WDI BC Political Candidate Survey Results: Independents
Stance of independent candidates on women’s rights reflect a spectrum of understanding on the issues and a misunderstanding of the impacts of gender identity in the BC Human Rights Code.
This is the second of three installments of results from the survey sent by Women’s Declaration International Canada (BC/Yukon chapter) to BC political candidates for the October 19th election. Survey questions are provided in the first article linked below. The first installment of responses (second link below) summarized those provided by fringe party members.
Due to BC United folding, there are 40 independent candidates and 12 unaffiliated candidates in this election. We encountered some difficulty in locating contact information for all candidates, therefore only 14 were sent the survey. Five candidates responded. None of the candidates who responded were former BC United candidates or Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLA).
The five candidates who answered the survey are:
Martin Kendell: Burnaby North
Martin Kendell has worked for the City of Vancouver for a number of years and has been committed to a campaign called “Clean up Burnaby” since 2021 when he was running for a Council position.
Dan Grice: Chilliwack North
Dan Grice is a lawyer motivated principally by his opposition to the Legal Professions Act enacted by the New Democratic Party (NDP) in spring 2024.
Carlos Suarez Rubio: Langley-Walnut Grove
Carlos Suarez Rubio is a dual Colombian-Canadian citizen and works in the private sector. He is focused on traditional values and also ran in the municipal election in 2022.
Roger Harrington: Penticton Summerland
Roger Harrington worked in the dental industry for many years and is concerned about the impacts of the Bill 36/Health Professions and Occupations Act.
Errol E. Povah: Richmond-Queensborough
Errol E. Povah is a retired BC Ferries second officer and Navy veteran with a stance supportive of law and order, an end to the harm reduction drug strategy, and lack of interest in continuing SOGI 123.
Candidates were asked a total of seven questions which provided some context on the topic, with the objective of understanding their support for women’s rights in BC. The responses to the survey questions have been grouped by theme.
Sex is Binary
The first question asked whether candidates believed sex is binary, the concept which underpins women as adult human females. Respondents provided mostly consistent answers that yes, sex is binary. Povah provided only one response to the survey which suggests that he does see sex as binary while making some allowance for the very rare cases of Differences of Sexual Development (DSD) that may cause male genitalia to appear to be female. Grice states that he believes in “treating everyone with respect regardless of gender or sex”. He states that he did not understand the relevance of the question, which could be interpreted as not having been given sufficient context in the survey. It also may mean that Grice does not see the importance of differentiating between sex and gender or the need to define women as adult females.
Gender Identity as a Protected Characteristic Under the BC Human Rights Code
The BC Human Rights Code (BC HRC) has been the primary instrument used to compromise girls’ and women’s rights in BC, by enshrining gender identity and gender expression. No provisions were given for excluding women’s and girls’ programs, services, or places from discrimination clauses based on sex, and does not differentiate gender identity from sex. Although it is not typically employed to suppress public speech referring to trans-identified individuals as their correct sex, it has been used successfully in at least one BC HRC employment discrimination case by a non-binary employee in Gibsons who asked to be referred to as “they/them”. Not only were the owners fined $30,000 but they were required to include a policy in their training manual stating that employees have the right to be referred to by their preferred pronouns. The BC HRC is effectively being used as a tool to compel speech in certain circumstances, under the threat of hefty fines employers, or for termination of employees if they use wrong-sex pronouns.
Candidates were asked whether gender identity should be included in the code, given that it is essentially a self-image concept and, as acknowledged by the BC Human Rights Tribunal, it can either be fixed or fluid. As an impermanent and very subjective characteristic which is based on a highly contested theoretical framework, WDI would argue that it should not be included in the code.
According to Harrington, gender identity should not be included. His answer suggests that its inclusion in the code obscures the binary of male and female. Suarez Rubio does not believe it should be included if gender identity does not refer specifically to the correct sex of males and females. Kendell approves of its inclusion in the code, while Grice believes gender identity should be included as a way to prevent discrimination for trans-identifies individuals. Whether the code is an appropriate tool to prevent discrimination of people based on their self-concept or expression is an important question. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms clearly states under Equality Rights that:
“Every individual is equal before and under the law… without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.”
According to the Canadian Museum for Human Rights, the Charter has been interpreted by the courts to protect discrimination on the basis sexual orientation. Moreover, Charter has been used to uphold transgender rights in the past. Based on these rights observed by the Charter, the specific inclusion of gender identity provincial code does not appear necessary. Not only is the code unnecessary, but it becomes a tool which can be used against the Charter, by providing opportunities to stifle freedom of belief, conscience, thought, and opinion by forcing speech and punishing wrongthink. To make a complaint through the BC HRC, only a written account of the discrimination is required, and the potentially long and expensive process for the respondent is certain to have a chilling effect on key freedoms enshrined in the Charter.
