Debates of April 15th, 2024

Parliament of Canada Act

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

moved that Bill C-377, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (need to know), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, before I get into my speech, I want to take a moment to recognize the passing of some important people who we have lost in the last week and a half.

On April 4, we lost Bob Mitchell, father of Corporal Mitchell who was killed in action on October 3, 2006, in Afghanistan, and father of Mark who passed from cancer just a few months after that in 2006. He was the husband of Carol and papa of Cameron, Ryan and Jaelyn. There have been no bigger supporters of our veterans than Bob and his wife Carol. My heart goes out to Carol in particular for the continued sorrow she faces, but I know she will still be there for our members of the Canadian Armed Forces.

As well, on April 7, we lost Shawn "Lenny" MacDonald suddenly, father of Brandon and Kaitlin, and son of Kaye. He was a well-connected and important member of our community who we unfortunately lost way too soon.

April 8 was the 17th anniversary of the loss of 22B, my six soldiers in Afghanistan who were killed by an IED: Donnie Lucas, Aaron Williams, Brent Poland, Christopher Stannix, Kevin Kennedy and David Greenslade. I will never forget them.

On April 8 of this year, the father of one of my best friends, Ben Miedema, of Kingston by-way of Cloyne, passed away. He was the husband of Carla and father of Denise, Emily, Felicia, Geoff and Ian. Both his sons Geoff and Ian are still serving members of our Canadian Armed Forces.

I offer my deepest condolences and sympathies to all of their families and friends. May they rest in peace.

We are here today to speak to my first private member's bill, Bill C-377, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act, need to know.

I will cover what this bill would do, what it is not and, most important, the why, not only to address the threats to our democracy but to minimize the politicization around national security in our country.

I have been dealing with classified information for over 25 years, specifically highly classified information since 2007, my first tour in Afghanistan, dealing with the incredible electronic warfare capabilities and signals intelligence capabilities we possess within the military. For the last couple of years I have had the pleasure to sit on the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, but this issue was apparent to me for years before I was elected.

What is this bill? The crux of it, and literally the bill itself is one sentence, is:

A member of the Senate or the House of Commons who applies for a secret security clearance from the Government of Canada is, for the purposes of the consideration of their application, deemed to need access to the information in respect of which the application is made.

What does this mean? It means that for the purposes of applying for a security clearance, one has a need to know. However, it does not mean that one will have access to classified information. I will get into that later.

Why is it so important to pass the bill? To improve transparency and accountability, as well as education not only with respect to the ever-changing threats to Canada and our democratic institutions and processes, but for Canadians and parliamentarians to ultimately rebuild trust in our democratic processes and institutions.

I will try to explain this in the rest of my speech through the lengthy preamble, which is much longer than the actual bill itself.

The first paragraph in the preamble states:

Whereas members of the Senate and the House of Commons play a key role in holding the Government of Canada to account and, in order to be able to fulfil that role, they must have sufficient access to critical information, including the facts and rationale underlying key government decisions;

Let us look at the testimony we have heard at PROC in recent weeks.

We had Vincent Rigby, who served as the national security and intelligence adviser from January 2020 to June of 2021. He stated that transparency needed to be increased by producing annual public threat assessments, responding to NSICOP reports, publishing intelligence priorities and, most important, sharing “more intelligence...with members of Parliament.”

Wesley Wark gave testimony at the same committee. In his view, Canadians lacked literacy about national security, a deficiency which could be improved by holding public hearings on national security, as these could increase public understanding and education about his aspect of governance.

I would argue that this is bigger than just the Canadian population. This is about Parliament too, and as the representatives of Canada, both elected in the House and those appointed in the other place. I will get more into how Parliament and the government have handled highly publicized issues a bit later in my speech.

The next paragraph of the preamble of the bill states:

Whereas the Government of Canada typically restricts access to classified information to individuals who pass a personnel security screening process and who need access to the information in order to perform their official duties (the “need-to-know” principle);

What is “need to know”, and how does it work? How do we protect classified information? First, people need to have a job and a reason to do it. Ultimately, that is why I am bringing this forward, to have that debate and make the case that Parliament has a need to know, not all the time and not to everything. However, we as parliamentarians have a need to know, but just because we have that need to know, we have to demonstrate that we are trustworthy, and that is done through the security clearance process.

When people apply for that security clearance process, again, depending upon the level, it is actually a very arduous process, or it can be. In fact, I could give a multi-hour speech on how we need to improve the process of security clearances. Ultimately, people applying for it are basically opening up their whole life to the national security apparatuses to vet them and to ensure they are trustworthy to have access to classified or sensitive information.

I will give a bit of a sample, so listeners can understand how many security clearances have been processed since 2016. I put an OPQ in that I got a response to last May. Here are the key departments that applied: DND, over 65,000 applications for secret level security clearances and, in that time frame, two were denied; ESCD, 8,916 applications and 14 were denied; Bank of Canada, 2,400 applications and one was denied; and NRCan, 8,900 applications and six were denied. Overall, just shy of a quarter of a million officials, bureaucrats, people within the government, applied for security clearances from 2016 to 2023, and only 23 were denied.

That gives us a scope of just how many people have access to this information and how many need to know within the bureaucracy.

As I mentioned earlier, just because people have that security clearance does not mean they get access. A good example is that during the convoy protests that were occurring in Ottawa, I still had my top secret security clearance. I maintained that when I released from the Canadian Armed Forces. I made the case in the House that if the government was lacking that trust with the general public and there were concerns over what the threats were, etc., why would the government not share that information with privy councillors, former privy councillors, who had already been vetted, or a number of the members of Parliament who had a security clearance of some sort.

I am going to skip to the last paragraph of the preamble, because it fits better in my speech. It states:

And whereas Parliament considers that a member of the Senate or the House of Commons must be able to apply for a secret security clearance and, if the member passes the personnel security screening process, to be granted that security clearance;

I want to ensure that this is clear. It means people can apply, but it does not mean they will pass. In fact, I would argue that there are potentially individuals within both our chamber and the other place who may not pass. Who knows why? I do not have access to that information and, frankly, it is none of my business. Most of the time, in my past experience, where people fail to get security clearances, it is because they do not really want it or they are not honest when they are doing the process. The question is this: Is there something out there that a foreign state or somebody could hold over them and basically blackmail them, which questions their trustworthiness to have access to that information?

My bill, if it passes, will not guarantee that everybody in this chamber and the other place will get access to classified, sensitive information. That is not what this does. It is the first step in allowing, and I will get into it, important debate and discussions around issues that are highly sensitive or important.

