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.

Canadian Human Rights Act

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured this evening to speak to Bill C-279, a bill that seeks to extend the scope of human rights legislation to include transgendered Canadians. I applaud the members who have led the charge in this regard, including the member for Vancouver Centre, the member for Burnaby—Douglas, as well as the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca in whose name this bill resides.

I will summarize briefly the thrust of the bill. Bill C-279 seeks to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to add gender identity as prohibited grounds of discrimination. This is important because today, when transgendered individuals seek to allege they have been discriminated against, they have to fit their claim within the definition of either discrimination on the basis of sex or discrimination on the basis of disability. That is the state of the law at present. Bill C-279 also seeks to amend the Criminal Code with respect to hate speech to include gender identity and gender expression in the definition of what constitutes a recognizable group within the meaning of the code.

I support this bill and I do so without reservation. I acknowledge my colleague, the hon. member for Mount Royal, the former Attorney General and justice minister of Canada and an esteemed law professor. His interventions are always instructive. I certainly would not be able to improve upon them, and there are a couple that bear repeating.

The member for Mount Royal stated:

By adopting the amendments that have been proposed in Bill C-279, Parliament can send a strong message of support to transgendered Canadians, affirming their identity and acknowledging their struggles. Indeed, this legislation, again as my colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca pointed out, ensures that they will enjoy the legal protections accorded to other targeted groups.

The hon. member for Mount Royal went on to dispel the notion we just heard from the member opposite, that existing legislation already covers those who identify as transgendered, when he said:

Some members of the House have argued that Bill C-279 is unnecessary because transgendered people are already protected under the existing categories of sex and disability. With respect, this position is misinformed. First, gender identity and gender expression do not refer to biological sex or sexual orientation. Rather, the terms refer to an inner feeling of being male, female, both or neither. Second, gender identity and gender expression are not a disability. Rather, they are a sense of self and a source of identity. To confound gender identity and gender expression with sex and disability is to ignore the unique experiences of discrimination and disadvantage that are faced by transgendered Canadians.

The member continued:

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.

So in the context of this debate, which has at times been a vigorous debate and at times a debate with moments unworthy of this House, there are some who, contrary to evidence and facts, choose another path to make their case. They choose fear and innuendo, all the while claiming a moral high ground. They claim for themselves exclusivity to that which is right and decent, using language that is hurtful and demeaning. How can anyone claim to be of good heart or claim the virtue of “love thy neighbour” yet reduce this bill to gutter language when they call it “the bathroom bill”? It is an entirely offensive and erroneous implication to suggest that transgendered people would be lurking late at night in bathrooms should this bill pass.

These purveyors of fear and intolerance are often the same people who claim same-sex marriage would lead to the downfall of marriage or that same-sex marriage would lead to rampant polygamy. It was pure nonsense then and it is pure nonsense today.

In contrast to these voices of intolerance, we have the work of organizations like the Canadian Professional Association for Transgender Health. It has done excellent work using facts and evidence as the basis of this debate. This is what it said with respect to Bill C-279 and the so-called bathroom question:

It is also important to recognize that the provisions...will not create new or special rights for transgender individuals, and in particular, it will not change the law with respect to washroom use. Rather, its enactment will explicitly confirm the law’s protection of the safety and human dignity of everyone in Canada regardless of gender identity or gender expression. It will also ensure that gender variant people’s right to participate in, and contribute to, Canadian society and economic life are not hampered by ignorance, prejudice, hatred and violence.

Not too long ago, I had the opportunity to listen to interventions by Conservative MPs, whose passion and thoughtfulness at the justice committee was encouraging. I first acknowledge the member for Delta—Richmond East, now the Associate Minister of National Defence. She should be applauded for her courage in defending the rights of transgender Canadians at the justice committee. One can only imagine her embarrassment, however, when a fellow Conservative MP, a non-member of the justice committee, was sent by the Prime Minister's office for the sole purpose of hijacking the meeting in order to filibuster and prevent this important bill from proceeding through the committee. In the face of this intervention and filibuster, the Conservative member for Delta—Richmond East held firm to her convictions in supporting Bill C-279.

