Bill C-7 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,
(a) repeal the provision that requires a person’s natural death be reasonably foreseeable in order for them to be eligible for medical assistance in dying;
(b) specify that persons whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness are not eligible for medical assistance in dying;
(c) create two sets of safeguards that must be respected before medical assistance in dying may be provided to a person, the application of which depends on whether the person’s natural death is reasonably foreseeable;
(d) permit medical assistance in dying to be provided to a person who has been found eligible to receive it, whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable and who has lost the capacity to consent before medical assistance in dying is provided, on the basis of a prior agreement they entered into with the medical practitioner or nurse practitioner; and
(e) permit medical assistance in dying to be provided to a person who has lost the capacity to consent to it as a result of the self-administration of a substance that was provided to them under the provisions governing medical assistance in dying in order to cause their own death.

Criminal Code

[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.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, about an hour ago, I asked this same question to a Liberal member. I asked about the clergy potentially getting criminal charges if they were to speak to an LGBTQ person. I was told that they were not going to be prosecutions for any of these violations, yet the member is telling me that, under this proposed legislation, there would be. Could he please clarify that?

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

Mr. Speaker, to my friend for Yellowhead, let me say that the legislation is currently vague in terms of its definition, such that there is a risk, a possibility, that individuals could be prosecuted in precisely the context the member just referenced. That is why I say that if the government is serious, if the legislation does not target and the intention is not to target those sorts of contexts, then surely the government will be open to such amendments.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today to discuss our government's progress on our campaign promise to protect Canadians from conversion therapy.

The Minister of Justice and the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth have introduced Bill C-6, an act to amend the Criminal Code related to conversion therapy. It is an important piece of legislation, which would ban the shameful practice of so-called conversion therapy in Canada.

In the summer of 2015, the Ontario government passed Bill 77, effectively banning conversion therapy for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender children, and preventing medical practitioners from billing for it. One year later, I met in my office with Rita O'Link, a proud and prominent transgender advocate in my riding of Sudbury, who had led the charge for those changes in Ontario. Rita wondered why the federal government could not do for Canadians what Ontario had done for Ontarians and maybe expand upon it so that all Canadians could enjoy the same protections that Ontarians do.

Since then, I have worked with Rita and others at TG Innerselves in Sudbury to advocate for the rights of the LGBTQ2 community to make clear that, when we say that Canadians deserve to live their lives freely, that means freedom from judgment and persecution. Rita fought tirelessly for free expression for all Canadians and made clear that conversion therapy is a devastating practice that is extremely harmful to those individuals who are subject to it. It is an honour to reference Rita in my remarks today.

Contrary to what some might say, there is no right or wrong when it comes to who one loves or who one is. Conversion therapy has been discredited and denounced by professional and health associations in Canada, the United States and around the world.

Conversion therapy has no scientific basis in health care, and people subject to this practice will experience its devastating effects forever.

Research shows that young people are at higher risk for depression and suicide as a result of efforts to alter their sexual orientation or gender identity. Conversion therapy is based on a lie that being gay, lesbian, bisexual or trans is wrong and that we need to fix it. Not only is this wrong, but it sends a degrading message that undermines the dignity of people of the LGBTQ2 community. Minors, in particular, are adversely affected, and the repercussions of this often continue into adulthood.

In 2020, many believe that this practice is a relic of the past and something that could no longer happen in our communities.

Unfortunately, that is not the case.

Even today, there are groups operating across the country, providing services in an effort to correct or fix those they deem out of step with their own narrow views of how one should be or how one should act. The community-based sex now survey, conducted in 2019-20, indicates that as many as 20% of respondents had been exposed to this vile practice, so we know that this harmful practice is currently happening in Canada.

Our government has introduced this legislation to ensure that no one will have to endure this heinous practice.

I am proud of what the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth and our entire government are doing to put an end to conversion therapy in Canada.

Our government has introduced the bill, which proposes creating five new Criminal Code offences targeting conversion therapy. These proposed offences would prohibit, first, causing a minor to undergo conversion therapy; second, removing a minor from Canada to undergo conversion therapy abroad; third, causing a person to undergo conversion therapy against their will; fourth, profiting from providing conversion therapy; and fifth, advertising the provision of conversion therapy. It will also define conversion therapy as “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 non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour.”

If passed, the bill would make Canada's laws on conversion therapy the most progressive and comprehensive in the world, something I think we could all be proud of.

It is important to be very clear, however.

There is a difference between asking someone who they are and discussing it, and telling someone that who they are is wrong and in need of fixing. I can reassure the official opposition and Canadians that supportive teachers, school counsellors, pastoral counsellors, faith leaders, doctors, mental health professionals, friends and family members need not fear engaging in important discussions about someone's identity, discussions that are often critical to personal development. That is actually mentioned, exactly, in the bill as it is written.

