SoVote

Jun/16/22 5:13:02 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree. It is a good bill. It is well drafted and clear. It is the result of a decade or more of study and reflection. I think we have a duty to do whatever we can to adopt this bill as soon as possible.

48 words

Hon. Greg Fergus (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the President of the Treasury Board, Lib.)

Jun/16/22 5:13:47 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands for her speech. I agree that the fight against climate change is very important. It is the greatest existential challenge of our generation. I hope that she will also agree that everyone needs to work together to fight climate change, and that doing so takes social cohesion. It is very important, especially for minority groups, such as racialized people, that a bill like this one is passed. Canadians of all backgrounds will then have confidence that, if they appear before a judge or a court, they will be respected and judged on the merits of the case. They will not be concerned that a judge may have an unwarranted bias that may undermine justice. I would like to hear my colleague's comments on this.

136 words

All Topics

Ms. Elizabeth May

Jun/16/22 5:14:56 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that we need to have a system that gives each and every Canadian and Quebecker confidence that the system is fair and free of racism. We currently live in a society where systemic racism is found in every institution, group, and province, because racism is built into the system, even though not everyone is racist. That is why we need to do more.

68 words

All Topics

Mr. Eric Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC)

Jun/16/22 5:15:55 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, as always in the House, it is a pleasure to rise to speak and raise the voice and the message from my constituents in the eastern interior riding of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry. I will be splitting my time here this afternoon with our opposition House leader, the member for Barrie—Innisfil. I want to start my intervention and notes on Bill C-9 today with a bit of a personal parliamentary perspective. We are hearing a lot of criticism here today on this bill. I will say at the forefront that I agree with this specific piece of legislation on the need to modernize our judicial system and to improve confidence in it in a timely fashion. We will hear from our Conservative colleagues some reasonable questions, comments and perhaps amendments to strengthen it. At the end of the day, when we talk about a general intent and the high level of opportunities for us to build strength and confidence in our judges and a process for removal if necessary, we would be deeming that appropriate. As a bit of context on this piece of legislation, it was tabled six months ago, and this is the first opportunity to discuss it. It is not as if it had been debated for weeks and months on end here in the House of Commons. This is the first time we have had a few hours to discuss it. In my limited time here of two and a half years as a member of Parliament, I have seen that we have to learn how we can most effectively find ways to get our voices onto the floor of the House of Commons on issues that are important to our constituents. I will take some time and note a bit of the background on the bill, but I will talk as well in general about some of my concerns and frustrations with the government's direction or tone or intention or narrative when it comes to building confidence in our Canadian judiciary. The bill before us would update a piece of legislation. When I was looking at the background, I had to go online, and it was kind of interesting. The current process for complaints of misconduct against judges was introduced in 1971. Pierre Elliott Trudeau was our prime minister, and the minister of justice and attorney general at that time was future prime minister John Turner. I think we could agree in the year 2022 that there have been amendments over the years but that we are going to need to tweak and change and edit legislation over the course of time. I will give credit to the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, who just spoke for a few minutes and gave some very tangible examples of how we need this reform to go. Right now, one of the issues is that if a serious complaint is made through the process of the judicial council and if the misconduct is deemed less serious, the individual member may negotiate a resolution to the process. That lacks accountability and transparency, and I think there is agreement that we need to reform that process. The proposal in Bill C-9 would change that so that if it is deemed less serious, there still is an opportunity. A member would review it and could either dismiss the complaint if it was wholly without merit or refer it to a three-member review panel. This would provide an opportunity to make sure all reasonable and credible allegations of misconduct, and their severity level, would go through a proper process, which again would give Canadians confidence. I will also note from my colleague from the Green Party's intervention that there have not been many of these over Canadian history. That speaks to the integrity, the ethics and the strength of the bench in Canada for decades, but I also think we need to update this to make sure that, again, the cases that are deemed “less severe” would still require a review in a public, transparent process in terms of the review panel, the hearings and so forth. One of the things I want to raise when we talk about building confidence in the judiciary is the government's intention when it comes to mandatory minimum sentencing. One of the pieces of legislation we have debated here is Bill C-5. That can relate to, and the government is proposing to remove, several mandatory mandatory minimum penalties. The government is saying that if we oppose the removal of those mandatory minimum penalties, we do not support the Canadian judiciary and the discretion of judges. That is not