One other note I would like make is that privy councillors, government members, do not have security clearances. In fact, one of the least vetted people, and it is not a shot on the current Prime Minister who has been vetted, is the current Prime Minister, because he had the privilege of becoming the leader of his party and ultimately the Prime Minister without being a former privy councillor.

When someone is a privy councillor, being appointed by the prime minister to sit as a cabinet member, the system vets him or her. We would hope that when the current Prime Minister was going through that process, he was being vetted and that if there were a flag that the apparatus would have flagged it to the prime minister of the day, Mr. Harper, if there had been any issues. My point is that privy councillors do not have a security clearance in the traditional sense of those of us who served in law enforcement or in the military and went through the whole process, or somebody who has had the privilege of sitting on NSICOP, for example.

What are the real risks to my bill? Really, there are no risks other than the political risk to someone who applies and is denied if that information were to ever become public. However, again, that is not something that would be released; it is privacy information and not information that is tied to having access.

Why is this so important? The next portion of my preamble gets into it. It states:

...in the face of threats to world peace and security posed by nefarious state and non-state actors, the Government of Canada needs to make challenging decisions relating to national security, which it must do in a manner that is consistent with its constitutional duty to be accountable to Parliament and that respects the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights;

I am not going to focus on all the threats. So many committees and even the latest government defence plan update and the NSICOP report cover the threats. I do not think I need to really explain that, but I want to focus on the accountability and transparency side.

I am going to read a few quotes from the conclusion part of Top Secret Canada: Understanding the Canadian Intelligence and National Security Community, edited by Stephanie Carvin, Thomas Juneau and Craig Forcese, in which states that the Canadian “national security community” as a whole “has traditionally not been very transparent.” It further states, “In a democracy, first, transparency is—or should be—an end in itself.” It also states:

There is also a strong pragmatic and utilitarian case in favour of greater transparency.... Law enforcement and intelligence agencies need the buy-in of the society they seek to protect: when they have the trust of the population, it is far easier to gather information, to build and maintain collaborative ties with key communities, and, ultimately, to do their jobs. Yet when security agencies [the government] are closed and perform poorly in terms of transparency, it is more difficult for citizens to trust them, and it opens space for erroneous information, misperceptions, and conspiracy theories to circulate. This reinforces a dynamic of mistrust and suspicion.

The final paragraph of the book states, “ a challenge for government”, and I would say for Parliament, “remains to deepen the public’s understanding of the workings of the national security sector.” It goes on:

Canadians (and indeed, their political leaders) must have context to avoid swinging wildly from indifference to panic when security events occur. Likewise, transparency and national security literacy help citizens tease apart real scandals from the noise. More generally, Canadians shall need to develop a renewed understanding of the hard dilemmas that frequently arise in securing a free and democratic state.

I will not read the last couple of points in the preamble, but they really focus on allowing that access. That is what this speech will do. Again, it talks about two examples, under the current government and in the previous government. We had the Winnipeg lab scandal and the Afghan detainee files issue under the previous Harper government. How did Parliament address those issues? They formed ad hoc committees at the last minute and created a lot of undue politicization of that whole process. Whereas, if we had members already cleared, we could speed up that process and help downplay the politicization. We have seen this most recently, even with the foreign interference issue.

In conclusion, I want to get to what PROC passed unanimously last week in its recommendation 3. It states:

That the government work with recognized parties’ whips to facilitate security clearances, at Secret level or higher, of caucus members who are not Privy Councillors...who shall be taken as satisfying requirements for a “need to know,” to ensure that they may be adequately briefed about important national security matters, including foreign intelligence threat activity directed toward Parliament, or their party or its caucus members.

Considering that PROC has already unanimously passed what my bill is basically calling for, I could seek unanimous consent to have my bill pass at all stages. I will not, because the importance of my debating this is that it is to improve the education of Parliament and Canadians.

I look forward to any questions my hon. colleagues may have.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his rationale he set out in his bill.

I do not particularly disagree with his important comments about accountability and transparency, which I think would actually go a long way in accomplishing what he has set out to do. My question comes down more to the need to know, and how that relates to various different operations that might be ongoing and somebody's getting access to information. If there are too many people with access to particular information, it could actually end up jeopardizing an ongoing operation.

I am not saying this is a reason to vote against the bill, but my question would be this: What are the member's thoughts on that, and how can we continue to keep individuals safe?

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I highlighted just how many people have security clearance in the country already. Over the last eight years, it is almost a quarter of a million people. The government ministers themselves, and likely some of the parliamentary secretaries, have the privilege of access to a lot of classified, sensitive information. NSICOP gets access to things, although it is prevented from accessing ongoing current investigations. Again, ultimately, just because someone has it, and this gets to my point, it does not meant he government has to give it.

When a committee, such as foreign affairs or public safety, makes the case for why it needs access, and it secures it, that is the will of Parliament. I have given a couple of examples, of the Afghan detainee files and the Winnipeg lab files, that show that it does not mean that the access is going to get there, but part of the reason, in both of those cases, that the government came up with an ad hoc process was that it said members of those committees did not have appropriate classification.

The bill before us would help address that, but ultimately it is on the individuals to protect the information if it could compromise security for individuals in this country.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think the bill has some very interesting portions to it. It was interesting to listen to the member speak today.

I have received security clearance because of some of the work I have done with my other colleagues on the Winnipeg lab documents, and I recognize his perspective that the bill would increase transparency. I think it is very important to have that there. I also recognize that the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act is supposed to have a statutory review every five years, and we are two years overdue on that.

The question I have for the member is this: Has he looked at what other countries around the world do? We know that the U.S. has much more oversight, but I am wondering whether he has looked at other G7 countries, other allies, and how they deal with this issue.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have looked at some of them, but not specifically on this process, because for a lot of them it is actually a lot simpler to get a security clearance or access to information. In general, the U.K. has a much broader system to allow it. I am not proposing we adopt a U.S. system of congressional or senatorial oversight; I am just suggesting the first step in a process that would just allow us to apply. As I have mentioned, my bill would not guarantee that a member or a senator would actually get the clearance, and it would not guarantee they would get access. All it is saying is that the government of the day, regardless of political party, would not be able to deny somebody's applying to get a security clearance.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's contribution. Often when people come to this place, they try to either build up the government or build up Parliament. The proposed bill, obviously, would be building up Parliament. He talked about education, and I know there is a lot of confusion around oversight and review. To me, the bill really would create a floor, not a ceiling, as to how much. It is usually ministers who have oversight duties, and it is usually parliamentarians, in certain cases, who would have the review duties.

Could the member explain how this would benefit, and which side would?

