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.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Thank you very much for that additional point, which I think is well taken.
For probably my last question, I want to go back to the Canadian Association of Social Workers and ask about how frequent you believe the practice of conversion therapy to be, in its various forms, in Canada. We've had some expressions of disbelief from people saying that this surely must not be going on.
Social Policy and Communications Coordinator, Canadian Association of Social Workers
Yes, thank you for your question.
Unfortunately, these practices are happening and they are happening at an alarming rate. We're not seeing them when they are happening at their inception. We're seeing them when they end up in other social service settings, such as with those seeking health care, housing or support through security support.
We know that they're happening, unfortunately, at an alarming rate. We're unfortunately catching it too late—once the practice has already happened. We need to be catching it before individuals end up in deep socio-economic and psychological harm.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Great.
Madam Chair, I think I'll conclude my questioning there.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid
Thank you very much, Mr. Garrison, for always being so timely.
Witnesses, on behalf of the committee, l'd like to thank all of you for your testimony today, for taking the time to answer questions and for sharing your experiences. If there are any additional clarifications you need to provide to the committee, please don't hesitate to submit anything in writing through the clerk, so we can get further clarification on questions that were asked of you today.
With that, we'll suspend the meeting as we transition into our second panel.
Thank you once again to the witnesses.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid
I call this meeting back to order.
We are studying Bill C-6. We welcome our guests and witnesses for the second panel.
Just before we go into that, I'll remind our witnesses and members that when you are speaking, please speak slowly and clearly with your microphone unmuted. When you are not speaking, please have your microphone on mute so as not to disrupt other speakers.
As we deal with this bill, I will remind members and witnesses to please maintain respectful dialogue and to be respectful to fellow members and witnesses at all times. It is in our best interest that we get through this and hear a diversity of opinions.
With that, I'd like to introduce our witnesses for the second panel.
As an individual, we have Dr. Jane Dobson. We have Daniel Santoro, who is a barrister and solicitor, and we have Rabbi Michael Whitman. We also have, representing the Archdiocese of Toronto, His Eminence Cardinal Thomas Collins.
Welcome.
We'll start now, for five minutes, with Dr. Jane Dobson.
Dr. Jane Dobson As an Individual
Thank you, members of Parliament, for this chance to speak with you. I am here as a concerned family physician.
I want you to picture a young teenage girl who starts to question her gender identity. As you may know, questioning and exploring identity is a key part of adolescent development. She is referred to a gender clinic by her family doctor. Instead of having her anxiety and depressive symptoms treated, she is fast-tracked onto puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, and at age 20 she has both breasts removed.
At age 23 she regrets her hasty decision and begins to detransition. She is left with a permanent five o'clock shadow, a permanently low voice and no breasts. Now she wonders how all this happened to her, simply because she questioned her gender identity. She says, “I made a brash decision as a teenager, as a lot of teenagers do, trying to find confidence and happiness, except now the rest of my life will be negatively affected. I feel I was a guinea pig.”
This is not an imaginary person. This is Keira Bell, the young woman who successfully sued England's Tavistock gender clinic. As a result, the British High Court has now ruled that children must understand the immediate and long-term consequences of taking puberty blockers to be able to consent. The court's permission is now needed to start anyone under 16 on puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones.
I wish I could share specific stories from my and my colleagues' medical practices, but of course I cannot.
Are adolescents being fast-tracked onto this biomedical regime here in Ontario? Yes. Why are their concomitant psychiatric diagnoses not being treated first? The therapist will be accused of conversion therapy.
In Ontario, since Bill 77 was passed in 2015, the psychotherapy-first approach has been stigmatized as conversion therapy. This psychotherapeutic approach has a proven positive track record.
Prior to 2015, when a gender-confused child received this treatment, they would be helped and encouraged to identify with their natal gender and be allowed to go through puberty unobstructed. Studies show that 80% to 88% of these children identified with their natal gender by adolescence. They accepted their biological body as their own.
Now, however, only one approach is offered, gender affirmation. Only one narrative is spoken, that gender identity is immutable.