The second individual I would like to acknowledge is the Conservative member for Saint Boniface. She is a rare ray of light in this debate, using reason to construct an argument that is worthy of the House. Unlike the vast majority of her Conservative colleagues, she supports protecting transgender Canadians. Allow me to highlight one quote by the member for Saint Boniface:

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 transgender 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 bill will give them.

The march to full equality is never easy. There will always be voices opposed to progress and to full equality. Those voices of intolerance are now on the fringe of society, where they belong. One need only reflect on a time when women were not allowed to vote and treated like second-class citizens, if even citizens at all, or we think of the great injustice inflicted on black people who struggled and, arguably, still struggle for the justice and equal treatment they deserve by virtue of their inherent dignity, or we think of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters and how they were treated, so marginalized and shunned. Many of those who oppose same-sex marriage are the same people who now oppose this bill.

Let me close by suggesting this. If the Conservatives use their majority to defeat this bill, they may very well take comfort in the victory of intolerance over justice, but the fight for equality and dignity will continue. Those who are vulnerable to hate speech, marginalization and discrimination in the workplace because they are transgendered will one day, despite the Conservative government, get the protection they deserve as full and equal citizens of this great country.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to be back today to speak on this issue.

It is interesting to watch the movement on the other side on the bill as those members have brought it back to the House and then desperately tried to amend it in order to make it acceptable to parliamentarians. Now they have moved it up, probably to get the bill into debate and into play before Canadians realize that it is actually here and that Canadians are allowed to ask the questions they have about it.

I want to state, as I did last time, that I am cognizant of the need to protect all Canadians from discrimination and hate crimes. I am proud of the fact that Canada is recognized internationally as a country that is deeply committed to the principle of human rights, but I would argue that the bill does not achieve that end.

As I mentioned last time, I would argue that Bill C-279 is unnecessary. We talked about the jurisprudence around the bill, the fact that the issues are already covered by jurisprudence, and that there is no agreement even at the UN on this issue.

We also spent some time talking about the fact that the main problem with the bill is that it is undefined. It almost seems that there is an attempt to confuse people in the way the bill has been presented.

There were no definitions offered for either gender identity or gender expression. The member has come back now and dropped “gender expression” and tried to redefine “gender identity” in a way that ties it to people's feelings. As I explained last time, that is not adequate, and it seems to have been done deliberately. The author of the bill has already declared the intention that

Once gender identity is in the Human Rights Code, the courts and human rights commissions will interpret what that means.

I think there is a new argument, a new confusion, around the bill. I have heard some people now saying that it is about sexual orientation. However, as we know, the code and the act already cover sexual orientation. They have been included there for some time.

One concern is that the bill is unsettling to people. The author has really refused to talk about or deal with the potential implications and consequences of such wide-ranging and undefined legislation. My constituents, I have to say, do not see this as benign legislation because of the things we just talked about, in particular the fact that there is such a lack of definitional framework to the bill. What I am getting from my riding is that the constituents oppose it, but they do have some questions that I will pose on their behalf.

The first question to the member opposite is this: does he actually believe that there is no one who will try to abuse the situation that would be created by his deliberately vague legislative agenda?

That is what the member seemed to be saying when he spoke, but he has refused to address this criticism in his speech. It remains out there in the public's mind, and I have heard that from my constituents.

Second, especially with regard to minors and adults, my constituents have questions about the power relationship that would exist in what in the past were basically private facilities that would now become very public facilities. They are asking what their obligations and rights would be. The failure to address these issues is really why the bill has become known as the “bathroom bill”. I do not think we can just brush off people's concerns.

The legislation is poorly written, it does not deal with the issue the member addresses and it would give the opportunity for some to take advantage of the situation, as not everyone's motives are selfless. I think we need to be sure. We should not be naive. These questions need to be answered.

We know that the bill is not necessary, as jurisprudence already covers these issues. We know that the bill is not well defined, and that is the major problem with it. It is not well defined even with the amendments. We know that the consequences of the bill are not well understood. Therefore, it is time to defeat this poorly researched, poorly written and poorly presented bill.

The House resumed from February 27 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, and of the motions in Group No. 1

Motions in Amendment

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be able to join the debate today on Bill C-279, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code (gender identity and gender expression).

