Debates of June 7th, 2018

Impact Assessment Act

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I am glad we clarified that. I will let the hon. member continue, then.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, in my riding, St. John's East, people are very keen on both. I hear this from people in all parts of my riding. People are very concerned about the environment and also very concerned about the jobs that go along with natural resource extraction. They are concerned about whales, and we had a motion about whales earlier this week in the House, under private members' business. At the same time, they are concerned about the jobs of their neighbours who work in oil and gas extraction, and those issues. They are concerned about the people who work at the C-NLOPB and the Atlantic Accord. They think our government has struck the right balance with this current legislation in making sure that the economy and the environment go hand in hand.

When we look at the types of court challenges that were brought against the NEB and against previous environmental assessment projects that were put forward under CEAA 2012 and previous legislation, we see that the balance that was required by the courts had not been struck. We had a situation where the level of consultation with indigenous peoples and first nations was not met, so decisions were struck down. In other cases they were challenged, which led to uncertainty in the process. What we have now is a piece of legislation that allows the government to address not just environmental assessment but also impact assessment in a much more comprehensive and holistic way.

It is the role of the federal government not just to make sure that environmental assessment for nationally regulated projects is done right, but also to make sure that there are consultations with scientists and that the economic benefits of projects of national benefit are spread evenly and enjoyed by the broadest variety of people possible. It is also to make sure that our consultations with indigenous people are undertaken in a way that is comprehensive and thoughtful and meets our obligations, whatever those standards of obligation happen to be.

If it is a situation that affects indigenous land rights, then the consent of those groups will be sought and considered. When the rights of multiple groups are contested, those need to be balanced. If some type of fishing right or fishing interest is ancillary to the development of an offshore oil and gas project, we need to make sure that all the groups whose fishing rights might be affected by the project are appropriately consulted, that they are given the resources they need to do their job, and that the right people are on the panels to make sure this is the case.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his ability to switch gears midway and to reconcile two pieces of legislation.

We on this side of the House, as a government, believe that it is important to have a whole-of-government approach to every single piece of legislation that we move forward with. When we are talking about public safety, it in fact has a link to climate change and ensuring that people can live prosperous lives in this country. Protecting our country is just as important as protecting our individual citizens.

I would like to ask my colleague across the way whether he believes that when we look at the comprehensiveness of the legislation we have put forward, with the budgets we have put forward, the oceans protection plan, and investments in conservation and biodiversity, and when we think about the investments we have made in people and in ensuring that we are protecting them, is it not a full, comprehensive plan that this government has put forward for Canadians?

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I would go one step further to say that the government has done it in a way that takes into account the views of so many different Canadians.

It was a very comprehensive consultation process. There were multiple task forces engaged on the fisheries, transport, natural resources, and environment files, to make sure that the right ideas were at the table and would be considered in crafting the legislation.

Then, throughout the legislative review process, the committee undertook the tremendous task of bringing together hundreds of different potential amendments that brought the thoughts of different environmental groups, industry groups, and regulators across the country to make sure that this was the most comprehensive piece of legislation we could have so that we could get this right. Not only will industry have the certainty it needs to move its projects forward in tighter timelines, but environmental groups and indigenous groups will know that they will be heard, and that the conditions placed on future projects will protect our environment.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have just very clearly seen that members on this side of the House want to talk about bills. We want to talk about Bill C-59. We want to talk about Bill C-69. All the parliamentarians on this side of the House want to express their views. Unfortunately, the Liberals have cut parliamentarians' speaking time so much that some members have to talk about two bills at once.

I would like my colleague who spoke about both Bill C-59 and Bill C-69 in the same speech to tell me whether he sometimes feels forgotten by the government because he sits on this side of the House. The Conservatives, the NDP, the Bloc Québécois, and the Green Party all represent our constituents here in the House, and they want to hear us speak about all of these bills.

I commend my colleague over here for wanting to speak about two bills, because he knows that we will not have time to talk about all of these things and that the members on the other side of the House often prevent us from speaking. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his comments. I was in the middle of preparing my remarks on Bill C-59 and I am planning on speaking to Bill C-69 next week. I will have a chance to talk about it at third reading. I may have lost it, I am not sure. I have already said half of what I intended to say on the matter.

At the same time, I know that our sitting hours have been extended because we cannot fit all the members who want to speak into the limited time that the House has to implement all of our legislation and amendments. It is a shame we do not have thousands of hours to speak in the House. These are the hours we have, and we have only four years to fulfill all our election promises.

Now, we are working on fulfilling our promises, and I think I will get a chance to speak on Bill C-69 next week and Bill C-59 a few minutes from now.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It being 6:05 p.m., pursuant to an order made on Wednesday, June 6, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 15 to 23, 28 to 61, 100 to 103, 105 to 147, 149 to 205, 208 to 214, and 216. A negative vote on Motion No. 1 requires the question to be put on Motions Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 11.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The question is on Motion No. 62. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 63, 64, 66 to 79, 81 to 99, 104, 206, 207, and 215.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on this motion stands deferred.

