44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 19, 2024
- Bill C-26 is a proposed law that focuses on cyber security, specifically in relation to the Canadian telecommunications system. It aims to promote the security of the telecommunications system and grants the Governor in Council and the Minister of Industry the authority to direct telecommunications service providers to take necessary action to secure the system. The bill also establishes penalties for non-compliance with these orders and regulations. Additionally, it introduces measures for the protection of critical cyber systems that are vital to national security or public safety. The bill includes consequential amendments to other Acts as well.
- Yea (322)
- Nay
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am delighted to have the opportunity to elaborate on this subject. As I was saying earlier, the Conservatives are finally paying attention. They now realize that this is an important topic and that it might be a good idea to add it to their arsenal of election slogans.
As my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands was saying a little earlier, it is true that investigative journalism brought this problem to our attention a few months ago. There are also organizations that come to Ottawa to tell us about certain issues and raise awareness about them.
Last April, I met with people from the Corporation des concessionnaires automobiles du Québec and the Canadian Automobile Dealers Association and they talked to me about this. It is wrong to say that they do not care about this phenomenon because they make money and they will be able to sell a car if a customer has theirs stolen, since they are reimbursed by the insurance company. It is not true that they do not care, because they are here in Ottawa to talk to us about it. They want the government to do something about this problem.
I first became interested in the subject a few months ago. I met with global car manufacturers, who also spoke to me about it. In October, following the feature story aired in J.E, a television program on TVA, and after the numerous news reports of the Journal de Montréal’s investigations bureau, I announced that I was going to move a motion at the public safety and national security committee. I talked to my colleagues about it, because we often see members of certain parties come totally out of left field with a motion on any given subject, thinking everyone is going to accept it as is. It is important to discuss these things with colleagues first and to make them aware of the issue. That is how I came to talk to my Conservative colleagues about the auto theft problem. They seemed to be very interested. When I moved the motion, all parties voted in favour of it. Everyone had a story to tell, everyone had a friend or colleague who had their vehicle stolen. A Conservative colleague even told me that he personally had his car stolen. There was definitely a consensus that this was something we should look into as soon as possible.
At the public safety and national security committee, we were looking at Bill C-20. That was significantly delayed by the Conservative Party for reasons we may or may not be aware of. The same thing is happening now with Bill C-26. The process has been delayed, and our committee agenda has us looking at the bill on auto theft after that. I do not really understand why the Conservatives are trying to delay this study as much as possible, when they are making it a priority today by talking about it. If it were that important to them, they would be working hard on the public safety and national security committee to finally get it done.
With today’s motion, they may be trying to get material for pre-election, or even election, slogans, because we get the impression that the Conservative Party may already be on the campaign trail. The Bloc Québécois did not get the memo. The Conservatives’ new slogan is in today’s motion, which states, “after eight years of soft on crime policies, this Prime Minister has created the auto theft crisis”. Who knew? The Prime Minister himself created the auto theft crisis. He sure has broad shoulders. I am not saying this to defend him. It is true that the Liberals have not done much in recent years to combat this problem. However, that the Prime Minister single-handedly created the crisis is something we cannot take very seriously.
I would even go so far as to say that the entire argument laid out in the Conservatives’ motion is completely disconnected from reality, despite the fact that the problem is all too real. If one looks at the problem with a minimum of seriousness, it is immediately clear that the COVID 19 pandemic in 2020 caused significant disruptions in the logistics chain around the world. One of the most hard-hit sectors was the industry producing the semiconductors needed for all microprocessors. The microprocessor shortage led to a worldwide reduction in auto manufacturing, which made demand go up. This increased the cost of used vehicles. Crime gangs jumped on the opportunity and quickly specialized in car theft and shipment to other markets. This was already happening on a smaller scale, but the pandemic and the impact it had on supply chains accelerated the phenomenon. Because of its geographical location, Montreal became an auto theft hub.
Why was that? Because Montreal is home to the largest port in eastern Canada that provides access to the rest of the world. Of course other ports are involved as well, such as those in Halifax and Vancouver. However, these ports have not been as affected as the port of Montreal. It is truly a gateway, a hub. As I was saying, the pandemic exacerbated the situation but, on top of that, new technological developments have made auto theft more appealing.
For example, consider the increasingly frequent use of smart keys, which make it easier to steal vehicles. Several news reports have shown how thieves go about it. All they have to do is use a relay to amplify the signal of a smart key inside a house by standing next to the front door. With an accomplice, the thief can then open the car door and start the engine.
They can also connect a computer to the onboard diagnostic port in the car, which enables them to use another key. All they have to do then is force open the door.
It is child’s play for people who know what they are doing.
In Montreal, as in the rest of the country, we have seen people using Denver boots or steering wheel locks to make it harder for thieves to steal their car. I say harder, because thieves have found other ways to remove these devices and leave with a car in no time at all.
This phenomenon is truly becoming a scourge, especially in Quebec and in Montreal. Auto theft has increased over the years. According to Équité Association, roughly 70,000 vehicles were stolen in Canada in 2022. That is huge. Between 2021 and 2022, the number of thefts increased by 50%, or half, in Quebec, by nearly half in Ontario, or 48%, by 34% in Atlantic Canada, and by 18% in Alberta. 2022 was a record year for auto theft. The numbers are not yet known for 2023, but by all indications auto theft has increased yet again.
The reported losses are in the billions of dollars for insurers, and we have seen premiums go up for ordinary people. Le Journal de Montréal reported that between 2012 and 2022, the average car insurance premium increased by 50% as well. This increase is in part tied to auto theft.
Given these facts, one of the questions we need to ask ourselves is why there is this growing interest in auto theft.
It must be said that auto theft is one of the easiest and least risky sources of revenue for gangs, which then use part of the proceeds to finance other criminal activities, such as gun trafficking and human trafficking. Those are the two reasons. It is easy and low-risk.
