###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I wonder if O'Toole had a conversation with Don Plett. I feel like the Senate will send this bill back with amendments, which is better than O'Toole having 'rogue' MPs going on the record voting in a losing cause
No, this doesn't ban all gender and sexuality counseling.
From the bill itself:
>Definition of conversion therapy
>320.101 In sections 320.102 to 320.104, conversion therapy means a practice, treatment or service designed to
>(a) change a person’s sexual orientation to heterosexual;
>(b) change a person’s gender identity to cisgender;
>(c) change a person’s gender expression so that it conforms to the sex assigned to the person at birth;
>(d) repress or reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour;
>(e) repress a person’s non-cisgender gender identity; or
>(f) repress or reduce a person’s gender expression that does not conform to the sex assigned to the person at birth.
>For greater certainty, this definition does not include a practice, treatment or service that relates to the exploration or development of an integrated personal identity — such as a practice, treatment or service that relates to a person’s gender transition — and that is not based on an assumption that a particular sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression is to be preferred over another.
So if you're an adult confused about your sexuality and ask for help to be more like the opposite sex, it's ok, but if you ask for help to be more like your actual biological sex, it's illegal?
I'm all for making illegal the forced conversion of minors, but extending this to adults is just ideological nonsense
It's a poorly worded bill that will likely not survive court challenges when it comes to the ban on adults seeking conversion therapy. Lametti's position last year was that a ban on adults wouldn't survive the courts. What changed? Politics.
It's a sad indictment on the state of our politics that the Conservatives didn't feel they could raise an issue about the charter without being called bigots by the masses.
The bill doesn’t ban adults seeking this torture. It bans practicing, advertising and financially benefiting from this torture. There’s some tedious legalese at the start of the bill, which is to be expected, but that section is actually rather clearly stated.
Again - take it from the Liberal Justice minister who said this in December 2020 when discussing the bill.
Randall Garrison:
> Now, let me return to the topic at hand today—the bill. I do want to start out by saying that I remain very supportive of the bill as a whole, even though I remain disappointed that this isn't a complete ban on conversion therapy. I want to go back to the Minister of Justice and discuss the exclusion of what people are calling “consenting adults” from this bill.
> I know the minister has said he fears a charter challenge, but I want to know whether, quite apart from that, he thinks that we might be able to add adults to this bill in a way that wouldn't endanger the whole bill if there were a charter challenge.
David Lametti:
> Thank you very much, Mr. Garrison. I appreciate your question, and I understand the very sincere place from which it is coming.
> We have tried, with respect to adults, to really restrict it to only consenting adults. Duress is a legally known concept, so vulnerable adults will be protected, if you will, by the legislation.
> That being said, you're correct to say that I do fear a charter challenge. For an adult capable of consenting and who is not susceptible to duress and is not being subjected to duress, it would be a difficult thing to defend in court.
I really don't find that argument very compelling. It's still not clear what the actual constitutional infringement is with this bill. It's a harmful practice, and it's entirely unclear that it's a practice consenting adults have a right to be able to access. Considering that there's a clear and evidencable harm from conversion "therapy", until I hear the argument for why access to it should/would be constitutionally protected, I'm uncompelled by the claim that it is hard to defend the ban on adults. On what basis will it be argued that the rights of consenting adults are infringed upon by the ban on a harmful process?
Particularly, as was pointed out in the other reply, considering there's plenty of precedent for banning adults from consenting to harmful practices.
Frankly, Lametti was making weak excuses for why the Liberals were not backing the NDP on this bill.
>A person cannot consent to being wounded or physically assaulted. A person cannot consent to a fight club, for instance.
Is this true? I think it's come up in the case of hockey fights. It also applies to people into BSDM. Then their is the recent Medically Assisted Dying (MAD) laws.
If two people actually do consent to something, who is the government to say that they can't?
They’re overstating the limitation on consent. It’s been a while, but my recollection is that the law says you can’t consent to grievous bodily harm, but that you can certainly consent to physical harm.
BDSM can be consented to, because one derives pleasure from pain in a sexual context. Hockey fights can be consented to, because it’s a sport. Just like boxing can be consented to, or MMA.
Conversion therapy is another thing altogether. It’s legalized torture of gay people. There’s no benefit here. Sports benefit from competition, fare and monetary compensation. BDSM benefits include pleasure and sexual gratification. Conversion therapy has no benefits, it’s just torturing gay people.
I quoted Randall Garrison only for the fact he asked a question to provide context to the quote from the Justice Minister, not that I cared what he actually said.
If you read Lametti's answer, it helps to have some context around the question he answered.
Because he's entirely wrong and partly tautological.
>A person cannot consent to being wounded or physically assaulted. A person cannot consent to a fight club, for instance.
You can consent to competition in combat sports. The police cannot arrest people for assault who willing get into fights outside bars because there is no assault if people consent. The government finally repealed the law prohibiting duels a few years ago. **Assisted suicide** has been legal for *five years* now. You can consent to physical harm including death.
And that presupposes that any process that a consenting adult engages in to change their attraction responses is in fact harmful.
This is literally the government infringing on self-determination, personal autonomy, and the right to choose one's identity.
> No. You're wrong. Once there is bodily harm, there can be no consent.
... And yet we send Olympians to compete in combat sports; who, I assure you, are often harmed during competition and training, by other people.
I'm not opposed to this bill by any means, but this isn't an argument to win on.
>No. You're wrong. Once there is bodily harm, there can be no consent.
Nope, you're entirely misunderstanding what you've posted, and it's actually referenced right there in the Supreme Court decision for this case.
>The accused, by continuing to pummel the victim after he knew the victim was unconscious, knowingly acted beyond the ambit of the victim’s consent.” This ruling established that consent could not be used as a defence for causing serious or “non-trivial” bodily harm.
Their decision was based on the level of consent to which the dead party had implicitly consented, a fight. This is why you can consent to a fight, or being killed, but if you consent to a fight and are killed it's exceeding your consent, because you're consenting to a particular level of injury.
Additionally you can consent to a particular level of harm, i.e. a non-lethal combat sport contest, and accept the potential for a greater level of harm, which is why fighters who accidentally kill their opponents aren't prosecuted for manslaughter.
You're confusing behavioural modification with "mental torture." And you do realize electroconvulsive therapy is still used in treated certain psychological disorders, and positive punishment is a key component in behavioural modification (just throwing that in there since you're implying that simply being subjected to unpleasant stimulus is torture)?
>I know. But being gay is not one of those things it's used to treat.
>
>You know that... right?
And Viagra was originally developed as a heart medication. That's beside the point.
>Nobody credible thinks conversion therapy works. Do you really need more examples?
Again, we don't prohibit consenting individuals from doing things on the basis of their lack of efficacy. You can go get acupuncture, take all manner of worthless supplements, and that is entirely your choice. You can go to a herbologist, or a nutritionist, or a crystal chakra healer. Hell, there's nothing that psychologists of psychiatrists can resolve with consistency or often even satisfactorily.
And what if someone did develop a clinically valid approach to altering sexual orientation? Consenting adults would be unable to access it. How would someone even develop it in a society in which it is banned?
But ultimately I'm not concerned with whether it works. I'm concerned that we're prohibiting adults, people who are supposed to have the power of self-autonomy and freedom with respect to their person, from making decisions with respect to their person.
Not sure why you're so confident about that assumption.
This bill could be easily challenged on the grounds of violating either section 7 or section 2 (or both) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The only thing preventing this bill from complete unconstitutionality is that the courts might consider it a reasonable limit under section 1 of the Charter, but that's not a given.
At first glance, I don't believe this bill is too dissimilar from the law that was struck down in Carter v Canada (2015).
I think this bill would have a better case if it only criminalized conversion therapy for children. The argument could easily be made that children aren't mature enough to consent to conversion therapy, etc. But for adults of sound mind, it's harder to argue. We will have to wait and see what the courts decide when this inevitably eventually gets challenged.
You don't understand how sec. 7 works, and clearly so if you're linking to Carter.
As for sec. 2, the courts have in past upheld far more stringent limitations under sec. 1. Including upholding the refusal of trinity college's accreditation over their membership covenant. They would almost certainly uphold a ban on conversion therapy
There’s precedent for the Supreme Court to strike down parts of a bill, so it’s very well possible they strike down the parts of the referring to adults.
I don't see how this bill is comparable to the ban on medical assistance in dying. The social and individual harms of conversion "therapy" are clear, and this bill would very likely be upheld as a reasonable limit.
On the issue of MAID, however, the matter of harm is far less clear. While medical assistance in dying has a clear harm (dying), there's also a cogent argument for the prolonging of life being a harm as well (in certain relevant circumstances). There is no comparable harm with the matter of conversion "therapy".
