In case you're wondering what's been happening with C-279, the Canadian Trans Rights Bill, last year it was at Third Reading stage and just needed a final vote to send it to Governor General David Johnston for Royal Assent and have it become Canadian law.
But the Conservative senators started playing legislative games at the last moment to run the clock out until they adjourned for summer recess. Then PM Harper prorogued Parliament before they returned in the fall, which sent C-279 back to the Senate First Stage drawing board.
After reinstating C-279, it progressed to second stage before the Canadian Senate went on winter break and returned January 28.
It's now at Second Stage (again) in the Canadian Senate, and here is the transcript of C-279's Senate sponsor Sen. Grant Mitchell (Lib-ON) speaking on behalf of C-279 during the February 4 debate.
Canadian Human Rights Act
Criminal Code
On the Order:
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Mitchell,
seconded by the Honourable Senator Dyck, for the second reading of Bill
C-279, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code
(gender identity).
Hon. Grant Mitchell: Mr. Speaker and colleagues, it is a unique
situation and circumstance that I get to speak about this bill for a second time
at second reading. That doesn't happen very often. It's unfortunate in some
sense that it has to happen with this bill because we got it to third reading in
the last session and could have had a vote on it.
(1510)
Of course, I'm speaking of Bill C-279, which is a bill to amend the Human
Rights Act and the Criminal Code to protect the rights and the physical and
psychological well-being, to elevate and recognize the importance of the issue
of discrimination against transgendered people in our society.
It is worth noting that the reason that I get to speak on this for a second
time at second reading is because of a particular set of rules that apply to
private members' bills from the government side, after prorogation.
This bill was developed and sponsored by Member of Parliament Randall
Garrison, a member of the New Democratic Party. I congratulate him on the work
he did.
I also should point out that this this bill was passed with all- party
support in the House of Commons. It was across the sides. Eighteen Conservative
members of Parliament voted in support of this bill. Four of them were cabinet
ministers and at least one of them was a former cabinet minister. It says
something about the context of what has been happening in this place about the
importance and the significance of a non-partisan approach to bills and issues
of the day.
I get to speak to it at second reading because, under the rules of
parliament, after prorogation, the private members' bills, no matter where they
were in the process through the Senate — so they have advanced from the House of
Commons to the Senate — get to go back to first reading, essentially, as a
matter of course, under these parliamentary rules. So, this bill went back to
first reading.
That's different than what would have happened to a government bill. Had a
government bill worked its way through to the Senate and not been voted on at
third reading by the time prorogation occurred, then it would be off the Order
Paper in both houses. So, this is quite unique and it's a unique rule to the
Senate.
I want to say that I'm inspired to have the chance to speak yet again about
this issue, because I think it is so important, so deeply significant within the
fabric of Canadian society. It addresses rights in a way that reflects generally
what Canada is and what Canada is acknowledged to be around the world: a great,
wonderful, accepting, warm society that understands human rights and that each
of us, as individuals, are profoundly important. This bill captures that.
It's unfortunate, on the other hand, that I have to speak to it a second
time. That has occurred only because it got to third reading and didn't get a
vote. My experience in talking to colleagues on both sides of the house, prior
to its arriving at third reading in the previous session, was that there is a
good deal of support, maybe unanimous on this side, and a great deal of support
among Conservatives in the Conservative caucus.
The problem was that it didn't come to a vote. I would encourage members on
all sides to encourage those who control the question of whether bills like this
come to a vote to ensure that it does come to a vote.
We would think very rarely of defeating a government bill. Why? Because it
has been supported and passed by elected representatives. Yet, we're a little
more cavalier in this house about defeating private members' bills. At the base
level of democratic representation, a private members' bill passed in the House
of Commons is no less significant a representation of the will of Canadians, as
reflected in their elected representatives, than is a government bill.
