Justice Committee on Dec. 1st, 2020

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Minister Lametti and Minister Chagger, for your appearance here today at the justice committee.

Minister Lametti, I want to jump right into the definition, because we're trying to get a bill here that does what you, in your press conference, said it would do and what your department has said it would do, but there is uncertainty around the definition. This bill hangs on the definition. I heard you say five minutes ago that your best minds put together this bill, and then I heard you say a minute ago that you missed something there in syncing up with Bill C-16.

In the early discussion on this bill, much was said about your comments and the justice department's website, which laid out what the bill did not do. It said, “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 have been some—today I saw a brief from the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs—who have said, “Look, we're 100% against conversion therapy, but for greater certainty”—I know you believe in “greater certainty” clauses, because there are two of them in this very bill—“would you include the language that you've spoken in this bill?”

I do want to give you the opportunity to answer a question that was put to justice department officials. Once it became public that people said “Please put this in the bill”, the department website changed. Instead of saying “friends or family members provide support”, the word “affirming” was added in there.

I want to know what the background on that is. Why was the website changed? I think this plays into some of the fears that people have around this bill. Just two years ago, your government said this bill wasn't necessary because it was handled at the provincial level, and you said you didn't have clear statistics on it, but we now have a Criminal Code amendment. The Criminal Code is the highest sanction we as a government can bring against people, so we want to make sure that this bill does what you said it would do.

Why was that changed on the website, Minister?

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

We're here and we're going to use the Criminal Code because we feel that this practice is abhorrent and needs to be eradicated from Canadian society. It's going to coordinate with what the provinces are already doing and reinforce what the provinces are already doing.

We'll go back and look at the website to see if, in fact, it has changed, but certainly in terms of a definition in an act—we have a number of lawyers around the table, including myself—what you're trying to do in a definition is succinctly capture the activity that you want to capture without capturing more than that. There is a danger of over-defining, so a long list can be either overinclusive or under-inclusive. You get into debates about whether it's a closed list or an open list.

What we've done is focus on the practice. Everything that you have identified, everything that was identified in your question, is, in fact, captured by this definition, by the focus on practice, treatment or service. We're not capturing those very legitimate kinds of conversations that you cited in your question.

I think that the manner in which we have framed it in the act, from a juridical point of view, is the way to do it, and I think we've done it well, without redundancy and without need for a “greater certainty” clause.

We'll certainly look at what CIJA has said, but I haven't heard anything yet that convinces me that the definition is inadequate. We're focusing on illegitimate practices, treatments or services designed for prohibited objectives, without going further than that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

You have 20 seconds left, Mr. Moore.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Okay.

Thank you, Minister.

I'd just like to point out that this bill already contains two “greater certainty” measures. I think the message that we got from the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs we're going to hear probably more than once from good-faith witnesses who want to get at the root of this issue but also want to ensure that the things that you said this bill does not do it, in fact, does not do. I would encourage you to continue to be open to the idea of that type of amendment.

Thank you.

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

I'm always open to good-faith amendments, but you always have to be careful with redundancy. That can create unintended consequences down the road, so we'll be careful.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you very much.

We'll now go to our last round, with Mr. Zuberi for five minutes.

Go ahead, sir.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

I want to thank both ministers for being here today and for giving their time to the committee.

I want to clarify something that Mr. Lametti already touched upon: what the bill does and does not criminalize. Although I think it's very clear to us on the committee, for the benefit of all of us, so that we can pass on the message, can you reiterate that, please? My understanding is that the bill does not criminalize conversations within families or with friends, teachers, social workers, psychologists or faith leaders. Can you just expand upon that?

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

I presume the question is for me, Mr. Zuberi. Thank you.

Once again, what we are trying to do is criminalize conversations that begin with the presumption that who you are is wrong and that it has to be changed, and that is done through an active practice, treatment or service. Those are the prohibited objectives in the act.

We're not trying to criminalize the legitimate kinds of mentoring conversations that people have—pastoral conversations, family conversations such as parent-child, grandparent-child—where the legitimate question is “Who am I, and how do I develop in that framework?”

In order to capture the kind of activity that we want to capture, we focused on known legal concepts—practice, treatment or service—and we have specified the prohibited objectives. We think that does, legally, what we need to do. We think it dovetails well with definitions that are being used at the provincial level with respect to provincial medical systems and medical insurance systems in the provinces. We think we have defined what we need to define in a fairly clear way.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Thank you.

