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.

[Colette Aikema, Speaker, As an Individual]

Thank you so much, members of Parliament, for inviting me to present to you today.

My name is Colette and I'm from Lethbridge, Alberta. I am a mom, a wife, and I have three of the world's most beautiful children.

I'm here today to tell you about how counselling helped me survive terrible trauma. Despite the government's assurances, my life-saving counselling would become illegal if Bill C-6 is passed, and that's why I think it's so important for you to hear my story.

When I was a child, I was abused. Because of it, I struggled for many years with sexual behaviour and attractions that I did not want. I compulsively masturbated. I had intrusive gay fantasies and rape fantasies. My developing attractions and behaviours got worse after I was gang-raped as a teenager. Three men who I knew raped me and damaged my sexual well-being. This horrible moment led to even worse sexual problems, like the use of pornography that involved rape and rape fantasies, both heterosexual and non-heterosexual, behaviours that severely distressed me.

This trauma negatively impacted my sexual intimacy with my husband. I had difficulty with even casual relationships because they triggered an urge to seek out sexually addictive behaviours, both gay and straight. I saw the world through a lens of sexual pain and confusion, and life became unbearable.

Thankfully, I found support in two places, from a University of Lethbridge counsellor whose service I paid for, and a faith-based sex addiction group. Both helped reduce my non-heterosexual behaviour, and the support saved my marriage, my sanity and my life.

The government has argued that Bill C-6 will not ban the counselling I received, because it exempts the exploration of a person's identity or its development, but I need to make this clear. I was not interested in exploring my non-heterosexual attractions and behaviours or its development, as I knew where they came from. I needed to reduce these behaviours.

Both my secular counsellor and my faith-based support group are a practice, treatment or service that helped me repress or reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour, and under Bill C-6, this life-saving treatment that I freely chose would be criminal.

Even if the government says this bill won't ban my counselling experience, groups like No Conversion Canada, who will be speaking after me, have already publicly stated on social media that they intend to use conversion therapy bans to attempt to shut down the kind of counselling that I received and to shut down the groups that support my right to counselling.

There are many legitimate reasons why someone may want to reduce their sexual attractions or behaviour, whether they be gay or straight, and those reasons are not for the government to decide.

In fact, there's no professional body in North America that includes the phrase “reducing non-heterosexual behaviours” in their definition of conversion therapy. Even the Canadian Association of Social Workers, who will be speaking after me, define it the same way as the Canadian Psychological Association as a reparative therapy, not just any practice that attempts to change the sexual orientation of bisexual, gay and lesbian individuals to heterosexual. That definition does not mention reducing non-heterosexual behaviour by consenting patients.

Professional counselling organizations recognize that it is not the job of the therapist to set the outcome for the patients. If professional counsellors do not set the outcomes of therapy, why does the government? In fact, isn't conversion therapy wrong because it forces an outcome on someone?

If Bill C-6 is passed, isn't it then forcing an outcome on me? Isn't Bill C-6 then a form of conversion therapy on victims like me?

When Lethbridge passed a similarly worded bylaw, the public was denied a chance to speak to it, and after it passed, I spoke to a city councillor about my story. Only then did he admit that they had not considered people like me when passing their bylaw.

I am speaking to you now so that you can avoid making the same mistake. Consider the thousands of other women who are raped and need help. Don't they deserve to get the counselling that will help them achieve their goals?

I'm now happily married and a mother. I know those of you who are parents worry about your kids like I do. If they're ever in trouble, I want to make sure they have access to the same life-saving care that I paid for.

Make this bill better by adopting the definition of conversion therapy used by actual professional bodies. This will ensure that this government is not forcing outcomes on patients and instead is recognizing the diversity of our lived experiences.

Thank you so much for your time. I'm available for questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Good morning, everybody. I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 15 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Pursuant to the Order of Reference of Wednesday, October 28, 2020, the committee is meeting on its study of Bill C-6.