As my colleagues are aware, Bill C-279 would amend both the Criminal Code and the Canadian Human Rights Act by adding gender identity and gender expression. I understand that the member opposite now wants to change that with his amendments.

I am cognizant of the need to protect all Canadians from discrimination and hate crimes. I am proud of the fact that Canada is recognized internationally as a country that is deeply committed to the principles of respect for diversity and equality, but I would argue that the bill accomplishes neither of those goals.

The desperate attempt, I would say, by member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca to amend the bill shows that the bill itself is not adequate. The bill is just not up to the level it needs to be in order for anyone to support it in this House. The amendments to the act as proposed by Bill C-279 are largely symbolic and vague, and I would say that they risk introducing confusion to the law. I would suggest as well that the amendments he is making do not add anything to it.

The bill is not properly designed to remedy the supposed social problem that it is aimed at addressing, and I would argue that it is largely unnecessary as well. For those reasons and a couple of others, I will be opposing Bill C-279.

I first want to speak about the fact the bill is unnecessary.

The courts and human rights tribunals in this country have already developed jurisprudence to protect transsexual and transgendered people. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has already decided several complaints brought to it, and we heard about those earlier from my two colleagues. These complaints have been dealt with using the grounds of sex orientation or disability.

In fact, the grounds of sex in all anti-discrimination laws are interpreted broadly. They have evolved over the years and are usually understood to cover discrimination complaints based on not just sex but on all gender-related attributes, such as pregnancy, childbirth and, recently, transsexualism.

For those few complaints that have been brought by transsexuals—and I think one of my colleagues read four of them—the tribunal has used the existing grounds already contained in the Canadian Human Rights Act, and in fact there is no gap in protection. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has dealt with the four cases that were mentioned around gender identity and gender expression issues.

Furthermore, in deciding that transsexuals are already protected by federal human rights laws, the tribunal's approach has been consistent with that taken by provincial human rights tribunals as well. They have found that these grounds of discrimination are already covered by their existing codes.

All of these cases were adjudicated within the framework of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which designates sex and sexual orientation as prohibited grounds of discrimination. Both Susheel Gupta, as the acting chairperson and chief executive officer of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, and Ian Fine, who is the secretary general of the CHRC, spoke at committee about that and the fact that it does not need to be extended further than it is now in order to deal with those complaints.

My second problem with the bill is that it is undefined.

I understand that the member is now starting to try to put definition into some of these things because he is afraid he is going to lose the bill, and I think that he should lose it. Expanding the definition of sexual orientation to gender expression and to gender identity in the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code makes who and what is being protected even less clear than it is. If the member's purpose was to clarify the existing grounds, which I would maintain is unnecessary, he could have proposed adding an appropriate definition to the Canadian Human Rights Act. He did not do that. He has come back lately with an attempt to do that, but it was not his intention at the beginning.

In fact, the member's intention at the beginning was that the courts and the human rights commissions themselves would determine the definitions of these things. He was quoted in Xtra magazine as saying:

Once gender identity is in the human rights code, the courts and human rights commissions will interpret what that means.

I would suggest that even with the definition he is trying to add today, he probably is still thinking that hopefully the courts and the human rights commissions will define it. However, I would argue that it is inadequate for a legislator to proceed in this way.

If our role is to bring laws forward, they should be brought forward with enough content that the courts and commissions are not the ones who are defining what those bills are and what they say. I believe that is inappropriate. It is an abdication of our parliamentary responsibility to pass laws that would leave us in a situation like that. For parliamentarians to leave new and undefined terms to the courts and human rights tribunals, I would argue, is risky and irresponsible.

I also want to point out—and I think this is probably something that the member hopes will happen—that when the courts rule on these grounds, they usually assume that the old language was inadequate and that they should make new and broader interpretations and that such broader interpretations must be sought.

Therefore, I would argue that in this case it is not defined properly and that those interpretations are inappropriate for good legislation. The definitions are undefined and inadequate and because of that alone, this legislation needs to be rejected.

There are a number of other things I would like to talk about, and I understand I have some time in the next hour. However, I want to mention that the member said earlier at committee that the United Nations had supported proposals such as his. The reality is that while the Commissioner for Human Rights has called for some of these changes, the United Nations has not supported them. In fact, several of its commissions have turned away from supporting these notions that he has brought forward today.