In fact, if you actually add up support, considering that the government
received 40 per cent of the vote in the last election, any bill without
opposition support comes across here as really reflecting, to use numbers
statistically, 40 per cent of the population. However, if you consider that all
of the opposition on the other side, plus 18 per cent, which is over 10 per cent
of the Conservative caucus, supported this, you're talking about over 60 per
cent of the Canadian electorate being reflected in the vote of their respective
MPs in support of this bill. This is a bill that has had powerful support,
therefore, by a broad majority, as reflected in the support that was accorded
opposition and government MPs who supported this bill, and in the support they
received in the last election.
This is a formidable bill with formidable democratic support under our
democratic system, and it should be no less important to at least come to a vote
than any government bill that comes from the other house.
I should say there's another unique feature to the bill that has changed
since we last saw it at third reading, and that is that it no longer has the
amendment attached to it that was moved by Senator Nancy Ruth. We all know of
her profound passion for equal rights and for women's rights, and I think we can
all appreciate what her amendment would have done, which was to add "sex" in as
an element of the Criminal Code for determining the level of severity of an act
of violence, a crime against an individual on the basis of sex — that is
addressing, largely, violence against women, but violence against men as well.
We all understand and appreciate the passion and the depth that she brings to
that issue.
Now that issue, interestingly, is no longer attached as an amendment to this
bill; we're starting over. What's also interesting is that the government has
actually accommodated her amendment in Bill C-13, the cyberbullying bill. In
fact, that bill, now under section 12, will include, among other new definitions
of identifiable groups in the Criminal Code under section 318(4), national
origin, age, mental or physical disability, and it will include sex.
Therefore, the need for Senator Nancy Ruth's amendment to this bill has
really been usurped, if I can say, in a good way, by the government's own Bill
C-13. It's quite a breakthrough for women's rights, for recognition of those
rights and for dealing with violence against women. To some extent, it will
smooth the process of Bill C-279. I don't agree this amendment would have
necessarily held the bill up, but there were those in the public with whom I've
spoken who were concerned that that amendment did do that. Now, that's off the
table, as it were, because it has been dealt with in another piece of
legislation.
I've said that this is an important issue, and we all know that it's
important because it addresses rights, equality rights, and it really is a
reflection of what we, as Canadians, believe ourselves to be. We're not perfect
when it comes to discrimination, but we go a long way past many societies and
nations in this world. I think we have a great deal to be proud of.
One of the proudest moments, and perhaps one of the best things I feel I've
ever done in politics — and I've said this a number of times — was one of the
first major bills that I worked on when I was first appointed in 2005 and that
was the gay marriage bill. I remember working on the committee with, among
others, Senator Joyal, as we sat through the summer to hear some remarkable
testimony. It may have been that our Speaker, himself, was on that committee.
That was a very powerful experience for me, to see both sides of the debate,
and to see the quality of input and the minds of the witnesses before our
committee is something I will never forget.
The moment that bill passed, for me, was one of the proudest moments I've had
in politics over the many years I've been here, because I felt it captured and
reflected what we are as Canadians, and it provided leadership in the world. If
we weren't the first country to do it formally and officially, we were one of
the first countries to do it. I think it is something that we, as Canadians, can
be immensely proud of.
What is interesting about the debate about gay marriage is that so many of
the elements that were argued against gay marriage — this argument that it might
damage the family, that somehow it would erode society, that somehow it would
weaken the concept of parenthood, and whether or not gay couples should be
allowed to raise children — really and truly have all been settled.
Our society hasn't changed in a negative way because of gay marriage. In
fact, I would argue quite the contrary; there are a lot more happy people in our
society because they can express their love for somebody in the way they choose
and they get recognition from our society in a very high and significant way —
marriage — to do that. For me, it was a very powerful experience and a very
proud moment.
(1520)
Now we have another chance to do it, to extend rights — recognition, in one
sense. I know this rights thing is a loaded idea in this kind of debate, so let
me clarify it. The bill extends recognition to the extent that it will modify
the Canadian human rights bill, and it extends protection to the extent that it
will define transgendered people as an identifiable group under the Criminal
Code,
ergo increasing, enhancing and giving more power to their defence
in our society.
So it's not just a question of rights, which, as I say, is loaded; it's a
question of recognition, of giving these many people a sense of place in our
society, to confront the alienation, the distance and the real lack of place
that they feel — not only in our society, but sometimes in their own families.