Normally at this time, the House would proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division at the report stage of the bill. However, pursuant to order made on Tuesday, May 29, 2018, the divisions stand deferred until Monday, June 11, 2018, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-59, An Act respecting national security matters, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

National Security Act, 2017

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I misheard and referred to Bill C-69 and not Bill C-59 when I rose to speak earlier.

I am pleased to rise again to support Bill C-59, the government's proposed legislation to update and modernize the country's national security framework. This landmark bill covers a number of measures that were informed by the views and opinions of a broad range of Canadians during public consultations in 2016.

It was in that same spirit of openness, engagement, and transparency that Bill C-59 was referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security before second reading, and the committee recently finished its study of this bill. I want to thank the committee members for their diligent and thorough examination of the legislation. An even stronger bill, with over 40 adopted amendments, is now before the House, thanks to their great work.

The measures would do two things at once. They would strengthen Canada's ability to effectively address and counter 21st-century threats while safeguarding the rights and freedoms we cherish as Canadians.

This is where I get into some new material. Rather than elaborate on any specific proposed measure, I will focus my remarks today on the high level of engagement, consultation, and analysis that contributed to the legislation we find before us today.

Bill C-59 is a result of the most comprehensive review of Canada's national security framework since the passing of the CSIS Act more than 30 years ago. That public review included unprecedented open and transparent public consultations on national security undertaken by Public Safety Canada and the Department of Justice. Canadians were consulted on key elements of Canada's national security laws and policies to ensure that they reflected the rights, values, and freedoms of Canadians. Several issues were covered, including countering radicalization to violence, oversight and accountability, threat reduction, and the Anti-terrorism Act, 2015, which is the former Bill C-51.

All Canadians were invited and encouraged to take part in the consultations, which were held between September and December 2016. The response was tremendous. Thousands of people weighed in through a variety of avenues, both in person and online. Citizens, community leaders, experts and academics, non-governmental organizations, and parliamentarians alike made their views and ideas known over the course of the consultation period. In the end, tens of thousands of views were received, all of which were valuable in shaping the scope and content of Bill C-59.

With almost 59,000 responses received, the online consultation is what generated by far the largest volume of input, using a questionnaire consisting of more than 60 questions organized into 10 themes.

Nearly 18,000 submissions were also received by email. These consisted mainly of letters and other pieces of communication submitted by individuals. In addition, public town halls were held in five Canadian cities: Halifax, Markham, Winnipeg, Vancouver, and Yellowknife. This gave citizens across the country a chance to share their thoughts and opinions in person.

The Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security also held numerous meetings and consultations. It even travelled across the country to hear testimony not only from expert witnesses but also from members of the Canadian public, who were invited to express their views.

A digital town hall and two Twitter chats were also organized. Members of the public also had the opportunity to make their voices heard at 17 engagement events led by members of Parliament at the constituency level. In addition, 14 in-person sessions were held with academics and experts across the country, as well as one round table of civil society experts.

A total of 79 submissions were received from stakeholders, experts, and academics. The Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, and the Information Technology Association of Canada are just a few of the organizations that participated in the consultations.

A great deal of time, effort, and expertise was spent not only to ensure that engaged citizens and interested parties were heard, but also to painstakingly collect and consider all input received from the public. All data collected during the consultation process was reviewed and prepared for analysis. The next step was to carefully analyze every comment, submission, letter, and other forms of input.

These views have been published on the Government of Canada's open data portal, so anyone interested in learning more about what was said can see what was said.

In addition, an independently prepared report provides an overview of what was heard during the consultation. The results are summarized in 10 sections, one for each of the themes explored in both “Our Security, Our Rights: National Security Green Paper, 2016” and the online questionnaire.

While it would be difficult to summarize everything we have heard from Canadians, I can speak to a few key themes that emerged. First of all, I can attest that in any large volume of input, there will be widely different opinions. That was certainly the case in the public consultation on national security. However, the results made one thing perfectly clear. Canadians want accountability, transparency, and effectiveness from their security and intelligence agencies. They also expect their rights, freedoms, and privacy to be protected at the same time as their security.

Consistent with what was heard, Bill C-59 would modernize and enhance Canada's security and intelligence laws to ensure that our agencies have the tools they need to protect us. It would do so with a legal and constitutional framework that complies with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Taken together, the proposed measures in Bill C-59represent extensive improvements to Canada's national security framework. They also reflect thousands upon thousands of opinions expressed by this country's national security community, Parliamentarians across party lines, and the Canadian public writ large.

I firmly believe that it is important for all Canadians to be informed and engaged on Canada's national security framework. I am proud to stand behind a government that shares that belief.

The input received during the public consultation process in the pre-study period at committee was both considerable and instrumental in the development of Bill C-59 itself. There is no doubt in my mind that the legislation before this House today has been strengthened and improved as a result of the committee's close scrutiny and clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. To highlight just one example, the bill would now include provisions enacting the avoiding complicity in mistreatment by foreign entities act. This act would have to do with the ministerial directions issued last fall to Canada's national security and intelligence agencies. To ensure transparency and accountability, those directions would be made public under an amended Bill C-59. They would also be reported on annually to the public, to review bodies, and to the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians.