the case. We believe, as Conservatives, in victims' rights and in supporting those who have gone through trauma or issues and have gone through being a victim of a crime. There deserves to be a minimum punishment. One of the things we talk about when we talk about removal is that this is not for simple things like simple possession. I want to list the things that we have been standing up for, as I believe confidence can still be maintained in our Canadian judiciary and individual judges. A number of mandatory minimums are being removed related to gun crimes. Mandatory minimums are gone for robbery with a firearm; extortion with a firearm; weapons trafficking, importing or exporting, knowing it is unauthorized; and discharging a firearm with intent. The mandatory minimum in all of these cases is gone, and the list goes on. Also, some of the legislation we have been dealing with would eliminate mandatory prison time for drug dealers by eliminating six mandatory minimums in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act: trafficking or possession for the purpose of trafficking, importing and exporting or possession for the purpose of exporting, and production of a schedule 1 or 2 substance. What does that mean? It means heroin, cocaine, fentanyl, crystal meth. There would be a removal of those mandatory minimums. This, again, is the first time we have been dealing with the bill in this Parliament, as it was over in the Senate. The government prorogued at one point, and then it called the election, so it has been stalled several times. This is the first time that we have an opportunity. I have advice to the Bloc and the NDP, which are complaining that I would like to stand up and have a 10-minute intervention on confidence in our Canadian judiciary: It is that I do not believe in the direction the government is going when it comes to eliminating mandatory minimums. We may agree on the need for reform; there is what is in the legislation, but, most importantly, it is what is not in the legislation, and we have an opportunity to stand up here in the House of Commons and raise those concerns. It also gives me the opportunity to be the voice for my constituents as well when we talk about the process. Bill C-9 is one example, and Bill C-5, which is terribly flawed, in my opinion and in the opinion of our caucus and in the opinion of many members of law enforcement as well. One of the things that we are not seeing, among the easy things to do, is a whole bill dedicated to reforming this. It means that they are not putting in legislation to address some of the other things. We are calling it out when we see it. A perfect example is the lack of services for those in the Canadian justice system who are dealing with addiction or battling addiction. We are seeing changes in an effort, through legislation, to try to distract us from the lack of investment in mental health and addictions treatment for those who truly need it. We are taking mandatory minimums away from people who are trafficking and preying on some of the most vulnerable in our society, yet we are not providing the resources to get them the help that they truly need. When we have a bill like this, it is an opportunity to talk about the views from our community on the portfolio of the Attorney General, the Minister of Justice. It is an opportunity to perhaps find agreement on this, yes, but I can also find time to join the floor of the House of Commons and say what is not in forthcoming legislation, what is perhaps not in budget bills to address some of the flawed aspects of the government's intentions. I will just say this as we wrap up, and I have always said it: Somebody who is battling addiction does not need prison time. That is a universal agreement in our country, of law enforcement, I believe, and of the House. We need to target our resources and our criminal justice system on those who are preying on these people and victimizing them. At the same time, we need not only pieces of legislation like Bill C-9 to increase confidence in our justice system; we need investments that can actually get victims, those who are dealing with addiction, out of our justice system and into proper help to get back into a better trajectory in life and a more positive future for themselves. I will say in review of this bill that it is time for an update. I look forward to questions and comments and I appreciate the opportunity to speak broadly about confidence in our justice system.

1597 words

All Topics

Mr. Sébastien Lemire (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ)

Jun/16/22 5:25:49 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to tell his party to let him speak more because, especially in his conclusion, he talked about diversion-related values that I would like the Conservative Party to address more often. I would like to hear more about that interesting idea. In the current context, I would like to ask him what measures he would propose to make this a little more efficient, if he were the justice minister. There seems to be a lot of tension in the House today. In closing, I would like to point out my colleague's good taste in clothing. I really like his tie.

108 words

All Topics

Mr. Eric Duncan

Jun/16/22 5:26:43 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comment on my tie, and members will note I am wearing the “loud MacLeod” tartan today, which represents the Glengarry county part of my riding. To the member's comment, I will go back to the opportunity to speak more broadly about criminal justice reform and reform to our justice system. On this piece of legislation, I know some of our Conservative colleagues, from conversations, look forward to hearing from witnesses, and many of them have been quoted in various debates today. I think we may find some reasonable amendments to strengthen the legislation, and I will defer to them specifically on that. I had the opportunity to speak in general support of the bill, and again, we will see where it goes in committee, and also to raise some of the things that are not in the government's justice agenda and legislation.