I explained earlier why it is easy. One reason it is so low-risk is that sentences are so light. In an article in La Presse, Jacques Lamontagne, director of investigations for Quebec and the Atlantic region at Équité Association and a retired Montreal police force criminal investigator, explained—
1343 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will start again. Unfortunately, I do not think anyone heard me. If the member would put his earpiece in, I think that would work even better.
I am pleased to see that the Conservatives have finally realized that there is an auto theft crisis in Canada. I for one have been talking about it since October. I moved a motion at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to study this issue. The Conservatives agreed to it. They thought it was a good idea, but all they have done since then is hold up the committee's work. That is what they did with Bill C-20 and Bill C-26.
Why are they doing that? The reason is that they do not think that the auto theft crisis is all that important after all.
Why do they want to talk about it today? Is it because it makes for a good campaign slogan? Is it because they want to crack down on crime? Why has this become a priority for the Conservative Party today?
182 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to rise and offer my thoughts on Bill C-21 at third reading.
I say that with a bit of amazement because I cannot believe we have actually made it to third reading. This bill received first reading in this House on May 30 of last year. We got through second reading in fairly short order, but at committee stage, things really got lost and all hell broke loose, so to speak.
I remember participating as the NDP's public safety critic. We had scheduled eight witness meetings to look at the first version of this bill. Things were going along quite well. There were some disagreements around the table, but there was not any of the friction that suggested there would be a major catastrophe in the making.
That all changed in November when we arrived at the clause-by-clause portion of the bill. Before that meeting started, every party was responsible for reviewing the witness testimony, reviewing the briefs that had been submitted, and working with legislative drafters to put together our amendments. Once those were submitted to the clerk, as is the normal course of things, the clerk then distributed them to all committee members.
It was quite a surprise when we saw just how big the amendment package was and just how expanded the scope of the bill was going to be. Most of the amendments came from the government. There were a couple in particular that completely sent the committee off its rails.
The amendments landed on our laps at the 11th hour. It was obvious that there had been no warning to committee members. The Liberal members of the committee were introducing those amendments on behalf of the government. They read them into the record, but I do not think they actually had a clue as to the monumental nature of the amendments.
It was clear that the amendments were not backed by any witness testimony because of the significant nature of how they were changing the bill. We, as committee members, never had the opportunity to question witnesses on the bill taking shape.
That completely derailed things. That started in November 2022, and it is only just recently that the committee stage of the bill was finally able to complete its job. That is an incredible amount of time for one committee to be occupied with a single bill.
If we look at the mandate of the public safety and national security committee, it is one of the most important committees. It is responsible for reviewing the policies and legislation of multiple agencies, whether it is the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Officer of the Correctional Investigator or the RCMP.
There are two other bills. Bill C-20 is going to provide an important oversight body for the RCMP and the CBSA. Bill C-26 is going to seek to upgrade our cybersecurity infrastructure. Both of those bills have been held up because of the shenanigans going on with Bill C-21.
I listened to the debate all day yesterday when this bill was going through report stage, and today when it was going through third reading. Unfortunately, because of some of the speeches in this House, there is a lot of misinformation out there and a lot of people have the wrong idea of what is included in this bill.
My Conservative colleagues do make a big deal in their speeches about standing up for hunters, farmers and indigenous communities, and I take no fault with that. I proudly stand here and say the same thing. It is troubling because it is alluding to something that is actually not in the bill. That illusion for hunters, farmers and indigenous communities is that their rifle or shotgun, if it is semi-automatic, is going to be prohibited by this bill.
Let me clearly say this for the record: That is not the case. Bill C-21 is not going to do that. If someone has a current make or model of a rifle or shotgun, they are licensed and legally own that firearm, after this bill receives royal assent, they will continue to be able to use it.
That is a fact. So far, when I have brought it up in questions, my Conservative colleagues have been unable to refute that. I have challenged multiple Conservative MPs to name one rifle or shotgun that is going to be prohibited by Bill C-21. In every single instance, they have deflected and swerved away to go back to comfortable talking points, because they cannot do it. I will tell colleagues why. It is because I am not reading Conservative talking points. I am going to actually read from the text of the bill.
In the new section that is going to add to the definition of a prohibited firearm, it mentions that it is:
...a firearm that is not a handgun and that
(i) discharges centre-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner,
(ii) was originally designed with a detachable cartridge magazine with a capacity of six cartridges or more, and
(iii) is designed and manufactured on or after the day on which this paragraph comes into force...
The last point is one that everyone seems to skip over, but it is the key part.
Current makes and models are not going to be affected by Bill C-21. Future makes and models that come into the market after this bill receives royal assent will be affected. However, current owners will not be affected by Bill C-21.
Conservatives will then seek to muddy the waters even further. I have heard a lot of reference to the firearms advisory committee. They say that the minister is going to bring this back and staff it with Liberal appointees, who are going to make suggestions about what firearms should be prohibited and then act on the suggestions. I have a news flash for my Conservative colleagues. This is a power that the government already has. It does not need a firearms advisory committee.
I would direct my Conservative colleagues to the existing section 84(1) of the Criminal Code. It says right there that the government can change the definition of what a prohibited firearm is when it mentions “any firearm that is prescribed to be a prohibited firearm”. “Prescribed” is the key word there, because that means it can be done by cabinet decree. If they do not believe me, how did the government get the authority in May 2020 to issue an order in council? Here, 1,500 makes and models were done through the Canada Gazette under existing powers.
All this ballyhoo over a firearms advisory council, as well as all the hoopla that we have heard in this House about the dangers of that council coming into being, is a complete red herring. It is smoke and mirrors. This is a power the government already has. In fact, I would rebut them on that argument by saying that if the minister currently has that power to do this unilaterally through an order in council cabinet decree, would it not be a good thing to have an advisory council to at least talk to the minister about how maybe that would not be a good idea?
If we can ensure that the advisory council has indigenous representation, representation from the hunting community and representation from the sport shooting community, in my mind, that is a good thing. I will let them continue to say that, but they know they cannot argue with me on those facts. Again, I am reading from the bill and from existing provisions of the Criminal Code. If they are going to try to muddy the waters, they can try to argue their way out of it, but the facts cannot be changed.