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my whole point is to increase the level of education and, I would argue, parliamentary oversight. I talked at length about accountability and transparency. Ultimately, all of us in this place were elected to represent Canadians. There is a huge demand, and I am sure the member has heard from some of his constituents, asking why they cannot know about certain things. In reality, there are legitimate reasons why we need to protect information. I am just saying that here is a way, through a proper process, that Parliament could actually get to know the information, hold the government to account and provide greater transparency as we continue to improve national security and intelligence in this country.

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-377 and the important issues therein.

The role of Parliament is crucial to protecting our democracy and holding government to account. Since 1867, members of Parliament have upheld the principles and practices of Canadian democracy, and we must ensure that they are able to continue to do so in the future. That is why the government takes the issue of transparency very seriously. In fact, in 2017, we announced the national security transparency commitment and made a number of changes within the National Security Act. The national security transparency commitment is about integrating our core democratic values into our national security activities.

Canadians need to understand what the various departments and agencies that are working tirelessly to protect each and every Canadian do. Canadians also need to understand the legal structure required to protect our national security, and how difficult choices are made every day. Finally, it is important that we engage with Canadians openly so they understand what issues have an impact on our national security. I am proud to say that the government has made great progress since the announcement of the national security transparency commitment and continues to advance that work tirelessly to ensure that everyone in Canada understands the issues at play and how we are working to protect Canadians.

The national security transparency advisory group was created in 2019 to help the government deliver on the national security commitment. The role of the NS-TAG is crucial as it provides advice to the deputy minister of public safety and other government officials on the implementation of the national security transparency commitment.

The National Security Act, 2017 also created the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, which is an independent body that is external to government. NSIRA has the mandate to review all Government of Canada national security and intelligence activities to ensure that they are lawful, reasonable and necessary. NSIRA can also investigate public complaints regarding key national security agencies and activities. The NSIRA's reports provide invaluable information to parliamentarians and Canadians, and are a way to inform them of the lawfulness of the government's actions.

I want to make it clear that no government department or agency's national security and intelligence activities are exempt from scrutiny by NSIRA, and by extension, by parliamentarians and Canadians. To be clear, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the Communications Security Establishment's activities are not exempt from this scrutiny. The national security transparency commitment and the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency provide important means of enabling public transparency and expert scrutiny of national security and intelligence activities.

There is also a third component that is vital to making an effective accountability framework for national security and intelligence activities, which is parliamentary oversight. The sponsor of the bill before us is right to highlight the important role that parliamentarians play. Recognizing this important role, the government enacted the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, 2017, which created a committee of parliamentarians made up of members of either House to scrutinize the national security and intelligence activities across the federal government.

The National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians can look into intricate details of national security and intelligence agencies' activities. The committee may also undertake strategic and systematic reviews of the legislative and policy framework for national security and intelligence activities, including studies of expenditures and administrative decision-making structures. This is important work, and its importance is reflected in the committee's powers. To enable it to do its work, the committee has the right, under its enabling legislation, to access information needed to conduct its reviews. There are only limited exceptions to this right of access, where there is an absolute need, such as to protect the identities of human sources and witnesses protected under the witness protection program.

There are a number of aspects of the committee's legislation that I want to emphasize. The first is that the mandate of the committee, its powers, its right of access and its safeguards are legislated. It is vital that there be clear guardrails for processes that deal with the security of information and bring it near the vigorous debates we have in this place.

The second is that the committee has membership from multiple parties. We can all appreciate how important it is that the processes for managing sensitive information remain non-partisan. The multi-party nature of the committee is vital to its credibility. This also reflects the care that must be taken when dealing with sensitive information. When sensitive government information enters into the parliamentary space, it must be provided in a transparent, fair and non-partisan manner to ensure that there are not allegations of misuse.

Third, I want to note the care that is taken to ensure the security of information entrusted to members of the committee. Each member of the committee is a person permanently bound to secrecy under the Security of Information Act, meaning they may be prosecuted for disclosing special operational information. Members also swear an oath of secrecy and obtain a security clearance.

Finally, the act also provides a pathway for members to make Parliament aware of anything concerning they find. The committee provides reports to the Prime Minister, and when it does so, changes may be required to protect information. This is appropriate to ensure that sensitive information is protected, but the extent of the changes and the reasons for changes must be noted when the report is made public.

There are significant challenges to dealing with classified information in a way that enables transparency and accountability while also ensuring that what needs to be protected remains secure. The National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act reflects that there needs to be care taken within the management of information. Simply providing access to parliamentarians is not enough; it needs to be done in a way that is transparent, non-partisan and secure and that provides proper mechanisms for concerns to be brought to Parliament's attention.

In addition to the NSICOP, the government has also established ad hoc processes. For instance, in 2021, when opposition parties in the House of Commons asked for the production of government documents from the Public Health Agency of Canada in relation to the March 2019 revocation of security clearances for two scientists at the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg, we established a process to ensure that parliamentarians had access to this sensitive information.

On June 2, 2021, the House of Commons adopted an order for the production of sensitive documents held by the Government of Canada in relation to that incident. In 2022, the leader of the Government and leaders of the opposition parties signed a memorandum of understanding that outlined the mechanisms for parliamentarians to both access and safeguard the requested information. An ad hoc committee composed of select members of Parliament was established, and committee members were provided with full access to all documents requested in the June 2021 House order.

In addition, the Treasury Board standard on security screening allows for any individual to be security screened by a government department, should there be a need. This applies even if the individual is not an employee, and so can be applied to a parliamentarian.

There are already many mechanisms in place to provide parliamentarians with access to sensitive and classified information. I have just highlighted the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, as well as ad hoc approaches that have been adopted for special circumstances. These procedures and approaches require careful thought about what information is being provided to whom, and under what safeguards.

Most importantly, it is vital that there be effective, credible and transparent ways to bring information of concern to Parliament's attention, after removing information that would harm Canada's national security. It is not enough to simply provide a security clearance. Attention must also be provided to the entire process of providing, analyzing and releasing information to ensure an effective means of ensuring government accountability and contributing to public trust. The government has put in place processes that do just that, and as needs shift and evolve, the government will continue to ensure that they function properly.

I appreciate the member opposite's interest in ensuring that classified information appropriately flows to parliamentarians. I share the intent of ensuring that proper processes are in place, and I am thankful that they are. I urge all members to consider whether an additional proposal is needed and whether it appropriately considers the protection of information that is provided.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Conservative member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound is proposing that we examine Bill C-377.

It is an important bill that requires serious consideration. The bill summary states the following, and I quote:

This enactment amends the Parliament of Canada Act to specify that a member of the Senate or the House of Commons who applies for a secret security clearance from the Government of Canada is, for the purposes of the consideration of their application, deemed to need access to the information....

