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.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code, as reported without amendment from the committee.

Canadian Human Rights Act

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

There being no motions at report stage on this bill, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question of the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

moved that the bill be concurred in.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. members]

On division.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

(Motion agreed to)

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

moved that Bill C-16, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code, be read the third time and passed.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I request consent to split my time with the member for St. Catharines.

I am rising to take the opportunity to speak about Bill C-16. I would like to use some of my time to respond—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

This being the first round of interventions at third reading of the bill, unanimous consent is required to split time in this first round by each of the recognized parties.

Does the parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to split his time in this round?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for that.

I would like to use some of my time to respond to a persistent criticism of the bill. That is that it is redundant, unnecessary, and merely symbolic. Members raised this issue during second reading debate. They have argued that the bill is not necessary, because our federal discrimination law already provides trans people with enough protection. I acknowledge the perspectives of my fellow parliamentarians, but I believe that these concerns can be answered and that the bill is indeed necessary.

It was pointed out that under the current Canadian Human Rights Act, commonly called the CHRA, trans people may bring discrimination complaints using the ground of sex.

It is true that the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has interpreted the existing ground of sex to cover some complaints brought by trans individuals alleging discrimination, but a person must be quite familiar with the case law and the workings of the CHRA system to know that this protection is even available. Canadians should be able to turn to our laws and see their rights and obligations spelled out clearly. We cannot expect trans people who feel they have been discriminated against to become experts in statutory interpretation just to advocate for their basic rights.

The CHRA system was originally designed to be a user-friendly, inexpensive, and accessible system. We can further improve access to justice for Canadians by ensuring that rights and obligations are spelled out clearly in the CHRA.

What is more, employers and service providers must also be aware of their obligations under the law. They too should be able to look at the CHRA and understand what is required of them. They should be able to understand what kinds of workplace accommodations they must provide to their employees. This area of the law is just emerging. Bill C-16 would serve the important function of clarifying and codifying it.

These are practical results, not mere symbolism. When similar amendments were made in provincial human rights codes, human rights agencies received inquiries from the public creating new opportunities to inform people about their rights and obligations.

Ontario's Human Rights Legal Support Centre reported an increase in enquiries about gender identity and expression, and there are similar reports from other provinces. After gender identity and expression were added to the Ontario Human Rights Code, the Ontario Human Rights Commission reported a growing awareness that discriminating on these grounds is against the law. Commissions have confirmed that explicitly listing these grounds supports their mandate to inform the public of their rights and obligations.

We have also seen legal education respond to amendments such as these. Bulletins, newsletters, and textbooks are sent out and updated to account for statutory amendments. Training sessions and conferences are held to inform legal professionals and others of the new provisions.

That has been the experience elsewhere. We should expect the same when this bill is enacted. These are some of the tangible effects we hope to achieve with the bill. They are results, and parliamentarians have the ability and the responsibility to set them in motion.

I turn now to another reason for the bill: it would amend the Criminal Code to respond to the risk of violence and harm faced by trans individuals on an all too frequent basis.

For a better sense of these risks, I would refer the House to the Trans Pulse project, a research study of social determinants of health among trans people in the province of Ontario. Data for the Trans Pulse project came from focus groups conducted in three Ontario cities in 2006, with 85 trans community members and four family members, and from a survey in 2009-10 of 433 trans Ontarians age 16 and over.

According to this research, trans individuals are the targets of specifically directed violence. Twenty per cent had been physically or sexually assaulted for being trans, and another 34% had been verbally threatened or harassed but not assaulted. Many do not report these assaults to the police.

Let me now turn to the proposed Criminal Code amendments that are intended to address these risks and harms. First let us consider the aggravated sentencing provision that enables judges to properly recognize and denounce crimes motivated by bias, prejudice, or hate. This is found in section 718.2 of the code.

One of the important purposes of the aggravated sentencing provision is the condemnation of hate crimes. It is about recognizing that some people may be more vulnerable to crime simply because they are identifiable as members of a particular group. That can be because of race, religion, colour, or ethnic origin, to name just a few of the listed grounds. Bill C-16 would add explicit protection for members of the trans community.

We can see, again, that Bill C-16 is more than just a symbolic gesture. Adding the ground of gender identity or expression to the Criminal Code would explicitly condemn this type of hate crime. It would also clearly signal to police and prosecutors that they must be aware of the particular vulnerability of trans individuals.

Bill C-16 would also add gender identity or expression to the hate propaganda offences in the Criminal Code. This is by no means redundant. This amendment would fill a gap in the law. In the criminal context, clarity and certainty is of great importance. Criminal offences are interpreted narrowly. The hate propaganda offences currently protect groups identifiable on the ground of sex and other grounds, but there is no mention of gender identity or expression. We cannot assume that these offences would be interpreted to cover gender identity or expression without the amendment of Bill C-16.

Finally, some members have expressed the view that the terms “gender identity” and “gender expression” are too vague and open-ended. It has been suggested that the addition of these grounds would lead to a flood of litigation.

I do not think this concern is warranted. Most provinces and territories now have explicit protection for trans and gender-diverse people in their anti-discrimination statutes. Ontario, Quebec, Alberta, British Columbia, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Prince Edward Island all have gender identity and gender expression as prohibited grounds in their human rights codes. The codes in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and the Northwest Territories have the ground of gender identity. In fact, the Northwest Territories has had the ground of gender identity in its act for more than a decade. There has not been a flood of ligation in these provinces and territories.

I have also heard the suggestion that a definition should be added. Most of the prohibited grounds of discrimination in the CHRA do not have definitions. Commissions, tribunals, and courts elaborate the meaning of the grounds in a reasonable way. They clarify through the application of real-life examples, allowing the law to respond in line with its purpose. This does not mean that grounds are indeterminate. It does not mean that people can claim protection on a whim or for frivolous reasons. There are real limits to what any ground can mean, informed by the important purpose of the legislation and the social context in which it is being enacted.

It is time for Parliament to ensure that our laws provide clear and explicit protection where it is now much needed. I urge members to vote in favour of this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was very supportive of Bill C-16 going to committee, because I wanted to hear some of the answers to difficult questions asked during the debate. I am very disappointed, in fact more than disappointed, that witnesses were not allowed at committee and that this has been rammed back to the House.

Would the member please answer this difficult question? There are many people in this country who do not believe that a transgendered lifestyle is God's plan or that it is medically beneficial, so if we pass this legislation, would that then affect their ability to tell their children not to speak about those ideas in a public place?

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Sarnia—Lambton for that question and also congratulate her on her recent honour at the Parliamentarian of the Year awards.

There were a couple questions there. One was with respect to the decision of the committee to not take witnesses, and the other was on the potential restriction or alleged restriction on private speech.

With respect to the first one, witnesses at committee, this bill, Bill C-16, is a piece of government legislation that has been brought in in this Parliament, but it is certainly not the first time that issues of protection from discrimination for our trans community have been debated in this place. This bill actually went through the House of Commons in the last Parliament. It has been the subject of extensive debate, and we have heard from numerous witnesses at various times.

