SoVote

Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.)

May/2/24 11:36:12 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege that was raised by the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan on Monday. He and I, and my hon. colleague here, belong to a group called IPAC. It is an international group, the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, and it appears we have attracted some unwanted attention. Last Wednesday, the member and I were on a call with IPAC in London and were advised of this form of cyber-attack. I am at an age and stage when I do not pretend to understand exactly what they were talking about, but I am given to understand that a group called APT31, or Advanced Persistent Threat 31, was conducting cyber-attacks against some colleagues here and indeed around the world. The only reason we found out about it was that the FBI was conducting a surveillance operation a couple of years ago, and we were caught up in that surveillance operation. That was a couple of years ago, so the question becomes this: Why did we not know about it? IPAC contacted the U.S. Department of Justice and asked why we did not know about it. The U.S. Department of Justice did notify the relevant nations, sovereignty to sovereignty. IPAC then compared the FBI list with its own list, and the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, myself and my colleague here were on that list. The question becomes this: How come we did not know about it? Since then, we have been advised that the FBI did notify the Canada Security Establishment, or CSE, and CSE, in turn, notified Parliament, or the IT service that runs Parliament. A security check was run in a timely fashion, and the good news is that the system we have here was not breached. In that respect, it worked. However, at that point, a decision was made to not notify the affected members of Parliament and the affected senators; I think there are about 13 of us in total. That is a bit more problematic, so this is why I support the member's privilege question because I do think this needs to be investigated. I am given to understand that there are literally hundreds of thousands of attacks on our IT system on a daily basis, literally a massive volume, and it becomes difficult to know, when attacks are unsuccessful, when and how and if members should be notified because our inboxes could be literally filled on a daily basis with notifications of attacks. On the other hand, if I, as a member who is interested in security matters and defence matters, have an unusual volume of attacks or if other members, for other reasons, have unusual volumes or patterns of attacks, then that seems to be quite relevant to the interests of those individual members. The reason I am supporting the hon. member's question of privilege is that we need to start to review these protocols, and do it sooner rather than later. I want to make the point that this is not a government issue; this is a Parliament issue. The government did its job, so to speak, in that CSE reported it to our security services and the people who run them. However, I believe that PROC needs to look at this. It needs to review the sequence of events to make sure that, as I am describing it to the House, they were correct; to examine the decisions that were made when the information became available to Canadian authorities; and to review whether this is the kind of information that should be shared with members and, if so, in what format, how frequently, etc. I do not think we can take this very lightly. The analogy I have drawn in the past has been that it is like somebody looking at one's mail in the post office. I think we would all be pretty upset with somebody examining our mail. It is a bit of an exaggeration to say that, but it gives the sense in which the emails that are coming into our offices need to have security not only for ourselves but also for our correspondents and our constituents. These are significant volumes of emails. I just want to raise what I believe is a question of privilege. I hope the Speaker finds it to be a question of privilege and asks the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan to move the relevant motion. As I said, this is a significant issue. The chamber needs to deal with it in a timely sort of way; I hope PROC ultimately does as well.

782 words

Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.)

May/2/24 11:43:42 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on the same question of privilege, I just want to add my comments to those of both of my colleagues, who are the co-chairs for Canada on the IPAC organization. I do not believe it ends there. I want to see this go forward. It is great that the firewall held and nothing was penetrated. However, if these attacks are happening, as members of Parliament, we need to be briefed better than we currently are. If there is any overabundance of attacks on my system for some particular reason, I would like to know that. I appreciate the fact that the firewall held up, but it is a question of where we go from here. If we are getting thousands of attacks every day, all parliamentarians need to be more aware and make sure that we are doing what we need to do to protect ourselves. I also think that the parliamentarians who were under surveillance from various areas need to know that to protect themselves. I do not think it should change the fact that many of us stand up on files on human rights issues that we care about. I would not want to see intimidation be a factor in stopping us from doing our jobs. I believe that the more information we have, the better informed we are and the better we are able to protect ourselves and our citizens.

236 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/2/24 11:45:09 a.m.
Watch

I appreciate the hon. members' interventions. We will certainly take that under consideration as we deliberate on bringing back a statement on this.

