House of Commons Passes Bill C-389, One Step Closer to Trans* Equality

Who wants to learn about Canadian politics? Great, take a seat, because today we’re going to be talking about something special.

Last night the House of Commons voted 143 to 135 to pass Bill C-389.

What is Bill C-389, you ask? Well, I’ll tell you. Bill C-389 is an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code to include gender identity and gender expression. Yeah, that’s right: if passed through the Senate, trans and genderqueer people would be able to see themselves in the law as equal to every other Canadian citizen, and crimes motivated by transphobia would be potential hate crimes .

Wait, what about the Senate? Alright, let’s back up a bit. First, how does Parliament work? (I tell you this because I didn’t know, and I’ve been Canadian my whole life.)

From the Parliament of Canada’s website (and I know you’re going to be tempted to skip the italics, but I’m telling you right now that you shouldn’t):

All bills normally go through a similar series of steps in both the Senate and the Commons.

Introduction: The process begins when a bill is introduced.
First Reading: The bill is “read” for the first time, without debate, and printed.
Second Reading: The principle of the bill is debated. It is then voted on and the bill is sent to a parliamentary committee.
Committee Stage: A committee hears witnesses, examines the bill clause by clause and submits a report recommending the bill be accepted as is or with amendments, or that it not proceed any further.
Report Stage: Additional amendments to the bill may be moved, debated and voted on.
Third Reading: The bill is debated a final time and voted on.
Message: Once passed, the bill is sent to the other House, where the process starts again from first reading.
Royal Assent: The Governor General or a deputy gives the bill Royal Assent.

So where is C-389 at? It was introduced as a private member’s bill by NDP MP Bill Siksay (that’s the New Democratic Party for you foreigners) in March 2010. It went through two readings and the committee and report stages. On Monday the bill was debated for a third time, last night it was voted on, and now here we are. There are only two more stages for this bill to get through, and by two I really mean one because the Governor General is a rubber stamp. We are this close to the bill being passed.

The thing is, because it’s a private member’s bill, it requires sponsorship by a sitting Senator to move forward. So far it has not been picked up by a Senator. Canada, it turns out, is also very close to an election being called. If sponsoring this bill is perceived as threatening anyone’s election chances, it makes it less likely. This could put the bill on the backburner while other things that I don’t understand happen, so here’s hoping that the Senate moves quickly to get this passed.

There were a few issues raised in the debate on Monday. Firstly, that “gender identity” and “gender expression” are not defined within the language of the bill and will therefore cause problems for those interpreting or enforcing it. Secondly, that transgendered people are already protected from discrimination under the category of “sex”, and therefore the bill is unnecessary. Of course, in the few media articles that have been produced by the Other Side (strangely there have been little to no media reports on this), the argument is that this will allow men to go into women’s bathrooms and prey on little girls, hang out in public changing rooms, etc. (You may be aware of the corresponding “Bathroom Bill” controversy in the US.)

I’ll let Siksay, who reminds me of our anti-Prop 8 lawyer friends, respond:

On the matter of the definition, the Canadian Human Rights Act does not define each of the prohibited grounds of discrimination that it contains. This is intentional. It encourages living definitions, grounds that are defined by common usage, experience, jurisprudence, tribunal decisions and science. In keeping with that feature of the act, there is no definition of gender identity and gender expression in this bill. I hasten to point out that gender identity and gender expression are not new terms or new ideas. They have been in use for many years.

Also, while there have been successful human rights complaints launched by transpeople using the current law’s provisions on “sex” and sometimes “disability”, we should never forget the fact that successful challenges to discrimination have been made by transfolks using current law, including an explicit reference to gender identity and gender expression, which is still important. It is important for absolute clarity. Transpeople should not have to think their way into protection using other categories originally intended to cover other groups in our society.

Finally, pedophilia and sexual exploitation is still illegal, and there is no way this bill could possibly change that. It’s outrageously offensive that transgenderism is equated with that. Pointe finale.

If you get the chance, you should read the third debate. It’s not as long as it looks.

This is the third time that Siksay has attempted to bring this bill to the House. The first two times, it didn’t even make it to the debate round and so this was the first time transgender issues were debated in Parliament. Regardless of how C-389 turns out, that is still a huge step forward for the community. However, this not a time to pat ourselves on the back just yet — this is a time for Canada to step forward and seize the opportunity to be a leader and advocate for human rights. Because that’s what we all are, right? Human.

Read the full text of Bill C-389 here.

Before you go! Autostraddle runs on the reader support of our AF+ Members. If this article meant something to you today — if it informed you or made you smile or feel seen, will you consider joining AF and supporting the people who make this queer media site possible?

Join AF+!


Emily Choo started as an intern with Autostraddle when she was 18 years old. She's now 10 years older and lives in Toronto with her partner and cat. The defining moment of her career was when Riese said this about her: " I think Emily Choo is a very bright, 'poetically inclined' girl who pays attention to everything and knows almost everything (the point of stuff, how to read, how beautiful things feel, how scary things feel, etc.) but doesn't believe/accept/realize yet that she knows almost everything." She still doesn't believe she knows anything, so, thank you, Riese, for that.

Emily has written 100 articles for us.


      • If you say so…Although I must admit, most of my knowledge about Canada comes from “Canadian Bacon” and Kate Beaton. So you’re probably right.

  1. Bill Siksay is my MP. I’ve never been more proud of the fact that our political system WORKS, and that this is living proof of it. A fitting way for him to go out of politics.

  2. Canada is always close to an election being called it seems. I really hope someone picks this up anyway.

  3. But the senate is not elected? So it won’t really matter if there is an election because if a senator picks this bill up and Harper wins/loses it won’t specifically effect the senators standing in being appointed again. Unless Harper hates this bill and will remove any senator who approves it. Which I could see him doing regardless of an election.

  4. The case for moving to Canada just keeps getting stronger and stronger. I hear you even have peanut butter and BBQ sauce there.

  5. Best Canadian city to live in? Where is it not terribly cold in the winter and gets a decent amount of sunlight?

  6. Thanks for writing about this, I love seeing Canadian news on Autostraddle! I’ll be so proud of this country if the bill passes.

    • It’s basically an umbrella term to include those who might identify as transsexual, transgender, crossdressers, genderqueer/agender/what have you, in some definitions butches/fems and pretty much anyone else who faces shit because they’re not ‘normal’.

      • I figured as much. Interesting, this is a term a lot of people would apply to me, and I never heard of it.

  7. I needed this. After all the “that’s gay”s and “you’re a fag”s I heard today, I was honestly this close to increasing the gay suicide rate.

  8. @Triple D: the response to “that’s gay” is: “yeah? Great!” with a smile on your face. Then, enjoy the perplexed look you get in return :)

  9. Yay! This is so exciting.

    I read that Olivia Chow, an NDP MP, switched debating spots with Siksay so the bill’s third reading could happen sooner than it was originally going to.
    I think that’s pretty darn cool.

  10. Pingback: Canada’s Bill C-389 (To Include Transgender In Human Rights Act) Likely To Die In Senate | Kootenay Transgender

Comments are closed.