Debates of Sept. 26th, 2025

An Act Respecting Cyber Security

[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.