Justice Committee on Dec. 10th, 2020

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think we're all struggling here somewhat, because we're faced with legislation with very vague definitions. I haven't heard anyone in favour of coercive conversion therapy, but we're left with vagueness overall as to what that even means, whom it affects and how that will play out.

This is why Monsieur Fortin's suggestion that we read the 300 briefs that have come to us, which we've had no time to read, and that we actually pay attention more carefully to what is being put forward and what's presented to us, would have made sense. We're sitting here, going through clause-by-clause, trying to gerrymander and add in bits and pieces with a piece of legislation that has fundamental flaws in it from the beginning. It's difficult, very difficult, for us as legislators for a bill where the overall intent is something I agree with, to be forced into a situation where we're being asked to vote on a very flawed piece of legislation clearly put together too vaguely, too broadly. It will be challenged in the courts, probably successfully, and we'll be right back where we started, and it's unfortunate.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you, Madame Findlay.

I don't see any other hands raised at this time, so I will call the question on NDP-1.

Just so members are aware, the vote on NDP-1 also applies to NDP-5, NDP-9 and NDP-10, because they are consequential. If NDP-1 is adopted, then NDP-6 and NDP-7 cannot be moved.

Shall NDP-1 carry?

(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

NDP-1 is defeated, and consequentially NDP-5, NDP-9 and NDP-10 are also defeated.

Now I call the question on clause 3, seeing there are no more amendments.

Shall clause 3 carry?

(Clause 3 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 0)

On clause 4, would any members like to speak to clause 4?

Not seeing any, I'll call the question on clause 4.

(Clause 4 agreed to: yeas 8; nays 0)

(On clause 5)

We will now move on to clause 5 and amendment NDP-2.

As a note to members, if NDP-2 is adopted, NDP-3 and CPC-1 cannot be moved because of a line conflict.

We'll go to Mr. Garrison now to move NDP-2.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The lines involved here actually raise several issues. I understand that there may be another amendment from the floor from the Liberals on these same lines. I am prepared to defer to the floor amendment from the Liberals, because I think it might make more sense to discuss that before NDP-2.

I believe Mr. Virani has such an amendment, and I would be prepared to defer to hear his floor amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Mr. Virani, would you like to speak to that?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Yes, Madam Chair, and thank you to Mr. Garrison.

The lines that are in question in Bill C-6 relate to clause 5, lines 30 to 32. I think there's a meeting of the minds here between ourselves and the NDP with respect to the importance of emphasizing the need to protect not only sexual orientation and gender identity, but also gender expression.

The language we would be proposing by way of either a new amendment or an amendment to what Mr. Garrison is suggesting is simply to insert “gender expression” into lines 32 and 33.

I can read it to you. In what we have in front of us, lines 32-33 currently read, “gender identity to cisgender, or to repress or reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour.” That is followed by the two words “For greater”. The idea would be to insert “gender expression” into those two lines, so it would now read, “gender identity or gender expression to cisgender, or to repress or reduce non-cisgender gender expression, or non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour. For greater”.

The insertion is basically a total of eight words. The words “or gender expression” would be inserted, and the words “non-cisgender gender expression, or” would be inserted as well.

That is to address what we heard in testimony, what we've heard from stakeholders and what we've read in written briefs, to ensure that this bill is as comprehensive as possible. It also tracks with other instruments, including human rights legislation and so on, in terms of its language and verbiage, that we have not only reference to sexual orientation and gender identity, which is currently in the bill, but also reference to gender expression.

I think that is where we have an understanding with the NDP with respect to the necessity of that type of change, so I would move that this language be used in lines 32 to 33 on page 4, in clause 5.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you, Mr. Virani.

Can you please email us that language so that all members are very clear as to exactly what you're proposing? I wonder if you have it in both languages as well.

As we wait for that email to be circulated, I'll turn to Mr. Moore, who has his hand raised.

Go ahead, sir.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

If you ask me, this is absolutely astounding of the government, together with the NDP. I remember that when the minister was here, I guess it was last week, he said he had the brightest and best minds around the drafting of the definition. We've been talking about the definition and the importance of getting it right. The minister assured us that it was bang-on and in no need of any changes whatsoever, and any other changes would be just redundant.

What Mr. Virani is proposing here is not what I would view as a friendly amendment to Mr. Garrison's amendment. They do two different things. Mr. Garrison's removes some of the language, from my read of it, around “cisgender”, for example, and adds in “gender expression”. Mr. Virani's reinserts that language and maintains adding in “gender expression”.

Madam Chair, you can just interrupt me if I'm wrong on this, but I think I heard you say that if we adopt NDP-2, as amended perhaps, then CPC-1 would be dropped. For that reason, I do want to speak to CPC-1 really quickly because we won't get a chance to do so otherwise.

Because of the lack of clarity around the definition of “conversion therapy”, what CPC-1 would do, as opposed to NDP-2 as amended by the government, would be to explicitly say it's “as part of an effort to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity.” I think we need to be clear that this is what conversion therapy is. It's an effort to change a person's gender identity or sexual orientation.