The whole issue of confidentiality is rather vague in the bill. Like my kind neighbour from Barrie—Innisfil, this morning, I received an email because I am a member of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. The committee had asked Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada for some information about TikTok because we are doing a study on that app. This morning, we got an email saying that it is none of our business. Come on. The question that has to be asked is whether parliamentarians, who have the privilege of obtaining information, should be able to get it. The answer is yes.

Now, let us look at how that should be done, what the guidelines are and what could be done.

What are we talking about here? If we want to define privacy, we are talking about a secret. What is a secret? A secret is what is not said. It is as simple as that. However, that includes things that we do not wish to say, things we cannot say and things we must not say. It can be a bit tricky.

Everyone agrees that the government must be accountable. However, it cannot be the sole judge of what it is to be accountable for. The member who spoke earlier cited the example of the special committee that studied the documents concerning the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg. I was part of this committee. It was a good initiative, but, quite frankly, we had to twist the government’s arm for nearly two years before this came about. Yes, it was a good choice, but there were many bumps in the road.

The member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound wants to promote a bill aiming to rectify certain situations and to ask Parliament to act wisely when it comes to accountability. The topic of secrets is by no means new. According to Voltaire, “To say the secret of another is a betrayal, to say yours is a stupidity”. The current government seems to be taking a page from Voltaire.

What is a secret? For the purposes of our discussion, it is the redacted portion. The French term for redaction, “caviardage”, dates back to the time of Nicholas I in Russia. At the time, it meant to conceal or remove. I am going to stay with the idea of conceal. To redact something is to conceal it. Over the years that I worked in the ethics field and the months that I spent on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, I came to realize that redaction is one thing, but preventive redaction is another. Preventive redaction is when something is excessively redacted just in case. That is problematic.

According to an article that appeared in the spring 2022 edition of Foreign Affairs entitled “Keeping the Wrong Secrets”, the preference is to conceal more so as not to conceal too little. The article goes on to say that information that is kept secret often should not be. Certain information is treated like the Crown jewels, but at the same time we fail to even protect private data. This is all frustrating. The example cited in the article, which was positively ridiculous, had to do with a Christmas card that someone had redacted. Frankly, this makes no sense.

The sheer number of “overredacted” documents is huge. At the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, historians have come to tell us they cannot learn anything about the Second World War because the information is classified “Top Secret.” There are things that will always remain secret, but I cannot believe that the entire body of government decisions concerning the Second World War must be off limits. When documents are needlessly redacted, we cannot attain wisdom, we cannot do as our good friend Socrates suggested, which is “know thyself”.

If we do not know our own history, we cannot know ourselves as a population, as a people. There are things that must be kept secret, but for how long, for what purpose and from whom? These questions must be asked as part of the debate sparked by Bill C-377. That said, I understand that certain things, of an intimate, sacred, delicate or dangerous nature, must be kept secret forever. These are things we have always sought to keep secret.

However, the bill does not deal with the intimate, sacred, delicate or dangerous. It deals with classified information. We know from experience that there is a confidential level, a secret level and a top secret level. There is also a “for Canadian eyes only” level for certain documents. We can see that classified documents are often classified at too high a level. This prevents people who should know from being able to know. Of course, many pieces of information marked “Top Secret” come from a foreign source, such as a member of the Group of Five, and making the information public could well harm that member.

We have to be careful and use judgment.

It takes judgment, but the Winnipeg report basically consisted of 600 redacted pages, pages that were redacted by the ad hoc committee. When we see 600 pages redacted under the pretext of national security and in the end there are only 13 or 14 pages left, then no wonder we have questions about the “overredacting” at issue, the “overclassification” or the excessive secrecy, if you will.

Unfortunately, keeping too many secrets leads to mistrust. Not keeping enough secrets, of course, is unworkable. Too many secrets breed mistrust, and, in today's world, with its echo chambers and the conditioning created by some social media, this leads to defiance. We saw some of that defiance in the streets last winter in front of Parliament, but that is not the only form of defiance.

Let me come back to Bill C‑377, a bill to provide access to documents under two conditions. First, individuals must pass a personnel security screening process. That makes sense. Second, they must need access to the information for the purposes of their work. Of course, it is easier to define the scope and parameters of that work for public officials than it is for parliamentarians. In the case of a parliamentarian, it may be more complicated, but it can still be done.

As I said earlier, the government is accountable to Parliament for all of its activities. It should not have the right to decide on its own what needs to be kept secret from the get-go. That is a first recommendation.

Bill C‑377 takes this into account by proposing subsection 13.1(1), as follows:

A member of the Senate or the House of Commons who applies for a secret security clearance from the Government of Canada is, for the purposes of the consideration of their application, deemed to need access to the information....

The proposal is good, but let us just say that it seems an automatic approach that could go awry at times. Bill C-377 considers parliamentary privileges. It is a step forward, but it could be dangerous.

One thing I do like about this bill is that the government will not be the sole judge of its own secrets. That is a very good thing. However, it does not mean that information should be handed over lock, stock, and barrel simply upon request. That could be dangerous.

My colleague spoke earlier of the Winnipeg lab. I sat on the ad hoc committee that studied that issue, which was made up of parliamentarians from four parties. I will say again that the committee was struck as a result of a wild discussion. Nevertheless, we four parliamentarians were able to issue an opinion on the redaction in question and that opinion was submitted to three judges for arbitration. To my great surprise, their verdict was identical to that of the committee members. The document was released “unredacted”. There was no national security issue concerning that document. There was certainly some embarrassment, along with some shame and discomfort, but no national security issue.

As La Rochefoucauld, another soul I greatly admire, said, everyone agrees that a secret must be inviolable, but we do not always agree on the nature and importance of the secret, and we consult only ourselves on what we should reveal or withhold. That is the dilemma here. The problem is that the government itself decides what should be kept secret.

As a second recommendation, I propose that steps be taken to put an end to overclassification and preventive redaction. Redaction keeps us from knowing who we are and what happened, and it exacts a great cost in terms of maintaining the secrets in question.

With Bill C‑377, we have an opportunity to initiate a discussion on the very concept of secrecy. That kind of reflection is healthy for democracy. It can only make parliamentarians more confident, while boosting Canadians' confidence in parliamentarians and government, which admittedly could really use it.

Let us begin this reflection.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in support of Bill C-377, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act, which was introduced by my colleague, the hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.

This legislation would amend the Parliament of Canada Act to specify that when a member of Parliament or a senator requests a secret security clearance, that the member would be treated as being deemed to need to know the information for which the security clearance is sought. This is important because, as it presently stands, it is highly unlikely that any individual member of Parliament or a senator would receive a security clearance.

