Legislation tabled this week that would repeal a section of the Criminal Code that bans anal sex seems to be splitting the Conservative caucus.

In the Tory caucus meeting Wednesday, Justice Critic Rob Nicholson spoke in favour of Bill C-32, while rookie MP Garnett Genuis told his colleagues that voting in favour of the bill is not what the Conservative base wants, sources told iPolitics Friday.

Genuis had not responded to an interview request by time of publication. Nicholson’s office sent iPolitics the following statement:

“Mr. Nicholson personally supports Bill C-32, which is consistent with Judicial decisions across Canada. We will study the Liberal proposal closely and play a constructive role in the Parliamentary debate.”

Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould introduced legislation Tuesday to repeal Section 159 of the Criminal Code of Canada, which establishes anal intercourse as an indictable offence. The provision provides an exception for heterosexual married couples and for any two people 18 years of age or older who both consent to engaging in anal sex.

Someone convicted under Section 159 could be subject to up to 10 years of jail time. The age of consent for other sexual activity in Canada is 16 years, with some exceptions.

Canada’s LGBT community has been calling on the government to strike Section 159 for years, describing it as unconstitutional and discriminatory. Courts of appeal in five provinces and at the federal level have ruled the ban violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Conversations with several Tory MPs show the government’s move to revoke the ban is provoking a split within the Conservative party. Michael Cooper, who serves as justice critic alongside Nicholson, told iPolitics Thursday that he plans to study the Liberal government’s bill in more detail but, at first glance, he is “inclined to support the legislation.”

“On a preliminary basis, it appears the bill does nothing more than update the Criminal Code by removing language from a section … that has been found to be unconstitutional by multiple appellate courts,” he said. “In that context … it really is a housecleaning bill. When we have sections of the Criminal Code that are repeatedly found to be unconstitutional, that’s a problem.

“I am against discrimination in all forms and Conservatives stand united in opposition to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.”

Other Conservative MPs feel differently — particularly those in the party’s social conservative wing. Brad Trost, who is in the running for the Conservative leadership, confirmed he will be voting against the bill.

The Saskatchewan MP said he recognizes several courts have spoken on the issue but argued the intention of Section 159 is to protect teenagers who are not “fully emotionally mature” from being exploited by adults.

If the Liberals are concerned about discrimination and equality, Trost said, they should raise the age of consent for sexual activity to 18 across the board, and include near-in-age exceptions for 17-year-olds. He added he doesn’t understand the government’s urgent interest in addressing the issue.

“For the life of me, I just don’t understand why this is a legislative priority for the government,” he said. “I mean, do they not have an agenda on anything else substantive?”

A report published in June by Egale, a national LGBT charity, says the ban is still in effect in five provinces and the three territories. The report states police have taken advantage of the law’s ambiguity and continue to use it to charge Canadian citizens.

“Between 2008 and 2014 in Ontario, 22 people were charged with anal intercourse under Section 159,” the report reads.

Other religious and social conservative groups are vocalizing their opposition to Section 159’s repeal. Both REAL Women of Canada — a non-profit, pro-family organization — and Charles McVety, a well-known evangelical Christian leader and conservative political activist, said they will be campaigning and contacting MPs to persuade them to oppose the bill. They declined to mention which MPs they would be targeting.

Both McVety and Gwendolyn Landolt, REAL Women’s national vice-president, echoed Trost’s argument — that Section 159 is about protecting children.

McVety said he’ll continue to urge politicians to vote against Bill C-32 but expressed little hope of success.

“The most upsetting part of this is the Conservative party is going to give no real opposition to this bill,” he said. “They will allow this bill to be fast-tracked … to be rushed through Parliament without scientific studies being presented to the members so they can make an informed decision, because unfortunately the leadership of the Conservative party drinks from the same trough as the Liberals.”

Landolt called the government’s move “a knee-jerk reaction” to pressure from the LGBT community. A news release issued Wednesday by the organization said: “Medical evidence does indicate different kinds of psychological or physical harm may attach to different types of intercourse for young persons. Medical experts are not certain at what age sexual preference is established, and many argue that the age is fixed only in the later teen years.”

Trost said he couldn’t comment on the medical evidence on which REAL Women relies, but said it’s a perspective that should be sought out as the bill goes through readings and debates.

“It’s something that I think witnesses and doctors … should comment on before we rush this legislation through at all stages,” Trost said. “That’s the sort of testimony that I would like to hear … and I think that’s the sort of testimony that should be included.”

While the Conservative party appears divided on the issue, the New Democratic Party is in favour of striking Section 159 from the Criminal Code. It was, in fact, a former NDP member of Parliament who first tried to repeal the ban through a private member’s bill in 2011. But Bill C-628 never made it to the first round of debate.

“This is a long overdue reform,” said Murray Rankin, the NDP’s house leader and justice critic. “I obviously support this initiative — it’s an NDP initiative, so people need to know we’re 100 per cent behind it. Let’s get on with it. It’s an equality issue, as the minister has properly said.”

However, Rankin said he “expected more” than a “piecemeal” approach following the Liberals’ election campaign promise to overhaul problematic sections of the Criminal Code.

“There are so many problems with the Criminal Code — it’s such a mess,” he said. “But what does the government do? They bring in a section, a section there … rather than the comprehensive code reform which we need.

“What about all those mandatory minimum sentences that they and the NDP spoke out against during the campaign? I haven’t seen any action on that. I wish that they would see this in a more comprehensive, holistic way.”