- Member of Parliament
- Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
- Liberal
- Winnipeg North
- Manitoba
- Voting Attendance: 64%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $110,821.77
- Government Page
Madam Speaker, I will pick up on one point the member referred to, because it is a really important aspect. When we think of all the information out there, it is incredible just how massive it is. Information nowadays, through technology and archives, is truly amazing. What we need to recognize right at the beginning is the need-to-know principle: “The need-to-know principle restricts access to sensitive information and assets to those whose duties require such access; that is, to those who need to know the information.” I think “whose duties require such access” is probably the most important thing for us to recognize. How wonderful it would be to sit in any sort of meeting and get the sense that we have an entitlement to know everything that might pique our curiosity. However, I do not think that this is in the best interest of national security, in terms of things such as foreign affairs, public safety and national security.
It is interesting to listen to the debate, and particularly what is coming from the Conservatives. I say that because when I was a member of the Liberal Party when it was the third party, Bill C-51 was brought forward. At the time, Liberals were arguing that we needed to establish a national security and intelligence committee of parliamentarians. That was something that was justified, because there was a sense that parliamentarians on the committee would be able to look at anything and everything and they would have the security clearance to do so. We argued that. I argued that, 10 years ago, when I was sitting in opposition, recognizing that there is sensitive information, even back then, that not all members of Parliament should be receiving because it should be based on the need to know.
Back then, I articulated why it was so important that we establish this national security and intelligence committee of parliamentarians. Hansard will clearly show that, back then, I said the committee should be apolitical, non-partisan, and should have representatives from all political parties. We took a lot of heat back then from the government of the day and lost. We could not convince the government to establish such a committee, in the form of an amendment to Bill C-51.
We should keep in mind the relationship that Canada has with its allied countries. When we think of security, we have to think of the Five Eyes countries, of which we are one. At the time, we were the only country in the Five Eyes that did not have a national security and intelligence committee of parliamentarians. That was one of the primary arguments I used back then. I believed that, whether there was the RCMP, CSIS or any other public agency, this committee of parliamentarians needed to be established to ensure that there is a higher sense of accountability. We made the commitment back in 2015 to establish that committee, and we did just that. We established the committee and joined the Five Eyes countries, our allies, in having this parliamentary committee, but members will recall it was with a great deal of protest from the Conservatives, because they did not want this committee to be established. Why is that?
A lot of politics is played when it comes to issues, whether it be foreign interference or any sort of foreign affairs. We were talking about hostages yesterday. There are a great deal of professional, civil servant-type individuals who are out there protecting us and making sure that Canadians are safe and secure. There is some information that we individually do not necessarily need to know, if that is in the best interest of public safety.
As parliamentarians, we get involved in all sorts of meetings. One could argue we could be more effective if there were no redactions done to documents brought forward to the standing committees. Even within in camera meetings, whether it is intentional or unintentional, we are going to have information being leaked.
I have listened to members opposite speak to this bill, and there was nothing said that addresses that specific concern. What I hear them say is that they are members of Parliament, so they should be able to have unlimited access if they can get a particular security clearance. If someone wants to be able to get information, they just go and ask for the security clearance.
I will go back to the need-to-know principle: “The need-to-know principle restricts access to sensitive information and assets to those whose duties require such access; that is, to those who need to know the information.” For the people who are concerned that something is awry or something is happening that they should know about, there are other mechanisms currently in place. We have the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians. We have representatives from all political parties who sit there, and there are no restrictions there. We also have mechanisms that have been agreed upon for when certain issues come to the attention of the House of Commons.
We can talk about the Afghan detainees issue and the great uproar that took place there. People wanted classified information. They wanted to see the words and the information. That was actually done through negotiations with the then prime minister and opposition parties. There was a consensus as to how that information could be revealed to all political parties.
We have seen other issues come up in the interim. It is interesting that when the opposition talks about, for example, the Winnipeg labs issue, this government offered the very same formula that Stephen Harper offered when he was prime minister. We offered the very same formula in trying to deal with the issue, and the opposition said no to that initially.
Why did the opposition say no to that? Why did they say no to joining what the Five Eyes and other countries around the world were doing? I suspect that it has more to do with politics than good practice. That is why, when we take a look at the legislation that is before us today, I have not heard an argument as to why we should be looking over and above the need-to-know principle. However, we are not done. There is still going to be some more debate. I will continue to have a bit of an open mind on it. I will say, to this point, I have not heard anything.
1094 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/18/24 11:24:53 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to address what I believe is one area in which the Conservative Party of Canada is somewhat vulnerable, and that is the environment. I really believe that Conservatives, under the new leadership, are found wanting in coming up with ideas that are healthy for Canada's environment.