Unless a member or a senator already has a security clearance as a result of their profession prior to being elected or appointed, or has served as a member of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, or NSICOP, the chances of a member of Parliament or a senator successfully obtaining a security clearance are almost zero. That is because security clearances are issued on a need-to-know basis. Essentially, the policy of the Government of Canada is that members of Parliament and senators do not need to know.

That may come as a surprise to Canadians. I would submit that it is problematic, which I will get into momentarily, but that is the policy. This bill would change that; it would amend the Parliament of Canada Act such that, for the purposes of processing security clearance applications, members of Parliament and senators are deemed to know. In short, it provides a presumption that when a member of Parliament or a senator applies, they be granted a secret security clearance. That is what Bill C-377 would do. That is all Bill C-377 would do.

It is important to note what this bill would not do. It would not guarantee that a member or a senator would be granted a security clearance. They would have to be vetted, just as any Canadian who applies for a security clearance must be vetted. If they are deemed untrustworthy, or if there are security issues or other red flags associated with the member or the senator, pursuant to the security clearance review process, they would be turned down. They would not obtain a security clearance. This bill would not change that.

Moreover, this bill is targeted insofar as it applies specifically to secret security clearances, and I emphasize “secret” security clearances. It does not apply to, and will not create, a presumption of issuing a top secret security clearance to members of Parliament and to senators. Further, it is important to note that just because someone has a security clearance, it does not mean they have the unfettered ability to obtain whatever information they want. Obtaining a security clearance merely gets one's foot in the door.

I would further note that this bill would importantly establish a certain level of uniformity with respect to how applications for security clearances involving members of Parliament and senators are dealt with because, at present, the process has been one that is ad hoc in nature. Members of NSICOP have security clearances, quite appropriately so. However, if members of NSICOP have security clearances, would it not also make sense for members who serve on committees such as the national defence committee, the foreign affairs committee and the public safety committee to also have security clearances, provided they are properly vetted?

The government has established, for instance, a special committee to review the classified Winnipeg lab documents. Members on that committee were granted security clearances. Similarly, with respect to reviewing the Afghan detainee documents, the Harper government established a special committee in which members again had security clearances. Therefore, there is no consistency and no uniformity, with the granting of such clearances being done on an ad hoc basis. I would submit that this is not desirable and can be improved; this bill would improve it by providing greater certainty and transparency around the application process.

As I noted at the beginning of my speech, I find it problematic that, as a general rule, members of Parliament and senators are unable to access security clearances. After all, Parliament deals with matters of national security and intelligence, which fall within its purview.

It is the responsibility of Parliament to hold the government accountable and to provide meaningful oversight on these matters. It follows that not having a security clearance and, therefore, not having the ability to access what may be pertinent information around national security and intelligence matters impedes the ability of members of Parliament and senators to do their jobs, to hold the government to account and to provide proper oversight and accountability.

In addition, there is value in members having security clearances, insofar as this enables them to better understand national security and intelligence matters. It creates a culture of greater awareness and enables a member to, in certain areas, perhaps fill in the blanks and have a better context with respect to national security and intelligence issues that they might be dealing with as, for example, a member of a parliamentary committee or a shadow minister.

In that regard, I cite the ruling of Speaker Milliken in April 2010 concerning the Afghan detainee documents. Speaker Milliken said the following: “In a system of responsible government, the fundamental right of the House of Commons to hold the government to account for its actions is an indisputable privilege and in fact an obligation.” He quoted, “The right of Parliament to obtain every possible information on public questions is undoubted, and the circumstances must be exceptional, and the reasons very cogent, when it cannot be at once laid before the houses.”

With respect to members of Parliament and senators being trusted with sensitive information, Speaker Milliken said:

The insinuation that members of Parliament cannot be trusted with the very information that they may well require to act on behalf of Canadians runs contrary to the inherent trust that Canadians have placed in their elected officials and which members require to act in their various parliamentary capacities.

I concur wholeheartedly with Speaker Milliken. This bill is an important step in the right direction to enhance transparency and accountability around national security and intelligence matters, as well as from the standpoint of better empowering members of Parliament and senators to fulfill their oversight responsibilities.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to rise on this bill. I appreciate the sponsor's commitment and listened to his speech with regard to wanting to have this conversation to educate people. That is a very worthwhile conversation that we, as parliamentarians and Canadians, should be having.

I too once served on NSICOP; perhaps the sponsor had similar feelings to mine, which were to think about how little Parliament talks and thinks about national security. Frankly, there is a lot to be done with regard to cyber safety for Parliament and parliamentarians. I am not sure whether this was part of the member's rationale in thinking about this, but, certainly, I realized as a member of NSICOP how little parliamentarians are briefed in terms of just good cyber-hygiene measures. I will not say protected. I also realized how all parliamentarians must take this very seriously. I think there should be more conversations not only in our own caucuses but also among parliamentarians as a whole.

With that in mind, the idea and concept around this bill have merit. However, in the course of my speech, I will point out a few challenges with this bill that we could perhaps have further conversation on. I welcome feedback. There are some areas in the bill that need to be reflected upon, the first being with regard to parliamentary privilege.

One thing that is specified in the NSICOP Act is around clearance given and the waiving of parliamentary privilege. This is done to ensure that any members who receive clearance and, therefore, national security information cannot share that information and then use the protections of parliamentary privilege. For Canadians who may not know what that means, it means that we are protected in this place to be able to say things without fear of reprisal.

However, a higher level of protection needs to be ensured around national security matters, confidentiality and the safety of Canadian Armed Forces members and our security teams around the world. The NSICOP Act specifically waives parliamentary privilege. For a member who receives national security clearance through, let us say, legislation such as this and not the NSICOP Act, it would mean that they could say anything and not be prosecuted under the Security of Information Act, as an example. I do not know if that was a technical oversight.

I am certainly not saying that the sponsor of this bill is suggesting that parliamentary privilege should allow national security information to be shared through a loophole, but that is certainly a flaw in the drafting of this bill. As I said, the NSICOP Act specifically addresses it. As a former member of the committee, I had to sign documents saying I no longer had parliamentary privilege as a condition of my NSICOP days. Dealing with national security, it makes sense that we want to make sure that this technicality is clearly defined.

The issues around the need-to-know principle have been discussed, so I will not spend too much time on it. Members opposite spoke about the need or opportunity for this. However, they also indicated that there may never be a guarantee that information is given. It makes me wonder what this legislation would actually accomplish.

It is worthwhile to have the conversation to ensure that parliamentarians have access to classified information where it can help us in our duties. However, to just go through this process in this bill, knowingly accepting that the need-to-know question is not being addressed, again, makes me wonder if this is the best use of a private member's bill or the best way to provide information to parliamentarians on a national security level. Again, that is not to say the merits of this conversation are not worthwhile, but it is a challenge that we should discuss.