What happens to young children who receive the gender affirmation approach? They are first socially transitioned, given new names, pronouns and new clothes. When they show early signs of puberty, they are placed on puberty blockers, which can cause brittle bones and may arrest natural brain development. Then they're placed on cross-sex hormones, which can increase anger and aggression, acne and hair loss, cause liver dysfunction, increase the risk of heart attacks and strokes, diabetes and blood clots, and cause sterility and sexual dysfunction. If they have further surgeries, they may well experience urinary incontinence.
One might well ask: How can a young child, a five-year-old, legally consent to this? The developmental stage of a five-year-old is still in concrete thinking. They can have no idea what could have happened if they had been offered the psychotherapeutic approach. They also can have no ability to understand what the future risks of this biomedical approach will entail.
My question is: Why is the government telling people what sexual or gender goals they should have? They are effectively doing this with Bill C-6, as the bill broadens the definition of conversion therapy from abusive and coercive therapeutic practices to also include talk therapy, watchful waiting, interpersonal conversations and spiritual practices, widening the net to now potentially criminalize parents, spiritual leaders and medical professionals for simply practising tested and tried therapy to help an individual reach their self-directed goals.
Further, it shouldn't be the government that decides what theories and therapies win out but the scientific community itself as it debates, studies, revises theories and moves forward.
What we should be asking is why referrals to gender clinics are soaring by as much as 1,000%, especially in adolescent natal females; why concomitant psychiatric diagnoses are so high, diagnoses that often predate the gender dysphoria; and why there are a growing number of detransitioners. Instead, Canada is seeking to stifle these questions by criminalizing proven therapy and allowing only one viewpoint to be heard.
Sweden is in the midst of a major review of their gender clinics. Finland has gone through their review, and now they require that psychiatric comorbidities be treated before medical transition is considered.
Instead of following the examples of England, Sweden and Finland, we are going in the absolute wrong direction. Will it take a lawsuit to change our direction? How many Keira Bells need to happen here in Canada before we change our approach and before we truly respect the rights of all Canadians?
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid
Thank you very much, Dr. Dobson.
We'll now go to Daniel Santoro for five minutes.
Go ahead, sir.
Daniel Santoro Barrister and Solicitor, As an Individual
Good afternoon.
I am a lawyer in Toronto, Ontario, with extensive experience conducting complex criminal trials and appeals for all manner of offences. Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to testify respecting this proposed conversion therapy offence.
There are three main problems with this legislation as currently drafted. I will suggest solutions to all these problems that I think are simple and consistent with a lot of the evidence you've heard.
The first problem is that the definition of conversion therapy is overly broad and imprecise. It's likely to capture situations that are not actual conversion therapy and cause confusion. The second problem is that the existing exception for medical treatment is too narrow, because it specifies only one lawful form of treatment: gender transition. The third and final problem is that the exception allowing exploration of identity is unclear and does not adequately protect charter freedoms.
On the first problem, that the definition of conversion therapy is overly broad and imprecise, multiple provinces have, or are considering, conversion therapy legislation. In all cases, this legislation is passed pursuant to the provincial power to regulate health care. In order for this bill, Bill C-6, to be a valid exercise of the federal criminal law power, it must have a criminal public purpose, which means some specific public evil that is targeted. In this case, I think everyone can agree that the target is coercive and harmful practices that are designed to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity.
The bill 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.
There are many difficult-to-define and undefined terms and words in this definition, and there are many difficult concepts that will be very difficult for criminal courts to nail down. This will prove to be a very difficult definition to interpret for the many, many reasons you've heard from different witnesses.
Realistic situations will arise that may be captured by this definition. For example, we have already heard mention of whether a therapist will be allowed to assist an adult person who wants to go through a detransitioning process, or whether a youth who is experiencing gender confusion will be able to access any therapy that would be affirming of their birth gender. There are many other situations as well. The difficulty is that if this definition is not properly tailored, it will be seen perhaps to not only be unconstitutional, because it regulates “criminal” in the field of health care, but to also be overbroad and contrary to section 7 of the charter.
My first suggestion is very simple. You need to restrict the definition to “a coercive practice”. I suggest that the definition should read, “Conversion therapy is a coercive practice.” This is a clear definition of a criminal public purpose. “Coercive” is a well-known term in the Criminal Code. It comes up in other sections. You can also consider whether you want to add the requirement that conversion therapy “causes harm”, whether that be bodily or psychological harm. Those are also well-defined concepts in the Criminal Code.
