Evidence of meeting #13 for Justice and Human Rights in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was identity.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Clerk of the Committee  Mr. Marc-Olivier Girard
François Daigle  Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Justice
Isabelle D'Souza  Legislative Counsel, House of Commons
Matt Ashcroft  Co-Founder and Human Rights and Social Justice Advisor, CT Survivors
Kristopher Wells  Canada Research Chair, MacEwan University, As an Individual
Kenneth J. Zucker  Psychologist and Professor (Status Only), University of Toronto, As an Individual
Ghislaine Gendron  Representative of the Comité de réflexion sur l'identité de genre, Pour les droits des femmes du Québec
James Cantor  Advisor, Pour les Droits des Femmes du Québec

December 1st, 2020 / 11:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid

Good morning, everybody.

I call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 13 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, as we endeavour to study Bill C-6.

As for some housekeeping rules, when you're speaking, please speak slowly and clearly so that interpretation is not impacted. When you're not speaking, please keep your microphone on mute. You have the ability to select the interpretation language, at the bottom of your screen, so that you can understand everybody.

We're quite lucky today to have two ministers to speak to Bill C-6. I'd like to welcome the Honourable David Lametti, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. I'd also like to welcome the Honourable Bardish Chagger, Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth.

We are also joined by some witnesses from the Department of Justice. They are François Daigle, associate deputy minister; and Robert Brookfield, deputy assistant deputy minister. Then we also have a representative from the Department of Canadian Heritage. He is Fernand Comeau, executive director of the LGBTQ2 secretariat.

Ministers, you'll have five minutes each to make your opening remarks, and then we'll go into our two rounds of questions.

We'll start with Minister Chagger, for five minutes.

Go ahead, Minister.

11:05 a.m.

Waterloo Ontario

Liberal

Bardish Chagger LiberalMinister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth

Madam Chair and members of the committee, I would like to start by acknowledging that I am joining you from Waterloo, Ontario, the traditional territory of the Anishinabe, Haudenosaunee, and Neutral people.

Thank you for inviting me to appear before you to discuss Bill C-6 alongside my colleague, the Honourable David Lametti, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.

Conversion therapy practices are based on the misguided idea that a person’s sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression can and should be changed to fit a narrow-minded view of what is normal.

This idea is not only wrong, but harmful, and this kind of practice has no place in our society.

The Government of Canada must always stand up for those who are being attacked or persecuted simply for being who they are, and for those who are being prevented from living their lives fully, free from discrimination and violence. It is our duty to protect the rights and freedoms of all Canadians, and to build a country where everyone feels safe, welcome, and included.

Promoting, protecting and increasing diversity and inclusion in Canada are fundamental parts of my mandate as Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth. I am fully committed to these objectives and to supporting LGBTQ2 communities from coast to coast to coast.

The changes to the Criminal Code proposed in Bill C-6 support and protect LGBTQ2 individuals by criminalizing coercive and systematic efforts to change a person's sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression into something or someone they are not.

There have been some comments about what this bill would or wouldn't do. I want to be absolutely clear. This bill does not criminalize a person's faith or individual values. This bill does not criminalize exploratory conversations with your kids, students or mentees. This bill targets forced and coordinated efforts to change someone into something or someone they are not.

Bill C-6 also allows us to protect equality rights, including religion and LGBTQ2 rights. The bill does not impose a hierarchy of rights.

Over the past year, I've participated in a number of round table discussions with stakeholders about LGBTQ2 issues. These once in-person conversations have become virtual. The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the world. All Canadians have been affected, and disproportionately certain segments. LGBTQ2 communities are no exception.

Through these discussions, I've heard clearly the toll imposed by conversion therapy. The thought of another generation having to endure conversion therapy crushes my soul. It is essential that we acknowledge the people whose lives have been lost, as well as survivors. I cannot help but also think of the lives still currently being destroyed.

We all have a role to play in building an even better, safer and consciously more inclusive Canada for everyone. We can all work to build a better future, where children, who arrive in this world innocent, free and happy, are not taught bigotry or to be ashamed of who they are. Imagine a Canada where every Canadian can lead an authentic life and be true to oneself. Imagine the contributions they could make.

Last Friday, I had the pleasure of announcing that we had taken a first step towards the very first federal LGBTQ2 action plan with the launch of a federal LGBTQ2 survey. The survey can be accessed until February 28 and will focus on our government's work to improve social, health and economic outcomes in diverse LGBTQ2 communities everywhere in Canada.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau often says that in Canada diversity is one of our greatest strengths. The unique and diverse forms of gender identity, gender expression and sexual orientation are part of that diversity.

I would like to underscore why it is important that we are all coming together constructively today. I want us to be conscious of the human aspect, the individual toll, that is at stake here. This is a reality that many have lived and continue to live in Canada. It is our job as parliamentarians to protect Canadians from this harmful, destructive practice.

