The private member’s bill, sponsored by former Burnaby-Douglas MP Bill Siksay, would have amended federal human rights legislation, adding “gender identity” and “gender expression” as prohibited grounds of discrimination, thereby providing express human rights protection for trans people at work and elsewhere within federal jurisdiction. The bill would also have improved Criminal Code protections for all trans people. (See non-authoritative definitions, below).

Sadly, C-389 died in the Senate as a result of the most recent federal election. Similar bills sponsored by BC MPs Randall Garrison and Hedy Fry have been introduced in the current Parliament, but don’t seem to have gone anywhere.

Provincially, a private member’s bill was introduced by Vancouver-West End MLA Spencer Chandra Herbert in May 2011, but it only made it past first reading. Chandra Herbert’s bill would have amended BC’s Human Rights Code to provide trans people with express protection from discrimination in various settings (e.g. at work) and under various circumstances (e.g. when accessing services customarily available to the public) within provincial jurisdiction.

Where does all this leave us, here in BC and across Canada? Behind where we should be.

Outside of Canada, in places like the United States, Australia and South Africa, laws and regulations expressly prohibiting discrimination against trans people have become increasingly common. Yet here at home, despite a number of past and present private member’s bills in Ottawa, Victoria and elsewhere, the Northwest Territories is currently the only jurisdiction in Canada that expressly protects trans people under human rights legislation. Statutes in other jurisdictions, including BC, remain silent.

Fortunately, courts and tribunals across the country have spoken up, finding that trans people are implicitly protected from discrimination on the basis of gender identity under human rights law.

But implicit protection doesn’t cut it. It has long been recognized that there are good policy reasons for adding gender identity and expression as enumerated grounds of discrimination under human rights legislation. As the Ontario Human Rights Commission noted over a decade ago, “there are, arguably, few groups in our society who are as disadvantaged and disenfranchised” as trans people. Adding gender identity as an enumerated ground would ensure that “there would be no doubt legally or politically that [trans] people have the same protections as everyone else.” Conversely, according to the 2000 Canadian Human Rights Act Review Panel, leaving gender identity out of human rights legislation fails “to acknowledge the situation of [trans] individuals and allows their issues to remain invisible.”

For these reasons and others, BC’s (now disbanded) human rights commission was the first in Canada to propose adding gender identity as an enumerated ground of discrimination. It’s well past time our provincial government and its counterparts across Canada finally do the right thing and adopt this proposal.

* * *

Non-authoritative definitions:

“Gender identity” refers to a person’s basic sense of being male, female, or of indeterminate gender.

“Gender expression” refers to the communication or presentation of a person’s gender through external characteristics and behaviours.

“Transgender” (or “trans”) refers to the broad spectrum of people who identify with a gender category (e.g. male, female) other than the one assigned at or around the time of birth; that is, the term relates to the behaviour, appearance or identity of people who do not conform to culturally defined norms for people of their assigned gender.

Almost everything that is vital to a healthy community, from life expectancy to levels of depression to crime rates, is affected by inequality. This is true in both rich and poor countries.  (The Spirit Level: Why Equality is Better for Everyone, by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett).

Social factors begin to affect us at conception, so that life in the womb and the perinatal period can affect well-being later on.  Even if exposed to stress in the womb, however:

A nurturing environment after birth can provide the child with enormous potential to change their course of development. This is known as “developmental plasticity,” which means that the brain can adapt and change as the child grows with a positive environment.

The important message here is in how we as a community support pregnant women. Stressful lives are most often linked with socioeconomic disadvantage. This research shows we should be targeting these women with support programs to ensure the stress does not negatively affect the unborn child.  (Repeated Stress in Pregnancy Linked to Children’s Behavior)

Poverty can even cause brain damage. Researchers discovered that U.S. children from “low socioeconomic environments” displayed a response in their pre-frontal cortex that was similar “to the response of people who have had a portion of their frontal lobe destroyed by a stroke” (Poor Children’s Brain Activity Resembles That Of Stroke Victims, EEG Shows).

The damage may result from conditions such as poor nutrition, lack of time with over-worked and over-stressed parents, or fewer opportunities for intellectual stimulation – all of which may affect the quality of care that a child receives.  This does NOT mean that all poor children are so afflicted, but the average poor child is more likely to suffer.

Every dollar invested in the young not only saves lives and prevents illness, but it will also save at least $7 dollars in future social costs. For instance, lead poisoning, ADHD, and autism resulting from toxic chemicals and pollution in the United States cost $77 billion annually. Globally, almost 350,000 women die each year in childbirth – most of whom could be saved for the cost of just six fighter jets. Even worse: over 22,000 children under the age of 5 die every day from hunger and preventable diseases – almost 9 million every year. This year’s U.S. military budget is around $800 billion, and the world spends twice that on war. The simplest change would be to redirect wasteful military spending to end the worst elements of global poverty.

In 2009, the combined net worth of the world’s 1,011 billionaires increased to $3.6 trillion, up $1.2 trillion in just one year. This NEW wealth alone could end global poverty.

Perhaps the most important point is that none of these social, economic, and environmental problems are necessary. All scarcities, as Murray Bookchin pointed out over 40 years ago, are artificial. We possess the knowledge and the wealth to eliminate the worst of these afflictions. Why aren’t we doing so?

Dr. Glenn, who is the Dean of the Santa Barbara Graduate Institute, began by saying that, “Economists, writers, and researchers are beginning to discover…what we have known for decades: that the events and environment surrounding pre-conception, pregnancy, birth, and early infancy set the template out of which we live our lives.”

“The time is right,” she added, for a shift in the paradigm.”

Recent coverage such as on prenatal health in “Time” magazine, and epigenetics in “Newsweek”, symbolize this profound change in consciousness.

