Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We all respect the role of the judiciary. However, I still see this amendment as detrimental. It prioritizes red tape over national resiliency, especially when we look at the global situation now. We talked about how cyber-threats move in milliseconds, and we repeated that several times. We also know, especially because we have lawyers sitting here, that court applications can take days or hours. They may be too late to stop the attack in the moment.
This amendment would also place a massive administrative burden on our Federal Court—I keep repeating that—by forcing our judges to act as technical clearing houses for every instance and every security order. I believe we do not need to create a new hurdle that slows down our national security processes, because as we heard again and again, the status quo already provides judicial oversight. That's one point that we spoke about today.
Again, with the amendment as is, I see it effectively handcuffing our ability to defend our country. To me, in my heart, it's very important, and it is against instant attacks. I would ask my colleagues to consider the security of our provinces and our country when we think about this amendment.
I want all of us to understand the situation from the technical perspective as well. We mentioned several times at the industry committee, as well as here, that the damage to our companies is in the millions of dollars. Overall, it's billions of dollars. That's our future money.
I would like to ask the experts to help us understand this better. Could you please give us some concrete examples of the malware and worms we are discussing here that are threats not only to our telecom infrastructure, but to our critical infrastructure? What are the potential implications that we can face as a country, especially if we go through really difficult times in the future?