MLAs add non-binary option to Nunavut birth certificates
MLA Adam Arreak Lightstone makes motion to keep third ‘sex designation’ in Vital Statics Act amendments
Iqaluit Manirajak MLA Adam Arreak Lightstone says the “Government of Nunavut now joins the rest of Canada in recognizing non-binary and transgender individuals.” (Photo by Jeff Pelletier)
Nunavut MLAs had what one called “probably the most significant debate” of their four-year term Wednesday, just days before elected officials head home for the last time and the writ drops for a territorial election.
That’s how MLA Adam Arreak Lightstone described a committee vote on his motion to include “non-binary” as an option for sex designation on Nunavut birth certificates for people who don’t identify as male or female.
“Enabling the Government of Nunavut to recognize non-binary gender is important to protect human rights and prevent discrimination,” said Lightstone, the MLA for Iqaluit-Manirajak.
The debate was over Nunavut’s updated Vital Statistics Act. Lightstone’s amendments re-introduced a third sex option on birth certificates.
Health Minister John Main introduced a bill in May with the non-binary option included. He pressed colleagues to pass it in June, which would have coincided with 2SLGBTQ+ Pride month.
However, the bill stalled at a standing committee whose members voted to remove some clauses, including the one relating to the non-binary option.
The deletions “declawed the bill,” said Lightstone, who was not able to attend the standing committee meeting where these decisions were made.
During Wednesday’s committee of the whole meeting, Lightstone made five motions to restore the clauses the standing committee had removed.
“I stand in solidarity with the LGBTQ+ community, regardless of which acronym the individual chooses to associate with or what or what their preferred pronoun is,” Lightstone said in the assembly,
Iqaluit-Sinaa MLA Janet Pitsiulaaq Brewster voiced her support, adding that the third sex option would make sure people born intersex – with features that do not fit typical binary definitions of male or female – would be included.
Arviat-South MLA Joe Savikataaq, the chairperson of the standing committee that removed the non-binary option and other clauses, stood by his committee’s earlier decision and opposed Lighstone’s bid to restore them.
Aivilik MLA Solomon Malliki and Uqqummiut MLA Mary Killiktee said the bill lacked consultation with small communities, while Baker Lake MLA Craig Simailak pondered how it would impact “safety” in places such as as public washrooms or women’s shelters.
“The mental health of a transgender or non-binary person is indeed very important,” Simailak said.
“However, we must also consider the mental health of women and men, boys and girls who feel that their rights to privacy, dignity, comfort, and possibly safety are not being respected.”
When Lightstone’s five motions came to a vote, each was passed 12-8.
Lightstone, Brewster and Main were joined by Premier P.J. Akeeagok, all ministers, as well as MLAs Bobby Anavilok, Daniel Qavvik and Karen Nutarak in support of the motions.
Iqaluit-Tasiluk MLA George Hickes, as chair of the committee of the whole, did not vote. However, he approved the bill when it came back to the legislature on third reading.
After his original amendments to the Vital Statistics Act were approved, Main made the purpose of updating the act clear.
“This bill acknowledges [non-binary peoples’] existence and their human right to gender identity,” he said.
Main dismissed the “bathroom predator myth,” saying that transgender people are more likely to experience violence than those around them.
He also touted the bill’s importance to suicide prevention in Nunavut.
“Studies from Canada and the United States consistently demonstrate the importance of gender-affirming identification and its associated protective mental health and suicide prevention factors,” he said.
“If members are concerned about our children, please know there are real safety risks in our communities around bullying, around mental health, and around youth suicide.”
As for Lightstone, he says he’s relieved.
“I am glad that the Government of Nunavut now joins the rest of Canada in recognizing non-binary and transgender individuals,” he said.
Imagine this being our most significant debate in 4 years, distracted, confused and completely out of focus.
You’re right. There’s no need to debate this. Add the non-binary option to birth certificates and move on to other matters.
There’s literally no real reason to not add that option.
Is this designation for sex or gender? The article uses these terms interchangeably, but surely we can agree they don’t mean the same thing.
I was thinking the same. Gender seems more subjective where sex is more objective. I don’t know why that is controversial.
There are multitude of more important things to pay attention to.
Exactly. Joe Savikataaq wasted time by turning this into a protracted debate
Craig Simailak is worried about safety in washrooms. There are no washrooms that require a user to show ID before entry. It’s a nonsense concern from an unserious person.
The fact that in a jurisdiction awash in sexual violence and a mental health crisis, Craig Simailak didn’t dismiss the safety concerns of women being forced to share their bathrooms and other places of refuge with men might show that he is the only serious one of the bunch.
This decision should be made with evidence and in compliance with human rights legislation. There have been no impacts to the safety of women in jurisdictions where similar changes to legislation are made, but trans and non binary people can be safe and live a dignified life.
Craig’s comments were ridiculous because he has never met a trans or non binary person and he referenced a hypothetical threat that doesn’t actually exist. This fictional boogeyman has been used to attack trans and non binary people and roll back their rights.
Thank you to Adam and Janet and everyone else who stood up for what was right.
Why don’t we ask the women affected what they think about it?
The demographic of people who cause the most harm to women are straight men. The numbers don’t lie.
Obviously that is true, but it is not relevant to the point here at all.
Why were the MLAs who supported the motion identified, but the ones who voted no were not? Name and shame them!
Post your name first?
…Says the coward who isn’t showing their name. I’m not a public figure unlike the MLAs that voted against the measure. You’re not in favour of transparency? Oh what am I saying, of course you’re not making any arguments in good faith.
Are saying we are both hypocrites?
Just because they dont agree with the delution does not make it right to target them.
Freedom of believe is a protected right.
You can choose to believe there is more than 2 genders or you can choose to belive their are only 2 genders and a whole lot of different sexualities .
I agree the debate should never even have happened. The standing committee should not have tried to have it removed. We are the last territory/ province to change this. With change in the Nunavut Human Rights act in 2017 to include the protection of transgender and non binary people, the Government has dragged their feet on this forever. However as a mom of a trans/ non binary person this is an important issue and I’m glad it’s being changed.
Debate is a necessary part of healthy democratic processes, to say it should be ignored, especially on complex issues like this, is to argue in favour of an illiberal monoculture
Anybody born in Nunavut could apply to change the sex designation on their birth certificate ever since this same law was changed back in 2015. Trans and intersex people in Nunavut have had that right for almost a decade. Thing is, a binary system has only two options. In this case the sex designation options were male or female.
A ´non-binary’ designation opts out of the two-sided distinction male or female.
Public discussion on this topic could really raise awareness and understanding. For a start, it would be interesting to hear from health care professionals, hunters or farmers (climate change is coming folks!) on how the designation of sex matters in their line of work.
The debate was excellent, it was at the least educational for those who do not understand the possible risks or dangers for youth and parents. This debate should have at the least raised enough concerns from parents on severity of the topic. This is what the system of our legislature is made for, just because there is differing views on a position or policy approach should a debate be avoided. Only in a socialist-marxist system would a debate be negated and forced on its population. Hats off to those who rose the concerns and fears of such a move made by this government.
Well since this article didn’t identify the members that voted against this motion, here they are: Mary Killiktee, Uqqurmiut; Joe Savikataaq, Arviat South; Joanna Quassa, Aggu; Craig Simailak, Baker Lake; Solomon Malliki, Aivilik; Alexander Sammurtok, Rankin Inlet South; Joseph Quqqiaq, Netsilik; Joelie Kaernerk, Amittuq.
kudos to these members…heroes
You are mixing up transparency with an attempt to intimidate legislators doing their jobs. It’s an ugly and unjustified reflex.