Debates of March 26th, 2026

Speaker's Ruling

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating my colleague. I enjoyed debating Bill C‑8 with her at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. I really appreciated the questions she asked the witnesses and experts with a view to improving Bill C‑8 based on their testimony.

Can she honestly state that all members debated Bill C‑8 rigorously and professionally and that they all contributed to making it a better bill by debating it and working on it in committee?

[Sima Acan, Liberal, Oakville West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed my time studying Bill C-8 at the committee stage with my colleague from the Bloc. She had tremendous input into this study. We also adopted amendments from the Bloc and the NDP for points where they saw that the bill could be improved. All these amendments have been implemented, and I really appreciate their input in this study. The bill has been studied in depth, and the experts were very useful and helpful in helping us understand it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her remarks and acknowledge her expertise and work on cybersecurity issues. Cybersecurity is a matter of national security, and our government has a responsibility to protect Canadians from all the growing cyber-threats. With Bill C-8, we are taking concrete steps to protect our telecommunications infrastructure and other critical sectors.

I would like to ask my colleague to explain why it is so important to pass this bill at this time.

[Sima Acan, Liberal, Oakville West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the reason we have to pass a bill that protects Canada and Canadians is that we are at a critical point, and we have to work together as legislators. Our first and primary job is to protect Canada. Cybersecurity in this era is a must. It is the number one protection for our borders. Not only do we have borders with our neighbours, but we also have borders in cyberlife as well, so we need to make sure it is protected and that our critical infrastructure is not being attacked by those criminals, so we can protect our country. I can extend this example to nuclear power, traffic lights and our banking system. Imagine waking up one day to a critical mess that is not an American movie scenario.

[Kurt Holman, Conservative, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to Bill C-8, concerns for privacy and also keeping freedom of expression, which Canadians desire, what safeguards are in place to prevent Liberal government overreach with Bill C-8?

[Sima Acan, Liberal, Oakville West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague also has a technical background, and we enjoy talking about IT infrastructure at different times. I will be very clear that Bill C-8 already has provisions in place that would prohibit the government from overreach when it comes to the privacy of Canadians. This is in the bill already. The bill is about the infrastructure of our country. It is only about the protection of our critical infrastructure and has nothing to do with overreach into people's privacy. There are also provisions and prohibitions that would prevent the government from ordering the decoding of encrypted private communications.

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill ensures that, going forward, our telecommunications infrastructure and other critical sectors, such as energy and finance, will be required to work together to incorporate national security into their objectives. This bill will help critical infrastructure operators better prepare for, prevent and respond to cyber-incidents.

Does my colleague share that view?

[Sima Acan, Liberal, Oakville West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety also works with us at the SECU committee.

This bill is about the telecommunications sector. It is about the energy, financial and transportation sectors. It is about our critical infrastructure. As Canadians and as legislators, our primary duty is to protect our country and to protect our people, Canadians.

The bill has nothing to do with freedom of speech. The government would have no reach into people's privacy. We will continue to make sure that the government is working for the protection of its systems and Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, there has been some misinformation put out about this bill, and I think the member can help clear it up. People have said that this would give the minister overreach to be able to shut down an individual's Internet account. The bill is really not about that. It is about infrastructure.

Can the member comment on that?

[Sima Acan, Liberal, Oakville West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of misinformation about that. The minister would not have the power over individuals, but over telecom companies. The minister would have the power to shut down a telecommunication infrastructure company, if needed, if there were to be a cyber-attack, before it could spread to other critical infrastructure.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to recognize that cybersecurity continues to be a growing concern, not only here in Canada but also around the world. When we think of it in terms of Canada and the impact that it could have on our communities, if we do not modernize or have proper legislation such as this, the consequences could be very severe. I think it is important that we bring forward this legislation.

I was intrigued by my colleague's remarks and just wanted to see if there was anything else she would add in regard to the importance of having such legislation to protect the security of Canadians.

[Sima Acan, Liberal, Oakville West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, during committee studies and while answering all the questions from the floor, this bill is a critical bill to protect not only Canadians but also Canadians' information and data.

Every year, the amount of ransom money that companies have to pay criminals is huge. This bill would help protect those companies. It would not only protect those companies, but also protect Canadians, their privacy and their data.

