44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 14, 2023 02:00PM
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his bill and the care he took to ensure that it did not affect Quebec's environmental sovereignty.
Can he clarify how his bill goes much further than the study we did in committee on Bill S‑5 with respect to the right to a healthy environment?
55 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am assuming that the member was referring to how this bill extends these rights further than Bill S-5 and in a stronger way.
This covers all federal legislation, not just the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and it provides, as I mentioned, mechanisms for citizens, if they feel that the federal government is not responding to environmental issues, such as companies that are breaking the law with regard to the environment, citizens could demand an investigation. If that proceeds to a certain point, they could even take environmental action.
If we are giving people the right to live in a healthy environment, we must uphold that right and we must hold the government accountable with transparent measures so that people know that they can enjoy this right.
130 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member bringing forward Bill C-219. As he is indicated on several occasions, this is legislation that, with a different bill number, has been before the House in the past.
The timing is really interesting. Just yesterday, we had royal assent on Bill S-5. I was encouraged by the way many members of the House spoke to Bill S-5. I thought that maybe I would pick up on a couple of points, if I may, the first one being something that I think, far too often, does get overlooked, something that we should be talking about more whenever we talk about the environment.
It is a shared responsibility, as we know. If one were to do a radar scan of one's constituents, we would find that it is typically in the top three or four issues. For me, in Winnipeg North, health care might be number one or in the top two, but the environment and concerns related to the environment are consistently among the top issues that want to be talked about. They also want to see action on the issue of the environment.
The member talks about shared responsibility. Often, when we talk about shared responsibility, we do not highlight the importance of indigenous people. When we talk about reconciliation, I think it is absolutely critical that indigenous people, governments, first governments and so forth be recognized and appreciated in terms of their important role traditionally, today and going into the future.
I like to think that Bill S-5, in good part, reinforces that. We talk about the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People and its adoption. We need to apply that lens to the different types of legislation that come through the House.
That is the reason I had posed the question to the member. I am concerned about the issue of jurisdictional responsibility, recognizing that the environment does not recognize borders, interprovincially or internationally.
We just saw a very good example of that with the forest fires. I am thinking of Quebec, Nova Scotia and Alberta. We had responses across Canada, in trying to assist in dealing with these fires. We also had direct contact with the President of the United States, who was concerned about the quality of air that is going south of the Canada-U.S. border.
I would like to emphasize that when one talks about the environment, one has jurisdictional responsibility but, even more importantly, many would argue that there is a moral responsibility that is tagged to that jurisdictional responsibility, because air knows no boundaries; water knows no boundaries.
When we take a look at what the member also emphasized, it is the issue of environmental rights, the idea of having a right to a healthy environment. That is why, at the beginning, I tied Bill S-5 in. When I spoke on Bill S-5, I like to think that I amplified the issue of the right to a healthy environment and the expectations that Canadians have regarding it.
Bill S-5 dealt with the assessment and management of substances and ensured that Canadians and residents from coast to coast to coast have a direct link to ensure that they have that right to a healthy environment.
I understand that the legislation that is being proposed, Bill C-219, wants to expand on that. I think it is worth looking at. The right to a healthy environment means more than just the air we breathe. We can and should be expanding on that.
I do not want to say that I know all the details of the legislation, nor have I been around to hear the discussions that have taken place at the committee level. What I do know is that there is, as an issue, a desire of the people of Canada to see the government be proactive at dealing with our environment.
I also recognize that there are not only the legislative measures that I referred to in relation to Bill S-5, but there are also budgetary measures and measures that would be incorporated through regulations that also deal with the concerns that we have with respect to the population as a whole.
I would like to highlight a few of those measures. When we talk about our environment, we need to try to put it in a way most people, including myself, can understand the issues. When I think of a right to a healthy environment, I would like to think there is a tangible recourse dealing with an issue that is affecting me. When I say “me”, I am not talking about me as a member of Parliament. I am talking about me as a resident and anyone in the communities we represent.
If they witness or have a concern about something that is taking place in our environment, they need a vehicle to express that concern with an expectation that someone is actually listening. Hopefully, some form of action can be taken where it is, in fact, warranted.
