44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 6, 2023 11:00AM
Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the speech by my colleague from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier. The first thing he mentioned is that the Conservative Party of Canada was a great defender of cybersecurity. I want to remind him of the following.
First, the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier supported Jean Charest as a candidate in the Conservative leadership race. Jean Charest worked with the company that was complicit in China's interference. So much for credibility and being a great defender.
Second, a quick Google search shows that the CPC App that the Conservative Party of Canada used during the 2019 election is a version of the uCampaign app, which is used in the United States and requires access to contacts and geolocation, things that relate to privacy. Cybersecurity researchers were actually advising against using that app.
When it comes to credibility and being great defenders, are the people in the Conservative Party of Canada really people we can trust?
162 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out that people in the Conservative Party of Canada lined up for a chance to become the leader of a national party, whereas the Bloc Québécois has to pick from a grab bag that does not have much in it and has trouble finding a real leader. I think the Bloc members need to ask themselves some questions when it comes to the availability of leaders.
Now, to answer my colleague, there was nothing illegal being done on our side. However, if I turn and look over at the government side, there is a long list of illegal activities that occurred there. I would encourage my colleague to direct his questions to the right party, because we, on this side, obeyed the law.
134 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I could not help but notice an answer that the member just gave to the member from the Bloc on leadership and picking a leader to be the next prime minister. I wonder if he could explain how that has worked out for him since 2015.
48 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I salute my colleague from Avalon. It is true I do not have a good batting average. In three leadership races, I have never backed the right horse. However, I am very happy being a member of the Conservative Party of Canada, and it is where I belong. That is part of democracy.
We are straying from the topic. I invite my colleague to ask me a more specific question about Bill C-26, if he has one.
81 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, since the member told us that there has always been a long list of Conservative leadership hopefuls, I would just like to quote his own words.
He said, “I will resign, or join another party in the House of Commons, or sit as an independent, or help form another party.”
This was in reference to the winner of the recent Conservative Party leadership race. The options did not include remaining a Conservative, which is what he ended up doing.
83 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, one thing my colleague from Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot did not mention is that, when there is a change in leadership, it makes perfect sense to reflect on one's political future.
I invite the Bloc Québécois members to reflect on that when they choose a new leader, as they too have done regularly in the past.
The thing is that, when we think about it, there are options. One very important option is the status quo. We may have to check the record to see what my colleague said. I have a very clear recollection of what I said: status quo, reflection, departure, new party.
I am very happy. I feel very comfortable in the Conservative Party of Canada, and it is the only party I can work with to defend Canadians' interests.
141 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, that was a great speech from my colleague. I think we would like to see him go on and on, because he has done such a great job.
It has been interesting to be here in the House today, as we listen to the different members from parties talk about the legislation and how important it is. I think there is recognition from all parties within this House that the bill will go to committee and that the committee will have some serious work in front of it, to take a bill that is kind of so-so and put some teeth into it, and make it into something that will work for all Canadians.
I am going to focus mainly on the critical infrastructure part of the legislation. It is so important that we get this right and make sure we have our critical infrastructure protected going forward and make sure we have the tools to keep it protected.
There is a war going on in Europe right now, in Ukraine. We saw that when Putin attacked Ukraine, one of the first things he did was attack certain facilities through cyber-attacks. Ukraine did not have proper protections in place and did not have the tools in place. All of a sudden Putin was able to turn the power off and do things to destabilize local governments. This allowed him to take advantage of the scenario, to move in, take advantage of the territories and conquer those territories. That is just one example of many around the world where cyber-attacks have been used ahead of brutal land attacks. We can see this being used in other ways to influence Canadian politics, or politics around the world, just by how they go about conducting that type of cyber-attack.
It would be really interesting, but it would not be interesting, as I do not ever want to see it, where all of a sudden the natural gas pipelines shut down in the middle of 40-below weather in Saskatchewan. That would be a huge hit to people in Saskatchewan. That would be a hit to our economy. It would be very serious to our seniors and people living without any other means of heating. All of a sudden we could have a cyber-attack, and the gas line would be off, and furnaces would not be working for 12 hours, 18 hours or 24 hours. Our houses would freeze up and our water pipes would break. These are the types of things that could happen with a cyber-attack.
