Sylvie Boucher

[June 7th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, first, as I already said, this government has increased funding for the women's program to an unprecedented level.

The two parts of the women's program, the women's community fund and the women's partnership fund, have had a direct impact on the lives of over 175,000 women and an indirect impact on the lives of over 1.8 million women.

With all due respect to my colleague, she is seeing what she wants to see. On this side of the House, we are working with Status of Women Canada to implement programs to serve all Canadian women, whether they are rich or poor, to help them move forward and achieve their dreams.

[June 7th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, our government remains firmly committed to promoting women's equality and their full participation in the democratic, social and economic life of our country. We have taken concrete measures to achieve that goal, including increasing the financial resources available to the women's program at Status of Women Canada. Our funding levels are unprecedented. Funding through the women's program supports programs that promote women's equality.

Funding from the women's program cannot be used to finance the operating expenses of organizations working in this field.

Since 2007, 372 projects have received a total of nearly $67.5 million in funding from the women's program.

The latest call for proposals issued by the women's program resulted in an unprecedented number of project proposals. The response was remarkable.

There is no doubt in my mind that these projects have positive aspects and that they have the potential to improve women's lives.

However, for a project proposal to be eligible for funding, the organizations must show that the proposed project meets all the eligibility and evaluation criteria, including the criterion that the project address one or more of our funding priorities, which are as follows: increasing women's economic security and prosperity; ending violence against women; and encouraging women's leadership and democratic participation.

Even though it is simply not possible to fund all projects, as deserving as they may be, we have supported many important projects, including the project to disseminate CEDAW tools to improve the economic security and opportunities of women living in northern Canada; WEConnect Canada's project to open doors to corporate markets through education, training, coaching and mentoring to improve women entrepreneurs' business literacy; the Women in Municipal Government National Program of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities; and the Uniting to End Violence against Women project, whose goal was to bring together provincial and territorial shelter organizations across the country to improve services for aboriginal, immigrant and rural women who experience abuse.

If the hon. member really wants to do something for the women and girls of this country, she should applaud our efforts and achievements instead of criticizing them and voting against all the measures that can help Canadian women.

[Questions on the Order Paper, June 7th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Privy Council Office responds that in February 2010 one allegation of political interference in responding to access to information requests was brought to the attention of the Office of the Prime Minister. It concerned actions taken in July 2009 by the then Parliamentary Affairs Director within Public Works and Government Services Canada. The minister of the department took action to address the situation. The allegation is currently under investigation by the interim Information Commissioner of Canada.

Under Section 73 of the Access to Information Act, only officers or employees of a government institution may be delegated to perform the duties or functions of the head of the institution under the act. No political staff member may receive a delegation of authority under the act, or make access to information decisions.

Ministers are responsible to Parliament as to how the duties entrusted to them under the act are discharged.

[Questions on the Order Paper, June 3rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a) of the question, no external studies or consultations have been commissioned or contracted by the Government for the purposes of drafting Bill C-12, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867. Democratic representation or any previous version of this bill. All studies or consultations conducted by the government have been conducted internally in support of the cabinet decision-making process. Representations and statements made by provincial governments and individuals in response to previous versions of the bill were also taken into account for the purposes of drafting Bill C-12.

In response to part (b) of the question, based on a search of government records, no studies or consultations were commissioned or contracted by the Government for the purposes of considering any legislative proposal that would guarantee Quebec no fewer than 25% of the total number of seats in the House of Commons in advance of the Charlottetown accord or at any other time. The proposal to guarantee Quebec at least 25% of the seats in the House of Commons came about during federal-provincial-territorial negotiations in 1992.

The term “studies or consultations conducted by the government for the purposes of…” was interpreted to mean formal studies or consultations commissioned by the government for the direct purposes identified in the question. The following study, which included consultations, was commissioned by the government, which included consideration of representation in the House of Commons, although not directly for the purposes identified in the question: the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing; the final report of the commission was published in 1991.

[Questions on the Order Paper, June 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, in response to part a) of the question, between April 1, 2008 and March 31, 2009, according to substantive position, the total number of employees who worked in the Prime Minister's Office was 152. Note that this total includes employment periods of varying lengths.

In response to part b) of the question, as of March 1, 2010, there were 112 employees in the Prime Minister's Office.

[Questions on the Order Paper, June 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, in response to part a) of the question, the Privy Council Office, PCO, spent $408,426.97 on public opinion polling and research in the 2008-2009 fiscal year. In response to part b) of the question, PCO spent $129,127.81 on public opinion polling and research between April 1, 2009 and March 1, 2010.

[Business of Supply, May 11th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague opposite a question. He spoke about the Francophonie earlier. What would happen to the 1.5 million francophones outside Quebec when it achieves sovereignty? What would it do to help them? As far as I know, they have never lifted a finger to help francophones outside Quebec. I would like to know how it would help them since they are also part of the Canadian Francophonie.

[Bloc Québécois, May 11th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, we have recently seen how much contempt the members of the Bloc have for federalist Quebeckers. The expression “token Quebeckers“ shows contempt for more than 60% of Quebeckers.

After being in this House for 20 years, aside from being disrespectful to Quebeckers, I really wonder what the Bloc has done to defend Quebec. One thing is certain, since the dawn of time, the Bloc has voted against all the initiatives that would move Quebec forward.