I remember many years ago one of the first issues that I ever had to deal with in 1989 or 1990 was the issue of PCBs and how PCBs were impacting a playground at a school. There were concerns, at that time, about Manitoba was going to be able to do.
There are issues of that nature and issues people want to directly get involved in themselves. There are issues like when the government, through a regulation, said that it wanted to ban single-use plastics or it wanted to provide financial assistance to those who are prepared to look at alternatives to fossil fuels.
These are the types of initiatives the government can look at and deliver on. The idea of how we can enhance those environmental rights is something I am very interested in.
I would look for specific examples that we could, in essence, put into a brochure. I think it is important—
1006 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/23 6:00:28 p.m.
- Watch
Unfortunately, the hon. member's time is up. I know that 10 minutes goes by quickly.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent has the floor.
28 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to speak in the House, especially on a subject is important as the environment and our vision for the future of the planet and our country for our children and grandchildren.
The bill introduced by our NDP colleague deserves our attention. First of all, we feel that the key element of this bill is that it ensures that people can live in a healthy environment. It is a principle we share, of course, and one we shared in Bill S‑5, as the member stated earlier in response to a question from the member for Terrebonne, my Bloc Québécois counterpart. The bill we are currently studying certainly does go much further than Bill S‑5 in protecting the environment and ensuring that people can live in a healthy environment. We recognize that.
As we see it, however, the bill goes too far in the judicial area. This is a delicate issue. Ultimately, we believe that the judiciary must enforce laws, and that elected representatives of the people must make the laws and vote on them. This is a fundamental principle. Based on the wording of the bill, we think that the judiciary will become the legislative authority. This is where our visions differ. Ultimately, we do not believe that the role of judges is to decide how laws are made, but rather, to decide how they should be enforced. It is the role of the legislator, the elected representatives of the people, to establish legal frameworks. This is not to say that the bill should be scrapped. On the contrary, it contains some positive elements that could serve as inspiration for other legislation and other parliaments. These strong elements could be used to create an even more forceful argument in support of the need for people to live in a healthy environment. We recognize and support this principle.
This gives us the opportunity to discuss the environmental issue. We all know that climate change is real and that it directly affects peoples' lives. Humans contributed to climate change, so they have a responsibility to take steps to reduce the impact of climate change and, essentially, reduce pollution. Members will recall that just a few days ago, on Monday afternoon, the deputy House leader of the official opposition and member for Mégantic—L'Érable read a motion that was unfortunately rejected by the Liberal government, a move we vigorously condemn. The motion included all the elements of our vision for the environment. Unfortunately, it was rejected by the Liberals. I will read the motion moved by my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable:
That the House:
(a) stand in solidarity with and express its support for all those affected by the current forest fires;
(b) acknowledge that climate change is having a direct impact on people's quality of life, and that it is exacerbating the frequency and scale of extreme weather and climate events, such as floods, tornadoes, forest fires and heat waves;
(c) recognize that the federal government must do more to combat climate change, prevent its impacts and support communities affected by natural disasters;
(d) call on the federal government to take concrete action in the fight against climate change, which is at risk of becoming increasingly expensive for both the public and the environment.
That text outlined our vision concerning climate change. It unequivocally stated that we acknowledge that climate change exists, that it has an impact on the extreme weather events that we are experiencing, that it makes them worse and that it is our duty, as parliamentarians, to take concrete steps to address that situation. It is unfortunate that, for the sake of petty partisan politics, the government rejected our motion. The Liberals simply had to say yes. I cannot believe that they had anything against a single word or sentence of that motion. However, they could not acknowledge that we Conservatives are thinking about this issue. I understand them, in a way, because they have nothing to be proud of. After eight years of this government, where does Canada stand on the world environmental stage?
I would remind members that, after being elected in 2015, the Prime Minster was proud as a peacock to stand up at the Paris climate conference and say, “Canada is back”. Eight years later, Canada is way back.
