Bill C-26

An Act respecting cyber security, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts

Part 1 amends the Telecommunications Act to add the promotion of the security of the Canadian telecommunications system as an objective of the Canadian telecommunications policy and to authorize the Governor in Council and the Minister of Industry to direct telecommunications service providers to do anything, or refrain from doing anything, that is necessary to secure the Canadian telecommunications system. It also establishes an administrative monetary penalty scheme to promote compliance with orders and regulations made by the Governor in Council and the Minister of Industry to secure the Canadian telecommunications system as well as rules for judicial review of those orders and regulations.
This Part also makes a consequential amendment to the Canada Evidence Act .
Part 2 enacts the Critical Cyber Systems Protection Act to provide a framework for the protection of the critical cyber systems of services and systems that are vital to national security or public safety and that are delivered or operated as part of a work, undertaking or business that is within the legislative authority of Parliament. It also, among other things,
(a) authorizes the Governor in Council to designate any service or system as a vital service or vital system;
(b) authorizes the Governor in Council to establish classes of operators in respect of a vital service or vital system;
(c) requires designated operators to, among other things, establish and implement cyber security programs, mitigate supply-chain and third-party risks, report cyber security incidents and comply with cyber security directions;
(d) provides for the exchange of information between relevant parties; and
(e) authorizes the enforcement of the obligations under the Act and imposes consequences for non-compliance.
This Part also makes consequential amendments to certain Acts.

Telecommunications Act

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

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?

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

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.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

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.

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

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.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

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?

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

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.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

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.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

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?

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

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.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

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.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

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.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

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.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

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.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

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.

The House resumed from March 6 consideration of the motion that Bill C-26, An Act respecting cyber security, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.