Bill C-279 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code (gender identity)

This enactment amends the Canadian Human Rights Act to include gender identity as a prohibited ground of discrimination.
It also amends the Criminal Code to include gender identity as a distinguishing characteristic protected under section 318 and as an aggravating circumstance to be taken into consideration under section 718.2 at the time of sentencing.

Motions in Amendment

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to comment on and contribute to the debate on Bill C-279, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code (gender identity and gender expression).

Bill C-279 has been studied by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. While at committee, the sponsor of Bill C-279, the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, proposed several amendments. He proposed to add only the term “gender identity” and not “gender expression” as a prohibited ground in the Canadian Human Rights Act and to the hate propaganda and aggravated sentencing provisions of the Criminal Code. He also proposed to add a definition of the term “gender identity” to the bill's preamble.

I would like to begin with a discussion of the proposed amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act. In interpreting and applying this act, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has already accepted and considered several complaints brought by transsexuals on the ground of sex. In fact, the ground of sex in any discrimination law is interpreted broadly and has evolved over the years. It is usually understood to cover discrimination complaints based not just on sex, but also gender-related attributes, such as pregnancy, childbirth, and more recently, transsexualism. For those complaints brought by transsexuals, the tribunal has used the existing grounds already contained in the act.

I would like to give a few examples to illustrate my point. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decided one case involving a male-to-female transsexual who was incarcerated in a federal men's prison. This inmate brought a complaint before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal alleging discrimination because the prison refused to continue her sex reassignment treatments and did not want to transfer her to a women's prison.

The tribunal dealt with this complaint under the ground of sex. In its decision, the tribunal stated, and I am quoting directly from the 2001 judgment of Kavanagh v. Correctional Services of Canada, which says there is no dispute “that discrimination on the basis of Transsexualism constitutes sex discrimination as well as discrimination on the basis of a disability”.

In another decision of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, from 2004, Montreuil v. National Bank of Canada, a male-to-female transsexual, who was in the process of transitioning and was dressing in women's clothing, was refused employment at a bank. Here again, the tribunal dealt with this complaint using the ground of sex, as the parties agreed. The tribunal member commented that “as a pre-operative transgendered person, the Complainant belonged to the group of persons who cannot be discriminated against on the basis of sex, under the Act”.

In a 2009 decision from the tribunal involving the same complainant, the Canadian Forces had refused the complainant's application for enrolment in the forces after determining that she had gender identity disorder. While the complaint was eventually dismissed by the tribunal, the tribunal member stated quite plainly that “discrimination on the basis of transsexualism is discrimination on the basis of sex or gender, as well as discrimination on the basis of disability”.

In deciding that transsexuals are already protected by our federal human rights law, the tribunal's approach is consistent with that taken by the provincial human rights tribunals that have found discrimination against transsexuals to be covered by the existing ground of sex.

I will mention one more decision to make my point that discrimination against transsexuals can and already has been addressed by the current law. This example comes from a discrimination complaint that made its way to the British Columbia Court of Appeal. In this case, a male-to-female transsexual was refused a volunteer position at a women's shelter and rape crisis centre. Once again, the tribunal dealt with the complaint using the ground of sex, and the Court of Appeal accepted this. This is the Vancouver Rape Relief Society v. Nixon case, which was decided in 2005.

As I have just described, all of these cases were dealt with using the ground of sex. This makes sense, as the existing prohibited grounds of discrimination are subject to interpretation by the tribunals and the courts. The ground of sex has been interpreted broadly, as I mentioned earlier, which is in keeping with how human rights protections are generally interpreted by courts and tribunals.

Using all of these examples, I wish to make the point that transsexuals facing discrimination in federally regulated workplaces and in accessing federally regulated services are in fact already protected by the current law.

For similar reasons, we may wish to ask ourselves whether it is necessary to add these grounds to the sentencing provisions of the Criminal Code. The section in question lists a number of deemed aggravating circumstances on sentencing, including evidence 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 or any other similar factor. Again, the list includes sex, and it also refers to any other similar factor. Consequently, judges may already be able to impose longer sentences for hate crimes against transsexual persons in appropriate circumstances.

