on that and, while doing that, ask him to turn the volume down.

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

I think the hon. member knows there is a lot of lenience in letting members get to the point. I am pretty sure the hon. parliamentary secretary will do that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, when I stand to speak, periodically these frivolous points of order are raised. I want to make sure the time is stopped. Quite frankly, I think I should get a bonus minute every time someone stands.

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

The hon. parliamentary secretary has seven minutes and 47 seconds.

[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—

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

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Parkland.

[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]

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—

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

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to highlight the work of the parliamentary secretary, who always has something to say about virtually every bill introduced in the House. We can see that he has a thorough understanding of each of the issues raised.

Since he is so knowledgeable about these issues, I would like to know whether his government has communicated with the Government of Quebec and Hydro-Québec to ensure that this bill does not interfere with Quebec's affairs.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I can assure the member that the minister, even in his opening comments, made reference to extensive consultations having been done. I would like to think that, as a member of Parliament, I also have the opportunity to consult with, for example, Manitoba Hydro. I know hydro is a very important issue related to this particular legislation. Hopefully the member has consulted with Hydro Québec, if that is the concern he has, and hopefully he will be able to express those concerns to the minister directly. I can assure the member that the minister has conducted a great deal of consultations with different stakeholders, including provincial governments.

[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, 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.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to reflect on something the member said about the last Parliament, which is that we engaged in some sort of frivolous activities. I hope he will reflect on that, because I do not think any hon. member would suggest that it is frivolous for the House to defend its historic privileges to demand any information it requires to make its decisions. I hope he will reflect on that.

The member spoke a lot about, in his comments, the problems that Canadians face with respect to cybersecurity. I would agree with him on many of them. However, he did not speak very much about the substance of the bill, so let me bring everyone back to the substance of the bill, and specifically the proposed subsection 15.1 (1) and 15 (2) orders, which would provide the minister or the Governor in Council sweeping powers to address what it calls “manipulation, disruption”, or anything.

I would hope the hon. member could help to assure me that those powers would not be used to crush dissent that it views as manipulation in the system.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I can assure him that will not be the case.

In terms of what took place last November and December, I would highly recommend to the member that he read the Hansard. He will find that the Conservative Party in particular was a destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons for going all out at preventing—

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

Resuming debate, the hon. deputy House leader.

[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.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to inform my colleague opposite that I was not in the last Parliament. I would have had a lot to say about the legislation if I had been.

The members on the other side and the deputy government House leader say they want the bill to go to committee so it can be made better. The bill already went to committee. Multiple experts from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Constitution Foundation, Ligue des droits et libertés, OpenMedia and the Privacy & Access Council of Canada were there. They gave their comments. They wrote an open letter, in which they said the legislation “lacks guardrails to constrain abuse”, that its “secrecy undermines accountability and due process” and that it “lacks justification”. It would not do what it says it would do.

If the Liberals want the bill to be made better in committee but it has already been there and they had all summer to improve it, why did they not effect the amendments the experts from civil society organizations asked for?

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the member was not in Parliament in the last session and does not remember that, after a long filibuster and grandstanding from the Conservatives, the Conservatives ended up voting for it. They sent it to the Senate. For very small amendments, the Senate sent it back to the House. We are able to introduce the legislation again under Bill C-8. The member opposite did not have the opportunity to be here, so he does not know there is a lot of hypocrisy when his colleagues grandstand and say they are not going to support it, and then they vote for it. Maybe he wants to have some conversations with his colleagues about that.

[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, my colleague was asked the same question earlier, and I will give the same answer. We have already consulted the provinces, and we will continue to consult them.

If my colleague wants to propose amendments, then he understand how important it is to send the bill to committee as soon as possible so that we can discuss it.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, NSICOP did a study of this, before my time on it. Specifically, it had a number of findings. One of them was that there is inconsistency in the Treasury Board and Shared Services Canada with respect to cyber-defence across all government and federal departments and agencies, including Crown corporations.