I also want to talk about NSICOP and the whole rationale of why it was originally created. It was created with kind of the intent of this private member's bill in mind. Members may recall that the recommendation for a national security committee of parliamentarians was made during former prime minister Harper's time. Canada was one of the only Five Eyes countries without any sort of parliamentarian oversight, without access to classified information. The former Harper government said no, absolutely not; there would be no national security clearance provided to any parliamentarians. It is interesting to me. I would be very pleased if the Conservatives had now come to see this as a mistake.

However, that is precisely why NSICOP was created, to create this space for national security clearance. It was not just clearance to members or individuals but also the process and the place to share that information in a proper and secure manner. It was how the information is then accessed, which must also be done in a way that respects national security.

That was precisely the design of NSICOP, to provide parliamentarians with access and the ability to determine their own areas of study. They can choose, as a committee represented by all parties, as well as the Senate, to make that determination.

Again, on the idea to provide more opportunities for people with clearance, I understand where the member is coming from. However, it does not address what information they would be looking for, where they would access it physically, how they would maintain it and, on this ad hoc basis, what would actually come of it.

It is important to know that pieces of intelligence do not equal a conclusion; there could be several individual pieces of intelligence, but unless they are all compiled together and a proper determination and reflection is done, they could be used out of context. This could actually mean that parliamentarians and other people are not better informed, and it could lead to some interesting outcomes, without the full picture. This is why NSICOP is a place where there is an opportunity to truly reflect on and bring all the intelligence pieces together then properly move forward on a recommendation, reflection or further study.

In regard to clearance itself, again, I recognize that the sponsor has said this does not guarantee anyone can receive clearance. This is a fair point, and I do not think the sponsor has that intention. However, I found it interesting when, not too long ago, the Conservative leader was actually offered national security clearance and to receive briefings on foreign interference, but he refused. He claimed it was because he would “not be muzzled”. It makes me nervous to see the Conservative leader not understanding the difference between breaching confidentiality and taking in information, being able to hold it in confidence and secret, but still being able to advocate one way or the other. He did not feel he could actually do that and not breach the confidentiality that would be required. Therefore, he chose not to seek clearance.

This raises concerns about who is accessing a clearance, what information they might receive and how they will actually view that in terms of sharing that information.

Again, I think the sponsor of the bill has very good intentions, and that is not part of it, but we cannot ignore the fact that his own leader believes national security clearance is a form of muzzling. That raises some questions for me. Again, I would love to have further conversations about how parliamentarians can better protect national security and work together with better cyber-goals.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The time provided for consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

moved that Bill C-50, An Act respecting accountability, transparency and engagement to support the creation of sustainable jobs for workers and economic growth in a net-zero economy, be read the third time and passed.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, I rise today in my capacity as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. This is the third time I rise in this place to move forward the Canadian sustainable jobs act, Bill C-50, and I am frustrated that it has been such a difficult journey to get us to third reading on this legislation.

It is a bill that is only about a dozen pages long and that has been supported by workers and industry. However, it seems to have touched a nerve with the Conservative opposition, so we have had to overcome a massive amount of obstruction to get to this point. Just last week, we faced a voting marathon that took over 12 hours of voting time as resources were taken up with recorded votes forced by the Conservatives. This bill matters, so Liberals did not hesitate to stand up and vote for each one, but let us be clear that the result of that Conservative charade was wasted time and taxpayer resources.

I was not surprised, because this voting marathon was just one more example of the obstruction that we, and I, have faced in this place and at committee. In December, the natural resources committee, on which I sit, faced over 20,000 amendments put forward by the Conservatives, and this was on a bill that is only about 12 pages long. The amendments were not serious proposals, and in all of my years in this place, I have never seen such awful behaviour at committee.

At these meetings, the Conservative members were loud and disruptive, and their tone was like nothing I have ever seen. It was not just a filibuster. That is a normal tool for opposition members. It was repeated, loud yelling of “point of order”, so that nothing could be said or heard. It was filming a video at every point of suspension in pursuit of a social media click and social media videos, rather than in pursuit of getting the policy right.

All of this was while workers from across the country were telling us over and over again that they wanted to see us move forward with the sustainable jobs act and that they wanted the Conservatives to end their obstruction.

At a conference last week, the Conservative energy critic stated that for her, with respect to this bill, a mutual and evidence-based middle ground is not a thing. So much for developing policy on the evidence and for working with each other to get the best results for our communities.

Why does the Conservative Party look to oppose a bill that would empower workers and a bill that acknowledges a need for workers to be at the table as our country charts a path toward a net-zero future? That is what this bill would do. Let me set out quickly what is contained in the sustainable jobs act. It has five parts.

The first part sets out principles guiding a coherent approach to economic development and climate action, including measures to support workers and help create sustainable jobs, while aligning with international best practices and sending a strong signal to investors that Canada is ready to play a leading role in the emerging world of the clean growth industry.

The second part aims to create a sustainable jobs partnership council to provide independent annual advice to the Government of Canada and to engage with Canadians. This council will ensure that experts, including workers, indigenous leaders and industry representatives, are at the table to guide government action.

The third part sets out a requirement to publish action plans every five years, drawing on input from stakeholders and partners as well as expert advice from the sustainable jobs partnership council.

The fourth part is designed to establish a sustainable jobs secretariat to ensure coordinated action to implement the law across the federal government.

The fifth and final part designates the minister or ministers responsible for implementing the legislation.

Those five things are what have given rise to all of the Conservative furor. This is why they have put up so much time and energy to oppose. That is what it is, legislation that helps workers to seize the opportunities and have a say in how it can be done.

On Thursday, the Minister of Labour asked, if they are not listening to industry or workers, or the environmental community, who are they listening to? That is a good question, because it certainly is not the many who have spoken publicly.

The president of the Business Council of Alberta said, “The Sustainable Jobs Act represents an important opportunity for Canada: to shape our future and create jobs by providing the resources that the world needs—including energy, food, and minerals.”

The International Union of Operating Engineers said, “The Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act is a step toward a future that puts the interests of energy workers at the forefront of a low-carbon economy.”

The president of the Canadian Labour Congress, which represents millions of Canadian workers, said, “The Sustainable Jobs Act signals a crucial milestone in our fight against climate change and the protection of workers' interests. Canada’s unions stand committed to working alongside all stakeholders to ensure effective implementation towards a sustainable and equitable future for all.”