This is a hybrid format meeting. Members Mr. Cooper and Madam Findlay are with me here in the room and other members will be joining virtually.

I will remind you and the witnesses to unmute your mike when it's your turn to speak and to speak slowly and clearly so that the interpreters can do their work.

You have the option of picking your language. At the bottom of your screen for language Interpretation you can pick “English”, “French”, or “floor” for your better communication.

If you're not speaking, I would ask that you please put your microphone on mute.

The clerk and I will do our best to make sure that this meeting is run in an orderly fashion. Please address all questions and comments through the chair and we'll have a good meeting.

Today we are joined by a number of witnesses whom I would like to welcome.

Appearing as an individual we have Colette Aikema.

Appearing from the organization No Conversion Canada we have Nicholas Schiavo, who is the founder, and Peter Gajdics, who is a writer and advocate.

Peter, I hope you'll correct my pronunciation of your name when it's your turn to speak.

We also have, representing the Canadian Association of Social Workers, Joan Davis-Whelan, who is the president, and Alexandra Zannis, social policy and communications coordinator.

Last, we have the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms represented by Lisa Bildy, who is a barrister and solicitor.

Each of you will have five minutes to speak. We'll start with Colette Aikema for five minutes.

Go ahead, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you very much, Mr. Garrison.

At this time, I'd like to thank all of the witnesses on behalf of the committee for your powerful testimony and for appearing before us today in our deliberations on Bill C-6.

Thank you very much. We're looking forward to the next meeting.

For now, the meeting is adjourned.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

That's wonderful.

I'm going to stick with you, Doctor. Bill C-6 defines conversion therapy as the following:

...a practice, treatment or service designed to change a person's sexual orientation to heterosexual or gender identity to cisgender, or to repress or reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour.

In May I read an opinion piece by you, I believe it was in The Globe and Mail, where you spoke to how important it was to understand conversion therapy if we wanted to end it.

Do you think the definition in this bill as it stands helps us to understand conversion therapy?

[Adrienne Smith, Lawyer, Adrienne Smith Law]

Thank you, Chairperson.

My name is Adrienne Smith.

I'm joining you today from the unceded territories of the Musqueam, the Tsleil-Waututh, and the Squamish people as well. As an uninvited settler in occupation, I'm committed to a decolonization that involves reparations and the return of land.

I am a social justice lawyer and a non-binary person. I use they/them and their pronouns.

In French, the masculine or neuter pronoun is “il”.

I could answer your questions in French.

In support of my submission today, I am submitting a written brief. I'm grateful to appear in support of Bill C-6, which seeks to regulate, by criminal sanction, practices that seek to convert queer and trans people by force or coercion.

Having listened carefully to other witnesses in the debate on this bill, I have three main points. The first is about the definition. The second is about the charter compliance of the bill. The third is about the necessity to protect transgender people in the sanction that is sought.

First, with respect to the definition, all parties have agreed about what we're talking about and all have expressed their will to stop it. Still, I note, the committee is encountering challenges to the scope of the bill from those who would seek greater certainty. With respect, the practice of conversion is abusive and fraudulent, and in no way bears any similarity to the distracting hypotheticals that you are hearing about or the kinds of counselling that people have witnessed to today that have been helpful to them. Those practices will still be allowed.

Again, with respect, I see people who are raising concerns repeatedly and are doing so for political reasons, based possibly on their opposition to the core of the bill and not in good faith. I work as a criminal lawyer. I have no concerns about what this bill says. I dispute that there would be a chill on legitimate care.

This bill would end coercive programs that seek to undermine the sexual orientation and gender identity of two-spirit, queer and trans people. It would not unduly limit spiritual and parental guidance unless that guidance seeks by force to convert, in which case it should be captured by the prohibition.

I agree that importing the terms of “gender identity and expression” from Bill C-16 would clarify.

I think that would be a helpful clarification.

