Bill C-6 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conversion therapy)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to, among other things, create the following offences:
(a) causing a person to undergo conversion therapy without the person’s consent;
(b) causing a child to undergo conversion therapy;
(c) doing anything for the purpose of removing a child from Canada with the intention that the child undergo conversion therapy outside Canada;
(d) promoting or advertising an offer to provide conversion therapy; and
(e) receiving a financial or other material benefit from the provision of conversion therapy.
It also amends the Criminal Code to authorize courts to order that advertisements for conversion therapy be disposed of or deleted.

Conversion Therapy

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to present a petition regarding Bill C-6. The petitioners have serious concerns about the consequences of the legislation, including limiting the options available for LGBT Canadians to receive counselling and the criminalization of conversations between children, their parents and other mentors about sexuality.

A recent Nanos poll has found that 91% of Canadians agree that consenting adults should be free to get the sexuality counselling of their choice regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity. This is consistent across regions, age and gender. This is precisely what Bill C-6 would ban, counselling that Canadians may choose for themselves.

The petitioners want to see a conversion therapy ban but not this conversion therapy ban. Bill C-6 would ban more than conversion therapy. Let us fix the definition used in the bill so we can ban the harmful and degrading practices that have no place in Canada, while maintaining the supports available for LGBT Canadians.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the fifth petition is from Canadians who are concerned about the current definition of “conversion therapy” in Bill C-6. The petitioners, like most Canadians, want coercive and degrading therapies banned. They are concerned that private conversations would be limited and ask the government to avoid criminalizing voluntary services, including professional and religious counselling. They ask for a clear and fixed definition of “conversion therapy”.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the fifth petition deals with Bill C-6, the government's conversion therapy bill. Petitioners note that they are opposed to conversion therapy and would like to see legislation banning it. However, they note that the government's definition of conversion therapy in Bill C-6 is deeply flawed and has many unintended consequences.

Petitioners join the calls from many groups and Canadians for the government to address the drafting errors, fix the definition, make sure the bill actually only applies to conversion therapy itself and then proceed with banning conversation therapy once there is a fixed, clarified definition.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, the fifth and final petition I am tabling today is about Bill C-6.

The petitioners agree with the objective of the bill to ban conversion therapy. However, they are very concerned with the incorrect definition used in it, which, inadvertently or not, would end up banning many conversations and discussions that really have nothing to do with conversion therapy as it has been classically defined. The petitioners call on the government to act to fix the definition and to proceed with banning conversion therapy once the definition is corrected.

I commend all five of these petitions to the consideration of hon. members.

Criminal Code

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

Madam Speaker, I am glad to be able to rise this evening to speak to these amendments from the Senate on the medical assistance in dying bill.

It is unfortunate that we have such a short amount of time to talk about these amendments, because this is quite literally a matter of life and death. I would think the government, on something as serious as this, would want to spend some time thinking about these changes, which are far outside the scope of the original bill.

Let me talk about the purpose of the Senate. The Senate was put in place at its inception as a mechanism to look at the legislation from the government of the day and decide whether it was good for Canada. If not, it was to provide fixes for it and send it back. Clearly, what has happened with Bill C-7 is far beyond that.

The unelected members of the Senate have come with items like MAID for people suffering only from mental illness, advance directives, and all kinds of things that were beyond the scope of what was presented. That is not its role, and the government, by accepting these things outside of its scope, is really putting ideas in the minds of the senators to encourage them to continue to do what is not their role.

Let us go through the amendments one at a time. The first one allows those with only mental illness to have access to MAID and says we will talk about it in a while: not in 18 months, but in 24 months. This is really unacceptable. After the first medical assistance in dying legislation was brought in, the Liberal government put together consultants and a panel from the Council of Canadian Academies. This was done by the honourable Jane Philpott and the hon. member for Vancouver Granville, to study whether people with mental illness only should have access to MAID.

That working group could not agree that this was a good thing to proceed with. It was quite concerned about whether people with mental illness really had the capability to give informed consent. It was concerned as well that we were going down the wrong path. Even the Netherlands, which has such a broad euthanasia range, only allows people with dementia to have medical assistance in dying, and there is still a ton of controversy with that. Even the Netherlands has not gone down this very dark path.

