:
Thanks very much, Chair.
I appreciate this, because in light of our transportation infrastructure, it is certainly an important issue to many Canadians. That's in part what leads me to move a motion that was put on notice on December 1, 2023. I have a copy here for the clerks. Chair, it's an important issue that certainly we hear about very often. I look forward to being able to discuss this at length, because certainly when it comes to the issue of the carbon tax, a carbon tax impacts the people of this country from coast to coast to coast. I appreciate the clerk's distributing that, and I will move this motion in due course.
I have heard from constituents, from Albertans, and from other Canadians about the impact of the carbon tax on their livelihood and truly their ability to make ends meet. I want to share a number with you that is very telling. According to Statistics Canada, there are 189,874 farms in this country. I share that number because this past weekend it actually changed. It changed by one. Now, that may not seem like a lot, but as that number goes from 189,874 to 189,873, it is a story that I hope the committee will indulge my sharing.
It is the story of Dawn and a multi-generational farm that she, up until this past weekend, ran. That farm was Shirley's Greenhouse, named after her late mother. What is so very tragic about this story is that she was forced to sell her operation. This multi-generational farm is finished. In my conversation with her this past weekend, she asked me to speak up on her behalf and on behalf of the many other farmers across our nation who are suffering the consequences of the carbon tax.
In due time, Chair, I will in fact move this motion—which I believe everybody now has a copy of in both official languages—because that is so very important, because of stories like Dawn's and the fact that her multi-generational farm operation saw its end because of the policies of this Liberal government.
Chair, what I intend to do here, just so the members of the committee know fully, is to speak for a few minutes and then move the motion and look forward to further discussion on this.
There were two parts of this conversation I had with Dawn that I believe were very noteworthy and that spoke to something that is—
:
I appreciate the clarification.
As I was sharing, the story that Dawn told me was very clear about how, over the last number of years, she ran a successful small business. A lot of the work she did was in a greenhouse and in a 10- or 15-acre garden. I asked her if I could share this story, and she encouraged me to do so.
Over the last number of years, in the midst of resiliency planning for her farm operation, she found herself in a situation where there were some unexpected things that happened in her personal life. As a result, there were some unexpected costs that called into question some of that long-term planning that so many farmers work diligently to undertake, and just a few small life things.... What ended up happening was that she was able to make it work, and she worked very diligently to try to continue the farm that she was so proud to have been carrying on in the name of her mother.
However, what she found, over the last number of years, was that it came to the point where there were two factors that made it untenable for her to continue her operation. She outlined to me how, despite her efforts and the work that she put in, the extra hours, to endeavour to make the math work on being able to continue her family farm operation, she just couldn't, in fact, do it.
She described two specific factors that added to the costs of her monthly operations. There were two line items that had grown almost exponentially. The first was interest rates. Because of some of the personal circumstances she had found herself in, she ended up having to take on some additional liabilities in terms of debt. Over the time since she did that, the rising interest rates made it so that the cost of borrowing increased dramatically. Although I could certainly talk at length about that situation and the reasons for that, I want to ensure that we're relevant to the discussion at hand.
The second item she shared with me was how the carbon tax had increased the cost of her farm operation to the tune of thousands of dollars a month. In the summer, she could make it work. She was able to ensure that she kept things at a minimum, and whatnot. Chair, I'm not sure if you've noticed this, but what has generally been the case in our country is that it gets cold in the winter. In order to have high-quality food grow in a cold climate, which we face here in our country, you need to have greenhouses, and greenhouses have to be heated. The natural gas costs associated with Dawn being able to heat her greenhouses became untenable, to the tune of thousands of extra dollars a month.
Despite her best efforts, and despite the fact that she had done everything that she could to make her operation work, because of the carbon tax and higher interest rates, we saw the demise of this operation that she was so very proud of.
I want to talk about the 's involvement in this, because it is very key, but before I jump into that, I would like to emphasize something that I found really moving as I was hearing this story. As I chatted with Dawn on the phone, I could hear the emotion in her voice, and how much she cared about the work that she had done for years, providing high-quality food. For those around the table who might not be aware, direct sale often means that she would attend farmers' markets, so people got used to seeing Dawn at farmers' markets in the Didsbury area, the community that her greenhouse was located near.
What ended up happening was that, although she was incredibly proud of the greenhouse that was named after her mother, instead of putting her own farm's logo on her trailer and vehicle, Dawn put a statement on her vehicle and on the trailer she pulled. It said, “No farmers, no food”. That speaks to how seriously Dawn takes feeding the world and, in her case, the folks in central Alberta.
I talked about the number of farmers in Canada, and I'll get into more specifics around the Alberta circumstances. Of course, there is a lot I can say about Battle River—Crowfoot and the good people I represent in east-central Alberta.
What I would like to emphasize here is that part of this story has a real tragic twist.
The has been asked a whole host of questions about Bill and its impact on agriculture and agricultural production, and about the needed carve-out. Certainly, Conservatives—and most parliamentarians, actually, including a number of Liberals at different points in time—support this important exemption from the carbon tax to ensure Canadians have affordable food. I have heard the Minister of Agriculture, as I'm sure we all have, stand up and say that he talks to farmers all the time and hasn't heard concerns related to Bill , which, Mr. Chair, I've known to not be an accurate statement the whole way along.
Here's what I find truly tragic. Only a few days before I spoke with Dawn, she was on a Zoom call with the . She shared her concerns directly. She outlined the impact of the carbon tax. As opposed to being empathetic and understanding.... At that point in time, Dawn shared with the Minister of Agriculture how she was speaking not only for herself but also on behalf of so many others she cares for deeply: those who provide the high-quality food we need as Canadians, the food that our people from coast to coast to coast need. There was a lack of empathy. There was an unwillingness to understand, to the point where she got frustrated with the Minister of Agriculture. At the point where it was acknowledged that there was a problem, he offered to reach out to help her situation. It was in that moment that Dawn said, “No, I don't want help just in my situation. We have to help all farmers. We have to help all Canadians.”
Mr. Chair, the reason why I share Dawn's story about the one farm that no longer exists because of the carbon tax is that it speaks to how, as Canadians, we have the opportunity to be leaders, whether it's for the other 189,873 farms that are left, for approximately 41,500 farms in the case of Alberta, or for approximately 4,715 farms in the case of Battle River—Crowfoot. My family and I, for five generations now, are proud to be a part of that farming legacy.
We talk about how frustrating it was that the senators were delaying. What ended up being the case was gutting the passage of Bill and taking out some of the most valuable aspects of that. They made the amendments. This motion is so very relevant, because, as the bill goes back to the House, there will likely be changes and it will go back to the Senate.
Mr. Chair, we need this carve-out. We have the potential as a country to feed our people with high-quality, affordable food, yet we have politics that seem to get in the way.
I want to get into some of the details, in a moment, of what exactly the situation is on farms. However, Mr. Chair, I think it's important to mention something. This is not the first conversation around carbon tax carve-outs we've had, even this fall.
Coming into the fall sitting of Parliament, we were only a few weeks into it when we saw the doing what seemed to be a hastily arranged press conference up on the third floor of this very building, where he announced that a few Canadians—just a few—would receive a break from the carbon tax. He proposed that there would be an exemption granted to Canadians who heat with home heating oil. Home heating oil is the reality, especially in certain parts of the country more than others. I know that in Alberta, where we have an abundance of clean, green Canadian natural gas, we don't have as much heating oil, although there is some. However, what we saw the Prime Minister undertake was to give a carve-out to a small group of Canadians who were impacted by the carbon tax. It worked out to be about 3% of households in this country that got that carve-out.
Now, when one looks at the cruel, crass politics of the situation, one sees that the 's poll numbers were in an absolute nosedive, specifically in Atlantic Canada, where so many of the Liberal MPs were, in some cases—and I have no doubt because they said very publicly that this was the case—facing immense political pressure. As the Prime Minister's poll numbers were falling through the floor, action had to be taken. We heard some just astounding statements. For example, said, if you don't vote Liberal, don't expect an exemption. My goodness, how absolutely embarrassing that you would only serve people who vote for you. Certainly, I would hope that members around this table wouldn't, if somebody came up to their office door, turn that person away because that person didn't cast a ballot or didn't put the X beside the right person. It's an absolute embarrassment.
