44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 6, 2023 11:00AM
Madam Speaker, I want to continue the line of questioning of other members on balancing the need to address cybersecurity and privacy at the same time.
One group that has shared some concerns is the Citizen Lab. It has put together a report called “Cybersecurity Will Not Thrive in Darkness” and has offered 30 recommendations for the governing party to consider at committee.
I wonder if the member has seen this report and if there are any recommendations in the report that he sees worthy of going ahead with. He may not see them all as worthy of going ahead with, but are there some recommendations that he thinks we should pursue?
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, no, I have not seen those recommendations, but it would be appropriate for those recommendations to be presented to the committee for consideration.
25 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, six years ago Statistics Canada found that more than one-fifth of all Canadian businesses were impacted by cybersecurity incidents, a sobering statistic in its own right. That was six years ago.
What we need to understand is that cyber-technology moves at a mile a minute. What is groundbreaking one year can become ordinary or obsolete even just a year later. I do not doubt that cyber-defence systems in Canada, both by the government and by private businesses, have become much more sophisticated throughout the last several years, but the technology used for cyber-attacks, whether by foreign or by domestic actors, has developed even more quickly.
We are seeing this play out in real time. Just a month ago, Indigo fell victim to a ransomware attack. Online purchases became impossible. In-store purchases could still happen, but only if one was carrying cash. Most alarming of all, information about the chain's employees was accessed. The situation continues to drag on, Canada's largest bookstore chain held for ransom. The emergency that Indigo finds itself in is terrible, but back in January the Russia-tied group that carried out this attack, LockBit, did something far more cruel when it hacked the SickKids Hospital in Toronto.
Those are just two examples of how cyberwarfare transpires in Canada, amongst thousands of other examples every single year. Today, particularly at a time when we know foreign powers are actively seeking to undermine Canada, its institutions and its critical infrastructure, it is time for the government to step in and put forward a cybersecurity strategy. It almost goes without saying that in this digital age, online systems run just about everything that keeps this nation up and running, including hospitals, banking and the energy that heats our homes.
What the government has failed to realize until now is that as these systems become more digitized, so too do they become more vulnerable. This was on full display when SickKids was hacked. Lab results, imaging results and the hospital's phone lines were wiped out for days before order was finally restored. Just in 2020, CRA was hacked, compromising the accounts of 13,000 Canadians. Bold action is what is needed to fight against attacks of that scale, and it is Parliament's job to provide that action.
When I look at a bill like Bill C-26, I start by thinking about what it would let the government do and whether that would be an improvement on our existing cybersecurity regime. In that regard, there is actually a lot to like here. Now more than ever, cyber-attacks can take place in little more than the blink of an eye. An attacker could dig its claws into a company's online system, inflict all the damage it wants, take all the information it wants, and it might be hours later than the affected company realizes what it is being done to it.
Having a rapid response to those incidents is absolutely critical. It is clear to me that the type of broad, sweeping powers contained in this bill would allow the government to provide that rapid response. It would also bring some much-needed cohesion to the link between the state and telecom providers. Right now, telecoms can decide to work with the government and prepare for a cyber-attack, but this is entirely voluntary. They can share information with the government, but only if they really feel like it.
As far as having a unified cybersecurity strategy goes, ours is laughable. It is about time that we act accordingly and fall in line with our Five Eyes allies. This bill covers such an important policy area, yet in so many ways it just does not get it right. It is another page in that long Liberal book entitled, “Having the right intention and making the wrong move”. I should not have to say this in a room full of parliamentarians, but here we are: the written text of a law actually matters.
A law needs to be clear. It needs direction. It needs guardrails. That is why it is so strange to come across a bill that lets a minister go up to a telecom provider and make them “do anything, or refrain from doing anything, that is necessary to secure the Canadian telecommunications system.” All the power goes to the minister with nothing in the way of guardrails constraining their power.
When I read this part of the bill, I was reminded of one of my favourite Abraham Lincoln quotes. Abraham Lincoln said, “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.” That is what this section does, it provides immense power to the Minister of Industry, which is not abridged or protected in any way.
There is nothing wrong with a law that gives the government new powers, but in this case, with the cyber-threats that we are currently facing, that type of law is exactly what we need to get right now.
