SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 213 - Jun/14/23

Jun/14/23 5:06:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would argue that the member is talking about a dispute over the facts, and she is misrepresenting what actually was said by the member for Kingston and the Islands. Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

37 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/14/23 5:07:03 p.m.
Watch

Order. I will let the hon. whip for the Conservatives speak, and I will go to the hon. parliamentary secretary afterward. The hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock.

30 words

Secretary

Hon. Kerry-Lynne Findlay

Jun/14/23 5:07:27 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, in my remarks, I stated that the member for Kingston and the Islands was the member who denied consent. I did so because I was in the House when unanimous consent was asked for. I sat directly across from the member and heard him deny consent, as did many other House officers and members near me. I recognize that the member has every right to defend himself and can dispute me in the course of debate. However, his response went far beyond debate. He said, “This member should apologize, because she is lying right now.” He then walked out of the House. This remark caused significant disorder. I immediately rose on a point of order to file my objection to his use of an unparliamentary term. The member returned during my remarks, and he proceeded to shout over me, making it difficult to express my point of view. He then offered a half-hearted and insincere apology. I say “half-hearted and insincere” because his next action was to make a face at me and give me the middle finger. At that point, he walked out of the House again. His aggressive gesture is representative of language that is strictly forbidden in the House. Many members saw this aggression. Notably, the member for Vancouver Kingsway and the member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies confirmed that they saw this action in their own points of order. I took the floor again to call for the member to be sanctioned in the strongest way possible, including being ejected from the House. The Chair informed the House that he did not see the gesture in question and would review the tapes. That step is no longer necessary, because the member for Kingston and the Islands returned to the House again, admitted that he made the gesture and then followed that with another insufficient apology for what he described as “displaying [his] frustration”. He did not adequately take—

337 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/14/23 5:09:32 p.m.
Watch

There is a point of order from the hon. member for Waterloo.

12 words

Hon. Bardish Chagger

Jun/14/23 5:09:36 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take away from the opposition whip's time, but I want to acknowledge, as the member just stated, that the member for Kingston and the Islands did apologize. In this place, we have a tradition where we take members at their word and—

51 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/14/23 5:09:52 p.m.
Watch

That again falls into debate. Let us have those comments after the member for South Surrey—White Rock completes her statement, when I will be more than happy to recognize other members. The hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock.

