House of Commons Hansard #92 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was trans.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota
Before resuming debate, I want to remind hon. members that they are speaking through the Speaker and not directly to each other. It makes it a lot more respectable in the House and easier to manage.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Mr. Speaker, I will try to keep your last point in mind as I address my comments through you to the House.
I am also rising to speak to Bill C-16, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code. It is a bit of an innocuous title to a bill that requires parliamentarians to reflect on some personal and fundamental values. It is also important to note that the bill will likely receive majority support, while we must acknowledge that some of my colleagues and many Canadians do have concerns about what the bill actually means.
I will be supporting the bill at second reading, and I hope my remarks will help shape a thoughtful dialogue, especially for those who are less comfortable, and also will address some of the specific concerns I have heard during the debate in the House today.
First, it is important to talk about the technical aspects of the bill. Bill C-16 would make three changes to the law. It would amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination on the grounds of gender identity and gender expression. This amendment would provide explicit protection to gender, transgender, and gender diverse persons. That is from discrimination in areas such as employment opportunities and access to goods and services.
The bill would also amend the Criminal Code in two ways. It would prohibit hate propaganda against groups that are identifiable based on gender identity or gender expression, and certainly an example is extremist literature that is especially targeting them.
Finally, it would amend the Criminal Code to clarify that sentencing for a criminal offence may be greater if the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice, or hate.
As stated by the minister, the objectives of the bill are to recognize and reduce vulnerability of trans and other gender diverse persons to the discrimination, hate propaganda, and hate crimes and to affirm their equal status as Canadians.
I think the statistics are irrefutable that transgender people face high levels of discrimination and also a high risk of violent crime. Recent research by Egale Canada said 95% of transgendered students feel unsafe at school and nine out of 10 have been verbally harassed due to their gender expression.
I did some research as I was looking at my comments today, and I went to a document that the World Health Organization has put out. It is very interesting. It talks about gender identity versus sex, and it says we often tend to confuse and mix the two together. As a quick look at what it calls sex, typically females are XX and there are males who are XY, but babies are born with chromosome abnormalities—Turner syndrome, XXX females, hermaphroditism, and a whole host of issues—but clearly it says that is sex and it is determined by a range of chromosome complements, hormone balance, and phenotypic variants, which determine sex.
It puts out gender as being more of a social construct, and in western countries it has tended to be very binary in nature, whereas in other cultures it has been much more fluid. Certainly we look at sex and we predominantly have males and females, XX and XY, but we do look at there being a whole variant within sex. Having not a binary philosophy around how we look at gender, as many other cultures do, is something we should be looking at.
This is not an abstract discussion. I think everyone here knew people in high school who were much more comfortable with their circle of friends; and we just heard one of my colleagues talk about Terry, who had to run home from school to escape bullying and abuse. I think many of us had friends in high school whom we were aware of. Also, perhaps it was our mother's aunt, whom we loved as a child but perhaps wondered what made her seem a little different, and we could not quite put our finger on it.
We have talked a bit here about what the bill is. We have talked a bit about the WHO definition. I am going to focus some comments also on some arguments that have been put forward today against supporting the bill.
The first one is that transgendered people are already protected under the human rights code. The debate has been fairly comprehensive in that area and I have been convinced that there is not full protection. There are some loopholes in terms of our human rights code, and sex and sexual orientation do not completely cover off the protection that is necessary. It was certainly a valid argument. I have listened to both sides and I believe there are some gaps in terms of protection.
The other point is that this is a bit of a symbolic affirmation as well. Not only would it close a loophole, but it is important and symbolic. Here I would like to share a local example.
We had an editorial on our local radio that talked about whether we even needed pride parades anymore, that it is sort of over and done with, “Let's get on, everyone is accepted”. It was responded to by another local journalist who quite clearly articulated that if people thought homophobia and transphobia were over in Canada it was perhaps because they had never been queer. She then went on to talk about what it was like for her personally to move to a new community, to wonder if she was going to be accepted, and the challenges that she had in her everyday life.