Can the deputy House leader confirm that Bill C-8, or that the government writ large, would provide the necessary resources to all these Crown corporations and smaller departments and agencies to uphold these policies, and would Bill C-8 direct every single one of these departments to make sure the processes and tools are in place to protect our government networks right across the country?

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think I talked about that in my speech, that we want to be able to provide operators the tools they need to be able to secure the networks for Canadians. I talked about the importance, especially in 2025, of making sure we do this in a timely manner.

Perhaps the member can talk to his colleagues about why they want to grandstand in this debate when we are just asking that the bill go to committee so that we can talk about it more. The members can add amendments as necessary, and then we can move along. If this is really important to Canadians, and I am sure the member opposite heard this at the doors, and I am sure this is really important to him as well, why can we not send this to committee to be—

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

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Madam Speaker, I was not a member of Parliament when this bill was debated before, but I am here now. It is 2025, and this issue is of the utmost importance for our economy and our country. I would like to ask my colleague to talk about how urgent it is that we begin studying this bill in committee.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to invite my colleague to join this very important discussion. It was important during the last Parliament, and it is even more important in 2025. It is important for small businesses in his community and in my community. It is important for our hospitals and our systems. It is important that we send the bill to committee and pass it.

[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.

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

It being 2:30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Wednesday, October 1, at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Orders 28(1) and 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)

The House resumed from September 26 consideration of the motion that Bill C‑8, An Act respecting cyber security, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, first, I will be sharing my time with the member for Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton.

I am honoured today to have an opportunity to speak in support of the bill on cybersecurity. Now more than ever, it is crucial that we take action to protect our most important pieces of infrastructure against ever-changing security threats and cyber-threats. This is without a doubt a key piece of legislation, perhaps even a life-saving one for Canada.

As we all know, this bill is the result of extensive consultations carried out by the government with numerous stakeholders. We consulted with the provinces, territories, municipalities, critical infrastructure owners and operators, cybersecurity experts, civil liberties groups and the academic community. We listened closely to the concerns they raised about the bill, as well as those raised by stakeholders in committee. One of the stakeholders' key concerns is the need to increase oversight and transparency while strengthening privacy protections.

I want to assure all parliamentarians that the government has taken these concerns into account and has made significant changes to the bill to address them. Although a number of legislative and constitutional instruments already protect Canadians' privacy, Bill C‑8 provides greater certainty when it comes to protecting their privacy and personal information.

In addition, “for greater certainty” clauses have been added to reassure Canadians that orders and directions cannot and will not be used to conduct surveillance activities or intercept private communications. Rather, these powers are intended to be used in rare and serious circumstances where there is an urgent need to respond to a known threat or vulnerability. These amendments are a direct response to concerns expressed by civil liberties organizations.

Bill C‑8 also clarifies that confidential information must continue to be treated as such by anyone who receives it and must only be shared if it is absolutely necessary to do so.

Other amendments also seek to improve government transparency and accountability. When the previous bill was examined in committee, stakeholders expressed concerns about the lack of public reporting requirements for the orders set out in part 1 of the bill. As a result, an amendment was passed to balance respect for confidentiality with the public's need for transparency.

Another amendment now sets out the information that must be included in annual reports to Parliament, such as the number of orders and directions issued and the number of service providers affected. What is more, in response to stakeholders' concerns regarding accountability, the bill was amended to require the government to notify the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency and the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians within 90 days after an order or confidential direction is issued.

During review in committee, civil liberty groups and industry experts expressed concerns regarding the scope of the new powers granted to the government under this legislation. Some stakeholders pointed out that there was a risk that the government could issue orders or directions without consulting or considering relevant factors, such as the existence of reasonable alternatives.

Although the Governor in Council already has a mechanism in place to control its powers, Bill C‑8 addresses these concerns by introducing a reasonableness standard and a non-exhaustive list of factors that 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 may consult with governments and industry, recognizing the need to do so in an expedient manner given the urgency of the situation.

These amendments will ensure that any new powers granted to the government are accompanied by appropriate controls to prevent abuse and strengthen accountability.

