SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 197 - May/15/23

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

May/15/23 6:47:44 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, we are discussing a bill to establish the right to a healthy environment. However, this bill does not actually give Canadians such a right. In its current form, Bill S‑5 does not really give citizens a way to assert this right. Does my colleague acknowledge that this would depend on the government's goodwill or lack thereof? At the moment, it seems reasonable to question whether certain government actions show that it really wants to move in the direction of a meaningful right to a healthy environment.

92 words

Mr. Richard Cannings

May/15/23 6:48:22 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, indeed, one of the major problems with Bill S-5 is that the enforceability of the right to live in a clean and healthy environment is left up to the minister. It is not up to the residents of Canada, who should be able to bring forward concerns to the minister and then follow a transparent and timely path so we can make sure this right is upheld in a proper manner. It should not be left entirely up to the minister, as it is now.

88 words

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

May/15/23 6:49:09 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay for his leadership in introducing a true right to a healthy environment through Bill C-219. I think this is the third speech I have heard sharing an interest in introducing better legislation before we even get this bill passed. We know that the Conservative Party intends to support this legislation, but it does not even support a carbon tax as a starting point, the simplest environmental policy of any to begin with. What does he think this says about the quality of the legislation in front of us now?

102 words

Mr. Richard Cannings

May/15/23 6:49:54 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I totally agree with the member. This bill is one of the steps in the right direction. It is something we feel we should support because we want to make a step in the right direction. We just wish there were several steps or bigger steps. At least with the right to a clean and healthy environment, for instance, we now have that enshrined within legislation. However, we do not have a good method of enforcing it. That is one thing we should do next, one of several things I outlined. A lot of these issues could have been fixed if the government had listened to what people were saying, after Bill C-28 was introduced, about ways to fix it. It should have made Bill S-5 a much better bill from the start.

137 words

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

May/15/23 6:50:54 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I like to think that Bill S-5 is a piece of legislation that really demonstrates the government's commitment to bringing forward good, solid legislation with the co-operation of both the House and the Senate. We have seen amendments proposed by all political parties, and different amendments were accepted. I think we have good, sound legislation, and we can all take some pride in its passage. I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts in regard to how ultimately this legislation is in fact advancing something worthwhile by giving Canadians the right to a healthy environment.

102 words

Mr. Richard Cannings

May/15/23 6:51:34 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5 Bill C-28

Madam Speaker, again, we had 22 years before Bill C-28 to fix this. We have had two years since then. This should have been a much better bill. We now have the right to live in a clean and healthy environment within the scope of CEPA, not within the scope of the rest of the federal mandate, so it is a tiny step. We should be doing better. We could have done so much better if the government had done so.

82 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/15/23 6:52:08 p.m.
Watch

Is the House ready for the question? Some hon. members: Question. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): The question is on Motion No. 1. If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

65 words

Deputy

Mr. Richard Cannings

May/15/23 6:52:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask for a recorded vote, please.

12 words

Recorded
Ask

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/15/23 6:52:49 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred. The next question is on Motion No. 2. A vote on the motion also applies to Motion No. 3. If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

67 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/15/23 6:53:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would request a recorded vote, please.

9 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/15/23 6:53:49 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

The recorded division on Motion No. 2 stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motion No. 3. At this time the House should proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at the report stage of the bill. However, pursuant to order made Thursday, June 23, 2022, the recorded divisions stand deferred until Tuesday, May 16, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has a point of order.

82 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/15/23 6:54:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House you would find unanimous consent at this time to call it 7:20 p.m. so we can begin the late show.

33 words

Late
Call

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/15/23 6:54:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House you would find unanimous consent at this time to call it 7:20 p.m. so we can begin the late show.

33 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/15/23 6:54:40 p.m.
Watch

Do we have unanimous consent to see the clock at 7:20 p.m.? Some hon. members: Agreed.

18 words

Mr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP)