With respect to the charter, I would recommend a brief amendment. I think, to start, the bill is charter-proof as it stands. I would recommend that the committee consider an amendment that would close the dangerous loophole with respect to adults. As drafted, the bill would allow adults to consent to conversion practices. It seems to me that the drafters of the bill have left this loophole out of fear that there would be a charter challenge.

I heard Minister Lametti ask for input, and I have some. I think the prohibition on this dangerous activity would be charter compliant for adults because it is a valid practice of the criminal law that's not in conflict with provincial power. The provinces agree this isn't valid health care. The harm is clear. The bill is carefully tailored to capture the harm. There would be a minimal infringement on religious practices that would sanction this type of abuse. Benevolent religious practices would not be captured by the scope of the bill.

Finally, the minister knows that the charter is not unlimited and is restricted by section 1, which sets out limits that are reasonably necessary in a free and democratic society. The protection of people standing farthest from justice is a reasonable limit. Sound medical care would still be allowed if you prohibit consent to abuse by adults, as I recommend. If you do not insert such language, we should tighten up the language around what consent means in this setting.

Finally, trans people need to be included within the wording of this bill. You've been urged by some witnesses, who are not friends of my community, to peel back protections for non-binary people. I think these folks seek to draw Parliament and this committee into an unhelpful debate about the merits of gender-affirming health care. That question is not before you. To be clear, many of these arguments unmasked of artifice deny the inherent dignity of queer and trans people.

As a result, I strongly recommend a slight amendment and that you adopt this bill.

Thank you.

[Timothy Keslick, ASL-English Interpreter, As an Individual]

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the standing committee. My name is Timothy Keslick, and my pronouns are he/him. I'm currently an ASL English interpreter in the province of Ontario.

I'm speaking today from the traditional and unceded lands of the Mississaugas of the New Credit, the Anishinabe and the Haudenosaunee, lands that are governed under The Dish with One Spoon wampum treaty.

Please do forgive my nerves. This is my first time speaking in this kind of forum, so bear with me.

I currently have a bachelor's degree in linguistics, with a focus on language and power, as well as a bachelor's degree in interpretation, ASL English, with a focus on message analysis and intercultural discourse. I'm also a Catholic Christian and someone who identifies as a member of the LGBTQ2S+ community. I identify with the labels of queer, same-sex attracted, and/or gay.

I am very grateful to all those who made today possible: to Natasha Filoso-Timpson for her patience in corresponding with me to arrange for a notice of meeting, to those who were involved in the tech set-up, and to you, the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, for your time and attention today.

When I was asked to speak on the bill today, I was a bit defensive, as you may imagine. Conversion therapy is definitely a very triggering concept for a lot of people in the queer community, me included. Even now, as I'm talking, I can feel my heart beating more quickly and my eyes are watering up a bit. That's because of the experiences of friends, and also those of people who I may not have met, but I've certainly heard the stories of people who have either tried to pray the gay away or beat them until they repressed their same-sex desires.

In a more personal way, at one point I had gone to confession to a priest. I wasn't confessing that my sin was same-sex attraction. Being attracted to someone of the same sex is not viewed as a sin by the Catholic church, but I was confessing to something different and separate. That meeting resulted in it coming out that I was same-sex attracted, and I ended up being kept in a room and kind of restrained in a chair, while the priest kept trying to pray over me, trying to exorcise this demon of homosexuality from me.

I can say from a very deep place of personal lived experience and hurt that conversion therapy in its actual sense does harm. I also want to make it clear on this note that while that kind of experience can and does happen, and happened to me, I don't want it to seem that it's reflective of the majority of views of Catholic priests. It certainly is not of those whom I have had the honour and pleasure of interacting with. It's also not the experience of most Catholics who identify as queer individuals or those with same-sex attraction, but it doesn't make it any less wrong or any less hurtful. I just want to be transparent on that point.