In my next question, I'd like to touch upon peer-reviewed literature. I'd like to know if either minister is aware of the impacts of conversion therapy on people. In particular, what does the literature say with respect to validity, efficacy or ethics, please?

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

I guess that's me again.

The peer-reviewed literature on the medical side is universally condemning of this kind of practice. Some feel it's tantamount to torture, and I have to agree with that. It has devastating lifelong impacts on people. You're going to hear that from the witnesses who come before your committee. We certainly saw it in the consultation process that we engaged in before the bill.

It's absolutely destructive, and the peer-reviewed literature confirms that.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Thank you.

Just to what has been raised thus far in the questions and answers by other members, the term “coaches” doesn't appear. If we were to have an exhaustive list of individuals who can enter into exploratory conversations, the term “coaches” doesn't appear, for example.

How do you feel about limiting the categories of individuals who can enter into exploratory conversations, versus not limiting it, and what those impacts are?

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

Your question indicates why I have a very serious reservation toward listing people, because there are so many. As I answered to Mr. Fortin in French, we don't want to limit the possibilities for people to seek advice or to have mentors wherever they happen to be.

If you try to have an enumerated list of categories of people, you're always going to miss people. You're going to over-include or you're going to under-include, and you're going to create problems down the road. Ultimately, you may actually do damage by preventing someone from having a conversation he or she may want to have with someone because they're not on the list and therefore not protected.

There are all kinds of unintended consequences with elaborating that list. I am very much in favour of the approach we have taken in terms of the definition of the practice and the goal. I think that does the legal work it needs to do in a very effective, efficient and concise way.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thanks very much.

On behalf of the committee, I'd like to thank Minister Lametti and Minister Chagger for their time today.

I will remind the departments that if there are questions—and I believe Mr. Cooper did have a question that we were not able to answer because of technical challenges—if you can send a written response, that would be wonderful. You could also clarify any other questions raised as well.

Thank you very much. We'll suspend for 30 seconds as we let in our witnesses for the next panel.

Thank you again, Ministers. It's really appreciated.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

I welcome our witnesses who are here today. Thank you for your patience.

We have with us today, in our second panel on Bill C-6, Matt Ashcroft, Dr. Kristopher Wells and Dr. Kenneth Zucker, all appearing as individuals.

We have representatives from Pour les Droits des Femmes du Québec: Ghislaine Gendron and Dr. James Cantor, who is an adviser for that organization.

Before we go into our round of five minutes per witness for their opening remarks, we'll quickly go to Jacques Maziade, who is our legislative clerk, and Isabelle D'Souza, who is legislative counsel, for very brief remarks on proposing amendments and how that's going to work.

Please, go ahead.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Jacques Maziade, Legislative Clerk]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll take just a few seconds to tell the committee that I will be the legislative clerk responsible for Bill C-6. As you said, my name is Jacques Maziade. If the members of the committee want to have information about the admissibility of their amendments, don't hesitate to send them to me.

Committee members can also contact me if they have any questions concerning a clause-by-clause study of the bill.

My contact information is in the memorandum that the clerk sent to all committee members last week.

Madam Chair, I would now like to turn things over to my colleague, legislative counsel Isabelle D'Souza.

[Isabelle D'Souza, Legislative Counsel, House of Commons]

Good morning, everyone.

My name is Isabelle D'Souza. I am the legislative counsel assigned to Bill C-6 for the purpose of drafting amendments.

I am here today to tell you a little about the drafting process itself. I strongly encourage you to send me your amendment requests as soon as possible, in your own words, even if your proposals aren't entirely concrete yet. I will transform your instructions into legislative text in order to produce the desired legal effects.

I will also inform you if your proposals raise legal, jurisdictional or charter issues, and I will suggest alternatives, if possible. Keep in mind that all of our exchanges are confidential and non-partisan.

Note that the amendment process is like a miniature version of the private members' bills drafting process, for those who are familiar with that. We go through a draft, approval, proofreading, translation and revision of each amendment. This process can sometimes be lengthy, depending on the complexity of the requests or the volume of requests received, and because we sometimes draft amendments for several bills at the same time, it can take several hours or even days to arrive at a final product.

For those reasons, do send me your requests for amendments as soon as possible. I understand the deadline for submission is December 9. That date is not that far away. Do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or concerns. I am here to help.

Thank you for your time today.

Jacques and I will now take questions about the process, if there are any.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you very much.

I will ask members, if they do have questions, to connect with you directly, so we can continue with our agenda for the day.

Thank you very much for your presentation.

We will now go to Mr. Ashcroft, for five minutes.

