Justice Committee on Dec. 10th, 2020

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

I have a point of clarification.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Yes, Madame Findlay, go ahead on a point of clarification.

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

I'm not sure whether Monsieur Fortin is putting forward a motion or whether he's just commenting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

It sounds like he's commenting, but I'll clarify. Thank you, Madame Findlay.

Monsieur Fortin, the question for clarification is this: Are you moving a motion not to study clause-by-clause today, and if so, what is the text of your motion?

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

Yes, I would like to put forward a motion about it. However, just before I do that, I would simply like to clarify something about what Mr. Virani said.

I totally agree with him, it's an important bill. That is why we have received so many briefs. However, in my view, the major importance that the bill is being given also requires that we not rush into it or try to move faster. We should instead take the time to study it properly. Time must serve us as we make better laws; time must not force us to make laws too quickly or in a way we might regret later.

I therefore move that we postpone the clause-by-clause study of the bill to a meeting after we resume our work in January.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you for clarifying that, Monsieur Fortin.

As you draft the language of whatever motion you'd like to present, I'm going to go down the speakers list until I come back to you so that you can move it in proper form.

Mr. Virani, I see your hand raised next.

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

Sorry, I'm just a bit confused. Are we voting...? I understood that on points of order you can't move motions. Are we now dealing with a motion that we're planning to vote on? I just want some clarification.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

To clarify, Madame Findlay asked if there was a motion before us, and I turned to Monsieur Fortin to ask if, indeed, he was going to be putting forward a motion. Monsieur Fortin has clarified for the committee that, yes, he intends to put forward that motion.

You're absolutely right; he cannot move a motion on a point of order. His hand is raised, so I will go through the speakers list until we get to him, and at that time he can table his motion in whichever way or speak to it.

Does that clarify things for you, Mr. Virani?

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

Yes, thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Mr. Moore, I have you next on the list.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madame Findlay asked the question I was going to ask.

I know, for myself and all committee members.... I received a number of briefs last night, and then I received a number of them even today. I do think when there's a lot of interest.... There's some merit in what Monsieur Fortin is saying, because there seems to be a lot of interest. There were certainly diverse views on the bill itself at the three meetings that we had on it, so I do sympathize. Mr. Virani said it's important to study this bill, and it is, but part of studying is hearing from Canadians and hearing from different groups and witnesses.

Madame Findlay asked the question, but since I have the floor, I will take a moment to commend our translation services, because the volume of work that they would have had to go through to translate all of those is unbelievable. I'm sure they had to have been working through the night when we see the volume that we received, so hats off to them.

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

I agree.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

You're absolutely right, Mr. Moore. I think our translation services and all at the Library of Parliament have done a phenomenal job in getting the translation for that high number of briefs, not only for Bill C-6 but also for past legislation. We're really, really blessed to have them support us in our endeavour.

Monsieur Fortin, I have you next, and I'm hoping that you have the exact wording of the motion that you'd like to propose.

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

The motion will read as follows:

That clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-6 be postponed to a subsequent meeting, when work resumes in January 2021.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you.

I don't see any hands raised, so I'll call the question on Monsieur Fortin's motion.

(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

We will now continue into clause-by-clause.

Thank you, everyone.

I will introduce our witnesses today who will help us in deliberations for clause-by-clause. From the Department of Justice, we have Carole Morency, director general and senior general counsel, criminal law policy section; Nathalie Levman, senior counsel, criminal law policy section; and Caroline Quesnel, counsel, criminal law policy section. From the Department of Canadian Heritage, we have Fernand Comeau, executive director of the LGBTQ2 secretariat.

Welcome to our witnesses.

I remind members that if you have any questions about any of the amendments that are proposed to us, you are always welcome to refer to the department for clarification and to any of our witnesses.

Going into clause-by-clause, as you know, pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of the preamble will be postponed until the end.

Right now I call the question on clause 1.

Since there were no amendments proposed for clause 1, I call the question on clause 1, unless somebody wants to raise their hand. I don't see any hands raised at this time.

(Clause 1 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

We now move on to clause 2. As there are no amendments proposed for clause 2 and I don't see any hands raised for discussion, I will call the question.

(Clause 2 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

(On clause 3)

We will now move on clause 3 and the first amendment before us, which is PV-1.

Just for members to understand, the vote on PV-1 will also apply to PV-2. If PV-1 is adopted, that means PV-2 will also be adopted. Therefore, NDP-1, NDP-5, NDP-6, NDP-7, NDP-9 and NDP-10 could not be moved, because they are consequential to one another.

I will now turn to Mrs. Atwin to speak to PV-1.

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Thank you very much, and I thank everyone for their time today.

What we propose is:

That Bill C-6, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing line 14 on page 4 with the following:

“(liii.1) section 320.102 (conversion therapy),”

In order to protect the fundamental rights of all individuals targeted by the cruel practice of conversion therapy, we are of the opinion that this practice should be completely banned and that we should not leave the option for it to exist. Therefore, we deem it essential that the motive or the willingness of an individual to take part in these therapies does not preclude the harm it's causing to society as a whole and the proliferation of hateful and discriminatory values and myths among certain groups in Canada. To reflect that opinion, the word “forced” should be removed.