151 words

All Topics

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

Jun/16/22 5:27:40 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to other legislation, Bill C-5, which is on minimum sentences, and he is very offended by the fact that that legislation was brought forward. Getting rid of minimum sentences does not mean someone who commits an act would get off scot-free. What it does mean is we would be providing more opportunity for judges to use their discretion. Judges, in vast majority, are very well educated and have a very good understanding of the system. They can take a look at the circumstances and are in a better position to be able to give a disposition. I would not want him to give a false impression that, because we are getting rid of minimum sentences, people would get off scot-free. That is just not accurate. My final thought is regarding the calling of the legislation. Surely to goodness the member would realize that, even though it was introduced and had first reading in December, there are many other legislative agendas. The Conservative Party never approached the government to call for Bill C-9 either. It is here today because the Bill C-14 debate collapsed last night. Bill C-14 was another piece of legislation that was extended because of the Conservative filibuster.

212 words

All Topics

Mr. Eric Duncan

Jun/16/22 5:28:57 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, I was not suggesting that people would get off scot-free. What I am saying is that Conservatives believe that, for the serious cases I listed, with the removal of mandatory minimums in Bill C-5, there should be a floor, a benchmark or a minimum punishment for some of the most severe and serious crimes being committed to go after the people who are going after our most vulnerable. Again, I alluded to this in my comments. These are highly educated judges, and I have respect for our judiciary. I also have respect for victims. I believe when somebody is committing robbery with a firearm or extortion with a firearm, or they are producing heroin, cocaine, fentanyl or crystal meth, there should be a benchmark and a minimum. They would have the discretion to go higher, but there would at least be a floor. It is standing up for victims and their rights. I will not apologize for that, and I reject the premiss that to support mandatory minimums in these serious cases is somehow saying we do not trust our judiciary. I trust the need to stand up for victims and for there to be proper consequences for those who harm them.

206 words

All Topics

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

Jun/16/22 5:30:21 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Uqaqtittiji, does the member not realize this bill would actually enhance fairness because of the mechanisms that would be established, and that, through the enhancement of these fairness systems, it would help improve the protection of victims?

37 words

Mr. Eric Duncan

Jun/16/22 5:30:46 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, to clarify for my colleague from the NDP regarding this piece of legislation, I agree. Looking at the proposal and the draft, this could strengthen it and ensure there is a full process for every complaint that goes through to a review of judicial misconduct. The bill would improve and modernize that. What I was alluding to in my speech was an opposition to Bill C-5 and the elimination of mandatory minimums. Again, one can support and respect the independence and quality of our judges in this country while still believing there could be a minimum floor.

100 words

Mr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC)

