Debates of May 1st, 2024

Alleged Unjustified Naming of a Member

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to keep track.

On the question of privilege, I was very distressed by the additional information provided by the hon. member for Lethbridge. I am sure all of us in this place know how critically important it is that we have no question in our minds as to the accuracy of Hansard.

I want to stop for a moment to thank the various staff members who make it possible to have verbatim transcripts of everything we say in this place and who give us a chance, if we absolutely have been misunderstood, to correct the record between the blues, which is, for those who might be watching on CPAC, the unofficial transcript, and the publishing of Hansard. It is critical that there never be any question as to the accuracy of Hansard in recording our remarks in this place.

The hon. member for Lethbridge, who happens to be a friend of mine, which is neither here nor there, said there could be no other explanation for the changes between what she said she said, and I accept her word on that, and what appears in Hansard. I always leave open the possibility for an innocent explanation of somebody making an error, but I do not think we can leave this matter where any assumptions are being made about what happened.

I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to investigate this thoroughly to ensure that none of us can have any doubts in our minds that Hansard is an accurate reflection of what members have said and that there is no possibility of any interference, from any quarter, in the words spoken and the printed Hansard, that they are one hundred per cent in alignment with the truth.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I thank the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, and I share her perspective as well.

The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman is also rising to comment on the question of privilege raised by the member for Lethbridge.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to first point out that I sit in rather close proximity to the member for Lethbridge, and I clearly heard her say that she withdrew her comment. I really am disturbed by the fact that someone went to the effort of withdrawing “I withdraw” from the Hansard itself. As a long-serving member, as someone who wants to make sure the historical record is correct, I think that should be reflected in the Hansard.

I encourage your office, Mr. Speaker, to dig down and find out who made that change. That type of edit does change intent. I can understand, with the raucousness that occurred yesterday in the House, that you may not have personally heard the comment “I withdraw”, but that does not excuse the fact that somebody edited out those comments, which had appeared in the blues, to not appear in the official Hansard.

That undermines our freedom of speech here, as well as our privilege as parliamentarians, and in my opinion, was done with intent. There is definitely a contempt of Parliament.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I thank the hon. member.

I want to assure members that I have heard the issues that have been raised. I would encourage the next member to speak to please raise a new matter, if possible, because I do think this is extraordinarily serious.

I will pass the floor to the hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock to make an additional intervention.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as the chief opposition whip, I would like to add that I canvassed members on this side of the House this morning and at least eight members of Parliament heard the member for Lethbridge say the words “I withdraw”. I can provide that list to your office to look into this matter.

Otherwise, I concur with the members who have spoken so far that it is a serious matter, one where the intent has been changed and one that must be looked into.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I thank the hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock as well as all other members who participated. I do agree with the member that this is an important and serious matter.

Respect for the Authority of the Chair

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order about the same issue that I raised last night about comments that can only be considered as impugning the character and actions of the Speaker and an allegation of bias. I referenced earlier the September 24, 2014, ruling of the former Speaker, who is now the current member for Regina—Qu'Appelle and the Conservative House leader. That ruling indicated that respect for the office of Speaker is one “of our time-honoured traditions”, and he then quoted from O'Brien and Bosc, which says:

Reflections on the character or actions of the Speaker--an allegation of bias, for example--could be taken by the House as breeches of privilege and punished accordingly.

The tweet that was put out last night by the member for Lethbridge is a clear reflection on the character and actions of the Speaker. There is no doubt that referring to the Speaker in such a disgraceful way is inappropriate. It appears that the member for Lethbridge has now erased that. I believe that she would need to confirm to the House that she has indeed erased or deleted that tweet, which clearly contravenes the rules of this place.

She should apologize to you, Mr. Speaker, for having issued that tweet, which very clearly reflects on a series of decisions that have been made by Speakers over time in this place, to ensure that the office of the Speaker is respected at all times.

I would come back to what I raised last night. I will not take the same time of the House in raising this issue, but it is very clear that this is a breach of privilege. It can be, I think, dealt with by having the member for Lethbridge fully and fulsomely apologize for having issued that tweet and confirming that she has deleted that tweet as well.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

On the same point of order, I see that the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is rising to his feet.

