Kyle Seeback

[Carbon Pricing, March 8th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I am sure that, with regard to the 415% increase in seniors using the food bank, those folks are going to be very happy to hear about the Liberal child care program.

Speaking of that program, most Canadian families cannot access it because there are just not that many spaces.

As for the other programs she has talked about, I said that those have already been announced and yet 25% of Canadian families are unable to meet a $500 expense and 45% of Canadians are $200 away from not being able to make ends meet, despite all of these programs.

When will they get it through their heads? It is not working. The programs are not actually stopping any of this.

What is actually causing it is the carbon tax, which is running up the price of everything. Cut the carbon tax and groceries will be affordable, heating one's home will be affordable and people will actually be able to make ends meet.

Do not talk about a program that has actually done nothing.

[Carbon Pricing, March 8th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, the carbon tax is an absolute failure. We have to measure it by two metrics, and the first metric is whether it reduced carbon emissions. On that metric, it is absolutely clear it is a failure, because carbon emissions have gone up under the Liberal government every single year. That is strike one.

The next thing is whether it is supposed to give more money back to Canadian families. The PBO report is unequivocal on this. When we factor in the cost of the carbon tax to the Canadian economy, most Canadian families actually end up behind on the carbon tax. If we factor in things like the cost of the carbon tax on farm families, we have an absolute and unmitigated disaster.

The carbon tax is a complete failure, and the Liberal government's plan is to increase it. It is not stopping climate change, it is not reducing emissions and it is financially hurting Canadians, and the government's decision is to increase it. Why is that relevant? I will give three statistics.

In my hometown of Orangeville, the number of seniors using the Orangeville Food Bank is up 415% since the government took over. That is the number of seniors who say, after eight years of the Liberal government, they cannot afford to feed themselves and now have to go to the food bank to help themselves out.

Twenty-five per cent of Canadian families are saying that if they get a $500 expense, they cannot pay it. Think about that. That is one-quarter of Canadian families. What is going to happen? The carbon tax is going to go up, and it is going to make things even worse.

Forty-five per cent of Canadian families are within $200 of not making ends meet. This is after eight years of a Liberal government. This is the wonderful world the Liberals have created.

They are going to say they have put in place programs, and they are going to list them off. They will say, “We did this to OAS. We did this to GIS. We did this; we did that.” Well, despite all that, the trail toward poverty for Canadians continues, so everything the Liberals are doing is not working.

What will make this worse is increasing the carbon tax yet again. What does that mean? It means farmers will pay a higher carbon tax. It means food coming from farms will cost more. The tractor that ploughs the field will have a carbon tax. The truck that picks up the food from the farm to take it to the processing centre will have a carbon tax. Taking the food from the processing centre to the grocery store will have a carbon tax. Heating the grocery store will have a carbon tax.

The multiplier effect of the increase to the carbon tax is going to make things even worse for Canadian families. What the Liberals are doing is not working. Their programs are not stopping Canadians from not being able to make ends meet. Will the Liberals finally see the light? Will they finally say they are going to cut the carbon tax so Canadians can pay their bills?

[Telecommunications Act, March 6th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, that is a pretty tough question to answer in about two minutes.

As the father of a 16-year-old daughter, I am constantly worried about what is going on in the cybersphere for her, whether or not there is an instance of bullying going on. There have certainly been episodes of bullying in her real life. I know that at one point she was eating her lunch in the bathroom because she was being bullied by some folks. Online harassment and bullying are serious problems. I do not know enough about this particular piece of legislation to know if it would actually deal with that, but if not, I really hope that it would.

We have a lot of work do for seniors who are vulnerable to these things. This is something the government has to take on. Whether or not it is just waking up to it now as part of this bill, we need to educate seniors. I host events like this with seniors, where we let them know about the threats of cybersecurity and other things. The government needs to pick up the ball on that a little more as well.

[Telecommunications Act, March 6th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, everyone here knows how serious cyber-attacks are. I often get a notification from Google that says it believes one of my passwords was exposed in a hack of some other organization and that I should take steps to make sure the password is not used in any other applications. We know that the threat of cyber-attacks exists and we know the damage caused.

What I go back to is that we know we need to do something, and I am glad that the government is doing it. It has taken it eight years, but it is finally here trying to deal with this issue. What it has to do is make sure that every voice on this is heard, whether it is industry saying it needs some information back, or whether it is others saying the threshold for some of these things is too low or asking what guardrails are put in place on some of the things.