Jun/16/22 5:31:24 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-9, an act to amend the Judges Act, a bill that was originally introduced last year, and I may have referenced earlier that it was October 2021, but it was actually in December 2021. I will begin, and I know he is not going to like this because he is sitting just over my right shoulder here, with some praise for our shadow minister for justice, the hon. member for Fundy Royal. Since his re-election in 2019, he has had to deal with pieces of legislation, government legislation, government fixes to legislation that have been beyond any expectation of what any opposition critic, or shadow minister, as we now call them to mirror what the parliament of Britain calls their shadow ministers. He has done incredible work holding the government to account, and it is a complicated file to be able to disseminate what all of these pieces of legislation are, how they impact Canadians, and how they impact the judicial process and the court process. He has done that honourably and with great conviction. As we know, when we are dealing with these sorts of pieces of legislation, it is not just us, it is also policy advisors within our offices and legislative staff who comb through many of these pieces of legislation to try to make them better, to try to come up with legislation that is good for Canadians. I would argue that there is nothing more important when we deal with pieces of legislation than those dealing with our court system, those dealing with judges, those dealing with Criminal Code issues. I really want to thank our shadow minister for justice, the hon. member for Fundy Royal, for the work that he has done on many of these files. It is difficult because, when we are dealing with pieces of legislation like what we are dealing with today, Bill C-9, we know it was introduced in December 2021. This is a bill that has obviously languished in the legislative process. We are now at second reading debate on the bill and these hours of debate today are the first for this piece of legislation, but it is piece of legislation that has received broad support right across the country. My expectation is that it will move through the legislative process rather quickly. Some of that support has come, for example, from the Canadian Bar Association, which has expressed its support for the legislation. As I said earlier, it aims to change the judicial complaints process, which was first established 50 years ago. This is a piece of legislation that requires an update to reflect the realities of the current environment in this country. Bill C-9 proposes changes to the Judges Act to restructure the process for dealing with misconduct allegations against federally appointed judges. In particular, the bill will amend the process through which the Canadian Judicial Council reviews the conduct of these judges in three significant ways. One, it will create a process for reviewing allegations not serious enough to warrant removal from office. Two, it will improve the process by which recommendations on removal are made to the Minister of Justice. Three, it will ensure that the determination of pensionable service for judges ultimately removed from office reflects the actual time of service and excludes the time for review. As I said earlier, the Canadian Bar Association is clearly in support of this, and I expect that, when it gets through second reading and eventually ends up at committee, we are going to hear from the Canadian Bar Association. We will hear from other stakeholders as well, showing their strong support for review of a piece of legislation that has not been updated over the course of the last 50 years, so it is about time. One of the most important things about this place is that we have those voices of Canadians. There are 338 members in this place who are elected to express the views of their constituents. Those are important views, and these type of debates become increasingly important in a polarized society, so we can reflect on what the pieces of legislation can do and make these pieces of legislation better. I expect, at committee, the strong voices of those stakeholders and advocates who are for