44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 14, 2023 02:00PM
- Jun/14/23 3:16:42 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion.
I move:
That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, in relation to the motion respecting Senate amendments made to Bill C-22, An Act to reduce poverty and to support the financial security of persons with disabilities by establishing the Canada disability benefit and making a consequential amendment to the Income Tax Act, one member of each recognized party will be allowed to speak for not more than ten minutes followed by five minutes for questions and comments, and at the conclusion of the time provided for this debate or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, the motion be deemed agreed to.
137 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/23 4:39:26 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to eight petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.
35 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/23 4:55:59 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, like the member for Brampton South, I too have a petition dealing with the substantial growth of Canada's Indo-Canadian community. With that substantial growth, we have seen a dramatic increase in the demand for international flights, and specifically for direct flights from Canada to India.
The personal preference of the people who have signed this petition is to have a flight that goes from Winnipeg to Amritsar. Increasing the number of flights is a very positive idea, and the petitioners are calling upon the Prime Minister and members of Parliament in general, along with the airport authorities and the different airlines that provide international flights, to give more consideration to establishing direct flights between Canada and India.
121 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/23 5:03:32 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1459, 1460, 1465, 1466 and 1467.
16 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/23 5:04:00 p.m.
- Watch
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, if the government's response to Questions Nos. 1458, 1461 to 1464, 1468 and 1469 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.
30 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/23 5:04:11 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand at this time, please.
17 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/23 5:04:23 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, once again I would ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers also be allowed to stand at this time, please.
26 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/23 5:06:28 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think it is really important, when the member is rising on a question of privilege, to understand what actually took place yesterday, and the member is talking about a dispute over—
Ms. Raquel Dancho: This is debate.
Hon. Kerry-Lynne Findlay: I am speaking to that.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: I was being respectful for the member—
68 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/23 5:06:51 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would argue that the member is talking about a dispute over the facts, and she is misrepresenting what actually was said by the member for Kingston and the Islands.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
37 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's bringing forward the legislation, and his comment. The member has made reference to the fact that the bill has been brought forward to the House in the past. He also made reference to the fact that there is joint responsibility between the provinces and the federal government. I would add indigenous peoples to that as a very important factor when we talk about anything related to the environment, let alone any other issue that might be out there.
Could he just share whether he has had that dialogue and whether he has some direct information he can provide in terms of feedback from the provinces, territories and indigenous communities?
116 words
- 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
Madam Speaker, I must admit that I am a little bit surprised by some of the words that are being put on the record.
What we are talking about is a historic piece of legislation, and we can thank the community of people with disabilities throughout the country for the advocacy that they have done and conveyed to the member for Delta. From my perspective, in my decades of being a parliamentarian, I have never seen a parliamentarian who has been as strong an advocate for people with disabilities than the current minister.
Would the member not recognize that this is indeed historic legislation and maybe remind the House if she can recall any private members' bills on this? I, myself, cannot.
122 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, what a pleasure it is to rise and talk about substantive legislation that would have a profound impact, not only for today but also for future generations.
I think we would have to go back quite a way to find a government that has been so progressive in providing advancements in a wide spectrum of areas to support Canadians. I often hear, whether from the Prime Minister or one my colleagues, that the issue for us is that we want to see an economy that actually works for all Canadians. We often talk about Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be part of it, and how we could develop policies and initiatives, and take the budgetary measures to advance that. That is what Canadians expect.
Through the last number of years, we have heard the Conservatives focusing on other things, outside of what is important to Canadians. Today is a good example. We see a government that is listening to what Canadians are saying and delivering on that in a very tangible way. For example, an hour or so ago, we were talking about Bill C-22. It is historic legislation. For the very first time, we are saying that Canadians with disabilities need to have support that would ensure that there would be fewer people with disabilities living in poverty. This would be as a direct result of Bill C-22, a wonderful, progressive piece of legislation.
Now, we are talking about Bill C-35. In many ways, Bill C-35 would have such a positive impact, no matter where, what region, in Canada one looks at. Getting these agreements is not necessarily an easy task. The current minister has reached out and contacted provincial and territorial stakeholders, not to mention, as she made reference to in response to a question, numerous advocates. In a very humble but accurate way, the minister acknowledged the input of those advocates who have been working, trying for years to put in place what Bill C-35 would do.
In some of those years, we have experienced a great deal of frustration. I have talked about the Conservative hidden agenda. Let me tell the House why there is a Conservative hidden agenda and why Bill C-35 is so critically important. Members across the way might recall the Stephen Harper days.
I would not say “hear, hear” to that.
With respect to child care, the first action former prime minister Harper took was to get rid of child care agreements, 15 years or so ago.
I want members to imagine, if they will, what would have happened had Stephen Harper and the Conservative government at the time recognized the real value of what Paul Martin, Ken Dryden and the Liberal government had put into place. It was a substantial, extensive program. I know that Ken Dryden, in particular, put so much effort into it in terms of working with some of the advocates the current minister has no doubt had to deal with. That plan was put into place, approved and signed off, and provinces were onside. Then the Conservative government, led by Stephen Harper, cancelled it outright, on day one. What was the cost of that policy decision?