[Kurt Holman, Conservative, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-8, an act respecting cybersecurity and amending the Telecommunications Act.

Before being elected to represent the people of London—Fanshawe, I spent nearly three decades working in the information technology field. I started young. In 1996, at age 16, while still in high school at North Lambton Secondary School in Forest, Ontario, I took my first job with a small local Internet service provider. This was the era of dial-up Internet. Many Canadians remember the sound of connecting, waiting for the signal and slowly getting online. It felt new, exciting and, for many, private.

Working on the other side of that connection gave me a very different perspective. It was my first real exposure to how these systems actually function behind the scenes, and what struck me early on was how vulnerable people's information could be.

There is often an assumption that our information is private by default, but in reality, privacy in digital systems has always been more fragile than people realize. Today, the scale and consequences are far greater. That realization has had a lasting impact and has instilled in me a strong sense of responsibility to treat information with care, respect the trust that people place in the systems they rely on and recognize that privacy does not happen by accident in digital systems. It has to be built in, protected and enforced. That principle has guided me throughout my career, and it is exactly the principle that should guide us today as we consider Bill C-8.

There is no doubt that cybersecurity is a national security issue. Canada faces increasing threats from hostile actors, including foreign states, criminal organizations and sophisticated cyber networks. These threats target our infrastructure, institutions, businesses and, increasingly, everyday Canadians.

Increasingly, the cybersecurity landscape is being reshaped by artificial intelligence. AI is enabling faster, more adaptive cyber-attacks, from automated vulnerability scanning to highly convincing phishing and social engineering. At the same time, it is also strengthening our defences, improving threat detection, anomaly identification and response times across networks. The challenge before us is to ensure our policies keep pace with both sides of that reality.

Our telecommunication systems are a critical infrastructure. They underpin our economy, basic safety systems and national defence. Ensuring their security is not optional; it is essential.

Conservatives recognize this. We have constantly said that cybersecurity must be treated as a core component of Canada's national defence strategy. That is why we allowed the bill to come to committee, despite serious concerns about provisions that represented an unacceptable level of government overreach. The only responsible path was to bring it to committee and fix what needed to be fixed. It needed improvement.

As originally drafted, Bill C-8 would grant sweeping powers to the government, particularly to the minister, with insufficient safeguards, unclear thresholds and inadequate protections for privacy and freedom of expression. That is not an abstract concern. This is why getting the limits right in legislation like this matters so much.

One of the clearest examples of overreach in the original bill was in proposed section 15.2. As it was originally written, the bill would have allowed the minister to prohibit telecommunications providers from offering service to any specified person or direct that the service be suspended. Anyone can understand the difference between securing a network and controlling access to it. Imagine having a government official at every Internet provider, such as the one I worked at three decades ago when I was a teenager, dictating who can and cannot get Internet access. That is not the role of government.

If there are criminals or foreign actors who pose such a serious threat to our security that they must be cut off from essential communications, the bigger question is why they are not already in custody or removed from Canada in the first place.

Cybersecurity is about protecting systems from real threats. It is not about giving government a broad and loosely defined power to decide what person keeps their connection and which one loses it. That is not a small, administrative detail. In the wrong hands, it is the kind of power that risks turning cybersecurity into overreach.

The government has shown time and again that it will err on the side of overreach, including through the unlawful invocation of the Emergencies Act, for which courts found it exceeded the authority and infringed upon charter-protected freedoms. That is exactly why powers like this must be clearly defined, tightly constrained and subject to real accountability.

Conservatives pushed back against that overreach. Through amendments at committee, we forced changes that narrowed the scope of that authority, ensuring that it could not be directed arbitrarily at individual Canadians and that stronger thresholds and clearer limits apply. That is just one example.

More broadly, Conservatives worked to fix a pattern of overreach in the bill. We strengthened protections for rights and freedoms by ensuring that lawful expression, political debate and persuasion could not be treated as cybersecurity threats. We made privacy a required consideration, not an afterthought, and strengthened rules around the the collection, use and deletion of personal information. We raised the threshold for government action from vague references to threats to a much more serious standard of serious, systematic threats. We replaced weak tests such as relevancy with stronger requirements like necessary and proportionate tests. We required reasonable grounds for ministerial action and narrowed the scope of orders to matters tied to national security, national defence or international relations. We pushed for judicial oversight and greater transparency, because powers of this magnitude should not operate without accountability. Taken together, these changes significantly improved the bill. They did not remove the need for vigilance, but they brought the legislation closer to the balance that Canadians expect.