If transsexuals are already protected from discrimination and are covered by the open-ended language of the sentencing provisions, we must ask ourselves this. What is the purpose of adding these terms?

It may be a largely symbolic or declarative purpose. In that case, on what basis do we decide to symbolically add one group and not others? Grounds of discrimination are not typically stated generally, like sex, race and religion. There are many different groups covered by these grounds. The Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code do not break these grounds into specific groups, which would involve selecting some groups over others for specific mention. If it turns out that, for example, people are being discriminated against on the basis of certain religious observance, then the general ground of religion is there to cover the situation. It would be inappropriate for Parliament to extend the list of grounds by adding particular religious observance.

If people with a particular disability are facing discrimination, then the ground of disability is in the act and can be used to protect these individuals. If we began to add specific groups, there might be no end to this kind of law reform and it could go on and on.

As I have said, the ground of sex is already in the act and has been used to address instances of discrimination against this group. The addition of gender identity is therefore unnecessary.

However, if its addition is not purely symbolic, as the sponsor tells us it is not, then we would ask ourselves this. If this ground were to be added to the Canadian Human Rights Act, what sorts of new complaints of discrimination will be brought before the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Tribunal? How will employers know what kinds of workplace behaviour and expression would be prohibited? The answers to these questions are not clear to me and they are questions that we should carefully consider.

As I have explained, I believe the amendments proposed by Bill C-279 are unnecessary. For these reasons, I will be opposing Bill C-279.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There are nine motions standing on the notice paper for the report stage of the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca's Bill C-279, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code (gender identity and gender expression).

While it is not usual for the Chair to provide reasons for the selection of report stage motions, in this case, I have decided to do so, as I have received a written submission from the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca outlining what he feels are exceptional circumstances surrounding the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill in committee.

As members know, consistent with the note to Standing Order 76.1(5), the Chair would not normally select motions that could have been presented in committee.

The hon. member who has submitted motions at report stage was also an active participant in the meeting scheduled for the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. As such, it would appear that the amendments submitted by the member could have been proposed during the committee consideration of the bill. In the present case, however, there appear to be extenuating circumstances.

In his remarks, the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca explained that during clause-by-clause consideration of the bill on December 6, 2012, the committee passed two amendments to the first clause of the text as well as the clause itself, as amended. He stated that the committee did not continue studying the bill.

Even the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca's attempt to seek a 30-day extension for the consideration of Bill C-279 in committee was unsuccessful. As a result, clause-by-clause consideration of the bill did not proceed beyond the first clause, and pursuant to Standing Order 97.1, on December 10, 2012, the bill was deemed reported back to the House without amendment.

The Chair has had to rule on similar cases in the past, including one that came up on December 7, 2012—at page 13030 of the House of Commons Debates—regarding Bill C-377, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (requirements for labour organizations). In that case, due to circumstances beyond its control, the committee was unable to complete its examination before the bill was deemed to have been reported without amendment pursuant to Standing Order 97.1. Accordingly, any amendments that had originally been submitted for the clause-by-clause examination of the bill in committee were submitted again at report stage. The Chair therefore selected those motions at report stage for debate, because it was clear that the members in question had attempted to propose their amendments in committee during the clause-by-clause examination of the bill.

In reviewing the sequence of events related to the bill now before the House, as well as the written submission from the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, I am satisfied that despite the efforts of the member to have his amendments considered by the committee, he was unable to do so before the bill was deemed reported back to the House.

Accordingly, Motions Nos. 1 to 9 have been selected for debate at report stage, and they will be grouped for debate and voted upon, according to the voting patterns available at the table.

I shall now propose Motions Nos. 1 to 9 to the House.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-279, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code (gender identity and gender expression), as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Human Rights

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table five petitions in support of the passage by the House of Bill C-279, the gender identity bill. These petitions contain over 600 signatures primarily from the provinces of British Columbia and Quebec, which urge the House to complete the human rights agenda and fill this gap in our human rights legislation.

Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims Act

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, my colleague from Brome—Missisquoi brings an absolutely extraordinary background to this subject. He has done a lot of work with young people to try to lower the crime rate. He has made a start on listing many of the solutions.

Just to come back to his introduction, I will say that we do support victims; we support the ombudsman’s recommendations. We would have liked to retain that discretion, if it had been properly used by the courts, which in this case, as a rare exception, perhaps did not use it advisedly. If that is the case—since I do not want to be accused of criticizing the courts—we do not know why. There was a section in the Criminal Code, however, that said that judges had to state why they were not imposing a victim surcharge.

On the question of lowering the crime rate, there is so much to be said. As we know, it is often said that poverty can sometimes lead some people to commit certain crimes, such as some kinds of theft. In the case of certain kinds of abuse, whether it be sexual violence or discrimination, a lot of education still needs to be done.

Last week, we had some trouble and the committee went right off the rails concerning Bill C-279. This was a direct result of a failure to understand the charter and human rights. We saw supposedly educated adults dealing with this problem. We can imagine what happens when some people in society do not have the benefit of all the resources that are available to us. I will say no more, because there are other people who would like to speak.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

My colleagues are applauding, and I thank them on behalf of the victims. It has long been said that the New Democratic Party is not against victims, like it or not; it is on the contrary in favour of a fair, logical and intelligent system. However, sometimes that is not entirely the case with respect to the bills introduced by the present government. I would certainly not say that this bill is perfect, since it will occasion enormous disappointment. While we support it in its current form—it is difficult to be against virtue, as my mother would say—we do have some concerns: among other things, as to whether our colleagues opposite really listened to the 14 witnesses who testified before the committee.

I take this opportunity to digress in order to thank those who served on the committee studying this bill. It may not be the case with regard to Bill C-279, which did not end well and came to an extremely disappointing conclusion, but with respect to Bill C-37, solid work was done in committee. Some extremely worthwhile witnesses explained their concerns, and the issues they had experienced.

They also highlighted what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice explained to us just now: that in Canada, victims of crime are unfortunately left to themselves in many cases, in a manner that differs from province to province or from territory to territory. They often spend fortunes trying to obtain reparation, which they will never receive in full, and we are all very much aware of that. They will never obtain full reparation for the plain and simple reason that when you have been the victim of a rape, for example, or a family member has been killed or kidnapped, compensation is an impossibility. Nothing can compensate for a crime of that sort. There is simply no way to achieve it. It may be possible to offer help, but that is all, and that is what a bill like this tries to do.

There is a problem with the victim surcharge which has existed since it was established in the late 1980s. The Criminal Code takes the approach that a sum can be added to the sentence. We have now doubled that sum, but I will not talk about it, because enough people have done so, and others will do so. After all these years, moreover, I agree that it is not the end of the world. However, that has been the problem from the beginning, and that is why we agreed to refer the bill to committee, so that we could actually hear some witnesses on the subject.

My question concerns judicial discretion. My colleague, the member for Edmonton—Strathcona, posed the same question a short time ago. This is somewhat worrying, because the government is constantly withdrawing the discretionary component of judges’ authority. Nevertheless—I shall come back to this—I am reassured, not 100%, but rather 98%, because the Canadian judicial system will make up for Conservative mismanagement. That is more or less how I see it. It is sad to have to rely on the courts, but at the same time, the importance of victims weighed more heavily in the balance for me, and I believe the same is true of the NDP caucus and all members of this House.

However, I am not necessarily proud to see that Canadian judges have imposed a victim surcharge in only a very small percentage of cases since the system was introduced. And yet this system was designed to help victims. If it had been because the accused or the convicted individual was unable to pay, as the Criminal Code provided, that would have been different.

The burden of proof was on the accused, who therefore had to prove to the court that the surcharge was too much and that he was unable to pay it.