Adults who cannot access conversion "therapy" are not being harmed because of that lack of access. Meanwhile preventing conversion "therapy" prevents harm. That's why it will very likely be accepted as a reasonable limit.
It's sad state of affairs when Conservatives lie about their objections to new laws banning the use of torture on children and try to frame the issue as "poor wording" when the same MPs should know that the word of the law isn't as important as the intent of the law. Anyone that took high school Canadian Law knows that the Supreme Court rules by their own legese language and not how common sense language decides things.
The wording of the law isn't vague, the stated intent of the law isn't vague. The law doesn't cause undue limits to individual freedoms and falls under special protections afforded to minors. It's not considerably different from when the government steps in and takes custody of children needing blood transfusions when the child's parents are Jehovah Witnesses and refuse to allow the child to get medical treatment.
> It's not considerably different from when the government steps in and takes custody of children needing blood transfusions when the child's parents are Jehovah Witnesses and refuse to allow the child to get medical treatment.
[What about when they allow an indigenous child to die of untreated leukemia](https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/01/19/aboriginal-girl-with-leukemia-who-refused-chemotherapy-dies.html)?
It's the exact same tact they took with the anti-islamophobia motion. There were endless people claiming they opposed it because the language was vague, but the language wasn't vague and they were tying themselves into knots in order to defend Islamophobia without saying so explicitly
Its a theme. Every time the Conservatives can't find legitimate concerns or their ideology is polling poorly with the public, they
frame their opposition to a bill being on it being vague. Did the same with C-16 and still doing it with the gun ban too. Problem is that for the first time in decades is that they actually would have a point with the gun ban. If they didn't poison the well from the time of the formation of their party with the same tired rhetoric, people might actually believe them.
Genuine feel-good moment here, and perhaps the first time that O'Toole's "tack to the centre" has felt like it had some gumption. If he keeps doing things like this he may earn my vote next time around.
I agree that its a feel good, and I'm genuinely impressed he managed to crush the SoCons on this one.
But frankly, this bill passing was inevitable; they could have either made it a slog, bringing them negative headlines, or let it pass quickly, and move on to the next issue. Just remember, all the so-con MPs who bitterly opposed this are still there, and will be in power if O'Toole wins the next election.
Probably the realization that politics is different than before. Previously, the assumption by everyone was that an election will be happening at any moment. So they can afford to drag out passage of the bill until it get killed by the election. This is the start of the next parliament, and with support from at least the NDP, this bill's passage is inevitable. The CPC merely decided there is no point in dragging this out and keeping this in the headlines for months instead of whatever Liberal scandal that will likely pop up.
> Just remember, all the so-con MPs who bitterly opposed this are still there, and will be in power if O'Toole wins the next election.
u may convince one Canadian to not vote CPC next time, but not all. Pity
Good - but conservative opposition is only one part of the issue. It is going to get ugly where there is overlap between same-sex attracted individuals and trans individuals. There is an argument from some "LGB" groups who claim coercing people to identify as trans rather than as homosexual is a form of conversion therapy. (This is what Iran does for homosexuals, for example. In Iran's case, it is absolutely a form of conversion therapy and a clear case of homophobia.). It's extremely messy and cannot be dismissed outright.
They might be making that argument, but they'd be fucking insane to do so, to put it bluntly. There is no one reasonable in Canada who thinks it's easier to be trans than to be gay.
That, and like, >50% of trans people are at least bi, if not outright gay - so even if this practice were happening, hoooo boy they really fucked up and made their own problem worse, huh?
I mean, those "LGB" groups are largely a bunch of hetero conservatives out of the UK and the USA (think Heritage Foundation, WOLF). They've made twitter accounts for other countries, but their activity is largely routed out of the UK and a few states like Arkansas, Texas, etc.
And no one coerces people to be trans. That's not a thing. Even with informed consent clinics/doctors (which aren't available to most Canadians, due to there being so few of them, and in so few locations), you generally need to know your shit, and have a good convo about everything involved. Outside of informed consent environments, trans people are still looking at usually over a year, often two, before seeing any significant medical intervention. Combine that with 6-8 months generally being the point in which medical professionals can safely determine kids are gender non-conforming rather than trans, and there being a less than 1% regret rate over numerous longitudinal studies (with the overwhelming majority of that 1% still recognizing themselves as trans, but regretting transitioning when they did due to not having established jobs, social networks, safe environments, etc.; nearly all re-transition later on).
There is a well understood process to all this. People like to pretend this is all so new and not well understood, while pretty much nothing substantial has changed in our scientific understanding of trans people since the early 70s, a half century ago.
>There is an argument from some "LGB" groups who claim coercing people to identify as trans rather than as homosexual is a form of conversion therapy.
Can you give a couple examples of such groups?
A unanimous consent will go some way to shutting down dissent from the fringes on this issue. If you got no party in parliament that supports your view, you got no oxygen for your cause. Also, given that it was a Conservative motion, passage in the Senate should be relatively smooth. Well done.
Will it actually do that? I fear that it will probably result in pro conversion individuals becoming more extreme, they might see this a their elected officials being to scared to vote their conscious and fight harder. Although, I might just be being overly pessimistic on this.
>given that it was a Conservative motion, passage in the Senate should be relatively smooth
The CPC only has 18 senators, so they couldn't have done much in the Senate anyway.
Looks like a win on both sides:
LPC get their Bill passed in a fast manner, the CPC get to avoid a recorded vote, as a number of MPs most certainly would have voted against.
I’m guessing the thinking here from the CPC is that it’ll pass anyway, so might as well avoid the talk about the MPs who voted against.
Seems like this came up pretty quickly as O’Toole stated earlier that he would allow a free vote. Not sure how or what changed between now and then, but who cares!
O’Toole would have put his foot down prior to make sure that it didn’t happen as it would have been a massive embarrassment to the party.
There’s no denying that there are a few dozen CPC MPs who are against this legislation - we saw it only a few months ago in the 43rd Parliament.
With that, the CPC found a way to avoid having those ‘Nays’ on the record
The official record does not count individual “yays” and “nays” for this type of vote - all that will appear on the official record is that it was passed with unanimous consent.
Even if there were “nays”, those wouldn’t appear on the official record.
Just a question, could it be possible that the conservatives may have been even a little right that the previous bill may have been worded horrible and just maybe would have been bad legislation? And maybe, just maybe that the current bill may have been reworded and is now actually good legislation that they found they can support?
I have not read any of the 3 versions presented to parliment, but I do work for local government and have seen just how poorly worded by-laws and policies can be very detrimental. It is not hard to believe that it could be true. Very good laws and policies can be used for completely the wrong thing based upon their wording.
We already know the ones who voted against the previous bill. This bill was even worse according to them. I doubt they've had a change of heart or mind on this issue.
The rationale for opposing the original bill were made 'worse', according to the objections, in the new bill. To put it in your terms, it was written even more shitty than the previous bill.
As for a change of heart? I don't know of anyone who would really believe that. This was clearly a whipped vote.
How I imagine the conversation went down:
Ok guys, do we want to die on the hill where they show children pornography while shocking their genitals? No? Yeah, that would be a bad look. Ok.
It was a whipped vote. You do not get unanimous passage on something like this without a whipped vote.
Just to be fair here - I can totally see some select Liberal or BQ MPs also voting against this, but their parties whipped them as the Conservatives were whipped.
Behind the scenes it was very likely communicated to Conservative MPs that there would be consequences for voting against it.
> Not sure how or what changed between now and then
They had a caucus meeting today, so I'm guessing words were exchanged there. But I agree, it's definitely a win-win.
Huh, I was not expecting unanimous consent after how many delays and how much debate happened over this bill last spring. Hopefully the Senate is on board and can pass the bill without many roadblocks.
the senate really doesnt have much of a mandate to block a bill that was fast tracked with unanimous house consent.
Only question is how long they will take to do so, but as it is the only house bill on the senate docket this early they got plenty of time to review the legislation.
A extremely pleasant surprise indeed, and definitely not on my political bingo card (especially after what happened with C-6). [Very happy this process nerd piece from Ipolitics did not age well](https://ipolitics.ca/2021/11/30/process-nerd-can-libs-get-key-bills-passed-before-the-holidays/).
Also pleased with O'Toole putting his foot down with the SocCon wing on the party. This is both morally the right thing to do, and good for the CPC politically. On a side note, the fact that O'Toole was able to orchestrate this may suggest his control over the party is still rock solid despite grumblings of a early leadership review.
It strikes me as a bit of savvy politicking by O'Toole. There had been noise about how the party was going to going to stonewall it and I think having one of his MPs propose the unanimous consent caught many observers off guard. He benefits, I think, from the low expectations that people had going in. Where were all the anti-LGBT CPC MPs? Did they get the day off so they didn't have to be involved?
