Gender identity took precedence over inflation when Parliament returned
While we had predicted a return to Parliament marked by the issue of inflation and the cost of living,
it was finally the question of gender that prevailed.
This is, of course, not unrelated to the fact that Conservative Party of Canada activists passed a proposal last weekend to ban medical or surgical procedures on minors who wish to initiate a gender transition.
Recent events have also forced the Quebec government to step forward, whether it is the teacher from Montérégie who asked to be called Mx Martine or the decision of a school in Rouyn-Noranda to install mixed toilets within its walls.
While gender identity has been at the heart of the political debate for several years in the United States,
it has so far made very few waves in the National Assembly.
In 2016, young people and their parents came to the Parliament Building to demand the right to have their information changed in civil registers. The Liberal government of the day introduced a bill allowing minors, as young as 14, to apply alone for a change of name and to change the sex designation appearing on their birth certificate. This bill was passed unanimously.
Other amendments were made to the Civil Code last year to allow non-binary people to represent themselves as such in official state registries. Parliamentarians were again unanimous on the issue. The government, which initially wanted to make the change in sex designation conditional on genital surgery, finally gave it up.
Such changes would no doubt have caused quite a stir in other jurisdictions, but the debate here has proceeded without much hindrance, and above all, without much talk about it. The same applies to the adoption, in 2021, of the Guide for Schools – For a better consideration of sexual and gender diversity by the Ministry of Education.
In the political arenaThe accumulation of special cases, reported here and there by the media in recent months,
seems to want to tip the debate into the political arena.
This kind of question, toilets, pronouns, new theories of inclusive writing must be debated here at the National Assembly, argued Paul St-Pierre Plamondon earlier this week, saying to see in these debates a lot of ideology from the radical left.
He has since promised to clarify his thinking in writing.
Fearing that a parliamentary commission on these subjects could be used for partisan purposes, Bernard Drainville indicated yesterday that he preferred to rely on a committee of experts.
If the minister's prudence honours him, we should not believe that the establishment of such a committee will smooth out any controversy. Not only is the committee's mandate and membership likely to be criticized, but community representatives are already questioning the appropriateness of such an initiative. Québec solidaire, for its part, insists above all that experts consult with the main stakeholders. In any case, politicians will have the last word, if by chance the experts issue recommendations or recommend the revision of certain guidelines.
Inherent risksThe establishment of a committee or commission is never without risk, but such an exercise can also have benefits, if only to educate the proposed changes to the various policies affected by these new realities.
If elected officials and citizens feel the need to express themselves on these subjects that have so far largely gone under the political radar, at least in Quebec, it may be because they have the impression that we have not yet fully covered the issue. Not giving everyone a chance to express themselves could have perverse effects, as could poorly framed expression of dissonant points of view.
The harsh and highly polarized debates that have taken place, whether in the United States or even elsewhere in Canada, on related subjects, are certainly not reassuring. Beyond the type of forum chosen, however, Quebec parliamentarians have already demonstrated that they are capable, when they take the trouble, of calmly discussing sensitive subjects. One thinks, of course, of the debate on medical assistance in dying. Other examples, however, have been less fortunate, such as the debate on the Charter of Values,
which has given rise to excesses of language of all kinds.
So far, the issue of gender identity has generally been approached with great caution by the parties represented in the National Assembly. Committee or commission, the proposed exercise is not without risk, but the absence of discussion could also leave traces.
it was finally the question of gender that prevailed.
This is, of course, not unrelated to the fact that Conservative Party of Canada activists passed a proposal last weekend to ban medical or surgical procedures on minors who wish to initiate a gender transition.
Recent events have also forced the Quebec government to step forward, whether it is the teacher from Montérégie who asked to be called Mx Martine or the decision of a school in Rouyn-Noranda to install mixed toilets within its walls.
While gender identity has been at the heart of the political debate for several years in the United States,
it has so far made very few waves in the National Assembly.
In 2016, young people and their parents came to the Parliament Building to demand the right to have their information changed in civil registers. The Liberal government of the day introduced a bill allowing minors, as young as 14, to apply alone for a change of name and to change the sex designation appearing on their birth certificate. This bill was passed unanimously.
Other amendments were made to the Civil Code last year to allow non-binary people to represent themselves as such in official state registries. Parliamentarians were again unanimous on the issue. The government, which initially wanted to make the change in sex designation conditional on genital surgery, finally gave it up.
Such changes would no doubt have caused quite a stir in other jurisdictions, but the debate here has proceeded without much hindrance, and above all, without much talk about it. The same applies to the adoption, in 2021, of the Guide for Schools – For a better consideration of sexual and gender diversity by the Ministry of Education.
In the political arenaThe accumulation of special cases, reported here and there by the media in recent months,
seems to want to tip the debate into the political arena.
This kind of question, toilets, pronouns, new theories of inclusive writing must be debated here at the National Assembly, argued Paul St-Pierre Plamondon earlier this week, saying to see in these debates a lot of ideology from the radical left.
He has since promised to clarify his thinking in writing.
Fearing that a parliamentary commission on these subjects could be used for partisan purposes, Bernard Drainville indicated yesterday that he preferred to rely on a committee of experts.
If the minister's prudence honours him, we should not believe that the establishment of such a committee will smooth out any controversy. Not only is the committee's mandate and membership likely to be criticized, but community representatives are already questioning the appropriateness of such an initiative. Québec solidaire, for its part, insists above all that experts consult with the main stakeholders. In any case, politicians will have the last word, if by chance the experts issue recommendations or recommend the revision of certain guidelines.
Inherent risksThe establishment of a committee or commission is never without risk, but such an exercise can also have benefits, if only to educate the proposed changes to the various policies affected by these new realities.
If elected officials and citizens feel the need to express themselves on these subjects that have so far largely gone under the political radar, at least in Quebec, it may be because they have the impression that we have not yet fully covered the issue. Not giving everyone a chance to express themselves could have perverse effects, as could poorly framed expression of dissonant points of view.
The harsh and highly polarized debates that have taken place, whether in the United States or even elsewhere in Canada, on related subjects, are certainly not reassuring. Beyond the type of forum chosen, however, Quebec parliamentarians have already demonstrated that they are capable, when they take the trouble, of calmly discussing sensitive subjects. One thinks, of course, of the debate on medical assistance in dying. Other examples, however, have been less fortunate, such as the debate on the Charter of Values,
which has given rise to excesses of language of all kinds.
So far, the issue of gender identity has generally been approached with great caution by the parties represented in the National Assembly. Committee or commission, the proposed exercise is not without risk, but the absence of discussion could also leave traces.