42 words

Hon. Kerry-Lynne Findlay

Jun/14/23 5:10:05 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, he did not adequately take responsibility for his actions. He should apologize to me, the Chair and the House. In the circumstances, and upon some reflection on the matter, now that we are out of the heat of the moment, I truly believe that with his misogynistic bullying and insults, the parliamentary secretary was trying to obstruct me from making and completing my speech. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 107, states: In order to fulfill their parliamentary duties, Members should be able to go about their parliamentary business undisturbed. Assaulting, threatening, or insulting a Member during a proceeding of Parliament...is a violation of the rights of Parliament. Continuing at page 108, it states: Speakers have consistently upheld the right of the House to the services of its Members free from intimidation, obstruction and interference. This is a long-standing and well-established principle in the law of parliamentary privilege, tracing its roots back to the April 12, 1733, resolution of the British House of Commons, which states, “That the assaulting, insulting or menacing any member of this House, in his coming to or going from the House, or upon the account of his behaviour in Parliament, is a high infringement of the privilege of this House, a most outrageous and dangerous violation of the rights of Parliament and an high crime and misdemeanour.” Bosc and Gagnon observe the following at page 109: In order to find a prima facie breach of privilege, the Speaker must be satisfied that there is evidence to support the Member’s claim that he or she has been impeded in the performance of his or her parliamentary functions and that the matter is directly related to a proceeding in Parliament. On May 1, 1986, at page 12847 of the Debates, Speaker Bosley held: If an Hon. Member is impeded or obstructed in the performance of his or her parliamentary duties through threats, intimidation, bribery attempts or other improper behaviour, such a case would fall within the limits of parliamentary privilege. While I did complete my speech, I have to say it is very disturbing, distracting and disruptive to have to finish a speech after being put through that escalating ordeal by the member for Kingston and the Islands. I say that as someone who has spent a career as a litigator. Certainly, the giving of the finger is improper behaviour at the least, and with the context it was given in last evening, it was intended to be of a threatening or intimidating nature. In fact, the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, second edition, defines giving the finger, at page 555, as “mak[ing] an obscene gesture with the middle finger raised as a sign of contempt.” A “sign of contempt” is the literal definition. It is certainly unparliamentary, and I would argue that it is contemptuous, behaviour. No matter how we cut it, it is unacceptable conduct in any professional setting. I must say, I have never experienced this in my professional career to date. While I do not believe we have ever had a Speaker's Ruling on a member giving another the finger, Bosc and Gagnon explain, at page 112: It is impossible to codify all incidents which might be interpreted as matters of obstruction, interference, molestation or intimidation and, as such, constitute prima facie cases of [contempt]. At page 81, they state: There are, however, other affronts against the dignity and authority of Parliament which may not fall within one of the specifically defined privileges. Thus, the House also claims the right to punish, as a contempt, any action which, though not a breach of a specific privilege: tends to obstruct or impede the House in the performance of its functions; obstructs or impedes any Member or officer of the House in the discharge of their duties; or is an offence against the authority or dignity of the House, such as disobedience of its legitimate commands or libels upon itself, its Members, or its officers. They continue: The House of Commons enjoys very wide latitude in maintaining its dignity and authority through the exercise of its contempt power. In other words, the House may consider any misconduct to be contempt and may deal with it accordingly. Indeed, on June 7, 2021, at page 8034 of the Debates, the Speaker found a prima facie contempt concerning our former colleague, Will Amos, who, while attending the House virtually, urinated into a coffee cup. I would note the wording from that ruling. It states: In response, the member for Kingston and the Islands agreed that it was a deplorable and unacceptable incident, while also pointing out that the member for Pontiac had accepted full responsibility and that he had stepped aside from his parliamentary secretary responsibilities and from his committee responsibilities in order to obtain the appropriate assistance. For that reason, he was again apologizing on his behalf. Further in the ruling, it states: I obviously take note of the apology from the member for Pontiac. He recognized that his behaviour was completely inappropriate and confirms his commitment to obtain the necessary assistance. Nevertheless, the Chair is required to determine whether the alleged facts are a breach of the rules governing contempt and thus merit priority consideration. That is the case here. Just as in those circumstances two years ago, I believe that the misogynistic bullying and offensive gestures by the member for Kingston and the Islands must absolutely be called out. They rise to the threshold requiring your intervention, Mr. Speaker, and this House's disposition through a privilege motion. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, should you agree, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

954 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/14/23 5:16:39 p.m.
Watch

I thank the member for her intervention. Just to add to what happened last evening, after the member had come back in, I think I was pretty stern in telling him that he had to unreservedly admit and apologize. I am just going to read Hansard. He said, “Mr. Speaker, I admit that what the members are indicating that I did, I did do. I unreservedly apologize for displaying my frustration that way.” Knowing the information that was provided, we will go back and come back with a ruling. The hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock.

100 words

Hon. Kerry-Lynne Findlay

Jun/14/23 5:17:18 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I read through that apology again, as I said, out of the heat of the moment, which was very disorderly and chaotic in this place. What the member apologized for was using that expression to express his frustration. He did not apologize to me, the House or the other members, and that is quite different.

57 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/14/23 5:17:42 p.m.
Watch

I thank the member for that. We will come back with a ruling.

13 words

Ruling

Hon. Carla Qualtrough (Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion, Lib.)

Jun/14/23 5:19:56 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-22

moved: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that, in relation to Bill C-22, An Act to reduce poverty and to support the financial security of persons with disabilities by establishing the Canada disability benefit and making a consequential amendment to the Income Tax Act, the House: agrees with amendments 1, 4 and 5 made by the Senate; agrees with the Senate proposal to make any necessary consequential changes to the numbering of provisions and cross-references resulting from the amendments to the bill; respectfully disagrees with amendment 2 because it raises significant constitutional concerns by seeking to regulate the insurance industry specifically or contracting generally, both of which fall within provincial jurisdiction; proposes that amendment 3 be amended to read as follows: “New clause 10.1, page 4: Add the following after line 5: “Appeals 10.1 Subject to regulations, a person, or any other person acting on their behalf, may appeal to a body identified in regulations made under paragraph 11(1)(i) in respect of any decision (a) relating to the person’s ineligibility for a Canada disability benefit; (b) relating to the amount of a Canada disability benefit that the person has received or will receive; or (c) prescribed by the regulations.””.

