Among all the silence from Harper in response to the #IdleNoMore campaign, there’s also an important bill that’s been all but ignored in the media, and intentionally forestalled by Tories. Stall tactics work, I guess. Ignore the problem til the fury dies down and get the media to look the other way, and all your political hegemonic dreams will come true, I guess.
Bill C-279’s clock may have run out, and I’m having problems finding any further information about it outside of the last time it made it to the floor to be discussed. Apparently some changes were passed to the bill in committee, but through some procedural hiccup that appears to have been intentional, never made it back to the House.
National Post reports:
Last Thursday, Conservative MPs opposed to the bill brought up several objections and procedural questions that ate up most of the time allotted for clause-by-clause consideration and votes.
One Tory MP who doesn’t normally sit on the committee, David Anderson, attended the meeting and took up large chunks of time raising objections to the definition of gender identity.
“Many of the definitions we hear are being made up by those who lobby on this; they’re not definitions in law and they’re not found in legal documents,” said Anderson.
Garrison said he drew the definition of gender identity from principles laid out in international law.
Ultimately, the committee’s last meeting on the bill ended without MPs being able to conclude their clause-by-clause study.
It will be up to Commons Speaker Andrew Scheer to decide whether he’d allow the same amendments passed at committee — but never reported back — to be raised again and debated in the Commons.
“It’s clear that both sides feel the bill can be improved,” said Liberal MP Sean Casey. “Why we would send it back to the House without having a chance to discuss those amendments is frankly beyond me.”
Beyond me, too. That there’s no serviceable definition on record of trans* identity is a failing that, I’d think, everyone would want to rectify right now, so bills can be put forward with the existing definitions on the books. Using international law as a template is a good option, but I’d also like to see what those definitions are. And never mind how insulting the whole semantics argument is — it’s a problem that’s so easily rectified it’s a blotch on our consciences that we’ve let it slide so long.
I’m slightly more concerned at the moment with the bill getting passed for discussion, then ignored til the next time the House is dissolved, again, just like last time it was read into the record then ignored several years ago. Did Harper’s Conservatives manage to kick the can again? I’ve skimmed the Commons transcripts that reference it but haven’t found any indications as to whether the Tories were successful at running down the clock — or even what the time frame is now. I know the House is out for the holidays and reconvenes January 28th, but don’t know where that leaves this bill.
Do any of you know? I am woefully under-informed on whether or not these blatant stalling tactics are successful, ultimately. This silence is bugging the hell outta me and Google is not helping.