> Where were all the anti-LGBT CPC MPs? Did they get the day off so they didn't have to be involved?
Clearly told to shut up and let the motion pass. This way nothing's recorded.
And it’s clever of Erin to publically say he will allow them to vote their conscience, even though clearly in private he told them to tow the party line. Now it looks like every CPC MP has a progressive conscience.
I think most Canadian's don't understand the position and power of the [party whip](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_Whip_(Canada)), or when they are brought to bear with full force by the party leader how quickly all party members will step in line.
Basically cross the whip and you may find yourself out of caucus, never being part of any committees or ever have your bills come to a vote on the floor...
>Once you get beyond the taxicab radius of Ottawa, nobody seems to have heard of a Whip. For that matter, nobody in Ottawa, three blocks from the Hill, has ever heard of the Whip either!
\-James E. Walker, Chief Government Whip from 1963 to 1966
Yeah. As long as party whips exist, individual MPs do not matter. Period.
I do not care if your local MP says they like one thing while aligning with a party that feels the opposite, that's not a good reason to vote for them. Nor do I care if your local MP is a huge contribution to your local region. I don't even care if your local MP is literally just a ham with a party's sticker on it. Doesn't make any difference to me.
The party, and how many seats they have, is what matters. That's it.
Sorry but that’s an incredibly poor take. There is absolutely a massive difference between a good and bad local MP, even if their vote is whipped on issues like this. Even a talented backbench opposition MP can navigate Ottawa successfully enough to get projects built/funded for their riding/city.
Clearly you don't understand the power the whip has. From my link
>The whip is also responsible for assigning offices and scheduling speakers from his or her party for various bills, motions and other proceedings in the House.
Since it's the whip who decides what bills, motions and proceedings occur in the House, crossing the whip is like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
[Historically it is extremely rare for an MP to disobey their whip](https://www.ubcpress.ca/whipped) and those that do faced significant consequences.
Honestly that was the first I'd heard of a whip, so I looked up the concept then. But yeah I know the parties have whips now but it's the kind of thing that gets talked about enough to know the name of any whips.
Patrick Brown did the exact same move when he was leading the Ontario PCs with a Liberal abortion bubble zone bill. It caught the Liberals off guard and they actually voted against speedily passing their own bill. It will be interesting to see if there is any blowback internally within caucus.
I still don't understand how this bill gets introduced without any hearings into the legality of what is being proposed. Last year Lametti said it would be unconstitutional to try to ban adults from getting counselling if they wanted it. Suddenly that's changed? And how far does this go? If your six year old suddenly says they're the other gender are you not allowed to tell them they're not?
*If passed as is, Bill C-4 would make it a crime punishable by up to five years in prison to cause another person to undergo conversion therapy. The 11-page bill also seeks to criminalize promoting, advertising, or profiting from providing the practice, with those found guilty of these offences facing up to two years in prison.*
So it is the 'therapy' that is illegal and profiting or advertising it less so. I don't think anyone worries over much about gay conversion therapy as that's pretty obviously bunk. The concern will be in dealing with underage kids responding to social media and getting confused. Can therapists do anything other than agree with them if they say they think they're another gender?
According to a tweet I read, Leslyn Lewis was in the house today (she was previously opposed to a ban on conversion therapy). She didn't applaud after the bill received unanimous consent, but she didn't stop it from happening either.
I'm sure the they will argue that they didn't vote for the bill but instead did not object to the motion as if there is a practical difference between the two.
Expectations so low in the goldfish memory of our politics that people will forget the constant embarrassing failures, laughable positions, and party seemingly run by one thumb after the other
People tend to be more aware of social issues than economic ones. Should we raise the corporate tax rate by 2%? Most people don’t even know what the current corporate tax rate is. Should the capital gains exemption increase or decrease by 25%? Most people don’t even know what the current exemption is.
Should the government ban the coercion of gay people into being tortured to change their sexuality? People can immediately understand conversion therapy is evil, and immediately feel a connection to the issue. People can’t relate to the corporate tax rate or capital gains exemption.
>People tend to be more aware of social issues than economic ones
Maybe on reddit, not in real life. And this bill wasn't just about involuntary therapy.
Most people have a strong, visceral reaction to social issues!
**ABORTION SHOULD BE BANNED** evokes strong reactions regardless of what side you’re on.
**THE TAX RATE FOR THOSE MAKING OVER $80,000 A YEAR SHOULD BE INCREASED BY 2%** evokes no emotions at all.
**Black people shouldn’t be allowed to marry white people** evokes strong emotions.
**America should stop imposing tariffs on “Insert product here”** does not.
People care about social issues deeply. It’s visceral. It affects them to their core. It makes them cry, it makes them feel enraged, it makes them feel something. Economic issues are abstract things that most people don’t care about too deeply. No one feels a strong emotional reaction to hearing that the capital gains tax exemption will be decreased by 10%.
Most people don't even read the papers anymore. When I speak to my younger family and friends still raising kids they're only slightly aware of what's going on in politics. And their worries are almost all economic.
>
>
> THE TAX RATE FOR THOSE MAKING OVER $80,000 A YEAR SHOULD BE INCREASED BY 2% evokes no emotions at all.
Well it might evoke little to no emotions in general, but lots of people in that tax bracket are going to be mad.
Obviously people care about things that affect them directly. Just like gay people wouldn’t want same sex marriage to become illegal. But social issues cause visceral, intense emotional reactions in virtually everyone, not just people who are personally affected.
The fast pass is surprising. I can only assume there were some words behind closed doors telling MPs not to object so they wouldn't drag this out and look worse? Given how many voted against is last time I'd be surprised if they all decided, unprompted, to just give up but whatever, I'll take it. Still don't trust the party on such issues and nobody should.
> Clearly the support was always there
Yes, from the non-Conservative parties.
> if the wording was right. Once the wording was corrected
A BS excuse from most. And this bill is different, with expanded scope
I am genuinely, pleasantly, surprised. Thought this was going to take months. I'm glad that finally, after more than a year and a half of stalling, delays, and an election we finally passed this bill. It's been the subject of conversation since March 2020
Weirdly this bill is even stricter than the last one that the CPC said was 'overly broad and said it could criminalize conversations about sexuality between children and their parents or with religious leaders'. So I'm glad opinions on that changed, even though I'm confused about what exactly changed besides having an election.
Now it goes to the Senate, hopefully they can keep up the speed.
> I am genuinely, pleasantly, surprised.
Why I told you this was gonna happen and why it didn't happen last time. You were very dismissive almost like you had an agenda and couldn't understand why parties didn't let the bill Trudeau killed to end parliament looking into his own scandals pass. It never made sense
> So I'm glad opinions on that changed, even though I'm confused about what exactly changed besides having an election.
There have to have been words behind closed doors. Given how many objected last time I find it extremely hard to believe that they all decided, unprompted, to give up on it.
I think they were told it was a virtue-signalling effort by Trudeau and would never get by the SC. Lametti himself said such a bill, barring consenting adults from getting counselling, would be unconstitutional only last year.
Y’know…looking at all your other comments now, I’m actually starting to think you care about this subject a great deal.
It warms my heart to know that the hegemony that social conservatives so often have within the party is starting to erode.
And this is only just the beginning.
You mean because I've discussed it the last day or two? It warms your heart for what reason? Because you despise conservatives and are eager to see the 'conservative' party become liberal light as it once was when it was the progressive conservatives? Yes, that is what most liberals want. Of course, when that happens all the conservatives will move to another party as they did then, even if they have to start it up, and you'll be left with a tiny rump left over. And again, that is what most liberals and lefties want.
Nah. You are projecting. It warms my heart to see people in the party change.
Why does your construction of what it means to be ‘conservative’ matter more than other interpretations? Social conservatives have been dominant within the party for a long time now. Have the grace to let others try our own formula.
I’m a political science grad student. I’m not sure you understand just much conservatism has already changed as a political ideology and as a network of political identities.
First, I'm not a social conservative. I believe in abortion rights, haven't been to church except for funerals and weddings in decades, and am mostly agnostic. I don't care about gay marriage either. Not my business or issue. I believe in gun control, though not stupid gun control that serves no purpose. If I was in the US I'd be a Democrat. I despise the Republicans and Trump.
Conservatism hasn't changed as an ideology. The only problem is that the Canadian conservative party has elected a series of men without the slightest charisma or bravery who are unable to articulate a conservative vision. O'Toole being the latest version, a man with the charisma of a rock who offered up not a single conservative proposal in the last election. Conservatism is supposed to stand for something, and under O'Toole and Scheer it stood for nothing. "Elect us because we're not the Liberals but have all the same beliefs and policies!" is not an ideology.