I look forward to finishing my speech when we meet again.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House to support Bill C-279. I congratulate my colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca for reintroducing this bill, which will add an important right to our legislation and protect people who are subject to a serious form of discrimination.

Including gender identity in our laws—in the Canadian Human Rights Act—would represent significant and necessary progress. In addition to protecting transgendered people who experience discrimination, this bill recognizes the fact that transgendered Canadians have an identity and a community, and that they are worthy of being officially recognized and protected by our laws.

This bill changes the wording in our laws to be truly inclusive, so that the law ensures that no one experiences discrimination based on their identity. We must recognize that these identities deserve equality.

This recognition for transgendered and transsexual people is not just symbolic; it is urgently needed. My NDP colleagues have provided many reasons for this urgency over the course of the debates in the House, since Bill Siksay introduced the first version of the bill in 2005.

It is urgent because transgender people are victims of violence and discrimination, and live in greater poverty. It is urgent because it is vital that transgender people be recognized as individuals in their own right with all the rights to which they are entitled.

In this House, we should not be afraid to recognize transsexuals, transgender people and intersex people as Canadians in their own right who deserve to have their identity included in Canadian law. We must recognize the fact that gender and sexuality are distinct. They are not a simple dichotomy. The lack of binary simplicity is uncomfortable for people who accept their gender identity as a biological imperative. But that in no way reflects reality.

The medical community is beginning to understand transgender identity and, step by step, is moving towards validating and supporting these facts.

Dr. Shuvo Ghosh, who is a trailblazer in this field is a pediatrician, a developmental-behavioural pediatrician to be specific, and an assistant professor at McGill University and at the Montreal Children's Hospital, noticed that he was seeing more and more transgendered children and decided that he would open a clinic to specifically support their needs. It is the first one of its kind, in fact. I am very happy and proud that it is in my province of Quebec and so close to my home in Montreal.

Dr. Ghosh wrote me this letter to share with the House:

To the Honourable Members of the 41st Parliament of Canada: Last year when Bill C-389 passed its third reading in the House of Commons, many questioned the wisdom of enshrining “gender identity” or “gender expression” in the Canadian Human Rights Act and whether this was redundant given that “sex” is already protected. With the NDP's Private Member Bill on Gender Identity now up for debate, these questions are once again being raised. As a paediatrician who cares for gender non-conforming children, adolescents and their families who are part of the roughly 1-2% of all Canadians with differences in their gender expression, I would like to highlight the main reasons why this issue is crucial for Canadian society. While “gender identity” and “sex” are related terms, they are no synonymous. The most obvious example of this dichotomy is in children born with medical intersex conditions who identify more with one gender of another, or rarely, neither or both; but their physical sexual characteristics frequently do not correspond with their identity. Are we to conclude, then, that they fall outside the protection of the Human Rights Act because their “sex” is indeterminate or incongruent with their behaviour? Youth with any variation in their gender identity...have been shown, in numerous studies and in various clinical databases, to be the group most vulnerable to extreme and violent bullying, depression, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts.

Adolescents with gender variance are 14 times more likely to attempt suicide than any other sub-group of teens, including other recognized and protected vulnerable populations. They are also the most likely to be rejected by peers and family members, and often lacking even any legal recourse to simply “be” who they are, frequently enter a spiral of self-harm that can lead to substance abuse and alcoholism. This heartbreaking distress is seen and reported even in children as young as 4 years old who simply recognize that their gender identity does not correspond with their anatomic sex, and have asked their parents to help them die. So many families of gender variant kids experience severe discrimination, societal rejection, and serious psycho-social difficulty. This translates to higher levels of divorce, greater school and emotional problems in siblings, and severe marginalization. These families need their children to be recognized, included and protected, just as any family does.

Isn't it fair for Canada to stand up and to stand together, to say that our most vulnerable children and teens deserve to be specifically protected for the very characteristic that makes them vulnerable? Do we as a nation not have the responsibility to enshrine gender identity in the Canadian Human Rights Act? It is imperative. The medical evidence supports it; and these young Canadians, slipping through the cracks of our society, deserve to have their tears of loneliness and rejection wiped away so that instead of living and dying in fear, they may grow up to share and contribute to this wonderful country in which we are so privileged to live.

