Justice Committee on Dec. 1st, 2020

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hello to colleagues and ministers and their staff.

My first two questions will be directed to Minister Chagger.

I'm really fascinated by your portfolio, Minister, because I think diversity, youth and inclusion are our future. I've worked for many years with young people in Cape Breton—Canso. I really want to thank you for your hard work on ensuring that so many voices are heard.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was the first prime minister to apologize to LGBTQ2 public servants and Canadian Armed Forces members who were persecuted and discriminated against for being who they are. I think this was a very important value statement from this government on standing up for Canadians who have long been marginalized.

My question to you, Minister, is this: How confident are you that this legislation works towards the same goal?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Chair, through you to the member, thank you so much for that question.

I'm very confident. When we set out to have these conversations, I was not the minister at that time, so this work has continued over a series of two mandates.

Since I became Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth, we've taken some steps that have built upon the work we had historically done. I think it's really important that this work continue to build upon it.

When it comes to the apology, we also had the first-ever special adviser to the Prime Minister on LGBTQ2 issues, who was Randy Boissonnault, and since then we've had a full minister at the cabinet table.

In March 2017, to continue engagement with LGBTQ2 communities in Canada, we set up the first LGBTQ2 secretariat. That's why I'm glad to see that my colleague and official Fernand Comeau is here and is building a fabulous team so that we can ensure that we are building back even better and consciously more inclusively.

This legislation builds upon that work, so I'm very confident.

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

Thank you for that. I'm going to stay with you.

Could you speak to some other, non-legislative efforts, either that have been made or that we can anticipate will be made, to combat conversion therapy?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

One of the things I'm proudest of is that this legislation was created by community for community. It is very concerning to me that individuals and Canadians...we're so proud of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but we're still having to undergo this conversion therapy. Experts have proven it to be harmful and destructive.

Conversations exploring who you are are entirely welcome. They're not actually stopped within this legislation. We are always going to encourage those conversations.

Among other stuff we've done, we've seen the blood ban go down to three months. We have, however, invested in research, working through Héma-Québec as well as Canadian Blood Services, because we want to see that blood ban lifted. We've offered a series of other programs and services, including the LGBTQ2 capacity fund. We were pleased to see some of those announcements made. We'll continue building upon that work.

Thank you for those great questions.

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

Thank you, Minister Chagger.

Minister Lametti, the fact that there are still individuals out there who are knowingly causing a person who's under the age of 18 to undergo conversion therapy is really unbelievable to me.

We've heard from many parliamentarians that this won't impact private conversations that don't constitute conversion therapy, and I think you alluded to this in your opening statement. Can you confirm this interpretation and say why it is so important?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

We're trying to balance, obviously, legitimate exploratory conversations, as Minister Chagger just put it, and I think it's the right way to put it. We're not trying to ban legitimate conversations that explore who a person is. What we're trying to do is ban conversations that tell you that who you are is wrong and that you have to change. That's what we're targeting. That's what the definition targets, and I think the definition does a very good job in targeting exactly what we have to do, without being redundant.

In that way, I think we walk the very careful line between freedom of expression—freedom of religion and legitimate exploration, legitimate teaching, legitimate mentoring and legitimate conversation—and what is illegitimate, which is trying, through a practice, to change someone because there is a misguided notion that who they are is wrong.

I think the legislation does a good job with that, and I'm proud of it.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Are those all of your questions, Mr. Kelloway?

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

Those are my questions.

I appreciate your time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you.

Members, the phone lines for staff are now fully operational. Let us know if there are any additional challenges.

We'll now move on to Monsieur Fortin.

Mr. Fortin, you have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good morning, Mr. Lametti and Ms. Chagger.