We heard the say in this conversation that he had never heard that this was a concern. , the only minister from Alberta—and one of only two Liberal MPs from Alberta—said that he simply wasn't concerned about the costs that were associated with the carbon tax. We saw that as the government was desperate because of the costs being imposed because of the carbon tax, it created this carve-out for 3% of the population. The other 97%, Mr. Chair, were not so lucky.
As we came into the fall session, there was this understanding that the was willing to engage in carve-outs because it was a de facto admission that his carbon tax was costing Canadians. When it came to home heating oil, it was costing Canadians significantly to be able to heat their homes.
What's interesting is that, in the conversation surrounding the carve-out, we had a political firestorm that ensued. In fact, we had economists from across the country saying publicly that it's obvious that this is an admission that the carbon tax and pricing is not working, an admission that it costs Canadians more than it's worth. In fact, there was one headline that even suggested, “The carbon tax is dead”. It's just a matter of time now.
What is interesting is that, in the follow-up to that initial carve-out, we saw the environment minister, convicted climate activist —and I say “convicted” because he was convicted of a crime while he was a climate activist in a previous career—make the statement that if there were any more carve-outs, he could expect to resign. Although some of us certainly wouldn't be disappointed if that was the case, I found it very interesting how, all of sudden, we saw a doubling down on a whole host of things, specifically the carbon tax. Now that there was a 3% carve-out, the was unwilling to go any further and was unwilling to see that there would be a willingness for some common sense when many Canadians are...at this point in time when what we have is an affordability crisis. I hear about it all the time. We had so many examples of where there was just a tone deafness, an unwillingness for there to even be a conversation that maybe the carbon tax was, in fact, simply not worth the cost.
When it comes to the conversation around home heating, of course that is a key part of this larger conversation, but then we had Bill . This bill would provide practical relief for farmers. I mentioned that I will get into the on-farm dynamics of this, because there's a lot of misinformation or what I would suspect is simply a misunderstanding, and I'll use some examples from question period and what the referenced here today. We saw how the environment minister was so quick to demand that the Prime Minister and the rest of the Liberal Party follow his lead by not allowing any further what have come to be known as carve-outs.
Conservatives believe fully that we need to axe the carbon tax, and we are calling for that to be the case. , as leader of Canada's Conservatives, has made it very clear that we look forward to being able to fight a carbon tax election, when Canadians will be able to make that choice.
However, when it comes to practical relief that could be provided now, my colleague —a member of Parliament who's been around here for a little while, not too long, but a little while—put forward Bill . It was not the first time that this had been introduced. In fact, when the called the unnecessary election in 2021, when he had promised he wouldn't, we were still in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, and that basically ended up returning Parliament almost exactly to the way it was prior to that point in time—
:
Mr. Chair, I believe that my privileges were actually violated by your not giving me a chance to speak to a clause of a piece of legislation that we are debating by simply calling a vote on it and saying there's no speakers list. By not even calling for debate and simply moving to a question.... How are we to know that we were going to go back into the legislation, when Mr. Kurek was in the middle of debating a motion?
By failing to allow for a debate on a clause of a piece of legislation, you have violated the privileges of all members of this committee. I would like to move a motion that we debate whether or not my privileges were violated by the chair when he refused to call for debate on the previous clause before calling for a vote.
That is the motion that I would move. It's that you have violated my privileges by not allowing us to discuss a clause of this bill by simply slamming the door and moving to a vote.
That is not how we have operated for the entirety of this debate. That is not how we operated for the entirety of our consideration of Bill . To get rammy now and start to push this through in a way that we have not operated in.... I recognize that the chair and the government don't like when members of Parliament in the opposition exercise our rights, use the tools at our disposal to hold the government to account, and move duly accepted and duly moved motions at the time of our choosing, as is our right as members of Parliament. They want to simply end that discussion and move on to something that they would rather talk about.
That is not what the rules allow for. The rules call for members of Parliament to have the opportunity to discuss, debate, consider, amend, propose changes from all sides and then make decisions. It is not for the chair to suddenly say “I call the vote” the very second that Mr. Badawey gets his way and a motion gets shut down.
Mr. Chair, I've always respected your commitment to fairness. I've always respected how you have been neutral in that position, but I can't quite believe what is happening here tonight, where there is a departure and a decision to simply ram these motions through without giving us an opportunity to debate.
You've ruled Mr. Kurek's motion out of order. There is another motion that deals specifically with the transport component of Bill . That motion is in order and does specifically deal with this issue.
It is very clear that the rights and privileges of members of Parliament are protected by our Standing Orders. They are protected, quite frankly, by the Constitution. They are to be limited only in very extreme circumstances.
A privilege motion actually takes precedence. We know this in the House. A privilege motion takes precedence over all other matters. When a privilege motion is moved, all other legislation—anything else before the House—is set aside because the rights and privileges of members of Parliament are to supersede the rights and privileges of the government, which might not want them to be exercised. They are sacrosanct. They are, quite frankly, something that we should be very concerned about when any member, not just those who wear our team colours, is impacted by it.
This is the sort of thing, you can bet, that Liberal members of Parliament, when they were in opposition, would have raised hell about. They would never have accepted this sort of thing, clauses being rammed down our throats without the ability to even discuss them for a minute, or to have a single word brought forward before it was voted on. That supersedes, quite frankly, whether or not the chair is sustained by a vote. This is something that is bigger than that. It is something that touches the very core of what we do in this place.
I know the government is frustrated that there have been concerns raised with Bill . We've heard it in the numerous meetings that we've had with testimonies, none of which spoke about the benefits of the legislation. They were all very critical of the legislation. I know the Liberals didn't like that. They didn't like that we were going clause by clause through the bill. They didn't like that a member of Parliament might want to speak about issues related to the cost of living and the cost of transporting goods. That's the sort of thing that Mr. Badawey shut down with the assistance of the chair.
Standing Order 116(1) states:
In a standing, special or legislative committee, the Standing Orders shall apply so far as may be applicable, except the standing orders as to the election of a Speaker, seconding of motions, limiting the number of times of speaking and the length of speeches.
It specifically talks about the end of debate. Standing Order 116(2) states:
(a) Unless a time limit has been adopted by the committee or by the House, the Chair of a standing, special or legislative committee may not bring a debate to an end while there are members present who still wish to participate. A decision of the Chair in this regard may not be subject to an appeal to the committee.
(b) A violation of paragraph (a) of this section may be brought to the attention of the Speaker by any member and the Speaker shall have the power to rule on the matter. If, in the opinion of the Speaker, such violation has occurred, the Speaker may order that all subsequent proceedings in relation to the said violation be nullified.
Mr. Chair, this is a very serious section. It says very clearly, “while there are members present who still wish to participate”, not who are on a list that didn't exist before debate was closed, before it was shut down. This is a very serious issue, and one that we will take very seriously, because, in attempting to get a bill passed by an artificial deadline, there is now clearly a violation of the rights of the members of this committee.
All of the members on the Conservative side of this table were prepared and willing to speak to the clause upon which debate ended artificially. Again, it says, “A decision of the Chair in this regard may not be subject to an appeal to the committee.” Quite frankly, it doesn't matter that once I stop talking there's an attempt to have the chair's ruling sustained, because, again, this is not a matter for a majority vote of the committee. Members' privileges are not subject to the tyranny of the majority. Members' privileges are protected by our Standing Orders, and they are protected by our role to represent the people who sent us here.
It would be quite something if we could, instead of having our rights protected, have our rights dictated to us by the majority of committee members, who find them to be inconvenient tonight. That is, quite frankly, something that we can't tolerate. This is something that should supersede any of the other things that we were going to talk about here tonight.
We have seen time and time again how there has been an attempt to shut down debate. We know that shutting down debate has been done in the House of Commons a record number of times.