Colleagues, this will be the last intervention on this matter.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, last night at 6:45 p.m., the NDP House leader rose in his place and said exactly the same thing that he just said now. Perhaps he was not happy with his performance last night or wanted another opportunity to try to get a clip. The fact is that I do not think it is in accordance with the rules for a member to be able to rise again and state the same point of order when he is perhaps not happy with how it sounded.

I understand that the member would have felt embarrassed last night because I responded to his point of order by pointing out that the NDP House leader has repeatedly used the word “wacko” in the House, in committee and, no doubt, in various other places. I encourage the member, rather than repeating the same argument, to consult his own conscience, to reflect on possible feelings of guilt he is experiencing. If he has decided that it is wrong to say “wacko” in the House, I invite him to reflect deeply on his own—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

Colleagues, this matter has been brought to my attention. It was raised yesterday. The Asssistant Deputy Speaker who was in the chair had engaged to come back to the House if necessary on this matter, and so we shall.

Government Response to Petitions

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

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.

While I am on my feet, I move:

That the House do now proceed to orders of the day.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded division.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #746

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I declare the motion carried.

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Yellowhead, Carbon Pricing; the hon. member for Chatham-Kent—Leamington, Carbon Pricing; the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill, Public Safety.

The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is rising on a point of order.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the consent of the House to respond to questions on the Order Paper.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 2418, 2419, 2424, 2428, 2432 and 2434.

Question No.2418—

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

With regard to police-reported hate crime data and the reporting of transphobic hate crimes: (a) what measures are being taken by the Government of Canada to create a specific category for reporting transphobic hate crimes rather than the current practice of grouping these hate crimes with those targeting sexual orientation or biological sex and gender; and (b) what other methods of collecting data on anti-trans hate and violence are used to supplement police hate crime data?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a) of the question, Statistics Canada is responsible for collecting data through the uniform crime reporting, or UCR, survey. With respect to police-reported data, new categories have been created to allow police to report transphobic hate crimes.

As of October 2021, the UCR was updated with new hate crime motivation categories. Within the category of sexual orientation, a detailed motivation for crimes targeting the entire lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, two-spirit, or those who identify with another non-binary gender or minority sexual identity, LGBTQ2+, community was added; and within the gender category, the motivations were updated to include the following: man or woman, transgender man or woman, transgender target not specified, and non-binary.

It is now possible for police services to report more detailed information on hate crimes targeting the non-binary population and the transgender population.

These changes were undertaken following extensive consultation with hate crime subject matter experts and were made available to police services for reporting purposes through the UCR survey starting in October 2021.

The UCR currently has 44 police services that have these new categories available for coding and submission to the survey. Police services can begin reporting these new codes to the UCR survey as their records management systems are updated to the most recent version. Before data can be released, large enough counts are needed to allow for disaggregation without risk to privacy and confidentiality when disseminated.

In order to ensure reliable coding of the information for new categories, Statistics Canada provides training for police services.

With regard to part (b) of the question, Statistics Canada collects information on experiences of violent victimization, including incidents that are not reported to police, among Canadians 15 years of age and older.

The general social survey on Canadians’ safety, regarding victimization, and the can be used to supplement police-reported data for several population groups. In addition to violent crime, these surveys also ask about other experiences, such as discrimination and unfair treatment or other unwanted behaviours.

As of 2018, these surveys, and many others at Statistics Canada, include questions on both the sex at birth and gender of respondents, meaning that it is now possible to disaggregate the data for the transgender population.

See, for example, the following article: “Experiences of violent victimization and unwanted sexual behaviours among gay, lesbian, bisexual and other sexual minority people, and the transgender population, in Canada, 2018 (statcan.gc.ca)”.

Question No.2419—

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

With regard to gender-affirming care: what actions is the Government of Canada taking to improve coverage of, and access to, gender-affirming care?

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, health care is a shared responsibility between the Government of Canada and the provinces and territories. The federal government’s primary role in supporting health care is to provide funding to the provinces and territories, while the provincial and territorial governments administer and deliver health care services.