The committees, as the hon. member would know, are masters of their own destiny. There was a vote taken at committee on witnesses, and that was indeed the decision of the committee.

With respect to restrictions on free speech, she need not be concerned about that. There is an amendment to the Criminal Code such that unless discussions venture into the hate propaganda portions of the Criminal Code, inter-family discussions will not, in any way, be affected.

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

Mr. Speaker, just on the last question from the member for Sarnia—Lambton, I know she is quite sincere about her question, but we have had on the Hill in the last four years three full sets of hearings, one here in the House and two in the Senate. The transcripts of those hearings and the more than 35 witnesses are available to all members. If I were asking a question of her, which I am not, I would be asking how this is any different than protections for gender. Does that mean families cannot talk about gender? Does this mean that families cannot talk about race? This is no different than any of the other protections that are currently in the human rights code.

My question for the parliamentary secretary is this. Given that it has been a long road to get here to what is now going to be the third time, and I trust this bill will be passed by Parliament, what arrangements have been made, or what talks have been held by the government with the other House about expeditious passage of this bill? Since the Senate has become a bit of a black box for the rest of us, I want to know whether the member has been able to make any progress in talks with senators.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke for really being the driving force behind the protection of the trans community from discrimination. He was indeed the person who drove this issue in the last Parliament, and deserves full credit for the fact that we are at this stage now. I also want to thank him for providing a better answer to the questions from the member for Sarnia—Lambton than I did.

With respect to the plan going forward, I cannot share with the member at this stage specifically what conversations have been had and what arrangements have been made. Because of the new world order in the other place, there will indeed be discussions to ensure passage. Those discussions have started and will be continuing, and I believe that is going to become standard operating procedure in the current configuration of the Senate.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-16, which in my view is another key piece of equality protection legislation tabled by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.

This bill, along with other legislation currently before the House, will finally bring balance and protection to the LBGT2 community.

I have heard many members say they support this bill and are anxious to see it pass. I share their desire to see the protections that Bill C-16 would add to the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Canadian Criminal Code, and become part of Canadian law in the near future.

However, during the second reading debate and before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, I also heard a number of questions and concerns. I appreciate the spirit of seriousness and sincerity in which members have expressed their views and those of their constituents. Many of these concerns can be allayed if we have a clear picture of the bill's purpose and scope. It is important to focus our attention on the real subject matter of this bill.

The Canadian Human Rights Act applies to the federal sector, namely to the federal government and its role as employer and service provider, and to the federally regulated private sector, including crown corporations, telecommunications companies, the postal service, chartered banks, and similar industries.

The proposed amendments seek to promote equal opportunity of trans and gender-diverse people in employment and access to goods and services. Therefore, if the grounds of gender identity and expression were added, this would mean that a trans person working for the federal government or one of those federally regulated employers that I mentioned could not be passed over for a job or a promotion simply because he or she is trans. If a trans person applies for a passport, he or she would receive the same level of respectful service as any other Canadian would expect. It would be clearly unacceptable to harass a trans person because of his or her gender identity, turning his or her workplace into a hostile or poisoned environment for reasons that have nothing to do with his or her skills or ability to do his or her job.

These are not special rights. We should all be able to find employment without irrelevant characteristics hindering us. All of us should be recognized for our contributions to our workplace and be able to work in a harassment-free environment. All of us should be able to access the same level of federal service and to receive those services in a respectful manner. Those are the kinds of provisions that we are adding to the CHRA. These are the types of essential protections that the trans community has been asking for. We know from the statistics that were cited during second reading, and we heard from the hon. parliamentary secretary, that these protections are sorely needed given the difficulties that trans people face in finding employment and accessing services. It is clear that too many trans people are being deprived of that opportunity to contribute and flourish in our society. This bill is an important step forward for greater societal acceptance and inclusion. This is not just important to trans people but for each and every Canadian. The same human rights afforded to us should be enjoyed by all. When we exclude, marginalize, or discriminate against one facet of society, we are doing damage to all of our society. We as a nation succeed when we speak and are recognized with one voice. That is why this legislation is essential. Discrimination is a matter of concern for all of us.

Some members have also expressed their view that the bill will limit freedom of religion and weakens protections for freedom of religion. However, it is important to remember that the CHRA already includes religion as a prohibited ground of discrimination. Federally regulated employers and services cannot discriminate against individuals based on religious beliefs. Employers can, however, require their managers and employees to treat each other with respect and dignity so as to foster a harassment-free workplace on any of the grounds listed in the act.

The equality provision of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms also prohibits religious discrimination by governments. Section 2(a) of the charter constitutionally enshrines the fundamental freedom of conscience and religion. Its purpose is to prevent government interference with profoundly held personal beliefs. This bill, which is focused on preventing discrimination in employment and the provision of services by federally regulated entities, respects freedom of religion as a guarantee in the charter, and in no way seeks to interfere with an individual's religious belief or practice.

Other members have expressed concern with potential impacts of the bill on their freedom of speech and freedom to openly discuss and debate policy issues. Still others are concerned about limiting their ability to teach their children about religious beliefs.

As explained in the Statement of Potential Charter Impacts that the minister tabled during the second reading of debate, the amendments to the hate propaganda provisions respect freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression in a free, democratic society. The criminal provisions against hate propaganda impose a very narrow limit on expression. Hate propaganda targets extreme and dangerous speech that advocates genocide against, willfully promotes hatred against, or incites hatred in a public place likely to cause a breach of peace against vulnerable people.

The most commonly prosecuted of these three offences is willfully promoting hate against an identifiable group. Critically important is the term “willfully”, which has been defined by the Supreme Court of Canada to mean intentionally and not recklessly. The Supreme Court also interpreted the word “hatred” to mean only the intense form of dislike. It is not enough that the expression is distasteful.

In addition, the offence of willfully promoting hatred does not apply to private conversations. There are also statutory defences, such as the defence of truth, and the defence of good-faith expression of a religious opinion. Finally, the consent of the appropriate provincial attorney general is required before any prosecution of this crime can begin.

With this in mind, let us remember that trans people are particularly vulnerable to harassment and violence, thus the need for society's protection against expression that seeks to dehumanize them and thereby creates conditions for their victimization.

I hope that I have addressed and allayed a number of these concerns. I would like to close by returning to the reasons I think this bill is important and why I think all members should be voting for it.

Diversity and inclusion are values that are important to all of us as Canadians. Canadians expect their laws to reflect these values, yet many trans people are not yet able to fully participate in society. This bill is an important step forward to their greater societal acceptance and inclusion. By adding the grounds of gender identity or expression to the CHRA, we will protect that freedom to live openly in one's deeply felt gender, and this will include freedom to present oneself as a person of that gender.

Transgender and other gender-diverse persons are among the most vulnerable members of society. The amendments to the Criminal Code send a clear message that hate propaganda and hate crimes against trans people are unacceptable. It is time for Parliament to ensure that our laws provide clear and explicit protection where it is now much needed.

