Sylvie Boucher

[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.

[Points of Order, May 5th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time I have talked about this in the House. I think that we need to respect one another even if we do not share the same ideas. The people we represent do not like what they see on television.

[Points of Order, May 5th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to set the record straight in this House once and for all. I demand some respect. I am not a token Quebecker. I was democratically elected and the Bloc Québécois in no way represents me.

[Liberal Party of Canada, May 5th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, once again, the Liberal Party has shown its true colours. Yesterday, in a move reminiscent of the sponsorship scandal, the Liberals sent out a letter encouraging secret political donations, taking us back to the days when they pocketed brown envelopes stuffed with cash.

The Liberal leader then took his hypocrisy one step further by opposing our party's proposal, which would have made his office and his members more open and transparent by requiring lobbyists to register their activities with all parliamentarians.

That is typical of the Liberals: one set of rules for the Liberal Party and another set of rules for everyone else. Every day, former Liberal members turned lobbyists roam the halls of Parliament. They can offer advice to the Liberal leader and to Liberal members without having to register. This hypocrisy is quite typical of the Liberals, and shows that the Liberal leader does not have Canadians' interests at heart.

[Taxation, April 30th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, on this the tax filing deadline, Canadian families are reaping the rewards of our government's commitment to lower taxes. Our government believes that low taxes fuel job creation and economic growth.

Since taking office, we have cut taxes for families, seniors, students and individuals, thereby reducing the overall tax burden to its lowest level in nearly 50 years. Total savings now exceed, for an average family, $3,000 a year.

According to the Liberals, Canadian families are not paying enough taxes. That is evidenced by the fact that they are still promising to raise taxes, which would kill jobs and stop our economic recovery.

We, however, will make sure that Canadians keep their money in their pockets and their bank accounts, where it belongs.

[Points of Order, April 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the disrespect towards elected officials is getting worse and that is why I am asking the member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord to withdraw an unparliamentary term that he used when he called the Minister of Natural Resources a “carpette”, or a doormat. I am also asking the member for Québec to withdraw an unparliamentary word that she used when she referred to the minister from the Quebec City region as a “cocotte”, or a tart.

I am sorry, but there has to be a minimum of respect among us, even if we do not share the same views.