Justice Committee on Dec. 3rd, 2020

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thank you for that.

We have heard lots of testimony about making some improvements to the definition. I think the committee will take that very seriously.

I also neglected to thank all of the witnesses in my opening statement. Of course, those who bring their personal experiences to committee do so sometimes at great personal cost, so I think we need to acknowledge and thank them for doing that.

I want to turn to Adrienne Smith again. One of the things you suggested was that if the bill still allows so-called consenting adults to be subjected to conversion therapy, we add some measures to define what constitutes “consent”. I wonder if there are parallels for defining consent elsewhere in the Criminal Code and what kinds of things you might suggest.

[Adrienne Smith]

Consent is a fraught area in the criminal law. The committee will be familiar with how it is considered in the context of sexual assault, for example. I think there is some very helpful language about consent capacity and coercion put forward by the Centre for Gender and Sexual Health, which would be of use to the committee. You might consider importing it because mature minors, young queer and trans people and two-spirit folks who may have achieved the age of majority are still vulnerable to consenting to this type of abuse, often in an effort to keep their families together or to maintain some harmony in their congregations, in a way that really stretches the notion of informed and free consent.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thank you for that.

Dr. Salway, would you like to comment on the question of consent in the research you conducted?

[Dr. Travis Salway]

I'll just elaborate on what I said in my statement, which is that I think people become susceptible to these practices when they're in an environment where LGBTQ2 identities are not recognized or affirmed.

I think what this bill does is to bring further clarity to parts of Canada where people remain under the false understanding that they cannot be LGBTQ2 and be happy and healthy. In those contexts, I think consent is not possible, as you've heard other people say. It's an abusive practice that takes advantage of the fact that these individuals have not yet had a chance to receive the message that their core being, that their identity, can be affirmed and appreciated.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

I know we're running out of time here, but could you talk a little about the patterns of harm that your research revealed people had suffered, and whether people were able to find supports in dealing with that harm?

[Dr. Travis Salway]

Absolutely. One of the nearly universal, most common harms was loss of personal relationships with family of origin, and also loss of opportunities to create romantic and sexual connections, in the case of sexual orientation, with people with whom they could have otherwise connected.

In other cases, there's the loss of years if not decades of being able to be employed and being able to be a person in your own body and your skin. Worse, we heard, and as we've seen in many studies from around the world, are the remarkably high rates of anxiety, suicidal ideation and attempts, and substance use to cope with that trauma and stress.

As Erika said this morning, there are, to my knowledge, no publicly funded supports for people who have been through conversation therapy. There are a few groups that have sprung up out of communities of survivors that I think are doing great work. However, we need much more support—formal support—to help the tens of thousands of people who have been through this.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I believe that concludes my useful time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thanks very much, Mr. Garrison.

We'll go into our second round of questions, starting with Madam Findlay for five minutes. Go ahead, please.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, all of you, for being here.

I know that for some of you, particularly with personal stories, this is not easy and I think you're doing amazingly well. Of course, although I'm a lawyer, not all of us are, which most Canadians would be happy to hear. This is really not just about lawyers and legislators, but about how it affects real people and how the average Canadian sees this.

Mr. Keslick, you raised some concerns that this bill could infringe on the ability of individuals, like you, seek guidance to help navigate their sexuality. There have been others who have echoed that.

We know this bill defines conversion therapy as a practice, treatment or service that reduces non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour. You've raised the concern that the bill might inhibit the ability to seek support for sex addiction and for reducing sexual activity.

Can you explain your concerns about this? Do you think the bill could be improved by clearly stating that it does not apply to good-faith conversation?

[Timothy Keslick]

Thank you very much for the question, Madam Findlay.

As it is right now, my therapist currently supports me in avoiding things like sexual promiscuity or sexual actions with people who are physically or emotionally unavailable—who are in a monogamous relationship or something like that—as well as unhealthy sexual practices—for example, the tendency to engage in a sexual practice without knowing someone's HIV or STI status, without using the proper protection, or without making sure it's in a physically and emotionally safe space.

My therapist also supports me in avoiding relationships with people who take advantage of me at times in those realms. Because these physical and emotional relationships are with someone of the same sex, technically under proposed section 320.101, this might be considered a therapy that is designed to reduce that sexual behaviour.

Ultimately my goal is to reduce that particular unhealthy sexual behaviour, which is completely unrelated to the fact of who it is with, but to the fact that the behaviour itself is not healthy regardless of who it is being done with.

I do echo the comments of a lot of other witnesses and MPs that the goal of the bill is to allow that kind of healthy dialogue to still happen. It's not officially codified in the bill—it is great that it's present in other places and other documents and circulars and things—and if it's not actually encoded in black and white in the text of the legislation, that, to me personally, is still very concerning.

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

Thank you, Mr. Keslick. I have only so much time, so I'll keep going here.

This is really for either you or Mr. Sanchez.

The Canadian Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs made a submission to our committee to add an amendment for greater clarity. I would note that even Minister Lametti started his testimony on this bill saying that there seems to be some confusion about its scope. Taking the testimony in its entirety, I would agree with that.