May/15/23 6:55:10 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-47

Madam Speaker, on April 25, I asked the Minister of Transport a question regarding air passenger rights, the response to which I found wholly lacking, and so I am glad I have a chance this evening to speak at greater length to this issue. As a quick recap, the Liberals brought in their first air passenger rights framework in 2019 promising that Canada's approach was going to be one of the strongest in the world, and yet what we have seen over successive travel seasons is anything but. We have seen thousands of passengers greatly inconvenienced, sleeping on airport floors, out thousands of dollars and having their much-awaited travel plans uprooted. Last September, the Liberals brought in further changes, again promising that this was going to make it one of the strongest in the world, and yet the complaints have piled up. Now there are over 40,000 air passenger complaints before the Canadian Transportation Agency, and we see the government going into its approach yet again and trying to finally fix what is clearly broken and not working. The European Union has had an effective approach in place for over decade, an approach that gets passengers the compensation they deserve. However, instead of copying that approach or following my private member's bill, which is based very closely on the European approach, this minister and this government have taken a circuitous, complex and bureaucratic tack in trying to finally put in place something that protects air passengers. I want to highlight some of the specific concerns, the first of which is the concern that I raised on April 25, which is that as part of the mediation process envisioned in Bill C-47, the budget implementation act, passengers who enter into mediation to resolve their complaints with the airlines would be forbidden from speaking about any matter that was covered as part of that mediation. This is a confidentiality clause that I do not believe any air passenger who has a grievance with an airline would want to commit to. Passengers deserve transparency, they deserve a process that is open and transparent, and so this confidentiality clause, which was the topic of my question on April 25, seems entirely misplaced in the legislation. There are other concerns too. There has been much said about a loophole in the current approach that allows airlines to deny passengers compensation for reasons within the airline's control but on what they deem to be required for safety. Now, the minister has stated very vehemently that the legislation before us would close that loophole, and yet we see the phrase “required for safety” repeated time and time again in the legislation we are debating. Much of the meat of this approach the minister has put off to regulations, which will not get debated in the House, and he has gone one step further. He has given the Canadian Transportation Agency the ability to establish guidelines that will set out the extent and manner in which the agency enforces the regulations, which are based on the legislation. We need accountability, and when we see an agency that is supposed to be at arm's length from this government given such great powers to determine the extent to which it upholds the spirit of the legislation, that is very concerning indeed. We need an approach that is transparent and has air passengers' backs. We are not seeing it in this legislation, and we certainly intend to bring forward amendments that will finally get air passengers their due.

596 words

Ms. Annie Koutrakis (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Lib.)

May/15/23 6:58:58 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-47

Madam Speaker, protecting the rights of air passengers when air travel does not go as planned is a priority of our government. Creating the air passenger protection regulations provided an important framework for travellers' rights; however, lessons learned throughout the pandemic, which began shortly after the regulations were implemented, have provided the Government of Canada with valuable information, including areas that need strengthening. Legislative amendments to the Canada Transportation Act have been introduced to clarify and strengthen Canada's passenger rights regime while increasing air carriers' accountability and streamlining the process for administering air travel complaints by the Canadian Transportation Agency. With these changes, air carriers would be required to pay compensation to travellers unless they can demonstrate that a disruption was caused by specific allowable circumstances. These allowable circumstances would be predetermined and regulations would be established by the agency in consultation with the Minister of Transport. Our government recognizes that changes are needed to ensure that passenger complaints are dealt with as quickly as possible. Legislative changes are being proposed to streamline the process by which dispute resolution services are provided to Canadians and to help reduce the agency's backlog of complaints. The current process involves three steps, including time-consuming and resource-intensive adjudication. The new process is simplified with mediation and a decision, if no settlement is reached. This would ensure Canadians obtain decisions more rapidly while having their complaints thoroughly addressed. It is important to note that the mediation process for air passenger complaints has always been confidential, since we introduced these protections in 2019, becoming the first Canadian government to enshrine the rights of air travellers in legislation. The amendments being proposed in Bill C-47 do not impose any new restrictions. While a confidentiality obligation is typical in mediation processes to allow a frank and open discussion between a complainant and an air carrier, the new process has been designed to ensure that more passengers have access to the information they may need to claim compensation. Under the new process, the agency would be required to make public a summary of each case, including the flight number and the date, as well as the reason for the flight disruption and whether compensation was awarded, which would provide insightful information to other passengers on that same flight. In addition, because compensation amounts are publicly available in the air carriers' terms and conditions of carriage, there is nothing to prevent the agency from publishing this information. I expect the agency to do just that. Our government is confident that the proposed changes will improve transparency while allowing for more timely resolution of air travel complaints.

441 words

Mr. Taylor Bachrach

May/15/23 7:02:38 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-47

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the parliamentary secretary believes that this third approach at getting it right is going to finally work. However, we have some grave concerns. From a passenger perspective, this is a complex approach that they have to navigate. It is not two steps. First of all, passengers have to complain to the airline about the disruption that has impacted their lives. Then, when the airline gets back to them and denies them compensation, they have to enter this mediation process, and possibly go on to a third stage of obtaining an order. One of the things we are very concerned about is the fact that an order of these mediation processes is not considered to be a decision of the agency. Therefore, the passengers who file the complaint would not have the ability to pursue an appeal under the provisions of the Canada Transportation Act. We are very concerned that Bill C-47's air passenger rights actually reduce the ability of passengers to pursue the full compensation that they are due.

176 words

Ms. Annie Koutrakis

May/15/23 7:03:43 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-47

Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada is committed to ensuring that travellers' rights are respected by airlines when air travel does not go according to plan. The proposed amendments to the Canada Transportation Act will increase airlines' burden of proof by requiring them to compensate travellers unless they can prove that a disruption was caused by a circumstance set out in the list of exceptions. The proposed measures would also streamline the processes for administering air travel complaints at the Canadian Transportation Agency and requires the agency to make public a summary of each decision made by complaint resolution officers. This would inform passengers on that same flight whether compensation has been awarded.

