44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 6, 2023 11:00AM
- Mar/6/23 2:12:53 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government says it wants to triple the carbon tax up to $170 a tonne. Thanks to British Columbia's recently tabled budget, we know how much economic harm tripling the carbon tax may cause.
On April 1, the carbon tax goes up to $65 a tonne and may cost British Columbians an extra $600 million a year. It is estimated that with the Liberal plan to triple the cost, the cost may be as high as a staggering $5 billion in British Columbia by 2030. Even the province has said in its own budget that “rural communities may have higher indirect carbon tax burdens (e.g. through higher shipping costs resulting in a higher price for goods) and colder regions of the province may have higher carbon tax costs for home heating.”
However, we should hold British Columbia's beer, because the Prime Minister is not done yet. On April 1, this government is also hiking the excise tax on beer, wine and spirits by another 6.3%.
This is all made-in-Canada inflation from a Liberal government that is out of touch and does not care. After eight years of the Liberal government, many Canadians can no longer afford to pay their bills. They need leadership that helps keep life affordable, and under the Conservative leader, they will get it.
228 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on behalf of the good people of Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.
I welcome this debate because essentially what the government has put forward in the bill is two words: “Trust us”. We should trust the government and give it all these powers for the Telecommunications Act, expanding it drastically. We should trust the government when it comes to designating cybersecurity systems as being of such importance that a whole host of new rules should be put upon them. That is what the government is asking us to do.
This is the same government that took years to answer the question of whether we will allow Huawei in our 5G infrastructure. It is a question that has infuriated our allies because they expect Canada to be a trustworthy party in the Five Eyes' intelligence and sharing. It has also infuriated the companies themselves, as many had hoped to utilize the technology. Now, I was against the use of Huawei, but these enterprises are in a competitive venture and will take any particular opportunity to compete and try to lower their prices. However, this government wasted years for that infrastructure to be procured. I believe this also infuriated many Canadians who wanted a simple yes or no on Huawei.
I think the government went through three public safety ministers who said that an answer was coming. Finally, it said no, answering Conservative calls for “no way to Huawei”. However, now it has put forward a bill that would essentially give the power to the government. For example, the government would be able to bring forward an order that could not be reviewed by Parliament. In fact, the Statutory Instruments Act is being exempted from both the telecommunications component in Bill C-26 and the new cybersecurity part, the critical cyber systems protection act.
I am the co-chair of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, which is a committee tasked by the House and the other place to ensure that when the government creates an order or regulation, it does not exceed the authority granted to it by Parliament. We are able to make sure that when a department or ministry is charged with a delegated authority that it does so justly, and in light of the legislation, that it does not, ultra vires, exceed it.
However, in the legislation before us, the government is effectively saying that it gets to place secret orders that cannot be reviewed by Parliament. Now, members may say that they can go to a justice to be able to have a case heard in court. Again, who can be designated under this proposed bill is an open question. Someone could go in front of a justice, but guess what, Madam Speaker? The government reserves the right to actually make its accusations in a closed-door fashion where a person or company does not have to be there to defend themselves against the evidence that is brought to the court. There, a person or company may be subject to an order that is so secret that it cannot even be said within a closed hearing with an independent judge.
Now, some may say, “Well, so what? It is for national security.” However, we actually do not know. There are so many different organizations that can make powers here. Everyone from the responsible minister to the appropriate regulator, the minister of foreign affairs, the minister of national defence, the chief of the defence staff, the chief or an employee of the Communications Security Establishment, the director or an employee of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service or any other person or entity that is prescribed in the regulations can exert power.
“Trust us”, says the government. The government wants us to give it this power, and it will choose who can use it on whom; Parliament will never know anything about it. Even if a person or company protests, they will not be able to hear the evidence in court as to why they must comply.