23 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/2/24 11:45:45 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

There are nine motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-49. Motions Nos. 1 to 9 will not be selected by the Chair because they could have been presented in committee. There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.

70 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/2/24 11:46:46 a.m.
Watch

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

45 words

Hon. Seamus O'Regan

May/2/24 11:46:46 a.m.
Watch

moved that the bill be concurred in.

7 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/2/24 11:46:50 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we are prepared to have this pass on division.

11 words

Mr. Blake Richards

May/2/24 11:46:54 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we would like a recorded vote.

8 words

Recorded

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/2/24 11:46:58 a.m.
Watch

Call in the members.

4 words

Call

The Deputy Speaker

May/2/24 12:30:01 p.m.
Watch

I declare the motion carried. When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now? Some hon. members: Agreed.

21 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.)

May/2/24 12:30:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move: That the membership of the Standing Committee on Procedures and House Affairs be amended as follows: Mr. Carr (Winnipeg South Centre) for Mrs. Chagger (Waterloo).

51 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/2/24 12:30:39 p.m.
Watch

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed. The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

37 words

Ms. Laurel Collins

May/2/24 12:30:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sorry. I had my hand up to try to vote, but you announced the vote.

26 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/2/24 12:32:22 p.m.
Watch

Is it agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

7 words

Ms. Laurel Collins

May/2/24 12:32:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I hope to find unanimous consent to vote yea.

11 words

Hope

The Deputy Speaker

May/2/24 12:32:22 p.m.
Watch

I apologize, but with unanimous consent we can do all kinds of things here.

14 words

Apologize

Hon. Seamus O'Regan (Minister of Labour and Seniors, Lib.)

