44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 12, 2024 02:00PM
- Jun/12/24 4:11:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am rising to present a petition from concerned residents of Nova Scotia, so not my riding, but they have reached out to me concerning a land-based testing facility being built by the Department of National Defence. It threatens a forested area where there is a bird observation site, which is the nesting and feeding ground for thousands of migratory birds. The public consultation was rushed, and the petitioners urge that the House review what the Hartlen Point development would do. They are asking for a full and transparent consultation, inquiry and review before building these DND facilities.
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this place to speak to Bill C-70. A foreign influence registry is something we have wanted to have, but we also recognize that there are concerns that overbroad application of such a registry could in itself inadvertently result in stigmatization of diaspora communities within Canada. The bill needs to be carefully administered, and much of what remains of what we would be passing, in a breathtakingly expedited fashion, would be be left to further regulations.
There are still a lot of questions as the bill moves forward. I have to say that, having the right, as any member of this place did, to say no to unanimous consent, I could have insisted that we have greater study. I have to say that I wish we did have greater study, but there was the timing and the consensus, and I am always inspired when I see members across party lines work together, because we do not see it often enough.
I know that the member for Vancouver East in the NDP is working with the Conservative and very hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills. We are working together, as was the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, also a New Democrat, so I stand here today very pleased that we are going to see the bill pass into law, but I am increasingly unnerved by the number of groups that have approached all of us.
Certainly, as the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, I have received numerous concerns from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, from the National Council of Canadian Muslims and from Democracy Watch, and their points are important. However, especially given the climate in which we find ourselves and the numerous delays in implementing changes to actually confront foreign interference, we have perhaps moved too quickly.
I am going to say for the record that I feel concerned that a number of these concerns are quite valid. For instance, when we consider that in subsection 20(3), the penalties for violating the act, and we still have to deal with the fact that there is some vagueness in how we are describing the offences, can amount to as much as imprisonment for life, these are very serious consequences and have a potential for a charter violation problem, as identified by some of the lawyers and legal organizations that have reviewed the bill and are asking whether it was wise to so infringe on the time in committee.
The hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford mentioned some amendments that the NDP would have liked but the Bloc did not like, but that is how democracy works in committee. As Greens, we were given a very short window, so short that we were not able to submit amendments in time to even have them voted down, with the expedited fashion in which we have studied the bill.
I want to put on the record that we will continue to monitor it closely. There is an improvement, as mentioned, from the first reading version where the bill would have received parliamentary review five years after passage. It would now be much sooner. However, having made the decision that it was very important given the degree of efforts at foreign interference in this country, which are well documented, the expedited passage of the bill is important because we are increasingly aware of the threat.
I should pause to say we are increasingly aware of the threat because of some excellent work that has been done by colleagues from all parties in this place and the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians. Their work is critical, and they have also been calling for measures such as those that are in Bill C-70.
As we go forward though in the development of regulations, and as the bill would be further implemented, let us be mindful that the bill has received precious little study. I think it is important to say that I do not think I have ever seen a bill with so many substantial changes to critical areas of law pass so very quickly as this one.
The concerns are also not just that the bill would have potentially charter-violating implications, as raised by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. I was also taken by the commentary from Democracy Watch that we have left too many loopholes. If we want to deal with foreign interference, why have we left it possible for such issues as a foreign agent's using lobbyists as proxies and slipping past some of the scrutiny that would apply in other contexts? There are a number of points that Democracy Watch has made in relation to loopholes that should be closed.
We are looking at concerns about the way in which the legislation would be rolled out. We do hope that it will receive royal assent and get through the Senate, but we have asked the Senate also to expedite it. Again, as much as I support implementing a foreign influence registry and keeping track of the activity of hostile governments, I am left disquieted by, and we must actually pay attention to, the fact that we have gone perhaps recklessly quickly in bringing the bill forward and getting it all the way through to third reading and over to the Senate.
That, I have to say, I am concerned about even though I had the ability to object, and one member's objecting ends unanimous consent. I did not want to take that step, but I want to put on the record that we are going to have to be very careful from here and take every opportunity to ensure that we are not violating charter rights and that we are not creating additional hazards for members of diaspora communities that we had not considered before we moved so very quickly.
Why are we concerned about foreign interference? Well, it is very clear that foreign interference, as in the case of the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills, has resulted in actual threats and intimidation of family members, things that any member of this place should not have to be concerned about as a Canadian citizen. Nor, for that matter, should a foreigner visiting our shores be concerned about them. We are not the only country, obviously, that is now recognizing that foreign governments interfere in our domestic affairs.
Recently, of course, reading over the report of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians put something back in mind. It was so long ago I had almost forgotten it, in 1983. It was European money that interfered in the Conservative Party leadership race in 1983, with Karlheinz Schreiber delivering a lot of cash to the anti-Joe Clark forces to secure a nomination more palatable to the forces from Europe providing that money, by nominating and electing Brian Mulroney as the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party.
That was 40 years ago, and we still have not closed that loophole, even with the legislation before us. We need to pay a lot of attention to how foreign governments interfere in our affairs.