We would have had extraordinary statistics on the kind of individual who appears before our courts, but, no, the judges invariably did not impose it, and did so without explanation. That is where the problem started. The provinces expected to receive some revenue from the victim surcharge. That money goes into the provinces' victims of crime compensation funds, except in the three provinces that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice mentioned. One morning the provinces woke up and asked where the money from the victim surcharge was.

I also agree that this should not be the only fund. In 2003, we were told that the cost of victim damages represented approximately $70 billion. That is not peanuts. However, surcharges can only put a few hundreds million dollars in the coffers. We are still a long way off.

Victims must not imagine that this is a panacea. Passing Bill C-37 will not solve all the problems in Canada so the Conservative government, that great champion of Canadian victims, can suddenly wave around its Bill C-37. That is absolutely not enough, particularly since the vast majority of provinces and territories permitted what is called community service programs.

That is the other aspect that reminds me that some people in the correctional system are unable to pay this amount. Those inmates are unable to pay this kind of surcharge; the crime they committed has nothing to do with the argument I want to make.

The people from the Department of Justice told us that the decision in R. v. Wu would continue to be applied. According to that decision by the Supreme Court of Canada, no one may be imprisoned merely on the basis of inability to pay a fine. In that case, the system is okay.

However, once again I would like to shed some light on a problem with community service programs. Some groups that came to testify before the committee during consideration of the bill are convinced that, if this bill is passed, they will suddenly be able to get compensation for their damages. However, that will not happen. In the majority of cases, the offenders will not pay and will have to do community service.

As the parliamentary secretary noted, that suited some people, because they were asked whether they would be disappointed at not receiving money if the person went into a community service program. Community service programs are not just for people who have no money, but also for anyone who can do it that way. Everyone has access to those programs, provided a program is available in the region where the request is made. Some people, not everyone, said that they would prefer to have the money.

Let me take this opportunity to say that, rather than adopt victim surcharge systems such as these ones, perhaps this brilliant law-and-order Conservative government should get with the times and follow the example of various countries on this magnificent planet that are tending toward restorative justice

I see the member who introduced the bill on this matter and an example springs to mind. The case of a person who commits a crime by destroying national monuments is a very sad one. Which is harder for that person, paying $100 out of his pocket or appearing in front of a group of legion members and having to apologize?

Let me take a brief trip back to my childhood. When my parents punished me and sent me to my room, it made little difference to me. It gave me some peace and quiet. However, when my parents told me to go and apologize to the person I had offended, I admit that was the worst punishment for me because being compelled to admit you have made a mistake is, in a way, a form of humiliation.

Countries a little more in tune with the reality of what punishment should be, should head in that direction. They should make someone who has done something realize what he has done so that he does not do it again. The advice I have for the members opposite is to realize that always pulling out a stick and slapping people's hands does not accomplish much and that it is time to start considering other options.

All that to say that, in the context of Bill C-37, yes, it bothers me that judges are no longer granted this discretion. However, let me tell all my colleagues in this House, including my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands, that they were not using that discretion properly in any case. By that I mean that we have no idea why they granted an exemption to virtually everyone who appeared in court. It was as though the victim surcharge did not exist. To my mind, that is as intolerable as saying that a form of discretion is being taken away.

However, R. v. Wu has nevertheless had an impact. It is clear from our study in committee that the provinces and territories do not automatically impose a term of imprisonment because an individual does not pay, unless someone does it on purpose. Some will withhold driver's licences or documents from certain provinces. Some colleagues here will tell me that the most disadvantaged people we deal with do not have cars. I agree: they do not have cars, and we therefore cannot withhold their licence. However, they have other possessions that make it possible for us to make arrangements with them. The time is past when people were imprisoned for the fun of it, because they did not pay their fines.

I am repeating this because the message needs to be sent. We know that on Christmas Eve, the members opposite will be walking around saying that they have again saved the lives of X number of victims. I am disappointed to think that we have raised people's hopes and we are making them believe things that are not true. We cannot claim victory for the victims too quickly, because we have to be sure that the money that will be collected in the victim surcharge account is paid into the provincial and territorial accounts so it can be used and distributed to victims’ groups.