They will provide the Governor in Council with greater clarity and fairness in the exercise of these new powers. In particular, the Governor in Council will have to take into account factors such as the operational and financial impacts on public safety before issuing any given order or direction.

Thanks to all these changes, Bill C‑8 has been strengthened and will provide greater transparency and accountability to Canadians. It also provides additional safeguards for Canadians with respect to the protection of their privacy and personal information.

Security threats and cyber-threats are becoming more frequent, complex, sophisticated, and politically motivated. The government is committed to defending Canada and its critical infrastructure. Cyber-threat programs sponsored or supported by states such as China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea represent the greatest strategic threats to Canada today. They are part of global campaigns of espionage, sabotage, and subversion carried out by these states. These malicious cyber-threat activities can seriously compromise Canada's national security, public safety, and economy.

This bill is therefore essential to protect Canadians. It will enable the government to act quickly to promote the security of Canada's telecommunications system by minimizing risks to users.

When we hear stakeholders express their concerns, we take them seriously. We work diligently in committee, guided by a spirit of collaboration and our commitment to the national interest. As several other hon. members have already pointed out, this bill is long overdue. Passing Bill C‑8 will mark an important stage in the government's ongoing efforts to counter security threats and cyber-threats. It will protect the safety of Canadians and Canadian businesses. I urge my hon. colleagues to support it without delay.

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Privacy Commissioner highlighted several amendments that did not make it into the bill. We all know that cybersecurity threats are a very serious issue that we need to work diligently on, but privacy is paramount. Would the member agree that improvements should be made to the bill in the committee process?

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, La Prairie—Atateken, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let me remind members that this bill was brought before the House in the last Parliament. Obviously, we would be more than willing to consider amendments on anything that has changed since that time. I think it would be rather tedious to have the parliamentary committee repeat the same work done during the previous Parliament.

In my view, the amendments we proposed are significant. They guarantee privacy. We are convinced that Canadians will view that as entirely reasonable.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech. I have a question for him. Although we agree on the general objective of securing our infrastructure, we have concerns related to individual freedoms and the right to privacy.

What guarantees can my colleague give us that information collected by the federal government will not be used for purposes other than the purpose it was collected for?

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, La Prairie—Atateken, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we had the same concerns as my colleague. We made sure to strengthen those safeguards in the bill. There is now a reasonableness standard that the Governor in Council will be required to consider before issuing a direction or order. I think those safeguards are entirely satisfactory at this stage.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, for his excellent speech.

I am proud of our government, which has proven that it takes public safety seriously with Bill C‑2, the strong borders act, Bill C‑9, the combatting hate act, and our upcoming bail reform.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on why it is so important, in the current context, to have a strong legislative framework for cybersecurity.

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, La Prairie—Atateken, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the consequences of any breach in our telecommunications and cybersecurity would be catastrophic. It could paralyze the country. That is why we are taking action. We have a legislative model that will be the envy of all G7 and G20 countries. We are confident that we are fulfilling our obligations while respecting the privacy of all Canadians.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in the NDP, we have highlighted that there would be risks to privacy and civil liberties, and the bill would allow for mandatory information sharing between telecom regulators and federal agencies, as well as possibly onward to foreign governments.

One of our questions is this: What is the standard for this disclosure? Simply having the minister's judgment on what is necessary as a standard is vague, subjective and wide open to abuse, so maybe my colleague can answer this: Why are there no requirements for privacy impact assessments in the bill?

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, La Prairie—Atateken, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we already have a number of constitutional and legislative instruments guaranteeing privacy. Bill C‑8 is very clear on this. It simply allows information collection when faced with a risk that is serious and known. There will be no fishing expeditions. We have established the parameters that will guarantee Canadians' civil rights and liberties.

[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.

[Madeleine Chenette, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages and to the Secretary of State (Sport)]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his presentation, which summed up the geopolitical issues and all the challenges posed by certain governments that are more autocratic than democratic.

This bill contains all the necessary parameters to protect people and data. I would also like my colleague to tell us what he thinks are the strengths of the institutions protecting us in Canada. There is no need for fearmongering. Canada does have robust institutions.