Again, when I was originally asked to speak on this bill, I was like, “Well, I'm certainly not going to be speaking against the bill because I would actually fully support it.” As I said, I don't think conversion therapy should be allowed, and I don't think people should be able to ship off their queer family members or loved ones to a different country and have them go through that form of abuse there if it's outlawed here in Canada. At the same time, as I said, I stand by the decision against actual conversion therapy, but after reading through the actual draft of the legislation, however, I cannot support Bill C-6 in its current wording.

The value of the proposed bill is that it wants to reduce harm and it wants to prevent members of the queer community from being hurt simply because of something that they do not have any control over: something that they don't have any control over choosing, and something that—at least based on the majority of scientific and peer-reviewed articles that I've read—they can't change.

The problem for me, however, as someone who would have access to my services limited by this bill, is that the passing of this bill would cause harm to me. Because of various instances of emotional neglect growing up, I have very physically and emotionally unhealthy relationships. At times, these relationships have led me to being sexually assaulted, as well as emotionally manipulated. I currently see a counsellor, and we talk about ways for me to have better boundaries and to protect myself, and to make sure that any relationship I enter into is free, happy and healthy.

Under this bill, this kind of therapy would be taken away from me. The bill doesn't make any distinctions between good therapy or bad therapy. The bill would capture my therapy as one that wants to reduce non-heterosexual attraction or, more specifically, sexual behaviour. Without realizing that my therapy isn't actually trying to stop me from dating any guy, it's simply trying to stop me from dating the wrong guy. It's there trying to help me avoid people and situations that would harm me and have already harmed me.

The bill may not want to take away this kind of counselling, and I would applaud it for that, but the issue, however, is that the language right now is much too ambiguous and too far-reaching. If I were working and were trying to interpret this bill into ASL for a deaf consumer, I would definitely need to seek a lot of clarification and do additional research outside of the context of the bill to find out what is and is not included.

That kind of ambiguity in a piece of legislation this important is very concerning to me. I think the bill needs to be amended to clarify the definition of conversion therapy. I don't want the good counselling that I have received to be taken away from me, and as it is right now, the bill doesn't guarantee that. The goal of this bill is to prevent harm from coming to the queer community and to prevent harm from being done to the queer community, but as it is right now, the bill would take my counselling away from me, and that would cause harm.

Again, thank you very much for your time and attention. After the other witnesses, with permission from the chair, I am open to any questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Good afternoon, everybody. I call this meeting back to order.

We are studying Bill C-6. I have just a few comments for witnesses before we get started.

Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name, and then unmute yourself on the microphone. Once you're done speaking, please mute yourself again to limit any interruptions. You have the ability to select the language of interpretation at the bottom of your screen so that you can listen in throughout the whole meeting and understand.

When you're speaking, please speak slowly and clearly. This is for interpretation purposes. When you're not speaking, as I said, your microphone should be on mute.

This is a reminder that all comments by members and witnesses should be addressed through the chair. My pronouns are she and her. If witnesses and members feel comfortable, please do share your pronouns so that we can address you properly.

With that, I'd like to introduce our witnesses.

We have Timothy Keslick, an ASL-English interpreter; Dr. Travis Salway, an assistant professor in the faculty of health sciences at Simon Fraser University; Emmanuel Sanchez; and Adrienne Smith, a lawyer.

Welcome, witnesses.

We'll start with Timothy Keslick for five minutes.

Go ahead, sir.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I want to thank all of the witnesses for your very important testimony as we consider Bill C-6.

I'm going to direct my questions to Mr. Ruba.

Mr. Ruba, through you, Madam Chair, we heard from witnesses on Tuesday who expressed concern that Bill C-6 would create a chilling effect on counsellors and medical professionals who may fear consequences for providing any services that could help patients like you manage unwanted behaviours or attractions.

Have you experienced this chill effect?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Erika Muse, Jack Saddleback, André Schutten and Jose Ruba, thank you for being here. I know it's a different set-up when we're here virtually, but all of your advice is helpful as we deal with Bill C-6.

