Lois Brown

[Canadian Human Rights Act, May 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have this opportunity to contribute to the debate on Bill C-389, presented by the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas, which is before us today.

Let me begin by stating that this government is deeply committed to upholding the principles of respect for diversity and equality that are enshrined in Canadian law and are part of the very fabric of our nation.

Our government believes, as demonstrated by our tough-on-crime agenda, that all law-abiding Canadians should be protected from crime in this country. However Bill C-389, which seeks to protect people from various harms based on their gender identity and gender expression, contains provisions that raise concerns as to their technical interpretation and legal necessity.

Let me now proceed to the substance of this bill. This bill proposes amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code. Specifically, it proposes that the undefined terms “gender identity” and “gender expression” may be added to the definition of “identifiable group” in the crimes of hate propaganda, to the deemed list of aggravating factors that can be used to increase the sentence for any crime where motivated by bias, hatred or prejudice and to the grounds of discrimination found in the Canadian Human Rights Act.

In order to inform members further on this issue, I wish to raise certain aspects of this bill that I think merit consideration by all members. While the bill proposes adding gender identity and gender expression, it does not define these terms. This leads to the question of what these terms mean. The bill does not say.

I am not aware of any other country in the world that has used the term “gender expression” by itself in any of its criminal or anti-discrimination laws. I will point out at least three examples: Scotland has hate crime legislation that uses the term “transgender identity”, which is defined; federal U.S. hate crime legislation uses the term “gender identity”, which is defined; and the State of Hawaii, in its hate crimes legislation, uses the term “gender identity or expression”, which is defined in one definition, not two separate ones.

In considering this bill, I believe it also useful to know to what extent our current laws already protect transgender persons so that we may consider to what extent this proposed bill is necessary. In this regard, the Canadian Human Rights Act has already been successfully used to protect transsexuals from discrimination on the grounds of sex.

Both federal and provincial human rights tribunals have already protected transsexuals from discrimination in employment and services, using the current human rights acts. This protection of transsexuals from discrimination using the existing prohibited ground of sex has been upheld by the courts.

I next wish to address the bill's proposal to amend the sentencing provision of the Criminal Code that the bill proposes to amend. Section 718.2(a)(i) of the code begins with the general wording:

(a) a sentence should be increased...to account for any relevant aggravating...circumstances relating to the offence or the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing...

[International Co-operation, May 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, this government is proud that Canada has taken the lead on the issue of maternal and child health as the focus of our G8 meeting in Muskoka. All G8 members lauded Canada's initiative to champion healthier mothers and healthier babies and to reduce maternal and child mortality.

With agreement on a set of principles to guide the leaders of G8 countries, we believe progress will be made to reduce the number of deaths and to keep mothers and children healthy.

A limited number of interventions can prevent most maternal and newborn deaths. With better prenatal care, the presence of a skilled health assistant during birth, care for newborns and some antibiotics, we can make a real difference.

A number of Canadian NGOs and experts have called on the opposition to see the big picture. As we get ready to celebrate Mother's Day this weekend, let us put partisan politics aside and focus on what really matters.

[Democratic Reform, April 30th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, this week our government reaffirmed its throne speech commitment to democratic reform. We moved forward with our democratic reform agenda to improve our institutions so they can be accountable to Canadians.

Would the Minister of State for Democratic Reform tell the House what he is doing to improve our democratic institutions?

[Committees of the House, April 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada's first priority with respect to air travel is safety. That being said, the government supports consumer protection measures.

Our government understands the stresses associated with air travel, particularly with the effects caused by Canadian weather and the volume of traffic during holiday periods. The recent closure of airspace over Europe as a result of a volcanic eruption in Iceland is another dramatic example of unexpected stresses that can affect air travel.

The government launched flight rights Canada in September 2008, which was intended to inform the travelling public of Canada's consumer protection regime, their rights under the regime and how they can seek redress.