May/2/24 12:32:28 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

moved that Bill C-49, An Act to amend the Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada—Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed. He said: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C‑49 today. People in Newfoundland and Labrador have relied on the ocean's resources for centuries. It is what we know. It feels somewhat historic when we talk about the Atlantic accord. Someone not from Newfoundland and Labrador might not realize the significance of the agreement. Particularly for Newfoundland and Labrador, the Atlantic accord is fundamental to the respect and recognition shown between federal and provincial governments. The accord was an agreement signed in 1985 that bound the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to a common understanding that the people of our province are the principal beneficiaries of their natural resources. The Atlantic accord recognized what my province brought into this country. It recognized the historic resource strengths of Newfoundland and Labrador, and today it recognizes that strength for the future because now the accord would apply to renewable energy, to wind energy. A Newfoundlander's talking about wind may come as a joke to some. We do have a huge opportunity in harnessing the wind in our province. We have a lot of it, wind that will power not just the grid but also some groundbreaking hydrogen projects. The province knows it and so do we. It is why we work so closely together to manage and develop that resource. The bill before us represents a moment of opportunity, and down my way, we know how to seize opportunity when it comes. Times were bleak after the cod moratorium until “first oil”, until Hibernia, when we really did not have a clue what we were doing. I remember “first oil”. We knew, though, that it was possible. We knew it could be done. Jointly managed and regulated through the soon-to-be-former C-NLOPB, we stayed the course and people prospered. We did this in what the president of ExxonMobil told me was one of the harshest environments in the world to operate, but we did find a way. More important, we built up one of the most skilled labour forces that the world has ever seen. and people noticed. Companies noticed, much like they are looking to us now. In 2019, we renewed the accord. We established a Hibernia dividend for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, which was $3.3 billion of secure, long-term and predictable payments that run from 2019 to 2056. More important, it also recognized the province as the principal beneficiary of its resources. I am very proud to have helped negotiate the agreement, and I stand by the document. Now is the time to renew the accord again. In fact, to call the amendments “amendments to the accord” feels a little wrong. It is a natural evolution because the world is evolving. Where we get our energy is evolving and investment is evolving. The Atlantic accord would include renewable energy so Newfoundlanders and Labradorians could be the principal beneficiaries of that too. We would not be losing what we built on the offshore. We are very proud of it actually. People of my province and the government there are hand-in-glove with this when it comes to the energy mix. We accept the world as it is. We embrace it. We applaud the engineering skills that built a West White Rose gravity structure, because they are the same skills that will help construct wind turbines and the monopiles that are stored next door in Argentia. Let us think about all the jobs that come with this work; as Minister of Labour, I know I do. When we have a good management structure in place, the more projects that we attract and build and the more jobs that they bring, the better. They are good, well-paying jobs. Right now there are oil and gas companies across Canada that are making sure that the expertise of our workers can be used to build renewable energy projects, and we are going to need every worker we can get because big things are happening and they are happening quickly, but they will not happen as quickly if we do not have the workers. I have said this before: If someone grows up on a rock in the middle of the ocean or if they grow up in a small town in Labrador like I did, they cannot afford ideology. They grow up seeing the world as it is, not as they wish it to be. They accept the world as it is. They accept opportunities for what they are, and they are clear-eyed about it. Between the Minister of Rural Economic Development, the member for Avalon, the member for Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, the member for Labrador, the member for St. John's East and me, we knew the accord would need to reflect the changes in the times. As companies and markets look to renewables, Newfoundland and Labrador needs to be well managed. It needs to be well positioned, and when it comes to energy, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians do not like playing catch-up; we like to lead. Even our province's oil and gas industry association's biggest champion, Noia, changed its name to reflect the global shift in energy; it is now Energy NL. Sustainability and reducing emissions has become the name of the game, so Energy NL's vision is a sustainable and prosperous lower-carbon energy industry. With all of the wind, we are now seeing big hydrogen projects on our doorsteps, first-of-their-kind facilities. When I was the natural resources minister and we were developing Canada's hydrogen plan, never did I think I would see the German chancellor's plane one day land on the west coast of Newfoundland at Stephenville airport, carrying the CEOs of Seaman and Mercedes. They were saying that they could invest in and create a green hydrogen facility anywhere they choose to, and that they chose us. If people have not been out my way, I can tell them that it can get windy. The winds off the Atlantic coast rival those of the North Sea, which is the birthplace of the world's offshore wind industry. This gives Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia a once-in-a-generation opportunity to become the leaders in an energy sector of the future, to support our region's industrial future and create good jobs that will exist for generations to come. It is expected that the offshore wind industry will attract one trillion dollars' worth of investment by 2040. We would be out of our minds to think we would not be ready for that kind of money and those kinds of jobs. We are talking about renewable energy. That is a change, one that sometimes makes people anxious. However, this is not about politics; it is about markets, investments and jobs. Industry understands something that skeptics do not, which is that the world is looking for renewable energy, wind and solar, in the overall energy mix. We can sit on our hands and let those industries be built in other countries and let their workers get the good jobs, or we can get in on the ground floor and make sure that workers here get the jobs. We can make sure that Canadian workers, Atlantic Canadian workers, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, are the ones who will be selling renewable energy to the world and taking home the profits. We are going to ensure a great future for the people of my home province, Newfoundland and Labrador. By passing Bill C-49, we would secure Newfoundland and Labrador's and Nova Scotia's futures as forces to be reckoned with in the global offshore wind and renewable energy sectors.

1357 words

Mr. Martin Shields (Bow River, CPC)

May/2/24 12:40:12 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the hon. minister on his speech. My area has the second-largest group of people who came from his province to work in the resource sector for many years, and we have a strong connection with his province. I appreciate that he believes the resource sector is responsible, and its workers have tremendous skills. The one thing I would ask him is this: What is the government going to build, and what resource sector would it depend on for all the parts and pieces to build it and the fluids to drive it?

100 words

Speech

Hon. Seamus O'Regan

May/2/24 12:40:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the hon. member that it is oil and gas. I do not know whether that is such a difficult answer to say, but it is oil and gas, and proudly so. In fact if we look at wind turbines, they take an awful lot of copper, about 60,000 pounds, so there is a lot of mining involved not just in this country but around the world. All of this brings good Canadian jobs if we play our cards right.

86 words

Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ)

May/2/24 12:41:18 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, during the committee's study, the Bloc Québécois proposed a number of amendments, including the idea of conducting seabed impact studies before developing wind turbines, which was rejected by the Liberals, among others. I have a simple question. Was it simply to avoid setting a precedent for oil and gas development on the seabed, so that there can never really be an environmental assessment or an impact assessment before drilling takes place?

79 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 307