As many will recall, the previous Parliament examined a similar bill but was not able to enact it before dissolution. In fact, this House has been considering versions of this bill for many years. It is time now for Parliament to act. Now is the time to ensure that our laws provide clear and explicit protection where it is needed the most.

I am proud of this legislation, which would ensure all Canadians are free to be themselves without fear of discrimination, hate propaganda, and hate crime. As Canadians, we should all feel safe to be ourselves.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for St. Catharines for an excellent speech. He did a great job in allaying a lot of the questions that I was bringing to the House.

As the chair of the status of women committee, I have seen that implementing legislation to prevent violence against women has not totally been successful in eradicating the issue. I feel the same would be true here, although this is a step in a good direction.

I wonder if the member could comment on other initiatives that his government will take to try to make sure that, in addition to no discrimination, we can really do something concrete to prevent this violence against transgender people.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is right. Legislation is only one step forward. Societal change does not happen with a vote in Parliament. There is more work to be done.

I am very proud of the fact that the Prime Minister has appointed a special adviser from this Parliament. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage will be his special adviser on LGBTQ initiatives.

This is a government that will move forward not only on discrimination against the LGBTQ community, but gender-based violence, which I know the hon. Minister of Status of Women has been fighting hard against. I look forward to seeing her report in the near future, and I look forward to hearing from the Prime Minister's special adviser with his recommendations in the near future as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, like many today, I feel that we are making history as parliamentarians. I acknowledge the very important work of my colleague, the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke in driving this agenda, as have other New Democrats before him.

While we are certainly moving forward in terms of much-needed legislation, the question of implementation, which has come up already, is a critical one. This is particularly necessary in marginalized communities, in rural and remote communities, and in indigenous communities, like the ones I represent. Unfortunately, we know that recently the government cut funding to HIV/AIDS programs, and it is certainly not there to support critical programming in marginalized communities.

My question for the member across is, while today is so important, will his government continue implementing and putting forward resources so that trans people across the country, not just in urban centres, but in urban centres and beyond, have the support necessary to make this law a reality?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I saw this first-hand. I was chair of a community health centre in a volunteer position before being elected to this place. One of the decisions of our health centre, Quest Community Health Centre, was to make it a centre of excellence for the LBGT community and for trans persons.

Therefore, I appreciate the difficulty, and there is still a great deal more work to be done. I especially look forward to working with the Prime Minister's special advisor on LBGTQ2 issues, and look forward to seeing recommendations going forward.

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the speech by my colleague across the way and thank him for his work on this file.

He talked in generalities about the different initiatives that would be undertaken. I wonder if he could elaborate more specifically on what that would look like going forward.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are in the initial stages. The Prime Minister has committed to being proactive on all forms of discrimination, including discrimination against the trans community. This is the first stage of what our government is doing.

We have also seen, as I mentioned in the last couple of answers, the appointment of the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage as a special advisor to the Prime Minister on LBGTQ2 initiatives.

I look forward to seeing recommendations, so that there can be concrete steps moving forward, and we can advance acceptance and fight discrimination.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code, be read the third time and passed.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what often unifies our weakest moments, the moments when we inflict damage upon others, the moments that linger in our minds as regret long after they have happened, the moments that we later need to ask forgiveness for or make recompense for, is a failure to seek to grant compassion to others.

Few of us seek to be uncompassionate, yet, in our fragility, we often are. This is because compassion is a difficult thing. Compassion requires work. Compassion requires self-reflection. Compassion requires selflessness. Compassion requires humility. Compassion requires departure from dogmas that often define who we are. Compassion requires courage. Compassion requires empathy across cultural grounds, across religious views, across political ideology, and across the sins of others.

This is why most religious texts and teaching often weave consistent compassion as a thread through their teachings. This is because it is compassion that, in our worst moments, saves us.

Our charge as legislators is to seek and then to define a just and well-considered but ultimately compassionate course of action when a charge of inequality is levelled.

On our first charge, that of understanding, Bill C-16 seeks to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act by adding gender identity and gender expression to the list of prohibited grounds for discrimination.

It also seeks to amend 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 the evidence that an offence motivated by bias, prejudice, or hate on gender identity or expression constitutes an aggravating circumstance that a court must take into consideration when it imposes a sentence.

In short, the bill seeks to provide remedy for the inequality and discrimination that the trans community faces in Canada.

The bill, in various forms, has been debated in this House for years now. That said, it has only been in the last few years that the issue of equality for transgendered Canadians has become ingrained in the awareness of the Canadian public writ large.

I remember the first time that someone explained what gender identity and gender expression meant. I remember it clearly. It was right after I was elected in 2011. I remember being shocked at myself for not understanding this, given the level of severity that it means for me, as a legislator, not to get that. I think it is probably worth having that discussion here today to remind people.

“Sex refers to biological differences: chromosomes, hormonal profiles, internal and external sex organs.” I am quoting from a paper from an Australian university.

Gender describes the characteristics that a society or culture delineates as masculine or feminine. So while your sex as male or female is a biological fact that is the same in any culture, what that sex means in terms of your gender role...in society can be quite different cross culturally. These 'gender roles' have an impact on the health of an individual. In sociological terms 'gender role' refers to the characteristics and behaviours that different cultures attribute to the sexes.

It is very important for us to understand this, because our understanding of gender roles and our notion of gender is in fact fluid.

I look at myself today. I am standing in the House of Commons. I am a cisgendered woman. Only a few decades ago, if I had stood here in pants advocating for my community, as a divorced woman, as a woman without children, I think about how I would have been perceived, and what my gender role would have been decades ago. I would not have had the right to stand here. Our rights are so precious, and they are so fragile, and if we legislators cannot acknowledge when inequality exists, and if we cannot rectify that, then we are doing something wrong.

My rights as a woman and my equality were won by those who came before me, who challenged the norms assigned to my gender by society, and who still challenge those norms today and ensure that those challenges are remedied by reflection in law: the right to vote, discrimination based on gender, sexual harassment, equal pay for equal work. There is so much more work to be done, yet I am so far ahead of where members in the trans community in Canada are.

The reality is that many people who do not conform to the gender roles associated with the sex they were assigned at birth. This is not a defect. This is not an illness. This is an expression of our uniqueness and of our humanity against what others in our society may pressure us to conform to be, and nobody in Canada or in the world should face discrimination for living his or her personal truth. As legislators, we need to understand and acknowledge that great discrimination does in fact occur because of this.

When I last spoke to this bill in 2013, I noted that the trans community in Canada had on frequent occasions experienced elevated levels of sexual violence committed against members of that community, frequent workplace discrimination and job loss based on gender, lack of clarity on health care provisions and sometimes access to health care, lack of clarity on processes related to obtaining identification documents, bullying in places of employment and educational institutions, discrimination in accessing housing accommodation, and numerous other incidents of discrimination. Most important, they lived every day with the consequences of these acts of non-compassion, of false assumptions that simply by virtue of their state they were sexually promiscuous or, more ludicrously, that they were criminal. In this, the trans community experiences very high rates of levels of both depression and suicide.