I do not have much time left, but still, I would like to take advantage of this opportunity. At the Standing Committee on Justice, we have seen just about everything. We are revamping Canada's criminal justice system, which prompts many different questions and leaves many of them unanswered. We do not have the time to conduct all of our studies in depth. With regard to Bill C-10, we will probably be told by the courts that it was all done much too quickly, in some respects. It is the government that will have to take the fall for this.

Regarding Bill C-37, I am reasonably satisfied just the same, as almost all of the witnesses we wanted to hear from were able to appear. Regarding the witnesses we were unable to hear, it was not because we were prevented from hearing them, but rather because they were not able to travel. I know that the bill is not perfect and that it poses the same problems for my colleagues in the Canadian Bar Association and the Barreau du Québec as it does for us. This is discouraging, because we have the time. There have been no changes for 30 years, and before any adjustments are made, sometimes it is worthwhile to spend a little more time and try to get it right.

I enjoy working with my colleague from Delta—Richmond East, the government's spokesperson on the committee. I enjoy our discussions and this new procedure, even though it was a bit of a flop last week, which I am going to say was because everyone was tired. I hope we all come back to the committee in an excellent mood.

I would like to urge everyone to support this bill for the victims. We in the NDP made promises. We have of course heard the recommendations from the Ombudsman for Victims of Crime. That was one of the planks in our platform during the last election campaign. We will present it better when we are in power in 2015. We will make sure to compensate the victims and fill in all the gaps in what is called justice in Canada.

I would like to end by thanking my NDP colleagues. I thank the deputy justice critic, my colleague from Toronto—Danforth, my colleague from Brome—Missisquoi and my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou for their excellent work on the committee. It was a huge endeavour, and their approach was serious and scrupulous, as required by this justice issue. Mr. Speaker, you know this file, because you were the justice critic for many long years and you mentored many of us here in the House. Frequently, on this issue, we try to rise above partisan politics, because people's lives are at stake and the issue is justice.

I would be remiss if I did not thank the people on the committee, as well as the committee clerk, Jean-François Pagé, and his assistants, and especially the people from the Library of Parliament, who often work in the shadows. We never say it often enough, but they do thorough, non-partisan work at the level of seasoned university researchers. Their work makes it possible for us to meet the various witnesses who come before us in committee and to be knowledgeable about the topic.

I encourage everyone who is interested in victim surcharges and the current programs in the various provinces and territories to read the two documents that were written for the study of Bill C-37.

I would of course like to thank the people on my team—I call them “Team Gatineau”—for all the support they have given me in 2012.

On that note, I would like to wish everyone happy holidays.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

It was Bill C-279. Bill C-273 and Bill C-279—

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Are you talking about Bill C-273 or Bill C-279?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

You are always nice.

Just to make sure that everybody understands me, I will repeat it in English.

The motion was presented. It was the same motion we adopted without any additions as a committee, and we worked in this committee in a very, I'd say, collaborative way up until this point. We agreed because we thought we didn't want them sent back after all the work we had not yet done, just as is, to the House. It's the same principle.

Maybe everybody has to breathe in a bit. We might finish if we stop all of this. Maybe the light will come and hit people or whatever, but let's move on.

To ask for a reason when there was not even one asked when.... I would like to know why it is so different on Bill C-279, when we even voted yesterday unanimously in the House of Commons on Bill C-273 and we agreed to have the 30 days.

At some point in time, let's move.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be withdrawing NDP-3.

Instead, I'd like to move a motion:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 97.1(1), the committee request an extension of 30 sitting days for the consideration of Bill C-279, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code (gender identity and gender expression) to allow its members to hold deliberations beyond the present deadline of Monday, December 10, 2012, and that the chair present this report to the House.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The members will note that I have proposed an alternative definition of gender identity, which is found in the package of amendments as CPC-8 on page 11. I was caught somewhat off guard with the last vote. Although I did vote against NDP-1, that precluded any debate on close to half a dozen CPC amendments. I understand why that is, but I'm caught a little off guard and I don't want the same thing to happen with respect to any proposed amendments in Bill C-279, clause 1, line 21.