It is not me saying it, it is the UN itself. In November, at COP27 in Egypt, the United Nations tabled a report containing a scathing indictment of this Liberal administration. The report assessed the 63 most industrialized countries and scored each country on effectiveness in fighting climate change. Scientists from around the world who were brought together by the UN gave the following report on the Liberal government that has been in power for eight years. Liberal Canada ranks 58th out of 63 countries in terms of fighting climate change. It is not the Conservatives saying that, it is UN scientists who said it in a report.
Since the UN released that report, I have asked for unanimous consent from the House over a dozen times, if not more, to table that scientific UN document. Once again, the Liberals in power decided that that UN assessment should be swept aside and that they should continue as if nothing were wrong.
The problem is that they talk a good game but cannot deliver. That is also why Equiterre, the group co-founded by the current Minister of Environment and Climate Change that recently marked its 30th anniversary, decided to sue the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, because it feels that the government is good at rhetoric, but not so good at fighting climate change. Once again, it is not the Conservatives saying that, it is Equiterre, the group co-founded by the current Liberal Minister of Environment and Climate Change. On May 6, 2022, he was sued by Equiterre, the group he founded.
The government has chose to fight climate change with taxes. That is not the road we want to take. The Parliamentary Budget Officer, who I just questioned at the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, confirmed that the Liberal approach of creating a second carbon tax on clean energy, as they themselves have stated, will have a direct impact on every family in Quebec. Quebec families will need to spend an average of $436 more because of that double carbon tax. In other words, Quebec families will have $436 less in their pockets because of that double carbon tax. People really do not need that when we know that interest rates are rising. We know that everybody is struggling right now. Creating a new tax during a period of inflation when people are struggling is absolutely ridiculous. I would go so far as to say that only the Liberals could come up with such an idea.
Let us talk about the future. Let us talk about hope. We Conservatives want the government to put in place concrete, realistic and responsible measures to tackle climate change. If the Liberals do not, we will. The fundamental principle to consider is the need to reduce pollution. That will take concrete action. What does that mean? It means reaching out to polluters and asking them to cut their pollution as much as possible. It is a bottomless pit, but that is okay.
If we somehow manage to lower our pollution by 20% in one year, I say bravo. However, what is to be done on January 1 to reduce the impact of pollution on our environment? For that, we must rely on research and development, new technologies and tax incentives for businesses to invest in them. Real, concrete measures are needed to reduce pollution.
Then, the green light needs to be given to green energy. In Canada, we have tremendous solar, wind, geothermal and nuclear energy potential. We can develop our green energy potential even further. To do that, however, the government would have to be willing to move forward and not constantly throw up roadblocks every time we come up with an idea.
Under Bill C-69, which was passed in 2019 with the backing of the Bloc Québécois, the federal government gave itself veto power over hydroelectric projects in Quebec. That is crazy. If the Government of Quebec wants to propose a hydroelectric project, it should get every facility to move forward, but the federal government gave itself veto power with the surprising and disappointing backing of the Bloc Québécois.
In addition, our Canadian know-how must be exported. Our natural resources must be exported. It is unfortunate that rare metals like lithium, cobalt and other similar elements are currently being mined in countries where human rights are unfortunately not respected.
We need to promote Canadian potential. The fourth part is more than just a pillar; it is the foundation of our whole vision. It is that all this needs to be done in partnership with first nations, as our leader said at a press conference in Vancouver three months ago.
1535 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my goodness, I have so much to say to my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent. It is going to take a glass of wine or a beer to talk about it.
The Bloc Québécois supports the principle of Bill C‑219. We believe that it really needs to be studied in committee. At first glance, the bill seems to be well thought out and drafted, with its preamble clearly setting the context for this desire to include real access to the courts as part of the enforcement of the right to a healthy environment.
In reading this bill from my colleague from South Okanagan—West Kootenay, I am pleased to see something other than statements of principle, and to see more legally binding and prescriptive provisions. I am especially pleased that its content has the potential to have a tangible impact on Canadians, the environment and society in general.
Bill C‑219 also stands in contrast to what the Liberal government has given us. I am talking about its claim to have literally created a right to a healthy environment. I do not know about anyone else, but I believe that the word “creation” implies the idea of accomplishing something bigger than oneself.
