SoVote

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Mar/6/23 3:33:25 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, just to add a bit to it, the concern I would have is that the types of questions that could be posed to chairs, from what I understand, are somewhat limited, dealing strictly with the timing of things on a committee's agenda. For anything beyond that, as I understand, it should be the option of the government to determine who answers the question.

66 words

The Deputy Speaker

Mar/6/23 3:33:47 p.m.
Watch

It is getting too deeply in the weeds, but yes, the questions have to be based on the agenda of the committee at hand. I appreciate that intervention as well.

30 words

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos (Minister of Health, Lib.)

Mar/6/23 3:34:07 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, the report on COVID‑19 rapid test procurement and distribution.

23 words

Mr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.)

Mar/6/23 3:34:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Health, entitled “Addressing Canada’s Health Workforce Crisis”. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

50 words

Mr. Ron McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Lib.)

Mar/6/23 3:36:40 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-316

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-316, An Act to amend the Department of Canadian Heritage Act (Court Challenges Program). He said: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to introduce my private member's bill, which would enshrine the court challenges program into federal law. The court challenges program supports Canadians seeking to bring cases of national significance that protect our constitutional rights. It plays a vital role in ensuring that the government acts within the bounds of the Constitution and the Official Languages Act. Enshrining this program into legislation would provide greater certainty for the program and allow it to continue its important work well into the future. It would send a strong message about the importance of protecting the rights of Canadians, and it would demonstrate Parliament's shared commitment to ensuring that the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the charter and the Official Languages Act are respected and upheld.

152 words

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo (Port Moody—Coquitlam, NDP)

Mar/6/23 3:38:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition initiated by Ryan Hooey and the Canadian National Institute for the Blind on the importance of fully accessible insulin pumps for persons with diabetes. Diabetes and sight loss are closely connected. Here in Canada, 25% of people with sight loss, one in four, have diabetic retinopathy. An estimated 750,000 Canadians live with this condition. Individuals living with sight loss and diabetes live independent lives but are unable to safely and independently use insulin pumps due to the lack of accessibility features. That is why thousands of petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to ensure that Health Canada approval processes for new medical devices such as insulin pumps include an accessibility assessment, and to work with insulin pump manufacturers to address the safety concerns with the existing insulin pumps, expressed in the contraindications, and ensure that future contraindications are not considered for insulin pumps.

154 words

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP)

Mar/6/23 3:40:07 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured today to stand in this place to present a petition signed by over 14,000 people from across the country. Due to the fact that counselling therapy and psychotherapy have long been extremely beneficial tools for those seeking mental health supports, and that registered therapists and psychotherapists in Canada are required to charge GST and HST, while other service providers are exempt from charging this tax, the petitioners are calling on the government to remove that unfair GST/HST requirement for all counselling therapists and psychotherapists. I have a private member's bill, Bill C-218, that would actually do just that. The signatories of this petition are calling on the government to make these changes in a budgetary bill so that they will not be charged GST.

133 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.)

Mar/6/23 3:41:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of 5,381 signatories, who call to the attention of the government the atrocities that are happening in Iran. Specifically, they are calling on the government to declare the entire Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist entity. They are asking for the government to designate authorities to investigate reported threats and stalking by the IRGC against Iranian Canadians and their third party agents. They are further asking the government to create legislation to revoke visas of Iranian officials and their families living in Canada who have embezzled billions of dollars into Canada through business fronts and properties. They are asking for Canada's allies to end all negotiations with Iran and to provide continuous support to Iranians fighting for regime change by opening discussion between world leaders and the Iranian people to support the transition to a secular, democratic Iran.

151 words

Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP)

Mar/6/23 3:42:10 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce a petition signed by many constituents in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, who point out that Canada has signed the 2030 Nature Compact, which commits us to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030. They point out that the Fraser delta is recognized as a Ramsar wetland of international importance, a western hemisphere shorebird reserve network site and part of the southwest B.C. priority area. They point out that researchers have published peer-reviewed studies warning of extensive habitat loss and risk of ecological collapse on the Fraser River delta. Finally, they note that Environment and Climate Change Canada experts have warned of unmitigable and irreversible species-level risk to western sandpipers and shorebirds should the Roberts Bank terminal 2 project proceed as designed. The petitioners are calling on the government to halt any further work on the proposed Roberts Bank terminal 2 project until a regional assessment of the cumulative impacts, environmentally, socially, culturally and economically, is complete to preserve this remarkable habitat.

172 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Mar/6/23 3:43:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, if the revised response to Question No. 1134, originally tabled on January 30, could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.

28 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Mar/6/23 3:43:36 p.m.
Watch

Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

7 words

Mar/6/23 3:43:42 p.m.
Watch

Question No. 1134—

Questioner: Blake Desjarlais

With regard to government policies on funding directed towards First Nations, Inuit and Métis people, broken down by department since fiscal year 2015-16: (a) what policies, processes, and protocols exist to validate claims of Indigenous ancestry or Indigenous community; (b) what reviews or audits have been conducted to ensure that government funding has not been delivered to individuals, organizations, or companies that falsely claim an Indigenous identity; (c) is the government aware of any funding that has been allocated to individuals, organizations, or companies that falsely claimed an Indigenous identity; and (d) for each funding allocation in (c), how much funding has been recalled on the basis of false claims of Indigenous identity?

118 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Mar/6/23 3:43:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand at this time.

15 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Mar/6/23 3:43:47 p.m.
Watch

Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

7 words

Mr. Kyle Seeback (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC)

Mar/6/23 3:44:10 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-26 Bill C-21 Bill C-11

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.

1614 words

All Topics

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo (Port Moody—Coquitlam, NDP)

Mar/6/23 3:53:54 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-26

Madam Speaker, the NDP sees the growing threat of cybersecurity, and we also see that Canada is far behind. However, we have concerns about transparency, and I know that the NDP member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford has been instrumental in strengthening and making bills that the Liberals have brought to the floor more appropriate, so I have more than enough confidence that the NDP will ensure Canadians get the transparency and protection they believe in. My question for the member is whether he could speak to the point that the government legislation before us would allow for a complete exemption from the Statutory Instruments Act. That would mean such orders could not be reviewed by Parliament through the scrutiny of the regulations committee. I wonder if I could get some comments on that.

135 words

Mr. Kyle Seeback

Mar/6/23 3:54:49 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-26

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.

112 words

Mr. Randy Hoback (Prince Albert, CPC)

Mar/6/23 3:55:29 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-26

Madam Speaker, one of the things I have heard in talking to universities and different groups is that one of the faults of this piece of legislation is that they have to share this information with the government when they have been attacked, but it is a one-way street. When they see an attack happen, they share it with the government, but there is no information given to other businesses to help them protect against attacks similar to that in nature. Could the member talk about why it is important and what it means to companies when they are attacked and how it can hurt not only their bottom line? Indigo, for instance, would be a good example of what happens when there is a cybersecurity attack.

128 words

Mr. Kyle Seeback

Mar/6/23 3:56:06 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-26

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.

182 words

Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP)

Mar/6/23 3:57:09 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-26

Madam Speaker, I think everybody in the House agrees that we need to up our game in this country to protect Canadians and our society from cyber-attacks. My specific question has to do with certain specific vulnerable groups. I am thinking of young people, particularly teenagers between the ages, say, of 13 and 19. Even more particularly I am thinking of young girls and women who may be subject to all sorts of cyber-bullying and other offences, as well as seniors who can be victims of cyber-fraud. I am wondering if my hon. colleague has any thoughts as to how Bill C-26 might impact those particularly vulnerable groups and what suggestions he may have legislatively to help protect them.

123 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 164