Nick Whalen

[Business of Supply, June 12th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, we can look at the overall investments the government is making, and I listed numerous ones that related to clean energy and the environment, the innovation and infrastructure sides, and on our support for primary science. We have so many initiatives that relate to the reduction of our greenhouse gas emissions. Our framework includes more than 50 initiatives that put us on track to meeting our Paris commitments of 30% below 2005 levels by 2030.

However, It is not just a one-shot deal. This problem will not be solved only through a carbon price or energy efficiency measures, and we will not be able to do it if we abandon our existing economic base. Canadians deserve and indeed should be proud of the work done and the revenues generated by our world-class oil and gas industry. Allowing them to meet new market demand in China from bitumen is one of those cases. If we sell it at top dollar to California, that is not bad either. However, the current situation has Alberta selling the vast majority of its bitumen through Oklahoma into the states at a depreciated cost. That just has to stop. It is a waste of our natural resources.

[Business of Supply, June 12th, 2018]

0Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his important and timely motion today, and for his ongoing commitment to protecting the environment and moving Canada toward a clean energy future. It is a commitment that this government also shares.

It is not surprising, then, that as I consider the motion, I feel myself being inclined to agree with large parts of it. I agree that being a global climate leader and creating a clean energy economy means investing in clean renewable energy sources. I agree we must put workers at the heart of that and they should not have to choose between a good job and a healthy environment.

This is exactly what our government has been saying and doing since coming into office. In fact, we began from a very clear premise, that this would be the century of clean growth and that Canada must be among its leaders. We said from the outset that the environment and the economy must go hand in hand. This is not an empty slogan. It recognizes the fundamental truth that we can no longer talk about a thriving economy without regard for the environment.

Just as clearly, protecting the environment through new sources of energy, clean technology, and innovation is what will drive the economy for decades to come. The two are symbiotic, each strengthening and reinforcing the other, not working at odds.

That is why our government has planted its flag firmly in the clean growth economy by ratifying the Paris accord; putting a price on carbon; making generational investments in clean technology and green infrastructure, including a national network of recharging and refuelling stations; accelerating the phase out of coal; creating a clean fuel standard; regulating methane emissions; making unprecedented investments in foundational science; opening up, for the first time, Canada's offshore to marine renewables, such as wave and offshore wind; developing a $1.5 billion oceans protection plan; and together with our provincial and territorial colleagues, developing a national plan for combatting climate change and investing in clean growth. All told, our government is investing $8 billion in clean energy projects and renewable technologies.

We are doing all of this, not just because it is the right thing to do, but because it is the smart thing to do. We know incredible opportunities lie ahead for those nations that develop the technologies and drive innovation for a more sustainable future.

Bloomberg New Energy Finance expects that more than $5 trillion will be invested in new renewable energy capacity by 2030. The Bank of England Governor, Mark Carney, a good Canadian, calls clean growth a $30 trillion economic opportunity. This is where Canada's economic future lies. This is what the global future demands.

Our government is determined to seize those opportunities by investing today in areas of invention and imagination.

We also know that because climate change is a global issue, global action is required. That is why we were proud to join Mission Innovation as one of its founding members. As the hon. members know, Mission Innovation is a global initiative, comprising 22 nations and the European Union, aimed at accelerating the clean energy revolution. Canada has committed to doubling its funding for clean energy research and development, from $387 million to $775 million by 2020.

One of the most interesting aspects of Mission Innovation is the involvement of the private sector. The Breakthrough Energy Coalition, led by Bill Gates, Richard Branson, and other leading entrepreneurs, is investing in early stage companies to promote cleaner energy, improve the environment, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. By engaging the dynamism and enlisting the energy of the private sector, Mission Innovation will bring breakthrough technologies to scale, revolutionize our energy systems, create highly skilled, good-paying jobs, and drive change into every corner of our economy.

This is what Canadians expect of their government. They want us to focus on clean energy and clean technologies. We know that because we asked them through the largest conversation about our energy in our nation's history.

Led by the Minister of Natural Resources, Generation Energy invited Canadians to imagine their energy future, how they expected the world to look when their kids and grandkids had grown, and what we would do now to get us there. Canadians responded in an unprecedented way, with numbers that are eye opening: more than 380,000 participants, 31,000 hits on social media, 63 engagement sessions in every part of the country, and more than 650 people at a two-day Generation forum in Winnipeg last fall. That forum brought together, often for the first time, energy producers and suppliers, international experts, Indigenous leaders, environmental organizations, consumers, and all levels of government.

