It may seem funny at this stage, but when I was a young boy it did not seem funny, running from high school every day.
I do understand that yours is a bit more severe, but I can't change the colour of my hair very easily either.
I am interested in a couple of things. The first is your position relating to not being protected. Reading, for instance, section 15 of the Constitution, it states particular things that are protected. As Mr. Rathgeber says, and I want to reiterate, the case law, especially regarding Ontario and B.C. and the human rights commissions there, identified that in terms of gender identity, transgenderists, intersexed, and cross-dressers all deserve that protection and do receive that protection.
First, how do you convince me that it's not already covered? Because I don't, quite frankly, buy your argument now. I think Mr. Rathgeber is right, that it seems to be more of a situation where it's identifying yourself as a group apart from other groups, even though, to my mind, you're already protected.
Like you, Mr. Garrison, I believe the Criminal Code is too long. Many of our acts, including the Income Tax Act, are the same way.
So that's the first question. The second question is the issue of disability. I myself am not transgendered, or of that community, but I don't look at this as a disability issue. I think it's a choice, from my reading and what I've seen. Most people make the choice based upon what they believe their personal position is, and I understand that.
So that would be the second thing. It appears to me that some people want to have it identified as a disability so that they can receive, to my understanding, medical care under certain conditions.
I would like you to address both of those issues, if you could, and why you didn't bring forward a bill to identify it not as a disability, in particular.