The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health issued a report to the government and said:

Canadians themselves are divided on the issue of MAiD, and most do not support making it available to those with only mental illness.

If the government is not going to listen to Canadians when they say this is not what they want, that is a concern.

These experts from CAMH also said:

The federal government should not make an amendment to MAiD legislation for people with mental illness as their sole underlying medical condition at this time due to a lack of evidence that mental illness is an irremediable medical condition in individual cases.

CAMH also expressed:

The concern is that many individuals with mental illness...[may have] impairments in [their] reasoning capacity that [would] make it difficult for them to connect their symptoms with their illness, fully understand the risks and benefits of treatment, and/or make...decisions based on personal goals and values.

With that, the Liberal government should be listening to Canadians who do not think this is a good idea, the mental health experts who do not think this is a good idea and the many people who are suffering from mental illness.

Not to be coarse, but the reality today is that people who only have mental illness as their condition can already commit suicide. In fact, sadly, thousands of Canadians are doing it, and thousands more are likely to do it as a result of the failure of the government to address the pandemic and restore the economy. People are losing their businesses and their livelihoods, and they have been under lockdown. This is a very serious condition.

A time when the government is talking about suicide prevention is no time to be saying, “Let us put extra help in here so people can have medical professionals assist them in their suicide efforts.” That is offensive at the very least.

The second amendment has to do with the review of the MAID regime. Absolutely, I see the government wants to have a review, but the fact is, there was a review in the first legislation, and the government did not do it. That was unacceptable and should have been addressed then. I do not think we need a new formula on how to do a review. I think we just need to do the review.

The third amendment is about collecting race-based data regarding MAID. I see in the discussion of this and it has been mentioned that we collect this kind of data on other things, such as palliative care. Well, palliative care, as members know because my private member's bill on palliative care was unanimously supported in the House, is a topic that is near and dear to my heart. In fact, the framework on palliative care to get consistent access for Canadians was begun because the data shows that where there is good quality palliative care, 95% of the people choose to live as well as they can for as long as they can.

However, sadly, this government has prioritized the killing of people through medical assistance in dying and de-emphasized palliative care. When we talk about people who, maybe due to their race and social standing, do not have good access to palliative care, we are talking about 60% of Canadians left without any access. That certainly should have been the priority for the government, instead of expanding the regime to help people end their lives.

I see that the clarification of neurocognitive disorder not being considered a mental illness was rejected as an amendment. The justice minister clarified in his testimony that the exclusion is not intended to capture neurocognitive disorders that are due to Alzheimer's or Parkinson's disease. Well, the justice minister has a habit of needing to clarifying things, because what is in the bills is never clear enough. We saw that in Bill C-6 where a clarification had to be put on the website about the definition. It was not in the bill, but it needed to be done because of the hurry with which these things are brought forward. I think that we need to take the time to get things right and not rush.

With respect to the advance request amendment, I would say that the same group that was put together to consult on this issue consulted on advance consent. The government already had this information, and it was not recommend that we go with advance consent. There were concerns about a few things.

First of all, who decides what is intolerable suffering when the person has lost capacity? When do we take action? How do we prove that it is informed consent? How do we make sure there is a third party responsible to enforce the decision if there is a disagreement after the person has lost capacity? These were the issues that had been brought forward, and they were ignored altogether in this discussion. I would add that Belgium and Luxembourg only allow advance consent when a person is permanently unconscious, and so that should be a consideration.

I would be remiss on the palliative care discussion if I did not do a plug for the Granfondo Cycle of Life fundraiser in my riding on April 9 at 7:30 p.m. Members can get details from my web page.

The other topic of discussion is about the work that needs to be done to actually make sure there are alternatives. We talked about the need for mental health supports and the need for palliative care. These are important considerations.

In short, I feel that the Senate overstepped its bounds with the amendments that it brought. I feel that the government should have appealed to the Supreme Court with the Quebec decision in the first place. Certainly, the government should not be expanding the scope of medical assistance in dying without doing its due diligence on the review that was originally desired, and spend more time listening to what Canadians want and what the people who are going to be impacted are feeling.