Still, the Liberal government believes that, with Bill S‑5, which modernizes the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, it has done exactly that. We do not think so, however. In fact, senior officials confirmed that this is merely an interpretation key for the implementation of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which does not apply to other legislation and is to be defined at a later date by the Minister of the Environment.
Let me describe this as a communication strategy. What is the point of having a right if it is unenforceable, and if in the event that this right is violated, remedies and penalties are essentially symbolic and serve as neither a deterrent nor a punishment? The answer is obvious. Sadly, there is a lack of accountability for organizations and individuals who think that they are above the law and who commit reprehensible acts that cause serious harm to the natural environment, to the people who have to deal with it, and to society as a whole.
Since 2006, the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms has established that “[e]very person has a right to live in a healthful environment in which biodiversity is preserved, to the extent and according to the standards provided by law.”
The Bloc Québécois believes that the Quebec nation has sole jurisdiction over public decisions concerning the environment and Quebec's territory. Therefore, it seems to us that Bill C‑219, as drafted, will be enforceable under federal environmental legislation without adversely affecting the laws of Quebec or Quebec's environmental sovereignty.
In April 2022, members of the National Assembly of Quebec unanimously adopted a motion affirming the primacy of Quebec's jurisdiction in matters of the environment. I would like to make it perfectly clear that in matters of environmental protection, this essential condition must be met before the Bloc Québécois will support any legislative proposal.
Elected members from Quebec also unanimously oppose any environmental intervention by the federal government on Quebec's territory. We view this position, which we will voice systematically on the federal political stage, to be a true reflection of the interests and values of Quebeckers. That is our mandate.
The Bloc Québécois definitely supports the recognition of the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment as a universal human right. It has almost been one year since the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a historic resolution declaring that access to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is a universal human right.
There were 161 countries that voted in favour of the resolution. According to Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, if we want to make this right a reality, governments must recognize it and do what is required to make it a reality. Governments must also ratify and implement all existing multilateral agreements concerning environmental rights.
Obviously, Bill C‑219 will not make the right to a healthy environment a fundamental right like the rights that are guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, it is interesting to consider studying it in committee if only to examine and better interpret the legal, even constitutional, framework for a Canadian environmental bill of rights.
That said, the bill will amend “the Canadian Bill of Rights to provide that the right of the individual to life, liberty and security of the person includes the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment.” In that context, it makes sense to think that this right would be quasi-constitutional in scope.
In support of this scope, I should mention that the preamble to the bill states the following:
Whereas action or inaction that results in significant harm to the environment could be regarded as compromising the life, liberty or security of the person and as contrary to section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;
Ultimately, my colleague's proposal creates a true right under Canadian environmental laws. It is a right that citizens could avail themselves of in order to require the government to investigate potential violations of environmental laws, to bring an environmental protection action against a person who has allegedly violated federal environmental laws, to file petitions on the review of any federal environmental law, and to file an application for judicial review, including by a person not directly affected by the subject matter of the application, if the matter concerns environmental protection. That is very interesting.
It is significant that the meaning of the word “environment” and the expression “healthy and ecologically balanced environment” is clarified under the “Interpretation“ heading.
I also appreciate that the bill includes the concept of the state as trustee of the public good. Protecting the environment means looking after society's collective interest, which is the role of the state, as much for those living now as for future generations. This principle, the fiduciary doctrine, is the very foundation of the progressive work leading to a better understanding and application of environmental rights around the world.
I must also applaud the Member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay for the attention he has given to an extremely valuable piece of legal content, a section entitled “Paramountcy of Principles of Environmental Law”.
In any legal context, it is vitally important to be able to rely on clear concepts and recognized definitions, if for no other reason than to allow the legislative branch to unambiguously express what the judiciary must have in mind when seized of a case.
I am referring to the polluter pays principle, the principle of sustainable development, the principle of generational equity and the principle of environmental justice. I could also talk about the principle of prudence, but it is not there. Instead, we have the precautionary principle. I want to reassure everyone that just because I was a professor in another life, that does not mean that I am going to flunk a member on their exam. I will just make the correction.
