Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise at third reading of Bill C-8, a very important bill. We agree with the government and with all members of the House that we needed a bill on cybersecurity.
We took the necessary time to debate this bill over a number of sittings. We heard from a number of witnesses and experts, and there was no filibustering by the Conservatives, the Bloc or the Liberals. No one filibustered. Why? It is because everyone agreed that this is an important bill and that it was important to improve it through a series of amendments.
The Conservative Party put forward amendments, the Bloc Québécois put forward amendments and even the government made amendments to its own bill. We even adopted an amendment proposed by a non-recognized party, because it made sense and improved the bill.
What exactly is Bill C-8? The bill is divided into two parts. Part 1 amends the Telecommunications Act to strengthen security by authorizing the government to direct Internet service providers to do or not do certain things that are necessary to secure the entire Canadian telecommunications system.
Part 2 of the bill creates a new act, the critical cyber systems protection act, which would provide a framework for the protection of critical cyber-infrastructure and companies under federal jurisdiction. When it tabled Bill C-8, the government expected us to pass it with little or no debate, considering that it was a carbon copy of Bill C-26, which had gone through the entire legislative process in the previous Parliament and died on the Order Paper in the Senate.
However, we in the Bloc Québécois have a very influential and conscientious House leader, and she refused. She said that we absolutely had to be able to debate Bill C‑8 because we had a new perspective and because time had passed. More importantly, during the debate on Bill C‑26, almost all of our amendments were defeated because of the deal between the NDP and the Liberals. Even though our proposed amendments to Bill C‑26 made sense, they were defeated quite easily, because the NDP had agreed to that bill.
As fate would have it, we began debating Bill C‑8 with a completely new perspective and, most importantly, in a new political context where the Bloc Québécois held the balance of power in committee. The Bloc used this power judiciously and rigorously, in a professional manner. Our goal was to come up with the best bill that would serve Quebec's interests, and so much the better if it served the interests of all other Canadians as well.
I will give some examples. In Bill C‑26, all of the recommendations made by Electricity Canada were rejected. Some of them dealt with Hydro‑Québec and the importance of respecting Quebec's jurisdictions, including that of Hydro-Québec. Hydro-Québec manages a hydroelectric network and an electricity transmission system that crosses provincial and U.S. borders, and it was already meeting very demanding and strict security regulations. All of a sudden, with Bill C‑8, it found itself in a situation where the federal government could decide everything without consulting the provinces or Quebec, even though officials and the party opposite were telling us that they would consult. As we know, for the federal government, consultation often means making decisions and consulting afterward.
In committee, we wanted to make sure that Electricity Canada's recommendations were heard properly. Obviously, we proposed an amendment that addressed its concerns, which were the same as ours, and that amendment was adopted. We were very pleased that a number of Bloc Québécois amendments were adopted.
One in particular was very important to me. We had one witness, Mr. Lefebvre, who explained why encryption is so important. I do not know how well-versed my colleagues are in digital and technological matters, but encryption is a central element of all digital systems. Basically, it is a security technique that makes readable information unreadable to any unauthorized person. Only people with the right key can decrypt the information and understand it. Encryption is used to protect sensitive information, such as messages, passwords and banking information. It is used in online communications, such as email, secure websites and some messaging apps, like WhatsApp, for example. Messages and calls are encrypted end to end.
We explored this part of Bill C‑8 in depth because we had no guarantee that the government would lower its encryption criteria given that it was so vulnerable to cyber-attacks just then. There was also potential for abuse due to easier access to conversations people could have on social media apps. The government listened to our concerns and those of the witnesses and put forward its own amendment, which made it crystal clear that there would be no changes to encryption. The Bloc Québécois had presented a similar amendment. We all agreed that there was a line we would not cross. By putting it right there in the bill, encryption is now protected.
We heard from some very good witnesses. We also heard from the Privacy Commissioner, who was surprised to find that Bill C-8 lacked consistency regarding three key criteria for accessing privileged information or sharing sensitive intelligence. He was concerned that the criteria of necessity, proportionality and reasonableness were not fully specified in the bill. They were included in some sections, but not in others.
We in the Bloc Québécois took the Privacy Commissioner's testimony very seriously, and we proposed amendments to ensure that, if sensitive information is shared, it is analyzed based on the criteria of necessity, proportionality and reasonableness before access is granted. Quite frankly, we will have to revisit these three criteria when we study Bill C-22, which provides legal access to information. We will ensure that these three criteria are included in the legislation, as they are important when it comes to accessing information and, above all, sharing it with various stakeholders.