What is being targeted here are those who are actively working and providing services designed to change someone's identity based on preconceived notions of how someone ought to be or ought to behave. Criminal law is an important tool to target behaviour that is reprehensible and harmful to others. It creates consequences for those who would continue this work in spite of the clear data that shows how devastating the practice truly is.

This bill is a step forward in eliminating conversion therapy in Canada, and it strikes a balance between progressive policy and constitutional considerations.

I want to emphasize that this is about people. It is about ensuring that every individual can be who they truly are. This is another step toward building the truly inclusive Canada we all talk about. It is clear the legislation is needed, because it is clear not all Canadians can be who they are because of practices like this. That is why it is so important it be banned federally, alongside provincial and municipal bans. Several provinces, such as Ontario, Nova Scotia, Manitoba and Prince Edward Island, have already banned health professionals from offering conversion therapy to minors, and Yukon also has such an act.

The Government of Quebec also introduced a similar bill last week.

A growing number of municipalities in Alberta and across the country have also taken steps to end conversion therapy. I congratulate them on their leadership and I thank them for their efforts.

We will continue to work closely with affected provinces, territories, municipalities and communities so that we can learn from each other and come together to eliminate this harmful practice across our jurisdictions. I hope all my colleagues can look to a national consensus that this abhorrent practice needs to be prohibited and support this legislation.

We will continue working with each other and all members to ensure their voices are heard and our government continues to respond. Canada is a country where everyone, regardless of their gender expression, gender identity or sexual orientation, can live in equality and freedom. That is the kind of Canada we should want to leave for all of our children and grandchildren, the most welcoming country in the world.

A country for everyone.

That is the kind of Canada that four years ago Rita O'Link came to ask me to help her fight for in Ottawa. I am proud to stand today, here in the House of Commons, on behalf of Rita, the courageous Sudburians at TG Innerselves and the thousands of Canadians from coast to coast who work tirelessly to protect the rights of all Canadians.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleagues have been saying over and over how unfounded our concerns are regarding the purposeful ambiguity of the bill's wording. We have been urging the Liberals for months to fix the definition by adding the wording on the justice website, which is much more detailed. It turns out that recently the justice website wording was changed and a single word was added. The word “affirm” is now there.

I hate to seem like a conspiracy theorist, but why was that word suddenly added? Why would they change the justice website and not the actual bill? If this is all on the up and up as they claim, why not change the bill instead of the website?

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a question the member can ask at the justice committee through her members. I am not sure if she sits on the justice committee.

I have heard the debate over the past few days, and it is such an important debate. From the official opposition, we are hearing that the definition is too ambiguous and it should be clarified. Certainly, those suggestions for amendments can be brought to the justice committee. It is a matter of Parliament, so they have that ability.

I also want to reiterate the clause in the definitions section where there is a sentence that says:

For greater certainty, this definition does not include a practice, treatment or service that relates (a) to a person's gender transition; or (b) to a person's exploration of their identity or to its development.

That is very important.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute to the incredible team at Timmins Pride, Timmins Fierté, who have done such incredible work of being a voice for the LGBTQ community in the north. They also make Pride in Timmins a celebration, both of their rights and dignity and of the larger community, so that people feel this is an event that everyone can come out to participate in.

What is the importance of these celebrations we have in the north to affirm the rights and dignity of trans people, queer people and bisexual people?

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, similar to Timmins Pride, we have Sudbury Pride, Fierté Sudbury. I participate each year. I am always there with them and I bring my whole family to celebrate who they are and who we are.

As a country, we have a lot of work to get done. Bills like this are indicative of the direction the country is going in: to be more inclusive and to be the most welcoming country in the world. It is important to have these events in small towns like Timmins and Sudbury, and across the country.

Yesterday, I heard my colleague from Spadina—Fort York talk about the Toronto Pride parade, and how transformative it is for people to participate. It is such an honour to participate and support the people organizing such activities.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague across the way.

It seems that the House unanimously agrees on the fact that we are going to legislate with respect to conversion therapy. However, some small religious groups are putting a lot of pressure on us to slow the process down. Some are even calling for disobedience; I would like to quote Georges Buscemi, president of Quebec Life Coalition, who said, “I cannot speak for the therapists themselves, but when you are doing good and the government says it is bad, I would tend to say you need to do good and face the consequences...even if it means breaking the law.”

I would like to know what my Liberal colleague thinks about statements like that and those types of groups that are considering defying the law by continuing to do something that would now be prohibited. Does he not feel that guidance should be provided to such groups through some form of education?