SoVote

May/3/23 5:20:22 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for her work on committee. The member put forward many amendments that were similar to New Democrat amendments. Whether it was on pollution prevention planning, timelines or genetically modified organisms, I am grateful for the work that she diligently tried to push forward in committee. We were able to strengthen some aspects of this legislation, but there are still so many gaps, and I want to ask about one of those gaps, on air quality standards. We know that the U.S. has had enforceable air quality standards for over 50 years and that over 15,000 lives are lost in Canada every year from air pollution. That is 15,000 people and families. Can the member speak to how this is a matter of life and death? These provisions are important and the government needs to do better.

147 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé

May/3/23 5:21:24 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Victoria, with whom I serve in committee, for her question. I think that the Green Party, the NDP and the Bloc Québécois were all united in trying to make the legislation a lot more binding and in trying to improve it. We are talking about the health of millions of people, human beings, and about the health of the environment. They are interconnected. Thousands of people die every year. It is not something that anybody really seems to think about, but I believe, if memory serves, that 6% of the GDP, billions of dollars, go toward helping those who become ill as a result of air pollution. Bill S‑5 was a good opportunity to improve that. I think we missed that opportunity.

135 words

Mr. Terry Duguid (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.)

May/3/23 5:22:12 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the hon. member on the environment committee, for all her work on this bill, her very important work. I have a question for the hon. member on the issue of air quality standards that our NDP colleague had raised. I know the Bloc is very sensitive to jurisdictional issues. One of the reasons we defeated the NDP amendment was that this is an area of joint jurisdiction. Our feeling as a committee was that we needed to work on this together. I wonder if the member would have some reflections on this, particularly the sensitive issue of jurisdiction and the importance of working together to better the environment.

116 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé

May/3/23 5:23:09 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, as everyone knows, the Bloc Québécois is quite sensitive about jurisdictions and respect for jurisdictions. The environment is a shared jurisdiction, to some extent. When the Constitution was being written in 1867, no one was talking about the environment. Now when it comes to the environment, we have to strike a balance between what the federal government can do in terms of regulations and what Quebec and the provinces can do. It is a delicate balance. I tried to introduce amendments to bring in the idea of respect for Quebec and provincial jurisdictions, but to no avail. I eventually gave up on the idea of getting such an amendment passed.

116 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

May/3/23 5:23:58 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I have a question. In this afternoon's debate, we heard about the Senate amendments, which were great amendments, about collecting information on the oil sands and tailings ponds. The Liberals have opposed that amendment. It is a little complicated, but what we are talking about is that including tailings ponds in Bill S-5 is so rudimentary and obvious that it is deeply shocking that the Liberals do not like it, because what they are proposing to change is—

83 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/3/23 5:25:08 p.m.
Watch

Could we get a question, please?

6 words

Could
Get

Ms. Elizabeth May

May/3/23 5:25:08 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, the question is this: Does the hon. member agree with me that the mere fact of asking for information gathering about the tailings ponds should not have provoked a reaction that it had to be removed?

38 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé

May/3/23 5:25:12 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, yes, there is a lack of transparency there. The Liberal-Conservative coalition voted against every amendment that increased transparency. The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands is absolutely right.

31 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

May/3/23 5:25:42 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and add a few thoughts regarding the bill. I know the NDP wants to focus a lot of attention on the issue of tail ponds, and I will deal with that right away, along with the members of the Green Party and, to a certain degree, even my friends in the Bloc. I find it interesting that they are maybe playing a bit with words on the issue. It is not to take away from the seriousness of the issue. We have recognized that. I believe the member knows full well that, in good part, what she is talking about as a concern is already there and the amendment is somewhat redundant. It might make a nice social media post or something of that nature. Giving the member and those who have been speaking on it the benefit of the doubt, I will say that maybe they just do not fully understand everything that has been explained through the legislation. It is important to recognize that information with regard to tail ponds is already being collected through CEPA. It is important for us to—

193 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/3/23 5:27:05 p.m.
Watch

I have to interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary. There is a point of order from the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

23 words

Mr. Charlie Angus

May/3/23 5:27:07 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, we have a long-standing tradition that debate has to be about the subject at hand, and I do not believe you will see in the legislation anything about tails, so I would ask the hon. member to stay focused on the subject.

