Justice committee  It's both. I think the chance of fresh charges being laid now is relatively remote. I think it is more concrete in that it's a gap. I don't think the expungement provision goes as far as it was intended to go in Bill C-66. Given that we know that the criminal law can be used in w

Justice committee  No, I don't think so. The basis for a circumcision being permitted today is not that it's producing a normal reproductive function, or that it's giving a normal sexual appearance.

Justice committee  It was actually a third option. The charter analysis by Justice was about proposed section 156.

Justice committee  It's because with proposed section 156 the intention is to preserve the power to prosecute historical conduct that we still believe is reprehensible. This includes same-sex abuse of children by priests in orphanages, and that kind of stuff. There's no attempt to make that out of

Justice committee  It also strikes me as problematic. As I understand it, in the other offences that have been repealed and have the expungement mechanism, all instances of the offence could be expunged. You're essentially proposing that we look back to past convictions for being in a bawdy house

Justice committee  Thank you for the question. I would perhaps keep the exception of an intervention for the health. I don't think you need to keep “for the purpose of...having normal reproductive functions or normal sexual appearance or function”. In the cases of intersex children, as I understa

Justice committee  Thank you very much. Signal if I'm going too fast at any point. Our LGBTQI2S communities are appreciative of the interest shown us by the federal government in a whole range of ways, reaching right up to the Prime Minister. In my time this afternoon, I intend to make four point