Procedurally I suppose we have to debate both proposed definitions concurrently before we can vote on either of them. If we vote positively on NDP-2, I presume you're going to rule CPC-8 non-votable. I don't know if you can give me a ruling on that in advance.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

I call the meeting to order.

This is meeting number 55 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, June 6, 2012, for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-279, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code (gender identity and gender expression).

When we adjourned last, we were in clause-by-clause study, and amendment NDP-1 had been presented by Mr. Garrison. I believe we were at Mr. Garrison on his clause.

Before we begin, I should tell you that we have two representatives from the ministry here, Ms. Stone and Mr. Zaluski, to help with any of the legal issues.

Indian Act Amendment and Replacement Act

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is truly an honour to rise and speak about a subject that is dear to my heart, which is the replacement and eventual repeal of the Indian Act.

I have to commend my colleague for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River for the courage he has shown in taking on this important issue. This is an individual who, as a first nation man, has conducted his whole life living under the Indian Act. He is someone who has been able to interact with his fellow first nation brothers and sisters for his entire life. This is consultation. It is a degree of consultation that no one in the House currently has, in my opinion, in their past. He has been meeting with people across Canada on this important subject. However, I do know of some recent bills that have not been consulted on.

The member for Edmonton—Strathcona has referred to article 18 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. She is quite right, there is an obligation to consult with indigenous peoples. I wholly support that and I thank the member for bringing it up. However, there are cases where it has not happened.

Yesterday, I was at the justice committee. Currently, Bill C-279 is before the committee and we had witnesses from the Canadian Human Rights Commission. I asked the commission whether that bill had an impact on first nation people. Are first nation communities impacted by this act and does it have an impact on the lives of first nation people? Their answer was yes, that bill absolutely does affect first nation people.

My question then became whether there was consultation on the bill? In fact, there was not. The member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca did not indicate that there was any consultation. I spoke with the Assembly of First Nations, which the member for Edmonton—Strathcona referred to as an important entity with which we discuss these issues. They are the bona fide organization of first nation people. However, they were not contacted on that bill. Also, during those deliberations, the member for Gatineau, in a cavalier way, just set aside that there was any obligation to consult with first nation people on that bill.

Therefore, I take offence to what the member is suggesting. The member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River is truly a hero to me and others in the first nation community for the work that he is doing. To suggest that we are not reaching out to our aboriginal friends is, in my opinion, not reality. It is something that we are endeavouring to do.

I would ask the member to talk to some of her colleagues about some of the bills that they are proposing and the impact they have on first nation people. She shakes her head much like the member for Gatineau, who cavalierly set it aside that there was any obligation to consult with first nation people on a bill that would impact their communities.

As I said, this is an important day. The bill is timely and necessary. With each passing day, the Indian Act is revealed to be unfit for the times in which we live. When it was first enacted in 1876, it disenfranchised first nation people and it still disenfranchises everyone who lives under it today.

Just recently, we have seen a clear example of why the Indian Act must go in my home province. In fact, in Manitoba in Buffalo Point First Nation there are residents, women and children, living in that community who risk being put out on the street because of political disagreements with their chief. Because of these protests, they could have their homes taken away from them and be disenfranchised through the powers granted under the Indian Act.

Imagine if this were to happen off reserve. Imagine if someone disagreed with their city councillor and all of a sudden were evicted from their home and put out on the street. There would be mass outrage and nobody would stand for that. This is the exact point I would like to make about this community and unfortunately sometimes other communities as well.

Disenfranchisement is occurring. It violates not only any sense of justice or decency but all democratic principles, which is one reason and just one reason why the Indian Act needs to be replaced. It is an archaic, oppressive and unjust legislation. It denies aboriginal Canadians the rights they deserve. It denies individual rights. It denies matrimonial and property rights, leaving women in danger of losing everything due to disputes outside of their control.