Since I made this argument in 2013, very frankly and very simply put, little progress has been made on righting many of these injustices. All we can do is ask for forgiveness and then act.

This weekend will mark the Transgender Day of Remembrance, so it is fitting to recount the following.

Suicide rates among the transgendered community are incredibly high. As published by Egale Canada, in 2010, 47% of trans youth in Ontario had thought about suicide and 19% had attempted suicide in the preceding year. The Trans Murder Monitoring Project, a worldwide initiative to uncover the atrocities committed against transgendered people worldwide, found that from January 2008 to April 2016, over 2,000 members of the trans community were tragically murdered, and those are only ones that were reported. The most frequent ways these innocent lives were taken were by shootings, stabbings, beatings, strangulations, and stonings. This report also shows that 576 of these transgendered people were killed and brutally murdered in the streets. These lives were lost because of intolerance, of bigotry, and of hate.

This is not something that just happens overseas or somewhere else, or something that we can turn a blind eye to in Canada. There are many instances of this in Canada. January Marie Lapuz of New Westminster, B.C. is just one of the examples of transgendered violence that we have come to know in Canada. January was a 26 year old who was considered an involved local activist, and whom people in her community called a bright light and a shining star. She was murdered in 2012. Stories like this are all too common for those in the transgendered community.

A recent study in 2014 found that in Ontario alone, 96% of the community had heard that trans people were not normal. Shockingly, the study also found that 76% of trans Ontarians worried that they would die young. They also found that members of the trans community had actively avoided public spaces out of fear. The project also found that two-thirds of trans Ontarians had avoided public spaces as they fear harassment, being perceived as trans, or being outed as trans. It is an irrefutable fact, one that we cannot ignore and one that we should not even be debating in this place, that the trans community faces challenges and barriers that most of us do not.

In 2013, after a review of the bill, I concluded the bill would only amount to symbolic action for the trans community. I was wrong. In the last three years, I have watched this community face bigotry, more discrimination, and becoming a flashpoint for fights that we should no longer be having in Canada.

It is for that reason that I believe it is time that Parliament passes the bill. It is clear to me, after watching provincial governments, employers, court cases, and the trans community itself struggling to rectify these injustices, that action cannot be taken to right these injustices without the bill passing.

Before it does, I want to talk about bathrooms. It is an unfortunate fact that in Canada rape occurs. Men go into women's bathrooms and rape them. That is a fact. That is why there are panic buttons in many bathrooms in university campuses across Canada. That is why we have laws to harshly and strongly punish the perpetrators of sexual violence. That is why we educate people on the effects of violence to try to deter them from doing so. That is why we have police. However, here is a horrifying statistic.

Jody Herman of UCLA's Williams Institute found in her study, conducted between 2008-09, that members of the transgendered community tended to be incredibly at risk in public restrooms. In her study, about 70% of the sample of transgendered people reported experiencing being denied access to restrooms, being harassed while using restrooms, and experiencing forms of physical assault. Additionally, this study showed that nearly 10% of the respondents reported to being physically assaulted in public restrooms.

Therefore, while some like to blame and insinuate that transgendered people are the predators in washrooms, research indicates that they instead are vulnerable in these public spaces. Making a value judgment that because people are trans they are likely to prey upon people in bathrooms is wrong.

The argument the bill would impede religious freedom is also wrong. Religious freedom cannot be discriminated on in Canada. We already have laws to that effect. Moreover, I believe that when we talk about compassion and about righting injustices, that is the reason most of us have faith to begin with. It is the act of charity and compassion that comes through religious belief and the belief in a higher good that sets us apart. The ability for us as Canadians to worship in that regard, to express that freedom, and live that truth should also be reflected in our laws.

I have also heard an argument against the bill that it will prevent parents from educating their children. The irony is that right now it is parents who educate our children on gender norms as it is. It is often our parents who reinforce what our role in society is to be based on our gender.

I do not see that changing, but the bill will open up the fact that we can be compassionate and we can look at how people can best contribute to our society by living out who they want to be. I cannot imagine a more beautiful expression of Canadian pluralism than that, of Canada becoming a place where we embrace uniqueness and diversity and also respect the rights of people to express their faith.

I also believe very firmly that the bill fits squarely in line with the principles of my political party. In our guiding principles it says:

The Conservative Party of Canada is founded on and will be guided by in its policy formation the following principles....A belief in the balance between fiscal accountability, progressive social policy and individual rights and responsibilities....The goal of building a national coalition of people who share these beliefs...The goal of developing this coalition, embracing our differences and respecting our traditions, yet honouring a concept of Canada as the greater sum of strong parts....A belief in the value and dignity of all human life....A belief in the equality of all Canadians.

This is why I am part of the Conservative Party of Canada and this is why I firmly believe in the capacity of our party to show Canadians that we are compassionate, that we do believe in equality and support it through legislation.

The white elephant in the room is that the bill will challenge deeply entrenched norms on how we need to behave. We should not fear that. We should embrace the fact that Canada is such a free and true nation that we value equality over dogma.

I want to thank the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke for taking time to educate me and many other people in here, in a very quiet and patient way. I also want to commend my colleagues who may have different views on the bill, but who seek to be compassionate and reflect their views in respectful debate.

I especially want to thank the trans activists who have lived through this discrimination, through the upheaval of transition, through the upheaval of guilt or confusion over knowing their truth is something different than what society pressures them to be. While they have lived through that, they have had to sit through years of committee meetings, while their sexual behaviours have been questioned. They have stood up against intolerance and in doing so, they have sustained Canada's pluralism.

They deserve our thanks, and they also deserve an apology for when we have failed them in the past.

It is always a rare day when a Conservative member quotes a former NDP member, but I will do it today. I followed a speech by my former colleague, Megan Leslie, on this in 2013. I had the grave misfortune of following a Megan Leslie speech. She closed by saying this:

I was at a community event and a young person came up to me. I do not really remember it. I do not remember if this person was a young man or a young woman, blond or brunette, but this person came up to me, took my hand and opened it, put something in my hand and closed it up. Then they left.

I opened my hand and there was a tiny little note.

It said: Thanks for giving...[an eff] about trans people.

I think that is why we are here.

Megan was right. That is why we are here. We are also here because I believe in the capacity of my colleagues across party lines to be compassionate, to be strong, to stand up for Canada, and to stand for what is good, what is just, and what is beautiful.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from across the way for what was a wonderful and impassioned discussion about the bill, about why it is so important, and to go through her journey about the bill.

The member has set out very clearly why it was so important that we have this legislation. What can the member suggest as ways we can reach out to people who are less comfortable, to try to bring them in, and to build that comfort?

The member has been through that journey, and there is a lot to learn about the next steps even after this legislation goes through.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in some ways, I really do not feel like that is a question I am qualified to answer. I am not a transgendered person. In a lot of ways, I would look to the transgendered community, recognizing the fact that this a burden to place on it, but to seek its advice on how best to communicate these issues and some of the challenges, process, and policy that impede the community's equality.