With that, it is clear that I will be voting against these amendments, as well as the medical assistance in dying legislation that has been brought forward.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I too want to thank the minister for being here today. I also want to thank him for maintaining open communication with me as long as he has been minister, both through his office and also through the parliamentary secretary.

There are a lot of things I'd like to ask about the budget, but since officials will be here for the second half and the minister won't, I'm going to focus on two bills to start with.

The minister will not be surprised that the first thing I'm going to ask about is Bill C-6, the ban on conversion therapy. I'm not going to ask him again—I've asked him personally and publicly—when this bill is going to get to the House so we can actually vote on it. I'm going to ask him a different question about it.

When we pass Bill C-6, as I'm sure we will, there are things that will need to happen as a follow-up to that. One of those is support for victims of previous conversion therapy. Another is efforts to work on the prevention of conversion therapy, rather than just leaving it as a matter for criminal law. I suspect those aren't going to be the responsibilities of the Ministry of Justice, but if they are not, how is that being communicated to other ministers? Have there been requests for them to start preparing programs that will help implement the ban on conversion therapy?

Conversion Therapy

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, the second petition deals with Bill C-6, the government's conversion therapy bill. The petitioners note they are very strongly opposed to allowing conversion therapy and support a ban on conversion therapy. They also have concerns about the definition of “conversion therapy” that is used in Bill C-6. Due to serious drafting problems, this bill could end up banning private conversations that would take place between individuals and create other kinds of problems.

The petitioners call on the government to ban coercive and degrading practices that are designed to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity, amend Bill C-6 to fix the definition and allow parents to speak with their own children about sexuality and gender, and to set house rules about sex and relationships.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, the fourth petition raises concerns about the definition of conversion therapy used in Bill C-6. The petitioners call on the government to fix the definition and then to ban conversion therapy, using a correct definition.

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

Madam Speaker, it is my honour to present two petitions on behalf of Canadians today.

The first petition I will be presenting is related to Bill C-6, the government's poorly crafted conversion therapy ban. We, here in Parliament, and the overwhelming majority of Canadians want to pass legislation that criminalizes, in an explicit manner, coercive counselling practices. However, in an unfortunate and ironic twist, Bill C-6 conflates harmful methodologies with the goals Canadians choose for themselves.

The petitioners are concerned that if Bill C-6 passes, heterosexuals will be able to get support to reduce unwanted sexual addictions or porn addictions, whereas LGBTQ Canadians will not.

With this bill's passing, only in Canada will consenting adults not be able to pay for a professional counsellor. Mature minors would have no choice at all. In fact, this bill says that only the counselling sessions of LGBTQ Canadians will be regulated by criminal law.

These petitioners recognize that although they support a conversion therapy ban, they do not support this conversion therapy ban, because Bill C-6 bans far more than conversion therapy. The definition used in Bill C-6 would needlessly criminalize normal conversations between children and parents, and other mentors in their lives, about sexuality. It would limit the types of supports that available for LGBTQ Canadians.

It is not the government's place to determine the outcomes that a person desire for themself when they undergo counselling. Bill C-6 would ban outcomes that patients desire, not just harmful methodologies.

The petitioners have a specific ask in regards to the definition of conversion therapy. The definition in the bill is not used by any professional body in North America. This petition is a call for a simple fix. The petitioners are calling for the definition to be fixed so that the bill will actually tackle what we all want to do: to ban violent and coercion counselling.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the government is dragging its feet on banning conversion therapy. The justice committee completed its study of Bill C-6 last December, yet we still have not seen it come back to the House for a final debate and vote.

While I am confident a ban on conversion therapy will eventually pass, this will be only the first step. We heard clearly that there needs to be systematic support for survivors of conversion therapy and support for those who are still faced with misguided and harmful attempts to get them to change their sexual orientation, gender identity or expression.

One tool the federal government should use to combat these homophobic and transphobic attitudes is to set public health standards for comprehensive sex education, sex education which, at its core, affirms and celebrates the sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression of all Canadians.