Is my colleague familiar enough with these concepts to explain them to Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of positive elements in the bill. One example is that it enacts the new critical cyber systems protection act. Another is the impact that amending the Telecommunications Act to add promotion of security could have.

However, what is being proposed may also have an impact on provincial infrastructure, such as Hydro-Québec, and we are worried about that encroachment.

As I said, I have no problem with the objective of what is being put in place. However, we must keep an eye on areas of overreach, which should be limited and more strictly controlled. I am confident that our colleagues on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security will be able to do a good job on this.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one concern New Democrats have raised is the one-size-fits-all approach. This 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. For small operators or co-ops, it could be impossible.

Should compliance obligations not be tailored to the realities of different sectors?

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not disagree with my colleague on that. I think this will likely come up in committee. As soon as we start hearing from witnesses, some will say that they agree with the idea, but that they need more time and a transition plan.

Needless to say, no one can argue against virtue and common sense. That is why it is hard to disagree with what my colleague said.

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

Mr. Speaker, protecting the critical systems we have in place is ultimately protecting the Canadian economy, among many other things. Yes, we need to be concerned about the whole issue of privacy and so forth, but not moving legislation of this nature forward would have a very negative impact on cybersecurity and our economy.

I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on how important it is for the Canadian economy as a whole that we have legislation of this nature.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is important for the economy as a whole, especially in today's world. That said, there are some important privacy considerations at stake. That about sums up my remarks. Yes, doing this is essential, but not at any cost. I think that is my speech in a nutshell.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there has been some concern about some provisions of the bill that talk about when the minister has a reasonable belief that there is a threat to the telecommunications system. One, the word “system” might be an overly broad way of categorizing the telecommunications infrastructure and, two, when dealing with individuals, there could be some room for potential abuses.

I was hoping the member could talk to us about his perspective on ways we could perhaps strengthen this legislation to ensure that individual Canadians with concerns are not being in any way targeted by this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is why I was saying that it is important for the committee to do a thorough job. It must ensure that the bill's objective, which is commendable, is not pursued without regard for the consequences, which could be devastating.

Our remarks are summed up nicely in the testimony of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. He said that he supported the idea but urged caution. Are there safeguards in place, given that it would be possible to use the data, to discover people's personal online search history and to look at their old emails? Does the bill not go a bit too far? Should we not make it clear that these things should not be done at all costs? They are already happening in the context of criminal investigations, but that is not the case here.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with heavy concerns about Bill C-8, a proposed law presented as a measure to secure Canada's telecommunications and critical infrastructure.

I think we can all agree that cybersecurity is very important. Our information networks are the lifeblood of our economy, education, health systems and daily lives. Protecting this critical infrastructure is essential, but without liberty, there can be no security. As such, my speech today will focus on how Bill C-8 would impact the individual liberties of average Canadians.

Bill C-8 would grant the federal government sweeping powers. It would allow the Minister of Industry, with direction from cabinet, to order telecommunications service providers like Rogers, Telus and Bell to act, refrain from action, remove equipment, prohibit certain services and, in extreme cases, suspend or terminate services to individual users. While Bill C-8's intention is to focus on service providers, it indirectly encroaches on the fundamental freedoms of Canadians by failing to carve out an exemption for individual Canadians who rely on the Internet and telecommunications to work, travel, communicate, engage in commerce and banking and connect in their virtual communities.

Consider what that means in practical terms. In today's world, losing access to telecommunications or the Internet is not just a minor inconvenience; it is a form of isolation. It can prevent someone from working, learning, paying bills, accessing health care and participating in civic life. It is, in essence, a digital prison.

The gravest concern about Bill C-8 is that it contains provisions of secrecy and non-disclosure. A person whose Internet is cut off may not know why their service was terminated. They may not know the evidence against them. They may not have a meaningful opportunity to defend themselves. A Canadian could be trapped in a digital prison with no way to challenge it. Bill C-8 therefore breaches fundamental guarantees under the Charter of Rights. This strikes at the heart of our Constitution.