Jack Saddleback, it seemed as if you were just about to finish your statement. I only have six minutes, but if you want to take 30 seconds or so and finish what you were going to say, go ahead and do that.

[Jose Ruba, Advisor, Association for Reformed Political Action Canada]

Members of Parliament, thank you for taking the time to hear my comments today.

I came to Ottawa as a journalism student years ago, excited to learn about Canadian rights and freedoms. I am speaking today because I believe Bill C-6 threatens the rights of all Canadians, but especially LGBT Canadians.

When I lived in Ottawa, I began to see a counsellor to help reduce my unwanted same-sex attractions and behaviour. Sadly, those of us who benefit from this counselling are not included in these discussions. That is why I need to share a statement supported by dozens of my friends who have gone through the same experience. We applaud the government if it wishes to pass legislation that criminalizes, in an explicit manner, coercive counselling practices, but Bill C-6 conflates harmful methodologies with the goals Canadians choose for themselves.

We are Canadians whose goal was to reduce unwanted sexual behaviour or gender confusion. We chose counselling as the methodology to achieve this goal. We were not coerced or harmed by this counselling; rather, this counselling helped us reduce behaviours that we no longer wanted to engage in. For many of us, this counselling saved our lives.

This counselling is threatened by Bill C-6's definition of conversion therapy. The definition is not used by any professional body in North America. The Canadian Psychological Association, the Canadian Psychiatric Association and their American counterparts do not include the phrase “reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour”. Good counselling will always help patients change behaviour they no longer want to engage in.

There are legitimate reasons why Canadians would want to reduce sexual behaviour without changing their orientation. Sexual behaviour can include porn, sexual addiction or extramarital affairs. If Bill C-6 passes, heterosexuals would be able to get supports to reduce these behaviours, but LGBT Canadians will not. Consenting adults would not be able to pay for a professional counsellor and mature minors would have no choice at all. In fact, this bill says that only the counselling sessions of LGBT Canadians will be regulated by criminal law. That would be a violation of our charter rights.

Now, the government argues that this bill would not impact a person's gender transition or person's exploration of their identity or development, but by adding the phrase “reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour” the government is already telling us what we're allowed to conclude from our exploration. We agree with ARPA's proposed amendments and ask you add “coercion” to the definition of conversion therapy.

We are not asking that you agree with our goals. We are asking you to respect our right to set goals for ourselves. In other words, we are simply asking that you recognize we exist.

Thank you.

[André Schutten, Legal Counsel and Director of Law and Policy, Association for Reformed Political Action Canada]

Thank you so much, Madam Chair and honourable committee members.

Degrading and harmful practices are wrong and they should be banned, yet legislators must be nuanced and precise in their definitions to avoid capturing practices and services that are helpful to some. The definition of conversion therapy in C-6 is too broad and vague. It captures helpful counselling and psychological support for children, teens and adults, as my colleague, Jose, will address in a moment.

As it stands, Bill C-6 would make it a criminal offence for parents to bring their child to a counsellor to address gender dysphoria and for the counsellor to help that child. The penalty for both the counsellor and the parent is up to five years in prison. Bill C-6 will also deny to some members of the LGBTQ community the broad range of counselling choices that are freely available to all other Canadians. In a tragic twist, Bill C-6's overly broad definition ends up discriminating against the very people it purports to help, contrary to the charter.

While the federal government should be concerned about and legislate on dangerous methods, such as electroshock therapy, surgical or pharmaceutical interventions and so on, it must not conflate methods on the one hand with goals on the other. Again, Jose will speak about his personal experience with this in a moment.

ARPA Canada supports a well-defined ban on conversion therapy. Our written submissions propose amendments in more detail. I'll just highlight three.

First, add the word “therapeutic” at the beginning of the definition of conversion therapy to focus the scope of this bill and alleviate legitimate concerns of parents, teachers and spiritual leaders. Second, cut the reference to sexual behaviour from the definition because it unfairly prevents members of the LGBTQ community from accessing counselling that's freely available to all other Canadians. Finally, add a clarification that conversion therapy does not include religious teaching on identify and ethics. That would direct police, investigators and prosecutors to focus their attention not on religious minorities, but rather on outdated therapeutic practices.