The other thing we are hearing about is that perhaps there would be heterosexual predators who would take advantage of the bill and use it in terms of going after our young daughters and sons. I have been looking at recent examples of horrific crimes. Today we hear about someone in Nova Scotia, Klutzy the Clown. Last week, we heard about a teacher, a sports coach. We have heterosexual predators out there and our children must be protected from them, but I do not think that a trans person would use a single-occupancy restroom in order to perpetrate these crimes.
It is kind of interesting. I have thought about this at great length because I think that the people who have this concern are very concerned. We have a single washroom that we created in the park, and it was created for people with disabilities, for trans folks, and for others to access. It is a single washroom. The reaction that we got back because we had created a gender-neutral washroom was very stunning. On airplanes, there are gender-neutral washrooms.
This was a very interesting experience. My daughter went to university and she was staying in residence. I thought it was very strange that it was not only a co-ed floor but there were co-ed washrooms and showers at the university. I thought that was very strange and wondered how it was all going to work out. I asked her about it and she said that it was sort of strange at first but after the first week it was just normal in terms of that particular co-ed set-up. We perhaps worry about the bathroom issue in a way that we should not.
In conclusion, again I certainly know that we will be hearing more about this particular debate in committee and when we bring it back to the House. By supporting the bill in Parliament, we would send a collective, strong message and comfort to the many trans and gender diverse Canadians who have had a very difficult path in life. Again, I look forward to the continued debate.
Canadian Human Rights ActGovernment Orders
October 18th, 2016 / 1:20 p.m.
Winnipeg North Manitoba
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to listen to a number of individuals speak to the very important bill that we have before us and I genuinely appreciate the member's contribution.
The question that I have for the member is in regard to the issue of percentages. We have seen a substantial increase in the percentage of the amount of violence and abuse taken against those we are addressing today. There seems to be a much higher percentage. I am going to go into that in my comments.
Could the member pick up on the point in terms of the current abuse that is there, given Canadians' tolerance and Canadians' wanting to see government do more to end discrimination and the whole idea of violence?
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Mr. Speaker, I did reference a little of the research that has been done, and it is certainly very compelling. However, I also understand that there has not been a whole lot of research done in this particular area, or not as much as perhaps should be done.
Again, we can look at the examples, whether it was Terry or someone else. People have challenges in terms of violence, people have challenges in terms of bullying, and they certainly have challenges in terms of opportunities. There are people who know the research perhaps better than I, and there is still more research that needs to be done.
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member would agree with me that there is a kind of misconception that sometimes happens that transgender people are really only downtown urban people.
I have attended the Okanagan Pride every year. Last year I met a transgender man from the member's riding. In my experience, there are transgender people in all communities, all across the country, and it is not just some downtown urban kind of phenomenon.
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am not completely knowledgeable about all the research in this area. I would expect there is trans and gender diverse people across this country. Perhaps many of them are more comfortable and find more support in some of our larger centres, because of course in a small rural community sometimes it is very difficult to have the support one might like.
I will talk to the article that was written by this journalist. She was moving to a smaller community and was really not quite sure what kind of support she was going to get when she actually arrived in a town that was not as large as where she was coming from.
Bradley Trost Conservative Saskatoon—University, SK
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's remarks and her thoughtfulness.
There are some real practical issues. I wonder if the member is familiar with the Vancouver Rape Relief Society v. Nixon, where the rape relief society lost at the human rights commission but later on prevailed in the courts, because they had denied someone who had transitioned from being a man to a woman. They said, “Look, we want to have only people who were born and raised as women as rape counsellors.”
If the member is familiar with that case, does she understand the concerns that organizations like the Vancouver Rape Relief Society and members in the House who are opposing the bill have that legislation like this will actually impinge upon the rights of people across the country who want to do something different and who do not necessarily agree with some of the philosophical constructs that the government is putting forward as it supports the legislation?
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Mr. Speaker, as the bill goes to committee, there is going to be some great opportunity for a more intense look at both the pros and what some of the challenges might be with this particular piece of legislation.
There is no question that those issues will come up in committee as they look at it. Perhaps the committee will have some thoughtful suggestions that come back to the House as a result of the more intense look at all the ramifications.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I stand today to address an important piece of legislation. I applaud in particular the Minister of Justice, who has introduced two substantial pieces of legislation in a relatively short time span. I admire the efforts and the work that she, through her department, has done in order to present Bill C-16 to the House. I understand that the legislation was part of the mandate letter that was provided to her by the Prime Minister. That speaks to the degree of importance that the Prime Minister, cabinet, and the government as a whole, any political party, place on the legislation.