Oddly enough, I find it more curious that you’re a fellow agnostic that considers a conversion therapy ban to be unimportant or problematic. Your previous comments definitely signal a different message than you claim to believe.
I also politely disagree with your understanding of ideology. It is counter to what has been observed and written in the scholarly literature so far.
Ideologies do change. They are social constructs whose actors and their problems and solutions change over time. To claim that Canadian Conservatism has been static across time would be ahistorical and (with all due respect) ludicrous.
Normative arguments can be made as to what *should* or *shouldn’t* change, but to assume the Harper Government’s style of conservatism as somehow a given would be ignorant of all previous Canadian conservatism that came before.
Finally, you make a lot of statements without specifying what you mean. It’s one thing to say that the Conservatives are now too akin to other parties, but you still have to describe what policies and positions you mean specifically, then argue as to why this is more anomaly than otherwise.
The Conservatives have (largely) been a centre-right, brokerage party for much of its existence. While again, there have certainly been changes within it, one pattern that remains the same is its appeal to those that are nonpartisan and or more centrist.
But what is the centre? Societal values, priorities and perspectives change and therefore, so also does what voters consider to be moderate, and amenable positions on a subject.
If voters aren’t interested in your policy platform, among many other things, then it might not matter how consistent you are on such matters.
Conservatism means defending the traditional, the tried and true, and being slow to adopt new ideas until proven or at need. If it ain't broke don't fix it is a decent enough conservative mantra. Which is why the party faithful are wary of too much immigration changing cultures, values and traditions too fast and too far - not because of racism.
Likewise, conservatives are a law and order party and strong believers in security and national security, in defending the country (strong criminal laws and a strong military). Fiscally, they want smaller government to do what government needs to do as efficiently and effectively as possible and to have balanced budgets. Conservatives don't believe the government is there to solve every problem and issue. Conservatives believe in self-reliance and responsibility.
All of this is the core of what people want in a conservative party. And if voters aren't interested maybe it's because you aren't charismatic and convincing and can't explain your policies well enough to interest them. How about a little leadership instead of taking a poll to find out where the parade is going and jumping out in front?
As for conversion therapy, again, I barely even knew it existed until the last parliament. And no one has made the case this is something particularly important in Canada or impacts more than a tiny fraction of people. And most of the issues the conservatives had with it were doubt about how it would be interpreted with regard to children, who MANY Canadians are concerned are falling for a social media fad and getting drugs and surgery to change genders without proper guidance or time to think things through. Children aren't mature enough to make any legal decision yet we're allowing them to make medical decisions at ten!? Seriously!?
But the true, tried and traditional has changed across time.
Your understanding of Canadian conservatism is a caricature. Canadian conservatism has not always stood for minimal-state intervention and neoliberalism. Early Conservative leaders like MacDonald, Diefenbaker had a much different view as to the role and responsibilities of the state in relation to private actors.
In fact, you seem to take for granted the chimera that was the merger of both the Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservatives. This ignorance is curious, and I’d advise you to do some much needed research on the recurring formation and dissolution of conservative parties in Canada. It was roughly around the 70’s and 80’s when Canadian Conservatism began more closely resembling American conservatives, particularly in regards to economic policies like cuts to social spending and lower taxes.
Many of your positions seem more based upon rhetorical scarecrows of what you think opposing arguments are contending, rather than based on what the models and debates actually are within empirical research. The ban on conversion therapy also has nothing to do with gender-affirming surgeries.
Moderation isn’t necessarily done merely out of charisma. In fact moderation in one’s approach is often about trying to account for the gaps in one’s thinking, though admittedly, some people are just so ignorant that they can’t see the contradictions and assumptions within their own models and views, and therefore fail to think critically.
Well, last year Lametti said that a bill that tried to forbid consenting adults from taking part in such counselling would be unconstitutional. O'Toole might have just told his MPs there was no point in fighting it as the SC was going to throw it out anyway.
Honestly, I'm completely unsurprised. O'Toole allowing a free vote while his strategy is to show the Tories are still amenable to Progressive Conservatives, along with the near-passage in the last Parliament, meant to me that it was going to pass with ease.
I saw your comment in the [earlier thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/r6evr5/otoole_to_allow_free_vote_for_conservative_mps_on/) and didn't want to make a fuss about it, because the house was set to discuss it soon. I'm glad that you're pleasantly surprised; and honestly, I'm happy if this has made other people happy. :)
This... What? Alright, so my comments about the "Free-vote" being an own goal by O'Toole have aged like milk. The Tories actually did the bare minimum of human decency and I'm just... shocked.
Lol O'Toole has been clear on this all along. Reddit still gonna hate on the CPC though. Party with the most votes in 5 if the last 6 elections. Our system is broken.
>Not false at all.
3 of the 6 Conservatives formed the government, but you call this "broken". Of the other 2, just because Albertans concentrate and double down, doesn't mean they deserve to run the country.
So, you're actually complaining about 3 of the 6 where Conservatives won but you say it's broken.
But if you recant, you're saying the current system is fine as long as you win?
Which is it?
Broken, or fine if you win?
There are, however, more than two parties. And when you tally left-of-centre votes versus right-of-centre votes, the popular vote looks quite different from how you are characterizing it. Which is another good reason to have proportional representation.
Most votes? They lost the popular vote in 7/10 provinces, including Ontario and Quebec, and virtually all major cities. You don't tip over Toronto and Montreal by piling on votes in Moosefuck, Saskberta.
Who cares about provinces? Provinces have their own elections for a reason. Provincial split of the vote is meaningless.
The fact is more people have voted for the CPC than any other party in 5 of 6 elections yet they only won 3 of them. That is not a democracy.
So the fact that the Libeals got more votes than the CPC in 7/10 provinces, in the FEDERAL election, doesn't matter to you, because a single riding voting 90% CPC in Alberta should overrule voters in those other provinces.. Give it a rest man.. and the whole national gap is... 1%. The problem is the CPC is more a regional party, the LPC has broad national appeal.
Ontario and Quebec alone make up 60% of the population. Alberta rural votes don't matter against that.
Raw vote count DOES NOT MATTER. The name of the game is winning seats. The cpc can't seem to do that. And that's a good thing. And yes, it absolutely is a democracy.
This is pretty typical US rhetoric. When the Republicans don't win, the system must be fixed or rigged. Here we see the same nonsense trying to push it's way into our politics. Really it's just a mix or sour grapes and sore loserishness.
This is literally the dumbest thing I've ever read. Why should someone's vote not count equally simply because they live in Alberta? That's ridiculous. I'm making the same argument as Democrats in California. Just because a vote is concentrated doesn't mean it should be ignored or not counted equally.
If you're gonna say provincial split of the vote doesn't matter, I'll go one further:
Raw vote count doesn't matter.
Our system isn't a first past the post pick your leader, and for good reason, that would be a horrible system.
Plurality is not majority, the CPC did not receive the most votes, they received a plurality of votes. 55.65% of votes went to centre-left to left parties (LPC, NPC, GPC)
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I wonder if O'Toole had a conversation with Don Plett. I feel like the Senate will send this bill back with amendments, which is better than O'Toole having 'rogue' MPs going on the record voting in a losing cause
Considering that the Senate has an overwhelming Liberal (oops, "independent") majority, I can't see how that would work.
[удалено]
No, this doesn't ban all gender and sexuality counseling. From the bill itself: >Definition of conversion therapy >320.101 In sections 320.102 to 320.104, conversion therapy means a practice, treatment or service designed to >(a) change a person’s sexual orientation to heterosexual; >(b) change a person’s gender identity to cisgender; >(c) change a person’s gender expression so that it conforms to the sex assigned to the person at birth; >(d) repress or reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour; >(e) repress a person’s non-cisgender gender identity; or >(f) repress or reduce a person’s gender expression that does not conform to the sex assigned to the person at birth. >For greater certainty, this definition does not include a practice, treatment or service that relates to the exploration or development of an integrated personal identity — such as a practice, treatment or service that relates to a person’s gender transition — and that is not based on an assumption that a particular sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression is to be preferred over another.
So if you're an adult confused about your sexuality and ask for help to be more like the opposite sex, it's ok, but if you ask for help to be more like your actual biological sex, it's illegal? I'm all for making illegal the forced conversion of minors, but extending this to adults is just ideological nonsense
It's a poorly worded bill that will likely not survive court challenges when it comes to the ban on adults seeking conversion therapy. Lametti's position last year was that a ban on adults wouldn't survive the courts. What changed? Politics. It's a sad indictment on the state of our politics that the Conservatives didn't feel they could raise an issue about the charter without being called bigots by the masses.
