Dean Allison

[Petitions, May 10th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of the House two petitions I received which call upon Parliament to confirm that every human being, even pre-born children, are recognized by Canadian law. Currently, Canada's 400 year-old definition of a human being says a child does not become a human being until the moment of complete birth, contrary to 21st century medical evidence. Therefore, children in the womb receive absolutely no legal protection in Canada.

The first petition calls on Parliament to confirm that every human being is recognized by Canadian law as human by amending section 223 of our Criminal Code in such a way as to reflect 21st century medical evidence.

[Interparliamentary Delegations, May 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian Delegation to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Parliamentary Assembly respecting its participation at the 11th Winter meeting held in Vienna, Austria, February 23 and 24, 2012.

[Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, May 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, in economic action plan 2012, our government is looking ahead, not only over the next few years but for the next generation. The reforms presented are substantial, responsible and necessary. They would ensure we remain focused on enabling and sustaining Canada's long-term economic growth.

More specifically, economic action plan 2012 would help create high-value and well-paying jobs by investing into entrepreneurship, innovation and world-class research. It would support jobs and growth by investing in training, infrastructure and responsible resource development, thereby providing new opportunities for young Canadians, first nations, newcomers and unemployed Canadians.

We believe in sustainable public finances, which is why we have found fair, balanced and moderate savings in government spending. Budget 2012 would take important steps to address the challenges and help take advantage of the opportunities in the global economy, while ensuring sustainable social programs and sound public finances for future generations here in Canada.

Our government recognizes that Canada's seniors have contributed enormously to our country and continue to do so. This is why we introduced new measures to improve their quality of life and expand their financial opportunities.

The ThirdQuarter project is an innovative online approach to help employers find experienced workers over 50 who want to keep using their skills in the workforce. We propose $6 million to extend and expand this successful project across the country.

Our government is also committed to improving the flexibility in choice for senior workers. For those wishing to work longer, we would provide them with an opportunity to voluntarily defer taking up the old age security benefit, starting in July 2013. Those who wish to do so would, of course, receive a higher annual adjusted pension.

With regard to OAS, our government is committed to sustaining our social programs and to securing retirement for Canadians. However, to ensure the sustainability of OAS, the age of eligibility must be raised. As a result, we would be gradually raising the age of eligibility from 65 to 67, starting in April 2023 and being at full implementation by January 2029. This is nothing new, as 22 of 34 OECD countries have increased or are planning to increase pension ages in their own public pension programs. Australia, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United States are increasing their statutory pension age to 67. The United Kingdom and Ireland are raising it to 68. The Netherlands will raise it to 67 and then link it to life expectancy.

Canada is linked to the global economy now more than ever. Increasing our age of eligibility for OAS from 65 to 67 is no longer a choice but a necessity.

The facts on OAS speak for themselves. The number of Canadians over the age of 65 will increase from 4.7 million to 9.3 million over the next 20 years. The OAS program is dated from a time when Canadians were not living that long. Canadians who are privileged to live today have healthier lives. Consequently, the cost of the OAS program would increase from $36 billion per year in 2010 to $108 billion per year in 2030. Meanwhile, by 2030, the number of taxpayers for every senior would be down to two, from four in 2010.

To ensure sustainability of OAS, the age of eligibility must be raised from 65 to 67. We have ensured that the changes are made with substantial notice and with an adjustment period and that they would not affect current retirees or those close to retirement and would give others plenty of time to adjust to the changes and plan for their retirement.

Along with supporting our seniors, we must support our students. We all want Canada's students to succeed in the global economy with the help the best education possible. That is why since 2006 our government has provided the much-needed support for our students.

However, in budget 2012, we would be doing even more to ensure Canadians are better equipped and better integrated into the workforce. We would be increasing support for youth employment opportunities with an additional $50 million spending on improving skills links and career focuses for students, through the youth employment strategy. We would also be doubling graduate interns in innovative firms by investing an additional $14 million, to double the resources of the industrial research and development intern program. This would place even more students into practical hands-on research internships in Canadian companies.

The goal is to have as many Canadians working as possible. Budget 2012 would take action to create jobs now and provide more opportunities to Canadians.