[Matt Ashcroft, Co-Founder and Human Rights and Social Justice Advisor, CT Survivors]

First of all, thank you to Randall Garrison and his team for inviting me to speak. It feels quite good that we have developed a great relationship since March. I'm thankful that you spoke with Erika Muse and me about the next steps for Bill C-6.

This bill is extremely important to survivors of conversion therapy practices, including me, because I know first-hand the harm that can be done from conversion therapy practitioners, even though they do not fully identify with the vocabulary of “conversion therapy”.

Before I get into my speech, I'm going to say the first names and the last initials of the folks who were in my conversion therapy camp, honouring their names and honouring their confidentiality. Those names are/were: John S., Jay C., CJ or Calvin James W., Adam W., Steven M., Jerry M., Dean K., Rick S. and Rocky M. I do not know if you are here or not, but just so you know, I think about your well-being every day.

To my brothers and sister, Milton, Marlon, Makye and Myanna, I am glad that I have a relationship with you again. You have all grown into great people, and I'm glad you accept me for me. I love you always. Never forget that.

Now that I got that out of the way, I'm going to go into the heart of my speech. If you really care about what I say, you will listen with an open mind and an open heart.

Talk is cheap. Doing this process without conversing with conversion therapy survivors is quite sad. It is sad because I'm a human being who experienced this. When there are press interviews about having the best legislation in the world and you use conversion therapy survivors as a prop to make you look good, it hurts. Furthermore, it is something that I'm used to, because in conversion therapy we were used as success stories.

Not only am I grieving this, but I am grieving that this bill will not protect the Canadians it claims to protect. The Sex Now survey estimates that 47,000 people have experienced conversion therapy practices. If only 35% of the folks are under the age of 18, it means that this bill protects only 16,450 Canadians, leaving out two-thirds of the population. We need to do our best to protect as many queer, trans and non-binary Canadians as possible.

Talk is cheap. Canadian government, do you really want to be the best in the world and protect the LGBTQ2IA+ folks like you say you do? The last time I remember, when St. Albert had done their conversion therapy bylaw, you wanted the provincial governments to do their own bans and not touch it federally. Where's the transparency in what you were doing?

If you really want to take some action, here are the first steps that I recommend you take.

Australia's Victorian government worked extremely hard on their bill. It is the most comprehensive bill in the world. Thank you to Nathan Despott, co-founder of the organization Brave Network Melbourne, for his words of wisdom. I have learned a lot from having global conversations on what other countries are doing. I will reiterate the exact wording on his social media.

Number one, “It will ban all conversion practices, delivered by anyone to anyone, regardless of whether they are paid or unpaid, delivered by a professional or non-professional, or delivered to an adult or a child. It will also ban 'inducing' a person to undergo conversion practices, as well as referrals (regardless of whether professional or non-professional). There will be a criminal penalty for all of these things when injury to health (eg. mental health) can be proven. If the criminal threshold can't be met, it will go through a civil process led by the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission (VEOHRC). This will not require mediation of any kind. VEOHRC will be able to investigate and provide penalties. Failure to comply will also lead to criminal penalties.”

Number two, “It will be a criminal offence to advertise paid or unpaid(!) conversion practices.”

Number three, “It will be a criminal offence to try to get around the law by taking a person to another state.” In our case, that's a province or territory, or outside the country.

Number four, “Adults will not be deemed able to consent to participate in conversion practices, i.e., 'Informed consent' is not possible.”

You cannot consent to abuse. If every medical association deems that conversion therapy practices are discredited and unproven, you should have no issues including adults.

It is time for the government to be more transparent and to protect queer, trans and non-binary Canadians, whom you claim to ally with.

While we're on the subject, you will also need to include trans conversion therapy into legislation, or incorporate trans medical malpractice in future legislation.

This is not a game. This is our lives.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you, Mr. Ashcroft.

My apologies. We're out of time.

We will now go to Dr. Kristopher Wells, for five minutes.

Go ahead, sir.

[Dr. Kristopher Wells, Canada Research Chair, MacEwan University, As an Individual]

Thank you.

Today I'm speaking with you from the Edmonton area, on Treaty 6 territory.

I would like to thank you for the opportunity to address the committee, in particular on World AIDS Day. Today we are fighting against another form of discrimination, prejudice and stigma in the form of conversion therapy.