If we adopt standards for sex education that are affirming, comprehensive and in accord with our international human rights obligations, then we have a chance to stamp out not only conversion therapy but also the attitudes that cause it.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today.

The first is in regard to Bill C-6. The petitioners indicate that the definition of conversion therapy is far too broad and it wrongly applies a label to a range of practices, including counselling from parents, teachers and counsellors encouraging children to reduce sexual behaviour. It allows counselling medical and surgical efforts to change a child's gender, but prohibits for a child seeking to detransition to his or her birth gender. This is a growing issue.

The petitioners call on the House of Commons to take the following actions to address the situation: ban coercive, degrading practices that are designed to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity; ensure that no law discriminates against Canadians by limiting the services they can receive based on their sexual orientation or gender identity; allow parents to speak with their own children about sexuality and gender and to set house rules about sex and relationships as parents; allow free and open conversations about sexuality and sexual behaviour; and finally, avoid criminalizing professionals and religious counselling voluntarily requested and consented to by Canadians.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, the petition I am presenting today is on behalf of individuals who are concerned about the legislation before the House on conversion therapy, Bill C-6.

The petitioners are concerned that conversion therapy has historically referred to coercive, degrading actions that seek to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity, which are wrong and should be banned; however, Bill C-6 defines conversion therapy as:

...a practice, treatment or service designed to change a person's sexual orientation to heterosexual, to change a person's gender identity or gender expression to cisgender or to repress or reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviours or non-cisgender gender expression.

The petitioners indicate that this broad definition wrongly applies the label “conversion therapy” to a broad range of practices, including counsel from parents, teachers and councillors encouraging children to reduce sexual behaviour in general.

The petitioners call upon the House of Commons to take the following actions to address this situation: ban coercive, degrading practices that are designed to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity; ensure that no law discriminates against Canadians by limiting the services they can receive based on sexual orientation or gender identity; allow parents to speak with their own children about sexuality and gender, and to set out house rules about sex and relationships; to allow free and open conversations about sexuality and sexual behaviour; and finally, to avoid criminalizing professional and religious counselling voluntarily requested and consented to by Canadians.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, the second petition is with respect to Bill C-6. The petitioners want to express that they support efforts to ban conversion therapy. They are, however, concerned by the definition of conversion therapy that is used by the bill. They note that certain drafting problems in the bill in fact define as conversion therapy things that have never been called conversion therapy and do not align with any existing definition of it. The petitioners call on the House to ban coercive, degrading practices that are designed to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity, and to amend Bill C-6 to fix the definition of conversion therapy, thus banning conversion therapy without banning voluntary counselling or criminalizing conversations, and to allow parents to speak with their own children about sexuality and gender and to set house rules about sex and relationships.

Justice

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, the government likes to talk about its commitment to equal rights based on sexual orientation and gender identity, but often seems to confuse action with surveys and press conferences.

Last fall, the justice committee heard moving and compelling testimony on the urgent need to bring an end to conversion therapy in Canada. The committee worked hard to bring Bill C-6 back to the House promptly, but since it was reported back last December the government seems to have forgotten all about conversion therapy.

When is the government going to bring Bill C-6 back for final debate and a vote so we can finally put an end to conversion therapy in Canada?

Conversion Therapy

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today I am honoured to stand before you to shed some positive light during these challenging times from my riding of Kingston and the Islands. I am proud to inform the House that Kingston City Council voted unanimously at its last council meeting to pass a motion banning the practice of conversion therapy, making Kingston the first city in Ontario to ban conversion therapy practices.

Conversion therapy is a harmful practice that targets vulnerable LGBTQ2+ Canadians, which can lead to lifelong trauma. I am glad to hear that Kingston as a community has stepped up to ban these practices. I especially want to thank Councillor Bridget Doherty and Mayor Bryan Paterson for bringing this motion forward and indeed all the city councillors for taking this position.

I look forward to working hard with my colleagues in the House at the federal level to ensure Bill C-6 gets passed as law and conversion therapy is banned right across Canada.