There is a process in place for shutting down debate. In their election campaign in 2015, the Liberals promised they would never use the rules of the House to shut down debate. We've seen them break that promise time and time again, both in a majority and with the help of the NDP in a minority government. They've done that on numerous occasions. Hundreds of times they've shut down debate, but that is by a motion. That is using a process that is in place. The Speaker doesn't simply get up and say, “Debate is over. We're having a vote right now.” That is all—
:
That bill is clearly still before the industry committee, I would assume. With cybersecurity, perhaps it could be with public safety.
I know that we had some serious concerns with that piece of legislation. I think we want to ensure that the rights of Canadians are always protected. When we're considering Bill , which deals with cybersecurity, we know that this is an evolving field and there's an evolving threat level that comes with that. We know that the government, quite frankly, has failed to protect the rights of Canadians when it comes to their security—both personal security and in our communities. When it comes to the online environment, they've been lax. They've turned a blind eye, quite frankly, to threats to cybersecurity. I think we've seen that again and again.
We saw it when this government refused to ban Huawei from the 5G network for years in spite of overwhelming evidence that the communist regime in Beijing was using that technology in the Huawei network as a way to gain access to personal information. That was a security vulnerability.
We saw that our Five Eyes partners in the security establishment—our international partnerships with Australia, New Zealand and the United States—all took action to protect their citizens and their networks from cybersecurity threats. That's something this government did not do. It took them years and they fought it and fought it before they took the decision—much too late—to exclude Huawei from our cybersecurity networks. That resulted, quite frankly, in embarrassing situations where Canada was excluded from high-level meetings of the Five Eyes.
We saw it very recently, when Australia had its deal with the United States to purchase submarines, for instance. There was an exclusion of Canada because Canada's networks were not deemed to be secure enough to allow us to participate in those very important, high-level meetings. These are examples where the government has failed to take cybersecurity seriously.
As I said, we have grave concerns with Bill . It's troubling to see that this bill would cede power to another piece of legislation or have this coordinating amendment, so there would be two pieces of legislation that we believe are flawed coordinating with one another. I think this is the sort of thing where we should be considering what is in Bill C-26 as we discuss this. We can't simply agree holus-bolus to something in another act if we haven't considered that fully, here at this committee.
I think that this particular clause is one where, perhaps as the evening goes on, we will find a way to bring about an amendment or to look at ways we can make sure that the concerns we had with Bill are addressed.
The summary of Bill states:
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.
It continues:
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.
Cybersecurity, as I've said, is a growing concern for Canadians. It remains a national security concern. It remains an economic security concern. We know we lose when things like patents, trademarked information and secrets are lost because of a failure to ensure we have adequate cybersecurity in place. We know the government doesn't have a legal mechanism to compel industry action to address cyber-threats or vulnerabilities in the telecommunications sector.
Bill is another example of the Minister of Industry being given sweeping powers, as we heard with Bill , where the minister is given sweeping powers to enact orders that, in his opinion, are necessary to protect port infrastructure, port operations, etc. We just dealt with that in a previous clause. I think this is another example where we need to ensure that the powers given in Bill C-26 are proportional—that there are checks and balances, and that the rights of Canadians are always protected when the minister is exercising the rights and powers given to him or her in the legislation. It's another example of giving the minister broad powers to enact the legislation.
Now, cybersecurity is something that Conservatives have been raising the alarm about for a long time. We did it when we first created, under a conservative motion, the Canada–China special committee. That was an issue that was raised there. In the context of Huawei, it is something we raised time and time again: our concerns that our 5G network was not being protected.
There are opportunities to strengthen our cybersecurity protocols. We need to ensure that not only are the privacy rights of Canadians respected, but that there's also no attempt at censorship for Canadian citizens when they are operating in the cyber-environment. We've seen the government go down that road as well, with Bill and with Bill . They want to control what Canadians see, and control the algorithms of what will show up in their social media, for instance.
We have a hard time trusting the government when it comes to anything to do with cybersecurity or Internet regulations. They've proven time and time again that they're willing to sacrifice the rights of Canadians in order to promote their own narrow agenda.
Bill , unfortunately, increases regulation and red tape, often, we believe, without adequate oversight and without votes in Parliament.
We've seen, even here today, that the rights of members or parliamentarians, the supremacy of Parliament, are things that this government does not put as the highest priority. If Parliament gets in the way, they simply try to bypass it.
I think Bill is another example of where that has happened. We have grave concerns with that, as I outlined briefly. There is also—
I think this is important. Again, the title in Bill says “Coordinating Amendment”, and then the subtitle is “Bill C-26”. If Bill , which was introduced in the first session of the 44th Parliament and is entitled “An Act respecting cyber security, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments other Acts”, receives royal assent, that is what I am talking about. The title does not say, “if clause 18 of that act receives royal assent”, but it talks about the bill, and clause 18 cannot be considered in isolation from the rest of the bill.
I'm sorry. Perhaps, Mr. Bachrach, when he gets the floor in a more extended way, can indicate why he thinks we should focus solely on a certain section. It's very clear in my reading of Bill that we are discussing whether or not we believe there should be coordinating amendments with a piece of legislation, Bill , which, as the witness just said, is about cybersecurity. Clause 18 is about cybersecurity and it's about how we deal with threats to cybersecurity in the transportation space.
I've highlighted numerous briefings that referenced the transportation sector as being one of the key sectors that are impacted by Bill . Certainly, I don't think we can consider one section of a bill. It's not a private member's bill that amends one section of a bill that we're considering here; this is the entire bill, as is said in the title, “Bill C-26”. If Bill C-26 receives royal assent, then these following issues happen.
I'm expressing, and putting on the record, some very serious concerns about Bill . I remain hopeful as I continue to read these things from people who are very concerned about things like the implications on the rights of Canadians under the charter.
I know Mr. Bachrach is a fan of the charter. Certainly he would want to ensure, in any clause he voted on, that the concerns of individuals who spend their lifetimes defending charter rights are considered. He would want to have knowledge of the impact that this bill, which is referenced directly—the entire bill, not just one section, but the entire bill—could have on the charter rights of Canadians.
I will continue to talk about Bill in its entirety, because that is a piece of legislation that includes the relevant section that he's talking about. It's not a stand-alone clause that has been introduced by the government. This does not specifically indicate that if clause 18 remains unamended or if it's taken on its own, it could receive royal assent. It talks about Bill C-26 receiving royal assent.
I appreciate the latitude given to members of Parliament to raise their concerns and to share the concerns of Canadians when we're considering a piece of legislation as important as Bill , which cross-references specifically, purposely, Bill , which is also currently before the House.
I appreciate the spirit in which Mr. Bachrach's comments were made. However, I simply don't believe that you can consider clause 18 in isolation when considering Bill . We would do Bill C-26 and what it means to Canadians a disservice if we simply talked about clause 18. I will get to that part when we break down the detailed analysis of the clause, but this is the information that I believe is relevant when considering whether or not we can support clause 124.
I will continue, because I know that it would be extremely out of order to rule that we weren't allowed to talk about a bill in our deliberations here that is specifically referenced by title in the first part of this clause,.
I will hopefully not omit any of the information that I had here. If so, I apologize to Citizen Lab for not getting all of their words in there.
I'll start back again at the text under Freedom of Expression and Section 2(b) of the Charter”, which states that:
14. The current draft of Bill C-26's excessive secrecy and confidentiality provisions jeopardizes the right to freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Charter. The government's Charter statement focuses on the speech of the commercial entities who will be directly regulated under Bill C-26. The Charter statement posits that because restrictions on commercial speech do not tend to implicate the core values of section 2(b), restrictions can be more easily justified. However, this analysis fails to account for how individuals' Charter rights may be impeded under the current drafting of the legislation. The excessive secrecy and confidentiality provisions in the bill also restrict the public's and media's expressive freedom in Canada.