A couple of years ago, after we made many other initiatives that have been really important to Canadians, we took the bold step to bring this thing back in a very real and tangible way. Once again, we have a national minister recognizing that there is a role for the federal government to ensure that we have child care from coast to coast to coast.
All one really needs to do is to take a look at what is happening in the province of Quebec. Quebec has had this model for many years, and we see the benefits to Quebec society as a direct result in terms of things that have been achieved, whether it is women engaging in the workforce far more than in any other jurisdiction, from what I understand, in North America, to providing an improved, quality standard of child care to ensuring that there are more equal opportunities, not to mention how the economy benefited by it.
We understood this many years ago, and now we are forwarding it. However, it is because of the goodwill and support from Canadians from coast to coast to coast that we were able to work it out with the many different stakeholders, in particular, the provinces and territories. I believe Ontario was the last one to sign on board back in March 2022. By Doug Ford's signature, we had a true, national, coast to coast, child care program, and that is something we should all be very proud of.
As a Liberal caucus and as a team, we understood the benefits of the program, and it is an issue we promoted. In fact, as my colleagues will recall, we only need to take a look at the last federal election. We had 337, 338 candidates going door to door talking about the importance of child care, and that if we were re-elected into government, we would materialize a child care program.
The Conservatives, on the other hand, said that they would tear it up, that they did not believe in what we were doing. So, when a Conservative member stands up and says “Well, we're voting for the legislation”, I encourage members to read some of the speeches that were given by Conservatives. Look at what they did on the first run. This is why we need the legislation. We do not want a potential Conservative cabinet 15 years from now making the decision to get rid of the program. We want this program to be there for future generations, because by making that sort of commitment, we know that society here in Canada will benefit greatly.
We cannot trust the Conservative Party, quite frankly. It has demonstrated that time and time again when its members talk about progressive policies for the betterment of Canadians, and I do not say that lightly. I actually sat in the chamber and listened to many of the Conservative MPs speak on this legislation, and I could not tell how they were going to vote. I think someone put their finger up in the air and felt the political wind and thought, “Oh, jeez, it might be tough for us to vote against this, so let's support it.”
Some might use the word “delusional”, but I would suggest, after 30 years of being in Parliament and watching the Conservatives at play, that it is more of a reality issue. I would suggest to members that the Conservatives actually recognize the true value of this program. They should be bold and go against their own leadership if need be and make some of the statements that are really important in recognizing the value of this program. They will say that, yes, they want to give more child care dollars to a certain degree, but they are not talking about the same sort of child care program that we are talking about.
What does this program do? It provides $10-a-day day care, which is life-changing. It is going to enable so many people the opportunity to afford, for the first time, child care services and the educational program that goes along with it.
I was really encouraged, and I think it was back in September, when the Prime Minister came to Winnipeg North and we went to Stanley Knowles School and visited the child care facility. We could see relief in the faces of the individuals who are recipients of what we are talking about today. It was relief, joy or just appreciation that there is finally a government trying to do the things that are important to citizens.
Winnipeg North is not the only riding the Prime Minister has visited. As he has gone through the country, he has attended town halls in other constituencies and has spoken to parents and been there with the children. I always enjoy the playful attitude the Prime Minister has toward the children of Canada because it is so genuine.
We have a Prime Minister who is committed not only to providing $10-a-day day care but who understands the needs of our young people. He is there to talk, answer questions and listen. As a result, whether it is him, the Minister of Families or my caucus colleagues, they take a look at the issues that come up in our constituencies and bring those issues to Ottawa so we can develop the budgets and the legislation necessary and that is going to make a difference in the lives of Canadians.
What are the issues today we often hear about? Inflation has to be one of them. I feel a great deal of empathy and sympathy for what Canadians need to overcome as a direct result of inflation, even though Canada is doing quite well on inflation compared to the U.S. and many of the European countries, our allied countries, and so many others. This is not to mention other economic indicators. It does not take away from the fact that as a government we still need to do what we can to help Canadians at a time of need.
With this program, we are talking about hundreds if not thousands of dollars every year that are going to be left in the pockets and purses of Canadians from coast to coast to coast as a direct result. That is action. That is going to make a difference in a very real and tangible way.
On other actions to support our children, remember the dental program. The Conservatives actually voted against this particular program. As we implemented the dental program, the first thing on the agenda was children under the age of 12. We do not want to recognize, by their smile, a child who is not able to get the dental work they require. Far too often children are going to hospitals to get dental work because their mom, dad or guardian do not have the financial resources, for some reason or another, to bring that child to a dentist.
Again, through this program, we are seeing literally dollars going into the pockets of families to assist children in being able to get the type of dental services that are necessary.