Mr. Lametti, we in the Bloc québecois welcome this bill. I think in fact that it's important to exercise some control and to avoid letting things get out of control by trying to alter anyone's sexual orientation. However, the bill has some grey areas. You've already suggested some answers to my colleagues on these points,

I'd like once again to address the question of what can or cannot be done in discussions with these people. Clause 5 of the bill would amend the Criminal Code by adding clause 320.101, which states:

320.101 ...For greater certainty, this definition does not include a practice, treatment or service that relates: ... (b) to a person’s exploration of their identity or to its development.

There has been much discussion about this, but I would really appreciate it if you could tell me precisely what the words "to a person’s exploration of their identity or to its development" are referring to. It seems to me that they open the door to a very broad interpretation.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Thank you for the question Mr. Fortin. I'm assuming that question is for me, right?

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

Yes, Mr. Lametti.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

The clause applies to legitimate conversations, for example between a mentor and a student or a youth, between a parent and a child; or between grandparents and a grandchild. We are referring here to conversations whose purpose is to explore the identity or expression of the person's gender, without any underlying presumption that the person could be illegitimate, immoral or anything else, nor with the intent of changing their identity.

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

In your explanation, Minister, you told us that these are discussions between parents or grandparents and children. I do not see this restriction in clause 320.101.

It seems to be open to anyone and allow for discussion with anyone else, such as a health professional, a counsellor or a spiritual leader, or even a teacher, without any restrictions. I could be having a discussion with the son of a neighbour a few doors away and be telling him that he appears to be behaving in a very heterosexual manner and that he should remain open to homosexuality, for example. If I have understood correctly, the exception could authorize this kind of thing.

Would it be more useful to specify more precisely which people are included in the exception provided in paragraph 320.101(b)?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

No specific relationships are intended. Someone can go to a professional or nonprofessional for advice, or to a family member. It's very broad.

I believe that it would be very difficult to specify all the details for such conversations, or to place any restrictions on the possibility thereof.

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

I agree with you. It will be very difficult, and I think that's the challenge we'll have to meet.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

I agree.

We' ve tried to cover practices, treatments and services—concepts that are fairly well known from a legal standpoint—in a prohibition context. We' ve tried to provide a legal framework through the definition.

I believe the definition is sufficient, but if you have some serious suggestions for us, we'll work with you.

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

Many of the people I've spoken with about the bill have made suggestions, and have told me that they would like to come and give evidence. Some think that more of an emphasis needs to be placed on spiritual advisors, teachers or others. Other groups, on the contrary, think that any discussions about exploring or building an identity should be avoided, unless perhaps it's one of the parents speaking with their child.

It's a subject that is demonstrably not clear in the bill, and I admit that I find it somewhat worrisome.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

You've answered your own question, in a manner of speaking. By focusing on practices, we've managed to provide a framework for the problem.

That of course is my opinion.

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

I'm repeating myself, but I think we need to structure these practices. I'm not saying that the bill is unnecessary, quite the contrary. I'm saying that there is a grey area and that it will be very difficult to define it. There will be differing decisions in the courts as a result of each of these issues.

I am among those who think that the courts need to have some latitude, but I also think that the legislator needs to make the laws as clear as possible. Here, my view is that room for interpretation is very broad.

That being said, there is another aspect that bothers me, which is the age of consent. There is discussion of "under the age of 18 years". In Quebec, however, the Civil Code provides that children can make decisions with respect to their health at 14 years of age. This is specified more precisely in section 14 of the Civil Code of Quebec

How do you reconcile the legislator's position in BillC-6 and the Civil Code of Quebec's stance on the age of consent? If you can' t reconcile it, can you explain this decision?

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Please answer very briefly, sir.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

I am very familiar with the Civil Code.

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

I know.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

I taught it for years. It's true that for treatment in Quebec, the age of consent is 14 years.

In the federal Criminal Code, the age of 18 years is used everywhere. There is another criminal code for people under the age of 18. It's an age commonly used as a dividing line.

The intent was to completely prohibit these practices for young people under the age of 18, who could be pressured. We chose 18 years because it's consistent.