44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 6, 2023 11:00AM
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
Mr. Speaker, I cannot really concentrate. My hon. colleague came up with that word that I cannot even make sense of. That reminds me of the Prime Minister's dad with his famous “fuddle duddle”. What does “fuddle duddle” mean? I do not know what “rapporteur” is. I am hoping that this bill addresses some of my hon. colleague's concerns.
67 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that we have the ability to have this debate in the House of Commons today. It has been lively, and I have enjoyed it, but I am going to remind Canadians, who might be watching at home, and my colleagues who are here, just how rapidly technology has advanced in the course of our lifetimes.
One of the last jobs that I did prior to becoming a member of Parliament here in the chamber was as a tenured faculty member at Red Deer College in Red Deer, Alberta, where I was a member of the computer systems technology department. I taught computing systems to students there for a number of years. It was a great job with brilliant minds of the young people who had come to that college.
I learned all about computing when I was an adult. I did not have the privilege of growing up inside a computer. Those of us in the room who are old enough to know, back in the mid-1990s, an old IBM 386DX used to cost hundreds, if not thousands of dollars, for computing power that right now would not even match an outdated, obsolete iPhone.
I would remind the people watching what the significance of this debate is and why the legislation we are discussing, and hopefully sending to committee, is so important.
If we go back to the 1960s, the development of ARPANET is where the foundations of the Internet started. The transmission rate of data at ARPANET, which was a military defence network, and as I said, the founder of the Internet, was 56 kilobytes per second. Now, in 2022, we are at 5U, which is 100 megabits per second. This is an absolutely astounding rate of growth in the ability to move information from point A to point B.
The growth since 1983 is based on Nielsen's Law on bandwidth. Basically, every year we increase the capacity to send information over a network by 50%, which is an exponential number that keeps going up. It is not 50% of where we started from. It is 50% from now. If we could do compound interest in the financial system that would give us a 50% compound interest return, we would be doing quite well. However, this is how fast the network processing, or the bandwidth, is growing in the world.
If we take a look at Moore's law, when it comes to the ability of microchip processing, transistors on a microchip double every two years, which is what they said back in the mid-1960s. In 1970, there were just over 1,000 transistors on a microchip. Now, there are 50 billion transistors on a single microchip. That is an insane amount of computational power, and coupled with the bandwidth that I just talked about, leaves us in a situation where parliamentarians and politicians need to be cognizant of the scale of the capacity of what we are talking about.
Let us go back to the early 1990s and a computer at that point in time. We measure computational power in things like FLOPS, or floating point operations per second, and MIPS, or million instructions per second. A computer back in the early 1990s could do under 1,000 calculations per second. Today, we are well over a billion computations per second, and that is floating point operations, which are more complicated than even just the millions of instructions per second. We can just take a look at that efficiency.
When we talk about going back to original computers, we talk about the Harvard Mark II, which I think weighed 23 tonnes. Now, with today's technology, the demand of energy per unit of processing or unit of computing power has actually been cut in half every 18 months, which means that every 18 months, the amount of energy and power that it took to do the same job is now half of what it was. This is allowing for massive growth. We see things springing up all the time. We have Bitcoin mining operations using massive amounts of electricity. Can members imagine if we tried to use that much electricity using older computers? It would have been absolutely astounding.
On storage, I am not talking about memory in the computer, and I already talked about the microchip storage. However, when I was teaching at Red Deer College, we got these hard drives that came in so that we could play around with a hard drive. Now, I am mostly a software guy. I was a programmer and database administrator, but I had to learn a little bit about the hardware.
We had a 420-gigabyte hard drive. It might have been a megabyte, but I think it was a gigabyte, but oh my goodness. I remember we had 20-gigabyte hard drives. Who can remember when they were excited about having a 20-gigabyte hard drive?
In the 1950s, if we go back to early computing, the cost to store one terabyte of data, using that technology and working backwards on the cost of a unit of storage and the evolution of computing, it would have cost over $100 trillion. Today, for less than $100, people can go to a computer store and buy a hard drive or a disk for their computer that contains well over a terabyte of data.