I want to turn to something more positive, with the airsoft community. Last summer, I had the pleasure of visiting the Victoria fish and game club. I do not know if colleagues have been to Vancouver Island, but in the middle of my riding is the Malahat Mountain. It is the big mountain that separates the Cowichan Valley from the city of Langford and the whole west shore. It is the traditional territory of the Malahat people, but on top of it is where the Victoria fish and game club is, on a beautiful property. Right beside it, there is an amazing forest setting for the club's airsoft games. I went out there with one of my constituency assistants on a weekend. They invited us to come and see a match. We got to don the referee uniforms, so that we could walk out in the middle of a pitched battle. I think one of my constituency assistants accidentally got shot.
It was so fun to see how much fun these players were having, to talk to them about how passionate they were about their sport and to really understand that this is more than a hobby for them. This is something that allows them to get out into the great outdoors with their family and friends.
They were really worried about Bill C-21 because of a section in the bill that would basically turn their airsoft rifles into prohibited devices. I invited some of them, with other colleagues around the committee table, to come to committee, to submit briefs and to say their piece. I have to say that the representatives of the airsoft industry, the manufacturers and the players associations did themselves proud. They made a good argument, and they convinced those around the committee table. They did what is done in a democratic system. They fought for change, and they achieved it.
The NDP amendment that was put forward to delete the offending sections from the bill was passed. That is a victory for the airsoft community. All they are asking for is not the sledgehammer approach of legislation that was in the original version of Bill C-21, but a regulatory approach. They are more than willing to work with government on the regulatory approach. That message was heard, and that is something that all parliamentarians can celebrate.
Let me turn to the handgun freeze and the amendment that we put forward as an attempt to expand the exceptions of the handgun freeze to allow for other sport shooting disciplines. As the bill is currently written, at this third reading stage, the only exemptions that exist are limited to people who are at an extremely elite level. They are Olympic athletes and Paralympic athletes. I use the terms “exemptions” and “exceptions” interchangeably.
After speaking to members of my community who participate in the International Practical Shooting Confederation and speaking to members who are in single-action shooting as well, I felt that these people are athletes. They train for what they do. They are passionate about their sport. They deserve to have exemptions as well. Therefore, I put forward an amendment to try to expand that. That amendment almost passed. There was a little bit of confusion on the Liberal side when that amendment came to a vote.
When I tuned in to watch the committee hearing at that stage, I was pleasantly surprised to see the Liberal member for Kings—Hants speaking in support of our amendment. It was a wonderful surprise to see, except that when it came to a vote, unfortunately, he abstained. It resulted in a five-five tie; of course, this had to be broken by the Liberal Chair. We came really close.
I have received a lot of flak from certain sectors of society for my stance on this. That is okay; I can take it. I am not going to apologize for standing here and making an attempt to fix the bill on behalf of my constituents who simply want to be able to practise their sport. To those who are arguing against that, I would simply point to the submission that was given to our committee by none other than the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. They said:
We believe that a handgun freeze is one method of reducing access to these types of firearms, while allowing existing law-abiding handgun owners to practise their sport.
That is what I was basing my amendment on, as well as the interventions made by my constituents. We tried our best at committee to make that change. Unfortunately, because of the votes falling the way they did with the Liberals and Bloc, it did not pass.
I will give another reason. The top IPSC competitors were telling me that they shoot about 50,000 rounds of ammunition a year. That is an incredible amount. We have to understand that a handgun is essentially a mechanical device. If someone is shooting it 50,000 times a year, it will break down. Sometimes, handguns have to be replaced. In my mind, it was unfair, not allowing an exception for an athlete of that calibre to have the means to be able to replace a tool that they use to compete.
We may have lost this particular battle, but what I would say to members of those sport shooting disciplines is that I will continue to pursue this issue. I will find other avenues to fight to make sure that their sport has an exemption.
We have completed the report stage part of the bill, but there has been some controversy from some women's groups who were unhappy with the red-flag provisions of the law, and I understand that. When I approached the committee hearings on this, I understood the controversy that existed around red-flag provisions. There were some women's groups that felt that adding this extra layer of bureaucracy through the court system did not serve women or other people who were in vulnerable situations where firearms might be present. They felt that we should have a properly equipped and responsive police force, and I agree with them.
I will turn critics' attention to members of the National Association of Women and the Law, because when Bill C-21 was reported back to the House, they made some public tweets, which are all up there for people to read. They said that with all the amendments that were proposed, these are some of the ways that the bill would make women safer: “The provision on licence revocation when someone has committed violence is now strengthened and clarified. A licence must be revoked when there are reasonable grounds to suspect that an individual may have engaged in family violence.” They also said, “people who have been subject to a protection order will now be ineligible to hold a licence if they ‘could pose’ a threat or risk to the safety of another person. This way, safety comes first.” That is the onus test.
They went on to say, “The Bill had no timelines for reacting to danger and domestic violence. Thanks to the adoption of our recommendations, there is now a statutory duty to act within 24 hours. This will protect women at the critical time of separation, when risk of violence is at its highest.”
A lot about the bill has been subsumed by the debate over hunting rifles, shotguns, airsoft and the handgun freeze. However, it is important for us to realize that, in the heart of the bill, there are actually some very important measures, which have now been improved by the committee. I have worked with members of the National Association of Women and the Law, and I respect the submissions they have made. If they are willing to come out and publicly endorse the bill in this way, I am glad to have their support as a stakeholder, and I give it a lot of credence.
I also want to talk about ghost guns, which relate to another “unsung hero” part of the bill. We heard from law enforcement, and I want to read into the record the testimony that came from Inspector Michael Rowe, who is a staff sergeant in the Vancouver Police Department. He said:
In addition to what is already included in Bill C‑21, I would ask this committee to consider regulating the possession, sale and importation of firearms parts used to manufacture ghost guns, such as barrels, slides and trigger assemblies. These parts are currently lawful to purchase and possess without a licence, and they can be purchased online or imported from the United States. The emergence of privately made firearms has reduced the significance of the currently regulated receiver and increased the importance of currently unregulated gun parts that are needed to finish a 3-D-printed receiver and turn it into a functioning firearm.