Cybersecurity is not just about technology. It is about trust. Canadians need to trust that the government will protect them from cyber-threats, but they also need to trust that their rights will not be unnecessarily compromised in the process. That trust is fragile and, once lost, it is difficult to rebuild. That is why it is so important that legislation such as Bill C-8 gets the balance right.

Now, while the bill has been approved, we also acknowledge a broader issue. For too long, the government has been slow to respond to evolving cyber-threats, yet quick to introduce legislation that requires significant correction. Cybersecurity is too important to get wrong. It is too important to treat as an afterthought. Canada needs a proactive, disciplined approach to cybersecurity that includes clear standards, strong partnerships with industry and legislation that is both effective and restrained.

Bill C-8 is a step in that direction, but only because Conservatives forced the changes that were needed to fix it. Despite our proposing major improvements to the bill, the Liberals fought us every step of the way. At committee, Conservatives were able to get an amendment through that required judicial authorization. Before the minister could use the new powers laid out in the legislation, the Liberals found a way to remove that amendment. Just like with the Emergencies Act, there is nothing to stop them from abusing their power. This is a massive concern for me.

As we move forward, we must remain vigilant. Technology will continue to evolve. Threats will become more sophisticated, and so too will the tools available to defend against them, including those powered by artificial intelligence. The pressure to expand government powers will only increase. That makes it even more important that we get the framework right now.

As both threats and defence evolve, we must ensure that our response remains grounded in clear limits, strong safeguards and respect for the rights of Canadians. In that environment, it will be essential to hold firmly to the principles that define us as a country. We must protect our infrastructure, but we must also protect our freedoms. We must respond to threats, but we must do so with restraint and accountability. We must never lose sight of the fact that cybersecurity is not an end in itself. It is a means to protect Canadians, their privacy, their livelihoods and their way of life.

I began my remarks by reflecting on my early experience in the IT field. Back then, even as a young person, I saw first-hand that privacy cannot simply be assumed. It must be actively protected. That lesson applies just as much as today, at a national level. With the powers granted in this legislation comes a responsibility, a responsibility to use those powers carefully, proportionately and with respect for the rights of Canadians.

Conservatives will continue to support strong cybersecurity protections with the appropriate limits. We fought hard to include those limits in the bill, but the Liberals removed some of them. We will also continue to ensure that those protections do not come at the expense of the freedoms that define us, because in Canada, security and liberty must go hand in hand.

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

Mr. Speaker, the government is very much concerned about the security of Canadians and the security of commerce. Cyber-threats are very real. They are tangible. They are happening. The government needs to respond. That is exactly what the legislation does.

Where I disagree is in this: There might be some who have a tinfoil hat mentality, in which they try to give the false impression that the government wants to interfere directly with personal information. Some of the examples I have seen, I think, are somewhat misleading.

Would he not agree that the overall principle of cybersecurity is that protecting Canadians and companies is the first priority?

[Kurt Holman, Conservative, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the tinfoil hat community, I assure everyone that the Conservatives are not a tinfoil hat community. We are here to protect the freedoms that all Canadians enjoy, such as freedom of expression and privacy. With regard to the bill going through committee, it was the Conservatives' responsibility to respect those freedoms while balancing the cybersecurity protections that both private and public industry need.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. I was the chief critic for the bill. I was the shadow minister as it was ushered through committee.

One thing I want to say is this: The bill was overly broad. As a party, the Liberals say they love the charter. One thing that will get a bill struck down as unconstitutional is overbreadth, such as use of language like “may” or “any threat”. The bill was a dog's breakfast when it got to committee.

I am proud of the people I sat with on the public safety committee, who looked at the bill, studied it scrupulously and added a proportionality test to it. They sought to add judicial oversight, which was ruled out of order yesterday by the Speaker, and sought to add things like “necessary” and “reasonable”.

The member for Winnipeg North says that these are tinfoil hat terms; no, these are apple pie when it comes to legal interpretation. The Liberals may not want to have those types of safeguards in the bill. I could say that we as Conservatives will always stand for clear constitutional laws. I invite comments.