217 words

All Topics

Hon. Carla Qualtrough (Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion, Lib.)

Jun/14/23 5:19:56 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-22

She said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the government's position on the proposed Senate amendments to Bill C-22, an act to reduce poverty and to support the financial security of persons with disabilities by establishing the Canada disability benefit and making a consequential amendment to the Income Tax Act. I do so on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe peoples. I will begin by thanking senators for their attention to this bill, especially the members of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology for their study, which resulted in six amendments to the bill and seven observations. Each time I have risen in the House on Bill C-22, I have begun by declaring that no person with a disability in this country should live in poverty, yet many do. Approximately 23% of working-age persons with disabilities in Canada live in poverty, and many are in deep poverty. The history of how this came to be in a country with as much promise and opportunity as Canada is one of exclusion, marginalization and discrimination. This history, and the resulting financial insecurity and poverty, which is a lived experience of many persons with disabilities in Canada, is the backdrop for Bill C-22, and it is why we are here today working together to create a new federal benefit for low-income, working-aged persons with disabilities. At its core, the Canada disability benefit is about poverty reduction and financial security. There is a significant gap in our social safety net for persons with disabilities. The Canada child benefit disability supplement is available until age 18 and old age security and the guaranteed income supplement are available after age 65, but there is nothing in between. However, just as the guaranteed income supplement did for seniors and the Canada child benefit did for children, the Canada disability benefit would lift persons with disabilities out of poverty. Bill C-22 is framework legislation by design. The Canada disability benefit would be established and implemented through Bill C-22, which is a legal framework to create the benefit and a subsequent regulatory process through which the specific details will be established. This reflects our commitment to the disability community and recognizes the leading role that provinces and territories play in providing supports and services to persons with disabilities. Now I will move on to the amendments. There were six amendments sent back from the Senate. As was said, the government agrees with amendments 1,4, 5 and 6, and proposes that the House accepts these amendments as is. These amendments enhance Bill C-22 in that they add clarity, precision and specificity. We also agree with amendment 3 with a minor amendment. Amendment 3 would add a new clause, clause 10.1, related to appeals. While Bill C-22 provides for an appeal process to be created by regulation, this new clause gives a right to appeal in two specific areas: benefit ineligibility and amount. The government proposes that this Senate amendment be further amended to clarify that other decisions may also be appealed. This would avoid a future legal interpretation where grounds for appeal are restricted to the two specified areas of ineligibility and amount. I thank the Senate for its thoughtfulness on this important issue of administrative justice and trust that it will consider the government's proposed amendment appropriate. Now, I will spend some time on the final amendment, Senate amendment 2, as the government's proposed response to it is to respectfully disagree. Amendment 2 would amend clause 9 of Bill C-22, which concerns the way benefit payments are to be treated in situations such as bankruptcy or insolvency. Amendment 2 would add that benefit payments “cannot be recovered or retained, in whole or in part, under the terms of any contract, insurance plan or similar instrument”. I understand that the intent of this amendment is to address the situation where provincial benefits or insurance payments are at risk of being clawed back or reduced as a result of a payment of the Canada disability benefit, effectively leaving the recipient no better off and potentially impacting secondary program and service entitlements. The issue of clawbacks is perhaps the most common concern raised by the disability community. We heard it here in the House as well. The disability benefit and support landscape is incredibly complex, and varies significantly across the country. There are different eligibility criteria in every province and territory, different definitions of disability, different treatments of other sources of income, different reduction rates, etc. As a result, we have to be mindful of the potential direct and indirect impacts that additional income in the form of the CDB could have on provincial or territorial benefit and service entitlements. Since day one, we have been clear that this is supplemental income, meant to be in addition to provincial and territorial income supports and other forms of income. It is not replacement income. It is not employment income or employment earnings. We explored ways to address these concerns through legislation. The challenge is that both contracting generally and the insurance industry fall within provincial and territorial jurisdiction. This is why no such provision exists in any other benefit legislation in Canada, not for the Canada child benefit, OAS or GIS, CPP, or the Canada workers benefit. While the federal spending authority allows the government to create such a benefit, it does not allow the federal government to attach conditions in areas of provincial jurisdiction, such as the regulation of insurance companies. Knowing this, we have worked very closely with provinces and territories on benefit interaction. Provinces and territories have expressed gratitude for early engagement. There is consensus that the CDB is intended to be supplemental income, not replacement income, and make people better off. They share our view that the best way of optimizing benefit interaction is by working together. We have a detailed federal-provincial-territorial work plan that all jurisdictions have agreed to. Once this bill becomes law, we will begin the formal negotiations on agreements with the provinces and territories. We have also engaged with the private insurance industry. The feedback we have received from the industry is that they would not choose to offset or claw back income that is considered social assistance or a poverty reduction measure. Once again, the CDB is not replacement or employment income. Once this bill becomes law, we will continue to work with private insurers throughout the regulatory process. Simply put, the government disagrees with this amendment because we believe it raises significant constitutional concerns. Both the regulation of private insurance and contracting generally fall within provincial jurisdiction. If we went ahead with this amendment, the likelihood of an individual or organization bringing forward a court challenge would be very high. This would create significant uncertainty and could impact the regulatory process, which could in turn impact benefit delivery. This could very well delay benefit payments. Furthermore, I am concerned that there would be serious implications for federal-provincial-territorial relations. It is likely that the provinces and territories would see this provision as an encroachment on their jurisdiction. This could undermine the work that we have accomplished to date. Therefore, while I understand and share the Senate's concerns around clawbacks, the way to address this issue is to continue with the process that is already under way, not through this amendment to Bill C-22. The Senate amendments we are proposing to accept further strengthen Bill C-22 and do not limit the government's commitment to a quick, regulatory process. The amendment we are proposing to not accept, respectfully, raises constitutional concerns and could significantly impair our relationships with provinces and territories, and ultimately delay benefit delivery. I thank the senators for responding to the disability community's concerns. Both the House and the Senate have improved this bill. The Canada disability benefit is the result of decades of relentless advocacy on the part of the disability community. This benefit is the culmination of the work of every self-advocate, every activist, every parent, every ally, every organization, everyone who has fought to have disability rights recognized. I said at the beginning of my remarks that we are here, working together, on this. We have come together on this bill already, and today we did it again. We are on the cusp of doing what every single one of us in this place came to Ottawa to do, which is to help people, make their lives better and right historic wrongs. Today, we are literally making history.