15. The principles of open courts and open government are derivative components of section 2(b) of the Charter (the freedom of expression). The open court principle requires that court proceedings, including judicial reviews in federal court, presumptively be open and accessible to the public and to the media. Access to information about government actions can also arise as a derivative right to section 2(b), if a denial of access to government information effectively precludes meaningful public discussion on a matter of public interest. Where restrictions on access substantially impede meaningful discussion and criticism about matters of public interest, the government must reasonably justify its infringement of the freedom of expression.
16. Telecommunications and cybersecurity law and policy is undoubtedly a matter of public interest. There is a close nexus between human rights and public policy concerning the regulation of telecommunication services. Canada's telecommunications policy is intimately linked with the “social and economic fabric” of Canada and its regions. Equitable access to telecommunication services is sometimes described as a mechanism for “digital self-determination”, which speaks to the need to protect the potential for human flourishing in the digital era.
17. The recent Citizen Lab report, “Finding You”, highlights several ways in which excessive secrecy surrounding telecommunications oversight has itself endangered the public. The authors note historical deficiencies in oversight and accountability of network security, which have led to geolocation-related threats associated with contemporary networks. Excessive secrecy has contributed to the persistence of the “low-hanging geolocation threat” identified in “Finding You”:
Decades of poor accountability and transparency have contributed to the current environment where extensive geolocation surveillance attacks are not reported. This status quo has effectively created a thriving geolocation surveillance market while also ensuring that some telecommunications providers have benefitted from turning a blind eye to the availability of their network interconnections to the surveillance industry.
18. The geolocation surveillance threats discussed in “Finding You” disproportionately jeopardize human rights defenders and other individuals who face heightened risks of targeted security threats (e.g. corporate executives, military personnel, politicians and their staff, senior bureaucrats, etc). Industry has historically charged large amounts of money to receive information about well-known industry threats, with the effect of impeding non-industry groups such as security researchers and civil society from obtaining and disseminating information about the nature of the threats faced by at-risk individuals, or from advocating for the remedies that would benefit the security and privacy of civil society. The authors note that, in many instances, individuals cannot determine whether their own telecommunication provider has “deployed and configured security firewalls to ensure that signalling messages associated with geolocation attacks, identity attacks or other malicious activity are not directed towards their phones.”
19. Citizen Lab's research highlights the substantial public interest—
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you to Mr. Strahl for the opportunity, after his riveting two-hour intervention. With that, I have to say, Mr. Chair, that we will be supporting clause 124.
However, I'm sort of perplexed over the process right now, all of a sudden, when we're down to our last three or four clauses to pass, including the amendments attached. I say “perplexed” simply because we went through clause-by-clause on clauses 1 to 124 out of, I believe, about 126 clauses, not including the schedule, short title, title, the bill as amended, and reporting the bill to the House. The last very important motion would be on whether or not we would order a reprint. I'm sure that will be a two-hour discussion as well.
With that all said, I'm perplexed because, Mr. Chair, we've had a great deal of discussion and debate on all of the clauses. That discussion was very important, because those clauses included amendments. That brings me to my point. If there was such a concern with what the process included.... I have to give a lot of credit to both the NDP and the Bloc, who brought many amendments forward. The Conservatives brought a few forward as well.
I'm perplexed Mr. Chair, because if there's concern, then why, for clauses before 123 and 124—which we're speaking about right now and we're going into clause 125, on which I'm sure we're going to have another two-hour discussion—were no amendments brought forward by the Conservatives? You would think there would be something on clauses 1 to 124. The concerns brought forward are valid. I respect that. Amendments that I would only assume were put forward to deal with those concerns were voted on, after debate. We have been moving forward in a very expeditious manner, only to now come to the last two or three clauses. Of course, we've been discussing those last two or three clauses for the past four meetings.
Mr. Chair, I'm actually a bit confused. I've been here for eight years.
Mr. Chair, again, I can't understand Mr. Strahl and members of the Conservative Party. To expedite this bill—as we have done with other bills in the past—if in fact there are concerns and thoughts given to the different clauses, I would actually recommend that we not spend two hours reading a document that's been around for quite some time. Let's get some work done by bringing some amendments forward and polishing up some of the clauses that in fact some of the members might have a concern with.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
:
Certainly, it's not only Conservatives who don't have confidence in those Liberals, but also an increasing number of Canadians who don't have confidence in the Liberals' ability to manage the country. I hear that on a regular basis. Again, if that member wants to be serious, I'm happy to have that conversation.
When it comes to Bill , I'm glad to have the opportunity, after that member's push towards talking in circles, to get back to the matter at hand.
I have an article from the business law section of the American Bar Association that I think bears particular relevance to the conversation we are having. Chair, if you would indulge me, I believe it has context that is important to the discussions we are having. In particular, I find it interesting—and I'll jump into this article in a moment—how this provides important context.
The way the Liberals wrote the legislation does provide a great deal of latitude. There are two separate bills before Parliament, and certainly, they're taking great liberties when it comes to the assumption that things will pass, especially in a minority Parliament. That issue aside, the way the legislation was written, in particular, speaks to the larger conversation and especially to how it's different committees that study different aspects of these bills.
With Bill , there was certainly some concern brought forward. I am a regular member of the ethics committee. There are some challenges in relation to this, and Mr. Strahl, in some of his interventions, referenced this. There are some specific noteworthy impacts. When it comes to the critical infrastructure being addressed in the context of Bill , and the way the Liberals have taken liberty in writing the bill, which has a wide swath of expectations through to another bill, it certainly creates that context as to why this is so relevant.
This article that I will be referencing, Chair, and that I look forward to making part of this discussion, talks about the critical cyber systems protection act. It goes as follows:
The CCSPA introduces a new cybersecurity compliance regime for designated operators of critical cyber systems related to vital services and systems (“Designated Operators”). A critical cyber system is defined as a cyber system that, if its confidentiality, integrity, or availability were compromised, could affect the continuity or security of a vital service or system. Currently, the list of vital services and systems is comprised of the Canadian telecommunications system, the banking systems, and other federally regulated industries, such as energy and transportation. However, the Governor-in-Council may add new vital services and systems, and such Designated Operators will be governed by the CCSPA.
I would just take a brief pause there. I think the introductory paragraph of this article, which I am entering into the conversation, speaks to that direct relevance to the larger conversation related to .
The article goes on to say:
Under the CCSPA, Designated Operators must:
establish a cybersecurity program (details of which are more fully provided in the CCSPA and its regulations) within ninety days of an order being made by the Governor-in-Council;
implement and maintain a cybersecurity program, as well as annually review it;
mitigate cybersecurity threats arising from their supply chains, or products and services offered by third parties;
share their cybersecurity programs and notify appropriate regulators (namely, the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, the Minister of Industry, the Bank of Canada, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, the Canadian Energy Regulator, and the Minister of Transportation) (the “Appropriate Regulators”) of material changes related to the business of Designated Operators and their cybersecurity programs—
I'm happy to address the point of order that was just raised. You know, it was not Conservatives who wrote this bill. When the Liberals did so, they did it with a reference to Bill . If that member has concerns about the wider application of this bill, I would suggest he has an opportunity to get on the speaking list to ask those very questions. When it comes to the way in which there is that cross-application, certainly it bears relevance to it. Because of the way it was written, it provides that very application.
I will continue with regard to Bill , Mr. Chair, as follows:
report cybersecurity incidents to the Canadian Security Establishment (the “CSE”);
comply with and maintain the confidentiality of directions from the Governor-in-Council; and
keep records related to the above.
To enforce these new obligations, the CCSPA grants to the Appropriate Regulators investigatory, auditing, and order-making powers, including issuing administrative monetary penalties (“AMPs”) of up to $1 million per day for individuals (such as directors and officers), and $15 million per day for other persons. Additionally, Designated Operators, and their directors and officers, may also be fined—or imprisoned if a director or officer—if either contravene specific provisions of the CCSPA; the amount of a fine is at the discretion of the federal court.
Now, that's the critical cyber systems protection act, but this article goes on to reference, in its summary of Bill , the Telecommunications Act amendments. I found it very valuable in terms of that conversation and how, of course, when we talk about the application to Bill , there is a tremendous amount of overlap when it comes to telecommunications and the critical infrastructure that our country depends on.