What if our power grid were under attack? What would that mean to Ontario and Toronto, for getting people to and from work? What would it mean to our electric cars, if all of a sudden we did not have any ability to charge them or get them from A to B? What would that mean for people in hospitals, where the hospitals would need a generator to run the emergency services? If someone was getting surgery or was in an accident, they might not get the medical treatment that is required.
These are reasons we need to make sure we are doing everything we can to protect ourselves from cyber-attacks. These are some very simple reasons.
The committee is going to have some very interesting things to do to deal with the legislation. I think that is a good thing. I think we have identified here today some of the flaws in the piece of legislation: some of the oversight flaws, some of the flaws in regard to the sharing of information and why they are important to be addressed as we go forward.
We can look at, for example, the sharing of information. I was at the University of New Brunswick in 2017, and they said one of the issues they had with cybersecurity attacks was that somebody might be attacked, but might not share the information on what the attack was and how it happened for fear of liability. For example, in such a situation, if a hospital was attacked, it may not necessarily want to share that information with anybody else for fear of liability, if all of a sudden the records of patients had been confiscated by somebody part of the attack.
In the legislation before us, if we get it right, they should be able to share that information. They should be able to share it with a variety of different critical infrastructure facilities to make sure they put the appropriate patches into their software so that same person who attacked that hospital cannot attack another hospital, attack the electrical grid or use malware, or whatever means they used to attack that hospital, and so it does not happen anywhere else.
That would be a good thing. We have to make sure the legislation can reflect that and allow that information to flow between different parties, so we can keep protecting ourselves in a fluid situation. I think that is something we will see in the legislation, if it is done properly.
We know oversight is very important. Canadians have to trust that the oversight bodies and the people who are putting in these regulations and monitoring these regulations have accountability and that they are accountable back to Parliament. It cannot be just to the minister. We have seen situations in the past with the current government where accountability goes to the minister, and Parliament never really finds out what actually went on and what goes on, and Canadians are in the dark.
We can look at SNC-Lavalin. There is a classic example where we did not see all the details of what was going on in a situation. We can look at what was announced today, how the government is going to leave the investigation into Chinese election interference to NSICOP. That is something the Chinese would do. They would create a committee and say they were going to investigate themselves in their own committee and then make sure it is never public. That sounds rather Chinese to me, but that is happening here in Canada, and Canadians do not accept that. That is why it is very important that there be public oversight and that there be the ability to make sure these bodies and the government are acting in a fair and responsible way.
Some of the civil liberties groups have said that there are some serious concerns with this legislation. They should be brought in front of the committee and listened to, and then the committee should try to figure out how to address those concerns, to make a better piece of legislation.
We have seen the Liberal government react and react and react, in so many situations. To me, this looks like another example where it is reacting. It is basically just doing lip service and then it will throw it to the committee to do the work. This should have been done a long time ago. For eight years, we have been vulnerable. What could have happened in those eight years could have been life-changing for a lot of Canadians, because of the lack of forethought or good policy out of the Liberal government.
If we think about it, it is a talking point that the Liberals have done here. They have put some stuff together and thrown it into the House to say they are working on cybersecurity, but it is half done. The committee is now going to have to do the rest of the job, to actually finish it and hopefully get a good piece of legislation.
That is in question, because we do have a Liberal-NDP government here. They tend to side with each other all the time. Will they side together here, or will they actually take a step back and say, yes, we have to do what is right for Canadians and address the issues that have been raised by different associations and different groups? Are they going to look at what they can do to make this a better piece of legislation, or are they going to stick to their partisan angles and dig in their heels? If they do that, the people who really lose out are Canadians. They are the people who will be impacted by a cyber-attack, because we did not put the proper safeguards in place.
