Justice Committee on Dec. 8th, 2020

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to all of our witnesses for appearing today.

This legislation results in a lot of charged conversations and extreme opinions, in my view. If you listened to some of our witnesses today, you might think that this legislation mandates therapy forcing people to go in a certain direction, when in fact the legislation does exactly the opposite. I think that's an absurd interpretation and frankly an outrageous statement, but those are just my views.

This legislation's intent is to prevent exactly what has been explained to us. Dr. Dobson, you referenced it earlier in your opening statement. You asked why the government is telling people what sexual goals they should have. This legislation does not say that anywhere. It does not do that, in my opinion, and I will respectfully disagree.

I'm going to direct my questions to His Eminence Cardinal Collins.

Although I'm a practising Catholic and went to Our Lady of Sorrows Catholic School—I am still a parishioner there—and went to Michael Power High School, it has not been my honour to meet you before.

I tell you that only because being born and raised a Catholic, I understand the struggle some people face with this legislation and this issue, but nowhere in this bill, Your Eminence, does it say anything that will in any way limit what I can say to you in a confessional or that you can say to me in the confines of our relationship. That's why I have so much difficulty....

The Catholic Church teaches that sexual acts outside of marriage are not allowed. That includes homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships. To my knowledge, that it's in a heterosexual relationship is legal. No priest that I'm aware of has ever been charged with a crime for espousing that view to a parishioner. Nowhere in this legislation is that going to change when it comes to people who are in non-heterosexual relationships.

Your Eminence, I want you to help me understand where you're coming from because I've read the brief submitted by the Conference of Catholic Bishops, and I don't agree with those conclusions.

[H.Em Thomas Cardinal Collins]

Thank you, Mr. Maloney.

I think that was a very thorough brief, and it obviously says more than one can say in a short conversation.

Conversion therapy is something that is to be banned. That is the goal. I would say conversion therapy if it is coercive and so on, but if it's just conversion therapy, what is it? It's a practice, treatment or service designed to change a person's sexual orientation or to reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour. Well, any practice that reduces, I would say, heterosexual or non-heterosexual sexual behaviour is conversion therapy. That's what it says.

Now, what is a practice we could have? We have certain things. For example, we have groups within the church, which I highly support, of people who freely enter into them, people experiencing same-sex attraction who are indeed quite intending to reduce non-heterosexual sexual behaviour. They want to live a life of chastity. That, according to this over-broad, over-reaching definition, is what conversion therapy involves, so it's any practice that seeks to change a person's sexual orientation and so on, and reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour. That would involve a lot of spiritual groups that I've been involved with in terms of organizing them, such as Courage, and various other groups that are precisely designed to help a person live a life of chastity, which involves discipline of one's sexual behaviour.

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

Sorry to interrupt, but I have a limited amount of time.

Discipline of one's sexual behaviour is distinct from sexual orientation.

[H.Em Thomas Cardinal Collins]

No. It's “reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour”. That's what the bill says. It may not be what people think the bill means, but that's what it says. Unfortunately, what it says is what gets into the law and ends up being interpreted later.

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

Nowhere in this law, Your Eminence, does it say that you are going to be limited or parents, as you have identified, are going to be restricted in advocating the teaching beliefs of our church. The source of the suggestion that it will somehow do that is from people who are opposed to this legislation.

[H.Em Thomas Cardinal Collins]

I am opposed to—

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

I'm struggling between being a Catholic and a lawyer here. The lawyer in me tells me this legislation does not come anywhere close to doing the things that are being alleged.

[H.Em Thomas Cardinal Collins]

The Catholic in me tells me that the type of spiritual guidance and practices we have—we don't have time now, but I could talk to you later about them—that help people living a life of.... In the case of people who experience same-sex attraction, it's helping them to reduce non-heterosexual sexual behaviour. Indeed, if we were dealing with heterosexual behaviour, that could be there, as well.

This is very problematic. A simple change dealing with whether it is coercive behaviour that we're trying to outlaw would solve the problem. But as it stands, it will interfere with a lot of things, which I mentioned and which the Canadian bishops' brief mentions at greater length.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you.

That's all the time we have.

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

I would like to talk to you further, Your Eminence.

[H.Em Thomas Cardinal Collins]

I would be glad to do so. Just come and see me any time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you.

Monsieur Fortin, you have six minutes.

Go ahead, sir.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank all the witnesses who are with us. Their participation in this debate is valuable.

As I was saying previously, we feel that, the more people we hear talk about Bill C-6, the more we realize that the situation is confusing. I think that all the parliamentarians who have worked on this bill are acting in good faith and want to ban practices we all consider dishonourable.

I sort of agree with what Cardinal Collins was saying earlier that this is unfortunately the text that will have to be the legal support for those bans, but I unfortunately find it confusing.

That said, I personally feel that good faith conversations should be allowed, but I am wondering what would constitute a good faith conversation. Couldn't that conversation “in good faith” from one individual's point of view appear to be “in bad faith” from another point of view? What I mean by that is that religious and moral beliefs vary from one individual to another and from one religion to another.