the bill or against the bill will perhaps come together and really reinforce or make this piece of legislation that much stronger. This is not the first iteration of what we have seen. The bill was originally introduced in the Senate as Bill S-5 on May 25, 2021. I went through the criteria of what the bill actually does fix, but again, like every other piece of legislation that was introduced, not only here in the House, but also in the Senate, before September of last year, this bill fell off of the Order Paper. If we look through some of the issues with the bill, one of the things that it focuses on is the issue of process reform and consultations as well. Bill C-9 follows the 2016 federal government's public consultations on potential reforms to the federal judicial discipline process. Within the consultation report, the judicial discipline proceedings had been marked by significant increases in costs and delays, and reforms were necessary to ensure that the process was cost effective, efficient and transparent, and to preserve public confidence in the judicial system. Under the current system of CJC, interim or final decisions can be challenged through three layers of judicial review. One is the Federal Court, the other is the Federal Court of Appeal. There is also, with leave, the Supreme Court of Canada. As a result, the judicial conduct inquiries can be subject to multiple, drawn-out legal challenges that can take years to resolve. I mentioned the judicial conduct and review process, but there are several other key points in this legislation. It also addresses complaints. Under both existing and new processes, anyone may submit a complaint about a judge's conduct to the CJC. Under this new process, the CJC may make a complaint only when there are at least two of its members who have reasonable grounds to believe that the public's confidence in the judge's impartiality, integrity or independence, which is critical as we know, could be undermined for any of the reasons stipulated in proposed paragraphs 80(a) through (d). An anonymous complaint, for example, would face the same threshold test as a complaint made by the CJC. The other aspect of this bill is that it proposes a screening officer be added to the existing process. The CJC's executive director screens complaints and may dismiss those that are clearly without merit, do not involve a judge's conduct or are not in the public interest. Under the new process, the CJC designates a screening officer, who may be a judge, to conduct an initial assessment. This is proposed section 88 in the bill. Complaints may be dismissed if they are clearly without merit, are not related to one of the reasons listed in new section 80 or do not meet other screening criteria that may be established and published by the CJC under proposed section 90. A reviewing member, as in the existing system, and this is another important piece of the new process, holds the complaints that are not dismissed after being screened by a member of the CJC. That is in proposed section 91. The judge whose conduct is the subject of the complaint may make written submissions at this stage under proposed section 93. There are more aspects of this bill that are important, but after 50 years, it is time for an update to this review system. I am glad that we are here today debating it in our House of Parliament, and I will be glad to answer any questions that anybody might have.

1338 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Jun/16/22 5:41:17 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Madam Speaker, I just want to thank the member for Barrie—Innisfil for that in-depth analysis of this bill, and for putting forward his position on it and how he feels about it. It was truly remarkable. He spent the first three minutes of his speech thanking the member for Fundy Royal for his hard work on it and indeed referenced the fact that the member for Fundy Royal had to do some in-depth analysis. I think his words were he had to “comb through” the legislation to look for changes. Could the member for Barrie—Innisfil inform the House of the changes the member for Fundy Royal came to conclude upon after that in-depth analysis of the bill?