Many people may not be aware, but the Indian Act denies first nations people the right to control their own wills and estates. The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development has the power to void the will of a first nations person if he or she so chooses. As my colleague has said, Bill C-428 would repeal the sections of the Indian Act that gives this paternalistic power to the minister. It would be a step toward true freedom and independence for first nations people.

Bill C-428 would also return the authority over the creation of bylaws on reserves where it belongs, with the leadership of that reserve. As it currently stands, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development must sign off on bylaws made by leadership on reserves. First nations people can govern themselves. They do not need this pre-Confederation prison to remain. As with the wills and estates rules, this is a further denial of independence and decision making for first nations people.

The Indian Act has no place in the 20th century or the 21st century. It is time to replace this act.

The member for Kenora, who was here earlier, has done great work as the parliamentary secretary to aboriginal affairs and has been a great advocate for the Métis people in my community and first nations Inuit people as well. I think back to previous members from other parties in that riding who have also done great work. A former member of the Liberal Party, Mr. Robert Nault, who was the then minister of Indian Affairs, brought forward some very innovative solutions, namely the First Nations Governance Act, which I thought was a step in the right direction. Many first nations did not like that approach, but many did.

One of the aspects of that bill on which everyone agreed was the Indian Act needed to be repealed. The starting point that everyone in the House agrees on is the Indian Act must be replaced.

I have had the opportunity to work with first nations people from across Canada. I have had the opportunity to work with first nations chiefs, councillors and regular community members. There is no question that everyone believes it is time for this act to be replaced. I believe the Indian Act is nothing less than a prison that shackles aboriginal people in our country and prevents them from achieving economic actualization.

We need to proceed with the initiatives that the member has proposed before the House. He started a debate that I am glad we are having. There are opinions from all sides on this matter, but what we can all agree on is that the Indian Act must be replaced. I would hope that at some point in the near future we can get to that moment where first nations people will be enfranchised and have the autonomy they deserve.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

The purpose of Bill C-279 is to:

extend the laws in Canada to give effect, within the purview of matters coming within the legislative authority of Parliament, to the principle that all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives

It's to add an expression. At some point we had “l'expression sexuelle”. With the amendments, we'll be talking about gender and identity. We understand each other. That's the purpose of the bill.

You understood this?

[Diane Watts, Researcher, REAL Women of Canada]

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for inviting us before this committee.

REAL Women of Canada was federally incorporated in 1983 and is a non-denominational, non-partisan organization of women from all walks of life. We respond to the evidence that the family, consisting of mother, father, and children, is the foundation of society.

Bill C-279 is not just a simple bill merely extending human rights protection to another category of individuals. It has far-reaching ramifications for Canadian society, and based on credible medical studies, the consequences of the bill will be harmful to transgendered individuals themselves.

It may be politically correct, but it will not be helpful to persons with gender dysphoria, that is, gender dissatisfaction. The United Nations rejected the terms “gender expression” and “gender identity”. The Geneva-based United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights' controversial recommendation that gender identity and gender expression be protected rights was overwhelmingly rejected by the United Nations Human Rights Council in March 2012. Similarly, the non-binding UN declaration on sexual orientation and gender identity was never voted on by the UN General Assembly. In fact, it was directly contradicted by another UN declaration presented by other UN member states.

The United Nations has never accepted gender identity as a legitimate human right, although the term was included in a recent draft resolution condemning extrajudicial executions on the basis of the principles of right to life and the fight against impunity. Even the one country that voted against this recommendation was in favour of the general prohibition of extrajudicial executions, and the party states that did not vote had difficulty with other sections of the resolution presented.

I will describe the scientific evidence on morbidity and morality related to transsexual persons. This concerns us. A study was conducted in Sweden by various departments of Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm of post-operative transsexual persons, which was unique in that it included the results of a nationwide longitudinal study of 30 years with minimal loss of follow-up. Published in 2011, this Swedish study found substantially higher rates of overall mortality, death from cardiovascular disease and suicide attempts, and psychiatric hospitalizations in sex-reassigned transsexual individuals compared to a healthy control population.