To create jobs now, we will be extending for one year the hiring credit for small businesses, a practical, proven measure that encourages businesses to hire more workers. We will provide new funding to improve border infrastructure and we will make new investments in local infrastructure through the community infrastructure improvement fund.

To provide more opportunities for Canadians, we will make it much easier for Canadians who are out of work to identify new opportunities and for employers to find workers they need. For EI recipients in areas of sporadic employment, we will initiate modest changes to the program to better focus our support for Canadians who are eager to work.

We will provide new incentives and opportunities for members of the first nations living on reserve to participate fully in our economy and to gain greater self-sufficiency.

Finally, we will take action to build a fast and flexible economic immigration system that will be better able to fill gaps in our labour force while at the same time attracting more of the entrepreneurs we need.

As a member of the Red Tape Reduction Commission, I am very pleased to speak on our government's continuing commitment to reducing regulatory burdens faced by businesses of all sizes. In January 2011, our government created the commission, fulfilling a budget 2010 promise. After a year of extensive Canada-wide consultations, the commission brought forth recommendations to reduce irritants to businesses that impede growth, competitiveness and innovation. One of our findings was implemented by the government earlier in the year: the one-for-one rule requiring the government to eliminate an existing regulation whenever it adopts a new one. This assures that at the very least, red tape will cease to increase.

As a former small business owner, I appreciate first-hand the vital role small businesses can have in creating jobs. Our government recognizes this too. That is why in budget 2012 we are committed to helping them grow and to succeed. We have concluded a number of key measures to support the growth of small businesses, including the extension of the hiring credit for small businesses, a temporary credit of up to $1,000 against a small firm's increase in its 2011 EI premiums over those paid in 2012. This temporary credit will help about 536,000 employers defray the costs of additional hiring.

We will be increasing direct support for business innovation by providing $110 million per year to the National Research Council. This in turn will double support to small businesses through the industrial research assistance program and expand the services provided to businesses through the program's industrial technology advisers.

There will be $95 million spent over three years and $40 million per year ongoing to make the Canadian innovation commercialization program permanent, which will help Canadian businesses demonstrate their innovative products and services through federal procurement.

Finally, $14 million will be spent to expand the industrial research and development internship program in order to place more Ph.D. students into practical research internships in businesses.

Speaking of Ph.D.s, situated very close to my riding of Niagara West—Glanbrook is McMaster University. I was delighted to see that it will be receiving $6.5 million over three years for research projects to evaluate ways to achieve better health outcomes for patients while also making the health care system more cost-effective. Having met with a number of constituents attending McMaster University, I am sure they will be pleased with our government's commitment to this sound institution.

The global economy is changing, and the competition for the brightest minds is intensifying. The pace of technological change is creating new opportunities while making older business practices obsolete. Canada's long-term economic competitiveness in this emerging knowledge economy demands globally competitive businesses that innovate and create high-quality jobs. Budget 2012 announces a commitment of over $1.1 billion over five years to support research and development and $500 million for venture capital. These investments and actions will keep our economy strong, create high-quality jobs and ensure that Canada is a premier destination for the world's brightest minds.

In closing, let me say that I believe this budget delivers our promise to maintain a steady course toward both economic recovery and deficit reduction. I applaud the Minister of Finance and I urge all of my colleagues to support Canada and support this budget.

[Committees of the House, April 25th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development concerning human rights in North Korea, in particular the fate of Ms. Shin Sook-ja and her two daughters.

[Foreign Affairs, April 24th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has long called for democratic reform in Burma. We have over the years imposed some of the world's toughest sanctions against Burma and its military leaders.

Our government has followed events closely, and in March the Minister of Foreign Affairs was the first Canadian foreign minister to ever visit Burma and see first-hand progress.

Would the minister please update the House on the steps Canada is taking to support democratic reform efforts in Burma?

[Purolator, April 24th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and commend the hard work of the over 12,000 employees of Purolator for their contribution to economic development in Canada. Purolator employs over 250 in my riding and has its main hub at Hamilton airport, which ties into its delivery network for facilities in 111 ridings all across Canada. The partnership of Purolator and Hamilton airport in this economic activity has been vital for Canadian and international businesses that rely on integrated distribution services.