We should not think that this will not have an impact on our economy. A good example we have just seen is the cyber-attack on Indigo last week. Its computer systems are down as we speak. It is telling customers they cannot buy books online. They actually have to go to a storefront to buy their books because of a cyber-attack, a ransomware attack.
We have seen, over and over again, different schools and universities facing these types of attacks. They need to know that the government is there and is going to be there to help them. They need to know that the people who are doing these attacks will be identified and somehow dealt with, if possible. We understand that a lot of these attacks happen from Russia or North Korea, outside of our territory, but when they happen from within Canada, we want to make sure that the people who are doing these types of things are properly dealt with. We want to make sure that this does not happen again. We want to make sure we learn from the experience so it cannot happen again.
There are lots of things in this legislation that can be really good if it is dealt with properly, but it has to go to committee. I think Conservatives have been very clear. We want to see this go to committee. I just hope the committee members are able to actually do the work that is required to take a piece of legislation that is mediocre at best and make it into something that will work for all Canadians.
1676 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this House on behalf of the people of my riding of Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan.
The safety and security of our nation is of paramount importance, and I understand the need to enhance the safety and security of Canadians, both here at home and abroad. This would include many of our international corporations, which are large contributors to our economic base, and of course our own government institutions and interests. Having the opportunity to speak to cybersecurity in Canada gives us an opportunity to enhance or increase our country's ability to protect us from cyber-threats.
A significant concern for all Canadians is security. This concern has increased in recent times, as we see the rise in organized crime and gang-related offences, which have gone up 92%. The question I ask myself when I see this increase is this: Will the Liberal government be led by evidence and act on the evidence that has been reported?
Cybersecurity is extremely important for our nation to protect itself from inside and outside threats. I welcome Bill C-26, but I do have some concerns pertaining to the success of the bill, and one concern is about accountability. This is a question that we in opposition bring up every day in this House and regularly.
Bill C-26 is essentially divided into two different parts. The first part is to amend the Telecommunications Act to promote the security of the Canadian telecommunications system, adding security as a policy objective; to bring the telecommunications sector in line with other infrastructure sectors; and to secure Canada's telecommunications system and prohibit the use of products and services provided by specific telecommunications service providers. This amendment would enforce the ban on Huawei Technologies and ZTE from Canada's 5G infrastructure and would remove or terminate 4G equipment by the year 2027. What stands out to me, which has been a concern, is the time that it took the government to react to enforce the ban on Huawei.
The second portion of this bill is to enact the critical cyber systems protection act, or CCSPA, designed to protect critical cyber systems and “systems that are vital to national security or public safety and that are delivered or operated...within the legislative authority of Parliament.” As a report by Norton Rose Fulbright notes, the purpose of the CCSPA is, first, to “[e]nsure the identification and effective management of any cybersecurity risks, including risks associated with supply chains and using third-party products and services”; second, to “[p]rotect critical cyber systems from being compromised”; third, to “[e]nsure the proper detection of cybersecurity incidents”; and finally, to “[m]inimize the impacts of any cybersecurity incidents on critical cyber systems.”
The impacts of this bill would be far-reaching, and here are the things that need to be considered when this bill is in place. The government would have the power to receive, review, assess and even intervene in cyber-compliance and operational situations within critical industries in Canada; to make mandatory cybersecurity programs for critical industries; and to enforce regulations through regulatory and legal enforcement, with potential financial penalties. With this in place, the Governor in Council and the Minister of Industry would be afforded additional powers.
As the report notes:
If any cybersecurity risks associated with the operator’s supply chain or its use of third-party products and services are identified, the operator must take reasonable steps to mitigate those risks. While the Act doesn’t give any indication of what kind of steps will be required from operators, such steps may be prescribed by the regulations [at committee].
It goes on:
The Act also addresses cybersecurity incidents, which are defined as incidents, including acts, omissions or circumstances, that interfere or could interfere with the continuity or security of vital services and systems, or the confidentiality, integrity or availability of the critical cyber systems touching upon these vital services and systems. No indication is given as to what would constitute interference under the Act. In the event of a cybersecurity incident, a designated operator must immediately report the incident to the CSE and the appropriate regulator. At present, the Act does not prescribe any timeline or give other indication as to how “immediately” should be interpreted.