When Bill C-310 was initially presented to the House in 2009, a number of issues were raised regarding how the bill's punitive measures penalized airlines for events outside their control, such as weather and tarmac delays. In doing so, air passenger safety is potentially put second to passenger convenience, where pilot risk-taking to avoid paying compensation may take hold. Such high penalities, likely to increase ticket prices, could also threaten the number of flights to more remote locations.

It is clear that this legislation, while well intended, was not drafted in consultation with industry stakeholders who brought forward these concerns. It was also found to be inconsistent with European or United States legislation in this regard.

After the bill passed second reading in May 2009, Bill C-310 was referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities for review where the committee invited key industry and consumer stakeholders to present their views on the bill. Although the bill's intention to improve airline customer service and ensure appropriate compensation was well received by some witnesses, industry stakeholders raised serious concerns.

As per information received during the bill's initial consideration, these stakeholders, as well as a number of government and opposition members, felt that the bill's punitive and unfair provisions would have serious repercussions for the airlines' financial viability and services to remote and/or rural communities. After hearing detailed testimony from the witnesses, the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities recommended that Bill C-310 not proceed further. I support this position and I will tell the House why today.

First, the bill does not take existing legislation or consumer protection into account. It is incompatible with the Canada Transportation Act's existing consumer protection regime. The bill would also prevail over the Aeronautics Act, which creates safety concerns. These are fundamental issues.

Current procedures clearly specify how unsatisfied air passengers may seek redress from the Canadian Transportation Agency on matters such as baggage, flight disruptions, tickets and reservations, denied boarding, passenger fares and charges, and various carrier operated loyalty programs. However, consumers seeking compensation under this bill would have to seek redress through the courts. Such a pattern, which is costly, time-consuming and a burden on Canada's legal system, could be especially protracted since it would take some time for the case law to develop an appropriate redress under the bill to be defined. This work would be especially challenging and would require additional legal, governmental and financial resources to be carried out.

Second, by failing to take into account the role of other entities in delays or cancellations, the bill's sole focus on airlines is unfair and would not forgive future delays and cancellations. For example, air carriers would be held liable to passengers for delays and cancellations due to inclement weather, slow de-icing procedures, airport congestion and air traffic control issues, such as the recent volcanic eruption in Iceland.

While the bill includes exceptions where airlines would not have to pay compensation because of extraordinary circumstances, such circumstances are not defined. So, again the courts would have to define what these are.

The bill's measures are especially significant for the financial viability of smaller carriers serving remote locations, such as northern and/or Atlantic Canada and rural areas. There is a risk that given the costs associated with the bill, be they to provide food or accommodation, even in the case of weather delays that are outside of the airlines' controls, services to these areas could be reduced or potentially disappear. This could lead to higher unemployment and reduced tourism, affecting the economic viability of these communities. It could also force residents to rely on ground transportation modes that may not be readily available or convenient for everyone.

Third, not only is the bill overly punitive to air carriers, but it would also not improve the air passenger travelling experience. First, the bill's fines could incite pilots to fly during difficult weather conditions or with mechanical problems in order to avoid paying compensation to passengers. This is unacceptable and unsafe behaviour that should not be encouraged in any legislation. The bill's excessive penalties could drive higher prices or affect already slim carrier margins. Our airline industry is fragile at the best of times and consumers would not benefit from rising prices, especially during these still challenging economic times.

I will conclude by emphasizing this government's support for consumer protection measures in the aviation industry and our ongoing objective to create a balance between protecting passengers and ensuring a competitive industry. We cannot support Bill C-310.

[Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, April 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, it is time to update the list of tax increases supported by the Liberal leader and his party.

Earlier this week, the Liberal Party voted in favour of creating a levy on digital music devices, also known as the iPod tax. This is on top of a recent pledge to hike job-killing business taxes, a move businesses have said will immediately stop Canada's steady job creation.

Also on the Liberal tax hike list is a plan to raise the GST and, of course, no one can forget the Liberal leader's boasts that he was the first to tout a carbon tax on everything. No wonder the Liberal leader calls himself a tax and spend Liberal.

