C-279 At Second Reading Phase In Canadian Senate

Our Canadian trans cousins (and so are we south of the border) are still anxiously watching Bill C-279, the Trans Rights Bill move through their national legislative body.

It has now moved to the Canadian Senate after being passed March 20 by the House of Commons on a 149-137 vote with the critical support of 16 Conservative Party MP's .

Interestingly enough one of the people who didn't vote on C-279 in the House of Commons was new Liberal leader Justin Trudeau, while Canadian Prime Minster Stephen Harper voted NO. 

The 105 member Canadian Senate is appointed, and has a current makeup comprised of 63 Conservatives, 36 Liberals, three independents and one Progressive Conservative.

The private members bill sponsored by the NDP's LGBTQ critic Randall Garrison had First Reading in the Senate on March 21 and its first hour of Second Reading debate on April 16. 

Senator Grant Mitchell of Alberta, the senate sponsor of C-279 gave a lengthy and comprehensive speech in favor of it, which would add gender identity to the list of protected grounds under the Canadian Human Rights Act and under the hate crimes section of the Canadian Criminal Code. 

It underwent its second hour of debate May 9 with Sen. Hugh Segal of Ontario doing the honors

Honourable senators, the amendments to the Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code proposed in this bill are timely and necessary. They are about extending the protection in these laws to a minority of Canadians who face particular challenges. That is what human rights is all about. That is what civilization at its best is all about. I support this legislation before us without reservation.

I will cite the testimony of Shelly Glover, Member of Parliament for St. Boniface, an MP for whom I have great respect and a former Winnipeg police officer, in her elegant testimony before a committee in the other place on this be bill. She said:

To give hope and opportunity to transgendered people through a bill like this, to give them hope in knowing they will have clarity every single time they report, every single time they want to go before a commission or a tribunal, that gender identity means they can be a transgendered individual and not have to rely on sex, which to most people means plumbing, or disability, which is not what many of them feel, I think is imperative. I think it's imperative that this move forward. I think it's imperative that we, as Canadians and parliamentarians, embrace the notion that we are inviting other Canadians to feel the sense of belonging that this will bill will give them.

When people say it's symbolic only, I disagree wholeheartedly. I want transgendered individuals to feel they can go to a police service, that they can go to a court, knowing full well that gender identity is in the Criminal Code and the Canadian Human Rights Act. I agree with the Canadian Bar Association when they say it will also provide clarity and public acknowledgment. I agree with Mr. Fine, who asks that there be a leaning towards more explicit language, which is what this bill will do. And I agree with all of the two-spirited people I spoke with at Safe Night off Winnipeg Streets recently who said this is an important bill.

Many who are sincerely opposed to this bill have raised the spectre of the protections included in it somehow giving licence to a transgendered individual to use public or school lavatories as predatory sites without any sanction. This is an undue and baseless fear.
Let me quote Randall Garrison, MP, the distinguished and courageous sponsor of this legislation, from his speech on February 27 of this year:

There were some concerns about "gender expression" being less well defined in law and that this would somehow open the gates to abusive practices on the basis of the gender identity bill. I will be very frank and talk about the main one of those, which was the concern that somehow people could use this bill to gain illegitimate access to public bathrooms and change rooms in order to commit what would always be criminal acts of assault.

I contacted the jurisdictions in the United States that have had these provisions in place for a very long time. Four of those did reply, those being California, Iowa, Colorado and the state of Washington. All of them reported the same thing: there have been no instances in any of those states of attempts to use the protections for transgendered people for illegal or illegitimate purposes — no incidents, zero, none.

Honourable senators, this bill has multi-partisan support in the other place and I respectfully submit that it warrants bipartisan support in this chamber, because whatever partisan divides we face, whatever pettiness sometimes invades our rhetoric on all sides, however ideologies of the left or right proscribe our creativity and constructive ability to cooperate, I appeal in humility and sincerity to our better natures and our more noble shared aspirations for coming together around this legislation.

I subscribe to the view that a society is not in the end judged by how the wealthiest and most powerful make out, how those with the loudest voices and most efficient lobbies survive and prosper. We are judged most accurately by how those who are most vulnerable make their way and experience genuine equality of opportunity.

Transgendered Canadians and those who are seeking to redress their personal struggle are indeed a minority among us, but that minority status should not diminish their rights to protection from discrimination; it should ensure protection of those rights as fully as we can.
Honourable senators in this chamber will remember when, decades ago, we tolerated in Canada discrimination based on gender, based on age, based on religion, based on colour and race, and based on sexual orientation. All of these have been addressed, at least in terms of our formal laws and Constitution if not yet completely in practice. However, over time function follows form and the values of the Magna Carta of 1215; Mr. Diefenbaker's Bill of Rights of 1960; the Charter of Rights and Freedoms advanced by Mr. Trudeau in 1982 with the help of Premiers Davis and Hatfield and made stronger by activists like our Senator Nancy Ruth and millions of other women; and changes in human rights codes to protect different sexual orientations have all headed in the same direction, and Bill C-279 continues that step forward.

As a Conservative, the fact that this will set us apart from dictatorships like Iran, Saudi Arabia and many others makes me very comfortable and happy. If we work together and proceed to advance this bill, we will all feel even prouder to be Canadians living in the best country in the world where no legitimate rights are set aside or willfully ignored.

Bill C-279 still has a few more steps to navigate on its legislative journey through the Canadian Senate. It will reconvene on May 21 and if Conservative Senate majority leader Marjory LeBreton of Ontario allows the bill to go to a vote and it passes, then it would head to a committee for review and possible changes.  

If changes are made to C-279 at the committee stage, the bill would need to return to Parliament for another approval vote.   If changes aren't made, then the bill would proceed to Third Reading stage, another two hours of debate and then if the majority leader allows it a final vote.

If C-279 passes Third Reading, it would then go to Governor General David Johnston for Royal Assent, which would make it Canadian law.   Senator Mitchell would like that to happen before the end of June and told Xtra that he has spoken to 30 Senators, with 15 assuring him they will support the bill. The majority of the remaining 15 senators he has spoken to he indicates are leaning toward supporting the bill.

We'll see what happens to C-279 in the Senate and if Sen. Mitchell is correct when it reconvenes.