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

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, the question I would ask is in terms of actual law or even the importance of the symbolism of this debate and this law, in terms of affirming the rights of individuals to be protected from intimidation and violence.

I was at a high school last week in Timmins talking with young people. They talked about transgender rights in the school. I was fascinated by that, because I remember my high school years. I remember the violence, the bullying, and the shame, and what we saw on a day-to-day basis, against any young person who was considered to be potentially gay or was not manly enough or not girly enough, the kind of abuse that young people were subjected to. People I have known in my community have committed suicide from that kind of abuse.

What we are called to do in this Parliament is to affirm the importance of people, the importance of people making the choices they need to make and should be able to made.

Beyond the actual legal implications of this bill, there is the symbolism of the Parliament of Canada standing together and saying that transgendered people will be welcomed, they will be loved, they will be affirmed. What does my hon. colleague think of this?

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

In Canada, a nation built around the rule of law, there is no higher deliberative or legislative body than this august chamber that decides on the laws of the land, that talks about and speaks to freedom and liberty, and that from the highest offices of the land says that people of all races, religions, creeds, sexual orientation, and, soon I hope, gender expression belong.

I grew up in a time when, if the shirt I was wearing was a little too bright, I would walk down the halls of my university and everybody would say, “It smells like gay.”

We would have a day where we would be supporting the LGBTQ people on campus, and half the campus would make sure that they did not wear jeans that day, the kind of jeans they would wear every other day of the year.

The world has changed. The laws in our country have moved forward.

To my hon. colleague's question, when this august chamber passed laws to allow marriage equality, I knew for the first time in my country that I belonged. What we do here matters. This bill matters. Transgender people matter.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments and the powerful way he expressed himself on such an important issue.

I will pick up on one of his comments. As things have changed, one thing I have noticed over the years is the concept of zero tolerance toward bullying and inappropriate behaviour and how important it is that we recognize that discrimination does exist today in a very real and tangible way. Could my colleague comment on the change he has seen in Canadian tolerance and toward a more aggressive and stronger leadership on protecting the rights of all individuals?

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, the beauty of Canada is that we live in a pluralistic society. If we trace our roots back to the founding peoples, the indigenous peoples who welcomed European settlers here, and the social contract that we built with the English and French, and then later official bilingualism, which led to official multiculturalism and this amazing society we have, we are a rights-based society. We are a human rights-based society. We have extended rights through the LGBTQ community, but we still have more work to do on the “T” in that acronym.

Transgender people are some of the most vulnerable, marginalized, misunderstood people in our society. I would say to my hon. colleague, which he and many in the chamber indeed know, that we are moving beyond tolerance to acceptance. That is why this law is so important.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Thornhill.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-16, which I believe is an important legislative measure to prevent all forms of discrimination against all Canadians, regardless of their colour, religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity and expression, and that includes transgendered Canadians.

Over the years, a great deal of progress has been made in terms of social acceptance and our mentality has changed. What seemed unimaginable 20 years ago is now a normal part of our everyday lives.

We are less focused on individual characteristics and more focused on who we are as a society. Society is made up of different people and different personalities.

I am going to give a simple analogy to describe social progress. Social progress works the same way as a three-legged race. If people walk in step and agree to work together, the team makes progress.

Every member of the House is different, has their own story and their own path. Every one of us has dealt with different situations and we all react differently. Our differences should never stop progress, but instead allow it to take flight.

Justice is extremely important to me. That is why I think it is important to have an open and respectful discussion on this. My mindset is to live and let live. My personal experience forced me to be open to realities other than my own, which led me to be open to differences. At first we are confronted by and conflicted about the unfamiliar, but over time we learn, try to understand, and do not judge.

As my father used to say, never judge anyone until you have walked in their shoes. He was right. We were elected by secret ballot. We do not know the identity of those who voted for us. That is another reason for us to govern for all Canadians by ensuring that respect and equality prevail.