Since his arrival at Purolator in September 2010, Mr. Tom Schmitt has been an exceptional president and CEO who has worked hard to develop sustaining and mutually beneficial partnerships.

Mr. Schmitt and, indeed, all employees have made Purolator a fine example of a Canadian business that puts Canada first. I know all members of Parliament will want to join me today in congratulating Purolator on its more than 50 years of commitment to Canada.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, April 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I personally believe that the discrimination, persecution or incitement to hatred of any group, based on sex, race, religion, should not be tolerated.

Today we are here to talk about Bill C-279, which proposes to make three changes to the law.

The first would be to add “gender identity” and “gender expression” to the list of prohibited grounds for discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Second, it would add “gender identity” and “gender expression” to the definition of identifiable groups to section 318 of the Criminal Code. It would be an offence to advocate or promote genocide, to publicly incite hatred, likely to lead to a breach of peace, or to wilfully promote hatred against groups that are identifiable on the basis of gender identity and gender expression.

Third, it would add “gender identity” and “gender expression” to section 718.2 of the Criminal Code, which would direct a judge to consider increasing the sentence beyond its usual range for an offence that was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on gender identity or gender expression.

These three changes are unnecessary.

I will begin with the proposed amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act. The act already prohibits discrimination on the grounds of sex. This means that the act prohibits hiring decisions based on prejudice against women or men. It prohibits sexual harassment in the workplace. It requires reasonable accommodation for pregnancy. The act protects against these and other kinds of sex discrimination in the federal workplace and elsewhere in federal jurisdiction.

The Canadian Human Rights Act does not require total blindness to the distinction between men and women. Instead, the task of this law is to intervene in situations where people experience certain kinds of discrimination on the grounds of sex.

Canadian society recognizes that there are gender norms. When attitudes and practices involving gender become sex discrimination, the law should and does intervene. However, the law cannot simply abolish gender categories and gender norms in Canadian society. Nor can tribunals and courts be asked to reconstruct and interpret gender norms. That is an unrealistic view of what the legal system is empowered and entrusted to do.

We heard in the course of debate on the previous version of this bill, Bill C-389:

Transsexuals are people whose gender identity differs from their biological or birth sex, and who seek to live permanently as the gender other than their biological sex. Most often transsexuals seek medical interventions such as hormones and surgery to make their bodies congruent with their sense of their genders. A transition process which is known as sex reassignment or gender reassignment is engaged.

In the case of transsexualism, the law has found that gender categories and gender norms cause unfair disadvantages to those people. Transsexuals might not fit social norms due to their unique situation, but as interpreted in numerous decisions, the Canadian Human Rights Act already protects against discrimination on the basis of transsexualism. This is one situation where the law has intervened in order to remedy a form of sex discrimination.

I understand that there is an intention to cast more light on the disadvantages faced by transsexuals, but what Bill C-279 proposes to do goes far beyond that. The bill does not name a particular group of people in order to protect them from a distinctive kind of discrimination. Instead, it proposes two characteristics, “gender identity” and “gender expression”, that everyone has. Everyone has a gender identity and everyone expresses their gender, intentionally or unintentionally, in some way or other.

I would like to repeat that some gender norms may be problematic. Some have been found to be discriminatory and have been prohibited. The Canadian Human Rights Act already protects against sex discrimination. Under this rubric, it also protects against discrimination on the basis of transsexualism. Therefore, it is not clear what problem the proposed amendment is hoping to solve. Again, it is unnecessary and an unpredictable response to very particular problems.

This brings us to the next problem arising from the bill. To the extent they seek to reach beyond transsexualism, the new grounds of gender identity and gender expression are vague.

How would anyone know whether one's expressive act is gender expression if there can be no assumptions about how each gender is expressed? Can people act in any way they choose, so long as they claim to be expressing their conception of their gender? If that is the case, then the ground of gender expression will have no limits and have very broad implications. Or will it be up to courts and tribunals to decide what kinds of characteristics express gender and which do not?

It would also create much uncertainty about the meaning of these new grounds and perhaps increased litigation.

The proposed wording is vague and it makes the proposed amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act unwise, especially since they are unnecessary to address what seems to be to the core issue, which is discrimination on the basis of transsexualism.