It also just protects people. When I look at Bill C-13, the anti- bullying
bill, at the very root of Bill C-279 is the case to be made and the mechanisms
to be implemented to fight bullying. Bill C- 279 is absolutely an extension, if
not an enrichment, of Bill C-13, the anti-bullying bill. Many of the people who
would be covered to some extent by this anti-bullying bill, who are bullied in
cyberspace, are in fact transgendered people, and they won't have the
recognition in the anti-cyberbullying bill that other groups will, yet they are,
to some
extent, and there's evidence, perhaps one of the most bullied groups of
people in our society. In fact, there is evidence that when it comes to violence
against groups for identifiable characteristics, they may well be the single
greatest recipient of and sufferer as a group from violence, certainly
psychological and probably physical violence, in Canadian society.
So we have a chance to distinguish ourselves again and to reflect what I
think Canadians believe fundamentally in their hearts, that all Canadians should
be treated equally, and if any Canadian is in danger, is oppressed, is bullied
or is the object of violence, we should be able to stand up and help defend
them. We can do that.
It's also a remarkable opportunity, once again, for the Senate to emphasize
and demonstrate how it works within the parliamentary system in the defence of
minority rights. There is no question that this group, people with gender
identity, some would say "issues" — they wouldn't — but who fall within this
category, do suffer extreme discrimination and are a minority, absolutely. The
numbers would indicate that there may be upwards of 170,000 or 200,000, but
statistically and in every other way they are a minority, and we are here as a
Senate to defend minority rights.
I'm not going to go through everything I said last time. I'm going to add to
some of that, but I will summarize. The bill will do two things. It will amend
the Human Rights Act to specify gender identity as a fundamental right and basis
for defining discrimination. It will say after this bill is passed that
officially you can be discriminated against for your gender identity. You
shouldn't be, but if you are, it will be defined as a negative officially within
the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Second, the bill will amend the hate crimes section of the Criminal Code to
include gender identity as a distinguishing characteristic in defining hate
crimes under section 318 and also as an aggravating circumstance to be taken
into consideration at sentencing under section 718.2 of the Criminal Code.
I read before in my previous speech to second reading last year that the
purpose has changed essentially only by adding to the list of discriminatory
practices defined in the Human Rights Act based on a number of things: race,
national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation and
gender identity. Of course, it's straightforward how it would be included in
section 318 and section 718 of the Criminal Code.
A lot of this bill hinges on the definition of gender identity. That has been
a controversial feature. It was controversial on the other side, and in fact
changes were negotiated in a way that allowed a number of Conservative members
of Parliament who otherwise were reluctant to support this to support it. The
definition of gender identity was more limited in its application and excluded
gender expression, which I would argue isn't problematic but was seen by some to
be problematic; but there are absolutely official definitions. This is the one
in this bill is:
"gender identity" means, in respect of a person, the person's deeply felt
internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not
correspond with the sex that the person was assigned at birth.
We've all received the emails. Some people are concerned about how you could
ever deal in law with something that's a deeply felt internal and individual
experience. Well, that's what the courts generally deal with — people's
perceptions, intentions. In fact, we accept at face value people's religion and
their expression of their religion, yet that religion is not somehow evident. To
some extent, if people wear certain kinds of clothing or certain icons, yes, but
most of us have a religion, a religious association or a commitment of faith
that is respected, and that's a deeply held belief. That already has been
included in both of these acts, without any concern about how you define
religion. I think the parallels there are very strong.
The Canadian Psychological Association affirms that all adolescent and
adult persons have the right to define their own gender identity regardless
of chromosomal sex, genitalia, assigned birth sex, or initial gender role.
Moreover, all adolescent and adult persons have the right to free expression
of their self-defined gender identity.
They go on to state that they oppose stereotyping, prejudice and
discrimination on the basis of chromosomal sex, genitalia, assigned birth sex or
initial gender role, or on the basis of a self- defined gender identity or the
expression thereof in exercising all human rights.