The government has a lot of work to do and I hope it is willing to do it at committee.

[Telecommunications Act, March 6th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I would just add that to the list of things I am concerned about with this particular piece of legislation. I am glad and encouraged that the member has stated that New Democrats are going to try to strengthen this piece of legislation. I hope they do that. They talk about wanting transparency and I hope they are going to work really hard for transparency on this.

Conservatives would love to see transparency at a different committee, where we are trying to get someone to come and testify. Maybe the New Democrats can bring their love for transparency to that other committee and we can have PMO officials testify there.

[Telecommunications Act, March 6th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, it took eight long years for the Liberal government to recognize that cybersecurity threats exist in this country and around the world. Congratulations to them for coming to the party a little late.

The Liberals have now presented a bill to try to address issues of cybersecurity in the country. As I said, it took them eight years to get there, but I have to say I am pleased that the Liberals have decided to finally do something. I look forward to this bill being passed so that it can be extensively studied at committee.

There are some things in this bill that are good. I know praising the Liberal government is strange territory for me, but I will say that the bill would give the government some tools to respond quickly to cyber-threats. There is currently no explicit legislative authority in the Telecommunications Act to ensure that telecom providers are suitably prepared for cyber-attacks. This is a good reason why this bill should probably move forward to committee to be studied.

The challenge I have, though, includes a whole number of things. My issue with the government is trust. While I do want this legislation to go to committee, I have extraordinary concerns about this bill. Many of these concerns have been raised by many groups across the country, and I do want to speak to some of those in the probably somewhat whimsical hope that the government will listen and take some of these amendments seriously.

There has been a very bad track record of the government responding to concerns from the opposition or from outside organizations with respect to legislation. There is a view that the Liberals are going to do what they want to do on pieces of legislation and that they really do not care what other people have to say. I am very concerned that the government is not going to listen to the very serious concerns that have been raised about this bill.

I have my own concerns when I look at how the government has behaved with respect to other pieces of legislation. We have to look at Bill C-11. There has been a multitude of organizations that have said the bill needs further amendment. Margaret Atwood has said that she has grave concerns about the legislation, that she supports the intent but has grave concerns about the implementation and how it is going to affect artists and content creators. We have had folks who compete in the YouTube sphere who have raised all kinds of concerns about Bill C-11, and the government's response has been that it does not care what they have to say, and that it is going forward with the legislation as it is.

The Senate has made a number of amendments to Bill C-11. I suspect the government's attitude is going to be the same, which is that it does not care what the amendments are and that it is going to proceed with the bill as it sees fit.

We also have only to look to Bill C-21 as well. We had the minister clearly not aware of what constituted a hunting rifle and a hunting gun. The Liberals introduced amendments at committee, and it took extraordinary push-back from Canadians from coast to coast to coast to get them to wake up and withdraw those amendments that they had put in at the last minute.

What it speaks to is that, despite having at its disposal the entire apparatus of the Canadian government, the Liberals are still unable to get legislation right. It takes an enormous amount of effort and hue and cry across the country saying that this has to stop and that this has to be changed. If there is not a massive uprising, the government tends not to listen to the legitimate concerns of other constituents or other groups when it introduces legislation.

With that context, it is why I have real concerns that the government is not going to listen to some of the serious concerns that have been raised with respect to Bill C-26. I am going to go through some of those.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has some very serious concerns. It has issued a joint letter that says that the bill is deeply problematic and needs fixing, because it risks undermining our privacy rights and the principles of accountable governance and judicial due process. This is a big bell that is going off, and I hope the government is listening. As I have said, I do not have a lot of faith, given other pieces of legislation where thoughtful amendments have been put forward and the government decided not to do anything with them.

I want to enumerate a few of the concerns from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. On increased surveillance, it says that the bill would allow the federal government “to secretly order telecom providers” to “do anything or refrain from doing anything necessary...to secure the Canadian telecommunications system, including against the threat of interference, manipulation or disruption”.

That is a pretty broad power. Where is the government putting the guardrails in that would limit the effects of this or protect the privacy rights of Canadians? That is something I think is incredibly concerning.

On the termination of essential services, Bill C-26 would allow the government to bar a person or a company from being able to receive specific services and bar any company from offering these services to others by secret government order.