It goes on to say the following:
The amendments to the Telecommunications Act (the “Amendments”) establish new order-making powers for the Governor-in-Council and the Minister of Industry (the “Minister”) to direct Telcos to take specific actions to secure the Canadian telecommunications system. Specifically, the Governor-in-Council may, by order,
prohibit a Telco from using all the products and services offered by a specified person; and
direct a Telco to remove all products provided by a specified person.
The Minister, after consultation with the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, may, by order,
prohibit a Telco from providing services to a specified person; and
direct a Telco to suspend any service to a specified person.
Additionally, the Amendments grant the Minister the power to direct Telcos to do anything or refrain from doing anything that is, in the Minister’s opinion, necessary to secure the Canadian telecommunications system, including the following:
It then includes a number of points there.
I would just note and make the connection to some of the evidence that Mr. Strahl brought into the conversation, and some of the briefs entered into the committee, in the context of some of the concerns, especially from civil liberty and privacy groups. I know that there's been a host of experts. Again, as a member of the ethics committee, which deals with privacy, I know there's been a host of concerns brought forward. We have a great deal of them, especially because of the tech industry that has found its home both in my province of Alberta, where there's a huge boom in the high-tech sector, and in other areas across the country. In fact, I stand to be corrected here, but I believe the Ottawa area was known as “Silicon Valley north” at one point in time.
There's certainly the privacy and also the security related to that. There's a specific tension there. Some of the evidence that Mr. Strahl read into the record I think bears specific relevance to this larger conversation and how that applies to the transportation infrastructure of our nation.
The summary goes on to talk about Bill , and it includes a number of summaries here that really succinctly identify some of what Bill C-26 talks about.
It starts off by saying:
prohibiting Telcos from using any specified product in or in relation to Telcos’ network or facilities, or part thereof;
prohibiting Telcos from entering service agreements for any product or service;
requiring Telcos to terminate a service agreement;
prohibiting the upgrade of any specified product or service; and
subjecting the Telcos’ procurement plans to a review process.
Mr. Chair, it goes on to say:
Interestingly, Telcos will not be compensated for any financial losses resulting from these orders.
As was noted, I believe, in the debate surrounding Bill , they wouldn't anticipate there to be a large number, unless it started getting into the firms.... That's certainly an open question that I trust will be answered as Bill is further studied at their committee, but I wouldn't want to venture off the topic that we have before us.
It goes on to say:
The Amendments introduce new enforcement powers for the Minister of Industry to monitor the Telcos’ compliance with the orders or future regulations, including investigatory powers and issuing AMPs of up to $25,000–$50,000 per day for individuals (such as directors and officers), and up to $10–$15 million per day for other persons. Moreover, contravention of orders or regulations may result in prosecution whereby the Telcos, and their directors and officers, may have to pay fines (whose amount is at the discretion of the court) or face imprisonment.
:
Thank you very much, Chair. I certainly look forward to hearing what Dr. Lewis has to say about this. I know she has a great familiarity with this subject matter.
Chair, perhaps I could continue, because I do want to ensure that this is added to the record. I just mentioned how telcos will not be compensated, and I believe I provided a brief interjection about some of the commentary that has been provided at other committees in relation to compensation for financial losses.
Certainly, in the highly regulated telecom environment that Canada finds itself in, that would be a massive conversation that we could have at some point, but that would be venturing into the territory of not being relevant, so I wouldn't want to go there.
I will, however, continue with this summary, which talks about how:
The Amendments introduce new enforcement powers for the Minister of Industry to monitor the Telcos' compliance with the orders or future regulations, including investigatory powers and issuing AMPs of up to $25,000...per day for individuals (such as directors and officers)....
Chair, that summary relates to a significant ability and discretion, and this summarizes from a legal perspective some of the commentary that was in the brief Mr. Strahl provided. I want to ensure this is part of the record, because they're endeavouring not to take a specific position but rather to ensure theirs is non-partisan. As hard as that is for certain members of the committee to believe, if they have seen my debates in the House, it's important and valuable that such a perspective be included.
It then goes on to say, in regard to information sharing and secrecy:
The CCSPA and the Amendments require Designated Operators, Telcos, and any other person to share confidential information with the Appropriate Regulators, and Governor-in-Council and Minister, respectively, in furtherance of the objectives of the Bill. This confidential information may be shared with multiple federal government organizations, provincial and foreign counterparts, as well as international organizations, to pursue the objectives of the CCSPA and the Amendments. While these information exchanges will be governed by agreements and memorandums of understanding between the parties, the Minister may disclose the information if [it] is necessary in the Minister's opinion to secure the telecom system.
Given the national security purpose underlying this Bill, the secrecy of the orders is paramount. The orders from the Governor-in-Council and Minister may be subject to non-disclosure requirements. Moreover, for the sake of secrecy and expediency, the orders and directions of the Governor-in-Council and Minister do not follow the complete process outlined in the Statutory Instruments Act, and thus, are not registered, published, or debated in an open manner.
Certainly when it comes to that relationship, it's important to acknowledge—I know we've had a number of discussions, including on one of the clauses we passed here when I think there was a desire for further debate, but it ended up being moved forward—that a tremendous amount of latitude is being given to executive government when it comes to some of the powers that are associated with Bill as it relates to Bill , and one has to be aware of the granting of power to executive government. That is certainly something that Parliament is able to do under our Westminster system.
However, it's important to keep in mind the larger tension that needs to exist to ensure that we do not forget at the very foundation—and this is incredibly relevant, not only to this but to everything we do here—that the government is only a function of Parliament.
I know that's something that can be a bit lost in the midst of conversation. I know that this very statement has even been deemed controversial at different points in time. Earlier this week we celebrated the Statute of Westminster, the point at which we brought home the Constitution, and I would note that it was an incredibly significant moment in Canadian history. That is relevant to the conversation here today, because it's Parliament that enacts laws that give the government its authority.
I would just note how we have seen various instances throughout our recent history—in particular the last eight years—where there has been more latitude given than I would suggest is appropriate. There are times when we could ensure that Parliament is able to better fulfill its job by a government that respects the fact that whether it's committees, or whether it's the role that the House of Commons and the Senate play in terms of our bicameral Parliament in ensuring that it is the ultimate arbiter of the land....
In fact, our Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms actually ensure that that is, in fact, the case with the notwithstanding clause, which I know the Liberals have.... In fact, I believe it was Paul Martin in a previous election—I was getting back to that. I couldn't even vote at the time, if members around the committee table can believe that. It was Paul Martin who, during a press conference, announced that he was looking at getting rid of that. I'm not sure that he understood the consequences, both in terms of the constitutionality or the amending ability of Parliament to be able to do that.
However, when it comes to the relationship to the issue before us, we have these wide-sweeping powers being given to executive government. If there is not the appropriate accountability, as the American Bar Association, in this article, is highlighting, it would be the.... We need to have clear direction to every element of what government is, to ensure that there is that check on executive government.
I do find it interesting. I'll get right back into the ABA. This article has a number of recommendations. I would just note that there are two quite distinguished lawyers who put together this article, which gives this overview of Bill , and how it applies in the context of where Bill is.
Specifically, Chair, one can never assume that one will be in power forever, whether that's the Liberal Party or the Conservative Party. If we have the honour—and I certainly hope we do—we look forward to those days when we'll have the opportunity to govern on behalf of Canadians.
However, I find one always needs to look in the mirror. In fact, I've asked in the House quite a number of times about what the government would think, if they were in the opposition benches, about something that they were doing. It would not necessarily be the policy, because policy is one thing. You can disagree with policy. However, you need to be very mindful about how you approach the ability for a parliament to function in a manner that respects the very basis of what our democratic system is meant to be.
Chair, when it comes to the wide-ranging powers that are given to executive government, we do have to be very mindful that there's certainly a role that executive government needs to play in the administration of infrastructure, the administration of security and intelligence, and all of the aspects of what we're talking about here. However, when it comes down to it, Parliament is supreme in our country. We cannot forget that.