Canada, our country, my country, has always been and continues to be a leader when it comes to progress and individual rights. I could not be prouder of my country, Canada, when it comes to social progress. Canada leads the world in terms of fostering social acceptance and reducing crime and hate speech on its own soil.

Women won the right to vote 100 years ago under the Conservative government of Robert Borden; people from all origins have been welcomed to our country every year for centuries; and gay marriage was legalized over 10 years ago. It has always been a priority to protect minorities to make it easier for them to be included in society. We must continue the trend and protect people of all gender identities, so that they can be an important part of our society and contribute to it without enduring prejudice or disparaging and intolerant remarks.

In 1982, the Constitution Act guaranteed a number of rights, including democratic rights, equality rights, legal rights, and especially the fundamental freedom of opinion and expression. Some will say that freedom of expression should be taken for everything it means. I agree, but let us go over the meaning of each of those words.

The word “expression” amounts to saying or writing what we really think and feel. The word “freedom” is about the absence of submissiveness and the ability to do as we wish.

However, freedom does not mean the absence of barriers, obstacles, or limits. Freedom of expression, like all the freedoms we enjoy, must include lines in the sand that must not be crossed. For instance, we all have the right to drive, but that does not give us the right to speed and put the lives of others at risk. We also have the right to smoke, but we cannot do so in restaurants, because it jeopardizes the health of those around us. The same is true of freedom.

Basically, we are free to do as we please, as long as it does not harm other people around us. I recognize, however, that it is hard to set limits around freedom, because it cannot be measured; it is not black and white. That it why I am so glad we are having this kind of debate in the House today.

I will be voting for this bill in the name of equality and respect for the individual rights of all people. As a Conservative, I represent people who advocate for maintaining law and order. I sincerely believe that in a world where people respect one another, society can make better progress.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his speech.

I am an openly gay man and an MP from Alberta, and I know that Quebec has a very open and tolerant society.

According to my dear colleague, the member for Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix, why is it important for the House to expand human rights to include the rights of transgendered people?

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my Alberta colleague for his question.

As the daughter of a prison warden and correctional officer, and the granddaughter of a police chief, I believe that all Canadians have the right to be respected. It is not for me to judge them. Everyone on Canadian soil should have the same legal rights. That is why I will be voting in favour of this bill.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very open speech and for sharing with us the values and experiences that led her to take the position that she has.

As members said earlier in the debate, this will not be the first time that the House of Commons has passed a similar bill. Unfortunately, these bills keep getting blocked by the Senate.

What steps will my colleague take to convince as many of her colleagues as possible and the Conservatives in the Senate to vote in favour of this bill?

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my NDP colleague for her question.

I think it is important to respect my colleagues. We can have different ideas, but we must respect one another.

I hope that the Senate will be as open as we are in the House of Commons. I know that some people will vote against this bill and that is okay because we live in a democratic society.

However, I hope that they will take into consideration the number one priority in developing a bill such as this, and that is justice for all. I think that is very important because everyone in Canada should be equal before the law, regardless of their sexual orientation, or whether they are transgendered, heterosexual, black, white, or Asian.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there was a time not so long ago when I myself was discriminated against by our own government and our country.

Since we will be called upon to vote on this bill, what can we do as MPs to ensure that people feel a genuine sense of belonging to the country and that they feel at home here?

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would have a hard time answering that in one sentence.

I will talk about what I have learned. I used to be very intolerant, but certain experiences have made me realize that people need to be taught about difference. Our differences do not make us better or worse than others; they simply make us different.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

I rise today as well to speak to Bill C-16, a government bill that proposes to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code.

As the minister's summary of the bill reads:

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.

My colleagues will recall that these essential elements of the bill descend from the last Parliament where they were essentially contained in a private member's Bill C-279. Members will also recall that the bill was passed on to the upper house, with 149 votes in favour and 137 votes against. However, the bill died on the red chamber's order paper.

I voted against Bill C-279, on March 20, 2013, and I will vote against the successor legislation, Bill C-16, as well. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain why.