Where are we going to have the checks and safety checks on this? Unfortunately, I am not in a position where I think I can trust the government to do the right thing on these things. We have seen it through vaccine mandates, in the legislation on Bill C-21 and in how the Liberals are trying to push through Bill C-11 without listening to reasoned amendments. If reasonable concerns are raised about Bill C-26, I just do not have faith the Liberals are going to take those concerns seriously and make the amendments that are necessary. I really hope they do.

On undermining privacy, the bill would provide for the collection of data from designated operators, which would potentially allow the government to obtain identifiable and de-identified personal information and subsequently distribute it to domestic, and perhaps foreign, organizations. When someone takes the de-identified personal information of Canadians and does not say how they are going to deal with it or what protections they have in place to make sure it is not misused, what happens in the event that they take that information and somehow there is a government breach? Where does that information go? These are things I think we should be extraordinarily concerned about.

There was also an analysis provided with respect to this by Christopher Parsons, in a report subtitled “A Critical Analysis of Proposed Amendments in Bill C-26 to the Telecommunications Act”. Parsons raises concerns about vague language. The report notes that key terms in the bill, such as “interference”, “manipulation” and “disruption”, which trigger the government's ability to make orders binding on telecom service providers, are unidentified.

Where are the guardrails in the legislation to prevent government overreach and therefore protect Canadians? This is something that I think all Canadians should be watching and be very concerned about. They should be letting their voices be heard by the government on this.

The report talks about how the minister of industry's scope of power to make orders is also undefined. We would be giving a whole host of undefined powers to the minister and the government that would allow them to have all kinds of sensitive information. These are things that may be necessary, but I do not know. They are highly concerning to me. They should be highly concerning to Canadians, and I hope the government will hear from real experts at committee.

Let us not have a two-day committee study where we think Bill C-26 is perfect as it is and bring it back to the House of Commons, bring in time allocation or closure and pass it through. We have seen that story before, and we do not want to see it with the piece of legislation before us. My really big hope is that the government is going to take the time to really consider the seriousness and breadth of Bill C-26 and make sure we have the ways to protect Canadians.

I just want to add that the Business Council of Canada has released its own letter to the Minister of Public Safety, expressing its incredibly deep concerns with respect to the bill: there is a lack of a risk-based approach, information sharing is one-way and the legal threshold for issuing directions is too low.

There are three reports, right there, that are outlining significant concerns with Bill C-26, and I, for one, just do not believe the government is going to listen or get it right. It does not have the track record of doing so, but I am hoping it will, because cybersecurity is incredibly serious as we move toward a digital economy in so many ways. I really hope the government is going to listen to these things, take them seriously, do the hard work at committee and bring forward whatever amendments need to be brought forward, or, if the amendments are brought forward by the opposition, listen to and implement those amendments.

[Democratic Institutions, March 6th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, what are they trying to hide? That is the question.

It is pretty clear that this Beijing communist influence operation has been going on in Canada for a long period of time. We know that senior members of the PMO were briefed. All we are asking is that they come to testify, but they hide. They obfuscate. They will not deliver these people.

Why? That is the question that Canadians should be asking themselves. What are they hiding? Why will they not bring her to testify?

[The Economy, February 16th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, when one has absolutely lost the argument, one tries to change the channel.

Let us get back to the channel. After eight years of the Liberal government, 35% of Canadians say they find it hard to make ends meet every single month; 25% say that if they get an expense of $500, they cannot pay it. The government is pushing Canadians to bankruptcy.

When will Liberals admit that is what they are doing? If they will not fix it, they should get out of the way, because Conservatives will.

[The Economy, February 16th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has some nerve to quote a 9% reduction. What he does not tell Canadians is that the economy contracted by 5% at the same time. If the Liberals' plan is to reach a 45% reduction, that means the economy has to contract 25%. When they say who they are, believe them. That is their plan for the economy.

When will they admit this disastrous program is only hurting Canadians?

[Criminal Code, February 13th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, that is difficult. I think the challenge with trying to come up with something at committee is the limitations of committee. Witnesses come, give a five-minute intervention, and we have a five or six-minute opportunity to question. Quite frankly, on an issue like this, I just do not think that is going to do it.

We need professors of psychiatry from well-renowned universities putting in the guardrails to protect Canadians by telling us what those are, and the government has to listen.