Some of the specific insights that Dr. Glenn mentioned included:

*  “Early experiences determine brain architecture.”
*  “By the sixth prenatal month, most of the 100 billion neurons found in the adult brain are already there.”

She also highlighted the most important point of all: preventing trauma in the first place.  For instance, she noted that a father’s supportive involvement during pregnancy can reduce infant mortality.

Dr. Glenn also quoted Nobel prize-winning economist James Heckman, who points out that every dollar invested “in the very young” not only saves lives and prevents illness, but it will also save from $4-17 dollars in future social costs.

Heckman has written:

“Recent research demonstrates important differences in the family environments and investments of advantaged and disadvantaged children. Gaps in cognitive stimulation, affection, punishment, and other parental investments for children from families of different socioeconomic status open up early.” (Read the full article here.)

My presentation at the Congress overlapped with Dr. Glenn’s focus, beginning with the current state of Dr. Arthur Janov’s Primal Therapy, and how the emerging consensus supports his long-held contention about just how fragile we are while in the womb.

I pointed out how Janov believes that too many children have been emotionally damaged from an early age, and that one element of healing is to re-connect with the buried memories.

The second part of my talk discussed how to PREVENT hurting children in the first place.  In short, research has shown that providing optimal conditions for pregnant women, such as low stress, adequate nutrition, and quality pre-natal care could prevent children from suffering from a host of intellectual, emotional, and physical illnesses.

In addition, around 500,000 women die each year in childbirth.  Adam Jones (UBC Okanagan) has pointed out that most of those mothers could be saved for the cost of – six fighter jets.

Canada, for instance, could set an example for the world by forgoing the unnecessary purchase of the F-35 fighter jets, save the lives of countless women, and still have money left over for vital domestic needs.

Providing optimal conditions for mothers and their children would cost only a tiny fraction of what the world spends on advertising, or the Olympics, or the military.

This Paradigm Shift can’t happen too soon.

Nine different speakers and two intelligent moderators focused the audience on the democratic and economic challenges we face as a Canadians and some solutions we need to think about.  It was a refreshing change from the tendency to only discuss politics in terms of sports metaphors.

Every one of the presentations would have been fodder for half a dozen different blogs but I will only mention one here.  If you are interested and have the time the CCPA has posted the speeches on their website here.  Rabble also streamed the event here.

The first speaker in the morning was Alex Neve, the Director of Amnesty International Canada.  Neve provided a history of the federal Conservative government’s ruthless efforts to silence voices that are critical of their policies.  Organizations have been defunded, particularly women’s organizations.  Critical voices in the public service have been choked off through firings, lack of reappointment and through new rules preventing even scientists from speaking. 

Neve highlighted Bill C49, the government’s legislation to change immigration rules which he argued was riddled with human rights breaches.  However, many immigrant serving organizations are afraid to speak out.  Immigrant organizations that exist on paper only are publicly supporting the government in hopes of getting future funding.

Not all organizations are seeing cuts in federal funding.  The right wing Conference Board, CD Howe Institute and the Canada West Foundation have all seen big increases.

Nearly 200 organizations and 4000 people have signed a declaration opposing the government’s undermining democratic debate.  The declaration begins this way:

Since 2006 the Government of Canada has systematically undermined democratic institutions and practices, and has eroded the protection of free speech, and other fundamental human rights.  It has deliberately set out to silence the voices of organizations or individuals who raise concerns about government policies or disagree with government positions. It has weakened Canada’s international standing as a leader in human rights.  The impact and consequences for the health of democracy, freedom of expression, and the state of human rights protection in Canada are unparalleled.

People and organizations that want to sign on to the statement can find it here.

You need to register with Bid BC to see the actual documents but you can see a summary of the project in the Journal of Commerce. 

In the 2009 provincial election the pretrial centre was a contentious issue.  The province wanted to impose it in Burnaby against the wishes of local citizens.  It was one of the issues that cost Liberal MLA John Nuraney his job.  The project was subsequently moved to Surrey.

 The RFQ document shows this will be one of Partnerships BC’s Design/Build/Finance/Operate P3s.  The RFQ says:

It is anticipated that the Authority will make progress/milestone payments during construction (the amount, timing and terms and conditions of which will be set out in the RFP, but which are anticipated to be in the range of 40-50 per cent of Project capital costs). Project Co will be required to provide all other required funding for design, construction, finance costs and maintenance, by way of equity and/or debt financing.

The pretrial P3 doesn’t actually plan to put guns in the hands of the private prison operator.  Aside from helping to finance the jail the private operator will provide the following services:

i. General Management Services;

ii. Plant Services;

iii. Environmental Services;

iv. Grounds Maintenance and Landscaping Services;

v. Help Desk Services;

vi. Utility Management Services;

vii. Waste Management and Recycling Services; and

viii. Pest Control Services

BC is not the first jurisdiction in Canada to look at private prisons.  The Canadian and Ontario governments have looked at private facilities.  New Brunswick experimented with a privately operated prison before returning it to public management.  The United States has turned to private prisons to house their skyrocketing number of inmates.

There are many studies in the US looking at issues with private prisons.  Some of the issues involve low paid workers,  understaffing, staff turnover and mistreatment of prisoners.  Despite this, there is little evidence of savings. 

There is an increasing volume of evidence here in BC and in other provinces that P3s cost more than public delivery – see here, here, here and here.   But giving corporations powers over prisoners is a different matter, I would argue, much like giving churches power over residential schools.  Accountability is a serious issue with P3s and accountability is critical when we as a society take complete control of someone’s life.

When a private company finances a prison this gives them a say in its operation, even if their employees are limited to the gardeners and pest control staff.  And it opens the door to the American style of complete private management of prisons.