The problem here is that we are debating a bill today where those new powers are not specified and are not restricted whatsoever. Alongside the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, I am seriously concerned about the way that Bill C-26 would infringe on the privacy rights of Canadians.
This bill would allow the government to collect data from telecoms. With guardrails in place, this would actually make a lot of sense. The government might want to see the weak spots in a company's cybersecurity system, for example. With the government being able to get these companies to do anything, we do not have a clue what it will demand to collect.
As it stands now, there is no way of stopping them from collecting personal data and juggling it between various departments. Foreign affairs, defence, CSIS, anyone could take a look if the state decides that it is relevant.
At the minister's discretion, the data could even go to foreign governments. Again, this all comes back to the problem of unchecked power. With zero restraints in place, we can only assume the worst. Like so many bills under the Liberal government, what we are seeing here is a government-knows-best approach.
I am really not sure how it can defend this level of information sharing. “Well, yes, we could share one's personal information, but we definitely will not do that.”
It wants Canadians to give it the benefit of the doubt. The government is well past the point of being given the benefit of the doubt.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association 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”.
A number of organizations and individuals have raised red flags. The Business Council of Canada wrote to the Minister of Public Safety, expressing the business community's concerns about Bill C-26, including the potential of brain drain, as the result of personal liability and unduly high monetary and criminal penalties.
The council also expressed concerns that information sharing is one-way. Operators are required to provide information to government but receive nothing back from government.
The bill misses the opportunity to implement an information-sharing regime that could benefit all operators subject to the law.
Aaron Shull, managing director of the Centre for International Governance Innovation said that Ottawa should deploy a wide range of strategies, including tax breaks to individual small businesses, to take cybersecurity more seriously.
The Munk School issued a report on Bill C-26 where they itemized a series of deficiencies including that “the breadth of what the government might order a telecommunications provider to do is not sufficiently bounded.”
There are massive, glaring issues in Bill C-26.
What is so unfortunate about this is that I think that enhancing Canada's cybersecurity is something that all parties can get behind. I am willing to see this bill move forward but it is going to need some major amendments in committee, amendments that protect civil liberties and constrain abuse.
There needs to be a threshold test, providing that an order being given by the government is proportionate, reasonable and, above all else, necessary. The minister should have to table reports, annually perhaps. How many orders did they issue in a given year? What kinds of orders, broadly speaking?
If the government mishandles someone's personal information, which it likely will, this bill needs to make it clear that those people will be compensated.
We find ourselves debating another highly important, poorly crafted bill, courtesy of the Liberal government.
I want to see this bill go to committee so that experts, especially those with a focus on civil liberties, can help make this bill work.
To be clear, if the issues in this bill concerning privacy and impacts to businesses are not addressed, the Conservative Party is ready to pull its support immediately and put up a very strong defence to stop this bill from going beyond committee.
After all, if the Liberals cannot manage Canada's cybersecurity, they can just get out of the way and let Conservatives handle it.
1561 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I understand that the Conservative Party is going to actually be voting in favour of the legislation. I am glad to hear that because we recognize that it does not matter which political party one is of, the issue of cybersecurity is something that we all need to take seriously.
Listening to the debate today, Conservatives come up and say, yes, they support the bill and it is a bill that they want to see go to committee.
Given the member's comments, does the Conservative Party actually have any amendments that it is prepared to share, through the House of Commons, with Canadians? What tangible amendments would they like to see made to the legislation that he could share with us prior to it going to committee?
130 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Winnipeg North. It is always nice to get a question from a fellow Winnipegger. I love the Prairie pragmatism of his question on what amendments might we put forward.
The purpose of my speech and the speeches we have heard from our side of the House today is to point out the flaws in the bill. We will support the bill to get to committee stage and it is at committee stage where we can have a fulsome discussion with the experts about these flaws and come up with serious, practical amendments that make this bill even stronger. I think my colleague from Winnipeg North would agree it is in everybody's interest to make this bill as strong as possible.
130 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his riveting speech.
I would like to ask him what he thinks about the government's strategy on Huawei and 5G. It seems to me that there were a lot of about-faces, that it took a long time and that there was a lot of dilly-dallying.
I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.