1443 words

All Topics

Mrs. Tracy Gray (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC)

Jun/14/23 5:29:15 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-22

Mr. Speaker, the last we heard was that it would take approximately a year to negotiate with the provinces and territories, and a year, at the same time, to develop the regulations, once this potentially passes royal assent and became law. Is that still the timeline that is being worked towards? Will it take a year to develop all of that? Should people realistically expect the disability benefit a year past this point?

73 words

All Topics

Hon. Carla Qualtrough

Jun/14/23 5:29:59 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-22

Mr. Speaker, yes, the anticipated timeline for the regulatory process remains at 12 months, so as I have said, the quicker we get this to royal assent, the quicker we start that 12-month clock.

35 words

All Topics

Hon. Randy Boissonnault (Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance, Lib.)

Jun/14/23 5:30:54 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-22

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that, with respect to the consideration of Government Business No. 26, at the next sitting of the House, a minister of the Crown shall move, pursuant to Standing Order 57, that debate not be further adjourned.

41 words

All Topics

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

Jun/14/23 5:31:16 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5 Bill C-219

moved that Bill C-219, An Act to enact the Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights and to make related amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee. He said: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I stand in the chamber this evening to begin debate on my bill, Bill C-219, the Canadian environmental bill of rights. I first want to thank Linda Duncan, the author of this bill, who introduced it on four occasions over 11 years during her time as the member of Parliament for Edmonton Strathcona. On one of those occasions, it passed at second reading, but it unfortunately died when an election was called. There are environmental bills of rights in Ontario, Quebec, Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, but until last night, there was no federal law that explicitly recognized the right to a healthy environment in Canada. With the passing of Bill S-5, which updated the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, we now have a federal statement of rights to a healthy environment, but those rights are limited to the scope of CEPA, basically to toxins within our environment, and those rights have no accountability processes or powers associated with them. Bill C-219 would expand and strengthen those rights to the rest of the scope of federal jurisdiction. Last summer, on July 28, 2022, the UN General Assembly passed a unanimous resolution that recognized the right to a healthy environment around the world. With Canada voting for that resolution to join the rest of the world and 92% of Canadians agreeing with it, it is certainly high time we had federal legislation that recognizes that right. We are behind the rest of the world in that regard. Over 80% of UN member states already legally recognize the right to a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment. International efforts to recognize this right go back to the 1972 Stockholm declaration, which recognized the right to an environment of a quality that permits a life of dignity and well-being. After that came the United Nations Aarhus convention in 2001. This multilateral agreement, more fully known as the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, protects every person's right to live in an environment adequate to his or her health and well-being. The Aarhus convention links environmental rights and human rights. It acknowledges that we owe an obligation to future generations. It establishes that sustainable development can be achieved only through the involvement of all stakeholders. It links government accountability and environmental protection, and focuses on interactions between the public and public authorities in a democratic context. According to the Aarhus convention website, it is, at its heart, about government accountability, transparency and responsiveness. It grants the public rights, and it imposes on parties and public authorities obligations regarding access to information and public participation in and access to justice. This is what this bill would do as well. Bill C-219 would extend the right to a healthy, ecologically balanced environment to all Canadian residents. It would do this by amending the Canadian Bill of Rights to add the right to a healthy environment; by providing a bundle of rights and legal tools to all residents of Canada, including accessing information around environmental issues and decisions, standing before courts and tribunals, transparent processes that will help hold the government accountable on effective environmental enforcement and on the review of law and policies through investigations and, if necessary, environmental protection actions; and by extending protections for government whistle-blowers who release information relevant to health and environmental impacts. This bill would apply only to federal jurisdiction, and would not change provincial environmental law. The bill would not take away from the rights of Canadian indigenous peoples, as recognized and affirmed in section 35 of the Constitution. The bill would specifically exclude the Canadian Environmental Protection Act from its ambit, as that act, after the passage of Bill S-5 last night, provides rights to a healthy environment, although restricted to the scope of that bill. Bill C-219 would extend those rights to the rest of federal legislation. Why do we need this? For one thing, Canadians want it. As I mentioned, in a recent poll, 92% of Canadians agreed we should have the right to live in a healthy environment. However, the right to a clean and healthy environment is a hollow promise if it does not come with accountability measures. That is because, unfortunately, governments often simply do not live