I'll now turn it over to my colleague, Jose.

[Jack Saddleback, Co-Chair, 2 Spirits in Motion]

[Witness spoke in Cree and provided the following translation:]

My dear friends and respected relatives as well.

[English]

My name is Jack Saddleback. I go by he/him pronouns, and I am from the Samson Cree Nation in Maskwacis, Alberta. I'm also an out and proud Cree two-spirit transgender gay man.

Today I am representing the 2 Spirits in Motion society as the co-chair and am speaking to you from the Treaty No. 6 Territory of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.

I speak today as an invited member to address the need of Bill C-6 in the Criminal Code of Canada to criminalize conversion therapy in our country.

As stated through the Government of Canada's website on the announcements of the reintroduction of this bill:

Diversity and inclusion are among Canada's greatest strengths. Canadians must feel safe in their identities, and free to be their true selves. This is why the Government of Canada is acting on its commitment to criminalize conversion therapy in Canada.

I commend this strong stance and implore the Government of Canada to pass this bill with the following in mind.

This year marks the 30th anniversary of the adoption of the term “two spirit” by indigenous LGBTQ2IA people and organizations in North America, which was brought by a vision and offered by Dr. Myra Laramee in Manitoba in 1990. This extended the understanding of the term two spirit to be a pan-indigenous acknowledgement of the historical acceptance of gender and sexual diversity in indigenous communities prior to colonization.

I should say that this particular term of two spirit is intended, as well, simply as a placeholder until each community member can rightfully uncover and reclaim their ancestral knowledge and language of these sacred roles.

I feel it is vital that the voice of two-spirit people be within speaking to the bill for three clear reasons.

Number one is our indigenous world views of gender and sexual diversity and our inherent culture of non-interference and respect that have uplifted each community member for their unique gifts for time immemorial.

Number two is the attempted subjugation of indigenous children and indigenous communities to adhere to a patriarchal cisnormative gender binary system and the heteronormative narrative imposed on these lands.

Number three are the ongoing effects of these systems, such as residential schools, that put two-spirit/2SLGBTQ2IA peoples in harm's way when it comes to conversion therapy.

Speaking to point one, our indigenous world views of gender look at multi-dimensional aspects of a person in that their vessel, or body, is simply that—a vessel. These vessels certainly do come with teachings, and they are one part of a whole. Our understanding of gender is not based on the body; rather, it is based on the skills, gifts and roles that a person holds within their community.

Further, our indigenous world view of love understands that sâkihito-maskihkiy, or love medicine, was one of the most powerful of medicines graced to our people by kisemanito, or the great being. We understood that we had no place as human beings to stand in the way of who a person loves, as we understood that love is love.

There are a number of teachings I would be more than happy to share with you at a later date, but today we must focus on the latter two of my points when addressing conversion therapy.

In point two, we look at the harmful effects of the attempted subjugation of indigenous children and indigenous communities to adhere to a patriarchal cisnormative gender binary system and the heteronormative narrative that has been imposed.

These systems have been used through the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms itself, the bureaucratic systems that run our country, and more specifically, when looking at indigenous communities, the Indian Act, and how aspects of the act attempt to impose these mentalities.

Further, concrete examples of these imposed narratives come from my own family who have shared stories of the outlawing of our ways of life, and how this has impacted our traditional oral teachings, which in turn affected the openness of our discussions of gender and sexual diversity.

I say these teachings and the facts to lead me to my third point, that being the ongoing effects of these systems, such as residential schools, that put two-spirit/2SLGBTQQIA peoples in harm's way when it comes to conversion therapy.

Our own communities are still reeling from the effects of the aforementioned systems. Some of the biggest impacts are the pivoting and intergenerational trauma that has introduced a culture of interference for indigenous communities across Turtle Island.