Some will argue — and I think it is much less prevalent — that gender
identity is a choice, that somehow you can change yourself from your gender
identity. But we have come to accept that in the case of homosexual gender
identity, really and truly it isn't changeable. It is what you are. In fact,
that's very much the case that's been made over and over again by people in the
transgender community and by scientific study. Scientific studies indicate that
roughly 60 per cent of all trans people are aware that their gender did not
match their bodies before the age of 10 — this is not something a child would
make up — and that over 80 per cent have this deeply felt awareness prior to the
age of 19. It isn't something that somebody would make up, if you consider the
intense discrimination, often psychological, often physical, often very violent,
that they experience, if not every day, many days. Many of them will tell you
that they experience this almost every day and that it pervades their life. They
sense an alienation, a profound lack of acceptance, a fear of bullying, of
violence, of rape, of economic discrimination, discrimination in the workforce,
in housing and medical care, and they experience unprecedented levels of
suicide.
(1530)
It just seems to me that this kind of issue is so personal that nobody should
stand in judgment of it. If someone decides that their gender identity is
whatever it is, then it is their right to be who they are. In this country of
Canada, if you can't be who you are under those circumstances, in what country
could you possibly be who you are?
Oscar Wilde made a wonderful point and it was quoted by MP Randall Garrison.
Wilde said, "Be yourself; everyone else is taken."
The bill is a step toward allowing transgender people the greater possibility
of being themselves without the fear of psychological and physical bullying, and
sometimes even worse.
Let me give you some specific statistics. I will highlight them.
Job statistics: In recent studies only one-third of trans Ontarians were
working full-time, and upwards of 20 per cent were outright unemployed. That is
over three times the current rate of unemployment in Canada today. Not only
that, but if they have a job they are generally significantly underpaid. Their
average income is $30,000 per year, despite the fact that as a group
transgendered people are highly educated.
Twenty-six per cent of them have some post-secondary education; 38 per cent
have completed post-secondary education; and 7 per cent have master's degrees or
better.
Not only do they have difficulty getting work and are underpaid when they get
it, but they often have a difficult time in their employment due to hostility to
their orientation, particularly at a time when they decide to come out and try
to change their visible public gender identity, which is a powerful moving force
in their lives.
The rates of depression among transgendered Canadians are as high as
two-thirds. The rate of crimes against transgendered people is extremely high.
They are the most likely group to suffer hate crimes involving violence.
Research specific to the Ontario case — because there has not been a wide
national body of research — is that 20 per cent of trans people have been
physically or sexually assaulted because they were transgender.
Suicide, I know, is a concern for all of us. It has been a public policy
debate and it's increasingly elevated now because of the situations with the
military and RCMP. Seventy-seven per cent of trans people in Ontario reported
seriously considering suicide at some time in their life; 43 per cent reported
they had attempted suicide; and of those who attempted suicide, 70 per cent
first tried at age 19 or younger. Adolescent youth transgendered people are
twice as likely to consider and attempt suicide as their non- transgender
counterparts.
This bill is about education and elevation of the issue. As Justice La Forest
of the Supreme Court of Canada said, a failure to explicitly refer to
transgender identity in the Canadian Human Rights Act leaves transgendered
people "invisible."
Our colleague, Member of Parliament Irwin Cotler said in the house:
The Canadian Human Rights Act is more than just an act of Parliament. It
is an act of recognition, a statement of our collective values, and a
document that sets out a vision of a Canada where all individuals enjoy
equality of opportunity and freedom from discrimination.
There is no question that transgender people are discriminated against for
doing something that in no way, shape or form would hurt anybody else. If we
can't defend them in these two acts, how does that reflect the fundamental
values that Canadians share? It doesn't. We need to defend them by way of
modifying these two acts in the way that Bill C-279 would do.
There have been many arguments against the bill. One was the definition
issue, which I have dealt with. The other is the question of what was
inappropriately, derisively and unfortunately coined as the "bathroom bill." The
implication is so far from the truth; the idea that somehow, something
inappropriate is going to happen in a bathroom has never been proven. Any
experience in the United States where these kinds of rights have been extended —
and four states responded to Randall Garrison's inquiry — there has never been a
crime under this or a "misuse" of these rights.