The Bloc Québécois can be disrespectful to us, but the truth is that the elected Conservatives from Quebec are serving Quebeckers.

Quebeckers can count on our Conservative government to deliver the goods. I am proud to be both a Quebecker and a federalist, and I am no less a Quebecker because of that.

[Business of Supply, May 11th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, in her speech, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine forgot to mention that support for Quebec sovereignty at the height of the sponsorship scandal reached levels that had not been seen since referendum night, on October 30, 1995. Instead of reforming the Canadian federation after the dismal outcome of that referendum for Quebec federalists, the Liberals decided to create the dark sponsorship program, which only succeeded in tarnishing Quebeckers' reputation outside the province.

Moreover, the nice rhetoric used by the member opposite does not change anything to the fact that there is $40 million of Canadian taxpayers' hard-earned money still missing.

My question is: where are those $40 million? Canadians are still waiting for answers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate on Bill C-389, a private member's bill introduced by the member for Burnaby—Douglas. As members of this House surely know, this bill would amend the Criminal Code and the Canadian Human Rights Act to include the expressions “gender identity” and “gender expression”, which would protect individuals against discrimination based on gender identity and gender expression.

I am aware of the need to protect all Canadians against discrimination and against all crimes. I am proud of what our government has done, and what it is still doing to protect all Canadians and Quebeckers. In particular, we introduced tougher mandatory jail sentences for serious gun crimes, and we provided better protection for our children against adult sexual predators, by changing the legal age of consent from 14 to 16.

I am also proud that Canada is known around the world for its belief in the principles of diversity and equality. These principles are enshrined in our Constitution and in our legislation.

In light of this, we have to ask ourselves whether the proposed amendments in Bill C-389 are clear or necessary. They may appear simple, but they could have complex, unpredictable legal consequences.

First, I would like to talk about the actual content of the bill. The bill would amend the Criminal Code by adding the terms “gender identity” and “gender expression” to the definition of “identifiable group” in the provisions on hate propaganda. This would mean that advocating genocide, inciting hatred where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace or wilfully promoting hatred against a group of persons distinguished by gender identity or expression would be a crime.

The bill would also add “gender identity” and “gender expression” to the non-exhaustive Criminal Code list of aggravating circumstances requiring a judge to impose a harsher sentence. This would mean that a judge could impose a longer than normal sentence on someone who commits a crime motivated by hate or prejudice against persons belonging to these two groups.

Lastly, the bill would add “gender identity” and “gender expression” to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act. This act prohibits discrimination on grounds such as race, gender and disability in federal government employment and services.

To properly understand the impact this bill would have, we need to know what is meant by “gender identity” and “gender expression”. These things must be clarified so that we can have a healthy debate in the House. Unfortunately, the bill does not define either of these terms. It is essential that these important terms be clearly defined in the law.

The bill would add the term “gender expression” to the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code. I do not believe that people commonly use this term, so we should know exactly what it means. To my knowledge, no other country in the world has made “gender expression” a prohibited ground for discrimination or has included the term in the definition of “identifiable group” in its hate crimes provisions as a completely separate concept from “gender identity”.

One example of what is happening overseas is the United Kingdom's Equality Act, which, I would like to point out, does not consider “gender expression” as a ground for discrimination, but prohibits discrimination based on gender reassignment.

The same point could be made about hate crime provisions. In certain American states, the concept of gender identity is part of the definition of “sexual orientation” or that of “sex”.

In summary, even in legislation that includes the concept of “gender expression”, this concept is always clearly linked to the concept of gender identity, at least to my knowledge.

To continue, I should note that not only are these amendments vague, but they could also be unnecessary or redundant. As I said earlier, the distinction between the two must be established.

First, I would like to point out that the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has already studied a number of complaints filed by transsexuals, and it found that these complaints were justified based on the ground of sex.

By deciding that transsexuals are already protected by provisions in federal human rights legislation, the tribunal followed the approach of human rights tribunals in British Columbia, Quebec and other provinces, which determined that discriminating against transsexuals is prohibited based on the current ground of sex. This interpretation was confirmed by the tribunals.

We should therefore think about whether adding “gender identity” and “gender expression” to the Canadian Human Rights Act is really necessary. I would like the members to comment on that.

Perhaps we should also think about whether these grounds need to be included in the Criminal Code sentencing provision in subparagraph 718.2(a)(i), which lists various aggravating factors, such as evidence proving that:

the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor,

That list is not exhaustive. Judges already have the power to impose heavier sentences for hate crimes against transgender people when justified under the circumstances.

If we consider adding “gender identity” and “gender expression” to the hate propaganda provisions in the Criminal Code to comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we need enough evidence to conclude that there are enough cases of hate propaganda against transgender people.

Without that evidence, it is difficult to justify amending the Criminal Code and placing additional restrictions on free speech. Such evidence may exist, but I just want to point out that if we broaden the definition of “identifiable group” set out in the hate propaganda provisions, that will further infringe on Canadians' right to free speech.

As is often the case, a proposed change that may appear simple on the surface can, upon further study, turn out to be quite complicated and may produce unintended legal consequences. We need to look at whether there are any gaps in our current laws and carefully consider any proposed changes to ensure that every individual's basic rights are protected. At the same time, we should avoid introducing redundant elements into our legislation.

I am eager to hear what the members of the House have to say about these issues. Personally, I think that a clearer understanding of “gender identity” and “gender expression” is critical to healthy debate in the House.