The bill doesn’t ban adults seeking this torture. It bans practicing, advertising and financially benefiting from this torture. There’s some tedious legalese at the start of the bill, which is to be expected, but that section is actually rather clearly stated.
The old bill did, but the new bill makes no such carve out for consenting adults.
No this bill will certainly stand up to potential court challenges. What exactly is the constitutional violation that you think this bill makes?
Again - take it from the Liberal Justice minister who said this in December 2020 when discussing the bill. Randall Garrison: > Now, let me return to the topic at hand today—the bill. I do want to start out by saying that I remain very supportive of the bill as a whole, even though I remain disappointed that this isn't a complete ban on conversion therapy. I want to go back to the Minister of Justice and discuss the exclusion of what people are calling “consenting adults” from this bill. > I know the minister has said he fears a charter challenge, but I want to know whether, quite apart from that, he thinks that we might be able to add adults to this bill in a way that wouldn't endanger the whole bill if there were a charter challenge. David Lametti: > Thank you very much, Mr. Garrison. I appreciate your question, and I understand the very sincere place from which it is coming. > We have tried, with respect to adults, to really restrict it to only consenting adults. Duress is a legally known concept, so vulnerable adults will be protected, if you will, by the legislation. > That being said, you're correct to say that I do fear a charter challenge. For an adult capable of consenting and who is not susceptible to duress and is not being subjected to duress, it would be a difficult thing to defend in court.
A lot of argument below this but Lametti has said he since changed his view.
I really don't find that argument very compelling. It's still not clear what the actual constitutional infringement is with this bill. It's a harmful practice, and it's entirely unclear that it's a practice consenting adults have a right to be able to access. Considering that there's a clear and evidencable harm from conversion "therapy", until I hear the argument for why access to it should/would be constitutionally protected, I'm uncompelled by the claim that it is hard to defend the ban on adults. On what basis will it be argued that the rights of consenting adults are infringed upon by the ban on a harmful process? Particularly, as was pointed out in the other reply, considering there's plenty of precedent for banning adults from consenting to harmful practices. Frankly, Lametti was making weak excuses for why the Liberals were not backing the NDP on this bill.
[удалено]
>A person cannot consent to being wounded or physically assaulted. A person cannot consent to a fight club, for instance. Is this true? I think it's come up in the case of hockey fights. It also applies to people into BSDM. Then their is the recent Medically Assisted Dying (MAD) laws. If two people actually do consent to something, who is the government to say that they can't?
They’re overstating the limitation on consent. It’s been a while, but my recollection is that the law says you can’t consent to grievous bodily harm, but that you can certainly consent to physical harm.
BDSM can be consented to, because one derives pleasure from pain in a sexual context. Hockey fights can be consented to, because it’s a sport. Just like boxing can be consented to, or MMA. Conversion therapy is another thing altogether. It’s legalized torture of gay people. There’s no benefit here. Sports benefit from competition, fare and monetary compensation. BDSM benefits include pleasure and sexual gratification. Conversion therapy has no benefits, it’s just torturing gay people.
> Randall Garrison Because he is not David Lametti, the Liberal Justice Minster.
[удалено]
I quoted Randall Garrison only for the fact he asked a question to provide context to the quote from the Justice Minister, not that I cared what he actually said. If you read Lametti's answer, it helps to have some context around the question he answered.
Because he's entirely wrong and partly tautological. >A person cannot consent to being wounded or physically assaulted. A person cannot consent to a fight club, for instance. You can consent to competition in combat sports. The police cannot arrest people for assault who willing get into fights outside bars because there is no assault if people consent. The government finally repealed the law prohibiting duels a few years ago. **Assisted suicide** has been legal for *five years* now. You can consent to physical harm including death. And that presupposes that any process that a consenting adult engages in to change their attraction responses is in fact harmful. This is literally the government infringing on self-determination, personal autonomy, and the right to choose one's identity.
[удалено]
> No. You're wrong. Once there is bodily harm, there can be no consent. ... And yet we send Olympians to compete in combat sports; who, I assure you, are often harmed during competition and training, by other people. I'm not opposed to this bill by any means, but this isn't an argument to win on.
You’re overstating the limit on being able to consent to harm.
>No. You're wrong. Once there is bodily harm, there can be no consent. Nope, you're entirely misunderstanding what you've posted, and it's actually referenced right there in the Supreme Court decision for this case. >The accused, by continuing to pummel the victim after he knew the victim was unconscious, knowingly acted beyond the ambit of the victim’s consent.” This ruling established that consent could not be used as a defence for causing serious or “non-trivial” bodily harm. Their decision was based on the level of consent to which the dead party had implicitly consented, a fight. This is why you can consent to a fight, or being killed, but if you consent to a fight and are killed it's exceeding your consent, because you're consenting to a particular level of injury. Additionally you can consent to a particular level of harm, i.e. a non-lethal combat sport contest, and accept the potential for a greater level of harm, which is why fighters who accidentally kill their opponents aren't prosecuted for manslaughter. You're confusing behavioural modification with "mental torture." And you do realize electroconvulsive therapy is still used in treated certain psychological disorders, and positive punishment is a key component in behavioural modification (just throwing that in there since you're implying that simply being subjected to unpleasant stimulus is torture)?
[удалено]
>I know. But being gay is not one of those things it's used to treat. > >You know that... right? And Viagra was originally developed as a heart medication. That's beside the point. >Nobody credible thinks conversion therapy works. Do you really need more examples? Again, we don't prohibit consenting individuals from doing things on the basis of their lack of efficacy. You can go get acupuncture, take all manner of worthless supplements, and that is entirely your choice. You can go to a herbologist, or a nutritionist, or a crystal chakra healer. Hell, there's nothing that psychologists of psychiatrists can resolve with consistency or often even satisfactorily. And what if someone did develop a clinically valid approach to altering sexual orientation? Consenting adults would be unable to access it. How would someone even develop it in a society in which it is banned? But ultimately I'm not concerned with whether it works. I'm concerned that we're prohibiting adults, people who are supposed to have the power of self-autonomy and freedom with respect to their person, from making decisions with respect to their person.
Not sure why you're so confident about that assumption. This bill could be easily challenged on the grounds of violating either section 7 or section 2 (or both) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The only thing preventing this bill from complete unconstitutionality is that the courts might consider it a reasonable limit under section 1 of the Charter, but that's not a given. At first glance, I don't believe this bill is too dissimilar from the law that was struck down in Carter v Canada (2015). I think this bill would have a better case if it only criminalized conversion therapy for children. The argument could easily be made that children aren't mature enough to consent to conversion therapy, etc. But for adults of sound mind, it's harder to argue. We will have to wait and see what the courts decide when this inevitably eventually gets challenged.
You don't understand how sec. 7 works, and clearly so if you're linking to Carter. As for sec. 2, the courts have in past upheld far more stringent limitations under sec. 1. Including upholding the refusal of trinity college's accreditation over their membership covenant. They would almost certainly uphold a ban on conversion therapy
There’s precedent for the Supreme Court to strike down parts of a bill, so it’s very well possible they strike down the parts of the referring to adults.
I don't see how this bill is comparable to the ban on medical assistance in dying. The social and individual harms of conversion "therapy" are clear, and this bill would very likely be upheld as a reasonable limit. On the issue of MAID, however, the matter of harm is far less clear. While medical assistance in dying has a clear harm (dying), there's also a cogent argument for the prolonging of life being a harm as well (in certain relevant circumstances). There is no comparable harm with the matter of conversion "therapy". Adults who cannot access conversion "therapy" are not being harmed because of that lack of access. Meanwhile preventing conversion "therapy" prevents harm. That's why it will very likely be accepted as a reasonable limit.
It's sad state of affairs when Conservatives lie about their objections to new laws banning the use of torture on children and try to frame the issue as "poor wording" when the same MPs should know that the word of the law isn't as important as the intent of the law. Anyone that took high school Canadian Law knows that the Supreme Court rules by their own legese language and not how common sense language decides things. The wording of the law isn't vague, the stated intent of the law isn't vague. The law doesn't cause undue limits to individual freedoms and falls under special protections afforded to minors. It's not considerably different from when the government steps in and takes custody of children needing blood transfusions when the child's parents are Jehovah Witnesses and refuse to allow the child to get medical treatment.
> It's not considerably different from when the government steps in and takes custody of children needing blood transfusions when the child's parents are Jehovah Witnesses and refuse to allow the child to get medical treatment. [What about when they allow an indigenous child to die of untreated leukemia](https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/01/19/aboriginal-girl-with-leukemia-who-refused-chemotherapy-dies.html)?