The Liberal leader needs to tax more so he can spend more. He is already on the record promising billions of dollars in unaffordable and reckless spending. Higher taxes and reckless spending do not create jobs, nor do they promote economic growth.

Simply put, Canadians just cannot afford the Liberal leader's tax and spend agenda.

[Girl Guides of Canada, April 13th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, last week I had the opportunity to visit with the Newmarket Unit of the Girl Guides of Canada. Guiding is alive and well in my riding and a wonderful group of young girls are learning the tenets of friends, fun and community service.

On this occasion the local guide leader had organized a career night. A number of women from careers not typically of first choice for girls came out to share their experiences one-on-one with the group. A police officer, emergency responder, home-based entrepreneur, real estate agent and myself were all invited. I never had so many thoughtful questions asked of me in the hour I was there.

As someone who regularly talks to young people in the schools to encourage young women to consider a political career, I commend the guide leader for organizing this opportunity to introduce young people to non-traditional female careers.

We should each take the time to share our life experiences with our youth. If we open the door of possibility to just one young woman, it will be a success.

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, April 12th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member on his speech, but I find something rather incredulous in all of this. I, too, represent a York region riding just to the north of Richmond Hill. I have seen considerable business activity going on in the riding of Richmond Hill, with the number of investments that our government has made through the economic action plan.

We put in place the home renovation tax credit in the 2009 budget, which made opportunities for many local contractors to sign contracts with people who wanted to do work in their homes. We will have the lowest corporate tax rate in the G7 by 2012. We put in place assistance for our manufacturers through their capital cost input reduction.

Why will the member not support our budget?

[Pay Equity Task Force Recommendations Act, April 12th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak against Bill C-471, a private member's bill on pay equity.

I would like to draw to the attention of the House an article in today's paper, the headline of which is “Women grab reins of power in PS”, from which I would like to quote. I am very proud to be part of a government that has taken a look at this issue and realized that it needed to be addressed. We took stock of it and addressed it in budget 2009. The article states:

A married woman was forbidden from working in Canada's public service 55 years ago, but today women have the majority of jobs and a growing hold on the executive ranks.

They have outnumbered men since 1999, but the government's latest demographic snapshot shows 43 per cent of executives are now women...

I believe that is to the credit of what this government has done and what this government saw was a problem that needed to be addressed.

Our government has made its views against this bill crystal clear, but I am happy to repeat our position today so there is no doubt in anybody's mind that this bill should be sent to the parliamentary dustbin. To be blunt, this bill is too little, too complicated and too late, not to mention out of order.

Our government already took action to modernize pay equity for the public sector. We did this last year when we introduced the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act as part of Canada's economic action plan in budget 2009. That budget was the earliest to be released in Canadian history. Moving at record speed, we cut red tape and delivered the largest economic stimulus in Canadian history.

Today we are beginning to see the first signs of better days ahead. The recovery is still fragile, but it is clear that the Canadian economy has started to recover. This is due in large part to the actions our government has taken, including the extraordinary measures in Canada's economic action plan announced in budgets 2009 and 2010.

Budget 2009 was also notable for creating a proactive pay equity system for the federal public sector. This was no small feat. For too long, women in this country had to endure an adversarial complaints-based pay equity system. For too long, women had to endure a system which was lengthy, costly and did not serve employees or employers well. Thankfully, this Conservative government did something about it. We introduced the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act.

The Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act speaks to our government's respect for the principle of equal pay for work of equal value. It speaks to the fact that women should not have to wait up to 20 years to have their pay equity concerns addressed and that women should not have to endure gruelling, expensive and divisive court proceedings. This had been a long time coming and I am proud to be part of the effort that finally brought this issue to a close.

Our legislation makes employers and unions in the federal public sector jointly accountable for ensuring that wages are equitable through the collective bargaining process. In other words, the legislation ensures that men and women who do work of the same value receive the same pay. It does so through the process in which wages are actually set and agreed upon. The new system we brought in ensures that equitable compensation issues are addressed as they arise. This is a regime that is modern, timely and responsive. It ensures disputes are resolved quickly and collaboratively.