The other problem with this definition is mainly in the last part. If we define conversion therapy as “a coercive practice designed to change sexual orientation or gender identity” and remove all the extraneous language with relation to specifying “sexual orientation to heterosexual or gender identity to cisgender, or to repress or reduce" attraction or behaviour, we can be very much more simple in our definition here by saying, “Conversion therapy is a coercive practice designed to change sexual orientation or gender identity.” You can remove the rest of the language.
The second problem is with the medical treatment exception. It specifies only one sort of medical treatment that's allowed, and that's gender transition. Other medical exceptions in the Criminal Code, in order to avoid delving into the provincial regulation of health care, set out objective criteria according to which a judge or a person can understand whether what they're doing is allowed. In the euthanasia provisions and in other provisions in the Criminal Code when medical treatment is discussed, the exception is phrased that any treatment is allowed if exercised with “reasonable knowledge, care and skill". It does not specify one particular form of treatment that is allowed to the exclusion of all other forms of treatment.
Not only is that not allowed and unconstitutional because it would be regulating health care; it would be arbitrary and overbroad, because it captures situations such as treatments that doctors such as Dr. Dobson or some of her colleagues might suggest aren't gender transition. What you need to do is employ objective language.
The third issue has to do with the—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid
I'm sorry, Mr. Santoro, but you are out of time. Hopefully your recommendations will come out in the questioning.
We'll now move to Rabbi Michael Whitman.
Go ahead, sir, for five minutes.
Rabbi Michael Whitman As an Individual
Madam Chair, members of the committee, I am honoured to appear before you today to speak in support of Bill C-6.
My name is Michael Whitman. I am the senior rabbi of ADATH Congregation in Hampstead, Quebec, a modern-orthodox Jewish synagogue. I am a sessional instructor at McGill University Faculty of Law. I am involved in many communal efforts in Montreal and across Canada and have been engaged in providing pastoral counselling throughout my career of 37 years and counting.
My involvement in this specific issue began in 2012 when I read that the renowned psychiatrist Dr. Robert Spitzer, who years earlier had written a seminal paper that was used to support conversion therapy, recanted that research and wrote, “I owe the gay community an apology.”
After learning about the destructive effects of conversion therapy and hearing first-hand the harm of its effects, I would rephrase the now widespread sentiment against conversion therapy, paraphrasing the Bible: “We are ashamed of what we did to our brothers and sisters. We saw them suffering when they cried out to us, but we did not listen to them.” Today I ask that you do listen to them and take action to prevent this particular cry from ever being repeated in Canada.
For me, this is a straightforward issue of human rights. I find the earliest expression of human rights near the beginning of the Bible: that every human being is created B'Tzelem Elokim—in the image of God, cherished by God, deserving of respect and dignity. Our rabbis in the Talmud expanded this into the wide-reaching rubric of Kavod HaBriyot—the innate right of human dignity, that we are prohibited to embarrass, humiliate or debase anyone.
About five years ago, I was appointed the annual convention chair of the RCA, the Rabbinical Council of America, the largest professional organization of Orthodox rabbis. My committee and I had the responsibility to program instruction and resources for rabbis across North America and the world to assist them in leading their congregations. The theme we chose was “caring for LGBT Individuals and their families”. Our goal was to listen to these individuals and the helping professionals who support them. I am proud that the RCA gave prime time to a subject that enables all rabbis to do our jobs better.
It's central to my mission as a rabbi and my identity as a Jew to make every human being feel welcome and respected. Conversion therapy does just the opposite. It is inherently belittling and dismissive. It demands that people live inauthentically, untrue to themselves, and requires a harsh cure where there is no disease. Its methods are often humiliating and traumatizing. There is no place for it in Canadian society.
I remember hearing a radio interview. Dr. Spitzer was asked how he felt, after writing his retraction at the age of 80, that his entire life's work and reputation would be tainted by this one research paper. I remember that he said, “I feel very bad, of course, for the hurt I have caused, but at the same time, when I realized I was wrong, I retracted it. I said it was wrong and I apologized to those I had hurt.” Not many people do that, and it is something to be proud of.