I listened to the many speeches that have taken place today and I have found that all political parties support Bill C-16. We do not often get that sort of support and it is worthy of notice.
I would like to again highlight the effort put into this file by the Minister of Justice and her department. This did not just happen overnight. When legislation is brought forward a significant contribution is made by many different stakeholders from virtually every region of our country. It is important that we acknowledge the efforts of the many individuals who have allowed us to get to this point where we are now debating Bill C-16.
It is important to recognize that Ottawa played an important role, a strong leadership role with respect to the legislation. I will get back to that leadership role, but it is important that we recognize that there are other jurisdictions.
I asked the member for Richmond Hill if I could quote him specifically in his response to a question because it is pertinent to today's debate. He said, “many other provinces and territories across Canada had adopted legislation that sought to protect the rights of trans and gender diverse persons in Canada. Most Canadian provinces and territories now list gender identity, and some have included gender expression, among the prohibited grounds of discrimination under their human rights law.” He also said, “The human rights laws in the Northwest Territories, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan prohibit discrimination based on gender identity, while the human rights laws in Alberta, British Columbia, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, including Newfoundland and Labrador, prohibit discrimination based on both gender identity and gender expression.”
When members think of Bill C-16 and how they might vote, they need to recognize that Ottawa, albeit an important player, has a leadership role to play. It is also important to note that while most provinces have amended their human rights laws to provide explicit protection as noted above, gender identity and/or gender expression had previously been implicitly included in some jurisdictions under other explicitly enumerated grounds, such as sex, as a matter of policy, and/or as a result of court decisions.
It is important to recognize that while New Brunswick, Nunavut, and Yukon have not amended their legislation to explicitly include gender identity or gender expression in their laws, the New Brunswick and Yukon human rights commissions have published guidelines on human rights that indicate that gender identity discrimination is a form of sex discrimination.
It is important to recognize that across Canada we are moving toward a more modern and a more inclusive society. The legislation would align with Canadians' wishes and truly represent them.
As a representative of the great constituency of Winnipeg North, I believe that I represent all the people of Winnipeg North. I want the members of my constituency to feel comfortable knowing that I will represent their interests first and foremost. This is something I do in different ways. For example, in caucus discussions, we know that we can say whatever we want. We know that at times there are some limitations in the chamber regarding what a member might want to say. However, I want my constituents to understand that no matter what their background is, whether based on ethnicity, religion, or belief, when coming to talk to me, I will not discriminate in any way so that I can represent their interests, no matter what percentage of the population they might claim to be part of in my constituency. I say that because this debate should not be about one's faith or religion; it is a fundamental right we are debating.
Back in 1948, the United Nations brought forward a universal declaration about the importance of human rights. Since that day, there has been the intention and goodwill of politicians around the world to honour it by bringing forward ideas, resolutions, and legislation to try to embody what that declaration was proclaiming.
We often hear about the lack of studies and reports. The nice thing about Google is that it does not take much to get a sense of what might be out there. I would like to make reference to a report I was able to identify. I would encourage members who are having a difficult time with this issue to try to get a better understanding of what many individuals in our society are trying to come to grips with. Many are trying to make a difference by, for example, seeing legislation such as Bill C-16 pass.
It is a report by the Trans Pulse project team in Ontario. I would like to provide some selected comments from that report.
I will start on page 1, which highlights how effective this report was, and still is.
It states:
To date, the project has produced 14 academic research articles in peer-reviewed journals, 5 reports created at the request of government or community service agencies, and 8 e-bulletins to provide short summaries of key findings in easily accessible formats.
I would emphasize that this report originated in Canada's largest province, Ontario.
It posed this question: “Who are Trans People in Ontario?” I love the response. I believe it is appropriate for me to read the response to that question.
It states:
Trans people in Ontario report a full range of ages and occupations, and are geographically distributed across the province proportionally to the population.
This is something members have actually raised. This is not just an urban issue. It goes on:
They belong to all ethno-racial groups, and 7% identify as Aboriginal. Of course, trans people also form families: 44% are in a committed relationship and 24% are parents.