Vagueness has even more serious implications when we turn to the proposed amendments of the Criminal Code.

The proposed amendments to the hate propaganda offences protect new identifiable groups, namely, those identifiable on the basis of gender identity and gender expression. The hate propaganda offences are serious. Convictions can result in sentences of between two and five years. The offences also limit freedom of expression, a core Canadian value, and must clearly be delineated so Canadians will know where the limit is drawn.

Given the stakes involved, it is important to know which groups are identifiable on the basis of gender identity and gender expression. Transsexualism might define an identifiable group but, again, the proposed new grounds go far beyond transsexualism.

Gender expression is expressly problematic. How does a speaker know when a characteristic is one of gender expression. If a speaker says strong words against people with certain behaviours, can that be made into hate propaganda on the basis of gender expression simply if those people claim their behaviour to be the way of expressing their gender identity? We are left in the dark about who the identifiable groups will be. It is especially problematic in these offences, which will criminalize speech without clear notice of what can and cannot be said.

Ultimately, it would be left to the courts to decide which aspects of people's behaviours were expressions of gender and which were not. This is not their role. It would also leave the public unaware of what would be prohibited, as we waited for the courts to reconstruct Canadian gender norms for us.

These same uncertainties attach to the proposed amendment to section 718.2. This section directs a sentence be increased for an offence that was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on certain personal characteristics. The list of such characteristics is open-ended and includes, “any other similar factor”. I understand that one purpose of this bill is to make explicit what may already be covered by a bad open-ended phrase. However, by adding “gender identity” and “gender expression”, what is made explicit are very vague terms. This would be counterproductive amendment.

I believe these technical arguments in themselves give just cause to vote against Bill C-279.

However, I would also like to discuss a very real concern that was expressed during debate on an earlier version of this bill from the previous Parliament. In fact, this argument resulted in the previous bill being dubbed the “bathroom bill” in certain quarters.

The fact is that creating a right to gender identity and gender expression would likely result in men who are in gender reassignment therapy having access to girls' bathrooms. As the bill would also give special rights to those who simply consider themselves to be transgendered, the door would be open to sexual predators having a legal defence to charges of being caught in a women's washroom or locker room.

I find this potentially legitimized access for men in girls' bathrooms to be very disconcerting. As sexual predators are statistically almost always men, imagine the trauma that a young girl would face, going into a washroom or a change room at a public pool and finding a man there. It is unconscionable for any legislator, purposefully or just neglectfully, to place her in such a compromising position.

The bill would not address this very real possibility and in itself is reason for me to personally not support it.

The bill is an unfocused and unpredictable response to the very particular challenges that are faced by transsexual persons. The amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code are unnecessary and I will not support the bill.

[Financial System Review Act, March 27th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, as we look at the changes taking place around the world, it is important that we continue to keep pace with them. One of the reasons we are looking to increase thresholds from $8 billion to $12 billion is to reflect growth in the sector and to ensure that we keep up with those requirements as we continue to grow.

[Financial System Review Act, March 27th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, credit unions do play a vital role. I bank at a credit union and I think they provide an important role.

When we look at context of what we are dealing with here today, all that is being done by this government bears mentioning again. Making sure that our banking system is stable is just one of those mechanisms. The other measures that we need to look at are cutting taxes; continuing to spend money on R and D; and creating opportunities for our goods, which means reaching free trade deals around the world. There is a whole combination of initiatives we need to take to continue to make our economy strong and to provide an opportunity for us to continue to grow in the future.

[Financial System Review Act, March 27th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, in terms of numbers, my colleague from Western Arctic mentioned 600,000. We believe that the number of new jobs created is actually closer to 610,000.

We all understand that this has been a particularly difficult time around the world. I am concerned what would happen if the NDP were actually in government at a time like this. Would there be more taxing and spending? Would we actually see the kind of growth we have had?

We know that many countries have been affected by this recession. The good news is that our country has recovered far faster than any other country.

Are there more things that need to be done? Yes, by all means. We will see some of them in the budget that will be presented here in a couple. We will continue to build on the success we have already had, including working to create new jobs, because that is of paramount importance to this government. We will continue to reduce red tape, as we have mentioned, and create more opportunities for Canadians here at home.