I encourage all members of this House to vote in favour of Bill C-59. Should Bill C-59pass, this important piece of legislation would enhance Canada's national security, keep its citizens safe, and safeguard Canadians' constitutionally protected rights and freedoms. For all these reasons, I urge my honourable colleagues to join me in supporting Bill C-59.

With the bit of extra time that remains to me after my prepared remarks, I would just like to talk a little bit about my experience at the door during the election in 2015.

In the early part of June and July, many Canadians were concerned about Bill C-51. It was a hot topic of conversation. What the former Liberal third party opposition had attempted to do at committee in the previous session of Parliament was at least get some amendments into Bill C-51 to encourage and strengthen oversight and make sure that the bill not only protected security but made sure that Canadians' privacy and freedoms were being respected.

That led to a lot of difficult conversations, because during the campaign, the three parties were really divided on this particular issue. The Conservatives were adamant that they had struck the right balance. The New Democratic Party wanted to repeal it entirely. The Liberal Party stuck to its guns and said that it was a difficult conversation to have with people, but the legislation was needed. They said we needed this legislation but we needed to fix it, we needed to do it right, and we needed to make sure that it had the safeguards we promised and attempted to achieve at the amendment stage for Bill C-51 in the last Parliament.

That is what we have done. However, we have done even more than that. We have gone back to the drawing board and have let many different groups participate to make sure that we got it right.

I just want to provide one little quote, from national security experts Craig Forcese and Kent Roach, who have said that this legislation is “the real deal: the biggest reform in this area since 1984” and that it comes “at no credible cost to security.”

I believe that through all the consultations, the drafting of the bill by the minister and his staff, the review of the bill at committee, and the help of all members of the House, we now have a piece of legislation that strikes the right balance that will make Canadians safer and will also protect their rights and freedoms, which is what we promised in the 41st Parliament we would do if elected, and we are doing it now.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to applaud the member for the quick recovery when we returned to Bill C-59.

I also want to mention that it is interesting that he talked about how members on the committee were able to work together to report this bill back to us, but he must know that all 29 amendments suggested by the Conservatives on that committee were rejected. I am concerned that perhaps his interpretation of the congenial interaction among members at the committee equalled actually hearing and listening to and accepting a point of view on the Conservative side that certain provisions should not be amended or should be amended in a certain way to assure ourselves that our security agencies can continue to do their work.

I want to focus on a specific definition in the act. The previous definition of “terrorist propaganda” included the words “advocates or promotes”. The new definition of terrorist propaganda replaces those words with the word “counselling”. I am concerned that this definitional change would have a big impact on the type of propaganda that can be produced by terrorist cells and movements that promote and also entice lone-wolf attacks, some of the most difficult types of cases to stop.

I would like to hear from the member why this change was made and how this change would help the government stop terrorist propaganda from being propagated across social media channels like YouTube.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for focusing this debate on this more narrow public policy question of when we impinge upon free speech and criminalize free speech or protect against speech. That is obviously something Canadians are very concerned about, and that is one of the areas, again, I heard about at the door. Canadians want to know that they can engage in respectful debate. They want to make sure that the broadest amount of free speech that does not trip into the areas of hate speech and types of criminal speech will be allowed.

This is a very tough balance and may be one of the areas where the differences among the three parties most strongly emerge. I can see, with respect to the amendments proposed by the Conservatives, that the definition of the words “advocate and promote” versus “counsel” is more nuanced, perhaps, than I can get to in the short time for questions and comments. However, on the balance, I will say that I believe that this is where the Liberals had the trust of Canadians on this issue in the election and that we have struck the right balance here. I appreciate that it is a very fine point. Perhaps there are people in the hon. member's riding who obviously feel the way he does. He is sitting in this House today. The position of the Conservatives now on ths point reflects their position in the previous Parliament.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since my colleague just spent most of his time talking about consultations, my question will relate to that.

The expression that comes to mind is “enough already”. The people I represent know that I support consultation. I have been taking part in citizen engagement exercises since I was a teenager. I definitely encouraged that when I was a municipal councillor. However, the people I represent believe that the Liberal government's excessive use of consultations is a way to put off making decisions, to stall for time, to avoid taking a position on controversial subjects, and to drag things out. We now find ourselves voting so much because there was nothing to vote on for so long.

Does my colleague not think there comes a point when enough is enough? A balance needs to be struck between consulting and taking a position. Consulting is all well and good, but governing is about making tough choices.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I find my colleague's question a little strange because, most of the time, the New Democrats are asking us to consult more. Now they are saying that we are consulting too much and that we are passing too much or not enough legislation.

For this bill, we did three months of consultations. We studied the bill and discussed amendments at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

Nearly a year and a half after the consultations, we now have the opportunity to deliberate on a good piece of legislation. Now we have an opportunity to send it to the Senate. Holding consultations and using them to draft a good bill was the right thing to do.