Transport Committee on Dec. 13th, 2023

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

I'd like that member to look at himself in the mirror and to realize what he did on the weekend, with all those votes that they opposed, which could have helped Canadians in many different ways. If anybody should be embarrassed, it should be him.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Iacono. I think that's debate. Thank you very much.

I'll turn it back over to you, Mr. Kurek.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

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 C-26, 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 C-26, 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 C-33, 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 Bill C-33.

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—

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

The floor is yours, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

I am having trouble connecting what my colleague is saying with Bill C‑33. Would it be possible for my colleague to enlighten us about the connection between the two, or else to shorten his preamble, in the interests of the efficiency of the committee?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

You may continue, Mr. Kurek.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

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 C-26. 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 C-26, 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 C-26, 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 C-33, 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 C-26, 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 C-26, 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 C-26 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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I'm sorry, Mr. Kurek. I apologize for cutting you off.

I want to make sure that the raised hand that Dr. Lewis has is not a point of order and that she does not have any technical issues that need to be addressed.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

No, it's not a point of order.

I guess I could take it down now, since my name is on the list. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

It is. You are next, Dr. Lewis.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

I thought you said that we should keep it up, just in case. That's why I still have it up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

No. I saw that your camera was off. I thought that perhaps you were trying to get my attention for an audiovisual issue, but everything seems fine.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Dr. Lewis.

I'll turn it back over to you, Mr. Kurek.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

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 C-26 as it relates to Bill C-33, 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 C-26, and how it applies in the context of where Bill C-33 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 C-234, 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—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Mr. Kurek, I'm just going to cut you off there. I will give you the floor back, but I promised, when I outlined when we would be taking breaks, that we would take a break at approximately this time, so I will—

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

You're six minutes early.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I'm six minutes early. I'm getting looks of discontent that I would like to address.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

I thought that the break was at 10:30.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

I can assure you that I won't move a vote or anything if—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

No, but I'll ask everybody to please be back here after five minutes, and then we'll have one hour left before we adjourn for quite a long time.

We'll suspend for five minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I call this meeting back to order.

I turn the floor back over to Mr. Kurek.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

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 C-26. 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 C-33 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 C-33. 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 C-26 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 C-33.

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 C-33 or some of the criticisms we've levelled at Bill C-26 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 C-26. 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 Prime Minister 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—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Mr. Kurek.