It is a typo. Looking at the English version of the Rio declaration of 1992, it clearly says “precautionary principle”. However, that was poorly translated. The French version refers to the “principe de prudence”, which has nothing to do with the environment. This flawed translation removed the very essence of this principle, which is central to the framework for implementing such a bill.
The Bloc Québécois succeeded in rallying the members of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development around this correction during the study of Bill S‑5. The precautionary principle entails abstaining if there is a risk, whereas the idea of prudence instead suggests the authorization of an action and the management of its risk, which is very different. I know my colleague will be quick to make this change. Like the Bloc Québécois, I am sure he sees recognition of the precautionary principle as essential to the framework for implementing legislation to protect the environment.
In conclusion, I repeat that the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of Bill C‑219.
1424 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise on behalf of the people of Skeena—Bulkley Valley in northwest B.C. to speak to Bill C-219, which is before us today.
I will start by paying tribute to my colleague from South Okanagan—West Kootenay. It has been, and continues to be, such a pleasure to work with him in the House. My colleague is an ardent defender of the environment and, in addition to being an excellent parliamentarian, many people do not know that he is one of Canada's foremost bird experts. I think he probably holds the record for the most question period interventions related to birds. I had the opportunity last year to go birdwatching with him, which was a real treat.
His work in the House is a service not only to his constituents, but also to all Canadians. The bill before us is just one example of that work, so I want to thank the member for bringing it forward. I am excited it has gotten to this point and will be put to a vote because this is an issue of interest and concern to so many Canadians.
I also want to acknowledge Linda Duncan, the former member of Parliament for Edmonton Strathcona, who brought forward a very similar bill during her time in the House. I am sure she is pleased to see these ideas advancing in Parliament.
Sometimes when I sit in this place, I remind myself, particularly on days when we feel stuck in the weeds of the minutiae of different issues, to reflect on our purpose as parliamentarians, the reason we are here, why we are elected and what our constituents want us to focus on. I can think of nothing more central to our mission, more core to our purpose as a Parliament and as a country, than ensuring our citizens are able to live healthy, fulfilling lives. The security and vitality that could be afforded to every Canadian are so important for us to come back to in all of our work. I cannot think of anything more important in this bill than its articulating in Canadian law the right to a healthy environment, which is very central and relevant to the idea of facilitating healthy, fulfilling lives for all Canadians.
I was thinking of another person in preparing for this speech, who was 10 years old when I met him. In 2014, I was a small-town mayor in Vancouver for a conference. Going into the Vancouver Convention Centre, I was approached by a 10-year-old boy named Rupert. He is still out there. I looked at the date, did the math and realized that he is now almost 20. Rupert was approaching all the municipal politicians at this convention and advocating for the very concept that we are talking about today in the House of Commons.
To him, the most important thing we could be doing was ensuring a healthy environment for his generation and generations to come. He looked around at the world that he was inheriting. He was there with his sister Franny, and both were involved in this advocacy. He wanted us, as local politicians, to understand how vitally important it was to protect the environment and pass on an environment that would not put his generation in jeopardy.
I think sometimes 10-year-olds and young people can see complex issues with such moral clarity. One of the reasons I wanted to amend the Canada Elections Act to allow 16- and 17-year-olds to participate in our elections is that I believe they have so much to contribute to the conversation. Even at 10 years old, Rupert was contributing back in 2014, and I am thinking about him today as we debate this bill in the House.
We know that the environment is us. We are the environment. We are inextricably linked to our surroundings, the ecosystems and other systems that support life on this beautiful planet. I was reminded of a quote from David Suzuki that speaks to this very well. He said, “We are of the Earth, every cell in our bodies formed by molecules derived from plants and animals, inflated by water, energized by sunlight captured through photosynthesis and ignited by atmospheric oxygen.”
Rupert was quoted as saying, “If humans are harming the environment, we're directly harming ourselves”. This is something that for so long we have been oblivious to. It is something I believe as humans we once understood much more intuitively and paid more respect to, this concept of being inextricably linked to our environment, but somehow we have forgotten and have moved away from that.