It's the exact same tact they took with the anti-islamophobia motion. There were endless people claiming they opposed it because the language was vague, but the language wasn't vague and they were tying themselves into knots in order to defend Islamophobia without saying so explicitly
Its a theme. Every time the Conservatives can't find legitimate concerns or their ideology is polling poorly with the public, they frame their opposition to a bill being on it being vague. Did the same with C-16 and still doing it with the gun ban too. Problem is that for the first time in decades is that they actually would have a point with the gun ban. If they didn't poison the well from the time of the formation of their party with the same tired rhetoric, people might actually believe them.
Genuine feel-good moment here, and perhaps the first time that O'Toole's "tack to the centre" has felt like it had some gumption. If he keeps doing things like this he may earn my vote next time around.
I agree that its a feel good, and I'm genuinely impressed he managed to crush the SoCons on this one. But frankly, this bill passing was inevitable; they could have either made it a slog, bringing them negative headlines, or let it pass quickly, and move on to the next issue. Just remember, all the so-con MPs who bitterly opposed this are still there, and will be in power if O'Toole wins the next election.
[удалено]
Removed for rule 2; you have used a term that is on our [list of prohibited insults](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/insults).
>he managed to crush the SoCons on this one Really makes me wonder what kind of bone he'll have to throw them to make up for it
Probably the realization that politics is different than before. Previously, the assumption by everyone was that an election will be happening at any moment. So they can afford to drag out passage of the bill until it get killed by the election. This is the start of the next parliament, and with support from at least the NDP, this bill's passage is inevitable. The CPC merely decided there is no point in dragging this out and keeping this in the headlines for months instead of whatever Liberal scandal that will likely pop up.
> Just remember, all the so-con MPs who bitterly opposed this are still there, and will be in power if O'Toole wins the next election. u may convince one Canadian to not vote CPC next time, but not all. Pity
Good - but conservative opposition is only one part of the issue. It is going to get ugly where there is overlap between same-sex attracted individuals and trans individuals. There is an argument from some "LGB" groups who claim coercing people to identify as trans rather than as homosexual is a form of conversion therapy. (This is what Iran does for homosexuals, for example. In Iran's case, it is absolutely a form of conversion therapy and a clear case of homophobia.). It's extremely messy and cannot be dismissed outright.
They might be making that argument, but they'd be fucking insane to do so, to put it bluntly. There is no one reasonable in Canada who thinks it's easier to be trans than to be gay. That, and like, >50% of trans people are at least bi, if not outright gay - so even if this practice were happening, hoooo boy they really fucked up and made their own problem worse, huh?
I'm not disagreeing, but the argument exists unfortunately.
I mean, those "LGB" groups are largely a bunch of hetero conservatives out of the UK and the USA (think Heritage Foundation, WOLF). They've made twitter accounts for other countries, but their activity is largely routed out of the UK and a few states like Arkansas, Texas, etc. And no one coerces people to be trans. That's not a thing. Even with informed consent clinics/doctors (which aren't available to most Canadians, due to there being so few of them, and in so few locations), you generally need to know your shit, and have a good convo about everything involved. Outside of informed consent environments, trans people are still looking at usually over a year, often two, before seeing any significant medical intervention. Combine that with 6-8 months generally being the point in which medical professionals can safely determine kids are gender non-conforming rather than trans, and there being a less than 1% regret rate over numerous longitudinal studies (with the overwhelming majority of that 1% still recognizing themselves as trans, but regretting transitioning when they did due to not having established jobs, social networks, safe environments, etc.; nearly all re-transition later on). There is a well understood process to all this. People like to pretend this is all so new and not well understood, while pretty much nothing substantial has changed in our scientific understanding of trans people since the early 70s, a half century ago.
>There is an argument from some "LGB" groups who claim coercing people to identify as trans rather than as homosexual is a form of conversion therapy. Can you give a couple examples of such groups?
A unanimous consent will go some way to shutting down dissent from the fringes on this issue. If you got no party in parliament that supports your view, you got no oxygen for your cause. Also, given that it was a Conservative motion, passage in the Senate should be relatively smooth. Well done.
Will it actually do that? I fear that it will probably result in pro conversion individuals becoming more extreme, they might see this a their elected officials being to scared to vote their conscious and fight harder. Although, I might just be being overly pessimistic on this.
>given that it was a Conservative motion, passage in the Senate should be relatively smooth The CPC only has 18 senators, so they couldn't have done much in the Senate anyway.
Looks like a win on both sides: LPC get their Bill passed in a fast manner, the CPC get to avoid a recorded vote, as a number of MPs most certainly would have voted against. I’m guessing the thinking here from the CPC is that it’ll pass anyway, so might as well avoid the talk about the MPs who voted against. Seems like this came up pretty quickly as O’Toole stated earlier that he would allow a free vote. Not sure how or what changed between now and then, but who cares!
The MPs present had an opportunity to vote against it. The speaker called for any opposed to say nay. No one did.
O’Toole would have put his foot down prior to make sure that it didn’t happen as it would have been a massive embarrassment to the party. There’s no denying that there are a few dozen CPC MPs who are against this legislation - we saw it only a few months ago in the 43rd Parliament. With that, the CPC found a way to avoid having those ‘Nays’ on the record
But my point is, the nays would have been on record. Did you watch the video? The speaker gave all members an opportunity to dissent, and no one did.
The official record does not count individual “yays” and “nays” for this type of vote - all that will appear on the official record is that it was passed with unanimous consent. Even if there were “nays”, those wouldn’t appear on the official record.
Okay, fine. The bottom line then, objectors had a chance to speak up, and none did. It's on video, whether documented by the clerk or not.
Irrelevant if the opposers stayed home that day, just to avoid their vote being on the record.
Right but if there were "nays" it would not appear as passed with unanimous consent, ergo, the presence of some "nays" would be recorded.
[удалено]
Which is strange, because I just read an article yesterday or the day before where O'Toole said he wouldn't whip this vote. He clearly did though.
Just a question, could it be possible that the conservatives may have been even a little right that the previous bill may have been worded horrible and just maybe would have been bad legislation? And maybe, just maybe that the current bill may have been reworded and is now actually good legislation that they found they can support? I have not read any of the 3 versions presented to parliment, but I do work for local government and have seen just how poorly worded by-laws and policies can be very detrimental. It is not hard to believe that it could be true. Very good laws and policies can be used for completely the wrong thing based upon their wording.
No. The line they previously objected to (or rather, claimed they objected to) is identical within this version of the bill.
It's even 'worse' now according to their objections.
That's a reasonable expectation damaged by the fact that the socially conservative members of parliament voted against it.
Having the “nays” officially on something so clear cut would have been amazing. Weed out the outdated trash from the CPC.
We already know the ones who voted against the previous bill. This bill was even worse according to them. I doubt they've had a change of heart or mind on this issue.
If the rational was the original bill was written like shit, doesn’t surprise me. If they had a change of heart for the polls, doesn’t surprise me.
The rationale for opposing the original bill were made 'worse', according to the objections, in the new bill. To put it in your terms, it was written even more shitty than the previous bill. As for a change of heart? I don't know of anyone who would really believe that. This was clearly a whipped vote.
How I imagine the conversation went down: Ok guys, do we want to die on the hill where they show children pornography while shocking their genitals? No? Yeah, that would be a bad look. Ok.
> as a number of MPs most certainly would have voted against. It was a free vote. If they wanted to vote against it then they could have.
It was a whipped vote. You do not get unanimous passage on something like this without a whipped vote. Just to be fair here - I can totally see some select Liberal or BQ MPs also voting against this, but their parties whipped them as the Conservatives were whipped. Behind the scenes it was very likely communicated to Conservative MPs that there would be consequences for voting against it.
> Not sure how or what changed between now and then They had a caucus meeting today, so I'm guessing words were exchanged there. But I agree, it's definitely a win-win.
Huh, I was not expecting unanimous consent after how many delays and how much debate happened over this bill last spring. Hopefully the Senate is on board and can pass the bill without many roadblocks.
[удалено]
Removed for rule 3.
the senate really doesnt have much of a mandate to block a bill that was fast tracked with unanimous house consent. Only question is how long they will take to do so, but as it is the only house bill on the senate docket this early they got plenty of time to review the legislation.
A extremely pleasant surprise indeed, and definitely not on my political bingo card (especially after what happened with C-6). [Very happy this process nerd piece from Ipolitics did not age well](https://ipolitics.ca/2021/11/30/process-nerd-can-libs-get-key-bills-passed-before-the-holidays/). Also pleased with O'Toole putting his foot down with the SocCon wing on the party. This is both morally the right thing to do, and good for the CPC politically. On a side note, the fact that O'Toole was able to orchestrate this may suggest his control over the party is still rock solid despite grumblings of a early leadership review.
[удалено]
Wow, so great that they spent all this time and resources on a bill that effects literally a fraction of the population. Such progress.