Some deficiencies in Bill C-26, as it is presently drafted, can be listed as follows:
The breadth of what the government might order a telecommunications provider to do is not sufficiently bounded.
The secrecy and confidentiality provisions imposed on telecommunications providers threaten to establish a class of secret law and regulations.
There is a potential for excessive information sharing within the federal government and with international partners.
The costs associated with compliance with reforms may endanger the viability of smaller providers.
The vague drafting language means that the full contours of the legislation cannot be assessed.
There exists no recognition of privacy or other charter-protected rights as a counterbalance to the proposed security requirements, nor are appropriate accountability or transparency requirements imposed on the government.
Should these recommendations or ones derived from them not be taken up, the government could be creating legislation that would require the public and telecommunications providers to simply trust that it knows what it is doing and that its actions are in the best interests of everyone.
Is it reaching the right decision to say that no need exists for broader public discussion concerning the kinds of protections that should be in place to protect the cybersecurity of Canada's telecommunications and networks? The government could amend its legislation to ensure its activities conform with Canada's democratic values and norms, as well as transparency and accountability.
If the government is truly focused on security for Canadians, should we not start by reviewing the gang and organized crime evidence showing that our present policies have failed? Should we not look at safety and security in our bail reform to protect innocent Canadians who become victims?
If Bill C-26 is a step in protecting Canada from cybersecurity threats, what is the review process to ensure compliance? What is the review process to ensure effectiveness and goals are met when we look at Bill C-75 regarding bail reform? The NDP-Liberal government is not interested in reviewing bail reform even though the evidence clearly shows that Bill C-75 failed.
Cybersecurity is important to our country's security, as are the victims of crime after their safety and security are violated. I am deeply concerned that the government is struggling with evidence-based information to review Bill C-26, as Bill C-75 and Bill C-5 are not supported by evidence. In fact, offenders and criminals are a higher priority than their victims are. My concern is if Bill C-26 requires amendment or review.
Bill C-26 proposes compliance measures intended to protect cybersecurity in sectors that are deemed vital to Canadian security. Therefore, although late out of the gate, Bill C-26 is a start.
In conclusion, I would like to see some clear accountability to ensure the objectives of this bill are met and that a proper review process is conducted that holds individuals, corporations, and most importantly, our government accountable.
1232 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the debate and the questions my colleague posed.
I think most Canadians back home watching this are wondering what the technical nuances are of everything we are discussing with respect to this legislation. We have even had some members of Parliament stand up here and say that they do not feel properly equipped to have this conversation.
I think one thing that everybody back home can relate to is seeing something on the news stating that the credit card information of a million people has been stolen or the data of some businesses that might have their personal information is now being held hostage in a ransomware attack. That is why this is a very important debate. I will be speaking about this a bit later.
I think the bill is missing the component of protecting the personal information of Canadians. Can my colleague tell us his thoughts on the bill in this regard? My speech will focus on the advances in technology and network infrastructure, as well as the rapid pace of technological development. With this bill, would we actually be able to keep up with the threats we are facing?
197 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are very trusting people. We like to give. However, when we buy into something, such as an app, we are giving over some vital information that is ours. We have seen cases where people had that information abused, and there has been no full disclosure. This is one of the concerns I have with the bill.
There are concerns that we have already witnessed in this country in terms of different businesses; a colleague mentioned Indigo being attacked. My hope is that, during committee, we ensure that we are protected. We have a responsibility to Canadians to protect them.
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am hearing some contradictions from my Conservative colleagues today. My colleagues in the Bloc have perhaps done a better job than me of explaining the importance of banning Huawei and the fact that Canada has been slow to do so. My Conservative colleague also mentioned it, but one of the Conservative leadership candidates actually worked for Huawei, so one wonders which way the Conservatives are leaning.
