Bill C-6 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conversion therapy)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to, among other things, create the following offences:
(a) causing a person to undergo conversion therapy without the person’s consent;
(b) causing a child to undergo conversion therapy;
(c) doing anything for the purpose of removing a child from Canada with the intention that the child undergo conversion therapy outside Canada;
(d) promoting or advertising an offer to provide conversion therapy; and
(e) receiving a financial or other material benefit from the provision of conversion therapy.
It also amends the Criminal Code to authorize courts to order that advertisements for conversion therapy be disposed of or deleted.

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation to Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conversion therapy).

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

I would also like to take this opportunity to wish everyone a very merry Christmas, happy Hanukkah, happy holidays and a hope-filled new year.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

With that, having gone through all of Bill C-6 clause by clause, thank you, members, for a wonderful session. Thank you for all your hard work, your passion and your dedication.

A special thank you goes to all of our support teams, the interpretation, the analysts and the IT teams. You guys have really kept us afloat. Our clerk and our legislative clerks—thank you all.

I wish you all a merry Christmas, happy Hanukkah, happy holidays and all the best in the new year.

The meeting is adjourned.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Shall the title carry?

(Title agreed to on division)

Shall the bill as amended carry?

I see that members would like a recorded vote.

(Bill C-6 as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 0)

Shall I report the bill as amended to the House?

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to speak in favour of this amendment. We heard a lot of testimony and we've had submissions—a few I've been able to read at least—before this committee speaking to the need for some comfort around understanding just what is captured in these amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada that bear criminal sanction along with them.

We've heard a lot of people here today—witnesses from the Department of Justice, as well as members of the committee—speak to what a judge does and doesn't do in interpreting a statute. I've never been appointed as a judge, but I was an administrative law judge for five years on the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. In that capacity, knowing that my decisions were appealable to the courts—and they were appealed, in fact, in some instances—I was always very mindful, in taking in evidence, of what I was and was not able to look at.

In administrative law, you actually can take into account and weigh evidence in a bit broader context than perhaps you can in a regular court of law, certainly a criminal court of law. Lists are very helpful for a judge in interpreting. They need not be exhaustive. That's why you see language, as in this amendment, saying “such as”. It's not meant to be an exhaustive list.

I heard the minister, and I believe Mr. Virani and others, say that lists aren't very good. Lists are helpful, in fact. Lists are helpful in interpretation. We've heard a lot of testimony here today about how intention is something that judges do look at in deciding these cases.

We've heard a lot about how it's on the website or someone can look it up on the website. As far as I know, websites are not considered authoritative in courts of law. I've never actually heard of a judge referring to a website in interpreting. That's not where you go.

Occasionally, I have seen decisions where a judge has looked to statements of a minister in and around the passing of legislation. Again, however, it's not authoritative. Why? Ministers come and go—with all due respect to those who hold those offices. When we're dealing with putting forward legislation, particularly that which carries with it criminal sanction, it is essential that the wording be specific enough and clearly understood enough that any future minister and any future judge, given the task to interpret that legislation or rely on the legislation, know what it is they're looking at and relying on.

Frankly, I don't understand why the government is not open to clarifying this legislation, the broad intent of which is clear, but the specifics are lacking in terms of definitions and language. That would give comfort to those who are not seeking to do anything coercive, but who are seeking only to help and support.

We've heard testimony from witnesses over the course of the discussion on Bill C-6 who said that this kind of counselling—whether it be from faith leaders or from people in the general counselling fields—was very helpful to them in just trying to get to where they needed to get in terms of their gender identity and/or gender expression. I would hate to see a situation where we pass legislation with criminal sanction attached to it that would put a chill on the kinds of supports and the kinds of taking of confidences that are necessary to help people as they struggle with the issues we're dealing with here.

My colleague Mr. Maloney spoke of the cardinal. He has a different interpretation than the cardinal, who said he spoke for literally millions of Catholics in the GTA, as to what is meant here. It seems to me that when we have a witness—and I will say that I am not Catholic—whose judgment, guidance and counsel are sought by literally millions of Canadians, we should be cautious and we should take into account that further definition and further help in interpretation—for future judicial comment and future judicial decisions—is the way we should go. We should not preclude people who are seeking our help from understanding this legislation.

Let's just take faith leaders for a moment. We've heard from faith leaders and have had submissions from faith leaders of almost every faith I can think of who have said they're against coercive conversion therapy and against the idea of trying to force anyone one way or the other, but that they need clarity. They need to understand that the conversations they may have that are supporting someone's own journey—supporting someone who, for any number of reasons, may need clarification within their own minds and within their own spirits in terms of where they're going in their life—would not be somehow shut down.