Those statements confirm to me that workers in industry see in the sustainable jobs act an unlocking of opportunities; they see it as a part of our country's commitment to seize global opportunities in sustainable jobs, all the while making sure that workers are at the table as we work together to fight climate change and slow the natural disasters that are impacting our communities through wildfires, floods, droughts, hurricanes and other events.

As we strive to reduce the emissions that fuel the climate crisis, we are equally determined to ensure that our young people have a thriving future in careers that help build a strong, sustainable and prosperous economy.

Both are possible, and they go hand in hand.

All of our communities are feeling these impacts on our clean air, and floods and fires that damage homes, farms and industry. It has been shocking, in this bill's very long journey, to hear the Conservative colleagues from across the way say that they do not believe in climate change. For example, the Conservative MP for Red Deer—Mountain View, during his filibuster of this very bill, claimed that climate change is having no impact on the frequency or severity of wildfires, which is entirely false. The Conservative MP for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, in a newsletter to constituents, simply said that “the global warming gig is up”.

These statements explain why the Conservative Party's plans have been to just let the planet burn. That is not only frightening; it is also out of step with the rest of the world, because the world is looking for clean energy and renewables and to build their businesses in Canada because of our clean electrical grid. These are the opportunities we could seize with the sustainable jobs act.

We have a target to hit net zero, and many subsectors, like cement and electricity, have similar pathways and road maps based on modelling and market trends. All of this means expanding and deploying new technologies using skilled Canadian labour. These range from installing electric arc furnaces for steelmaking, like at Dofasco; finding ways to harness solar and biomass in remote communities, like in Old Crow, Yukon; or using deep-lake cold water from Lake Ontario to cool downtown Toronto's hospitals and buildings through a district energy system operated by Enwave. There are hundreds of examples across this country of innovative projects that are being advanced to create clean power and sustainable jobs.

RBC estimates that in this decade alone, just in the next few years, the global shift to a low-carbon economy will create up to 400,000 new Canadian jobs in fields where enhanced skills will be required.

Last summer, I had the chance to talk with people working on wind turbines in Ontario. One of these workers told me how he had chosen to train to work on wind turbines, because he liked the opportunity to be outdoors while doing the technical work he enjoys. He was making a better living, and he was living better.

I met people at George Brown College who are part of a program to provide certification for electric vehicle mechanics. A large percentage of the people who were studying the certification were new to the field of mechanics. One person commented that the workplace for EVs had cleaner air than a traditional shop. Given that my grandfather worked in an autobody shop as a mechanic, Dabrusin Motors, it hits home how no emissions in his shop would have been a much healthier workplace.

On International Women's Day this year, I had the opportunity to join the Millwright Regional Council, AECON and Ontario Power Generation at the graduation of a group women. They had been part of a special program to encourage women to become millwrights, and upon graduation, they were able to get jobs working on the refurbishment of the Darlington nuclear power plant. It was inspiring to meet these graduates and the people who had come around them to create this special program.

We are talking about good-paying jobs in nuclear energy, a form of energy that has helped Ontario move away from coal-fired electricity and that is bringing cleaner air to our communities across the provinces. Through the sustainable jobs act, we want to make sure that workers help chart the course to make sure that women, such as those in this graduating class, can find good-paying jobs that are a part of our country's future.

In fact, these are the jobs of our planet's future, and investment is flowing to clean technologies. In 2022 alone, over $2 trillion went to clean technologies globally. This bill would help support coordinating the labour force's development needs in these fast-growing industries. As we rapidly look to expanding Canada's advantage in clean technologies to meet our domestic and global needs, we must also expand the skills and training of Canadians to ensure that high-quality jobs are created here.

I will ask members to allow me to provide two examples of how we are creating sustainable jobs in Canada for Canadian workers and communities while supporting our allies around the world. If the world wants more clean energy, and it does, let our talented workforce meet that demand. If the world wants more products made through a low-carbon manufacturing process, let us attract that investment that helps our workers to fill that gap.

The first example is our nuclear financing agreement with Romania. Romania has been a NATO ally of Canada for 20 years now, and it is strategically placed as a leader in Eastern Europe to supply zero-emissions power to its neighbours with Canadian CANDU reactors at Cernavoda's power station.

Nuclear power and technology is a vital part of Canada's legacy as a tier 1 nuclear nation. We are providing $3 billion in financing to Romania to develop two new CANDU reactors. That is a good deal. It is one that will be paid back with interest, which will flow entirely to Canadian companies. It will create good jobs across Ontario, help Romania to phase out coal several years ahead of schedule and displace Putin's energy blackmail with a steady supply of reliable, zero-emissions power. That is a win for climate action, a win for our allies, for our economy, for workers and for Canada.

The second example is about hydrogen. A few weeks ago, the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources led a delegation to Hamburg, Germany, where Canada became the first country in the world to cement a hydrogen window with the Germans, making the first deal of its kind between any two countries. Part of the reason Vice-Chancellor Habeck had such confidence in Canada is the enormous clean power potential presented by our Atlantic offshore.

As the Minister of Labour mentioned last Thursday, offshore wind power and the hydrogen that it can create represent the largest economic opportunities for the region in a generation. They present us with the potential to economically revitalize entire coastal communities across both provinces. That is an example of strategic investment and partnership being used to create thousands of sustainable jobs for Canadian workers on the path to net zero here and around the world.

If I go back to my frustrations, it has been deeply frustrating. The Conservative members of the natural resources committee have repeatedly talked down the offshore opportunities and stated opposition to Bill C-49, the bill that would allow these offshore wind projects to proceed and create that green hydrogen that is sought after by our allies. These are good opportunities to create good-paying jobs.

We are standing up with provinces to make sure Canadian workers can seize these new opportunities. Workers are at the centre of the sustainable jobs act, and as I have pointed out, unions have strongly supported this bill. When workers organize, they do not just ask more of their employers. They expect more from government too, and that is a good thing. We are advancing replacement worker legislation and investments in union-led training centres because we believe in unions.

Just this weekend, I talked with a unionized worker in my community who was telling me about the importance of his union and his strong support for our replacement worker legislation. He wants a government that supports unionized workers and collective bargaining, and I could assure him that our Liberal government does support those things.

That stands in sharp contrast to the previous Conservative government, in which the Leader of the Opposition was a cabinet minister. As a cabinet minister in the Harper government, the Leader of the Opposition championed two of the most anti-union and anti-worker bills the House has ever seen: Bill C-525 and Bill C-377.

Bill C-377 was an unconstitutional bill to silence unions by burying them in onerous reporting requirements, including forcing them to show their strike funds to employers, which would weaken the prospect of deals at the bargaining table. Bill C-525 was similarly an attack on workplace democracy, making it very difficult for workers to form unions and easier for the then Conservative government to arbitrarily decertify unions.