Cardinal Collins, how would you view a question from a citizen who came to see you—for example a 13 or 14-year-old adolescent—and was questioning their gender identity and saying that they think they are bisexual, that they are sexually attracted to young women or young men and that they find that okay. What would be your opinion on that kind of a statement, Cardinal Collins?

[H.Em Thomas Cardinal Collins]

Thank you very much.

I would like to answer this very delicate and nuanced question in French, but I unfortunately do not have the ability to accurately discuss this topic in French.

I would think that if somebody.... Suppose you have a young person who is struggling. They have gender dysphoria, or whatever. Often people get more and more influenced by the society around them. I would say that they need to be listened to, spoken with and encouraged. If there's somebody influencing them, saying that for the moment they're somewhat confused—and some kids do get confused—and saying to go in the direction that Dr. Dobson was saying some people are asked to do, and she gave the example from England, I would say let's not do that. Let's just listen and be compassionate and understanding. I would not encourage such a person to enter into practices of, for example, transitioning, and things like that. That is happening, though.

If I were a parent, a counsellor or a priest, and a person came to me with these issues, I would advise them not to go in that direction. I would be giving them advice in my own way, which would be, I think, potentially getting in the way of this law. I think there's a greater danger of that in groups, and things like that, that would seek to give counselling, especially dealing with the issue of homosexuality.

I think we have to just listen and understand. This law is too.... If I'm trying to convince someone not to go in a direction, that could be conversion therapy. It's not, I don't think. Coercive things should be banned, as the rabbi mentioned. But advice for people not to go in a certain direction, I don't think should be banned.

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

Thank you.

Cardinal Collins, I will continue with you.

In your opinion, would priests, rabbis, imams or any other religious leaders intervene by adopting some sort of an affirmative approach, as Dr. Dobson was saying earlier? In short, would they listen without trying to influence young people or could they rather want to correct adolescents' sexual preferences or behaviours?

[H.Em Thomas Cardinal Collins]

I think this depends upon individuals. A friend of mine, a person I know very well, testified a while ago about some priests behaving in a rather strange manner, about exorcism and stuff. That I do not agree with. I think that can happen in any religion, including my own. I would not approve such an action.

Sure it might happen in Jewish, Muslim or Protestant groups; I don't know. You always have individual priests, ministers, rabbis and imams. I think the most important thing is to be able to have a person counsel and be able to do that, including to counsel, which I would be counselling, against homosexual sexual behaviour, because I don't believe that is the right direction.

I would not force anyone; I don't coerce anyone, but I just don't think that's the way to go. We have ways of helping people deal with this issue in their life, freely entered into, that I think are very fruitful and good. They're not coercive, but I think they would be captured under this definition and I don't think that's right.

A simple word, “coercive”, solves the problem.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Monsieur Fortin, that is your six minutes.

I will now go to Mr. Garrison, who will be our last questioner for today.

Mr. Garrison, go ahead.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I thank all the witnesses for appearing today. It's not very often that we have witnesses with the stature of Cardinal Collins and Rabbi Whitman before the committee.

Given that Cardinal Collins has had a fair degree of time, I want to focus my questions with Rabbi Whitman.

I think you are in a unique position as a witness here, because you've come to us as both a legal scholar and a biblical scholar. Therefore, my question for you, first, would be, do you see anything in this bill generally or specifically that you feel would limit you in the carrying out of your professional duties and responsibilities, or spiritual duties and responsibilities, as a rabbi?

[Rabbi Michael Whitman]

First of all, thank you for placing me in such august company as the other two speakers. I am honoured.

My understanding of conversion therapy is a type of activity that is coercive, so I would certainly support clarifying that point. However, it seems to me, from my reading of the bill, that it already allows for free expression of religious principles and good faith conversations. I don't see that it is contraindicated by this bill.

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

On the question of adults being subjected to conversion therapy, the bill presumes that there is such a thing as consenting adult conversion therapy.

Would you have any comment on whether people can actually consent to a process that has been found by professionals to be fraudulent and harmful?

[Rabbi Michael Whitman]

That's a very hard line to draw. Dr. Dobson made reference to the fact that a lot of individuals might have multiple emotional issues at the same time. Therefore, yes, if it was actually free consent and full consent, I think a person has the right to do that, but a person could very easily be in a situation where they feel compelled, feel pressured and it would be very hard to judge free and full consent.

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

In your experience as a rabbi, how often do you think conversion therapy is taking place either within the Jewish community or other faith communities in Canada?

[Rabbi Michael Whitman]

That's hard for me to answer. I have not personally encountered it. My guess would be that it exists within the fringes of the Jewish community in some of the larger areas, but I know that within the mainstream Jewish community of all denominations, orthodox, conservative and reform, it is pretty much discredited and not practised. If it exists now, it exists at the edges.

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

Thank you.

The human rights legislation in Canada has affirmed protection from discrimination on the basis of gender identity or gender expression. We've heard testimony from witnesses suggesting that this bill should depart from that and only protect sexual orientation from conversion therapy.

Would you have an opinion on the breadth of the bill? Should it include gender identity and gender expression?

[Rabbi Michael Whitman]

I think if we're talking about an activity that is coercive and that is harmful, it should apply in all situations.