I take the point from the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford and wish to agree that it is one of the bill's strengths that it would be agnostic as to whether a foreign government is one we like or one we do not like. It is important to ensure that Canadian democracy for Canadians operates in the interests of Canadians. We will obviously have to take more steps going forward, but certain countries rise up in our concerns based on CSIS concerns, based on our intelligence operations. Those countries we know; they are named and they are understood by us as being interested in undermining Canadian democracy.
However, Canadian democracy is also undermined if we ignore our own values, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We must make sure that we have not gone too far with draconian measures in an effort to ensure that we control foreign interference.
I know this speech reflects my ambivalence, and for that I apologize. I know that I am very pleased that we would have a foreign influence registry. I would like to ensure that it would be effective but also would not accidentally trespass into areas that we would later regret.
I thank my colleagues for the time to address these issues with regard to Bill C-70.
1421 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/24 5:35:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, whenever we have a CSIS report that makes earth-shattering accusations, and parliamentarians assume CSIS is right, I always remember that CSIS is sometimes wrong. The accusations and information provided to members of cabinet in one era in this country told them that Maher Arar was a bad actor and that it was okay to allow extraordinary rendition, where he would be tortured in another country. CSIS is not always right, and we must ensure that we protect Canadians and those who are on our shores from the actions that occurred in such a dreadful episode as that. I am not sure that we have not left ourselves open to that happening again.
115 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/24 5:37:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is important to be able to have periodic reviews, but I will not forget what we had done in the Harper era, where we gave CSIS kinetic powers that it had not had before. That was a mistake, but we have left it that way.
The RCMP was supposed to act on intelligence; intelligence gathering was the exclusive job of CSIS. We still have silos in this country between intelligence gathering and law enforcement, and we need to break them down. We should also ensure that the executive branch does not have too much power over the way in which the intelligence and kinetic activities are orchestrated.
We need more parliamentary involvement, and I certainly think the work of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians is a welcome step forward in this direction.
138 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/24 6:13:33 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise this evening in Adjournment Proceedings to pursue a question I initially asked the Prime Minister on February 28. Although the topic of the rubric announced earlier today was climate change, I was really asking about a series of related issues in terms of Canada's preparedness to respond to extreme weather events, such as extreme wildfires and flooding, as well as the need to quickly pursue the clean electricity regulations promised by the government.
The Prime Minister's answer was certainly on point, but I am grateful for a chance to pursue more completeness where it was lacking. Of course, it is no surprise that, when reduced to less than half a minute to respond to questions, none of the answers are particularly complete. However, in talking about a net-zero grid, the Prime Minister did commit to it again. I agree with everything the Prime Minister said in that answer or those statements. Therefore, this is not a confrontational raising of the issue in Adjournment Proceedings; what I would like to pursue tonight is just the adequacy of what Canada is doing.
As we increasingly see, one of the very best ways to respond to the climate crisis and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels is to shift to electrifying as much as possible, wherever we can, and to ensure that our source of electricity is 100% green and renewable. In that, we skip over a problem quite often. Perhaps I can just quote from the Prime Minister's response on February 28, where he said, “A net-zero grid will serve as the basis for climate actions across the economy”. That is true.
The difficulty is that we have not really grasped a pretty sticky, unpleasant, thorny nettle, which is that we do not have a national grid in this country; province by province, we have a balkanized series of individual monopolistic utilities. Just as we have not yet solved interprovincial trade, we sure have not solved having an effective grid; I would point out that, in the European Union, believe it or not, 27 separate nation-states have a grid system with the ability to have national sovereignty at their borders. We would think that would mean they could not possibly do as good a job as Canada. One country with 10 provinces, three territories and one federal government should be wonderfully well-organized, but we are a shambles. We do not even think like a country compared with what the European Union has done, where it has a fully integrated grid.
The members of the European Union were able, after Putin invaded Ukraine, to say that Ukraine deserves to have secure energy sources. It plugged Ukraine into the EU grid. We cannot plug the Maritimes into Hydro-Quebec. We have never had provinces at war with each other. France and Germany were at war with each other and collaborate better now than do Alberta and B.C.
Somehow or other, we are going to have to figure out interprovincial-federal co-operation around an electricity grid that works north-south and east-west. Only then can we meet the Prime Minister's goal, the government's goal and Canadians' dream of an electricity grid that works.
550 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/24 6:20:51 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that I have to express deep distress that the hon. member thinks that we are moving to clean electricity regulations. One cannot have clean electricity when the federal government is allowing Ontario to bring more fossil fuels online to fuel an electricity grid that had been largely decarbonized by the previous Liberal government under Kathleen Wynne. It is a terrible shame, when we want to move to clean electricity, to allow more fossil fuels on the grid and to fail to move to ensure that the Atlantic Loop proceeds so that we can shut down coal in Nova Scotia, still its number one source of electricity generation.
Is the government serious about clean electricity and a functional north-south-east-west grid or is it just a bumper sticker?
134 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
