Evidence of meeting #15 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 therapy.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:45 a.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Thanks very much.
This bill leaves the concept of consenting adults as able to submit to conversion therapies, so I'd like to ask No Conversion Canada a question. I know this was mentioned in your original presentation. Of course, I personally support a full ban, but on this question of consenting adults, do you believe that adults can, in fact, consent to something that is fraudulent and harmful?
11:45 a.m.
Founder, No Conversion Canada
No, we do not. Thank you very much for that question.
It's important to note that all conversion therapy is inherently fraudulent, coercive and dangerous. The government legislation should apply to all ages without exception.
The notion that only forced conversion therapy is prohibited and by contrast there can be such a thing as consenting adults is misguided. There's no such thing as good conversion therapy. There's no such thing as honest conversion therapy, because it is based on a false premise that LGBTQ2 identities are somehow invalid, wrong, abnormal or undesirable. This is a false premise.
I also want to note that conversion therapy has been confirmed as a form of torture by the International Council on the Rehabilitation of Torture Victims. It's important to note that they explicitly reference both sexual orientation and gender identity and all forms of conversion therapy in their study. You cannot consent to torture. You cannot consent to harm. We should not be making hierarchies of torture where we condemn lobotomies but condone psychological abuse or where we condemn conversion therapy for youth and condone it for adults. It is all harmful and it leaves its victims with lifelong trauma.
To use a very quick example, it's the same reason that I cannot create my own vaccine for COVID-19 and go out on the street and sell it to the top buyer. Obviously there are people who are struggling, who are scared, but to do so would be committing harm on a false premise of consent that would be inherently fraudulent. That is the example I would use for conversion therapy as well. It needs to apply to all ages.
11:50 a.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Thanks, very much.
I want to return to the Canadian Association of Social Workers on this question of consent and see if they have anything further they'd like to add.
11:50 a.m.
Social Policy and Communications Coordinator, Canadian Association of Social Workers
Yes, exactly. I would completely, wholeheartedly echo No Conversion Canada. You cannot consent to a practice which at its core has been deemed fraudulent, baseless and harmful.
The idea that an individual can consent to a practice which at its core is trying to change, alter or deny who they are or who they want to be is again going to create those loopholes that we're trying to get rid of with a federal ban.
Yes, consent should absolutely be discluded. We echo everything that No Conversion Canada has to say in regard to that.
11:50 a.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Do you, as the Canadian Association of Social Workers, see anything in this bill that would in any way inhibit you in dealing with your clients and making sure they get the supports and services they need?
11:50 a.m.
Social Policy and Communications Coordinator, Canadian Association of Social Workers
Absolutely not. Conversion therapy in all of its forms, in every single form that we have talked about here today, is a deep violation of a social worker's code of ethics. They will not be able to practice and be a registered health care professional or a registered social worker outside of this bill.
This bill is for us to say who is doing these practices and how do we ensure that they are regulated like all other health care professionals who have to adhere to strict guidelines and codes of ethics, one of which is to respect the inherent dignity and worth of all persons. Conversion therapy does not do that, so for social workers, we are already in the realm of you cannot practise if you are doing any form of conversion therapy, so therefore, no.
If you are someone who is looking for gender affirming or any kind of social services around LGBTQ2+ gender expression or sexual orientation, you will absolutely be able to see a social worker and have any of the conversations you need with the goal not to be to change, alter or deny who you fundamentally are.
11:50 a.m.
NDP
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid
Thank you.
We'll now go to our second round for five minutes starting with Mr. Cooper.
Go ahead, sir.
December 8th, 2020 / 11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Thank you to all of the witnesses, including those who have told their stories and experiences. I know it is not easy.
I will address my first question to Ms. Bildy.
Perhaps you wish to pick up on where Mr. Moore left off, namely, how assurances on, for example, the Department of Justice website would hold up in court relative to what is in the law.
11:50 a.m.
Barrister and Solicitor, Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms
I think you're going to hear another witness in the next hour who is a criminal lawyer and can speak to that very specifically, but certainly, in my experience, the letter of the law is part of the Criminal Code, and the charge that someone is going to be issued is what you would be looking at primarily. Most lawyers are not going to go digging around on old websites trying to find some exceptions. It might become relevant to a degree, but I think that any exceptions and clarity need to be put directly into the bill for maximum protection.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Thank you for that.