Conversion therapy has continued in Canada for far too long. It is wrong, and I ask you to do something about it. That will be something you will be proud of.
Thank you very much.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid
Thank you very much, Rabbi Whitman.
Mr. Housefather sends his regards. I believe he's your representative and he's very happy that you're here today.
We'll now go to His Eminence Cardinal Thomas Collins for five minutes.
Go ahead, sir.
His Eminence Cardinal Thomas Collins Archbishop, Archdiocese of Toronto
Thank you very much.
Good afternoon and thank you for providing me with the opportunity to speak with you about Bill C-6. I am grateful for the work of the justice and human rights committee and for all that you do to serve our country in your role as elected members of Parliament.
As the Archbishop of Toronto, I serve as the spiritual leader of two million Catholics in the greater Toronto area. At the outset, I should clearly state that the Catholic Church opposes any coercive practices that undermine a person's free will and human dignity. We believe that every person is a gift from God to be treated with love, compassion and respect. In a society where mutual respect and love of neighbour should define us in all that we do, we must all ensure that no one experiences coercion or manipulation. I'm most appreciative of Minister Chagger's insistence that we act against coercive practices.
I am deeply concerned, however, that the current definition of conversion therapy found in Bill C-6 goes much further than the stated goal of criminalizing coercive behaviour. In this bill, there is no requirement that the practice, treatment or service in question be coercive or cause harm. The bill fails to define exactly what constitutes a practice, treatment or service. Actions that are now lawful could be subject to the Criminal Code.
In its current form the legislation lacks protection in relation to the following: the fundamental right of parents as first educators and guardians to make decisions regarding the welfare of their children, specifically their freedom to instruct them in accord with their religious and ethical beliefs; the right and freedom of every Canadian to voluntarily seek support to live in a manner consistent with their identity and beliefs, and in accord with their personal convictions; the right and freedom of the church and other religious communities to support persons who choose to live their lives and sexuality in accord with moral teachings and the dictates of conscience; and the right and freedom of the church and other religious communities to share their religious and ethical beliefs regarding the human person and human sexuality.
Now some within the government have said that clearly this bill is not intended to criminalize some of the points that I have just mentioned. Be that as it may, no such protection is actually present in the text of the legislation and it is the text that will become law.
If I may cite an example, when the euthanasia law was passed in 2016, we were assured that the language in the preamble would be sufficient to protect conscience rights for those not wishing to participate in the act of taking a patient's life. That has turned out not to be true.
Any law concerning conversion therapy must strike a careful balance. On the one hand, the law must recognize that coercive and harmful practices have no place in our social order. On the other hand, the law must not criminalize the charter-protected beliefs of Canadian people. While these beliefs may not find popular acclaim and may even be offensive to some, the fact remains that many people freely choose to live their lives in accordance with traditional principles and beliefs. Tolerance and diversity are a two-way street. Educators, counsellors, parents and pastoral leaders should be allowed to express their views freely and without fear of punishment. This is certainly true when it comes to faith communities because in practice in our society they are now and always have been at the forefront in caring for the most vulnerable.
I hope that this committee will seriously reflect on these concerns and amend Bill C-6 to criminalize conversion therapy in a more careful and accurate manner. While we must address the suffering caused by any harmful coercive practices to ensure they are no longer present in our country, at the same time we must permit respectful dialogue and expression of diverse views in a way that supports deeply enshrined principles in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is the coercive and harmful element that we must focus on and not be too broad in the definition.
I thank you for the opportunity to share my comments with you this afternoon.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid
Thank you very much.
We'll now move into our first round of questions, starting with Madam Findlay for six minutes.
Go ahead, Madam FIndlay.
Conservative
Kerry-Lynne Findlay Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you to all the witnesses who are appearing here today. We really appreciate your input.
Dr. Dobson, thank you for your thoughts. As a medical professional, can you outline how this lack of clarity in the law might impact other medical professionals when trying to assist patients?
As an Individual
Currently in Ontario, of course, you can be disciplined by your college if you do anything other than affirmation therapy. It's already restricted here in Ontario, unfortunately. With the threat of jail time, I guess it will be further restricted.
