44th Parl. 1st Sess.
September 20, 2022 10:00AM
- Sep/20/22 10:57:21 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I present a petition signed by Canadians across the country who are concerned about a Liberal Party platform promise in 2021 to deny charitable status to certain organizations. The petitioners are calling on the House of Commons to protect and preserve the application of charitable status rules on a politically and ideologically neutral basis. They are calling on this Parliament to affirm the rights of Canadians to freedom of expression.
72 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have a second petition signed by a number of Canadians across the country who are in support of Senate Bill S-223, a bill that seeks to combat forced organ harvesting and trafficking.
36 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge.
We are here today talking about Bill C-22, an act to reduce poverty and to support the financial security of persons with disabilities by establishing the Canada disability benefit. I am generally in favour of that and supportive of this draft legislation. We all want to see all Canadian citizens, regardless of their level of ability, able to participate fully in our economy and to be active participants in our society.
To start off, I am going to give a big shout-out to the many great organizations in my riding of Langley—Aldergrove that are doing the important work of helping people with disabilities, organizations like the Langley Pos-Abilities Society, which focuses on people's abilities rather than their disabilities. I was a participant in a competition put on by this organization a couple of years ago at a public event in one of our parks, where one of the tests was for us, in wheelchairs, to negotiate ourselves around some obstacles, such as opening a door, getting through it and pulling ourselves up a ramp. There was another test that required us to put something very technical together while blindfolded. There was yet another test that I recall that required us to do a simple task like putting butter on our toast with our dominant hands tied behind our backs. Coming out of that, I had a new respect for people who struggle with disabilities in their everyday lives, but also for the great organizations that work with them.
When looking at Bill C-22, I was happy to see that it is premised on the constitutional concept of equality, so I thought I would look at this draft legislation from a constitutional perspective. The preamble section, which is a very important part of any legislation, talks about the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. That document recognizes the “equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family”. The preamble of the bill also talks about our own Constitution, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, specifically section 15, which is our equality section. Section 15 says, “Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination”, and there is a list of enumerated things that cannot be discriminated against, including mental and physical health, which brings us to Bill C-22.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has been with us for 40 years. It is instinctive for us now. It is part of the world view that shapes our sense of justice and how the government should interact with its citizens. However, even though it is instinctive, it does not mean that it is simple. It is a very complicated question. Anytime we talk about equality, it opens up questions like how proactive the government must be to ensure that all citizens have equal opportunities or perhaps equal outcomes of their programs, or does section 15 simply mean that a law, once passed, must not contravene or breach section 15.
To underline the complexity of this principle, which has not just been invented recently, Nobel Prize-winning author from the late 19th century and early 20th century, Anatole France, put it this way, sarcastically of course, in majestic equality, laws “forbid rich and poor alike to sleep under the bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.” We have an instinct that says that equal treatment is not always fair, and fairness is not always equal.
There is a British Columbia case that went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada that really underlined that principle. A young woman, healthy and fully able-bodied, wanted to work for the B.C. forest fire service and passed all the requirements, except for one. She failed the test under the uniform minimum aerobic standards for firefighters. She simply was not strong enough. She challenged this under section 15 of the charter. The B.C. government argued, saying it did not contravene section 15 at all because it applied equally to men and women. The Supreme Court of Canada saw through that and said, no, it has a disproportionate discriminatory effect on women. That case is important for this proposition. Courts should look not only at how a law is applied but also its effect on individuals.
With all of this background, I picked up Bill C-22 with a great deal of interest, to see how it would tackle these complex legal questions, and the answer is that it would not at all. This bill dealing with such an important and complex question is scarcely six pages long. One page is the preamble, which I have already mentioned. There are a couple of pages about some technical things. There are two pages, fully one-third of this draft legislation, that talk about the regulatory power that this Parliament is being asked to give to cabinet.
I was very happy to hear the minister and also the parliamentary secretary say that one of the reasons they wanted to give cabinet such broad regulatory power was to ensure that there would be consultation with people affected by it. I completely agree with that. I might just add as a side note that I was very happy to hear that my friend, Stephanie Cadieux, formerly an MLA from my neighbouring riding, has been appointed to this, so I am somewhat more optimistic that the government is now going to do a good job. However, I am really puzzled as to why, wanting to consult with the community that is going to be most affected by this, the government thinks that it is appropriate to bypass the important work that this Parliament does.
I said that I am supportive of this legislation. I really am. I will be voting in favour of it at second reading, together with my colleagues, to bring this to committee. However, coming out of committee, I would expect that these important questions are going to be answered. They have been raised by many of the previous speakers, including questions like how we should define disability, who qualifies for the benefit, how much the disability benefit is going to be in dollars and cents, what it is going to cost the government coffers, whether there will be means testing and who would get to qualify. We want to help disabled people, but are we going to be helping rich people? Will there be clawbacks?
I was talking to my brother just the other day. He was disabled by Parkinson's, and I told him that we were going to be talking about this topic this week. He said that, whatever we do, we should make sure workers are not disincentivized from working. I happy to hear the minister say that would not be the case, although the legislation does not actually say that. I think she is saying to trust that they are going to do it right.
Parliament has a very important function, which is to review legislation. So far, it looks like what the government is asking for is a blank cheque to be able to do the work behind closed doors, and the Liberals are just saying for us to trust the government to get it right. We are going to be looking to the committee to have a thorough review of this legislation, and we will be looking for answers to these very important questions.
I might add just one more point, which is that my province, and I am sure every province, has some sort of a program to help disabled people. We are not hearing anything about how this Canada disability benefit program would mesh with provincial jurisdictions and organizations. Is there going to be a whole new federal bureaucracy to manage this? These are the questions we need answers to.
1350 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, under another part of our Constitution, section 92.13 of the Constitution Act, 1867, property and civil rights come under the exclusive jurisdiction of provinces. I would say this is exclusively a provincial jurisdiction. The only way the federal government can get involved in this is to work together with provinces. I would completely agree with the member opposite that whatever the federal government does has to be supplemental to what the provinces are doing and not in substitution thereof. The negotiations need to make that a condition.
90 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is a very interesting proposition. My understanding of the legislative process is that Parliament gives cabinet, the Governor in Council, authority to make regulations. Every bill we pass and review here has a regulations section. This one is just so broad; that is what is unusual about it. Regulations are usually there for setting fees, the application form and appeal procedures if somebody is dissatisfied with a decision of the minister.
I do not know that it is appropriate for cabinet to come back to us with the regulations. What is appropriate is for the legislation itself to have, for example, a good and thorough definitions section that deals with all these things. This is generally what we see in federal legislation. It is what we need to do.
132 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I completely agree. It is this body that should be looking at who qualifies, whether there are going to be clawbacks, how much it is going to cost and what the dollar amount is. These are the sorts of things that should be in the legislation and not in the regulations.
53 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, indeed it is Parliament's function to look at exactly those questions about what the qualifications are going to be. The regulations should be limited to the more technical aspects of the functioning of the program. On his example of people who age out, this is exactly what the citizens of this country want. They want to see all people being treated fairly and equally. This is what section 15 of our charter is all about.
78 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