Any court in Canada can distinguish between what is criminal and what is not
criminal activity. That is what courts do. Our court system, which is clearly
one of the most elevated in the world, would be more than capable of doing that
absolutely adequately.
When I said that the experience of deliberating and reviewing the gay
marriage bill was a powerful moving experience, I am reminded of my experience
since undertaking to sponsor this bill. I met remarkable people in the
transgender community, like the people who for 25 years in the gender mosaic
have advocated, fought and struggled to come this close to getting these rights
recognized.
I have been to two transgender days of remembrance ceremonies. A number of
things were striking about them — the power of the presentations, the emotion,
and the way that the transgender people and their parents who presented at these
services and memorials were very moving. I wish every one of my colleagues in
this Senate chamber had been there to see that.
What is also unique about the two I went to is that one was in Calgary and
the Calgary police force had an element of their transgender rights group. That
is a group of police people, constables and volunteers within the police
department, who specifically work with the transgender community, so it's
recognized clearly by that police department. In fact, the transgender memorial
that I went to in Ottawa was at the Ottawa Police headquarters. The chief of
police spoke there and underlined, as did others, the importance of this issue
to them and how much a profound crime they see this discrimination and violence
against transgender people to be. They get it. Those two police forces — and I
expect you will find this across the country — get it. They understand that
transgender people have every right to be protected. They protect them and focus
on it in a special way because they understand they are treated with inordinate
levels of violence and a motivation of violence that comes from a very dark
place.
What also came out of my experience at these services were the presentations
by parents and by transgendered people. I would like to share that with you,
because what we're talking about isn't some amorphous group; these are
individuals. Many of us will know some or many. We will know them but not know
they are transgender. They are sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, sisters and
brothers and they are Canadians and they are our neighbours. I will talk about
one.
I will mention some excerpts from a presentation by one transgendered woman.
She was assigned male at birth, lived a life and fought this presence in her
life of in fact knowing she was a woman. She married and had children, tried to
fit the mould that society imposes on people in these circumstances all too
often. Finally, she very eloquently made her point in this speech that she could
no longer live with herself if she couldn't be herself and if she didn't have
the courage to come out to the world and live the way she was and be who she is.
(1540)
I will list some of the things she had said, her fears, because they were
deep and she was very nervous when she presented to us.
I was afraid that I would not be able to pass, that people would spot me
from a mile away and know what I was. I was afraid of being ridiculed and
laughed at. I was afraid that I would never be able to get a decent job and
I would have to subsist on low-paying jobs and be poor for the rest of my
life. I was afraid that I would lose friends. I am a spiritual person and I
was afraid I would never find a church that would accept me. I was afraid of
how my family would react, afraid that I would lose those relationships most
important to me, especially my children. And I was afraid of the
uncertainty. After many years of working and living, my life was predictable
and I could chart a fairly comfortable course into my retirement. I was
afraid I would lose any certainty in my life.
It is interesting that one of her biggest fears was to come out to her
family. There are a lot of indications that that can be a problem. One of the
very impressive people I have worked with on this bill is a transgendered woman,
like this woman I am quoting. She is a very successful lawyer and clearly
extremely intelligent.
Her parents are convinced that she is transgendered because she hit her head
when she was eight years old. Since coming out, her sister has not spoken to
her. She has never met her nieces and nephews. She is allowed to come home but
not on Sunday and not if anybody else is in the house. Imagine what that would
do to you. And then to come out to a society that does not acknowledge you even
under the most fundamental, basic rights and recognition, which is the Canadian
Human Rights Act.
However, this particular transgendered person I am quoting was fortunate in
this way:
My father is elderly, conservative and religious. I didn't know how to
tell him.... I had sent a letter on ahead with my sister, so Dad could read
it and have time to absorb it while I drove back to his place.... He met me
at the door, hugged me, said he loved me and I would always be welcome in
his home. The world would be a better place if there were more people like
him.
We could reflect in this bill by passing it that there are many more people
like him.