Bill C-6 is another step toward true inclusion in Canada. Ridding Canada of conversion therapy is a campaign commitment, and I can personally attest to this being a consistent ask in all round tables I've held with LGBTQ2 communities.

I'd like to thank you for your attention. I look forward to hearing Minister Lametti's comments and then answering your comments and questions.

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid

Thank you very much, Minister.

We will now move on to Minister Lametti, for five minutes.

Go ahead, sir.

11:10 a.m.

LaSalle—Émard—Verdun Québec

Liberal

David Lametti LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Dear colleagues, I'm in Ottawa and am accordingly taking part in this meeting on traditional Algonquin territory.

I am pleased to be speaking with you today about the criminal law reforms in Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conversion therapy).

The nearly unanimous support that led to the referral of Bill C-6 to this committee reflects its vital importance. I would like to thank everyone who spoke courageously about their own experiences of discrimination. These are the realities of LGBTQ2 people that give us a better understanding of why Bill C-6 is so essential to the protection of their dignity and equality.

More specifically, Bill C-6 and the five new criminal offences it is proposing target a practice that is discriminatory against LGBTQ2 people because, this practice claims that LGBTQ2 individuals can and must change a fundamental part of their identity, namely their sexual orientation or gender identity. This practice has its roots in the erroneous and discriminatory idea that non-heterosexual orientations and non-cisgender identities are illnesses that can be "corrected".

In short, it's origins betray the discriminatory points of view on which the practice is based. These points of view are completely out of sync with modern science. It's not surprising to find that conversion therapy is seen as ineffective, and harmful to those subjected to it.

I will focus on the bill's definition of conversion therapy, because there appears to be some persisting confusion about its scope.

Bill C-6 defines conversion therapy as “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”. The definition, therefore, has two elements: first, that the conduct at issue amounts to a practice, treatment or service; and second, that the practice, treatment or service is designed to achieve one of the prohibited objectives.

The terms “treatment”, “service” and “practice” are used in the Criminal Code and various other federal and provincial statutes, including in provincial conversation therapy-related statutes' definitions of conversion therapy. For example, P.E.I.'s legislation refers specifically to a “practice, treatment or service”.

Notably, in none of these contexts are these terms defined, largely because the terms have a clear, literal meaning. In Bill C-6's conversion therapy definition, the term “treatment” means a “therapy or procedure used to treat a medical condition”, according to Merriam-Webster. That is how the term is also used and understood in the Criminal Code's mental disorder provisions, for example section 672.59.

The term “service” in this context means “labor that does not produce a tangible commodity”—again, in Merriam-Webster. The term is also used in this way in the human trafficking provisions, whereby traffickers extract a “labour or service” from their victims, as in section 279.04 of the Criminal Code. The term is also found in the Cannabis Act, to refer to using the “services” of youth in the commission of cannabis-related offences, or to services related to cannabis in the context of commercial activity.

The term “practice” means “a repeated or customary action”, again in Merriam-Webster. The term is also used in this way in the Criminal Code's illegal betting provisions, section 203, and the animal cruelty provisions, section 445.2.

All of these terms imply an established or formalized intervention, one that is generally offered to the public or a segment of the public. A mere conversation cannot, therefore, be considered a practice, service or treatment, unless it forms part of a formalized intervention, such as a talk therapy session.

The second part of the definition reduces its scope still more. The practices, services and treatments need to be specifically designed to achieve clearly defined objectives. That's why the definition uses the terms "heterosexual," "cisgender," and "non-heterosexual". More precisely, to be covered by the definition, the intervention must be designed to change a person's sexual orientation to heterosexual, or their gender identity to cisgender, or to repress or reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour.

This means that the practices, services or treatments designed to achieve other objectives, such as abstinence from all sexual activity, combatting sexual dependency or criminal sexual behaviour—such as child sexual assault—are not clearly covered by the definition. Legitimate medical or therapeutic practices cannot enter into the definition either, such as interventions designed to support a person's gender transition, careful observation of young people whose gender identity does not match the sex assigned to them at birth, or detransition for those who choose.

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid

Thank you, Mr. Lametti.

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC

Indeed, these practices are designed to help…

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid

Minister Lametti, my apologies, but we're out of time. I'm sure that a lot of these issues will come out during questions and answers.

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB

On a point of order, Madam Chair, it has been brought to my attention that the English phone line is almost inaudible. Through the clerk, could IT look into that? Perhaps we could suspend to make sure the phone line for staff is working appropriately.

11:20 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid

Absolutely. I'm not sure about the suspension, given that we're in a pretty intense time crunch. I'm sure IT will work their best.

On that note, we are celebrating 20 years of clerkship for our committee clerk.

Mr. Clerk, thank you very much for everything you've done over these 20 years and your growth.

11:20 a.m.

