Evidence of meeting #16 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 amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
1:50 p.m.
Conservative
1:50 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
What I would move, to address this issue, is to incorporate the language “for greater certainty, this definition does not include”. That would, if passed, make our main amendment admissible.
1:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid
The question is on the subamendment at this time.
(Subamendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
I don't see any more hands raised, so I'll call the question on CPC-2 and—
1:50 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
On a point of order, Madam Chair, we heard clearly from the clerk that if the subamendment was defeated, this would be out of order. There is no need for a vote.
1:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid
It is out of order. My apologies. Thank you for clarifying that, Mr. Garrison.
We shall now move on to NDP-6.
Mr. Garrison, I believe you want to withdraw that.
1:50 p.m.
Liberal
1:55 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
The purpose of NDP-7 is quite simple. It's to replace the wording “against the person’s will”, which is in the current bill, with “without the person's consent”.
In the Criminal Code, “consent” is a much more well-established concept. We know the meaning of it and we know how it's applied. I personally am not familiar with any other part of the Criminal Code that uses “against the person's will”. This really makes the language much more standard in terms of what already exists in the Criminal Code. It would allow specifying in the future—I have amendment NDP-8—what consent is, but even without further amendment, it would place this clearly in an established realm of law.
Thank you.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I think it is important to make sure that we have consistent language. We've had this discussion already about ensuring consistency between the code and other statutes. I know, for example, that “without consent” is the language that's used in the Criminal Code with respect to sexual assault provisions. I think this is an important amendment that clarifies and facilitates interpretation, which we've heard a great deal about today from various interventions.
On that basis, I think it makes sense to clarify that the language being employed in this section of the bill reflects a lack of consent, as opposed to being against someone's will. On that basis, I will be supporting this amendment.
Thank you.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid
Thank you, Mr. Virani.
I'll call the question on NDP-7.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We'll now go to NDP-8.
Go ahead, Mr. Garrison.
1:55 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Thank you very much.
I won't take much time on this.
What NDP-8 does is attempt to define much more specifically what consent means in the construct of conversion therapy. We heard many concerns about whether one can, in fact, consent to a practice that is fraudulent and harmful.
Thank you.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
James Maloney Liberal Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON
Thanks, Madam Chair.
This amendment would list circumstances in which consent is not obtained in law for the purposes of the new offence that would prohibit causing a person to undergo conversion therapy without their consent, as was proposed by NDP-7. The listed circumstances in which consent would not be obtained in law are informed by the Criminal Code sexual assault provisions that vitiated consent in similar circumstances. However, the additional circumstances that are broader in scope are also listed.
Currently, the bill does not prevent adults from seeking out conversion therapy where such services are provided free of charge, because the evidence shows that some adults have sought out conversion therapy and reported positive results. Because this amendment would upset the balance that the bill seeks to achieve, I am not going to support it, Madam Chair.
Thank you.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid
Thank you, Mr. Maloney.
I'll call the question on NDP-8.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
As I indicated earlier, NDP-9 and NDP-10 were consequential to NDP-1, so we have already dealt with those.
The next amendment before us is NDP-11.
Go ahead, Mr. Garrison.
2 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Just briefly, it's a very simple change that adds the words “promotes or” to the concept of advertising in order to capture unpaid forms of promotion of conversion therapy, as well as paid and unpaid advertising. It's a fairly simple amendment. It tries to capture what actually goes on in the shadows around conversion therapy. It would prohibit promotion as well as advertising.
Thank you.
2 p.m.
Liberal
2 p.m.
Liberal
Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
I'm sorry. My hand was raised from earlier.
I believe it's my colleague Mr. Sangha.
2 p.m.
Liberal
Ramesh Sangha Liberal Brampton Centre, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The NDP-11 amendment proposes to add the word “promotes” so that it says, “promotes or advertises an offer to provide conversion therapy”. Mr. Garrison has already explained the terms and that promoting or advertising the provision of conversion therapy would be an offence. Accordingly, this amendment would ensure that the advertising offence protects against discriminatory public messaging as comprehensively as possible.
I therefore support this amendment.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
2 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid
Thank you, Mr. Sangha.
I'm not seeing any hands. We'll call the question on NDP-11.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 5 as amended agreed to: yeas 6; nays 0)
(Clause 6 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 0)
We will now move on to the preamble and PV-3.
I do have a ruling on PV-3. It is inadmissible, as no amendments to the bill to justify amending the preamble have been adopted. I will reference House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, page 774, which states:
In the case of a bill that has been referred to a committee after second reading, a substantive amendment to the preamble is admissible only if it is rendered necessary by amendments made to the bill. In addition, an amendment to the preamble is in order when its purpose is to clarify it or to ensure the uniformity of the English and French versions.
In my opinion, the proposed amendment is inadmissible.
With that, and having already dealt with G-1, I call the question on the preamble.
Shall the preamble carry?
(Preamble agreed to: yeas 7; nays 0)
2:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid
Shall the title carry?
(Title agreed to on division)
Shall the bill as amended carry?
I see that members would like a recorded vote.
(Bill C-6 as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 0)
Shall I report the bill as amended to the House?
2:05 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
On division.
2:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid
Shall the committee order a reprint of the bill as amended for the use of the House at report stage?