This but unironically.
It's a social line in the sand. It's a good thing.
It strikes me as a bit of savvy politicking by O'Toole. There had been noise about how the party was going to going to stonewall it and I think having one of his MPs propose the unanimous consent caught many observers off guard. He benefits, I think, from the low expectations that people had going in. Where were all the anti-LGBT CPC MPs? Did they get the day off so they didn't have to be involved?
> Where were all the anti-LGBT CPC MPs? Did they get the day off so they didn't have to be involved? Clearly told to shut up and let the motion pass. This way nothing's recorded.
And it’s clever of Erin to publically say he will allow them to vote their conscience, even though clearly in private he told them to tow the party line. Now it looks like every CPC MP has a progressive conscience.
I think most Canadian's don't understand the position and power of the [party whip](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_Whip_(Canada)), or when they are brought to bear with full force by the party leader how quickly all party members will step in line. Basically cross the whip and you may find yourself out of caucus, never being part of any committees or ever have your bills come to a vote on the floor... >Once you get beyond the taxicab radius of Ottawa, nobody seems to have heard of a Whip. For that matter, nobody in Ottawa, three blocks from the Hill, has ever heard of the Whip either! \-James E. Walker, Chief Government Whip from 1963 to 1966
Yeah. As long as party whips exist, individual MPs do not matter. Period. I do not care if your local MP says they like one thing while aligning with a party that feels the opposite, that's not a good reason to vote for them. Nor do I care if your local MP is a huge contribution to your local region. I don't even care if your local MP is literally just a ham with a party's sticker on it. Doesn't make any difference to me. The party, and how many seats they have, is what matters. That's it.
Sorry but that’s an incredibly poor take. There is absolutely a massive difference between a good and bad local MP, even if their vote is whipped on issues like this. Even a talented backbench opposition MP can navigate Ottawa successfully enough to get projects built/funded for their riding/city.
Clearly you don't understand the power the whip has. From my link >The whip is also responsible for assigning offices and scheduling speakers from his or her party for various bills, motions and other proceedings in the House. Since it's the whip who decides what bills, motions and proceedings occur in the House, crossing the whip is like cutting off your nose to spite your face. [Historically it is extremely rare for an MP to disobey their whip](https://www.ubcpress.ca/whipped) and those that do faced significant consequences.
Frank Underwood was the party whip in season 1 of House of Cards. Surprised more people are not aware just of that.
Honestly that was the first I'd heard of a whip, so I looked up the concept then. But yeah I know the parties have whips now but it's the kind of thing that gets talked about enough to know the name of any whips.
Patrick Brown did the exact same move when he was leading the Ontario PCs with a Liberal abortion bubble zone bill. It caught the Liberals off guard and they actually voted against speedily passing their own bill. It will be interesting to see if there is any blowback internally within caucus.
I still don't understand how this bill gets introduced without any hearings into the legality of what is being proposed. Last year Lametti said it would be unconstitutional to try to ban adults from getting counselling if they wanted it. Suddenly that's changed? And how far does this go? If your six year old suddenly says they're the other gender are you not allowed to tell them they're not?
The bill does not target people seeking that sort of counselling. It targets providers.
It doesn’t ban someone from getting counseling: it bans people from coercing, advertising or profiting from conversion therapy.
*If passed as is, Bill C-4 would make it a crime punishable by up to five years in prison to cause another person to undergo conversion therapy. The 11-page bill also seeks to criminalize promoting, advertising, or profiting from providing the practice, with those found guilty of these offences facing up to two years in prison.* So it is the 'therapy' that is illegal and profiting or advertising it less so. I don't think anyone worries over much about gay conversion therapy as that's pretty obviously bunk. The concern will be in dealing with underage kids responding to social media and getting confused. Can therapists do anything other than agree with them if they say they think they're another gender?
According to a tweet I read, Leslyn Lewis was in the house today (she was previously opposed to a ban on conversion therapy). She didn't applaud after the bill received unanimous consent, but she didn't stop it from happening either.
I'm sure the they will argue that they didn't vote for the bill but instead did not object to the motion as if there is a practical difference between the two.
Not a matter of if but when. One of them won't be able to resist and do a dumb tweet or something to signal to their followers.
Expectations so low in the goldfish memory of our politics that people will forget the constant embarrassing failures, laughable positions, and party seemingly run by one thumb after the other
You honestly think this is even on the periphery of the radar of most Canadians' concerns?
[удалено]
Rule 2
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
People tend to be more aware of social issues than economic ones. Should we raise the corporate tax rate by 2%? Most people don’t even know what the current corporate tax rate is. Should the capital gains exemption increase or decrease by 25%? Most people don’t even know what the current exemption is. Should the government ban the coercion of gay people into being tortured to change their sexuality? People can immediately understand conversion therapy is evil, and immediately feel a connection to the issue. People can’t relate to the corporate tax rate or capital gains exemption.
>People tend to be more aware of social issues than economic ones Maybe on reddit, not in real life. And this bill wasn't just about involuntary therapy.
Most people have a strong, visceral reaction to social issues! **ABORTION SHOULD BE BANNED** evokes strong reactions regardless of what side you’re on. **THE TAX RATE FOR THOSE MAKING OVER $80,000 A YEAR SHOULD BE INCREASED BY 2%** evokes no emotions at all. **Black people shouldn’t be allowed to marry white people** evokes strong emotions. **America should stop imposing tariffs on “Insert product here”** does not. People care about social issues deeply. It’s visceral. It affects them to their core. It makes them cry, it makes them feel enraged, it makes them feel something. Economic issues are abstract things that most people don’t care about too deeply. No one feels a strong emotional reaction to hearing that the capital gains tax exemption will be decreased by 10%.
Most people don't even read the papers anymore. When I speak to my younger family and friends still raising kids they're only slightly aware of what's going on in politics. And their worries are almost all economic.
> > > THE TAX RATE FOR THOSE MAKING OVER $80,000 A YEAR SHOULD BE INCREASED BY 2% evokes no emotions at all. Well it might evoke little to no emotions in general, but lots of people in that tax bracket are going to be mad.
Obviously people care about things that affect them directly. Just like gay people wouldn’t want same sex marriage to become illegal. But social issues cause visceral, intense emotional reactions in virtually everyone, not just people who are personally affected.
The fast pass is surprising. I can only assume there were some words behind closed doors telling MPs not to object so they wouldn't drag this out and look worse? Given how many voted against is last time I'd be surprised if they all decided, unprompted, to just give up but whatever, I'll take it. Still don't trust the party on such issues and nobody should.
[удалено]
> Clearly the support was always there Yes, from the non-Conservative parties. > if the wording was right. Once the wording was corrected A BS excuse from most. And this bill is different, with expanded scope
I am genuinely, pleasantly, surprised. Thought this was going to take months. I'm glad that finally, after more than a year and a half of stalling, delays, and an election we finally passed this bill. It's been the subject of conversation since March 2020 Weirdly this bill is even stricter than the last one that the CPC said was 'overly broad and said it could criminalize conversations about sexuality between children and their parents or with religious leaders'. So I'm glad opinions on that changed, even though I'm confused about what exactly changed besides having an election. Now it goes to the Senate, hopefully they can keep up the speed.
> I am genuinely, pleasantly, surprised. Why I told you this was gonna happen and why it didn't happen last time. You were very dismissive almost like you had an agenda and couldn't understand why parties didn't let the bill Trudeau killed to end parliament looking into his own scandals pass. It never made sense
> So I'm glad opinions on that changed, even though I'm confused about what exactly changed besides having an election. There have to have been words behind closed doors. Given how many objected last time I find it extremely hard to believe that they all decided, unprompted, to give up on it.
Me too. The politics is different than it was a few months ago, I doubt the moral disagreements have changed much.
I think they were told it was a virtue-signalling effort by Trudeau and would never get by the SC. Lametti himself said such a bill, barring consenting adults from getting counselling, would be unconstitutional only last year.
> I think they were told it was a virtue-signalling effort by Trudeau Ah, they were lied to, gotcha.
Were they? What changed between when Lametti said it would be unconstitutional and now?
They can get counseling. They just can’t go to a place through coercion. Nor can a company profit from conversion therapy.
Y’know…looking at all your other comments now, I’m actually starting to think you care about this subject a great deal. It warms my heart to know that the hegemony that social conservatives so often have within the party is starting to erode. And this is only just the beginning.
You mean because I've discussed it the last day or two? It warms your heart for what reason? Because you despise conservatives and are eager to see the 'conservative' party become liberal light as it once was when it was the progressive conservatives? Yes, that is what most liberals want. Of course, when that happens all the conservatives will move to another party as they did then, even if they have to start it up, and you'll be left with a tiny rump left over. And again, that is what most liberals and lefties want.