I grew up in a remote community out in the bush. When I think about a clean environment, the image that sticks in my mind is that of drinking right out of the river. My parents had a homestead, and we had a log house on the bank of this swift flowing creek, Kiwa Creek. We had a log that went out onto the creek. My father had flattened the top of the log, and we walk out on to that log with a bucket, scoop water right from the river and drink it without any treatment.
I cannot think of an image that sticks in my mind more when I think of a clean and healthy environment than that of drinking clean water coming from our rivers and streams, yet in so many parts of Canada, that is no longer a safe proposition for people.
How many among us would disagree that Canadians deserve these things, that they deserve to breathe clean air, drink clean water, eat safe food, live lives free of dangerous toxins, receive the many benefits of healthy functioning ecosystems, and most importantly in this day and age, enjoy the benefits of a stable climate and pass a stable climate on to future generations? As well, as this bill speaks to, who would disagree that they deserve to participate in the decisions that affect the environment and, thereby, affect them?
For people raising children in this day and age, the right to a healthy environment has a particularly poignant and meaningful relevance. My children are now 18 and 16 and going off into the world, and I think about the future they are inheriting. There is nothing I want more for them than for them to experience the environment in the way I enjoyed and have all of these things I have spoken of to live lives that are healthy and free from environmental harm.
When thinking about this bill, I also think about all of the people in northwest B.C. who have been fighting for a healthier environment, for a cleaner environment and for the various environmental harms to be dealt with by the government and other governments. I think of the Chicago Creek environmental group near Hazelton, which was responding to a coal spill into Mission Creek, a creek near its community. I heard from indigenous folks in the area, members of the Gitxsan Nation, who are deeply concerned about the impact of that coal spill on the creek itself and on the vegetation surrounding it, vegetation they rely on for a number of purposes.
I think of CN rail, of course, which runs right through the riding I represent. A couple of years ago, CN rail was found guilty of spraying herbicides right into the waterways that flow into the Skeena River, British Columbia's second-largest wild salmon river.
I think of community groups in Smithers and in Kitimat that have been working for years to address air quality concerns. I think of one particular citizen of our community, who was deeply concerned about a government practice of spraying arsenic on pine trees to kill the mountain pine beetle, who eventually succeeded in forcing an end to that practice.
For those people who are watching tonight, and I am sure they are watching on CPAC as all Canadians do, I hope they see some promise in this bill before us.
I want to again thank my colleague for bringing it forward, and I look forward to the vote in the House of Commons.
1382 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
30 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank the minister again for her intervention today.
Part of the next stage of this, presuming this passes and becomes law, would then be to develop the regulations for this bill and to negotiate with the provinces and territories. This would all be done not through Parliament, not at committee but behind closed doors. While the government touts itself as being open and transparent, the way that this would play out would actually be behind closed doors. There would not be an opportunity to come back to Parliament. There would not be an opportunity to take any of the details of this benefit to committee to be analyzed, to have witnesses testify and to have amendments.
My question to the minister is this. Would you consider this to be an open and transparent process going into the next stage?
142 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/23 6:31:58 p.m.
- Watch
I just want to remind the member that she is to address all questions and comments through the Chair and not directly to the member.
The hon. Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion.
35 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I can reassure the hon. member that this would be a very public process. In fact, because of amendments made in this House, there would be an obligation of the government and of the minister to report to both Houses on engagement: the level of engagement and how we have engaged with the disability community. We would have to report, at the end of one year, what regulations have been put in place and what they look like, not to mention that the regulatory process itself would be quite public.
In the pre-regulatory process, we have already engaged with the disability community. We are working on a series of round tables. We have a ton of input already. I could go on, but I want everyone to know that we intend to make this a very public, open and transparent process.
144 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to ask a little bit about the consultation that has already happened and how far along this is. I know, and the minister and everyone in the House knows, that the community wants this benefit to be passed and that it wants to have it in bank accounts as soon as possible.
Has some of that consultation already gone forward on regulation, and what kind of timeline do you really anticipate this is going to be?
80 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/23 6:33:25 p.m.
- Watch
I would remind members to address questions and comments through the Chair.
The hon. minister.