Sincerely,

Dr. Shuvo Gosh

It is an incredible letter, and that is why I felt I needed to read it to the House.

Dr. Gosh sees firsthand every day how children suffer from the pressure to normalize and how space must open in our culture and in our minds to account for gender non-conforming children. Some children have biological gender variance, but nowhere do they see powerful reflections of themselves in mainstream society. However, a person must be recognized and must see themselves reflected in the world around them to feel healthy and accepted, and we as legislators have to make laws that recognize their inherent human rights.

Not only do we have the power to better protect trans folk from the disproportionate harm they face, but I believe we can be even more proactive about this problem. This bill is a very good first step, and I want to thank my colleague for all the work he has done for it to have the possibility of becoming law. It is my hope, though, that we can do even more to break down the inherent discrimination in our society. There are so many spaces that define and treat us by gender, spaces where trans folk face non-inclusion, discrimination and harm.

We must proactively train police, airport officials, teachers, legal personnel and medical personnel, and raise awareness among all Canadians that gender non-conforming people are equal members of our communities who deserve to be respected, treated with dignity and cannot be discriminated against, just the same as those of us who conform to our birth sex as our identity. This is about people whose rights are being ignored due to who they are.

In closing, I want to thank those who work on ensuring the rights and dignities of transgender and transsexual people, like Dr. Gosh and others I have heard from. Gwen Haworth, a trans woman, filmmaker and activist took the time to meet with me in Vancouver and to advocate for the rights of the trans youth she works with in the downtown eastside. I want to thank those who bravely face discrimination, hate, violence and marginalization every day because of who they are.

I would like to sincerely thank Bill Siksay, the first author of this bill, and the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, who has worked very hard to bring us to the point of adopting this very important measure today. Finally, I would like to thank in advance all members who will be supporting this bill. I thank them from the bottom of my heart.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill C-279, which is sponsored by the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, an opposition member from my province of British Columbia for whom I have great respect.

After examining and considering Bill C-279, I think it is clear that the amendments proposed in this bill are not necessary. That is why I am going to vote against Bill C-279.

I would like to take this opportunity to contribute to the discussion on Bill C-279, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code (gender identity and gender expression), which proposes to add the terms “gender identity” and “gender expression” to those laws.

Bill C-279 has been studied by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. While the bill was in clause-by-clause review before the committee, the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca proposed several amendments to the bill, namely that only the term “gender identity” but not “gender expression” be added as a prohibited ground in the Canadian Human Rights Act and to the hate propaganda and aggravated sentencing provisions of the Criminal Code.

The member also proposed to add a definition of the term “gender identity” to the preamble of Bill C-279. This definition reads:

[Whereas] 'gender identity' to refer to each person’s deeply felt internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond with the sex assigned at birth...

We do know that in practice the definition of “gender identity” in this discussion can extend beyond that. However, I also accept that clarifying the definition from a legal perspective is a challenging one. In some respects, that is one of the cruxes in this debate.

As I mentioned, the sponsor proposed to add this definition to the preamble of Bill C-279 although not to the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Criminal Code directly. Looking at this definition as it stands, we can conclude that gender identity is something that all people must have. All Canadians must have some sense of their gender, of whether they are male or female. Indeed, the sponsor of Bill C-279 made this very point when he spoke before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

I raise this point because gender discrimination is already covered by existing law. In fact, there have been a number of decisions of the federal Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in which discrimination against transsexuals has already been considered using the ground of sex as defined and already included in the Canadian Human Rights Act. Some decisions have also used the ground of disability.

For example, a transsexual who was incarcerated in a men's prison brought a complaint forward to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, alleging discrimination because the prison refused to continue her sex reassignment treatments and did not transfer her to a women's prison. The tribunal dealt with this complaint under the ground of sex.

In another case, a male to female transsexual who was in the process of transitioning and was dressed in women's clothing was refused employment at a bank. Here again the tribunal dealt with this complaint using the ground of sex.

Finally, in a complaint from my home province that made its way up to the British Columbia Court of Appeal, a male to female transsexual was refused a volunteer position at a women's shelter and rape crisis centre. Again, the court dealt with the complaint using the ground of sex.