66 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I do not have a lot of comfort that the government will get it right given how many years it dragged its feet on Huawei. I think we have every reason to be concerned that this bill might come out of committee without the necessary amendments.
One of the things I am particularly concerned about is the sentence I referred to from the bill that a minister can do or refrain from doing anything necessary to secure the Canadian telecommunication system. That statement needs to be measured against section 7 and 8 of the charter, which is the right to life, liberty and security of person and to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure.
We need to make sure that this bill can stand the scrutiny of the courts in case any business or individual affected by it decides to bring a charter challenge. I think there are serious concerns around the idea of giving a minister unfettered power, as one of my political heroes, Abraham Lincoln said, who I mentioned earlier in my speech.
178 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, just before the hon. member's speech, we heard from a Liberal member. One of the things the member spoke about in his speech was specifically that the government knows best and to just trust the government on this and we will be fine. That came out of one of the answers to a question I asked.
Can he expand on that in terms of the concern we have with the answers we are hearing today, and in terms of the transparency and accountability required in this bill?
90 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, there is every reason to think that the government will mess this up. For example, this morning, there was a story about the CBC taking the personal, private information of its employees and posting it online against their will and without their consent.
My colleagues across the way might say the CBC is an independent body, but the reality is the CBC is mandated as a Crown corporation under federal legislation and has to report to the Minister of Canadian Heritage on an annual basis. The government has some culpability in this. If we see the CBC messing this up, how can we trust the government to get it right?
112 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, I listened with great interest to the member. I heard him speak at length about why the bill is so horrible. He then concluded his speech by saying that he would vote in favour of sending it to committee. If it is so horrible, why would he bother to vote in favour of it? Why not just vote against it?
62 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 commend my Conservative colleague for his speech.
We have heard concerns about the fact that legislating in this manner and governing essential cybersecurity infrastructure could have an impact on the freedom of expression of Quebeckers and Canadians.
I would like to ask my colleague whether he believes it is possible to implement such legislation so that we can regulate and govern essential cybersecurity infrastructure as needed while protecting freedom of expression. I would like to hear his thoughts on that.
83 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, I appreciate the speech my colleague made. I think the track record here is one of the biggest points I took from his speech. Specifically, he referenced how the government delayed enforcing its decision on Huawei for years. This is not a new concern after eight years of the Liberals delaying and refusing to act or provide leadership while many of our global counterparts have done so.
Specifically, he emphasized the example of Huawei very well. Could he expand a little on how damaging the delay was to Canada's international reputation on cybersecurity?
96 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
- Mar/6/23 4:54:49 p.m.
- Watch
Order.
It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Victoria, Taxation; the hon. member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship; the hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, Cannabis.
59 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, today I will be talking about the bill we have been discussing for the past few hours, Bill C‑26, an act respecting cyber security, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments to other acts.
From the outset, I would like to mention that in 2019, when I arrived in the House of Commons, the topic on everyone's lips was the data breach at Desjardins. To put things into context, at the time I was a member of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. I was determined to find out how we might protect privacy and decorrelate the social insurance number that we were using far too readily as a means of identification. My colleagues see where I am going with this.
It took a scandal for the government to do something about this. Now I am no longer a member of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, I am vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Again, it took a scandal being uncovered by the media for the government to truly listen to us.
This is a case of being lax when it comes to the security of the electoral process and national security. I am addressing all those who are listening to us; I hear their concerns. For the past six months, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has been looking into Chinese interference in our electoral process. It is likely that there will be an announcement in the near future that will once again demonstrate that we really need to sound the alarm to get things moving. Of course, the Bloc Québécois will always be vigilant. The Bloc Québécois will be there every time it is important to get to the bottom of various allegations or scandals. We will force the government to take action for our constituents, because they deserve it.
In light of all that, it goes without saying that Bill C‑26 is a step in the right direction. The bill introduced by the Minister of Public Safety aims to strengthen the security of Canada's telecommunications system. That said, I want to be honest. I have serious concerns. Over the past few years, my confidence in the government on security issues has been eroded. The government must not stick its head in the sand. Quebeckers need assurances. They need to be assured that this paternalistic and so-called well-intentioned government is doing its job, particularly in its areas of jurisdiction. That is all we ask and all we expect.