Even though surgery and hormonal therapy may alleviate gender dysphoria, they are apparently not sufficient to remedy the higher rates of morbidity, diseases and disorders, and mortality found among transsexual persons, so the furthering of a declaration of acceptance of this type of medical transformation as a result of Bill C-279, we believe, would not be helpful to transsexual and transgendered individuals.

The Yogyakarta Principles, the source of a gender identity definition, are vague. They can be interpreted to interfere with parental rights to counsel that gender-confused children be helped to continue in the gender consistent with their genetic make-up. By interfering with parental authority, the Yogyakarta Principles contradict the provisions of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which declare that “the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State”—article 16(3).

On March 31, 2010, the American College of Pediatricians distributed a letter to school officials citing various research studies, which affirmed:

Even children with Gender Identity Disorder (when a child desires to be the opposite sex) will typically lose this desire by puberty, if the behaviour is not reinforced. ... ...that when parents or others allow or encourage a child to behave and be treated as the opposite sex, the confusion is reinforced and the child is conditioned for a life of unnecessary pain and suffering.

The Yogyakarta Principles would object to parents discouraging their child to identify in this way, and they would discourage counselling to prevent young people from identifying in this manner.

We're concerned about the troubling effects of Bill C-279 if it's passed into law: male access to women's public washrooms and health clubs. There's a situation in Washington where a man who thinks he's a female has been allowed entrance into a health club where children change. A women's pool is there, apparently, and there are young children and adolescents. This presents a problem, and we believe this could present a problem in the future.

Since the terms “gender identity” and “gender expression” are undefined, they apply to anyone who thinks he or she is another sex, whether or not he/she has had hormonal treatment or surgery. In our appendix, we mention a case, Sheridan v. Sanctuary Investments, wherein a male thought he/she was a female, was prevented from entering the women's washroom, and went to the human rights commission. The discrimination was recognized and the nightclub was fined $2,000.

There can be a tremendous permutation of these types of situations, and we believe these are socially disruptive. This allows such individuals to use the washrooms of the opposite sex with impunity. This places females and children at a strong disadvantage and at possible risk, since child predators will be able to use cross-dressing as a pretense to gain access to children in public washrooms.

Second, taxpayers would be required to cover extensive surgery, hormone treatments, and cosmetic follow-up for a lifetime. If transsexualism and transgenderism are protected rights in federal jurisdictions, such as the federal public service, and federally regulated industries, such as banks and airlines, these industries will be required to pay the medical premiums on behalf of the employees to cover extensive surgery and hormone treatment and to accept these employees after such hormone treatment. Assimilating them back into the workplace will inevitably create difficulties.

In Canadian penitentiaries, this issue will also create problems. If Bill C-279 is passed into law, prison officials, at taxpayers' expense, will be required to provide treatment for those inmates claiming they were born the wrong gender. This will lead to difficulties for the transgendered themselves, creating exposure to risks for him or her. This already has occurred in Massachusetts in 2012, when a prisoner given a life sentence for the murder of his wife in 1980 was approved by the court to undergo sex reassignment surgery. The individual now resides in an all-male prison and will face security risks daily as a target of sexual assault by other inmates. Alternatively, if the inmate is transferred to an all-female prison, he/she will also be a target for assault and harassment by other inmates. We're concerned about the consequences of this.

Our conclusion is that transsexual and transgendered individuals must have the same rights as all other Canadians, but should not be given special rights. We're very much opposed to any violence or undue discrimination and assaults. This is part of our Criminal Code. We're very much in favour of the defence of anyone to lead a free life in Canada. Persons with gender identity disorders should receive compassionate counselling rather than be encouraged in their dissatisfaction with their genetically ingrained gender. The DNA does not change after these treatments.

REAL Women of Canada therefore urgently request that this bill not be passed into law.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.