Bill C-238 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (possession of unlawfully imported firearms)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to provide that a person who is charged with an offence in respect of the possession of a firearm that is alleged to have been unlawfully imported into Canada is required to demonstrate that their pre-trial detention is not justified. It also increases the mandatory minimum penalty for the possession of such weapons.

Criminal Code

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard this a lot throughout the day, and throughout yesterday, that the Liberals were delayed in bringing the legislation forward. When they did bring it forward, they decided to prorogue Parliament for scandal cover-ups, and that is the only reason.

We are seeing a pattern. Not a lot of legislation was brought forward even in the last Parliament until the last six months. The Liberals knew an election would be coming soon based on fixed dates. Time allocation was put on everything to get it done and send it through for royal assent. We were asked why we would not agree to unanimous consent motions. That is not what this place does. This place is for us to debate and bring forward the viewpoints of our constituents, the people who we represent. It takes time to do those things, and they should be done thoroughly and thoughtfully.

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, today we are once again talking about the hate that the 2SLGBTQQIA community continues to be subjected to. It is important that I state it that way because that is the truth about what continues to happen in Canada even with the progress we have made. Without adequate protections and legal provisions, Canadians do experience hate, with the pain and suffering that comes along with it.

I cannot wait for the day when everyone in the country will be free to be themselves, celebrated fully, without shame, without fear for who they are, and feel confident that they will be loved and represented in all corners of our society.

Someone once said that if we cannot love ourselves, how are we expected to love somebody else? I have no doubt that our charter supports that intent.

With that in mind, I am honoured to speak to Bill C-6, an act to amend the Criminal Code to include provisions that will limit the negative impacts of conversion therapy in Canada, though it does not go far enough to actually eliminate it.

Last week, I had the privilege of discussing how the rights of 2SLGBTQQIA Canadians were fought for, confirmed and celebrated in recent decades in a response to the ministerial address the day Bill C-6 was tabled. My Green Party colleagues and I will certainly be voting for the bill and when we do, I will be thinking of the people I have met along the way who have suffered conversion therapy and the shame and self-loathing they have had to overcome as a direct result.

Many Canadians, and many members in the House, have seen the biographical drama Boy Erased, describing the journey of a young man from Arkansas who travelled to Tennessee to participate in a conversion therapy program. It is easy for us to hear that story and clearly denote that conversion therapy is wrong. It is easy to tell ourselves that it does not happen here. The truth is that it does; it just flies under the radar. It is more insidious.

I have a constituent, a brave man, who spoke with a CBC journalist a couple years ago to share his story in the hope of helping others. He grew up in a rural New Brunswick community. Outed as a teenager by his browser history, my constituent was sent to a religious counselling service in a nearby town. He was told that he needed to pray for God’s help to change, that what he was feeling was simply a sinful choice.

The counsellor suggested my constituent mentally put his gay feelings in a box and ask God to help keep that box closed. She offered tips to avoid future temptation, tips like “avoid flamboyant situations”. I am so glad he ignored that ridiculous advice. This constituent of mine is a leader in our community and an inspiration for young people today to celebrate who they are. The damage done by his experience with conversion therapy left him to fight feelings of shame through his adolescence and young adulthood.

The truth is that in church basements and family homes across our country children, youth and adults are being taught to hide who they are because it is something to be ashamed of. The real shame here is the damage we are doing to these young minds and hearts. We are limiting their capabilities by stunting their personal growth. We are dimming their light.

The harm that this process causes to people is immeasurable. It reinforces stigma, myths and lies. It has a profound impact on the ability of people to love themselves and to have self-confidence.

There is a recognition worldwide of the destructive nature of this practice and an acknowledgement that criminal law is an appropriate way to address that harm. We are not criminalizing conversations as we have so callously heard in the House. There should be no doubt about what conversion therapy is and our responsibility to stop it from happening.