While they may not have had language for it at the time, 59% knew that their gender identity did not match their body before the age of 10, and 80% had this knowledge by the age of 14. Gender identity is often clear years before people socially transition to live in their core gender. While approximately 80% of Ontario trans people have socially transitioned to live their day-to-day lives in their core gender, most full-time, only 8% report that they had begun living in their core gender by age 14. It is import[ant] to note that there is a lot of sex and gender diversity within trans communities. About three-quarters of trans people indicate they need to transition medically, which may involve different combinations of hormones and/or surgery for different individuals. Though trans women have received greater media attention, there are about equal numbers of trans people on male-to-female and female-to-male spectrums in Ontario.
This is an important point.
About 1 in 5 trans people do not identify as male or female, or even as primarily masculine or feminine. These more gender-fluid people can identify as both male and female, neither male nor female, or as something else entirely (e.g. as another traditional gender recognized by Aboriginal or other cultural groups).
The report provides some extensive polling, which I thought was quite interesting. The report talks a lot about the discrimination and violence experienced by trans persons.
In everyday life, trans people experience the effects of living in a society in which stigma and discrimination against trans people are common. In addition to instances of discrimination and violence that would constitute human rights violations, trans Ontarians nearly universally report that they have experienced some type of “everyday transphobia”. For example, 96% had heard that trans people were not normal, 73% had been made fun of for being trans, and 78% reported their family had been hurt or embarrassed. These daily indignities can take their toll; 77% worried about growing old as a trans person, and 67% feared they would die young.
There are some interesting numbers the report releases, but let there be no doubt that it is common that there is discrimination, violence, and structural barriers for trans people.
Continuing with the report, on the issue of violence, it states:
Trans people are the targets of specifically directed violence; 20% had been physically or sexually assaulted for being trans, and another 34% had been verbally threatened or harassed but not assaulted. Many did not report these assaults to the police; in fact, 24% reported having been harassed by police. Trans people also face violence in institutional settings such as prisons; 6% of Trans PULSE participants had been in prison or jail, and one-third of them reported experiencing violence due to their gender....
It continues:
The majority (57%) of trans Ontarians had avoided public washrooms due to these safety fears....
Of those who had experienced physical and/or sexual violence due to being trans, 97% report avoiding at least one type of public space....
The impact of discrimination and violence on social participation and health is something that is very prevalent.
Mental health and suicide are very serious issues. A graph of the proportion of trans Ontarians reporting past-year suicidality by past experiences of transphobic assault or harassment has very interesting numbers. It is going up.
We need to look at what Bill C-16 is proposing to do. Canada celebrates diversity and inclusion. All Canadians should feel safe being themselves. As promised, the government has introduced legislation to add gender identity as a prohibited ground for discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act and to list it in the distinguishing characteristics of identifiable groups protected by the hate speech provisions of the Criminal Code.
Our government believes that all people can live according to their gender identity and can be protected from discrimination, hate propaganda, and hate crimes. We are committed to ensuring that trans and gender-diverse Canadians are free from discrimination and are protected from hate propaganda and hate crimes. Bill C-16 would ensure that protection from discrimination based on an individual's gender, identity, or expression is included in the Canadian Human Rights Act.
The Canadian Human Rights Act was proclaimed in Parliament back in 1977. In reading through it, I found something worth repeating, which is the actual purpose of the act. It states:
The purpose of this Act is to extend the laws in Canada to give effect, within the purview of matters coming within the legislative authority of Parliament, to the principle that all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.
I think all Canadians understand the importance of the Canadian Human Rights Act. There are agencies, such as the Canadian Human Rights Commission, that investigate issues and pass them on to the Human Rights Tribunal. There is an apparatus, whether through legislation or our bureaucracy, to ensure that discrimination is marginalized in our country.
Today we have before us legislation that would give more strength to what Canadians have accepted overwhelmingly, the Canadian Human Rights Act. That is what the government is proposing to do, recognizing that transgender people are suffering discrimination far beyond what the average Canadian suffers. Incorporating it into the Canadian Human Rights Act is the right thing to do.