Why is this history lesson so important? It is because we are moving into an age of artificial intelligence. Some of my colleagues have expanded upon the importance of artificial intelligence in their speeches earlier. I listened with great anticipation to what they said.
What does the requirement for computational power and bandwidth require for artificial intelligence? Today's computers, looking at artificial intelligence, are actually using something called petaFLOPS, that is 10 to the 15th, a quadrillion floating point operations per second. That computational power exists in our networks that are out there that are now hooked up with 5G networks that can operate at 100 megabits per second.
The amount of technology and the availability of technology and the ability of that technology in today's standards are absolutely amazing. In fact, because of these advances in technology, we now have some pretty amazing facts. A television today, a software game, any of our intelligence toys, anything that requires computing is 35% lower in cost relative to income than it was just 20 years ago. Meanwhile, college tuition, education and so on have gone up over 150% in the same time frame. That tells us the vast amount of research and technology that has been put in place on the development of this technology.
That is why it is so important. Artificial intelligence is a conversation that we should be having in this House, and cybersecurity is certainly a part of that. Everybody knows, we are watching the news, and we see some great potential uses. That is the thing; everything that is designed to make our lives better, more efficient and more productive could also be used for evil.
I am not accusing anybody of using it for evil. That is not the point I am making. However, everything we want to use for good, somebody else could use with malicious intent.
I will just give a couple of examples. We have had the conversation today about the amount of personal information that has been lost, hacked and held hostage through various cyber-attacks. We know that the People's Liberation Army in China has tens of thousands of people working, just in their cyber-attack divisions alone. Just to keep in mind, for the people who are watching at home, Canada's entire military hovers between 60,000 and 70,000 people. The People's Liberation Army, just in their cyber-intelligence division alone, would have more people than the entire Canadian Armed Forces across all three of our divisions.
These are the folks, coupled with our security establishment, who need to have the tools to defend us, our networks, our infrastructure and all the critical things that we do. We are talking about hospitals, electricity grids and all these things. Imagine something as simple as a driverless or autonomous vehicle. An autonomous vehicle can now drive itself, and the reason it can do it is because we have that 5G technology, and we have the cameras and the ability for that car to make intelligent, informed decisions at the calculation rate, because of the advances in computers that I just talked about. Imagine what somebody with malicious intent could do with an autonomous car, if they wanted to.
That is why we have to get the cybersecurity question right in this debate. If we leave our systems vulnerable, if we leave ourselves open to the possibility, and we are never going to be perfect, and for everything we do, somebody with malicious intent could find a workaround for it, so we have to keep it up to speed.
With all the facts I just talked about, the doubling of technology and computing power and the halving of electricity requirements, we need to be very clear. This is the one piece of advice that I will offer to my friends across the way in the government, because this is too important not to be working together on this. The technology is growing and developing at such a rapid pace that I really do hope that we and the government have the ability to put in some clauses to review this, because it is just so important that we get this right and constantly review our cyber defences and cybersecurity in this country.
1618 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/6/23 6:43:20 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am rising again in this House for what feels like the thousandth time to call on the government to end fossil fuel subsidies, to implement a windfall profits tax on oil and gas companies and to invest in climate solutions.
Each time, I draw attention to the fact that we are in a climate emergency and that, in the words of Greta Thunberg, “our house is on fire”. When one's house is on fire, one jumps into action and calls the fire department. Instead, the government not only is continuing business as usual and planning to increase oil and gas production in the coming years, but continues to hand out billions of dollars to profitable oil and gas companies. These are the companies that are literally fuelling the climate crisis, that for decades have been funding disinformation about climate change and that are profiting off increasing emissions. Our house is on fire, and instead of using our financial resources to put that fire out, the government has decided to hand out billions of dollars to the very companies intent on pouring gas on the flames.
The Liberals say, yes, there is a climate emergency and yes, our house is on fire, but let us just wait inside a little longer before we take action, and we should probably listen to the oil and gas lobbyists and CEOs. We should probably listen to the arsonists when we make a plan to put out that fire. They are experts in fire, after all.
This is the reason we are where we are. For over 30 years, the science has been clear, and now we are seeing communities washed away, and Lytton burned to the ground. There are severe hurricanes on the east coast, and on the west coast we are choking on smoke in the summers. Hundreds of people are dying in heat waves. This is happening now, and it is only the beginning.
