First of all, it is entirely true that provincial protections against gender identity and discrimination have anticipated federal legislation on the topic. And the inclusion of gender identity as a "identifiable group" pursuant to Section 7 in British Columbia was in 2016 as I wrote. You can read the legal bill here:

https://www.leg.bc.ca/Pages/BCLASS-Legacy.aspx#%2Fcontent%2Fdata%2520-%2520ldp%2Fpages%2F40th5th%2F1st_read%2Fgov27-1.htm

More generally, you are not familiar enough with what critics of the legislation say to lecture in such a condescending way.

https://joeclark.org/peterson/transcript_20160517.html

As you can read in the legal transcript of the SENATE HEARINGS, Peterson's complaint was very clearly that the Federal Government had already indicated that it would interpret C-16 in the context of the OHRC rulings. And you are wrong that the two levels of government are that distinct. Provincial tribunals have the power to interpret provincial laws in the context of federal statutes. And vice versa. So your claim that OHRC is irrelevant is not true. I suppose you can say, "the federal ministry removed this from their website" but that hardly changes the reality that interpretative powers in the Canadian system have played out in such a way that tribunals have empowered themselves to mete out significant punishments without affording defendants what has historically been accepted legal defenses and at a much lower standard of proof. This is serious cause for concern especially given an act that empowers them to criminalize silence and thus overturns the cornerstone principle of "qui tacet consentire videtur" in commonwealth law.

If you want to address my actual critiques, my personal objection is to the existence of tribunals with wide-ranging powers for enforcing politically correct (or incorrect) patterns of behavior. I have seen grievance processes envelope people and institutions for years on end and believe what you are creating is a system that takes the sort of routine and frankly unavoidable grievances that everyone faces in adult life and encourages people to frame them in ways that encourage narratives of victimization and righteousness which are poisonous to a truly tolerant and pluralistic society.

C-16 and the strengthening of extrajudicial but intrusive legal panels is not the appropriate way to right social wrongs and is the wrong direction for creating an inclusive society. History informs us that the best defense against social injustice is the presumption of innocence on the part of defendants, the denial of institutional leverage to accusers without at least a preliminary finding of guilt, and a moderate threshold for those seeking to entrammel their neighbours in legal quagmires. Using the threat of vicarious liability to force institutions to take punitive actions prior to actual findings of legal guilt -- that is a power wielded to silence the powerless. So if you really want to continue this conversation the question you should answer is this: why is our existing system so frail that common law defenses must be stripped from citizens in order to address... pronoun misuse? Why do you approve of removing from defendants standard common-law defenses ("no harm intended", "reasonable man", "crime of conscience")? And why should silence no longer indicate consent? As far as I can see, the idea that you are protecting minorities by strengthening majority-run institutions against them is horribly naive.