So many people with gender dysphoria have a concomitant psychiatric diagnosis. They need that to be treated, and they're being rushed onto the biomedical model of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones because of the fear in therapists that they will be accused of—quote—“conversion therapy”.
I don't think anybody wants anybody to suffer with gender dysphoria. It's very important then, for anybody with anxiety, depression and all these other symptoms that are comorbid, to be treated. They shouldn't lose out on that just because of the fear of it being labelled as conversion therapy.
Conservative
Kerry-Lynne Findlay Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC
Thank you.
Cardinal Collins, thank you also for being here.
The Minister of Justice has said that this bill will not infringe on good faith conversations. However, he also said in his testimony before this committee that there seems to be confusion around the scope of the bill. We've heard from a number of witnesses who were concerned by the disconnect between the language of the minister and what is contained in the bill.
Would you support seeing an amendment that clarifies that the bill does not criminalize those good faith conversations?
H.Em Thomas Cardinal Collins
Absolutely, I think that's really essential. Whatever the assurances are and the good intentions around the bill, the fact is that as it stands, it does have this problem. If there was to be an amendment that only coercive behaviour, behaviour causing harm or practices that cause harm should be criminalized, that makes some sense. That would be the kind of thing that I believe Rabbi Whitman is concerned with.
As it is right now, it doesn't have those protections. We might assume them, but they're not there. I am very concerned that we would have, for example, groups within my own community, which seek to help and guide people in living a life of Christian chastity, in which everyone freely enters into—there is no coercion and there is no harm.... But these are behaviours that I think would come under the repressing of non-heterosexual sexual behaviour, believing that is not the way that we're called to live in Christ. I think that freely chosen practices being penalized or criminalized is just not right.
A simple amendment to say that it's coercive behaviour or practices that cause harm.... Nobody wants someone to be forced or manipulated into any kind of a therapy. That should obviously be forbidden, and that I think is what Rabbi Whitman is concerned about, absolutely. That's only the thing—
Conservative
Kerry-Lynne Findlay Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC
Thank you.
Mr. Santoro, about the broadness of the definition of conversion therapy and C-6 as it is now, do you believe because of how the bill is written now that it could be struck down?
Barrister and Solicitor, As an Individual
I think that if some of the particular circumstances that you've heard from witnesses, such as detransitioning, etc., were to arise, you'd have to look at each case on its facts. The fact of the matter is that if this law prevented some form of therapy or medical treatment that this person wanted, freely chose, and that the doctors and therapists are saying that they should have and that it wouldn't be harmful, if this law prevented that, which I think it very well may, then it could be very well struck down, either as violating the health care power or as overbroad.
Conservative
Kerry-Lynne Findlay Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC
As a lawyer, you would know that if it was struck down, it would mean that the government would then need to go back to the drawing board to amend the law. By not amending the bill now to clarify what the bill impacts and what it does not, is it your opinion that Parliament would then be faced with having to come back to amend the bill down the road?
Barrister and Solicitor, As an Individual
It's much better to amend it now. It's going to save a lot of trouble. It's going to save a lot of potential litigation, confusion among people. If you just put clear language in saying that conversion therapy is a coercive practice, that would solve a lot of problems. As well there is the other suggestion that I made about medical treatment. Don't specify one form of medical treatment. Just make it a generic medical treatment exception, as well as the other suggestion you just made about protecting conscientious speech and opinions.
Conservative
Kerry-Lynne Findlay Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC
Quickly, Mr. Santoro, do you believe there is adequate protection now for good faith conversations? Provide a very quick answer, please.
Barrister and Solicitor, As an Individual
No, there is not, because “exploration of identity or development” I take to be some kind of an expressive exception, but it's a very confusing term. I would suggest employing established terminology from other sections of the Criminal Code, such as the hate speech provision, which says that you can have conscientiously held opinions being expressed, and there's mention of religious texts and so on.
Just use the established language from other sections. Don't try to invent novel terminology, as the courts will have a hard time figuring out what that means.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid
Thank you very much, Madam Findlay.
We'll now go to Mr. Maloney for six minutes.
Go ahead, sir.