To ensure that I don't venture off into an area that would be deemed not relevant, I certainly won't spend time talking about a few examples of that, but there are some very pressing issues—one of which would be the designation of the IRGC as a terrorist entity.
Parliament spoke on that, yet we have an executive government that refuses to acknowledge.... I use that as an emphasis, not to get into the details of that issue, although it's certainly one that dominates a lot of our time in light of the atrocities that took place against Israel, and how Iran, and the IRGC specifically, funded and supports Hamas as a terrorist entity.... The fact that there's that disconnect is the point I'm making here. That speaks very closely to why we need to be very circumspect in the way we approach the role of executive government. There's that understanding. It has to come back to respecting Parliament.
If I had had the opportunity to talk about Bill , I certainly would have, at length, talked about how that bill saw a great deal of support, including Liberal support by a few brave Liberals who were willing to support that bill.
Unfortunately, it was not able to get the support that it, I believe, should have received from the other place. Again, I wouldn't want to go into the area of not being relevant. When it comes to recommendations, I would—
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I hope everybody was able to have a good short break. I know that was seven or eight minutes of freedom that people had, but I'm sure they're thrilled to get back to the important conversation that we have here before us.
Mr. Chair, specifically due to the two-hour time change, of course, back in Alberta and the riding I'm proud to represent, I would note that my wife has probably just finished putting my kids to bed. To my boys, I love you guys; hopefully you're listening to your mama as she puts you to bed. I look forward to connecting with my wife post 11:30, after this committee wraps. That's one of the big things, when our families are back home holding down the proverbial fort.
Mr. Chair, I left off talking a bit about the wide-sweeping powers associated with Parliament when we live in a democracy where the idea of parliamentary supremacy is absolutely paramount. I believe I unpacked it adequately in the context and certainly I have a whole host of other things to say about that but wouldn't want to dive too deep into that in the short time that we have here.
However, I want to make sure that I get to the recommendations that this article references in terms of Bill . It goes on to say...and I'll summarize this and then have a few other important interjections that I look forward being able to make.
The article said: “Given that the Bill has just been introduced,”—this article is a bit dated, but nonetheless very relevant—“its passage is not guaranteed, and additional changes to the draft law”—or in the Canadian context, bill—“may occur. However, and in the interim, if you are a provider of vital services”—which speaks to that vital connection that we have with Bill here before us—“and systems as described in the Bill, we recommend that you consider taking the following steps to improve your cyber resilience:
The first is:
Preemptively improve your security posture and processes to conform with the CSE’s best practices and guidance, or industry practices, and ensure that your contracts contain sufficient cybersecurity provisions to protect all parties in the supply chain; and
given the secrecy and potential immediacy of Government orders and directives, Telcos and Designated Operators should draft contracts to flow down potential cyber security risks appropriately.
That's almost unique in terms of some of the recommendations that have been made in the context of this bill. The authors go on to talk about how, if you are a supplier of products and services related to critical systems of designated operators as described in the bill, we recommend that you take the following steps:
Preemptively improve your security posture and processes as described immediately above in anticipation of more strenuous cybersecurity requirements requested by Designated Operators; and
I'll make a final point on this one, and then I'll look forward to getting into a few other aspects of debate here. The final point is:
anticipate shouldering more risk when contracting with Designated Operators and consult with your insurance provider accordingly.
A big thank you to Lisa R. Lifshitz—I believe I'm saying that appropriately—and Cameron McMaster, the authors of this. I believe it provides a good summary and a few very relevant recommendations in terms of the context.
I would note here as well, we're talking about critical infrastructure and, I know, specifically some of the larger conversations surrounding Bill . We have the need for resiliency throughout every aspect of that, whether it's in relation to security, which is very important, or some of the challenges associated with climate. There has to be that security that does exist there, and we have to be mindful of that in the larger context of everything that we are discussing and how relevant that is.
On that note, Michael Den Tandt, if I'm correct on this—and I'm certainly happy to stand corrected—in an opinion piece to the Ottawa Citizen, which I believe is relevant especially for the Bill aspect here.... Michael Den Tandt ran for the Liberal Party in the 2019 election, if memory serves. He entered on December 4, so it seems like it's been more than a couple of weeks. Just last week, a column by him was published in the Ottawa Citizen.
Although it seems as if it's been more than a couple of weeks, he published this column in the Ottawa Citizen last week. I believe it would be very valuable to this conversation.
Den Tandt said the following in his column, “Canadian government must take the time needed to get its cyber security bill right”:
Bill C-26, the federal government's stab at shoring up the country's cyber readiness, passed first reading in the House of Commons on June 14, 2022. The legislation has two thrusts: first, to keep hardware from adversarial states out of Canada's telecom networks; second, to ensure our critical infrastructure is hardened against a plethora of new digital threats.
Nearly a year later, in late March of 2023, C-26 limped through second reading. The bill now rests with the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, for review and possible amendment.
That this law continues to languish at committee, 16 months after it first saw the light of day, encapsulates one of its core failings which, in fairness, is not unique to this piece of lawmaking: Despite showing signs of having been written in a hurry, presumably in hopes of keeping pace with technological change, it's emerging too slowly.
By the time it passes third reading, then meanders its way through the Senate to Royal Assent, C-26 may well have been overtaken by events. The threats it is intended to counter are multiplying far more quickly than the glacial pace of the legislative process appears able to match.
What are these threats? The latest National Cyber Threat Assessment from the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security encapsulates them in language that, for a government document, is remarkably direct.
Cyber-criminals are rapidly scaling up, evolving ransomware and other attacks into a trans-national enterprise, while state actors—specifically China, Russia, Iran and North Korea—are deploying vast resources to attack and undermine open economies and societies by eroding trust in public institutions and the factual foundation on which their credibility rests. “You may be tempted to stop reading halfway through,” writes CCSE Head Sami Khouri in the foreword, “disconnect all your devices and throw them in the nearest dumpster.”
As a note, Mr. Chair, I had the opportunity to serve on the public safety committee for a short time in the 43rd Parliament. Hearing briefings from experts was eye-opening, to say the least, when we had examples. I believe it was CSIS, in their public report, that said there are 4 billion attempted attacks on Canadian cyber infrastructure in the course of a year. That's absolutely mind-boggling—the growing sophistication of the enemies of freedom and Canada, and the steps they will take to attack us and our infrastructure.
Den Tandt goes on to say the following:
To counter this, the draft bill offers two pillars: first, a revamp of the Telecommunications Act, giving the federal minister of Innovation, Science and Industry sweeping powers to order companies to ban certain products, clients or service providers, with possible daily penalties of up to $15 million a day if they don't comply; and second, the Critical Cyber Systems Protection Act (CCSPA), which would allow the minister and an appointed official to order cyber measures in federally regulated parts of the private sector considered essential to national security.
These include telecom, energy and power infrastructure such as pipelines, nuclear plants, federally regulated transportation, banking, clearing and settlement.
For all those questioning the relevance of this conversation, Den Tandt himself speaks about how closely connected this is to the conversation surrounding Bill .
Seen from 10,000 ft. up, the broad scope of the legislation will appear justified to some; after all, don't significant threats justify dramatic action? But there's a difference between action that is on point, and action so riddled with gaps that it'll need a reboot the day it becomes law.
Christopher Parsons, in a dissection for The Citizen Lab, outlines six major concerns, any of which should be grounds for disqualification. These include an excess of arbitrary power, too much secrecy, inadequate controls on information-sharing within government, potentially prohibitive costs for smaller firms (the legislation draws no distinctions based on scale, or industry sector), vague language, and no recognition of Charter or privacy rights.
Brenda McPhail, in an October, 2022 analysis for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, echoes many of Parsons’ criticisms, noting wryly that the law joins “an increasingly long line of legislation that would fill a clear need, if only it were better.”
If the goal, broadly, is governance that promotes prosperity, security, accountability, diversity and equity in a democratic society—then C-26, as drafted, should not pass.