In 2017, our government repealed both of these bills, and since then, we have continued to stand up for unions. Despite all of the Conservative games, we have been pushing forward, and we will continue to fight for workers. This is precisely what our sustainable jobs plan and act would deliver.

I will conclude by highlighting the widespread support that exists for this legislation.

First, Equiterre had this to say about the bill: “It is an essential step toward more cohesive climate action and there's absolutely no reason to delay the adoption of this bill. Building a sustainable workforce starts now—not in 2050.”

The executive director of the Pembina Institute stated the following:

Passing the Sustainable Jobs Act and getting the new Sustainable Jobs Partnership Council working will deliver the message, loud and clear: Canada is a great place to invest, with workers who are second to none and ready to get the job done.

A youth-led organization called re-generation said it supports the plan and the bill because:

This Act will help ensure that green jobs are available for anyone who wants one. It will establish a partnership council to directly involve workers and communities in the transition, and allocate critical funding to green skills development and training.

Finally, the vice-president of IBEW International said that, through this legislation, the Government of Canada is demonstrating its “commitment to protecting good-paying, highly skilled jobs.”

Countries around the world know that we have two choices ahead of us. We can advance plans for the future that would allow us to seize economic opportunities while fighting climate change, or we can simply stick our heads in the sand and hope for the best.

I sincerely hope that every member in the House agrees to choose the first path because, as countries around the world race to seize economic opportunities ahead of us, we must also quickly pass Bill C-50. We need to keep working to ensure we have a sustainable future and sustainable jobs for future generations.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, the government always talks about supporting union jobs and supporting a transition. I would like to ask the member opposite about this.

The oil sands and the potential for LNG could create the capital necessary to give opportunities not only to first nations but also to unions and workers to be able to grow a stronger economy, export, bring dollars from outside of Canada and support our allies. Instead, the government wants to put a cap on oil sands development, and the B.C. NDP wants to put a similar cap on LNG. If we are going to make a place in this world where we are going to create the new technology and employ Canadians, the answer is a free market approach, not a managed approach, such as the government, with this bill, wants to do. Establishing a new committee to manage the destruction of that capital formation is the wrong direction.

Could the member answer some of these arguments?

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Madam Speaker, I find that interesting because this bill is about making sure that people in our communities, including workers, indigenous people and those in industry, have a seat at the table in determining what skills are needed for the future economy.

When we are looking at the worldwide global changes ahead of us, how do we set ourselves up for success? This bill creates three seats for indigenous people on a partnership council, three seats for workers, and seats for industry. This is where we look forward, working with the people who need to be a part of these decisions and let them be a part of these decisions.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to know why this bill does not comply with the Quebec-Ottawa agreement on labour and why it does not properly respect the collaboration with Quebec's partners.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Madam Speaker, we worked with the provinces and territories in the development of this legislation. We did collaborate with them.

I want to make it clear that this bill applies only to areas of federal jurisdiction and does not infringe on any provincial jurisdiction. This was done in consultation with Quebec and all the other provinces.

This bill is squarely within federal jurisdiction. We always respect the provinces and territories, which are our partners.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for sharing her experience on International Women's Day this year and meeting women millwrights.

How are women in diverse genders, indigenous workers and workers with disabilities being economically harmed by the games and delays Conservatives are bringing both to the House and to committee with respect to the sustainable jobs act?

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Madam Speaker, delay is never a good thing when we are trying to make sure we are moving forward in meeting the challenges faced by climate change and to seize those opportunities. The world is moving ahead in this direction. When we look at the International Energy Agency and its predictions, the world is moving toward renewables. We see it in the investments that are happening right now.

When I talk with union representatives in my community, they talk about needing more skilled workers to build mass timber buildings, for example, and all of the different types of jobs that are there. However, if we disempower workers by not allowing them to have a seat at the table, we are harming those opportunities from going forward.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would agree with what Equiterre said about this bill, which is that there is no reason to hold it up for any MP in the House because there is almost nothing in it.

We heard a quote from a young people's group, I think I understood from the parliamentary secretary, which I believe is being misled when it talks about the investments that are being directed by this bill. There is nothing about that in here.

This bill creates a council. It requires the government to create an action plan that has not been written yet, but would be created in a few years, and is going to create a secretariat to then advise on the bill.

The bill could have had significant investments in young people's future in a just transition. It could have had investments in just transition transfers to provinces and territories. None of that is in this bill.

The member is a vocal and strong advocate for taking action on the climate crisis. Why is she not pushing the government to move further and faster?

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Madam Speaker, what he says is interesting. Why are the Conservatives so scared of this bill, which would set up the structures to make sure we have, like I said, workers, indigenous peoples and industry at the table to look at how we seize the opportunities from the green technologies and clean technologies that the world is asking for?

In every place, we are always fighting to make sure we are getting those deals. Like I said, when it comes to hydrogen, we had the first agreement between any two countries in getting to green technologies for hydrogen. We are working to attract those investments, but this bill is about supporting workers. I do not know why it has taken so long, but the Conservatives seem to have been bent on making sure it does not go forward.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I get a real kick out of the question from the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, who continues to heckle. He said the government is not needed to set up the system and to let the market do it, which can do it all on its own. That is right, because for decades we have not been helping the oil sector and basically providing government intervention to make sure the oil sector is successful in Canada. The hypocrisy that comes from the Conservatives is absolutely amazing.

Why does the member think the Conservatives are so afraid of this legislation? If they do not think the future is in this technology, why would they even bother to get all worked up about this?

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I stated in my speech, I am a bit stumped as to why the Conservative members have been so strongly opposing and wasting time when we talk about this bill. It has been fairly incomprehensible, because it does not say within it which industries would form these sustainable jobs. What it does say is that we should make sure industry, workers and indigenous peoples have a seat at the table to look at all of these options and to understand how we are going to make sure we have the skills development programs and the plans so that Canadian workers can be at the forefront of these new sustainable jobs, which the RBC was predicting to be 400,000.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, we are talking about the unjust transition legislation, which is basically a piece of legislation that would create a committee to create a committee to create another committee. Ultimately, the member, in her speech, talked about electric arc furnaces. We already have those in Regina. They are already there and are already working. It was the industry that created that and not government. She talked about cement, and the reality is that cement is a bigger polluter than coal in emissions, but we are going to promote cement production. The only other product that is used more than cement is water.

Ultimately, though, she talks about the committees and how everyone would be involved. When I talk to coal workers, miners and energy people in my riding about being included in these committees, they are not being talked about. The people the member is talking about who would be brought to these committees are people who are sitting in downtown Toronto. That is the only place this person is talking about where jobs would be created.