All of these discrimination complaints have already been addressed under the current law. As a result, I question the legal need for the adoption of Bill C-279.

I also have some concerns on the proposed amendments to the Criminal Code. What kinds of speech based on someone's subjective or personal sense of being male or female would be considered hate propaganda? What does it mean to have a bias based on a person's subjective sense of being male or female? How do we single out one gender from the other?

By adding the proposed definition for the term “gender identity” in Bill C-279's preamble, it remains unclear what situations it would cover and how the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, or the criminal courts and the sentencing judges, would interpret these terms. This gives rise to the potential for subjective interpretations. These interpretations do not provide clarity nor certainty. In the absence of having greater certainty and a clear definition, it is important to recognize that existing laws already do apply to discrimination against transsexuals.

I respect what the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca is attempting to do in the bill. However, we must not lose sight of the fact that the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, and our criminal courts and sentencing judges do not have that same luxury. They are bound to follow the language that is passed into law. If that language is too vague, then it becomes open to selective and arbitrary interpretation. This is contrary to the clarity that we seek to create in our laws.

While I do respect the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca's efforts and that the language as proposed in the bill is well intended, I submit it would not provide the clarity that is needed, and as such I regret that I cannot support Bill C-279.

In closing, I explained that the amendments proposed in this bill were largely unnecessary given the existing case law. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has already dealt with a number of discrimination complaints lodged by transsexual individuals. It is not necessary to add vague new terms to the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Criminal Code. That is why I urge my colleagues from all parties to vote against this bill.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure tonight to rise and show my very strong support for Bill C-279, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code (gender identity and gender expression). I will speak to the amendments as well as the general bill in my speech tonight and the shorter form as it is often called, “the gender identity bill”.

It seems very apt to be speaking to the bill this evening, on the very day that tens of thousands of people across Canada are joining together to reduce bullying. We have had the famous Pink Shirt Day today, when people from all communities across Canada are joining hands and saying that this is something we must reduce, that it is something that is taking a terrible toll on our neighbourhoods and in our communities where we live and we have to do something to stop that.

With this bill, we are talking about making the world a better place by taking steps to protect those whom others abuse. The bill has been a long time coming but it is well worth supporting, especially with the amendments have proposed.

I am disappointed that some members on the other side are opposing the bill, as stated tonight, and I think we will hear it in other speeches. Their statements somewhat misrepresent the views of a number of members within the Conservative caucus, including the Minister of Finance who voted to support the bill at second reading. Where their arguments are often being masked in technical details, I think there are deeper and more disturbing reasons for not supporting the bill that underlie their objections. Again, I do not think this represents a good number of the Conservative caucus who have supported it at second reading and in the past as well.

The bill has been introduced and championed by the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, whom I have the great pleasure of sitting beside in the House of Commons. Even though the member is newly elected, like me a rookie, the bill has shown that he is one of the smartest and most ethical MPs in this place. I have enormous respect for his work on it and also as our very able public safety critic. I am very honoured to support his heroic efforts to support the trans community and those within the LGBTQ community.

Besides sitting beside the champion of the bill, I have another strong connection with the bill other than my absolute belief that it is relevant and just in that earlier versions were championed by my predecessor in Burnaby—Douglas, Mr. Bill Siksay. It is really an honour to follow in the footsteps of Mr. Siksay. Through his efforts on this issue and many others, he is seen as a champion in Burnaby and the national and international LGBTQ community.

Bill Siksay first introduced the ideas contained in the bill in 2005, then again in 2006 and again in 2008. Members in the House may remember that predecessors to the bill passed through the last minority Parliament on February 11, 2011. Again, the bill has a long history. For eight years it has been winding through the House in various forms, having passed once and I hope pass again as it has passed second reading.

In 2011 the bill had the full support of the NDP as well as some level of support from all other parties. Unfortunately, the bill in the last Parliament died in the Senate without being considered once the election was called.

This hopefully amended Bill C-279 contains some simple and very just measures. As my colleagues have mentioned, it would add the term “gender identity” to the Canadian Human Rights Act, section 2 as prohibited grounds for discrimination. It would also amend 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. This would mean that it would count as a hate crime, or consideration when prosecuting hate crimes.