45 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/3/23 5:27:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is quite possible I missed the word “tailings”; that does happen at times. My apologies. I did not mean to offend the member. Having said that, when we think about tailings ponds, members will find that this is covered within the current legislation. At the end of the day, I would refer the member to the amendments adopted at committee that related to the concept of vulnerable populations and cumulative effects. There are other situations that empower and allow for the minister to track and, ultimately, enforce issues related to tailings ponds. The member, I suspect, would likely be aware of that. As I indicated, information on tailings ponds is already collected through CEPA. Members tend to give a great deal of attention to this particular issue. I know the member is anxious to ask a question, but unfortunately we are going to run out of time because I only have another minute to go. I think one of the things we have missed is the recognition of toxic and potentially toxic chemicals. The government takes that very seriously. The right to a healthy environment is being enshrined and supported in a very real and tangible way. Canadians are very much concerned about our environment. Through this legislation, there is a direct connection that would enable Canadians to express their concerns where there will be attention drawn to that concern. That is something I really have not heard in the relatively short amount of time that we have had to debate the issue, but it is something we should be talking about. We see our constituents growing more and more concerned about our environment. Having a statement that is very clear as to the rights of Canadians to have a healthy environment is something that is very positive. I would like to see more of a discussion the next time the bill comes up, when maybe I will get the tailings—

327 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/3/23 5:30:09 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member will have six minutes to pursue his speech once we get back to the reading of this bill. It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business, as listed on today's Order Paper.

46 words

Mr. Ron McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Lib.)

May/3/23 5:31:06 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-316

moved that Bill C-316, An Act to amend the Department of Canadian Heritage Act (Court Challenges Program), be read the second time and referred to a committee. He said: Madam Speaker, it is often too easy to take for granted the many rights and freedoms we enjoy as Canadians. Canada is a free, successful country because of the decisions made by those who came before us. We are an open and inclusive democracy in large part because the rights of individuals are respected. Canada is a country where the rule of law operates independently from politicians and where our Constitution protects the rights of Canadians. This is something we should champion. It is something we should celebrate. It is something we must do everything we can to protect. I introduced Bill C-316 to build upon the good work of previous Parliaments. In the 42nd Parliament, at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, of which I was then a member, as part of our study on access to justice we recommended that the court challenges program, which had previously been cancelled, be recommenced. I am happy to say this was in fact done. In our report, we also called for enshrining the court challenges program in legislation to enhance its sustainability and to ensure that any government seeking its cancellation in the future would require the approval of Parliament to do so. Bill C-316 would do just that. It would enshrine the court challenges program into Canadian law, providing stability and certainty to the program, and ensuring that it continues to operate predictably. This, in turn, would give greater protection to the rights of Canadians as we continue to provide a mechanism that enables individuals and organizations to challenge laws and regulations that they believe violate their rights. The court challenges program protects and strengthens constitutional rights. It provides funding for individuals and organizations who wish to bring matters of national importance before the courts. More specifically, the program provides funding to protect our constitutional and quasi-constitutional rights in matters involving official languages and human rights. Created in the 1970s, the court challenges program played a key role in helping Canadians clarify and assert their rights, especially with regard to official languages and equality rights. The program was eliminated in 2006, and our government restored it in 2017. We expanded it to include rights not originally covered, such as specific sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms pertaining to fundamental rights, including democratic rights, freedom of expression, and the right to life, liberty and security of the person. Over the years, the program has been used many times to protect the rights and freedoms of Canadians. It has provided funds to disabled Canadians to help them ensure they are treated fairly. It has helped to clarify the rights of LGBTQ+ people to marry whom they love. It has strengthened the rights of official-language minorities to protect their rights and preserve their culture. The court challenges program also provided support to important cases, such as Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, where the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that a law society could not prevent a qualified permanent resident from practising law in Canada simply because they were not a Canadian citizen. The court challenges program strengthened the rights of French-language minorities in British Columbia. It helped protect the rights of francophone children to receive French-language education of equivalent quality to that of English-language education. In its ruling in June 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada reaffirmed the importance of education in the official language of one's choice. The court also recognized the key role that section 23 of the charter plays in the vitality of official language minority communities. I know that some of my honourable colleagues may ask why we would provide funding to allow people to sue us. I think this asks the wrong question. The right question is why we would fund cases defending the charter, and the answer is that, as we know, the cost of justice can be prohibitively expensive. Justice should not be decided by who has the most money. It is of significant public good that the constitutional rights of Canadians be protected, whether or not they have money. The value of the court challenges program is that it breathes life into the charter and into the Official Languages Act. It provides meaning to our constitutional rights, particularly by enabling those with lesser means to protect their rights. The program allows matters of merit with significant public impact to be brought forward, regardless of the means of those bringing forward the case. Other members might wonder if the program allows the federal government to decide which cases receive funding. Does it allow the federal government to sue provincial governments that do not agree? I can say that the answer to that question is no. The program is independent of the government. It is administered by the University of Ottawa. Funding decisions are made by two groups of independent experts, one for official language rights and the other for human rights. These committees are made up of experts who are selected based on their expertise in law. The government has no say in which cases receive funding, and the funds are often used to challenge federal decisions or policies. This is, in fact, a good thing. I think that I can say without much controversy that the government does not always get it right, and it is important that, when policies and laws are put into place, we have a process to review, and possibly correct, these decisions. In a constitutional democracy where the rule of law is paramount, allowing Canadians to bring forward cases when their rights may have been infringed upon is an important part of our constitutional democracy. We face a great many challenges as Canadians. The world is an uncertain place, but Canada is blessed with tremendous resources and potential. We have some of the best and brightest people in the world, and we have inherited the tremendous institutions that have made us successful: pluralism, freedom of speech and debate, and the opportunity to make a better life for our families. These are the things that bring us together as Canadians. The rights and the freedoms that we hold dear are critically important to Canada’s success as a country. We must do everything we can to shore up our democracy and protect our constitutional system. By passing Bill C-316 and enshrining the court challenges program into Canadian law, we would be sending a strong message about the importance of protecting the rights of Canadians. It would demonstrate our shared commitment to ensuring that the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the charter, the Official Languages Act and the Canadian Constitution are respected and upheld. I hope members will join me in supporting Bill C-316, so we can better protect our democratic institutions.