Perhaps the most powerful testimonies I heard were from parents, because
parents feel pain for their children. All of us who have children know how
driven that is. There was a mother who presented. She hit on a number of
important features of this issue. Let me talk about the whole idea of knowing
what your gender identity is, even when you're young. She said, "When he," so
her son was born female but has made the transition to male.
When he was 11 he wanted to join boy scouts, I asked him why not girl
guides the answer was he didn't want to learn how to sew, cubs did cooler
things.
That is a pretty basic, fundamental recognition by someone who is 11 years
old that they're not what their mother thought they were.
She goes on to say that when finally this young man came out, "He explained
how he looked like a girl but was really a boy inside. He told me about a
meeting he had gone to" — this is in his early twenties — "a transgender support
group, and for the first time in his entire 21 years he fit in, completely fit
in and felt safe to breathe."
"He felt safe to breathe." Imagine the stress and the pressure of that young
man's life for 21 years, alone, even with a mother who understood there was
something but could never bring that out.
Listen to this, if you will, the growing up process and being the parent of a
young person going through this:
One day I saw cuts on his arms. I questioned him — he pushed me away and
got angry. He began coming home drunk and high often or just didn't come
home. I cried a lot and prayed even more. I was losing him and feared the
worst. I could not imagine my life without my child and feared that I might
have to.
Of course, she is referring to the high incidence of suicide among
transgender people. In her case, there is evidence that with parents' support,
the likelihood of suicide is much lower. You can imagine that if society
supported it, the likelihood of suicide would be even lower still.
This is powerful to me when I heard it, because this mother has made the
leap. She got past the idea that it doesn't matter which gender. She said that
when she finally realized this child was a man and not the woman she thought he
would grow into:
I did mourn the loss of my dreams for the child I met 25 years ago, and I
learned that I was not losing anything of importance. The soul, spirit, and
heart of this child are the same and always will be the same, there is just
different packaging.
In the end, she finished by saying, again reflecting on the process of her
child going through this profoundly difficult experience throughout his life:
What I did see was a miracle, a gift that was given to me to care for and
love. What I now see too often is physical, mental and sexual abuse in the
trans community. I have seen too much homelessness, despair, fear and death.
I have seen too many people that do not have family support and have been
told they are not worth the air they breathe. I have heard too many times I
wish my parents would love and accept me. I have heard too many times that
your son is lucky. Is he lucky to be loved by his mother? Is he lucky to be
accepted as a human being? With deep sorrow I am sad to say he is lucky and
he is one of the minority.
A father presented at one of these memorials as well. It is very powerful to
hear a father speak in this emotional way. He said, "Gone are the many years of
confusion," because his son transitioned to become a woman, so now he has a
daughter. He said:
The only difference that is apparent to me is that my child is finally
happy. Gone are the many years of confusion, buried feelings and having to
live a lie. Finally my child is who she is meant to be! This is to my great
joy also and explains some of the areas where I felt that I had been
failing.
He had taken it upon himself.
He also said:
The overarching fact is that many of my close friends and family are very
strong in their Christian beliefs.
He himself was born and raised a Christian.
My best friend is the finest Christian I know. Each and every one of them
has said to me "but she is God's child". That is the true Christian message.
My child is important. Do not let anyone tell you that your child is not
equally important.
By passing this bill, we can say to every parent that their child is equally
important.
I will read and quote from something that may sound odd in a way. I don't
know what the average age is in the Senate.
An Hon. Senator: Sixty-two.
Senator Mitchell: Sixty-two. That's my age, so I'm perfectly average
in that respect.
I don't know how many of you saw the Grammies, or the American Music Awards,
with a rap artist called Macklemore, who has become extremely popular in the
last year. Macklemore and Ryan Lewis wrote a song. The reason I became
interested in it before the show appearance is because he appeared singing this
song called "Same Love" at a rock concert in the States with two Canadian
artists, Tegan and Sara from Calgary. They are hugely successful musicians. They
are young women — twins — both gay. They sang with Macklemore the song "Same
Love." It is an anthem for the new generation, a generation that will make this
change if we do not do it first. And we do not just represent 62- year-olds; we
represent every generation in this country. This is an anthem for that
generation. I will quote it:
America the brave still fears what we don't know
At the basic root of discrimination is fear — fear of the unknown, often —
and this primeval desire to make ourselves feel better by putting somebody else
down. Macklemore captures this so well by saying, "America the brave still fears
what we don't know." He is speaking for a generation. It is an anthem.