In support of my comments today, I have submitted a written brief and would like to draw the committee's attention to our national report, entitled “Conversion Therapy in Canada: A Guide for Legislative Action”. It includes 15 national endorsements from many public sector and LGBTQ2 organizations, background information and research, and, most importantly, the voices and experiences of the brave Canadian survivors of conversion therapy, such as Matt, who support legislative action to help end this fraudulent and abusive practice.

I would like to congratulate the Government of Canada for its leadership and action against conversion therapy, which is not therapy at all but a recognized form of coercion and abuse, and in some cases may rise to the level of torture as defined by the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims and the United Nations independent expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

I strongly support Bill C-6 as an important legislative initiative to help bring awareness to the issue of conversion therapy and its associated harm, and to provide an important mechanism for victims to seek protection and redress through the Criminal Code of Canada.

The bill also sends an important message to all Canadians about the inherent dignity, self-worth and respect that should be afforded to LGBTQ2 people. Fundamentally, no one should have to change who they are, or whom they love, to find acceptance and support in their faith, family or community.

The research is clear. Conversion therapy has been shown to be an unethical, harmful and dangerous practice. Almost all leading health, medical and professional associations have denounced conversion therapy and its associated practices.

In Canada, an open letter supporting the research consensus against conversion therapy has been signed by 120 Canadian academics and public policy experts, including 16 distinguished research chairs.

I would like to focus my remaining comments on three critical areas to consider as potential amendments to Bill C-6. These include aligning and clarifying the definition of conversion therapy, extending protections to include all adults in the legislation, and providing support for victims and survivors of conversion therapy efforts.

First, the proposed definition of conversion therapy in Bill C-6 should use a more standard and consistent definition that is currently in wide use within many municipal bylaws and provincial/territorial acts prohibiting conversion therapy. Rather than focusing on particular identities or directional orientation, these legislative definitions should use plain language and include clearly understood grounds against discrimination that are protected in all provincial and territorial human rights acts in Canada.

For example, Bill C-6 ought to align with the Canadian Human Rights Act by explicitly including protections against change efforts directed at any person's sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression. Some simple amendments would help refine the definition in Bill C-6 and reinforce that all forms of conversion therapy are prohibited, and would also clarify which practices are not included and considered acceptable in helping individuals find appropriate support. The key here is that all approaches should be objective, neutral and non-judgmental to outcome, and focused on empowering the individual to be active in discovering and understanding their own identity.

Historically, conversion therapy efforts have been grounded in an anti-LGBTQ2 ideology with the underlying belief that LGBTQ2 people are pathological, disordered or sinful: in short, needing a so-called cure or correction away from deviance into normalcy.

Second, Bill C-6, as drafted, only prevents forced conversion therapy for adults. Because of the clear evidence of harm, and the lack of research evidence of efficacy, the notion of informed consent is not a possible justification for conversion therapy. Given the well-documented and known harms of conversion therapy, it is a reasonable limitation to restrict so-called consenting adults from engaging in conversion therapy practices.

The government has an obligation to protect all individuals from known or reasonably foreseeable harms and dangers, which is why there are strict consumer protection laws and numerous medical and health regulations in Canada. Clearly, restrictions are reasonable and justifiable limitations on individual rights and freedoms. As notable examples, Quebec's Bill 70 and many municipal bylaws apply to all ages, individuals or groups.

Lastly, it is imperative that the federal government work with survivors and LGBTQ2 civil society organizations to establish an education program and compensation fund to support victims of conversion therapy. Pursuing legal recourse through the Criminal Code of Canada sets a very high bar, and support is needed.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you very much, Dr. Wells.

We'll now go to Dr. Kenneth Zucker for five minutes.

Go ahead, sir.

[Dr. Kenneth J. Zucker, Psychologist and Professor (Status Only), University of Toronto, As an Individual]

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to address your committee.

I am a clinical and research psychologist. Since 1976 I have seen over 1,600 children and adolescents who experienced gender dysphoria. I was the chair of the sexual and gender identity disorders work group that was part of the task force for the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders published by the American Psychiatric Association. I have published over 300 peer-reviewed articles and book chapters on this topic, so I feel that I have the necessary background to address elements of Bill C-6.

Up front, let me state that I am in full agreement that mental health clinicians should not attempt to change the sexual orientation of individuals under the age of 18 years. However, I want to point out quite strongly that contemporary mental health clinicians do not engage in such practice and have not done so for decades. Mental health clinicians do not practise conversion therapy with gay, lesbian or bisexual adolescents.