Yesterday during his intervention, the Minister of Justice said that the purpose of the bill was to criminalize conduct related to conversion therapy. He said that putting an end to conversion therapy would be a reflection of the government’s commitment to eradicating a discriminatory practice that was out of step with Canadian values. He reminded us that multiple professional associations recognized that conversion therapy could lead to various negative impacts on mental and physical health, contributing in some cases to death by suicide. I could not agree more with the minister. We must put an end to conversion therapy.

I cannot help but wonder why we are not going all the way with the bill. Instead, we are leaving the door open for a dangerous loophole.

Bill C-6 would ban the practice of conversion therapy for minors but not for adults. The specific phrasing that one cannot cause a person to undergo conversion therapy against his or her will falls short of providing meaningful protection for the exact Canadians most likely to face pressure from their loved ones to undergo the therapy. Leaving the door open to conversion therapy through the notion that one might choose to engage in this abusive practice means forcing Canadians to make an impossible choice: undergo the experience or lose the love and support of their families.

The bill does take the clear and unequivocal step of precluding someone from profiting from conversion therapy. It makes it impossible to advertise the service, regardless of whether it is provided to minors or adults. If it is wrong, then it is wrong. We know conversion therapy is abusive and cruel. The minister correctly has affirmed that it is a discriminatory practice that is out of step with Canadian values. As parliamentarians, should we not be aiming to uphold the rights of all Canadians to protect their safety and security? When something causes harm, it is a legitimate decision of government to criminalize the practice.

I will actually go a step further. Leaving queer Canadians across the country with the burden of navigating these conversations with their families and expecting them to stand firm against coercion, without the backing of a law that truly denounces the practice, amounts to cowardice. We are leaving these Canadians to confront an issue that we are not bold enough to take on ourselves in the public sphere.

I think of a constituent I mentioned early. I mourn the time he has lost overcoming shame he should never have been made to feel. Together we can make the bill into what it needs to be for all Canadians so no one goes through what he has experienced.

I am looking forward to voting for the bill and I will be tabling amendments to strengthen it at committee stage.

If I can be clear today about one thing, let it be this. Whatever people's identity, be it two-spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer, intersexual, asexual or otherwise, they belong. Their right to security of the person is as valid as for any heterosexual cisgender Canadian. They are an integral part of our communities across Canada and we are here today to fight with them and for future generations to feel the respect and love they deserve.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the member of the Green Party. I want to add some thoughts about the importance of Bill C-6. It is receiving a fairly good response in the House. I anticipate a good majority of members will vote for it. It would be wonderful to see it have a unanimous consent, but I do not think that will happen. We can always be optimistic.

The legislation is one important component. It is a very important step, but also we need to do more than just legislative measures. In an exchange with the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth, we talked about the importance of capacity and the government committing millions of dollars to build capacity for organizations dealing with advocacy and so forth.

Could my friend provide her thoughts and comments on how important it is that not only do we have legislation, but also do things like build on capacity?

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I raised this question for the member this morning about providing more investment and services. This is one step absolutely. It is an important step. As I mentioned, I wish it would go further to protect adults as well. I mentioned earlier about the wrap around care that we need. We can do so much more in our society to ensure that people are included and that they are represented and protected.

I highlight once again the need for specializations in trans care, in care that supports the 2SLGBTQQIA community. I am thinking about clinics like clinic 554 in Fredericton. They should be supported. They must continue to do the important work they do. However, we must go much further as well to offer support programs and information within schools across sectors.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think all Canadians are opposed to people being forced to have therapy they do not want. However, when we studied conversion therapy at health committee last year, we had a disturbing conversation.

The gist of it was this. I was describing a youth leader of a youth group whose members were confused about their sexual orientation. The leader was explaining the position of the church with respect to sexuality. I said that if someone voluntarily wanted that advice, would that not be his or her right to get it. The discussion from the NDP and the Liberals was no, that the youth leader should be put in jail. That seemed very offside to me.

Therefore, I am concerned for people's freedom of religion to ensure we narrow the definition so we know that we are talking about conversion therapy that is forced on someone. Is this one of the amendments the member will be bringing forward?