Section 7 of the charter guarantees the following:

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

Fundamental justice includes someone knowing the case against them and having a fair opportunity to defend themselves. Bill C-8, as it stands, would allow the government to deprive individuals of essential services without ever seeing the evidence, which is a profound breach of these principles.

Section 8 of the charter, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure, would also be engaged. The bill would allow the government to collect private information without consent and with minimal safeguards. This combination of secret orders and the lack of disclosure creates a scenario where Canadians' privacy and liberty are deeply at risk. Even if national security is invoked, section 1 of the charter requires that limitations on rights be proportionate, necessary and minimally impairing.

Secret orders, broad powers and no avenues for defence fail this test. Canadians should not have to surrender their rights to remain secure. Security and freedom can coexist. The government can both defend our telecommunications networks and protect the rights and freedoms of all Canadians.

Bill C-8 might secure networks, but as it stands, it risks imprisoning citizens digitally and denying them fundamental justice. In so doing, it would undermine the very freedoms we seek to protect. Let us not mistake security for liberty. Let us not trade the rights of Canadians for a false sense of protection.

Let me give a concrete example of how Bill C-8 could affect an ordinary Canadian. Imagine Sarah, a citizen frustrated with a government program she believes was mismanaged and corrupt. In her frustration, she posts online, threatening to expose government corruption. She threatens to reveal secret information she has collected about the program. The government views her post as a threat to the telecommunications system, so it quietly issues an order under Bill C-8. Her Internet provider receives direction to shut down her Internet and phone services, all without a court warrant or court order. The same provider is legally forbidden from disclosing the reason why Sarah's Internet was suspended. If the provider were to explain, it could face penalties and even jail. The next morning, Sarah is shocked to find that she cannot access her email, bank account or work portal. Her social media accounts are frozen. She cannot contact her friends, family or colleagues. She has been cut off entirely from the digital world and she has no idea why.

This is a system of double secrecy. The government order is hidden and the provider is prohibited from telling her anything. Sarah cannot see the evidence against her or ask questions, and she has no way of defending herself. She is effectively trapped in a digital prison. She is isolated, powerless and silenced.

Over the following days, the impact deepens. Sarah cannot pay her bills, participate in remote work, access health care portals or communicate with anyone. Eventually, she finds out the government is behind this, so she attempts to challenge the order, only to hear that any judicial review may involve secret evidence that she cannot see. The provider has the information but, under Bill C-8, is not allowed to share it. Every attempt to assert her rights is blocked. She is not merely inconvenienced; she is entirely cut off with no meaningful recourse.

This scenario is conceivable and would be legal under Bill C-8 as it stands. It illustrates why Bill C-8's secrecy and non-disclosure provisions are so dangerous to individuals. People may say this would never happen. The government will, no doubt, insist that the intent of the bill is clear, but why should Canadians trust it?

We must take the bill at face value. We must rely on what the text explicitly sets out in the law; otherwise, the law intended to protect telecommunications infrastructure could easily be weaponized by any government against ordinary citizens. Citizens most at risk are people like me. They are those who publicly and loudly express dissent, challenge orthodoxy or raise uncomfortable truths. These citizens most active in civil society are most at risk of being cut off, penalized and isolated without ever knowing why.

For these reasons, Bill C-8 undermines the principles of fundamental justice in the charter as it stands. Security in this context can be a pretext for control while transparency and liberty are sacrificed.

Sarah's story is not just a hypothetical; it is a warning. Bill C-8 risks turning ordinary Canadians into prisoners of secrecy, silenced without cause and stripped of their most basic rights. We can secure a network without the risk of trapping innocent citizens in a digital prison and without stripping them of the ability to defend themselves. This can be done. We can provide clear exemptions in the legislation for individual users, which should be part of what we discuss in committee. These are practical, reasonable measures that governments could adopt.

We owe it to all Canadians to do everything in our power to elect leaders who will not be silenced, who will protect their security and who will guard their freedoms, because freedom without security is a cage.

I am splitting my time with the hon. member for Kitchener South—Hespeler.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not too sure if the member supports the legislation. It comes across that she has some concerns for individuals like Sarah.