He goes on to say in this very powerful poetry:
I might not be the same, but that's not important
No freedom till we're
equal
Again, this is an insight that should be at the basis of what we are thinking
about when we consider this bill. This is his comment on the consequences of not
accepting transgendered people, among others.
When kids are walking 'round the hallway plagued by pain in their heart
A
world so hateful some would rather die than be who they are
When you get the level of suicide that you see in young adolescent
transgendered people, that is exactly what they are saying. They are saying that
they would rather die than be who they are because they are so frightened and
there is so much social pressure against their being who they are.
(1550)
In closing, I will go back to the father who said about giving advice to
parents of transgendered people:
One major hurdle that you will face is societal pressure. It is incumbent
on you to garner all the support you can from all politicians and parties to
legislate that your child receives equal rights and protection under the
law.
That is what Bill C-279 is about. It responds to that father and to that
mother and to countless numbers of fathers and mothers and grandmothers and
grandfathers and aunts and uncles and brothers and sisters and friends and
associates across this country who work with, know and love transgendered people
in their families. That's what this bill is about. We can respond to that
father's request by giving him the support that he's asking for and by taking a
step to change the lives of these important Canadians who have been
discriminated against psychologically and brutalized violently all too often. We
can stand up and do the right thing.
Hon. Donald Neil Plett: Would the senator take a question?
Senator Mitchell: I would.
Senator Plett: Senator Mitchell, you keep on intimating that anybody
who does not support this bill is in some way not opposed to bullying. I
entirely agree with your statement that first and foremost Christian love is
always not to bully, no matter whether we agree with the individual. We have no
right to bully anybody regardless of sex, religion or race; and I entirely
support that.
This bill is not about religion. This bill is not about gay rights. This bill
is not about same sex marriage. This bill speaks specifically to the issue of
transgendered. I asked when you spoke on this the last time and I will ask this
question again about a man who was in a change room or shower at a college in
Chicago. He was lying there stark naked exposing himself to a six-year-old girl
and her mother. Do you not believe, Senator Mitchell, that people can be
traumatized by seeing something like that and that they also have rights?
I agree that this should not be labelled "the bathroom bill." I'm not
disputing that these people have, as you said, deeply felt beliefs; I agree with
that. I too have spoken with people from the transgendered community. In fact,
two of them will visit me Thursday morning in my office. If I want to speak
either for or against this bill as either the sponsor or the critic, it is my
responsibility to know as much as I can about the issues and about the people.
My staff and I have taken it upon ourselves to do that. However, this is also
about protecting the rights of five- and six-year-old children. Whether or not
it is called "the bathroom bill," it allows for pedophiles to take advantage of
legislation that we have in place.
The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: I think the honourable
senator has a question. Maybe we can let Senator Mitchell answer and we will
close the debate, unless you ask for more time just to answer the question.
Senator Mitchell: Yes
.
Senator Plett: Could you respond to the comment I made about whether
this bill would allow for tremendous abuse of legislation? I am not suggesting
that the people in the transgendered community would do that. I ask whether the
bill would allow for tremendous abuse and whether we don't have as much
obligation to women and children as we have to these individuals. I did not
assign them that male or female body, but I have an obligation as do you to also
protect innocent children and women.
Senator Mitchell: Thank you for the question. I apologize if it seems
that I for one minute suggested that anyone opposed to this bill is in favour of
bullying because I don't mean that at all. I have no doubt, Senator Plett, about
your intentions and motivations in the position that you have taken. I respect
them entirely. You have been very good about the discussions we've had, and I
want to make that clear. I applaud that you are meeting with transgendered
people, and I am not surprised as it is the right thing to do.