Now I say the next few items with the greatest of care. Our own indigenous communities have been subjected to conversion therapy through the malicious use of residential schools that have harmed many indigenous families, and more specifically, numerous named and unnamed two-spirit children. These effects are still happening today. This is taking place bluntly or surreptitiously under the guise of biased cultural leaders, or where two-spirit community members are at the spear's edge of the harmful effects of conversion therapy that tries to strip them of their natural love for the same gender or more genders, or to discredit their own gender identity and gender expression.

When looking at Bill C-6, we must take into account the tremendous impact that colonization has had on our traditional world views and acceptance of gender and sexual diversity.

Thus, my friends, I reiterate that Bill C-6 must pass and must do so with the intention of being accessible to all citizens affected by conversion therapy, and it must be intersectional in principle, as conversion therapy looks different from culture to culture—

[Erika Muse, As an Individual]

Hello, and thank you to the committee for inviting me here as a witness. Thank you to my mom, Vicki Hartley, for loving and supporting me through all this.

My name is Erika Muse and I am a survivor of trans conversion therapy. I underwent conversion therapy at the now-closed youth gender clinic at the Centre for Addictions and Mental Health, CAMH, in Toronto, with Kenneth Zucker. Yes, that is the same Kenneth Zucker who spoke to you on Tuesday, painting himself as a semi-retired professional and academic arguing for the rights of trans youth.

Dr. Zucker saw me as a patient for seven years, from the ages of 16 to 23, and denied me trans-affirming health care in the form of both hormones and surgery until I was 22. Dr. Zucker instead put me through what he has termed “desistance treatment” for trans youth. He interrogated me in talk therapy for hours at a time, inquisitorially attacking, damaging and attempting to destroy my identity and my self-esteem, and to make me ashamed and hateful of myself.

I specifically saw him in order to be referred for puberty blockers and trans hormone replacement therapy, as his clinic was the only one able to provide these treatments for many Ontarian youth at the time. Instead of providing affirmative care to fix my growing gender dysphoria and mental health issues, Zucker intentionally denied me care.

Trauma has cloaked many of my memories of the horrible treatment he put me through, but I remember the day he commented very positively on how my shoulders and ribcage had filled out. I had grown to look like a man. I remember trying not to cry in his office. Years into treatment, he had condemned me to the fate I wished to avoid, the very one I asked him every session to save me from. He made my body a prison and it is to this day.

Conversion therapy almost broke me and I live with its physical and emotional scars to this day, but I was only a small part of Zucker's practice. I spoke up as a survivor of his treatment for Ontario's Bill-77, which banned conversion therapy in Ontario. That bill led to his clinic being reviewed and shut down when the review found that he'd been practising conversion therapy and denying trans health care to the population he was meant to protect. Zucker now practises privately.

Furthermore, Zucker has written and published many scholarly articles and books on his conversion therapy practices for trans youth and has advocated for adult conversion therapy on trans people as well. He lied to you when he spoke on Tuesday. He practises conversion therapy on trans people to this day, on people of all ages, and he sees trans lives and trans existence as something to be hated and stopped.

I think he only gave up on trying to stop me when he realized he couldn't win, but he's still trying to hurt others. This is the most important thing I want you to know. Zucker attempted to change my gender identity both before and after I turned 18, and he never allowed for exploration, consideration or development of my gender. Instead, he worked as much as he could to stop me from being my true self.

Zucker and his colleagues are the international proponents and researchers of conversion therapy for trans people of all ages across the world. Canada exports our home-grown hatred to the rest of the world but Bill C-6 will delegitimize that and stop it from being spread further. Whatever these theories and papers call their practices—“autogynephilia”, “rapid-onset gender dysphoria”, “watchful waiting” or “desistance therapy”—by Zucker and Blanchard and Littman and Cantor and Bailey and Bradley, and so many others.