I would also simply suggest that we all seek to understand, with an open heart, without judgment, and without dogma, and build relationships rather than seek to discriminate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really do want to thank the member for Calgary Nose Hill for her very insightful, passionate speech. She and I have had a lot of dialogue on this issue since we were both first elected. I have seen her come a long way in her understanding. It is quite admirable to see her talk about her journey before the rest of us in the House.

For me, what is different this time, and this is the third time the House has been here at this point, is the fact that partisanship has now been swept away. We are really talking about each member's understanding of this issue and his or her feelings on this issue. We certainly have, as the member for Calgary Nose Hill pointed out, a very large contingent in the Conservative caucus who will now be supporting this bill, along with the Liberals and the NDP. That is a sign of progress.

I want to emphasize something the member for Calgary Nose Hill mentioned and draw attention to it again. One of the ways we have made this progress is by trans people approaching their members of Parliament, talking to them about their lived experience, and asking for that representation. I want to ask the member for Calgary Nose Hill about her experience, meeting transgendered people and talking to them personally about their experiences.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have been really blessed by the fact that I have had members of the trans community reach out to me and spend a lot of time with me, explaining in detail, simply humanizing the journey that they have gone through and where legislative gaps and policy fail them.

A fantastic trans woman in Calgary came into my office, after I was first elected in 2012. I will be honest. I had no idea what I was talking about, but sitting there with an open mind and open heart and somebody who is willing to look past a political stripe and seeking to educate was probably the most meaningful interaction we can have as a parliamentarian writ large. I thank her for that. I thank the many members who have continued to reach out to me who have been patient with my misunderstanding, or understanding.

However, I also want to comment briefly on how it is all right for positions to change and to be fluid over time, and that it does not necessarily mean that we are reneging on our principles or that we are changing the culture or values of a political party.

I ask members to indulge me. In May of this year, our party in Vancouver had a very respectful and positive discussion about removing the definition of “marriage” out of our party's policy declaration and, rightly so, many members of the LGBT community in Canada said, “Well, it's 10 years later. Way to catch up, guys.”

I think it is very powerful when, in the context of a political party, we can change a viewpoint such that people who might vote on party lines or might look to a political party to set the tone for what is acceptable in Canada can move that to a place where, now, all of our major political parties in Canada support this simply on principle.

I do not want to make this partisan but more to acknowledge that over time views can change. It happens on both sides of the aisle. I think that is very positive, and I want to thank activists writ large on any issue for their persistence in doing so.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member will have about four and a half minutes remaining in the time for questions and comments when the House next returns to debate on the question.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code, be read the third time and passed.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like the unanimous consent of the House to split my time with the member for Saskatoon West.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I join this third reading debate on Bill C-16 today, I want to take this opportunity to mark the Trans Day of Remembrance, which will be taking place this Sunday, November 20. This year marks the 17th annual Trans Day of Remembrance, which memorializes trans people who have been murdered over the past year. This year we remember the more than 86 lives that were senselessly lost to transphobia and hate around the world and in Canada. We know that this number is only the tip of the iceberg and that there are thousands of instances of violence perpetrated against trans people every year that go unrecorded or unreported.

This Trans Day of Remembrance is not only a day to mourn but a day for trans people, their loved ones, and allies to come together and to grow our strength and resiliency on the road to ending transphobia once and for all.

As people come together this Sunday across Canada and around the world, I want them to know that here in this House we know trans people are still targets of violence and hate at undeniably troubling rates. We see the statistics about homelessness and suicide rates among trans and gender-diverse youth, we hear trans people when they say they still cannot access necessary health care, and we hear trans people on the importance of being able to access appropriate identity documents.

Passing Bill C-16, whether that's this afternoon or Monday, is just the start of working through the challenges that face trans and gender-diverse Canadians, but it is a vital first step. The federal government and its agencies will have to get busy making sure policies and practices respect the full and equal rights of transgender and gender-variant Canadians.

I will spare the House an extended metaphor about Charlie Brown, Lucy, and the football, not only because of its rigid gender stereotypes but also because of its deeply embedded misogyny, where the problems of men are always caused by women, but nevertheless I have to use that analogy to say that the trans community is justifiably frustrated as we are now on the way to the third passage of this bill through the House of Commons. What other group of people in Canadian society has had to wait while this House of Commons passes three times a bill that would only recognize that they are entitled to the same rights and protections as all other Canadians?

Let me repeat the story of the journey of this bill through Parliament, hopefully for one last time.

This bill was first introduced by former NDP MP Bill Siksay in 2005. He reintroduced it again in 2007 and again in 2009. On this third attempt, although it took two years, in the spring of 2011, Bill actually saw his bill passed by the House, only to see it die in the Senate when an election was called.

When I was elected, I spoke with Bill, and he asked me to pick up that private member's bill, on behalf of the NDP caucus, and to take that struggle forward into what was a Conservative majority Parliament and, therefore, did not look very promising for the bill. I introduced my version of the bill on September 21, 2011. I stand here now more than five years after I began my attempt to get this bill through. The bill was passed through the House of Commons on March 20, 2013, with the support of I believe it was 19 members of the Conservative caucus at that time. That came as a bit of a surprise to many Canadians. Then it went off to the Senate and what was even more surprising is that, though the Senate had more than two years to deal with the bill, it failed to do so before the election was called. For a second time, a bill guaranteeing equal rights and protections to transgender and gender-variant Canadians died in the unelected Senate.

While this proposed legislation has been languishing before our federal Parliament, some progress has still been made. I would again say that I would like to think that the debate here in this House has helped bring forward progress elsewhere. In the meantime, nine provinces have adopted corresponding provincial human rights legislation. I have to say that in my second reading speech I miscounted, which proves one should use notes for these things, but we have seen corresponding provincial human rights legislation first in the Northwest Territories, then in Ontario, Manitoba, and Nova Scotia in 2012, Newfoundland and P.E.I. in 2013, Saskatchewan in 2014, Alberta in 2015, and British Columbia and Quebec this year.

The issue of trans rights is not a partisan issue. Amendments to protect against discrimination on the basis of gender identity were proposed by NDP governments in Alberta, Manitoba, and Nova Scotia, a Liberal government in P.E.I., and Conservative governments in Saskatchewan and Newfoundland. The amendments to their provincial human rights codes in Quebec, Ontario, and B.C. passed with all-party support.

Nor is progress on trans rights limited to the Canadian context, and I want to say again that we have lost a chance by our delays here in the House to be a leader around the world. Now, more than 18 countries have passed Canada up with explicit protections of the kind that are proposed in Bill C-16, and the list is surprising in its diversity.

These are not just the western European countries or North American countries. In fact, they reflect all cultures around the world. Argentina has in fact been the world leader in protection of the rights of transgender citizens and continues to be so. However, the list also includes Uruguay, Bolivia, Spain, France, Ireland, Estonia, Croatia, Montenegro, Albania, Israel, Cypress, Nepal, Australia, and New Zealand, among others.