I started off by talking about national programs. I talked about the historic program of disabilities. Then I talked about children. Now I am making reference to dental work. I would challenge any member of this House to demonstrate any government before this government that has developed and put into place programs to support Canadians. It has been a wide spectrum of programs and I want to spend just a bit of time to emphasize that. It clearly shows why Bill C-35 is a part of a larger plan that is very comprehensive and shows Canadians that, whether it is a legislative measure or a budgetary measure, this is a government that has the backs of Canadians in a very real and tangible way. We have a government that has now negotiated, for example, an incredible $200-billion plan to ensure that future generations of Canadians are going to have a health care system that is based on the Canada Health Act.
We have a government that, within the first couple of years, understood the importance of retirement and worked with all the provinces, as it has done with the three programs I have just mentioned, and had CPP addressed, which is something that Stephen Harper completely ignored and said that he would not do. Before he was the leader of the Conservative Party, he advocated getting rid of the CPP. We as a government worked with the different provinces and stakeholders, including small business and labour groups and were able to get the agreement on CPP.
I say this because, like Bill C-35, these are initiatives that really make a difference in the lives of Canadians. That is why I am encouraging members opposite to change their attitudes toward the way in which government spends its money. Let me give a specific example by using Bill C-35.
The Conservatives have this mindset: If they spend a dollar, it is a bad thing if it is government dollars. It is cut, cut, cut. One day, I even had one of the members suggest that we could always cut money from military defence. I can say that when the government invests in programs, more often than not we get a pretty decent return. For example, yes, the child care program is going to cost a lot of money; there is no doubt about it. However, if we recognize the value of that investment and start acknowledging some of the benefits, we quickly find out that it is not costing as much as one might think.
For example, specifically as a direct result of Bill C-35 and the budgetary measures by this government, there is no doubt that we will see an increase in the workforce. We are going to see more, in particular, women participating in the economy. As a direct result of that, when more women are participating in the economy, more taxes are generated. When members say that there is a cost for child care, there is a cost benefit that also needs to be factored in. That is not to mention the other benefits that I have already cited: to the community, to the family unit and to the child receiving that quality child care.
In conclusion, I would encourage members to realize the benefits of not only saying they are voting for this particular legislation, but I am going to be looking to see the Facebook and social media commentaries coming from the Conservative Party, saying how wonderful this program is, and be—
2342 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the legislation we have before us this evening would put in some fundamental pillars that would make a difference in the lives of Canadians. Even for Canadians who do not have children, there is going to be an impact on society as a whole, and that includes the issues of affordability, accessibility and so on. We know that, and we recognize that.
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, that is why we brought forward the legislation, and we look forward to being able to see the reality, as we witnessed in the province of Quebec, which clearly demonstrated the benefits of a $10-a-day day care.
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will provide a quick comment on the dental issue. I appreciate all the types of support and encouragement, whether it is received from New Democrats or many of my colleagues. I know I, for one, have been a very strong advocate for the pharmacare program. There is still work for us to focus attention on, such as dental and pharmacare. Let us not just sit back because we have already accomplished a great deal. We have many more things we would like to explore and work on, to see if we can improve them in some ways, as much as possible, and this is whether it is New Democrats or Liberals.
I have a friend who says that a New Democrat is a Liberal in a hurry. I would suggest that it is good if we can work together for the betterment of Canadians. I am game to do that, and I will try to answer the member's question in the next question.
167 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, let me attempt to answer both questions with the same answer.
The member is right that Ken Dryden had a wonderful program. It was universal and all the provinces and territories were on side. That is why I say to please not trust the Conservatives on this because the first thing Stephen Harper did was he got rid of the program. It is unfortunate we were in a minority government at that time, but I will not comment on what happened with the NDP or the Bloc.
At the end of the day, this legislation would prevent a potential Conservative government 15 years from now from being able to decide in cabinet, without a thorough debate, to get rid of a fantastic program. Had it been put in place back when Ken Dryden brought it forward, we would be so much further ahead. One only needs to look at the province of Quebec and the impact it has had on its workforce. In particular, there are more women engaged, as a percentage, in the workforce.
177 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is because, when it comes to child care, there is only one party that has been in government that has demonstrated a genuine interest and is taking the initiative to put child care in place. There is also only one political party in this chamber that tore apart a national child care program.
When the member talks about trust, I would suggest no one can trust the Conservative Party. If anything, Stephen Harper is more of a centrist compared to the current leader of the Conservative Party because the current leader of the Conservative Party is so far right wing that everything could potentially be on the table. No doubt, it has to be the genesis as to why this legislation is so important and why I am hoping members of the Conservative Party will talk about it glowingly on Facebook. After all, they say they are going to be voting in favour of it.
158 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the Green Party is supporting the legislation, which is a good thing, but the leader of the Green Party needs to recognize that there is jurisdictional responsibility. We have a national government that says it wants to ensure there is a child care program that is affordable and accessible across Canada, from coast to coast to coast, but we need to work with the provinces. The provinces, in many ways, are the ones who have to play the lead at the level the member is referencing.
We can all individually encourage our respective provincial governments to go even further in supporting the children of our country.
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