We know what this means for our children, for the future we are leaving them. My colleagues will excuse me if I am upset and angry and tired of broken Liberal promises. I want to see action, but not the kind of action we have been seeing from the government. It should not give our public money to big polluters. They are making record profits. It should make them pay for their own pollution. They can afford to reduce their own emissions.
The government listened to big oil and gas lobbyists and created massive new subsidies and new handouts for unproven carbon capture and storage technology. According to the world's top climate scientists, carbon capture and storage is one of the most expensive, most risky climate options and unproven at scale, but it is the oil and gas industry's favourite option because it does not involve transitioning to different energy sources. If the oil and gas industry wants to gamble on expensive, unproven technologies, get them to do it with their own money.
Instead of forcing these rich oil and gas CEOs to reduce their own emissions, the Liberals gifted them billions in tax credits. What are those very companies doing now? They are increasing their emissions. They are scaling down their climate commitments. They are raking in record profits and asking for more handouts.
We need to fix Canada's taxation system, which is rigged in favour of big oil and gas. Let us end fossil fuel subsidies and implement a windfall profits tax.
585 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/6/23 6:47:22 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate this evening. I want to thank my colleague from Victoria, a place where I grew up as well, for asking these questions. I have prepared a response that actually takes on all the questions that were raised in her original question, which include inflation, affordability, tax fairness, climate change and fossil fuel subsidies.
We understand, as a government, that many Canadians are struggling to make ends meet during a period of high global inflation. Canadians are feeling the pain when they go to the grocery store, when they fill up their tanks and when they pay their rents. Although inflation in Canada is lower that it is in the United States or in Europe, it is our responsibility to make life more affordable while building an economy that works for everyone. This is why we have provided $12.1 billion in new inflation-relief support with many measures continuing in 2023 to help make life more affordable for millions of Canadians. This includes measures like the GST rebate, dental care, child care and supports for seniors. Students no longer need to pay interest on student loans, and new parents are able to more easily return to the workforce.
At the same time, our government has been, and remains, committed to making sure everyone pays their fair share of taxes. For example, budget 2022 announced a permanent increase of the corporate income tax by 1.5 percentage points on the largest and most profitable banks and insurance companies in Canada. It also announced the Canada recovery dividend, a one-time 15% tax on Canada's most profitable banks and insurance companies to help pay for the cost of fighting COVID. We have also reduced taxes for the middle class and for small businesses on four separate occasions, while increasing taxes on the top 1%.
Our government is also committed to phasing out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that give fossil fuels an unfair advantage over cleaner energy solutions. In our previous election platform, we committed to phasing out these fossil fuel subsidies by 2025, but like the member opposite said in her speech, we felt the matter was so urgent that we actually accelerated the timeline of this commitment to the end of this year, a full two years early. In fact, the majority of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies have already been eliminated.
In budget 2022, for example, the government committed to eliminating the flow-through share regime for fossil fuel activities. This will be done by no longer allowing expenditures related to oil, gas and coal exploration and development to benefit investors after March 31, the end of this month. This coincides with our world-leading climate plan, which is working to lower Canada's greenhouse gas emissions while creating high-paying, sustainable jobs that will benefit Canadians for generations to come.
The government is also taking meaningful actions to improve competition in this country and ensure that consumers pay fair prices for goods and services. We provided an additional $96 million in funding over five years to the Competition Bureau in budget 2021 and made targeted improvements to the Competition Act in June 2022. This will strengthen the Competition Bureau's powers, better protect consumers and ensure that workers and small businesses are protected from anti-competitive or deceptive practices. These amendments brought the Act more in line with international best practices, including higher maximum fines and a broader scope of anti-competitive behaviour that the Competition Bureau can now review. On top of that, last fall we launched a consultation on the future of competition policy in Canada to seek input on what further we can do.
In conclusion, our government is fighting climate change, making life more affordable, ensuring the Canadian economy is competitive and, at the same time, making sure everyone pays their fair share of tax. Given that Canada enjoys the lowest deficit and lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7, we can expect that Canada, and Canadians, are well positioned to outperform in the years ahead.