The Canada health transfer, or CHT, is the largest federal transfer to provinces and territories. It is the main federal funding mechanism that supports Canada’s health care system by providing long-term predictable funding to provinces and territories.

The CHT is legislated to increase each year, growing in line with the economy, with a minimum increase of at least 3% per year, while its equal per capita distribution across provinces and territories ensures comparable treatment for all Canadians, regardless of where they live. Budget 2023 outlined the government's plan to provide close to $200 billion in health care funding over 10 years, including $46.2 billion in new funding to provinces and territories through the CHT and other targeted funding.

The Canada Health Act establishes criteria and conditions that provinces and territories must fulfill in order to receive their full CHT cash contribution. Notably, the act does not stipulate specific procedures to be covered. Rather, the provinces and territories, in consultation with the medical profession and other health professionals, determine which services are considered medically necessary and therefore to be covered under their respective health care insurance plans. Any health service that has been deemed medically necessary by a province or territory must be delivered in a manner that meets the requirements of the act, on uniform terms and conditions, and without patient charges.

Regarding funding for two-spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, and additional sexually and gender diverse people, or 2SLGBTQI+, Health Canada’s sexual and reproductive health fund supports community-based organizations that help make access to abortion, gender-affirming and other sexual and reproductive health care information and services more accessible for underserved populations, including two-spirit, trans and non-binary, or TTNB, young people and their families. Through budgets 2021 and 2023, $81 million has been committed to the fund over six years.

Since its creation in 2021, three organizations have been funded for projects focused on improving access to gender-affirming care.

Trans Care B.C. has received almost $6.9 million for two projects that help address barriers to accessing gender-affirming health care and health disparities experienced by TTNB people. To address discrimination and lack of provider knowledge, educational resources have been developed for health care providers and TTBN people living in B.C. By sharing knowledge and research related to best practices, the ongoing project is also addressing misinformation and disinformation campaigns that are active in B.C. and across Canada, which affect TTNB children and youth and are a barrier to care for 2SLGBTQI+ communities and caregiver decision-making.

Hamilton Trans Health Coalition has received just over $15,000. Their project, completed in June 2023, engaged Canadian gender-affirming health care providers to identify the scope of harassment, intimidation and threats they experience, and to highlight best practices and strategies to address them.

Sherbourne Health centre has received approximately $569,000. Their project, completed in March 2024, addressed the gap in access to inclusive, comprehensive sexual and reproductive health care for 2SLGBTQI+ communities by advancing the capacity of health care providers to competently provide safe, affirming and accurate information and service provision.

Canada’s federal health research funding agency, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, or CIHR, has invested over $59 million in research, training and capacity building related to 2SLGBTQI+ health over the past five years, which includes gender-affirming care.

As an example, through the national women’s health research initiative, enabled by a budget 2021 investment of $20 million and launched in 2022, CIHR is leading a national, coordinated research program that aims to advance and mobilize knowledge to improve women’s and gender-diverse peoples’ health outcomes and health care. This initiative promotes an intersectional lens to research and care to tackle persistent gaps for all women, including for transgender, queer, intersex, and additional sexually and gender diverse communities.

For more information regarding CIHR research on gender-affirming care, please see its database of funding decisions.

Women and Gender Equality, or WAGE, supports organizations that serve 2SLGBTQI+ communities. Since 2021, WAGE has invested approximately $10.5 million in 36 organizations that proactively include transgender people within their reach of services and those solely working with this population.

As highlighted in budget 2023, the Government of Canada plans to introduce a new action plan to combat hate that incorporates addressing hate faced by 2SLGBTQI+ communities. This new action plan will include measures to combat hateful rhetoric and build safer, more inclusive communities.

Question No.2424—

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), Scientific Research and Experimental Development (SRED) credits and Sustainable Development Technology Canada's (SDTC) decision to freeze funding to SRED recipients: (a) is the CRA targeting SDTC funding recipients for audits, and, if not, what is the CRA's explanation for the high rates of audits being conducted on such businesses; and (b) how many SRED recipients have had their SDTC funding frozen, and, of those, how many are the subject of a CRA audit?