I think the minister has been fairly clear as we have gone through this legislation that Bill C-8 is important for many different reasons. I recently highlighted that we need to protect the consumers of our economy through cybersecurity. It is not optional for the government to do it; it has to be done.

Would the member not, at the very least, agree that having cybersecurity to protect the Canadian economy is absolutely critical and that we need to have legislation? Maybe it is just a question of having some amendments to address some of the concerns the member has put forward.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want all Canadians to know that cybersecurity is an extremely important thing in this digital era. It is very important for the government to take this seriously.

This bill is a very important bill, but that does not mean there are not elements it that, as a legislator and a trained lawyer, I must bring to the public's attention. There are some concerns about how individual users are not properly treated in this bill, and they need to be corrected.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is highlighting an important issue. We hear a lot of concerns from Canadians about Bill C-8. She included some of them in her speech. If she could shed light again on those concerns, it would be great.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we recognize that there are times when our telecommunication infrastructure is threatened. In those instances, the government must act expeditiously to minimize and curtail that threat. However, these provisions can seep over into the realm of ordinary citizens. In the example I gave of Sarah, her entire life was unravelled because of this legislation.

I do not believe this should be the intent of this legislation. We really need to look at the impact of this legislation on ordinary individuals, because the average Canadian needs their telecommunications to facilitate every aspect of their life.

[Madeleine Chenette, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages and to the Secretary of State (Sport)]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for her speech.

I would like some reassurance. You said that this cybersecurity bill is important. You focused a lot on Sarah's story, and we certainly agree that it is important to protect people's privacy.

To reassure the public, could you tell us what benefits you see in passing this bill? Will you work with us at committee to get it passed?

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I noticed the member used the word “you”. I would remind members that they must not address other members directly. They must address the Chair.

The hon. member for Haldimand—Norfolk.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, security is always an advantage to private citizens, but security cannot come at the expense of liberty. We have the Charter of Rights in place and it must be respected.

There are a number of provisions in proposed sections 11 and 12 of Bill C-8 that would infringe upon section 7 of the charter, because there is a deprivation of our essential services without procedural fairness. Proposed sections 10 and 11 of the bill would also infringe upon section 8 of the charter, because there is a deprivation of privacy and being secure against unreasonable search and seizure. Proposed sections 11, 14, 16, 18 and 19 of the bill would also infringe upon Canadians' liberties, because there is a deprivation of section 1, which includes justifiable limits in the proportionality of any legislation upon a person's freedom, even when national security is a justifiable ground under section 1.

There are benefits. Security is a benefit to Canadians, but it cannot come at the expense of liberty.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my learned friend from Haldimand—Norfolk's speech was terrific. She is a very tough act to follow.

When I read the bill for the first time, my jaw hit the floor. As I have previously discussed in the House, my motivation for signing up to become a politician was the violation of basic charter rights that the Liberals perpetrated in the last Parliament. Even with that background in mind, I had thought and hoped that they had perhaps been chastened and that they would not try so hard to claim unto themselves, in the current Parliament, powers explicitly forbidden by our Constitution, but I was wrong.

Before I start talking about the bill today, let me just say that it has been shocking to listen to Liberals claim to defend charter rights, when they themselves violated section 2 and section 8 of our charter when they imposed the Emergencies Act. That was determined by Justice Mosley of the federal court. All the Liberal members in the last Parliament voted to do that, and I do not want to hear any more about defending charter rights from any such member who has not apologized for that violation.

As for the present bill, I am concerned by the following clauses. Clause 15.1 and clause 15.2 would give the minister the unprecedented, incredible power to kick any private Canadian citizen off the Internet, to cut off their phone line and to turn off their cell phone. That is the plain-language summary but I will quote now the bill in its legalese:

If there are reasonable grounds to believe that it is necessary to do so to secure the Canadian telecommunications system against any threat...the Minister may...

prohibit a telecommunications service provider from providing any service to [the] specified person.

