Fantastic.
You indicated, I think in your opening statement, that if this bill becomes law, it is going to have more than a moral consequence for the community. I want to challenge that notion. You made some references about disproportionate numbers of members of the trans community being subject to assault and you made reference to law enforcement. I think it was Mr. Russell who talked about a flu shot.
I'm curious...and I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the Canada human rights code is very specific in its application. It deals with institutions that are subject to federal regulation, subject to the laws of the Parliament of Canada. That excludes the school system. It excludes most aspects of the health care system. It excludes most aspects of law enforcement, certainly municipal law enforcement.
So I challenge your notion that this bill will provide anything more than moral statements with respect to those situations that you described or those venues you described. It would, admittedly, be a remedy if somebody were discriminated against in the banking system or in the transportation system or in the federal civil service.
I'm curious as to whether you understand the narrow scope of the actual wording of this bill as opposed to what I think is really what's happening here, and that's a grand moral statement—not that there's anything necessarily wrong with a grand moral statement, but that's what I'm suggesting is what we're talking about here.
Mr. Dyck, if you have.... I have 30 seconds left.