The legislation being proposed today reinforces other attitudes they have in general about the environment. Today, the Conservatives say a province is saying it can handle it with no problem at all, and the federal Conservative Party says it does not need to have any sort of federal involvement. That is, in essence, what the members opposite are proposing. It reminds me of this consistency of policy development that prevents the Conservatives from being concerned about Canada's environment.
We talk about the major projects that are under way and that are being proposed and considered. These projects will have profound impacts on our environment. There is a very clear possibility some of these megaprojects will go beyond any one provincial boundary. There is a need, I suggest, and the Supreme Court of Canada also suggested, for a federal government role in the process. Most Canadians would agree that the federal government should not get away from its important role when it comes to the environment.
When we think of industries having regulations, both at the federal and provincial levels, it enables a certain amount of security and predictability, which then allows for investment. There are so many investment opportunities. I was encouraged when the member opposite used the words “green developments”. He mentioned “green” quite a bit in his comments, and I applaud him on that.
There is the investment, for example, that Volkswagen has made in Canada, in co-operation with the Premier of Ontario and the Government of Canada, and thousands of green jobs that are going to be created as a direct result. Those jobs, in good part, are going to rely on mineral development as Canada is in the position of being a world leader in the development of batteries. Those batteries require rare minerals, and Canada not only has the opportunity to supply internally for potential demand and development of secondary industries that create more jobs for Canadians, but also has the capacity to supply the world in many different ways.
There are companies throughout the world looking at Canada as a place to invest, and investors are looking for regulatory certainty. When we talk about the IAA, we are really talking about recognizing that the federal government does have a role to play. The Supreme Court of Canada has made it very clear. We have indicated it will be under review. We can anticipate that amendments will be brought forward in a very progressive fashion. We are not going to do what the Conservative Party is suggesting through this legislation.
This is the type of legislation I have talked about in the past regarding the Conservative Party and its so-called hidden agenda. While this is very public, there is something within this legislation that Canadians need to be aware of. Once again, we are seeing the Conservative Party stepping back on the environment, and as a national government, we have the responsibility to ensure that there is the proper protection of our environment and that the IAA is the type of legislation that leads to regulations that protect our environment.
This can be done in a manner that is fully compliant with the Supreme Court of Canada, and that is why we are bringing forward these amendments. Unlike the Conservative Party, we recognize the need for co-operative federalism, which is ultimately what we have seen take place with the Liberal government from virtually day one with programs such as the CPP being put in place. We have also seen this with legislation brought forward by the government on environmental impact issues and with the dialogue that constantly takes place, most recently in regard to housing. These are some of the more high profile areas we have worked on.
An advantage Canada has, unlike virtually any other country in the world, is that we are fortunate to have all the minerals that we do. The government has a very important role in ensuring that we have laws and regulations in place at both the national and provincial levels to protect our environment. We also have a responsibility to ensure that indigenous peoples of Canada are not only consulted but also worked with when it comes to protecting our environment well into the future.
I recall when we brought in legislation and tried to improve the process, and the Conservatives were being very difficult, for example, when it came to dealing with bills like Bill C-69. This is because having regulatory uncertainty during Stephen Harper's 10 years did nothing when it came to expanding, for example, pipelines to our coastal tidewaters. Looking at the uncertainties that were caused, I would suggest that administration was not successful.
That is unlike our administration, which has created much greater certainty when it comes to environmental impact assessment studies.
863 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/18/24 11:17:53 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, what I see within the legislation is that those in the Conservative Party, in essence, are saying that they want, from a federal perspective, to open up any sort of development without ensuring that there is a process for protecting our environment, which would be off-loaded to provinces and would ultimately allow provinces to make the decision.
The question I have for the member is this: Would he not acknowledge that there is a role when we have these major projects that have an impact that go beyond a provincial boundary?
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/27/24 1:13:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the MAGA Conservative far right is coming out. These are the ones who still deny the pandemic. At the end of the day, thank goodness Canadians and the majority of the people in the House saw the value of protecting the health and well-being of Canadians and that the far right was marginalized back then. As a direct result, more people are living today, in Canada. As a direct result, a lot more people were healthier during that process.
However, in the spirit of co-operation because the member wants co-operation. I have a wonderful document that clearly demonstrates—
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, for many years, giant tech companies such as Facebook, Google and YouTube have been going around the world and getting away with a great deal while enriching themselves worldwide. We are seeing more countries today saying that it is not acceptable and that we want to ensure that there is protection for their media industries, and that is something that is very tangible coming from this government. This legislation will go a long way toward ensuring a higher sense of fair compensation and protecting a critically important industry.
90 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