Is legislation urgently needed? Absolutely. But have its drafters gotten it right? No. Given the blitzkrieg pace of growth in cyber threat vectors, it makes sense to continue to manage these threats on an ad hoc basis, as the minister has been doing, with assistance from The Communications Security Establishment (CSE) and the CCCS, and take the time needed to get the legislation right.
Thank you, Chair, for indulging me in that, because it's important context, and I would just note that the specificity of the criticisms that Den Tandt brings forward and the fact that he ran for the Liberal Party a short four years ago speak to two things I'd like to reference. I'm sure there's more, which maybe my colleagues would be interested in following up on, that references indirectly, first, that disconnect that exists between Parliament and executive government.
I would just note—and I know my colleague Mr. Strahl referenced this in a different context a number of times—that we had the conversation surrounding Huawei. Parliament, in fact, spoke up a host of times, telling the government that it needed to act. It wasn't a recommendation. It wasn't a suggestion; it was demanding action, yet we see still, in relation to the security of essential cyber networks in our country, that lack of action. The unwillingness for that action to take place sets Canada back what would be a... The pace that technology advances has set Canada back very significantly.
I know that it is key to ensuring that government is responsive not only to the demands of what Parliament is in terms of institution.... There's no other place in the country—and this is something that I think bears special emphasis—that every part of Canada is truly represented. I find it interesting that there seem to be a plethora of advisory boards and consultations, some of which have more legitimacy than others, but it's truly Parliament that is that voice for Canadians.
I'm always a bit hesitant, and maybe more than just a bit, when an advisory panel is set up. Specifically, I know that there are other bills that are before Parliament that set up some of these advisory panels, and this speaks to the disconnect that exists between Parliament and executive government. They set up these panels that sometimes are so disconnected from those who are impacted, and again, fearing that I would venture into something that would not be relevant, when it comes to critical infrastructure and specifically when you look at rail.... I have three main line rail lines that run through my constituency, and I represent about 53,000 square kilometres of what I refer to as God's country. It is a beautiful area in east central Alberta. It's a large area; in fact, it's about the same size as the province of Nova Scotia, just for context for those around the table.
I always find it very concerning when these advisory panels get set up, and they certainly don't often have the best interests of my constituents in mind, and we saw that and are seeing that played out in the so-called just transition.
Truly, there's no justice for my constituents, including the thousands and thousands who work in the energy industry. We saw that this was very directly the case when it came to the coal phase-out. The federal government promised to be there, and yet they were not. They failed my constituents. They failed the people who were told the federal government would have their backs.
I think that speaks to a disconnect between the role that Parliament should be playing—that ability to represent the people of our country—and the fact that quite often these so-called advisory panels end up being nothing more than a platform for the government to spout its same talking points. That's a deeply, deeply concerning trend that we have. One doesn't have to look any further than the appointments of these so-called independent panels.
Chair, there's a reason I bring this up. There's a specificity in relation to this. If we want to ensure that we are passing legislation, when it comes to Bill or some of the criticisms we've levelled at Bill and how the government clearly references both here....
They're expecting both to pass, although Den Tandt certainly has a host of criticisms to level at Bill . I'm hopeful that my colleagues in the public safety committee will be fully engaged when this debate comes forward, but I would suggest that one needs to take very, very seriously the role that we have to play here.
That's part one of the criticisms I would suggest when it comes to where some of these things are. The second part here comes to how, as we develop an infrastructure, we have to take seriously our responsibility to ensure that this is done not only in terms of the demands of today, which is key, but also in building that for tomorrow.
I would actually reference something that I am quite familiar with. There are two industries that I am very, very proud to represent—and a pretty significant portion of it. Had we had the opportunity to debate the motion that I was so unfortunately shut down on, I would have talked at length about the impact agriculture has in the close to 5,000 farms, most of which are family-owned small operations or small businesses, not the big successful ones that the referenced in question period today. I'm not quite sure what metric he uses for that when they're paying the carbon tax, but certainly it's small operations.
We see how there is this demand for that infrastructure to be secure. That includes the cyber element of that. We've seen attacks that have shut down significant portions and left critical infrastructure in our country at risk.
I believe I was in junior high at the time, so this is going back a little while, when a power outage took place in the northwestern United States. It was deemed to be an accident, but it shut down New York City in terms of the power. It shut down a host of other jurisdictions, including some in Quebec and Ontario. It spoke to some of the interconnectedness that existed in our infrastructure.
More recently, a cyber-attack shut down the pipeline system on the eastern seaboard of the United States. Certainly, I mentioned agriculture before, but I also represent another significant portion: 87% of Canada's crude oil transits through Battle River-Crowfoot. Some of it is produced there, but 87% of Canada's crude transits through Battle River-Crowfoot.
When my colleagues wonder why I'm so passionate about our energy industry, it's because I get it. Unfortunately, we seem to have what my father would suggest is “city ignorance”. I won't venture too far down that path, but it's unfortunate that sometimes there's not a better understanding of how important some of this critical infrastructure is. That's not only in terms of our economy and the billions of dollars. In fact, if I look at the community of Hardisty, for those from Hardisty....
Who knows? They might be watching this right now. I know they're passionate about educating Canadians on the importance of energy infrastructure and how it is so unfortunate that—
You're right, I was getting a little bit off topic there.
I'll tell you, it's easy to be passionate about the billions of dollars in economic impact that my people have—the people I'm proud to represent. It's billions of dollars that they have, yet, unfortunately, the Liberals seem to disregard that. They would toss it away for some dream that certainly is more of a dream than any reality, especially when we could be supplying our partners like Ukraine with clean, green Canadian natural resources.
When it comes to Bill and its relevance here on the Bill conversation, we have this connection that exists. Why I went down the path of talking about how proud I am of Canada's energy industry is that it's not always recognized how closely connected physical infrastructure and the security associated with that are to the cyber elements of how that works.
I would provide a local example, Chair.
A pipeline company just opened up a new control centre in Hardisty. This example is very relevant to both the physical infrastructure that Bill represents and the reference that it has to cybersecurity, which is referenced in Bill . There's this close connection that exists. We cannot dismiss that. It goes further when it comes to our rail systems. It's not out of the realm of possibility to see how there's that close connection that exists between the cyber and physical security side of things.
If we don't see Bill addressing those things appropriately, if it's not responsive to the economic needs, if it doesn't take into account the privacy concerns of Canadians, if it gives too much power to a few individuals in our nation's capital who may not be responsive, or if, likewise, when it comes to Bill there's not this appropriate delegation of authority that takes into account.... I often refer to the word “tension” or what could be referred to as the Aristotelian mean. We have to find that correct tension or that mean place where we have that balance. I'm fearful that we simply don't get it when it comes to Bill and some of the elements that we have discussed at length, although most of the clauses have in fact passed.
There's been a change in who is in charge of the public safety file. I won't get into the host of criticisms that have been levelled by Conservatives against the ministers of public safety. They seem to come and go at an alarming rate.
I would, however, like to read from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association when it comes to some of the concerns surrounding Bill . Then I will be happy to cede the floor to my colleagues, who I know have a tremendous amount to add to this conversation as well.
Although this letter is dated September 28, 2022, there's particular relevance to what we're discussing here today. It's written to the former minister and the leaders of the opposition parties, including as the parliamentary leader of the Green Party. I think she's now co-leader of the Green Party.
It is titled, “Joint Letter of Concern regarding Bill ”, and I'll read it directly into the record, Mr. Chair:
We, the undersigned organizations, are writing to express our serious concerns regarding Bill C-26: An Act respecting cyber security, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts.
In your press release announcing this legislation, you were quoted as stating “In the 21st century, cyber security is national security.” We agree, and we share your goal of helping both the public and private sector better protect themselves against cyber attacks.
Isn't this very agreeable up until this point?
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association goes on to say:
However, in its current form, Bill C-26 is deeply problematic and needs fixing.
I would note—because the stickers on my iPad triggered certain members of this committee, I won't show you—that it's actually bolded. Those previous words are bolded because the CCLA wanted to make sure they were emphasized in the context of this conversation.