126 words

Mr. John Brassard

Jun/16/22 5:42:01 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question.

12 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/16/22 5:42:07 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-8

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bill, to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill S-8, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, to make consequential amendments to other Acts and to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations.

67 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/16/22 5:42:51 p.m.
Watch

It being 5:43 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

25 words

Mr. Todd Doherty (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC)

Jun/16/22 5:43:18 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-224

Madam Speaker, it truly is an honour to participate in the debate on Bill C-224. I thank the member for Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne for bringing this important legislation to the House. We may disagree on a lot of things, but I know that she is equally passionate about serving and fighting for those brave men and women who serve our communities and our country. If members will indulge me for just a moment, I would like to recognize a friend of mine and a champion in my hometown of Williams Lake, whom we lost far too soon last week. Des Webster served in the Williams Lake fire department for over 24 years. He retired as fire chief in 2018, after leading our community through the worst fire season and the largest mass evacuation our province had experienced during the 2017 wildfires. Des had literally just become a grandfather. My condolences go out to his family and friends back at the fire hall in Williams Lake. Des will be missed. We are losing far too many of the men and women who serve our communities, either due to moral and mental trauma they experience or from exposure to the deadly substances and related cancers that they develop through their service to our community. I want to thank the over 26,000 Canadian men and women in the IAFF for their service to their communities and to our country. I would also like to thank the IAFF 1372 back home in Prince George. All firefighters truly are heroes. They put their uniforms on every day, knowing full well they will experience human tragedy and may have to make the ultimate sacrifice. These brave men and women run into burning buildings. Let us think about that for a moment: They run into burning buildings. When every fibre of their being is screaming at them to find safety, they run toward danger. When people try to escape the tangled wreckage of car accidents, they dive straight in to save lives. They hold our hand as we take our last breath. I believe we must fight for those who fight for us. I have dedicated the last seven years of my elected service to ensuring that we are fighting for those who fight for us, our silent sentinels who stand. They leave their families each and every day, not knowing whether they are going to return. Sadly, their families are far too often forgotten and left to pick up the pieces. When I see legislation like this, it makes me proud to know that we can actually make a difference in someone's life. Simply put, Bill C-224 will save lives. More than 85% of all line-of-duty deaths among firefighters in Canada are due to occupational cancers. Can members imagine getting up every day and going to work knowing that there is an 85% chance they will die of cancer? How many members of this chamber would want to come to work if they were told they had an 85% chance of contracting cancer from our work in the chamber? Awareness and education are essential to help firefighters detect the early signs so that they can get screening early and treatment as soon as possible. The increased use of plastics and resins in modern building materials means that the work environment for firefighters becomes more toxic with each passing year. While the average Canadian has a one-in-three chance of being diagnosed with cancer, firefighters are diagnosed with several types of cancers at rates that are statistically higher than in other occupations. Firefighters are exposed to both known and suspected carcinogens during their work. Although exposure is often for short periods of time, exposure levels can be high. Studies in fire chemistry show toxic levels of hazardous substances such formaldehyde, sulphur dioxide, benzene, toluene, and ethyl benzene, among other substances, in the smoke during the knock-down and overhaul firefighting phases, in structure fires as well as vehicle fires. With exposure, these hazardous chemicals coat their protective gear as well. They seep into every fibre. Incredibly, the gear that is designed to save their lives can also contribute to the exposure to these carcinogenic substances. Cancer-related deaths are a growing concern among the members of the industry, and anything we can do as parliamentarians to mitigate that risk is an important first step. Bill C-224 proposes national standards for firefighting cancers, including measures to explain the link between the disease and the profession. It calls on the government to identify the educational needs of health care and other professionals and to promote research and information sharing. There are so many things that we take for granted on a daily basis, moments that slip by us unrecognized, people, places, things that impact us without our even noticing. When we get dressed, have breakfast and leave for work, it never, in a million years, occurs to us that this could be the last day we see our loved ones, the last time we hug our wives or children, the last time we tell a friend or family member that we love them. Firefighters have to live with this realization each and every time they put on their uniform. They go to work knowing that this could be the last time they see their families. They go to work each day to protect us. They go to work to literally save our lives and to fulfill their oath to serve our communities, to protect other families and mine, regardless of the threat to their own personal safety. I attended the funeral of a fallen firefighter last year and I was given the Firefighter's Prayer. With the indulgence of the House, I will read it into the record: When I am called to duty, God, wherever flames may rage, Give me strength to save a life, whatever be its age. Help me to embrace a little child before it's too late Or save an older person from the horror of that fate. Enable me to be alert to hear the weakest shout, And quickly and efficiently to put the fire out. I want to fill my calling and to give the best in me, To guard my neighbor and protect his property. And if, according to your will, I have to lose my life, Bless with your protecting hand my loving family from strife. Passing Bill C-224 and creating a national framework that will raise awareness of cancers linked to firefighting seems such a small price to pay, a small price that will have a major impact on this essential profession, a small price that will save lives. I believe it is incumbent on all of us as leaders within our country to do whatever we can to fight for those who fight for us, whether it is fighting for the mental health supports that they desperately need so they can be well and be healthy, or whether it is fighting for legislation such as Bill C-224, which would be life-changing and help those struggling beyond their career. None of us know what the future will bring, but at the very least, we can provide those mechanisms, put those mechanisms in place to educate health care professionals and provide resources for the families and the firefighters who put their lives on the line every day. I hope that members of all parties will join me in supporting this important piece of legislation. Once again, I thank the member for Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne for bringing it forward. She reminded me today that it was five years ago this day that she stood in the House in support of my bill, Bill C-211, making Canada the very first country in the world to develop legislation to fight PTSD for those who fight for us: our frontline heroes. I thank all members of Parliament in this debate today and all who have come before us. I thank my good colleague from Barrie—Innisfil, who himself is a retired firefighter, as well as the member for Essex. I thank them for their service. I thank those in the gallery today. God bless.