Members again should remember that the bill passed second reading on June 6, 2012, with the unanimous consent of the NDP and support from Liberal, Bloc, Green and 15 Conservative MPs. I remind members who make speeches tonight that there is sizable support for it from a good portion of the Conservative caucus, including many frontbenchers.

I would like to thank those who supported the bill at second reading. It sends the right message to Canadians that the House of Commons takes care to ensure that justice extends to all Canadians. It is a good symbol and shows that we in the House of Commons care about this community and all communities in Canada and will make sure they are treated fairly.

These, of course, are in no way special rights. They are equal rights and they are ensuring that rights are being extended to all Canadians by enshrining the idea of gender identity in the Criminal Code and the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Bill C-279 provides remedy to transsexual and transgender Canadians who do not currently enjoy specific protections in federal law or specific protection against hate crimes.

Passing the bill into law would be an important step forward for Canadians expressing themselves as transgendered. Trans people have regularly been shown that they are denied things that we all take for granted, such as adequate access to health care and housing, the ability to obtain or change identification documents, access to washrooms and other gender stations, as well as very fundamental rights such as the ability to exercise the right to vote and to acquire and maintain meaningful employment.

I would also remind members that Canada is a signatory to the UN declaration on sexual orientation and gender identity, and to meet our obligations it is necessary to add gender identity to our own Canadian Human Rights Act. Not only has this bill been winding its way through the House of Commons for a long time, but we also have an obligation not only to our citizens but to an international obligation to make sure we go forward with this measure.

The bill has had broad support from many across Canada. We have had emails, texts and twitters. I know people are following on CPAC and here in the House tonight, as well as many of our brothers and sisters in labour unions such as the CLC, CUPE, CUPW, CAW, CAUT and the British Columbia Teachers' Federation. It also has broad support from student groups across the country, including UVic Pride, UBC, York University, SFU and universities right across Canada.

We need to do this in the spirit of the anti-bullying pink shirt day that we are seeing here in Canada. Wearing a pink shirt is a good thing. It shows that Canadians care. However, this is an opportunity to actually do something concrete, to change the laws of our country to make sure that people who are facing discrimination are no longer discriminated against, or if they are, that they have remedy within our legal system, whether it is the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Criminal Code, in order to make sure that they obtain justice and are able to pursue their lives as they see fit.

What we need to take into account also is how the trans community is suffering under the current circumstances. Worldwide since 1970, 717 trans people have been reported as murdered. However, this of course is a severe undercount, because many countries do not collect adequate statistics in this area, nor do they correctly record violence against the trans community.

Finally, as we are here on pink shirt anti-bullying day, we should follow what Egale Canada says: that 90% of trans-identified students reported being bullied on a daily or weekly basis.

I am proud to stand up here today to support the amendments and the bill and to make sure this bullying and this injustice stop and the trans community is given proper remedies to fight back against this discrimination.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address amendments to Bill C-279, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code (gender identity and gender expression) to protect transgender Canadians. In its original form, it did this by adding “gender identity” and “gender expression” to both statutes. As I stated the last time the bill was in the House, I support this important effort, which will have not only symbolic but substantive and practical effects, to provide human rights protections to groups that, for example, the Ontario Human Rights Commission has characterized as being as “disadvantaged and disenfranchised” as any in our society today.

We are presented now with the unusual yet welcome opportunity to reconsider amendments to Bill C-279 that were raised at committee. These amendments, which remove “gender expression” and add an agreed upon definition of “gender identity”, were the product of a compromise solution, agreed to to maintain the support of the 15 Conservatives who joined with the opposition and voted for the bill at second reading. While I had hoped that both “gender identity” and “gender expression” would remain included in the bill, I appreciate the need for compromise in order to make progress on this critical issue. On that note, I would like to commend the sponsor of this legislation, the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, for the spirit of co-operation he has maintained throughout this process.

With respect to the amendments that add a definition of gender identity, I welcome the fact that the chosen definition makes explicit reference to the internationally recognized Yogyakarta Principles. While these principles are not themselves binding international law, they were developed by some of the world's foremost experts on international human rights law and are intended to serve as an interpretive aid to human rights treaties. As an international law scholar myself, I am always pleased to see us referencing elements of internationally recognized principles in our own domestic legislation.