1168 words

All Topics

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

May/3/23 5:40:47 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-316

Madam Speaker, I will be supporting the bill, and I thank my colleague for bringing it forward. He spoke a bit about some of the groups that would be protected by having this put into legislation. Could he perhaps tell us about some of the other pieces of action the government undertakes that we would also need to protect, in the event the government was to change?

67 words

All Topics

Mr. Ron McKinnon

May/3/23 5:41:20 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-316

Madam Speaker, I certainly think there are many areas in which we could continue to act to protect the rights and freedoms of Canadians. Although my focus at this point is on the court challenges program, I think it is very important that we are able to test the laws in some manner or mechanism to make sure that the provisions of the charter are upheld.

66 words

All Topics

Mr. Dan Mazier (Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, CPC)

May/3/23 5:41:51 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-316

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned the suggestion of arm's length and, in developing this committee around legislation, appointing someone who is at arm's length. In the member's opinion, what is the definition of arm's length in developing the bill? Would that include someone from the Trudeau Foundation? Would it include some sister-in-law from somewhere? What is the actual definition of arm's length in the member's opinion?

74 words

All Topics

Mr. Ron McKinnon

May/3/23 5:42:36 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-316

Madam Speaker, the key here is that the members of these different committees are not chosen by the government nor any government body. The program is administered by the University of Ottawa and is responsible for selecting appropriate people who are versed in the law and who make the decisions about which cases that come before them are of sufficient public importance that they should be supported under the program.

70 words

All Topics

Mr. Mario Beaulieu (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ)

May/3/23 5:43:09 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-316

Madam Speaker, I would like to know what my colleague thinks. The court challenges program was established in 1978 to counter the Charter of the French Language, which was democratically passed in Quebec. Then, the 1982 Constitution further reinforced that. It was also established to counter the Charter of the French Language, which should have fallen under Quebec's jurisdiction. The most frustrating thing is that we do not know who those public funds are going to. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has already proposed that the organization responsible be allowed to disclose who received the subsidies once the court proceedings are complete. I want to know what the member thinks about making the process more transparent and either excluding Quebec from the program or making sure that the program is not systematically used to dismantle Bill 101 and its reinforcement, Bill 96.

148 words

All Topics

Mr. Ron McKinnon

May/3/23 5:44:25 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-316

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the member's question, because that is precisely what this bill would do. It would add to the existing process requirement that the administrators of the program report to the minister on, I believe, an annual basis, and that the minister table that report in the House within 15 days. The report that is requested is to identify the cases, or at least the nature of cases, that have been supported. It should be remembered as well, as the member noted, that this program originally was constituted to protect French language rights across the country, and we wish to build on that. I would note that, the more we can defend French elsewhere in Canada, the more it supports Quebec. Both of my children, who were born and raised in British Columbia, speak fluent French.

140 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 190