I would like to add that I have been carefully following the testimony on this and I appreciate so much the amendments and efforts put forward by Mr. Garrison in particular and the NDP. Very much, this amendment reflects that same kind of sentiment.

I would turn to some of the testimony from some of the social workers who appeared before this committee. They mentioned that it's important to note that all conversion therapy is inherently fraudulent, coercive and dangerous and that the government legislation should apply to all ages without exception.

That is my justification for this amendment. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you, Mrs. Atwin.

Mr. Garrison, I see your hand raised.

Go ahead, sir.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank the Green Party for this amendment. I know it was originally put forward before we actually had any testimony before the committee, but I know Mrs. Atwin has been following along.

Of course, I support the goal of this amendment. I have an amendment to the same section that proposes a different way of accomplishing the same thing.

We heard much testimony and concern, in particular from the Minister of Justice, that we should have a conversion therapy bill that would withstand any possible court challenge. In the amendment that we will deal with immediately following, if this one is not adopted, I proposed a different strategy, which was to add the word “adult” alongside “child”, rather than simply making the bill a flat ban. I know this is a technical and legal point, but what it does is leave room for courts, if they chose to strike down the ban on conversion therapy for consenting adults, to leave the rest of the bill intact.

While I obviously support the same goal, I am going to vote against this amendment because I think there's a better legal strategy for accomplishing the same goal.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you, Mr. Garrison.

We will now go to Mr. Zuberi.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

I would like to support what Mr. Garrison just said. We know there are a number of other amendments coming forth from both the Green Party and the NDP. I would like us to give those full consideration.

As the chair mentioned, if we vote on this now, then we won't be giving full consideration to the other amendments. For the reasons that Mr. Garrison just mentioned and other reasons, I would like us to evaluate those amendments.

For this reason, I am personally voting no on this particular question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you for that, Mr. Zuberi.

I don't see any more hands raised on PV-1. I will call the question and remind members that the vote on PV-1 also applies to PV-2.

(Amendment negatived: nays 11; yeas 0)

So PV-1 and PV-2 are defeated.

We'll move to NDP-1.

For members' clarity, the vote on NDP-1 also applies to NDP-5, NDP-9 and NDP-10, because they are consequential to each other. As well, if NDP-1 is adopted, NDP-6 and NDP-7 cannot be moved because of the line conflict.

I will turn to Mr. Garrison to speak to NDP-1.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I did explain briefly the difference between the Green Party amendment and mine. I just want to echo what Mrs. Atwin said. We heard very powerful testimony that the professionals who deal with mental health issues and who deal with identity issues have universally said that conversion therapy is inherently harmful and a fraudulent practice. Therefore, the argument that someone could actually consent to being defrauded, or consent to being harmed, is not something that would be strongly supported anywhere else in the Criminal Code.

I would like to add the word “adult” alongside “child”, as I said, and create what would in effect be a ban on conversion therapy completely in this country. I won't go on with a very long argument about that. I think we heard very clear testimony. I think perhaps members' views are quite well known on this already. I would hope to have the support of a majority of the committee for a complete ban on conversion therapy.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you, Mr. Garrison.

Mr. Virani, go ahead.

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

First of all, I want to say welcome to the officials from the Department of Justice and from the Department of Heritage. Thank you for joining us.

Thank you to Mrs. Atwin for participating and suggesting amendments, and thank you to Mr. Garrison for moving this point.

It's a difficult issue. What I can indicate in terms of my thinking on this—and I think it reflects a number of people, including my fellow Liberal colleagues—is that we're trying to ensure that we address conversion therapy in its most pernicious form and addressing those who are most vulnerable. That's the first point.

Second, we're trying to carefully balance the bill, and in carefully balancing it, although one can never guarantee matters, we're trying to diminish risk from a constitutional perspective. What I would say to those who want to ensure that the ban that currently exists in the law, which is vis-à-vis children, and, as it's currently stipulated in the bill, it also talks about a ban with respect to adults who are participating in conversion therapy against their will.... Put that aside for a second, because I think that language can be improved, and there are some amendments on the table that relate to that. But when you remove the ability of adults to voluntarily participate in this, we do risk potential exposure on this legislation, and I think that would be to the detriment of all Canadians, particularly LGBTQ2 Canadians, because having this bill struck down would serve no one's interest.

I think the bill tries to craft a careful balance, protecting those who are vulnerable from the harms of conversion therapy but also protecting the rights and freedoms of those who may choose different types of interventions based on their own autonomous choices. A complete ban would be inconsistent with that balancing we're trying to achieve. I think where we've landed right now, where there is an outright ban for children and including a ban where adults are coerced or influenced against their will, is important. I do think that we can improve the language on adult protections, and I think we'll get to that later on during the course of our discussions at clause-by-clause.

So, not to risk jeopardizing this important protection, which would be neutered, effectively, through a successful constitutional challenge, my view is that we should oppose this amendment to keep it where it is subject to further protections for non-consenting adults, which we'll deal with later.

I will be voting against this proposed amendment.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you, Mr. Virani.

Madame Findlay, go ahead.