684 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/6/23 6:51:21 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I hope the member was not serious when he said that most inefficient fossil fuel subsidies have been eliminated, because that would mean that whatever the government is counting as inefficient fossil fuel subsidies is not taking into account the billions of dollars we are still handing out to oil and gas companies.
I am baffled by Liberal MPs who claim to care about our climate and to understand the urgency of the crisis we are in, but then support massive handouts to oil and gas and refuse to make these companies pay what they owe. Oil and gas companies have profited for decades from fuelling the climate crisis. These rich CEOs and lobbyists have successfully lobbied for tax breaks and handouts. I will remind my colleagues that oil and gas companies last year made more money than they have ever made before, while Canadians are struggling to pay for groceries.
It is time for Canada to stand up to big oil and stop making Canadians and the environment pay the price.
174 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/6/23 6:52:29 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, our government has taken meaningful actions to make life more affordable and build a sustainable economy that works for everyone. We are doing this by fighting climate change; making sure everyone pays their fair share of tax; making our economy more competitive; and supporting Canadian workers, creating more than 809,000 new jobs since the start of the pandemic. Canada is working, Canadians are working and their government is working hard for them as well.
77 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/6/23 6:53:09 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as I have said in this House and during question period, a growing number of Canadians believe that everything feels broken in this country. There is correlation and a connection to what they are feeling that brokenness from: the poor management from the current Liberal government.
Whether it was when Veterans Affairs Canada officials admitted that their staff offered MAID to multiple veterans when they were looking for help or the lack of accountability when it comes to foreign interference, getting to the bottom of it and having transparency to make sure it never happens again, Canadians feel like their federal government is broken. When it comes to trying to get a passport or accessing an airport with ease and reasonableness, they feel like things are broken. If anybody has ever gotten a bill from CRA when they owe $41.72, they get the letter right away and it says they have 30 days to pay or the penalties start. Then, the Auditor General said there was $15 billion in fraudulent and wrong payments that went out by the government, and the government says it is not worth even trying to collect on this.
Everybody increasingly believes that the federal government is broken because of the opioid overdose epidemic that is happening in many parts of this country. Only a couple of weeks ago, to the Prime Minister's surprise, the government suddenly found out that there was a permit granted to produce and distribute cocaine in British Columbia. Sadly, the leader of the party said today, very clearly, that it is easier to get a permit to distribute and produce cocaine in British Columbia than it is to get a passport. That speaks volumes about what Canadians are seeing these days.
After eight years, everything the federal government touches gets worse. There are more public servants than ever before. More money is being spent and allocated and promised, but the results are worse than ever. The Auditor General confirms the government spends more money and gets fewer results, so Canadians feel like things are broken because if this were any other business or any other way of life, those managers would have been fired a long time ago.
I want to follow up on how the City of Cornwall is unfortunately seeing how things are broken in our country these days. It is seeing Roxham Road and the national problem and challenge that we have faced of an unprecedented volume of irregular border crossings, with people seeking asylum and refugee status here in this country.
Thirty-four days ago, I put out a public statement because two large processing centres came into the community, but the Minister of Immigration did not say a word or acknowledge it. The minister provided zero consultation, zero heads-up and zero resources to help the City of Cornwall deal with this.
Cornwall is a welcoming community. We have seen the diversity, and we have seen the benefits of immigration over the course of the last couple of years. However, it has been 34 days, and it has been a couple of weeks since I asked my original question. We had a week and a half since IRCC officials came to Cornwall to hear first-hand how frustrated the city is by the poor communication, leadership and management around that.
From city council to provincial and federal officials, local charities, health and education, people are looking for a plan. After 34 days of this going public but months of the government's knowing the chaos and the confusion and the strain on local resources on the ground, they are looking for a plan.
They finally came down to Cornwall and listened, admitted their communication was poor and admitted that something needs to change. Months later, they are hearing the consultations. Having a meeting is not an outcome. They have heard the problem. The City of Cornwall and the stakeholders who want to help, who want to end this chaos and fix what the government has broken, want a plan. My repeated question and follow-up to the government tonight is this: What is the plan? What resources are we going to get to address the problem when it comes to the IRCC processing centre?
712 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