15 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, technically, the regulatory process itself has not commenced, because there is nothing to regulate until there is a law, until the bill is passed; however, a lot of work has been done to date. Community members are very engaged on the specific elements, giving us feedback on areas like how the reduction rate should be designed, how much the amount should be, how we work with provinces and territories—
72 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/23 6:33:54 p.m.
- Watch
I am sorry to interrupt the minister, but I have been informed that there are problems with the interpretation.
It is now sorted out now.
The hon. minister can continue.
30 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, yes, a lot of work has been done technically on specific elements of the benefit, but of course the regulatory process itself cannot start until this bill becomes law.
31 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, while I am encouraged that the minister was so deeply involved in ensuring that Bill C-22 was going to move through the House this evening, I am deeply disappointed that the Senate amendment that would have ensured that people with disabilities do not have their benefits clawed back from the insurance industry was not supported. This is essentially going to increase the profits of private insurance companies.
Why is the minister not willing to stand up and ensure that this amendment that the Senate carefully worked through is included?
92 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am not willing to encroach on provincial jurisdiction in the area of general contracting or on private insurance, or create the risk and uncertainty that doing so would do, which is not to say that I have not put a red line in the sand on clawbacks. I am working very closely with provincial and territorial colleagues to make sure that does not happen.
67 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am glad to stand in the House to speak to Bill C-22 today. It is always an honour to represent my community of Kelowna—Lake Country.
I know that our Conservative members are all committed to increasing support for Canadians living with a disability. More than one in five Canadians lives with a disability. It is not an insignificant number. In fact, it is not a number at all; these are people. These are family members, friends, brothers, sisters and parents. Canadians living with disabilities can have additional financial burdens with assistance, supplies or equipment that they may require. Canadians living with disabilities are underemployed, as approximately 59% of working-age adults with disabilities are employed, compared to around 80% of those without disabilities, according to Statistics Canada.
Navigating life with a disability can be a full-time job for many, with no time out and no break. While the intention to support those with disabilities remains, there are many unknowns with Bill C-22, which we are discussing today. This is because the most important details of this bill, such as eligibility, what “working age” means as mentioned in the bill, what the payment amounts will be, what the application process will be, and provincial and territorial co-operation and interaction with other benefits are all being left to be determined through regulation. These would all be determined behind closed doors, with no ability to come back to parliamentarians for debate or amendments, and no opportunity to hear from witnesses at committee in a public venue. Essentially, we have a bill with a benefit and process that are yet to be determined. Canadians living with disabilities deserve legislation that is committed to them through concrete action, not promises.
This legislation had extensive testimony at the human resources committee, including many written submissions. I will mention just one witness who testified at committee: Michelle Hewitt, chair of the board of directors for Disability Without Poverty, who is also a constituent of mine in Kelowna—Lake Country. I first met Michelle many years ago in my community, and she has been a strong advocate in many ways for persons with disabilities. I will read a couple of comments she made on record during her witness testimony at committee. She said, “Disabled people do not live in poverty because they are worthless to society. It is quite the opposite; it is because their worth is not valued. In fact, people with disabilities contribute over $47 billion to the Canadian economy.” She also stated:
We talk about lifting disabled people out of poverty, but what does that really mean? Canada's official poverty lines use the market basket measure, which fails to take disability into account.
We hear the stories of disabled people living in poverty on a daily basis, as they are our friends and family. We can tell you about the man who approached Rabia in the parking lot of a grocery store offering to swap bus tickets for food, or my friend who lives month to month with MAID approved, wondering if this month will be her last because she can't afford to live.
...Time is of the essence. Food inflation is at 11.6%, yet provincial disability payments are not index-linked. This means that in real terms, disabled people fall further behind every day.
This is why this benefit would most effectively be delivered if details were co-created with persons with disabilities. This is why Conservatives supported amendments at the human resources committee, which passed, to provide more certainty on this benefit, including indexing the benefit to inflation, ensuring the Canada disability benefit payment amount would stay proportionate to the cost of living. We also support the Senate amendments the government has brought forth.
