The Parliamentary process has more twists and turns than a mangled Slinky. Consequently, there is a bit of confusion about where things stand for the federal trans human rights bill, C-279, An Act to Amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code (Gender Identity and Gender Expression).
The bill proceeded to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights (JUST) in November, for three meetings. The first meeting heard testimony from Sara Davis Buechner, Hershel Russell, and Egale Canada on their experiences and why the bill is important. The second heard representatives from the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) and Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) to clear up for once and for all the Conservative argument about the bill’s necessity. Unexpectedly, a spokesperson from R.E.A.L. Women of Canada was added on at the last minute and went on a widely-reported off-topic ramble about pedophiles. Then, when she was cut off and told her remarks were offensive, the floor was turned over to a member of the committee, Robert Goguen, who bade her to continue in the same vein for another five minutes. Fortunately, she doesn’t appear to have been taken seriously by anyone present, and committee member Françoise Boivin expressed getting "a feeling of déjà-vu with Ms. Watts. I do not think that anyone else here was at the meetings of the special committee on same-sex marriage, but I had the great pleasure to be part of that committee in 2005..."
Necessity Proven
The neo-conservative website LifeSiteNews attempted to characterize the testimony of Canadian Human Rights Commission acting secretary general, Ian Fine, as proving that explicit inclusion of trans people is unnecessary, quoting when he said that "strictly speaking, I suppose the legislation isn’t necessary..." But that’s not the impression one is left with on hearing the full quote, and as scuttled as the committee process became, it is worth noting what he said on record:
"To answer your question, strictly speaking, I suppose the legislation isn’t necessary, but we see other reasons why it would be important to include these two grounds under our act, and we do support them.
"For one thing, it would provide the clarity that I think we believe is missing at this point, because as much as it’s true that the commission and tribunals and courts do accept transgender issues as falling under the ground of sex, parties still debate that issue before those very tribunals and courts and question whether or not transgender issues fall under sex. In one case I know of, an issue was raised as to whether or not you could even raise the issue under sex and instead should raise it under disability.
"There continue to be these debates, so for clarity reasons, we believe it would be a good thing to add these two grounds. Also, as I said at the outset, it would be a recognition of the discrimination that this group faces: the sometimes hostile and violent acts that this group faces in our society. So it would recognize the vulnerability of this group, of these individuals..."
The Filibuster
In the third meeting of the Standing Committee for Justice and Human Rights to discuss Canada’s trans human rights Bill C-279, the clock ran out. When a bill is entered into Second Reading, it can either be forwarded on, or be given 60 days for clause-by-clause review and amendments. Thursday December 6th was the last possible day to review the bill.
There would have been a way to get a 30-day extension (given that 2 meetings devoted to C-279 were disrupted by Parliamentary votes), but Conservatives filibustered the motion, by starting an hour-long debate over procedural issues (including a 15-minute time-out so tempers could subside), and the meeting ended before the vote on that motion could happen.
Which bill?
Because the committee process didn’t conclude, what technically happens is that the original unamended bill would proceed to Third Reading. The original bill amends the Canadian Human Rights Act to include gender identity and gender expression as prohibited grounds of discrimination. It also amends the Criminal Code to note gender identity and gender expression as aggravating circumstances to be taken into consideration at the time of sentencing.
However, there were two amendments proposed during the committee process which the bill’s sponsor, Randall Garrison, is considering asking the Speaker of the House to add. One is to drop gender expression from the bill. The other is to define gender identity as "each person’s deeply felt internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond with the sex assigned at birth, including the personal sense of the body...." He believes that the amendments will help the bill to pass, but is also being mindful of concerns in the trans community that dropping gender expression may exclude some people from protections. There is some disagreement about what would happen if the characteristic is left out, and it is uncertain if any harm would happen.
Transitioning people are mostly considered read into existing legislation already, although there is some feeling of precariousness to that, and it takes some effort to demonstrate inclusion in each case - it would be non-transitioning people (i.e. genderqueer, gender fluid or gender "transgressive") who are most helped by the bill’s passage, but those same people are also most at risk with the omission of gender expression. Also, Bill C-279 applies to federal contractors and federal institutions. It would provide an important signal to provinces, employers and Canadians in general as well, but it doesn’t of itself provide total protection to everyone across Canada. It’s important, but not to the level of the emotional involvement people sometimes have with it. Consequently, a number of trans people believe we have the luxury of being pragmatic, taking time and seeking something comprehensive, rather than risking having to fix a flawed or abbreviated bill later.
By late January, Mr. Garrison expects to know what course of action he will take with the bill. By late February or early March, it will proceed to the next step in the Parliamentary process.