I am passionately in favour of the legal protection of all Canadians from discrimination in its many forms. I am passionately in favour of the legal protection of all Canadians from hate crimes. I am proud of the laws that have evolved over the years, and the reality that Canada is recognized around the world for our recognition of diversity and equality under the law.

I am proud that the current Canadian Human Rights Act defends the principle, when it states:

...that all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.

I am proud of the Criminal Code as written today, which defines that “...identifiable group means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, or mental or physical disability”.

As well, the Criminal Code provides in section 718.2, states:

A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles:

...a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender...[on] 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, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor...

When the original version of the bill was debated in the previous Parliament, the then parliamentary secretary for the minister of justice, Mr. Robert Goguen, eloquently explained the redundancy of the similar proposed amendments to include gender identity or expression. He reminded parliamentarians that the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal had already accepted and considered a number of complaints brought by trans persons on the grounds of sex. In fact, Mr. Goguen argued that the ground of sex in any discrimination law was interpreted broadly, having evolved over the years, and was usually understood to cover discrimination complaints not based only on sex, but on pregnancy, childbirth, and transsexualism.

The examples of tribunal use of the existing grounds already in the act provided clear and consistent evidence that the existing Human Rights Act already recognized that discrimination on the basis of transsexualism was discrimination on the basis of sex or gender, as well as discrimination on the basis of disability.

The parliamentary secretary to the justice minister then said:

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.

I think it is clear, for all of the reasons cited today, that the amendments to both the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code are unnecessary.

Let me stress again that I am passionately in favour of the legal protection of all Canadians from hate crimes. I am proud of the laws that have evolved over the years, and the reality that Canada is recognized around the world for our recognition of diversity equality. I am proud of the work done by fellow colleagues in the House to respect, protect, and improve the lot of trans persons in Canadian society.

I believe, firmly and sympathetically, that trans persons facing discrimination in federally regulated work places and in accessing federally regulated services are already protected by the current act and the code. I also firmly believe that the amendments proposed in Bill C-16 are redundant and unnecessary, and I will respectfully oppose this bill.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his work on human rights, and for his comments on the bill.

As an openly gay member of Parliament for Edmonton Centre and having watched the marriage debate with great personal interest, without the leadership of the House and of civil society, I might still be waiting for the legal opportunity to marry the person who I most love in this world.

The bill before us today is not talking about redundancies. It is helping people see themselves as protected by the full extent of the law. While the hon. member may think the amendments are redundant, transgender people certainly do not consider themselves to be redundant.

Therefore, my question to the hon. member is this. Where is the harm in extending these words in the code and in the act?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I respect the point of view and the circumstances over which my hon. colleague has prevailed. I am delighted that the laws of Canada have evolved and come to respect equality fully across the sexes and sexual orientation.

I am not a lawyer, but by my simple reading of the Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code, I see therein many grounds on which the Canadian government and the Human Rights Tribunal would find discrimination unacceptable, not only with respect to sex, which is a general ground, but with respect to race and religion.

With respect to race and religion, we know that some religions face greater discrimination, disrespect and hate than others, but there has been no move to include specificity for those religions or other races. The Human Rights Tribunal and the courts of Canada have proven time and again that the sex and sexual orientation grounds in the Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code cover all of those possible grounds for discrimination and hate.

I believe these improvements to the law, these amendments, are redundant and unnecessary.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Thornhill for the seriousness and respect with which he approaches all issues in the House, even though we quite often find ourselves on opposite sides.

With respect, I would submit that he is missing the point with the redundancy argument, and that is that while some cases have indeed succeeded by arguing that the discrimination transgender people face is like sex discrimination or like a disability, what the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal and the Canadian Human Rights Commission both said is that there is a distinct possibility of cases failing because they are not like sex discrimination or they are not like a disability. It is easy for most of us to see that discrimination against, for instance, a trans woman is not the same as discrimination against a woman. There are many aspects in which they will be different.

What we heard from both of those organizations is that yes, while some cases have succeeded, there is a gap, and in the future, these cases might fail.