You cited the recent U.K. High Court decision a couple of times. I wonder if you could be clear in terms of the connection or relevancy between the findings in that decision and the subject matter of this bill.
11:50 a.m.
Barrister and Solicitor, Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms
What you're basically endorsing with this bill is for kids to self-diagnose their own gender identity at a very young age potentially—potentially as young as three or five years old—and to have that confirmed, supported and pushed through without any question. You're talking about 10-year-old or 12-year-old kids going on puberty blockers at their will and wish without anybody being able to say, “Maybe this is a bad idea. Maybe the fact that 10 or 12 kids in your class have all decided that they're trans might be influencing you here. Maybe this isn't something that is in your best interest.” We're not allowed to say that. We have to accept the child's self-diagnosis of their gender identity and then allow them, if they want.... They're all taught now on the Internet how to push for puberty blockers and make the arguments to allow them to get those. They will then be on this path that they will not be able to get off.
Ninety-nine per cent of those kids, once they start on puberty blockers, will go the distance. For many of them, it's the wrong decision, and they will regret it later. This is happening in Europe, and we are not far behind. In the U.K. the decision dealt with a young woman who had transitioned fully, had a mastectomy and so on, and came to regret it. She challenged the fact that she was not given any proper therapy or diagnosis of other underlying conditions from which she suffered, and she was basically pushed through because of dogma like Member Garrison is talking about, that it's transphobic to suggest that you should care about children and their well-being. That is just wrong and you are going to pay a price for that one day.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
I'm not trying to take any time from Mr. Cooper.
I firmly believe that we can disagree without being disagreeable, and comments like that are not appropriate when they're volleyed at any member of Parliament, including the members of this committee.
I would just ask the chair to perhaps caution the witnesses in their use of terminology.
Thank you.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Kerry-Lynne Findlay Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC
Yes. We have heard testimony in this committee, both in the last bill and this one, where witnesses attack—that's the word—other witnesses and attack members of Parliament without comment from my colleague, Mr. Virani, if it was in line with his thinking on these bills. You cannot say to one witness, “You cannot take issue with other testimony”, and not do it for each and every one. That is totally improper.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Madam Chair, on a similar vein to Madam Findlay, the time for Mr. Virani's intervention would have been when Mr. Garrison started throwing out offensive terms and disparaging our witnesses. Witnesses are here, and for many of them it's probably their first time being before a parliamentary committee. This is their time. Let's listen to them.
I think it's a two-way street, and respect has to come from our members of Parliament towards the witnesses as well. We shouldn't disparage any of them. I think every witness here today has brought something of value, and that's what we're discussing. So whether it's witness to witness, parliamentarian to parliamentarian, or between parliamentarians and witnesses, let's just have a respectful dialogue.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid
Thank you, Mr. Moore.
I thank members for raising the points of order. I will remind members that witnesses do have privilege when they come before committee to testify. With that privilege we hope that we can have respectful dialogue, respectful debate on the issues that are before us. I encourage all witnesses and members to please be mindful and be respectful of one another as we endeavour...on this study.
Thank you for raising this.
Mr. Cooper, we're back to you.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Bildy and Ms. Aikema, both of you in your testimony referenced that the bill forces outcomes or dictates outcomes.
Can both of you just elaborate on what you mean by that?
11:55 a.m.
Speaker, As an Individual
I would love to elaborate on that, because I think the real point of order needs to be the fact that Mr. Garrison just said that I don't exist. That should be the real point of order.
How dare anyone dictate what my counselling experience was? We need to understand that just as it is very traumatic to deal with rape, it is very traumatic to hear people talk about the fact that they want to take away my life-saving therapy, because you are saying that all forms of conversion therapy are coercive. I have just explained to you that the trauma I went through was coercive. but the counselling that I chose to meet my goals and the outcome that I needed to heal from my trauma was not coercive. I wanted this therapy and I had a right to it.
Who are these people telling me what I should want as a survivor of rape? The counselling I went through was neither coercive nor torture. It was the trauma of this bill and what's happened before that's making this much more difficult.