Perhaps this might make sense to do in an extreme circumstance, if a person is trying to cause our satellites to crash or to jam military radar, but the clause does not use language about extreme threats of physical damage or threats to national security. It says “any threat”.

As far as I can tell, given the Liberals' incautious and bombastic use of terms like “misinformation”, that being any information they do not like, or “existential threat”, for instance when the hon. member for Burlington North—Milton West called the leader of my party an “existential threat to our democracy”, which is, of course, bananas, it seems to me that the industry minister could deem any speech they do not like “any threat”, and then kick that person off the Internet. The clause reaches Chinese Communist Party levels of government overreach, and the Liberals should be ashamed of themselves.

The bill gets worse; it does not get better. Subclause 15.2(5) would give the minister the ability to make secret the decision to kick someone off the Internet. Imagine that: Someone has annoyed the Liberal Party overlords, and the Liberal Party overlords have decided to kick the person off the Internet and cut their phone line. This person cannot tell anyone that they have been cut off. I have no idea how this could even possibly be enforced, but imagine being put, effectively, into a digital gulag, unable to use the phone, the Internet or one's online banking, and if the person tells anyone that this happened, they could go to physical jail.

I do not doubt that the Liberals will stand and say that I am being somehow outlandish in my interpretation of this. I am not; it is there in black and white. Let me quote it for them. It seems as though they have not read it: “An order made under subsection (1) or (2) may also include a provision prohibiting the disclosure of its existence, or some or all of its contents, by any person.” If members are not inclined to believe me, they can Google “Bill C-8” and “Canadian Constitution Foundation”. There they will find its publication from October 1, 2025, where its expert lawyers corroborate my concerns.

I am sorry to say that the bill continues to get worse; it does not get better. Clause 15.4 says, “The Minister may require any person to provide...within any time...any information that [would help her make a decision] under section 15.‍1 or 15.‍2”.

It seems to me that if the legislation passes in its current, unamended form, the Minister of Industry could wake up one morning and decide that any of us or any other private citizen may be, possibly, as she is not quite sure, some sort of threat to our telecommunications system. With no warrant, no trial and no automatic judicial review, she could compel Rogers or Telus to give her that citizen's address book, their Internet search history or their browser history.

This is unreasonable, and it is shocking. This is the Liberal Party under its new Prime Minister. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. In my first speech to the House, I beseeched the new Prime Minister to discard this darkness and turn toward the light. By reintroducing the Trudeau legislation, he has failed to make the turn.

It is not just me raising these concerns. The Liberals tried to ram the bill through the last Parliament. Multiple civil society groups wrote an open letter to former minister Marco Mendicino, alerting him to the problems. Signatories to the letter include the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Constitution Foundation, the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, Ligue des droits et libertés, OpenMedia and the Privacy and Access Council of Canada.

Here is a quote from a summary of that letter: “Bill C-26 grants the government sweeping new powers not only over vast swathes of the Canadian economy, but also to intrude on the private lives of Canadians.”

Here is another quote: “Time and again, we’ve seen federal governments try to grant themselves the power to intrude on our private lives in the name of ‘security’ — and time and again, people in Canada have come together to push back.”

The summary of the letter also says that the bill “lacks guardrails to constrain abuse”, “permits unknowable orders to trump public regulation”, “authorizes the use of secret evidence in Court”, “grants power without accountability” and “lacks justification”; that is, the bill would not even fix the cybersecurity problems it purports to solve.

Do the Liberals believe that creeping authoritarianism worldwide and on this continent is a problem, or do they not? If they do, why have they written a bill with such authoritarian provisions? Why have they failed entirely to take the advice of these civil liberties groups?

Once again, the bill will go to committee. Once again, Conservatives will be called upon to do the Liberals' homework and repair the deeply flawed bill. The offending provisions that I have described would not make us any safer. The industry minister's turning off a private Canadian citizen's cellphone would do nothing to stop hackers in Russia, China and Iran from wreaking havoc on our telecommunications infrastructure. The Liberals cannot fix the problem, because they do not understand the problem. They do not even understand where the problem is coming from. In the relatively uncommon situation where the threat is indeed coming from a private Canadian citizen in his mother's basement, why would they cut off his Rogers account? We can get a warrant, arrest him, have a trial in open court and put him in jail.