We also supported amendments that were prepared by our Conservative colleagues. Unfortunately, those amendments were ruled out of order by the Speaker of the House. That is a shame, because they would have made it necessary to obtain a mandate to make regulations, which would prevent the minister from having too much power. I am worried, and I will always point out that the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, or NSIRA, is the only monitoring agency for Canada's intelligence services and the RCMP. It is the only agency with a mandate to monitor those agencies to see whether they are complying with the law. In other words, are they abusing their powers or sharing information? Are they dealing with private information beyond what the law allows them to do?
Basically, ruling the Conservatives' amendment out of order gives the ministers more power. At the same time, the government decided to cut NSIRA's funding by 15%, which amounts to about eight positions, including lawyers, analysts and investigators. This means that ministers and public servants would have more power but NSIRA would have less power and fewer tools.
We were therefore disappointed to see that, despite cutting $2.7 million from NSIRA's $17-million budget, the government chose not to support the amendments from the Bloc Québécois and the Conservative Party, and the Speaker ruled them inadmissible today. This made us somewhat suspicious, given that the only office with an oversight function is having its budget cut by 15%. That is 15% of $17 million. It may not seem like much, but when we look at what it represents in terms of jobs at NSIRA, it is quite a lot.
We also listened to the workers who are part of the Canadian Telecommunications Workers Alliance, because they have expressed serious concerns regarding Bill C-8, particularly with regard to whistle-blowers. If someone observes misuse, practices that violate the law or improper use of access to information—including sensitive information—and decides to report it, what could happen to them? After hearing their testimony, the Bloc Québécois introduced an amendment aimed at protecting whistle-blowers who wish to report suspected wrongdoing. We are quite proud of that.
We are working with various witnesses. Just because a witness expresses an opinion or presents facts regarding a bill does not mean we have to accept everything they say. However, in the case of telecommunications workers, their explanations allowed us to tweak the bill, right up to the very last minute. The Conservatives, Liberals and the Bloc all agreed to incorporate their proposals.
Unfortunately, the chair rejected my amendment today. We realized that whistle-blowers were protected under part 1, but not under the new law, part 2. We attempted to introduce an amendment, citing the need for consistency. Unfortunately, it was rejected.
However, we are holding out hope for the time when the legislation will be reviewed, since another Bloc Québécois amendment has been tabled. This is such an important piece of legislation. Technology, cyber-attacks and cybersecurity are evolving so quickly, including artificial intelligence. We adopted an amendment requiring a review of the legislation and its benefits, strengths and weaknesses in five years so that it can be adjusted as needed. This Bloc Québécois amendment was adopted unanimously by all members, and we are happy with it. When it comes to the whistle-blowers covered by part 2 of the bill, perhaps we can take another shot at including whistle-blower protection during the next review.
I think that the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security did an exceptional and exemplary job in reviewing Bill C-8. I felt like I should pat myself on the back a little, because the Liberals often say that opposition members are obstructing proceedings. Earlier, during his speech on Bill C-8, a member of the committee said that we had done a good job. That is because we wanted to have the best bill possible. Both the Liberals and the Conservatives, just like the Bloc and the NDP, helped improve the bill. That is the beauty of democracy. If the opposition is strong and thorough, ultimately, it is the citizens who benefit, because the bill ends up even better.
In the time I have left, I would like to thank our chair, who masterfully led the committee's work; the vice-chair and member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola; as well as the parliamentary secretary and member for La Prairie—Atateken. I also want to thank our clerk, Mr. Cardegna. Our wonderful analysts, Alexsandra and Sabrina, did an exemplary job, as did our legislative adviser, Marie. Finally, I would like to acknowledge our interpreters, who were always present in person to support us.
I also want to thank Maxime Duchesne, the Bloc Québécois researcher. He is an extraordinary researcher. I want to thank my assistant Racim and the people who work for the House leader of the Bloc Québécois. They supported us, studied the amendments with us and helped us decide where we stood on our colleagues' amendments.
I also want to thank the people who work for the Bloc Québécois's chief whip, who help us at all of our meetings. We engaged in a lot of negotiations during the debate on Bill C‑8's clauses. Every staffer for every party whip was there because the goal was to reach an agreement and compromise to make sure Bill C‑8 was the best bill it could be.
This is not something we hear a lot, and it certainly does not make headlines, but this bill is the product of constructive, collaborative work. Bill C‑8 will be good for Quebec because the Bloc Québécois protected Quebec's interests. There is a Canadian law that is going through the legislative process, and it will be even better.
I want to sincerely thank everyone for working so hard to achieve the results we achieved. Contrary to what we hear too often from the Liberal government and its members, it is not true that the opposition filibusters. Just because we disagree and propose amendments does not mean that we are against a bill. With Bill C-8, we proved that when we work together for the public good, we can get things done, and done well.
Bill C-8 will continue to wend its way through the legislative process.