[Kurt Holman, Conservative, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to add that, from a Conservative point of view, Canada's national security requires being prepared for the cyberwarfare threats we face. Conservatives fully recognize the importance of cybersecurity as part of the national defence strategy for public and private entities. The Liberal government has been slow to address cyber-threats, with no substantive legislative response for 10 years. For the amendments that went through the committee from the Conservatives, we are addressing this lack of substantive legislative response from the Liberal government.

[Sima Acan, Liberal, Oakville West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from the SECU committee, the critic for public safety, mentioned, there was the phrase “any threat”. Yes, “any threat” has to be in the bill because it is technical wording. If a person does not understand the technicality of cybersecurity, they will definitely come up with those ideas. “Any threat” means that we have to act even if the threat is a near miss, before it is a material threat. If it is a material threat, it is already too late. Our systems are gone.

Regarding privacy and freedom of speech, which my colleague mentioned in his speech and his previous answer, could he make it clear to us where in the bill it is actually attacking the privacy of individuals and freedom of speech?

[Kurt Holman, Conservative, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to threats, the Conservatives put proper limits on ministers' powers, such as raising the threshold for an action from a threat to a serious, systematic threat. With regard to that, it requires reasonable grounds for ministerial actions.

As for the concern of threats, there is also stipulation that it is to include serious, systematic threats, again, to fully recognize the importance of cybersecurity as part of the national defence strategy for public and private entities.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague brought up the Liberal government's overreach and the distrust that Canadians have. We have seen the Liberals' track record of freezing the bank accounts of people they do not agree with, their ideology and the list goes on and on.

I would like for him to expand on why Canadians distrust the Liberal government so much.

[Kurt Holman, Conservative, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, Conservatives support the bill's going to committee to fix the glaring problems with it, such as the fact that Liberals have also demonstrated they are willing to breach people's privacy with Bill C-2. Conservatives have repeatedly forced the government to improve major shortcomings in government legislation. Cybersecurity is too important to leave in the hands of the Liberal government with all its failures.

World Theatre Week

[Chi Nguyen, Liberal, Spadina—Harbourfront, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on the occasion of World Theatre Week, organized by the Professional Association of Canadian Theatres and celebrated around the world, culminating in World Theatre Day on March 27, 2026.

Spadina—Harbourfront and Toronto's downtown are home to a vibrant theatre community, including Jumblies; Factory Theatre; the Mirvish theatres, the Royal Alex and the Princess of Wales; and the soon-to-be-open Corleck building, among others.

At a time when questions of identity and culture matter, telling our own stories in our own voices is essential to preserving Canada's cultural sovereignty. Canada is home to hundreds of theatres in every province and territory, from coast to coast to coast. From small community stages to major performing arts institutions, they play a critical role in our arts and culture sector. This sector contributes $131 billion to Canada's economy and supports more than one million jobs.

This week, I invite all members to celebrate World Theatre Week, visit a local theatre and go see a show.

National Organ and Tissue Donation Awareness Week

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in April, Canadians will mark National Organ and Tissue Donation Awareness Week. April 7 is Green Shirt Day, reminding us of the importance of organ donation. These annual initiatives highlight the critical need for donors, encourage donor registration and celebrate the many lives saved through transplantation.

More than 4,700 Canadians are waiting for a life-saving transplant. It is important to let our loved ones know that we want to be organ donors. Whether as living donors or with donation at the time of our passing, we have the power to save lives. We can give the gift of life, the greatest gift of all. I ask everyone to please become a registered organ and tissue donor.

Cuba

[Ernie Klassen, Liberal, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I recently met with the Cuban ambassador, who described the situation in his country as very dire and noted a need for solar power generators. Last week, a total collapse of the electrical grid occurred, leaving all 10 million people without electricity. This was also the case for critical infrastructure, including hospitals. People are left without basic necessities.

Cuba's lack of oil has been catastrophic. At a time of uncertainty and struggle, Canada is stepping up to support people in need. Our government has recently delivered $8 million in humanitarian assistance to help deliver vital support. Canada does not support any country's attempt to take over another sovereign nation. Canada continues its commitment to constructive engagement with Cuba, grounded in respect for international law, for sovereignty and for freedom of people to choose their way of life.

Canada will continue to focus on the well-being of the Cuban people and uphold the values—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The hon. member for Parry Sound—Muskoka.