I met with an interdisciplinary cybersecurity research group and learned some fascinating things. Canada's bureaucracy is really slow when it comes to cybersecurity. The research chair at the Université de Sherbrooke criticized the fact that the cybersecurity issue was allowed to drag on under the pretext that it was not yet an election issue. Now it is finally becoming one. That is exactly what we are seeing right now with China's interference.
The Conservatives were not very quick either, because we are behind many other countries. The first RCMP report on cybercrime was not released until 2014, and the report was criticized at the time for containing no numbers, no statistics. The comments were general and predictable, and there were no forecasts. Things have not happened fast enough.
Here we are in 2023, and we really have a lot of ground to make up compared to many other countries, especially European countries. I think it is time to turn this over to the committee, make up for lost time, and pick up the pace on this bill.
250 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member that when the bill is in committee, this issue has to be really focused on. Obviously, we want it to move swiftly but not at the expense of overlooking some of the potential pitfalls that will impact Canadians. I think we have to trust the committee to actually make good amendments on this.
60 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member about the secrecy and lack of transparency. Does the member believe that the committee can solve this, or is this bill just too shallow for it to go forward?
36 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, we always give loaded questions.
I would have to say that, obviously, when one is a member of Parliament, one's honour is on the line all the time. I would hope that our ability to restore honour in our profession always depends on our own moral compass. Sometimes we see that fail, and it is disappointing. However, I really hope this committee can get its act together and get this sorted out.
75 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, there is a pressing need to secure Canada's critical infrastructure against cyber-threats.
Computer systems, which run our health care, energy and financial systems, are targets for criminals and foreign adversaries to attack. Disruption of medical services at a hospital or electricity through a grid would have severe consequences, possibly including injury or death.
This is exactly what happened on October 30, 2021, in my province of Newfoundland and Labrador. My hon. colleague across the way agrees with what I am saying because he, his family members or his friends, I am sure, had some of their personal information breached in that attack.
Personal information belonging to thousands of patients and employees was obtained through a cyber-attack on Eastern Health. In fact, over 200,000 files were taken from a network drive in Eastern Health's IT environment. Over 58,000 patients and almost 300 staff and former staff had their personal data breached.
The information taken included health records, medicare plan numbers, dates of birth, names and addresses. In fact, some even had their social insurance numbers taken. The immediate result was that a complete shutdown of the health care system took place throughout the entire province.
Patients who had waited through the pandemic found that critical care for such things as cancer and heart disease were put on hold. Many had to wait weeks or even months to have their appointments rescheduled. Some of these folks had poor outcomes. In fact, people's lives were shortened in some cases as a result of the cyber-induced shutdown of the health care system in Newfoundland and Labrador.
This is very serious stuff. This was not the first time such a cyber-attack happened in Canadian health care. In October of 2019, three hospitals in Ontario were victimized in a similar fashion.
On another note, a pipeline company in the United States fell victim to hackers in 2021. This led to diesel and jet fuel shortages, disrupting most of the economy of the eastern seaboard of our neighbour to the south.
These are just a few examples of catastrophic outcomes resulting from cyber-attacks in recent years. Canadians need protection from these types of attacks. This legislation is intended to align with the actions of our allies in the Five Eyes. This bill would give clear legislative authority to the government to prohibit high-risk entities, such as Huawei, from assuming critical roles in our cyber-infrastructure.
This legislation is filled with good intentions. Currently, a cybersecurity incident is defined as:
an incident, including an act, omission or circumstance, that interferes or may interfere with
(a) the continuity or security of a vital service or vital system; or
(b) the confidentiality, integrity or availability of the critical cyber system.
There is no indication given as to what would constitute interference under the bill. Does this mean that the cyber-attack on Newfoundland and Labrador health care would not be classified as interference?
In addition, there is no timeline specified in this bill for the reporting of cybersecurity incidents to the CSE and the appropriate regulator. The bill says that reporting must be immediate. “Immediate” is not interpreted in this bill. Is it one hour, one day or one week? This is something we need to know.
In terms of civil liberties and privacy, technical experts, academics and civil liberties groups have serious concerns about the size, scope and lack of oversight of the powers that the government would gain under the bill.