That is the request coming from law enforcement. We know that this is a growing problem, and they asked for a specific legislative fix to the problem. I am proud to see that the public safety committee delivered on that request from law enforcement.
Much has been said about indigenous communities. They are, of course, the ones who led the way in opposition to the bill. I remember, back in December, when the Assembly of First Nations came out with a unanimous emergency resolution opposing those eleventh-hour amendments that were made by the Liberal government. They said that the amendments went against the spirit of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. They helped us to understand, as parliamentarians, that these are not toys or hobbies; rather, they are a way of life. In some indigenous communities, they are necessary for the protection of life. I am glad to see that the committee listened, and no current make or model of a rifle or shotgun that is currently in use in indigenous communities is touched by Bill C-21. The committee went further and added a clause, which now references section 35 of the Constitution Act to show that indigenous rights are upheld.
I will conclude by saying I can honestly go back to the hunters, farmers and indigenous communities in my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford and tell them their currently owned firearms are safe. I am glad we were able to force the government's hand on this matter.
3081 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is hard to find the words to start given how long I have personally been involved with this piece of legislation. I know there are a few select members of this House who would agree with me. I think for each one of us, this has been our own personal odyssey, and to get to this point is really remarkable. All of the different twists and turns that this one bill, Bill C-21, has taken are going to be studied in parliamentary procedure for years to come.
I have had the privilege of representing my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for three terms, now being in my eighth year, and I have discovered that in my time here, Parliament has demonstrated that it is indeed the last place to go for an open, honest and logical debate on firearms. A lot of the debate we have seen on this bill and on firearms regulations, policy and legislation in general has done a very real disservice to Canadians. Both sides of the issue have torqued up their arguments. There has been blatant misinformation and labelling, and this has really descended the level of debate into something that I think a lot of Canadians would quite rightly be disgusted by. It is very difficult in this place, when we have all of these torqued up emotions and political agendas, to have a reasoned debate on firearms. That certainly has been the story.
I know a lot of people on Twitter are following this debate very closely. I would say that the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security is probably the most watched committee of them all, and I know that my words right now are being analyzed and tweeted about, even in real time. I just want the people who are listening to brace themselves, because I have equal amounts of criticism for both the Liberals and the Conservatives as to why we now find ourselves in this place.
I first want to start by talking about the committee, because ultimately today's motion is one of instruction to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. One could be forgiven for thinking that all this committee does is study policy and legislation surrounding firearms, because that is indeed all it has really been consumed with since the bill was referred to the committee late last year. In fact, we started Bill C-21 at committee in October 2022, and here we are now, well into May 2023, and we are still only at the clause-by-clause part of the bill.
I think it is useful for people to understand what the mandate of this committee is. It is responsible for reviewing legislation, policies, programs and expenditure plans of a whole host of different government departments and agencies that are responsible for not only public safety, but national security, policing, law enforcement, corrections, the conditional release of federal offenders, emergency management, crime prevention and of course the protection of our borders. When we are doing things like the estimates for the spending plans of Public Safety Canada, quite often we have representatives included from the Canada Border Services Agency, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Parole Board of Canada and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
What I am trying to underline here is that this committee is an extremely important committee of the House of Commons, and all the work it does in all of these different areas in looking after our intelligence gathering, law enforcement and border protection has been sidelined by the incredible amount of time that has been consumed. Time is our most valuable resource in Parliament, and once we spend it we do not get it back.
Because of the shenanigans that have occurred with respect to Bill C-21, the public safety committee has quite correctly been prevented from examining all of these other different areas, keeping tabs on those different departments, examining different pieces of legislation and keeping tabs on what the government's policies and practices are going to be with respect to other key areas. That is an important element that we first need to establish when we are talking about where we are today.
As many members will know, including members in my own community, I used to be our party's public safety critic. I found my time on that committee to be personally quite valuable. I found that the subject matter we were dealing with was quite intellectually challenging and stimulating, and it is important work.
I know from my interactions with other members of the committee, whether on the Liberal, Conservative or Bloc Québécois side, that they all conducted themselves very well, and I enjoyed my working relationships with them. That even goes for our work on Bill C-21.
Believe it or not, there was actually a time when Bill C-21 was progressing through committee in relatively good order. We concluded roughly eight meetings with witnesses. The committee then had time to come forward with its amendments, and there seemed to be an acknowledgement that aside from a few differences with a few clauses here and there, the bill was probably on schedule to be reported back to the House for report stage and eventually third reading sometime in December.
We then got to November, and all hell broke loose. This was when the eleventh-hour amendments were dropped by the Liberals. I should correctly say “the Liberal government”, because I do not think they were, by design, from the Liberal members of the committee. They did come from the government.
I do not want to go into the details of the bill too much, because I think that is a well-trodden path and a well-known story, bu allow me to take this moment in my speech to levy what I think are some well-earned criticisms on both the Liberals and the Conservatives. I know some of my colleagues will probably laugh at this, particularly the member for Hamilton Centre, because he has heard me joke about this before.
I often feel like the character Mercutio in Shakespeare's play, Romeo and Juliet, when he is expressing his frustration with the Capulets and the Montagues, because I feel that same frustration with the Liberals and the Conservatives. It is difficult sometimes to watch the shenanigans between those parties and the way our level of debate around this issue descends into the depths and scrapes the bottom of the barrel.
Let me start with the Liberals. One day, someone is going to write a book about this sorry episode, and it is probably going to be titled something like “How Not to Amend One's Own Legislation”. It is going to be a warning guide for governments in the future on what not to do and how not to spring a surprise on an unsuspecting committee when they have not done their homework, when they have not done consultation and, most importantly, when they have not consulted with the members of the committee who are actually responsible for shepherding those amendments through.