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the amendments we are specifically discussing within my team focus on protections for adults, which come into play in what the member is bringing up.

What is going to be important is the witness testimony at the committee stage. I am very much looking forward to that, because we need to understand the intricacies and nuances of this conversation. I want to ensure that all Canadians are protected, as well as religious freedom, which is an important piece as well. We will have to wait for the details to emerge at the committee stage.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Fredericton for her speech, which was once again very relevant, as usual.

She mentioned in her speech that Bill C-6 is designed to protect children and minors from conversion therapy, but she made a very important point about adults who may be vulnerable and could be forced by others around them to undergo this type of conversion therapy.

First, I wonder if she can tell us what kind of vulnerable adults she was talking about.

Second, how can we better support these individuals who could be forced to undergo conversion therapy?

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague for this important question.

It is important to understand the power this bill holds. It is certainly important to protect minors in our communities, but this all goes back to the very core issues of the concept of conversion therapy, which is the coercion piece. It is the idea of the pressure someone might feel from their family to go through this at any stage in life, instead of feeling the love and acceptance they deserve. This is the piece I want to highlight again. It should be for all Canadians, regardless of their age. It is also important to mention the piece about not receiving money for this or being able to advertise it.

There is a protection there, but I think it needs to go further to explicitly ban the practice outright so that it protects adults as well.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-6, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to conversion therapy.

Let me say at the outset and in unequivocal terms that conversion therapy is wrong and it ought to be banned. I am hopeful that all Canadians of goodwill would agree that coercive, forced or otherwise abusive practices targeted toward changing a person's sexual orientation or identity are not only wrong but cause harm. They cause harm to real people, and the effects of such harm are real and profound. Such harm can be life-changing and life-lasting and, in the most extreme cases, can even contribute to suicide. It is on that basis that I believe it is appropriate to clarify in the Criminal Code that such repugnant acts violate the law and that individuals who perpetrate such acts are held accountable to the fullest extent of the law, punishable by the Criminal Code.

That said, while I support the purported objective of Bill C-6, I do have issues with the manner in which the bill in its present form has been drafted, starting with the definition of conversion therapy.

Obviously, when we speak of legislation with the objective to ban conversion therapy, it is important that we get the definition of conversion therapy right. The criminal law is a blunt tool, and it is therefore imperative that any Criminal Code prohibition be targeted toward supported and demonstrated harms arising from conversion therapy. Unfortunately, the bill as presently drafted, based upon the current definition, misses the mark.

In that regard, the definition provided in Bill C-6 is overly broad. Let me quote what the definition in the bill provides. It criminalizes:

a practice, treatment or service designed to change a person’s sexual orientation to heterosexual or gender identity to cisgender, or to repress or reduce nonheterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour.

Based upon that definition, it is clear that the bill is not targeted toward the kinds of forced, coercive, violent or otherwise abusive practices that constitute conversion therapy, all the while potentially capturing a whole lot of other activities, including private conversations that might be had with a parent, child or faith leader. It could potentially criminalize what are otherwise legitimate counselling supports or other psychological supports. When we talk about a definition that criminalizes any treatment or service that reduces or seeks to reduce sexual attraction or sexual behaviour, that is very broad.

Now, the government says that there is no need to worry, that the bill does not target parents, faith leaders or medical professionals who might be having private conversations or who might be otherwise acting in good faith to counsel or assist someone who is going through difficulty with their sexual identity or sexual orientation. In that regard, the Department of Justice website provides a reassurance. Let me read that reassurance into the record. It states:

These new offences would not criminalise private conversations in which personal views on sexual orientation, sexual feelings or gender identity are expressed such as where teachers, school counsellors, pastoral counsellors, faith leaders, doctors, mental health professionals, friends or family members provide affirming support to persons struggling with their sexual orientation, sexual feelings, or gender identity.

The Minister of Justice has provided similar reassurances.

