Bill C-16 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code

This enactment amends the Canadian Human Rights Act to add gender identity and gender expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination.
The enactment also amends the Criminal Code to extend the protection against hate propaganda set out in that Act to any section of the public that is distinguished by gender identity or expression and to clearly set out that evidence that an offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on gender identity or expression constitutes an aggravating circumstance that a court must take into consideration when it imposes a sentence.

Canadian Human Rights Act

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, at this point, we are setting a legislative framework within the Canadian Human Rights Act to ensure that we have the right protections there. Within our Criminal Code, the sentencing stage will take into account bias as an aggravating factor to prevent the propagation of hate propaganda. Those are the steps we need to take to ensure that we lay the groundwork.

As a community, it is going to take us stepping up and making sure that we point out to everyone in our communities that this kind of discrimination is not acceptable. That is another piece in this, beyond the legislation, if we are to actually see action taken.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will focus my comments not on the content of this bill, Bill C-16, but rather on what I believe is a deeply flawed, undemocratic process that has returned this bill from the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to Parliament without hearing from any independent witnesses.

I am supportive of any initiatives that help protect persons from hate speech. I also absolutely agree that there can be no tolerance for bullying or violence of any kind for any reason. Parliamentarians and all Canadians have a responsibility to do their part to confront bullying, hate speech, and violence. My concern is that dissent of any kind will be construed as hate speech and could subsequently lead to Human Rights Tribunal hearings or, worse yet, criminal charges being laid. I am concerned that this bill would cause fear for many Canadians that they would not be able to even discuss public policy issues such as this one because they disagree with the government's imposed agenda.

I believe the government and the Minister of Justice directly owe Canadians a clear answer to the following question: What would the impact of implementing Bill C-16 be on immigrant groups and faith groups who may be at odds with gender fluidity concepts? Would they have the freedom to teach their children and practise their beliefs without being accused of hate speech or being accused of human rights violations? Yes or no?

Any law that limits legitimate discussion and debate of closely held beliefs presents a danger to freedom of expression, a fundamental value held dear by people across the political spectrum. The right to disagree is sacred to freedom in our society. It is the lifeblood of both new ideas and age-old protections. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 18, 1948, states:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either...in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

For me and millions of other Canadians who acknowledge the supremacy of God, as the first words of our charter affirm, there is the reality that our faith journey is the foundation of our world view. Freedom of religion is a fundamental right, and so it is of paramount importance that Bill C-16 would not infringe upon that fundamental freedom. Today we are debating at third reading a bill that proposes some very fundamental changes to definitions and principles of society. The imposition of a fundamental values system change of this magnitude must be given complete due process here in Parliament.

The current government promised transparency, openness, and accountability. The Liberals assured Canadians that things would be done differently. All members of this House are aware that the normal course of action for a bill that passes on second reading is to send it to the corresponding committee for study, calling of witnesses for input on the content of the bill with the potential for changes or amendments to be made before it comes back for third reading, and a final vote by Parliament. Yet here we are asked to vote on a very substantive bill without the benefit of committee discussion notes or the transcription of witness input to inform our decision. The government has chosen to shortcut the democratic process; a different approach for sure but not what Canadians should expect or have to tolerate from their government. This is a total disrespect of due process.

Those who may see this issue differently are simply being shut out of the debate. Of all the places that should encourage dialogue and debate, certainly Parliament should be at the forefront. Yet here we are choosing not to have an honest debate for fear that we might somehow upset the politically correct apple cart.

We have unfortunately already witnessed this chill on free speech at the University of Toronto as Professor Jordan Peterson is under constant attack for his refusal to use gender-neutral pronouns. Medical experts have lost their jobs not because of scientific knowledge or experience but because their views are out of step with current thinking.

Irene Ogrizek of Montreal wrote:

If Canadians who believe that gender exists on a spectrum are free to choose their words and reality, Jordan Peterson, as someone who interacts with them, has a right to choose his words and reality too, however objectionable that concept of equality might seem. Allowing one group to use freighted words like homophobe or racist or rapist to tarnish an individual’s reputation without proof violates a principle of fairness that some of us hold dear. If hate-speech is to be expanded in our criminal codes, and in Canada that seems inevitable, I suggest we include the egregious misuse of these accusations too. If we are to take the idea of diversity seriously, we can do no less for those who are falsely maligned.

I ask this again. Will parents continue to have their right to teach their children in accordance with their deeply held faith beliefs or will they be subjected to accusations of hate speech for simply living out tried and true principles which are informed by their belief in the supremacy of God, as affirmed in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Will faith leaders who teach their congregations to follow the principles clearly laid out in God's word also be subjected to accusations of hate speech, or will they be free to continue to practise with freedom as the UN Declaration of Human Rights declares?

I now echo the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker, whose view of Canadian freedoms expresses what we should all hold dear:

I am a Canadian, a free Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.