up to the legislation they pass. They do not take action to enforce that legislation, including legislation meant to protect our environment. I will mention two quick examples of this, and I am sure everyone here in the chamber could add to that list. Ten years ago, in July 2013, a tanker truck rolled into Lemon Creek in the beautiful Slocan Valley, in my riding, and spilled its entire load of 33,000 litres of aviation fuel into this pristine water source. Although this clearly caused environmental harm, not only to the stream and the life within it but also to the residents of the Slocan Valley who relied on that water source, the government of the day refused to act. It was left to a courageous local resident, Marilyn Burgoon, to initiate court action against the trucking company under the federal Fisheries Act. Eventually, perhaps shamed by Marilyn's powerful example, the federal government did agree to step in to help fight this battle, which dragged on until January 2020, for seven years, before finally being resolved. Sadly, Marilyn passed away a few weeks before that case was concluded, but her legacy in the Slocan Valley lives on, and her memory is cherished by many. If we declare that Canadians have the right to live in a clean and healthy environment, we must make sure the federal government is accountable for holding up its part of that all-important bargain. Bill C-219 would do that. Another example is a more personal one to me. I used to work as a consulting ecologist, and much of my work involved species at risk. For eight years, I was one of the co-chairs of the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, or COSEWIC. Under the Species at Risk Act, or SARA as it is called in the trade, COSEWIC has the task of assessing wild species in Canada and advising the government, through the Minister of Environment, of its decisions. Every year, COSEWIC writes a letter to the minister and lists the assessments it has made. Some species might be listed as endangered. Others may be listed as threatened, and still others may be listed as not at risk. Under SARA, the government has nine months to make a decision about listing a species after receiving the advice from COSEWIC. It can adopt the advice or not, but the decision is public and transparent. If a cabinet decision is not made, the decision defaults to the COSEWIC-assessed status. All this sounds perfectly logical, but what happened under the Harper government was unexpected. It decided the clock started ticking when the minister told cabinet, so it came up with the cunning plan that the minister would not tell cabinet at all about COSEWIC assessments, even though they were on the public registry. Therefore, that government listed zero species for four years, despite having been advised to list over 80. It avoided the transparent decision part of the deal. I pressured the current Liberal government to at least change that in policy, though it was reluctant to support the bill I put forward to change it into law, so now it is public policy that listing cannot be put off indefinitely. Bill C-219 could help in that situation too, since it covers all federal legislation, including SARA, the Fisheries Act and others. This would be for all legislation I mentioned except the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which is carved out because it has a similar promise when it comes to living in a clean and healthy environment. Like most members with private members' bills, I have talked to each party about my bill and about why its so important and what it would and would not do. In one of those discussions, the issue of constitutionality came up, so I want to spend a couple of minutes talking about that issue. I will say right off the top that I am confident this bill is constitutional. For one thing, this is the fifth time the bill has been introduced, and as far as I know, this is the first time this concern has been raised. As I mentioned before, the bill passed second reading in a previous Parliament, and the bill is explicitly concerned with actions based on existing federal legislation. None of the rights here apply to matters that are found only in provincial legislation, so I was confident this concern had no real foundation. However, to be sure, I asked the House of Commons legal department to provide an opinion on this matter. This is the conclusion of its opinion: After having reviewed the bill carefully, we are of the opinion that the main subject of the bill is not the environment. Consider that the bill would not regulate any aspect of the environment, such as water quality, air quality, species at risk or toxic substances. Rather, the bill relates to civil liberties, which may be regulated by either level of government, depending on which level of government has legislative authority over the institutions and activities to which the civil liberties apply. In the case of Bill C-219, most provisions explicitly apply to federal matters only. The opinion also explains why three provisions, while not explicitly applying to federal matters, would be considered by any court as applying to federal matters. Accordingly, the opinion states that no amendment to Bill C-219 is necessary. In summary, the environment is a jurisdiction shared between the provinces and the federal government. Some people might therefore be concerned that this bill treads on provincial jurisdiction. However, since this bill deals with human rights and civil rights, and deals with them on matters of federal issues only, this bill is constitutional. I am confident of that and I do not think we need to amend it in any way to deal with that issue. I am going to conclude with a plea. We are so proud of this country. We are proud of its size, its beauty and all the resources it provides for us in ways that keep us living in a healthy way in this clean environment. It gives us jobs and also keeps us healthy. I think everybody in the House would agree that we have the right to live in a clean and healthy environment. If we have that right, we need legislation to uphold that right. That is what Bill C-219 would do, and I hope that everyone here will support this bill and provide that right to all Canadians.