The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Marc-Olivier Girard

Thank you so much. It goes directly to my heart.

11:20 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid

Thank you.

We are looking into the IT issues right now, Mr. Cooper.

We'll go into our first round of—

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

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

I have a point of order on a technical issue again, Madam Chair.

11:20 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid

Yes, Madame Findlay.

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

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

As we found before, when you start talking, we can't hear you, unless we switch from a language to the floor and back—which Mr. Virani pointed out, and I thank him for it. If you just give a beat before you start, to allow us to move over to where we can hear you...otherwise it takes several seconds before we can hear.

Thanks.

11:20 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid

Thank you for that reminder, Madame Findlay. I will definitely wait a beat before I start speaking.

We will go into our first round of questions.

For six minutes, Mr. Cooper, you have the floor.

Go ahead, sir.

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Minister Lametti and Minister Chagger, for being here and for your presentations regarding Bill C-6.

We have heard from some stakeholders who are concerned that good-faith conversations to help individuals navigate their sexuality will be captured by this bill. Whether intentional or not, there is significant concern that this bill will capture those good-faith conversations.

When this bill was first introduced, language on the justice department's website stated that it would not affect:

...conversations in which personal views on sexual orientation, sexual feelings or gender identity are expressed such as where teachers, school counsellors, pastoral counsellors, faith leaders, doctors, mental health professionals, friends or family members provide support to persons struggling with their sexual orientation, sexual feelings, or gender identity.

There is a consensus in Canadian society that trying to forcibly change a person's sexual orientation or gender should be banned. Can I first ask the justice department officials if it would be problematic to simply include the language that was on the justice department's website, or similar language, in the bill for greater certainty?

11:20 a.m.

Liberal

David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC

I'll take the liberty of responding.

As I have gone through, mainly in French, in my prepared remarks, we feel that in fact the definition already encapsulates what you are trying, in good faith, to advance. As I mentioned, within the definition, the fact that the definition has two elements to it—first that it must amount to a practice, treatment or service, and second that the practice, treatment or service has to achieve a prohibited objective.... It does in fact encapsulate what the justice department website said and what we still continue to say. It doesn't capture good-faith conversations about people exploring their identity.

There is a “for greater certainty” provision in the act, and we don't actually even feel that that is necessary in legal terms, but we feel that it captures quite well what you're trying to put forth.

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB

Thank you, Minister.

Speaking of some of the stakeholder organizations, CIJA, for example, just submitted a brief today in which they express support for the objective of the bill. Indeed, the individual who wrote that brief is a former member of Parliament, Richard Marceau, who has a long-standing track record of supporting LGBTQ rights. In that CIJA brief, there was still a concern that the language in the current bill leaves ambiguity.

I know that during a second reading debate, you did indicate that you would be prepared to work with opposition members to try to reach a consensus, to the degree that is possible, to get it right. Would you, at the very least, be open to amendments to the bill if it is...through further hearings as we proceed, so that some assurance could be provided to those groups that do have concerns?

11:25 a.m.

Liberal

David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC

Look, I've said it in the past. I'm always open to good-faith amendments to a bill. That is part of the parliamentary process. If something is already there, I'm not inclined to be open to amendments that are redundant or that are already otherwise captured in the bill. I'm happy to look at the way in which the definitions operate and analyze those. I will obviously look at the CIJA submission very carefully.

I'm open to good-faith amendments, but if it's there and it's already captured, and the best legal advice that we have is that it doesn't need to be improved, then you're going to have to bear the burden of proof of trying to convince me.

11:25 a.m.

Conservative

Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB

I note that, as I read the exemptions, it does not clearly exempt all kinds of medical or therapeutic conversations. It simply provides an exemption for a practice, treatment or service related to gender transition. Then the second exemption, I think, is arguably ambiguous. I would be interested in hearing from the department officials as to whether there would be any problem with incorporating language into the bill that would provide greater certainty.

11:25 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid

You have 30 seconds or less.

11:25 a.m.

Conservative

Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB

I did ask the department officials initially. I understand the minister's response. The question that I am asking the department officials is this: Regardless of the minister's point of view on whether the language encapsulates what I am seeking, would there be specifically an issue with incorporating “for greater certainty”? I think it's an important question that does need to be addressed.

11:25 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid

Mr. Daigle or Mr. Brookfield...?

We're having some technical challenges hearing you, Mr. Daigle. Perhaps you can provide a written response to Mr. Cooper's question at a later time.

We're going to move on to the next round of questions.

11:25 a.m.

Conservative

Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB

Madam Chair, perhaps the department officials, once their issues are resolved with IT, could provide an answer in the duration of this hour.

11:25 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid

Absolutely, if we find that time.

Thank you for raising that, Mr. Cooper.

Now we're going to go on to Mr. Kelloway for six minutes.

Go ahead, sir.