Where I disagree quite strongly with Bill C-6 is in its additional focus on gender identity in children and adolescents. Since the State of California passed similar legislation in 2012, there has been an insidious conflation of sexual orientation and gender identity. Not only does the proposed legislation erroneously conflate two very distinct psychological phenomena, but it also completely ignores developmental considerations.

The original criticisms of sexual orientation change efforts were targeted at the unsuccessful efforts by clinicians to try to change the sexual orientation of adults. Bill C-6, by conflating sexual orientation, now targets clinicians who work with children as young as the age of three years and their parents.

In my view, this is a serious mistake. Do politicians appreciate this conflation? The background scientific material provided to the committee by Phillips and Walker is completely silent with regard to what is known about best-practice therapy for children and adolescents with gender dysphoria. No well-trained mental health clinician attempts to coercively change the gender identity of either a child or an adolescent. Well-trained clinicians consider what the best therapeutic approach might be to reduce gender dysphoria, a mental health diagnosis in DSM-5, and the distress associated with it. There are various ways in which this can be accomplished.

The problem with Bill C-6 is as follows.

In clause 5, proposed section 320.101 defines “conversion therapy” in part as “a practice, treatment or service designed to change a person's...gender identify to cisgender”. Yet, the same proposed section states that this does not include “a practice, treatment or service that relates...to a person's exploration of their identity or to its development”. Bill C-6, like many initiatives that have preceded it, is completely vacuous in defining what such exploration would look like or constitute. Let me give you a couple of examples.

A three-year-old boy expresses a very strong desire to be a girl. When asked why he wants to be a girl, he tells his parents that he likes very much to play with Barbie dolls and to wear dresses. Under Bill C-6, can a mental health clinician explore with such a child this belief? For example, would it be acceptable to point out that boys can play with Barbie dolls too?

A seven-year-old boy expresses a very strong desire to be a girl. When asked why, he says that all the boys in his classroom at school are mean and rough. In contrast, all the girls in his classroom are kind and gentle. He does not want to be mean or play rough. Under Bill C-6, can a mental health clinician explore with such a child these beliefs? For example, would it be acceptable to point out that not all boys are mean and rough and that not all girls are kind and gentle?

A 14-year-old girl expresses a very strong desire to be a boy. This girl also has a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder, which includes the propensity to think in very binary terms. Because she does not feel like other girls, she thinks that the only option is to be a boy. Under Bill C-6, can a mental health clinician explore with this adolescent the idea that there are many ways that one can be a girl?

In my view, Bill C-6 should be modified in one of two ways. One is to delete entirely any reference to gender identity and restrict it to sexual orientation, the original target of criticism of conversion therapy. Failing that, Bill C-6 should be extensively revised in terms of explaining the scope of what exactly it means to engage in exploration of gender identity or its development—in other words, provide objective markers.

Such a revision would help both clinicians and families that have a child or adolescent experiencing gender dysphoria understand what the legislation truly intends to target.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you very much.

We'll now go to Pour les Droits des Femmes du Québec.

You have five minutes.

[Ghislaine Gendron, Representative of the Comité de réflexion sur l'identité de genre, Pour les droits des femmes du Québec]

Good morning.

I'd like to make a correction. I am not the president of the Pour les droits des femmes du Québec organization. I represent the organization's gender identity working group.

I'm accompanied by Dr.^x James Cantor, who was the advisor to the Pour les droits des femmes du Québec organization on a gender identity issue I would like to discuss.

I will turn things over to Dr.^x Cantor briefly and then resume with my comments.

[Dr. James Cantor, Advisor, Pour les Droits des Femmes du Québec]

I only have a few words to say.

I hope that you'll support Bill C-6, except for the inclusion of gender identity, because the bill treats it the same as sexual orientation.

As a clinical psychologist and research scientist, I've been providing therapy and publishing on the neuroscience of human sexuality for over 25 years now, including helping many transsexuals to successfully transition. I've served as a senior scientist at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, editor-in-chief of the journal Sexual Abuse, and associate professor at the University of Toronto. I'm currently the director of the Toronto Sexuality Centre.

Finally, I'm also an openly gay man. I was lucky to have appropriate and supportive therapy when I was a teenager, now long ago, and I feel honoured to have the opportunity to help ensure that future generations have access to it.

Therefore, I am here today to help provide three perspectives: that of a scientist, to point out that this legislation mistakes the content of the current science; that of a mental health care provider, to note that this bill would cause a chill effect, inhibiting my and others' ability to act in the patient's best interest; and that of a member of the LGBT community itself, to describe exactly how this is affecting my brothers and sisters.

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.