In the United States, 16 states plus the District of Columbia provide explicit protections for transgender residents, and there are some good signs amidst the gloom in the United States. The North Carolina governor, Pat McCrory, who had brought forward a bill to explicitly allow discrimination against the LGBT community, was defeated in those elections and largely over what was called House Bill 2, which would have really gone against the American tradition of acceptance, tolerance, and liberty by promoting discrimination against North Carolinians.

However, there is still some gloom. The President-elect Trump has promised to rescind Executive Order 13672 that President Obama put forward in 2014, which protected transgender and gender-variant Americans against workplace discrimination. Interestingly, at the time, Obama pointed out that he felt the U.S. government was lagging behind business in the United States, as almost all the Fortune 500 U.S. companies, the biggest 500 companies in the U.S., already had internal policies protecting transgender people against discrimination.

I have said before in speeches here that certain businesses in federal jurisdiction, in particular the TD Bank, have set an example of how to deal with employees if they go through a transition. The Canadian Labour Congress has produced guides for transition in the workplace that it has made available to all of its union members across the country.

Again, others have moved forward faster than we have here in this Parliament. In fact, today we are here 11 years after the first introduction of the bill, nearly five years after it first passed, and coming up on three years since it passed in the previous Parliament. However, some things have changed, and now in the recorded vote at second reading, we saw nearly half of the Conservative caucus join the Liberals and New Democrats in supporting the bill.

What has really changed? I would say the important change here is that it has become a non-partisan issue, and that is due to the work of transgender and gender-varied activists who have been very vigilant about contacting their members of Parliament and talking to them about their stories and why they need the support of their members of Parliament to make sure that their rights and dignity are respected in this country.

Far too many of these stories are indeed tragic, and I can spend a long time recounting them, but time is, of course, short today. I will just point out the study by Egale, published in 2011, called “Every Class in Every School” shows the severe impacts of transphobia on students in this country, where 90% of trans students reported hearing daily or weekly transphobic comments, and where 78% recorded feeling unsafe at school.

No, the bill does not directly affect schools, as they fall under provincial jurisdiction, but it tells us the size of the problem we face in combatting transphobia in this country.

This is the last remaining gap in Canadian human rights legislation, and I do look forward to it being filled by judicious and expeditious action by the new Senate. The transgender and gender-variant community in this country is asking for equal rights and dignity; the same rights and dignity that all other Canadians enjoy, nothing more, nothing less.

I look forward to the passage of Bill C-16 today or Monday, as I have said, and I am hoping the Liberal government can ensure its swift passage through the Senate.

As I mentioned, what other group has had to wait over a decade while the House of Commons passes legislation to affirm their rights three times? If this is not the time to guarantee equality for all Canadians, then when would that time be?

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is troubling to know that it has taken so long to bring this matter through the House.

It comes, coincidentally, with something an old friend of ours from Fleetwood—Port Kells, Bob Ibrahim, shared this morning, “This world of ours...must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.” That quote comes from Dwight David Eisenhower, President of the United States, and a Republican.

Would my friend comment and reflect on the leadership role that may be thrust upon this place and this country to protect the rights of people of every minority and of every vulnerable community?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not in the habit of commenting on Republicans or what is happening in the United States.

We often focus on the negative things that happen to transgender people, but I would like to take just a moment, if I may, to point out that on November 9 the University of Victoria awarded an honorary doctorate of engineering degree to Lynn Conway, whose computer science and engineering work in computer architecture were fundamental at IBM in its early years where she worked until she was fired during her transition. She successfully re-emerged as a very prominent professor, researcher, and innovator at MIT and later at the University of Michigan.

It is really the trans community that provides leadership on these things, and I appreciate the chance to take a moment to emphasize one of the big successes; that is, the new doctor of engineering, Lynn Conway.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, much like my colleague, I am thrilled that this bill has been introduced, so that trans and non-binary individuals can finally enjoy the same rights and protections as all other Canadians. It is the very least we can do.

I am sure all New Democrats are delighted, because this bill is basically a carbon copy of bills we have been introducing for quite some time. We have been working on this file for quite a while now, and we really hope that it goes through, because it is so crucial.

Of course this is an important step, but it does not mean that the entire issue is resolved. LGBTQ communities still face problems and challenges.

I do not like putting the cart before the horse, but I want to ask my colleague what he sees as the next challenges and concerns to overcome.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her work in her riding on behalf of the LGBTQ community, and also here in the House for her constant support.

Many of the social problems of discrimination in housing and employment fall under provincial jurisdiction, but there are some very fundamental things that are in the hands of the federal government.

One of those is access to passports and identity documents that will help transgender people travel, be employed, and help them in all facets of their daily life.

A second one is a particular concern of mine that I raised in the House in 2012 and unfortunately in committee where we were laughed at for raising this concern. That is the concern of the emphasis on gender in airport screening, which has nothing to do with security but often causes humiliation and embarrassment to transgender people who are not currently in possession of documents that match their gender identity.

A third, which is very important and I have also worked on for a long time, is federal corrections and making sure that inmates are assigned to the proper correctional facility, because if they are not assigned to the proper correctional facility they face great danger of violence. This also applies to those under immigration detention who are quite often not in federal facilities but face the same kinds of problems if they are placed in the wrong institution.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak on an issue that is close to my heart. It is an issue that my colleague, the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, has fiercely dedicated himself to over the years. We just heard about the long struggle and fight he had. I am humbled to share my time with him today, and I want to formally thank him for fighting to include explicit protection for gender identity and gender expression in the Canada Human Rights Act.

I also want to add my tributes to the the groundbreaking work of former parliamentarians, Svend Robinson, Bill Siksay, and Craig Scott, all of whom were instrumental in bringing us closer to the inclusive society we want to create.

As the deputy critic for LGBTQ issues, I want to acknowledge the work that the government has done to bring this file forward. I applaud it for bringing this first critical step forward, with the introduction of Bill C-16.

Let me begin by reminding the House, as my colleague has, that this legislation should come as no surprise. Identical legislation has been presented numerous times to the House over the last five years, most recently in 2015, when the bill was left to die on the Senate's Order Paper at the time that the election was called.

This bill has been studied, reviewed, and, most importantly, it has been accepted by elected members of the last Parliament. Now Bill C-16 presents an opportunity for this government and this Parliament to show leadership at a time when our country and our global community needs it the most. We know that existing provincial patchwork legislation is not sufficient. We know that only seven of the 13 provinces and territories currently protect against discrimination based on gender expression and identity in their human rights codes. Canadians deserve swift federal action to provide leadership and to ensure protection in federal law against discrimination.

Earlier this year, people around the world witnessed the heartbreaking and gruesome events in Orlando. Words cannot convey how needless this tragedy was. The recent election in the United States, sadly, has given all of us even more reason to fear for our safety and our rights. May it serve as a heavy reminder that our global community remains unsafe for people who identify as LGBT or Q, and may we redouble our efforts to end bigotry and hatred.