As I mentioned with respect to the exclusion of “gender expression”, it was initially my preference that both terms remain in the bill. Again, I am cognizant of the possibility that even in the absence of “gender expression”, the term “gender identity” might, through case law and through an appreciation of travaux préparatoires, eventually come to encompass part or all that would have been protected by the former.

All things considered, the amendments in question today are reasonable given that Parliament would still be taking a significant step forward with respect to protecting the rights of transgendered Canadians. As of now, these individuals can only exercise their rights under the Canadian Human Rights Act by advancing a claim under the prohibited grounds of sex and/or disability, as the parliamentary secretary himself acknowledged. To be clear, tribunals do hear the cases of transgendered Canadians, but such claims are complex and costly and rely on grounds, such as in the case of disability, that may themselves be highly offensive to the claimants themselves.

Some might ask why this is necessary legislation if transgendered individuals already benefit from such protections, which is basically the query and complaint put forward by the parliamentary secretary. Besides the symbolic value of recognizing this group in statute, Bill C-279 produces three substantive and practical effects of note. First, the Canadian Human Rights Commission would begin keeping statistics on incidents of discrimination targeting transgendered individuals. Second, the commission would begin raising awareness of transgender issues in its communications. Third, public officials would begin receiving briefings and training on the matter. This is, of course, in addition to the most important change offered by the bill, the offer of a clear and explicit human rights recourse to transgendered Canadians, not only in that it provides an expressed protection for transgendered people but in that it provides an effective remedy. This is something that cannot be marginalized or ignored.

There is precedent for the use of the term “gender identity” in Canadian, provincial as well as international contexts, notably the United Nations declaration on sexual orientation and gender identity, which Canada signed in 2008 and what I mentioned earlier, the internationally recognized Yogyakarta Principles.

In a word, I believe that this legislation would better ensure that transgendered Canadians enjoy the same equality of opportunity and freedom from discrimination as all other Canadians, as the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca has so aptly affirmed and demonstrated in his remarks and in his work throughout this process.

However, it bears pointing out that we are in this rare situation today of reconsidering amendments because Conservatives on the justice committee engaged in a concerted and regrettable effort to thwart debate at the clause-by-clause stage. Indeed, the intention was clearly either to obfuscate the subject and spirit of the bill or, if nothing else, to torpedo the compromise arranged by the mover.

To start, they came with their own amendments, including a handful that only reinforced the status quo formula of “sex” and “disability”. Then there was a frivolous amendment exempting official Canadian sports authorities from the provisions of the bill, as if to contain some fictional mass of men trying to compete in women's sports, and vice versa. Finally, there was an out-of-context amendment that sought to ensure that no part of the Canadian Human Rights Act could infringe upon the rights of aboriginal peoples. While I firmly believe that we should only enact legislation that is mindful of the rights of Canada's aboriginal peoples, I found there was no reason to codify this specific protection into the act, as the charter supersedes any statutory act, which is clearly set forth in section 52 of the Constitution Act. It appeared that this, too, was a diversionary item.

Despite the tactics of diversion and delay, the compromise could still have been implemented at committee. With the support of one of the 15 Conservatives who voted for the bill at second reading, whom we should credit for open-mindedness, the committee accepted the amendment we are reconsidering today to remove “gender expression”, rendering several other Conservative alternatives inadmissible. Unfortunately, this procedural oversight by the Conservatives who were opposed to the bill spurred them to engage in a filibuster, behaviour which the Speaker has obviously himself acknowledged, given his decision today. Hopefully, we can now conclude the amendment process with an honest debate on the merits.

I would like to once again remind members of what is at stake with regard to this bill. To quote Mr. Justice La Forest of the Supreme Court of Canada at the time, “gender identity” must be included as a protected ground in the Canadian Human Rights Act because, “To leave the law as it stands would fail to acknowledge the situation of transgendered individuals and allow the issues to remain invisible”. We should also not disregard the history associated with this legislation, which has been introduced seven times since 2005. It was most notably passed by the House in early 2011, only to die on the Senate floor following the dissolution of Parliament that same year.

Today I urge my colleagues to not let this be another failed attempt at establishing equality and fairness for transgendered Canadians. The time to act is now.

[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.

Canadian Human Rights Act

[The Speaker, 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 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.

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.