The amendment that the government is proposing further muddies the waters. I much prefer the amendment we're proposing, and for that reason, I would not be supporting the government's amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you, Mr. Moore.

Before I go to Mr. Garrison, I'll advise members that the phone lines are now working with interpretation.

Mr. Garrison, please go ahead.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I do appreciate Mr. Moore's comments. These lines are critical in the bill, and that's why, after discussions with Mr. Virani, I have agreed.... Well, I would like broader changes in that section, and the government is not prepared to entertain those. For me, the most important goal here is to make sure that gender expression is part of the bill and that we are protecting Canadians against attempts to change their gender identity or their gender expression.

Being a realist, I'm prepared to accept that his changes here are in the spirit of what I was trying to do to ensure that inclusion. Of course, I prefer my own language in the two amendments that follow, but I'm prepared to accept this and I think it's an important expansion of protections in the bill.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Mr. Virani, we're still waiting for that language so that we can have clarity.

My understanding is that there's a bit of discrepancy around the line numbers. I think you referred to lines 30 to 32, whereas I think the amendment might be to lines 31 to 32. However, we are waiting for that email just so members can be very clear as to what the new language would look like.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Chair, I apologize if I misspoke. Looking at the English version of the text, I believe the amendment would be to lines 32 and 33 of the documentation.

There are two ways we can go about this. It's literally eight words that I'm inserting. We could employ the assistance of legislative counsel, who I believe is in the committee room with you, in terms of what the French language words should be for those eight words that I'm choosing to insert, or we can wait. I'm having a translation worked up as we speak, and we could perhaps move on to other amendments that aren't related to this and dispose of them and return to the discussion of this amendment once the translation is available.

I'm in your hands in that regard.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

To confirm, Mr. Virani, is the translation being done by somebody from our legislative team or is it separate from that?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

The translation would be vetted by the legislative counsel, obviously, but the translation is being worked on by people who have a better facility in French than I do.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Go ahead, Mr. Moore.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

I do find this astounding. The minister appeared here, and I guess it takes a certain amount of hubris.... I have a lot of respect for the minister, but any time you come and present a bill to a committee and basically indicate that it's perfect and there's probably no need to hear from any witnesses because you did such a bang-up job drafting it, and now, at the eleventh hour....

This is a government bill. We're in the opposition. We do not have the resources of government. We have to listen to witnesses when it comes to drafting amendments. All of us around this table work very hard at that as parliamentarians. We do not have the resources of government.

Why at the eleventh hour...? This should have been in our hands. Why on earth would the government be putting forward an amendment that, in my view, alters the bill? We would have heard at best conflicting evidence on an expansion to include “gender expression”, but this shouldn't be new to the government. They should be aware of these things, and if they want this, they should have had it in the drafting of the bill, and not literally in the moment proposing amendments.

I could understand that if it was coming from the Green Party, the Bloc, NDP or even ourselves. Yes, sometimes with a compressed time frame like we had—of only four days—something could come up in witness testimony that we might want to react on, but for the government itself to be proposing a change....

I'd guess I'd like to hear from some of the lawyers with the Department of Justice on what this change in wording would mean in practice, because we don't have.... We all sat here in testimony where it's not clear what has been captured definitively by the government's definition of conversion therapy. What we do know is that the minister has used words in the introduction of this bill that we've urged them to include in the legislation. The government chose not to do that.

Now we see that at the eleventh hour—or past—the government is scrambling to make changes. I think they have the wording, of course, that Mr. Virani is proposing in front of them. In law, what is the change that we are now being asked to contemplate, literally on the fly?

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you, Mr. Moore, for that.

I will defer to the witnesses, but first I feel that we need to suspend as we wait for this language to come in, and I do need to confer with the legislative team over here as well on that wording.

We'll suspend for a couple of minutes as we get clarity on this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

I call this meeting back to order.

Thank you for your patience, members. Just to confirm, have members all received the new proposed language? Just show me a thumbs-up if you've received it. I'm just checking to see if you've received the email with the new language for NDP-2.

As members are reviewing that language, I'll pass the floor on to the legislative clerk to speak to what would be the easiest process to insert this language.

Go ahead, sir.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Jacques Maziade]

Okay. Just to be sure—

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Yes, Mr. Moore.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Chair, before you suspended, I had asked a question of the government witnesses on the language that's being proposed. Before we hear about how we would mechanically do this, I'd like to hear what the language does. How is it different from what the minister came here last week and proposed, which was A1, ready to go? It seems to me a significant departure from what the minister presented, and the fact that it's coming from the government I find surprising.

I'd like to hear an explanation of how this would change the law in Canada versus what was originally presented.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you, Mr. Moore.

I will turn to the department. I understand that you do have the language in front of you.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Chair, I'll speak to the same point of order.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

I just think it's a bit erroneous to leave the record reflecting that the minister wasn't open to amendments. He clearly indicated in his testimony before this committee two weeks ago that he was open to amendments, and I believe the issue of entrenching gender expression was directly put to him by Mr. Garrison. I think the record should reflect that. That's what this amendment seeks to do—insert “gender expression” into the definition of what would constitute conversion therapy under proposed section 320.101.

Thank you.