He just said that they would add a definition in the bill because it does not include private conversations in which personal views on sexual orientation, sexual behaviour, sexual identity or sexual expression, feelings or gender identity are expressed by parents, legal guardians, family members, friends, teachers, school counsellors, pastoral counsellors, faith leaders, religious leaders or health care professionals. This language was, at one time at least, on the justice department's website.

I'm just wondering if the two of you can comment on whether you feel this would be a step in the right direction in giving more clarity and better defining what this bill is aimed at.

Mr. Keslick, you put your hand up first.

[Timothy Keslick]

I definitely think, in a broader sense, that it is important to identify what the bill does cover and doesn't cover, so I do think an amendment like that would be very helpful.

At the same time, even then I still do think that could leave the door open for some unhealthy interpretation. Even sometimes in different human relationships, there is a difference of power, so it's important to make sure that things are put in place in the bill to prevent different power dynamics in whatever conversation, whether they're personal, private or professional. It is important that there be protections against that as well, so the short answer is yes, but with additional clarification.

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

I appreciate that.

Mr. Sanchez, do you have a comment?

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

In 10 seconds....

[Emmanuel Sanchez]

In 10 seconds, I'm honestly not entirely sure what to say, but I do appreciate your question and your bringing it up, and I will stand by Mr. Keslick's comments.

Thank you.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you very much, Madam Findlay.

We'll now move to Mr. Kelloway for five minutes.

Go ahead, sir.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for being here today and sharing with this committee some very powerful testimony.

Through you, Madam Chair, my questions are going to be directed to Dr. Salway.

Like you, Dr. Salway, I have a really keen interest in supporting vulnerable populations, and I think no matter who we are or what race we are or how old we are or how we identify ourselves, we all deserve to be given agency over how we choose to make life decisions in our own lives.

I understand that your research has resulted in an improved understanding of patterns and causes of mental health outcomes among sexual-minority populations. We know that conversion therapy isn't actually a therapeutic process, and I can only assume it has a lingering or long-term impact on the mental health of folks.

Based on your research, Dr. Salway, I'm wondering if you can unpack and do a deep dive for this committee, for Canadians, the negative correlation between mental health and conversion therapy.

[Dr. Travis Salway]

It's hard to know where to begin.

I started to look more deeply into the question of conversion therapy when I was invited to give a statement to your colleagues at the Standing Committee on Health who were undertaking a historic study on LGBTQ2 health last spring. I said to the committee at that time that despite decades of really wonderful legal and social progress in Canada to support the rights of LGBTQ2 Canadians, there remain some fairly large blind spots, and this is one.

It's a large blind spot, not only because it directly affects one in 10 LGBTQ2 Canadians, but also affects all of us in that it is a threat to our livelihood and our well-being. It is a threat to the question of whether our identities are accepted, acknowledged and appreciated within Canada. Previous legislation protecting our rights is about things that we should be protected from that could be harmful to us, but also questions like, should we be able to marry, and should we be able to be free from discrimination? The difference in this legislation is that it's about the core of our beings and whether our identities are compatible with Canadian values. The message that we want to send is that, yes, they are.

To answer the second part of your question on where this leads to harm, yes, we have seen from my previous research and the research of many of my colleagues in Canada and beyond that unfortunately LGBTQ2 Canadians continue to experience dramatically higher rates of suicide, depression, anxiety and substance abuse, and from other Canadian research we know that this is almost entirely attributable to something that is known as “minority stress”.

Minority stress includes conversion therapy, which is the sharpest edge of it—conversion therapy being someone trying to push you away from that identity—but it also includes more insidious things that wouldn't fall into this legislation but that would be clearly signalled as incompatible with Canadian values, things like being called names, being dismissed from work or social environments and social groups, generally being given a message that somehow you're less valuable or less worthy. I think the real opportunity here with this legislation is to resolve that question very clearly and send a very clear message to all Canadians who are trans, two spirit and LGBQ that you are wanted, you're included and you don't need to fear the threat of these practices.

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

Thank you, Doctor.

How much time do I have left, Madam Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

You have about a minute and a half.

[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?

[Dr. Travis Salway]

Based on the survey I was talking about earlier, I think we get halfway there.... For some people, yes, the services they experienced were framed as being about that second part of the definition, which is to repress or reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour. That's excellent, and I'm grateful that the government is interested in moving toward efforts to stop those practices.

To get all the way there, for all 50 individuals we surveyed, we need to ensure that the definition includes other practices that have the goal of avoiding LGBTQ2 identities. It would then encapsulate services that we know, over time, have been adjusting their language and adjusting how they frame their services to avoid prosecution under municipal codes and other legislative efforts, but will prevent it nationally.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you very much.

That concludes your time, Mr. Kelloway.

Now we'll move on to Monsieur Fortin for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

That's obviously very little time, but I will try to shed light on an element with Mr. Keslick, if I may.

Mr. Keslick, you told us earlier that you dislike the fact that services you are now receiving from a psychotherapist could be banned based on the current definition in the act. However, you also told us that you dislike the fact that, when you were younger, a pastor tried to exorcise you to make you heterosexual.

Do you not see a bit of a contradiction there?

How would you reconcile the two positions—on the one hand, wanting to allow a psychotherapist to interact with you and, on the other hand, wanting to forbid a pastor or someone else from trying to influence your sexual orientation or your sexual identity?