1375 words

All Topics

Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ)

Jun/16/22 5:52:22 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-224

Madam Speaker, today I am speaking to Bill C-224, sponsored by the member for Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne. This bill provides for the development of a national framework designed to raise awareness of cancers linked to firefighting and to support improved access for firefighters to cancer prevention and treatment, while also designating the month of January as firefighter cancer awareness month. This bill has some very good points that we fully agree with, as well as some that are not so good, even though they come from a good place. Since we are at the stage of passing the bill in principle, I would like to say from the outset that we will be voting in favour of the principle of Bill C‑224, so that it can be sent to committee to be studied and improved. We fully support the idea of officially designating January as firefighter cancer awareness month. Firefighting is considered to be one of the most demanding professions, both physically and psychologically. It is important to recognize that and focus on it. Ever since childhood, it has been ingrained in our collective imagination that firefighters are real-life superheroes, and for good reason. Firefighters endure extremely difficult working conditions. They are constantly surrounded by hazards such as fire, electricity, chemicals, and toxic fumes. There is the ever-present risk of injury and burns. They often have brushes with death, and some of them even die. They push their bodies to their physical limits. In everything that they do and every move that they make, they are in a race against time, and each passing second wreaks havoc and ratchets up the danger level. To further complicate matters, a number of recent studies show that firefighters also face invisible threats in the form of toxic chemicals that can cause long-term occupational illnesses, including heart disease, lung damage and cancer, and it is easy to understand why. When firefighters battle a blaze inside and outside a building, they are exposed to dangerous toxic gases. Wearing a respirator helps protect them by minimizing exposure to inhaled chemicals, but particles can stick to and contaminate their protective clothing, mask, boots and gloves, meaning that by touching them, firefighters can become contaminated through their skin. This is a real problem that cannot be ignored and must be addressed quickly. That is why we will vote to accept this bill in principle. We want firefighters to know that this issue matters to us, that we recognize the amazing work they do and that we are deeply grateful to them. The federal government can play a huge role in many aspects of firefighters' health, and this bill puts forward some very interesting ones, such as the following points that would be in the national framework: (a) explain the link between firefighting and certain types of cancer; ... (d) promote research and improve data collection on the prevention and treatment of cancers linked to firefighting; (e) promote information and knowledge sharing in relation to the prevention and treatment of cancers linked to firefighting; It is very important that the federal government fund research on these cancers and their treatments and make that information widely available. That really is an essential part of the equation that goes hand in hand with collecting data on prevention to increase our knowledge about illnesses related to this profession. What did we know 30 years ago about toxic residues being absorbed through the skin and how serious that could be? Very little. The federal government also contributes through the memorial grant program for first responders, the heavy urban search and rescue program, and the plan to protect firefighters, which is based on managing and authorizing chemicals. The problem with Bill C‑224 is that the strategy it proposes is flawed. The work of firefighters generally does not fall under federal jurisdiction, yet two of the bill's suggestions are outlined as though the government did have jurisdiction in these matters. First, paragraph 3(3)(c) requires the strategic framework proposed by the member for Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne to include measures to “provide for firefighters across Canada to be regularly screened for cancers linked to firefighting”. The idea that professionals exposed to a cancer risk should have access to periodic cancer screening obviously makes sense. That is clear to us. That should happen. The problem is that the federal government has no jurisdiction here, and so it is difficult to imagine that this aspect of the bill would be of any use in advancing our firefighters' worthy cause. If the federal government wants to ensure that firefighters' cancers are detected in time, it should give the Quebec and provincial health care systems the means to make that happen by increasing health transfers to 35%, with a 6% escalator. This would get the health care systems in Quebec and the provinces back on track and help them detect cancer in firefighters and other patients in time to treat them effectively. That is the federal government's responsibility. Furthermore, paragraph 3(3)(f) requires the national framework to include measures to “establish national standards to recognize cancers linked to firefighting as occupational diseases”. Unfortunately, while the federal government does have free rein to set national standards for the firefighters under its jurisdiction, such as firefighters working in the armed forces, it cannot under any circumstances set federal standards that would infringe on the jurisdictions of the Quebec and provincial labour boards. Under the Constitution Act, 1867, workplace safety is a provincial jurisdiction, excluding federally regulated businesses. In Quebec, the Commission des normes, de l'équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail, or CNESST, has the authority to compensate workers who contract work-related illnesses. In Quebec, nine cancers are currently recognized as being linked to firefighting. That said, the Bloc Québécois agrees that this is far from perfect and that more needs to be done. Let us be clear: Nine is not enough. We support these demands from firefighters and believe that what is recognized in other provinces for the same work should logically also be recognized in Quebec. However, that is not for Bill C‑224 to determine. These are recommendations and submissions that will have to be made to the proper authorities. The federal government has no role to play here. If Bill C‑224 were adopted as is, it could wind up causing a jurisdictional battle at the expense of firefighters. The last thing we want to do is exploit them. According to the Constitution Act, 1867, municipal institutions fall under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. In Quebec, for instance, the responsibilities associated with fire prevention, fire preparedness and firefighting are clearly set out in the Fire Safety Act, which divides the responsibilities among citizens, municipalities, the provincial government and the various fire departments. We recognize that progress has been made and must continue to be made to ensure that firefighters have better protections, but ultimately, we need to remember that the federal government has no jurisdiction over workplace health and safety or over occupational diseases among firefighters. Interference in jurisdictions is never an effective solution, in the short or long term. Let us work together to advance this cause and reach out to the authorities who actually have the power to change things. We will vote in favour of the principle of the bill. We want to improve it in committee to ensure that the bill can meet its objectives and protect our firefighters.

1278 words

All Topics

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo (Port Moody—Coquitlam, NDP)