In closing, I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

“Bill C-16, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code, be not now read a third time, but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for the purpose of reconsidering all of its clauses with the view to hearing from witnesses in relation to the impact of the bill on freedom of expression”.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The amendment is admissible.

Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised the member chose to introduce an amendment. I know there has been fairly wide expectation that the legislation, having gone through committee, would hopefully pass in a timely fashion. Over the years, there has been a great deal of effort by a wide spectrum of stakeholders, people very passionate about it. It has been debated extensively inside the chamber.

Does the member feel her amendment will do well in trying to advance what has been a very strong and passionate issue in the chamber for a good period of time, as many people seem to want, including the government of the day, to have the legislation passed?

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the House deals with a lot of very passionate issues that have required, even in the last few months, an awful lot of conversation in the House and at the committee level. I hope I have made very clear that my concerns are not in regard to the rights of the individuals who are being presented as the root cause of the bill. My concern is that we hear, and it is made very clear within the House and through committee with witnesses, about the rights of all individuals in Canada to have freedom of expression, quite honestly to have a bias of opinion because we differ, to have that opportunity and not face any kind of criminal accusations because of expressing that freedom.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed to see this amendment come forward at this late date. In committee, only one person voted against the bill, so it was not a partisan manner, and we had a long discussion about the fact that there had been three sets of public hearings on the Hill on the bill, and those transcripts are available to all members.

On the question she specifically puts in the amendment, it seems passing strange to me that her amendment does not include removing religious freedom from protections against discrimination, or gender, or race, because the argument she is making could be made exactly in the same manner, that we cannot have those in the human rights code because people might not be able to believe things about race or might not be able to believe things about relations between men and women. Obviously, it has not had those impacts. It has not affected free speech of those groups. How is the question of transgender, gender-variant rights any different than the other rights that are already in the Canadian Human Rights Act and the protected section of the Criminal Code?

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I know this is disappointing to him and many others in the House at this point, but I feel it is my responsibility.

Quite honestly, the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke and I were at an event where the Minister of Immigration presented what was happening with the movement of Syrian refugees to Canada. I was pleased to support him when he stood up and asked the question, “There will be a gay community, we know, coming over as refugees to Canada. How can we as a gay community here know who they are and be available to them to help them settle and assimilate in Canada?”

The minister responded that he did not know exactly who they were or when they would come, but they would certainly make sure that they had that opportunity, which I applaud.

Then I got up and asked the minister if he could clarify for me who the Christians were who would be coming over as part of that Syrian refugee group so that the Christian community in Canada could do the same, to which he replied, “I would hope that all Christians in Canada would be accepting of all refugees coming to Canada, regardless of their faith, to which I replied “Absolutely, of course.” Look at our record in Canada of being there for refugees of any faith, background, or whatever. However, I said, “That's not my question. My question is, can we identify those people.” It was made clear, over the course of time, that ethnic and religious minorities were not the priority of the government.

I had a wonderful conversation with the member afterward. He thanked me for supporting the gay community coming to Canada. I said, “No one should die or be afflicted in any way for their beliefs or their perspectives.”

He said they had to set up separate camps for them because they were being attacked and killed. I made the comment that Christians were not even making it across the water, that they were being thrown off the boat before they got there, to which he replied, “I don't want to argue.”

I replied, “Neither do I. All I want is fairness.” That is what I am asking for with this amendment.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that as parliamentarians we value healthy debate. What we must also be very clear about is the attempt we are seeing here to truly stand in the way of a minority community in Canada that has experienced some of the highest levels of violence because of who they are.

It is 2016, and as my colleague from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke has explained, this is the only community whose voices have had to come forward three times to change legislation to protect their fundamental human right to safety and security. Therefore, when I hear attempts, as we have seen today, to block this community from achieving the protection that we all deserve and that we all have, it truly saddens me in terms of the state of Parliament and the way we perceive our work in this place.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the essence of what I am saying here is being lost on the member, because at this point, it is not about what they are looking for, it is about a balance and a confidence across Canada that everyone's rights are going to continue to be protected.

My fellow member in the House from my own side of the floor, when speaking about the protection of parents to have the right to determine to teach their children to be in the public square, to share that in whatever circumstances, said that she doesn't think that will happen.

I am sorry, but that is not solid enough for me. I want to know that the House supports the rights and freedoms of religious belief as strongly as ever, and I want to see it in witnesses and this issue being dealt with properly within the House.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear, as I said earlier today in the House, I am in support of Bill C-16, but what I am not in support of is due process not being followed.

There is an example here where they can say that the committee took its majority and basically decided to proceed. This is not the first time. It was also done on the national anthem.

I am against not following due process. This is my issue with respect to this amendment, and I wonder if the member could comment.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for bringing that back home, because that is truly my concern as well.

We have a responsibility here. I understand that this has been discussed for a long time. There are a lot of issues before the House that have been discussed for a very long time. I have a responsibility within the House, and to my constituents as well, that we follow due process and that we have on the record the things that should be on the record. Again, as I said, we have the opportunity to do that. It is why I put forward this motion.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.