The creation of the Canada disability benefit should consider the complex web of programs currently in place, which, for many Canadians with disabilities, including those with episodic disabilities, can result in benefit cuts and higher taxes as a consequence of taking on work. There are families that rely solely on benefits due to the nature of the disability, and people are living in poverty.
I want to be clear that I am concerned about the potential clawbacks that could affect people. These could be with interactions with provincial or territorial benefits, with interaction of benefits through insurance, or with interactions with federal benefits. While the minister has stated that potential clawback of provincial supports is a red line when negotiating the creation of the benefit with provinces, she has not been able to point to any specifics in the legislation or guarantee that this will not happen. Conservatives proposed an amendment to Bill C-22 at the human resources committee to prevent clawbacks at the federal level. This was written by the legal department of the House of Commons. Disappointingly, the Liberals voted against it and it did not get into the legislation.
There was an amendment put forth by the Senate to address clawbacks dealing with insurance, based on witness testimony at the Senate. I spoke to a constitutional lawyer about this, who pointed out that there are strong constitutional arguments in favour of this Senate amendment and that it was endorsed by all provincial trial lawyers associations in Canada. However, the Liberal government has not accepted that amendment.
I want to be very clear, on the record, that Conservatives are concerned with any form of clawbacks, and that this disability benefit act does not have anything in the legislation to give assurances to address this. We will be watching very closely over the next couple of years, once the regulations are developed and this benefit is all implemented and it plays out. Conservatives will be holding the Liberal government to account on this.
This is all at a time when the cost of rent has doubled and mortgages have doubled. Inflation has hit a 40-year high, and interest rates increased nine times in the past year. Liberal inflationary deficit spending led to high inflation, which led to high interest rates, which will lead to mortgage defaults. This is very concerning, and those with disabilities are among the hardest hit.
I want to comment on and clarify the parliamentary process and timelines the Liberal government went through with this legislation. The Liberals say that persons with disabilities are a priority; however, it took them six years to take action on this disability benefit. They finally introduced Bill C-35 in 2021, in the previous Parliament, and the Liberals then called an unnecessary election in the summer of 2021, which collapsed the legislation.
The minister said she was consulting with the disability community. However, she introduced the exact same legislation in 2022. It was a goal of mine, and of my colleagues in the Conservative official opposition, to ensure that Bill C-22 progressed through the committee process diligently and through adding needed amendments, though there are others we wished were agreed to. We managed to get the bill through the committee process quickly and passed in the House of Commons before Parliament rose at the end of 2022. On May 18, the Senate returned the bill to the House of Commons with amendments, and on May 30, at the human resources committee, the minister would not commit to a timeline on which the government would return Bill C-22 to the House of Commons. We have been waiting for weeks.
I and other Conservative colleagues were hearing from persons with disabilities that Liberal MPs were telling them that Conservatives have delayed this legislation. I want to be very clear that those comments are a fabrication and a falsehood. I would just tell people to look at the facts, the actions at committee and the parliamentary process the Liberal government has followed in bringing this forward. This debate could have been held weeks earlier than today if the Liberals had brought it forward.
As I mentioned earlier, the level of disability poverty in Canada remains a prominent issue, and we have a responsibility to do better. The Conservative members of Parliament are committed to supporting Canadians living with disabilities, and not penalizing people and families. Therefore, I can say that we are all in agreement that the Canada disability benefit must be passed, and we encourage the government to immediately get to work consulting with the disability community, as the minister has said that the regulations will, in fact, take a year to develop. We heard that today in response to my questions for the minister.
With that being said, our Conservative caucus will remain vigilant in ensuring that the government fulfills its promises to the disability community.
1457 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I know it has been a very difficult time to try to get the Liberal government to accept proposals that have been coming from the opposition parties, so I very much appreciate the work the member has been doing, and I certainly agree with her on our wanting to make sure that this is very strong legislation and that we really push the government on those clawbacks. I agree with her on that.
I do want to ask a question. We know there is going to be a time gap between when regulations happen and when the money is going to get into folks' bank accounts. In committee, I and the NDP asked for an emergency interim benefit, and I am wondering if the member is in agreement with that, now that these things have changed slightly.
139 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
