Justice Committee on Dec. 3rd, 2020

[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.

[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]

Thank you very much, Ms. Muse.

We'll now go on to 2 Spirits in Motion, with Jack Saddleback.

Go ahead, sir. You have five minutes.

[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—

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you, Mr. Saddleback.

Unfortunately, we're out of time, but I'm sure that we'll be able to address more of this during the questions and answers.

[Jack Saddleback]

Sure.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

We'll now move to the Association for Reformed Political Action Canada with André Schutten and Jose Ruba.

You have five minutes between the two of 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.

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you very much for that.

We will now go into our first round of questions of six minutes each, starting with Mr. Moore.

[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.

[Jack Saddleback]

That's awesome. Thank you, Mr. Moore.

And my apologies to the clerk. I didn't hear you telling me to wrap up.

I just have 10 seconds.

In regards to you, my friends, I reiterate that Bill C-6 must pass and must do so with the intention of its being accessible to all citizens affected by conversion therapy. Furthermore, it must also be intersectional in principle, as conversion therapy looks different from “culture to culture” in our country, and the essence of this bill must be put forward with the teachings of sâkihito-maskihkiy, in the spirit of love medicine for all people in their right to be free and to be accepted as unique beings.

Thank you very much for allowing me to finish.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you.

We had the minister here on Tuesday.

Mr. Schutten, the minister said that it's clear that Bill C-6 does not apply to good-faith conversations about one's sexuality with a doctor, or that a psychologist may have with a patient, or that a faith leader may have with a member of their flock.

I hear what you are saying on conversion therapy and certainly support a ban of it. Key to the work this committee is doing is that we need to get the right definition of conversion therapy. It's alarming to hear that this definition has not been used in any other case.

Do you agree with the minister's assessment that this wouldn't apply to good-faith conversations between someone exploring their issues around sexuality with a doctor, faith leader, etc?

[André Schutten]

I believe that the current definition in proposed section 320.101 is too ambiguous to be able to say that for certain, one way or the other. And certainly if I were a criminal defence lawyer—I did a bit of criminal defence work before I came to work where I am now—I would be very concerned about the way this definition is written. I'm quoting from the Supreme Court of Canada, which has said:

It is a fundamental requirement of the rule of law that a person should be able to predict whether a particular act constitutes a crime.

Because the definition is so ambiguous, I think that all Canadians, particularly the pastors and the doctors you've just mentioned, Mr. Moore, deserve clarity and certainty in the law. It's not here. So adding a clarification, which has been on the Justice website for a long time, and which the Justice minister to his credit has been emphasizing in his oral remarks doesn't target that, which would be good, but it needs to be in the law. It has to be in the Criminal Code.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

I want to explore that further. The Department of Justice website lays out a paragraph saying this is what this bill doesn't do, and that's been used as a communication piece by the minister. It aligns with what the minister said about the bill in his press conference introducing it, but if we back up just two years ago, the federal government was called upon to institute a Criminal Code ban on conversion therapy. As you know, the Criminal Code is the highest sanction we have in Canada. At the time, the federal government said this was primarily in the domain of the provinces, and that it would therefore not introduce Criminal Code amendments. Fast forward two years and we have this bill. It's very important that we get the definition right when we're talking about the Criminal Code.

I agree that individuals need to know where they stand before the law, and having the definition clear is so important.

There are two "for greater certainty" type clauses after the definition. What would be the downside of including the language in the definition that the department has on its website?

[André Schutten]

Thanks again.

I don't see a downside to adding that. Because there already exist two clarifying statements, a third one adding greater clarity again would be wholly appropriate. I note as well that there have been multiple briefs submitted to the justice committee from a diverse range of witnesses that make this same point.

CIJA made this submission in written form, and I'd also endorse the very thorough legal research and the brief of the Christian Legal Fellowship as well, where they make the same point. I don't see the downside to adding that clarification.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Do I have any time, Madam Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

You have 10 seconds, Mr. Moore.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair, and to all of the witnesses for helping to inform our decision-making.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you very much, Mr. Moore.

We'll now move on to Mr. Maloney for six minutes. Go ahead, sir.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and let me add my thanks to all of the witnesses for coming today.

This is a very difficult topic, and there are varying opinions on it, although I think there's consensus on one thing, and let me give you an example.

I was talking to a friend recently. He asked me what I was doing. I told him that I was on the justice committee and that we were discussing legislation banning conversion therapy. He seemed puzzled. I explained to him what conversion therapy was and he said, “Well, I didn't even think that was still legal and how can anybody possibly be opposed to this legislation?” I said,“Well, you'd be surprised.”

I told him that a number of people are actually opposed to it, and that there are still some people who think it needs to be further refined. I think the second part of that statement is where we're at on this committee. I think there's consensus from the witnesses today that banning conversion therapy is vital.

Let me start with you, Mr. Schutten.

We've heard testimony that this legislation, because of the definitions you've referred to, might put a freeze on therapy and, I think you said, might prevent parents from taking their children for counselling and might have an impact on religious environment.

With respect, sir, I've looked at this legislation, and it simply doesn't do that. I'm receiving a number of calls at my office and emails from people who are saying, “Look, I'm not going to be able to go to church now, and I'm not going to be able to talk to my priest.” My concern is that some of these thoughts that are being put out there are creating confusion on what the legislation is trying to do.

The goal of the legislation is simply to ban an archaic process and approach to dealing with people who want to live their life the way they feel they should, and it's as simple as that.

Do you agree with that? Do you agree that there are people out there who are causing a great deal of confusion, which is doing harm to the goal of this legislation?

[André Schutten]

Thanks for the question.

It's important to be, yes, very precise about the definition, and I completely agree with you, sir, about where we're all aligned on this committee and amongst the witnesses. I think some people have inflated the risk with this particular bill. It won't prohibit any individual from seeking any type of counselling from a pastor, a priest, a religious counsellor and so on.

Rather, I think where the ambiguity lies in the bill and in the definition is that it will, or it will at the very least, chill that ability for people who are struggling with questions about personal identity, sexuality, sexual ethics and so on, who want to seek that kind of help that's in line with perhaps their own religious convictions or other reasons why they want to seek counselling—

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

I'm sorry. I totally disagree with that. I don't think it will have that effect at all, because you're suggesting that doctors and religious counsellors and parents are going to misinterpret this law. People are going to be able to do what's appropriate with their own circumstances and their own families. It's up to professionals who are doctors and religious leaders to abide by the law.

I don't think that's going to happen at all, unless there are people out there perpetuating this theory—wrongfully, in my opinion—because.... Let's get back to the basics here. We have a goal. This legislation has a purpose. Everybody agrees on what it is. Let's not distort that goal by clouding it with issues that people who are opposed to it want to perpetuate.

That's where I think you and I disagree. I apologize for interrupting.

[André Schutten]

No problem.

May I respond, Madam Chair?

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Yes.