I want to caution members: My comments are not, in any way, directed to the colleagues I work with, but more to the Liberal Party brain trust. I understand the reasoning behind where they are coming from. Gun violence in our major urban centres is a very concerning thing. It needs to be dealt with appropriately. I want to take a moment to acknowledge the extreme grief that is out there within so many families who are dealing with a loss due to firearms violence.
Sometimes the road forward for the Liberals has been paved with good intentions, but it has led to some pretty awful results. I would ask them to step back and try and heal some of the wounds that exist in that divide between urban and rural Canada. We need to understand that yes, firearms violence is a big issue, but there also has to be a level of respect afforded to Canadians who are lawful firearms owners, who play by the rules and who have done everything right. I would encourage the Liberals to consult more with their rural MPs.
When the Liberals introduced those amendments, one of the groups that were leading the way was indigenous communities—not only hunters and farmers, but indigenous communities, not the least of which was the Assembly of First Nations. In an extremely rare move, the AFN came out with a unanimous emergency resolution on the last day. That is almost unheard of. They were going after the government for those ill-thought-of eleventh-hour amendments.
No consultation had taken place. One could make a legitimate argument that the Liberals, in bringing in these amendments, were not respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples or even the legislation we have passed that enshrines that within our own laws to make sure that all federal laws are in harmony with the declaration itself. It went against the spirit of that.
Now I will turn to my Conservative friends.
What do we say about the reams of ridiculous hyperbole we have seen from that party on Bill C-21? The bill has been a fundraising boon for the Conservative Party. That giant sucking sound we hear is Conservatives hoovering money from the harvest of their rage-farming operation around the bill, and I think a part of me wonders whether the Conservatives do not want to see the bill go forward because it has been so financially viable for them. The evidence is all out there. I do not think there is any interest at all in trying to move the legislation forward, because doing so would essentially stop the goose from laying golden eggs for them. It has been an incredible money-maker for them.
When I look at some of the misinformation that has been put out by the Conservative Party around the bill, I see they are fanning flames of rage over amendments that no longer exist and incorrectly saying that the government wants to take away all their guns. It is just completely off-the-wall bonkers stuff that can be easily disproven, and it is completely not helping the standard of debate we expect of our parliamentarians. It just makes the rest of our jobs harder when we have to fight that completely untrue disinformation that is being actively fanned on social media.
Yes, it is a sorry state due to the actions of both parties in so expertly playing politics with the bill, and that is a large part of the reason we are here today.
We know that the problematic amendments were withdrawn by the Liberals. That is fact number one. All current owners of long guns in Canada are not going to have those firearms impacted, because the problematic amendments were withdrawn. What we now have being proposed as an amendment to the bill would go after firearms that will be manufactured in the future, after the bill receives royal assent. There is also an important amendment, I understand, that would make sure that nothing in the bill takes away from the rights of indigenous peoples. That is recognized and affirmed under section 35 of our Constitution.
Of course, there are incredibly important amendments dealing with the exponentially growing problem of ghost guns. This is a problem that has been brought to the committee's attention repeatedly by law enforcement agencies. I would hope that more attention is paid to those particular amendments, and of course we, the remaining members of the House of Commons, have to reserve our judgment on the bill until we see the final version that the committee ultimately reports back to us.
Now let us turn to the motion of instruction and what it would do.
First of all, we have to understand that as of this morning, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security had already spent approximately five hours on clause-by-clause consideration. If they had been able to complete their meeting this afternoon, and I know it was interrupted by a series of votes, that would have brought the total to eight hours, which is roughly equivalent to four full meetings. The motion being debated today would add a further 17 hours to that, bringing it to roughly 25 hours, which is the equivalent of 12-and-a-half meetings.
I understand from the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, our member on the public safety committee, that he has tried multiple times to extend the sitting hours of the public safety committee so that Conservatives, the Bloc and New Democrats could have additional time to look at the amendments that are being proposed by various members. I understand that in each of those instances, these attempts were either rejected or filibustered so that the committee ultimately could never get to a vote. To hear Conservatives complain that they are being silenced in the House when they have, in fact, had multiple opportunities at committee to extend the sitting hours of that committee does come across as a bit rich.
I would say that because I have had my staff look at bills similar in size and complexity to Bill C-21, Bill C-18 comes to mind. That particular bill, when it went through clause-by-clause study at its committee, had seven meetings, the equivalent of 14 hours, for clause-by-clause study, so that is more than enough time to get through it.
I know from my own experience, because I used to be a member of the public safety committee and have seen a lot of these amendments, that are a lot of them are very technical, small changes to the bill, especially the parts that deal with ghost guns. Not a lot of debate is going to be required on them. In fact, the committee can probably get through them in short order because they are repetitive and many different areas of the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act have to be updated to make sure that those existing statutes are in harmony with each another.
The other thing I want to turn to in my final three minutes goes back to the earlier part that I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, the overall mandate of the public safety committee. We have two really important pieces of legislation waiting in the wings, waiting for their turn to be examined at the public safety committee. They are Bill C-20 and Bill C-26.
Bill C-20 is going to create our first-ever public accountability and transparency network that is independent of the RCMP and the CBSA. In fact, the CBSA has never had an independent oversight mechanism. Looking at the public safety committee's report from the previous Parliament looking at systemic racism in policing and looking at all of the instances of injuries and sometimes death that have happened to people who had been in the custody of the CBSA, we see that these are important measures. We have had so many racialized Canadians, so many indigenous Canadians who have been calling out for these types of oversight measures for years. Why should those pieces of legislation continue to be pushed back while we draw out this process on Bill C-21?
Bill C-26 is an important piece of legislation, which I will be the first to admit needs a lot of work at committee, but it is going to really bring in line a lot of the cybersecurity requirements that are needed for some of our critical sectors, be they in banking, transportation, energy and so on. It is going to be a requirement for many of those private actors to bring their systems in line with a standard that is acceptable to the federal government. Again, a lot of work is needed, but no one in this House can deny or absolve themselves from the fact that these are important issues that deserve to have their turn at the public safety committee.