Now, while such reassurances from the Department of Justice website and the minister are welcome, what matters in a court of law is not an opinion provided by the Department of Justice with respect to its interpretation of the bill, nor that of the minister. What matters is what is in the bill and what is completely missing from the bill. Completely absent from the bill are any exceptions to protect parents, health professionals, faith leaders and, indeed, any of the groups of people the government, in its own public statements, states that the legislation does not seek to target.

Yesterday in the House, the Minister of Justice hung his hat on an exception provided in the bill. Let me read that exception. It states:

For greater certainty, this definition does not include a practice, treatment or service that relates

(b) to a person’s exploration of their identity or to its development.

That is better than nothing, but I say it is ambiguous, vague, subject to interpretation and insufficient in having regard for the very serious penalties that could arise from breaching this legislation if it is passed, one of which is up to five years behind bars. I hope that when this bill goes to committee, the government will be open to amendments to clarify, in clear and unambiguous terms, that the groups the government says are not targeted will not be targeted and that it is clear in the legislation.

I also suggest that amendments may need to be brought with respect to the definition of “practice, treatment or service”. Those terms are not defined. “Treatment” certainly connotes a therapeutic context, but “practice”, for example, could involve just about any sort of activity.

In conclusion, it is important that for an issue this important we get things right. We must protect vulnerable persons from being subjected to coercion, violence or other sorts of activities that seek to change their gender identity or orientation, while at the same time protecting the parent-child relationship and the doctor-patient relationship, by ensuring that all charter rights are upheld, including freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom of religion. We also must guard against legislation that in its current form is arguably overly broad and vague.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for St. Albert—Edmonton is obviously from the same province as I am. Knowing that St. Albert, Sherwood Park, Calgary, Edmonton, even the College of Alberta Psychologists have already banned conversion therapy, why does the member think it has taken the federal government so long to get there and why it has not led, but in fact followed, other municipalities and groups?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Edmonton Strathcona is quite right that certain municipalities passed bylaws, including my own community of St. Albert. She is also correct in noting that, in response, the Minister of Justice said that it was outside the jurisdiction of the federal government, that it was an issue largely for the provinces to resolve and that the government did not want to legislate it.

Now the government has done an about-face. What its rationale for that is, I suppose we would have to ask the Minister of Justice, but now that the government has acted and we have legislation, it is important that we carefully study it to get it right, to protect vulnerable persons while at the same time ensuring that everyone's charter rights are protected.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, quite a number of members in this House have said the Minister of Justice made it clear in his remarks or the Minister of Justice said that would not be the case. The House of Commons being the lower house of the legislature of the land, it is incumbent upon all of us to ensure that the legislation actually reflects the intent of the bill. I have raised concern before about the ambiguity that exists in the bill, with the universal acceptance that we want conversion therapy stopped, but the ambiguity that exists needs to be addressed.

I would ask my hon. friend to comment on that.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right that the interpretation or opinion of the minister as to what the legislation provides is insufficient. What matters is what is in the legislation and, in that regard, there is considerable vagueness. That is problematic because legislation that is vague or overly broad violates fundamental justice and will be struck down pursuant to section 7. Surely, the government would not want that.

I hope that the minister is true to his word when he said that he is open to working with the opposition toward amending the legislation where appropriate.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I invite my colleagues who have concerns about this bill and who find parts of it to be vague to accept it and have confidence in the work that will be done by committees. We believe that the bill is quite clear. It prohibits causing a person to undergo conversion therapy against the person’s will, causing a child to undergo conversion therapy, removing a child from Canada with the intention that the child undergo conversion therapy outside Canada, advertising an offer to provide conversion therapy, and receiving a financial or other material benefit from the provision of conversion therapy. This seems sufficiently clear to me.

I would like the member to comment on this. He seems to agree with the substance of the issue, that is, the importance of banning this type of practice.

Why does he believe it is important to legalize this?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am a member of the justice committee and look forward to working in good faith to study the bill, to hear from a wide range of stakeholders and to bring amendments.