It says:
As drafted, it risks undermining our privacy rights, and the principles of accountable governance and judicial due process which are the fabric of Canadian democracy. The legislation needs to be substantively amended to ensure it delivers effective cybersecurity protections while safeguarding these essential democratic principles.
As you know, Bill C-26 grants the government sweeping new powers over vast swathes of the Canadian economy. We believe these powers need to be strictly delimited and accompanied by meaningful safeguards and reporting requirements to ensure Canadians can hold their government and security agencies to account.
Next, this is in bold again, Mr. Chair, and I reference that because it's obvious that the CCLA wanted to ensure that this was emphasized:
Put simply, with great power must come great accountability.
With a view to improving this legislation, we share with you the following specific areas of concern:
Opens the door to new surveillance obligations: Bill C-26 empowers the government to secretly order telecom providers “to do anything or refrain from doing anything.” This opens the door to imposing surveillance obligations on private companies, and to other risks such as weakened encryption standards—something the public has long rejected as inconsistent with our privacy rights.
Termination of essential services: Under Bill C-26, the government can 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. This opens the door to Canadian companies or individuals being cut off from essential services without explanation. Bill C-26 fails to set out any explicit regime, such as an independent regulator with robust powers, for dealing with the collateral impacts of government Security Orders.
It goes on to mention that it:
Undermines privacy: Bill C-26 empowers the government to collect broad categories of information from designated operators, within any time and subject to any conditions. This may enable the government to obtain identifiable and de-identified personal information and subsequently distribute it to domestic, and perhaps foreign, organizations.
I would just note, Chair, that when it comes to the de-identified side of things, that's often an excuse that gets used. I know from my role on the ethics committee that we had a study that was undertaken when it was learned that the government had purchased a huge amount of data on movements during the COVID-19 pandemic. Although it was claimed to be de-identified, there were massive question marks associated with the amount of data the government received. I know that there was an overwhelming amount of concern that I certainly heard.
A number of people reached out to us when they did not hear back from Liberal members of the committee who didn't echo some of the concerns about how much information was being gathered: things like people knowing that the government could determine when people were going to the grocery store and liquor stores and other things. Certainly, in a free and democratic society, there were concerns about it. It was unclear. Canadians are pretty trusting, but they want to be respected. I talk about that tension or that Aristotelian mean that needs to be found, and I fear that this government has pulled that tension totally out of whack.
However, I digress. I will get back to what the CCLA has to say.
It goes on to say that there are “No guardrails to constrain abuse”.
Bill C-26 lacks mandatory proportionality, privacy, or equity assessments, or other guardrails, to constrain abuse of the new powers it grants the government — powers accompanied by steep fines or even imprisonment for non-compliance. These orders apply both to telecommunications companies, and to a wide range of other federally-regulated companies and agencies designated under the Critical Cyber Systems Protection Act.... Prosecutions can be launched in respect of alleged violations of Security Orders which happened up to three years in the past.
I would just note that in a late show that I was a part of yesterday—and I know that my colleague was actually there, too—I was shocked that the parliamentary secretary from talked in support of a policy that actually sent farmers to prison. Now, I wouldn't want to go off topic here, so I won't get into the conversation around the Wheat Board, but my goodness, how concerning is it that the government would support policies that threw farmers into prison for wanting to sell their grain without the government controlling it? It is unbelievable that that's the point that these Liberals would go to, and that they still support it even after it was very clear that Canadians and farmers wanted the ability to sell their grain without the government controlling them. Truly it was an unbelievable level of control, which was specifically targeted at the west. It's quite something to have heard, and I'm sure my colleague here would agree with me that it was unbelievable to hear that be brought up in conversation in the House of Commons yesterday, that they would prefer to throw farmers in prison than to have a legitimate conversation around the impacts of, in that case, the carbon tax.
The Chair: Okay, we're getting the thumbs-up from Mr. Iacono.
My apologies, Dr. Lewis. The floor is yours.
Ms. Leslyn Lewis: As I was saying, what is very concerning is that Canada is one of the few G20 nations without a firm regulatory framework around cybersecurity. It's essential at this point, when we're looking at Bill and Bill , that we keep in mind the need for Canada to act to protect the nation's critical infrastructure and the interconnectedness of these two bills.
We also know that in 2016, member states of the EU passed what was called the most comprehensive cybersecurity bill in the history of the EU. The bill was called the NIS Directive. The EU cybersecurity rules, which were introduced in 2016, were updated and later ratified in 2023. They continue to modernize and create this legal framework, which I think is quite instructive in the Canadian context. It keeps up and it increases the digitization...and the evolving cybersecurity threat, which is something we are attempting to grapple with in the present bills we are contemplating.
Expanding the scope of cybersecurity rules in the new sectors and entities further improves the resilience. We have dealt with resilience in the infrastructure context in this committee. This is also a very important part of what we're talking about in Bill .
We have seen the problems that a huge infrastructure gap can cause, and one of the problems is the ongoing lack of transparency. We have seen, in our situation with the taxpayer-funded Canada Infrastructure Bank, an unacceptable performance over the last seven years. We want to build mechanisms into Bill to make sure we're not falling into the same traps and shortcomings we've had with other legislation.
Moreover, we have provisions in Bill that also raise concerns on cybersecurity and response capabilities of the public and private sector entities and competent authorities. In the case that I was discussing before, the EU as a whole can be used as an example of a model that Canada could adopt. When we're contemplating this bill, I think we should look at enabling legislation from different jurisdictions.
We know that most G7 member states are under the umbrella of the EU. The U.S. and the U.K. and Japan have separately implemented cybersecurity regulations to differing degrees, which I think are also instructive in how we confuse Bill with Bill .
We also have to look at Canadian businesses and how they continue to be impacted by malicious cybersecurity and cyber-activity. This ranges from cyber-attacks to ransomware, and even things that we are exposed to on an everyday basis.
Many of these attacks include those on critical infrastructure. That accounts for nearly half of the attacks, and many of those go unreported.
This is very concerning. The Canadian Centre for Cyber Security has identified attacks on operations networks. They've also identified attacks on how it would impact the physical safety of Canadians. That was published in their biennial publication, the “National Cyber Threat Assessment”.
Now, in this context, when we look at the Ministry of Public Safety, we know that they acted to introduce new legislation, Bill , an act respecting cyber security. I believe it was at the first stage in Parliament sometime in November 2022, and it went through second reading, I think, on March 27, 2023. Bill C-26 currently sits in committee. I believe it's going into law, if it hasn't done so already. When we look at where it is, going through the committee stage, and we look at the fact that Bill is contemplating sections of this bill, we know that it's very important for us to focus on it, because it may have the capacity of adding teeth to the governance and compliance structure of cybersecurity in Bill C-33.
It's very important that we look at the interconnectedness of these two bills, especially inasmuch as is needed in the area of operational technology where critical infrastructure lies.
Although we don't know how the bill is going to necessarily impact on Bill , between the absence of similar legislation in Canada.... We don't know what the impact is going to be, because this is new. This is untested territory, but we know there is an increasing trend toward increased cybersecurity regulation among our international peers.
Having practised international law for a number of years, I can see the importance of Canadian businesses being prepared. Contemplation of this aspect of the bill and how it will be infused in Bill is very important at this time.
Canada does not have an overarching governing cybersecurity legislation, let alone require the reporting of vulnerabilities in critical infrastructure breaches, which is extremely problematic. Bill would empower some regulators to impose fines or issue some summary convictions to ensure governance and compliance. This is something that my colleague, Mr. Kurek, spoke about. It's critical to turn our minds to that, especially as we contemplate this bill.
Now I'll go back to Bill In its current form it includes four critical infrastructure sections, which I think are related to the transportation aspect of Bill . When we look at the transportation corridors that are contemplated in Bill C-33, we see, in Bill C-26, that it's very important to look at these four critical infrastructure sectors: telecommunications, finance, energy and transportation.
The requirements for organizations in these sections are threefold.
First is to implement, maintain and report on the cybersecurity program, which will essentially address the risks across organizations. It will address the risk in third party services. It will address the risk in supply chain—