My ultimate motivation for this motion today is to get Bill C-21 on its way. We have had enough time at the committee. It has occupied so much time at the public safety committee, and it is time for the public safety committee to move on to other bills that are equally important to many other Canadians.
In conclusion, I ultimately am going to reserve my judgment on Bill C-21 until I see what the committee reports back to the House, but I will not agree to let that committee continue to be bogged down, especially when there is so much other important work to be done.
With that I conclude. I welcome any comments and questions from my colleagues.
2835 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we miss the member on the committee, although we welcome his colleague. His contributions to this bill have been important and he is absolutely right.
Waiting in line at the public safety committee is Bill C-20, a bill that would provide important oversight for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canada Border Services Agency, something that, for many year, has been called for to enhance that oversight for the RCMP, but also provide oversight for CBSA for the very first time.
In addition to that, we have Bill C-26, which deals with cybersecurity. The member is absolutely correct. We have two important bills waiting, but we cannot get to them until we finish Bill C-21.
121 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I was glad to hear that the parliamentary secretary started her remarks with an acknowledgement of indigenous communities, because they led the way, with the Assembly of First Nations, in fighting against the amendments the government brought in at the eleventh hour. I am glad to see that those amendments were withdrawn. I would also thank committee members for passing my amendment to save the sport of airsoft. We have had a lot of very positive correspondence from that community, which is glad to see that the government will go back to the drawing board on this.
By my calculation, after tomorrow's meeting, the committee will have had eight hours on clause-by-clause. If this motion passes, there will be an additional 17 hours, which will be the equivalent of 12.5 meetings. By comparison, Bill C-18 only had seven meetings. I think there will be enough time to get this bill through.
Could the parliamentary secretary talk about the other bills that are waiting their turn at the public safety committee, like Bill C-20 and Bill C-26, and how important it is to look at those bills?
195 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
I declare the motion carried.
Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.
20 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
It being 3:12 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the House will now proceed to the taking of deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-26.
Call in the members.
42 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the division stands deferred until Monday, March 27, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.
36 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is very important. The key takeaway is that this type of legislation is long overdue. That is why it is so important to get the amendments right and get this bill to committee as quickly as possible so we can all work on it. Let the experts review it and let the members get at it, but also let the industry get at it so we can come up with really good legislation to benefit all Canadians, especially farmers.
82 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see there is general agreement in the House on the principle of this bill and on the fact that, obviously, work is needed.
I know the member has a lot of experience in the agricultural field and brings that experience to Parliament. I want to ask him about the part of this bill that would allow the Governor in Council to designate any service or system as a vital service or vital system. I would ask him for his thoughts.
Obviously, our transportation sector can be considered a vital service, especially our railway lines, but what does he think about our supply chains, especially involving our agricultural products, and how those might be targeted? As he knows very well, many of Canada's farmers, producers and processors are really starting to move into more digital ways of doing business, and much of their equipment is linked to computer systems.
I would like to ask whether he has any thoughts to share on how those could be classified as vital systems and services.
178 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on Bill C-26, an act respecting cybersecurity, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments to other acts. Cybersecurity is of the utmost importance to Canadians, and I am glad to see the topic debated in the House today.
Bill C-26 would amend the Telecommunications Act. I should note that any time the Telecommunications Act is changed, I am very interested. Not only am I the shadow minister for rural economic development and connectivity, but I also have a bill before Parliament, Bill C-288, that would amend the Telecommunications Act to provide Canadians better information when it comes to the service and quality they pay for.
The dependence on telecommunications throughout our society continues to grow. The uses of Internet and cellular services are foundational to both the social and economic success of Canada, so I appreciate seeing the government move forward with a bill to secure our telecommunications network through Bill C-26. However, I must ask this: What took so long?
It was over two years ago when this House of Commons passed a Conservative motion that called on the Liberal government to ban Huawei from our 5G network. Despite this motion passing in the House of Commons and the director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service warning the government in 2018, it took years to ban Huawei from Canada's 5G network. Therefore, is Bill C-26 important? It absolutely is. Did it take too long to get here? It absolutely did.
I should note that I recently asked if the University of British Columbia continues to work with Huawei in any form. The response was, “Yes, we do”. The government has been warned about the risks to our national security over and over again, yet we fail to see concrete action.
Analyzing Bill C-26, I have a few questions and concerns.
In its current form, Bill C-26 allows the Minister of Industry to obtain and disclose information without any checks and balances. If passed, Bill C-26 would grant the minister the power to obtain information from the Canadian telecom companies. It could, “by order, direct a telecommunications service provider to do anything or refrain from doing anything...that is, in the Minister’s opinion, necessary to secure the Canadian telecommunications system, including against the threat of interference, manipulation or disruption.”
There are no specific details on what information can be collected when it comes to personal consumer data, nor is there any clarity on who the minister could share this personal information with. Could the minister share it with other ministers or other departments? As of now, it does not say the minister could not do so.
A recent research report entitled “Cybersecurity Will Not Thrive in Darkness: A Critical Analysis of Proposed Amendments in Bill C-26 to the Telecommunications Act” stated the following on this matter:
The legislation would authorize the Minister to compel providers to disclose confidential information and then enable the Minister to circulate it widely within the federal government; this information could potentially include either identifiable or de-identified personal information. Moreover, the Minister could share non-confidential information internationally even when doing so could result in regulatory processes or private right of actions against an individual or organization. Should the Minister or [any] other party to whom the Minister shares information unintentionally lose control of the information, there would be no liability attached to the government for the accident.
I think an accident by the current government happens quite a bit.
If Parliament is going to give the minister such powers, it is imperative that checks and balances exist. It is very important that, when we discuss the ability of a government to obtain personal information from Canadians, we ensure that Canadians are protected from the unauthorized use of such information.
I should also add to this conversation the impact Bill C-26 could have on smaller Internet service providers. Small Internet companies are foundational to improving competition within Canada's telecom industry, but they are sometimes left out of the conversation.