If members listened to the speeches this morning, this has crossed party lines. I appreciate the opinions of all, but I would emphasize that this should not be a debate about faith. It should be a debate about human rights. It should be about discrimination and the role parliamentarians can play in minimizing discrimination.
It goes back to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights back in 1948 and the leadership role Canada can play. We have a Prime Minister who has mandated that the Minister of Justice make this legislation a priority so that it is passed during the first year of this government's mandate.
We recognize how important it is as parliamentarians to say that we will not stand for violence, bullying, and discrimination, When we are provided the opportunity to protect those rights and ensure there is a higher sense of equality, we will step up to the plate and support this legislation.
I appreciate and respect the opinions of all, but I look at this issue as a human rights issue first and foremost. We owe it to all our constituents, no matter where they come from or what their perspective might be, to represent them well. When we have legislation of this nature, which would ensure that sense of equality, we need to stand and be counted in support of the legislation.
I understand there is some reservation from opposition members. Let us attempt to address that by allowing the bill to go to committee and see if those points can be addressed, and then make that final decision on third reading. I encourage members of the House to pass this legislation at second reading, allow it to go to committee, and see what the members of the public and others have to say. How wonderful that would be in recognition of the importance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights signed many decades ago.
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Mr. Speaker, I can assure my colleague that everyone on this side is against all types of hate propaganda, hate speech, violence, and bullying of any kind. That is not a question as we debate the bill. However, there was one comment my colleague made that concerns me. He said that this should not be about faith.
Faith is very important for millions of Canadians. It is important to Canadians who were born here, and important to many of our immigrants who have come to Canada, partly because of the freedom of religion and faith that we have in our country.
What will the impact be on immigrant and cultural groups, and faith groups, the majority of which may not agree with some of the values that we espouse today? Will 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?
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I like to consider myself as someone of fairly strong faith. I am sure the member would know William Wilberforce and the many efforts he put forward in Parliament. Some of the things he did were somewhat revolutionary. This is why I say this debate should not necessarily be about faith. I can have a very strong faith, but at the end of the day, this is about human rights.
By passing this legislation, we will be saying to the community as a whole that we are moving, and will continue to move, in the right direction. This is not new. I made reference to the United Nations declaration of 1948. I truly believe that set the world on the right path in recognizing that human rights should never take for granted.
How can we not acknowledge that there is an excessive amount of discrimination in a certain aspect of our community? This bill would go a long way in addressing and providing that comfort, and we should be standing up for it. In my mind, it is a human rights issue.
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments by the member for Winnipeg North, but I want to go back to what the member for Kitchener—Conestoga said. In his speech, he claimed that the majority of faith groups did not support the bill. When I asked him about that, he said that was not what he said. However, he just repeated it again and said that the majority of faith groups and immigrant groups did not support the bill.
I have seen no evidence of that. In fact, I have seen evidence to the contrary. Could the member for Winnipeg North comment on that?
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, again, I do not necessarily want to turn this into a faith issue. I want to emphasize the importance of the human rights angle.
When I think of the faith group, what I recognize is a community that does not tolerate bullying, violence or discrimination as a whole.
The bill is more about protecting human rights and, as such, a vast majority of Canadians would see it as that. I want my constituents to know that it does not matter to me what their background is. They need to feel comfortable knowing they can come to me to share their ideas and their thoughts. They need to feel comfortable knowing that I will represent them.
The Liberal Party is the party that brought in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Rights and freedoms are of critical importance to us as is that sense of equality. We will do whatever we can do to minimize discrimination, bullying and things of this nature.
Many would argue that the legislation we are debating today is overdue. It is a step in the right direction. I hope we will see it pass to committee in the not too distant future.
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend for really providing so many thoughtful comments on this issue.
I was looking at a quote from somebody in my community who was quoted in Toronto Life. She writes:
....By the age of about eight, I knew exactly who I was. The words played in my head on a perpetual loop: “You're a girl, you're a girl, you're a girl.” But when I acted like one, I was punished.
That speaks to me. As a parent, I really want to believe that children can be true to themselves and live their lives in a way that is authentic to who they are. This is why it is so important for us to be having this debate today and to be putting forward this bill.