We know that China, Iran and Russia can be considered hostile powers that do not wish us well. When someone does not wish us well, we have to protect ourselves. The government absolutely has to come up with systems to guard against what we have seen since the latest scandals. We demand an explanation, and answers are to be expected, yet the government says everything will be fine and we should move on to other things. Unfortunately, our constituents feel betrayed and lack confidence in this government because it is not taking things seriously, as all the numbers indicate.
Regarding what is going on with Beijing specifically, I wonder if there is something we do not know. Why are we taking action so late in the game? Why are we always reacting? I am fed up with all this dissatisfaction. Every time I go back to my riding, my constituents want to talk to me about this, and I get why they are feeling discouraged.
As members know, I will be going to the United Kingdom. We are going to be taking a look at the procedures in different Commonwealth countries so we can implement other countries' best practices with respect to national defence and protection against interference in our elections.
I know that when having discussions with my colleagues, I am going to have to tell them that the process is ongoing even though the British and the Australians understand the situation and have taken action. The Americans, too, understand and are taking action. I am wondering if our closest allies, our Five Eyes partners, still have confidence in us.
For quite some time, the Bloc Québécois maintained that the government needed to tighten control over broadcasting. That is unequivocal. It was part of the discussion on the Huawei and 5G infrastructure file. We continued to call out the government for its indecision, which went on too long. This proves once again that we were right. However, international pressure from our closest allies was needed to make the government take action.
Everything is always so urgent. Urgency seems to be an imperative that really drives this government. We would like to see the government change its ways and become more proactive rather than reactive. With Bill C-26, I think we finally have a starting point. Obviously, there is a lot of work to be done to go further in terms of accountability, in terms of the legitimacy of disclosure on all sides, so we can prevent situations like the one we are in.
I agree that it is a noble goal. Of course I agree with everything about the security of our critical systems. Do we have everything we need right now to deal with both internal and external threats? The answer is no. That is what we have been told and what we continue hearing, at both the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. We must act. This bill must be quickly sent to committee to be fine-tuned and given some teeth. It is urgent.
I am making a wish and sending it out to the members of the government. I am asking them to always keep in mind our collective security. I trust that they will. We have faith, but we need to be proactive, smart. We also need to talk to our constituents, to speak to people's intelligence. They have suggestions. The G20 countries have good practices that we need to adopt as quickly as possible. We need to set aside partisanship in the interest of our democracy. We need to ensure that the legislation resulting from Bill C-26 really makes people feel safe and lets them know that there is a public, non-partisan institution there to watch out for threats.
The bill names six public organizations that will be given the power to order investigations to make sure things are being done right. I am talking about the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, the Minister of Industry, the Bank of Canada, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, the Canadian Energy Regulator and the Minister of Transport. These are critical sectors of our society and our economy. We must not take threats lightly. Is this enough? We will need experts to tell us whether this is truly legitimate, both for whistle-blowers and for the dissemination of information, because people need to know.
Since I only have about 30 seconds left, I would like to say to those who were just here that the government took action with regard to TikTok because, once again, there was an urgent need to do so. I hope that any future interventions will be undertaken proactively.
1242 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments the member has made. However, when we go to these conferences, one thing that is important to recognize is that even with the legislation, compared to other countries, this is an ongoing issue and cybersecurity is dealt with in a wide variety of ways. What we are talking about today is a very important tool. We have been talking about it and have the legislation before us. We now have an opportunity. In listening to members on all sides of the House, we see that there is a will to support the legislation going to committee. My concern is that if we do not allow that opportunity, there is a finite amount of time. We would like to see the legislation go to committee so that opposition members could propose ideas, suggestions and possible amendments.
Could the member provide her thoughts in regard to the importance of trying to get the legislation to the next stage, given that everyone seems to be supporting the legislation?
171 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, that is a very interesting question. Here is what I would say in response. If my colleague and I were to switch places, I would say that one of the truly urgent and useful things we could do would be to fine-tune and improve the bill to show that the government really cares about cybersecurity and wants to make sure it protects Canadians from all cyber-attacks and any potential interference while strengthening transparency.
If I were in government, which will never happen, I would make sure I handed over everything if someone asked me for information. I would not hide anything to avoid a potential scandal a year from now. I would take it that far with this bill. That would be the first step in a constructive process.
133 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