What emerged was an inspiring vision of how Canadians saw their energy future. They told us they wanted a thriving, low-carbon economy.

They want us to be a leader in clean technology. They want an affordable and reliable energy system, one that provides equal opportunities to Canadians without harming our environment. They want indigenous peoples to be at the heart of decision-making and benefit from these wonderful opportunities.

Canadians are looking for smart cities, with integrated energy systems, increased energy efficiency, and low-carbon transportation. They want rural and remote communities to have better options than diesel for generating electricity and heating their homes.

In fact, IceGrid, an organization out of my riding in St. John's East, recently participated in and won an Infrastructure Canada event in Toronto with its proposal for renewable energy-backed projects in isolated communities. I am really interested to see how that project moves forward.

From Generation Energy, it is also clear that Canadians understand that while a lower-carbon economy is the goal, and we are not there, we need to prepare for the future, but we need to live in the present by providing energy on which people can count, energy that can turn on the lights when they flick the switch. That means continuing to support our oil and gas resources even as we develop alternatives, including solar, wind, and tidal.

It is here that I part company with the motion before us. It fails to recognize the connection between providing the world with the oil and gas it needs and using the revenues from those resources to invest in clean energy and clean technology going forward. In order to get to the low-carbon future, we need to invest and in order to invest we need resources and revenues, revenues that can come from our traditional energy resources.

Therefore, while the government shares the goals of the hon. member, we differ on the way forward. We will continue to invest in clean technology, energy efficiency, renewable energy, and green infrastructure, the growth areas of today and tomorrow, and we will leverage Canada's conventional energy sources, improve their environmental performance, and reduce their environmental footprint as we continue to invest in more clean energy. This is the responsible path forward. It is the path we are following. It is the path that will lead us to a clean energy future, which I know the hon. member seeks.

It is important to realize that today's global economy uses almost 100 million barrels of oil a day, and that oil needs to come from parts of the world where the environmental standards are high, where the carbon footprint of the overall development of the oil and gas is low, like Newfoundland and Labrador's offshore, which is one of the lowest carbon dioxide producers per barrel in the world. It is important to recognize that in addition to the carbon damage that might be caused by oil and gas, there are also human rights and other impacts that oil and gas development has on our global economy.

Canada is a leader in this. We ensure we have growth that works for everyone. It helps fund the hospitals, schools, and social programs that Canadians enjoy. The high standard of living that we enjoy is funded in large part from our traditional resources. Canada's market share in the decline should be maintained.

As the minister likes to say, we want the last barrel of oil that comes out of the ground and sold into the world economy to be a Canadian barrel that is the lowest cost to our environment and lowest social cost to our planet. I know this is an area of concern. Not all sides of the House will agree on this.

It is an interesting motion in that the three areas really highlight differences between the three parties.

The first part of the motion talks about investing in “clean, renewable energy”. I think we will see that members of the House, from the speeches and the debate, largely agree on this point. When we talk about “putting workers and skills training at the heart of the heart of the transition to a clean energy economy”, that is an area where I think we can also have some agreement.

However, when we talk about whether we will to defend, protect, and promote our existing important resources all across the country, certainly in the oil and gas sector, that is clearly where we will be at a division.

When we talk about the fossil fuel infrastructure that we need to meet those needs, there is a way to read part (c) of the motion where members might actually feel that they could support the TMX.

The TMX is a way to ensure we have less environmental impact by sending our oil through pipelines instead of by rail or by truck, which currently happens. We will ensure that the highest levels and standards of protections are available on new pipeline capacity, whereas previous pipeline capacity may very well be obsolete and certainly could be improved. Therefore, we will go to a better future.

[National Security Act, 2017, June 7th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the member brings a lot of context to bear on some of the questions that were referred to earlier in comparing it to Bill C-59.

The member for Calgary Shepard actually asked me about a proposed amendment the Conservatives brought forward to Bill C-59 at committee about changing the word “promote” to the words “advocate” or “counsel”. There was a brief moment in the member's speech when she referred to some reasons why that would not be a good amendment. Maybe she could elaborate on it. Her answer to the member for Calgary Shepard's question might be better than mine was.

[National Security Act, 2017, June 7th, 2018]

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.

[National Security Act, 2017, June 7th, 2018]

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.

[National Security Act, 2017, June 7th, 2018]

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.

[Impact Assessment Act, June 7th, 2018]

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.

[Impact Assessment Act, June 7th, 2018]

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.

[Impact Assessment Act, June 7th, 2018]

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.

[Impact Assessment Act, June 7th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to talk about Bill C-69. It is an important piece of legislation.