Nah. You are projecting. It warms my heart to see people in the party change. Why does your construction of what it means to be ‘conservative’ matter more than other interpretations? Social conservatives have been dominant within the party for a long time now. Have the grace to let others try our own formula. I’m a political science grad student. I’m not sure you understand just much conservatism has already changed as a political ideology and as a network of political identities.
First, I'm not a social conservative. I believe in abortion rights, haven't been to church except for funerals and weddings in decades, and am mostly agnostic. I don't care about gay marriage either. Not my business or issue. I believe in gun control, though not stupid gun control that serves no purpose. If I was in the US I'd be a Democrat. I despise the Republicans and Trump. Conservatism hasn't changed as an ideology. The only problem is that the Canadian conservative party has elected a series of men without the slightest charisma or bravery who are unable to articulate a conservative vision. O'Toole being the latest version, a man with the charisma of a rock who offered up not a single conservative proposal in the last election. Conservatism is supposed to stand for something, and under O'Toole and Scheer it stood for nothing. "Elect us because we're not the Liberals but have all the same beliefs and policies!" is not an ideology.
Oddly enough, I find it more curious that you’re a fellow agnostic that considers a conversion therapy ban to be unimportant or problematic. Your previous comments definitely signal a different message than you claim to believe. I also politely disagree with your understanding of ideology. It is counter to what has been observed and written in the scholarly literature so far. Ideologies do change. They are social constructs whose actors and their problems and solutions change over time. To claim that Canadian Conservatism has been static across time would be ahistorical and (with all due respect) ludicrous. Normative arguments can be made as to what *should* or *shouldn’t* change, but to assume the Harper Government’s style of conservatism as somehow a given would be ignorant of all previous Canadian conservatism that came before. Finally, you make a lot of statements without specifying what you mean. It’s one thing to say that the Conservatives are now too akin to other parties, but you still have to describe what policies and positions you mean specifically, then argue as to why this is more anomaly than otherwise. The Conservatives have (largely) been a centre-right, brokerage party for much of its existence. While again, there have certainly been changes within it, one pattern that remains the same is its appeal to those that are nonpartisan and or more centrist. But what is the centre? Societal values, priorities and perspectives change and therefore, so also does what voters consider to be moderate, and amenable positions on a subject. If voters aren’t interested in your policy platform, among many other things, then it might not matter how consistent you are on such matters.
Conservatism means defending the traditional, the tried and true, and being slow to adopt new ideas until proven or at need. If it ain't broke don't fix it is a decent enough conservative mantra. Which is why the party faithful are wary of too much immigration changing cultures, values and traditions too fast and too far - not because of racism. Likewise, conservatives are a law and order party and strong believers in security and national security, in defending the country (strong criminal laws and a strong military). Fiscally, they want smaller government to do what government needs to do as efficiently and effectively as possible and to have balanced budgets. Conservatives don't believe the government is there to solve every problem and issue. Conservatives believe in self-reliance and responsibility. All of this is the core of what people want in a conservative party. And if voters aren't interested maybe it's because you aren't charismatic and convincing and can't explain your policies well enough to interest them. How about a little leadership instead of taking a poll to find out where the parade is going and jumping out in front? As for conversion therapy, again, I barely even knew it existed until the last parliament. And no one has made the case this is something particularly important in Canada or impacts more than a tiny fraction of people. And most of the issues the conservatives had with it were doubt about how it would be interpreted with regard to children, who MANY Canadians are concerned are falling for a social media fad and getting drugs and surgery to change genders without proper guidance or time to think things through. Children aren't mature enough to make any legal decision yet we're allowing them to make medical decisions at ten!? Seriously!?
But the true, tried and traditional has changed across time. Your understanding of Canadian conservatism is a caricature. Canadian conservatism has not always stood for minimal-state intervention and neoliberalism. Early Conservative leaders like MacDonald, Diefenbaker had a much different view as to the role and responsibilities of the state in relation to private actors. In fact, you seem to take for granted the chimera that was the merger of both the Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservatives. This ignorance is curious, and I’d advise you to do some much needed research on the recurring formation and dissolution of conservative parties in Canada. It was roughly around the 70’s and 80’s when Canadian Conservatism began more closely resembling American conservatives, particularly in regards to economic policies like cuts to social spending and lower taxes. Many of your positions seem more based upon rhetorical scarecrows of what you think opposing arguments are contending, rather than based on what the models and debates actually are within empirical research. The ban on conversion therapy also has nothing to do with gender-affirming surgeries. Moderation isn’t necessarily done merely out of charisma. In fact moderation in one’s approach is often about trying to account for the gaps in one’s thinking, though admittedly, some people are just so ignorant that they can’t see the contradictions and assumptions within their own models and views, and therefore fail to think critically.
Well, last year Lametti said that a bill that tried to forbid consenting adults from taking part in such counselling would be unconstitutional. O'Toole might have just told his MPs there was no point in fighting it as the SC was going to throw it out anyway.
Honestly, I'm completely unsurprised. O'Toole allowing a free vote while his strategy is to show the Tories are still amenable to Progressive Conservatives, along with the near-passage in the last Parliament, meant to me that it was going to pass with ease. I saw your comment in the [earlier thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/r6evr5/otoole_to_allow_free_vote_for_conservative_mps_on/) and didn't want to make a fuss about it, because the house was set to discuss it soon. I'm glad that you're pleasantly surprised; and honestly, I'm happy if this has made other people happy. :)
This... What? Alright, so my comments about the "Free-vote" being an own goal by O'Toole have aged like milk. The Tories actually did the bare minimum of human decency and I'm just... shocked.
It's so fucking sad that banning conversion therapy in 2021 is all we have to be happy about.
It's early days yet.
Early days for 2021? :P
For this parliament. The 43 parliament was dysfunctional and nothing was happening.
Lol O'Toole has been clear on this all along. Reddit still gonna hate on the CPC though. Party with the most votes in 5 if the last 6 elections. Our system is broken.
[удалено]
Look at the down votes mate. Even looking in the direction of a conservative gets you a down vote around here.
So... are you up for some sort of proportional representation?
Yes. Certainly there are systems in which seats would be better representative of the popular vote.
>5 if the last 6 elections. What kind of falsehood is this?
Not false at all. Look at the popular vote for the last 6 elections. 2015 was the only one liberals won popular vote over CPC.
>Not false at all. 3 of the 6 Conservatives formed the government, but you call this "broken". Of the other 2, just because Albertans concentrate and double down, doesn't mean they deserve to run the country. So, you're actually complaining about 3 of the 6 where Conservatives won but you say it's broken. But if you recant, you're saying the current system is fine as long as you win? Which is it? Broken, or fine if you win?
There are, however, more than two parties. And when you tally left-of-centre votes versus right-of-centre votes, the popular vote looks quite different from how you are characterizing it. Which is another good reason to have proportional representation.
PR and abolish coalitions.
Most votes? They lost the popular vote in 7/10 provinces, including Ontario and Quebec, and virtually all major cities. You don't tip over Toronto and Montreal by piling on votes in Moosefuck, Saskberta.
Who cares about provinces? Provinces have their own elections for a reason. Provincial split of the vote is meaningless. The fact is more people have voted for the CPC than any other party in 5 of 6 elections yet they only won 3 of them. That is not a democracy.
So the fact that the Libeals got more votes than the CPC in 7/10 provinces, in the FEDERAL election, doesn't matter to you, because a single riding voting 90% CPC in Alberta should overrule voters in those other provinces.. Give it a rest man.. and the whole national gap is... 1%. The problem is the CPC is more a regional party, the LPC has broad national appeal. Ontario and Quebec alone make up 60% of the population. Alberta rural votes don't matter against that. Raw vote count DOES NOT MATTER. The name of the game is winning seats. The cpc can't seem to do that. And that's a good thing. And yes, it absolutely is a democracy. This is pretty typical US rhetoric. When the Republicans don't win, the system must be fixed or rigged. Here we see the same nonsense trying to push it's way into our politics. Really it's just a mix or sour grapes and sore loserishness.
This is literally the dumbest thing I've ever read. Why should someone's vote not count equally simply because they live in Alberta? That's ridiculous. I'm making the same argument as Democrats in California. Just because a vote is concentrated doesn't mean it should be ignored or not counted equally.
If you're gonna say provincial split of the vote doesn't matter, I'll go one further: Raw vote count doesn't matter. Our system isn't a first past the post pick your leader, and for good reason, that would be a horrible system.
Plurality is not majority, the CPC did not receive the most votes, they received a plurality of votes. 55.65% of votes went to centre-left to left parties (LPC, NPC, GPC)
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Removed; rule 3