113 words

Mr. Richard Cannings (South Okanagan—West Kootenay, NDP)

May/15/23 7:04:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this adjournment debate arises from a question I asked the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry on May 1. On that day, as I was asking the question, on the lawn of Parliament Hill, there was a crowd of young researchers from Ottawa universities demanding to be heard by the government. They were part of a cross-country demonstration that day that involved nearly 10,000 graduate students, post-docs, faculty and supporters. They had walked out of 46 institutions across Canada. Their question for the government was simply this: Why are grad students are getting paid the same amount today as they were being paid 20 years ago? Their wages, which come in the form of federal scholarships and fellowships, cover the full-time work they perform doing their research, and that work is the backbone of our university research in Canada. These are scholarships, so these are not average students, but our best and brightest, yet the federal government pays them below minimum wage. They are forced to live below the poverty line. Master scholarships have been pegged at $17,500 per year for 20 years. Ph.D. students get a bit more at $21,000. Therefore, my question for the minister is this: Why have these scholarship amounts not changed since 2003? Last week, at the Standing Committee on Science and Research, we were studying the same question. One of the witnesses was Sarah Laframboise, a Ph.D. student from the University of Ottawa, who had organized the May 1 walkout. She had appeared before our committee exactly one year ago on the same subject. This time, and I am quoting from the blues, she stated, “It is frustrating, however, that in the last year since my appearance there has been no action by our government to solve these problems. During this time, we have 7,000 scientists and 40 scientific associations sign an open letter. We had 3,500 signatures on a petition...delivered to the House of Commons. We rallied on Parliament Hill in August. We spoke to MPs, ministers, media and the public about our cause, and sent over 2,000 emails to our MPs. But this wasn't enough. Budget 2023 contained no new funding for graduate students and post-docs.” Also testifying was Dr. Maydianne Andrade, a professor of biology at the University of Toronto. She said, and I am again quoting from the blues, “Our current system is a massive filter. It is a filter that is filtering out people as a function of their finances, not as a function of their excellence, not as a function of the likelihood that they might be the next Canadian Nobel prize [winner]. “We are filtering out people who can't take the mental load of living in poverty, those who don't have credit ratings that allow them to take out loans, those who are unable to manage incredibly challenging research agendas while holding down several jobs. “We are filtering out mature students who have dependents, and we're filtering out anyone whose family can't help support them through this without massive debt.” The science and research committee recommended last year that these scholarship amounts be increased. We have the advisory panel report on the federal research support system, headed by Dr. Frédéric Bouchard, and commissioned by the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry himself, recommending that these scholarship and fellowship amounts be increased and indexed to inflation. I spoke with Dr. Bouchard recently, and he was mystified as to why these recommendations had not been followed. Therefore, I will repeat my question: When will this be fixed? When will we start paying our young researchers a living wage so they will stay in Canada, where we need them to be, instead of leaving for any number of countries that would happily pay them twice as much as they receive here?

661 words

Mr. Andy Fillmore (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.)

May/15/23 7:08:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am happy to respond to the comments made by the hon. member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay regarding federal investments in science for our graduate students, scientists and researchers. Canada is a leader in science and research, and the government is committed to ensuring that this continues. Every day, Canadian researchers stand at the forefront of new scientific discoveries and research breakthroughs, and the Government of Canada has continued to invest in Canadian researchers, the key drivers of innovation who are helping to build a healthier and more prosperous future for us all. Since 2016, Canada has committed more than $16 billion to support the valuable contributions that scientists and researchers make to the health, well-being and prosperity of all Canadians. Enhancing the opportunities available to researchers has been a priority that the government has backed up with significant investments in successive budgets. In terms of targeted investments to support students and post-doctoral fellows, the government recognizes the critical role that federal scholarships and fellowships play in nurturing and sustaining Canada's top talent through support for career progression and increased financial security and independence. Budget 2019 provided $114 million over five years, with $26.5 million per year ongoing, to create more than 500 master's level scholarship awards annually and 167 more three-year doctoral scholarship awards annually through the Canada graduate scholarships program. That same budget, budget 2019, also invested $37.4 million over five years and $8.6 million ongoing to expand parental leave coverage from six months to 12 months for students and post-doctoral fellows to help young researchers better balance work and family. Looking ahead, to deliver an equitable, accessible and effective suite of scholarships and fellowships, the Government of Canada continues its work to promote equity, diversity and inclusion. Budget 2019 invested in bursaries and scholarships for first nations, Inuit and Métis students through a $9-million investment in lndspire, while the granting agencies, the tri-agency, have partnered with indigenous peoples to develop a national research program to advance reconciliation. Furthermore, through Budget 2022, we invested $40.9 million to support targeted scholarships and fellowships for Black student researchers. Looking forward now, the Government of Canada remains committed to supporting a strong federal system that fosters new ideas, breakthroughs and advancements. To cement Canada's leadership position on the world stage, our research support system must meet the needs of today's research, which is increasingly complex, collaborative, multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary and international. To these ends, the government recognizes the importance of continued evaluation of and investment in Canada's science and research ecosystem. The government welcomes the advisory panel on the federal research support system's report, the Bouchard report. The government is carefully reviewing the findings and recommendations and taking them under consideration. As we advance efforts to support the research ecosystem and Canada's top talent, the government understands it is important to provide a research environment that is supportive of Canada's top talent and to promote science in this country.

511 words