In late September 2022, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group and the Privacy and Access Council of Canada, as well as several other groups and academics, released their joint letter of concern regarding Bill C-26.
While stating the collective's agreement with the goal of improving cybersecurity, the joint letter goes on to state 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”.
The joint letter outlines several areas of concern, including increased surveillance. 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.
While this portion of the bill goes on to list several examples of what “doing anything” might entail, including, for example, prohibiting telecom providers from using specific products or services from certain vendors or requiring certain providers to develop security plans, the collective expresses the concern that the power to order a telecom to do anything “opens the door to imposing surveillance obligations on private companies, and to other risks such as weakened encryption standards”.
Bill C-26 would allow the government to “bar a person or company from being able to receive specific services, and bar any company from offering these services to others, by secret government order”, which raises the risk of “companies or individuals being cut off from essential services without explanation”.
The bill would provide for a collection of data from designated operators, which could potentially allow the government “to obtain identifiable and de-identified personal information and subsequently distribute it to domestic, and perhaps foreign, organizations.”
There is a lack of “guardrails to constrain abuse”. The bill would allow the government to act without first being required to perform “proportionality, privacy, or equity assessments” to hedge against abuse. This is concerning to the collective, given the severity of the penalties available under the statute.
There is the potential for abuse by the Communications Security Establishment, the federal agency responsible for cybersecurity but, more prominently, signal intelligence. The CCSPA would grant the CSE access to large volumes of sensitive data. However, it would not constrain its use of such data to its cybersecurity mandate.
The civil liberties of Canadians are already under attack. Bill C-26 does not accurately enough define how our civil liberties would be protected. Given the need for protection from cyber-attacks, a bill like this is quite necessary, no doubt.
In its current form, with so many unknowns for Canadians, I will not be able to support it. However, I do support sending it to committee for some input from Canadians and for some fine tuning, to turn it into an instrument to protect us all from cyber-attacks.
1093 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it seems that the Conservative Party keeps pointing out the flaws or weaknesses in this bill as it is put forward. However, I wonder, if it goes to committee and gets amended, does the member think it would prevent the so-called robocall scam that happened a few years back, when the Conservative Party was found guilty of using it during an election?
65 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that sending this bill to committee will make some improvements. It is unfortunate that my bill, Bill C-251, did not get the opportunity to get to committee and get improved. My hon. colleague is quite aware of the ill consequences of not allowing legislation to get to committee and to be improved, to seal the deal and have positive outcomes for all Canadians.
69 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take this debate from coast to coast. I live on the west coast, and I thank the member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame for presenting from the east coast.
Recently, we had a cyber-attack on Okanagan College in my riding of North Okanagan—Shuswap. It is always an honour to rise as the representative from that area.
Does my colleague for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame think that this bill will address the concerns that were obviously brought to light there, when the college was basically shut down for weeks after the Christmas break? Students could not access their files. Basically, the entire college system was shut down.
If this bill is needed, I wonder if the member has a comment as to why it has taken the government seven and a half years to address this, when our party brought to its attention the potential issues with Huawei and its activities in Canada. Maybe the member would like to comment on that.
179 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is great to take a question from my colleague, who has constituents who have had hard times due to cyber-attacks. I hope this bill can stop that from happening. I also hope that my hon. colleague can bring some of these people who were affected by a cyber-attack to committee and let them have their input as the bill is being debated and amended.
I am sure this bill is going to need quite a lot of amendments if it is anything like most of the legislation that has come from the government.
98 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I get the impression on this side of the House that the Liberals only come forward with measures to do anything when their feet are put to the fire. We had an example of that today, with the Prime Minister announcing the appointment of a rapporteur, which is a good French word. How many Canadians even know what the word means? He is throwing these measures out to make it look like he is doing something. It is not happening. It is simply not happening. It is to make it look like they are doing something. Canadians see through this.
I wonder if the member could talk about one of the half-measures that the Liberals are doing with this bill.
123 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