I'm asking people to really think on this. This is not in any way trying to derail the overall intent of this bill. It's not meant in any way to restrict the overall intent. What it's trying to do is give a level of comfort to those who find themselves in these very sensitive conversations—usually confidential conversations that they have in the course of their chosen field, be it professional or faith, or even in terms of family or friendship—that those will not be restricted in what I believe would be an unintended way.

Let's be clear. In this amendment, we've taken the wording directly from the government's own website. I have to assume that the government of the day believes in this wording, or they wouldn't have put it up on their website. As I said, a judge interpreting this in the future, or the ordinary Canadian public trying to understand what is permissible and what is not, is not going to go to a website. They are going to look at the legislation.

That's our job here today, and I hope that we will fulfill it by allowing this amendment to go through, which in no way subverts the overall intent of this bill.

Thank you.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have to comment on one thing. Mr. Maloney said that I inferred that something was “sinister”. I guess those are his words, not mine. I did not say that anything Mr. Virani did was sinister, and I don't think it is.

What I'm saying is out of respect for everybody. The government knew last night that this amendment was going to be table-dropped, because they included a change to the preamble. That was at 4:30, so there is no doubt.... I don't think anyone could argue—I hope—with the fact that we are dealing with something that has been table-dropped. It is completely unfair to your colleagues to expect us to be ready on the spot to deal with what has been table-dropped. This is why we have deadlines for submitting amendments to legislation.

That was his language; it's certainly not mine. I think there is absolutely no doubt, however, that what the government has done here today has caused a lot of problems with our ability to do clause-by-clause. There's no doubt about that, because members did not have the benefit of having this even one day in advance, let alone a few days in advance, as we had agreed to.

I think it's very clear that the government has now table-dropped an amendment to this legislation that, in the department's own words, greatly broadens the definition, because “gender expression” is a broad term. It is also, on the departmental expert testimony, an undefined term in the Criminal Code. We have a term that's undefined in the Criminal Code and that broadens the definition.

Not to belabour it, but there was reference to the charter statement on this legislation. The charter statement that I saw was based on Bill C-6 as presented by the minister to our committee. The new change that the government has table-dropped is an expansion of Bill C-6, and if there has been an updated charter statement, I haven't had the benefit of seeing it. It could be that it's on the departmental website; I don't know.

My question to the department is this. We've seen the charter statement—and the minister spoke to this in his testimony—on what was Bill C-6, the original version. Is there an updated charter statement with this amendment?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Our colleague Mr. Virani's comment about the trivial or insignificant nature of my example seems a little strange to me. I don't feel that the example I gave is insignificant. If Mr. Virani takes a little time to read law reports, he may find that many things he feels are trivial have nevertheless caught the courts' attention, sometimes as far as the Supreme Court. My remarks were not insignificant, and neither were his. His proposed amendment is far from insignificant. It's important, and I believe it's also worthy of discussion.

I would like to go back to the answer provided to me by Department of Justice senior counsel Ms. Levman, because I take issue with it. I know that a parent's intervention is not a treatment, a psychotherapy service or anything like that; we can agree on that. I do, however, believe it could be considered a practice. If Ms. Levman feels it's clearly not a practice, I'd like her to explain the distinction she makes between “practice”, “treatment” and “service”. One of the principles for interpreting statutes is that the legislator does not speak in vain. In my view, we need to find different definitions for “practice”, “treatment” and “service”.

According to my humble interpretation, which may differ from Mr. Virani's, but which I do not find insignificant, it could easily be argued that it is a practice when a parent, guardian or even a neighbour tells a little boy play to wear pants or, conversely, tells a little girl to wear a dress.

I remind you that the Department of Justice's definition does not refer only to clothing. I had stopped quoting at that point, but to support the argument, perhaps I should repeat that definition. It says that a person's gender expression includes “such aspects as dress, hair, make-up, body language, and voice.” So, many things are included in gender expression. Gender, as understand it, includes quite a few behaviours.

I confess that, as a parent, I have told my daughter that she should not wear so much make-up. From what I understand, by engaging in that practice—and I do feel it can be considered a practice—I would have committed a criminal offence. I'm sure no one wants that.

I am not naive or stupid. I am concerned by the fact that we are drafting provisions of law that can lead to extreme interpretations of that kind, which we do not want when we try to interpret them. I am sure the Minister of Justice doesn't want that, nor do my Liberal, Conservative and other colleagues.

Since we began our work, I have been thinking that clause 5 of Bill C-6, which introduces section 320.101 of the Criminal Code, obviously needs to be rewritten, because it contains the most ambiguous definition ever on such an important subject, and that deserves more attention.