I have researched the case that you refer to. There is no guarantee that the
person was transgendered. It could have been a male who was perverted. There is
no guarantee or indication that the person was using as a defence any kind of
rights. The particular case was in the context of college rules, and I don't
know whether the person was ever charged. I'm dubious about the facts and what
we read about the case because it was in
Fox News; and certainly they
have a point of view and an angle.
However, I do know that we don't hold everyone in a category responsible for
a crime that someone in that category might commit. White males commit crimes,
but we don't hold all of us responsible and make all of us act in certain ways
because another White male might commit a crime; nor should we hold
transgendered people responsible. There is no evidence in the four states that
have given them rights of this ever being used in the courts. There are jurists
in Canada who have more than adequately addressed that issue and established
that they could never use it to defend against some sort of criminal activity.
Clearly, inappropriate and criminal behaviour can be defined and is defined all
the time by the courts. If someone was doing that, then it would be criminal
behaviour. That will not change with this law.
You should also know that transgendered people are terrified of being outed.
They do not want to draw attention to themselves in any way, shape or form in
the way that this case, you would argue, has suggested. It is not fair or right
to hold them responsible for the actions of some other people who may or may not
be transgendered or who may or may not ever do that. There are all kinds of laws
preventing that kind of lewd behaviour; so that is not an issue, in my mind.
In a sense you are reversing my allegation against you. Of course, we all
want to defend our children — absolutely we want to do that. However, I believe
that this does not endanger them any more than they already are endangered in
society. We always have to be vigilant. I also know how many transgendered
children are brutalized because they do not have protections and recognition.
You will not lose anything from your point of view on endangering kids by
passing this bill; but we will make lives better for children who are brutalized
all the time every day because they don't have these kinds of protections.
Senator Plett: Since you made the comments about
Fox News, I
will read another newspaper article written by a female Canadian journalist. It
reads:
The older I get, the more particular I am about who I get naked with.
It's not that I'm a prude.
As one ages, things tend to sag and bag and, well, the bits you used to
flaunt you tend to want to keep to yourself.
Apparently, I'm not alone.
A recent letter to an ethics columnist in the Toronto Star from an older
woman complained she had to share a gym changeroom recently with a man who
claimed to be transgendered and was therefore entitled to use the women's
changeroom.
(1600)
I know this is going to be on record, but I will read it anyway:
The "woman" had a penis. The penis had an erection and the person it was
attached to asked her if she "came here often."
Now, this particular writer says that, if they want to undress in a men's
change room, then that gym should set aside — and I support this — a private
place where they can change without embarrassment.
Going away from the children, I will ask this question —
The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators,
before we move on, do we agree to give Senator Plett time to finish his question
and Senator Mitchell time to answer that question?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Plett: Thank you, Your Honour. It's a short question.
It begs the question, if a transgendered woman with a penis bursts into a
female Islamic swim class in downtown Toronto, whose human rights take
precedence?
Senator Mitchell: First of all, this occurred without this bill, so
I'm not sure what the relevance of your case is. This occurred in Canada without
the benefit of this bill, so it still begs the question as to whether or not
that person could use this bill, which is really the implication of your
argument, to defend what he or she did. I don't know that she was transgendered.
I don't know that that's the case, but your example absolutely doesn't apply
here because the bill hasn't applied.
The question is: Will that be used by people to think, "I'm going to go in
there and do this, and I will to be able to defend myself if I'm caught because
I have this bill."
I would recommend to the woman who saw that that she should call the police
and, under our Criminal Code right now, that would probably be an offence that
person could be charged for. That's separate from what this bill is talking
about. This bill would not make any difference to this situation. How do I know
for sure? Because it occurred without this bill ever being in place.
The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: On debate.
Senator Plett: I will just make one comment, and then I will ask for
adjournment for the balance of my time.
You say this happened without this bill being in place. You are correct; it
did.
However, for more than 15 years, transgendered people in Ontario have had the
legal right to use the washroom or changeroom according to their lived gender
identity. The fact of the matter is that the Province of Ontario has already
gone one step. That doesn't mean that the federal government has to go any
further.
With that, Your Honour, I will ask for adjournment for the balance of my
time.
(On motion of Senator Plett, debate adjourned.)