Single Sex Spaces and Services
The negative impact of the enactment of the BC HRC on girls’ and women’s rights to exclude trans-identifying men from their spaces, services, and activities is profound. It essentially puts the onus on any organization to provide a “bonafide and reasonable justification” for discrimination, which is how the exclusion of men from women’s spaces would be considered. This is despite the inclusion of trans-identified males in the female sex category clearly modifying the meaning of the word woman. Also, having a reasonable justification does not mean that an organization or individual will avoid having a complaint lodged against them. If the complaint is accepted by the BC HRC, the respondent must still go through the process at considerable expense to prove that it was justified discrimination. Most people are aware of the downstream impacts of this. The female sports category now mainly includes males, formerly sex specific private places such as washrooms and changerooms also allow any male who might state that his gender identity is that of a woman. Even spaces such as prisons, where there is an extreme risk of violence towards women, have allowed men to cohabitate with women.
Four questions were asked regarding these impacts of the BC HRC. The first question asked whether, based on the inclusion of gender identity in the code, it was correct that women should not be able to exclude all males from certain spaces and services, such as public restrooms, change rooms at pools, all-female gyms, or lesbian events. The second question related to the fairness of trans-identifying men being able to use funds allotted for women’s services such as detox facilities and shelter beds. The last question asked whether trans-identifying men should be transferred to women’s prisons and whether trans-identifying women should be transferred to men’s institutions.
There was some variety in candidates’ responses. Kendell agreed with having separate spaces for women, along with Suarez Rubio and Harrington. Grice was the only dissenting voice on this issue. He feels that even washrooms do not meet the threshold for having a “bonafide and reasonable justification” to exclude men, and notes that if there is a space that does meet the threshold that “the onus is on the organization to prove that”. I would only hope that Grice has been sheltered from troubling news of assaults by men in women’s restrooms and voyeurism in women’s changerooms. It is not a preference for women and girls to have their own space but a necessity to protect themselves from exhibitionism, voyeurism, and potential assault. How strange that so many people in society, and even institutions such as the BC Human Rights Tribunal, have forgotten why we had sex separated spaces to begin with. Or maybe they have become so lost to the fog of gender ideology that they no longer recognize that trans-identified men are men and pose the exact same risk that any other man would.
In regards to the inclusion of trans males in women’s services, the responses were divided into two camps. Kendell argues for funding which serves everyone regardless of gender identity, while Grice similarly states that funding diversion from women is an argument for establishing particular funding for trans individuals. While I would agree that of course anyone needing health services for example should be able to access them, creating a special funding allotment for trans individuals is just another way of diverting funds. It exalts trans as a unique group of people between or outside of the two sexes when they are really just men and women who may make superficial adaptations to their dress or body. This reinforces gender fictions which is leading to much harm in society. Suarez Rubio and Harrington did not agree with trans-identified males diverting funds for services away from women.
In regards to transferring people based on their trans identity into prisons for the opposite sex, three respondents stated that they did not support this. Grice had a slightly different take. He does state that prisoners should not have a choice of where they are incarcerated, however he would leave these types of decisions to prison officials, and any sexual assault be it in a women’s or men’s prison should be cause for procedural reviews.
Although I believe Grice has a point that every offender and threat level is different, in the case of men being transferred into women’s prison, the main issue is that they are all men. Of course, it would be worse if a man were a convicted pedophile or sex offender, which trans-identified male inmates have a higher chance of being, but all men are capable of sexual assault. The fact is, this should not be a risk that women have to deal with at all in prison. As Heather Mason of Canadian Women’s Sex-Based Rights (caWsbar) has explained, women’s prisons are not designed to accommodate men alongside women, and their inclusion leads to major security concerns. It should not be coming down to fine details of a man’s record to decide whether they should be allowed into a women’s institution. Having a history as a sex offender however does not even seem to be an impediment to placing men in women’s prisons. Adam Labourcan for instance, who raped a 3-month old baby, was transferred within the federal system to a women’s institution. That men are being sent to women’s institutions is mainly down to the confusion between gender and sex in the BC HRC, Although, even before the inclusion of gender identity in the BC HRC the province transferred a trans-identified male to a women’s institution. That trans-identified men see transfer to women’s facilities as a right is down to these updates to the BC HRC.
Parting Comments
We are appreciative of the independent candidates who took the time to answer WDI’s survey. It is helpful to have a glimpse of the perspectives of a range of people on these issues. While some candidates support ensuring protections and services for women, others adhere to concepts stemming from gender ideology. For those that allow for the influence of gender ideology, there continues to be a lack of understanding of the impacts of the inclusion of gender identity in the BC HRC on women’s and girls’ rights in BC.
Thank you for reading. Please share with your network if you are able.