House of Commons Hansard #33 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was food.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
An Act Respecting Cyber Security Second reading of Bill C-8. The bill aims to protect Canada's critical infrastructure and telecommunications system from cyber-threats. Supporters highlight amendments that strengthen privacy protections and transparency. Opponents raise concerns about potential government overreach, secret orders, and risks to individual liberties and privacy, urging further amendments to address these issues. 7400 words, 1 hour.
Bill C-8 An Act Respecting Cyber SecurityGovernment Orders
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 LiberalParliamentary 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.
Matt Strauss Conservative Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON
I am serious. I do not know why you are laughing.
Bill C-8 An Act Respecting Cyber SecurityGovernment Orders
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 LiberalParliamentary 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.
Bill C-8 An Act Respecting Cyber SecurityGovernment Orders
Bill C-8 An Act Respecting Cyber SecurityGovernment Orders
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.
Bill C-8 Sitting SuspendedAn Act Respecting Cyber SecurityGovernment Orders
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.)
Gurbux Saini Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Mr. Speaker, today I rise in the House to stress the importance of protecting the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by our charter. Our government remains deeply committed to defending the rights of all Canadians and takes pride in upholding the charter.
Last week, this House witnessed members of the official opposition, including members of visible minority communities, supporting a motion urging the Attorney General to cease defending the charter. As parliamentarians, our duty is to protect the rights and dignity of every Canadian. This government has a constitutional and moral obligation to defend the charter fully and without compromise. By consistently upholding the charter, we safeguard the freedom that belongs to all Canadians.
Kurt Holman Conservative London—Fanshawe, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Philip “Arn” Brown, a man remembered for his faith, his generosity and his lifelong dedication to serving others. Arn gave countless hours to his church and community, always leading by example.
He was also a long-time board member of the London—Fanshawe Conservative Electoral District Association, where his encouragement and steady resolve inspired everyone around him. Arn reminded us that perseverance matters and that no challenge is too great when faced with determination. It was at church, shortly after the last election, that I shared with Arn the news that London—Fanshawe had finally turned blue. Though he was unwell, the sparkle in his eyes and his smile said it all.
Arn leaves behind his wife Ellen, his children Sean and Vanessa, and his grandchildren.
On behalf of the people of London—Fanshawe, I extend my condolences to his family and loved ones. His example of dignity, service and resilience will continue to inspire us all.
Kristina Tesser Derksen Liberal Milton East—Halton Hills South, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is a beautiful time of year in southern Ontario, and many communities are celebrating the season with fall fairs and harvest celebrations. This past weekend, I joined my community in Milton East—Halton Hills South at two such events.
In Milton, I attended the 170th anniversary of the Milton Fall Fair, which has been a staple of the community since 1853. It continues to be organized by the Halton Agricultural Society and is 100% volunteer run and operated.
I was also pleased to join the residents of Glen Williams in celebrating its 200th anniversary at the Glen Williams Bicentennial Fair. Founded well before Confederation, along the banks of the Credit River, the original sawmill is still standing, now converted into the Williams Mill Creative Arts Studios, serving the community as it did 200 years ago.
These volunteer-run events provide a wonderful opportunity to reconnect with friends and neighbours and celebrate the bounty of nature that Canada is blessed with. I congratulate and thank all the volunteers who make it possible.
Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' reckless bail laws are destroying lives.
Kellie Verwey of Portage la Prairie was just 28 years old. She had a bright future and friends and family who adored her. All of that was ripped away when she was killed because of the actions of James Lorne Hilton, a repeat offender who should have never been free.
Hilton had a long criminal history. He broke his bail conditions again and again, yet the system looked the other way. Instead of protecting Kellie, it protected him. Because of that failure, her parents lost their daughter and her fiancé lost his soon-to-be wife.
Kellie's death was not fate; it was preventable. Her story serves as a painful reminder of the human cost of a broken system that puts criminals ahead of victims. Earlier this year, thousands of Canadians signed my petition calling on the government to act. Now is the time. There is simply no reason to wait. I plead with the Liberals to pass our Conservative jail not bail act because no family should ever get the call that their loved one is not coming home thanks to a broken bail system.