Transport Committee on Dec. 13th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Mr. Kurek, that item has been dealt with, and therefore we will be moving on to Mr. Strahl.

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

Which is a violation of our privileges as members—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

You are out of order, Mr. Kurek.

Mr. Strahl, the floor is yours.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I suspect that we'll be dealing with that matter in the House of Commons at our earliest opportunity, which is when privilege motions will be raised.

To go back to section—

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Yes, Dr. Lewis, go ahead.

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

I just need some clarification. I'm a little bit confused here as to what is happening. I do understand that with Standing Order 116, when debate is ended.... It seems like we've invoked Standing Order 60 to adjourn debate, somehow. If you look at Standing Order 67(1)(o), it is clearly in conflict with that, because Standing Order 60 says that you can only adjourn “unless otherwise prohibited in these Standing Orders”. When you look at Standing Order 67(1)(o), it clearly states that debate is permissible. It gives the elements of when debate is permissible. If you go to Standing Order 67 and look at “Debatable motions”, (o) says it's “for the suspension of any standing order unless otherwise provided”.

If you take that into context, and we then say that Standing Order 116 is being suspended by your order—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Dr. Lewis, thank you very much.

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

—that means we would be able to debate—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I'm sorry, Dr. Lewis. I have to cut you off there.

There has been a ruling on the point of privilege. The matter has been dealt with. Therefore, I'm turning the floor back over to Mr. Strahl.

Thank you very much.

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

I'm just seeking clarification. As a member—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Mr. Strahl, the floor is yours.

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

—I think I am entitled to clarification.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I have responded to your question. I made a ruling on the matter. The matter is now closed.

I am turning the floor over to Mr. Strahl.

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

So there's no reason we're suspending that. Standing Order 67—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Dr. Lewis, debate on this has concluded.

The floor now belongs to Mr. Strahl.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In this bill, there is a coordinating amendment—if the copy of the legislation I have is correct—that states:

If Bill C-26, introduced in the 1st session of the 44th Parliament and entitled An Act respecting cyber security, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts, receives royal assent, then, on the first day on which both section 18 of that Act and section 123 of this Act are in force, subsection 2(3) of the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada Act is replaced by the following:

Jurisdiction in respect of other Acts

(3) The Tribunal also has jurisdiction in respect of reviews and appeals in connection with administrative monetary penalties provided for under sections 177 to 181 of the Canada Transportation Act, sections 127 to 133 of the Critical Cyber Systems Protection Act, sections 43 to 55 of the International Bridges and Tunnels Act, sections 129.‍01 to 129.‍17 of the Canada Marine Act, sections 16.‍1 to 16.‍25 of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, sections 39.‍1 to 39.‍26 of the Canadian Navigable Waters Act, sections 130.‍01 to 130.‍19 of the Marine Liability Act and sections 32.‍1 to 32.‍28 of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992.

I'm hoping that either the legislative clerk or perhaps some of the witnesses can indicate for me what the status is of Bill C-26. Has it received royal assent? If not, where is it in the process? This is just so we know how likely it is that this coordinating amendment will be utilized with Bill C-33.

Perhaps they could just tell me what the status of that bill is.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I'm not sure which one of our witnesses wants to address that.

Go ahead, Ms. Heft.

[Rachel Heft]

It appears that Bill C-26 completed second reading on March 27, 2023.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

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 C-26, 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 C-26. 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 C-26 are addressed.

The summary of Bill C-26 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 C-26 is another example of the Minister of Industry being given sweeping powers, as we heard with Bill C-33, 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 C-18 and with Bill C-10. 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 C-26, 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 C-26 is another example of where that has happened. We have grave concerns with that, as I outlined briefly. There is also—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Mr. Strahl, if you will permit—I will give you the floor back immediately following this—I'm looking around the room at the witnesses, and perhaps some of the other members here, who would very much appreciate a five-minute break to be able to go to the restroom.

I will turn the floor immediately back to you to continue your dialogue in five minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I call this meeting back to order.

As promised, I turn the floor back over to Mr. Strahl.

Mr. Strahl, the floor is yours.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I hope everyone feels—

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I'm sorry, Mr. Strahl. I have a point of order from Mr. Kurek.