It is the Conservatives who care about and understand cybersecurity. People with even a passing familiarity of the day's news will recall that Conservatives called to ban Huawei from our 5G networks for three years before the members on the opposite side deigned to take that threat seriously.

We will salvage what is good out of the bill, and we are happy to do that work for the good of Canadians, but this cleanup job should not be necessary. If the Liberals would merely live up to their apparently insincere reverence for our charter rights, we would not even need to have this conversation.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting to hear Conservatives make extreme, outlandish claims. The member opposite tries to say that the Liberal Party is going to take away the Internet, take away cellphones and deny people the opportunity to do their banking. The Conservatives have come up with a whole conspiracy theory on how big government is going to take everything away, when the legislation is all about protecting Canadians and protecting the economy.

Does the member see any merit in having cybersecurity legislation that would ensure that the interests of Canadians are being served? This includes our economy and economic transactions that take place every day by the thousands. Does he not see the merit in protecting that?

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish this were a conspiracy. I wish the Liberals had the shame to keep it secret. It is open and it is in the bill. Multiple civil society groups have written letters asking them to change this. They are sounding the alarm.

The member said I think it is a conspiracy that the Liberals might freeze bank accounts. They already did that; the federal court said it was a violation of charter rights, and they have no response to that. I am asking them to apologize. They should stand up; they have a lot to say. Now would be a terrific time to apologize for violating our charter rights in the last Parliament.

[An hon member]

Oh, oh!

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

I am serious. I do not know why you are laughing.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I will just remind members to speak through the Chair.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

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

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

These are the types of things that bring us to the House. On the one hand, we recognize there is an issue. Cybersecurity is of concern to all Canadians. We do lag behind our Five Eyes allies in this regard. On the other hand, we have to balance that with civil rights, the charter, which sometimes the Liberals want to talk about, except when they are alienating charter rights from people as often happens.

Can my hon. colleague speak about that balance: the need to address a problem and to do so while also respecting rights?

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my learned colleague is a lawyer. He understands the balance. His whole work has been in the tension in this balance, and I respect very much what he has to say about it.

It is a centuries-old problem, the tension between rights and security, and we have centuries-old solutions to the problem. We have solutions like warrants, judicial review, open trial, open evidence and the right to a lawyer. The bill would preclude all of that. We do not have to reinvent the wheel; we need to build back into the bill the long-standing, charter-upheld guarantees of our liberty. There is nothing novel about that.

[Madeleine Chenette, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages and to the Secretary of State (Sport)]

Mr. Speaker, in a world where Canadians, such as the people of Thérèse-De Blainville, believe that our Canadian institutions are robust and that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is protected, the question is whether we need to do more to protect ourselves against cyberthreats.

Is my colleague willing to work with the government to find the best solution to protect Canadians from cyberthreats? The charter is fully protected by our laws.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yes, Conservatives will work day and night to fix the bill to improve our cybersecurity, in the committee, in every committee and in the chamber. We are committed to improving cybersecurity. We are committed to not violating charter rights.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, obviously the government likes more control over Canadians through Bill C-8. Can the hon. member, through his wonderful and detailed speech, explain to us where the government wants overreach and more control over Canadians?

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it has unfortunately been a theme with the current government. It is not just Bill C-8; it is also Bill C-9. It is also Bill C-5 in certain respects. With every problem the Liberals come across, they think the solution is to give themselves more power. They think that if they were to run the telecommunications system, it would be safer. They have been running the Post Office for the last 10 years. They have been running the passport office. I do not see any evidence that putting them in charge of things, like our telecommunications system, makes anyone any safer.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

I ask that it pass on division.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that we recess until 11 a.m. to get us to members' statements.

Sitting Suspended

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The sitting is suspended to the call of the Chair.

(The sitting of the House was suspended at 10:57 a.m.)

(The House resumed at 11 a.m.)