Canada has an opportunity to show leadership within the international community. I suggest that we remember our responsibility as a signatory state to the UN declaration on sexual orientation and gender identity. Let us affirm our commitment to these obligations and secure equal rights for trans and gender variant Canadians by adding gender identity and expression as prohibited grounds for discrimination under the Canada Human Rights Act.

As our country strives to be more inclusive, I will reflect upon the past, which unfortunately is riddled with instances of discrimination and violence toward the LGBTQ community. Thankfully, it is also full of tales of hope and resistance.

Not so long ago, on February 5, 1981, more than 250 gay men were arrested in Toronto for visiting bath houses. Many of those arrested in Operation Soap were publicly humiliated and faced lifelong repercussions as a result of this assault. I urge that we do not forget these dark moments in our history, as we forge our way forward to a future that is more fair and just for all Canadians.

In my riding and the surrounding area, we have a strong record of organization and activism around LGBTQ issues, from the Saskatoon gay liberation, led by Gens Hellquist in the 1970s; to Gay and Lesbian Health Services of Saskatoon, started in 1991, which continues its important work today as OUTSaskatoon; to the annual Breaking the Silence Conference, now in its 20th year, organized by education professor Don Cochrane at the University of Saskatchewan.

In 1999, Mount Royal Collegiate, a high school in my riding, was the first high school in the province to have a gay-straight alliance for students, spearheaded by teacher Patti Rowley. In June of this year, Beardy's & Okemasis First Nation held the first-ever Two-Spirit Pride Festival and parade on a first nation in Saskatchewan. We are lucky to have a robust history of community activism and work.

This activism has pushed governments to recognize the rights of the LGBTQ community, and has in many cases provided essential services to those who need them most. However, organizations and community activists alone cannot ensure that the rights of the LGBTQ community are respected. We need federal protections that explicitly prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender expression and identity. We need Bill C-16.

When the Minister of Justice introduced the bill, she noted that all Canadians should be safe to be themselves. I do not believe any one of us would disagree with that.

However, the hard truth of the matter is that not all people in Canada are safe to be themselves. Systemic discrimination toward the LGBTQ community persists across Canada, and perhaps most notably in our schools. LGBTQ students are three times more likely than heterosexual students to be bullied. Roughly 74% of trans students report having been verbally harassed about their perceived gender identity or sexual orientation, and nearly 40% of trans students report having been physically assaulted.

The bravery displayed by our young people who report physical and verbal assault after it happens is truly remarkable, but I am heartbroken, as many are, and utterly dismayed by the fact that seven out of 10 trans students are being harassed because of who they are.

It is not just young trans Canadians who desperately need a more compassionate Canadian society. Trans and gender variant Canadians of all ages face unique barriers.

Many Canadians are unable to secure identification that correctly reflects their gender identity, which in turn imposes severe restrictions on their mobility and limits access to essential services. Those who identify as trans or gender variant face a real struggle to earn a decent standard of living. They are discriminated against in the workplace and are often unemployed or underemployed.

We cannot stand idly by while such discrimination takes place in the workplace. In 2016, we need safe gender neutral spaces, including public washrooms. For Canadians who identify as trans or gender variant, this challenge can be at best a nightmare, or at worst, life threatening. It is unacceptable that so many Canadians face these challenges each and every day.

We must do better, and we can start by extending trans and gender variant Canadians the same rights and protections that all Canadians enjoy under the Canada Human Rights Act.

We have so much work to do in order to achieve the inclusive Canada we all envision. However, we have an exciting opportunity before us to make the lives of trans and gender variant Canadians better, by supporting Bill C-16. The bill is an important and critical step forward on a long, slow, but steady march forward in the struggle to enshrine in law equality for all.

Next week, on Sunday, communities all over Canada and around the world will pause on November 20 to observe the Transgender Day of Remembrance. On that day, we will remember and honour those who have died due to transphobia.

Let us not just remember, let us not just honour, but let us act. I urge the government to act, to pass this long overdue legislation without delay. I urge all members of this house to support Bill C-16 to ensure the protection of human rights for all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saskatoon West for the work she has done in this House on LGBTQ issues and for her support today for Bill C-16.

Earlier in one of the questions on the bill, the member for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski raised the question of two-spirited Canadians. I want to mention the conference taking place in my riding on the 25th and 26th, at the Victoria Native Friendship Centre, called 2 Spirits, One Heart, One Mind, One Nation. It is a B.C. aboriginal youth conference.

What I have heard many times, and I am asking the member if she has heard the same thing, is that some of the most discriminated against people are in fact transgendered aboriginal Canadians. Quite often they have the worst employment situation, the worst housing situation, and the worst alternatives facing them.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for giving me the opportunity to speak momentarily on the issue of racism, sexism, and transphobia, and how those barriers and those issues in the community intersect. We do find, particularly in my community and in Saskatchewan, where young people are not only faced with the racism of being first nations, but are also dealing with many barriers. They are dealing with significant violence and discrimination because they are young aboriginal people and are transgendered.

I was very proud of the Beardy's & Okemasis first nation standing up for two-spirited people in Saskatchewan and across Canada, having a pride parade, raising the flag, having a celebration, and telling all people that they are welcome on that first nation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I noted in my colleague's excellent speech the discussion of some of the discrimination that is facing transgender people. I had the privilege of being with the member on the pay equity committee, but we focused mainly on the wage gap between women and men and not necessarily transgendered people, who are suffering from precarious work and discrimination against them in the workplace. I wonder if there is anything that the member would suggest to the government that could be done on that same pay equity path.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague in the House and on the pay equity committee for reminding me of some of the broader issues that we talked about at the committee. However, the scope was very focused. Our ability to start looking at the intersection of sexism, and, in this case, transphobia, in a wage gap between trangendered people and non-transgendered people, I think most of the committee members agree is the next step. As we look at pay equity for women, we will start to open up to look at the broader issues of when sexism, racism, homophobia, and transphobia intersect, and the real way that it impacts people's lives, including their ability to make a good quality of life and have a good standard of living.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

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

I was in the House during the last Parliament when my colleague, the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca at the time, managed to get a similar bill passed, but we know that it did not pass in the Senate. In fact, it was not even debated in the Senate.

Is my colleague at all concerned about what might happen in the Senate should this bill pass here? Does she take any comfort in what she has heard so far from the government?

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, given the track record of the bill, one has to not take anything for granted. I think most of us are empowered to feel that in this day and age, surely the Senate will move forward, that it will not look back at the House and not follow through on what I hope is the passing, finally, of Bill C-16. One does wonder, when a bill like this has gone through the House so many times and has not been passed by the Senate. My hope would be that finally the day will come and we will see equal human rights for all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour today to speak in support of Bill C-16, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code, particularly because today we are on the eve of the Transgender Day of Remembrance, which is Sunday, November 20.

It is a day that gives us a chance to remember and reflect upon the discrimination that has been suffered and continues to be suffered in our country by the transgender community but also to give strength and think about how we go forward.