To sum up, I would like someone to explain the distinction being made between a practice, a treatment and a service. Could intervention by someone who is not a professional be considered a practice? We don't mention health professionals anywhere, we keep it in general terms. I know that, for a treatment or service, it has to be a professional, such as a psychologist or physician. However, anyone can engage in the practice of telling a young man that he should not use make-up or wear dresses, or of telling an eight-year-old girl that it's not appropriate to wear so much make-up and that she should wear sneakers to school instead of three-inch heels, for example. These are things that teachers, parents, guardians or friends might say to a young person, and some could interpret them to be a practice prohibited under the Criminal Code. So it would be a criminal offence, which I remind you is a very serious thing.

Thank you.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Yes, Madam Chair, and thank you to Mr. Garrison.

The lines that are in question in Bill C-6 relate to clause 5, lines 30 to 32. I think there's a meeting of the minds here between ourselves and the NDP with respect to the importance of emphasizing the need to protect not only sexual orientation and gender identity, but also gender expression.

The language we would be proposing by way of either a new amendment or an amendment to what Mr. Garrison is suggesting is simply to insert “gender expression” into lines 32 and 33.

I can read it to you. In what we have in front of us, lines 32-33 currently read, “gender identity to cisgender, or to repress or reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour.” That is followed by the two words “For greater”. The idea would be to insert “gender expression” into those two lines, so it would now read, “gender identity or gender expression to cisgender, or to repress or reduce non-cisgender gender expression, or non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour. For greater”.

The insertion is basically a total of eight words. The words “or gender expression” would be inserted, and the words “non-cisgender gender expression, or” would be inserted as well.

That is to address what we heard in testimony, what we've heard from stakeholders and what we've read in written briefs, to ensure that this bill is as comprehensive as possible. It also tracks with other instruments, including human rights legislation and so on, in terms of its language and verbiage, that we have not only reference to sexual orientation and gender identity, which is currently in the bill, but also reference to gender expression.

I think that is where we have an understanding with the NDP with respect to the necessity of that type of change, so I would move that this language be used in lines 32 to 33 on page 4, in clause 5.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

The motion will read as follows:

That clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-6 be postponed to a subsequent meeting, when work resumes in January 2021.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

You're absolutely right, Mr. Moore. I think our translation services and all at the Library of Parliament have done a phenomenal job in getting the translation for that high number of briefs, not only for Bill C-6 but also for past legislation. We're really, really blessed to have them support us in our endeavour.

Monsieur Fortin, I have you next, and I'm hoping that you have the exact wording of the motion that you'd like to propose.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Okay, wonderful.

Thank you, everybody, for your co-operation.

I will now go into clause-by-clause for Bill C-6, pursuant to the order of reference made on Wednesday, October 28. I would like to—

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you, Mr. Fortin.

I hope that clarifies it.

I thought I saw a couple of hands up, but I think they've gone down now.

Mr. Moore, is your hand raised for the operational budget for Bill C-6?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Marc-Olivier Girard]

Thank you for your question, Mr. Fortin.

I believe we may be mixing this budget up with another one that actually was passed two weeks ago. It was to study Bill C-7, while this one is to study Bill C-6.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the last meeting of the year, maybe, for our justice committee.

I call this meeting to order.

Just before we get into clause-by-clause today.... All of the members have been emailed an operational budget for Bill C-6. I would like to get that approved by your consent so that we can get into clause-by-clause.

Are there any questions or clarifications with regard to the operational budget that was emailed to you?

Conversion Therapy

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition I am presenting addresses Bill C-6 or what was Bill C-8 before the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament to cover up the WE scandal.

The petitioners recognize that in Bill C-6 conversion therapy is vaguely defined and overreaches established safeguarding principles by criminalizing therapies offered by medical professionals and normal conversations between children and parents, counsellors, caregivers and educators.

The petition, which received 1,293 signatures, calls on the House to address that issue by fixing the definition and asks that the government complete and make public a gender-based analysis of the impact of the legislation that it could have on women, children, professionals and families in health education and caregiver roles.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this petition is supported by the majority of the 91 churches in my riding.

The undersigned citizens are extremely concerned about Bill C-6, about the attack on their freedom of religion, conscience, expression, belief and their ability to speak it in the public square. While all Canadians agree that no one should have to forcibly undergo a treatment they do not want, Bill C-6 prevents people who, of their own free will, want counselling, advice or prayer about their sexual confusion.

The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada for a narrower definition of what the Liberals view as conversion therapy in order to exclude pastoral care, voluntarily sought counselling or prayer, to amend or withdraw this legislation and to preserve their charter rights.