Now would be as good a time as any to bring up the fact that the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act was passed by Parliament with the support of the Liberal Party, including its leader, who happens to be sponsoring this bill before us today. Mr. Speaker, you heard right. Last year, the Liberals helped us pass the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act and now they want to undo it. Is this is a responsible way to conduct the nation's business? I do not think so. No wonder Canadians do not trust the party opposite.

Bill C-471 has many shortcomings. I cannot go into all of them today, but let me discuss a few of them.

One of the most problematic parts of the bill is that it calls on the government to implement every single recommendation of the 2004 Pay Equity Task Force report. There are 113 recommendations, many of which our government rejected with good reason when we drafted the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act.

When the report was released in 2004, the Liberal government of the day publicly spoke out against supporting every recommendation. The former ministers of labour and justice said that the “report does not provide an adequate blueprint for implementation of pay equity and a broad range of federally-regulated workplaces”. Therefore, it is clear that many people in the Liberal Party feel uncomfortable with the task force report.

The Liberal leader may not appreciate the mood of his caucus on this issue. He was still living abroad when this happened. Yet the Liberal leader is here today asking Parliament to now implement it wholesale.

I am also gravely concerned that the bill is out of order as it would require a royal recommendation. Some of the recommendations in the task force report would require the creation of new statutory agencies as well as a new system adjudicators. These things cost money. As we know, any legislation that includes new expenditures requires a royal recommendation, which may only be introduced by a minister.

I dare say that the Leader of the Opposition is not a member of cabinet and as a result his bill is out of order.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, we made a point of order on this issue and we look forward to your ruling. Bill C-471 would require that all statutory oversight agencies are put in place not later than January 1, 2011. This is less than a year from now.

In our party we make it a point to consult with stakeholders that will be impacted by our policy. Rushing in the measures proposed in Bill C-471 would not allow for any meaningful consultations. That is not how good policy is made.

To close my remarks, I would like to reiterate our government's position on this proposed legislation. Parliament has already taken action to modernize pay equity in the federal public sector when it passed our Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act. This legislation is the best means to achieve equitable compensation in the public sector. The private member's bill before us today is faulty and impracticable. It would lead to a pay equity regime that requires machinery changes and costs that have neither been fully identified nor quantified.

In the coming weeks and months, our government will consult all key stakeholders and employee representatives as we develop the regulations in support of our legislation. These regulations are scheduled to be in place in 2011, which gives us plenty of time to conduct meaningful consultations with all interested and affected parties. What is more, we believe our legislation will result in better collaboration between federal public sector employers and bargaining agents in achieving equitable compensation.

This government believes that women deserve fair pay. This is a fundamental right and they deserve it now, not 20 years from now.

[Child Care, March 22nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, we already know the Liberal Party thinks that Canadian moms and dads spend the $100 per month universal child care benefit on beer and popcorn. Now the Liberal MP for St. Paul's has suggested that stay-at-home moms raising their kids at home were not doing a real job. She should ask anyone raising a child at home if it is a real job.

The fact is that our Conservative government has taken real action to help women get into the workforce, but we are also helping moms and dads every day by providing real choice in child care. That is because we believe in giving parents real choice every day.

The member for St. Paul's should apologize for insulting stay-at-home parents, but no one should be surprised that the Liberals' real feelings about stay-at-home parents have once again come out of the woodwork.

[World Kidney Day, March 12th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today in recognition of World Kidney Day.

Kidneys are important organs that perform many functions to keep the blood clean and chemically balanced. I am sure some will be shocked to know that approximately two million Canadians have kidney disease or are at risk, according to the Kidney Foundation of Canada.

Many of these individuals will not be aware that they suffer from kidney disease because of the lack of early warning symptoms. Common conditions like diabetes, high blood pressure and obesity can lead to chronic kidney conditions. If identified early, however, kidney disease can be managed through diet, medication and exercise.

I urge all Canadians to educate themselves on the signs and symptoms that may indicate kidney disease and to remember that healthy choices can play an important role in kidney health.