Today my heart has been warmed to hear the debate and the very non-partisan nature in which we have exchanged ideas. That helps to pave the way forward as we look at a bill such as Bill C-16.

Since I have taken my seat in this place, I have taken a lot of time to think about what it is I treasure about our country and about Canadian values. To me, it is being a safe and welcoming place and celebrating our diversity. The two are interconnected, because we cannot celebrate our diversity if we are not a safe and welcoming place. This bill helps us to become a more safe and welcoming place.

I grew up in the 1970s. There was a record that was very popular at the time called Free To Be You And Me. It said:

Don't dress your cat in an apron
Just 'cause he's learning to bake.

There were all sorts of other songs and poems, but the theme, the lesson for all of us, was that we all had the opportunity to grow up being true to ourselves and who we were and that no one should be defining us.

That is something that, as a parent today, I take very seriously. I want my children, all of our children, people growing up in this country, to know that they have that freedom. They should be comfortable and safe being true to who they are.

It goes to principles. An organization called Gender Spectrum states that a person's gender identity is “[o]ne’s innermost concept of self as male or female or both or neither—how individuals perceive themselves and what they call themselves”.

That is what we are talking about today. Bill C-16 creates a protection for gender identity and gender expression that helps pave the way. It states:

This enactment amends the Canadian Human Rights Act to add gender identity and gender expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination.

We have had some discussion about that today, and it has already been pointed out that this is not the first time this type of protection is being added to human rights codes. In fact, across our country, most of our provinces and territories have already adopted such protections. We are catching up federally. It is an important step we must take. Discrimination is still an issue, and it is something this legislation needs to address.

Trans Equality Canada has provided some statistics. The unemployment rate in Ontario for transgender people is three times the national average. Nationwide, from a survey of transgender youth, three-quarters of transgender youth have faced verbal harassment in school, and 37% have faced physical violence.

If we want to be that safe and welcoming place that I believe our country is and should be, then we need to step up and provide these protections.

The bill also makes amendments to the Criminal Code. It expands the Criminal Code prohibition against hate propaganda to include protections for gender identity and gender expression. It also requires sentencing judges to consider whether an offence was motivated by bias, prejudice, or hate based on gender identity or gender expression.

These amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code are particularly important, as I have said, as we lead into the Transgender Day of Remembrance and we take stock and reaffirm our commitment to ensuring that this does not continue to happen.

Transgender Europe is a European advocacy group. They monitor violence against transgender communities and gender-diverse communities worldwide. From October 1, 2015 to September 30, 2016, they recorded 295 murders. That is a tremendous number, and that is only what was reported and recorded. These are individuals who deserve our protection.

Bill C-16 is a first step in that direction. It is a first step for us federally to provide further protection.

I want to take a step back and acknowledge that it is not just legislation that is going to get us there. That has been mentioned in this place before. We are going to have to look at how we can be a safe and welcoming society. It is not just a matter of legislation, but it is a first step.

I want to acknowledge the work that is being done on the ground by so many people. I would like to begin by acknowledging the work that has been done by the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke on this issue. He has been working on it for a long time. It is important to have advocates who make sure that we keep working on issues.

My own community has the Triangle Program, which is Canada's only LGBTQ high school. It celebrated its 20th anniversary this year, which is really quite amazing. A member of my community, John Campey, helped to create that high school, and it is a safe and welcoming place.

Other individuals in my community work very hard. One is Susan Gapka. I am sure that Susan Gapka is watching closely as we continue this debate today. Another individual is Rachel Lauren Clark. These are two individuals who work fiercely to advance these issues.

We also have MCC Toronto, the Metropolitan Community Church. It works hard to build a safe place within a faith community.

There is a trans-resource education and advocacy team. I love that the acronym is TREAT. It creates an education network and an advocacy network for gender-diverse people and allies.

On Canada Day this year, I had the opportunity to go to the trans fair and see so many people taking on these roles. I have named some here today but there are many people who are working hard in our communities. They need to be honoured, because that is how we are going to make progress beyond having a bill, which as I said, is a first step.

Parliament has a poet laureate, George Elliott Clarke. I asked if he could write a poem to do with Bill C-16 and transgender and gender-diverse communities. He wrote quite a beautiful poem that really captures a lot of what we are talking about today.

I should mention that an excellent translation of the poem was done by Robert Paquin.

Today I will read the English version of the poem only.

Now, you and me and he and she and they
Are pronouns defining Humanity,
But they're not—really not—definitive:
For how we lean determines how we live.
Note that he is within she or that she
Includes he: fluid is identity;
Male is partly female, because female
Carries male. To whit, Gender's not a jail.
So, to be transgender is to be free
To be one's entire personality,
A chosen body, unfrozen from Fear,
Liberated from Custom, free to dare,
To wear what fits, not what suits restrictions,
And to be facts, not plausible fictions.
Transgender's transgressive because it frees
Masculine and feminine, as they please.

I would like to thank our poet laureate for that lovely poem that really summarizes a sentiment that I believe underscores Bill C-16 and why we need to move forward with this legislation.

It has been an honour to speak today in support of this legislation. I am hoping that we can stand up as a House and support this important step.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for sharing wise words and support for a very important bill, which would grant human rights to all Canadians. Today we are talking about making sure that transgender and gender-variant Canadians receive the same protection as other Canadians.

I am wondering if my colleague might comment on the long road it has taken to get Bill C-16 here and why it is important at this time that the federal government take leadership. Perhaps she could share with us how speedily we can see this come forward and make a difference in people's lives.

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

Our government made the tabling of this bill a priority very early on in our first session in Parliament.

My colleague is correct. It has taken a very long time to get to where we are now. However, we are here. Our government has tabled this bill. I have heard very hopeful comments across the way. In the vote at second reading we saw hopeful signs that we can push this forward. I will advocate for it, and I am hoping that I can depend on my colleague to do the same.

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that there is a special adviser who has been appointed. I am wondering if the member can lay out some of the initiatives that will be undertaken with the work of the special advisor.

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

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague has mentioned, the parliamentary secretary for Canadian heritage is now the special adviser on LGBTQ2 issues. Having someone who will be an outreach and point person is an important signal and an opportunity to help this government make sure we do what we have promised to do, which is create a safe and welcoming country where we take into account diverse perspectives.

I am a strong advocate of gender-based analysis. That is something I like to see applied in everything I do in this place so that we bring in different perspectives. I hope our special adviser is someone who can make sure that this voice is not lost as we continue our debate.

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

Mr. Speaker, now that the legislation will pass, I know that with the number of cases of discrimination and hate crimes that exist, we are likely to see more activity there. I wonder if the member could comment on what additional resources or actions we need to take to make sure we can handle that caseload.

[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, that 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 facie any kinds 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.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

(Amendment negatived)

The question is now on the main motion.

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure if you were to canvass the House, you would find the will to see the clock at 1:30 p.m. at this time so we can begin private members' business.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Is it the will of the House to see the clock at 1:30 p.m.?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.