Granted, I believe that, within Canada's interests, we should have the ability to work with providers around concerns, but I have great reservations on this. This bill says, “Trust us.” The government says this repeatedly. When we ask questions about foreign interference or share concerns about Huawei, the answer is, “Trust us.” This is not a respectful way to do it.
Let me tell everyone about a respectful way to do these things. Having brought forward a bill, it would perhaps be respectful to bring it to the committee stage first. There is a process where a committee can have hearings on potential legislation before it comes to this place for second reading. This offers the committee the flexibility to begin hearings and mould whether those powers are going to be broadly met in this House. In a minority setting, that would have been ideal.
However, that is the past; the government has brought forward this bill and we are at second reading. What would have been even better is to look at the example of Australia, which decided to hold a number of different inquiries over a period of years. I know the government is very sore around the subject of inquiries these days, but these commissions were set up and asked what information government should have, as well as how and with what kinds of regulations data should be regulated by government. Essentially, it took the approach that someone's personal data is their own, and they should be able to direct it.
Over a series of commissions, some with 800-page reports, they decided on a process for making changes. They would focus on privacy, deciding what the government could keep and could not keep, and they went through that legislative process. Then they said they were going to regulate industry by industry. We should notice that the proposed critical cyber systems protection act casts such a wide net that it could be anything from pipelines to sewage water treatment plants or air transit systems.
We do not know because the government just says to trust it. However, I know, and I am sure others know as well from experience, that every industry uses different technology. Therefore, a one-size-fits-all, big, bossy government, as the member for Carleton would probably call it, does not have the touchpoints or the understanding. All we know is that these orders can be placed on any industry at any time and that those orders will never be looked at by Parliament. To me, the government is asking for too much.
Again going to the Australian model, Australia said it was going to start with data privacy rights in telecommunications, energy systems and banking. It picked the industry that it was going to focus on and made sure it got it right before putting forward the new rules that allowed for a steady process. Instead of a holus-bolus process where everything gets thrown into Bill C-26 with the government telling Canadians, members of Parliament and members of the other place to just trust it, we could have had smart legislation that would be reviewed at committee. Hearings could be held, and we could find out what is reasonable for each industry and what is not. From a privacy standpoint, we could also ask what the government means when it designates someone under this act. Does it mean a person or a company? What are their rights and responsibilities? Unfortunately, this is all on the government side; it decides, saying, “Trust us.”
My colleagues and I will be seeing this bill go to committee. However, I have to protest in this place that this is not the way to make our systems better and provide more trust in our institutions. “Trust us” is not an argument, and the government should know better by now.
1342 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, Conservatives have been calling for the government to deal with the very real threat of foreign interference for years. This is not only a threat on the government side but also something that takes on other forms, such as cyber-espionage.
Not everything in this bill is terrible, but it could have been structured better. As the previous member from Winnipeg said, Conservatives on the committee will work to make the legislation better and ask qualifying questions. Moreover, we will pull support if the current government continues to stonewall and ask us to trust it without offering better arguments or better amendments.
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I do not have a precise answer to the member's question, but I do know that this is not it. The government has basically thrown everything to a one-sided argument. Industry has raised concerns with the government that there is no two-way communication. Industry can report to government, but there is no way to have any kind of forward guidance from the government in this legislation. Those one-way streets lead nowhere.
77 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, governments are made of people, and people make mistakes. After talking to many of our allies and seeing what our other Five Eyes partners in the United States, Great Britain, New Zealand and Australia have done, the government probably heard the feedback that it was a black eye that it took so long for Huawei to be banned from Canada's 5G infrastructure. This is now perhaps an overreaction to try to make up for that.
Let me say this. In this place, in this country, we want laws that are just, fair, and most of all, practicable. Unfortunately, this is a one-size-fits-all, big, bossy government that asks us to trust it because it knows the shots and will take them as it sees them. It has not done well in the past, and I believe that this overshoot is to respond to that lack of credibility with respect to Huawei. However, two wrongs do not make a right.
164 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