I was happy to hear some comments about faith. In my community, we have the MCC Toronto, the Metropolitan Community Church, which has played such a vital role in being a place of faith that supports people in our community. In fact, as part of MCC Toronto, is T.R.E.A.T., the Trans Resource, Education, and Advocacy Team, which is a group of trans people and allies. It is a place where people can find a spot within their faith to support equality in our community to ensure everyone feels supported in who they are. That is such an important thing on the eve right now, the Transgender Day of Remembrance which is coming on November 20. That day highlights for us exactly the astounding issues across the country for trans people. The fact that we need to have the Transgender Day of Remembrance is so important and it shows how much more we have to do.
In that background of having, still, the need for a Transgender Day of Remembrance, of knowing that there are people in our community who feel that they are going to be punished for who they are, could he speak to how this bill will help that community and all those people to be true to who they truly are?
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my colleague. She is quite right in her assessment. We need to recognize that the legislation we are debating today sends a very powerful message. It is not just a law that we are changing, which will have a fairly significant impact on the lives of many, but there is a certain amount of symbolism in the legislation. That is not to say that it is just symbolism. This will have a profoundly positive impact for those who genuinely believe in equality and want to fight discrimination.
Going back to the young lady to whom the member made reference, many in our society find it very difficult to understand the discrimination and the issues they have to overcome. That is one of the reasons we see a higher suicide rate, or people at least thinking about committing suicide.
As legislators, we can do things to address the issue. Today we are debating legislation that will have a positive impact in a number of ways, not just the most obvious way of changing the law. Rather, it is about education. It is about tolerance. There will be an ongoing dialogue as a direct result of this.
Ottawa is to demonstrate leadership. Other provinces have already moved, and some provinces need to move a little more. In the past, Canada has played a very strong international role. Passing this legislation and making it a part of our Human Rights Act will give Canada that much more clout when we talk about issues such as this internationally.
It is a win-win in many different ways. We know that discrimination takes place. The real winners will be individuals who are at the receiving end of that discrimination. I believe it will make a difference. I came to Ottawa for that. I know that is why MY colleagues came to Ottawa. We want to contribute to the broader debate.
We are very fortunate that we have a Minister of Justice who has been able to bring forward this legislation, and not only this one. This is her second major piece of legislation. It challenges members to think about what they want to accomplish. It allows us the opportunity to make a difference by voting for this.
Bills of this nature have a profound impact on society as a whole. I sat on opposition benches, primarily, where we saw legislation that would tinker with this or that. Because we have a Prime Minister who is committed to issues such as this, we have witnessed, in a very short time span, substantial legislation that we believe will make a difference in society. We should all be very grateful for this. I believe our constituents are well served when we have debates of this nature.
I would encourage members to look at passing the legislation and allowing it to go to committee.
Bradley Trost Conservative Saskatoon—University, SK
Mr. Speaker, with just two minutes left in the debate, let me put on the record my opposition to Bill C-16 and say very clearly that I am opposed to this legislation because it is impractical, unworkable, and it is legislation that, both as a social Conservative and as a free speech libertarian, I am opposed to.
While I was not all that well prepared for it, I will state those particular views.
I have noted a couple of cases in my questions and comments which have indicated my problems with it, in particular the Vancouver Rape Relief Society that was in opposition, and had some legal issues. It would have more legal difficulties with this going forward.
I would also note that there are some free speech issues. We see them with University of Toronto clinical psychology professor Jordan Peterson who has been discussing this bill.
We need to understand this and we need to talk about it. This legislation would affect all Canadians, not just people who are being specifically noted and brought forward in this bill. I want to make this clear. As Conservatives, me included, we do not support discrimination against anyone in our country, but this legislation has impacts that are not always seen and that will actually promote discrimination against people who want to support more traditional values or who want to engage in free speech.
I see the time is coming up fairly close to the hour, so I will wind up my rather short speaking remarks on this legislation. This is a big government solution to a problem that does not exist. As Conservatives, we should be opposed to big government solutions. The purpose of human rights legislation should be, by and large, to restrain the government, not to actually input new discriminations against other people. I realize that is not the intention or the argument the hon. members are making on the other side, but it is something I firmly believe this legislation would do. I am prepared for questions and comments.
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
Questions and comments.
Seeing none, is the House ready for the question?
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
In my opinion the yeas have it.
And five or more members having risen:
Call in the members.