Bill C-26 would empower the minister to “prohibit a telecommunications service provider from using any specified product or service in, or in relation to, its telecommunications network or telecommunications facilities, or any part of those networks or facilities” or “direct a telecommunications service provider to remove any specified product from its telecommunications networks or telecommunications facilities, or any part of those networks or facilities”.
We do not know what types of telecom infrastructure and equipment will be deemed a risk to our national security in the coming decades, so imagine that a local Internet service company builds a network using a specific brand of equipment. At the time, no one raises security concerns with the equipment or the manufacturer. The local Internet company is just beginning its operations, investing heavily in equipment to build a network and to compete with larger telecom companies.
Imagine that, five years later, the government deems the equipment the company invested in to be a national security threat, forcing it to remove and dispose of such equipment. The small Internet company trying to compete, which acted in good faith, has just lost a significant amount of capital because of a government decision. There is a strong possibility that this local Internet provider can no longer afford to operate.
I am hopeful this conversation can be had at committee to ensure the government is not unfairly impacting small, local and independent Internet companies. As I said, I am glad the House is debating the issue of cybersecurity, as the discussion is long overdue, but it is imperative that the issues I raised be addressed at committee, it is imperative that the issues my colleagues have raised be addressed at committee and it is imperative that the issues experts have raised be addressed at committee. That is why I will be voting to send Bill C-26 to committee in hopes that these concerns can be addressed.
1017 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, we can look at some of the issues we are facing. The CRA has been subjected to relentless cyber-attacks over the last number of years. Even CERB fraud was committed by cyber-attackers. Somewhere between 1,200 and 1,800 individual accounts were exploited for fraud because the lack of cybersecurity was able to help them out. Eventually we got that under control, but it just shows how many attacks we have. Having a framework in place is good, and the government is trying to go in the right direction here, but there are things we need to do with this bill. Hopefully at committee we can help to establish some stronger pillars to make sure Canadians are protected.
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, earlier today, some of my colleagues, particularly the member for Scarborough—Guildwood, indicated the pillars involved in the bill. The member mentioned them as well in his presentation. There are so many different areas that need to be looking at the cybersecurity issues in Canada. As other colleagues indicated, some countries around the world are ahead of us in some of those areas.
I wonder if the member could expand a bit on that. I will give him an opportunity to look at the number of pillars that might be in place and the reasons he thinks it so important to deal with the cybersecurity issues that each one of those would have.
116 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her question because it is an important one, whether in this debate or any other debate, that gets into credential recognition. Many other countries around the world are further along than us in prioritizing the digital environment.
There are lots of Asian countries and Pacific countries that are further along in their advancement of that, so if workers want to come to Canada, we should be working with them to make sure their credentials match up with the standards we have here in Canada, while removing red tape so we can get those people into jobs right away. Rather than having them come here and work in other jobs for a number of years without working in their professions, they should be able to come here and do the things they are able to do. We should have the credentialing system in place now so they can get the jobs they are here to do right off the bat.
166 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I sit on the national defence committee, and we are discussing a lot about cybersecurity, which relates to the debate today. Obviously, the armed forces are having quite a recruitment retention issue, but across the board we are seeing this with the labour shortage. One of the questions we were talking about regarding cybersecurity as it relates to national defence was around security clearances and what the government needs to do to attract people to the cybersecurity industry, potentially trying to ensure that people from outside Canada are attracted to this industry. Maybe the member of Parliament could address that a bit. I know it is a little outside our scope, but it certainly gets into how we start to address a lot of the problems we have been discussing all day.
134 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, we need the government to talk to businesses, to be transparent in the process, to work with industry and to make sure there is a good process of approval so that equipment or the companies people are buying from are not already compromised. Let us work with them to make sure they know there are good actors out there that provide good equipment. There are many companies out there besides Huawei that provide good equipment. The government could work with those companies, rather than threatening them with fines and imprisonment, to make sure we have the proper equipment in our networks and make sure Canadians have not only the best services, but also the highest level of security they can possibly get.
124 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member seems to be concerned about the enforcement powers in this legislation. However, without those enforcement powers, it would be kind of a useless piece of legislation.
If I am sending an email to him to go over there, somehow or another, his entity may be the weak link. If, in fact, he is concerned about his piece of the infrastructure, the problem is: How would he propose changing that without some sort of significant power on the government's part to make sure that his piece of the cyber-infrastructure is not the weak link in the entire system?
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour and a privilege to rise in this place, and it is nice to join the debate on the topic at hand.
When we talk about cybersecurity, there are so many different factors that go into it. I recognize that the bill before us largely has to do with telecommunications companies, bigger companies, and perhaps with government institutions as a whole. However, as we are having this conversation, we need to recognize and address the fact that the risk presented through cybersecurity extends much beyond that. With the current generation of kids being raised, kids are heavily involved in using cellphones, video game systems and computer consoles, for example, and are curious by nature. They are more at risk of clicking on a link that they do not know or realize is harmful. We know that is quite often how a lot of bad actors exploit weaknesses in computer systems in businesses or in homes. It is important to have that context out there early as we start the debate on this bill.
I want to get into a few specific parts of the bill at the start. First, it proposes to amend the Telecommunications Act to make sure the security of our Canadian telecommunications system is an official objective of our public policy, which is not a bad idea in and of itself. Second, it would create a new critical cyber systems protection act. The stated goal is to have a framework in place that would allow for better protection of critical cyber-services and cyber systems, which impact national security and public safety.
Some of the proposals include the designation of services or systems deemed to be “vital” for the purposes of this new act, along with designating classes of operators for these services or systems. The designated operators in question could be required to perform certain duties or activities, including the implementation of security programs, the mitigation of risks, reporting security incidents and complying with cybersecurity directions. Most significantly, Bill C-26 would authorize the enforcement of these measures through financial penalties or even imprisonment.