They all have one thing in common. They're all conversion therapies and practices for trans people. They're attempts to define being trans as wrong, bad and something to be stopped, and they are efforts to stop trans people from living our own lives.

There are many briefs in front of the committee stating that gender-affirming care is actually conversion therapy for gay, lesbian or bisexual youth and that gender identity should be removed from the purview of Bill C-6. I implore you, do not listen to them. These briefs and the testimony you heard yesterday and may hear in future sessions are based in research crafted through blood and agony and pain from me and the many other trans people who suffered for years at CAMH and who have suffered since.

I know because I'm in that study data, because Zucker asked me to be one of his participants and I had no right to refuse. This is a blight, a wound on the lives of trans people across the world. You can stop it, but you must go further to make sure it can't happen anymore. You must extend Bill C-6 to ban conversion therapy at all ages. Canadians cannot consent to fraudulent practices or to bodily and mental harm, and conversion therapy is a terrible harm.

You must further add language to the definition in Bill C-6 of conversion therapy so that practices cannot act to change someone's gender expression as well as their gender identity, to bring it into harmony with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. You must strike the greater certainty clauses from that definition, as Zucker and many other practitioners of conversion therapy against trans people present their services as part of exploring or developing a patient's gender identity.

I saw Zucker for a referral, a service related to my gender identity. That was what the youth gender clinic's purpose was in CAMH and in the Ontario health system. Instead, he used that power and that position to ruin my life, my body and my mind. The wounds that Zucker caused me can never be undone. I don't know if I'll be able to heal and feel right or whole, or right as a person, ever again. This Parliament, this committee can make sure it never happens to Canadian people, ever again.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to the 14th meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, October 28, 2020, the committee is studying Bill C-6. Today's meeting is in a hybrid format. Members, obviously, can participate in person or by video conference. Witnesses can only participate by video conference. All members, regardless of their method of participation, will be counted for the purposes of quorum.

To ensure an orderly meeting, I will outline a few rules.

Members and witnesses may speak in your official language. You will see the interpretation selection at the bottom of your screen. You can follow along in either the floor, English or French. Before speaking, click on the microphone icon to activate your own mike. When you are done speaking, please put yourself on mute to minimize any interference.

I will remind you that all comments by members and witnesses should be addressed through the chair. We'll try our best, the Clerk and I, to maintain a speakers list to ensure that everybody has their say. Use the “raise hand” action at the bottom of your screen if you would like to speak.

Masks are required, obviously, for Mr. Cooper and me. We have ours over here.

If you need to get my attention, just signal to the clerk or to me. I would appreciate that.

Today I'd like to welcome the following witnesses. As an individual, we have Erika Muse. We have 2 Spirits in Motion, represented by Jack Saddleback, co-chair, and also the Association of Reformed Political Action Canada, represented by André Schutten, the legal counsel and director of law and policy, and Jose Ruba, the adviser.

Without further delay, we'll go right into the opening remarks by witnesses. Each witness has five minutes.

We'll start with Erika Muse.

Go ahead. You have five minutes.

[Dr. Kenneth J. Zucker]

Sure, I'll try to answer that.

In science, we have a term called “operational definition”, meaning that we have a particular term and then we have to define it in a way so everybody can agree on what one is actually measuring.

My point about Bill C-6—it's very similar to all prior legislation, including Bill 77 in Ontario—is that there's this “does not apply” clause, which I read out to you. It does not include practices, etc. that relate to a person's exploration of their identity.

That is a completely vague descriptor. It does not give clinicians clear guidance on what is considered acceptable in terms of exploration. I think that is a fundamental problem. It's frightening to parents, because they worry that they're going to be accused of taking their kids for conversion therapy, whereas any well-trained clinician, as I said earlier, does not coercively try to change a child's or an adolescent's gender identity.

I think a well-trained clinician engages in all kinds of exploration. The problem with Bill C-6 is that it doesn't define what that means or doesn't mean. I think that is a very serious issue.