Jun/16/22 6:02:04 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-224

Madam Speaker, the NDP supports protecting firefighters from occupational health and safety risks. Firefighters risk their lives every day to protect our communities. They have our backs when we need it most and, in turn, we have a responsibility to take care of Canada's firefighters. With that in mind, I will reiterate the words of my colleague for Vancouver Kingsway: This bill has our hearty support. New Democrats stand with firefighters in the battle to extinguish occupational cancer and all occupational hazards they face. We must take immediate action to reduce the risk of cancer for Canadian firefighters through improved awareness, prevention, screening and treatment, which are all the things this bill proposes. By way of background, occupational cancer is now the leading cause of early death among firefighters. Firefighters are regularly exposed to concentrated carcinogens in the air that can be breathed in as well as absorbed by the body. All firefighters are exposed to these realities, yet there is inconsistent recognition of occupational cancers among firefighters all across Canada. That is unfair. All Canadian firefighters should have the highest levels of protection, regardless of where they practise their profession. Currently, across Canada, a firefighter's cancer may or may not be recognized as occupational depending on the province or territory in which they work. In addition, not all provinces and territories formally recognize the same cancer types as occupational among firefighters. For example, as the member beside me recently mentioned, Quebec recently enacted presumptive legislation for its firefighters, being the last province to do so. It only recognizes nine types of occupational risks, yet we know that there are at least double that number. With each province and territory having its own list of cancers that are presumed to be linked to firefighting, this alone is a reason to enact legislation to bring equity across the country. British Columbia is one of the provinces that is leading in acknowledging the proven link between increased rates of cancer and the profession of firefighting. It leads in pre-emptive cancer recognition in Canada, recognizing certain cancers for firefighters since 2005. This is very much due to the leading work of Local 18. In 2017, the B.C. government moved forward with an amendment to the Firefighters' Occupational Disease Regulation under the Workers Compensation Act to add presumptions for breast cancer, prostate cancer and multiple myeloma as occupational diseases for firefighters. I am going to get upset. I ask my colleague to read it for me. Ms. Lisa Marie Barron: I thank my colleague. “A very important woman in my riding was involved in that advocacy to include breast cancers as pre-emptive. Her name is Jenn Dawkins, captain and acting training officer, Vancouver Fire and Rescue”—

460 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/16/22 6:05:25 p.m.
Watch

I am sorry, the hon. member cannot take the member's speech. I would just give a minute to the hon. member to be able to get her breath again. I know that this is quite emotional, and I appreciate the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith wanting to give her colleague that support. The hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam.

62 words

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo

Jun/16/22 6:05:51 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-224

Madam Speaker, thank you for giving me a moment. I practised my speech, but it does not get easier. I am sure it does not get easier for anyone. Captain Dawkins did not know back in 2016 when she was advocating for the inclusion of breast cancer that she would be going through it herself only a few years later. During COVID, she was diagnosed with breast cancer, and I am happy to say that she is now back to work after a mastectomy and four months of chemotherapy. She said, “This is an actual result of simply going to work and doing my job.” Female firefighters are still a rarity in this country. There are very few like Captain Dawkins who have been with the service for 20 years or more, and there is little data about impacts unique to the sexes. San Francisco is further along on data collection. It began hiring women firefighters in the late 1980s. Today, the city has the largest population of female firefighters in the U.S., but unfortunately it also has a high rate of breast cancer among women 40 to 50 years old. A few years back, it reported that of the 117 female firefighters, 11 had been diagnosed with breast cancer and one had died. That is six times the normal rate. These alarming stats are just another reason this national framework is important. Cancers that affect females need to be included and protected as pre-emptive across the country. Jenn Dawkins is a constituent in my riding of Port Moody—Coquitlam, and not only did she advocate for the addition of pre-emptive cancer types for firefighters, but she is leading other women into the profession. She started a program called Camp Ignite many years ago. It takes place over four days each summer at different locations in metro Vancouver, hosting girls in grade 11 or 12 who are sponsored by their local departments in their own districts. Each day of the camp is different, with activities like first aid, rope training, aerial work, live fire handling and auto extrication. I think about how this bill could protect those aspiring firefighters. Protection from illness by raising awareness about the risks of this profession is crucial to help firefighters identify early signs of cancer for testing and treatment. What this bill seeks to do is save lives. It is such important legislation. Over a firefighter's career, they will go to hundreds of fires, and their risk of cancer increases as they move through their career. Although a firefighter's protective gear is made to withstand 1,000°C, it cannot fully protect from cancer-causing agents because the clothing has to breathe. That is why the national framework must include measures to do the following: explain the link between firefighting and certain types of cancer; identify the training, education and guidance needs of health care and other professionals related to the prevention and treatment of cancers linked to firefighting; provide for firefighters across Canada to be regularly screened for cancers linked to firefighting; promote research and improved data collection; promote information sharing and knowledge sharing; and establish national standards to recognize cancers linked to firefighting as occupational diseases. Going back to the experiences of female firefighters in San Francisco, Anita Paratley was a battalion chief for the San Francisco Fire Department. She developed breast cancer in 2003 when she was just 46 years old. She said, “I remember when I raised my hand to swear-in (to the fire service), thinking ‘please be safe, don't get hurt’.... I never thought about cancer.” In closing, the national framework would provide a number of things, including measures to bring equity to firefighters across the country as it pertains to certain types of cancer for all sexes so that no firefighter in any province is left behind.

654 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 90