Anybody hearing these few examples listed in the preamble probably thinks this sounds like common sense, and I would generally agree with them. However, there is a problem, especially with the last one, which has to do with directions, because it is quite vague. These points should raise some obvious questions. How are we defining each of them? What are the limits and the accountability for using these new powers? It is fair to have these general concerns when we consider any government, but Canadians have reason to be especially wary with the one currently in power based on the Liberal record itself.
Unfortunately, the most recent and disturbing revelations related to foreign interference in two federal elections, which allegedly included working with an elected official, are not the only things we need to talk about. Here is another example. For a number of years, the Conservatives were demanding that the Liberals ban Huawei from our cellular networks. Despite all the warnings and security concerns, they delayed the decision and left us out of step with our closest partners in the Five Eyes. We had been calling it out for years before they finally decided to make the right decision thanks to pressure from Canadians, experts, our allies and the official opposition.
It was not very long ago, almost a year, when the announcement to ban Huawei came along. As much as it was the right decision, it should have been made much sooner. To say that is not a complaint about some missed opportunity in the past. The delay caused real problems with upfront costs for our telcos, and it created extra uncertainty for consumers.
Prior to becoming a member of Parliament, I worked for a telecommunications company in Saskatchewan. When we look at how big and vast our country is, we start thinking about how much equipment is required for one single telecommunications provider in one province, like SaskTel, the company I worked for. We can think about how much equipment it would have ordered or pre-ordered and potentially would have had to replace based on the government taking so long to make up its mind on whether or not to ban Huawei. If we look at some of the bigger companies out there, it is the same thing. There are the upfront costs they would have had to incur, and then the new costs if they had to replace all their equipment on top of that. This was simply because the government dragged its feet on such a big decision.
We have learned a lot of other things about foreign interference since then that need to be properly addressed and independently investigated. We need a public inquiry, at the very least, into some of these issues. However, once again, the Liberals are refusing to do the right thing for as long as they possibly can. It is clearer than ever before that we need to get a lot more serious about our cybersecurity, because what we are really talking about is our national security as a whole. These two things are closely intertwined, and having this conversation is long overdue.
We are happy to see the issue get more of the attention it deserves. Canadians have a lot of questions and concerns about it that should not be ignored. That is why it is a priority for Conservatives on our side of the House, and we are not going to let it go.
While we work to carefully review Bill C-26 in this place, we want to make sure that it will be effective and accomplish what it is supposed to do. It needs to protect Canadians living in a digital world. At the same time, it should not create any new openings for government to interfere with people's lives or abuse power.
After all, we are waiting for Bill C-11 to return to the House with all the problems it has, including the risk of online censorship. The problem is that whether it is about Huawei or the latest scandal about foreign interference, the Liberal government has failed to act, and it has undermined trust in our institutions. Therefore, it is hard to take it seriously when a bill like this one comes forward. The government's failure in this area is even more frustrating because we should all agree that there is a real need to strengthen cybersecurity. That is what experts and stakeholders have been telling us over many years. Canadians have had to wait for far too long for the government to bring something forward.
Make no mistake: This bill is flawed, and it will require more work to make sure that we get it right. However, the fact that we are talking about the issue right now is a small and necessary step in the right direction.
There are a few points I would like to mention.
Part 1 of this bill will allow the federal government to compel service providers to remove all products provided by a specified person from its networks or facilities. First of all, that puts a lot of companies at risk of having adversarial agreements signed in the future. If I were a company trying to sign an agreement, I would be doing everything I could to make sure that someone is not going to put a clause in there that if the government forces its removal, there is going to be an extra fine levied on the company. The problem with this bill is that it exposes companies to having these bad contracts negotiated, signed and forced on them by bad actors.
Under the new critical cyber systems protection act, the minister would be able to direct and impose any number of things on a service provider without giving them compensation for complying with the orders. Earlier, I was talking about the upfront costs paid by telcos trying to advance their networks to provide the products and services that their clients and customers want and need, especially as the world moves forward in a more digital fashion. The government is going to force them to do something without any compensation or without the ability to have help dealing with these changes. I think this is something that needs to be reconsidered in this bill.
That leaves service providers in a position where they have to pay for complying with potentially arbitrary orders or face legal penalties, such as the ones I mentioned earlier: fines or even imprisonment.
Again, we do have a desperate need to improve our cybersecurity regime, but these problems show that the bill is poorly written. By seeking to implement personal liability for breaches of the act, it will incentivize skilled Canadian cybersecurity professionals to leave Canada to find jobs elsewhere. This phenomenon, commonly known as the brain drain, is emerging as a severe issue for our economy, in some part thanks to the policies of the government.
Thousands of skilled, highly employable Canadians move to the United States thanks to the larger market, higher salaries and lower taxes, while very few Americans move to Canada to do the same. This issue is bigger than just the cybersecurity sector. Thanks to this government, we are losing nurses, doctors and tech workers to the United States. All the while, professionals who immigrate to Canada are being denied the paperwork they need to work in the field they are trained for because of the ridiculous red tape that plagues our immigration. Given that we are already short 25,000 cybersecurity professionals in Canada, is it wise to keep incentivizing them to go to the States?
Another massive problem with this bill is that it opens the door for some extreme violations of individual privacy. It also expands the state's power to use a secret government order to bar individuals or companies from accessing essential services. While we must improve our framework against cybersecurity attacks, drastically expanding what cabinet can do outside the public eye is always a bad idea. Accountability to the people and Parliament has always been an essential part of how we are supposed to do things in Canada. It is, however, not surprising that the current government would advocate for more unaccountable power. After all, government members have been anything but transparent. They have hidden information from Canadians to protect their partisan interests.
Canadians deserve to know what the government is doing. We must always uphold the principle that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Giving cabinet the right to secretly cut Canadians off from essential services could threaten to erode this fundamental right.
1793 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, there are a series of provisions talking about frameworks and giving the government powers to put itself within the private sectors to direct them without providing specific delineation of how that would happen. Like I said, it is difficult to get this type of legislation through in expedient ways without the government fully explaining what it wants to accomplish in this legislation.
64 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