1865 words

All Topics

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

Jun/14/23 5:44:27 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-219

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's bringing forward the legislation, and his comment. The member has made reference to the fact that the bill has been brought forward to the House in the past. He also made reference to the fact that there is joint responsibility between the provinces and the federal government. I would add indigenous peoples to that as a very important factor when we talk about anything related to the environment, let alone any other issue that might be out there. Could he just share whether he has had that dialogue and whether he has some direct information he can provide in terms of feedback from the provinces, territories and indigenous communities?

116 words

Mr. Richard Cannings

Jun/14/23 5:45:24 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-219

Madam Speaker, as I said, this bill would not infringe on anything involving the indigenous rights under section 35. I discussed this with my colleagues here in this place: the member for Nunavut and the member for Winnipeg Centre, who are well versed in these matters. Again, this is the fifth time this bill has been tabled in this place. Those matters have been discussed in committee and discussed at length in other venues, so I am confident we are actually making this country a clean and healthy place for all. Indigenous people are really the best stewards we have had, and I am sure they would appreciate any legislation that would keep us all protected from anything that would limit the ability for us to live in a healthy environment.

131 words

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)

Jun/14/23 5:46:44 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-219

Madam Speaker, I am on the environment committee, so if it does proceed past this stage, I will look forward to seeing it studied in more detail. In relation to indigenous communities and indigenous people here in Canada, could the member unpack how this legislation would impact that special relationship that indigenous communities have with the Crown, and how that would impact the environment? I am specifically asking in relation to a number of communities in Alberta that are looking for partnership opportunities when it comes to resource development. I know there are other economic opportunities, fisheries on the coast, and otherwise. Could the member expand on that?

108 words

Mr. Richard Cannings

Jun/14/23 5:47:41 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-219

Madam Speaker, that question is very similar to the previous one. With regard to development or anything like that that would have an impact on the environment, Bill C-219 operates through federal legislation. Any development that went through federal legislation, having gone through those regulations, got their permits and all that, would not be affected by this at all. This only comes into effect when there are developments that contravene those regulations, those protections that we already have in place. It would not affect any development that is proceeding legally whatsoever.

92 words